File Sharing

[Steezie]

Forgive me, but now I'm REALLY confused....

You say that creating something in and of itself does not give you the inherent right to package and sell it. Then you say that selling a copied CD is wrong because you're profiting off the work of others without doing anything yourself. If someone doesn't have the right to sell their creation, then why should it be illegal for someone else to sell a copied CD?

Hmmm, well when you put it that way, I guess it shouldnt.

My main objection is to the SELLING of data as though it were a commodity, I dont feel there should be any barriers to the free-flow of information.

Wait, hold on...

Just because the mediums are changing doesn't mean that the standards of ownership are changing.

Just because I can put a photo on the internet doesn't mean I have to give up ownership of that photo. I certainly can take steps to insure that my photo is only used for what I want it to be used for, though.

I believe that when a music artist releases a CD into the public stream, it's public. Do I think people should purchase music before pirating it? Of course - and it's a policy I live by. Do I think there are some situations where getting it from a P2P network is okay? Yes - as I stated above.

Context is everything, but let's not jump the gun on who

Putting a photo online is the same as going out in public, as far as I see it. You lose your expectation of privacy.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Hmmm, well when you put it that way, I guess it shouldnt.

My main objection is to the SELLING of data as though it were a commodity, I dont feel there should be any barriers to the free-flow of information.

But what do you mean by data? I sell photos - are you saying my photos shouldn't be sold? That I should just give them away?

Putting a photo online is the same as going out in public, as far as I see it. You lose your expectation of privacy.

That's why I said I put things on my photo that may render it impossible to use without my permission. I generally sell my digital images, so I watermark the thumbprints and they're uploaded at 72 DPI. But I'm also amenable to someone who doesn't want to buy the photo and maybe wants to use it for church or something - but it's my decision.

I understand people wanting to sample music and the like before buying it. There's several ways to do that. iTunes offers 30 second or so snippets of music and I've found they'll credit your account if you deal with customer service and tell them you didn't care for the music of the album. No such luck at walmart or the local record store.

The artists who don't utilize iTunes are, IMO, the ones losing out.

 

[Steezie]

But what do you mean by data? I sell photos - are you saying my photos shouldn't be sold? That I should just give them away?

They're information and as such I dont think they should be sold.

That's why I said I put things on my photo that may render it impossible to use without my permission. I generally sell my digital images, so I watermark the thumbprints and they're uploaded at 72 DPI. But I'm also amenable to someone who doesn't want to buy the photo and maybe wants to use it for church or something - but it's my decision.

I guarantee you those measures will be slowdowns rather than roadblocks to anyone who wants your pictures.

I understand people wanting to sample music and the like before buying it. There's several ways to do that. iTunes offers 30 second or so snippets of music and I've found they'll credit your account if you deal with customer service and tell them you didn't care for the music of the album. No such luck at walmart or the local record store.

I dont feel that 30 seconds is enough.

For example, the first 45 seconds-ish of THIS are awesome, if I were to listen to a 30 second sample, I'd think the entire song was that awesome and buy it. Problem is after that 45 seconds, the song SUCKS. A lot of songs are like this, they have good intros or good pieces to them but the rest of the song is terrible.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Trust me, when I put a photo up online that I don't want people using, the best they're going to get is an avatar-sized piece of information. If they try to use anything bigger than that, they're not getting good quality whatsoever. I've done online stuff for a long enough time to know how to put stuff up that cannot be used for print, or that is very limited to online use. And if someone wants to make one of my photos their avatar, I'd be too flattered to worry about copyright issues.

In terms of 30 seconds not being enough, then I don't know what to tell you. Depending on what store you buy from, you can sometimes preview a whole CF before you buy it. As has been pointed out, though, there are many things we buy that we don't get to sample first. I like the idea of looser return policies, but that still leaves people the opportunity to be dishonest.

I think the biggest thing that needs to be taken into consideration when we're talking about file sharing is what the end goal is. If you're gonna try to make money selling CDs at a cut-throat price, then I think using filesharing is sneaky and dishonest. If you're using it to cut the middleman out, I think it's a bit dishonest. If you use it in "emergencies", when you've exhausted other means of purchasing the song, then it's not dishonest.

 

[Steezie]

Trust me, when I put a photo up online that I don't want people using, the best they're going to get is an avatar-sized piece of information. If they try to use anything bigger than that, they're not getting good quality whatsoever. I've done online stuff for a long enough time to know how to put stuff up that cannot be used for print, or that is very limited to online use. And if someone wants to make one of my photos their avatar, I'd be too flattered to worry about copyright issues.

I have very little faith in anti-copyright breaking measures. DRM of any kind generally fails.

As has been pointed out, though, there are many things we buy that we don't get to sample first.

Those things can either be returned (in the case of non-consumable products) or simply not purchased again (in the case of consumable products)

I like the idea of looser return policies, but that still leaves people the opportunity to be dishonest.

You mean like people downloading music?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I have very little faith in anti-copyright breaking measures. DRM of any kind generally fails.

Depends on the medium.

I loathe the fact that HBO has encyrpted every single channel so that my DVR refuses to record, so I'm stuck using a VHS tape if I want to record something.

Those things can either be returned (in the case of non-consumable products) or simply not purchased again (in the case of consumable products)

Which is exactly why I then pointed out that stores should initiate some type of return policy - even iTunes will make exceptions, although I have no idea if they allow it on each time someone wants to return something. I've been credited at least twice for albums that I bought (because I couldn't buy just the song I wanted) that were awful.

You mean like people downloading music?

Downloading music is not in and of itself dishonest. I downloaded a whole album today and came about ownership of it in a completely honest way.

 

[Steezie]

Depends on the medium.

No, no it really doesnt.

Which is exactly why I then pointed out that stores should initiate some type of return policy - even iTunes will make exceptions, although I have no idea if they allow it on each time someone wants to return something. I've been credited at least twice for albums that I bought (because I couldn't buy just the song I wanted) that were awful.

And Ford should make cars people actually want to buy, but they arent gonna.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

No, no it really doesnt.

okay...

And Ford should make cars people actually want to buy, but they arent gonna.

Yeah, and?

 

[Steezie]

Yeah, and?

What a business SHOULD do and what they WILL do are two different things. There will probably never be a return policy at all on multimedia unless its in a sealed package and unopened.