If you didn't want others to partake in it, why would you publish it? Note, that I'm not specifically refering to music or software. I'm refereing to all information. I personally think that information should be free (not as in beer).
P2P programs legal in Canada
- Thread starter OICW
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I couldn't read all of this because Cold Killer just made me want to stab myself in the dick after two posts. I did however, decide I want to chime in, make him look like an ******* and in the end, feel better about myself from making him feel bad.
CK- When a record company obtains a band. They pay the band a large amount of money. That money, could be "500 million" or so USD. This money, aside from what bands make from tours, is all they see. So realistically, you're just stealing from the *******s that are here to commercialize art. You're not stealing from the artists. So before you try to give us some guilt trip, realize, YOU AREN'T STEALING **** FROM THE ARTISTS! A band signs on. They are paid a large amount of money. The record company says "you owe us 3 albums" the band says "ok". The band loses all rights to their songs and property. The band makes their money for the next few years from touring. The end. That's how the music industry works. The end.
"Stealing" music should be encouraged. If you don't like the way corporate America is structured, then piracy is the only way to fight it. Isn't what the recording industry is doing piracy? You can listen to the radio and keep the tune in your head, but you can't download that one tune because it makes you happy? That gives the RIAA the right to sue little kids and families? Jesus, you probably vote too. Christ, maybe Big Brother will make us pay for our memories somewhere down the road too. Because you know, they contain copyrighted material.
Pirate your music all you want, and don't feel bad about it. The musicians don't suffer at all from it. The only way they can suffer is if NOBODY buys their albums at all and their Record Label drops them. Whoever thinks music and movie piracy is going to kill the industry should go hang out with the "VHS recorders will kill the industry" people and the "Audio Cassettes will kill the music industry" guys. It's all about "knowing you'll have a job in 10 years". That's why Metallica was against it. It wasn't hurting their lives at all. Their label paid them to speak up about it and as a result probably got a few more years on their contract. In the long run, piracy is a small dent in the armor of "capitalism". You have to realize that the RIAA will never be happy with their billion dollar industry. Same with the MPAA. Those guys make more money than you can imagine. Piracy probably takes away 1% of their gross economic income. **** them. **** you.
Ok, I feel better about myself now. So long.
CK- When a record company obtains a band. They pay the band a large amount of money. That money, could be "500 million" or so USD. This money, aside from what bands make from tours, is all they see. So realistically, you're just stealing from the *******s that are here to commercialize art. You're not stealing from the artists. So before you try to give us some guilt trip, realize, YOU AREN'T STEALING **** FROM THE ARTISTS! A band signs on. They are paid a large amount of money. The record company says "you owe us 3 albums" the band says "ok". The band loses all rights to their songs and property. The band makes their money for the next few years from touring. The end. That's how the music industry works. The end.
"Stealing" music should be encouraged. If you don't like the way corporate America is structured, then piracy is the only way to fight it. Isn't what the recording industry is doing piracy? You can listen to the radio and keep the tune in your head, but you can't download that one tune because it makes you happy? That gives the RIAA the right to sue little kids and families? Jesus, you probably vote too. Christ, maybe Big Brother will make us pay for our memories somewhere down the road too. Because you know, they contain copyrighted material.
Pirate your music all you want, and don't feel bad about it. The musicians don't suffer at all from it. The only way they can suffer is if NOBODY buys their albums at all and their Record Label drops them. Whoever thinks music and movie piracy is going to kill the industry should go hang out with the "VHS recorders will kill the industry" people and the "Audio Cassettes will kill the music industry" guys. It's all about "knowing you'll have a job in 10 years". That's why Metallica was against it. It wasn't hurting their lives at all. Their label paid them to speak up about it and as a result probably got a few more years on their contract. In the long run, piracy is a small dent in the armor of "capitalism". You have to realize that the RIAA will never be happy with their billion dollar industry. Same with the MPAA. Those guys make more money than you can imagine. Piracy probably takes away 1% of their gross economic income. **** them. **** you.
Ok, I feel better about myself now. So long.
Well i cannot really say for sure how it works in the US, but in France it doesn't work that way at all and i'm pretty sure it must work the same everywhere. Yes, you get money from the record company, but you do not give away the intellectual ownership of your songs (at least in 99% of the cases). The money received by artists from the record company is just a contract to make sure the artist won't publish any record on any other company, and that the artist will provide the company with a certain number of recordings. Aside that, the artist receives money everytime a cd is sold, (for the least famous artists it represents their main retribution since record company won't pay them millions of $ to be on their label). In France (and again, i'm pretty sure it must the same elsewhere), there are copyrights for owning "intellectually" an artistic product (=creating it, sorry for bad translation of proper legal terms) AND for performing it (=if you play a song you did not compose you still get money for it). You get such copyrights eveytime your cd is bought, your song played on the radio, etc...
Everything i said would maybe need to be clarified by someone working in that specific area, but i'm 99% sure of what i'm saying. So yes, you are somehow stealing from artists when you download their songs INSTEAD of buying their record.
That said, that doesn't mean i'm agaisnt p2p at all. I personnally choose to apply some ethic when it comes to mp3 : i don't mind to download songs from artists that are selling millions of record, but i try to buy the cd of least famous artists. If i really like an artist i'll end up buying his cd anyway. It has two advantages :
1. It allow me to save some money to spend on artists that mostly need it
2. it pisses off record companies because they're making their money on the bunch of phonies you see mostly on mtv.
I don't think it works the same everywhere. For example, in the USA you can sell your ownership on a song you created, in Germany you can't and will always keep your rights as creator. A company can only get the license to marked your creation but you will never loose your ownership. Also, how an artist gets money, be it a percentage of the money that's earned with his creation or a set amount of money is defined in a contract and I don't see why that contract should be the same for everyone.
____
DLing a song is not stealing, it's (if anything) making an unauthorised copy. And it sure as hell ain't robbing unless you shove a gun in someones face and say "Yo bitch, burn the CD or you will live in a world full of pain".
____
DLing a song is not stealing, it's (if anything) making an unauthorised copy. And it sure as hell ain't robbing unless you shove a gun in someones face and say "Yo bitch, burn the CD or you will live in a world full of pain".
meh, afaik artist get pennies worth on their cd sales. Besides I think artist should earn their money from performing not from selling record. Live performance beats listening to a cd any day. At least thats my opinion. And I'd still buy cd's worth buying.
What about going to the library and photo copying a few pages out of a book - same thing as downloading a song and listening to it.
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
well many library now offer the possibility to borrow audio-cds...
it's totally legal to bring them home, copy them on your hard drive and bring them back afterwards. It's legal as long as you don't make a CD to give it so someone else. But someone (in canada) could legally get on your PC via p2p or ftp or whatever and get the audio files.
You could, in the same line, get to the library with your laptop, copy a few cds right there on blank CD-Rs. As long as it's for your personal use, it's ok... you know why? because the rights on these CDs have already beeing payed.
IMO the whole discussion about copyright and stuff is totally irrelevent in this thread since we are talking about the canadian situation. We pay the copyright fees in a different way than the way it is done in the US or in many other countries. This way allows us to share an copy music files as much as we want. It has been made that way because someone was bright enough over here to understand that judging the copy of audio cds and p2p as illegal made no sense and that copying and p2p could never be stopped with the advances in technology we have seen in the past decades.
Last edited:
Can you give me an example? I really don't know what you're getting at. Who publishes their "information"?unixman said:
If you had indeed read to my second post, you'd see I was fully aware that one is stealing only from the music industry when they pirate music. If you had read a little past that, you'd have seen that I don't give a damn WHO it is that one is stealing from. The practice is still WRONG.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
If you don't like the way corporate America is structured, then strap on some explosives and go blow yourself up outside of a building and rid us of your presence- that will be much more effective, trust me.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
Your notion that hearing a song and vaguely remembering it is the same as downloading it to your computer is idiotic. Just because you can't touch it, and you can't break into someone's house and run out holding it, doesn't mean that you can't steal it.
What does a person's age or familial status have to do with their elegibility of getting sued? Do either of those change the fact that they've broken the law? God, YOU probably vote.
Once again, the fact that the musicians are not suffering unjustly from the act doesn't matter to me at all. The fact that someone IS does. The prospect of the music industry going tits-up was never the reason for my objection.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:Pirate your music all you want, and don't feel bad about it. The musicians don't suffer at all from it. The only way they can suffer is if NOBODY buys their albums at all and their Record Label drops them. Whoever thinks music and movie piracy is going to kill the industry should go hang out with the "VHS recorders will kill the industry" people and the "Audio Cassettes will kill the music industry" guys. It's all about "knowing you'll have a job in 10 years". That's why Metallica was against it. It wasn't hurting their lives at all. Their label paid them to speak up about it and as a result probably got a few more years on their contract. In the long run, piracy is a small dent in the armor of "capitalism". You have to realize that the RIAA will never be happy with their billion dollar industry. Same with the MPAA. Those guys make more money than you can imagine. Piracy probably takes away 1% of their gross economic income. **** them. **** you.
Ok, I feel better about myself now. So long.
Your final point, that piracy will barely take anything from them at all, just shows how immoral you really are. I guess it's ok to steal a little bit of money from your grandparents every time you visit them, as long as it doesn't make a lot of difference in the end. That makes it ok.
Lastly, I complement you on your ending. "**** them. **** you."
It's obvious that you are a mature individual thinking sensibly on all levels.
The US copywrite exsist the way they do (i think) because the US goverment has taken a long intrest in trying to sponser invention and creativity in general. Argue that you hate the laws all you want but one can not deny that in the short time the nation has exsisted it's managed to father more than it's fair share of some of the most revolutionary technology, while at the same time provided a means for authors, and artists of various mediums to pursue thier passions as career choices rather than hobbies.
Cold Killer. Strapping a bomb to my chest and blowing myself up, killing thousands of innocent people would solve what? Obviously, you think that because I disagree with Corporate America that I'm some kind of Islamic terrorist!? Way to feed those racial stereotypes buddy! I didn't know you supported terrorists. Pretty ****ed up.
The thing about having a song in your head wasn't idiotic. I knew you'd have a problem with that one, I was just too lazy to explain more after I posted, but I will gladly now.
When you hear a song on the radio, it's out there because somebody is sponsoring the song, be it Budweiser, whatever commercials you hear. The RIAA agrees to basically, give this song out to the public over the airwaves as long as somebody is paying for it. That song can only be played however many times the RIAA wants to push it. So it's legal to record it off of the radio, or to listen to it on the radio, but not legal to download it and listen to it from time to time? What's the difference? Well, there really isn't any difference other than the fact that the RIAA doesn't dictate the internet (yet). So downloading that "one hit song" off of the new Brittany Spears record gets their panties in a twist because you're supposed to buy the whole crappy cd for that one "hit" song. The compromise for the radio is, sure, you get to hear the song without buying the album, but you also have to listen to those 20 minutes of commercials between songs because those companies paid for the music you're listening to. Again, this makes more sense when I'm not dead tired and can explain it in person. It makes even more sense when I have a friend of mine that is a copyright lawyer around. The music industry is a business. And a ****ty business at that. Instead of celebrating music for being what it is, the RIAA has turned it into a cold cut-throat business and as a result, has decided that rehashed commercialized trash music (pop music as we know it) is the only kind of music that should be represented and celebrated (and used to make a large profit).
Ok, now on to my grandparents. And my "Radio to Mp3" comment was "idiotic"? Where do you get these scenarios? How do my grandparents relate to this? Are you trying to make the RIAA out as dying old folks with a large ammount of money and nothing but good intentions on their brain? I sure hope not. Piracy is hardly noticable on their "big picture" chart. Believe me. The fact that you've stated again and again that you don't care if the artist doesn't fit into this makes you an *******. Art is about the artist, not the ******* that commercializes and sells the art. Besides, there aren't any good artists on the RIAA's payroll anymore, they all started their own labels. But how can you support the rich getting richer while the art becomes commercial and useless? I don't pirate the new "Jay-Z" albums and all of that BS, so the RIAA probably doesn't care about me. I "pirate" old albums that I can't find, or rare live performances. Or sometimes, I'll download an album and check it out before I spend $100+ on the tour tickets. Either way, stop trying to make everybody feel like they're being "immoral" for downloading music by relating it to "breaking and entering" and "stealing from grandpa and grandma". A better analogy would be "stealing a penny from the multi-billion dollar music corporation's bank". Seriously, we have one governing body that (tries) to control all music. "1984" anyone? Don't download music. Give more money to the RIAA if you want to. You'll just slow down the progression of society and fuel the fires of "inequality". Corporate structuring is exactly what the world doesn't need. The fact that money exists is the sole reason behind 99% of the world's problems. I doubt I'll live to see a society that doesn't need to use money to solve problems (and therefore, create twice as many), but it sure is a nice thought. I didn't know I was "immoral" for stating the facts. Go look up some of the RIAA's profits and then see how much they "lose" from "piracy". I think "piracy" should be defined as "charging $20+ for a compact disc". A technology so cheap that it costs about $2 to produce a final product, wrapped and everything. But you're right, taking lawsuits to 12 year old girls is the way to solve the problem. Instead of, Ohhhh, I dunno, maybe making the prices somewhat reasonable? "Oh, but we can't! If you'd stop downloading music, we could! But we're at a loss!" Right. Sure. I guess it was wrong for the US to steal Einstein from the Germans too. They had him first! And don't even try commenting on that, it makes about as much sense as your "grandparents" analogy.
**** you.
The thing about having a song in your head wasn't idiotic. I knew you'd have a problem with that one, I was just too lazy to explain more after I posted, but I will gladly now.
When you hear a song on the radio, it's out there because somebody is sponsoring the song, be it Budweiser, whatever commercials you hear. The RIAA agrees to basically, give this song out to the public over the airwaves as long as somebody is paying for it. That song can only be played however many times the RIAA wants to push it. So it's legal to record it off of the radio, or to listen to it on the radio, but not legal to download it and listen to it from time to time? What's the difference? Well, there really isn't any difference other than the fact that the RIAA doesn't dictate the internet (yet). So downloading that "one hit song" off of the new Brittany Spears record gets their panties in a twist because you're supposed to buy the whole crappy cd for that one "hit" song. The compromise for the radio is, sure, you get to hear the song without buying the album, but you also have to listen to those 20 minutes of commercials between songs because those companies paid for the music you're listening to. Again, this makes more sense when I'm not dead tired and can explain it in person. It makes even more sense when I have a friend of mine that is a copyright lawyer around. The music industry is a business. And a ****ty business at that. Instead of celebrating music for being what it is, the RIAA has turned it into a cold cut-throat business and as a result, has decided that rehashed commercialized trash music (pop music as we know it) is the only kind of music that should be represented and celebrated (and used to make a large profit).
Ok, now on to my grandparents. And my "Radio to Mp3" comment was "idiotic"? Where do you get these scenarios? How do my grandparents relate to this? Are you trying to make the RIAA out as dying old folks with a large ammount of money and nothing but good intentions on their brain? I sure hope not. Piracy is hardly noticable on their "big picture" chart. Believe me. The fact that you've stated again and again that you don't care if the artist doesn't fit into this makes you an *******. Art is about the artist, not the ******* that commercializes and sells the art. Besides, there aren't any good artists on the RIAA's payroll anymore, they all started their own labels. But how can you support the rich getting richer while the art becomes commercial and useless? I don't pirate the new "Jay-Z" albums and all of that BS, so the RIAA probably doesn't care about me. I "pirate" old albums that I can't find, or rare live performances. Or sometimes, I'll download an album and check it out before I spend $100+ on the tour tickets. Either way, stop trying to make everybody feel like they're being "immoral" for downloading music by relating it to "breaking and entering" and "stealing from grandpa and grandma". A better analogy would be "stealing a penny from the multi-billion dollar music corporation's bank". Seriously, we have one governing body that (tries) to control all music. "1984" anyone? Don't download music. Give more money to the RIAA if you want to. You'll just slow down the progression of society and fuel the fires of "inequality". Corporate structuring is exactly what the world doesn't need. The fact that money exists is the sole reason behind 99% of the world's problems. I doubt I'll live to see a society that doesn't need to use money to solve problems (and therefore, create twice as many), but it sure is a nice thought. I didn't know I was "immoral" for stating the facts. Go look up some of the RIAA's profits and then see how much they "lose" from "piracy". I think "piracy" should be defined as "charging $20+ for a compact disc". A technology so cheap that it costs about $2 to produce a final product, wrapped and everything. But you're right, taking lawsuits to 12 year old girls is the way to solve the problem. Instead of, Ohhhh, I dunno, maybe making the prices somewhat reasonable? "Oh, but we can't! If you'd stop downloading music, we could! But we're at a loss!" Right. Sure. I guess it was wrong for the US to steal Einstein from the Germans too. They had him first! And don't even try commenting on that, it makes about as much sense as your "grandparents" analogy.
**** you.
Don't use a friggin nuke, just strap on enough explosives to decorate the wall with your guts.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
What the hell? First you insinuate that it makes no sense that you shouldn't be able to download it off the internet when you can record it from the radio, and then you go on and disprove your own point by stating that the difference is in the 20 minutes of commercials that you have to listen to on the air? Then you go and start beating the dead horse of "The RIAA is teh evil" again and again when I've already stated that that's beside the point![LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
You have completely dodged the entire point. I was showing that it's NOT ok to steal just so long as it only "takes away 1% of their gross economic income". It's the principal of thievery being wrong in all its forms, not depending on who you're stealing from and how much.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
Once again, BESIDE THE POINT. If you want to talk to me about how crappy and unjust the RIAA is and how they've raped the nature of art, then fine, but right now we are discussing the topic of thievery, NOT those who are being victimized, nor the infinitesimal amounts being stolen, nor the reasoning behind the crime.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
My goal is to have you admit that stealing is wrong. I was not trying to draw an analogy between your sweet old folks and a merciless, "cut-throat" corporation.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
You can argue and argue about how awful these companies are and the bleak future that they entail, and I'll tell you that by fighting them back by stealing, you are merely lowering yourself to their level, and helping to propagate a terrible practice.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
I find it amusing that someone who seems so righteous feels the need to continually drive his points home with an insult.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
Yes, you're right. I'll start to support them and purchase their wonderful compact discs for $20 a pop. You were right. I admit it. That's the only way to fight them. Besides, stealing is ALWAYS wrong. The Bible says so.
**** you.
Where the HELL do you get that? I didn't say to do away with the prospect of resisting them and utterly buy in to their BS, I said to think of a way to do it without BREAKING THE LAW AND STEALING.[LD]CrAcWhOrE said:
Oh, and screw what the bible has to say about this.
Christ, I thought I was stupid.
Oh, and...
Oh, and...
Big names? Not great music, but The Tragically Hip, Celine Dion, Our Lady Peace (roots in Montreal clubs.)
I don't understand how you could claim you are downloading music to steal from rich snobby kids and rich artists. Regardless of the artist's wealth, you are still listening to them... The real virtuous thing to do is dl and sell the CD's you burn to poor 12 year olds! YAY!
Exactly. You know what? That arguement about people downloading denying the profit from the music they recieved is garbage. If I couldn't download it, I wouldn't buy it. Simple as that. That's why my music collection is measured in Gigs, not CDs.