Got A Message from Comcast about abuse violations (1 Viewer)

[Tekara]

I will lean away from the debate on music, because that one is full of problems. with the inclusion of music television and radio, where one should draw the line on what is allowable is quite subjective. especially with the shift in how artists make the majority of there money, where it once was from the concerts they played is now the more from the album's they cut.

I do download MP3's, but the collection I own is either rips from my music CDs (I use a mp3cd player in the car and well it's just easier) or songs from the 80's or earlier that aren't sold much anymore (just something about the oldies :p). I don't listen to Punk, though my roommates do. . . ugh I dislike music played in Drop D, I have no taste for 90's pop, I derive little pleasure in listening to rap. I do like electronica though, but I tend to download the music that those artists create from their own websites. The music is simple and yet has personality.

movies on the otherhand can be boiled down to very black and white for me. I don't bother keeping any of the movies I download, not out of principle, but merely because they take up to much space on my hardrive. The only movies I have left on my computer are anime music video's that I thought were well done, which by the DCMA are illegal to make and distribute.

the reason I can justify "stealing" as you put it is that with everything else in life I can try it "sample it" for free and if it doesn't suit me, I don't buy it.

your refute to my example of clothing can easily be compare to my belief structure. I may not be comfortable all day in the clothes just as I may never watch the movie a second time in spite of my liking it enough to purchase it. some movies are great but hard to watch many times. a good example for me would be the Lord of the rings, I own the extended version, but with it's length I find it hard to watch more than once in a great while.

now as for your question of if the chances of me getting caught were higher. no, no I would not "steal" I would merely just not watch movies made by hollywood. Much like cable TV . instead I am confident that I would watch more independant films that are free released, much like I currently do with underground music.

yes what I do is wrong, I will freely admit that, but it will not stop me and I apparently, much like you, don't find enough immorality to cease doing it. why is the immorality not there? well simply because the analytics is present what we are doing.

 

[AjayM]

yes what I do is wrong, I will freely admit that, but it will not stop me and I apparently, much like you, don't find enough immorality to cease doing it. why is the immorality not there? well simply because the analytics is present what we are doing.

My MP3 downloads dropped after I started dating a girl who had worked in the music industry and gave me a clue as to how some of the inner workings work. Despite popular belief the record companies don't make a whole lot of profit from the music industry (Sony's music business has made around 3% profit per year for the past 4 years). Plus I'm in a position where I can buy a CD if I want it without it hurting me financially, I also go to music stores that will let me listen to the CD before buying it (in the store).

But I will still grab some every once in awhile for various reasons. And with movies, the quality just isn't there for me, so it's not worth it to me.

Andrew

 

[Todd Hochard]

Despite popular belief the record companies don't make a whole lot of profit from the music industry (Sony's music business has made around 3% profit per year for the past 4 years).

Don't confuse profit with revenue, and the fact that "profits" can be, and are, made artificially low by accomodating such things as mansion-sized dressing rooms, full-course catering, daily, for everyone including "cord-wrapper-upper guy," private jets, and accomodations for 100 person entourages. So, in a business so wraught with wretched excess, "profit" is a bit of a misnomer. You won't find Intel or Microsoft doing such things, on such a large scale, and then whining about profits.

Todd- who also has downloaded MP3s, but makes no apologies about what it really is.

 

[Nigel McN]

yeah profit is a bogus measure, when you hear that little movies like Forrest Gump, Schindlers List, never made a profit.

 

[John_Berger]

I've been away too long.

Here's my take. There is far, far more grey to P2P than there will ever be black and white.

Frankly, the "one download always equals one lost sale" attitude in the music and movie industries is complete and utter bullsh*t, as is the concept that making a file available will result in every download being used as a replacement for purchasing the real deal.

Based on what I've read in this thread, we all seem to have generally agreed that making a copy for ourselves is fair use. Why then is it illegal if I download a copy of something that I already own because I'm too lazy to rip it myself or when I have no immediate access to the media that I legally bought? Oh, that's right. Because one download always equals one lost sale.

I buy a DVD and I want to rip it to VCD to watch on my laptop that does not have a DVD drive. I've ripped DVDs for myself before. It takes 8 hours per DVD on my PC and completely dominates my CPU making it difficult to do anything else. Ah, but wait! My DSL connection can have two VCDs for that movie downloaded in less than 2 hours and my CPU won't be getting killed. Again, based on what I've read in this thread, there is a general agreement that this is fair use because I own the DVD. Yet if I want to save six hours of time and I download the VCDs instead, I'm a criminal? Oh, that's right. Because one download always equals one lost sale.

I just downloaded a movie that (A) I've seen in the theaters already, perhaps more than once, (B) is no longer showing in my area, (C) will not be available on DVD for several months, and (D) I already know that I will be buying on the very day that the movie comes out. I might have even pre-ordered it already. Yet here comes the MPAA saying that I just stole money and prevented a sale. WHAT??? Ah, yes. Because one download always equals one lost sale.

What's worse, the movie and music industry has gotten themselves into this situation because they refuse to recognize the potential that this new distribution medium has to actually generate a profit for them. You're damned straight that I'd pay a few bucks directly to the studio for a quality, widescreen rip from a high-speed server! Ah, but then we have to make sure that in typical Hollywood draconian fashion it's locked to being usable only on one specific PC. That certainly kills usability for me, so in implementing their draconian digital rights management, they've lost a sale completely.

Oh, wait! Hollywood already has a movie rental service on the Internet! Yes, for pan-and-scan, VHS quality at a price that in some cases is more expensive than renting the real DVD at the local video and takes more time to download than to just run to the local rental store. And their DRM restricts you to using Internet Exploder (oh, f**king spare me!) and you can only watch it on a single PC. If you live outside of the U.S., you're screwed because you can't even access the site.

Of course, with music the decline in sales has nothing to do with the fact that most music nowadays is totally unoriginal, mostly computer generated, meant specifically to generate profits instead of honor the music, and absolutely sucks rotten eggs with a dash of bread mold, does it? It's all because of piracy. :rolleyes

The simple fact is that piracy cannot be stopped. No matter how inexpensive you make a product, there will always be some loser who wants something for nothing.

But what's not helping the matter at all is that the RIAA and MPAA, rather than take off their blinders and find an optimal solution to take advantage of this new distribution medium, are clamping down on it and making ridiculous business plans ("Well, yes, you can download it as long as you restrict yourself to this, this, and this. We want your right arm as collateral, too.") which is building resentment on the part of the public and can only do more harm than good in the long run.

So, when it comes to the RIAA and MPAA flexing their muscles to stop downloading, they're wasting their time and what's worse is that they're not actually trying to do anything positive to act as a positive replacement. Instead, they're keeping their very narrow-visioned blinders on in conjunction with their very narrow minds by trying to work through negative deterrents. Did you hear that? It sounded like the word "backfire"!

 

[AjayM]

Don't confuse profit with revenue, and the fact that "profits" can be, and are, made artificially low by accomodating such things as mansion-sized dressing rooms, full-course catering, daily, for everyone including "cord-wrapper-upper guy," private jets, and accomodations for 100 person entourages. So, in a business so wraught with wretched excess, "profit" is a bit of a misnomer. You won't find Intel or Microsoft doing such things, on such a large scale, and then whining about profits.

Todd- who also has downloaded MP3s, but makes no apologies about what it really is.

But that's not really the case. Yes there are a few executive's who make a bunch of money, but in the grand scheme of money coming in and out, 3 or 4 guys pulling an extra million or two in a year just doesn't do much. We're talking about a company like Sony which pulls in some 3-4 Billion a year. And there is probably a few to many perks here and there. Things like private jets and such really do save a huge corporation tons of money by way of time.

The music business is a high risk endevour. Next time you are in a music store, take a look at the HUGE amount of CD's that are there, most of them do not make money for the record companies. Think of that side of things as a venture capital company. A record company will "invest" (ie sign) 100 artist's, only 10 of them will make any money and maybe 1 of those 10 will strike it big. Those 10 that "make it" pay for the other 90 who didn't. Then those 90 are cut from the label who then move on to a different label.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the record companies, but it's not all glory and Robin Leech luxury. I think the damn record companies should wake up to at least the 90's here and realize the internet is a very viable source of revenue. And it wouldn't cost them hardly anything to set it up. They could easily charge a buck a song and make money hand over fist with it, since the overhead is incredibly low. Or charge people $25-30 a month to download as much music as they wanted. Imagine for the cost of a couple CD's you could download as much as you wanted. It wouldn't kill off all of the pirating on the p2p networks, but I bet it would significantly decrease it (face it there are always going to be people copying stuff).

Andrew

 

[BrianB]

Imagine for the cost of a couple CD's you could download as much as you wanted.

I don't need to imagine it - I can d/l as much as I like (well, upto 2000 songs) for $9.99 a month from eMusic.com right now

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

No, one download doesn't equal one lost sale.

But our boy here wasn't downloading. He was distributing. Big difference.

Oh, and the 'it's not a lost sale, because I wouldn't have bought it in the first place' argument doesn't hold water; the deal is, product in exchange for legal tender. You have that product; they don't have tender. Therefore, you got something in exchange for nothing, and they're missing revenue.

 

[John_Berger]

But our boy here wasn't downloading. He was distributing. Big difference.

Oh, really? What's the difference, pray tell? If you listen to the RIAA, both will label the person as a low-life, scumbag criminal, yet one can not exist without the other. So, exactly how is there a difference?

Oh, and the "You have that product; they don't have tender" doesn't hold water because there are cases where there is no commercial product available to be used in exchange of said tender; therefore, there is no revenue lost because there is no official product that should have been otherwise purchased.

So, please spare me this argument as it always assumes that there is a viable product out there that someone should be buying instead when that is quite often NOT the case.

 

[BrianB]

So, please spare me this argument as it always assumes that there is a viable product out there that someone should be buying instead when that is quite often NOT the case.

Although it /is/ the case, in this example.

 

[John_Berger]

That is true, and I'm not arguing that particular point; however, it still comes down to a fundamental flaw in the grotesque black-and-white reasoning of those who follow the letter (rather than spirit) of copyright law with respect to P2P when P2P is actually a massive grey area.

 

[MikeAlletto]

But our boy here wasn't downloading. He was distributing. Big difference.

Was he? Doesn't sound like it to me, sounds like he was 'storing'. Just so happens that the side effect is a possible distribution. Which may or may not have happened.

 

[AjayM]

Was he? Doesn't sound like it to me, sounds like he was 'storing'. Just so happens that the side effect is a possible distribution. Which may or may not have happened.

I thought he said he had the file shared. If that's the case he's distributing in the eyes of the lawmakers. All of those programs make it easy to specifically say what you want to share and not share.

Andrew

 

[John_Berger]

Where is the grey area?

Try reading some of my posts earlier in the thread. Then again, it doesn't matter. The law is the law. Every download is just ripping someone off, isn't it?

Oh, by the way .. where can I get the soundtrack from the 1972 movie of "1776"? There is no soundtrack available? Well, then, golly, I guess that if someone makes the music clips available and I download them (even when I own the movie on DVD and laserdisc) then, gosh, I'm just ripping the studio off something fierce, aren't I? Well, I *know* that there's no commercial soundtrack, but since one download is one lost sale and I don't have authorization to have that music file, I'm just breaking the law like crazy here all due to the damned P2P network. {/SARCASM}

**sigh**

 

[John_Berger]

All of those programs make it easy to specifically say what you want to share and not share.

That's why. The only possible argument that I can think of is that he had the file in a subdirectory of the directory that he was sharing and was under the impression that it was sharing explicitly, not recursively, but that's a really long stretch at best.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Bottom line: The copy is no longer for personal use when it's shared to the world with a P2P system, no matter if it's intentional or not, THEREFORE it is being used illegally

 

[John_Berger]

Ah, yes, so anyone who does it needs to be locked away and chained up.

What matters here (or what SHOULD matter) is the intended use and whether or not there is loss and damage to the copyright holders by the distribution of said files.

If someone downloads a movie with the intention of having it replace the need to go to the theater or buy the DVD, then, yes, he's doing something wrong by both the letter and spirit of the law.

But if someone downloads a movie (or any file) with full intention of buying the real thing when it's available or if he already has the real thing but doesn't want to spend the time to make an equivalent file, that is a completely different situation as far as I'm concerned. Yet, there are some with horse-blinders that still see that person as nothing more than someone to whom the book of law must be thrown.

That being said, the notion that making a file availble for public use automatically means that all people who download it have absolutely no fair-use intentions is absurd. It's nothing more than the RIAA and MPAA painting everyone with an enormously broad brush, and I have no appreciation for that whatsoever.

If they share, they're pirates. If they download, they're theives. Damn, P2P users are all just screwed, aren't they?

 

[Ken Chan]

Why then is it illegal if I download a copy of something that I already own because I'm too lazy to rip it myself or when I have no immediate access to the media that I legally bought?

It's illegal because/if the law says so. Is it "wrong"? Maybe not, but the real problem is that someone made the file available for download in the first place. Did that person guarantee that the only people that are downloading it are entitled to do so? If not, then that is definitely wrong.

Besides, just because you buy some media, you are not automatically entitled to have it in every available form. I doubt most reasonable people would deny you the right to use available legal tools to make your own copy on whatever media you want. Tools constantly improve, and this task gets easier and easier. But when you involve a third party because you're "too lazy", then that becomes a transaction of value -- presuming your time and effort has value -- and the equation changes.

Futhermore, artists can and do make limited numbers of copies and/or make them available for a certain amount of time. This is often intended to increase their value. When Disney puts their DVDs "back in the vault", you can't claim that it's OK to copy someone else's because you can't buy it anymore. There is no "lost sale", because it is no longer for sale, but they are arguably losing value. And even if you fully intend to buy a legit copy when they're rereleased, while that's different from outright theft, it's still rationalizing; you missed your chance.

You do not have an inalienable right to all works of art. Sure, you may want them, but (as the man says) you can't always get what you want.

//Ken

 

[Marc_E]

ya know as long as actors are living better lives then me I have absolutely no qualms in shafting them.

We are the one's being shafted by your abuse. DVI and copy protection of HD material ring a bell? HD-DVD delays due to copyright discussions. Digital connections for DVD-A and SACD. All because of Hollywood's concerns about exactly what Evan did. No matter how you want to justify it, it is copy right infringement. I do not give a rats ass if the band has sucked and you don't want to get taken for $20. Don't buy it or ask your buddy who did how it was. You D/L'd a movie you had no intention of seeing. Dude, this is what cable is all about! Haven't you ever said 'wait for it to come on cable' before?
This behavior sickens me. There is no avoiding the reality. It is Illegal. You want to see the movie? Buy it, rent it, borrow it, see it on cable or SHUT THE F*CK UP!

Sorry, this is my biggest pet peeve because Hollywood is turning my 65" HD TV into a paper weight because of this stupid behavior.

Marc

 

[John_Berger]

Sure, you may want them, but (as the man says) you can't always get what you want.

I thought that the man said, "Love is fine for all we know. For all we know our love will grow".

I am simply so tired of those who act like every download is purposefully intended to be a criminal act meant solely to break the law and steal money from the copyright holders. Similarly, I'm tired of the attitude that everyone who makes files available is just rubbing their hands, drooling on their keyboards, muttering, "Oh, please! Download! {growl} I want to be a hardened criminal! {drool} I do so enjoy breaking the law! Why else would I {snarl} be making these file available?"

I'm also tired of the MPAA and RIAA taking their estimated numbers of lost revenue and blaming it all on P2P, but not possibly on any of the lower quality products that they might be putting out. (No! It can't be! It has to be piracy!)

What's ironic is that I don't even use P2P regularly. My whole position on this is strictly on principle. I don't like this mentality that associates 100% illegality with everything involving P2P because it's completely nonsensical.

I'm also very glad to see that there are just so many people on this earth that are oh-so-honorable and unspoiled that they have never and will never do anything that goes outside the rule of law. After all, none of us have ever, EVER gone even one mile over any speed limit in all of our lives, right? Even as a teenager. Rule of law. {slamming fist on desk} No one on HTF does anything to break any law, regardless of what the law covers. We can't do it. Nope, we all lock the cruise control at the speed limit or lower because it's the law and we don't break the rule of law - any law - do we? But we're sure quick to point out when others do, oh boy!

Yeah, right.

(This is a hot-button topic for me, as if you couldn't tell. )