Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[HibbeeBoy]

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

Sharing is not a right, it's common courtesy and good manners at best but it is not a fundamental right. Good try though.

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.

Nope, it's not a suggestion, it's a fact borne out by the reality of the laws. Deal with facts and realities.

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.
----
Hibee: No, I did mean YOU specifically.
Who said anything about exploiting ? Certainly not me. Society will get along just fine without Kylie, Robbie Williams, Insync et al. If this pile of shite can found some fool to part with their money, well you know the old saying about fools and their money.
---
Quote:
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.

--------------------

On this I agree with you and Virgin Record stores have never denied me my right to purchase a CD from their store of any artist. However, I choose not to purchase CDs very often.
For someone who advocates free choice, you are a bit of a facist to dictate how an artist should be publishing their music.

[flap]

quote:Sharing is not a right, it's common courtesy and good manners at best

No; it's a right. If I want to share something that's in my posession I'll do it.

 

quote:Nope, it's not a suggestion, it's a fact borne out by the reality of the laws. Deal with facts and realities.

The existence of laws obviously bears out the fact that they have the legal right, but not the moral right.

 

quote:If this pile of shite can found some fool to part with their money

Then they're exploiting them. And I'm not just talking about pop music; any music that's released under those kind of copyright restrictions.

 

quote:For someone who advocates free choice, you are a bit of a facist to dictate how an artist should be publishing their music.

No, I'm not a "fascist" - neither do I advocate "complete" freedom for everyone, especially not if it means granting the right to exploit and restrict society. That's the right-wing perversion of the ideal of "freedom".

[KernelPanic]

Who gives a shit what we term breaking these artists distribution terms. Their music sucks anyway.
I can belive this has ran on about a month over 4 pages twoing and froing over which word to use.

I see it like this, If you wan't to use lame proprietary software like Microsoft, play it their way and turn out your pockets. Same with the music, you wanna bob you head to RIAA pay your due monies.
The sooner people realise what a raw deal they are getting, they will switch to some more un-tainted and free (money and philosophy) artists.
Pirating thier crap just makes you another in their user base, by buying or copying/sharing/stealing/borrowing whatever whatever their music they still have you buy the nuts and will probably control your tastes.
File Sharing also only gives them excuses and fodder to get rediculous laws like the DMCA passed that start to infringe upon my other areas that I do care about.

[HibbeeBoy]

Quote:
No; it's a right. If I want to share something that's in my posession I'll do it.

Just because it's in your possession doesn't mean it belongs to you as it would depend on how it came to be in your posession. Maybe you stole it.
The issue lies in what constitutes sharing. By copying and distributing music against the express wishes of the creator (and owner) then I don't think you have that right. Nor do I think you should have the right to use the artists work as you seem fit without the consent of the creator.  If you want to lend a copy of a CD to a friend or something, no problem. That I would consider sharing.


quote:
The existence of laws obviously bears out the fact that they have the legal right, but not the moral right.

According to YOUR morals maybe.

quote:
Then they're exploiting them. And I'm not just talking about pop music; any music that's released under those kind of copyright restrictions.

I think the artist/creator should be allowed to control their work, not you. You are under no obligation to buy the music. There is a lot of music available for free download, copy, sharing call it what you like where no resrictions apply. I don't see why YOU should be the one to determine how the artist distributes their work in those cases where the artist feel his output good enough that he can charge a fee for it. The market will support it.

quote:
No, I'm not a "fascist" - neither do I advocate "complete" freedom for everyone, especially not if it means granting the right to exploit and restrict society. That's the right-wing perversion of the ideal of "freedom".

There is no restriction here. You want music, go to the store and buy it. If you don't want to pay for music, download the stuff that is freely available. You do have a choice.
You come off as a fascist because you want to dictate that someone cannot be allowed to earn a living from their talents because your work must be free and we must all live by your moral code/standards.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Tux:
Who gives a shit what we term breaking these artists distribution terms. Their music sucks anyway.

That's a weak argument that is always used as a last resort. wether or not it sucks is an opinion, and not everyone agrees with you.

 

quote:
The sooner people realise what a raw deal they are getting, they will switch to some more un-tainted and free (money and philosophy) artists.

A lot of good artists (good is an opinion by the way) can't afford to publish or advertise their work. Why do you think we have publishers? For the most part it is the publishers that are greedy. So you are saying we should only listen to people that are rich (who get the money likely from their greedy parents)?

I like country, if I should switch to one of these folks you are talking about, why don't you point me to a good band/artist? It was your suggestion and they aren't advertising themselves.

[KernelPanic]

Stryker how long has music existed? How many hundreds of years?

It does not therefore need to be a corporate cash-cow and artists don't need to be manufactured and signed to one of the big three labels.
I am not going to search for good music for you, but personally I find some really good music locally, in small stores and on independant labels.

Obviouslly I can't listen to music completely form smaller labels and artists and I have tastes in the mainstream but the situation in music seems to be snowballing into one where the record companies are taking the piss out of both the consumer and the artist. Artist seem to be reared for the puplic eye and the public are indoctrinated into adhering to fasions and trends. It's all becoming increasingly false.
I don't particularly give a flying fuck about filesharing, copyrighting or anything I just don't like how industricised they are trying to make music.

Also many artist change drastically when they get signed to the big lables from what they began as.
It has been proven through time that arts best works are created when the artist is on the financial backfoot.
I don't mean that they should be kept poor, it's just sad how many end up selling out under the record companies tricks to lure them in and lead astray. They are treated like a donkey with a carrot.

I apologise if this post doesnt make any sense as
A) I am very tired, and
B) I don't particularly have an opinion on tis topic, I just felt a need to respond because Stryker seemed so hostile.

Now, if you dont mind, I am going to sleep.
Perhaps you could continue the debate until the end of time and people will still have polar views and be shouting across the fence. Enjoy another ill fated MES 'let's bitch for eternity' thread.

[sway]

both. some artists don't care about money, and allow their music to be downloaded freely.

[HibbeeBoy]

Aw c'mon Tux, get into the spirit of the thing !!

It's just a discussion and has been fairly interesting. It's just about done now anyway.

[flap]

quote:Just because it's in your possession doesn't mean it belongs to you as it would depend on how it came to be in your posession. Maybe you stole it.

If I have a CD that I bought, I own it. And by your standards I haven't "stolen" the music on it. I therefore have the right to share it as I see fit. If the creator didn't want me to share it he shouldn't have sold it to me.

 

quote:There is no restriction here.

Yes there is. If you buy a CD from a store, you're not allowed to give copies to your friends.

 

quote:you want to dictate that someone cannot be allowed to earn a living from their talents because your work must be free

How many times do I have to make this point before it's understood? We want the music to be free as in freedom - the issue is not whether or not the artist charges for their work (they should be able to charge $1m for it if they want, and not make it available for free themselves), but rather what people are allowed to do with the artist's work once they obtain it i.e. they should be allowed to share it freely.

There are ways that artists can make money from distributing their art while still allowing it to be copied freely e.g. selling CDs (most people still don't have the technological capability to download music), voluntary online donations etc.

[Stryker]

I wasn't aware of how hostile i was i guess... i'm one of the least hostile people i know. This is how it usually works though. We scream and bitch at eachother in one thread, and completely agree in another... just because i disagree with you this time doesn't mean i'm hostile.

As for the copying a CD thing is OK because you bought it the CD, that's wrong. If I buy a CD, I'm buying my right to use the music. And my use of the music is to share it with a friend. I'm not all for sharing music on a level like kazaa does it. But if I want to make 7 or 8 copies for a few friends, what's the problem?

Why should I buy a CD if I don't know if I like it or not? Don't give me that radio shit either, not all the songs are played on the radio.

I'm tired, sorry if I seemed hostile in this post too...

[Laukev7]

Dear me, flap. Would you care to explain *where* it is written that we have a *right* to share? In the Bible? In the Magna Carta? In the Universal Declaration of Human rights? I have seen no such mention.

Where is it written that we have a right to ruin the   profits of a singer (nevermind the RIAA) by just  copying and giving away his songs? And while we

[Laukev7]

There is a fundamental law that says that an individual

[Doctor V]

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

Yes.  History is filled with examples of laws being made that are horribly corrupt.  I'll take one out of many examples.  In America, the civil rights movement throughout the middle of last century was all kicked off by one woman refusing to obey an opressive law.  The law said that because she was black she was obligated give up her seat on the bus to another woman that was white.  Does anyone think she was wrong to break the law in this case?  I know this is a far cry from copyright, but the point is, sometimes laws need to be questioned.

V

[flap]

quote:Dear me, flap. Would you care to explain *where* it is written that we have a *right* to share?

I'm disturbed to see that your sense of morality and human rights is based on what's "written down". I like to think that basic rights, such as the right to help your neighbour in a way that doesn't harm anyone else, are implicit and don't need to appear in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or anywhere else.

 

quote:Where is it written that we have a right to ruin the profits of a singer

I never suggested anything of the sort. Under a system of free distribution, it's possible that artists would make less money. You'd probably get fewer multi-millionaires like Britney Spears or Paul McCartney, which is a good thing. On the other hand, artists lower on the scale of popularity would probably make more money. You are aware of how record companies screw their (less financially successful) artists, aren't you?

 

quote:This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because songs are not information.

So freedom of speech only applies to functional information?

 

quote:You also seem to forget about the right of privacy.

No, I've said that I respect an artist's right to produce a work of art and keep it to themselves. But once they've decided to publish it to the public they lose that right. What you're saying is like someone standing naked on top of a building and then complaining about their "right to privacy" when people look at them.

 

quote:just because an information is available does not mean that everyone is entitled to it.

It's a shame you feel that "entitlement" comes only with the wealth necessary to buy it.

[Faust]

quote:
If they can earn more money they should.

And this describes RIAA and almost all other big companies ideals in one little sentence.  Not "if you can earn more money do it (provided you don't hurt others.)" but "if you can get money, do it."  The record companies have been shafting us and artists for years, it's about time we actually told them where to shove their monopolies.  Artists will survive, with the greedy record companies STEALING (not sharing    ) their royalties they make most of their profits off concerts anyway - combined with the fact that sharing music is free advertising to buy their CD's anyway.  If that's bullshit then does someone want to explain to me why, with my huge ogg collection I still have over a grands worth of CD's on my bedroom shelf?  And how much more of those would I buy if we could force record companies to lower their prices?  How much more artists would get their five cents per CD?