posted
They've done some things which were legally improper, but not illegal, such as filing subpoenas in courts without jurisdiction. They've stopped that in this latest round.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wheat, I doubt that the girl's family would have much (if any) recourse in the matter of being charged for IP theft since they can say that they're already being lenient on their family be only charging them $2,000 (you'd think that they would have been willing to work with them more on this).
One thing that I'm wondering about is the amnesty form that the RIAA was offering. From what it seems like, you could receive amnesty from the RIAA, but could potentially be opening yourself up to lawsuits from other groups (ie: MPAA).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems I'll see something like that here in my country soon ... I don't know if it's the same in the USA, we have taxes on blank CD's so far...just in case you use it to burn music...wich from their point of view you surely will. I feel like paying a tax on blank paper because I'm going to use it to photocopy or print something...somewhere...someday.
OK, piracy is a bad bad thing to do as a hobby...but I guess privateering is not the answer.
And I still can buy music Cd's, 3 euros when the original Cd costs 30...I guess the guys who burn the 3-euros-Cd aren't worried by a 50 cents tax at all...but I AM.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, signing the amnesty form doesn't even protect you from being sued by the RIAA (that is, it's member companies, the ones that actually own the copyrights).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you buy a book and lend it to a friend, it's not photocopying infinite copies for them. That's illegal. Rightfully so. And you can't make cheap reproductions of a lawnmower, so that point is pretty moot.
But, you argue that making nigh infinite copies of a music product should be legal? If you lend out a CD, and your friend listens, and then you get it back (or your friend lends it to someone else), that's not a problem. You paid for one copy, and you have one copy. If you burn a copy for a friend, that's technically violating the copyright of the CD (which is printed on the CD jacket, usually). Much like reproducing a novel, or a comic strip, or a piece of artwork (without express written permission, yadda, yadda).
Now, you place that up for file sharing on the internet, and the number of copies is limitless. You are essentially allowing others to photocopy your books... and downloading music is essentially borrowing books from the public library to photocopy them for your own library. Illegal.
As to the lock analogy, I think you mistoook me. The internet makes it really easy to illegally download music. This is roughly parallel to a CD store not locking up at night, not having a night watch, not having any security cameras, and hanging a sign out that says "don't take these".
Vigorously prosecuting offenders creates a deterrent. "Don't take those or you'll get sued". It's a sort of "lock" to put on the store. Only those who have definite knowledge that what they are doing is wrong, and who are accepting the risks, will cut that lock off. Ideally, you'll have locks, magnetic strips, cameras, security guards, etc. Sure, if someone still wants to break in, they can. But it's harder.
I think the legislation is designed to make it harder, or less consequence-free. Five years ago, no one batted an eye at ripping music off the internet. Now? They bat an eye, and do it anyway. Maybe after some more cases like this, a few people will say "Maybe this isn't such a good idea" and finally "this is wrong."
As it is now, it's like that unpatrolled highway I mentioned earlier. Speed as much as you want, change lanes illegally, cut people off, drive with no lights on, unbolt your license plate. Why not? Because there are consequences, that no one thinks about. The highway patrols keep people in line... if just barely.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why not just make CD burners and so forth illegal? That'd solve the problem a lot more easily, and there aren't that many other uses for media copiers.
posted
I say downloading music is perfectly fine if youre not selling it to anyone. Of course, I say that as a person whohasnt downloaded a song in at least a year. Not out of respect for the RIAA, simply too damn busy for it. Which also mean I'm too damn busy to give a rat's dusty bum what the Retched Ignorant Assholes of America are shooting themselves int he foot with this week. My word. what the heck am i doing posting here. I should be in bed. I have to wake up and go to work in two and a half hours. gnite all.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many college students smoke or have smoked marijuana (or however the hell it's spelled), despite fairly serious concequences if they're caught. It doesn't seem to stop them, I'm not sure that the vague threat of a lawsuit will, either.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Especially since you're a heck of a lot more likely to get caught with pot than you are to get sued by the RIAA. People know that there's a chance they'll get killed every time they get in the car, right? But college students still take long road trips, or go out driving just because it's fun...
I really don't see these scare tactics affecting any but the most technophobic, naive parents out there. "Oh, Johnny, you'd better not download music! You'll get thrown in jail!! And wait, the media is also telling me you can't eat butter, because it causes obesity! No, wait, now you can't eat margarine, it'll give you cancer! Back to butter! No, margarine!"
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, that doesn't make smoking marijuana legal... nor does it make reckless driving any less of a problem. The "everyone else is doing it" defense is weak.
There are quite a few who don't partake of marijuana in college because they either see it as wrong, or their peer group does, or they don't want to risk the consequences (urine tests, anyone?)
And the fear and knowledge that driving is dangerous causes many to drive more safely, obey the posted speed limits and adhere to driving laws.
So, why are you throwing out any laws that have to do with regulation of intellectual property? Just because they're not convenient for you? Granted, laws are only there for those who consent to be governed... but penalties are there for those who don't. If you choose to break the law you know to exist, you can't easily complain about paying the consequences.
If you're against the law, work to change the system. Don't just flagrantly break it without paying it any mind. This country is suffering from a severe lack of ethics... or maybe the world is.
I wonder who started it.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that I have not said, "I download music, just to show those RIAA bastards!" I use filesharing programs on a very limited basis, and usually to try out something before I buy it. Regardless of legality, I don't think it's morally questionable to want to know what the rest of a CD sounds like,and not just the singles. Other uses include obscure but non-reserved material such as system files, freeware utilities, source code, language references, and OGL material for D&D.
I have never said we should dissolve IP laws altogether. I'm saying that current laws are fundamentally inadiquate at doing what they were designed to do--make sure artists make money. With the wide availability of free music, regardless of legality, artists make less money. I don't think anyone's going to disagree with me there.
So how do we fix it? Do we allow the RIAA to use quasi-legal tactics, bullying, and scare tactics to frighten the consumer public in line? Or do we take a look at how our IP laws are designed, and reimplement them in a way that reflects the decentralization of music distribution caused by file sharing programs. Artists will be protected and still make money, filesharers will get a transparent fee and an easy way to exchange media.
I used the example of marijuana to show that inflicting penalties on a relative few is not a deterrant, or at least not an effective one. I know that there are those who chose not to use marijuana (myself included), but the fact is that a great many do. There are some who may not use filesharing clients for whatever reason, but despite harsh punishments a great many still use filesharing programs to violate IP.
EDIT: I also don't enjoy being referred to as lacking in morals. Please attack my arguments, and not my character.
posted
To me it's a moral issue, as most everything is. The artists own their work, morally. If I write a poem, it's MINE. I feel that is it. I feel that Radiohead's music belongs to the band, morally. Really, an artist's work is like their child or something. They love it and are protective of it. No other position makes sense. And it's up to the ARTIST to decide what constitutes fair use. Just as I would not say to someone I loved, "I love you therefore I am going to force you to do stuff against your will", I would not acquire the music of an artist I loved in a way they didn't approve of or agree to. To me that's very much like rape, in an odd way. It's just up to the artist. Whatever they say goes.
If I buy a CD then I will keep a copy on my computer too. I'm gray on all the zillions of things I've bought the vinyl records to, because I no longer listen to vinyl records. I've bought several copies on vinyl of Meet the Beatles, for instance, now broken or damaged or stuffed in some chest somewhere and forgotten. Is it okay for me to download those songs now? I haven't but I suppose I might.
The legal issue is not really important to me. The moral issue is. What is the moral issue to you?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't download music, but I have used Kazaa to get copies of all the D&D books -- hate paying $30 each for those things, and if someone is going to go to all the trouble to convert them to electronic, I might as well reward their efforts.......
I think I read yesterday that in the 12-year-old girl case, a local radio DJ there had made a raised the $2000 to reimburse the mom for the settlement they had to reach...
posted
And there we go, copying entire books because someone doesn't want to legally pay for someone else's hard work.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Cry me a river!
Steal and suffer the consequences.
If a green grocer sets their fruit stands on the sidewalk, I guess it makes it okay to take a couple of apples every now and then. I mean, you're just sampling! And it's sooooo unfair to have to pay your hard-earned money to take just a little bit of what has obviously been put there for sweet, little you (TM).
I have absolutely no sympathy. What I want to see, however, is these folks who are now getting popped turn around and sue Kazaa and Napster for getting them into trouble.
quote: Well, I don't download music, but I have used Kazaa to get copies of all the D&D books -- hate paying $30 each for those things, and if someone is going to go to all the trouble to convert them to electronic, I might as well reward their efforts.......
That, IMO, is wrong. Not just in my opinon. No matter how you cut that, it's wrong. I download only the Open Game Liscence material for D&D (which can also be found at www.opengamingfoundation.org and I think also at www.community3e.com). Downloading an entire book that you don't own deprives Wizards of the Coast (and other OGL publishers) of money, money they really need. The RP Gaming community is a woefully bankrupt and many companies release books on shoestring budgets, hoping they'll do well so that they can maybe turn a profit. I don't even have to think very hard to name a handful of RPG companies that have died in the last 5 years, despite having a great product.
quote: If a green grocer sets their fruit stands on the sidewalk, I guess it makes it okay to take a couple of apples every now and then. I mean, you're just sampling! And it's sooooo unfair to have to pay your hard-earned money to take just a little bit of what has obviously been put there for sweet, little you (TM).
So you're saying, as a consumer, I have no right to see what I'm buying before I buy it? Would you buy a car without test driving it? I know I wouldn't. I don't have that kind of freedom with my money (given that I'm a broke unemployed college student with no credit). How is buying a CD any different? If you say I still have that music that I havn't paid for, well, I don't. I delete it if I don't like it (why would I keep it, it's bad music!?).
The Grocer's Stand analogy doesn't really work. I can assume that all pears taste roughly the same, or at least are somewhere on the sliding scale between "bad pear taste/less pear-like" and "good pear taste/the exemplar of pear-like". I can't assume that all CDs that say they are of the same genre taste the same, though. Just because it's got a techno label doesn't mean that it's even on the same plane as the techno CD I bought last week*.
In the simplest terms, if I can't test drive a car I'm not going buy it. Similarly, if I can't test drive a CD, I won't buy it, either. If I'm not buying any CDs, how is the artist making money from me? Which is better in the end? Buying CDs while stepping a little bit into a moral/legal grey area and rewarding artists for the work I approve of, or buying no CDs at all?
Don't get on me by saying, "It's legal to test drive a car." I know that. I'm making the comparison that I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it. If I don't know, I don't buy. And if I did, and I bought CDs I didn't like, I would effectively be rewarding artists I didn't approve of. How does that lead to the growth of the styles I enjoy and the shrinking of styles I don't like?
*I didn't buy a techno CD last week. I don't like techno.
Edited for stupid grammatical errors. And for:
While I think it might be enjoyable to watch Kazaa and Napster get sued, I don't think these people have any case. They broke the law, whether they knew it or not. The program they used had nothing to do with it. There are legal uses for Kazaa (such as downloading OGL material!), they chose to use it toward blatantly illegal means.
posted
I've never seen any programs that let you do that. That doesn't mean they don't exist, though. Any bit stream that's being pushed out your speakers can be captured and sent to a file, it's just figuring out how.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Okay, I see your points. And if it makes you feel any better, although we usually originally get the books on Kazaa, many times I have ended up going out and buying them as well, (at a later time) because I don't want to be chained to the computer in order to read them (and it would cost as much in ink/paper to print them out than it would to just BUY the things.
However, the computer copies are great for looking up specific references in more of a hurry....
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you're generating characters, there's a Java character generator out there, too. I've forgotten the name, but I'm sure if you google Java and Character Generator you'll find it. You can download book-specific modules to generate charactes, even if you don't have the book. In the program none of the book's text is listed, but there are page numbers to reference it. Often enough you can get by without the book, especially with things like "Improved Fortitude". This does not violate any copyrights because game mechanics cannot be copywritten, only text.
Sorry for foaming a little at the mouth about that, but there are a group of RPG companies that I love to death and that never seem to do very well. I don't know what I'd do if they died off and all that was left was the all-powerful (but not particularly amazing) d20 system.
posted
So Wheat, the songs you like, you delete them to?
Tsk, tsk, tsk... no matter how gray that area looks to you, you're still stealing.
Yes, you may be a broke college student (my heart bleeds not in the least) but what about the broke musicians who are looking to make a living off of their hard work? How about those that are hoping, working and striving to get a recording contract from one of the companies you are blatantly ripping off?
It's not a slippery slope, it's a big old cliff.
Maybe this example will help you see it yourself in your own terms. You bust your butt on a term paper. You've researched your heart out, you've written and re-written, edited and printed it out. You've put your blood, sweat and tears into it. And you pull a solid and well-deserved A.
After you turned it in, though, a grad assistant photocopies it and starts putting it on their website as a perfect term paper for sale. Or maybe they just give it away free and make money off the on-site advertising.
How do those apples fit you? Your work ripped off and given out. And the grad student just smugly smiles and says, "Whatcha gonna do about it, chump?"
And yes, the D and D books really tore into me. I've written for gaming companies and I'll tell you, it pays darned little, but it's all they've got. Maybe you're looking at TSR/Wizards of the Coast and saying, they're the big dogs, they will always be around. Guess what? It's not going to happen.
You see, they were bought by Hasbro, a traditional toys and games manufacturer that looks at a heavy and steady bottom line for all of their products. TSR must be a money-maker or they will be cut. That's why they released version 3.5 of the rules, even though version 4 was scheduled already for next year. Sales started to lag on the core books and something had to be done to meet the revenue requirements.
TSR, great company in its day, has been bought by Wizards and then by Hasbro. Unlike some other gaming companies, if it starts to go South on them, it will not be spun off and returned to the gaming world at large. It will just be quietly packed away, along with the d20 system, and it will disappear. You wouldn't believe how close that already is to reality.
But hey, download those books for free. Kill off the golden geese.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the d20 gaming system is open source, so to speak. Freely copyable. Many of the rules are available online, with open licenses to copy. Many of the gaming materials for D&D and other games are published under this license, and are also freely copyable (and even modifiable). What is and isn't is clearly marked.
And it is not stealing in any legal or moral sense of the word. It is civil copyright infringement (it's not even a criminal act, like all stealing is. It does become criminal if one distributes in a very large quantity, but not until then). Morally it's not even particularly like stealing, either, though it's still wrong (in most cases). However, if one already owns the gaming materials, reference materials generally constitute fair use, for instance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So Wheat, the songs you like, you delete them to?
No, I don't delete them. I go out and buy the CD so it's legal and morally acceptible for me to have them!
I wasn't saying I don't have the money to buy CDs, I'm saying I don't have the money to buy cars. The problem is, if I spend all my money buying CDs because half of them I don't like, then I'll never have the money to buy a car.
quote: Maybe this example will help you see it yourself in your own terms....
A better way of designing this analogy is that I'm selling my A-graded term paper and I find someone else just giving photocopies of it away. You're right, I'd be pissed. I don't see the problem if someone wants to come to me (or the other guy, even) to pick up a copy and read through it to see if they want it or not, as long as they give it back. Why is that a problem? I certainly won't have a happy customer if they buy my paper titled "Unreality: An Unreal Nework Description" which they think is about some kind of crazy existentialism when it's actually about the client-server network structure of Unreal Tournament. My A-graded paper will quickly net them an F.
Amazon.com allows you to stream the tracks from some CDs on their web site. This isn't a problem for you because it's allowed by the record company. The record company is no doubt thinking that people who've heard the music will want to buy the CD and improve sales. This is morally correct for you, because of the record company mandate. However, my self-governed preview is not moral because it doesn't have the record company's approval, even though it is, in effect, the same thing and uses the same logic.
I think, and this is just venturing an opinion, that you're angry at people who consume and consume and consume free illegal music. I understand why, since taking so much without contribution is more than just morally questionable, it's just wrong. I think that since am at the fringe of that group, you see me as an effective target for your frustration, even though I use filesharing programs as a sit-at-home way of going to Wal-Mart (which is some miles away and rather inaccessable) and scanning a CD under the little barcode-thingie and listening to the CD there.
quote:However, my self-governed preview is not moral because it doesn't have the record company's approval, even though it is, in effect, the same thing and uses the same logic.
The samples available on Amazon are just that, samples. Not the entire song. Just a taste. If you want to sample the music first, an option that simply wasn't available for the first 80 years of recorded music sales (apart from radio play), get down to the store. Most big music stores will let you listen to cds first, there are headphones set up for this purpose.
I'm not sure why, but you seem completely blind to the fact that walking away with something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, no matter what your eventual intentions are. It doesn't matter. If you grab something from a store and walk outside with it, fully intending to go get your wallet out of your car to pay, you will get nailed for shoplifting.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure why, but you seem completely blind to the fact that walking away with something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, no matter what your eventual intentions are. It doesn't matter. If you grab something from a store and walk outside with it, fully intending to go get your wallet out of your car to pay, you will get nailed for shoplifting.
I know it's stealing. What you seem to be completely blind to is that I end up a happy customer for knowing what I'm buying and the record company ends up happy because it gets money that it otherwise wouldn't (because I'm buying CDs as opposed to not buying CDs because I don't buy CDs unless I know what I'm getting).
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's just up to the artist. Whatever they say goes.
Hmmm.... well how about if I say everyone who reads this post owes me $1, to compensate for the effort of me writing it?
Or for that matter, if I paint a mural on my wall, do I have the right to demand that passerbys not look at it without paying?
The truth is, once an artist releases a song or any work to the public, they lose some say over what happens to it. People can hear it and repeat it to their friends and share it. For instance, if I hear a poem I am free to remember it and repeat it to my friends, who can in turn repeat it to their friends, regardless of what the author wants me to do. That's just a fact of life about information - once it is out people can share it and take part of it, even if the creator wants them not to. It's not rape at all, but rather the sort of spreading of ideas that allowed civilization to come about in the first place. The creator, of course, has the right to refrain from even sharing their idea or work with the public, but once they have the cat is out of the bag.
We can pass laws to try and restrict this if we want to promote the production of certain sorts of works, but at a certain point these laws become counterproductive - and we really ought to change them.
And I mean, really... do you REALLY think I'd have a right to demand that $1 from everyone who read this post of mine, and declare that those who refuse are criminals?
posted
Tres, you're oversimplifying. Sure, you can tell friends about that poem all the live long day. Can you post it on your website on the opening page without permission? No. Can you read it aloud at coffee houses around the country or perform it on stage? No. Can you even use a line in a research paper about poetry without footnoting it and giving who wrote it? No.
It's not so much the idea itself that's the problem, but the distribution of such. The owner of th at poem may object vehemently to its use in a pornographic magazine, perhaps, or may feel that having it read on the radio would cheapen it. It's that author's right to restrict distribution - it's why you need "express written permission" to reproduce anything.
As for the mural example, you actually tripped yourself up. Sure you can charge admission to your house to allow people to see it. Or you can cover it up with a curtain, and charge people to view it. That's your prerogative. That's how museums make their money. You'd essentially be making your house a museum.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, you can tell friends about that poem all the live long day. Can you post it on your website on the opening page without permission? No. Can you read it aloud at coffee houses around the country or perform it on stage? No. Can you even use a line in a research paper about poetry without footnoting it and giving who wrote it? No.
Well, legally no, but morally I think the answer to all of these (except the last, which is a matter of giving credit not distribution) should be yes. There is really no significant difference between these and telling my friends the poem, and it only seems like there should be because we are used to the law being set up that way. The law should be changed accordingly.
quote:Sure you can charge admission to your house to allow people to see it. Or you can cover it up with a curtain, and charge people to view it. That's your prerogative.
That's exactly right, and that's what musicians did for years, more or less. The only thing that changed is that the internet essentially made their "curtain" see-through.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, morally (or ethically) the answer should still be no. It's not your work. You have no right to distribute it, post it, publish it (on the web or otherwise), reproduce it, exploit it, profit from it, or otherwise. At least not without the express permission of the owner... and, quite often, not until you pay the owner some form of royalty or license fee.
It's not a matter of credit. You are benefiting from their product, and they are not. You are essentially getting something out of their work without passing that benefit along to its rightful ownder.
As for the curtain analogy, when it becomes transparent it's time to find a new type of curtain - not time to take it down. When your clothes get holes, it's time to buy new clothes... not say "oh well, I guess I'll just go naked".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, morally (or ethically) the answer should still be no. It's not your work. You have no right to distribute it, post it, publish it (on the web or otherwise), reproduce it, exploit it, profit from it, or otherwise.
It always comes down to this. I say yes we do have these rights (as evidenced by the fact we can share it with friends in various situations that are equivalent), and someone else says no we don't (and hence claims that those situations are in someway different from these other situations). Then I ask why we don't if we are allowed to share in the situations I gave. Then a bunch of differences (it's on a small scale, or there isn't any physical copying going on, etc.) are given and I claim those differences aren't significant to the issue. Then we get stuck.
So, I'm not sure where to go from here. The problem is that we don't have any fundamental, agreed-upon rules from which to argue about ethics.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla asked: "Can you copy songs onto your computer from internet radio stations? If so, why not just do that?"
Yes, you can. However, one of our radio stations had an explanation for why they could no longer afford to stream their station on the Internet. It had something to do with the record companies, and copyright laws. They took it off their site, dagnabbit.
Also, I have mentioned this before, but there are bands who ENCOURAGE trading of their live music. They allow tapers to tape their live shows, and they are OK with people distributing them using a SHn format, Bitstream, and another one I can't remember.
My husband trades live music. He has a lot. He never copies the studio cds, and we always buy cds of the bands we like. Plus, we pay thirty bucks to go see our favorite band, whom we found due to someone giving us a cd. Thus, the band makes a whole heck of a lot money on us by letting us trade their live music, because we want to see them live.
It is interesting, because the first reaction people have when I give them cds is, cool, I am going to buy one of their studio cds, which one do you suggest?
These are mostly jam bands, but heck, they are making out very well on this process. I am sure the big labels don't allow it, though.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, is there truly no difference in your mind between telling a poem to some friends and putting it where millions of people can download it? Really? There are an awful lot of things that are okay (or forgiven) when done on a small scale that are definitely not okay when done on a massive scale.
I'm not even arguing this on a legal basis, even thhough the law currently favors my position. I'm arguing it on an ethical one. The artist did the work, they deserve the benefits. You did not create the work, you don't. Passing it around to a few friends acts more like advertising for the artist, nothing works better than word of mouth. Using it in your own work, or putting it where anyone in the world can get it for free benefits everyone except the person who created it. How is this fair? How is this just?
[ September 14, 2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:(Wheatpuppet) I know it's stealing. What you seem to be completely blind to is that I end up a happy customer for knowing what I'm buying and the record company ends up happy because it gets money that it otherwise wouldn't (because I'm buying CDs as opposed to not buying CDs because I don't buy CDs unless I know what I'm getting).
First, I have no problem with people who admit they're stealing. I can deal with an honest crook. It's the justification to make it seem okay that bugs me. And I'm not blind to the advantages that listening to music first does for you and the music company. My point was that I didn't care, because not everyone has your integrity. We can't legislate just for the people who play fair.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, is there truly no difference in your mind between telling a poem to some friends and putting it where millions of people can download it? Really?
No, I don't think there is. For one thing, once my friend has it, he can tell it to his friends, who can tell it to their friends, and so on until millions of people have heard it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it will lose something in the telling. And your intent was to tell it to a friend. A personal thing, that despite your speculation will likely not affect the artist's income. Making it available to the world - and I mean that literally - provides a perfect copy of the original, with the intent to make it unnecessary to buy.
I believe we've danced this dance before, with the same outcome. I strongly suspect that copyright laws will change in the next 20 years, if only because enforcing them may become impossible. But I have to wonder what will happen when all art, all music, all writing, all movie-making becomes work-for-hire. And I don't know that I would want to continue writing if I had no rights over how they were presented and distributed.
If you can come up with a way to make sure that what I create stays intact and correctly attributed, I can bend on the rights for distribution. Otherwise, not a chance in hell.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because this whole debate pisses me off...
So, Tresopax, if you spent, say, $100,000 recording an album in a studio and then I took the CD, put it on Kazaa and millions of people downloaded it but no one bought it, you'd go "La la la. How wonderful! All this sharing with friends!"
Or would you say, "Bloody hell, how am I going to pay for the studio costs now that everyone already has the music?!?!"
If you read this and say, "Wow, what a stupid and simplistic example" then you'd be right. It's almost as stupid and simplistic as your entire argument.
DISTRIBUTING MILLIONS OF DIGITAL REPLICAS OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL IS NOT THE SAME AS READING A FEW FRIENDS A POEM.
Maybe file sharing should be legal, at the moment it's not. Grow up, accept responsibility for what you're doing and get off your bloody high horse.
Done like a dinner.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Really, your argument has no sense of degree. What's the difference between telling someone a song and making it available instantly for countless millions? About the same as getting a splinter in your chest and having a spear rammed through it. Or possibly getting a friendly jab in the arm from a buddy and getting an uppercut from Lennox Lewis.
Telling someone a poem, or creating a mix tape for a girlfriend, or photocopying an album cover for your wall is all pretty much in that "fair use" domain, I'd imagine. Then again, I'm totally talking out of my butt when it comes to actual legal matters regarding copyright.
When you put something up on the internet for free downloads and copying, you are, whether you like it or not, becoming a distributer. You are performing the same role as the record company, or publishing company, or art gallery, but you are doing it without permission and not charging anything for it. More importantly, you're not giving anything back to the artist, or even asking their permission.
Some artists are cool with free distribution. Others are not. It's not your decision, though... it's theirs.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not file sharing is stealing is not an issue where degree should matter, though. To say telling a friend a poem is fine whereas sharing a song file with strangers is stealing, is like saying stealing a warehouse full of toys is stealing but just shoplifting one is perfectly fine - on the grounds that the store would not be hurt by losing just one.
If we are talking about degree, you could make the argument that both sharing the poem and the mp3 are stealing, but that sharing the mp3 is stealing to a greater degree - slightly stealing you might say. The problem is, sharing a poem with a friend is not "slightly stealing" or anything like that. It is not stealing at all.
Ethics,
If I were in that situation, I'd probably respond much closer to the first case than the second. Most likely I'd say "Yes, they like me! Now how do I make a profit?" If I can produce music that millions of people will bother to download, I'm quite the success as a musician. I'd probably be famous enough to do well at concerts, with merchandise sales, etc. I'd much prefer to have the immediate CD sales to pay for the recording too (and this would probably lead to inferior recordings), but I believe those are just the rules of the game.
But at least give me this man.... You really needed that head-into-wall smiley they just added. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, technically, it's performing without permission...
Everything is a matter of degree. Everything. Especially when it comes to the law. If you stole a dollar from me you would have committed a crime, but it's probably not worth my time trying to track you down to punish you for it. If you posted my bank number and PIN on the Internet you have made it possible for anyone at all to steal from me, and even you might agree that there's a crime that needs stopping.
Degree is everything in law, and in punishment.
Please listen to me. I'll type slowly. When you recite a poem for a friend, it's technically distributing it without permission. BUT, on that small scale it operates more as advertising for the works of the author. Unless you are capable of reciting everything the author did, if your friend enjoyed the poem you recited he would have to go buy the author's works to get more of the same. If you stick it online and someone reads it and likes it, it is entirely possible that thanks to other filesharers he can go right ahead and download everything the author wrote, for free. Right now it is possible to get nearly every book OSC ever wrote, in text format, without paying him a dime. Tell me, how long do you think he'd be able to keep writing were this to continue?
You have offered no method of paying him. I don't see him going on tour and selling t-shirts. You have offered no method of ensuring that his works remain unaltered, or that his name stay on them.
You have, in short, offered nothing but the belief that you should be able to enjoy the work produced without paying for it, and you seem remakably resistant to the notion that this might hurt the artist and prevent him from creating more art.
[ September 15, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize it could hurt the artists and harm their ability to produce more works, but I can't change what I think a person can and cannot do with music just to help the artists, any more than I could change my views to help consumers get music cheaper. The parameters are what they are, whether its harsh or not, and we have to work around them. Somehow we have to figure out how to get authors paid knowing their works can be shared as files. I'm not too worried because I think few people want to read books on their computer screens. I'm more worried about the gaming industry and what this could mean for them.
Finally. "I know it's going to screw artists but I don't care. All I care about is getting stuff for free." Nice one, bruva.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that wasn't at all what I said if you'll give me a fair reading. I said I know it could screw the artists, but that's the way it is and we have to accept it. I said nothing about wanting to get something for free, which doesn't factor into it any more than the wants of the artists do. It's just a matter of the reality of what people are and are not entitled to do.
The fact is, sometimes people are entitled to do things that could screw over other people to some degree or another in some way. Fortunately, I think we can find plenty of ways to minimize the damage in this case.
posted
So, what you're telling me is that you think file sharing screws artists, but rather than try to work out ways to prevent it from screwing artists, you want to change the laws so that the artists won't be being screwed legally anymore?
posted
No, I think file sharing sometimes screws artists somewhat and I would love to find ways to prevent it from screwing them, but I also think it is something people are entitled to do regardless and hence the law should be put in agreement with that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Cry me a river!![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
