Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[Laukev7]

quote: 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

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? Oh, and "doesn't harm anyone else" is the whole point, and I have been arguing on that since the beginning. I noticed that you have ignored everything of what I have said on that.

 

quote: I never suggested anything of the sort. Under a system of free distribution, it's possible that artists would make less money.

Less money? As much money as you make by being a charity, I suppose?

 

quote: On the other hand, artists lower on the scale of popularity would probably make more money.

Care to explain how you make more money by trying to sell music that everyone else gives away? Or do I have to give a thorough explanation of why this is unlikely to work?

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


How many times do I have to make this point before it's understood? We want the music to be free as in freedom - the issue is not whether or not the artist charges for their work (they should be able to charge $1m for it if they want, and not make it available for free themselves), but rather what people are allowed to do with the artist's work once they obtain it i.e. they should be allowed to share it freely.

There are ways that artists can make money from distributing their art while still allowing it to be copied freely e.g. selling CDs (most people still don't have the technological capability to download music), voluntary online donations etc.

Again you are not considering the feelings of the artists, you are taking their right to control the distribution and use of their work. You do not have any divine right to dictate how an artist distributes their work. Most of the copyright laws are suspect, I  agree with you. But I do not agree with your stance that you have the right to distribute their work. This seems to be what you are saying and I don't mean you specifically this time. Just my opinion.

Anyway, I'm bored with this now.

[Laukev7]

quote: You are aware of how record companies screw their (less financially successful) artists, aren't you?

Of course I am aware of it. But that does not mean that your alternative is the only or best solution.

 

quote: So freedom of speech only applies to functional information?

Have you even read that paragraph? What does reproduction of art have to do with freedom of information? People are free to describe art or criticise it, or display it (as long as the displayer paid for it), or even, say, go to the mall and record music, or take pictures of a painting. But it ends when people take the original piece of art and distribute it, which is   considered morally wrong (and I dare even say that it is "implicitly wrong", since you seem to like that expression so much) And would you ever consider plagiarism a right?

[Laukev7]

quote: It's a shame you feel that "entitlement" comes only with the wealth necessary to buy it.

Excuse me? Everyone is free to distribute their music anyway they like (and possibly forsake any fame or profit if they give it away). No one should be forced to practically give their works away (that is, by allowing the first person who buys their song to give it away) or, for that matter, to charge for their songs.

Please, is there a word limit or not? I am tired of posting in installments.

[Faust]

quote:
Care to explain how you make more money by trying to sell music that everyone else gives away? Or do I have to give a thorough explanation of why this is unlikely to work?

Yeah it's disghusting how all those filthy radio pirates keep stealing music off artists.  I mean if it was like advertising the artist would make some money, but it's quite obviously not.

[Faust]

http://www.eff.org/IP//copywrong.paper

[Faust]

First they came for the space-shifters,
and I did not speak,
because I don't own a Diamond Rio.
Then they came for the DeCSS sites,
and I did not speak,
because I don't watch DVDs on a Linux box.
Then they came for Sean Fanning,
and I did not speak,
because I figured I'd just use Gnutella.
Then they came for my VCR.

[Faust]

Oh and of course none of you use VCR's right?  I mean when you record a show you are STEALING a TV stations art.  Why would people buy videos if they have huge pirated collections?  Honestly.  (We all do know that the big companies tried to render VCR's illegal don't we?  They also tried to ban the playing of music on the radio...)  Oh and because your arguments are so convincing I'm throwing away my library card.  No, really.  :rolleyes:

[Laukev7]

Read my posts, Faust. I have already said/implied that this is right (although not necessarily legal), along with taking pictures. What is wrong is distributing the original media without permission. This is right because we have already paid to view what is broadcast on TV (adverts, monthly payments, etc). It would be wrong, though, if someone started his own channel and distributed the recordings without paying or getting permission.

And even if it wasn't right, this would be an ad populum argument; just because everybody does it doesn't mean it is right.

And library cards have nothing to do with distributing books without permission.

I will read amd comment on the copywrong paper; it may be interesting to hear what RMS has to say on this (provided that it benefits the vendor AS WELL as the consumer).

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
Oh and of course none of you use VCR's right?  I mean when you record a show you are STEALING a TV stations art.  Why would people buy videos if they have huge pirated collections?  Honestly.  (We all do know that the big companies tried to render VCR's illegal don't we?  They also tried to ban the playing of music on the radio...)  Oh and because your arguments are so convincing I'm throwing away my library card.  No, really.    :rolleyes:  

Things got a bit off topic. If an artist (not the publisher) wants to control the distribution of their work, I think they should have that right. There is a difference between making a couple of copies for personal use and turning it into a cottage industry of bootlegging stuff. I don't see what the RIAA are getting their knickers in a twist about. People downloading music are probably downloading music they wouldn't buy anyway. If the RIAA were smart, they would reduce the price of a CD to what it should be, $3.99 tops, for Insync, Kylie etc, $1.99 or 99c. I don't think this is a battle they can win fighting it the way they are. They need to fight it pricing wise. Give the punter some value for money and stop paying eminem millions of dollars a year.

[ June 14, 2003: Message edited by: HibbeeBoy ]

[Laukev7]

I have finished reading Stallman's article. Maybe you should read it yourself, Faust, because this does not contradict in any way anything I have said so far: that musicians should be redeemed for their work. 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).

In fact, I agree much more with the method he proposed in the article than with any of your rhetoric about making music "free as in free speech". I find that using a tax method to pay the musicians for their music (in a much more fair way) is an excellent solution. Too bad you didn't mention any of this, now did you?

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).

However, until such a system is implemented, copying music CDs and P2P will still remain stealing.
[ June 14, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[ June 14, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[flap]

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.

[Laukev7]

quote: If you're seriously disputing that human beings don't have the right to share

Not everyone agrees that copying music is sharing.

 

quote: By allowing free distribution an artist gains far more publicity than a record company can provide.

What's the point if you have no garantee to make any profit, let alone enough money for a living? If the artists charge a substantial amount of money for their songs, when everyone else can get them for free (or for a lower cost by big corporations), they will never be able to make any sales, since everyone will buy either buy cheap from corporations who don't pay them back or just copy them from their neighbour.

[Laukev7]

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"?

Not my argument, but this is unrelated to the issue at hand. You are confusing controlling distribution and controlling behaviour. It is not for Microsoft's success in selling Windows that we sue them, but because of the unsavoury business practices that led them to their position.

[Laukev7]

quote: You seem to be suggesting that freedom of speech applies only to functional information.

Ever head of the painting of a pipe, beneath which is written "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? This means that a representation of a pipe is not the object itself. Let's say you see a pipe on the table, The pipe in itself is not information, right? It is only the interpretation of that vision that constitutes information. In the same way, art cannot be information, because it has to be interpreted first. The comments about a piece of art, though, is information.

 

quote:     ----Excuse me? Everyone is free to distribute their music anyway they like----

You said:

    ----just because an information is available does not mean that everyone is entitled to it.----

Their music, as in "The one they produced". Are you just taking my quotes out of context?