Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
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:
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
So freedom of speech only applies to functional information?
quote:You also seem to forget about the right of privacy.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version