Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
flap:
quote:Hmmm, so when someone has a file that they are sharing, they return the file to the person they borrowed it from ? And the person they borrowed it from does not have use of that file e.g. a music file until the borrower returns it ?
--- End quote ---
You still seem to be missing the point; that copying is not analagous to borrowing, stealing, or any other action that leaves the original owner without their property, so there's no need to "return" the file. As I've said, if someone could "copy" your car and take that copy, then they wouldn't need to return it as you'd still have the original.
quote:Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?
--- End quote ---
Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.
quote:Oh so you want to just change who is ripping who off ?
--- End quote ---
No, I want to stop them being ripped off by putting an end to the recording industry as it currently exists.
quote:I did not change my mind. If we put both definitions together, you'll notice that it supports both my allowance for listening to a CD, where no multiplication is involved and my rejection of multiplication from the definition of sharing.
--- End quote ---
This is a really silly argument - what makes you think multiplication somehow stops an action from being sharing?
quote:The law, while it does not scare away anyone, still reminds everyone that artists need to make a living. If it becomes morally acceptable to copy music, people might forget that. Capisce?
--- End quote ---
I tend to agree with Stallman on this issue; that people would feel more inclined to provide the artist with a living if they treated their fans better by encouraging them to share their music.
quote:For example, he talks about mouth-to-ear publicity, but the problem with that is that fame will not extend outside the circles, and as such cannot become mainstream.
--- End quote ---
That's why you need services like Napster.
quote:I do agree, though, that one should do whatever he wants with the music he downloaded, INCLUDING making copies, and even giving them to his friends (the catch is that they would have to be entitled, or they wouldn't be allowed to RECEIVE it).
--- End quote ---
I don't understand; how is entitlement established?
HibbeeBoy:
quote:
You still seem to be missing the point; that copying is not analagous to borrowing, stealing, or any other action that leaves the original owner without their property, so there's no need to "return" the file. As I've said, if someone could "copy" your car and take that copy, then they wouldn't need to return it as you'd still have the original.
I am not missing your point, I just don't agree with it. Your point is valid to an extent. To equate copying to stealing is going too far I agree and I have kind of warmed to the points you have raised up to mass distribution and doing what you want with an artists music, see my next point.
I don't think your use of cars as an analogy is apt either. Multimedia and music are very unique business models.
quote:
Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?
Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.
As far as I could tell and the courts agreed with me, Napster was facilitating the mass distribution of music and it's this part of it which does not sit well with me. It's one thing to share/borrow music within your circle of friends but to mass distribute music across the globe without the consent of the artist or their publisher is something else, I don't know what but it isn't lending/borrowing. It's something more commercial for which Napster made millions and the artists received nowt until the courts forced them to cough up. Surely you must agree there is something morally wrong here ?
quote:
No, I want to stop them being ripped off by putting an end to the recording industry as it currently exists.
The recording industry is (according to them anyway) suffering big time. I don't feel any sympathy towards them. But I don't think it is because of downloading music. It's because the public have finally realised that $15.00 for a CD of 2 good songs and 10 shite songs is a rip off. There's generation out there who just don't buy music. I think the CD killed the record industry (not the music industry) because of greedy pricing.
For me, it's about choice and the two models living side by side, those artists that do want their music freely available on the internet at THEIR discretion and artists that don't want their material mass distributed via the internet. If Insync and Madonna don't want their music freely available, I'M ALL FOR IT !! :D
Laukev7:
quote: This is a really silly argument - what makes you think multiplication somehow stops an action from being sharing?
--- End quote ---
How about this: I take a $100 note, and duplicate it. Then, I "share" the bills with my friends. So I have a method of duplication good enough to make exact copies. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? I should also have the right to share a hundred dollars (or pounds), even if I just "multiply" it, right?
quote: For me, it's about choice and the two models living side by side, those artists that do want their music freely available on the internet at THEIR discretion and artists that don't want their material mass distributed via the internet. If Insync and Madonna don't want their music freely available, I'M ALL FOR IT !!
--- End quote ---
Excellent suggestion, HibbeeBoy. Now, flap, why won't you listen to this excellent piece of advice?
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Laukev7:
quote: I don't understand; how is entitlement established?
--- End quote ---
Many ways.
A) Buy the music (via a service like iTunes)
B) The producer gave his music away (which he is allowed to do, but it relies on charity)
C) Taxes (come on, now, RMS proposed it himself. Surely you won't disagree?)
D) Heavy amounts of DRM (I hope it doesn't happen)
E) Adverts, or annoying tags begging you to give money
No one should be obliged to give his music away (or, for that matter, to charge for it).
quote: That's why you need services like Napster.
--- End quote ---
You can't expect artists to get enough publicity with only one medium!
flap:
quote:How about this: I take a $100 note, and duplicate it. Then, I "share" the bills with my friends. So I have a method of duplication good enough to make exact copies. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? I should also have the right to share a hundred dollars (or pounds), even if I just "multiply" it, right?
--- End quote ---
If money itself was inherently useful or valuable, then yes. But since money is only there to represent the abstract level of wealth a nation has, duplicating it doesn't benefit anyone. Thus if you double the amount of paper money in the world you have a problem.
quote:Many ways.
A) Buy the music (via a service like iTunes)
B) The producer gave his music away (which he is allowed to do, but it relies on charity)
C) Taxes (come on, now, RMS proposed it himself. Surely you won't disagree?)
D) Heavy amounts of DRM (I hope it doesn't happen)
E) Adverts, or annoying tags begging you to give money
--- End quote ---
The point I'm making is that you seem to be suggesting that someone is only entitled to listen to a piece of music if they've paid for the privilege, even though it would cost the artist nothing for the person's friend to give them a copy. If someone can't afford to buy music, are you just saying "tough shit"? There's no reason why every person in the world shouldn't have access to every piece of art ever published.
quote:You can't expect artists to get enough publicity with only one medium!
--- End quote ---
No, so they can sign up with record labels without selling their copyright to them or advertise themselves in other ways. Allowing their music to be distributed freely doesn't mean they can't be publicised.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version