Pirating Media?

[Haethurn]

I fully support all of the people who steal money from those talentless fools that the kiddies adore these days...and I can't say I'm angry if people download my favorite artists' music...because they're all dead! Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Bach, and Beethoven couldn't care less if someone downloaded their songs today.

As for all of those stupid rappers who rap about the ghetto when they've never even lived in a ghetto in their entire life...I sincerely hope that their own moronic fans put them out of business by downloading their pathetic lyrics...oh, yes, wouldn't that be so deliciously ironic?

 

[nadroj1985]

I fully support all of the people who steal money from those talentless fools that the kiddies adore these days...and I can't say I'm angry if people download my favorite artists' music...because they're all dead! Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Bach, and Beethoven couldn't care less if someone downloaded their songs today.

As for all of those stupid rappers who rap about the ghetto when they've never even lived in a ghetto in their entire life...I sincerely hope that their own moronic fans put them out of business by downloading their pathetic lyrics...oh, yes, wouldn't that be so deliciously ironic?

Who cares about irony? Who cares about talent? It's illegal . Does that not mean anything to anyone? I've heard all the arguments about how record companies charge too much for cd's and the bands don't get much of the cd sales anyway. Who cares? It's still illegal. You are stealing music. Oh, and I always love to read posts where people dismiss music as bad just b/c it doesn't appeal to their particular taste. I don't really like rap much, but there's nothing wrong with it, or the rest of those talentless fools that the kiddies adore these days.

 

[Skellybones]

Who cares about irony? Who cares about talent? It's illegal . Does that not mean anything to anyone? I've heard all the arguments about how record companies charge too much for cd's and the bands don't get much of the cd sales anyway. Who cares? It's still illegal. You are stealing music. Oh, and I always love to read posts where people dismiss music as bad just b/c it doesn't appeal to their particular taste. I don't really like rap much, but there's nothing wrong with it, or the rest of those talentless fools that the kiddies adore these days.

Capitalism sucks. Our government steals from us daily, and in some twisted way they are within the law...legalities are irrelevant.

 

[Dracil]

You are stealing music.

No, we are not stealing music. We're infringing their copyright. They're both illegal, but there is a difference.

 

[seebs]

I fully support all of the people who steal money from those talentless fools that the kiddies adore these days...and I can't say I'm angry if people download my favorite artists' music...because they're all dead! Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Bach, and Beethoven couldn't care less if someone downloaded their songs today.

And who, exactly, is supposed to play these songs? I support the musicians who produce the music, whether they're composers or performers.

 

[Haethurn]

Who cares about irony? Who cares about talent? It's illegal . Does that not mean anything to anyone? I've heard all the arguments about how record companies charge too much for cd's and the bands don't get much of the cd sales anyway. Who cares? It's still illegal. You are stealing music. Oh, and I always love to read posts where people dismiss music as bad just b/c it doesn't appeal to their particular taste. I don't really like rap much, but there's nothing wrong with it, or the rest of those talentless fools that the kiddies adore these days.

I couldn't care less about the law. A great aim almost always justifies breaking the law.

Half of the time the law doesn't even serve the people;it's only an encumbrance. Let's say that I am driving down a road and there is absolutely nobody else on this road. Should I be obliged to keep to the speed limit?

The law is only there to serve the people. It is a limb, an arm of the government, and the government, as proved by Socrates in Plato's The Republic, is only supposed to serve the people.

Now, the only reason that there is a law against driving over the speed limit is to protect the majority. If there were other drivers on this road then it would be in our mutual interest to obey the law. However, seeing as there is nobody else on this road, the speed limit ceases to serve me and instead becomes a hindrance to my goals. In this case the law is to be tossed away like a slave tosses his shackles or a horse flicks away a fly.

Otherwise, the law is only serving itself and not the people (in this case, me, as I am the only person on this fictitious road). As Socrates might say, medicine is serving medicine, and the doctor is serving the doctor, therefore, the medicine is not fulfilling the duties of medicine, which is to serve the people, and thus is not medicine, and the doctor, insofar as he serves himself and not his patient, is not fulfilling the duties appropriate for his occupation and thus is not a true doctor.

I have an open mind. If the conditions are right, then there is no human-made system that has no exception. And the law is nothing but a man-made system-prone as such to miserable failures warranting the breaking of it.

Sometimes breaking the law can even be noble. Does anyone remember Antigone? Would you tell Antigone, "But you can't bury Polyneices! It's illegal! Creon will have your head!" Well, probably you would, if you cared for her life, but you would praise her for her courage and determination, nevertheless.

 

[Haethurn]

Capitalism sucks. Our government steals from us daily, and in some twisted way they are within the law...legalities are irrelevant.

No, my friend, capitalism is beautiful.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

as a software developer, i'm here to tell you that making extra copies of your software is illegal, some EULAs will permit a backup copy of the software to be made. many do not.

futher, you don't actually own the software that you purchase. you are licensing the software for use on your system. read that really long EULA that you just click by sometime and see for yourself.

it's a huge problem through the industry that doesn't seem to have a good solution. by trying to protect their software from illegal copies, software vendors spend a huge amount of money on protection algorithims and increase the development cost of a product expoentially, thus to pay off the increasingly expensive protection software, the vendor is forced to pass this cost on to the consumer. that's the facts, folks. at least from a small software development firm.

you can reduce the cost of software by preventing software piracy. it's that simple.

 

[Haethurn]

Namaste all,

as a software developer, i'm here to tell you that making extra copies of your software is illegal, some EULAs will permit a backup copy of the software to be made. many do not.

futher, you don't actually own the software that you purchase. you are licensing the software for use on your system. read that really long EULA that you just click by sometime and see for yourself.

it's a huge problem through the industry that doesn't seem to have a good solution. by trying to protect their software from illegal copies, software vendors spend a huge amount of money on protection algorithims and increase the development cost of a product expoentially, thus to pay off the increasingly expensive protection software, the vendor is forced to pass this cost on to the consumer. that's the facts, folks. at least from a small software development firm.

you can reduce the cost of software by preventing software piracy. it's that simple.

I'd much rather see the price of all rock, pop, and rap songs go up so high that nobody is willing to buy them anymore, and they go bankrupt. Unrealistic, perhaps, but a man can have his dreams.

 

[txchristian04]

I fully support all of the people who steal money from those talentless fools that the kiddies adore these days...and I can't say I'm angry if people download my favorite artists' music...because they're all dead! Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Bach, and Beethoven couldn't care less if someone downloaded their songs today.

What about the proffessional muscians who performed your music? A violin or french horn is much harder to play than a guitar or screaming into a microphone. Surely, they should deserve more pay.

And as for only liking old stuff, Martial has a good point for you, look it up, Epigrams VIII.49.

 

[burrow_owl]

Who cares about talent?

Talent is directly relevant for me - I really don't think most pop music is sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. I mean, there's a software program that can 'recognize' and predict with pretty good accuracy what's catchy enough to be a hit. And, if it can recognize, it's just one baby step to the program being able to write the stuff; I'd argue that something that can be produced by a turing machine is ipso facto not particularly creative, and shouldn't get legal protection.

 

[Skellybones]

No, my friend, capitalism is beautiful.

Capitalism is the reason this earth is world is so screwed up, not immorality, not Satan, not the "masses of unbelievers"--capitalism has corrupted people's minds and turned them against the very force that gave them life.

Yes, I imagine capitalism could be beautiful...for the merchant, the businessman, I'm sure they--as minions of a plastic entity--can find beauty in the aberration...

Why do I even bother?

 

[Haethurn]

Capitalism is the reason this earth is world is so screwed up, not immorality, not Satan, not the "masses of unbelievers"--capitalism has corrupted people's minds and turned them against the very force that gave them life.

Yes, I imagine capitalism could be beautiful...for the merchant, the businessman, I'm sure they--as minions of a plastic entity--can find beauty in the aberration...

Why do I even bother?

Capitalism is competition, and competition is at the heart of nature. Nature is absolute and unconquerable.

Natural selection. The strongest survive. In the wilderness and in our civilization. Ambitious individuals work to improve their status in society, and the complacent are enslaved by their contentedness. Those who do not set goals will get nowhere, and deservedly so.

Capitalism is risk. The rush of fear, adrenaline flooding your system...risk is intoxicating. All great men are judged by the risks they took. Julius Caesar. Conquered Gaul, marched against Pompey, and weaved his way up the social ladder despite the opposition of the Senate. Alexander the Great. United Greece and led his people to stunning military victories. Napoleon Bonaparte. One of the greatest military geniuses in the world. When he escaped from Elba, the French armies sent against him received him as his leader. Spartacus. Led his fellow gladiators into a glorious uprising that lasted for nearly three years. Enjoyed nine straight victories against the Roman legions. Such men stir our hearts with the legacy of their adventures.

Capitalism is freedom. It is a game of Chess. Make the right moves and you will gain an advantage over your opponent. Make a mistake and it could be the end.

Yes.

Capitalism is beautiful.

 

[CyNix]

I think downloading from a site like Kazaa would be stealing. It was not your CD to begin with.
I have no problem with sharing a song or two from a CD with a friend, allowing them to sample the music before they buy it ect... But stealing is wrong, it does not matter who you steal from. Even if the recording industry is greedy, and the artists are immoral, it is still stealing, and I would hope that a Christian would try to separate themselves from it.

 

[Dracil]

I think downloading from a site like Kazaa would be stealing. It was not your CD to begin with.
I have no problem with sharing a song or two from a CD with a friend, allowing them to sample the music before they buy it ect... But stealing is wrong, it does not matter who you steal from. Even if the recording industry is greedy, and the artists are immoral, it is still stealing, and I would hope that a Christian would try to separate themselves from it.

Let me repeat again, and I will repeat it as often as necessary to dispell the misconception. It is NOT stealing. It IS copyright infringement. It is not stealing unless the person loses their copy. There is an actual legal precedent for this by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, you're forgetting that some people actually have the CDs already, but may not have burners or the know-how to get good rips.

 

[CyNix]

Let me repeat again, and I will repeat it as often as necessary to dispell the misconception. It is NOT stealing. It IS copyright infringement. It is not stealing unless the person loses their copy. There is an actual legal precedent for this by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, you're forgetting that some people actually have the CDs already, but may not have burners or the know-how to get good rips.

It is stealing from whoever created and sold the original copy. If the original copy was produced by Atlantic Records, copying it would be stealing from Atlantic Records, and the Artist named on the cover. What you are stealing is not a plastic disk, it is information. After a copy of a CD is downloaded, there is one more person who owns that information, than was sold.

We're infringing their copyright. They're both illegal, but there is a difference.

Why is it illegal? Why should we not follow the law?

 

[Dracil]

It is stealing from whoever created and sold the original copy. If the original copy was produced by Atlantic Records, copying it would be stealing from Atlantic Records, and the Artist named on the cover. What you are stealing is not a plastic disk, it is information. After a copy of a CD is downloaded, there is one more person who owns that information, than was sold.
Why is it illegal? Why should we not follow the law?

It is not stealing because they did not lose their information. Do you get the distinction now? Since people don't seem to believe me. Here is the Supreme Court case from Dowling vs. United States.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=207

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Why should we not follow the law? It's called civil disobedience, and it's a form of protest. Protest against the RIAA's high music prices, their idiotic tactics, and their unfair treatment of artists. Much rather spend my money at http://www.magnatune.com. They give their artists a whole 50% of the revenue, and when you buy, you actually get to choose to pay $5-$18 (yes, YOU decide). Not only that, you get access to download not simple MP3s like at other online music stores, but you can actually download uncompressed Wave or FLAC files too.

If anything, the RIAA are actually the ones stealing from the artists by "representing" them through the lawsuits, but not giving them a single penny in return. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662

 

[jon1101]

I used to download music all the time. "'The artists are millionaires,' 'Record companies gouge prices,' "Record companies are just generally evil,' 'My downloads aren't going to hurt anyone,' 'I wouldn't have bought the album for this one song anyway, so they aren't really losing money,' et. al."

Then I realized I was disingenuously bending the truth around my own egoistic will to consume more music than I actually wanted to pay for.

And Dracil, it's not civil disobedience to punish companies by violating their property rights.

civil disobedience
"Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means."(From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition)

Civil disobedience is when one openly refuses to observe unjust law. Looking at the great examples of civil disobedience found in Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr., I do not see people sidestepping the law in order to consume more, to entertain themselves beyond what they pay for. They stuck to their cause and paid for it accordingly. Civil disobedience involves self-sacrifice for a just cause. It is not about rationalizing the unjust fulfillment of our selfish wants.

Furthermore, civil disobedience is inherently directed at the government; if you want to punish companies for undesirable policies or prices then you can boycott them in a free market system; once again, sacrifice for a cause.

-Jon

 

[Dracil]

Well, it's still related. RIAA -> lobby for stupid draconian copyright laws (see DCMA) -> government imposes them -> we disobey it. If the RIAA had an iota of sense, they'd get the government to get rid of the DCMA, get on the good side of us consumers, and we'll be more happy to buy their stuff again. It's indirect. You call it selfish, I call it a just cause (even just causes are inherently selfish).

 

[taedium]

I don't see filesharing music/movies as wrong, music can still make money from live-concerts and movies can make money from theaters. Filesharing seems pretty unavoidable as internet access and speeds improve, the RIAA and other corporates should probably work around it than against it.