Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:
Well. obviously yes, the whole point of why stealing is bad, as I explained, is that the owner suffers some cost, financial or otherwise. In this case the theft either costs you your car, or the money it takes to refill the tank etc. So, no, as you want to keep your car you don't leave the keys in the ignition; you only give them to people with whom you trust enough to share it, as you need them to bring it back.

Hmmm, so when someone has a file that they are sharing, they return the file to the person they borrowed it from ? And the person they borrowed it from does not have use of that file  e.g. a music file until the borrower returns it ?

quote:
You seem to be missing the whole point I'm making, which is that it isn't "at the expense of the artists".

Says you ! A lot of the artists disagree with you. Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ? (Although that model has changed slightly, they are now forced to pay a royalty to the publisher, that is the way it started.) That I think is morally wrong.

Quote:
And if you're looking for people ripping off musicians, you might want to look at record labels.

Oh so you want to just change who is ripping who off ?

I don't think that making a copy of music is inherently wrong, I just don't think that mass reproduction and distribution of an artists work is a moral or fundamental right, I think it is at the discretion of the artist and the publisher.

[emh]

quote:Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:

How do you feel about the millions of dollars that sites like Napster (that's the only one I know) made at the expense of the publishers and artists ? Does that seem fair ?

I just want to add real quick that, during Napster's prime, CD sales were actually higher than they were before Napster.

[Laukev7]

quote: which backs up both my interpretaion of sharing, and your earlier definition, before you changed your mind.

I did not change my mind. If we put both definitions together, you'll notice that it supports both my allowance for listening to a CD, where no multiplication is involved and my rejection of multiplication from the definition of sharing.

[Laukev7]

quote: So why are these people, who have sufficient internet access to download songs, not just downloading them with P2P software?

 

quote: If people are prepared to buy online, then we have proof that artists will be able to sell their music through services like Apple's

The big difference that I am trying to point out is not the legal issues. It is the moral issues. The law, while it does not scare away anyone, still reminds everyone that artists need to make a living. If it becomes morally acceptable to copy music, people might forget that. Capisce?

[Laukev7]

I have survived through the soporific discourse you sent me, flap. No offence, and only my personal opinion, but this was the most boring speech I've ever heard. Apart from this, what he said was informative, but I've learnt little new from this other than anecdotal information. He is right about the problems he points out, but unfortunately, the solutions he proposes in this speech are not realistic. For example, he talks about mouth-to-ear publicity, but the problem with that is that fame will not extend outside the circles, and as such cannot become mainstream.

I do agree, though, that one should do whatever he wants with the music he downloaded, INCLUDING making copies, and even giving them to his friends (the catch is that they would have to be entitled, or they wouldn't be allowed to RECEIVE it).

I also think that buying a song should be buying a permanent right to it rather than just a CD. Therefore, I am against the more restrictive forms of DRM (ex. the music registration services where you lose everything if you unsuscribe).

Of course, what I am proposing is only one alternative amongst many others.

[flap]

quote:Hmmm, so when someone has a file that they are sharing, they return the file to the person they borrowed it from ? And the person they borrowed it from does not have use of that file e.g. a music file until the borrower returns it ?

You still seem to be missing the point; that copying is not analagous to borrowing, stealing, or any other action that leaves the original owner without their property, so there's no need to "return" the file. As I've said, if someone could "copy" your car and take that copy, then they wouldn't need to return it as you'd still have the original.

 

quote:Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?

Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.

 

quote:Oh so you want to just change who is ripping who off ?

No, I want to stop them being ripped off by putting an end to the recording industry as it currently exists.

 

quote:I did not change my mind. If we put both definitions together, you'll notice that it supports both my allowance for listening to a CD, where no multiplication is involved and my rejection of multiplication from the definition of sharing.

This is a really silly argument - what makes you think multiplication somehow stops an action from being sharing?

 

quote:The law, while it does not scare away anyone, still reminds everyone that artists need to make a living. If it becomes morally acceptable to copy music, people might forget that. Capisce?

I tend to agree with Stallman on this issue; that people would feel more inclined to provide the artist with a living if they treated their fans better by encouraging them to share their music.

 

quote:For example, he talks about mouth-to-ear publicity, but the problem with that is that fame will not extend outside the circles, and as such cannot become mainstream.

That's why you need services like Napster.

 

quote:I do agree, though, that one should do whatever he wants with the music he downloaded, INCLUDING making copies, and even giving them to his friends (the catch is that they would have to be entitled, or they wouldn't be allowed to RECEIVE it).

I don't understand; how is entitlement established?

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:
You still seem to be missing the point; that copying is not analagous to borrowing, stealing, or any other action that leaves the original owner without their property, so there's no need to "return" the file. As I've said, if someone could "copy" your car and take that copy, then they wouldn't need to return it as you'd still have the original.

I am not missing your point, I just don't agree with it. Your point is valid to an extent. To equate copying to stealing is going too far I agree and I have kind of warmed to the points you have raised up to mass distribution and doing what you want with an artists music, see my next point.
I don't think your use of cars as an analogy is apt either. Multimedia and music are very unique business models.

quote:
Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?

Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.

As far as I could tell and the courts agreed with me, Napster was facilitating the mass distribution of music and it's this part of it which does not sit well with me. It's one thing to share/borrow music within your circle of friends but to mass distribute music across the globe without the consent of the artist or their publisher is something else, I don't know what but it isn't lending/borrowing. It's something more commercial for which Napster made millions and the artists received nowt until the courts forced them to cough up. Surely you must agree there is something morally wrong here ?

quote:
No, I want to stop them being ripped off by putting an end to the recording industry as it currently exists.

The recording industry is (according to them anyway) suffering big time. I don't feel any sympathy towards them. But I don't think it is because of downloading music. It's because the public have finally realised that $15.00 for a CD of 2 good songs and 10 shite songs is a rip off. There's generation out there who just don't buy music. I think the CD killed the record industry (not the music industry) because of greedy pricing.
For me, it's about choice and the two models living side by side, those artists that do want their music freely available on the internet at THEIR discretion and artists that don't want their material mass distributed via the internet. If Insync and Madonna don't want their music freely available, I'M ALL FOR IT !!  

[Laukev7]

quote: This is a really silly argument - what makes you think multiplication somehow stops an action from being sharing?

How about this: I take a $100 note, and duplicate it. Then, I "share" the bills with my friends. So I have a method of duplication good enough to make exact copies. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? I should also have the right to share a hundred dollars (or pounds), even if I just "multiply" it, right?

 

quote: For me, it's about choice and the two models living side by side, those artists that do want their music freely available on the internet at THEIR discretion and artists that don't want their material mass distributed via the internet. If Insync and Madonna don't want their music freely available, I'M ALL FOR IT !!

Excellent suggestion, HibbeeBoy. Now, flap, why won't you listen to this excellent piece of advice?

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Laukev7]

quote: I don't understand; how is entitlement established?

Many ways.
A) Buy the music (via a service like iTunes)
B) The producer gave his music away (which he is   allowed to do, but it relies on charity)
C) Taxes (come on, now, RMS proposed it himself. Surely you won't disagree?)
D) Heavy amounts of DRM (I hope it doesn't happen)
E) Adverts, or annoying tags begging you to give money

No one should be obliged to give his music away (or, for that matter, to charge for it).

 

quote: That's why you need services like Napster.

You can't expect artists to get enough publicity with only one medium!

[flap]

quote:How about this: I take a $100 note, and duplicate it. Then, I "share" the bills with my friends. So I have a method of duplication good enough to make exact copies. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? I should also have the right to share a hundred dollars (or pounds), even if I just "multiply" it, right?

If money itself was inherently useful or valuable, then yes. But since money is only there to represent the abstract level of wealth a nation has, duplicating it doesn't benefit anyone. Thus if you double the amount of paper money in the world you have a problem.

 

quote:Many ways.
A) Buy the music (via a service like iTunes)
B) The producer gave his music away (which he is allowed to do, but it relies on charity)
C) Taxes (come on, now, RMS proposed it himself. Surely you won't disagree?)
D) Heavy amounts of DRM (I hope it doesn't happen)
E) Adverts, or annoying tags begging you to give money

The point I'm making is that you seem to be suggesting that someone is only entitled to listen to a piece of music if they've paid for the privilege, even though it would cost the artist nothing for the person's friend to give them a copy. If someone can't afford to buy music, are you just saying "tough shit"? There's no reason why every person in the world shouldn't have access to every piece of art ever published.

 

quote:You can't expect artists to get enough publicity with only one medium!

No, so they can sign up with record labels without selling their copyright to them or advertise themselves in other ways. Allowing their music to be distributed freely doesn't mean they can't be publicised.

[Laukev7]

quote: The point I'm making is that you seem to be suggesting that someone is only entitled to listen to a piece of music if they've paid for the privilege, even though it would cost the artist nothing for the person's friend to give them a copy.

Capitalism is not based on whether or not there is a cost. The principle is an exchange of a product or a service for another, or for money. It has never been said that this does not apply when there is no cost for the producer. Therefore, even if it does not cost anything to the artist, he has appropriated something without giving anything in return, against the will of the artist.

 

quote: advertise themselves in other ways.

So why don't they just advertise themselves while charging for their songs?

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Laukev7]

Oh, and you are forgeting something, flap. So, the producer can produce an unlimited amount of music. So, if someone just copied a music file from someone else, he has not incurred a cost to the artist, right?

Wrong. If producing music is unlimited, then possession of music is also unlimited (and no DRM should attempt to change this). However, population is not unlimited. So, if someone does not pay for a song, then its price has been substracted from the total potential revenue (since unlimited production is a new concept, we will have to introduce new terms). Oh, and the road example cannot apply here, because there is no limit as to how many time you drive on the same road.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Fett101]

How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.

[Laukev7]

Sorry, I posted the same message again. Mea culpa.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

While I'm at it:

 

quote:  How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.

Like I have been saying above.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[flap]

quote:The principle is an exchange of a product or a service for another, or for money.

Exactly. And in the case of copying music, the artist hasn't provided a service. They produced the work in the first place but they have had no part in the copying transaction.

 

quote: How exactly does it not cost the artist and/or record industries when it's copied? It may not directly cost them, but certainly does indirectly.

 

quote: So, if someone does not pay for a song, then its price has been substracted from the total potential revenue

This is the point that you all keep making over and over, without realising that I'm insisting that artists shouldn't have the right to be paid for every copy of their work that is made. Just as someone who installs a door in a building doesn't implicitly have the right to be paid everytime someone walks through it. Artists need to earn a living and should be reimbursed, but there is no justifying their moral right to exact money from a person everytime a new copy of their work is distributed.