Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
Laukev7:
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 ]
flap:
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?
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
You didn't say freedom of information, you said:
quote:This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because songs are not information.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
You said:
quote:just because an information is available does not mean that everyone is entitled to it.
--- End 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.
quote:Faust, because this does not contradict in any way anything I have said so far: that musicians should be redeemed for their work.
--- End quote ---
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).
--- End quote ---
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).
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Laukev7:
quote: If you're seriously disputing that human beings don't have the right to share
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Laukev7:
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"?
--- End quote ---
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.
Laukev7:
quote: You seem to be suggesting that freedom of speech applies only to functional information.
--- End quote ---
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.----
--- End quote ---
Their music, as in "The one they produced". Are you just taking my quotes out of context?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version