Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
Fett101:
Wow. this thread is just chock full of metaphors!
Let's make more!
Let's add on to that door thing. What if the carpenter was not paid when he put up the door, but instead charged people a small fee each time they use it in order to pay for it's original cost. That's a bit more correct.
I can spout out more metaphors if the thread needs more, but basically if people copy the music, that generally means less purchases of the CD, which cost a sum of money for it's production.
Claiming your copy cost nothing from the artist is absurd. It cost to produce the music that is cobtained in the file. You may as well sell CD's on ebay, that happen to contain digital 1's and 0's, that happen to produce audio when played. Obviously people would bid wanting some CD's. Maybe to use as a mirror or something.
Laukev7:
quote: Just as someone who installs a door in a building doesn't implicitly have the right to be paid everytime someone walks through it.
--- End quote ---
Wrong analogy. This example would be better compared to being charged each time you listen to a song, which of course is absurd (though some may try that approach). Even this example is not adequate. You are trying to compare a totally new concept with old stuff. Music isn't a door you install.
Besides, you are using the road analogy again, which, I have explained, does not apply for this situation.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
quote: Exactly. And in the case of copying music, the artist hasn't provided a service. They produced the work in the first place but they have had no part in the copying transaction.
--- End quote ---
No, but the artist participates in giving the right to copy it once the customer paid.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Fett101:
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
[QB]
No, but the artist participates in giving the right to copy it once the customer paid.
QB]
--- End quote ---
It's like a tollbooth. And Flap is driving his SUV past it, on the grass behind the attendant's back.
Laukev7:
I love metaphors.
- Watching Superbowl from the top of a building with binoculars;
- A restaurant invents a new secret recipe that saves it from bankrupcy, only to be put out of business the day after when flap scatters the recipe around;
- Communism, blah blah blah.
- Last, but not least, et caetera.
[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
emh:
quote:Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:
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 ?
--- End quote ---
Just a quick correction. Napster never actually made any money. Napster was not a paid subscription service.
This is a good discussion. Great points are being made on both sides. But I just wanted to point out that Napster never made any money during its time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version