Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
Laukev7:
quote: So why shouldn't a carpenter be paid for the number of people who are going to walk through his door?
--- End quote ---
Why not?
quote: Price_per_person = constant_reasonable_revenue / #_of_people
--- End quote ---
What's the difference? Do the math, and you'll see that you're just turning the equation around.
quote: Are you suggesting that what I'm suggesting is not a socialistic/communist system?
--- End quote ---
How should I know? I wasn't being serious. And I thought that most FSF proponents (like Richard Stallman) denied that. But if you are going to start debating capitalism versus communism, then I suggest you start another topic.
flap:
quote:Why not?
--- End quote ---
So you think he should? I think this argument is suffering from our differing grasps on reality, then.
quote:What's the difference? Do the math, and you'll see that you're just turning the equation around.
--- End quote ---
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.
quote:And I thought that most FSF proponents (like Richard Stallman) denied that.
--- End quote ---
They avoid using the term "socialism" because there is such a strong anti-left attitude in the states. But obviously Free Software is a perfect example of practical socialism in action, in a way that is massively benefitting society. If Stallman used the term "communism" to describe what his movement has achieved, the reaction would be people's hysterical antipathy to the concepts of equality, co-operation and freedom, as they're so inherently contrary to The American Dream they've learned to worship.
It's so difficult to convince people of their right to share because they're so lost in the current system of greed and self interest, that they can't see a way to living in a society based on co-operation rather than competition.
Laukev7:
quote: So you think he should?
--- End quote ---
I never said anything of the sort. You're the one who suggested that a carpenter shouldn't be paid that way, not me.
And unless your tastes incline you to consider a generic wooden door a piece of art, then don't compare it to an art. A door is not replicable. And I have already said that it is OK to listen to someone else's CD without copying it.
quote: No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.
--- End quote ---
This is ridiculous. How about the ratings? If a song is more appreciated, it should have a higher value. If not, then any singer can make crap and get paid as much as a talented singer who put effort in his songs.
[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Laukev7:
quote: It's so difficult to convince people of their right to share because they're so lost in the current system of greed and self interest, that they can't see a way to living in a society based on co-operation rather than competition.
--- End quote ---
If you are going to discuss this, then start another topic, and I will be glad to debate this with you. But this is getting off-topic.
Fett101:
quote:Originally posted by flap:
[QB]No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.[QB]
--- End quote ---
Communismin the music industry. Heh.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version