• RIAA sues "Popcorn Time For Music" service Aurous
    121 replies, posted
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48916096]It seems like you get a hardon from accusing people you disagree with of shit all the time.[/QUOTE] You've yet to create counterarguments that actually respond to the point proposed by the person you are responding to. You could have replied to a very well thought out post by catbarf just above me, but instead you applied no effort at all.
[QUOTE=Asgard;48900224]demanding millions in damages[/QUOTE] did the RIAA crunch any amount of numbers before coming to this conclusion or ????? [QUOTE=Asgard;48900224]We will not allow such a service to willfully trample the rights of music creators[/QUOTE] "yeah so lets sue an app dev for millions we'll never get, but if we [I]DID[/I] get it lets never actually give any to the music creators instead giving 20% to our "lawyers" and keeping the rest for ourselves. i have fourteen brain cells!!" [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] i'm against the notion of piracy being a criminal offense despite its classification as such, but the way the RIAA is going about this is a textbook example of kneejerk stupidity. [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] like just hand out a c&d if it's illegal for christ sake.
[QUOTE=Qaus;48916706]i'm against the notion of piracy being a criminal offense despite its classification as such[/QUOTE] Why?
[QUOTE=catbarf;48914797]:rolleyes: I like how we go through this same sequence, like, three times in the same thread. 'omg wtf how can the RIAA do this this is an illegal lawsuit' 'no, the website is illegal' 'no it's not!!1!1!' 'yes, it's illegal, here's why' 'well the RIAA is still ~evil~ anyways' Yes, the RIAA is terrible. So's Wal-Mart. You'll still get arrested if you steal from Wal-Mart. The fact that Wal-Mart is terrible does not justify illegal actions against them. Aurous, if the allegation that they use pirate trackers is true, commits copyright infringement, which is illegal, making this is a totally justified lawsuit. Them's the facts. And this is why sometimes we have to [B]bold[/B] and [I]italicize[/I] the point, because otherwise you miss it by miles. Like how he pointed out that your argument at this point is 'piracy is ok and aurous is legal because the RIAA is a bunch of dicks', when that argument doesn't fly for any other sort of crime, like stealing from a store because you don't like how they treat their employees- and you want to quibble on the utterly irrelevant fact that copyright infringement isn't traditional theft. Whether you want to call it 'digital theft' or just plain old copyright infringement instead doesn't matter to me, but 99% of the time when people object to the term 'theft' being applied to what is fundamentally an act of unlawfully taking something without permission, it's because they want to euphemize it with a different term that doesn't make it obvious that it's an illegal and harmful act.[/QUOTE] It's not digital theft though. Because it's not theft.
[QUOTE=CjienX;48916920]It's not digital theft though. Because it's not theft.[/QUOTE] Funny how after being all 'the RIAA encourages you to sign contracts and that's [b]extortion[/b] and then they take royalties and that's [b]theft[/b]' you're now objecting to the apparent inaccuracy of calling illegal piracy 'theft'.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48917009]Funny how after being all 'the RIAA encourages you to sign contracts and that's [b]extortion[/b] and then they take royalties and that's [b]theft[/b]' you're now objecting to the apparent inaccuracy of calling illegal piracy 'theft'.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that 'theft' implies that the original owner no longer has the stolen object. That is very much not the case with piracy. [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] Like, digital theft would involve something closer to breaking into someones server and removing files.
That's conveniently making a semantic argument to avoid responding to the point. Theft in digital terms, the most commonly accepted terms socially, and the accepted legal definition in digital goods, has the same principle as with physical goods: Acquiring something from the legal rights holder without giving them what they demand for it. CjienX is quite literally wrong and is refusing to respond to points that criticize his own, instead making up ways to avoid answering the challenges to his statements. In other words, [url=http://foxcock.me/web/images/ShareX/2015_10/2015-10-16_15-27-41.png]shitposting[/url]. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Reporting people that disagree with you - Dumb" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=bitches;48917343]That's conveniently making a semantic argument to avoid responding to the point. Theft in digital terms, the most commonly accepted terms socially, and the accepted legal definition in digital goods, has the same principle as with physical goods: Acquiring something from the legal rights holder without giving them what they demand for it. CjienX is quite literally wrong and is refusing to respond to points that criticize his own, instead making up ways to avoid answering the challenges to his statements. In other words, [url=http://foxcock.me/web/images/ShareX/2015_10/2015-10-16_15-27-41.png]shitposting[/url].[/QUOTE] If you use the term digital theft in court, you will be laughed at.
[QUOTE=bitches;48916854]Why?[/QUOTE] because you're not physically harming anyone or destroying/taking their physical property. if content creators don't want their stuff pirated that should be up to them to figure out. [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bitches;48917343]CjienX is quite literally wrong and is refusing to respond to points that criticize his own, instead making up ways to avoid answering the challenges to his statements. In other words, [url=http://foxcock.me/web/images/ShareX/2015_10/2015-10-16_15-27-41.png]shitposting[/url].[/QUOTE] are you seriously reporting someone because you disagree with them? do you really think a person expressing their views is shitposting? are you for real dude?
What you guys are arguing about is just a classic case of "Is it the guns fault or the person who pulled the trigger?"
[QUOTE=Wolfos;48917086]I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that 'theft' implies that the original owner no longer has the stolen object. That is very much not the case with piracy.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure he's choosing an amusingly ironic circumstance to suddenly be insistent on using the proper terminology for crimes, considering his hyperbolic statements about the RIAA committing extortion and theft. And I'm pretty sure he's doing exactly as I said above regarding euphemisms. Call piracy by whatever name you want, but the people I see strongly object to characterizing it as 'theft' are typically either engaging in serious pedantry, or objecting because the term 'theft' implies that piracy is something other than a harmless, victimless crime. That's especially the case when I use theft as an analogy for why shitty business practices don't justify committing crimes against those businesses, and the best he can come up with is 'but it's not [i]technically[/i] that crime, it's another one'. It's barely relevant to the situation and it's not addressing the argument, it's playing word police. You didn't see me ignore the content of his posts and tell him about how it's [i]terribly[/i] unfair to characterize the RIAA's actions as theft because taking royalties isn't stealing.
I think the search needs a bit more of an improvement i'm often finding duplicates of the same songs because of different cases in the song name or artist
[QUOTE=Qaus;48917482]because you're not physically harming anyone or destroying/taking their physical property. if content creators don't want their stuff pirated that should be up to them to figure out.[/QUOTE] So the only things that should be illegal are those that cause physical injury? Why is it illegal to take physical property? Why shouldn't it be illegal to deny the right of a creator to choose who gets their creation? If it was your way, gaming/music companies could not exist. You're just a thief looking for justification, and it is disgusting. [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] The way you're saying it, the only illegal form of music or game piracy would be to march into corporate HQ and take it. It just isn't compatible with the digital world. Digital goods are produced for money, and given for money. [B]Why should a creator's content not belong to the creator? Why is it automatically something you're entitled to, just because it is digital?[/B] [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] And by the way, [I]DRM is them 'figuring it out'[/I]. It's like saying 'oh they grew it in a farm, of course it belongs to me, why dont they just put up a fence? oh there is a fence? i'll just get a ladder, their problem not mine!'.
Nobody said they're entitled to anything. They said it isn't theft. Try having this argument with actual recording artists like I have in the past. 9 out of 10 will laugh at you and say they don't give a shit if you downloaded it. Hell they'll probably ENCOURAGE you to just to fuck over those fucking them over.
[QUOTE=CjienX;48920800]Nobody said they're entitled to anything. They said it isn't theft. Try having this argument with actual recording artists like I have in the past. 9 out of 10 will laugh at you and say they don't give a shit if you downloaded it. Hell they'll probably ENCOURAGE you to just to fuck over those fucking them over.[/QUOTE] One artist doesn't represent every artist. One creator's wishes for their own product do not reflect upon the wishes of other creators and their products. Saying that you think it shouldn't be illegal means that you believe it should be available to you without respect to the creator's rights. That's entitlement.
[quote]“Like Grokster, Limewire or Grooveshark, it is neither licensed nor legal. We will not allow such a service to willfully trample [B]the rights of music creators.”[/B][/quote] Fha! [B][I]Bwahahahahahahaha.[/I][/B] No. That's not how it works. The RIAA is a conglomerate organization solely devoted to making sure the recording industry machine can control the content. Not the artists. [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] Fuck outta' here with this self-righteous, self-serving nonsense.
Love the thief's in here who use mental gymnastics to rationalize to themselves that downloading a product without paying for it 'isn't stealing!!!". Just be honest with yourselves, let's call a spade a spade. You want stuff but don't want to pay for it, totally understandable. Just don't try to rationalize it as an okay thing to do.
[QUOTE=bitches;48920812]One artist doesn't represent every artist. One creator's wishes for their own product do not reflect upon the wishes of other creators and their products. Saying that you think it shouldn't be illegal means that you believe it should be available to you without respect to the creator's rights. That's entitlement.[/QUOTE] When did I say just one? I've worked at recording studios. I've worked with artists one on one before. I also didn't say it shouldn't, I said it isn't. Just because crooked ass lawyers convince courts otherwise doesn't mean that it's actually just.
[QUOTE=bitches;48917343]That's conveniently making a semantic argument to avoid responding to the point. Theft in digital terms, the most commonly accepted terms socially, and the accepted legal definition in digital goods, has the same principle as with physical goods: Acquiring something from the legal rights holder without giving them what they demand for it. CjienX is quite literally wrong and is refusing to respond to points that criticize his own, instead making up ways to avoid answering the challenges to his statements. In other words, [url=http://foxcock.me/web/images/ShareX/2015_10/2015-10-16_15-27-41.png]shitposting[/url]. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Reporting people that disagree with you - Dumb" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Bitches, please, what are you doing? :v:
[QUOTE=bitches;48920739]So the only things that should be illegal are those that cause physical injury?[/QUOTE] Don't put words in my mouth, thanks. [quote=bitches;48920739][B]You're just a thief[/B] looking for justification, and it is disgusting.[/quote] I'd like to know where you got this information cause this is news to me. [quote=bitches;48920739]The way you're saying it, the only illegal form of music or game piracy would be to march into corporate HQ and take it. It just isn't compatible with the digital world.[/quote] More or less yeah, not sure why you're basically repeating what many other people are saying. [quote=bitches;48920739]Digital goods are produced for money, and given for money.[/quote] economics 101 [quote=bitches;48920739][B]Why should a creator's content not belong to the creator? Why is it automatically something you're entitled to, just because it is digital?[/B][/quote] I don't believe in intellectual property because it's such a gray area term with a vague definition that can be abused in both directions on the basis of semantics. Yes a creator of digital or information goods should get recognition for their creation, yes they have every right to monetize it how they see fit. But as soon as a transaction takes place and the consumer has their digital goods, the creator has absolutely no control over what that person does with their creation. The creator of Aurous could read their court summons papers and say "well i'm gonna go out with a bang" and just drop all those MP3s on every torrent site they know. Great job RIAA, you sure showed him. [quote=bitches;48920739]And by the way, [I]DRM is them 'figuring it out'[/I]. It's like saying 'oh they grew it in a farm, of course it belongs to me, why dont they just put up a fence? oh there is a fence? i'll just get a ladder, their problem not mine!'.[/quote] I hate to resort to name-calling but DRM makes it difficult. It's such a remedial, ass-backwards, childish and kneejerk reaction to piracy that it harms more customers than it does pirates. Sometimes the proverbial farmer puts up a giant concrete fortress to make sure nobody steals his crops, and then wonders why his customers can't find the entrance. Or in some cases said customers can't find the exit, I can't really determine which is worse for business.
I don't see the issue though? They're making money off of other people's content without permission or reimbursement. They're sourcing music through a Russian music piracy site. Is the RIAA supposed to just let that slide?
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48923481]Is the RIAA supposed to just let that slide?[/QUOTE] If they intend on protecting the rights and property of these musical artists, suing for damages doesn't really do much to protect rights and property.
[QUOTE=Killstr3aKs;48914102][IMG]http://puu.sh/kM52i/e39fb165b8.png[/IMG] God fucking damnit, i didn't even get the chance to try it :frown:[/QUOTE] Same here. Was looking through this thread, but all anyone does is argue and bitch. Can someone provide with the latest release?
Shit, I actually really wanted to try this. Looks stellar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.