Damn, the piracy is getting out of hand

[Dodge_Sniper]

piracy only hurts the lawyers pockets, and those artists that create the songs and bitch about pirating..

Now see, that's complete bullshit, and it's not true. Leigh Whannell and James Wan, the writers of SAW, SAW II, and SAW III, and the directors of SAW are indie film makers, they spent $1 million or even less filming these movies for us, and then we go and pirate the movies, and considering they are indie film makers it can make a dent in their earnings.

 

[NicAuf]

Dodge, I was wondering if you're all up in arms due to the fact that the piracy is of Saw 3? Are you mad just because you love the Saw franchise?

 

[andcuriouser]

Well, I understand how piracy can hurt the small artists.

My husband, for instance. He does his own stuff for friends, doesn't sell it, but he does play with other indie artists. And it's a bitch when these really awesome artists are making next to no money because their stuff is being downloaded.

Dodge, I was wondering if you're all up in arms due to the fact that the piracy is of Saw 3? Are you mad just because you love the Saw franchise?

And I was wondering this too. Saying things like, "well I don't steal from Hot Topic because I respect them"... yeah, okay. Maybe people appreciate Wal-mart. Or Britney Spears. Or whatever. I said it before: you are either against piracy, or you are not. It sounds like you are just up in arms because this is Saw. I'm sure if it were Jennifer Lopez you wouldn't care.

 

[Tim]

Well first. How do you know it's not a legal copy of the movie uploaded? There is no copying going on, no piracy going on. It's a legal copy uploaded to a server being displayed.

That, in effect, is legal. Much like you buying a 10 dollar DVD and inviting your friends over to watch it.

Having a few friends over to watch a movie at your house IS legal. But that's where the line is drawn concerning copyright infringment. If you wish to show movies for any other use or in any other place, you must have a separate license which specifically authorizes such use. Even "performances in 'semipublic' places such as clubs, lodges, factories, summer camps and schools are 'public performances' subject to copyright control."

I give copies of CDs I buy to my brother all the time. I give him the CD I bought for 12.99, and he rips it onto his computer, and I take albums from his computer and upload them to mine.

That's perfectly legal.

That's NOT legal. You are allowing your brother access to the music that he has not purchased. That puts you at risk as the one who willingly supplied the music, and your brother for using it. According to copyright law, you CAN as the owner of the music CD, copy it for archival reasons. You can also change it's format to play on a MP3 player, but you must be in possesion of the original CD. That means if you lose your CD collection in a fire, but managed to save your PC with your entire music collection. You are not allowed by copyright law to use that collection without purchasing the CD's that you lost once again. The law gives copyright holders a lot of power. Then can seize your computer. They can get an injunction ordering you to stop. They can get statutory damages in excess of $150,000 per copy or actual damages based upon the total number of copies that can be attributed to the P2P posting (so you can be held liable for all the subsequent downloads). You can be forced to pay their attorney's fees and costs.

I do the same thing. Damn near every CD I own is ripped onto my laptop and a good portion of those songs are uploaded onto my iPod. Oh noes! I'm a pirate! Harrrrrrr!!! Shiver me timbers!

That isn't illegal in any way. As long as you are in possesion of the original CD's that you bought.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

So, by your definition Tim... I would not be allowed to buy a cd, rip it to my brothers laptop so I could listen to it when I'm at his house?

That doesn't make any sense. It's perfectly legal. He didn't rip it off the net from a pirated version, it's from a legit copy.

I'd like you to show me the law, because I call BS on not allowing to rip music onto one or more computers.

 

[Tim]

So, by your definition Tim... I would not be allowed to buy a cd, rip it to my brothers laptop so I could listen to it when I'm at his house?

That doesn't make any sense. It's perfectly legal. He didn't rip it off the net from a pirated version, it's from a legit copy.

I'd like you to show me the law, because I call BS on not allowing to rip music onto one or more computers.

The music industry says that you are allowed to have ripped copies on your computer if YOU are in possesion of the original work. Well, either you have it or he has it. Since both of you are not in possesion of the original CD, he can't legally have a copy on HIS computer. It doesn't matter if you listen to it when you are at his house or not. It isn't your computer at your place of residence.

The law is more complicated for sharing music with someone else. Under the copyright "first sale" doctrine, codified in section 109 of the Copyright Act, it's ok for you to loan, or sell a CD that you have bought to a friend, so long as you don't keep a copy (that is, so long as there's only one copy at any time). source

 

[TheOriginalJames]

So by that law, if I have a copy on my desktop and laptop, and then the CD is stolen from my vehicle, that's illegal?

There's the loophole. They can't prove shit anyway.

If the RIAA came after me for something of the such. I'd rip them a new asshole.

What is Fair Use?

The US Copyright law represents a bargain. Congress granted certain exclusive rights to creators and authors for a limited time-period, in exchange for which, the public would receive an increase in creative works and expressive ideas which benefit society as a whole. As part of this bargain, US Copyright law recognizes some limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright holders. One of the most important of these is the doctrine of fair use, codified in section 107 of the Copyright Act.
A use of a copyrighted work that is considered to be "fair use" is not infringement. Although there are no automatic classes of fair uses, courts tend to find fair use where there's a socially beneficial use of a copyrighted work. Courts have previously found uses for academic research or education, criticism, news reporting and parody to be fair.
There is no "bright-line" or clear-cut test for deciding which uses are fair. Section 107 of the Copyright statute lists four factors, which judges must balance together on a case-by-case basis to decide if a particular use would be considered fair.

Fair use. He can have the cd on his laptop, and I can have it on mine so when I go to his house and use his laptop, I can listen to the music I purchased.

Loophole, much?

Because...

(i) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.

(ii) The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is informational rather than creative or expressive.

 

[Tim]

So by that law, if I have a copy on my desktop and laptop, and then the CD is stolen from my vehicle, that's illegal?

There's the loophole. They can't prove shit anyway.

If the RIAA came after me for something of the such. I'd rip them a new asshole.



Fair use. He can have the cd on his laptop, and I can have it on mine so when I go to his house and use his laptop, I can listen to the music I purchased.

Loophole, much?

Because...

They don't have to prove anything. If you are not in possession of the Original work (CD) then it is illegal for you to have a copy of that work. Otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry would just say that all of their CD's were stolen and they have every right to have 5,000 songs ripped on their hard drive. There is a difference between what is legal under the letter of the law and what you would be prosecuted for. Having a copy on your brothers computer isn't legal, but they aren't going to come after you for it.

My friends are DJ's with 1,000's of songs. They have all their songs backed up on their computer. They are very careful about keeping all of the original CD's locked up and safe. Because if they are checked, they must prove that they own each and every CD for every song on their computer. If not, it's a $150,000 fine for each song they can't prove they own. That would include any songs that their "brother" copied to their machine so "he" can listen to them when "he" is visiting them.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

But that's just the point. RIAA has to PROVE to the court, beyond a reasonable doubt that I have never owned a legitimate copy of that music that I have on my laptop.

I have a Red hot chili peppers cd on my desktop that I used to own the CD too. But it was stolen and I don't have it anymore.

Considering I have other RHCP cd's on my laptop, they cannot disprove that I didn't own it. Nor could they prove that my brother didn't own it.

That's the thing with a court of law, the burdon of PROOF is on them to provide. If they cannot provide it beyond a reasonable doubt, they cannot win the case.

 

[Tim]

But that's just the point. RIAA has to PROVE to the court, beyond a reasonable doubt that I have never owned a legitimate copy of that music that I have on my laptop.

I have a Red hot chili peppers cd on my desktop that I used to own the CD too. But it was stolen and I don't have it anymore.

Considering I have other RHCP cd's on my laptop, they cannot disprove that I didn't own it. Nor could they prove that my brother didn't own it.

That's the thing with a court of law, the burdon of PROOF is on them to provide. If they cannot provide it beyond a reasonable doubt, they cannot win the case.

In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort or crime. This means that the plaintiff or prosecutor must only prove that the act of copying or actus reus was committed by the defendant, and need not prove guilty intent or mens rea. Good faith, standing alone, is no defense. source

Don't tell me I can't back up my collection! Believe it or not, it depends. If you were to back up your entire music collection on analog cassettes, you'd be in the clear. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 makes an explicit exemption for cassette backups. Unfortunately, the AHRA doesn't apply to songs copied to computers. That means, under the strictest interpretations of U.S. copyright law, ripping a song to your computer, then uploading a song to your portable player or copying it to a CD is considered unauthorized and illegal. Of course, there are exceptions. source

There are many sites that deal with copyright law, you just have to be willing to read.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

Dodge, I was wondering if you're all up in arms due to the fact that the piracy is of Saw 3? Are you mad just because you love the Saw franchise?

That is one of the reasons I'm bothered, it isn't just for SAW III, it's for all three movies. You can get almost the full version of SAW II on Youtube, pirated. You can tell it's pirated because of the poor quality and the fact that it's chopped up into like, 10 different videos. You would think if a company is going to allow it's movie to be put on a site like Youtube, the movie would be in one single video. But I'm also bothered by piracy in general. I was trying to make an example with the store thing, this isn't about stores, it's about piracy. And no, it wouldn't make a difference if it was a band I liked or Jennifer Lopez, it wouldn't make a difference if it were a SAW movie or Brokeback Mountain, I still think it's wrong. But reading Tim's posts, apparently I'm guilty of a certain degree of copyright infringment, because I've let my friends borrow a DVD of mine to watch it. But Tim pretty much said most of what I was thinking, maybe more, so yeah. One thing about the uploading songs from a computer to a portable player or burning CDs. If it's illegal to upload them to a portable player or illegal to burn CDs if you don't own the songs, why are these things still sold, why are computers sold with CD burners?

 

[Tim]

As much as copyright infringement hurts the industry, it also helps. Let me explain.
Youtube has a crappy CAM version of Saw III on their site.
People will watch it and a couple of different things can happen:
1. They watch the whole movie on their computer screen and are satisfied with the quality and don't see it in the theaters or buy the DVD.
2. They start to watch it, like it and because of the crappy quality, they go out and buy the DVD so they can view it in full detail and hear it in surround sound.
3. They have already seen it in the theater and/or own the DVD but want to see it on youtube, or show it to a friend.

Of all the possibilities, only #1 will cut into their profits. #2 + #3 might actually generate sales.

I don't condone copyright infringement (I am guilty of it) but I don't think it's that bad in this case. It would be a different story if it was being shown in DVD quality and you could download and burn a copy. But a crappy small format CAM version? I don't see it hurting the sales or profits.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

I do see your point in how it would help, but some people are using that(#2 and #3) as a reason to condone copyright infringement. Then there are the ones that whine and complain, "I'm in college with no money and blah blah blah". Well, if they can afford the internet each month, they should be able to afford a DVD, rental, or a movie ticket.

 

[NicAuf]

That is one of the reasons I'm bothered, it isn't just for SAW III, it's for all three movies. You can get almost the full version of SAW II on Youtube, pirated. You can tell it's pirated because of the poor quality and the fact that it's chopped up into like, 10 different videos. You would think if a company is going to allow it's movie to be put on a site like Youtube, the movie would be in one single video. But I'm also bothered by piracy in general. I was trying to make an example with the store thing, this isn't about stores, it's about piracy. And no, it wouldn't make a difference if it was a band I liked or Jennifer Lopez, it wouldn't make a difference if it were a SAW movie or Brokeback Mountain, I still think it's wrong. But reading Tim's posts, apparently I'm guilty of a certain degree of copyright infringment, because I've let my friends borrow a DVD of mine to watch it. But Tim pretty much said most of what I was thinking, maybe more, so yeah. One thing about the uploading songs from a computer to a portable player or burning CDs. If it's illegal to upload them to a portable player or illegal to burn CDs if you don't own the songs, why are these things still sold, why are computers sold with CD burners?

Well as long as you are against piracy in general, right-o.