Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Intellectual Property & Law => Topic started by: billy_gates on 20 May 2003, 18:40
-
Do you consider downloading music off the net or with apps such as Kazzaa to be "Sharing" or "Stealing."
I consider it Stealing.
-
Since I don't want any RIAA trash I can call it stealing.
-
Stealing. There is no ssuch thing as "sharing" music.
-
Stealing: "To take (the property of another) without right or permission"
Since no *property* has been *taken*, it's ridiculous that you call it "stealing". Even if you believe it's unethical to copy without permission, to call it "stealing" is to use a faulty analogy. So to summarise, your question really is "Do you think it's wrong to share?"
-
It's a grey area but I lean towards the "stealing" because it's not really sharing if you duplicate and the item in question is copyright protected. I find it interesting though how far this "stealing/sharing" concept can go.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev:
Stealing. There is no ssuch thing as "sharing" music.
I think there is, if you buy a CD and lend it to someone you could call that sharing. If you invite a friend to listen to the CD that could be termed sharing. Maybe that's where these nuts are going, "Only one person at a time may listen to this recording !!!" (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
it's not really sharing if you duplicate and the item in question is copyright protected.
How does that make it "not sharing"? That may make it illegal, but it doesn't mean it's "stealing". Even if you don't agree with it, you can't just apply random propaganda terms to make it sound worse than it is. You may as well call it "rape" or "genocide".
-
Trading.
In some countries, it's legal to give a copy of music to someone if that someone gives a copy in return. I think, this is exactly what P2P programs do.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
How does that make it "not sharing"? That may make it illegal, but it doesn't mean it's "stealing". Even if you don't agree with it, you can't just apply random propaganda terms to make it sound worse than it is. You may as well call it "rape" or "genocide".
It is a grey area but if the recording is copyright protected, then that is just what it says, you may not copy the recording and distribute it under the guise of "sharing". So under these conditions, I would call it stealing.
-
Yes, I know it's *illegal*, and you may even (wrongly) believe that it's unethical, but that doesn't mean it can be called stealing.
-
I am going to send you all ear plugs so that you can't hear my stereo. I don't want to get you in trouble for stealing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Yes, I know it's *illegal*, and you may even (wrongly) believe that it's unethical, but that doesn't mean it can be called stealing.
By your own definition (Stealing: "To take (the property of another) without right or permission ") I think it could be termed stealing. The owner of the property remains the recording artist and there are terms attached to the sale of his/her work.
I do see what you are getting at but at the same time I don't agree that duplicating and distributing (free or otherwise) an artists work is "sharing".
-
It's not their property - it's a series of 1s and 0s. They may have designed that series of data but they don't "own" every copy and even every rendition of it. If I play a copyrighted CD and someone listens to it outside my window (without themselves paying for it), are they stealing?
And whether you agree with it or not, it *is* sharing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
It's not their property - it's a series of 1s and 0s. They may have designed that series of data but they don't "own" every copy and even every rendition of it. If I play a copyrighted CD and someone listens to it outside my window (without themselves paying for it), are they stealing?
And whether you agree with it or not, it *is* sharing.
It's not artists property ? Because YOU say so ? I think the recoding artist would disagree, not all but most commercial artists.
You may take ownership of the media the recording is physically on, but you do not have ownership or the right to copy and distribute the recording (or whatever)so once you cross that line, then you are no longer sharing, you are possibly stealing.
As for you analogy for someone listening outside your window, don't be absurd. However, if you play that recording at a club or something, then someone is going to want to get paid.
-
quote:
As for you analogy for someone listening outside your window, don't be absurd. However, if you play that recording at a club or something, then someone is going to want to get paid.
How can you see the absurdity of one thing but not the other?
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
How can you see the absurdity of one thing but not the other?
It's not clear as to what you are referring to here so I am hesitant to respond but I will expand on the "someone outside your window" anology. That would be absurd, same as if you gathered a group of people in your front room to listen to a CD or the reading of a book, it would be equally absurd to determine that as stealing, it's not even sharing. I don't think anyone is going to be hasling you for that. What I would term as stealing, is the duplication and distribution of the material. You can only share what is rightfully yours, but in the context of music copyright, you do not have that right when you purchase (or otherwise) the material. The right to copy remains the with the artist, publisher or studio. Like it or not, recorded music, movies, books etc are commodities.
-
Actually if it's a public gathering then that would be illegal.
quote:
What I would term as stealing, is the duplication and distribution of the material.
How can you label one thing with a term that means something completely different? 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 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.
Yes, and this is why it is such a grey area, for me.
You can not (or you are not supposed to) duplicate copyright material. This is what the "sharing" P2P networks do. They allow the material to be duplicated and that breaks the copyright agreement. The artist is no longer in control of the material. Your idea of sharing is a little bit askew, I think. You are of the opinion that giving it away is not stealing which would be true if you purchased a CD and then gave it to a friend. But to duplicate the CD and then give it to a friend, in the eyes of the record companies, that as stealing because the recording is copyright protected.
-
Ok this is the way I see it. It doesn't really matter whether it's stealing or sharing in reality, because RIAA has lost the right for anyone to be concerned about harming them(not saying it does harm them, but if it did).
-
It is sharing in my opoion, butThe RIAA and recording artists think it's "stealing there copyrights" (http://www.dontbuycds.org/riaa.jpg)
-
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 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.
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.
-
Sharing.
The computer and the internet are changing the way people do business and those who do not adapt will become extinct.
-
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.
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:
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?
Who won't agree with me ?
I don't see Michael Jackson begging/busking in the streets. I don't really see what your point is either. The record industry is getting a long overdue kick in the gonads and I'm happy to see that. At the same time, I still support the artists right to determine how their music is copyright protected, distributed and still receive compensation for their work.
-
You keep saying "I don't think the artists/labels would agree with you" etc. I'm saying that just because they don't agree with me, it doesn't mean that they're correct.
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:
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.
No you don't, that's a bullshit statement. You just want to have free music and you can. Free music is available all over the internet, tons of lame assed musicians will give you their music for free, but it's crap and a waste of time and these people are just amatuers not worth wasting the bandwidth on.
-
Actually I think we should be able to give money voluntarily to artists we like. I would happily give an artist
-
HibbieBoy, I don't get what you're saying
So music is only good if the artist(s) have a recording contract?
That's like saying an operating system is only good if it costs a lot of money.
[ May 20, 2003: Message edited by: emh ]
-
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
-
quote:
Originally posted by emh:
HibbieBoy, I don't get what you're saying
So music is only good if the artist(s) have a recording contract?
[ May 20, 2003: Message edited by: emh ]
No, that's not what I am saying. Madonna, N'Synch and the Backstreet Boys have recording contracts and they are all pish.
-
quote:
Free music is available all over the internet, tons of lame assed musicians will give you their music for free, but it's crap and a waste of time and these people are just amatuers not worth wasting the bandwidth on.
I believe you did. In this statement you basically critisize a great majority of the Indie band population. While I agree that some of the bands suck, many of them have a fresh new sound and are actually very good.
Recording labels are the real evil here. They not only take much deserved money from the artist, but they also dictate, by means of contract, what the artist can and can't do (that also means write and play). Why else do you think so many of the main stream artists sound exactly the same?
Getting back to the argument, I agree with Macman: Crazy mofo. Technology and the way people do things is changing. I recently read a very good article in a Sound And Vision magazine that stated (and I am paraphrasing), "The CD is a 20 year old format. It's also more expensive than it has ever been before. Therefore, with the internet and newer disc formats such as the DVD, the music industry must change their focus from fighting the piracy to giving people what they want so there is no need for piracy." In other words, record companies and the RIAA need to find ways to harness the power and flexibility of the internet and use it to their advantage. This is already being done with subscription services but these services are expensive and offer very little to the customer above what he or she could otherwise get for free by pirating.
-
I guess since everyone else is explaining I will explain
According to the Random House Webster College Dictionary, the second definition of "Steal" is as follows:
quote:
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc) without right or acknowledgement
I would call Music a form of ideas, words, and the artists definitely deserve credit for their music (most of them anyway). Therefore to download (appropriate) ideas, words, and credit (music) is stealing.
I guss the ultimate reason I think, and I think everyone should think downloading illegal music is stealing because of the definition of stealing.
-
A CD cost less than a penny to manufacture, and approximately $17.00 to purchase.
For one, file sharing would be less necessary if CD's were fairly priced. Aside from that, a musician's main income is derived from concerts and publicity. CD's are only a small portion of an artist's paycheck (Their purpose is almost entirely promotional).
Musicians that are discovered through file-sharing networks have a greater potential to earn a fatter paycheck, because more people are likely to attend their concert.
Your average everyday Joe is not the only one benefiting from file-sharing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Dei-Gratia:
A CD cost less than a penny to manufacture, and approximately $17.00 to purchase.
That's a poor excuse often used for any CD medium. (Video Games, Movies, Software)
You have to also pay a part of the music production, advertising, packaging, etc. etc...
That, and major retailers sell most CD's for $10-$14
-
quote:
Originally posted by Dei-Gratia:
A CD cost less than a penny to manufacture, and approximately $17.00 to purchase.
For one, file sharing would be less necessary if CD's were fairly priced. Aside from that, a musician's main income is derived from concerts and publicity. CD's are only a small portion of an artist's paycheck (Their purpose is almost entirely promotional).
Musicians that are discovered through file-sharing networks have a greater potential to earn a fatter paycheck, because more people are likely to attend their concert.
Your average everyday Joe is not the only one benefiting from file-sharing.
If this is so why don't most musicicans allow content to be downloaded freely. I mean, if you could make more money doing something, wouldn't you let people do it, so you could make more money. The lack of a large group of people doing this would mean that your hypothesis is incorrect.
-
quote:
That's a poor excuse often used for any CD medium. (Video Games, Movies, Software)
You have to also pay a part of the music production, advertising, packaging, etc. etc...
That, and major retailers sell most CD's for $10-$14
Bullshit. CD's from "Nothing records" (Nine Inch Nails/Marilyn Manson) are released at prices _far_ below the $34.95 AUS charged for most CD's I get. My local basement style music store sells these CD's for $25 each as opposed to the $35 for other labels. And I have been told by the manager that they still make MORE profit on these CD's than they do on the $35 ones, due to the fact that they are priced reasonably. These CD's have had the hell advertised out of them, they are packaged like all other CD's and produced to greater quality - they actually have lyrics printed in the front! My local chain store of course marked Marilyn Mansons new CD up to $35 to "mantain price parity."
And the copying of music is not stealing - it is by definition the copying of music. It can be said to be _analogous_ to stealing in that the artist makes no profit, but it can never _be_ stealing. From now on I am only buying CD's from record labels that actually treat their customers well (eg Artemis / Nothing) and everything else will be copied. And of course, I post money to the artist - far more than they would receive if I bought the CD. The only person that gets shafted is the record company. Considering that all the record companies do is advertise / produce CD's, and that both of these roles can now be performed by the internet/file sharing and cd burning respectively why do we need record companies anymore? Either they start pricing CD's reasonably or I say we remove their un-necessary arses.
-
If CD's are sold at "correct" prices then why do record companies still relase them at drastically lower prices in other countries? Wouldnt they make a loss if they were selling for less than they were "worth?" :eek:
-
I can copy a CD and give it to my friends. Thats legal here in teh US. So why can't I give my friend a mp3. The grey area is the exact status of people you don't know. BTW, I have bought more Cds in the post-Napster days than in teh pre-Napster days simply because I can demo the whole CD. Whould you buy a DVD without watching the movie once? (Yeah, you'd pay a little, but $2 to Blockbuster is not $18 to Sony Music).
-
If the artist and the employees at the record company can afford to support themselves and their families, then what the fuck does it matter? If everyone involved in the production only got $900 a month then I'd have a problem. but when they get into the tens and hundreds of thousands (possible millions), i dont see what the harm is. In my opinion, nobody really needs more than $5,000 a month. (unless you have a huge family) If you are demanding to be rich, i say fuck you and you deserve to have your work "stolen".
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
[QB]I guess since everyone else is explaining I will explain
According to the Random House Webster College Dictionary, the second definition of "Steal" is as follows:
I would call Music a form of ideas, words, and the artists definitely deserve credit for their music (most of them anyway). Therefore to download (appropriate) ideas, words, and credit (music) is stealing.
QB]
Every song I have downloaded has awknowledged the artist. It's in the filename usually. As far as the right to do it, I pay for my internet connection. Music is usually licensed for home personal use. I only listen to it at home, I only get it at home (except when I buy the CD of a song I like... thanks to the p2p networks). I understand that copying it is a breach of the license, but it's not stealing. as I do have the right to do it, and it they are awknowledged. they only debatable thing here is the right, and that's a matter of opinion. It would depend on who you are copying it from I'd say.
-
quote:
Do you consider downloading music off the net or with apps such as Kazzaa to be "Sharing" or "Stealing."
I consider it Stealing.
As for myself, I really don't give a flying fuck either way. I haven't bought an RIAA CD since 2000, when I got stuck with a third GD CD that had just the one good song I heard on the radio with 10 other tracks that absolutely sucked. Furthermore, I have no intention of buying another unless the RIAA seriously cleans up its act.
Instead, I download from non-RIAA independents who actually want you to hear their work. If Hillary, Metallica, Madonna, and Brittney don't want me listening to their music, I'm perfectly willing to honour their request. (http://tongue.gif)
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
-
quote:
No you don't, that's a bullshit statement. You just want to have free music and you can. Free music is available all over the internet, tons of lame assed musicians will give you their music for free, but it's crap and a waste of time and these people are just amatuers not worth wasting the bandwidth on.
Better not let Calum hear you say that ;) What an absolute crock of shit this is! Is there really anyone out there idiot enough to sincerely believe that the RIAA has a monopoly on talent?(!) :eek: (Please E-Mail me right away! I have a bridge that I've been trying to unload for a long time. Perhaps we can do a deal? (http://smile.gif) ) To be sure, you can find lots of "lame assed" musicians posting mp3's on the 'Net. And you can find plenty of "lame assed" musicians signed to labels whose garbage'll cost you some $20.00 at "Block Buster". After all, consider: "New Kids on the Block", "N'Sync", "Brittney Spears", and many, many more: YYYYEEEECCCCHHHH!!!!. After all, Brittney has just two assets to offer, and neither one of them have anything to do with music. ;)
OTOH, you can find some damn good music from acts that aren't RIAA. Electronica is one good example. It hasn't caught on here in the 'States; the RIAA hasn't noticed, and you won't find these European Electronica acts offered at the major chain outlets like "Block Buster". Not "mainstream" enough. (http://tongue.gif)
There are other acts on the 'Net that are every bit as good as any RIAA-signed acts. And they really aren't all that difficult to find. Indeed: there are actually musicians out there who don't want to sign with a label. They'd prefer to keep creative control, do their own marketing which the 'Net and the mp3 have made possible, and take the lion's share of the proceeds from CD sales while selling for 1/2 to 1/4 what you'll pay for a RIAA CD.
That post, and another just like it, suggest they're coming from someone who's trying to sign with the RIAA. Let me remind all of you: I don't buy RIAA CDs, I don't download RIAA copyrighted music. I guess that means that I won't be listening to this musician's music if he does get signed. (http://tongue.gif)
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
[ May 21, 2003: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by fett101:
You have to also pay a part of the music production, advertising, packaging, etc. etc...
That, and major retailers sell most CD's for $10-$14
That's a myth often used by publishers to justify extortionate prices. If the poor record labels are really being hit hard by all these outgoings then how are they making so much money?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
If this is so why don't most musicicans allow content to be downloaded freely. I mean, if you could make more money doing something, wouldn't you let people do it, so you could make more money. The lack of a large group of people doing this would mean that your hypothesis is incorrect.
So then.... presumably Macs/Linux etc. are shit as "a large group of people" don't use them? And Windows must be fantastic, as most people use that.
-
i dont think its stealing to copy music with permision. p2p, radio and tape, mic and speaker, listening and remembering, you name it, its just copying.
if you make a high quality copy of a copyrighted material and charge tickets to listen/view then your stealing.
if you rent something and copy it without there consent, stealing.
a freind buys a cd and says hey you want a copy? sharing.
labels hurt musicians.
most musicuans get dick from record labels. most of the smarter and wealthier musicians handled everything themselves, they also reaped 100% of the total net profits. signed bands will get at the most 5% of what the record companies tell them. oh out of that 5% the band has to cover management and other services so they may get about 2-3% out of the five.
for every buck made on the whole ball of shit the band may get as little as $.15. whereas the record company make about $.55. the record companies claim that .30 goes to shipping and distrubution, .40 goes to advertising. what they say never adds up. and they really dont share the books freely or otherwise.the amount of money to be sliced is so badly shaded and distorted by the record companies that there is a sub-profession of accounts specifically to discern royalty amounts. this profession is growing every year in size.
the ability to demo a cd allows me to choose what is worth spending money on, in turn i dont just give up on buying cd's all together.
i do know that almost every musician would love to be able to walk past any window and hear there music . the fact that i can hear music that has made/changed history is incredible. you can find work that has been lost for generations, things that can change a persons life.
this inturn helps the art to live.
this would not be possible without sharing.
the free market system runs on the principle of supply and demand. since they have opened asian and eastern markets the formulas of s&d have been tipped in the direction that record companies dont like. thats whats with all the bitchin.
if they lowered the prices to what people pay for bootlegs then people would purchase authentic versions. most people realize they are buying bootlegs. thats why it is usually cheaper.
in places that are more expensive, maybe authentic versions cant be bought, the record companies need to build there distrobution networks to accomadate these markets then pirating would be irrelavent. (shit i spell like a fuking 4year old lol)
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
So then.... presumably Macs/Linux etc. are shit as "a large group of people" don't use them? And Windows must be fantastic, as most people use that.
What I said had nothing to do with how popular a band or artists was or how good they are. I was trying to somehow explain to you that all record companies and most artists are after one thing, money. They will do anything to get money. So, according to you they can make more money if people download their music. If this is true, why don't they allow people to download their music. Its like someone saying I can make even more money than I already make, but whatever, I'll waste a bunch of money and time in lawsuits to try and stop it anyway. What I said had nothing to do with popularity or quality. People want money. If they could truly make more money by letting people download their music, they would "let" people download their music. They wouldn't try to fight it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by avello500:
i dont think its stealing to copy music with permision. p2p, radio and tape, mic and speaker, listening and remembering, you name it, its just copying.
if you make a high quality copy of a copyrighted material and charge tickets to listen/view then your stealing.
if you rent something and copy it without there consent, stealing.
a freind buys a cd and says hey you want a copy? sharing.
labels hurt musicians.
most musicuans get dick from record labels. most of the smarter and wealthier musicians handled everything themselves, they also reaped 100% of the total net profits. signed bands will get at the most 5% of what the record companies tell them. oh out of that 5% the band has to cover management and other services so they may get about 2-3% out of the five.
for every buck made on the whole ball of shit the band may get as little as $.15. whereas the record company make about $.55. the record companies claim that .30 goes to shipping and distrubution, .40 goes to advertising. what they say never adds up. and they really dont share the books freely or otherwise.the amount of money to be sliced is so badly shaded and distorted by the record companies that there is a sub-profession of accounts specifically to discern royalty amounts. this profession is growing every year in size.
the ability to demo a cd allows me to choose what is worth spending money on, in turn i dont just give up on buying cd's all together.
i do know that almost every musician would love to be able to walk past any window and hear there music . the fact that i can hear music that has made/changed history is incredible. you can find work that has been lost for generations, things that can change a persons life.
this inturn helps the art to live.
this would not be possible without sharing.
the free market system runs on the principle of supply and demand. since they have opened asian and eastern markets the formulas of s&d have been tipped in the direction that record companies dont like. thats whats with all the bitchin.
if they lowered the prices to what people pay for bootlegs then people would purchase authentic versions. most people realize they are buying bootlegs. thats why it is usually cheaper.
in places that are more expensive, maybe authentic versions cant be bought, the record companies need to build there distrobution networks to accomadate these markets then pirating would be irrelavent. (shit i spell like a fuking 4year old lol)
So your saying that because people are doing good things with the music and good things will come of it that it is no longer stealing...
Just because it is used for a good cause does not take away the fact that it is theft.
Best anology I could think of:
Robbin Hood STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor.
Robbin Hood stole stuff for a good purpose, but we didn't relabel it to take the word stole out.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
What I said had nothing to do with how popular a band or artists was or how good they are. I was trying to somehow explain to you that all record companies and most artists are after one thing, money. They will do anything to get money. So, according to you they can make more money if people download their music. If this is true, why don't they allow people to download their music. Its like someone saying I can make even more money than I already make, but whatever, I'll waste a bunch of money and time in lawsuits to try and stop it anyway. What I said had nothing to do with popularity or quality. People want money. If they could truly make more money by letting people download their music, they would "let" people download their music. They wouldn't try to fight it.
No, I'm not saying that. You suggested that artists making their work available for free can't be a good idea as a large number of people aren't doing it already. You were suggesting that if a majority group of (stupid) people do something, it must be right.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
So your saying that because people are doing good things with the music and good things will come of it that it is no longer stealing...
Just because it is used for a good cause does not take away the fact that it is theft.
Best anology I could think of:
Robbin Hood STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor.
Robbin Hood stole stuff for a good purpose, but we didn't relabel it to take the word stole out.
It is not stealing however you look at it. Even if you feel that artists should be paid every time a copy of their work is made, you're talking about paying for a service, not a product. If someone builds a road and charges a toll for everyone who drives down it, then if 3 people drive down it without paying you wouldn't say those people have "stolen" the use of the road, would you?
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
It is not stealing however you look at it. Even if you feel that artists should be paid every time a copy of their work is made, you're talking about paying for a service, not a product. If someone builds a road and charges a toll for everyone who drives down it, then if 3 people drive down it without paying you wouldn't say those people have "stolen" the use of the road, would you?
I wouldn't, just because it sounds weird, but the law would.
-
big time "artists" (if i can even call them that) have enough money to let their songs get distributed for free. they remind me of micro$hit: greedy and horrible at writing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
No, I'm not saying that. You suggested that artists making their work available for free can't be a good idea as a large number of people aren't doing it already. You were suggesting that if a majority group of (stupid) people do something, it must be right.
I said "large group of people," referring to the artists and labels that make the most money and are therefore the best at getting money. not fair money or honest money, but they are the best at getting money.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
I wouldn't, just because it sounds weird, but the law would.
Don't be ridiculous; of course it wouldn't. And why call it "stealing"? Why not say they've "murdered" the road? Or they've "illegally immigrated into" the road?
-
quote:
Originally posted by ArmTheHomeless:
big time "artists" (if i can even call them that) have enough money to let their songs get distributed for free. they remind me of micro$hit: greedy and horrible at writing.
I really think that is beside the point. If they can earn more money they should, even if they don't "need" it. If you take that attitude no one but the poorest of people can have stuff because no one else "needs" it. "I don't need a new car, but a family in chine sure could." You can't live your life based one what you need or esle you will be held back forever from achieving great things so that you can have "stuff" that you don't "need."
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
I really think that is beside the point. If they can earn more money they should, even if they don't "need" it. If you take that attitude no one but the poorest of people can have stuff because no one else "needs" it. "I don't need a new car, but a family in chine sure could." You can't live your life based one what you need or esle you will be held back forever from achieving great things so that you can have "stuff" that you don't "need."
this is true, but the artists whine too much about loosing a few thousand here and there. they did earn the money but maybe if people stopped sharing files, they could give the extra money to the poor...they are odviously surviving without it, and the poor sure could use their help. Anyways, a lot of voices of todays shitty music doesnt even come from the artist, it comes from a song writter. they should be the ones complaining, and im sure they would if they didnt sign the rights over to the lazy ass bands.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jtpenrod:
Better not let Calum hear you say that ;) What an absolute crock of shit this is! Is there really anyone out there idiot enough to sincerely believe that the RIAA has a monopoly on talent?(!) :eek: (Please E-Mail me right away! I have a bridge that I've been trying to unload for a long time. Perhaps we can do a deal? (http://smile.gif) ) To be sure, you can find lots of "lame assed" musicians posting mp3's on the 'Net. And you can find plenty of "lame assed" musicians signed to labels whose garbage'll cost you some $20.00 at "Block Buster". After all, consider: "New Kids on the Block", "N'Sync", "Brittney Spears", and many, many more: YYYYEEEECCCCHHHH!!!!. After all, Brittney has just two assets to offer, and neither one of them have anything to do with music. ;)
OTOH, you can find some damn good music from acts that aren't RIAA. Electronica is one good example. It hasn't caught on here in the 'States; the RIAA hasn't noticed, and you won't find these European Electronica acts offered at the major chain outlets like "Block Buster". Not "mainstream" enough. (http://tongue.gif)
There are other acts on the 'Net that are every bit as good as any RIAA-signed acts. And they really aren't all that difficult to find. Indeed: there are actually musicians out there who don't want to sign with a label. They'd prefer to keep creative control, do their own marketing which the 'Net and the mp3 have made possible, and take the lion's share of the proceeds from CD sales while selling for 1/2 to 1/4 what you'll pay for a RIAA CD.
That post, and another just like it, suggest they're coming from someone who's trying to sign with the RIAA. Let me remind all of you: I don't buy RIAA CDs, I don't download RIAA copyrighted music. I guess that means that I won't be listening to this musician's music if he does get signed. (http://tongue.gif)
I know that there is good music out there freely available on the net. I myself have never downloaded a tune off the net, I just cannae be bothered. I rarely buy CDs. My wife gets knock off CDs for stuff that we would never buy anyway. This is what the record companies need to think about in their grand scheme of things. Most of the stuff being downloaded "illegaly" is not lost revenue, it's stuff people wouldn't buy in the first place.
The price of a CD is far more than it's actually worth, this is why I don't buy CDs, I'm a cheap bastard. You buy a $15.00 CD on the notion that the single was pretty good but fuck me, the other 12 songs are absolute shite. This is a con. That CD should be $3.00 max ! I hope all of this does give the record companies sleepless nights.
No, I'm not on the record companies side, far from it believe it or not.
As for Calum's music ? I'm saying nowt ! ;)
-
Stealing involves directly removing something from someone's possession.
Can anyone point out how copying files from one computer to another is depriving anybody of anything.
And I find that there is a huge amount of good music out there on the Internet, for those who bother to look. I also find that the music available from file sharing networks is usually the same old claptrap you can buy in the shops. I'd prefer to see unreleased live music proliferating more often, but if that's what people want, that's what they'll get.
-
the last time i looked at this thread there were only like 8 posts, so i haven't read all of them yet. i probably won't. so if i say something that has been said already, i apologize. I have been pretty mixed about file "sharing" music, and movies. For one, it is like getting a warez version of windows. windows sucks, but since i can get it for free, i might as well use it. when you have an assortment of linux ditros to choose from, using windows, even a free copy, makes no sense. Why download music that is all the same mindless crap. It all sounds the same. You might get lucky, and find a label artist who is actually good. I know there are a few out there. And, you are indirectly supporting the riaa, whom we bitch about quite a bit. "fuck them and there evil business practices/methods whatever, i will just ignore it and listen to their music? what. right. I do not want to support them, in any form, so i shouldn't download the big labels music, because that is helping them keep control. like windows. enough with the computer references. lets move on. downloading music is not like getting a copy from a freind. When my freind buys a disc, and i like it, he will burn a copy for me. ripping a cd and sharing it with millions of people online is much more serious. that is stealing on a massive scale. again, why even bother. i for one, do not want to be told what to listen to. or what is popular and how i should dress. i want music back as an artform. with real artists. downloading music for free isnt helping this. supporting the labels is not helping to kill an "Industry". that term alone should be enough to ignore their shit. its a music "industry"? that makes no sense. like this post. im tired and am sorta jumping around. im done.
-
These people arent really saving the world
Do they real;ly deserve millions
-
(http://sugarmegs.org/naptoon.jpg)
-
Hear hear. Damn good picture there Calum.
-
Every time a new technology comes out, there are going to be losers, there always have. The RIAA puts alot of resources into putting that music out. When the music gets around without them recieveing anything for it, naturally, they are going to try to stop it. The printing press, radio, and even video casettes were all fought against. Arguements about their treacherous tactics, and what they have turned the music industry into aside, I think its just comes down to a question of what is a better world: one where music and information are freely available even though the original creator loses control of it or one where the creator stays in control and the content is only as free as he or she makes it? I personally happen to think the former is a happier world, and is better for humanity in the long run.
V
-
God bless Tom The Dancing Bug. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doctor V:
I think its just comes down to a question of what is a better world: one where music and information are freely available even though the original creator loses control of it or one where the creator stays in control and the content is only as free as he or she makes it? I personally happen to think the former is a happier world, and is better for humanity in the long run.
V
That's easy for you to say but it's not up to you.
As far as the record companies go, they are a load of parasites delivering prefab shite music that I wouldn't have for free anyway, Britney Spears etc.
The point is that the recording industry has a commodity, music that can be sold in various media formats and is protected from theft by the law. If someone gets busted for downloading music that they know to be copyright protected, no sympathy from me. More importantly, the artist is the one who must remain in control of their material and if they feel there is a market out there that will buy their music, then that's up to THEM. Either go out and buy their crap CD (whatever) or face the consequences if you are caught distributing via the internet.
If the record industry want to face up to this "crisis" they need to rethink their pricing structure and business model.
-
When will people learn that the law should conform to morality and not the other way around? :confused:
-
As I have seen in this thread, some people have very different definitions of morality.
[ June 13, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
MUSIC SHARING IS WRONG AND NO ONE SHOULD DO IT EXCEPT FOR ME DAMMIT!!!!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
When will people learn that the law should conform to morality and not the other way around? :confused:
Who's morality, yours ?
The way things stand right now is pretty cut and dry. Some music is available for free download and some is not. The stuff that is not available for free download, just beware that you might have to face some consequences when downloading/swapping (or rather distributing) the stuff you're not supposed to.
-
quote:
Calum: http://sugarmegs.org/naptoon.jpg (http://sugarmegs.org/naptoon.jpg)
P2P's are non comparable from library's. In a library, you borrow something, and you have to bring it back, or else...
In a P2P program, such as Gnutella or eDonkey, you copy something from someone, and the person from which you copied, can copy something from you (eDonkey makes you at least share one directory).
It's much easier to copy an OGG file and burn it on a CD, than scanning a book and putting it in a PDF file. And, you don't have to bring the OGG back, because you copied it, not borrowed it. The P2P system is Anarchistic by nature, which I like. You have the total freedom of copying music, and do anything you want with it, without charge.
And about the artists not getting money thing: [apathy]they aren't much getting money anyways[/apathy]. And if the record companies could make an album cheaper, I'd buy the album for sure. It much more easier to walk to a store, buy a CD and listen to it immediatly in high quality, instead of spending hours on downloading mp3's (which may be low-quality), and spending money on empty CD's to put low-quality mp3's on.
-
quote:
Who's morality, yours ?
What I'm saying Hibee is that you need to back up your arguments with more than "the law says this - so do it."
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
What I'm saying Hibee is that you need to back up your arguments with more than "the law says this - so do it."
I'm not sure how to respond to this because I don't believe I said or implied that but I do kind of go along with the sentiment. ;)
In this case, I do think the law is correct. But by breaking that law (copying/distributing copyright music via the internet) it forces the record industry to change their ways, I'm all for it. It's just not something I would do personally. I don't see why people have a problem paying for a product and the owner of the product protecting their asset.
But I rarely buy music anyway. I have a friends who bootlegs CDs but I never take them because it's shite, like Robbie Williams or Kylie. Stuff I wouldn't have for free let alone buy !!
I don't see what the moral issue is either and by who's morals are we to be observing, yours ? Gods, Allahs ? My granny ?
[ June 13, 2003: Message edited by: HibbeeBoy ]
-
The moral issue is the fundamental human right to share, which is being compromised by artists and record labels "protecting their assets", as you misleadingly put it.
quote:
I don't see why people have a problem paying for a product
Has this not been explained thousands of times before? It is about *freedom* and not price. The issue is not whether or not you pay for music, it's whether or not we are allowed to copy and share.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
The moral issue is the fundamental human right to share, which is being compromised by artists and record labels "protecting their assets", as you misleadingly put it.
The fundamental human right to share, WTF are you on about ?
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Has this not been explained thousands of times before? It is about *freedom* and not price. The issue is not whether or not you pay for music, it's whether or not we are allowed to copy and share.
And it has been established that under the present circumstances the artist and their recording company have the right to prevent that happening.
It's not all about YOU.
You can download music free of charge and free of consequence all over the place, certain artists want to restrict that from their work, they want the fundamental right to choose how their work is distributed.
-
quote:
The fundamental human right to share, WTF are you on about ?
I'm on about the funamental right to share. What part of that concept is difficult to understand?
quote:
And it has been established that under the present circumstances the artist and their recording company have the right to prevent that happening.
No, it has been suggested that they have the right. I disagree.
quote:
It's not all about YOU.
Again, I disagree, assuming that when you say "YOU" you really mean society, and not me specifically. Your suggestion is that the right of an individual artist to exploit is more important than the right of an entire society to share.
Artists should have every right to stop their work from being distributed full-stop, but if they choose to have it published they they shouldn't have the right to dictate who and who can't listen to/use it.
-
Quote:
I'm on about the funamental right to share. What part of that concept is difficult to understand?
Sharing is not a right, it's common courtesy and good manners at best but it is not a fundamental right. Good try though.
quote:
And it has been established that under the present circumstances the artist and their recording company have the right to prevent that happening.
No, it has been suggested that they have the right. I disagree.
Nope, it's not a suggestion, it's a fact borne out by the reality of the laws. Deal with facts and realities.
quote:
It's not all about YOU.
Again, I disagree, assuming that when you say "YOU" you really mean society, and not me specifically. Your suggestion is that the right of an individual artist to exploit is more important than the right of an entire society to share.
----
Hibee: No, I did mean YOU specifically.
Who said anything about exploiting ? Certainly not me. Society will get along just fine without Kylie, Robbie Williams, Insync et al. If this pile of shite can found some fool to part with their money, well you know the old saying about fools and their money.
---
Quote:
Artists should have every right to stop their work from being distributed full-stop, but if they choose to have it published they they shouldn't have the right to dictate who and who can't listen to/use it.
--------------------
On this I agree with you and Virgin Record stores have never denied me my right to purchase a CD from their store of any artist. However, I choose not to purchase CDs very often.
For someone who advocates free choice, you are a bit of a facist to dictate how an artist should be publishing their music.
-
quote:
Sharing is not a right, it's common courtesy and good manners at best
No; it's a right. If I want to share something that's in my posession I'll do it.
quote:
Nope, it's not a suggestion, it's a fact borne out by the reality of the laws. Deal with facts and realities.
The existence of laws obviously bears out the fact that they have the legal right, but not the moral right.
quote:
If this pile of shite can found some fool to part with their money
Then they're exploiting them. And I'm not just talking about pop music; any music that's released under those kind of copyright restrictions.
quote:
For someone who advocates free choice, you are a bit of a facist to dictate how an artist should be publishing their music.
No, I'm not a "fascist" - neither do I advocate "complete" freedom for everyone, especially not if it means granting the right to exploit and restrict society. That's the right-wing perversion of the ideal of "freedom".
-
Who gives a shit what we term breaking these artists distribution terms. Their music sucks anyway.
I can belive this has ran on about a month over 4 pages twoing and froing over which word to use.
I see it like this, If you wan't to use lame proprietary software like Microsoft, play it their way and turn out your pockets. Same with the music, you wanna bob you head to RIAA pay your due monies.
The sooner people realise what a raw deal they are getting, they will switch to some more un-tainted and free (money and philosophy) artists.
Pirating thier crap just makes you another in their user base, by buying or copying/sharing/stealing/borrowing whatever whatever their music they still have you buy the nuts and will probably control your tastes.
File Sharing also only gives them excuses and fodder to get rediculous laws like the DMCA passed that start to infringe upon my other areas that I do care about.
-
Quote:
No; it's a right. If I want to share something that's in my posession I'll do it.
Just because it's in your possession doesn't mean it belongs to you as it would depend on how it came to be in your posession. Maybe you stole it.
The issue lies in what constitutes sharing. By copying and distributing music against the express wishes of the creator (and owner) then I don't think you have that right. Nor do I think you should have the right to use the artists work as you seem fit without the consent of the creator. If you want to lend a copy of a CD to a friend or something, no problem. That I would consider sharing.
quote:
The existence of laws obviously bears out the fact that they have the legal right, but not the moral right.
According to YOUR morals maybe.
quote:
Then they're exploiting them. And I'm not just talking about pop music; any music that's released under those kind of copyright restrictions.
I think the artist/creator should be allowed to control their work, not you. You are under no obligation to buy the music. There is a lot of music available for free download, copy, sharing call it what you like where no resrictions apply. I don't see why YOU should be the one to determine how the artist distributes their work in those cases where the artist feel his output good enough that he can charge a fee for it. The market will support it.
quote:
No, I'm not a "fascist" - neither do I advocate "complete" freedom for everyone, especially not if it means granting the right to exploit and restrict society. That's the right-wing perversion of the ideal of "freedom".
There is no restriction here. You want music, go to the store and buy it. If you don't want to pay for music, download the stuff that is freely available. You do have a choice.
You come off as a fascist because you want to dictate that someone cannot be allowed to earn a living from their talents because your work must be free and we must all live by your moral code/standards.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
Who gives a shit what we term breaking these artists distribution terms. Their music sucks anyway.
That's a weak argument that is always used as a last resort. wether or not it sucks is an opinion, and not everyone agrees with you.
quote:
The sooner people realise what a raw deal they are getting, they will switch to some more un-tainted and free (money and philosophy) artists.
A lot of good artists (good is an opinion by the way) can't afford to publish or advertise their work. Why do you think we have publishers? For the most part it is the publishers that are greedy. So you are saying we should only listen to people that are rich (who get the money likely from their greedy parents)?
I like country, if I should switch to one of these folks you are talking about, why don't you point me to a good band/artist? It was your suggestion and they aren't advertising themselves.
-
Stryker how long has music existed? How many hundreds of years?
It does not therefore need to be a corporate cash-cow and artists don't need to be manufactured and signed to one of the big three labels.
I am not going to search for good music for you, but personally I find some really good music locally, in small stores and on independant labels.
Obviouslly I can't listen to music completely form smaller labels and artists and I have tastes in the mainstream but the situation in music seems to be snowballing into one where the record companies are taking the piss out of both the consumer and the artist. Artist seem to be reared for the puplic eye and the public are indoctrinated into adhering to fasions and trends. It's all becoming increasingly false.
I don't particularly give a flying fuck about filesharing, copyrighting or anything I just don't like how industricised they are trying to make music.
Also many artist change drastically when they get signed to the big lables from what they began as.
It has been proven through time that arts best works are created when the artist is on the financial backfoot.
I don't mean that they should be kept poor, it's just sad how many end up selling out under the record companies tricks to lure them in and lead astray. They are treated like a donkey with a carrot.
I apologise if this post doesnt make any sense as
A) I am very tired, and
B) I don't particularly have an opinion on tis topic, I just felt a need to respond because Stryker seemed so hostile.
Now, if you dont mind, I am going to sleep.
Perhaps you could continue the debate until the end of time and people will still have polar views and be shouting across the fence. Enjoy another ill fated MES 'let's bitch for eternity' thread.
-
both. some artists don't care about money, and allow their music to be downloaded freely.
-
Aw c'mon Tux, get into the spirit of the thing !!
It's just a discussion and has been fairly interesting. It's just about done now anyway.
-
quote:
Just because it's in your possession doesn't mean it belongs to you as it would depend on how it came to be in your posession. Maybe you stole it.
If I have a CD that I bought, I own it. And by your standards I haven't "stolen" the music on it. I therefore have the right to share it as I see fit. If the creator didn't want me to share it he shouldn't have sold it to me.
quote:
There is no restriction here.
Yes there is. If you buy a CD from a store, you're not allowed to give copies to your friends.
quote:
you want to dictate that someone cannot be allowed to earn a living from their talents because your work must be free
How many times do I have to make this point before it's understood? We want the music to be free as in freedom - the issue is not whether or not the artist charges for their work (they should be able to charge $1m for it if they want, and not make it available for free themselves), but rather what people are allowed to do with the artist's work once they obtain it i.e. they should be allowed to share it freely.
There are ways that artists can make money from distributing their art while still allowing it to be copied freely e.g. selling CDs (most people still don't have the technological capability to download music), voluntary online donations etc.
-
I wasn't aware of how hostile i was i guess... i'm one of the least hostile people i know. This is how it usually works though. We scream and bitch at eachother in one thread, and completely agree in another... just because i disagree with you this time doesn't mean i'm hostile.
As for the copying a CD thing is OK because you bought it the CD, that's wrong. If I buy a CD, I'm buying my right to use the music. And my use of the music is to share it with a friend. I'm not all for sharing music on a level like kazaa does it. But if I want to make 7 or 8 copies for a few friends, what's the problem?
Why should I buy a CD if I don't know if I like it or not? Don't give me that radio shit either, not all the songs are played on the radio.
I'm tired, sorry if I seemed hostile in this post too...
-
Dear me, flap. Would you care to explain *where* it is written that we have a *right* to share? In the Bible? In the Magna Carta? In the Universal Declaration of Human rights? I have seen no such mention.
Where is it written that we have a right to ruin the profits of a singer (nevermind the RIAA) by just copying and giving away his songs? And while we
-
There is a fundamental law that says that an individual
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
When will people learn that the law should conform to morality and not the other way around? :confused:
Yes. History is filled with examples of laws being made that are horribly corrupt. I'll take one out of many examples. In America, the civil rights movement throughout the middle of last century was all kicked off by one woman refusing to obey an opressive law. The law said that because she was black she was obligated give up her seat on the bus to another woman that was white. Does anyone think she was wrong to break the law in this case? I know this is a far cry from copyright, but the point is, sometimes laws need to be questioned.
V
-
quote:
Dear me, flap. Would you care to explain *where* it is written that we have a *right* to share?
I'm disturbed to see that your sense of morality and human rights is based on what's "written down". I like to think that basic rights, such as the right to help your neighbour in a way that doesn't harm anyone else, are implicit and don't need to appear in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or anywhere else.
quote:
Where is it written that we have a right to ruin the profits of a singer
I never suggested anything of the sort. Under a system of free distribution, it's possible that artists would make less money. You'd probably get fewer multi-millionaires like Britney Spears or Paul McCartney, which is a good thing. On the other hand, artists lower on the scale of popularity would probably make more money. You are aware of how record companies screw their (less financially successful) artists, aren't you?
quote:
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because songs are not information.
So freedom of speech only applies to functional information?
quote:
You also seem to forget about the right of privacy.
No, I've said that I respect an artist's right to produce a work of art and keep it to themselves. But once they've decided to publish it to the public they lose that right. What you're saying is like someone standing naked on top of a building and then complaining about their "right to privacy" when people look at them.
quote:
just because an information is available does not mean that everyone is entitled to it.
It's a shame you feel that "entitlement" comes only with the wealth necessary to buy it.
-
quote:
If they can earn more money they should.
And this describes RIAA and almost all other big companies ideals in one little sentence. Not "if you can earn more money do it (provided you don't hurt others.)" but "if you can get money, do it." The record companies have been shafting us and artists for years, it's about time we actually told them where to shove their monopolies. Artists will survive, with the greedy record companies STEALING (not sharing ;) ) their royalties they make most of their profits off concerts anyway - combined with the fact that sharing music is free advertising to buy their CD's anyway. If that's bullshit then does someone want to explain to me why, with my huge ogg collection I still have over a grands worth of CD's on my bedroom shelf? And how much more of those would I buy if we could force record companies to lower their prices? How much more artists would get their five cents per CD?
-
quote:
I like to think that basic rights, such as the right to help your neighbour in a way that doesn't harm anyone else, are implicit
You are the one starting to worry me, flap. So you are trying prove a very disputed point with "implicit" laws which nobody seem to agree on? Oh, and "doesn't harm anyone else" is the whole point, and I have been arguing on that since the beginning. I noticed that you have ignored everything of what I have said on that.
quote:
I never suggested anything of the sort. Under a system of free distribution, it's possible that artists would make less money.
Less money? As much money as you make by being a charity, I suppose?
quote:
On the other hand, artists lower on the scale of popularity would probably make more money.
Care to explain how you make more money by trying to sell music that everyone else gives away? Or do I have to give a thorough explanation of why this is unlikely to work?
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
How many times do I have to make this point before it's understood? We want the music to be free as in freedom - the issue is not whether or not the artist charges for their work (they should be able to charge $1m for it if they want, and not make it available for free themselves), but rather what people are allowed to do with the artist's work once they obtain it i.e. they should be allowed to share it freely.
There are ways that artists can make money from distributing their art while still allowing it to be copied freely e.g. selling CDs (most people still don't have the technological capability to download music), voluntary online donations etc.
Again you are not considering the feelings of the artists, you are taking their right to control the distribution and use of their work. You do not have any divine right to dictate how an artist distributes their work. Most of the copyright laws are suspect, I agree with you. But I do not agree with your stance that you have the right to distribute their work. This seems to be what you are saying and I don't mean you specifically this time. Just my opinion.
Anyway, I'm bored with this now.
-
quote:
You are aware of how record companies screw their (less financially successful) artists, aren't you?
Of course I am aware of it. But that does not mean that your alternative is the only or best solution.
quote:
So freedom of speech only applies to functional information?
Have you even read that paragraph? What does reproduction of art have to do with freedom of information? People are free to describe art or criticise it, or display it (as long as the displayer paid for it), or even, say, go to the mall and record music, or take pictures of a painting. But it ends when people take the original piece of art and distribute it, which is considered morally wrong (and I dare even say that it is "implicitly wrong", since you seem to like that expression so much) And would you ever consider plagiarism a right?
-
quote:
It's a shame you feel that "entitlement" comes only with the wealth necessary to buy it.
Excuse me? Everyone is free to distribute their music anyway they like (and possibly forsake any fame or profit if they give it away). No one should be forced to practically give their works away (that is, by allowing the first person who buys their song to give it away) or, for that matter, to charge for their songs.
Please, is there a word limit or not? I am tired of posting in installments.
-
quote:
Care to explain how you make more money by trying to sell music that everyone else gives away? Or do I have to give a thorough explanation of why this is unlikely to work?
Yeah it's disghusting how all those filthy radio pirates keep stealing music off artists. I mean if it was like advertising the artist would make some money, but it's quite obviously not.
-
http://www.eff.org/IP//copywrong.paper (http://www.eff.org/IP//copywrong.paper)
-
First they came for the space-shifters,
and I did not speak,
because I don't own a Diamond Rio.
Then they came for the DeCSS sites,
and I did not speak,
because I don't watch DVDs on a Linux box.
Then they came for Sean Fanning,
and I did not speak,
because I figured I'd just use Gnutella.
Then they came for my VCR.
-
Oh and of course none of you use VCR's right? I mean when you record a show you are STEALING a TV stations art. Why would people buy videos if they have huge pirated collections? Honestly. (We all do know that the big companies tried to render VCR's illegal don't we? They also tried to ban the playing of music on the radio...) Oh and because your arguments are so convincing I'm throwing away my library card. No, really. :rolleyes:
-
Read my posts, Faust. I have already said/implied that this is right (although not necessarily legal), along with taking pictures. What is wrong is distributing the original media without permission. This is right because we have already paid to view what is broadcast on TV (adverts, monthly payments, etc). It would be wrong, though, if someone started his own channel and distributed the recordings without paying or getting permission.
And even if it wasn't right, this would be an ad populum argument; just because everybody does it doesn't mean it is right.
And library cards have nothing to do with distributing books without permission.
I will read amd comment on the copywrong paper; it may be interesting to hear what RMS has to say on this (provided that it benefits the vendor AS WELL as the consumer).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
Oh and of course none of you use VCR's right? I mean when you record a show you are STEALING a TV stations art. Why would people buy videos if they have huge pirated collections? Honestly. (We all do know that the big companies tried to render VCR's illegal don't we? They also tried to ban the playing of music on the radio...) Oh and because your arguments are so convincing I'm throwing away my library card. No, really. :rolleyes:
Things got a bit off topic. If an artist (not the publisher) wants to control the distribution of their work, I think they should have that right. There is a difference between making a couple of copies for personal use and turning it into a cottage industry of bootlegging stuff. I don't see what the RIAA are getting their knickers in a twist about. People downloading music are probably downloading music they wouldn't buy anyway. If the RIAA were smart, they would reduce the price of a CD to what it should be, $3.99 tops, for Insync, Kylie etc, $1.99 or 99c. I don't think this is a battle they can win fighting it the way they are. They need to fight it pricing wise. Give the punter some value for money and stop paying eminem millions of dollars a year.
[ June 14, 2003: Message edited by: HibbeeBoy ]
-
I have finished reading Stallman's article. Maybe you should read it yourself, Faust, because this does not contradict in any way anything I have said so far: that musicians should be redeemed for their work. On the other hand, I have seen nothing in that article that promotes "free" distribution of media (or at least the way you and flap seem to).
In fact, I agree much more with the method he proposed in the article than with any of your rhetoric about making music "free as in free speech". I find that using a tax method to pay the musicians for their music (in a much more fair way) is an excellent solution. Too bad you didn't mention any of this, now did you?
The problem, from what I understand, is that you are trying to apply the ideas of the GNU GPL to the media industry, which is a totally different context (not that I agree that all software should be free, either).
However, until such a system is implemented, copying music CDs and P2P will still remain stealing.
[ June 14, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
[ June 14, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
You are the one starting to worry me, flap. So you are trying prove a very disputed point with "implicit" laws which nobody seem to agree on?
If you're seriously disputing that human beings don't have the right to share with one another, then the problem is with you, and not me.
quote:
Care to explain how you make more money by trying to sell music that everyone else gives away?
By allowing free distribution an artist gains far more publicity than a record company can provide. Currently many artists make so little from record sales that most of the money they make comes from touring, and selling cds at concerts etc.
quote:
Again you are not considering the feelings of the artists, you are taking their right to control the distribution and use of their work.
By this logic, then, we shouldn't have any control over companies. We shouldn't have anti trust cases or corporate watchdogs. Who are we to sue Microsoft for monopolising? What moral right do we have to hurt their "feelings"?
quote:
Have you even read that paragraph? What does reproduction of art have to do with freedom of information?
You didn't say freedom of information, you said:
quote:
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because songs are not information.
You seem to be suggesting that freedom of speech applies only to functional information.
quote:
Excuse me? Everyone is free to distribute their music anyway they like
You said:
quote:
just because an information is available does not mean that everyone is entitled to it.
Here you seem to be suggesting that some people are not "entitled" to information i.e. those who haven't, possibly because they're not able, paid for it.
quote:
Faust, because this does not contradict in any way anything I have said so far: that musicians should be redeemed for their work.
When have I suggested that musicians shouldn't be redeemed for their work?
quote:
On the other hand, I have seen nothing in that article that promotes "free" distribution of media (or at least the way you and flap seem to).
Actually most of the ideas I'm talking about here have been specifically suggested by Stallman.
quote:
The problem, from what I understand, is that you are trying to apply the ideas of the GNU GPL to the media industry, which is a totally different context (not that I agree that all software should be free, either).
Not exactly. For example, commercial redistribution could be prohibited, as this isn't a freedom that would benefit society, unlike with free software.
quote:
However, until such a system is implemented, copying music CDs and P2P will still remain stealing.
I'll explain why, whether you agree that it's morally right to copy or not, this is not "stealing". Firstly, why is stealing a problem? If you wake up in the morning and find your car has been stolen, why would this bother you? Is it because someone out there has a new car? No, obviously not; you're bothered because you no longer have one. The whole point of stealing is that it's about depriving someone of something they own. Copying doesn't leave the artist without their work, so even if you don't agree with it, copying is not analagous to theft.
-
quote:
If you're seriously disputing that human beings don't have the right to share
Not everyone agrees that copying music is sharing.
quote:
By allowing free distribution an artist gains far more publicity than a record company can provide.
What's the point if you have no garantee to make any profit, let alone enough money for a living? If the artists charge a substantial amount of money for their songs, when everyone else can get them for free (or for a lower cost by big corporations), they will never be able to make any sales, since everyone will buy either buy cheap from corporations who don't pay them back or just copy them from their neighbour.
-
quote:
---- Again you are not considering the feelings of the artists, you are taking their right to control the distribution and use of their work.----
By this logic, then, we shouldn't have any control over companies. We shouldn't have anti trust cases or corporate watchdogs. Who are we to sue Microsoft for monopolising? What moral right do we have to hurt their "feelings"?
Not my argument, but this is unrelated to the issue at hand. You are confusing controlling distribution and controlling behaviour. It is not for Microsoft's success in selling Windows that we sue them, but because of the unsavoury business practices that led them to their position.
-
quote:
You seem to be suggesting that freedom of speech applies only to functional information.
Ever head of the painting of a pipe, beneath which is written "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? This means that a representation of a pipe is not the object itself. Let's say you see a pipe on the table, The pipe in itself is not information, right? It is only the interpretation of that vision that constitutes information. In the same way, art cannot be information, because it has to be interpreted first. The comments about a piece of art, though, is information.
quote:
----Excuse me? Everyone is free to distribute their music anyway they like----
You said:
----just because an information is available does not mean that everyone is entitled to it.----
Their music, as in "The one they produced". Are you just taking my quotes out of context?
-
quote:
When have I suggested that musicians shouldn't be redeemed for their work?
You're taking my quotes out of context again. I have never suggested such a thing! I suggested that your idea of spreading out music was not an efficient way to pay artists, and that paying for music as taxes was a better method.
quote:
Here you seem to be suggesting that some people are not "entitled" to information i.e. those who haven't, possibly because they're not able, paid for it.
I don't see how. "Entitled" can also mean that someone gave them the music. And I have already said that art in itself is not information.
quote:
Actually most of the ideas I'm talking about here have been specifically suggested by Stallman.
RMS does propose free distribution, but paid with taxes. And he does not propose to forbid commercial redistribution. As I said before, you're incorporating ideas from the GPL in a different context (although not all of them).
[ June 15, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Not exactly. For example, commercial redistribution could be prohibited, as this isn't a freedom that would benefit society, unlike with free software.
Wow. So then, neither businesses nor individuals will make any profit. How would you justify such a law? And even without businesses, you still have the sheer number of people giving away your music.
quote:
The whole point of stealing is that it's about depriving someone of something they own. Copying doesn't leave the artist without their work, so even if you don't agree with it, copying is not analagous to theft.
I believe I have already explained that it is of their profit that they are being bereft. So, if you are writting an exam, and someone copies on you, and the teacher give both of you a zero, would you not agree that while the other person has not stolen your exam, he has somehow denied you a good mark? If theft is not good enough for you, then some other term should be given, but copying music is still morally wrong if the third parties do not pay for them.
[ June 15, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
Don't forget the most important question in this topic?
What does God need with a starship??
:D
Okay, I'll shut up now.
-
Uh?
-
It's a heated debate, I just thought I'd lighten it up a bit by injecting something completely nonsensical. Ignore me.
-
quote:
Not everyone agrees that copying music is sharing.
How can it not be sharing? Even if you believe it's "stealing" as well, it's still sharing. If I literally steal things from someone and then give them away to people, I'm still sharing, even though I've done something morally wrong by stealing in the first place.
quote:
What's the point if you have no garantee to make any profit, let alone enough money for a living?
So bands have guaranteed financial success with the current system?
quote:
It is not for Microsoft's success in selling Windows that we sue them, but because of the unsavoury business practices that led them to their position.
Who are we to judge that their business practices are "unsavoury"? For the good of society we place restrictions on how businesses and individuals participate in the capitalist system - I just think those restrictions should be extended.
quote:
In the same way, art cannot be information, because it has to be interpreted first. The comments about a piece of art, though, is information.
That's irrelevant. I accept that art isn't functional information, but I don't see why freedom of speech should be restricted becuase of the nature of the 'information' being copied.
quote:
RMS does propose free distribution, but paid with taxes. And he does not propose to forbid commercial redistribution.
I can send you a link to a recording of a speech in which he talks about these ideas specifically if you want, so you can hear it from the horse's mouth.
quote:
Wow. So then, neither businesses nor individuals will make any profit. How would you justify such a law? And even without businesses, you still have the sheer number of people giving away your music.
No, I'm saying that commercial redistribution without the consent of the artist could be forbidden. That way people are still free to privately share the music but the artist has a monopoly on how it's sold. This is a restriction of freedom but not one that's a problem.
quote:
I believe I have already explained that it is of their profit that they are being bereft.
That's a very shaky concept. I could build a road somewhere and demand a toll for everyone who drove past. I could charge
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I'll explain why, whether you agree that it's morally right to copy or not, this is not "stealing". Firstly, why is stealing a problem? If you wake up in the morning and find your car has been stolen, why would this bother you? Is it because someone out there has a new car? No, obviously not; you're bothered because you no longer have one. The whole point of stealing is that it's about depriving someone of something they own. Copying doesn't leave the artist without their work, so even if you don't agree with it, copying is not analagous to theft.
The car was recovered by the police and returned to you. Was it really stolen or were you just sharing your car ?
[ June 16, 2003: Message edited by: HibbeeBoy ]
-
quote:
How can it not be sharing?
Because of the multiplicative nature of this distribution, it cannot be considered sharing. Playing a CD and listening to it with some friends is sharing. Copying it is not sharing; it is copying.
quote:
So bands have guaranteed financial success with the current system?
At least they get money for what they sell. And are you're assuming that your solution is the only one? I don't particularly like our current system, but that doesn't mean that giving music away is the best solution.
quote:
I just think those restrictions should be extended.
I live in Canada, and our business laws are more restrictive than in the USA (I don't know about UK). There are culture regulations here (ex. in Quebec 70% of the content on TV must be of French-speaking origin) and I could see the state regulating distribution in a more socialist country such as mine. But even here, practically giving music away without an alternative form of payment (adverts, taxes or other), and relying only on semi-charity is ridiculous.
-
quote:
I can send you a link to a recording of a speech in which he talks about these ideas specifically if you want
Send it. I will comment on that.
quote:
No, I'm saying that commercial redistribution without the consent of the artist could be forbidden.
That's better, but not enough. Nothing garantees that anyone is going to buy from the artist or the official redistributors if they can get the music for free, or at least anymore than with our current system.
quote:
it should be clear why using the term "theft" just because you feel there has been deprivation of profit is ridiculous.
Then another term should be used. But the situation you described most certainly isn't sharing, and the fact remains that taking a taxi without paying is morally wrong.
-
quote:
The car was recovered by the police and returned to you. Was it really stolen or were you just sharing your car ?
If they return it to you before you get up in the morning and miss it, then it's not so much of a problem, but there's still the fact that it's suffered wear and tear, had petrol used etc. i.e. it's directly incurred costs for you. The point is, if someone "took a copy" of your car somehow, then they wouldn't have stolen it; they'd have copied it.
quote:
Because of the multiplicative nature of this distribution, it cannot be considered sharing. Playing a CD and listening to it with some friends is sharing. Copying it is not sharing; it is copying.
If you can provide a dictionary definition of sharing that supports your suggestion that duplication of something somehow precludes it from being sharing, I'll agree with you.
quote:
Nothing garantees that anyone is going to buy from the artist or the official redistributors if they can get the music for free, or at least anymore than with our current system.
Why do you think anyone still buys CDs? As far as I can see it could be any of the following reasons:
1) People fear the legal consequences of copying - very unlikely. People have been illegally copying for years and they're aware that they're unlikely to be caught, yet you seem to think that if we remove these practically ineffectual legal restrictions then the fabric of society will collapse.
2) High speed access to the internet is still not particularly commonplace - much more likely. So people still have a need for the physical distribution of music on cd, for which there is still a market, then.
3) Artist loyalty - people feel a duty to reimburse their favourite artists for the music, or they'd feel guilty for copying it. Thus these people would probably happily contribute under the system described earlier - they'd end up paying literally no more than a 10th of what they do now, yet the artists would make more money.
quote:
Then another term should be used. But the situation you described most certainly isn't sharing, and the fact remains that taking a taxi without paying is morally wrong.
So do you accept that copying isn't stealing? And yes, I agree that not paying for a taxi is wrong - the point I was making was that even in a situation such as that where something is undoubtedly morally wrong, it's still incorrect to term it "stealing".
(Incidentally, just in case you're going to ask what the difference between not paying for a taxi and not paying for music is, in the case of the taxi ride the taxi driver does actually incur costs for every passenger that sits in his cab and so does actually require payment for every bit of service he provides. In the case of copying music, the situation of two people sharing audio files amongst each other is a transaction that doesn't cost the artist anything and doesn't even involve them.)
The rms speech is one from this page (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html). I'll try to find which specific talk it is.
-
quote:
If you can provide a dictionary definition of sharing that supports your suggestion that duplication of something somehow precludes it from being sharing, I'll agree with you.
Merriam-Webster, tenth edition:
quote:
share vb shared; sharing:
1: to divide and distribute in shares : APPORTION
And from an Oxford thesaurus:
quote:
share
noun ALLOWANCE, ration, allocation, division, quota, allotment, portion
verb DIVIDE split
I'll let that speak for itself.
-
quote:
The car was recovered by the police and returned to you. Was it really stolen or were you just sharing your car ?
If they return it to you before you get up in the morning and miss it, then it's not so much of a problem, but there's still the fact that it's suffered wear and tear, had petrol used etc. i.e. it's directly incurred costs for you. The point is, if someone "took a copy" of your car somehow, then they wouldn't have stolen it; they'd have copied it.
Oh I see, so theft can only occur if a cost is incurred by the owner of the property ?
If you have a car, do you lock the doors or do you leave the keys in the ignition in case you want to share it with someone ?
How do you feel about the millions of dollars that sites like Napster (that's the only one I know) made at the expense of the publishers and artists ? Does that seem fair ?
-
quote:
Why do you think anyone still buys CDs?
So your argument is limited to CD's? I recall that Apple released an internet service not long ago. And it's very successful, thank you very much.
quote:
People fear the legal consequences of copying - very unlikely
I do not argue that. In fact, I always thought that scaring people for any reason was counteproductive.
quote:
yet you seem to think that if we remove these practically ineffectual legal restrictions then the fabric of society will collapse.
I am not in favour of the current system. I am arguing that giving music avay is an ineffective alternative, compared to other solutions such as a VERY (and I stress very) mild DRM (like Apple's iTMS) or possibly RMS' tax method.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
I'll let that speak for itself.
So there has to be some physical "division" for something to be shared? That seems to contradict your earlier suggestion that
quote:
Playing a CD and listening to it with some friends is sharing.
While we're quoting dictionaries,
The American Heritage
-
quote:
So your argument is limited to CD's? I recall that Apple released an internet service not long ago. And it's very successful, thank you very much.
Even better. So why are these people, who have sufficient internet access to download songs, not just downloading them with P2P software? I'd like to know why removing the legal restrictions on non-commercial redistribution would have such a significant effect on artists' incomes, considering you acknowledge that the law is not the reason why people don't copy.
If people are prepared to buy online, then we have proof that artists will be able to sell their music through services like Apple's, but without the DRM, and it will have massive take-up. If you're suggesting that people will get it from their friends rather than paying the artist, then why aren't they doing that now?
-
quote:
Well. obviously yes, the whole point of why stealing is bad, as I explained, is that the owner suffers some cost, financial or otherwise. In this case the theft either costs you your car, or the money it takes to refill the tank etc. So, no, as you want to keep your car you don't leave the keys in the ignition; you only give them to people with whom you trust enough to share it, as you need them to bring it back.
Hmmm, so when someone has a file that they are sharing, they return the file to the person they borrowed it from ? And the person they borrowed it from does not have use of that file e.g. a music file until the borrower returns it ?
quote:
You seem to be missing the whole point I'm making, which is that it isn't "at the expense of the artists".
Says you ! A lot of the artists disagree with you. Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ? (Although that model has changed slightly, they are now forced to pay a royalty to the publisher, that is the way it started.) That I think is morally wrong.
Quote:
And if you're looking for people ripping off musicians, you might want to look at record labels.
Oh so you want to just change who is ripping who off ?
I don't think that making a copy of music is inherently wrong, I just don't think that mass reproduction and distribution of an artists work is a moral or fundamental right, I think it is at the discretion of the artist and the publisher.
-
quote:
Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:
How do you feel about the millions of dollars that sites like Napster (that's the only one I know) made at the expense of the publishers and artists ? Does that seem fair ?
I just want to add real quick that, during Napster's prime, CD sales were actually higher than they were before Napster.
-
quote:
which backs up both my interpretaion of sharing, and your earlier definition, before you changed your mind.
I did not change my mind. If we put both definitions together, you'll notice that it supports both my allowance for listening to a CD, where no multiplication is involved and my rejection of multiplication from the definition of sharing.
-
quote:
So why are these people, who have sufficient internet access to download songs, not just downloading them with P2P software?
quote:
If people are prepared to buy online, then we have proof that artists will be able to sell their music through services like Apple's
The big difference that I am trying to point out is not the legal issues. It is the moral issues. The law, while it does not scare away anyone, still reminds everyone that artists need to make a living. If it becomes morally acceptable to copy music, people might forget that. Capisce?
-
I have survived through the soporific discourse you sent me, flap. No offence, and only my personal opinion, but this was the most boring speech I've ever heard. Apart from this, what he said was informative, but I've learnt little new from this other than anecdotal information. He is right about the problems he points out, but unfortunately, the solutions he proposes in this speech are not realistic. For example, he talks about mouth-to-ear publicity, but the problem with that is that fame will not extend outside the circles, and as such cannot become mainstream.
I do agree, though, that one should do whatever he wants with the music he downloaded, INCLUDING making copies, and even giving them to his friends (the catch is that they would have to be entitled, or they wouldn't be allowed to RECEIVE it).
I also think that buying a song should be buying a permanent right to it rather than just a CD. Therefore, I am against the more restrictive forms of DRM (ex. the music registration services where you lose everything if you unsuscribe).
Of course, what I am proposing is only one alternative amongst many others.
-
quote:
Hmmm, so when someone has a file that they are sharing, they return the file to the person they borrowed it from ? And the person they borrowed it from does not have use of that file e.g. a music file until the borrower returns it ?
You still seem to be missing the point; that copying is not analagous to borrowing, stealing, or any other action that leaves the original owner without their property, so there's no need to "return" the file. As I've said, if someone could "copy" your car and take that copy, then they wouldn't need to return it as you'd still have the original.
quote:
Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?
Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.
quote:
Oh so you want to just change who is ripping who off ?
No, I want to stop them being ripped off by putting an end to the recording industry as it currently exists.
quote:
I did not change my mind. If we put both definitions together, you'll notice that it supports both my allowance for listening to a CD, where no multiplication is involved and my rejection of multiplication from the definition of sharing.
This is a really silly argument - what makes you think multiplication somehow stops an action from being sharing?
quote:
The law, while it does not scare away anyone, still reminds everyone that artists need to make a living. If it becomes morally acceptable to copy music, people might forget that. Capisce?
I tend to agree with Stallman on this issue; that people would feel more inclined to provide the artist with a living if they treated their fans better by encouraging them to share their music.
quote:
For example, he talks about mouth-to-ear publicity, but the problem with that is that fame will not extend outside the circles, and as such cannot become mainstream.
That's why you need services like Napster.
quote:
I do agree, though, that one should do whatever he wants with the music he downloaded, INCLUDING making copies, and even giving them to his friends (the catch is that they would have to be entitled, or they wouldn't be allowed to RECEIVE it).
I don't understand; how is entitlement established?
-
quote:
You still seem to be missing the point; that copying is not analagous to borrowing, stealing, or any other action that leaves the original owner without their property, so there's no need to "return" the file. As I've said, if someone could "copy" your car and take that copy, then they wouldn't need to return it as you'd still have the original.
I am not missing your point, I just don't agree with it. Your point is valid to an extent. To equate copying to stealing is going too far I agree and I have kind of warmed to the points you have raised up to mass distribution and doing what you want with an artists music, see my next point.
I don't think your use of cars as an analogy is apt either. Multimedia and music are very unique business models.
quote:
Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?
Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.
As far as I could tell and the courts agreed with me, Napster was facilitating the mass distribution of music and it's this part of it which does not sit well with me. It's one thing to share/borrow music within your circle of friends but to mass distribute music across the globe without the consent of the artist or their publisher is something else, I don't know what but it isn't lending/borrowing. It's something more commercial for which Napster made millions and the artists received nowt until the courts forced them to cough up. Surely you must agree there is something morally wrong here ?
quote:
No, I want to stop them being ripped off by putting an end to the recording industry as it currently exists.
The recording industry is (according to them anyway) suffering big time. I don't feel any sympathy towards them. But I don't think it is because of downloading music. It's because the public have finally realised that $15.00 for a CD of 2 good songs and 10 shite songs is a rip off. There's generation out there who just don't buy music. I think the CD killed the record industry (not the music industry) because of greedy pricing.
For me, it's about choice and the two models living side by side, those artists that do want their music freely available on the internet at THEIR discretion and artists that don't want their material mass distributed via the internet. If Insync and Madonna don't want their music freely available, I'M ALL FOR IT !! :D
-
quote:
This is a really silly argument - what makes you think multiplication somehow stops an action from being sharing?
How about this: I take a $100 note, and duplicate it. Then, I "share" the bills with my friends. So I have a method of duplication good enough to make exact copies. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? I should also have the right to share a hundred dollars (or pounds), even if I just "multiply" it, right?
quote:
For me, it's about choice and the two models living side by side, those artists that do want their music freely available on the internet at THEIR discretion and artists that don't want their material mass distributed via the internet. If Insync and Madonna don't want their music freely available, I'M ALL FOR IT !!
Excellent suggestion, HibbeeBoy. Now, flap, why won't you listen to this excellent piece of advice?
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
I don't understand; how is entitlement established?
Many ways.
A) Buy the music (via a service like iTunes)
B) The producer gave his music away (which he is allowed to do, but it relies on charity)
C) Taxes (come on, now, RMS proposed it himself. Surely you won't disagree?)
D) Heavy amounts of DRM (I hope it doesn't happen)
E) Adverts, or annoying tags begging you to give money
No one should be obliged to give his music away (or, for that matter, to charge for it).
quote:
That's why you need services like Napster.
You can't expect artists to get enough publicity with only one medium!
-
quote:
How about this: I take a $100 note, and duplicate it. Then, I "share" the bills with my friends. So I have a method of duplication good enough to make exact copies. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? I should also have the right to share a hundred dollars (or pounds), even if I just "multiply" it, right?
If money itself was inherently useful or valuable, then yes. But since money is only there to represent the abstract level of wealth a nation has, duplicating it doesn't benefit anyone. Thus if you double the amount of paper money in the world you have a problem.
quote:
Many ways.
A) Buy the music (via a service like iTunes)
B) The producer gave his music away (which he is allowed to do, but it relies on charity)
C) Taxes (come on, now, RMS proposed it himself. Surely you won't disagree?)
D) Heavy amounts of DRM (I hope it doesn't happen)
E) Adverts, or annoying tags begging you to give money
The point I'm making is that you seem to be suggesting that someone is only entitled to listen to a piece of music if they've paid for the privilege, even though it would cost the artist nothing for the person's friend to give them a copy. If someone can't afford to buy music, are you just saying "tough shit"? There's no reason why every person in the world shouldn't have access to every piece of art ever published.
quote:
You can't expect artists to get enough publicity with only one medium!
No, so they can sign up with record labels without selling their copyright to them or advertise themselves in other ways. Allowing their music to be distributed freely doesn't mean they can't be publicised.
-
quote:
The point I'm making is that you seem to be suggesting that someone is only entitled to listen to a piece of music if they've paid for the privilege, even though it would cost the artist nothing for the person's friend to give them a copy.
Capitalism is not based on whether or not there is a cost. The principle is an exchange of a product or a service for another, or for money. It has never been said that this does not apply when there is no cost for the producer. Therefore, even if it does not cost anything to the artist, he has appropriated something without giving anything in return, against the will of the artist.
quote:
advertise themselves in other ways.
So why don't they just advertise themselves while charging for their songs?
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
Oh, and you are forgeting something, flap. So, the producer can produce an unlimited amount of music. So, if someone just copied a music file from someone else, he has not incurred a cost to the artist, right?
Wrong. If producing music is unlimited, then possession of music is also unlimited (and no DRM should attempt to change this). However, population is not unlimited. So, if someone does not pay for a song, then its price has been substracted from the total potential revenue (since unlimited production is a new concept, we will have to introduce new terms). Oh, and the road example cannot apply here, because there is no limit as to how many time you drive on the same road.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.
-
Sorry, I posted the same message again. Mea culpa.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
While I'm at it:
quote:
How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.
Like I have been saying above.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
The principle is an exchange of a product or a service for another, or for money.
Exactly. And in the case of copying music, the artist hasn't provided a service. They produced the work in the first place but they have had no part in the copying transaction.
quote:
How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.
quote:
So, if someone does not pay for a song, then its price has been substracted from the total potential revenue
This is the point that you all keep making over and over, without realising that I'm insisting that artists shouldn't have the right to be paid for every copy of their work that is made. Just as someone who installs a door in a building doesn't implicitly have the right to be paid everytime someone walks through it. Artists need to earn a living and should be reimbursed, but there is no justifying their moral right to exact money from a person everytime a new copy of their work is distributed.
-
Wow. this thread is just chock full of metaphors!
Let's make more!
Let's add on to that door thing. What if the carpenter was not paid when he put up the door, but instead charged people a small fee each time they use it in order to pay for it's original cost. That's a bit more correct.
I can spout out more metaphors if the thread needs more, but basically if people copy the music, that generally means less purchases of the CD, which cost a sum of money for it's production.
Claiming your copy cost nothing from the artist is absurd. It cost to produce the music that is cobtained in the file. You may as well sell CD's on ebay, that happen to contain digital 1's and 0's, that happen to produce audio when played. Obviously people would bid wanting some CD's. Maybe to use as a mirror or something.
-
quote:
Just as someone who installs a door in a building doesn't implicitly have the right to be paid everytime someone walks through it.
Wrong analogy. This example would be better compared to being charged each time you listen to a song, which of course is absurd (though some may try that approach). Even this example is not adequate. You are trying to compare a totally new concept with old stuff. Music isn't a door you install.
Besides, you are using the road analogy again, which, I have explained, does not apply for this situation.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
quote:
Exactly. And in the case of copying music, the artist hasn't provided a service. They produced the work in the first place but they have had no part in the copying transaction.
No, but the artist participates in giving the right to copy it once the customer paid.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
[QB]
No, but the artist participates in giving the right to copy it once the customer paid.
QB]
It's like a tollbooth. And Flap is driving his SUV past it, on the grass behind the attendant's back. (http://smile.gif)
-
I love metaphors.
- Watching Superbowl from the top of a building with binoculars;
- A restaurant invents a new secret recipe that saves it from bankrupcy, only to be put out of business the day after when flap scatters the recipe around;
- Communism, blah blah blah.
- Last, but not least, et caetera.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:
quote:
Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?
Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.
As far as I could tell and the courts agreed with me, Napster was facilitating the mass distribution of music and it's this part of it which does not sit well with me. It's one thing to share/borrow music within your circle of friends but to mass distribute music across the globe without the consent of the artist or their publisher is something else, I don't know what but it isn't lending/borrowing. It's something more commercial for which Napster made millions and the artists received nowt until the courts forced them to cough up. Surely you must agree there is something morally wrong here ?
Just a quick correction. Napster never actually made any money. Napster was not a paid subscription service.
This is a good discussion. Great points are being made on both sides. But I just wanted to point out that Napster never made any money during its time.
-
quote:
Let's add on to that door thing. What if the carpenter was not paid when he put up the door, but instead charged people a small fee each time they use it in order to pay for it's original cost. That's a bit more correct.
Well with a road that may be the case; a toll is charged to pay for its being built or for its maintenance. It's not charged due to a notion that the road builders should be paid every time someone drives along it. In the case of music, that's not true. It wouldn't be such a problem if the copyright on music was relinquished once the production had been paid for, and the artist had made a reasonable amount of money.
quote:
Wrong analogy. This example would be better compared to being charged each time you listen to a song, which of course is absurd (though some may try that approach). Even this example is not adequate. You are trying to compare a totally new concept with old stuff. Music isn't a door you install.
No, the only difference between the two situations is that people each pay multiple times in the road/door scenario. Ok, let's change it so an individual only pays once, then they can use the road or the door as many times as they like. The situation is exactly analagous, as with this situation the carpenter still doesn't have the right to be paid for every person who walks through the door. Putting aside for a second the practical arguments of how artists would actually be paid under the system I'm proposing, surely you must agree that if someone provides a one-off service, such as installing a door or recording some music, while they have a right to be paid for that service, the amount of effort that went into it is constant and so there is no reason why they should be paid more if more people use the resultant product?
quote:
A restaurant invents a new secret recipe that saves it from bankrupcy, only to be put out of business the day after when flap scatters the recipe around;
Now you're getting closer to free software. If this situation happens, and the restaurant goes out of business, but other restaurants and society in general benefits from the free availability of a recipe that yields better food, then tough shit to the original restaurant I'm afraid. A business not making any money is not an excuse to give them a monopoly on a useful idea.
quote:
Communism, blah blah blah
What about it?
-
quote:
the amount of effort that went into it is constant and so there is no reason why they should be paid more if more people use the resultant product?
Well, the number of people available is constant, so, as I explained, if they pay only once (as I think they should), then the total revenue is constant. Of course, they could be regrouped by affinities with RMS' polling system. We can use an equation (example):
# of people * rating of song * price = total revenue
This is the price the artiste gets paid to release his song to the public. So, one price is being paid to the artiste, and each person pays once for a song.
Remember that some artistes can sell their paintings for millions.
Oh, and the three other metaphores I gave were not meant to be taken seriously. I was just fooling around.
-
quote:
Originally posted by emh:
Just a quick correction. Napster never actually made any money. Napster was not a paid subscription service.
This is a good discussion. Great points are being made on both sides. But I just wanted to point out that Napster never made any money during its time.
Their revenue was coming from advertising, not subscription. Their business model was built around the work, talent and efforts of recording artists who they had no intention of paying. They did make money, they just spent it quicker than they made it.
-
quote:
give them a monopoly on a useful idea.
Exclusivity, or differenciation, not monopoly. This is an essential factor in competition, and its lack is a fundamental weakness in your business model.
quote:
What about it?
That was a JOKE. You should have noticed this from the tone I took in that post.
-
quote:
This is the price the artiste gets paid to release his song to the public. So, one price is being paid to the artiste, and each person pays once for a song.
So why shouldn't a carpenter be paid for the number of people who are going to walk through his door?
Surely the equation should be
Price_per_person = constant_reasonable_revenue / #_of_people
quote:
That was a JOKE. You should have noticed this from the tone I took in that post.
How was it a joke? Are you suggesting that what I'm suggesting is not a socialistic/communist system?
-
quote:
So why shouldn't a carpenter be paid for the number of people who are going to walk through his door?
Why not?
quote:
Price_per_person = constant_reasonable_revenue / #_of_people
What's the difference? Do the math, and you'll see that you're just turning the equation around.
quote:
Are you suggesting that what I'm suggesting is not a socialistic/communist system?
How should I know? I wasn't being serious. And I thought that most FSF proponents (like Richard Stallman) denied that. But if you are going to start debating capitalism versus communism, then I suggest you start another topic.
-
quote:
Why not?
So you think he should? I think this argument is suffering from our differing grasps on reality, then.
quote:
What's the difference? Do the math, and you'll see that you're just turning the equation around.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.
quote:
And I thought that most FSF proponents (like Richard Stallman) denied that.
They avoid using the term "socialism" because there is such a strong anti-left attitude in the states. But obviously Free Software is a perfect example of practical socialism in action, in a way that is massively benefitting society. If Stallman used the term "communism" to describe what his movement has achieved, the reaction would be people's hysterical antipathy to the concepts of equality, co-operation and freedom, as they're so inherently contrary to The American Dream they've learned to worship.
It's so difficult to convince people of their right to share because they're so lost in the current system of greed and self interest, that they can't see a way to living in a society based on co-operation rather than competition.
-
quote:
So you think he should?
I never said anything of the sort. You're the one who suggested that a carpenter shouldn't be paid that way, not me.
And unless your tastes incline you to consider a generic wooden door a piece of art, then don't compare it to an art. A door is not replicable. And I have already said that it is OK to listen to someone else's CD without copying it.
quote:
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.
This is ridiculous. How about the ratings? If a song is more appreciated, it should have a higher value. If not, then any singer can make crap and get paid as much as a talented singer who put effort in his songs.
[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
It's so difficult to convince people of their right to share because they're so lost in the current system of greed and self interest, that they can't see a way to living in a society based on co-operation rather than competition.
If you are going to discuss this, then start another topic, and I will be glad to debate this with you. But this is getting off-topic.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
[QB]No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.[QB]
Communismin the music industry. Heh.
-
quote:
This is ridiculous. How about the ratings? If a song is more appreciated, it should have a higher value.
Let me re-phrase that: an artist shouldn't be legally entitled to payment proportional to the number of copies of their work that are made. In reality, a system whereby people are asked to contribute to their favourite artist is likely to pay out more money to the artists who have more listeners. However, some artists might produce music that appeals to large numbers of people but not so much that they will all be willing to contribute a great deal of, or any, money to the artist.
Obviously under the current system the artists who earn the most are the talentless ones who make crap without expending any effort.
-
quote:
an artist shouldn't be legally entitled to payment proportional to the number of copies of their work that are made.
I have already debunked that myth. I have explained that this is false because the number of songs you can produce before people stop buying is limited.
quote:
However, some artists might produce music that appeals to large numbers of people but not so much that they will all be willing to contribute a great deal of, or any, money to the artist.
That's why I said ratings. We should consider not only the number of people, but alse the ratings (ie. 1 to 5 stars).
quote:
Obviously under the current system the artists who earn the most are the talentless ones who make crap without expending any effort.
And I see no reason for this to change if every artiste is paid equally.