Piracy

[Trolldor]

It's not ludicrous to claim ownership of a song at all, provided you're the author.

The only ludicrous act here is the excessive protectionism they push out to punish legitimate consumers.

[beige]

Yup. A few course books, which I own and have also downloaded from the electronic version in the uni library. PDFs are so much easier to search than printed paper...

Wouldn't those E-library copies have been bought by your university though? And as such, it's not so much piracy as just bought by someone else?

Or does your uni have a stash of pirated books?

[Ronja]

Yup. A few course books, which I own and have also downloaded from the electronic version in the uni library. PDFs are so much easier to search than printed paper...

Wouldn't those E-library copies have been bought by your university though? And as such, it's not so much piracy as just bought by someone else?

Or does your uni have a stash of pirated books?

Well, if I took my book to the copying machine in said library, and took one backup copy on paper, that would be legal, if my memory serves. Likewise, if I scanned in the book (which one also can do with said copying machine) into nice PDFs, and did not share said PDFs with anyone who does not own the book, then that should be legal, too. So I decided that because telling my "hand-made" PDFs from PDFs created by the uni library system is not entirely trivial, and because getting the PDFs out of the library system involves quite a bit of manual work, too (only 20 pages allowed per download), I would "steal" a PDF copy from the library system.

But you are of course correct: not exactly pirating.

[beige]

Well, if I took my book to the copying machine in said library, and took one backup copy on paper, that would be legal, if my memory serves. Likewise, if I scanned in the book (which one also can do with said copying machine) into nice PDFs, and did not share said PDFs with anyone who does not own the book, then that should be legal, too. So I decided that because telling my "hand-made" PDFs from PDFs created by the uni library system is not entirely trivial, and because getting the PDFs out of the library system involves quite a bit of manual work, too (only 20 pages allowed per download), I would "steal" a PDF copy from the library system.

But you are of course correct: not exactly pirating.

Quite inventive. Kudos!

Our library system is a pain, they have all the ebook copies hidden in among the database of normal books. They're all in the same place and now way to filter out the pdf versions and the entries in the database that just link you to a page where you can reserve the physical copies. It confuses the lecturers, they just look for the book with the search and think it's available for download.

Sometimes it's just easy to work through the loopholes.

[Svartalf]

I don't do piracy, but I'm still a massive receiver of stolen goods... all my knowledge of recent series and several movies has come from downloaded material I was given... I don't even have a telly, my dvd play is part of a tower.

[Robert_S]

It's not ludicrous to claim ownership of a song at all, provided you're the author.

The only ludicrous act here is the excessive protectionism they push out to punish legitimate consumers.

If you write a song, you only have exclusive ownership of it until you share it.

The moment you release it, it's a wild meme, which may or may not propagate and mutate. In some societies, we grant a temporary commercial monopoly on the song so that the artists can eat, because we think it's a good thing to have living artists, songwriters, authors and so on. It is not a natural thing we're doing and the rights to the created material are in no way innate.

[Cunt]

It's not ludicrous to claim ownership of a song at all, provided you're the author.

The only ludicrous act here is the excessive protectionism they push out to punish legitimate consumers.

If you write a song, you only have exclusive ownership of it until you share it.

The moment you release it, it's a wild meme, which may or may not propagate and mutate. In some societies, we grant a temporary commercial monopoly on the song so that the artists can eat, because we think it's a good thing to have living artists, songwriters, authors and so on. It is not a natural thing we're doing and the rights to the created material are in no way innate.

There is only one way to truly own a song, in my opinion.
This gentleman seems to, in this moment, have it.

I think it's overall a good thing that artists are given copyright privileges for a little while, but the length of time is far too long. For instance, whoever is collecting royalties for "Happy Birthday" should just fuck off.

Also, what if there turns out to be a 'very best way' to do something with computers, and some asshole has the copyright on it? A few years is sufficient. Far too long in some cases.

[Trolldor]

It's not ludicrous to claim ownership of a song at all, provided you're the author.

The only ludicrous act here is the excessive protectionism they push out to punish legitimate consumers.

If you write a song, you only have exclusive ownership of it until you share it.

The moment you release it, it's a wild meme, which may or may not propagate and mutate. In some societies, we grant a temporary commercial monopoly on the song so that the artists can eat, because we think it's a good thing to have living artists, songwriters, authors and so on. It is not a natural thing we're doing and the rights to the created material are in no way innate.

I think that you should, to some degree, have control over where and how your work is used.
To whit, when Muse sued Nescafe for using their song in a commercial.
By contrast, someone posts a shitty music video on youtube with your song, you're likely to get more interest. But so long as it's your song you should be able to reserve the right to decide how your work is distributed.

[Robert_S]

It's not ludicrous to claim ownership of a song at all, provided you're the author.

The only ludicrous act here is the excessive protectionism they push out to punish legitimate consumers.

If you write a song, you only have exclusive ownership of it until you share it.

The moment you release it, it's a wild meme, which may or may not propagate and mutate. In some societies, we grant a temporary commercial monopoly on the song so that the artists can eat, because we think it's a good thing to have living artists, songwriters, authors and so on. It is not a natural thing we're doing and the rights to the created material are in no way innate.

I think that you should, to some degree, have control over where and how your work is used.
To whit, when Muse sued Nescafe for using their song in a commercial.
By contrast, someone posts a shitty music video on youtube with your song, you're likely to get more interest. But so long as it's your song you should be able to reserve the right to decide how your work is distributed.

My sentiment is that one should have more control over commercial uses, but I'm not sure how that squares with the principles I just wrote.

Relatedly, how does this guy get away with it?

[Cunt]

Girl Talk gets away with what he does because he is fearless about IP rules. (or maybe - just maybe - doesn't give a shit)

Protecting an artists work for their career seems sensible, but protecting 'Happy Birthday' for a corporation for decades after the authors died makes the opposite of sense to me.

We have always built on the work of our ancestors. Whether it is science, music or art, part of what contributes to the current offering is ALWAYS going to be previous work.

Unless of course it is legislated out of usefulness.

[Robert_S]

Girl Talk gets away with what he does because he is fearless about IP rules. (or maybe - just maybe - doesn't give a shit)

Protecting an artists work for their career seems sensible, but protecting 'Happy Birthday' for a corporation for decades after the authors died makes the opposite of sense to me.

We have always built on the work of our ancestors. Whether it is science, music or art, part of what contributes to the current offering is ALWAYS going to be previous work.

Unless of course it is legislated out of usefulness.

But as far as I know, Girl Talk hasn't been sued.

[Animavore]

I haven't bought a CD in years. I iz pirate and I simply don't give a shit. A lot of people would say it is stealing, it certainly doesn't feel that way. I don't even care if it is.

And I've seen a perfect copy of Machete before it came out in the cinema and I'm glad I didn't pay to see it now.

[JimC]

Walk the plank, ye snivelling curs!

Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!

[Svartalf]

And I've seen a perfect copy of Machete before it came out in the cinema and I'm glad I didn't pay to see it now.

Lucky you, was it that bad?

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Shoot the illegal downloaders! It's because of them, I have to listen to Simon Bates telling me piracy is a crime!