Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[Calum]

[Faust]

Hear hear.  Damn good picture there Calum.

[Doctor V]

Every time a new technology comes out, there are going to be losers, there always have.  The RIAA puts alot of resources into putting that music out.  When the music gets around without them recieveing anything for it, naturally, they are going to try to stop it.  The printing press, radio, and even video casettes were all fought against.  Arguements about their treacherous tactics, and what they have turned the music industry into aside, I think its just comes down to a question of what is a better world:  one where music and information are freely available even though the original creator loses control of it or one where the creator stays in control and the content is only as free as he or she makes it?  I personally happen to think the former is a happier world, and is better for humanity in the long run.

V

[Fett101]

God bless Tom The Dancing Bug.  

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Doctor V:
I think its just comes down to a question of what is a better world:  one where music and information are freely available even though the original creator loses control of it or one where the creator stays in control and the content is only as free as he or she makes it?  I personally happen to think the former is a happier world, and is better for humanity in the long run.

V

That's easy for you to say but it's not up to you.

As far as the record companies go, they are a load of parasites delivering prefab shite music that I wouldn't have for free anyway, Britney Spears etc.
The point is that the recording industry has a commodity, music that can be sold in various media formats and is protected from theft by the law. If  someone gets busted for downloading music that they know to be copyright protected, no sympathy from me. More importantly, the artist is the one who must remain in control of their material and if they feel there is a market out there that will buy their music, then that's up to THEM. Either go out and buy their crap CD (whatever) or face the consequences if you are caught distributing via the internet.
If the record industry want to face up to this "crisis" they need to rethink their pricing structure and business model.

[Faust]

When will people learn that the law should conform to morality and not the other way around?   :confused:

[Laukev7]

As I have seen in this thread, some people have very different definitions of morality.

[ June 13, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Pissed_Macman]

MUSIC SHARING IS WRONG AND NO ONE SHOULD DO IT EXCEPT FOR ME DAMMIT!!!!!!

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
When will people learn that the law should conform to morality and not the other way around?    :confused:  

Who's morality, yours ?

The way things stand right now is pretty cut and dry. Some music is available for free download and some is not. The stuff that is not available for free download, just beware that you might have to face some consequences when downloading/swapping (or rather distributing) the stuff you're not supposed to.

[Refalm]

quote:Calum: http://sugarmegs.org/naptoon.jpg

P2P's are non comparable from library's. In a library, you borrow something, and you have to bring it back, or else...

In a P2P program, such as Gnutella or eDonkey, you copy something from someone, and the person from which you copied, can copy something from you (eDonkey makes you at least share one directory).

It's much easier to copy an OGG file and burn it on a CD, than scanning a book and putting it in a PDF file. And, you don't have to bring the OGG back, because you copied it, not borrowed it. The P2P system is Anarchistic by nature, which I like. You have the total freedom of copying music, and do anything you want with it, without charge.
And about the artists not getting money thing: [apathy]they aren't much getting money anyways[/apathy]. And if the record companies could make an album cheaper, I'd buy the album for sure. It much more easier to walk to a store, buy a CD and listen to it immediatly in high quality, instead of spending hours on downloading mp3's (which may be low-quality), and spending money on empty CD's to put low-quality mp3's on.

[Faust]

quote:
Who's morality, yours ?

What I'm saying Hibee is that you need to back up your arguments with more than "the law says this - so do it."

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:

What I'm saying Hibee is that you need to back up your arguments with more than "the law says this - so do it."

I'm not sure how to respond to this because I don't believe I said or implied that but I do kind of go along with the sentiment.      
In this case, I do think the law is correct. But by breaking that law (copying/distributing copyright music via the internet) it forces the record industry to change their ways, I'm all for it. It's just not something I would do personally. I don't see why people have a problem paying for a  product and the owner of the product protecting their asset.
But I rarely buy music anyway. I have a friends who bootlegs CDs but I never take them because it's shite, like Robbie Williams or Kylie. Stuff I wouldn't have for free let alone buy !!
I don't see what the moral issue is either and by who's morals are we to be observing, yours ? Gods, Allahs ? My granny ?

[ June 13, 2003: Message edited by: HibbeeBoy ]

[flap]

The moral issue is the fundamental human right to share, which is being compromised by artists and record labels "protecting their assets", as you misleadingly put it.

 

quote:I don't see why people have a problem paying for a product

Has this not been explained thousands of times before? It is about *freedom* and not price. The issue is not whether or not you pay for music, it's whether or not we are allowed to copy and share.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
The moral issue is the fundamental human right to share, which is being compromised by artists and record labels "protecting their assets", as you misleadingly put it.

The fundamental human right to share, WTF are you on about ?

 
 

quote:Originally posted by flap:

Has this not been explained thousands of times before? It is about *freedom* and not price. The issue is not whether or not you pay for music, it's whether or not we are allowed to copy and share.

And it has been established that under the present circumstances the artist and their recording company have the right to prevent that happening.
It's not all about YOU.
You can download music free of charge and free of consequence all over the place, certain artists want to restrict that from their work, they want the fundamental right to choose how their work is distributed.

[flap]

quote:The fundamental human right to share, WTF are you on about ?

I'm on about the funamental right to share. What part of that concept is difficult to understand?

 

quote:And it has been established that under the present circumstances the artist and their recording company have the right to prevent that happening.

No, it has been suggested that they have the right. I disagree.

 

quote:It's not all about YOU.

Again, I disagree, assuming that when you say "YOU" you really mean society, and not me specifically. Your suggestion is that the right of an individual artist to exploit is more important than the right of an entire society to share.

Artists should have every right to stop their work from being distributed full-stop, but if they choose to have it published they they shouldn't have the right to dictate who and who can't listen to/use it.