AfterDawn: Tech news

German courts don't see file sharing as a serious problem

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 09 Aug 2007 5:38 User comments (51)

German courts don't see file sharing as a serious problem German courts have started a trend that has the music industry up in arms. Calling copyright violation by file sharing a "petty offense", a judge in Offenberg instructed the prosecuter's office not to turn over the data saying the labels hadn't explained how ""criminally relevant damage" could have arisen from the alleged file sharing.
In other words how could the damage have been great enough to consider it a criminal offense?

One thing big entertainment companies don't seem to be willing to admit that there is more than one kind of piracy. While it's clear that all piracy is illegal, no clear connection between individuals sharing files on a P2P network and a significant drop in sales has been established.

In many countries there's a certain level of piracy that's considered a civil, not criminal offense. By definition, civil offenses aren't inherently harmful to society, and therefore often not grounds to release the kind of information in file sharing cases.

There's no question, for example, that Asian piracy rings distributing pirated music and movies in China, the U.S., and many other countries puts a dent in copyright holders' profits, is done for profit, and is a criminal offense. The link between someone downloading and a lost sale is more tenuous, and claims that such a connection exists should be met with a demand for proof - exactly what the German courts seem to be doing.

While US lawmakers have been considering criminalizing instances of copyright infringement that have traditionally been civil offenses, it seems that other courts agree with what file sharers have been claiming the whole time - that no evidence of serious financial damages have been shown.

Source: Ars Technica

Previous Next  

51 user comments

19.8.2007 6:32
hughjars
Inactive

If you're not doing copying as a business for big financial gain
(I don't call doing the occasional copy for a friend or family member who then covers your media costs and offers you with a small sum for 'a drink on them' as thanks 'financial gain') then of course it's a 'petty offence' (if even that).
It's about as petty as it gets.
To pretend that's 'criminal' is IMO simply a grotesque abuse of the law, process and financial clout.

As I suggested in another thread if they started arresting and putting the lawyers and execs connected with these cases on trial for such abuse and malicious wasting of the courts time on this garbage we'd soon see some sense rapidly emerge.

It's only (just) a 'petty offence' because by the absolute letter of (some of) the copyright law - even the most innocent and common-sense use of 'fair use' is strictly speaking against some of the copyright law (although confusingly not against other parts of it).

The point being that the law really is f*cked up and simply does not have the consent of the people (pretty much anywhere) and so is (rightly) just ignored - all over the world.

Unless 'the people' consent to a law it cannot last, it's as simple as that and corporations who might choose to try and ignore this do so at their own peril in the long run.

29.8.2007 7:18
nobrainer
Inactive

@ hughjars

But that's not American capitalist, globalisation is it, surly to sue everyone for the shirts off of their backs, and charge extortionate prices is what is needed!

Capitalist democracy is great, socialists......... i.....i.. mean commies are EVIL and they eat their babies.

39.8.2007 7:47

"Unlike the US—where the RIAA can file a John Doe lawsuit, obtain an ex parte subpoena, and finger the suspected infringer without his or her knowledge of the lawsuit—German law has no provision allowing for civil proceedings to obtain ISP subscriber info. "

I don't want the RIAA to finger me? Sick bastards!

Can't wait for the ISP's to turn over logs to them and there goes half of all internet subscribers.

49.8.2007 9:11

a goverment that allows the MAFIA to sue you, is a goverment that is selling its people.

RIAA: John Smith is stealing the newest of new A.Idol cd
MPAA: yes!, and he´s downloading Scary Movie 25
Goverment: Oh! is that so? ho the f&%/ck he thinks he is? you just give me all his data, i´ll get him to court, and if he doesnt pay you some hard cash, we might even put him in jail
MPAA: Good, now we can make Scary Movie 26 with no worries

59.8.2007 16:23

our reps we put in office is causeing the sucide of america,,riaa etc
are obuseing thier office and WE let them..some one is very right to say how un american (riaa)- we ccitizen of usa would make our reps that
we vote to do the peoples will,,not thier own,,,when ya vote,ask ya self,,who is he for his position or his job,,if ya hier some one to work for you you expect to se YOUR job done ,,not the reps ,,Petty??thing??Yes ..people have fogotten (people power)..it started this country ..But the gov.puts in the FEAR and the people fall apart..
my hats off to the german people,,sound like OLD america..aman dont stand for something!!!!will fall for anything..amen

69.8.2007 17:39

Finally a turn in the right direction way to go Germany. almost makes me want to shoot myself in the foot with my grandfathers Garend. where did Amarica go wrong

79.8.2007 19:04

Originally posted by DXR88:
Finally a turn in the right direction way to go Germany. almost makes me want to shoot myself in the foot with my grandfathers Garend. where did Amarica go wrong
where did you go wrong- well you vote the same ass in year after year after year- abd big co own them- it about time the USA woke up and clean house by voteing them all out and starting new
stop voteing for Rep and Dem
that you problem- a 2 party state never get any where

89.8.2007 19:08

Where did America go wrong - well how about spelling and grammar lessons? Apart from that - I am in total sympathy with all your correspondents' dismay at the way the US justice system seems to be on the side of "big, greedy busines"!

99.8.2007 23:25

Business ends in double s. ;-)

1010.8.2007 9:13

Sweet... an English lesson for free. What was the topic.. oh, yes something about the German law I think.
It's simple... just re-direct everything through servers in Germany... :)

1110.8.2007 13:47
gmontalc
Inactive

German courts don't see file sharing as a serious problem

Finally, there are someone with common sense.

If I have purchased CD's or DVD's and then give it to you, whether in person, by mail or throught the internet. is not a criminal act at all. But if, I make any monetary profit out of it, then it is a criminal act.

RIAA is this explanation easy enough to understand ?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 10 Aug 2007 @ 13:50

1210.8.2007 14:32

... but somehow you don't even have to have monetary profit/gain from what ever you copy (in US).
But, I seem to have a loss each time I burn a DVD/CD...
there is one less in the 100 pack for some reason...
that is a least a loss to me :)

It might "play" but for "who knows" how long... and the CD/DVDs I bought... the shelf life of them can not be much longer if not the same ;)

1310.8.2007 15:36
gmontalc
Inactive

... but somehow you don't even have to have monetary profit/gain from what ever you copy (in US).
But, I seem to have a loss each time I burn a DVD/CD...
there is one less in the 100 pack for some reason...
that is a least a loss to me :)


=====================================================================
response -

I don't think so....You would have it only if you would be the CD's or DVD's manufacture and/or Distributor. tell me, what about those days when did not existed internet, CD, DVD, mp3's and all the digital media, not even the computer itself. People were sharing their music and still the Recording Companies and Artists made millions $ (and still they are making more money than ever).

or, just you or people like you do think just arrive on planet Earth. just an example: watch MTV CRIPS, and you will see musicians that probrably, you will not purchase his/her crappy music, and take a look at their HOUSE, CARS, JEWLERY... so, if the music Insdustries are doing so poorly bad (poor babies) how come they live like Royalties. The recording companies and the artists now days are wealthier than ever.

just an example, Have you watched Simmons Russell MTV CRIPS ?. they have a toilet seat made out of solid gold. hey !...more power to them, but don't come to me asking for more money in every sale, because you're not taking any loss on any sale.

All this crap is happening, just simple...GREED !

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 10 Aug 2007 @ 19:42

1410.8.2007 15:52

I guess what the greedy f***s are really saying is that regardless of peoples file sharing activities making profit or loss individually, it's still a loss to the corporates. For example; Jimmy goes to the store and purchases the latest Die Hard movie and the new Elvis jumbo pack of cd's. He Goes home and shows his purchase to his family. Mammy says "Oh, uncle Joe was saying he wanted to see die hard" and daddy says "yeah, and the guys at work were just today talking about that Elvis pack". So Jimmy says "i'll just burn a few copies so they can all watch the dvd and listen to the music. I know Marks dad would love the elvis collection so i'll burn him a copy too."

So all of a sudden you have (say for arguments sake) 10 people who will be in receipt of dvd's and cd's they all had an interest in. I for one do not go out and buy every song or film i like but i do buy the odd one now and again. If those 10 people did not receive the burned file then maybe they would have purchased the content from the store. It's a numbers game. Not all 10 would have bought the content but maybe 1 or 2 would have. So when Jimmy decided to make those copies for his dads working buddies and everyone else, he ultimately cost the corporation (who hold the rights to the material) a small profit. Multiply that by the quantity of file sharing and burning all over the world from people who intend to make no profit from the activity and then you're talking money.

To put a small twist into this. Imagine you had an internet based family music store where people could pay a small membership fee to download music you had for sale and for which you paid the rights. After say six months of good profits due to smart advertising of the site coupled with excellent prices you start to see that profits are not going as they had been. Sources tell you that members are sharing their log in information with people they know who are downloading the music for free because the membership allows unlimited downloads. problem there is that you are charged 1 cent for every download which means you could be at a loss ouch. If people genuinely kept their accounts to themselves then they wouldn't be able to download a quantity large enough to damage your profit margin. 20 or even 100 people using one monthly membership just might. What do you do? raise your prices of course and do your best to quash the membership sharing by implementing download restrictions and nominal fees per download. That's just a view into the corporate side of thinking. And no, I don't represent a corporate body. I'm a sales rep.

I am not against file sharing or burning. But I see where the corpo heads are coming from. They should be going after the people doing it for profit though and not the file sharers.

1510.8.2007 16:49
gmontalc
Inactive

Sorry, but that's my point - GREED. if you have a product for sale then, why you have to find or allow another sales of point in order to sale the product in order to make profit.

so, the middle man wants profit as well, (You) the manufacture ask to yourself- Uhm.. if middle man sells it in so much $$$, well .. I'll hike the prices too, just because...packaging cost..blah cost me sooo much, expenses blah... , the middle man again hike the prices, (wants to make money, right?)... and all this crap is a roller coaster and by the time the product is on the stores there are like 20 middle man. and in between transportation fees, taxes...and whatever-else fees...ect.

And You, at the other end say... crap, I not buying that expensive crap, I better get it from file sharing...

Like I said in my previous post, not long ago people share their VHS, Music tapes... and none of this were happening. If those Corporates weren't so greedy and cryn' out loud to the RIAA none of this will be happening.

for example, like in the old days; The Recording Companies were the one's who promoted, distributed and sold the Music or the Movies and none of this crap happend.

1610.8.2007 17:01

Originally posted by gmontalc:
Sorry, but that's my point - GREED. if you have a product for sale then, why you have to find or allow another sales of point in order to sale the product in order to make profit.

so, the middle man wants profit as well, (You) the manufacture ask to yourself- Uhm.. if middle man sells it in so much $$$, well .. I'll hike the prices too, just because...packaging cost..blah cost me sooo much, expenses blah... , the middle man again hike the prices, (wants to make money, right?)... and all this crap is a roller coaster and by the time the product is on the stores there are like 20 middle man. and in between transportation fees, taxes...and whatever-else fees...ect.

And You, at the other end say... crap, I not buying that expensive crap, I better get it from file sharing...

Like I said in my previous post, not long ago people share their VHS, Music tapes... and none of this were happening. If those Corporates weren't so greedy and cryn' out loud to the RIAA none of this will be happening.

for example, like in the old days; The Recording Companies were the one's who promoted, distributed and sold the Music or the Movies and none of this crap happend.



without transportation etc, the material product would not end up on our shelves. Yes all the middlemen want to make a profit. would you do it for free? Greed comes into the equasion somewhere but it's also good business sense. Then greed is really only when an entity charges what would largely be considered to be an unfair consistent profit. Then you could argue that if prices were not kept at the high levels for a rreasonable period of time, more consumers would wait for the price drop before making a purchase which eats into profit margins and jobs etc etc. I suppose the rel question to ask yourself is this; "Am i right to do this because I think they are greedy?" But if one has no morals then imagine how much worse things can get.

1710.8.2007 18:49
gmontalc
Inactive

man,.. you're trying very hard to make a point.

where is very obvious that everybody wants to cash-in the big buck as soon as possible.

If you are too young for not to know or too old for not to remember; the one's who started all this RIAA fiasco was or were, I don't know if they're still together or broke up, I don't even care... the heavy metal band METALICA drummer, at that time that band was so huge that the media was comparing the band as the best ever Led Zeppelin ( I will not mention his name, because is not worth to mention) So,... people were sharing and downloading like crazy METALICA music. Now,... the drummer (yes, that guy) complaint to the media and the guy sued a lot of downloading-sharing servers and even took them to the Supreme Court Of The United States....was the Big Bang News Super Nova - the News were all over the Media... CNN, on every TV channel... to make you the story short. GREED...,please read - METALICA "Napster Controversy" at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalica


Before all that happend, downloading-sharing and Internet Access was FREE !, and many companies allow you even to have your own website for free !. that was the internet boom, many people made themselve millionares. like for example Mark Cuban. if you do not know read his BIO at Wikipedia.

The END

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 10 Aug 2007 @ 19:59

1810.8.2007 19:15

to make you the story short. GREED...

couldnt agree with you more,

if you want to get more proof of this i qote you a news article on this very site

Quote:
the RIAA feels that they are no longer receiving the benefits due to them for allowing radio stations to play their music for free.
Quote:
For at least 70 years, radio stations have been allowed to broadcast music of their choosing without the need to provide royalties to the recording industry or its artists. The agreement originally made between the two groups was an arrangement of free advertising and viewed as a necessary expense to get new and current artists noticed in the music community.

so the very people who made the recording industry viable on the first place, now that the internet rules the world are being spit on their faces

there is a very popular saying here in mexico(maybe its also known somewhere else, i dont know, please dont complaint or flame about this)

he who nurses crows, gets his eyes eaten

aprox translation, sorry to mexican or international culture experts :p

sorry here's the link to the original news

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/10276.cfm
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 10 Aug 2007 @ 19:19

1911.8.2007 0:52

Finally some common sense, and I hope other European countries take Germanys lead (although I doubt it). The point is that the large record companies in the past made disproportionate profits for the products they sell, and are now crying because they can't buy as many yachts and whores as they used to. The artists were always the main losers getting tiny percentages for their art. Now the tables have turned, artists make most money from performing live and the big style record companies are becoming extinct. Lets face it EMI et all were never music pioneers. All they did was hijack quality artists from the small indy labels (usually diluting the music in the process), and pumping out trashy pop(boy bands, mariah carey etc). The indipendent labels will always survive as they are not afraid to experiment and actually have quality art to sell.

2011.8.2007 2:31

Originally posted by gmontalc:
man,.. you're trying very hard to make a point.

where is very obvious that everybody wants to cash-in the big buck as soon as possible.

If you are too young for not to know or too old for not to remember; the one's who started all this RIAA fiasco was or were, I don't know if they're still together or broke up, I don't even care... the heavy metal band METALICA drummer, at that time that band was so huge that the media was comparing the band as the best ever Led Zeppelin ( I will not mention his name, because is not worth to mention) So,... people were sharing and downloading like crazy METALICA music. Now,... the drummer (yes, that guy) complaint to the media and the guy sued a lot of downloading-sharing servers and even took them to the Supreme Court Of The United States....was the Big Bang News Super Nova - the News were all over the Media... CNN, on every TV channel... to make you the story short. GREED...,please read - METALICA "Napster Controversy" at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalica


Before all that happend, downloading-sharing and Internet Access was FREE !, and many companies allow you even to have your own website for free !. that was the internet boom, many people made themselve millionares. like for example Mark Cuban. if you do not know read his BIO at Wikipedia.

The END

No. I don't think i'm trying hard enough. You see, I'm not disagreeing with you at all for the the greed part of what you say. In fact I know it's greed which drives the very people you are hammering on about. I'm just trying to show the logical side of the argument in which they (the greedy people) depend on in the simplest terms. By putting yourself in their shoes it makes it easier to understand the whole process.

For me it sometimes boils down to the moral question of it. "am i doing something wrong". If i "file-share" and I am on the receiving end of the file I realise that I am not purchasing that material and the owners would not wish me to have that material without me paying a fee. In essence it's theft regardless of how petty it is. Again, I have downloaded a thing or two in this way so this is not a moral bash, I am guilty of it too as most of us are.

I guess the question I have for you is; If you had a small record company and label and a couple of up and coming bands/artists would you be so happy if tens of thousands of people were downloading and/or file sharing the material for free in the knowledge that you are in fact losing thousands upon thousands or dollars/euros/pounds in the process?

Regarding

2111.8.2007 5:27

Quote:
For me it sometimes boils down to the moral question of it. "am i doing something wrong".
For me it sometimes boils down to the moral argument of:

They can go f%^ck themselves!!!

They've done nothing, for anybody but them in the past, they go suing dead grannys, single moms, etc etc, even when they know they cannot for sure tell who is sharing and who's not, they dont hessitate for a second, as well as they havent hessitated for putting root kits on my computers.


Quote:
f you had a small record company and label and a couple of up and coming bands/artists would you be so happy if tens of thousands of people were downloading and/or file sharing the material for free
we are talking about the RIAA there is nothing small about them, and thats precisely the point, they're so huge they could spare a couple of bucks on theyre products, still they want you to spare them som hard earned cash, since you want so bad some of their junk, for the common John Doe there is not even a bit of morality on the question of whether to download or not, its actually hughe Piracy Rings who kick them real hard, for example, in Mexico City people dont know a thing about filesharing, not even what kazaa was, still, they know that in theyre own neighborhood there are about 20 bootleggers, who will sell you a movie for 6pesos, 11pesos = 1dollar, so you know, this are the real bad guys, and not in any little way, usually this business are ran by big time Gangs, druglords and some has stated that even kidnappers, since its a great way of making money out of almost nothing
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 11 Aug 2007 @ 5:29

2211.8.2007 5:37
hughjars
Inactive

Originally posted by gmontalc:
the one's who started all this RIAA fiasco was or were, I don't know if they're still together or broke up, I don't even care... the heavy metal band METALICA drummer
- LMAO!

Yeah, who remembers these multi-millionaire jerks sitting by their (massive) mansion pool-side whining about how people doing a little sharing was costing them their livlihoods?!

I used to like Metallica until that point, but I lost all respect for them after that.
Just another bunch of idiotic rich a$$holes who got lost with the sheer excess, corruption & greed of it all and went totally stupid & fake.

.....the fact that they did it for real and couldn't even see the ludicrous absurdity of it all just spoke volumes about what they had become.
Corporate shills of the worse and most lauughable order.
Very sad stuff.

Originally posted by gmontalc:
at that time that band was so huge that the media was comparing the band as the best ever Led Zeppelin
- Yeah right, they wish.

Originally posted by goz83:
If i "file-share" and I am on the receiving end of the file I realise that I am not purchasing that material and the owners would not wish me to have that material without me paying a fee. In essence it's theft regardless of how petty it is.
- The big deal here is that the US 'industry' wants to 'ringfence' so-called 'intellectual property' as if it were exactly the same as physical property.
Well sorry but it isn't and never will be.

They seem terrified of losing control of past invention and patent that we are seeing a ridiculous attempt to preserve copyright and extend it way beyond anything sensible or workable.

Thankfully Europe is saying 'get stuffed' more and more to this nonsense.

Sharing is not "theft" no matter how much folks want to try and spin it otherwise.

We all know this from growing up as little kids.

The most likely outcome of sharing is another sale (which is the key element about sharing that the industry steadfastly ignores.)

The scale of the sharing is also interesting here.
You illustrated your point with 'Jimmy' copying and sharing to at least 10 people.
I can tell you that I have done 2 copies of material for family this year and taken one copy of a DVD I might be interested in.

On several previous occasions a burnt copy has encouraged me to go out and buy the retail version of the item.

......and on others it has saved me the cost and bother when I didn't like the product
(which is another element to this the industry chooses to ignore.....and I suspect this is the bit that really frightens them).

In other instances I am copying what I already own - but any concept of 'fair use' is utterly alien to the business despite the fact that I already contributed royalties (in some instance several times as I have bought vinyl LP, cassette tape and CD).
They are amazingly silent about this one, imagine my suprise.

In fairness some companies are starting to attempt to adjust and adapt but even here their pricing bears no relation to any sane consideration.....and it's also simply of no interest to me that various 'middlemen' suffer because I now pay for many of the overheads involved in producing the physical media at home that I might make, the world changes and I owe them no more a living than they me......or us gaslamp lighters or chimney sweeps etc etc.

Originally posted by goz83:
I guess the question I have for you is; If you had a small record company and label and a couple of up and coming bands/artists would you be so happy if tens of thousands of people were downloading and/or file sharing the material for free in the knowledge that you are in fact losing thousands upon thousands or dollars/euros/pounds in the process?
- I've yet to see the emerging artist that doesn't want their art as widespread as possible regardless of profit.
Such is the long long history of the struggling artist and all that.

That's possibly a major problem you just high-lighted right there; lack of real and actual artists and too many talent-free wannabes who imagine it's their route to guaranteed riches.
In other-words all about all the wrong reasons.
Too many talentless oafs are being lured in on the promise of riches and don't like the idea that maybe the reason why their dross does not sell is 'piracy' or 'sharing' - and it looks like the industry loves to con it's actual & potential share-holders with such excuses (not that they are doing anything but making big profits, still).

Similarly it is widely acknowledged that 'the industry' now has no interest in 'growing' talent as once it did and seeks a quick buck on various short-lived fads
(boy 'bands', girl 'bands', gangsta etc ......almost all of whom are practically guaranteed to be able to actually play nothing whatsoever and sound exactly like everything anyone every heard before).

It's also worth noting that in an attempt to escape the old suffocating and (frankly in many cases clueless) 'traditional industry' the 'free download' kind of approach is exactly what several new artists are now doing.

The root of this IMO is a change from the old way and the new; naturally the old seeks to protect itself as best as it knows how.

.... but it seems pretty obvious that it's sheer insanity for an industry to be actively turning their name to sh*t and making themselves objects of derision and contempt as they threaten their own target audience, that's surely hardly the way to go about things.

The music and movie industry lost the plot long ago, the only issue now is whether they are honest enough with themselves (for often they are either the same companies making the copying hardware & media or are heavily connected to them) and recognise the new realities of the market they themselves have helped create.

2311.8.2007 8:39

Rich Ignorent Associates of America- did i sum it up about right

2411.8.2007 10:05

Originally posted by c1c:

I don't want the RIAA to finger me? Sick bastards!
What kind of fingering are we talking about...LOL

2511.8.2007 10:41

Quote:
Originally posted by gmontalc:
the one's who started all this RIAA fiasco was or were, I don't know if they're still together or broke up, I don't even care... the heavy metal band METALICA drummer
- LMAO!

Yeah, who remembers these multi-millionaire jerks sitting by their (massive) mansion pool-side whining about how people doing a little sharing was costing them their livlihoods?!

I used to like Metallica until that point, but I lost all respect for them after that.
Just another bunch of idiotic rich a$$holes who got lost with the sheer excess, corruption & greed of it all and went totally stupid & fake.

.....the fact that they did it for real and couldn't even see the ludicrous absurdity of it all just spoke volumes about what they had become.
Corporate shills of the worse and most lauughable order.
Very sad stuff.

Originally posted by gmontalc:
at that time that band was so huge that the media was comparing the band as the best ever Led Zeppelin
- Yeah right, they wish.

Originally posted by goz83:
If i "file-share" and I am on the receiving end of the file I realise that I am not purchasing that material and the owners would not wish me to have that material without me paying a fee. In essence it's theft regardless of how petty it is.
- The big deal here is that the US 'industry' wants to 'ringfence' so-called 'intellectual property' as if it were exactly the same as physical property.
Well sorry but it isn't and never will be.

They seem terrified of losing control of past invention and patent that we are seeing a ridiculous attempt to preserve copyright and extend it way beyond anything sensible or workable.

Thankfully Europe is saying 'get stuffed' more and more to this nonsense.

Sharing is not "theft" no matter how much folks want to try and spin it otherwise.

We all know this from growing up as little kids.

The most likely outcome of sharing is another sale (which is the key element about sharing that the industry steadfastly ignores.)

The scale of the sharing is also interesting here.
You illustrated your point with 'Jimmy' copying and sharing to at least 10 people.
I can tell you that I have done 2 copies of material for family this year and taken one copy of a DVD I might be interested in.

On several previous occasions a burnt copy has encouraged me to go out and buy the retail version of the item.

......and on others it has saved me the cost and bother when I didn't like the product
(which is another element to this the industry chooses to ignore.....and I suspect this is the bit that really frightens them).

In other instances I am copying what I already own - but any concept of 'fair use' is utterly alien to the business despite the fact that I already contributed royalties (in some instance several times as I have bought vinyl LP, cassette tape and CD).
They are amazingly silent about this one, imagine my suprise.

In fairness some companies are starting to attempt to adjust and adapt but even here their pricing bears no relation to any sane consideration.....and it's also simply of no interest to me that various 'middlemen' suffer because I now pay for many of the overheads involved in producing the physical media at home that I might make, the world changes and I owe them no more a living than they me......or us gaslamp lighters or chimney sweeps etc etc.

Originally posted by goz83:
I guess the question I have for you is; If you had a small record company and label and a couple of up and coming bands/artists would you be so happy if tens of thousands of people were downloading and/or file sharing the material for free in the knowledge that you are in fact losing thousands upon thousands or dollars/euros/pounds in the process?
- I've yet to see the emerging artist that doesn't want their art as widespread as possible regardless of profit.
Such is the long long history of the struggling artist and all that.

That's possibly a major problem you just high-lighted right there; lack of real and actual artists and too many talent-free wannabes who imagine it's their route to guaranteed riches.
In other-words all about all the wrong reasons.
Too many talentless oafs are being lured in on the promise of riches and don't like the idea that maybe the reason why their dross does not sell is 'piracy' or 'sharing' - and it looks like the industry loves to con it's actual & potential share-holders with such excuses (not that they are doing anything but making big profits, still).

Similarly it is widely acknowledged that 'the industry' now has no interest in 'growing' talent as once it did and seeks a quick buck on various short-lived fads
(boy 'bands', girl 'bands', gangsta etc ......almost all of whom are practically guaranteed to be able to actually play nothing whatsoever and sound exactly like everything anyone every heard before).

It's also worth noting that in an attempt to escape the old suffocating and (frankly in many cases clueless) 'traditional industry' the 'free download' kind of approach is exactly what several new artists are now doing.

The root of this IMO is a change from the old way and the new; naturally the old seeks to protect itself as best as it knows how.

.... but it seems pretty obvious that it's sheer insanity for an industry to be actively turning their name to sh*t and making themselves objects of derision and contempt as they threaten their own target audience, that's surely hardly the way to go about things.

The music and movie industry lost the plot long ago, the only issue now is whether they are honest enough with themselves (for often they are either the same companies making the copying hardware & media or are heavily connected to them) and recognise the new realities of the market they themselves have helped create.
I give up. you're too busy arguing to actually acknowledge what i'm really saying.

2611.8.2007 14:25
gmontalc
Inactive

-- " goz83 " --

- It is unacceptable what you're trying to say, because your point of view are on the side of Big Corporate Companies interest fat wallets. Are you one of them ? -

NOTE: After the original "master recording", thereafter anything and everything it is consider been a COPY(s), so actually what you are buying is a copy and rights of ownership. So, After I have purchased my copy I have "the right" to do whatever I pleased with it.

How many times I have purchased a CD or DVD did not like it and gave it away or throw it away. Now, who will tell me not to.

If I would be an artist, musician or whatever,.. I will be really glad and happy that people would share and download and Re-share and Re-download my material for FREE!. WHY ?, very simple, I would have save on Advertising...thousands, millions $$$$.

I would legalized and register Copyrights of my unique name, group-Band or material so others cannot profit from Re-recording, Playing or Transmiting or Re-transmitting, these Copyrights practice will apply not only in the USA will aplly for all over the world. (this practice is not new) when I'll be famous, of course my income will come from Interviews, Video and Films Recordings, Presentations, Concerts, TV Appearances, Photograhs, Magazines... you name it ( also, this practice is not new). This way I would have not to depend or been slaved by Corporations, but my "RAW recorded material" will be FREE! and will be only available for downloads on the Internet for the entire world. -- free Advertising ---

--- perhaps, many of you will disagree --- I know our brains are wired differently.

Some of you will ask, well from where these companies wil get all the money in order to pay you. Well, the answer is... these companies or business will get their income from Advertisments which from those Ads, will generate all kind of different demand(s) and from demands equals money. (this method of acquiring capital is not new)

But in reality things are the way around,...The group-Band plead - please Corporations; Make Me Famous Fast, Make Me Rich Fast and Faster, because I have to get my BLING's, BIG HOUSE's and my LAMBORGHINI's, I will do anything you want me to do !.-- The Corp's give them the money under signing contract for so much $$$$. The Corp's are putting themselve in a capital loss, now... they have to gain that money back and make profit also, right?. so, after a little while the group-Band are not doing very well on CD sales, not so much profit in concerts either, people are not so excited on buyin', the fame has wash out - remember to keep on top of fame cost money -, this is happening not because people are ilegally downloading, just because the group-Band,...SUCKS. At this point the Big Corp's are pissed off. fired the group-Band and complaint to the RIAA where's my MONEY ?, I want it back! - and RIAA responds - OK, let's lawsuit, who has the Copyrights?

The Big Corp's cannot sued the group-Band, because the Recording Company has the master recording copyrights and if the group-Band have the master recording is because are legally filed for the Artists Copyright(s). --- Let me see...Uhmm, WHO can we lawsuit... Oh, yeah... I know... John Doe-Boy, Sussie, Markie... have downloaded Copyright material, Let's go and get them !.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Aug 2007 @ 11:03

2711.8.2007 18:28

shhhhh. i hear a tumble weed i'd rather listen to.

2812.8.2007 5:52
hughjars
Inactive

ooops triple post, wow!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Aug 2007 @ 5:54

2912.8.2007 5:52
hughjars
Inactive

Originally posted by goz83:
shhhhh. i hear a tumble weed i'd rather listen to.
- Er, yeah, great.

Not exactly the best attitude to have around here, these are supposed to be debating and discussion boards afterall.

Nevermind, you can support the corporations & their nonsensical attiudes to 'property' and 'theft' - oooops I meant 'play devils advocate', of course :P - some other time, eh?

3012.8.2007 5:52
hughjars
Inactive

ooops double post

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Aug 2007 @ 5:53

3112.8.2007 6:38

Quote:
Originally posted by goz83:
shhhhh. i hear a tumble weed i'd rather listen to.
- Er, yeah, great.

Not exactly the best attitude to have around here, these are supposed to be debating and discussion boards afterall.

Nevermind, you can support the corporations & their nonsensical attiudes to 'property' and 'theft' - oooops I meant 'play devils advocate', of course :P - some other time, eh?



I think it may be you with the attitude. you say this is a place for debate? well in order to have a debate with someone or a group, people must listen or read what the other person/people are actually saying. but then i said that I gave up (ending the debate) because it came across to me that you weren't really taking on board what I was saying and preferred to twist it round and stake false claims that I am connected with the corps. you were too busy arguing rather than debating. So.... end of debate. Thank you.

3212.8.2007 11:18
gmontalc
Inactive

I see where you're coming from, your point is that the Corp's are loosing profit, because...

==================================================================
goz83 (Newbie) 10 August 2007 19:52

If those 10 people did not receive the burned file then maybe they would have purchased the content from the store.

===================================================================

answer me this:

gmontalc (Newbie) 10 August 2007 19:36

what about those days when did not existed internet, CD, DVD, mp3's and all the digital media, not even the computer itself. People were sharing their music and still the Recording Companies and Artists made millions.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Aug 2007 @ 11:19

3312.8.2007 12:09
hughjars
Inactive

The idea that the music or movie industry has been making losses is a flat out lie.
IIRC they have rarely been so profitable (generally speaking).

They appear to imagine that every burned copy is a lost sale and they conjure up astronomic numbers of 'losses' to wave at people......which is just lying BS
(as well as a denial of any sense of 'fair use' or 'managed copy').

But the truth is that the alternative to a burned copy is (in many if not nearly all cases) to not bother at all,
in other words there was never the chance of a sale, ever, and therefore there can be no imagined 'loss'.

Of course the current fad in the USA is to blur the distinction between physical good (like say a car) and this kind of 'intellectual property.
But if you were to ask for a weekend test of their 'intellectual property' to see if you actually liked it and thought it worth buying they'd turn you down flat.
Some parallels can only be extended so far, huh?

People can travel around in circles till they disappear up their own a$$es over this if they like but it makes no odds, 'the people' won't have this nonsense (practically the world over).

The Germans (like much of the EU) are just, for now, being honest, realistic and reflecting the views of 'the people', not business.
Of course 'business' can't abide this and will use every legal avenue to attack the consumer's interests and make our interests subservient to theirs.
Crazy.

.....but then there can be no surprise in that, they are after-all nutter enough to actually pursue this through the courts and to threaten their own customer base over this BS.

3412.8.2007 12:33

No that was not my point. One of my main points was that in most cases of a "shared" or "Burned" copy it's petty theft because the recipient or the instigator has not purchased the material. I wasn't really delving into profit and loss as a point of view. But since you bring it up, most of us (countries and the people within)are wealthier now than before the age of the cd, dvd and indeed the internet. And if the average person was earning (for arguments sake) 15,000 US Dollars in the early eighties. Would you say 15,000 US Dollars has the same value today? The answer is no. Inflation is one reason for that. So if the record companies and corporates were making milllions back then, would it not be fair to say that if they are only making millions now that they are in fact at a loss?

Things have become more expensive and you'd be pushing very hard to buy a jelly for a penny these days. I don't know what kind of figures these companies are really making and I don't really care but the fact is that they are losing some potential profit [b]due to fille sharing and burning. people will continue to do it and I say let them. But they have to be willing to pay the consequences if they get caught. If you genuinely think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing/burnng then we have both had our say and should agree to disagree.[/b]

3512.8.2007 13:39

haha, i love it, this something we feel so passionately, so manny loooooooooooong comments

3612.8.2007 15:04

Germany doesn't see file sharing a problem? I totally agree with them since Germany doesn't have any problems with people downloading content from their country. Ooooo someone is downloading Ramstein illegally ha!



3712.8.2007 15:04
gmontalc
Inactive

For the matter of this debate is a very serious topic,

goz83 - QUOTES: - "in most cases of a "shared" or "Burned" copy it's petty theft because the recipient or the instigator has not purchased the material"

Answer: How many times I have purchased a CD or DVD did not like it and gave it away or throw it away. Now, who will tell me not to. Also I have made a copy or rip into my playback equipments.

Have you done this?, are you considering this is a petty theft?

Hughjars Answers: Of course the current fad in the USA is to blur the distinction between physical good (like say a car) and this kind of 'intellectual property. But if you were to ask for a weekend test of their 'intellectual property' to see if you actually liked it and thought it worth buying they'd turn you down flat.

goz83 - QUOTES: - "So if the record companies and corporate were making millions back then, would it not be fair to say that if they are only making millions now that they are in fact at a loss? "

Answer: (that quote is totally out) FACT -- They were making millions then and are still making millions now, the only fair game is empty your wallet.

goz83 - QUOTES: - "I don't know what kind of figures these companies are really making and I don't really care".

Answer: That is the purpose or agenda of Governments, Companies, Beauros, Corporates, Agencies …etc, Is to hide any information away from everybody. More so if you don’t care, you’re giving a "green light" for them to be greedy, fraudulent and do whatever they want. Without your vote or consent.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 13 Aug 2007 @ 17:48

3813.8.2007 13:15

if you buy it and then give the original/physical/purchased copy away it is not theft. if you copy it and then give away either original or copy i consider it a form of theft by duplication.

lets say you have purchased "the matrix" 3 disc collection and your friend says he's gonna buy the set. but you decide to make a copy and give it to him. that's a sale lost almost for sure. getting my point? fine, these companies are making a killing in profit but we can either buy the stuff or not. the alternative is to steal. there is no in-between. the only thing i agree to is making a back up copy to keep incase one copy is lost or damaged or stolen.

3913.8.2007 14:50
gmontalc
Inactive

- " goz83 " -

Your comments are like rubber bands. You disagree and contradict with your own statements, at the same time agreed. on every post you're using the "IF"

(eg)... If that is true, what should we do?...

Put in jail or fine everyone and everybody that is susppected doing it? (like a NAZI's STATE), you know how many of billions of $$$ the State will lose?. Do you have the big buck to pay a Lawyer that will fight against the multi-billion US dollars Industry?, come on now, "IF" for every insignificant situation(s) you've pointed as a petty theft, then everyone (we all in this planet) with no exception are liars, thieves...etc.

- " goz83 " - if you buy it and then give the original/physical/purchased copy away it is not theft. if you copy it and then give away either original or copy i consider it a form of theft by duplication.

Answer: - Corporates, Recording Companys and Artists do not even care what you do with your purchased merchandise UNLESS, you're making any kind of PROFIT from it. then and only then Corps and such will be taken $$$ LOSS.

example. - The money that you're using as such is a property of the State of the country you live in. Now, IF I give you (as a gift) some money and you take it and then spend it on whatever, THAT make you a petty thieve?... at same time the salesman where you made the purchsed, he/she is a petty thieve?.... NO !... ONLY will be a crime or a loss for the State "IF" someone counterfit the money.

These whole thing about Corps and such, having economic losses is only a hidden agenda, it is a making believe, They're affraid to do business any other way, just because they would not make much money as they want to. New technology is here to stay and people has enough imagination to use it and develop it.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 13 Aug 2007 @ 17:41

4013.8.2007 15:37

I use the word "if" because I am presenting non-factual representative examples and and "if" you werent so busy thinking you were right, you might actually consider what i'm saying. And take your time, it's difficult to understand you when your grammar is so messy.

It would not be theft if you were to give me money because it is something you have earned and are entitled to spend or give as you wish. I don't see where I am being contradictory. It is only logical to agree that by reproducing a copy of work (whether it be a copyright protected photograph or dvd) and giving it to someone else is a violation of the agreement of purchase and carries potential loss for the rightful owners of the work.

Yet another example would be "IF" you painted a picture or took a photograph and sold the reproduction rights to an advertising agency for their local magazine with the understanding that you would receive a royalty of 10 cent per copy produced which included a royalty if the image was used on the internet. Now "IF" you saw that image being used by another agency or any other company or individual body can you honestly say you would be happy about it. Especially knowing that you would not receive any royalty for the use of that image? Lets say it becoes one of the most popular images to be used on the internet. Nobody would want to purchase resale rights from you because everyone is already using the image. Would you be happy?

One might have more sympathy for the individual or smaller company but at what point does it become ok to steal from those companies? Maybe when they make their first million? Or Maybe it's ok because they charge so much for their products?

It's a well known fact that the smaller companies are usually more expensive so why not just screw them over?

And lets face facts. for as long as people can copy or "file share" as people more conveniently like to call it, there will be people making an illegal profit from it. I certainly cant see an end to it but it doesn't make it ok either.

Maybe next you'll agree to someone sharing your wife? As long as there is no profit of course....

It certainly wouldn't be theft. But how would you see it? Assuming you're married that is, or atleast have a girlfriend or boyfriend if you prefer that side of the fence.

4113.8.2007 17:25
gmontalc
Inactive

it's poinless, nevertheless, you have no point, you're only tryn' to disagree for whatever...


gmontalc has quoted:---

Quote:
Not long ago people shared their Vinyl LP's, VHS, Music Tapes... and none of this were happening. If those Corporates weren't so greedy and cryn' out loud to the RIAA none of this will be happening.

These whole thing about Corps and such, having economic losses is only a hidden agenda, it is a making believe, They're affraid to do business any other way, just because they would not make much money as they want to. New technology is here to stay and people has enough imagination to use it and develop it.


German courts don't see file sharing as a serious problem
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Aug 2007 @ 16:27

4213.8.2007 17:34

They (german court representatives) do however acknowledge that it is a problem. Every point I have put to the forum is logical and hopefully understandable to all with english. I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I acknowledge tha corporate greed is in itself wrong and immoral and the driving force of it's business. But I wonder if any of us would refuse to stake a claim for that kind of cash regardless of the greed it derives from. I would rather be greedy than dirty.

4317.8.2007 17:47

All this should be in the privacy act of every country around the world and these private information should not be given out to no one no matter who the hell they are.

4419.8.2007 6:47

I agree boran. Nobody should be accessing peoples records for such petty theft and they should remain private and confidential unless a more serious matter arises.

4519.8.2007 12:03
gmontalc
Inactive

PLEASE READ these...

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/10752.cfm

And this...

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/10747.cfm

-- goz83 -- Is good to see that you're one of us NOW !. Please don't be greedy, because your self being will be dirty.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Aug 2007 @ 16:41

4619.8.2007 16:03

Originally posted by gmontalc:
PLEASE READ these...

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/10752.cfm

And this...

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/10747.cfm

-- goz83 -- Is good to see that you're one of us NOW !. Please don't be greedy, because your self been will be dirty.

I ask that you get a life.

4719.8.2007 16:52
gmontalc
Inactive
4820.8.2007 6:06

no. i don't want to read it. good day.

4920.8.2007 13:27

GMON, goz83, they are both valid point that you have, but its simply this RIAA has control over media world wide. and some people dont under stand that the pressures of money use is very tight in any contry but its just that. im a middle class person and very close to being a lower class person. however this class line is so strecthed right now that theres not much deffrince between middle class and basicly bieng poor,. by the time bills are paid the food on the table i dont have enough money to puchase any 10-15 dollar cd-dvd.
becoase the defacto of gas and other such things as tools for the job. i drive a good 33miles to work in an older vehicle but you get the point.

5020.8.2007 20:35

I said good day!

hahahahahahahaahaha

thats so Fez!
hahahaha

way to many that 70`s show for you goz83 hahahaha

and Now!!!

Good day :p

5121.8.2007 10:10

how about you blow me? sound better?

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive