Help solve a Kazaa problem...

djray · Post by **djray** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:45 am

lunchbox's got it!

i do do roms, but music... no.

music is something i'd rather blow my money on... and it's cheaper to me.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:57 pm

Lunchbox wrote: the same reason you and the rest of the DCEmuers download tons of ROM's (which you don't own the original cartridge/board/cd/etc. ) off the net for your emulators. It's way too easy, convienient, and free

Way to make sweeping unfounded allegations against people you don't even know

Wasgo · Post by **Wasgo** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:33 pm

Lunchbox wrote: the same reason you and the rest of the DCEmuers download tons of ROM's (which you don't own the original cartridge/board/cd/etc. ) off the net for your emulators. It's way too easy, convienient, and free

And yet somehow I manage to take the same stance on roms as I do on mp3s. Probably explains why there's only 4 NES games I play...

Lunchbox · Post by **Lunchbox** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:04 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:
Lunchbox wrote: the same reason you and the rest of the DCEmuers download tons of ROM's (which you don't own the original cartridge/board/cd/etc. ) off the net for your emulators. It's way too easy, convienient, and free
Way to make sweeping unfounded allegations against people you don't even know

hey man, tell me EVERYONE here hasn't downloaded ROM's that they don't own and i'll give you a cookie

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:10 pm

Wasgo wrote: And yet somehow I manage to take the same stance on roms as I do on mp3s. Probably explains why there's only 4 NES games I play...

Lunchbox wrote: hey man, tell me EVERYONE here hasn't downloaded ROM's that they don't own and i'll give you a cookie

Lunchbox · Post by **Lunchbox** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:14 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:
Wasgo wrote: And yet somehow I manage to take the same stance on roms as I do on mp3s. Probably explains why there's only 4 NES games I play...

Lunchbox wrote: hey man, tell me EVERYONE here hasn't downloaded ROM's that they don't own and i'll give you a cookie

that's one person out of how many? i said everyone

no cookie for you, have a cracker instead

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:37 am

If *one person* has not broken the law then *by definition* not *everyone* *has* broken the law

Skynet · Post by **Skynet** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:54 am

hey man, tell me EVERYONE here hasn't downloaded ROM's that they don't own and i'll give you a cookie

I agree. I found it very difficult for ppl to say they havent downloaded the roms for something one time or another and they dont own it. especially to all those ppl who seem to bring up S*GAGEN every so often

Lunchbox · Post by **Lunchbox** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 7:34 am

Nyarlathotep wrote:If *one person* has not broken the law then *by definition* not *everyone* *has* broken the law

i'm referring to the majority then, not 100% of the people

MystiK · Post by **MystiK** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:23 pm

So, you're only defense for stealing music is that it's not as good of a quality? Tape and vinyl aren't as good a quality either.
Sharman never used it because it is a paper-thin excuse, much like all the other excuses to pirate. For all of your long-winded post, I managed to break down your entire arguement into one concise statement that loses none of it's original meaning.
So no, that's not a valid reason. Try again.
Why is it ok to steal music?

No thanks. If you out of 10 people consider hopscotch to be gymnastics then it's useless for the other 9 people to explain the definition of hopscotch and gymnastics,compare them and show you it's not the same, because you're mind's set on it already. Repeating the word steal and pirate ? la George W Bush style with terrorism and 9/11 doesnt add much to anti-p2p because people that properly understand the issue know that it isnt anywhere near the same as going into FYE and shoplifting. That's all.

Wasgo · Post by **Wasgo** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:56 am

MystiK wrote:No thanks. If you out of 10 people consider hopscotch to be gymnastics then it's useless for the other 9 people to explain the definition of hopscotch and gymnastics,compare them and show you it's not the same, because you're mind's set on it already. Repeating the word steal and pirate ? la George W Bush style with terrorism and 9/11 doesnt add much to anti-p2p because people that properly understand the issue know that it isnt anywhere near the same as going into FYE and shoplifting. That's all.

In what way isn't it theft? Did you pay for it? Was it given to you? Or, did you take it specifically when the owners, i.e. the record companies, told you not to? Hmm...taking something that isn't yours...wow, that does sound a lot like theft.

So, is photocopying books okay? That loses a lot of quality. Or what about pirate dvds? I know those often lack.

The fact is, the low quality argument is bunk. With all the companies out there selling mp3s, there is a market. You choose not to buy them. That only leaves the unlimited copying argument. And that, has always been true with software. So, unless we're trying to claim all warez should be moral, we've really hit a stumbling point, don't ya think?

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:12 am

MystiK wrote:
So, you're only defense for stealing music is that it's not as good of a quality? Tape and vinyl aren't as good a quality either.
Sharman never used it because it is a paper-thin excuse, much like all the other excuses to pirate. For all of your long-winded post, I managed to break down your entire arguement into one concise statement that loses none of it's original meaning.
So no, that's not a valid reason. Try again.
Why is it ok to steal music?
No thanks. If you out of 10 people consider hopscotch to be gymnastics then it's useless for the other 9 people to explain the definition of hopscotch and gymnastics,compare them and show you it's not the same, because you're mind's set on it already. Repeating the word steal and pirate ? la George W Bush style with terrorism and 9/11 doesnt add much to anti-p2p because people that properly understand the issue know that it isnt anywhere near the same as going into FYE and shoplifting. That's all.

So now your arguement is that because you don't have any physical evidence it's ok? That since the chance of getting caught is practically nil, it's ok?
It is exactly the same as going into a store and shoplifting, you are just cutting out the middle-men.
Let me explain copyright and fair use to you.
Copyright, in its simplest definition, is the right to copy. The right to make reproductions in any form. The right to base other works off of the original.
The copyright originally belongs to the author(s). This copyright can be legally transferred to other people. (Which is why record companies have more copyrights than the artists.)
You are not the copyright holder, ANY AND ALL COPIES YOU MAKE ARE IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT. Regardless of your reasons or excuses, you can not legally make a copy.
Fair Use. Fair Use is an acknowledgement of copyright violation. Let's get that out of the gate first thing. In order to claim fair use, you must admit to copyright violation. No two ways about it. Fair use waives the penalties of copyright infringement to allow for academic research and parodied works. And that's pretty much it. If you aren't copying to learn or to mock the original author/work/ideas expressed in the work, then it's not fair use.

So with that in mind, how is making copies of a song of which you are not the copyright holder for your personal enjoyment an exercise in the fair use clause of copyright law?

(And look, I didn't even use the terms 'pirate' or 'stealing', even though they are at the heart of the matter.)

finite · Post by **finite** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:08 am

Funny, Fair Use DID cover making your own copies for personal non-public usage... until the DMCA. Yay for progress right? Pretty sure it's now illegal in the US to make a backup of a CD, or rip it to your own hard drive... hell, can you even copy a CD to a cassette to play in your car? Probably have to buy the tape version of the album, you know, the one that doesn't actually exist?

To the extent of my knowledge it's still legal to make backups in my country, and I'll exercise that right. But honestly, why bother arguing over whether or not sharing copyrighted mp3s is legal, when you won't even admit that under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, you're not even allowed to rip your own CDs into mp3s for personal use?

And, if I am mistaken in my understanding of the DMCA, why are the forum moderators here locking topics about ripping music from games? How is that ANY different from ripping music from your Nirvana album so you can listen to it in winamp?

The world of copyright is nuts.

Wasgo · Post by **Wasgo** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:39 pm

finite wrote:Funny, Fair Use DID cover making your own copies for personal non-public usage... until the DMCA. Yay for progress right? Pretty sure it's now illegal in the US to make a backup of a CD, or rip it to your own hard drive... hell, can you even copy a CD to a cassette to play in your car? Probably have to buy the tape version of the album, you know, the one that doesn't actually exist?

To the extent of my knowledge it's still legal to make backups in my country, and I'll exercise that right. But honestly, why bother arguing over whether or not sharing copyrighted mp3s is legal, when you won't even admit that under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, you're not even allowed to rip your own CDs into mp3s for personal use?

And, if I am mistaken in my understanding of the DMCA, why are the forum moderators here locking topics about ripping music from games? How is that ANY different from ripping music from your Nirvana album so you can listen to it in winamp?

The world of copyright is nuts.

Under the DMCA you're still allowed to make backups, just not if it requires you to circumvent encryption. So, you can rip cds, just not copy protected ones. But that's where the DMCA and fair use clause overlap, as one says you can and the other says you can't. This typically puts it in a court case decided scenario, which doesn't usually side with the corporations if it's for personal use.

Here though, to avoid potentially legally questionable issues, it's always viewed from the more strict approach (in this case, no circumvention is allowed here.)

And the world of copyright isn't nuts, it's just currently too strongly orientied towards the copyright holder, as groups like the RIAA have too much lobbying power with the government. Give it a few years and it'll go the other way again.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:03 pm

Wasgo wrote: Here though, to avoid potentially legally questionable issues, it's always viewed from the more strict approach (in this case, no circumvention is allowed here.)

Also of course as GDROMs are not readable by PC based CD drives *asa means of copy protection* any 'ripping' of any sort from a GDROM *by definition* needs to circumvent copy protection to be done - which is clearly illegal.

Hooking your DC up to a HIFI and entering a games music selection screen and recording = fine

converting ADX files from a *ripped game* into MP3 = illegal

see the distinction?

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:31 pm

What I meant was making copies from borrowed CD's and downloading stuff from the net. But yeah, personal copies of anything you actually own are Fair Use as well. But there are stipulations to even this as well.

finite · Post by **finite** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:15 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:Also of course as GDROMs are not readable by PC based CD drives *asa means of copy protection* any 'ripping' of any sort from a GDROM *by definition* needs to circumvent copy protection to be done - which is clearly illegal.

Hooking your DC up to a HIFI and entering a games music selection screen and recording = fine

converting ADX files from a *ripped game* into MP3 = illegal

see the distinction?

Yeah, I do now, thanks for the clarification. I was actually referring to the DC audio output to HIFI/PC method, seeing as it's actually the easiest.

I still refer to this as ripping out of habit now. Was just a tad peeved that someone locked a topic on ripping music from the DC when there are perfectly legal methods that exist that don't cicumvent copy protection.

I think the main problem now is that copyright holders, governments and other companies are trying to limit and control technologies that have existed worldwide for decades. It's far too late for that, the technology for distributed illegal activity is here, and it won't be stopped by Palladium/TCPA, or the RIAA/MPAA. Perhaps they should move towards giving the people purchasing electronic products more tangible gains than a shiny plastic disc.

MystiK · Post by **MystiK** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:45 pm

If you all choose to be sycophants of corporate america by all means continue. All i'm saying is Sharman should not be made into the effigy like it has been, especially as it is based outside the U.S and file sharing is not as evil as it has been purported. We all see that people like 50 Cent and Limp Bizkit that endorse file sharing suffer tremendously from slips in record sales and awful copyright infringements right? They're not bothered, but the economic pimp of music artists are overly bothered, because they "protect" the artists. And these fucking hypocrites are the people that certain members of dcemu (the most ironic thing in the world) support.

Lunchbox · Post by **Lunchbox** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:49 pm

bah i hate "fiddy cent" and i'll never support his crappy music

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:59 pm

Well, when you think about that 'shiny plastic disc' is a lot.
As a copyright holder, they are under no obligation to release anything. Just think if a movie really was 'only in theaters'. And it never saw video release. Ever. The only way you could go see it was to go to the theaters.* Or to hear a band, you must attend their concerts. By giving you a copy of their work for private use, they are placing in you a whole lot of trust, and often at a fraction of the cost of the aforementioned theaters and concerts. The industry trusted us to understand and be honest. Unfortunately, we are uncaring backstabbers who think people owe us something for being a customer. Once you complete a transaction, you have gotten your due. It's how the system works. You can't buy something and then demand more for free since you are a 'loyal customer'. I'd suggest you look up the definition of loyalty again.
Art is not about tangible gains, it is not a commodity. I didn't buy Soundgarden's Down on the Upside to get a CD, I bought it to listen to the music. Do you see the difference? I didn't pay one cent for the insert, the booklet, the pressing, or any of that, I paid for the privelege of being able to listen to Soundgarden play the album whenever I choose.

* (BTW, before people start screaming "That will never happen." "That's stupid." etc. realize, this is a hypothetical situation meant to illustrate a larger point and in no way reflects the way I think the world should actually work. So just pretend and think about the ramifications of the situation instead of the technicalities. After all, that's what hypothetical situations are for.)