Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End 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.
quote:For someone who advocates free choice, you are a bit of a facist to dictate how an artist should be publishing their music.
--- End 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".
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version