PDA

View Full Version : Illegal..?


TheLambsheadrep
09-13-2009, 10:33 PM
my friend argues this is legit, but idk...

he has fire fox, and has an add-on that lets you download video and music from diff websites. now, media with copyright shouldn't be downloaded (DivX movies, etc.), but since fire fox offers it for free is it your problem or fire fox's, or is it a problem at all?

and i have a program Tunebite that converts media. if i were to convert things like my friend is getting into a different file and then delete the original questionable file, is that ok? if not, im not sticking my neck out for him haha

also, I have Windows Movie Maker and of course WMP standard on my computer. But I think Im noticing skips in some of my music that weren't there before (I noticed this on my parents comp as well, I don't think its the MP3's, how could it be?) when playing them with WMP 11. and when i edit movies with WMM there is an obvious quality loss. What are the best programs to download for both cases?

fed_the_savior
09-13-2009, 11:17 PM
my friend argues this is legit, but idk...

he has fire fox, and has an add-on that lets you download video and music from diff websites. now, media with copyright shouldn't be downloaded (DivX movies, etc.), but since fire fox offers it for free is it your problem or fire fox's, or is it a problem at all?

and i have a program Tunebite that converts media. if i were to convert things like my friend is getting into a different file and then delete the original questionable file, is that ok? if not, im not sticking my neck out for him haha

wut? if you shoot someone is it the gun manufacturer's fault? if you get rid of the original gun does that make it better? you'll have to decide to stick to copyright laws or not, but don't use weak rationalizations

David_Is_Right
09-14-2009, 03:46 AM
he has fire fox, and has an add-on that lets you download video and music from diff websites. now, media with copyright shouldn't be downloaded (DivX movies, etc.), but since fire fox offers it for free is it your problem or fire fox's, or is it a problem at all?

If a website is hosting and distributing material that it doesn't have permission to distribute in this way then it's the website owner's problem, not yours for downloading it. In any case, it's certainly not Firefox's problem.

max
09-14-2009, 06:31 AM
Stop being a ***** and download whatever you want.

This absolutely KILLS musicians and writers. Think about it---why work a year or more on a project. . . for no pay?

I won't do it. Would you?

TheLambsheadrep
09-14-2009, 08:16 AM
This absolutely KILLS musicians and writers. Think about it---why work a year or more on a project. . . for no pay?

I won't do it. Would you?

and yet they, for the most part, are rich and famous and get money from sponsors and concerts.

FedererForehand
09-14-2009, 08:25 AM
It's only illeagal if you get caught!

TheLambsheadrep
09-14-2009, 08:25 AM
wut? if you shoot someone is it the gun manufacturer's fault? if you get rid of the original gun does that make it better? you'll have to decide to stick to copyright laws or not, but don't use weak rationalizations


i see what youre saying,but i think its wrong and i Know thats a terrible analogy. its more like the manufacturer/a middle man gives people guns and says its legal to kill something in particular, and then after you do it the government has a problem. if fire fox (the manufacturer/middle man to the internet) gives me the add-on (the gun) and tells me its ok to download this stuff (ok to kill something), I think the gov or whoever would have a prob with it would get mad at fire fox for allowing ANYBODY to do this. I didnt pay anything for the add-on and im not going thru any loop holes to get the media, its picked up right from fire fox. it would mean the whole add-on is illegal, and do u really think thats the case?

mucat
09-14-2009, 09:28 AM
When you were caught, just say Jesus told you to do it.

mozzer
09-14-2009, 09:46 AM
So why are all popstars so damn rich if they lose SO much money?!?!

It's only illeagal if you get caught!

I lol'd.

random guy
09-14-2009, 10:07 AM
This absolutely KILLS musicians and writers. Think about it---why work a year or more on a project. . . for no pay?

I won't do it. Would you?

I'm a musician and never been happier. The only one that are getting screwed up are major record companies (who keeps doing lots of money). Like Bowie said like ten years ago "Musicians will have to learn to make money the old way, that's touring and performing". The fact that music is now so easily distributed makes that people actually knows a lot more about artist that they'll never have the possibility to know.
Also is always the perverse logic of a brand of a mega company like Sony complaining about piracy and another brand of the same company trying to sell you her new DVD recorder.

max
09-14-2009, 10:17 AM
random; thanks much for your input. I'm in communications and I see very little reason to continue doing many of the projects I would otherwise do.

Power Player
09-14-2009, 10:20 AM
This absolutely KILLS musicians and writers. Think about it---why work a year or more on a project. . . for no pay?

I won't do it. Would you?

It doesn't kill us. It killed us back in 2000-2003, but not anymore. It has made music a lot more disposable and money a lot tougher to find, but you just have to create better music that stands out and gets you fans.

and yet they, for the most part, are rich and famous and get money from sponsors and concerts.

Rich and Famous..thats a good one. So few are compared to the masses out on the road. A lot of my friends including me were signed and now are all dropped artists, and we made decent money, but were not rich or famous outside of our fanbases.

mucat
09-14-2009, 10:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

jonnythan
09-14-2009, 10:25 AM
It's a third-party add-on for Firefox, so it has nothing to do with Firefox.

As for the core issue, it is probably not illegal. It may very well break the terms of service of the website you're viewing the media, but ultimately no one cares and no one can ever know.

Just don't put the clips on Youtube ;)

mtommer
09-14-2009, 11:46 AM
This absolutely KILLS musicians and writers. Think about it---why work a year or more on a project. . . for no pay?


Not really. What it is killing is the current business model built by the music INDUSTRY, not the artists.

Going on tour still represents the majority of dollars earned for musicians, an experience that cannot be duplicated digitally. Even video isn't the same.

TheLambsheadrep
09-14-2009, 11:55 AM
It's a third-party add-on for Firefox, so it has nothing to do with Firefox.

As for the core issue, it is probably not illegal. It may very well break the terms of service of the website you're viewing the media, but ultimately no one cares and no one can ever know.

Just don't put the clips on Youtube ;)

ya, some dude put up a vid how to use torrents and stuff, im pretty sure that stuff is illegal. i know that its not illegal to watch/stream pirated movies and that stuff online, but to download is illegal. he would never download on those sketchy websites that stream videos, but thru this add-on he didnt put 2 and 2 together that he was still downloading the video even tho it was thru a different source. thanks for the help

CyBorg
09-14-2009, 12:22 PM
This absolutely KILLS musicians and writers. Think about it---why work a year or more on a project. . . for no pay?

I won't do it. Would you?

Corporate lies.

Anyway, this is an intensely debated topic and not as cut-and-dry as some businesses present it.

CyBorg
09-14-2009, 12:23 PM
ya, some dude put up a vid how to use torrents and stuff, im pretty sure that stuff is illegal.

It's not illegal. Torrents are not illegal. Certain content is not legal to share via torrents, however.

CyBorg
09-14-2009, 12:28 PM
Not really. What it is killing is the current business model built by the music INDUSTRY, not the artists.

Going on tour still represents the majority of dollars earned for musicians, an experience that cannot be duplicated digitally. Even video isn't the same.

Not to mention that artists are getting greater exposure now than ever, thanks to the free-flowing exchange of information on the Internet. The ones who are losing out are the really rich ones, who are merely going from mind-numbingly rich to somewhat less mind-numbingly rich.

Corporations wish to stifle this exchange and neatly organize all acquisitions of artistic expression on the Internet IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR OWN RULES.

Some restrictions are necessary, but the current restrictions of copyright are extremely idiotic. My thinking on all of this is that until the copyright laws are fixed to fit the reality of our world I will not spend too much of my time worrying about corporate fatcats losing money.

mtommer
09-14-2009, 12:58 PM
Not to mention that artists are getting greater exposure now than ever, thanks to the free-flowing exchange of information on the Internet. The ones who are losing out are the really rich ones, who are merely going from mind-numbingly rich to somewhat less mind-numbingly rich.

Corporations wish to stifle this exchange and neatly organize all acquisitions of artistic expression on the Internet IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR OWN RULES.

Some restrictions are necessary, but the current restrictions of copyright are extremely idiotic. My thinking on all of this is that until the copyright laws are fixed to fit the reality of our world I will not spend too much of my time worrying about corporate fatcats losing money.

The ironic thing about the copyright laws is that the artists do not own the rights to their music. They have to sign them away to the studios as part of their contracts otherwise they do not get the promotion and studio time. The studios are mad because some people found a way to do what the studios do (distribution and even marketing (blogs and such) with the major difference being that those people not from the studios are willing to do it for free.

TheLambsheadrep
09-14-2009, 03:51 PM
It's not illegal. Torrents are not illegal. Certain content is not legal to share via torrents, however.

what about the fire fox questions i had

fed_the_savior
09-14-2009, 08:15 PM
what about the fire fox questions i had

Basically this is the way it works: if the content is copyrighted (video/music/etc.) then copying/duplicating it by any means whatsoever is illegal. You can't find a loophole by saying such and such a program copied it for me, as you are the one responsible to know what the program does. Now, whether I personally agree that copyright laws are all fair, or whether I personally choose to obey copyright laws is another matter :oops:. I think the laws tend to be hard to concretely define and impractical to enforce. Will you personally get accosted by the police for any involvement? It is highly unlikely at this point in time, but there are the rare exceptions.

Terr
09-14-2009, 08:33 PM
This absolutely KILLS musicians and writers. Think about it---why work a year or more on a project. . . for no pay?

I won't do it. Would you?

I for one know that many artists, generally alternative ones, have absolutely no problem with consumers downloading their material because it's free exposure for them.

Mainstream artists who complain about it need to get over it. They're making their millions without the full financial support of their fanbase. You'd think they could just be grateful.

max
09-14-2009, 09:33 PM
Terr: sure, there's always the "Google Corporate Response" of free publicity. . . but at the end of the day, it's sales that matter, since you need cash to eat. Free publicity doesn't buy the bread.

Don't forget that most artists, etc., are not big-time Michael Jacksons. Most musicians I know are living a pretty frugal life to begin with. . . now they're supposed to just give it away?

I won't illegally download as a matter of principle.

TheLambsheadrep
09-15-2009, 09:02 AM
its not illegal to burn someone's CD to your computer, and even if it was how would they know it wasn't your CD to begin with? Companies don't want you acquiring media to SELL, because then they're losing a profit. and cant you just download stuff, burn it to a CD and delete it from your comp so they couldnt do anything? and then (idk about this, just thinking) could you later reburn it to your computer and not have it come back to the original site?

and why do some people get in trouble and some (the majority) dont? like wasnt there that story a while ago about the mom who now owes like 100s of 1000s of dollars to someone for downloading/getting like only 11 songs online?

raiden031
09-15-2009, 09:12 AM
It is NOT illegal to provide tools that allow users to download/distribute illegal music. It IS illegal for a user to distribute or download illegal music using these tools. Also it is illegal for a website to host or process illegal music directly on their servers during these transactions.

In most cases the one distributing the media is subject to prosecution since 1) they are the ones doing the most damage by spreading the music to a large number of people, 2) they are in a better position to determine what is or isn't legal. Its simple, if you don't know that it is legal, don't distribute it!

Sometimes the person who downloads 10 songs gets prosecuted as well, but thats mainly to set an example. Unfortunately I consider this unfair because it should not be the legal responsibility of the consumer to determine what media is legal and what is not. There are millions of music and videos floating around the internet, some is legal and some is not. There is no way to know whether much of it is legal or not if you are downloading something.

Out of fairness, they should leave the consumer alone and go after the distributor, IMO.

TheLambsheadrep
09-15-2009, 09:31 AM
It is NOT illegal to provide tools that allow users to download/distribute illegal music. It IS illegal for a user to distribute or download illegal music using these tools. Also it is illegal for a website to host or process illegal music directly on their servers during these transactions.



so youre saying that as long as the music/video being downloaded isnt illegally online, then its legal to download? but youre also saying a person cant 100% know when its legal and when its illegal? because there are sites that have pretty much DVD quality video, and sites that let u listen to free songs and under both circumstances the fire fox add-on will let you download it, so i dont know what to say

raiden031
09-15-2009, 09:51 AM
so youre saying that as long as the music/video being downloaded isnt illegally online, then its legal to download? but youre also saying a person cant 100% know when its legal and when its illegal? because there are sites that have pretty much DVD quality video, and sites that let u listen to free songs and under both circumstances the fire fox add-on will let you download it, so i dont know what to say

What I'm saying is that these tools for downloading music and videos are likely created with the intention that they will only be used to download music and videos that are legal. However people tend to use them for illegal music and videos. That is not the responsibility of the creator of the tool, but is the responsibility of the users of the tool.

For example, have you ever seen the fancy "tobacco" pipes that look exactly like something used for smoking pot? Sure they are marketed as tobacco pipes but everyone knows what they are really used for.

vandre
09-15-2009, 10:06 AM
who gets the angriest over "pirated" downloads? it's not the musicians or the actors, its the record labels and movie studios. the labels and the studios have more to lose from downloads than the musicians or artists do. the actors have already been paid (probably) so they down care all that much and the band (unless they are HUGE and got a FAT BANK contract like M$tallica) get so few points* off record sales, they probably won't even miss it (most bands make bank touring and get pwned on sales).

*points= percentage of each dollar generated through album sales which goes to the band; for example, tlc i think had a deal which gave them 13 points, or 13 cents of every dollar from sales went to the band. assuming the band sold 500,000 copies (alot of copies in this day and age) at $15 a piece, that means the band/ group/ artist would get $975,000 to split amongst themselves. in tlc's case, t,l and c would each get $325,000 before taxes. that sounds like a lot of money, but that doesn't figure in taxes (which should put you up on the higher end of the scale). on the other hand, the label will take home $65,250,000.

who's really getting hosed by internet piracy?

i don't do it cause my luck i'd be the guy they'd catch and make an example of, but i can't cry for the record labels either.

diredesire
09-15-2009, 01:16 PM
No offense intended, but there is some of the dumbest stuff i've ever heard about copyright infringement, and legality issues in this thread.

I think instead of asking about it on a tennis forum, if you googled for half an hour, you'd have your answers. What you do with your answers is up to you, I'm not going to rant or preach about morality issues. That's on you to figure out.




my friend argues this is legit, but idk...

he has fire fox, and has an add-on that lets you download video and music from diff websites. now, media with copyright shouldn't be downloaded (DivX movies, etc.), but since fire fox offers it for free is it your problem or fire fox's, or is it a problem at all?

and i have a program Tunebite that converts media. if i were to convert things like my friend is getting into a different file and then delete the original questionable file, is that ok? if not, im not sticking my neck out for him haha

also, I have Windows Movie Maker and of course WMP standard on my computer. But I think Im noticing skips in some of my music that weren't there before (I noticed this on my parents comp as well, I don't think its the MP3's, how could it be?) when playing them with WMP 11. and when i edit movies with WMM there is an obvious quality loss. What are the best programs to download for both cases?

You suggest that DivX movies carry some sort of "special" copyright that would suggest you shouldn't download them. This applies for ALL movies (common sense). DivX was largely popularized by pirating and compressing movies for distribution via CD.

Note: Firefox doesn't "offer it for free." It is an extension that runs on firefox, and has no relationship to Mozilla, or "firefox" at all, besides that it is an extension written for the web browsing platform.

This is an added functionality, which I'm sure (at least as described) has no intended use of STEALING copyrighted material, which is what you, or your friend are doing. Getting something you didn't pay for. PERIOD. This thread could end here, but I'll respond to more of the misguided stuff later...

A) You didn't pay for the rights of use for the media. This would mean: You buy a CD, you don't "own" the music, you have the rights to use the CD. You can make back up copies of the CD, and the tracks. You cannot distribute the tracks. You cannot make a copy for your friends, etc. People do it anyways, yeah, whatever. The point is if you are taking songs from a website, regardless of how "free" it was, or available to you it was, it is illegal, unless of course you own the CD in question, in which case you get into a gray area. I don't think it is morally wrong to do so in that specific case (although the law might have something different to say, if you want to nitpick, but I'll be the first to say that some laws don't make sense in our new-fangled digital age).

Tunebite question: It is still illegal. DUH. DUH. seriously, just think about it from a common sense standpoint. The principle is the exact same thing. It is like saying "I got this counterfeit $100 bill, and I am going to photocopy it. Is it still illegal if i use it?"

The skips in your music could be a variety of issues, including poor (lossy) encoding, likely from the poor quality online rips you seem to be keen on getting. This is the subject of an entirely, entirely different thread, so feel free to start it, and i'll help you troubleshoot, but i'm not going to spend too much time on this now (you didn't give any amount of adequate information to help you troubleshoot this anyways...)

It's only illeagal if you get caught!
This is half true, unfortunately. It's still illegal, but it doesn't mean anything unless you "get caught." It is still immoral, though. :)

It's a third-party add-on for Firefox, so it has nothing to do with Firefox.

As for the core issue, it is probably not illegal. It may very well break the terms of service of the website you're viewing the media, but ultimately no one cares and no one can ever know.

Just don't put the clips on Youtube ;)
Oh, it is definitely illegal. You are right about the extension comment, though. The point about "no one caring" is also half true. No CEO/financial advisor is worrying about you as an individual, but someone out there is (supposedly) being hurt by your actions. So yes, it is illegal, to answer the original question.

ya, some dude put up a vid how to use torrents and stuff, im pretty sure that stuff is illegal. i know that its not illegal to watch/stream pirated movies and that stuff online, but to download is illegal. he would never download on those sketchy websites that stream videos, but thru this add-on he didnt put 2 and 2 together that he was still downloading the video even tho it was thru a different source. thanks for the help
Torrents ARE NOT illegal. Distributing copyrighted materials via the torrent protocol is illegal. Google and you will know stuff. Seriously.

It IS illegal to watch/stream pirated movies. Downloading it is also illegal. You are using (and abusing) copyrighted material that you did not pay for. Have you EVER read one of those "FBI copyright" notices at the start of the supposedly not-illegal movies that you're watching? Give me a break. Besides, if you are streaming/watching the video, you're in effect downloading it anyways. Illegal.

Basically this is the way it works: if the content is copyrighted (video/music/etc.) then copying/duplicating it by any means whatsoever is illegal. You can't find a loophole by saying such and such a program copied it for me, as you are the one responsible to know what the program does. Now, whether I personally agree that copyright laws are all fair, or whether I personally choose to obey copyright laws is another matter :oops:. I think the laws tend to be hard to concretely define and impractical to enforce. Will you personally get accosted by the police for any involvement? It is highly unlikely at this point in time, but there are the rare exceptions.
Yes, thank you for posting this. it is illegal. Period. I also agree on your embarrased smiley comment.
I think the digital media age is upon us, and laws will be changed in the future, but as they stand, all of the above is illegal.

diredesire
09-15-2009, 01:17 PM
its not illegal to burn someone's CD to your computer, and even if it was how would they know it wasn't your CD to begin with? Companies don't want you acquiring media to SELL, because then they're losing a profit. and cant you just download stuff, burn it to a CD and delete it from your comp so they couldnt do anything? and then (idk about this, just thinking) could you later reburn it to your computer and not have it come back to the original site?

and why do some people get in trouble and some (the majority) dont? like wasnt there that story a while ago about the mom who now owes like 100s of 1000s of dollars to someone for downloading/getting like only 11 songs online?

Man, talk about the blind leading the blind... it is DEFINITELY illegal to burn someone else's purchased CD onto your computer for your own uses, even if it's "backing up." You don't OWN the music. Yes, it's true, they wouldn't "know" it's not yours, but that isn't the point, nor the original question of the thread. It is illegal. I'll tell you one way they can "find out" if it's yours. They can sue you, and I'd like to see you produce some evidence that you own those tracks, because you don't. Nor would you be able to provide evidence that you are using the files in accordance to fair usage terms.
as far as this gem: "Companies don't want you acquiring media to SELL, because then they're losing a profit. and cant you just download stuff, burn it to a CD and delete it from your comp so they couldnt do anything?"

You really need to read up on copyright law, just google napster (although I have a feeling it was a little bit before your time). Companies don't want you reproducing their copyrighted works, period. It is legal to make personal backups of your own purchased media, but otherwise, you're basically SOL when it comes to the law. It doesn't matter if you have intent to sell or not, you still broke the law and this is fact. If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer :)

If you burned the CD and deleted the files, you still have an illegally obtained copy of the music. (get it, yet?)

"and then (idk about this, just thinking) could you later reburn it to your computer and not have it come back to the original site?"
Yes, but that's not the issue, you seem to have your ideas mixed up. It doesn't matter where you obtained it. It's your usage that is in direct violation.

"and why do some people get in trouble and some (the majority) dont? like wasnt there that story a while ago about the mom who now owes like 100s of 1000s of dollars to someone for downloading/getting like only 11 songs online?"
They have to persecute someone, don't they? The fact that you even know (albeit vaguely) about this case is what they wanted to achieve with this lawsuit: fear. The answer to your actual question is: copyright law is extremely difficult to enforce, and violations are extremely difficult (and not very rewarding for the man hours spent) to pursue. This isn't to say "full steam ahead!" but at least educate yourself before pursuing your goals.

It is NOT illegal to provide tools that allow users to download/distribute illegal music. It IS illegal for a user to distribute or download illegal music using these tools. Also it is illegal for a website to host or process illegal music directly on their servers during these transactions.

Out of fairness, they should leave the consumer alone and go after the distributor, IMO.

raiden, i have a feeling your post is going to be misinterpreted, from what i've seen so far in this thread.

To clarify: the mere existence of that tool that allows you to de-embed media (take MP3s movies, etc) is not illegal. Your usage of it for what you are doing IS. That is basically his first paragraph.

As far as leaving the consumer alone, this is what i mean by laws being out of date, and the target of the law suits really being on the wrong people. I don't necessarily agree 100%, but I do think that major re-working of the law regarding digital media is in order. I'll leave it at that.

so youre saying that as long as the music/video being downloaded isnt illegally online, then its legal to download? but youre also saying a person cant 100% know when its legal and when its illegal? because there are sites that have pretty much DVD quality video, and sites that let u listen to free songs and under both circumstances the fire fox add-on will let you download it, so i dont know what to say

Yeah, that's essentially what he said, although I don't think you completely understand the big picture yet. There is subtlety to "illegally online." Don't assume that videos that are freely available via, say, youtube are legal. A lot of the crap posted is in direct violation of copyrighted material (why do you think the kanye video keeps getting deleted? why do you think some videos have no sound tracks associated with them now?)

The mere existence of this media online does not make it legal. If you are so unsure, DO NOT DOWNLOAD IT. DO NOT USE THE EXTENSION FOR THE WRONG PURPOSES (which is, in essence, exactly what you intend to do with it).



I hope this was clear enough. Actions: Clearly illegal.

Do what you want with this information, I won't claim to be a saint.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 01:49 PM
Man, talk about the blind leading the blind... it is DEFINITELY illegal to burn someone else's purchased CD onto your computer for your own uses, even if it's "backing up." You don't OWN the music. Yes, it's true, they wouldn't "know" it's not yours, but that isn't the point, nor the original question of the thread. It is illegal. I'll tell you one way they can "find out" if it's yours. They can sue you, and I'd like to see you produce some evidence that you own those tracks, because you don't. Nor would you be able to provide evidence that you are using the files in accordance to fair usage terms.
as far as this gem: "Companies don't want you acquiring media to SELL, because then they're losing a profit. and cant you just download stuff, burn it to a CD and delete it from your comp so they couldnt do anything?"

You really need to read up on copyright law, just google napster (although I have a feeling it was a little bit before your time). Companies don't want you reproducing their copyrighted works, period. It is legal to make personal backups of your own purchased media, but otherwise, you're basically SOL when it comes to the law. It doesn't matter if you have intent to sell or not, you still broke the law and this is fact. If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer :)

If you burned the CD and deleted the files, you still have an illegally obtained copy of the music. (get it, yet?)

"and then (idk about this, just thinking) could you later reburn it to your computer and not have it come back to the original site?"
Yes, but that's not the issue, you seem to have your ideas mixed up. It doesn't matter where you obtained it. It's your usage that is in direct violation.

"and why do some people get in trouble and some (the majority) dont? like wasnt there that story a while ago about the mom who now owes like 100s of 1000s of dollars to someone for downloading/getting like only 11 songs online?"
They have to persecute someone, don't they? The fact that you even know (albeit vaguely) about this case is what they wanted to achieve with this lawsuit: fear. The answer to your actual question is: copyright law is extremely difficult to enforce, and violations are extremely difficult (and not very rewarding for the man hours spent) to pursue. This isn't to say "full steam ahead!" but at least educate yourself before pursuing your goals.



raiden, i have a feeling your post is going to be misinterpreted, from what i've seen so far in this thread.

To clarify: the mere existence of that tool that allows you to de-embed media (take MP3s movies, etc) is not illegal. Your usage of it for what you are doing IS. That is basically his first paragraph.

As far as leaving the consumer alone, this is what i mean by laws being out of date, and the target of the law suits really being on the wrong people. I don't necessarily agree 100%, but I do think that major re-working of the law regarding digital media is in order. I'll leave it at that.



Yeah, that's essentially what he said, although I don't think you completely understand the big picture yet. There is subtlety to "illegally online." Don't assume that videos that are freely available via, say, youtube are legal. A lot of the crap posted is in direct violation of copyrighted material (why do you think the kanye video keeps getting deleted? why do you think some videos have no sound tracks associated with them now?)

The mere existence of this media online does not make it legal. If you are so unsure, DO NOT DOWNLOAD IT. DO NOT USE THE EXTENSION FOR THE WRONG PURPOSES (which is, in essence, exactly what you intend to do with it).



I hope this was clear enough. Actions: Clearly illegal.

Do what you want with this information, I won't claim to be a saint.

Everyone burns CD's and **** like that, you do to, and don't deny it.

diredesire
09-15-2009, 03:49 PM
Everyone burns CD's and **** like that, you do to, and don't deny it.

watch the blanked out language, it's not cool, here.

I ended my post with "I'm not a saint."

If you even bothered to read my post, i fully acknowledge that this isn't the issue i'm addressing. Way to rationalize.


Edit: Furthermore, just cause "everyone does it" doesn't make it legal. (which is my point)

raiden031
09-15-2009, 04:01 PM
The mere existence of this media online does not make it legal. If you are so unsure, DO NOT DOWNLOAD IT. DO NOT USE THE EXTENSION FOR THE WRONG PURPOSES (which is, in essence, exactly what you intend to do with it).


99% of the time there is no easy way to determine whether something is legal or not. Thats why I think its unfair to target the downloaders. I mean common sense would say that anything from a major record label is probably illegal, but who can you expect to know this? And I think its too much to say that people shouldn't download anything because they just don't know whether or not they are breaking the law.

diredesire
09-15-2009, 04:27 PM
99% of the time there is no easy way to determine whether something is legal or not. Thats why I think its unfair to target the downloaders. I mean common sense would say that anything from a major record label is probably illegal, but who can you expect to know this? And I think its too much to say that people shouldn't download anything because they just don't know whether or not they are breaking the law.

Can you give me a few examples of when this is really confusing? I am going to have to assume that you are talking about something along the lines of indy bands, or non-mainstream (since you mention the major record labels). This is the target for 99% of the illegal downloads in the first place, so when you're playing on the fringe (and worrying about legality), you're probably much less of a risk than those who are downloading any song they please.

The basic rule of thumb that the OP can take away is: If you don't own it, you don't have any right to download it. (Even procuring the files when you own it is very murky, gray area, but much less of a moral (even) issue).

You, though, raiden, seem to be unhappy with copyright laws (and punishments) because you realize that it doesn't make sense for "blanket cases" like this if you aren't really targeting them. I agree, but IMHO it doesn't really apply for most people. I would say the questionable legal matters are going to be more on the iffy side for those that are exploring more than following new music, which, unfortunately, isn't the case for most people. Downloading that awesome song that you heard on the radio is almost always illegal.

raiden031
09-15-2009, 04:40 PM
Can you give me a few examples of when this is really confusing? I am going to have to assume that you are talking about something along the lines of indy bands, or non-mainstream (since you mention the major record labels). This is the target for 99% of the illegal downloads in the first place, so when you're playing on the fringe (and worrying about legality), you're probably much less of a risk than those who are downloading any song they please.

The basic rule of thumb that the OP can take away is: If you don't own it, you don't have any right to download it. (Even procuring the files when you own it is very murky, gray area, but much less of a moral (even) issue).

You, though, raiden, seem to be unhappy with copyright laws (and punishments) because you realize that it doesn't make sense for "blanket cases" like this if you aren't really targeting them. I agree, but IMHO it doesn't really apply for most people. I would say the questionable legal matters are going to be more on the iffy side for those that are exploring more than following new music, which, unfortunately, isn't the case for most people. Downloading that awesome song that you heard on the radio is almost always illegal.

Why do you assume I am unhappy with copyright laws and punishments? Imagine if you walk into a storefront and see some product on sale at a very low price (or heck even given out for free)...I don't think that it is justified that police could arrest the consumer because the product they bought (or were given) was sold illegally, because they didn't have that knowledge as a consumer.

Your logic assumes that everybody that surfs the web has extensive knowledge of copyright laws. Most people are pretty ignorant about how these websites operate and especially on the legality of digital music, but instead just search for something and unless they are warned that they are breaking the law, they download it. The only reason I knew anything about this is because I was tech savvy and also read all the news articles on the subject back when Napster first came out.

The internet hit us hard and fast and you're right that laws are out of date. But they should take the fair approach and really target the people who would know better, rather than make an "example" out of people who don't know what they are doing. Just because both you and I know that most mainstream music is illegal to download, doesn't mean everyone else does.

TheLambsheadrep
09-15-2009, 04:42 PM
i think its silly that a company would make a product that they know will essentially lead someone to do illegal things and not much else. what about all those people using Frostwire/Limewire?

and tunebite claims to be legal, but i guess the point of what people are saying is "to a point". some things you download online come with a license that prevents it to be transferred or copied, so tunebite can be used for that reason. it also is a really good file converter.

so what are good services for music; Rhapsody, iTunes (which I wont use),etc. if this isnt a good method for music, might as well get it for a cheap monthly subscription. and what about winamp and other media players?

TheLambsheadrep
09-15-2009, 06:00 PM
btw, how does whoever has a problem with you downloading stuff find out youre doing it, since there are multiple ways

TheLambsheadrep
09-15-2009, 06:10 PM
and what about pictures you can save off of Google? i mean, there's images from TV shows and stuff, do those have copyrights?

raiden031
09-16-2009, 07:10 AM
and what about pictures you can save off of Google? i mean, there's images from TV shows and stuff, do those have copyrights?

Thats the point I'm trying to make. When you collectively think about all the images, videos, and music on the internet, its not obvious which are copyrighted. I mean all the time I get on youtube and click on a link that someone posted somewhere and I see a message that the video was removed for violating copyright law. So thats why I think given the way the internet operates, it should be the responsibility of the one posting the media, not the ones downloading it.

But instead these a-holes at the RIAA would prefer to target 18 year old college girls for downloading 10 songs and then sue them for $2.5million.

diredesire
09-16-2009, 11:18 AM
Why do you assume I am unhappy with copyright laws and punishments? Imagine if you walk into a storefront and see some product on sale at a very low price (or heck even given out for free)...I don't think that it is justified that police could arrest the consumer because the product they bought (or were given) was sold illegally, because they didn't have that knowledge as a consumer.

Your logic assumes that everybody that surfs the web has extensive knowledge of copyright laws. Most people are pretty ignorant about how these websites operate and especially on the legality of digital music, but instead just search for something and unless they are warned that they are breaking the law, they download it. The only reason I knew anything about this is because I was tech savvy and also read all the news articles on the subject back when Napster first came out.

The internet hit us hard and fast and you're right that laws are out of date. But they should take the fair approach and really target the people who would know better, rather than make an "example" out of people who don't know what they are doing. Just because both you and I know that most mainstream music is illegal to download, doesn't mean everyone else does.

Maybe i should have said "un-convinced" or "unsatisfied." I assume you are unhappy with the law, because you implied as much, you don't think it's fair that the consumer gets the bad rap if it's unclear (at best) the state of a copyright. As far as the store front issue, people aren't selling stamped CDs, if you got it "very cheap" and it looked dubious (burned, with a sticker on top), I think it'd be pretty obvious. Online it is a similar issue (if we're looking at "purchasable" products, not the youtube videos, etc). If you look at an itunes store, for instance, and you have purchasable media there, and then go off and google the mp3 and download it, it's pretty obvious that you are breaking the law (IMHO).

It gets into the gray-ish areas when you are looking for non-mainstream music (for instance) and are finding new, self-promoted bands with no corporate ties that MAY or may not be distributing their music freely, then, yes, in that case it is rare you have a good idea whether or not if the file is illegally downloaded. Then for sure it can be confusing, and misleading. I stated above that I think that copyright law needs to be revised, so we're more or less in agreement. I just think it's not AS confusing as people make it out to be. Getting something without paying for it is illegal unless it is freely distributed (by the maker)

I don't think my logic assumes any knowledge. If you take a step back from the "confusion" of the internet, and think about intellectual property, I think the situation explains itself. If you wrote a book on your home computer, and sold it as a PDF online, and then found out someone had posted a torrent of your book on the web, and then lost sales as a result, would the people downloading your book be stealing from you? In simple terms (very, very simple terms), this is what is happening.

However, in the situation you stated (someone posts a PDF of your book on their website), someone downloads it. It isn't obvious to the downloader whether or not this is OK. Now, lets say that same person posted a PDF version of the Harry Potter series. Is the downloading party really going to believe that they have the right(s) to use these PDFs?

However, I do agree with you that many, many people are very ignorant about digital media usage rights. I 100% believe that in the next 5-10 years, the way we look at digital media rights is going to be changed in a drastic, drastic way.

Another point, people ARE warned that they are breaking the law. Have you seen a movie in theaters lately? They play ads that go something like "you wouldn't steal a DVD from a store... why steal it on your computer?" (something admittedly very corny). The RIAA lawsuits were 100% scare tactics (and a proverbial warning). I don't think it's fair anymore to claim ignorance about the REALITY of digital media theft. IMHO, people search because it is A) convenient, and B) hard to detect and C) hard to enforce. I think anyone that downloads a free album that they wanted online is thinking to themselves "Man! that was easy, this can't be real, can it??" I find it hard to believe that anyone is downloading/using "pirated" music with a 100% clear conscience.

I fully agree with your final paragraph, though. The lawyers are focusing their attention on the wrong demographic. Also, to be fair, it is rare that the RIAA, MPAA, etc will outright "win" a lawsuit, as compared to the sheer and vast number of lawsuits that were threatened. (This is less true nowadays, as the RIAA is largely "disbanded" vs. how it was, say 4 years ago). The RIAA used scare tactics, and cheap "pay offs" online. They had a system where they'd send you a lawsuit threat, but you could "settle" for an easy credit card payment of $3K to their lawyers. The vast majority of the lawsuits that went to court were eventually thrown out, due to the lack of evidence collected. (The RIAA isn't hacking into anyone's computer, they can get an IP address, but they're cheap, and wifi is free).

diredesire
09-16-2009, 11:19 AM
i think its silly that a company would make a product that they know will essentially lead someone to do illegal things and not much else. what about all those people using Frostwire/Limewire?

and tunebite claims to be legal, but i guess the point of what people are saying is "to a point". some things you download online come with a license that prevents it to be transferred or copied, so tunebite can be used for that reason. it also is a really good file converter.

so what are good services for music; Rhapsody, iTunes (which I wont use),etc. if this isnt a good method for music, might as well get it for a cheap monthly subscription. and what about winamp and other media players?

Just because software CAN be used illegally is a really terrible reason NOT to author it. Tools are tools, and how you use them is up to the user. Before making this sort of statement, think about the wide, wide world, outside of how you use your computer, and media. There are people who buy all their CDs in store, and make backup copies, or digital copies for their convenience. They have that right. Lets say someone buys a zune, and wants to be able to sync their music, and have a home theater experience. for whatever reason, they decide their media format of choice is going to be WMA (lets say they have a weird media center PC). Originally, they ripped their entire CD collection to MP3 format. Should there be NO converter software in existence, simply because the software might be used for illegal purposes? Come on.

This is a basic application of our freedom of speech. Since you seem to be young, P2P software like frostwire/limewire were more than likely built and designed to share files illegally. That I will acknowledge... However, P2P software as a TOOL, has a very real, and very useful place on the internet. P2P software can be used to distribute files quickly and easily, or to share your product(s) (if you were a band starting out in a garage, and you KNEW you were very, very good, you'd want to get your stuff out there as much as possible, offer it free in as many ways as you can!).

Large companies such as ASUS (computer manufacturer) now offer their drivers to be downloaded via P2P. This download/file distribution scheme allows for faster downloads than might be possible from their "mother" website. This is due to the locality of their services, and the limited bandwidth that they can allot. If you really look at P2P, it is a powerful tool that can be used to do really mind boggling things.

Tunebite IS legal. That's why they claim to be legal. It's not "to a point." the software and extension itself is legal, period. The way you decide to use it is what determines the legality of your usage. Tunebite is just a tool, similar to a crowbar. If you decide to use a crowbar to force open a door that is locked, to some place you don't own, YOU have just committed a crime, not the crowbar.

Good software for music: It depends on your usage scheme, and what you want from your service(s). I personally will not purchase any music with DRM, as it isn't fully standardized, and you can get screwed down the road. IMHO, i can purchase the music, but I can never REALLY own it? give me a break. I'll pass. (Like I said, I'm no angel ;))

What is your question regarding winamp and other media players? Recommendations?

Look into VLC player for your general media, Winamp is good, but there are also other utilities such as foobar, etc. Again, they are just tools, so if your question is legality: all legal. (If you were to play 100% pirated music through the players, the software would still be legal, however, your activity would not be) :)

Clear as mud, right?









btw, how does whoever has a problem with you downloading stuff find out youre doing it, since there are multiple ways
Simply put, in 99.99% of the cases, they won't find out. That's why it's so easy to have the attitude of "roddickfan1000" above. Chances are astronomically low that you will ever get caught. Even if you did, chances are further astronomically low that the people pursuing legal action against you will have a substantial amount of evidence against you as an individual. The internet is big, and it is true that not many people understand how it works, especially most lawyers.

and what about pictures you can save off of Google? i mean, there's images from TV shows and stuff, do those have copyrights?
Yes, any form of reproduction of the media that is shown on TV is technically copyrighted. If i took a picture on my digital camera of a rock, it is technically copyrighted by me. If you were to take that picture of a rock, and use it on your website that sells rocks, I could take you to court. NOBODY cares about image usage, which is a pity. However, image usage is a little tricky, if I license my images under the Creative Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons) license, there are certain rights that i reserve and/or waive. (For instance, if i CC licensed the picture of the rock, I am allowing you to use it freely, except in commercial environments (essentially, as far as I understand).

Thats the point I'm trying to make. When you collectively think about all the images, videos, and music on the internet, its not obvious which are copyrighted. I mean all the time I get on youtube and click on a link that someone posted somewhere and I see a message that the video was removed for violating copyright law. So thats why I think given the way the internet operates, it should be the responsibility of the one posting the media, not the ones downloading it.

But instead these a-holes at the RIAA would prefer to target 18 year old college girls for downloading 10 songs and then sue them for $2.5million.
What is you are a HUGE consumer of pirated goods? Lets say I am one of the "downloaders" which you mention above. Lets say... theoretically that I have somewhere along the lines of 7TB of stored data, none of which I purchased. (I'm not saying I do... but hypothetically speaking). Am I more at guilt than the person I downloaded from? What if I downloaded one song from someone that illegally posted it. Lets say that person didn't know any better, and ripped a single song from a CD that they owned? My hypothetical self, a user and abuser should be less accountable?





Side note: I'm probably coming off as very abrasive in my posts, and I have no intention to make anyone feel bad, or dumb, etc. This is just one of those topics that I can talk on and on about, because it is SO poorly thought out (from a law makers POV), and it takes FOREVER for things to get "fixed" here in the US.

TheLambsheadrep
09-16-2009, 11:33 AM
thank you diredesire, this is very helpful. i dont think youre coming off as abrasive, just informative. what i meant by "why would someone put a product out that would mainly have to be used for illegal stuff"(which is what the add-on is sounding more and more like). I mean, if its meant just to download media,and most media online is copyrighted and may not be there legally in the first place, then whats it good for? (its not a converter like u mentioned before like tunebite (which now has a stream+catch option for video on certain sites))

raiden031
09-16-2009, 11:47 AM
What is you are a HUGE consumer of pirated goods? Lets say I am one of the "downloaders" which you mention above. Lets say... theoretically that I have somewhere along the lines of 7TB of stored data, none of which I purchased. (I'm not saying I do... but hypothetically speaking). Am I more at guilt than the person I downloaded from? What if I downloaded one song from someone that illegally posted it. Lets say that person didn't know any better, and ripped a single song from a CD that they owned? My hypothetical self, a user and abuser should be less accountable?


I'm not a consumer of pirated goods. Last time I downloaded any music file from the internet was probably back in 2003, my senior year in college.

I think that there is a difference between someone who occasionally downloads songs and knows very little about the copyright laws, and someone who downloads TBs of data, and probably knows for certain that what they are doing is wrong and illegal. I think both are committing a crime, but the one who downloads TBs of data is worse because they are doing it on a large scale, and are more likely to know exactly what they are doing.

Same goes with someone who is distributing illegal music. Giving out one song is not as criminal as giving out thousands of songs. It should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Just like if you are caught posessing dope, the more dope you have the more you are punished.

My philosophy is that the person who is a distributor has a greater responsibility to understand and obey the law (copyright laws that is) than the person who is a consumer.

So even though it might seem like common sense that a Harry Potter book in PDF format on the web is illegal, how can we make the assumption that everybody knows that? Especially because we don't know if that website has some kind of deal where they are licensing the book and therefore allowed to give it out to web users.

diredesire
09-16-2009, 11:48 AM
thank you diredesire, this is very helpful. i dont think youre coming off as abrasive, just informative. what i meant by "why would someone put a product out that would mainly have to be used for illegal stuff"(which is what the add-on is sounding more and more like). I mean, if its meant just to download media,and most media online is copyrighted and may not be there legally in the first place, then whats it good for? (its not a converter like u mentioned before like tunebite (which now has a stream+catch option for video on certain sites))

Sorry, i forgot that we're talking about two different extensions. Realistically speaking, the software was probably created to ease the access of downloading illegal files. I doubt it was EXPLICITLY created for downloading illegal files, but I imagine that was a large part of the intent. I don't think the intent was malicious, either, just one of the realities of how digital media is distributed nowadays. So to answer your question: it is "good for" downloading files that you want, not that you can legally have :) In the author's mind, it probably really is as simple as that. Make your life easier by getting you what you are likely going to find anyways in an easier fashion.

In essence, I believe the intent of the software is to ease access to media. Note, I don't morally condemn downloaders of illegal files. I'd probably *cough* be a huge, huge hypocrite if I did.

The one thing you should take away from this post is that tools exist because they serve to make a function easier. The function of this tool is (in more or less words) to "de-embed" media for consumption. It is really up to you how strongly you regard copyright law. (Most people don't)

Power Player
09-16-2009, 12:15 PM
It's funny how the software is called TuneBite...lol..kind of obvious.

VLC is the best Media player for sure.

diredesire
09-16-2009, 12:46 PM
I'm not a consumer of pirated goods. Last time I downloaded any music file from the internet was probably back in 2003, my senior year in college.

I think that there is a difference between someone who occasionally downloads songs and knows very little about the copyright laws, and someone who downloads TBs of data, and probably knows for certain that what they are doing is wrong and illegal. I think both are committing a crime, but the one who downloads TBs of data is worse because they are doing it on a large scale, and are more likely to know exactly what they are doing.

Same goes with someone who is distributing illegal music. Giving out one song is not as criminal as giving out thousands of songs. It should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Just like if you are caught posessing dope, the more dope you have the more you are punished.

My philosophy is that the person who is a distributor has a greater responsibility to understand and obey the law (copyright laws that is) than the person who is a consumer.

So even though it might seem like common sense that a Harry Potter book in PDF format on the web is illegal, how can we make the assumption that everybody knows that? Especially because we don't know if that website has some kind of deal where they are licensing the book and therefore allowed to give it out to web users.

Oops, I meant to say "what if!" I applaud you for not being a pirated goods consumer. However, I am actually hoping instead of severely limiting people to simply "not" download music, that the laws and rights management schemes embrace the very, very free flow of media files. I am consumer of "free" media, but I would be happy paying a modest (read: cheap) monthly fee for a service with very high selection and availability. I do believe change needs to take place before i'd even consider this, though. Many "pay for subscription" services are either terribly managed (DRM limitations, no portability of libraries) or the selection is limited.

Yes, I certainly agree with you regarding the difference between the "big, bad" consumers/distributors and the "little guy." However, there is no difference in principle, to me. I agree one person is a more flagrant abuser, but both parties are abusers. I think in general people should be more informed about distributing AND consuming, not JUST distributing. IMHO, the uncertainty of crime(s) committed isn't a valid excuse, because ignorance has never cleared people of crimes in the court of law.

However, I definitely see your point, if you consider the internet more of a "wild wild west" model, it's hard to regulate, and hard for people to know anything better.

I guess I am slightly skeptical of your "levels of accountability" theory, simply because the major abusers (the TBs of data person) is more likely to be willing to pay for a GOOD subscription service rather than the occasional "fill my needs now and get going" user (IMHO). There have been (albeit biased) studies that have shown the people that are more likely to pirate (and are savvy enough to run torrents, etc) are more likely to purchase physical media.

"My philosophy is that the person who is a distributor has a greater responsibility to understand and obey the law (copyright laws that is) than the person who is a consumer."

While I can definitely see where this statement comes from (and I understand the scale in which you speak), by principle, I think this isn't the right way to look at it. Both parties are accountable, although, in this day and age, neither party tends to be accountable (although to be fair, more of the receiving parties tend to get the bad rap). This isn't really a misguided effort on the RIAA/MPAA's side, it's more of an "ease of catching" aspect. Servers (people and computer) are harder to localize and centralize, especially in advanced P2P models such as torrents. It is easy to find, and track downloaders in say, Kazaa or bearshare/limewire. Just set up an account and start sniffing the traffic. The RIAA could set up "honey pot" servers, and the flies that fall into the trap get slammed with the lawsuits. Sucks, doesn't it? So my point here is: It's not necessarily misguided efforts, it's just that it's easier to catch users, rather than distributors. In order for the RIAA to catch a distributor, they'd likely have to download illegal files off of another P2P peer, in which case they'd be breaking the law in order to find out who is sharing (which wouldn't generally hold up in court)

Your point about the Harry Potter PDF is true, we don't know whether or not a site has a license to distribute, but the likelihood of a site getting a licensing agreement for free distribution is astronomically unlikely. But your point still stands, we don't know. However, that doesn't mean that ignorance is a trump card over the legality issue. It's a problem, that is for sure, and i 100% agree. However, it doesn't give you a "get-out-of-jail-free" card, figuratively, or otherwise.