Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Holy shit! Tis horrible...
flap:
quote:Originally posted by void main:
It's distributing those ripped files to millions of other people that I believe is wrong.
--- End quote ---
Yes; sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "pirate".
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by flap:
Yes; sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "pirate".
--- End quote ---
It does if what you are sharing is illegal to share. It doesn't if what you are sharing is not illegal to share (like GPL software). I don't know if you were being facetious there or not.
[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
flap:
Well I hope the sarcasm was obvious, but I don't really know what you mean by "wrong". Not doing something because you want to avoid the risk of prosecution is different from not doing it because you feel it's ethically wrong.
Unless of course you believe that it is inherently unethical to break the law, in which case I don't understand the point of view.
voidmain:
I said I believe it is wrong, as in ethically wrong. You were correct when you said it is pirating if the files you are sharing are being shared illegally. And you are correct in that they are two different things.
I believe when agreements are made between two parties and copyrights are placed on something, it is the copyright holder's right to do what he/she wants with it. If they don't want me to listen to their music without paying for it that's fine. If I like it I will pay for it. If I don't I wont.
Now there are plenty of groups out there who have not made an agreement with a label and want their music shared. Even if they have that music copyrighted they can still say it is ok to share their music, they are the copyright holder, they determine how it is distributed. There is a wealth of this type of music out there, some of it as good or better than anything you hear from a major record label. It's much like the difference between GNU software and proprietary software. I don't like Microsoft software so I choose not to purchase or use it. I like VMware so I purchased it. I use Linux which can be distributed freely. Every piece of Linux code that I am aware of has a copyright but the copyright holder's licence states that the software can be distruted/shared, and that the source code must be included with the software.
It's a two way street. I can't on one hand say it is not ok to close up GPL code and sell it without the source, breaking the license of the copyright holder. And on the other hand say it is ok to share proprietary software (or music) which breaks the proprietary software (or music) copyright holder's license. That would be extremely hypocritical.
Obviously it's more of an ethical issue with me than a legal one. I have broken many laws, in fact I once had my license taken away for too many speeding tickets. But I can sit here with a straight face and tell you I have not once in my life downloaded a pirated MP3. Maybe it's because I too am a musician and have a CD. Of course my CD is not proprietary and it can be downloaded for free off of the net. The songs on that CD are copyrighted though. And if another group were to take those songs and record them with a major label they will have a law suit on their hands. That's what copyrights are all about. To protect your right to use your work however you want. Copyrights are a good thing. Without them, people would have less incentive to create.
But hey, it's just my opinion. Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one and they all stink.
[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
lazygamer:
quote:I said I believe it is wrong, as in ethically wrong.
--- End quote ---
Ethics? What's that?
Well, I believe in stupid morals and smart morals...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version