Illegal downloading

Originally posted by StTito
your missing the point. This whole "oh don't hurt the poor artist" thing is just wrong. The "people" your stealing from have been exploiting artists for the last 100 years. The record companies have been stealing from the artists. If you want to hide behind a completly unjust law then fine. Technology is finally changing in the music artists favor. From recor ...[text shortened]... eaking out and they have the power to keep the status quo. It is unjust from top to bottom.

But your justification is no different from justifying stealing from a store chain.
I personally feel that managers are over paid and that I work just as hard as them with a different skill set and it is unfair that their skill set results in higher pay. But should I steal from them to balance it out?

Originally posted by FMF
So the crime is not to have removed it from the original owner's possession. The crime is to have heard it.

I don't know actually. We are led to believe the act of downloading it is a crime. However, I can't see how it can be. I can take a photo of a famous photographers photo, frame it and hang it on my wall. I can then take as many copies of it as I want and hang them all over my house. I don't believe that is illegal. So how can using my PC take a snapshot of a music file be illegal.

What clearly is a problem though, is re-distributing the thing but I'm not sure if leaving it on publicly accessible storage constitutes "distribution". If I leave a book on my doorstep someone could come along and take it but I don't think I have then distributed the book.

Ultimately, the music distribution companies are finished and I wish they'd stop whining about it. Digital cameras could have killed off Kodak. Kodak didn't start legal proceedings, they adapted. The free distribution of music and the death of large corporation's interest in it is fantastic news for those who want to make music. It is relatively cheap to produce quality music recordings these days and it is insanely cheap to distribute it. You can't make much money from freely available music except perhaps via advertising, donations or subscription to your exciting blog but most musicians don't make money anyway. Artists generally don't. Performing artists do, however, have the option of paid performing.

There is no reason that I can see that someone who makes music is entitled to a massive yacht in Monte Carlo and a private jet whilst a poet sits in a studio apartment hoping that some poor sap actually pays them enough to cover the rent.

Originally posted by FMF
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8073068.stm

[b]Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisers say.

Can they claim they are out of pocket to the tune of tens of billions of pounds if the people downloading never had any intention of paying for the materi ...[text shortened]... d a different way of marketing music and in so doing reduce illicit file sharing?[/b]

Property is theft.

I don't see the problem. If you don't want people downloading your music, taking photos of your paintings or giving the book they read to someone else... don't flaunt it in the first bloody place.

The greedy little bastards are getting what they deserve.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Property is theft.

I don't see the problem. If you don't want people downloading your music, taking photos of your paintings or giving the book they read to someone else... don't flaunt it in the first bloody place.

The greedy little bastards are getting what they deserve.

Oh BS!

You can't just draw an arbitrary line in the sand just on the dark side because this is 'art' and have a double standard.

Originally posted by Crowley
Oh BS!

You can't just draw an arbitrary line in the sand just on the dark side because this is 'art' and have a double standard.

I don´t think Shav IS advocating a double standard here.

He´s right too (though I need more time on the property is theft argument).

The double standards come from the recording industry. They want all the benefits of distribution through a medium that costs them bugger all and then moan when they find that it costs exactly the same for everyone else to distribute it the same way.

If they are so concerned about people copying their "product" they shouldn´t distribute it in a way that can easily be copied. The reason they don´t do that is because they know that people will not buy it. People have always copied and/or distributed music and always will do; we don´t buy music we can´t copy.

Originally posted by Wheely
I don't know actually. We are led to believe the act of downloading it is a crime. However, I can't see how it can be. I can take a photo of a famous photographers photo, frame it and hang it on my wall. I can then take as many copies of it as I want and hang them all over my house. I don't believe that is illegal. So how can using my PC take a snapshot of a music file be illegal.

I wonder whether that is true (about the photo) in all circumstances. Could a photographer put restrictive licensing on his photo? Why is that true of photos but not music or books? I think you would be violating copyright if you did that with a page of a book even if you owned the book.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Property is theft.

I'd like to see you explaining that concept to a lion who is eating HIS antelope.

Or to a grizzly fishing HIS little area of a salmon stream.

Or to a bird as you pull twigs out of HIS nest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wonder whether that is true (about the photo) in all circumstances. Could a photographer put restrictive licensing on his photo? Why is that true of photos but not music or books? I think you would be violating copyright if you did that with a page of a book even if you owned the book.

It would have to be legal!! The consequences don´t bear thinking about. You could ban cameras from an exhibition but any publicly displayed item is surely fair game. Otherwise your snapshot of your kiddies in front of a piece of art could see you dragged off to prison. Can they stop me drawing a picture of the photo, perhaps from memory? Do we ban cameras and pencils?

This whole approach of the music distribution industry leads to hitherto unknown heights of stupidity. Imagine standing outside Wembley Arena while Sting is performing. You can clearly hear the performance. Outside the venue has to be considered a pubic broadcast as I can´t avoid hearing it (unless the RIAA want to stick their fingers in my ears as I walk past). So, how can it be illegal for me to use what I heard in any way I see fit e.g. going home, trying to learn the tune on my guitar and making a great version of it and selling it for millions? If we follow the tortuous logic of copyright and the RIAA in the digital age we end up in a world that completely suppresses art of any kind from anyone other than existing copyright holders. You already can not photograph the Eiffel Tower at night. Just as soon as someone buys Niagra Falls you can forget putting that in your picture/song/book/whatever too.

Authors quite sensibly distribute their produce, for the most part, in a form that is not easily copied and therefore, they circumvent the problem. This is, of course changing and I hope they are not going to bleat about people copying their books afterwards,

I say all this as someone who does music performances and recording and also has a serious hobby in photography. If I expect to get money from what I produce I don´t stick it on the internet except in seriously limited quality.

Originally posted by Wheely
I say all this as someone who does music performances and recording and also has a serious hobby in photography. If I expect to get money from what I produce I don´t stick it on the internet except in seriously limited quality.

If you sold one of one of your photos to someone and he put it on the internet, would you object?
What if a thief stole your camera and posted the photos on the internet?

Originally posted by Wheely
It would have to be legal!! The consequences don´t bear thinking about. You could ban cameras from an exhibition but any publicly displayed item is surely fair game. Otherwise your snapshot of your kiddies in front of a piece of art could see you dragged off to prison. Can they stop me drawing a picture of the photo, perhaps from memory? Do we ban cameras and pencils?

There are laws surrounding copyright and some amount of copying is allowed. You could probably photograph a famous painting and publish it in a newspaper, but you cant necessarily publish a famous photo that you saw in another newspaper. You also cant take a photo of a newspaper story and publish it.

Originally posted by Wheely
If they are so concerned about people copying their "product" they shouldn´t distribute it in a way that can easily be copied. The reason they don´t do that is because they know that people will not buy it. People have always copied and/or distributed music and always will do; we don´t buy music we can´t copy.

I can't get behind that.

So just because I'm able to reach through my car window and get to a Coke on one of those open transport trucks means I can grab it?
No-one would do that, so why is digital 'theft' such a grey area?

I've said before, I'm no saint. Probably about 70% of my digital entertainment is pirated. I'm not an advocate for playing by the rules.
But don't try to justify piracy, because at the end of the day - you are a thief. I've made peace with it.

Originally posted by Crowley
I can't get behind that.

So just because I'm able to reach through my car window and get to a Coke on one of those open transport trucks means I can grab it?
No-one would do that, so why is digital 'theft' such a grey area?

I've said before, I'm no saint. Probably about 70% of my digital entertainment is pirated. I'm not an advocate for playing by t ...[text shortened]... stify piracy, because at the end of the day - you are a thief. I've made peace with it.

You really have to learn the difference between 'copy' and 'steal'. If I make a copy of your favourite Armani suit, how can you possibly claim that I am stealing it?

Originally posted by Crowley
I can't get behind that.

So just because I'm able to reach through my car window and get to a Coke on one of those open transport trucks means I can grab it?
No-one would do that, so why is digital 'theft' such a grey area?

I've said before, I'm no saint. Probably about 70% of my digital entertainment is pirated. I'm not an advocate for playing by t ...[text shortened]... stify piracy, because at the end of the day - you are a thief. I've made peace with it.

I wouldn't say illegal downloading is necessarily the "right" thing to do, but then again, legitimally buying $500 sunglasses is a lot more questionable morally.

Originally posted by Crowley
Oh BS!

You can't just draw an arbitrary line in the sand just on the dark side because this is 'art' and have a double standard.

I can.
I will.
And I did.

What you gonna do about it, big boy?

Lucebert says: "Everything of value is vulnerable."
(alles van waarde is weerloos)

And the vulnerability of art is what defines it as art instead of production.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I'd like to see you explaining that concept to a lion who is eating HIS antelope.

Or to a grizzly fishing HIS little area of a salmon stream.

Or to a bird as you pull twigs out of HIS nest.

Yeah, I'd like to see you explaining your last post to a lion, a grizzly or a penguin as well.

Teach them to read and write and I'll withdraw the statement.