01 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Tell that to the marines.
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.
Tell that to all the LeadBelly's and John Lee Hookers, whose Blues was ripped off and modified and morphed into something slighty different, just enough to escape plagiarism suites!
You show me one top 100 song in the past 10Xn years that actually passes the originality test and that does not include (sometimes not even) the most subtle reworking of proven riffs and formulaic grooves. You can't!
Or show me a hit album, where the basic sound that defines the hit song that is replicated ad nauseum into the 15 other filler tracks that accompany it, that doesn't share more than a passing resemblance to another hit template, that made another hit album of yesteryear.
Ultimately theft involves the unlawful taking of someone else's property. But how does the artist pay for the observational reflections they take of the society they observe. Even the most introspective artist reflects on how the society around them impresses itself on them. So the artist then by practice, uses the society they find themselves in as an unpaid assistant, to help them construct an entertainment for which they try and market back at a profit? Who is stealing from whom?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePirating now has not killed music. But that is not the issue. Stealing from a shop wont kill commerce or even the store chain, but that doesn't affect whether it is right or wrong.
I don't know about him, but my buying habits haven't changed. I just have access to more music, including stuff I'd never have been able to hear (out of print / too expensive). Admittedly, I have always copied music. I put a lot more energy into making bad cassette copies 20 years ago than pirating now ... (Apparently home taping did not kill music).
I personally have not decided how morally right or wrong pirating music is. I do find it interesting how many people find nothing wrong with it. I suspect that the real reasons most people do it are:
1. They don't expect to get caught or punished.
2. Everyone else is doing it.
3. Less important but still present is the perception that the victim (record company musician) is not being harmed or the harm is negligible(they are rich enough already)
What are people opinions regarding photocopying books or downloading illegal electronic copies?
02 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut copying a DVD is not the same as stealing a hand bag. The message should say, "You wouldn't copy a hand bag ... "
On many DVDs here in SA there is an anti piracy message at the beginning saying "you wouldn't steal a hand bag ...."
How many people here would steal a hand bag if:
1. It belonged to a large rich corporation.
2. There was virtually no chance of being caught.
As it happens, I have no interest in hand bags, stolen or otherwise. The only reason I'd acquire a hand bag would be to give it to somebody else; I wouldn't make a gift of a copied item. In fact, I find the example of a hand bag downright bizarre. What sort of assumptions are packed inside that choice of image ... ?
Your example makes me think of the following scenario:
A corporation has an array of hand bags arranged in neat piles on a vast concourse owned by the corporation but accessible to the public. No security is present. The corporation is, however, represented by regularly spaced small printed signs that declare: Taking these products without permission is an offence.
How would people behave, I wonder?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadPunishment would obviously make a difference. I don't know about the peer thing; few people that I know care enough about music to bother downloading anything beyond the occasional popular tune. Point three comes up mostly in argument, I find, when people are forced to justify what they are doing (I'm going to memorise KazetNagorra's line on utility for future reference).
I personally have not decided how morally right or wrong pirating music is. I do find it interesting how many people find nothing wrong with it. I suspect that the real reasons most people do it are:
1. They don't expect to get caught or punished.
2. Everyone else is doing it.
3. Less important but still present is the perception that the victim (rec ...[text shortened]... What are people opinions regarding photocopying books or downloading illegal electronic copies?
But I also think that many people just don't have that deep down feeling that they're doing anything wrong.
I'd photocopy a copyrighted book if I really needed something from it, but a photocopied book is ugly. Software -- if I really need something and can't afford to buy the original, but there's usually freeware available for my modest needs.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe there is nothing wrong with copying because once you buy something, it should be yours to do with as you wish -- only excepting claiming it publicly as your own work OR perhaps copying and selling it, at least for some reasonable length of time.
Pirating now has not killed music. But that is not the issue. Stealing from a shop wont kill commerce or even the store chain, but that doesn't affect whether it is right or wrong.
I personally have not decided how morally right or wrong pirating music is. I do find it interesting how many people find nothing wrong with it. I suspect that the real reas ...[text shortened]... hat are people opinions regarding photocopying books or downloading illegal electronic copies?
The fact that technology now exists to make perfect digital copies and share them is not the fault of the people who make the copies. That's just technological evolution.
It is up to music companies to protect their own business -- we do not have to do that for them. There are a number of options open to them -- sell CD's that CAN'T be copied easily (or only with significant loss of fidelity -- like cassette tapes). Or, don't sell CD's at all and rely on performances (e.g. concerts, radio, TV) for revenue.
People have always listened to, learned and sung songs that they have heard other people sing, and technology now makes that process easier than ever -- we don't even have to be musicians to share that experience.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe real problem is that a large segment of society is based on selling intellectual property. There are two basic ways in which intellectual property development is encouraged:
Is the idea of intellectual property philosophically defensible?
1. Systems that allow you to make money from selling it.
2. Government funding.
Science benefits from both systems.
The real question is - if we made all music/books/software freely available to all, would anyone still produce it?
With software, the rise of open source free ware shows that yes, there are other ways to make money.
The current system though is unfair in that some people pay for the product and some don't. Are those people advocating piracy happy with the idea of making all music freely available or available on CD at cost (of the CD).
What about live performances, should we also not pay for those as we are only sitting there listening, we are not stealing anything are we? What about football matches?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhitehead4. It supports more obscure artists. Without illegal downloading, I would probably own more CDs, but I would have definately not discovered most of the artists which I went to see live in concert later - and everyone knows artists get most of their money from live concerts anyway.
Pirating now has not killed music. But that is not the issue. Stealing from a shop wont kill commerce or even the store chain, but that doesn't affect whether it is right or wrong.
I personally have not decided how morally right or wrong pirating music is. I do find it interesting how many people find nothing wrong with it. I suspect that the real reas ...[text shortened]... hat are people opinions regarding photocopying books or downloading illegal electronic copies?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat do you think? How did musicians and story-tellers support themselves before the advent of copyright?
The real question is - if we made all music/books/software freely available to all, would anyone still produce it? [...]
What about live performances, should we also not pay for those as we are only sitting there listening, we are not stealing anything are we? What about football matches?
Live performances -- I don't think the analogy stretches that far -- I can't copy a show, can I? -- but I'm happy to pay the gate fee for a band I like.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf you write something and don't want it published, shouldn't you have that right?
Is the idea of intellectual property philosophically defensible?
Your question is very vague, though. What conditions does an idea have to have to be philosophically defensible?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't know, what if it's stupendously important for the welfare of one and all?
If you write something and don't want it published, shouldn't you have that right?
Your question is very vague, though. What conditions does an idea have to have to be philosophically defensible?
I don't know. It just seems that 'intellectual property' sounds a bit like 'natural rights'.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThen other rights might take precedence. I'm fine with that, I'm not defending it's a natural right 😵. I certainly have no problem with differentiating some rights by importance.
I don't know, what if it's stupendously important for the welfare of one and all?
I don't know. It just seems that 'intellectual property' sounds a bit like 'natural rights'.
02 Jun 09
Is it fair for me to have paid the same for something that I then found I didn't like after the one and only time I played it (indeed assuming that I made it all the way to the end of the album) [take a breath]... as I would pay for an album that I play 50 times because of the pleasure it gives me.
Do we pay all that money for the right to hear it once? Any extra listenings therefore are a bonus - to me - and of no particular concern to the artist, except if it has an impact on my decision to buy his/her next release?
I listen to a lot of music which I download for free (and, indeed, many 'non-corporte' artists nowadays cooperate with those making their stuff available to blogs) and then, when I travel and get the opportunity (which I don't have where I live) I buy about 15-20% of the stuff that I have heard. As for the rest I don't like, I don't buy it. I have downloaded plenty of things, where I spent 5-10 minutes listening, realized I'd made a mistake and didn't like it, and erased it.
Have I, for all intents and purposes, deprived an artist of the full cover price by doing what I did and not then buying it?
What other things do we buy without being permitted to know what they are exactly before we pay?
Do we have an obligation to buy music that we don't want?