i wonder like some rls’s come out as 1 big mp3 file with cue’s, is that considered one song or? ;}

also new movies still in theaters?, in germany? or in the US? cuz like what if a movie is in theaters in US but not yet in germany or might not even be shown in theaters in germany or movies that aren’t even shown in theaters? (limited or straight-to-dvd), there are even movies (often non-US) that are already out on dvd but then appear in theaters

law needs to be more specific

If this does not make enough, especially since the ability to re-create it has a price of zero, then how will they make a living without artificially inflating the price and forcing everybody either not to have it or to pay them, you say? Government tax can fund them, if you want them to make a living so much. Give them permanent welfare. You should have no problem with that, since it should be about getting them money.

But I think it is better, instead of being funded for past works, instead to be funded for every new work the create. The motivation to create would be strengthened because they would have to create a new thing each time to get money, and there would be much more creativity if such a thing were to happen.

For example, when you borrow a hammer, perhaps you had some kind of ability to make hammers, and perhaps you wanted to make a copy of it. Why shouldn’t you? It does not deprive anyone of anything.

You say that it must be “approached differently” but the only difference is that it is dirt cheap to create CDs whereas it is more expensive to have the scrap material for a hammer and more arduous to create a hammer (whereas the computer does everything for you in an instant). There is no need for any cost – because it doesn’t cost anything to create it. To artificially inflate the price from 0 to something really expensive is not anything reasonable – it is a forced extraction of money. You may think that creators would then not get any money, but why can’t there be a better solution? If it were merely about getting the creators money, then we can simply levy a general tax on the whole population to pay them. That should be enough.

Think about it. Wouldn’t the world be better if there was some dirt-cheap method of creating food, since nobody would go hungry? But then by your logic would argue that the farmers would get no money, and farmers need a way of making money. That is exactly what the computer is doing to software and other media, and to prevent the public from accessing it and creating it en masse and to try to extract money from people for it, is nothing other than stealing from the public good.

You may think that the only motivation for creativity is money – this is as far from the truth as you could get. Perhaps you are too corrupted by the money world to see anything differently, but you must realize that money is meaningless, and that people are creative essentially because it is MEANINGFUL. They want to communicate their ideas to the world, make the world a better place, or to spread their ideas to other people and earn prestige for such great ideas. If you do not think people would do such things for such motivations, then you must be blind to the whole humanity.

The fact is that Rush is not to be respected as long as they use force, and as long as they have any delusion that it is “stealing.” I do not respect Rush at all – why should I ever pay them? Payment is through respect, and respect is earned, not given.

There are indeed plans for copyright owners to bypass courts and go to the ISPs directly, but they wouldn’t get any data from that.
Why?
1) The Constitutional Court is right now dealing with the data retention law that might have been a source for data – it has already made clear that the data, if data retention is not revoked altogether, may not be used for anything but SEVERE crimes. That’s not one of them.
2) ISPs are not allowed to keep data if it’s not necessary for billing purpose. I have flatrate, most of us do, hence they don’t need any data. Just write a letter to your ISP asking wether he keeps IP/connection data. If he does, demand that he deletes yours and does’t save it anymore. If he does not comply, terminate your agreement immediately and go for another one who doesn’t keep data.

And, to another commenter: It’s true that the article only deals with NRW’s attorney. But you should know that others have already announced that they would adopt a similar stance.

Intellectual property must be treated differently from physical property. If you loan your friend a hammer, there is still only one hammer. If you loan your friend your CD or give it to him without making a copy, there is still only one CD. But when you copy it you are creating something that was not there before.

It is interesting to note that Benjamin Franklin did not take out a patent on his Franklin stove because he was confident in his ability to build and sell a model that would compete with anyone who tried to copy his design, so maybe he would have been on your side.

But for me, it is simple. One of my favorite bands, Rush, is a hard-working honest group and they have stated very clearly “please don’t steal from us”. regardless of my own opinion in the matter, should I not respect the wishes of the musicians? There have been several who have made their stuff freely available for download, but in general I don’t think that works for them as a business model – they need to pay their bills too.

Wrong in many ways.

In the future the music industrie doesn’t need to go to a court to get the allowance to ask rthe provider for the personal data behind the IP… They can ask directly, without any court involved.

Until then the courts don’t work at the music industries attempts to get the data when the user had not more than 100 files…

So every of this idiots will have to pay. Now and in the future…

When one buys a CD, it should be one’s own property. It shouldn’t matter what the original creator thinks, because it is ONE’S OWN POSSESSION, not the creators. The idea that the original creator should have control over other people’s private possessions is ridiculous, and that is what copyright is trying to do.

yes, they still can (and probably will) as long as label bosses are stupid enough to pump money into these vultures like Rasch and all those millions into RIAA and IFPI.
(Btw. Ray Beckerman has the taxstatements of the RIAA put online. Interesting how stupid the labels are in paying so much to RIAA!)

So far the way it is done with the criminal proceedings even against the smalest ones they can find are only because there is currently NO other way for the rightsholders to get the names of the account payer behind an IP.

It was so far not possible for them to do it like they do in america where the rightholders can go directly to court and deal then with the supoena against the ISP.
This will change in the new draft of copyrightlaw amendments that will likely take affect on in september.
But according to an article by the lawyer mentioned obove, that new procedure will not be better for the rightsholders, since a) a judge still must give his OK for them to get the address data of accountsholders and b) now it is them who must pay in advance to get the court procedings running. According to the Lawyer Solmecke. around 200Euro court fee per case.
http://www.wb-law.de/news/it-telekommunikationsrecht/406/zivilrechtlicher-auskunftsanspruch-wird-musikindustrie-nichts-nuetzen/

If so, then this is the way it has been in the U.S. for many many years (copyright infringement has never been a criminal activity in the U.S. but a civil matter, with some exceptions which are comparable to the bar set by these prosecutors).

If not, yes, Germany is better than the U.S. For now.