File Sharing

[Tenka]

Before you could reliably download it, I bought albums I wasn't able to listen to beforehand and many of them were absolute rubbish, it really put me off buying music for a long time.
Since P2P took off, I've discovered a lot of music that I'd otherwise never have found and I've bought a lot more music I really enjoy.
I think a lot of people underestimate the loyalty which exists among music fans and gamers for the media they enjoy.

 

[DeathMagus]

What about the song writer who is not a performer?

Aren't they paid for rights to use the song by the artist/producer up front? I don't think they're affected by sales/tours.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There's nothing wrong with filesharing/downloading. I remember the good old days where I had the radio/tape recorder and would copy my songs that way.

What I want to know is where musicians get their false sense of self-worth???

When the boys from Metallica came out and complained about how p2p caused them to only make 2.5 million when it was projected at 6 mil made me angry...it's like guys, you've just made 2.5 mil in addition to the millions you already have, why are you complaining??? I'd love to be able to make that much money from cranking out mediocre tunes for angry 7th graders.

 

[DeathMagus]

I'd love to be able to make that much money from cranking out mediocre tunes for angry 7th graders.

Metallica fans must be angry 7th graders?

 

[Supernaut]

Metallica fans must be angry 7th graders?

It seems I am always behind the times! I didn't start listening to Metallica until my sphomore year in HS. I was into KMFDM and the TKK in 7th grade.. lol.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Metallica fans must be angry 7th graders?

Well this is a bit of a sidebar, but I'll play along

I remember listening to them in 7th grade (which was about 12 years ago) along with a every other metal band when I was going through my rebellious stage.

My post was referring to bands' warped view of their worth and contribution to society. The fact that they're complaining because they ONLY made 3 times what an average doctor makes shows that they've lost sight of what their job is really worth.

That's not just musicians, I have similar view about professional athletes who act like they're getting ripped off because they're only making 5 million/year...that's when I say c'mon, you're only hitting a ball (35% of the time if your good)

But back to the topic at hand, if they want to punish people for uploading/downloading, just call it what it is, the government way to enforce a law they made up for revenue purposes and to create an internet scare tactic...don't lie to the people and tell them that Lars is going to starve because we're robbing him of his drumming money

 

[DeathMagus]

Well this is a bit of a sidebar, but I'll play along

I remember listening to them in 7th grade (which was about 12 years ago) along with a every other metal band when I was going through my rebellious stage.

My post was referring to bands' warped view of their worth and contribution to society. The fact that they're complaining because they ONLY made 3 times what an average doctor makes shows that they've lost sight of what their job is really worth.

That's not just musicians, I have similar view about professional athletes who act like they're getting ripped off because they're only making 5 million/year...that's when I say c'mon, you're only hitting a ball (35% of the time if your good)

But back to the topic at hand, if they want to punish people for uploading/downloading, just call it what it is, the government way to enforce a law they made up for revenue purposes and to create an internet scare tactic...don't lie to the people and tell them that Lars is going to starve because we're robbing him of his drumming money

You're certainly right about that - I just think that S&M is a phenomenal album, so you hit a little close to home.

 

[Steezie]

Fighting file sharing is, as I have said before, fighting the fundamental structure of the Internet and is often times of the utmost hypocrisy.

There are no real rational arguments for the control of data in this way other than the preservation of profit and the continued existence of entities that seem to have no trouble with illegal, un-ethical, or at the very least anti-competitive methods of doing business.

Its very difficult to take seriously a lecture from a CEO making billions who's company puts DRM software on all their products that ensures you cant use their product but a few times before having to either throw it away or become a pirate by breaking the DRM.

To say that downloading multimedia is theft is false. Theft is the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another person. In downloading, the original party still retains their copy of the information and you have not deprived them of anything. The argument runs that they have a copywrite on that information and thus own it, so downloading it without permission is stealing. Again this fails because you are not physically depriving them of any information that they own, you are simply copying what they have.

We may have to accept that we're starting to move away from a world where we can say "I created that, its mine!" Scary as it may be, we'll pull through like we always have.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I invent the copier. I aim it at something, and it produces an exact copy.

Is it wrong for me to sit outside a car dealer and 'shoot' the car I want? What if I'm at the restaurant, and find out my Paf-de-Flar is awful, and decide to 'shoot' that nice juicy steak?

Even if we do agree it is wrong, it is a far ways different than stealing for the fact that they lose nothing.

Also is a small problem. All digital data on a computer is some number. Should we allow for one person to claim ownership of a number, and make it a crime to redistribute that number?

Finally, I'll buy most songs I like once, but if something happens and I lose them (or DRM protection kicks in because I play around with different OS's), don't expect me to shell out for a second copy.

 

[Maren]

While I think the music and motion picture industries were stupid and short-sighted with their response to "pirating" of their product, I can't deny that it is their product. I think what has bothered me is the way Congress has sold out to these companies, changing longstanding copyright laws to ensure that these companies can retain their exclusive rights and even, in many ways, have circumvented the longstanding copyright clause that allows customers to make copies for their own, personal use. Not only that, but Congress has even gone so far as to protect the DRM software that sits on their product that is preventing you from copying a disk for your own personal use.

Copyrights were originally invented to spur creativity, that an artist would be able to recoup the investment in time and energy of what he created and make a profit. And once the artist had made that profit, the idea was for the "work of art" (music, book, etc.) would enter into the public domain to enrich everyone's life. For this reason, copyrights in the US even 50 years ago only lasted 28 years (and could be renewed for another 28 years). In my lifetime the length of a copyright has gone from 28 years (if not renewed) to as long as 120 years -- this has been done not to benefit the artist but the various corporations that now own most of the copyrights. The law has gone away from protecting the artist, instead music contracts new artists sign give the copyright of all they create to the corporation they sign with -- and the corporation makes the money while paying the artist the minimum they can.

I'd love to see copyright law changed so that it is owned solely by the artist (and possibly allowing it to be transferred to his family/heir at death) with the lengths of copyrights returned to the 28 years (that can be renewed). In the meantime, while I don't pirate music/movies/etc., I am guilty (and currently am ripping a DVD) of copying DVDs so that I can transfer and watch them on my iPod without buying a second copy. And while the legality of it is questionable (there is still a right to make personal copies but I am having to defeat the copy protection through software on the DVD), I feel fully justified that I shouldn't have to buy a second copy to watch my movie someplace other than a DVD player.

 

[Maren]

One related question I thought of when I looked at the news today, what do you think about Palm changing its software to be able to sync with iTunes. By one school of thought, since Apple owns iTunes they should be able to determine what devices are able to sync with it. By another, iTunes is a type of store and they should not control the devices that legitimate buyers of their music/videos use to connect to the software that connects with the store. It seems to me that this, while not exactly the same, this is governed by the same laws as copying music and video. Your thoughts?

 

[ArteestX]

To say that downloading multimedia is theft is false. Theft is the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another person. In downloading, the original party still retains their copy of the information and you have not deprived them of anything. The argument runs that they have a copywrite on that information and thus own it, so downloading it without permission is stealing. Again this fails because you are not physically depriving them of any information that they own, you are simply copying what they have.

By your definition, there should no such thing as plagiarism and it should be considered legal. After all, you are no depriving anyone of information they they own, you are simply copying what they have.

By your definition, copying a CD and selling it should be legal. After all, you have no deprived them of any information that they own, you are simply copying what they have, and the original party still retains their copy of the information. Videotaping a movie and selling it should also be legal by this definition.

 

[[serious]]

 

[Steezie]

By your definition, there should no such thing as plagiarism and it should be considered legal. After all, you are no depriving anyone of information they they own, you are simply copying what they have.

Plagiarism is copying what someone already created and claiming it as your own.

By your definition, copying a CD and selling it should be legal. After all, you have no deprived them of any information that they own, you are simply copying what they have, and the original party still retains their copy of the information.

Not true at all, selling copied material is an entirely different matter than copying material for your own private use.

Videotaping a movie and selling it should also be legal by this definition.

On that I would defer to the movie theaters as they are a private business and are free to be as dictatorial as they wish about camcorders.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I use itunes, and to regularly back my music up, I burn CDs of the songs I really really want, pull them onto a PC, and back them up in MP3 format. I did that for the longest time while I was using a Sony MP3 player, but used itunes, which was only compatible with the iPod.

I will always check iTunes first for a song. If I can't find it, I go to Limewire. I'm not interested in making money off the music I get, so I see no copyright violation.

We had a house fire back in 2005 and I logged every CD case I could find, and downloaded that music off limewire. (Did not claim it on our insurance, though). There is nothing wrong with that, either.

However, I'm not sure the government would agree with me.

 

[roflcopter101]

File sharing is a bit like Xerox or tape-recording cassettes/videos. Yes, they may contribute to piracy, but probably not enough to seriously upset musician profits.

 

[ArteestX]

Plagiarism is copying what someone already created and claiming it as your own.

Now I'm confused. I thought you said, "We may have to accept that we're starting to move away from a world where we can say 'I created that, its mine!' " Now you seem to be saying that plagiarism, claiming what someone else created, is wrong. If we're moving away from a world where you can claim ownership of creations, then what's the problem with plagiarism? Could you clarify?

...selling copied material is an entirely different matter than copying material for your own private use.

But why would it be wrong? Again, you're not depriving anyone of their original copy so it's not theft. You're not carrying away the goods or property of another person. You're not depriving them of any information they don't already own, you're just copying what they have. Why would turning around and selling it be wrong?

 

[Steezie]

Now I'm confused. I thought you said, "We may have to accept that we're starting to move away from a world where we can say 'I created that, its mine!' " Could you clarify?

I appologize for not being clearer in my initial post. What I meant origially was we are moving into a world where we have to accept that we can no longer say "I created that so now its mine to sell." I did not mean to imply that credit was no longer due on a completed work, simply that creating something in and of itself does not give you the inherent right to package and sell it.

But why would it be wrong? Again, you're not depriving anyone of their original copy so it's not theft. You're not carrying away the goods or property of another person. You're not depriving them of any information they don't already own, you're just copying what they have. Why would turning around and selling it be wrong?

At best I would say you are profiting off of the work that others have done having contributed nothing yourself.

 

[ArteestX]

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

I appologize for not being clearer in my initial post. What I meant origially was we are moving into a world where we have to accept that we can no longer say "I created that so now its mine to sell." I did not mean to imply that credit was no longer due on a completed work, simply that creating something in and of itself does not give you the inherent right to package and sell it.

{Why is selling a copied CD wrong?}At best I would say you are profiting off of the work that others have done having contributed nothing yourself.

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?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

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