Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze

I do disagree with patents when it is applied to non-commercial usage.

"Fair use" should be extended to all non-commercial activities.

should have rights on who and how that work is used
That is ludicrous. I mean, if somebody buys a CD, how could someone else own the 1's and 0's on the CD? That is like somebody having the right to control a part of other people's private property, and the right to control what other people do with their private things. That is pretty much tantamount to Big Brother.

I mean, if one buys a CD, one owns a CD, and thus has the right to make copies, or give it to other people. It is basic property rights, pure and simple.

Like buying a hammer. If one buys a hammer, one has the simple property right to make copies of the hammer (i. e. making a new hammer that is an exact replica of the old one), and give it to other people.

You know, back then, Kings were considered to "own" the bodies of everyone in their kingdom. At least we are enlightened enough to know that this is horrible tyranny. But we are not enlightened enough to rid this copyright tyranny.

Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze

Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze

The laws, the courts and enforcement aren't exactly going your way, are they.
But the general will does not quite seeming to way, does it? The general will will always win in the end.

You are licensed to listen to it.
I don't know where you get this idea from, but most people don't listen to zeroes and ones. If you think that one is allowed only to listen to one's own private property, and do nothing else with it, then you can listen to your chair if you want, but the rest of us will not stand this kind of foolishness.

Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze

Pay the fee or NO POSSESION.
By the way, please wake up and see that there was no fee in the first place.

Imagine if in YOUR work YOU put your blood and sweat and heart and soul into something and effing pirates take it over.
You know, this situation also doesn't exist, because pirates don't take anything over.

Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze

Roze: why do you argue so hard against people on the internet? What do you gain from it? What you could do instead is study Intellectual Property Law and do something about the situation.

Roze, when music is digitized, in point of fact that is precisely what they are doing. And if you are not capable of comprehending a common IP agreement, (EULA) you deserve to have your harddrive ransacked for the contraband you are secretly taking. That's what the UK has already figured out. Further, if you think this is unreasonable (so you can keep pilfering digital files) tell it to the courts. Since the 1980's when the public made a serious run at shoplifting, not only did invasive technology come into legal play and the public lost the right to carry bags about in shops, but they also lost the privacy that a bag search (on the way out) took away. And the whole time you are on camera now, and being recorded to a RAID. Whether you like it or not. And only the idiots complain. Don't like it? Get off the network because all this and a lot more is coming.

Roze, you don't understand how digital files work, you don't know your history or the clear precedents, you don't know your law. It's a sincere pleasure to watch woefully uninformed know-it-alls like you stand up and try to represent this pathetic and selfish community of "taking without paying."

i wouldnt download it if it was free.

more over produced shit from MTV.. do me a favor and dont even leak your trash.. its using up valuable bandwidth.

So Dre — now that corporate media has put a ring through his nose and keeps him as a well-paid pet — doesn't bother to think back on the Roadium Swap-meet days, much less connect THAT instance of "copyright infringement" with what's going on today.

It's all bullshit.

people like me, would d/l it, listen to it and move on with their lives… his music is hardly the start and end to a persons day.

Sharing and expressing oneself are not the same thing. Therefore human rights do not apply to this.

You've taken my words out of context. I had said that for non-commercial use, I did not agree with the payment of royalties. This has nothing to do with copyright infringement by electronic transfer. The servers were still distributing a file that, in my opinion, they did not own.

It seems that in your opinion, an idea cannot be owned by a person. Only physical entities can be owned. I assume you then disagree with patents.

Anywho, again, it's just a matter of opinion. I believe that people should own what they make, even as a concept, and that an idea is more than just the data on a hard drive.

Bitch, you don't even know how to pour your blood and sweat and heart and soul into something. You can't fathom it.

The only thing fuckers like you are capable of pouring into something is your own baldfaced ego and greed.

"Pay the fee or no possession"?

If ever we should we bump into eachother in real life, I will spit right in your God damn face on the behalf of every artist dead or living.

although for non-commercial use I don't agree with this
These servers were non-commercial.

Controlling how your creation is used, is.
However, for non-commercial usages, it is not acceptable to control.

once someone has downloaded the song
The song is not their property. It cannot be, since it is only an abstract idea, only data. Whatever contains the song is their their property.

someone who has created a piece of work using their time, effort, money, etc. should have rights on who and how that work is used, even if it's just the right to wave such rights.
Of course they have the right to control how they use it. It is unacceptable to control how other people use it.That kind of privacy-invading Gestapo control of what is on other people's private property is unacceptable (and don't pretend that it doesn't control other people's private property), unless you don't believe in basic human rights.

Of course, not believing in basic human rights is to be expected of idiots.

Obviously the rights of the copyright holder must me regulated; And this is to do with a country's laws. As I'm not a lawyer, I'm in no position to dictate what these are / should be. But controlling a persons head, is not acceptable. Controlling how your creation is used, is.

My inference from your last statement is that you see sharing as a basic human right.
I don't quite understand where that comes from. I agree that information and resources should be shared, but someone who has created a piece of work using their time, effort, money, etc. should have rights on who and how that work is used, even if it's just the right to wave such rights.

PS. you didn't answer my original question – once someone has downloaded the song, it then becomes their property?
I am interested to know the answer.

being able to tell someone to stop sharing your creation without your permission is fair enough
Being able to force people to stop sharing is fascism. Burn in hell, scumbag.

being able to tell someone to stop sharing your creation without your permission is fair enough
Being able to force people to stop sharing is fascism. Burn in hell, scumbag.

being able to tell someone to stop sharing your creation without your permission is fair enough
Being able to force people to stop sharing is fascism. Burn in hell, scumbag.

being able to tell someone to stop sharing your creation without your permission is fair enough
Being able to force people to stop sharing is fascism. Burn in hell.

being able to tell someone to stop sharing your creation without your permission is fair enough
Being able to force people to stop sharing is despotism, and a violation of basic human liberties.

Bishop Lamont is on the track. He’s the first rapper after the intro by 50 cent.

The copyright holder has the right over the song because they created it, and as such, they should be able to say what can and can't be done with it.
Morally, I don't believe that taking something gives me a right to own it and that in creating something, I should be allowed some control over it. Obviously DRM is a step too far, but being able to tell someone to stop sharing your creation without your permission is fair enough.
Anywho, looks like this is a simple difference in opinion.

PS. I love that I have negative votes ^_^

The laws, the courts and enforcement aren't exactly going your way, are they.
But the general will does not quite seeming to way, does it? The general will will always win in the end.

You are licensed to listen to it.
I don't know where you get this idea from, but most people don't listen to zeroes and ones. If you think that one is allowed only to listen to one's own private property, and do nothing else with it, then you can listen to your chair if you want, but the rest of us will not stand this kind of foolishness.

The laws, the courts and enforcement aren't exactly going your way, are they.
But the general will does not quite seeming to way, does it? The general will will always win in the end.

You are licensed to listen to it.
I don't know where you get this idea from, but most people don't listen to zeroes and ones. If you think that one is allowed only to listen to one's own private property, and do nothing else with it, then you can listen to your chair if you want the rest of us will not stand this kind of foolishness.

Glad you asked. Yes, in fact they do. You are licensed to listen to it. Period. Anything past that and they will be all over you soon enough. The laws, the courts and enforcement aren't exactly going your way, are they. If you connect to the internet, they'll be in your harddrive in no time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/ar…

(laughing)

enjoy pal instead of embracing technology you mouth off about it. HEH
do you own my zeroes and ones on my compuyter,
just whose damn computer is it anyhow.
mine, and instead a using it like advertisment and such and getting GOOD press you just blew it.

But, Dre is famous for dissing Easy E to sell records, all the while having a royalty agreement where Easy E got paid for every record sold. I wouldn’t put it past him that this is a publicity stunt. He might even pop a cap in someone’s ass to get his rep back, but it’s all carefully orchestrated – professional wrestling with glocks.

d dre rawls