quote:Originally posted by flap:How can you see the absurdity of one thing but not the other?
quote:What I would term as stealing, is the duplication and distribution of the material.
http://counterpunch.orghttp://globalresearch.ca
quote:Originally posted by flap:What you're really objecting to, then, is the "duplication and distribution of the material" and not "stealing". For a start, stealing refers to taking something, not giving it away.
quote:Originally posted by TheGreatPoo: Mac Commando:I'm with flap but I'd like to add one thing:Distributing music over P2P networks is NOT stealing. You can call it sharing but I like to call it free advertisement. It's a very powerful advertizing medium for artists to get their name out there without distribution costs, television airtime, radio airtime, or publication costs.
quote:Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:I'm sure some lame assed garage bands that are not signed to a record deal will agree with you. As a commodity, their music is not worth anything. It's the established acts (and their record companies) that are having the problem with the free distribution of the music. So, if you didn't buy the music and obtained it by "sharing", then you are effectively stealing the music.
quote:Originally posted by flap:Just because they "won't agree with you" it doesn't mean they're correct. That cartoon is pretty much right though. Bands/aritsts have been told by their labels that file sharing is a threat to their livelihoods, and they buy it. Actually, the real threat to them is the parasitic record labels themselves who treat their artists like shit and give them next to nothing. Do you realise how little artists make from CD sales?
quote:Originally posted by flap:I also support the artists' rights to how their music is distributed. They should be able to choose to have their work distributed freely, or not at all.
quote:Originally posted by flap:Actually I think we should be able to give money voluntarily to artists we like. I would happily give an artist