“No AL, this is wrong. You don’t plan on buying the mag, you should not be reading it!”

SHARING IS CARING

I was at the Supermarket today and there was a long ass line.  That sucks doesn’t it?

I went to pick up a magazine to kill the time but then I thought to myself, "no AL, this is wrong, you don’t plan on buying it, you should not read an article."

Later in the day I went to the dentist.  Everything went well, no cavities (sonic care baby).  When I was in the waiting room I was tempted to pick up a magazine and start reading it.  I didn’t though.  I didn’t pay for that magazine, I should not be able to enjoy any part of it.

With my smile looking fresh, I decided I wanted to go out to a club and called up one of my boys and he said, "bet let’s do it."   When I got to his place, I realized he had this cool jacket that went awesome with the shirt I was wearing.  I was gonna ask him if I could borrow it, but again my coinscience said, "AL that’s not your shirt.  You can only use or enjoy things you own."

After we left the club, my friend was pretty wasted.  He asked me to drive his car home.  Again, I had a dilemma.  Can I use his car?  Is that right, it’s not mine.

The aforementioned way of living is completely absurd, and if you subscribe to it you are a fucking retard.  When someone owns something, it is completely morally correct to let them borrow it or enjoy it. Your friend has a CD you’ve been wanting hear?  He paid for it and he can let you listen to it, simple as that, as long as he is not profiting from that lending.

With advances in technology, a person is able to communicate with a huge amount of people they feel a kinship with. Instead of letting two or three friends enjoy something I own, perhaps I might just post it online for thousands of people I’d like to do a solid for.

Tube porn sites are exactly that, sharing.  If I go to one of those sites, someone who posted the video obtained it legally and they are sharing it with others.  Notice they are not giving it to others, they are just allowing us to enjoy it, which is their prerogative because they paid for it.  

If you disagree, then you are like the fellow at the beginning of the story.  Taken further, you can’t visit a club though because the club is not paying royalties to the artists for the music they play inside. You also can never stop inside any public or private place when you are out and need to take a shit without buying something first.  You can also forget about pulling into a gas station just to wipe your windshield off or put air in your tires, even if that would be a safety hazard.

What kind of world is that? 

8 thoughts on ““No AL, this is wrong. You don’t plan on buying the mag, you should not be reading it!”

  1. sharing is caring is a statement, not a question… and the quote thing

  2. MissBiatch2U says:

    Al, if Cindi doesn’t fix it the way you want it, just ask for editing ability. Go in, fix it yourself and delete some comments from assholes while you are at it. BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

  3. Al,

    I enjoy your posts, but this one is just whacked.

    First, read the EULA agreement with ANY copyrighted work. You are buying a LICENSE to use, not the rights to the piece of music or film. When you buy a DVD or CD, you have the right to enjoy it, make a copy for backup purposes, loan it, but you cannot make a copy of it, then watch one and loan out the other at the same time (EULA).

    This would also apply to printed art or pharma. You can buy an Ansel Adams print, hang it up and enjoy it, or loan it to a friend, but you can’t legally, or should you morally, make a copy of it and give it to your friend, while you still have the original. If you buy a pill, you have the right to do with it as you please, assuming it’s not a prescription drug. You don’t have the right to make copies, then still use the original pill. This one would be a patent issue, but the same reasoning applies here.

    If you think your logic makes sense, make copies of your c-notes, give the copies to your friends to enjoy. When you get busted, you can tell the secret service that since the technology to copy exists, you have the right to make copies and enjoy them as you please.

  4. First let me say that now we have two things in common, I like my posts and I like seeing Jeremy look foolish also…

    If you post a video online for streaming purposes, you aren’t making a copy of it and giving it someone its not the same thing

  5. Al, If you made a movie, then post it on youtube, there is nothing wrong with that. If you buy a DVD, and post the contents of that DVD without the studio’s ok, then it’s not kosher. Check out DMCA1998. If you post any piece of music or film that is not yours, the tube site will get a take-down notice, and the site is then legally obligated to remove it. If you piss off the copyright owners enough, they will sue for statutory and compensatory damages, and win.

  6. So how are these tube sites proliferating then, you are saying all these companies can’t afford attorneys fees, which if their case is as solid as you say could be awarded to them anyway?

    Just because there is a law on something, doesn’t make it right or necessarily something everyone agrees on. Weed and prostitution immediately come to mind.

  7. Al, my friend, you are 100% correct. Most of the porn companies don’t have the money to spend on prosecuting these violations. Intellectual property is not part of the regular law curriculum. If you want to hire a specialist to prosecute one these claims, you’ll have a hard time finding a first-rate attorney for less than 100k. Also, unless the violated film was registered with the uspto, the film company would be entitled to compensatory damages, but not the guaranteed, statutory damage of 150k and legal fees.

    Under DMCA1998, which you have not read yet, the tube sites are liable, unless they contribute in some way or encourage the posters to violate DMCA1998. The tube sites, when contacted by the legal owner of the film, are legally obligated to pull the footage in violation of DMCA1998. The poster is the one legally liable, not the tube site.

    Basically, most porn studios do not take all the legal steps to protect themselves.

    Let’s say a company hires a competent attorney and prosecutes successfully. What’s the likelihood that the average porn uploader has 200k or more in their bank account? I think pretty low. Most of the film and music companies use this as a tool to discourage people from doing it. It does not make financial sense to prosecute. You can’t collect what they don’t have.

    Al, like your example of weed and prostitution, violating copyright, is legal in the right amount and place. Under the Compassionate Act of 1996, weed use is legal and encouraged, and so is prostitution in several jurisdictions, in the right place and amount. Under the fair use doctrine of copyright, you CAN use copywritten material to further aid the general population in understanding a particular topic in the context of scholarship, for example. There are few other ways, so read the section on fair use, Al. However, it has to be in the proper amount and place. You can’t upload a whole film and claim fair use.

  8. I’ll have to read about that, however what you say I iterated when I said that people that go to the tube sites do not know what is legit and what is not, the posters are at fault.

    I know I’m not attempting to watch whole movies, even the ones I own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

TrafficHolder.com - Buy & Sell Adult Traffic