Skillz4 said:

I agree with you that that's what the internet's about. Sharing information etc... But movies, games, tv shows take time and money... the money's got to come from somewhere...

Anyway, this is a really good thread. Thanks for starting it!

Skillz4 said:

No, it doesn't.



Nothing but the law, that's what burners are for.



So have I. It's merely a copy made so the original is never lost. They also don't monetarily benefit from having multiples.



Does that really matter?

coolcat said:

Basically, yes. The same type of sharing. In that case, you can expect Ford or Chevrolet, etc. execs/lawyers to come pounding on your door. They get no benefit ($) from they're "invention" or "work", so they will come after you.

Also expect there to be a disclaimer to be on the package of that cloning device in bold letters stating not to clone copywritten/trademark objects.

coolcat said:[quote]

Skillz4 said:

To listen to, yes...to download for free, No absolutely not!!!!! I think an artist should be paid for their work no matter what the medium. I'm totally against it 100%. My initial post was about buying merchandise but not having ownership. I'm asking a lot of questions and coming up with analogies to better understand and provoke thought. I keep reading and hearing about this topic and at first I thought there was a double standard between consumers and corporate companies, and others that 'seem' to have more freedom of use with the merchandise.

Initially I didn't understand what the difference.

The only thing that I am against is the monitoring of what internet users do and where they go and what they do download. I pay for every cd that I want. I subscribe to itunes and I pay for the music that I download. I don't believe in getting anything for free at the risk of cheating or hurting another. If the artist wants to give me a cd for free then I'll take it.

So please don't misunderstand my posts. I'm just asking questions and agitating the water. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN RIPPING OFF ANYONE!! I've repeatedly thanked all of you for you information and insight.
[Edited 12/11/07 17:37pm]

Skillz4 said:

I understand. I'm sorry if I sounded antagonistic. I really like this thread and your questions. These questions need to be asked and discussed.

http://www.foxnews.com/st...76,00.html

this sums up what I was talking about that what we buy isn't really ours to use and in this case not even for our personal use.

" You, too, could be sued for thousands of dollars by the major record companies — even if you've never once illegally downloaded music.

That's because at least one lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America, the Big Four record companies' lobbying arm and primary legal weapon, considers the copying of songs from your own CDs to your own computer, for your own personal use, to be just as illegal as posting them online for all to share, according to a federal lawsuit filed in Arizona.

Jeffrey Howell of Scottsdale stands accused of placing 54 music files in a specific "shared" directory on his personal computer that all users of KaZaA and other "peer-to-peer" software could access — pretty standard grounds for an RIAA lawsuit.

However, on page 15 of a supplemental brief responding to the judge's technical questions about the case, the RIAA's Phoenix lawyer, Ira M. Schwartz, states that the defendant is also liable simply for the act of creating "unauthorized copies" — by ripping songs from CDs.

Schwartz is a partner in DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, the family firm of former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, R-Ariz.

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings on his computer," the brief states. "Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the '.mp3' format. ... Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife's use. ... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs."

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," New York lawyer Ray Beckerman told the Washington Post. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

In other words, according to Schwartz's logic, every single person who's ever "ripped" a CD for portable listening on an iPod or other MP3 player could be liable for astronomical damages.

Apple itself estimated earlier this year that only 4 percent of music on iPods worldwide had been purchased through iTunes, implying that most of the rest had been ripped from CDs.

In October, Jammie Thomas, a Minnesota single mother, was ordered to pay the record companies $220,000, or $9,250 for each of 24 songs a jury found she'd shared online.

The RIAA's own Web site is more conciliatory, but implies that the organization reserves the right to go after music "rippers" should it change its mind.

"If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings ... you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages," it plainly states before adding that "transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player won't usually raise concerns so long as the copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own [or] the copy is just for your personal use."

However, Schwartz isn't the only RIAA bigwig who's recently implied that those concerns may be raised more often.

Copying a song you've paid for in CD form is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,'" Sony BMG top lawyer Jennifer Pariser testified during cross-examination in the Jammie Thomas case in early October."


So even if we make a copy of the CDs that we purchased to our own computers for personal use WITHOUT THE INTENT OF SHARING you can still be prosecuted.
[Edited 12/31/07 18:38pm]