Mad TV aired a skit this past Saturday, in which an ongoing characer, a type of religious super hero called Bible Dude, zapped a kid to death, leaving only a skeleton, for "downloading songs" from the internet.

Somehow (and I suspect the RIAA on this one), the term "downloading music" became shorthand for copyright infringement. Why it became shorthand is not clear, because both copyright infringement and downloading music, consist of only two words.

So, what does it matter...why bother about objecting to the rhetoric they use ?

Number one, this mess started about the RIAA using the DMCA to go after filesharers trading in RIAA label member's copyrighted tunes.

It is about the LAW, not about what Joe Blow wants to say it is on the street. Not ONE of the RIAA lawsuits has been filed using the term piracy as the basis for the suit. WHY? Because they know that there is a legal definition to piracy, and it is a criminal charge, not a civil one. So, if they (the RIAA) are going to be litigious, let's use legal terms. I assert that the use of a term which defines a criminal act, punishable by life in prison, and involving murder and robbery on the high seas, is an INTENTIONAL misrepresentation, and the fact the RIAA intentionally misrepresents the case, is a black mark against them!

And, continuing with the lawsuit theme, anyone who has ever received interrogatories, requests for production of documents and tangible things, KNOWS that for lawyers, definitions are very important, as it is to the court. This is not "just a technicality" because cases may be won or lost based on the way a law is defined.

The legal definition of piracy was passed in January 1998, and the DMCA was enacted many months later in the same year, and those who wrote the language of the DMCA did not use the term ONCE.

Number two, dovetailing with the above, most debaters will tell you that, if the other side lets you define the terms you use, you will probably win, all things being considered equal. Why should we, as the ones on the side of reason, allow the RIAA and mass media, to take control of, and commandeer, the terms to be used in this ongoing debate? We should not. Our side is the reasonable side, and thus, using reason, we should hold fast to demanding proper words be used.

Number three, we should start correcting this short hand about "downloading music from the internet is against the law"...bull! Same applies to "downloading movies from the internet" speech that "Manny the stunt man" gives in those "Anti-Piracy" ads from the MPAA run before movies. Downloading copyrighted material which you do not have authorization to download (i.e. authorization from the copyright holder) MAY be an illegal act, but to just allow someone to say flatly that "downloading movies from the internet is illegal" is just plain wrong...an incorrect statement, since the word "movies" is really not defined well, and there are plenty of AVIs and MOVs out there that the person who created, actually encourages you to download. How about "portions of movies"...trailers are freely available for download at websites owned by studios, and at apple.com .

If "downloading music from the internet is illegal" , then iTunes and the rest, are enabling a criminal act.

People always inevitably bring up the fact that the word "piracy" in many dictionaries, is also applied to copyright infringement.
It's usually not the first nor preferred definiton, and certainly,
is not the legal definition per existing federal codes.

Secondly, I have probably looked at what I call the "bastardization of the word piracy" closer than most, and have traced its usage back to around 1668 AD in England. In the recent appearance before the 9th Circuit of Appeals , Carey Ramos started using terms like counterfeit, stealing, and piracy in front of the judges, and the judge stopped him, advising him this was "abusive language", and did not allow it to continue.

And really, why let the other side frame the debate and define the terms? It's bad news to let it happen.

Heck, if Cary Sherman, Mitch Bainwol and the rest don't give a damn about proper legal definition of the word piracy, and refuse to use "copyright infringement", we may as well encourage them to call copyright infringement any or all of the following :
Copyright infringement (or alleged copyright infringement) is
murder, rape, arson, shoftlifting, money laundering, mail fraud, breaking and entering, criminal conspiracy, tax evasion, grand theft auto, theft by check, fraud, identity theft...and on and on ad nauseum, ad absurdum !

Heck, if words don't matter, call copyright infringement voter fraud if you want to, doesn't matter, right ? Wrong. Rhetoric mattters because words become memes...popular ideas which spread and become entrenched in the popular culture to the point that people quit analyizing what is really being transmitted consciously, just copying and transferring the idea on to others.

So , that's why I do this, and will continue to oppose the attempted hijacking of words that do have a proper meaning.
Sometimes, it's a lot of trouble to try to stem the flood of the media using the word, and even if I don't stop them, I do what I can to hold them accountable for the words they use.

~Code

I saw that episode of MadTV... I watch that now since SNL is really sucking since Will Ferrel, Tracy Morgan, and Chris Kattan left.

I couldn't enjoy that sketch because of the "illegally downloading music" line... over and over again. If ALL music downloading is illegal, you might as well go after just about every single user of the Internet in the world... I dare you, dammit...

When you stop calling copyright infringement "sharing," we'll stop calling it "piracy." While you're at it, you can stop playing stupid semantic tricks like pretending that if not all music downloads are illegal, none of them are.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your hypocrisy is stunning.

Kevin Doran will rise to the occasion each and every time to correct journalists who insist on using the term "illegal downloading." Kevin will also insist that he has 4th Amendment protections against invasions of his hard drive. That is after all the laser focus of our Internet Commons Congress March 24.

The judge in the Pasadena Grokster appeals quite properly interrupted Cory Ramos and gave him a proper spanking over the insulting use of the word "theft."

The RIAA has no real world experience in facing a jury of decent-minded Americans. The RIAA will avoid court hearings at all costs that might potentially bring up a little mundane matter of "demonstrate your copyright papers, please, for the exact songs you wish to protect."

Therefore Mr. Ramos blushes and stammers each time a Judge admonishes him. He is not used to being confronted with the outlandish tactics that have served the RIAA so well in PR spin campaigns.

Language is important. And no greater advocate than Richard Stallman. I think Americans have become quite aware of the Orwellian use of insulting phraseology that attempts to obfuscate and twist meaning.

This is called "framing"---that is, he who seizes the terms of the debate will control the narrow agenda.

Never again.

"When you stop calling copyright infringement "sharing," we'll stop calling it "piracy." While you're at it, you can stop playing stupid semantic tricks like pretending that if not all music downloads are illegal, none of them are."

Spareme...you say "we", does that mean you represent either the media or the RIAA ?

"While you're at it, you can stop playing stupid semantic tricks like pretending that if not all music downloads are illegal, none of them are."

Hey spareme, where did I insinuate in ANY post on this site, or on any of my sites, or any other site...that no music downloads are illegal. Did I say that?
No. In fact, for the record, I believe, but am not a direct fact witness, that there ARE as you put it, "illegal" music downloads in the sense that people are downloading versions/MP3s of copyrighted tunes to which they do not have prior authorization to do so.

So, I find NO hypocrisy in my assertion that not all downloads of music or legal, and not all downloads of music are illegal.

Unfortunately, seems like your reading and comprehension skills have not improved since I saw your last little post.

Have a nice day .

PS...if you're gonna build a straw man argument...you need to get better straw buddy, because I for one, will not accept you putting words in my mouth that were never there!

great comments Tom...right on target!

Sharing: To allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses: Being in daycare taught the child to share.

murderswitch...ever notice how the pro RIAA types get all worked up when you use the word "share"...they hate the notion of not being able to squeeze the last penny out of music from everyone...

For them (the RIAA and RIAA sympathisizers) , the notion of "sharing"must be a very foreign concept...I bet they failed that part of kindergarten .

typo...meant sympathizer...sorry for typographical error.

lol...glad to stun the RIAA sympathizers.... just wish I had that staff weapon from Stargate ...

just jesting of course

There's an old saying in law school...

When you have the law, argue the law.
When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have neither the law nor the facts, talk loud and pound on the desk. I think we saw the equivalent of desk pounding.

Spareme and others fall into a trap of media word-wars that I've also been on the horn to journalists to coax them to correct their rhetoric. Go ahead, check your dictionaries: I have never in my life heard even rumours of file-downloaders using terror or violence of action to hijack or expropriate goods from rightful owners ... but I have seen record company executives do this.

On the other hand, it can be said that file-downloaders do "make distribute or smuggle" goods for which they have no license. Mine is only the lowly Oxford Wordfinder, but it's a hefty volume and in it's pages this particular crime is called bootlegging, and it conjures a completely different image in the mind of the listener than does the cut-throat organized plunder of piracy.

Let's also remember Sir Francis Drake and other famous 'pirates' who were not only sanctioned by the Crown to curb foreign and indie competition, they were heavily bankrolled by Her Majesty's Navy to do their bloody violence.

and let's not forget Jean Lafitte:
Pirate Hero of the War of 1812
who helped defeat the British in the Battle of New Orleans...

Désirent ardemment de phase les bons pirates.

spareme, I just downloaded a song from the mp3lizard site, arrrrgggghhh.

real piracy..not what Cary Sherman et al "calls" piracy....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2994013.stm
"Piracy at sea reached record levels in the first quarter of 2003, with more than 100 incidents reported for the first "

http://www.iccwbo.org/home/news_archives/2002/piracy_report.asp

http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/29/content_301336.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/28/1075088070756.html

People get KILLED as a result of what the US Code defines as piracy...and to call "copyright infringement" piracy, serves to trivialize these horrible crimes.

Again, if someone doesn't care about legal definitions...just say copyright infringement may also be called murder, rape, fraud, grand theft auto, etc....

And if they didn't spend so much time calling children "pirates", may they could go after real counterfeiters, who suddenly are no longer mentioned as a problem.

This is the same as calling everyone in the country a terrorist and expecting us to get all worked up every time the word is used.

As for spareme -- Want to hear/see stunning hypocrisy? Go visit the RIAA web site and listen to the tales of things moving in a "positive direction" to define year 5 of the longest sales decline ever. Listen to the tale of the 85% increase in CD singles, as we discover that the second worse year ever for sales is "reflecting a stronger emphasis on this market by music companies."

Downloading is not illegal, only the uploading of music by the rapidly declining number of acts that are from the music industry's "stable".

So spareme is the next RIAA troll that we should squash like a bug. Before we squish its head, remind it that they called us pirates BEFORE we called it sharing.

Remind it that without the fans, there would be no fucking music business. Remind it that the hallways of the major labels are filled with pimps and whores, child molesters, murderers and thieves.

Remind it that they have no place among those who stand on high moral ground.

hmmmm..... well there is hope, maby some of these RIAA sympathizers are avid boating enthusiasts....

YEP. I CAN JUST HEAR LITTLE MITCH BAINWOL OR CARY SHERMAN IN KINDERGARTEN NOW:

MINE! MINE! MINE!

GO SIT IN THE CORNER YOU TWO.

I think the RIAA needs a celebration... A cruise... in a very slow ship. Yeah, that's it. With a BIG sign on the side of the ship to make sure everyone knew that the big brave pirate killers were on board.

I'll bet neither Sherman nor Bainwol has ever been to Indonesia.

And it should be nice this time of year. Perfect weather for hunting pirates. Granted, it's also perfect hunting weather for pirates, but life is like that.

Something about this troll seems familiar to me Code. Briefly scanning over something, drawing a half-assed conclusion about things that aren't there. Is this my little troll-friend? I hope so. I've been waiting for a troll over here so I could flame them. Make me laugh troll.

spareme has been an occasional troll..usually makes these anti-user comments in a hit and run fashion...

spareme has been an occasional troll..usually makes these anti-user comments in a hit and run fashion...
by that I mean...always a troll...just doesn't post much...

18 U.S.C.A. § 1651

United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)
Part I. Crimes
Chapter 81. Piracy and Privateering (Refs & Annos)
§ 1651. Piracy under law of nations


Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

3. Pirate defined

A pirate is one who acts solely on his own authority, without any commission or authority from a sovereign state, seizing by force, and appropriating to himself, without discrimination, every vessel he meets with. Davison v. Seal-Skins, C.C.Conn.1835, 7 F.Cas. 192, No. 3661. Criminal Law 45.50

5. Offenses within section

Robbery or forcible depredation on the sea animo furandi was piracy by the law of nations and by Act of Congress. U.S. v. Smith, U.S.Va.1820, 18 U.S. 153, 5 L.Ed. 57, 5 Wheat. 153. Criminal Law 45.50

The crime of robbery, committed by a person who is not a citizen of the United States, on the high seas, on board of a ship belonging exclusively to subjects of a foreign state, was not piracy under Act Apr. 30, 1790, c. 9, § 8, 1 Stat. 113, and was not punishable in the courts of the United States. U.S. v. Palmer, U.S.Mass.1818, 16 U.S. 610, 4 L.Ed. 471, 3 Wheat. 610. See, also, U.S. v. Holmes, Mass.1820, 18 U.S. 412, 5 Wheat. 412, 5 L.Ed. 122; U.S. v. Gilbert, C.C.Mass.1834, 2 Sumn. 19, 25 Fed.Cas. No. 15,204; U.S. v. Unicorn, D.C.Md.1796, 3 Am.L.J. 188, 27 Fed.Cas. No. 15,979a 1839, 3 Op.Atty.Gen. 489. Criminal Law 45.50

Depredating on the high seas without authority from any sovereign power is piracy by the law of nations; it is not necessary that the motive be plunder, or that the depredations be directed against the vessels of all nations indiscriminately and as in robbery upon the land, it is only essential that the spoliation, or intended spoliation, be felonious; i.e., done willfully, with intent to injure, and without legal authority or lawful excuse. The Ambrose Light, S.D.N.Y.1885, 25 F. 408. Criminal Law 45.50

The seizure of a vessel carrying arms and munitions of war to a port of the enemy by an armed ship, whose officers held commissions from the hostile country, was not piracy. U S v. Smith, D.C.Ga.1820, 27 F.Cas. 1172, No. 16339A.

The crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations and the Acts of Congress, consisted of robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea. U.S. v. Chapels, C.C.Va.1819, 25 F.Cas. 399, No. 14782. Criminal Law 45.50

It was not statutory piracy for the captain of a vessel, to whom the vessel and cargo had been consigned with instructions to proceed to the Pacific, and there sell vessel and cargo, and remit the proceeds to the owners, to fail to remit such proceeds after having made sale according to instructions. 1825, 2 Op.Atty.Gen. 19.

8. Defenses

It was a sufficient defense to an indictment for piracy that the defendant, an American citizen, showed a commission from a foreign government, though issued in blank and afterwards filled up by the person intrusted with it. U.S. v. Bass, C.C.N.Y.1819, 24 F.Cas. 1028, No. 14537. Criminal Law 45.50

49 U.S.C.A. § 46502

United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 49. Transportation (Refs & Annos)
Subtitle VII. Aviation Programs
Part A. Air Commerce and Safety (Refs & Annos)
Subpart IV. Enforcement and Penalties (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 465. Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States (Refs & Annos)
§ 46502. Aircraft piracy


(a) In special aircraft jurisdiction.--(1) In this subsection--

(A) "aircraft piracy" means seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.
(B) an attempt to commit aircraft piracy is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States although the aircraft is not in flight at the time of the attempt if the aircraft would have been in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States had the aircraft piracy been completed.

(2) An individual committing or attempting or conspiring to commit aircraft piracy--

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or
(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(b) Outside special aircraft jurisdiction.--(1) An individual committing or conspiring to commit an offense (as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) on an aircraft in flight outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States--

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or
(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(2) There is jurisdiction over the offense in paragraph (1) if--

(A) a national of the United States was aboard the aircraft;
(B) an offender is a national of the United States; or
(C) an offender is afterwards found in the United States.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term "national of the United States" has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

Hey Code! Great article. I have been following your articles for a few months and I really like them.

I have a freedom fight blog that I started (some of you may have read it) and I got the idea that I might like to give other people the opportunity to write for it as well. Kinda give it a multifacited "freedom" feel.

If you, Code, or anybody else that fights for freedom would like to join me, just go to my site at http://freedomfight.blogspot.com and send me a message. This is just a hobby that I have and I'd like to let other people get involved.

spareme says "you can stop playing stupid semantic tricks like pretending that if not all music downloads are illegal, none of them are."

We'll stop that when the RIAA stops pretending that music that is NOT from the RIAA is therefore illegal! And when the RIAA stops pretending it is the ONLY LEGITIMATE music on the planet.

Talk about calling the kettle black...

"When you stop calling copyright infringement "sharing," we'll stop calling it "piracy.""

This makes pretty good sense to me. I've seen a lot of name calling, but I don't think anyone has addressed the substantive issue.

Shouldn't "sharing" of copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright holder really be called "copyright infringement" or maybe "illegal distribution"?

As Code has noted "language is important". Aren't both sides of the debate guilty of using words that make themselves look good and their enemies look bad?

"Spareme...you say "we", does that mean you represent either the media or the RIAA ?"

I think he means "we" as in the "royal we". Spareme is the king of a small European nation.

INeedALover said: "We'll stop that when the RIAA stops pretending that music that is NOT from the RIAA is therefore illegal! And when the RIAA stops pretending it is the ONLY LEGITIMATE music on the planet."

There's not a damn thing that is LEGITIMATE about the RIAA's music.

mroop...you bring up good points.

Sharing...on dictionary.com is defined as this:
v. shared, shar·ing, shares
v. tr.
To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend"

Sharing really has no relation to whether the thing shared, was obtained legally or not...

For example, let's say I steal an apple pie. I meet up with you, and you are a friend...I say, hey Bud, wanna share some pie with me? You say yes and I give you a couple of slices. I shared my pie with you.

Now, let's say I buy a pie legally, and see you and say, hey Bud, wanna share my pie with me? You say yes.

In both instances, we shared a pie...one was totally legal, and in the other, your partaking in the pie may be receipt of stolen property.

Usually, we think of sharing in terms of not charging the person for what we share with them, but that is not a sine qua non for sharing...I could have charged you a dollar for the pieces of pie I shared with you.

And, in the past, I have said this over and over on this board, and others.

If you make copies of copyrighted material, without authorization, there is a presumptive case of copyright infringement. I say a presumptive case, because, although you don't have prior authorization, that's not to say that some copyright holders would not give you permission post facto.

And, in fact, my continued assesrtion that "every time a web page is loaded for the first time, a copyright violation occurs" because digital copies of all copyrighted elements of a page are copied without prior authorization by the copyright holder.

Now, some would say, well, by uploading to a public site, there is an implied permission to copy...there is no such doctrine under the DMCA or Copyright Act of 1976. And, since you copy the whole page...not just part, and are not generally using it to critique it...I personally do not find it would fall under fair use, anymore than downloading a whole song without permission would be under fair use.

And, as far as I know, I'm the only one assertion this position about webpage loading being a copyright violation.

Now, to further clarify....again, I believe that there may be copyright violations occuring when people are downloading songs whose copyright belongs to RIAA labels. My reluctance to say fully that they are violations is because, as I raised in a thread some time ago...is the act of downloading, actually making a copy...and, are the MP3s which exist as ones and zeros on other people's drives which are "made available", are these truly copies when they are lossy in nature and are in a different format from the original CD cda format...
and, is downloading, actually making of a copy....(some think this is a silly question and would say of course it is...but I don't think it is that facile)...

But, for argument, let's say MP3s are copies, that uploading and/or downloading is copying and it is done without prior authorization of the copyright holder....then, yes, it's a copyright infringement just like, in a lawyer's office in the USA...if the adverse lawyer downloads and prints out a page from an adverse party's webiste without prior authorization from them, in order to secure evidence in discovery, without a subpoena duces tecum, that's a copyright infringement too.

Should the laws change to bring digital copying under a revised form of the AHRA of 1992, or should we pass the Digital Consumers Protection Act ( www.geocities.com/codewarrior_wins/digitalconsumers.htm ) ...or something like it? Yes...such that copying for non-commerical, personal at home usage, would be considered fair use.

"Shouldn't "sharing" of copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright holder really be called "copyright infringement" or maybe "illegal distribution"?"

I say yes (with the understanding that uploading / downloading are copying, and that the MP3 is actually a copy of the original...).

In my opinion....that's the way I see it.

TYPO...And, as far as I know, I'm the only one assertion this position...

SHOULD READ ...

"And, as far as I know, I'm the only one asserting this position about webpage loading being a copyright violation "

logiclist - thank you very much for the kind words..will check out your blog later...and thanks for all you are doing for this fight!

~CW

and, mroop, as a side note...the fact that people may share infringing, and non-infringing works, in the sense of the ability to do so...is why Kazaa's folder which is accessible to others is called "My Shared Folder" and NOT ..

"My Copyright Infringing Folder"

Code,

you are right. plain and simple. I've dealt with too many lawyers who want to beat you over the head with semantics. They are the ones who insist on the language, the least they could do is make it correct.

spareme you are lost

codewarrior said call it 'alleged copyright infringement' not piracy because the term piracy infers a person's guilt before a trial has taken place

he calls it what it is 'alleged copyright infringement' or 'filesharing' he does not call it 'piracy' because legally it doesn't apply

also spareme all filesharers want is for filehsharing to be seen as fair-use

if seen as 'fair-use' the courts will have to drop the term copyright infringement

spareme you need to realize that the fans and the filesharers are one in the same

the fans ARE the filesharers, filesharers ARE buying the music

filesharing is a revolutionary form of marketing which is increasing the sales of media

SO HOW spareme CAN YOU CALL IT FREELOADING?

the riaa and artists have been making MORE money thanks to filesharing not less

MORE money NOT less

so how can you call it freeloading?

good article codewarrior, i agree 100%, the media uses loose jargon to define something THAT COULD BE WELL WITHIN THE LAW

they convict people before they are convicted

Regarding the MAD TV episode -- what do you think of the "justification" they gave for why downloading is illegal -- something about devaluing a global product.

(Do we have a new troll -- spareme? Maybe he/she is from what'sthedownload.com)

Shouldn't "sharing" of copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright holder really be called "copyright infringement" or maybe "illegal distribution"?

Or maybe "marketing" of "inferior copies" of "songs" promoting "pornography" and "violence" in hopes of "separating" impressionable young "consumers" from their "entertainment allotment."

We do not have to compromise. We are an unreliable source. We are biased. You are a troll. You are biased. The wrong way. We do not like trolls here.

Oh yeah, support file sharing or die.

Language is only important if you're willing to debate.

I'm done debating about this issue. I'm now into troll extermination. It's much more fun than pretending to be civil to them.

OK
Just how is the riaa monitoring downloads? I know it is easy to monitor uploads but downloads?

honeypots
cookies
what??

I hear big champaign looks at downloads, I wonder if it is some kind of system that looks at what is uploadable then takes some kind of statistical formula to determine the number of downloads.

I read in another thread that they were monitoring downloads and then suing those people. How? And then after that how would they know what is what they think is theirs and what is some indy artist trying to get their name out there.

Finally, it has always been the riaa's tactic to remove the supply. Did something change?

"You are a troll."

Name calling: The last refuge for those without a coherent argument.

And to add to my rant, it seems that no matter what you are doing on a p2p you are guilty of a crime.

The mainstream press does not make any differentiation between download, upload, sharer, pirate (although they don't use this term much anymore, maybe codewarrior had something to do with this), and peer. Everybody is guilty.

yeah its as if filesharing is synonymous with theft now, regardless of what you're sharing

File sharing of unauthorized files, not in the PD, over P2P networks, may be copyright infringement. However, the point of this debate is that it should not be.

i think filesharing is fair use hands down, i don't care what kind of media it is

I nominate a name change, from "filesharing" to
"fairsharing"...
)

yeah.. im seeing a lot of quotes from COLLEGE STUDENTS now saying "i know its illegal" or "i know piracy is bad" or "i know piracy is illegal"

it makes me want to spit, these people need to
a. watch what they say
b. take what they hear with a grain of salt
c. start reading their damn texts a little more

if these people are part of my generation please kill me now and reincarnate me as part of another, freeer alien race NOW

"you are a troll" -- pointing out the obvious

"you and your mother are @$%#$(#&%(@" -- name calling

very different things mind you.

mroop, it is fine to put forth a legal argument, but the laws are not the beginning and end of the earth, and it is time to rise above them and see the world from the roof of the libraries.

the sun is waiting if we can only dissipate these clouds.

"When you stop calling copyright infringement "sharing," we'll stop calling it "piracy." While you're at it, you can stop playing stupid semantic tricks like pretending that if not all music downloads are illegal, none of them are.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your hypocrisy is stunning. "

rofl

allow me to copy the fair use clause from an online version of the copyright code here for you placing highlights around the relevant portions which would, in years prior to the unconstitutional DMCA, make filesharing within the realm of fair use:
n
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
::::: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit[or]
educational purposes;:::::
::::2) the nature of the copyrighted work;::::
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
:::4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.::::

now please note that we are not talking about the effect of the mass public's activities here, but the activities of a given individual, because a social trend cannot be held accountable(in a CAPITALIST society, businesses ADAPT to collective social change), so what we are looking at here are 3 factors, the two main ones being that
(A.) An individual swapper makes no profit, and actually loses substantial upfront, weekly, and montly costs to continue this activity.
(B.) because of the dispersed nature of the activity, said "swapper" does not affect the market by offering and transferring 3-10 copies of a song a week. (this was my average.. at most 50 songs in a month on dual university T3 lines, so i can only assume FAR LESS on broadband and even less on dialup).
(C.)then there is the nature of a work, not a tool, not something requiring extreme effort to produce, but something requiring maybe at most 2 days, maybe 3 including post studio mastering, to produce before going to the presses. on top of that it is ART, a special class of product designed specifically for public enrichment, and that is precisely what the public is using it for, just in a very unique way.

THE DMCA, which overprotects DRM, gives some mandatory fines for infringers without requiring evidence of harm(which i believe is unconstitutional), and may or may not make downloading/uploading illegal by some roundabout way, has many many other unintended sideeffects which makes me opposed to it. While i dislike the way it is being used to go after p2p i dislike more the way it will protect the measures which will likely cripple the computing platform worldwide for the next 15 years and make my job market constricted, low paying, and a living hell until lawmakers finally figure out what a mistake it was and reform/repeal it.

the restrictions DRM will place on computing will rob computers of the flexibility which make them useful as machines, destroy economic growth in the digital age, consumer, personal, and privacy rights, squelch innovation, make more vicelike the grip of current software monopolies, and could cause an economic collapse as consumers out and out reject the current system. I know i eventually will become fed up.

If the shoe fits ...

mroop
Date: March 8, 2004 @ 6:16 PM
"You are a troll."
Name calling: The last refuge for those without a coherent argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mroop
Date: March 3, 2004 @ 2:35 AM
This site usually includes a link to the original source and The Register is a strong ally in the anti-RIAA movement. Idiot.

Jazzmary2U
Date: March 4, 2004 @ 5:08 PM
mroop.. chill with the "idiot" label, allright
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mroop
Date: February 27, 2004 @ 11:46 PM
"Ya I know who you're talking about. He still owes me two answers "
He is talking about Sventsa, doofus. I don't make snotty comments directed at Code. And btw, I don't owe you anything. 1. Yes 2. No. : )

TheSherminator
Date: February 27, 2004 @ 11:57 PM
My apologies Code. I miscounted. There's two pricks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mroop
Date: February 21, 2004 @ 3:20 PM
Stop being such an idiot with your bought and paid for judges garbage. The DC court rule AGAINST the RIAA! Jeebus!

compmore
Date: February 21, 2004 @ 3:53 PM
Mroop I conceed to you on this. you are 100% correct in your assertion. but do you see how much more effective you'd be if you didn't resort to the childish name calling??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mroop
Date: February 19, 2004 @ 4:25 PM
Get in the way? I think it's great. It will shut up plenty of idiots when the RIAA wins this one. I will link to this thread when Ms. Scimeca gets her ass handed to her in court and laugh at you once again! Some things never change. : )

TheSherminator
Date: February 19, 2004 @ 4:39 PM
Wow, you call her an idiot like she's not reading this.
She posted to thank us for our support about halfway up.
----------------------------------------------------------

mroop
Date: February 17, 2004 @ 5:07 PM
"Compare the Dave Mathews Band's first several albums to their recent stuff. They were forced to sell out to get radio airplay."
Where do you get this crap from? Stay off the drugs.

raiders757
Date: February 18, 2004 @ 7:19 PM
So it seems to me that he wrote more pop orientd material, not becuase he wanted to, but because his record label wanted him to. At least in that case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mroop
Date: February 6, 2004 @ 4:29 PM
"Conservatives can stick to a bad idea with no compunction, no logic and no reasonable discussion. That's what being a conservative is."

Holy cow. Hey conservatives, you are all idiots!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and so on and so on ...

kyodylee
It's about time someone points out the obvious. That mroop has no argument since the only thing he can do is call everyone an idoit! Since I don't have any argument either... what a moron mroop is!