Ron Paul on Filesharing?

Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
218
Howdy all.

I know how Ron Paul Stands on Net neutrality.
but what does he say on filesharing?
if there are links to any voting or article please post =).
 
I imagine he advocates handling it via property rights legislation that is already written.
 
Good question. I just did a quick search on the ron paul library for 'intellectual property', but I didn't find anything. Anyone know his thoughts on IP?
 
The Austrian position is that intellectual property is illegitimate. So I would imagine Ron Paul feels the same way.
 
filesharing

I would think Ron Paul would be for filesharing and against RIAA Tactics. I think it was wrong suing a single mother who never made money off her downloading and sharing of music and she never hurted the RIAA $220,000 worth.

In Fact the RIAA just isn't making a huge profit, they are still making money but they just aren't enslaving the people so they wanna sue people who aren't enslaved and in debt by them.

Also they aren't hurting, they just aren't making record 'Poor-People' Busting profits so they are angry.

I am all for non-commercial sharing, personal sharing/downloading. I am against anti-piracy lawsuits in schools because they aren't getting as much funding as they need, I think schools shouldn't have to be sued by Microsoft. If they really care about education they need to give their Operating Systems for free to schools, charities, and maybe piracy will drop, also they need to get rid of Product Activation, I pirate my Legally purchased XP because of Activation because I pay what $200 for Windows XP, I want to use it on as many computers as I own.

Until Microsoft changes their policies I will use a VLK edition, because I paid for WinXP but I will not keep paying a consistent $200 because I am poor.

Also I have a genuine legit copy of Windows XP, Windows 95/98, Microsoft PictureIt so I have supported Microsofts programmers and artists but I will refuse to not use a VLK edition, because if I pay for Windows XP, I want to be able to use it to the day I die, not untill Windows Vista, or Vienna is made.

So I think Microsoft needs to change their licensing policies, and filesharing should be legal because it can benefit software companies, programmers, and advertising agencies.


Really, I think Ron Paul would be for filesharing, and the regulation of Software Company Monopolies.

I am not a pirate too because I paid for XP but using a VLK is better cause cracking activation is so illegal but VLK uses no cracks so I am able to use what I pay for.
 
Last edited:
Well I can tell you what a president Paul will NOT be doing. He won't be using the FBI to raid file sharing networks like under Bush.

On the other hand I don't think he'd try to undermine private property just because that property has been burned to a CD. Also you have to realize that there are different levels of intellectual property. It's one thing for someone to say "You can't use a windowed interface because I have a patent on it." That's quite different from someone saying "You can't burn, shrinkwrap and sell copies of MicroSoft Office without authorization." It's one thing if the property is an idea used to make a product. It's something else all together if the property is the product.

Do I think the RIAA has gone overboard with its lawsuits? Most definitely! But that doesn't mean intellectual property shouldn't exist. Personally I think this could be a part of a general tort reform package. Clearly there should be a cap on damages for these kinds of suits especially when no profit was being made.

As for MicroSoft being essentially forced to give away software to schools, wasn't M$ giving away Internet Explorer for "free" the reason they got sued once before? Wasn't the argument that this HURT competition? Frankly I think Windows Vista is the worst operating system ever released by anyone. This would be a great time for Linux and other open source offerings to make inroads. A few years ago I was chairing a committee to revamp the computer lab at a private school. I made the suggestion to use the free OpenOffice suite which I find ever bit at good as MicroSoft Office. But the principal found a "deal" where she could get the full Micro$oft office suite at an "educational discount" which was a FRACTION of the price. Since she got such a good deal it was hard for me to argue for going the free route. So there's already a powerful incentive for Micro$oft to practically give away software to schools. Frankly I would like to see more open source solutions being adopted.

The same thing is happening in music. Recently the group Radiohead allowed anyone who wanted to download their entire new album for whatever the end user decided it was worth. If you wanted to pay 50 cents for the album that was your choice. Public Enemy has been letting fans download music for free for years. Most of CD money goes to the distributors anyway. As more and more artists wise up to this the power of the RIAA will drop precipitously.

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
Doesn't matter what he or anyone else thinks. Copyright and trademark laws are ancient and archaic. They cannot survive.
 
lets separate the legality of downloading an entire new album from a torrent in china to the anti privacy laws that the music industry has pursued to decrease consumer property rights..

specifically... legally downloaded music such as itunes has limitations such number of devices it can be transfered too and its uploading capabilities..(ipod to computer) constitutionally these are illegal imo
 
The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's section restricting the "circumvention" of copy protection measures is supported by many copyright holders but has been criticized by some technologists as hindering innovation. Would you support changing the DMCA to permit Americans to make a single backup copy of a DVD, Blu-ray Disc DVD, HD DVD, or video game disc they have legally purchased?
Paul: While I have not yet made a full study of this issue, I would tend to protect the rights of consumers to make a backup copy of materials they have purchased, as long as the consumers complied with any contractual obligations they incurred when purchasing the product.
Source: cnet
 
lets separate the legality of downloading an entire new album from a torrent in china to the anti privacy laws that the music industry has pursued to decrease consumer property rights..

specifically... legally downloaded music such as itunes has limitations such number of devices it can be transfered too and its uploading capabilities..(ipod to computer) constitutionally these are illegal imo

How is designing a crappy music player like the iPod (spypod) a violation of the constitution? Consumers have a right not to buy it. I tell everyone that's willing to hear me not to buy iPods or Zune or other junk like that. The iPod keeps track of every computer that you have connected to but other mp3 players do not. iPods are also over priced. But brainwashed kids and their parents are convinced that "nothing but an iPod" will do. Is that Apple's fault?

Regards,

John M. Drake
 

Thank you! Good find! Paul's answer doesn't violate copyright owners property rights nor does it violate rights of end consumers. Manufacturers can have a right to add copy protection measures and consumers have right to try to go around them for legitimate purposes. The best solution is more freedom for all.

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
How is designing a crappy music player like the iPod (spypod) a violation of the constitution? Consumers have a right not to buy it. I tell everyone that's willing to hear me not to buy iPods or Zune or other junk like that. The iPod keeps track of every computer that you have connected to but other mp3 players do not. iPods are also over priced. But brainwashed kids and their parents are convinced that "nothing but an iPod" will do. Is that Apple's fault?

Regards,

John M. Drake

Is it Ipod or Ipod via Itunes? They can be connected via many software apps. Do you have any sources for this info?
 
How is designing a crappy music player like the iPod (spypod) a violation of the constitution? Consumers have a right not to buy it. I tell everyone that's willing to hear me not to buy iPods or Zune or other junk like that. The iPod keeps track of every computer that you have connected to but other mp3 players do not. iPods are also over priced. But brainwashed kids and their parents are convinced that "nothing but an iPod" will do. Is that Apple's fault?

Regards,

John M. Drake

wait did you just say the ipods keeo track of every computer that you connected to, OMGOMG OMG OMG That is scary.

Now I am paranoid, that is spying, a Ipod is against the constitution.

I'm glad I sticked with my Sansa 2GB MP3 Player, it never spies on me :)
 
Is it Ipod or Ipod via Itunes? They can be connected via many software apps. Do you have any sources for this info?

The problem is both the software and the hardware and yes I have sources.

On the hardware end.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-6423090-1.html?tag=cnetfd.ld1
Better yet, iPods also remember where data came from. Say you used a computer at work to copy a large, top-secret program to your iPod to take home. Coding within the file would tell investigators not only what machine (MAC address) but also what operating system (though file format also tells them that) and username was used. So if incriminating evidence is found on your iPod, they can connect it to a crime scene.

And the software end.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6969653
Gracenote Inc. knows almost any time a CD is "ripped" for use in a portable music player. Apple, Creative and Rio use its service, as do hundreds of software products devoted to playing and recording music CDs. Yet, few consumers know much about Gracenote.

The company quietly provides an efficient and important service to digital music users. There's a common misconception that text-based information like song title, length of play, artist name, and the like, is contained on music CDs. That's rarely the case. Instead, when a CD is loaded into a computer CD tray, software such as Apple's iTunes automatically calls out across the Internet looking for help identifying the music. The questions are posed to Gracenote's CDDB, or CD database. By recognizing patterns in the data that is included on the CD -- such as the length of each individual track -- Gracenote figures out what the album is. Then, it transmits data, including music genre, composer name, language, year released, and more, back to the user's computer.

I suppose if you converted your iPod to Linux then it wouldn't be a problem so technically it's still a "software" issue, although it's not dependent upon using iTunes.

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
I'd heard over the radio that the RIAA is starting to push for legislation that makes it illegal for users to rip music from CDs for their own use (ie: pulling music from a CD to an MP3 player) under the guise that they lose money because people then don't have to buy MP3s to import to their devices. As if it's not bad enough already that they're suing the mentally ill, children, dead people and their families, people without computers, novices, and even a woman with multiple schlerosis...

They're nothing more than a bunch of extortionists, and every bit of their practice lately shows it ("discount" lawsuit payment?). They also drop their threats when the target gets decent lawyers involved so that they don't have to pay the target for any fees involved in hiring the lawyers. Frankly, they're not far off from people misusing imminent domain to roll over a small guy's restaurant with a strip mall and apartments.
 
Back
Top