Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
Stryker:
quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
[QB]I guess since everyone else is explaining I will explain
According to the Random House Webster College Dictionary, the second definition of "Steal" is as follows:
I would call Music a form of ideas, words, and the artists definitely deserve credit for their music (most of them anyway). Therefore to download (appropriate) ideas, words, and credit (music) is stealing.
QB]
--- End quote ---
Every song I have downloaded has awknowledged the artist. It's in the filename usually. As far as the right to do it, I pay for my internet connection. Music is usually licensed for home personal use. I only listen to it at home, I only get it at home (except when I buy the CD of a song I like... thanks to the p2p networks). I understand that copying it is a breach of the license, but it's not stealing. as I do have the right to do it, and it they are awknowledged. they only debatable thing here is the right, and that's a matter of opinion. It would depend on who you are copying it from I'd say.
jtpenrod:
quote:Do you consider downloading music off the net or with apps such as Kazzaa to be "Sharing" or "Stealing."
I consider it Stealing.
--- End quote ---
As for myself, I really don't give a flying fuck either way. I haven't bought an RIAA CD since 2000, when I got stuck with a third GD CD that had just the one good song I heard on the radio with 10 other tracks that absolutely sucked. Furthermore, I have no intention of buying another unless the RIAA seriously cleans up its act.
Instead, I download from non-RIAA independents who actually want you to hear their work. If Hillary, Metallica, Madonna, and Brittney don't want me listening to their music, I'm perfectly willing to honour their request.
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
jtpenrod:
quote: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.
--- End quote ---
Better not let Calum hear you say that ;) What an absolute crock of shit this is! Is there really anyone out there idiot enough to sincerely believe that the RIAA has a monopoly on talent?(!) :eek: (Please E-Mail me right away! I have a bridge that I've been trying to unload for a long time. Perhaps we can do a deal? ) To be sure, you can find lots of "lame assed" musicians posting mp3's on the 'Net. And you can find plenty of "lame assed" musicians signed to labels whose garbage'll cost you some $20.00 at "Block Buster". After all, consider: "New Kids on the Block", "N'Sync", "Brittney Spears", and many, many more: YYYYEEEECCCCHHHH!!!!. After all, Brittney has just two assets to offer, and neither one of them have anything to do with music. ;)
OTOH, you can find some damn good music from acts that aren't RIAA. Electronica is one good example. It hasn't caught on here in the 'States; the RIAA hasn't noticed, and you won't find these European Electronica acts offered at the major chain outlets like "Block Buster". Not "mainstream" enough.
There are other acts on the 'Net that are every bit as good as any RIAA-signed acts. And they really aren't all that difficult to find. Indeed: there are actually musicians out there who don't want to sign with a label. They'd prefer to keep creative control, do their own marketing which the 'Net and the mp3 have made possible, and take the lion's share of the proceeds from CD sales while selling for 1/2 to 1/4 what you'll pay for a RIAA CD.
That post, and another just like it, suggest they're coming from someone who's trying to sign with the RIAA. Let me remind all of you: I don't buy RIAA CDs, I don't download RIAA copyrighted music. I guess that means that I won't be listening to this musician's music if he does get signed.
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
[ May 21, 2003: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
flap:
quote:Originally posted by fett101:
You have to also pay a part of the music production, advertising, packaging, etc. etc...
That, and major retailers sell most CD's for $10-$14
--- End quote ---
That's a myth often used by publishers to justify extortionate prices. If the poor record labels are really being hit hard by all these outgoings then how are they making so much money?
flap:
quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
If this is so why don't most musicicans allow content to be downloaded freely. I mean, if you could make more money doing something, wouldn't you let people do it, so you could make more money. The lack of a large group of people doing this would mean that your hypothesis is incorrect.
--- End quote ---
So then.... presumably Macs/Linux etc. are shit as "a large group of people" don't use them? And Windows must be fantastic, as most people use that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version