quote:
You are the one starting to worry me, flap. So you are trying prove a very disputed point with "implicit" laws which nobody seem to agree on?
If you're seriously disputing that human beings don't have the right to share with one another, then the problem is with you, and not me.
quote:
Care to explain how you make more money by trying to sell music that everyone else gives away?
By allowing free distribution an artist gains far more publicity than a record company can provide. Currently many artists make so little from record sales that most of the money they make comes from touring, and selling cds at concerts etc.
quote:
Again you are not considering the feelings of the artists, you are taking their right to control the distribution and use of their work.
By this logic, then, we shouldn't have any control over companies. We shouldn't have anti trust cases or corporate watchdogs. Who are we to sue Microsoft for monopolising? What moral right do we have to hurt their "feelings"?
quote:
Have you even read that paragraph? What does reproduction of art have to do with freedom of information?
You didn't say freedom of information, you said:
quote:
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because songs are not information.
You seem to be suggesting that freedom of speech applies only to functional information.
quote:
Excuse me? Everyone is free to distribute their music anyway they like
You said:
quote:
just because an information is available does not mean that everyone is entitled to it.
Here you seem to be suggesting that some people are not "entitled" to information i.e. those who haven't, possibly because they're not able, paid for it.
quote:
Faust, because this does not contradict in any way anything I have said so far: that musicians should be redeemed for their work.
When have I suggested that musicians shouldn't be redeemed for their work?
quote:
On the other hand, I have seen nothing in that article that promotes "free" distribution of media (or at least the way you and flap seem to).
Actually most of the ideas I'm talking about here have been specifically suggested by Stallman.
quote:
The problem, from what I understand, is that you are trying to apply the ideas of the GNU GPL to the media industry, which is a totally different context (not that I agree that all software should be free, either).
Not exactly. For example, commercial redistribution could be prohibited, as this isn't a freedom that would benefit society, unlike with free software.
quote:
However, until such a system is implemented, copying music CDs and P2P will still remain stealing.
I'll explain why, whether you agree that it's morally right to copy or not, this is not "stealing". Firstly, why is stealing a problem? If you wake up in the morning and find your car has been stolen, why would this bother you? Is it because someone out there has a new car? No, obviously not; you're bothered because you no longer have one. The whole point of stealing is that it's about depriving someone of something they own. Copying doesn't leave the artist without their work, so even if you don't agree with it, copying is not analagous to theft.