how much do you owe? [Archive]

MidnightViper88

22nd January 2006, 23:20

I found Lost to be such a good show, that I bought the Season 1 DVD box set when it came out... :D

Everything else is still subjective, since I've fallen into a money pit tons of times in the past with CDs and DVDs that I'll buy, but then won't like...Download first, figure if it's really worth buying...If not, I'll continue to break the law... ;)

God, I'm such a cheapskate bastard... :p

S-uper_T-oast

23rd January 2006, 00:10

My collection changes regularly. I use to only have about 28 gigs to store stuff on, but I finally bought myself a 100gb USB harddrive for pirated stuff. I think a more accurate way to tell how much I pirate is by saying that I filled it up within 4 days.

ElChevelle

23rd January 2006, 00:19

I don't owe anything.
Nothing illegal in what I've done.

mikm

23rd January 2006, 00:25

About tree fiddy.

/obscure?

billyvnilly

23rd January 2006, 00:41

HAHA, no thats not obscure. and there should be alot of pirates out there that have seen it.

rockouthippie

23rd January 2006, 01:32

Zip, zilch, nothing. Not a pirate in the bunch.

gaekwad2

23rd January 2006, 01:39

The way I see it they still owe me.

dlichterman

23rd January 2006, 01:56

Originally posted by mikm
About tree fiddy.

/obscure?

OMG TEH LOCH NESS!~!!

sgtfuzzbubble011

23rd January 2006, 04:51

The way I see it they still owe me.
Quoted and resized for emphasis.

mysterious_w

23rd January 2006, 07:00

$2k+ is what I owe.

fwgx

23rd January 2006, 07:11

I didn't use the site. but I reckon a shed load.

rockouthippie

23rd January 2006, 10:22

The site was interesting with the statement "Have you ever had that much money?" and would you have spent it on movies and music if you did have it?.

I think that's a valid point. Does piracy really equal lost sales?.

Let's play the devils advocate. You have downloaded all the Star Trek episodes ever made and have them all on DVD-R's.

So lets go shopping at Amazon:

Star Trek the original series $380 retail.

Star Trek the Next generation $520 retail.

Star Trek DS9 $909 retail.

Star Trek Voyager $819 retail

and four seasons of Enterprise at $360.

Total $2988....

1. Who really has $2988 that they would spend on Star Trek?.
2. Who really would?.

I like Star Trek well enough, but I think the right to watch Star Trek is not worth $3000...

And if you did spend the $3000 on Star Trek, wouldn't a backup copy be high on your list of things to do?.

And shouldn't the $3000 entitle you to rip the DVD's for your video ipod or PSP?. Or loan em to your brother?.

Not according to the movie industry.

Bottom line :

Piracy != lost revenue
DRM == nuisance
Money == Staying in my wallet.

Quit wasting money on attorneys and provide products that people will want and can afford.

That's how you make money. This is called missing your price point....

seraphim

23rd January 2006, 15:09

But isn't the fact that so many people DO pirate media give the various industries more power to be jackasses about their products?

ScorLibran

23rd January 2006, 15:28

I woke up on the devil's advocate side of my bed this morning, so...

[devil's advocate mode]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
I like Star Trek well enough, but I think the right to watch Star Trek is not worth $3000...
But isn't that like a guy saying, "I like Ferraris well enough, but I think the right to have a Ferrari is not worth $175,000. So I stole one."

The word "right" is out of place in both sentences above. They are products, and the producers have the right to set whatever price they want for their products. Don't like it...don't buy it. But the question is, if you're not going to buy it, are you justified in "just taking it"?

Originally posted by rockouthippie
And if you did spend the $3000 on Star Trek, wouldn't a backup copy be high on your list of things to do?.
The DMCA allows for this. (Ref: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf)

Originally posted by rockouthippie
And shouldn't the $3000 entitle you to rip the DVD's for your video ipod or PSP?. Or loan em to your brother?.
The DMCA allows for these things as well.

[/devil's advocate mode]

I DL, too. And I think the RIAA is a bunch of wankers. But the distribution and protection of intellectual property is still a tough and intriguing issue. Mainly because it's intangible. "Is it wrong to take a car without permission of the owner?" Of course. "Is it wrong to take some music without permission of the (copyright) owner?" Well......um....

ElChevelle

23rd January 2006, 15:43

I'm deeply offended by the label "Pirate"!

I've got two eyes, no wooden leg and don't own a parrot.

Spaceplay, did you get that package?
I remembered that you may not be able to play it since almost all DVD's in europe use the PAL format while we use NTSC:weird:

xzxzzx

23rd January 2006, 15:59

Originally posted by ScorLibran
The DMCA allows for these things as well. Bullshit.

ScorLibran

23rd January 2006, 16:19

The DMCA allows a wide berth for making personal copies for a variety of reasons...I've had a contract lawyer and a patent lawyer say the same. All you have to do is claim one of these reasons, and then the onus would be on the RIAA (or anyone else) to prove otherwise. System diagnosis and material archival are the big two that anyone can use, but there are some other allowances as well. The DMCA allows for this because its creators aren't seeking to restrict personal use, even copying for personal use...just copying for distribution. This is debatable, but no self-respecting IP hawk would scream about making copies purely for personal use.

After all, a big issue is format. My FLAC decoder doesn't decode CD audio, or MP3s from iTunes, for that matter, so I rip. ;) If copying for personal use were illegal, then MP3 players wouldn't have as much of a place in the world, because there's still a lot of music sold on CD.

And there's never been a law against "loaning" a copy of any copyrighted material to another person. Copying it is what's regulated (hence the term copyright).

In fact, the RIAA probably wouldn't have a problem at all with uncontrolled internet music distribution if downloading meant it were deleted from the source, or uploading likewise deleted it from the source. And I don't believe the DMCA would restrict it either.

Copying. That's the core of the issue. It's also why controlling an intangible product is so much more difficult than material items. Copying and distributing cars or watches isn't very easy. But anyone with a PC and minimal PC experience can copy and distribute intellectual property. In fact, anyone with a cassette recorder can do it as well.

gaekwad2

23rd January 2006, 16:24

Originally posted by seraphim
But isn't the fact that so many people DO pirate media give the various industries more power to be jackasses about their products?
Whatever you do, they'll twist it to their liking:
If you stop buying CDs/DVDs it proves piracy is a problem.
If you continue to buy them it shows that you don't mind DRM and agree with everything the industry does.

fwgx

23rd January 2006, 16:30

Originally posted by ScorLibran
But isn't that like a guy saying, "I like Ferraris well enough, but I think the right to have a Ferrari is not worth $175,000. So I stole one."
No. Because in that instance smoeone has actually lost something- a Ferrari. Noone actually loses anything by copying software. You end up with two identical instances of the same thing. Much the same way as if you copied a Ferrari with a replicator (or something)

ScorLibran

23rd January 2006, 16:30

Originally posted by gaekwad2
If you continue to buy them it shows that you don't mind DRM and agree with everything the industry does.
...or that you can consistently hack DRM, making it as irrelevant as tearing the "federal law" tag off your mattress. :p

ScorLibran

23rd January 2006, 16:31

Originally posted by Phily Baby
No. Because in that instance smoeone has actually lost something- a Ferrari. Noone actually loses anything by copying software. You end up with two identical instances of the same thing. Much the same way as if you copied a Ferrari with a replicator (or something)
Very good point. But losing the product isn't the concern of IP owners. Losing a sale is.

(Also, copying a Ferrari for distribution would be illegal too...a violation of the very same copyright/patent laws, in fact.)

ElChevelle

23rd January 2006, 16:49

CRIPPLEFIGHT!!!

http://img228.exs.cx/img228/4992/503cripplefight5pl.jpg

dlinkwit27

23rd January 2006, 17:19

about 7k in music alone.

DrO

23rd January 2006, 17:28

Originally posted by ElChevelle
CRIPPLEFIGHT!!!

[Image] (http://img228.exs.cx/img228/4992/503cripplefight5pl.jpg) muwhahaha

i'm ~£3k it seems (and that's taking the legal music out as best as i can approximate)

-daz

Mattress

23rd January 2006, 18:00

Originally posted by ScorLibran
irrelevant as tearing the "federal law" tag off your mattress. :p

ouch!

btw I just sorta guessed since I'm at work but I'm somewhere in the 20 thousand range...

fwgx

23rd January 2006, 18:25

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Very good point. But losing the product isn't the concern of IP owners. Losing a sale is.

(Also, copying a Ferrari for distribution would be illegal too...a violation of the very same copyright/patent laws, in fact.) I'd probably say I have had well over 20-30k of software in the past. Believe me, as a student noone's lost any more than £100 because I simply never had the money for these things.

rockouthippie

23rd January 2006, 18:39

Originally posted by ScorLibran
The DMCA allows a wide berth for making personal copies for a variety of reasons...I've had a contract lawyer and a patent lawyer say the same.

But that doesn't include breaking the copy protection to exercise your rights under fair use. It's even illegal to discuss how to do it.

Macrovisioned video tapes started this years ago.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/

ASD5A

23rd January 2006, 19:00

11.64 Dollars
that makes me a saint, doesnt it?

good that they didnt include software :P

SSJ4 Gogitta

23rd January 2006, 19:23

How much did Maya 3 Unlimited, and Windows 2000 Database Server cost?

:D

ScorLibran

23rd January 2006, 19:46

Originally posted by rockouthippie
But that doesn't include breaking the copy protection to exercise your rights under fair use. It's even illegal to discuss how to do it.
It's quite true that breaking DRM is illegal. DRM is a seperate battle from the core of IP protection. It's a "bastard child" of the IP protection campaign, born from desperation.

As for even discussing it...that's a First Amendmant battle that they lose on. It's legal to discuss anything, practically, including how to break into someone's home or build an explosive device. Neither they nor anyone else will restrict what people can discuss. If they had an appropriate NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with a person, then that person couldn't discuss the topic defined in the NDA. But you can't enforce open discussion among people who do not hold national secrets or corporate knowledge that is itself IP.

Trading materials used to break DRM is illegal, however, just as trading bomb materials would be. But discussion is never against the law.

[OT digression...]
Many of us live under the principle of "freedom or death". This country was founded on the idea that when our government becomes corrupt or oppressive, that it should be replaced. So if a law tells me what I can or cannot discuss, then I'll start discussing how to overthrow the government of the United States. (Sometimes treason is necessary. After all, this country was founded by committing treason. Right?) ;)
[/OT digression...]

So to summarize: The act of breaking DRM is illegal. Exchanging with another person materials designed to break DRM is illegal. But discussing any detail of how to break DRM is within the law. (Regardless of some misdirections you'll see to the contrary.)

rockouthippie

23rd January 2006, 20:41

I think all a DMCA lawyer would have to do is pass wind and I'd raise the white flag... so much for freedom of speech...

deeder7001

23rd January 2006, 20:46

i've figured it to be around $5,500.

sgtfuzzbubble011

24th January 2006, 01:23

Just guesstimating how much non-purchased, non-free music and movies I have, I'd imagine that I only "owe" a few hundred bucks. But software on the other hand... I could pay for a new engine/transmission for my truck with that much money. :D

ScorLibran

24th January 2006, 12:51

Originally posted by rockouthippie
I think all a DMCA lawyer would have to do is pass wind and I'd raise the white flag... so much for freedom of speech...
We would only give up our freedom of speech by our own action. Freedom or death.

Anyway, no worries. The ACLU has more, and better, lawyers than the RIAA and all record labels combined will ever have. Then you've got the (even better) private lawyers on our side.

Breaking DRM will never end, although DRM itself may. And piracy is practically unstoppable.

As for what I owe...I've (subsequently) bought almost every CD I've ever DL'ed, and yet much of what I bought (but didn't previously DL) was crap I regretted. The latter outnumbers the former, so they owe me money. Where do I send the bill? (Or do I just own a piece of all record labels, as I do with over 1000 other companies?)

xzxzzx

24th January 2006, 13:51

Originally posted by ScorLibran
It's quite true that breaking DRM is illegal. DRM is a seperate battle from the core of IP protection. It's a "bastard child" of the IP protection campaign, born from desperation. Considering DVDs have "technological measures" against converting the video stream for use on a video iPod, how exactly does the DMCA "allow for" ripping a DVD and putting it on your iPod (unless you're planning on playing the ISO, which I doubt iPods can even do), as even linking to a site which has the tools to do so is illegal?

It's as though I may legally drive a car, but selling a car is illegal, distributing cars is illegal, and referring someone to someone who distributes cars is illegal.

But thank God, I can legally drive a car...

rockouthippie

24th January 2006, 14:05

I could really care less about piracy and I'm not gonna tell anybody that I haven't ever downloaded anything. I haven't saved any of it, because I buy what I want.

I'd gladly give up any way to pirate anything, if they would just not screw with the stuff I bought.

I think everyone has played a bootlegged video game, or downloaded a movie because they were too lazy to go to the video store or ripped a rental DVD to watch it later.

I know the DRM has cost the industry money... mine ... I'd like to go to whoever, download a CD and play it on my non-DRM player.

That's all.... no big conspiracy ... No intent for piracy... No economic impact on the MPAA and RIAA... just a guy that wants to buy and enjoy his music and movies without some big legal threat.

I think most of the "pirates" don't have the money to buy what they download anyway...

To the MPAA/RIAA .... take care of your real customers like me and maybe the lackluster earnings will get better.

I pay Netflix, the cable company etc... and the video store down the road ... and I shop in the local music store ...

What it cost you (**IA and other cooperative powers like Microsoft) so far.

I will not buy Windows Vista.
I will not buy an Ipod.

And I will not buy the new DRM'ed TV standard....

How many thousand is that so far?.

Get a brain... take care of your customer ... me ... figure out a way to deal with pirates without pissing in your own pond.

ScorLibran

24th January 2006, 14:15

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Considering DVDs have "technological measures" against converting the video stream for use on a video iPod, how exactly does the DMCA "allow for" ripping a DVD and putting it on your iPod (unless you're planning on playing the ISO, which I doubt iPods can even do), as even linking to a site which has the tools to do so is illegal?
The only people who can provide such video streams or files are ones legally permitted by the owners of the intellectual property to do so. Those people are generally provided with unsecured instances of the videos by the IP owners.

So the only legal way to get a video on your iPod is from one of these licensed providers.

Originally posted by xzxzzx
It's as though I may legally drive a car, but selling a car is illegal, distributing cars is illegal, and referring someone to someone who distributes cars is illegal.
That would certainly be convoluted. And it's exactly how intellectual property is protected now...by trying to "shape" laws that were written to protect copyrights and patents on material items, to fit intangibles.

The proper solution will be to create new laws to better fit intangible intellectual property. Until then, pirates will be well enabled by those very same lawmakers.

This is also why the DMCA has such huge loopholes to allow for copying for personal use (as long as DRM isn't violated). Because lawyers didn't know better how to address the problem in 1998. Also because not many MP3 players existed in 1998. The current DMCA works well for most consumers, but doesn't really do much to protect IP.

rockouthippie

24th January 2006, 14:22

Originally posted by ScorLibran
This is also why the DMCA has such huge loopholes to allow for copying for personal use (as long as DRM isn't violated).

Since the eventual plan is to DRM everything, I think that idea is moot.

ScorLibran

24th January 2006, 14:28

Then it'll become like speeding. Just as everyone drives over the speed limit with little impunity, everyone can sit at home and quietly use either of the two most commonly used tools to break any DRM in existence.

Incentive for otherwise good people to hack. That's what all this is leading to. Fine with me.

*leaves now to drive 75mph on the Atlanta perimeter*

:p

gaekwad2

24th January 2006, 14:32

Originally posted by ScorLibran
The current DMCA works well for most consumers
In the US (OK, it's a US law, but there are similar (or often worse) ones in other countries), because for some reason most US CDs aren't 'protected' yet (and people generally don't see much need to copy DVDs, since they don't watch them over and over all the time they can as well lend them away (just like books), and until now there was no need to convert them into another format either).

Over here people are not happy.

Cylob

24th January 2006, 15:44

It should work both ways, I want to be reimbursed for every sub-standard track on every CD I own.

When you think about it, releasing the best tracks as singles is fraud, your appetite's been wetted unfairly.

If I was rich, I'd sue Sony (for starters).

ElChevelle

24th January 2006, 17:13

Strawberry jam.

ScorLibran

24th January 2006, 17:21

Originally posted by Cylob
It should work both ways, I want to be reimbursed for every sub-standard track on every CD I own.

When you think about it, releasing the best tracks as singles is fraud, your appetite's been wetted unfairly.

If I was rich, I'd sue Sony (for starters).
You'd have to apply that to everything. I want to be reimbursed by Whirlpool because my refrigerator doesn't have some of the features I expected. I want to be reimbursed by BMW because my car isn't as efficient as it should be. And I want to be reimbursed by Sears because my Craftsman torque wrench isn't as accurate as advertised.

Life's not perfect. We all have to deal with what we get. If you feel you got screwed badly enough, then don't buy anything from that company (/record label/etc) again.

But what's worse about music is it's all SUBJECTIVE. The problems I mention above are empirical; they can be measured objectively. But who's to say what's a good song for every consumer? Because you don't like it you want to be reimbursed...but 500,000 other customers of the same music may disagree with you. So now the company would be dealing with each customer seperately for every issue. No wonder they say, "Aye, piss off."

But here's a solution: Provide samples of all the songs on a CD before requiring any purchase. Amazon.com (and several others) already do this for a lot of the music they sell. I suspect it'll be the norm for every music seller within a couple of years. This coupled with a (big enough) drop in CD prices would curb a lot of piracy.

Cylob

24th January 2006, 17:46

Originally posted by ScorLibran
You'd have to apply that to everything. I want to be reimbursed by Whirlpool because my refrigerator doesn't have some of the features I expected. I want to be reimbursed by BMW because my car isn't as efficient as it should be. And I want to be reimbursed by Sears because my Craftsman torque wrench isn't as accurate as advertised.
True, but you can apply common statistics. When buying an album, by whatever band, the chances are you' won't like every track (the 10/10 discs are the exception).

It's like being forced to buy a gallon of petrol when you only needed two thirds (every time).

If they'd discounted a third of the album and reduced the price accordingly, that'd be fair (and remove cause for resentment). The thing is, it's too late, people's backs are already up.

xzxzzx

24th January 2006, 18:12

Originally posted by ScorLibran
The only people who can provide such video streams or files are ones legally permitted by the owners of the intellectual property to do so. Those people are generally provided with unsecured instances of the videos by the IP owners.

So the only legal way to get a video on your iPod is from one of these licensed providers. So... you agree with me that you're wrong? :weird:

Widdykats

24th January 2006, 19:42

Originally posted by ElChevelle
I'm deeply offended by the label "Pirate"!

I've got two eyes, no wooden leg and don't own a parrot.

Spaceplay, did you get that package?
I remembered that you may not be able to play it since almost all DVD's in europe use the PAL format while we use NTSC:weird:
Uh...:confused:

ScorLibran

24th January 2006, 22:46

Originally posted by Cylob
True, but you can apply common statistics. When buying an album, by whatever band, the chances are you' won't like every track (the 10/10 discs are the exception).

It's like being forced to buy a gallon of petrol when you only needed two thirds (every time).

If they'd discounted a third of the album and reduced the price accordingly, that'd be fair (and remove cause for resentment). The thing is, it's too late, people's backs are already up.
That's why I buy 'em used, for around US$2.00 per CD. That way I can take risks and buy some things on a whim, and still not spend enough to have regrets.

But it's also about whether you like having albums or not. A lot of my collection is album-based rock (read: Pink Floyd ;) ), so I don't do the "per track" comparison so much.

Another solution for people who do is to sample an album, and if you only want four tracks, buy those four from iTunes (or a similar place). You'd pay about 1/4 the price of the CD for just the tracks you want.

(Note that I'm still in devil's advocate mode, here. :) )

Originally posted by xzxzzx
So... you agree with me that you're wrong? :weird:
The DMCA states that you can make copies for personal use (either archival or system testing) AS LONG AS you don't break DRM to do it. Which counts out some CDs and all DVDs, currently.

Not seeing where I was wrong, though. It's still a decent gap offered by the DMCA for consumers in the US, where DRM is rarely used on audio CDs. DVDs are indeed a different story, as I said before.

And again, I'm not saying I don't hack DRM. :p I'm just stating what US federal law says, and how the industry and government might both evolve to better protect intellectual property while not pissing people off so much.

xzxzzx

25th January 2006, 13:48

rockouthippie said:
And shouldn't the $3000 entitle you to rip the DVD's for your video ipod or PSP?. Or loan em to your brother?.and then you said:
The DMCA allows for these things as well.and then I said:
Bullshit. and then you said:
The DMCA allows for this because its creators aren't seeking to restrict personal use, even copying for personal use...just copying for distribution. This is debatable, but no self-respecting IP hawk would scream about making copies purely for personal use.

...

After all, a big issue is format. My FLAC decoder doesn't decode CD audio, or MP3s from iTunes, for that matter, so I rip. ;) If copying for personal use were illegal, then MP3 players wouldn't have as much of a place in the world, because there's still a lot of music sold on CD. and then I said:
Considering DVDs have "technological measures" against converting the video stream for use on a video iPod, how exactly does the DMCA "allow for" ripping a DVD and putting it on your iPod (unless you're planning on playing the ISO, which I doubt iPods can even do), as even linking to a site which has the tools to do so is illegal?and then you said:
The only people who can provide such video streams or files are ones legally permitted by the owners of the intellectual property to do so. Those people are generally provided with unsecured instances of the videos by the IP owners.

So the only legal way to get a video on your iPod is from one of these licensed providers. and then I said:
So... you agree with me that you're wrong? :weird:

And of course, regaurding music, many many new "CDs" (those are not CDs) and all DVD audio disks (which are generally the only way you can get current music that hasn't been compressed to fuck (audio compression, not file compression)) have "technological measures" ...

seraphim

25th January 2006, 14:25

I can't even be bothered with reading all of this. WAY too long. (no, sarge)

ElChevelle

25th January 2006, 14:34

Something that flaws the logic in the calculator:

When downloading, you're also uploading to even more people. So to say that you're only an individual is wrong, you're also a distributor. In my case, I've distributed far more than I've received.

rockouthippie

25th January 2006, 15:06

I wonder if Bram Cohen thought about that when he invented the thing?.

Torrents are a third of the worlds internet traffic, so a lot of stuff is getting jacked. I can see the concern.

There's also another problem. The russians, chinese and some others don't obey our laws. I've seen some russian sites selling albums for a buck an album with direct download. An even better selection of songs than Napster, itunes, etc.

Back before MP3.com was bought out, I did find some obscure stuff, that I went out and bought more of. I never would have even known about some of these bands.

I know small bands play hell now to get a CD pressed, because the duplication guys are afraid of getting sued over mixes and stuff.

Even at the Walmart, I had some trouble getting some photos I took printed. They looked "too professional".

I borrowed a good Nikon digital camera from my friend. After the hassle, I'd wished I'd have used my cheapo Kodak.

When I play public domain Bonanza episodes and Beverly Hillbillies on webranger, I have to chop the 20 seconds of the theme songs off, because the theme music is copyrighted... like that hurt anybody ....

We can't even throw away bittorrent. I saw a filesharing program that was 25 lines of python....

The torrent sites are out of reach of the long arm of the RIAA in russia.... so what to do....

Clog the courts up with lawsuits against private users and demand fantastic penalties?.

What a mess.

sgtfuzzbubble011

26th January 2006, 00:38

seraphim said...
I can't even be bothered with reading all of this. WAY too long. (no, sarge)
Whaaat?... :D

ScorLibran

26th January 2006, 01:45

Originally posted by xzxzzx
...
...
...[all the stuff you quoted]
...
...
Ah, good catch. :) That's what I get for writing 10,000 words in one thread and not remembering all of them. :p

Yes, DVDs can't be copied since it would require breaking DRM. If they were unprotected, then they could be legally copied for personal use.

ElChevelle

26th January 2006, 01:49

I copy porn DVDs for personal abuse;)

xzxzzx

26th January 2006, 17:49

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Ah, good catch. :) That's what I get for writing 10,000 words in one thread and not remembering all of them. :p :p

It's just too hard to play devil's advocate with the DMCA - it really is that bad of a law... :hang:

ScorLibran

26th January 2006, 18:32

Yep. It definitely needs to be reengineered from scratch.

Originally posted by ElChevelle
I copy porn DVDs for personal abuse;)
To abuse something means to not use it as intended. What other purpose does porn serve but to make your keyboard sticky? Are you washing your car with porn, instead?

Wait, nevermind. I might not want to know. :)

ElChevelle

26th January 2006, 19:02

It involves inserting the DVD into inappropriate recepticles.

ScorLibran

26th January 2006, 20:00

If you have a receptacle on you big enough for a DVD, I definitely don't want to know. :eek:

:p

ElChevelle

26th January 2006, 20:17

I meant my toaster:weird:

:p

ScorLibran

26th January 2006, 20:20

Cooking a DVD full of nakedness is definitely abuse of porn.

:) :p

sgtfuzzbubble011

27th January 2006, 00:54

"Sacrilege" is more like it. :P

jaf1230

2nd February 2006, 16:54

I'm disappointed in myself. $17708.43 is my total. I've "borrowed" single pieces of software that cost more than that.

zootm

2nd February 2006, 17:59

Originally posted by xzxzzx
It's just too hard to play devil's advocate with the DMCA - it really is that bad of a law... :hang:
The long and the short of it is that is that any law which acknowledges an act as a right, then effectively criminalises all methods of undertaking that act, is probably a little flawed ;)

ScorLibran

2nd February 2006, 18:34

True. :)

I've never had a problem playing devil's advocate with the DMCA, although it's not even really written like a law. It's more like a thesis, or even a manifesto. Unlike a law, it has no clear scope, criteria nor punishment guidelines for non-compliance.

That's why I stick to the concept of "protection of intellectual property", which is easy to defend, and ignore the fact that the act looks like it was written by a dumber-than-average lawmaker or lobbyist.

:p

ElChevelle

2nd February 2006, 18:59

Here's my predicament:

Downloading=I have no guilt whatsoever and feel it's ok to do:)

Uploading=I feel like I'm screwing the neighbor's wife which I am but I still feel that kind of guilt:(

xzxzzx

2nd February 2006, 19:03

Originally posted by zootm
The long and the short of it is that is that any law which acknowledges an act as a right, then effectively criminalises all methods of undertaking that act, is probably a little flawed ;) Quite. Although technically, if you build the software yourself, for personal use only, it doesn't fall under the DMCA. So there is a way, even if it's like building a car from sheet metal...

Fucking crap. It's laws like this which make me sad to be American. :hang:

Depressing. *Updates sig...* :(