Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law

Holy shit! Tis horrible...

<< < (5/16) > >>

Calum:
music is a different thing entirely. green day went and encouraged bootlegging of their music. so did the dead. radiohead think it's a good idea.

What i'm talking about is copying live music, and live music is always different from the released product. i'm more likely to prefer the live versions of things, but many people will buy the lp on the strength of a live set. As for copying albums, i honestly think that having a copied lp is not the same as owning the real thing, and that if you can put up with having a copy then fine. i'd prefer the real thing though. i buy as much music as i can and copy the music i can't afford, if i can.

with music a lot of artists don't mind whether you copy their stuff, it's their representative companies, labels, agents et c that try to stop you.

With software, programmers and their companies seem to be united in trying to stop you copying their product, or else they are united in allowing you to copy their procudt. this battle between a liberal minded programmer and a hard nosed software company does not occur like it does in the music industry.

Also, using a copied version of a program is identical in all real respects to using a real copy. I copy an lp onto tape, i hear tape hiss. i copy it onto a CD, i still don't get the real liner notes, if i copy a copy of microsoft windows and install it on a PC, who can tell it was installed from a copy?

the issue is more complicated than comparing it to the music industry.

flap:
It's the artists' fault for signing up with a record label in the first place. If they want their stuff to be distributed without restriction they shouldn't sell out their copyright to the labels.

It's not a matter of supporting the artists - if you want to support them you can download their music and then mail them a cheque for a couple of

Calum:
i agree! why hasn't shareware music ever caught on?
actually the reason it hasn't caught on is that the main reason to pay for shareware is to get tech support. this is not necessary for music, yet another reason that music and software cannot be compared as a product.

voidmain:
Because nobody pays for shareware. Oh there are 1 or 2 who pay out of thousands. Back in the late 80's I wrote a couple of shareware programs used for administering a BBS. One of the programs was used by every admin of this particular BBS software around the world. I know because there were FIDO and Metrolink threads where this program was discussed. I don't recall getting a single registration on this particular program, and I was only asking $5. I wrote another shareware app that was more widely used that I believe I got two registrations for, also $5.

lazygamer:

quote: and this is why the legions of dumbasses who think pirating hurts companies will have to rethink their ideas a bit or nothing will change. They won't though as that will deprive them of their warez. pity they ddon't realise there are plenty of legitimate alternatives these days, hmm lazygamer?
--- End quote ---


Lol, alternatives?  ;)

Agh, but I like my mass market Eminem! Surely it's ok to listen to and pirate your "popular" shit, just as long as you listen to, and pay for, independant stuff?

It just don't add up though. What's the difference between pirating to harm and boycotting to harm? No money=no money. With MS I can understand, but music?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page