Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco67
You can really tell who downloads their shit for free, and wants to make up any silly argument they want to rationalize theft. The bottom line is, if it goes in your ear, you should have the integrity to pay the artist. Just because something is copyable doesn't mean you can twist things around to make it any different than another commodity which is paid for.
The difference between a digital record album and a tshirt is, stealing the album won't get you arrested.
People steal digital music because they can. If anyone has ever created anything artistic(that includes porn) and has wanted to be paid for it, they would do the same for other artists. The majority of people just fucking consume, consume, consume. Of course they are going to steal it if there are no consequences. Its human nature.
---and I know this case about her sharing over peer to peer network. Same as theft. It's giving access to other leeches, so its just as bad as downloading from rapidshare or torrents, even if you originally ripped it from your own CD collection. If you've paid for a CD, you can copy it a million fucking times, as long as you don't give it away to a million other people that could have paid the artist for his works.
You pro-downloaders will twist things and go round and round forever with semantics.
|
this court case itself was responsible for striking down that bullshit arguement.
making available != infringement any more.
The first appeal established that fact now, that why it went from 1700 infringement to only 24.
Those 24 will disappear too as soon as format shifting is extended to network aware applications too (like RPVR).
if called fair use, understand it about the USE of the technology, not the NATURE of the technology.