|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2003 : 16:16:52 [Permalink]
|
It sure sounds to me, @tomic, like you're saying that if you can't afford to (or never intend to) spend money on a copy of someone's work, it's okay to simply take a copy, anyway. How is that not stealing?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 16:39:37 [Permalink]
|
It's stealing because the current laws say it is but are those laws completely fair and enforceable in this digital age? I'm not so sure.
If an artist is long dead is he or she losing anything? This is only one of many questions that need to be answered.
But one thing is clear. The ability to digitize and trade music is changing the way people think about the concept of ownership and it's causing the industry to change. I think this could be a very good thing but it's obvious that people can't expect to pay nothing for music. Perhaps if the ISPs charge more per byte downloaded or something like that.
But artists do need to understand that their works can be traded as perfect copies from one machine to another and no matter how they feel about it it's gonna happen. Of course, artists have only been getting a small cut of their sales and those that learn to market directly to their fans will get damn near all of it so they just may end up with more money in the long run.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 17:11:38 [Permalink]
|
NubiWan wrote:quote:
Your posts lead me to believe that you really did have a handle on the crux of my rejection of this system.
Well, now that you've posted stuff which has confused me even more, I can only assume that by "the system," you are refering to the entirety of the U.S. economic and legal systems, together. I have no intention of ever defending that. The only thing I started out defending is the copyright system in its broad definition (since I disagree with some particulars), and the right for artists (or their legal representatives) to earn money on the art they produce. I have also now been put into the position of defending the idea of the patent system (and I disagree with some of the particulars of it, too).
While the RIAA has a right, given the current copyright laws, to go after those they feel are ripping them off, I don't have any particular love for the RIAA as an organization.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that because I support copyright law in principle, and condemn the downloading of songs, that I must be defending "the system" as a whole.quote:
Creedence Clearwater and Louis Armstrong, for instance.
What about them?quote:
Ahh, an even older debate. The "arts," the "muses," of what value are they? Tend to believe they too, better the quality of life.
Ah, yes, of course! Why didn't I see that? People need to be able to copy "Bad Moon Rising" anytime they want to! I get it now!quote:
Do you see your efforts on a par with turning out gigets, Dave, or are you trying to create something of a more cerebral nature?
What does it matter? I have no illusions that people will need to copy my artistic work in order to enjoy a better life. And the limited rights I grant people to copy my web site are in response to what I see as a genuine requirement for information.quote:
And that is the point really, should we allow these arts to be locked into a legalistic system, that actually strangles invention and exploration of new forms? If you can control distribution, you control the gateway as well. If you think the current system 'works' in bringing the freshest, most current creative artistic efforts to the public's attention, fine.
No, you're busy conflating two different "systems." The "legalistic system" is the copyright and patent system, and is required to promote innovation in this day and age. The system which controls distribution and the "gateway," as you call it, in the music industry is what's messed up. The fact that they've got the legal system working for them in this case doesn't mean that the legal system is fundamentally flawed.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 18:24:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I stopped buying T-shirts when it finally dawned on me that I shouldn't be paying someone for me to advertise for them. If someone wants to give me a t-shirt, I'll be happy to wear it, but I'm not going to pay for the priviledge of being a walking commercial. In fact, the next time I buy a car, I'm going to tell the dealer that they can either drop the price by $1,000, or get rid of that stupid dealer logo on the trunk (the dealer license-plate frames went into the trash as soon as I got the permanent plates for my last cars).
Geeses Krist, when did you figure that out? I'd never wear desginer clothes of any kind, with anyones logo, unless I got them free.
I have an AOL T shirt I got when they had a promotion once, years ago. It's a collectors item! Want to buy it?
Glad someone also finally mentioned the licene plate holders too. LOL, A couple of cars ago I had to keep taking it back to the dealer, about 3 or 4 times in a couple of months. Each time I'd take off that frame with the dealers name and each time I picked it up there's be a new one. I got a big laugh out of it. I think I might still have them laying around in the garage. Might be collectors items too. Want to buy some Volvo frames too...will give you a good deal?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Snake wrote:quote:
Right now I only need about $50,000 for what I want. Know any quick way to get it?
Copy a van Gogh and sell it?
LOL.
Although I do like Impressionism, I'm better than he. No need to copy. Am a bit afraid of blood and pain though.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 18:29:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
Sorry but Iam not going out to buy a 10 year old 'Stones' cd that I want 2 songs from.
Yikes!
Just the other day I bought a KISS album for that very reason. But then I don't know how to download from the computer. (I don't even buy things on line!)
ps. I should have added that it came with a really nice poster, so to me it was worth buying. |
| Edited by - Snake on 07/25/2003 18:32:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 19:51:02 [Permalink]
|
@tomic wrote:quote:
It's stealing because the current laws say it is but are those laws completely fair and enforceable in this digital age? I'm not so sure.
I believe the laws are pretty fair as they are now, and the "digital age" hasn't done a thing to change whether or not the laws are just. It has changed the enforeability of the laws, and all industries which use the copyright laws are changing as a result. We get Macrovision on our videos, pathetic attempts to copy-proof CDs, "watermarks" in all sorts of digital images, and even book publishers demanding certain formats for e-books.
Wait, maybe the laws are not fair, if the owners of a copyright need to go to such lengths to keep people from copying. Maybe the laws are severely tilted towards the "copy anything I want to" mentality, and they actually need to be strengthened!quote:
If an artist is long dead is he or she losing anything? This is only one of many questions that need to be answered.
The owner of the copyright is losing something. There are plenty of dead folks whose estates are still taking in royalties and doling them out to charitable organizations. When people illegally copy those works, they are, in effect, stealing from the charities themselves.quote:
But one thing is clear. The ability to digitize and trade music is changing the way people think about the concept of ownership...
I don't see why it should. Just because something is easier to steal doesn't mean that it is un-owned. If I forget to lock my car, that doesn't mean I don't own it.quote:
Perhaps if the ISPs charge more per byte downloaded or something like that.
Yeah, since everybody's already paying now for theft, let's just make the theft legal, and have everybody still pay for it.
Snake wrote:quote:
Geeses Krist, when did you figure that out? I'd never wear desginer clothes of any kind, with anyones logo, unless I got them free.
When did I figure that out? When I started actually thinking about my money. When I was young and single and childless, had a $300 car instead of a $300-per-month car payment, and had money falling out of my pockets, I spent a lot of money on absolute crap, including t-shirts for all sorts of bands and/or companies.quote:
I have an AOL T shirt I got when they had a promotion once, years ago. It's a collectors item! Want to buy it?
Ah, capitalism... No, thanks. quote:
Although I do like Impressionism, I'm better than he. No need to copy.
But will one of your paintings go for the $50K you say you need?quote:
Am a bit afraid of blood and pain though.
Well, that eliminates the underground blood-sports method of making money, don't it? The black market for forgeries is looking better and better! 
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 20:44:10 [Permalink]
|
Actually, now that I've thought some more...
@tomic wrote:quote:
Perhaps if the ISPs charge more per byte downloaded or something like that.
Okay, the ISPs charge more just in case you're downloading music, and then split that small amount of money up amongst all the people who have songs floating around the 'Net. Then the ISPs can charge a little bit more on top of that, and split that extra money up amongst all the copyright owners of books that have been illegally posted. Then the ISPs can charge even more, and hand that over to photographers and models who've been ripped off. Then for movies and movie scripts, stage plays, software, etc.. Given enough special interests, the ISPs will be able to charge quite a bit more per MB downloaded, and then split the money 6 billion ways (there may be a big market for fingerpaintings by infants, I haven't investigated).
In all seriousness, if you make the ISPs the new "gateway," the problems won't go away, we'll just have these threads about the horrible prices the ISPs are charging, and their draconian methods of curbing theft of their services.
I do, however, love the idea of every band selling for themselves, but the Internet isn't ubiquitous enough for that to work quite yet. It'd also create a whole new industry, in which companies compete against one another to try to bring the best touring services to bands, instead of a record company setting all that stuff up. Concert prices would probably drop.
Don't know how any of this would work for books, however. Much of the same problems exist, since the major publishing houses are equivalent to the record companies, and from what I've heard, self-publishing is mostly a good way to blow money, since the "vanity presses" won't help you publicize your novel. (I know two people who've self-published. One of them wound up with ten boxes of books that he gave away to friends, and a big hole in his bank account. The other got a lot of help from people running the local used-book store, and so the red ink was somewhat less, but he also failed to break even.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 22:34:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But will one of your paintings go for the $50K you say you need?
They will but alas, like Van Gogh not soon enough.
The blood I was refering to was, I'm not willing to cut off my ear to become famous. (oh well, I tried, to make a joke )
Listen guys, this is interesting but, just curious, why talk about it when there doesn't seem to be anything you can do? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 08:30:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I stopped buying T-shirts when it finally dawned on me that I shouldn't be paying someone for me to advertise for them. If someone wants to give me a t-shirt, I'll be happy to wear it, but I'm not going to pay for the priviledge of being a walking commercial.
I hope you don't feel that way about SFN T-shirts. If and when we ever get to that, I'm hoping all the regular members of this site proudly wear them. Of course, the money made from those sales will go to improving this site. I won't be giving up my day job... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 08:49:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Kil wrote:
So, if I download a copy of Crossroads, a song that is in the public domain but part of a collection that can still be purchased, and, in fact, I have already bought, am I stealing?
I have never downloaded a song I do not already own in vinyl. Is there a grey area here?
This is a debate I have been having with my girlfriend...
DaveW:
Whether or not there's a grey area depends on who you talk to. If the copy of Crossroads you download is the same as the one from the collection - in other words, came directly from the collection, on CD - then Columbia (if they still own the rights) could argue that what you've downloaded is vastly superior in quality to the vinyl you've got, and since Columbia doesn't offer "free upgrades," you're in trouble.
On the other hand, if the song you downloaded was from the vinyl, and someone recorded it with a microphone, you've probably got something which sounds much crappier than the vinyl, so who cares? Well, the record company still might.
Actually, I think analog [vinyl] was superior to the CD format. Better sound and an infinitely longer shelf life. The Robert Johnson recordings were made in the thirties in a hotel room using a single mike. There is only so much you can do to enhance such a recording. So while Columbia might try to make the case that the CD version is vastly superior, I doubt that it is. Just a thought. I don't mean to open up a whole new line of debate... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 11:28:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
It's stealing because the current laws say it is but are those laws completely fair and enforceable in this digital age? I'm not so sure.
If an artist is long dead is he or she losing anything? This is only one of many questions that need to be answered.
But one thing is clear. The ability to digitize and trade music is changing the way people think about the concept of ownership and it's causing the industry to change. I think this could be a very good thing but it's obvious that people can't expect to pay nothing for music. Perhaps if the ISPs charge more per byte downloaded or something like that.
But artists do need to understand that their works can be traded as perfect copies from one machine to another and no matter how they feel about it it's gonna happen. Of course, artists have only been getting a small cut of their sales and those that learn to market directly to their fans will get damn near all of it so they just may end up with more money in the long run.
@tomic
What I find odd is the fact that many unsigned bands use file sharing to get their work out to the world, once the record companies get hold of them everything changes.
Obviously the record companies have significant interests in the band. They do fork out the moula to give them the opportunity to record and publicise, but a lot once these bands become famous, the hand that once fed them begins to take the food away.
The band then comes full circle. File Sharing can be great when you are unsigned, unknown and broke. However, once you start selling huge amounts of albums it takes away from your earning potential.
I do download small amounts of music, however I justify it by only downloading from local bands that I support by going to see live. These bands usually only have the money to produce an small quantity of CD's, I reckon if I have forked out 10 or so dollars to see them live a few times, I can download some of their music. Inevitably it will reach ears that may not have heard it, so in some kind of way I am advertising their product.
That might not be truly honourable, but like the religious person who confesses their sins, I do sleep a little easier at night.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
inkyblott
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 07/28/2003 : 05:35:07 [Permalink]
|
My problem with the whole thing is that it seems like going after a fly with a nuclear missle. I can understand that the RIAA has problems with people who share massive amounts of files. I remember reading about someone who has several harddrives full of mp3s and downloaded movies. He swapped out the drives, making all of the material available to people on the file sharing network he was part of.
That's essentially bootlegging. There's no way all of those files were just for personal use. I can understand having a problem with that. But the RIAA seems pretty indiscriminate about who they go after or, rather, haven't refined the process they're using to determine who they will go after. I can't see wasting time prosecuting someone because they had a couple of Justin Timberlake mp3's in their shared folder.
I do download a lot of music. I have an account with a legitimate source (Emusic) and use Kazaa for harder to find stuff. A lot of what I download from Kazaa consists of anime music, older songs that are hard to find, and sample songs when I just want to try something out. I still buy cds though they're usually used.
I don't think most people who are downloading music are master bootleggers or are trying to stick it to the system. They're just cheap/poor/picky and don't want to spend $13.00+ for a cd they may not like or they have a hard time find the music they like to listen to in their local record shops. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
