Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
Laukev7:
quote: If you can provide a dictionary definition of sharing that supports your suggestion that duplication of something somehow precludes it from being sharing, I'll agree with you.
--- End quote ---
Merriam-Webster, tenth edition:
quote:
share vb shared; sharing:
1: to divide and distribute in shares : APPORTION
--- End quote ---
And from an Oxford thesaurus:
quote:
share
noun ALLOWANCE, ration, allocation, division, quota, allotment, portion
verb DIVIDE split
--- End quote ---
I'll let that speak for itself.
HibbeeBoy:
quote:
The car was recovered by the police and returned to you. Was it really stolen or were you just sharing your car ?
If they return it to you before you get up in the morning and miss it, then it's not so much of a problem, but there's still the fact that it's suffered wear and tear, had petrol used etc. i.e. it's directly incurred costs for you. The point is, if someone "took a copy" of your car somehow, then they wouldn't have stolen it; they'd have copied it.
Oh I see, so theft can only occur if a cost is incurred by the owner of the property ?
If you have a car, do you lock the doors or do you leave the keys in the ignition in case you want to share it with someone ?
How do you feel about the millions of dollars that sites like Napster (that's the only one I know) made at the expense of the publishers and artists ? Does that seem fair ?
Laukev7:
quote: Why do you think anyone still buys CDs?
--- End quote ---
So your argument is limited to CD's? I recall that Apple released an internet service not long ago. And it's very successful, thank you very much.
quote: People fear the legal consequences of copying - very unlikely
--- End quote ---
I do not argue that. In fact, I always thought that scaring people for any reason was counteproductive.
quote: yet you seem to think that if we remove these practically ineffectual legal restrictions then the fabric of society will collapse.
--- End quote ---
I am not in favour of the current system. I am arguing that giving music avay is an ineffective alternative, compared to other solutions such as a VERY (and I stress very) mild DRM (like Apple's iTMS) or possibly RMS' tax method.
flap:
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
I'll let that speak for itself.
--- End quote ---
So there has to be some physical "division" for something to be shared? That seems to contradict your earlier suggestion that
quote:Playing a CD and listening to it with some friends is sharing.
--- End quote ---
While we're quoting dictionaries,
The American Heritage
flap:
quote:So your argument is limited to CD's? I recall that Apple released an internet service not long ago. And it's very successful, thank you very much.
--- End quote ---
Even better. So why are these people, who have sufficient internet access to download songs, not just downloading them with P2P software? I'd like to know why removing the legal restrictions on non-commercial redistribution would have such a significant effect on artists' incomes, considering you acknowledge that the law is not the reason why people don't copy.
If people are prepared to buy online, then we have proof that artists will be able to sell their music through services like Apple's, but without the DRM, and it will have massive take-up. If you're suggesting that people will get it from their friends rather than paying the artist, then why aren't they doing that now?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version