01 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIllegal downloading does not take away some good that someone else might have enjoyed instead. It just makes a copy, increasing the overall utility. Therefore any analogy between illegal downloading and shoplifting fails.
Can we apply the same logic to large stores or rich people? If I steal from a large chain store because "they have enough money anyway" does that make it OK? What if I steal from you on that basis?
Of course the record companies are not the ones who loose out when you download a song, it is the people who actually pay for the song who pay for your down ...[text shortened]... wever, are you honest about how much you would have bought if you couldn't get it for free?
01 Jun 09
I don't really mind paying for music. I always have, and always will. The musicians deserve to be paid for their work.
But what angers me is when they put invasive measures into technology that actually disrupts my ability to enjoy the media.
Case in point - I recently bought a "Blu-Ray" DVD player for my PC. My monitor handles 1920x1200 with HDMI, so no problem right?
Wrong, the monitor was old enough to not support HDCP -- High Definition Copy Protection. Put another way, my system was entirely capable for playing Blu-Ray, but because I don't have the latest copyright protection hardware, I can't play Blu-Ray disks.
My monitor said on it "High Definition Ready". Ridiculous.
Of course, there is illegal software that will break the protection on the discs. But why should I have use it? What, I have to break the law to use the new Blu-Ray disc player and movies I payed legitimately for?
DRM solutions suck.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Every time I hear "have enough money already", I get the upchuck urge.
Who are you to make the judgment that they "have enough money already?"
Maybe some of them have lots of overhead and aren't doing very well. Maybe some of them will have to close down and lay off scores of people because of your judgment that they have enough money already.
It's one thing to say that there should be shorter time limits on copyrights or ev ...[text shortened]... itrary judgment of who has enough money already should have any bearing on economic policy?
On the other hand, copyright law is the government protecting the big guy against the little, and isolating artists from the free market. Piracy would be stopped in its tracks if pricing was reduced.
Even in critical areas such as medicine, after decades of study and testing to get a drug approved, the time limit to amortize investment is pretty short compared to artist's copyright.
Besides, during the era of downloading, the music business hasn't gone broke but is flourishing. That lends credence to the idea that file sharing is good free advertising.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhitehead"However, are you honest about how much you would have bought if you couldn't get it for free?"
Can we apply the same logic to large stores or rich people? If I steal from a large chain store because "they have enough money anyway" does that make it OK? What if I steal from you on that basis?
Of course the record companies are not the ones who loose out when you download a song, it is the people who actually pay for the song who pay for your down ...[text shortened]... wever, are you honest about how much you would have bought if you couldn't get it for free?
The downloader doesn't get his music "free". He first invests in a computer, and internet connection, then network software, and a lot of time. All things considered it may not be cost effective.
Besides the obvious costs above, he'd better have the strongest anti-virus protection available, and accept the inevitability of an infection and system crash, connected to his clandestine actiivity.
01 Jun 09
It's amazing to me that so many people on this thread are, directly or indirectly, defending the practice of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
People work hard and invest a lot of time and money to produce things like music and movies and they do so with the understanding that their intellectual property will be protected by existing IP laws. If not for IP laws, maybe they would choose other professions. It's no one else's business how much money they make (well, except for the government regarding taxation). If you don't want to give them money, then don't use their product.
Nobody has a God given right to hear someone else's music or watch someone else's movies. When one breaks the existing law in taking someone else's intellectual property, that is theft, plain and simple, as much as if you were to walk into Walmart and walk out with an appliance that you didn't pay for. I know the analogy is not perfect, but in both cases, you're appropriating someone else's product for your own use without paying for it in contravention of applicable law.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I agree in principle with you, however artists don't deserve greater protection than scientists, or engineers.
It's amazing to me that so many people on this thread are, directly or indirectly, defending the practice of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
People work hard and invest a lot of time and money to produce things like music and movies and they do so with the understanding that their intellectual property will be protected by existing IP laws. If ...[text shortened]... s product for your own use without paying for it in contravention of applicable law.
At some point, new ideas are old ideas, and ought to be public domain.
Technology enables inexpensive copying of digital media, and no protection scheme prevents this. The ultimate protection is to price out the pirates, giving the consumer real value. If there isn't money to be made, piracy will cease.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo some extent, yes!
Can we apply the same logic to large stores or rich people? If I steal from a large chain store because "they have enough money anyway" does that make it OK? What if I steal from you on that basis?
I once inadvertently stole a vacuum cleaner from Walmart. I thought briefly about returning to pay for it but decided against it and, as a result, had no ethical qualms about this whatsoever. Had I stole from a Home Hardware run by Mom & Pop, I likely would have succumbed to extreme guilt.
Why did I think it was "not a big deal" to steal from Walmart? Because the Walmart business model is predicated on going into small towns and stealing business from smaller operations. They make their profit at the expense of smaller businesses which give small communities their character (nevermind their questionable labour issues!)
Of course, in the eyes of the government, it's still illegal, but in my eyes, it's economic karma.
😏
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by darvlayNot that I'm a fan of walmart but...
To some extent, yes!
I once inadvertently stole a vacuum cleaner from Walmart. I thought briefly about returning to pay for it but decided against it and, as a result, had no ethical qualms about this whatsoever. Had I stole from a Home Hardware run by Mom & Pop, I likely would have succumbed to extreme guilt.
Why did I think it was "not a big deal ...[text shortened]... the eyes of the government, it's still illegal, but in my eyes, it's economic karma.
😏
By not paying walmart for their product, they don't have as much profit. Workers at the company do not receive raises when the company doesn't make as much profit.
You are not screwing a corporation. Corporations don't get screwed. Corporations are just paper entities. Workers get screwed. Walmart workers tend to be in the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum.
You are screwing poor people. Congrats on your new vacuum.
😉
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I'm wondering:
It's amazing to me that so many people on this thread are, directly or indirectly, defending the practice of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
People work hard and invest a lot of time and money to produce things like music and movies and they do so with the understanding that their intellectual property will be protected by existing IP laws. If ...[text shortened]... s product for your own use without paying for it in contravention of applicable law.
Is there a difference between IP laws and Copyright laws or are they one and the same?
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessThat's just great. :'(
Not that I'm a fan of walmart but...
By not paying walmart for their product, they don't have as much profit. Workers at the company do not receive raises when the company doesn't make as much profit.
You are not screwing a corporation. Corporations don't get screwed. Corporations are just paper entities. Workers get screwed. Walmart workers tend ...[text shortened]... ocio-economic spectrum.
You are screwing poor people. Congrats on your new vacuum.
😉
01 Jun 09
4 edits
Originally posted by sh76Intellectual property didn't exist for most of mankind's existence. It's only been a recent development. Copyright law was brought in so that people could make money.
It's amazing to me that so many people on this thread are, directly or indirectly, defending the practice of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
.
I think we should go back to how musicians and artists used to make their money. By finding patrons. Music and art should be free for the public to enjoy. If you want to create Art and need the expenses covered, find yourself a patron. Back in the day, Kings, Queens and ArchBishops would pay men like Beethoven and Mozart to create magnificent works of art and would pay the artists from taxes, or with gifts in kind.
Record companies could do the same but they insist on using the artists work to keep making money for the record company. They've become greedy. They feel entitled to a continous revenue stream simply because they gave an artist a certain sum of money to press record while they played.
At some point, Art needs to be freed from its monetary restraints and returned back to the public and used to liven and enlighten society.
Creating Art strictly for money is typical of society's downward spiral to individualism. We deserve to be in the situation we find ourselves in.
01 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessYou're arguing for a change in policy. Fine.
Intellectual property didn't exist for most of mankind's existence. It's only been a recent development. Copyright law was brought in so that people could make money.
I think we should go back to how musicians and artists used to make their money. By finding patrons. Music and art should be free for the public to enjoy. If you want to create Art and n downward spiral to individualism. We deserve to be in the situation we find ourselves in.
But as the policy exists now, people produce music/ movies under the assumption and in reliance that they will be protected under the existing legal framework. Therefore, violating that legal framework is theft.
If they disband IP protection then the artists will get to make the choice of whether to continue producing their art. In that case, if they product the art, it will be with the understanding that it will be released into the public domain.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76The thing is artist get such a laughably small amount of money from the sail of an album. one cent of every dollar of the album if they are lucky. The record companies are greedy and refuse to change. They are so used to exploiting musicians that they can't handle a new buisness model. I am a musician and my last album I put out was available for download before 2 months before the official release date. Did I care, no. Why? because it reached people who would not normally listen to it and those people came out to our shows when we were on tour. Touring is were musicians make money. If you want to support music, go to the show.
It's amazing to me that so many people on this thread are, directly or indirectly, defending the practice of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
People work hard and invest a lot of time and money to produce things like music and movies and they do so with the understanding that their intellectual property will be protected by existing IP laws. If ...[text shortened]... s product for your own use without paying for it in contravention of applicable law.
