Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


How can you see the absurdity of one thing but not the other?

It's not clear as to what you are referring to here so I am hesitant to respond but I will expand on the "someone outside your window" anology. That would be absurd, same as if you gathered a group of people in your front room to listen to a CD or the reading of a book, it would be equally absurd to determine that as stealing, it's not even sharing. I don't think anyone is going to be hasling you for that. What I would term as stealing, is the duplication and distribution of the material. You can only share what is rightfully yours, but in the context of music copyright, you do not have that right when you purchase (or otherwise) the material. The right to copy remains the with the artist, publisher or studio. Like it or not, recorded music, movies, books etc are commodities.

[flap]

Actually if it's a public gathering then that would be illegal.

 

quote:What I would term as stealing, is the duplication and distribution of the material.

How can you label one thing with a term that means something completely different? What you're really objecting to, then, is the "duplication and distribution of the material" and not "stealing". For a start, stealing refers to taking something, not giving it away.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
What you're really objecting to, then, is the "duplication and distribution of the material" and not "stealing". For a start, stealing refers to taking something, not giving it away.

Yes, and this is why it is such a grey area, for me.
You can not (or you are not supposed to) duplicate copyright material. This is what the "sharing" P2P networks do. They allow the material to be duplicated and that breaks the copyright agreement. The artist is no longer in control of the material. Your idea of sharing is a little bit askew, I think. You are of the opinion that giving it away is not stealing which would be true if you purchased a CD and then gave it to a friend. But to duplicate the CD and then give it to a friend, in the eyes of the record companies, that as stealing because the recording is copyright protected.

[lazygamer]

Ok this is the way I see it. It doesn't really matter whether it's stealing or sharing in reality, because RIAA has lost the right for anyone to be concerned about harming them(not saying it does harm them, but if it did).

[Canadian Lover]

It is sharing in my opoion, butThe RIAA and recording artists think it's "stealing there copyrights"

[TheGreatPoo]

I'm with flap but I'd like to add one thing:

Distributing music over P2P networks is NOT stealing.  You can call it sharing but I like to call it free advertisement.  It's a very powerful advertizing medium for artists to get their name out there without distribution costs, television airtime, radio airtime, or publication costs.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by TheGreatPoo: Mac Commando:
I'm with flap but I'd like to add one thing:

Distributing music over P2P networks is NOT stealing.  You can call it sharing but I like to call it free advertisement.  It's a very powerful advertizing medium for artists to get their name out there without distribution costs, television airtime, radio airtime, or publication costs.

I'm sure some lame assed garage bands that are not signed to a record deal will agree with you. As a commodity, their music is not worth anything. It's the established acts (and their record companies) that are having the problem with the free distribution of the music. So, if you didn't buy the music and obtained it by "sharing", then you are effectively stealing the music.

[Pissed_Macman]

Sharing.

The computer and the internet are changing the way people do business and those who do not adapt will become extinct.

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:


I'm sure some lame assed garage bands that are not signed to a record deal will agree with you. As a commodity, their music is not worth anything. It's the established acts (and their record companies) that are having the problem with the free distribution of the music. So, if you didn't buy the music and obtained it by "sharing", then you are effectively stealing the music.

Just because they "won't agree with you" it doesn't mean they're correct. That cartoon is pretty much right though. Bands/aritsts have been told by their labels that file sharing is a threat to their livelihoods, and they buy it. Actually, the real threat to them is the parasitic record labels themselves who treat their artists like shit and give them next to nothing. Do you realise how little artists make from CD sales?

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


Just because they "won't agree with you" it doesn't mean they're correct. That cartoon is pretty much right though. Bands/aritsts have been told by their labels that file sharing is a threat to their livelihoods, and they buy it. Actually, the real threat to them is the parasitic record labels themselves who treat their artists like shit and give them next to nothing. Do you realise how little artists make from CD sales?

Who won't agree with me ?

I don't see Michael Jackson begging/busking in the streets. I don't really see what your point is either. The record industry is getting a long overdue kick in the gonads and I'm happy to see that. At the same time, I still support the artists right to determine how their music is copyright protected, distributed and still receive compensation for their work.

[flap]

You keep saying "I don't think the artists/labels would agree with you" etc. I'm saying that just because they don't agree with me, it doesn't mean that they're correct.

I also support the artists' rights to how their music is distributed. They should be able to choose to have their work distributed freely, or not at all.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
I also support the artists' rights to how their music is distributed. They should be able to choose to have their work distributed freely, or not at all.

No you don't, that's a bullshit statement. You just want to have free music and you can. Free music is available all over the internet, tons of lame assed musicians will give you their music for free, but it's crap and a waste of time and these people are just amatuers not worth wasting the bandwidth on.

[flap]

Actually I think we should be able to give money voluntarily to artists we like. I would happily give an artist

[emh]

HibbieBoy, I don't get what you're saying

So music is only good if the artist(s) have a recording contract?

That's like saying an operating system is only good if it costs a lot of money.

[ May 20, 2003: Message edited by: emh ]

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
Actually I think we should be able to give money voluntarily to artists we like. I would happily give an artist