What are your views on music sharing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look, I think that if you bought it, you should be able to do with it what you want. The real problem with Chuck's analogy is that he is using things with finite use. If I have sugar, and I give KV sugar, there is no more sugar; once it is used up, it is gone. If I make a mix cd, and give it to my schoolyard crush, the original product is not damaged somehow, it still is as good as it was to beginwith. didn't this whole thing start with Blank cassette tapes? The music industry obviously didn't collapse.

If the record industry wanted to stop theft, they would stop charging 20 bucks for a cd that isn't worth the money. I happily buy hard copies of the music I like so I get the liner notes, and have originals to load onto my ipod in case something happens. Also, the original sound quality is far better on cd than it is on .mp3 format.

"Intellectual property" rights are somewhat incomplete-What if I want a CD or book that's out of print? I can get a copy, or download a scan if I cannot find an original to buy.
 
Dijos said:
The real problem with Chuck's analogy is that he is using things with finite use.
Click to expand...

As I said, the fundamental problem, which you have expressed here, is that people don't see intellectual property as property and they don't respect it as such... at least until someone starts ripping off their own.

When Master Cutlery rips off Darrel Ralph's design, we all see that for what it is: stealing. That's because we see the direct damage that this does to Darrel. In the case of the music industry, we sometimes don't see the direct damage. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

If I make a mix cd, and give it to my schoolyard crush, the original product is not damaged somehow, it still is as good as it was to beginwith.
Click to expand...

Yes, the industry is damaged. You just are closing your eyes and pretending you don't see it.

If I pick your pocket, find twenty bucks in your wallet, take five, and put the other 15 back, is that ok? No. Even thoug I didn't take all your money, you are still poorer for it. My kindness in not taking all of your money does not excuse me for taking the five bucks that I did.

What if I lift Bill Gate's leather and find that he's got a hundered million bucks in his pocket, so, again, I take just five bucks and put the rest back? Is that not still stealing? Of course it is.

Stealing is stealing regardless of who you steal from or what effect is has on them.





If the record industry wanted to stop theft, they would stop charging 20 bucks for a cd that isn't worth the money. I happily buy hard copies of the music I like so I get the liner notes, and have originals to load onto my ipod in case something happens. Also, the original sound quality is far better on cd than it is on .mp3 format.
Click to expand...


Sure, sure... but the decision to change their marketing strategy is theirs, not yours, to make.

Personally, I believe that the current music distribution/sales system is ripe for change, for a whole new paradigm. But you can't stock the new store by robbing the old. The market is theirs to loose, not yours to steal.
 
Interesting thread...I can't help but throw in a couple cents. ;)

As I see it, I do not spend that $10 or more only for the materials. When I buy a CD I'm buying personal use rights to that "intellectual property". If I have purchased those personal use rights, I can copy it to my computer, burn multiple CD's, load it into my MP3 player. I can do whatever I wish to do that does not go outside the range of these personal use rights.

If KV's CD has been damaged, I don't believe that disallows him the personal use of the intellectual property that he has paid for.

As far as the moral and ethical arguments, I have made my own decision as to this issue based upon my own moral compass. As I am not involved in the music industry, I have no personal stake in what others choose to do.

Cheers :thumbup:
 
The record companies have been ripping everybody off for years with overpriced LP's and CD's. Now that downloads are popular the recording artists have been getting the same amount they always have, it's just the companies that are suffering. The trick is to make downloads so cheap that free file sharing and the like is barely worth it.

I'm not sure I bleieve in music as intellectual property anyway. It wasn't a few hundred years ago and that created the greatest fermentation of music in our history. Copyright allows the corporatisation of music and optimises the conditions for the Kylies and Britneys of the world, where marketing and mass hype rules over quality.

I've had my 'intellectual property' copied and used for free and it doesn't bother me that much. It's only done by the minority and it amounts to free publicity in the end.

But I am an anarchist after all, YMMV.........
 
360Joules makes a very good point. While reading this thread, I was in 100% agreement with Chuck until I read 360Joules post. I now think that although it is technically illegal to do what CV wants to do, I think it is morally ethical to do it because he has purchased to rights to this "intellectual property". Interesting.
 
dniice87 said:
Its easy to download songs and i save money so im all for it.
Click to expand...

In other words, whatever makes ME happy is good.

That is a rather selfish attitude. What it is is what I call, "thinking with your stomach instead of your brain." The stomach is selfish and wants nothing more than to be fed until full. It is the brain that thinks, that considers right and wrong, moral and ethical. It is the brain that considers the consequences of what you do and how your choices affect others.
 
Ming65 said:
The record companies have been ripping everybody off for years with overpriced LP's and CD's.
Click to expand...

Then don't buy them. But don't steal them either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Now that downloads are popular the recording artists have been getting the same amount they always have, it's just the companies that are suffering.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you see that someone is suffering.

The trick is to make downloads so cheap that free file sharing and the like is barely worth it.
Click to expand...


As I said earlier, I, myself, think that the music distribution industry is ripe for a paradigm change. But you can't stock the new store by robbing the old one.



I'm not sure I bleieve in music as intellectual property anyway.
Click to expand...

It's not really your choice to make, though, is it?

There are people who don't believe that you should own a knife. Would it be ok for them to break into your house and steal your knives? Their belief justifies it... right?



I've had my 'intellectual property' copied and used for free and it doesn't bother me that much. It's only done by the minority and it amounts to free publicity in the end.

But I am an anarchist after all, YMMV.........
Click to expand...


If you feel that way about your intellectual property, that's fine for you. You can just put your stuff into the public domain. But you have no right to impose that approach on others by stealing their intellectual property. They have the perogative to make that choice themselves.

I give a lot of money to various charities. I think it's good. So, if I thought you weren't giving enough money to charity, would it be ok for me to pick your pocket and give the money to charity? Of course no. It would be stealing. It is your money and whether or not to give it to charity is your perogative to decide.
 
I think artists should skip recording companies all together and make their songs available for a nominal price directly for download. They'll probably get more money that way then after the recording companies get done hosing them.

Recording companies are now essentially the middle man trying desparately to keep from getting ccut out of the market place. The problem is they still have a ton of money to bribe politicians to make whatever they want illegal.
 
DaveH said:
I think artists should skip recording companies all together and make their songs available for a nominal price directly for download. They'll probably get more money that way then after the recording companies get done hosing them.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it is up to them to do it. If the artists decide to sell their wares through the established channels and you want those wares, then you have to buy them through the established channels.

When artists decide that you're right and start to market their wares in different ways, then you can start obtaining them in different ways.

The problem is they [the record companies] still have a ton of money to bribe politicians to make whatever they want illegal.
Click to expand...

Oh, boy. I get to use a post I wrote twice in one day! You see, that's a "two-wrongs-make-a-right argument." "The record companies are a bunch of crooks and they're doing things that are illegal, so it's ok for us to steal from them."

The real problem with the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument is that it's degenerative. It tears society as a whole down. It brings us down to the lowest common denominator. Think about it. According to two-wrongs-make-a-right reasoning, the fact that Cain lied about killing his brother how many thousands of years ago justifies me lying about just about anything. All of the sins and wrongs and crimes of the past justify just about any sin or wrong or crime in the future. You can always look back and say, "Well so-and-so did such-and-such and that was worse than what I did. So, I'm ok." Under this reasoning, the standards of society can only go down. The two-wrongs-make-a-right argument pulls society as a whole down.

The alternative is to lift society up to a higher standard, to hold each person accountable separately to a unmoving standard. I can't be responsible for what record company executives do; but I can be responsible for what I do. I can hold myself to a higher standard regardless of what the record execs do.
 
Ken, not to hijack Your thread or get off on a tangent, but would if You were to create a forum relating to music with members being allowed to "borrow" CD's to each other for those wanting to check out something new etc...

Just a thought.

Darrell.............




:D Keep Supporting real Metal!!
 
The "copying is stealing" arguement was used by the movie companies also, with the rationale that copying was costing them money. They found however, that due to VCR's they were making more money than ever due to the extra rentals and purchases for copying.
In rarefied air, Gollnick's arguement has some merit, but I know that, in some cases, not naming names, some people download music or whatever, and then buy the CD to get the better quality sound and other info with the CD. Also I'm on the side of broke-as* college students VS the bitc*y millionaires.
I generally agree with Gollnick on most issues that come up on this board, as I find his opinions well thought out and well written,but I'm on the other side on this one.
ED for Sp.
 
Show me the words "intellectual property" in the Constitution?

If I purchase a CD, it's mine period and I will do as I see fit with it.

Rip it, burn it or share it, it's mine to do so.
 
You want a copy of Robin Trower? For Earth below ?
I'll burn it and send it to you " my gift"..
Merry Xmas..
Send them.

I have many good lawyers as customers.

It's simply more corporate bulldogging...
 
fudo said:
The "copying is stealing" arguement was used by the movie companies also, with the rationale that copying was costing them money. They found however, that due to VCR's they were making more money than ever due to the extra rentals and purchases for copying.
Click to expand...

As I have said, it has to be up to the record companies to decide that they want to change how they market their products.

If you think you know a better way, then you are welcome to recruit some artists to your way of thinking, set up your own shop, and give your theories a try. But you can't stock your new store by robbing the old store.



I know that, in some cases, not naming names, some people download music or whatever, and then buy the CD to get the better quality sound and other info with the CD.
Click to expand...

Again -- and again and again and again -- it is up to the record companies to decide how to market their products and it is up to the artists to decide who they think has the best plan to market their products.

Also I'm on the side of broke-as* college students VS the bitc*y millionaires.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, stealing five bucks from Bill Gates I still stealing. And by describing the victims here as "bitc*y", you are attempting a two-wrongs-make-a-right argument. The fact that the victims are "bitc*y" does not license you to steal from them.

I was a broke-as* college student once. We listened to the radio. Oh, you don't get the luxury of deciding exactly what song you want to listen to at any moment, but I could turn your own argument around and say that sometimes we'd hear a song or an artist that we wouldn't otherwise hear and go out and buy it. But, truth be known, we were broke-as* college students and so we didn't buy much music which sort of defeats your previous similar argument.
 
The Last Confederate said:
Show me the words "intellectual property" in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

The Patent and Trademarks Office IS constitutionally-established.

Show me the word "traffic light" in the constitution. But running one is still illegal.
 
Ernie2525 said:
It's simply more corporate bulldogging...
Click to expand...

Another attempt at a two-wrongs-make-a-right justification... but even if these corporations are "bulldogging," that doesn't license you to steal from them. You can't be responsible for what the record companies do, but you can be personally responsible for what you do.
 
I'm with Last Confederate on that one , he hit it right on the head.
If I were to make a VCD of 25 pictures of myself and sell it for profit (although nobody but my Mom would pics of my ugly mug LOL) then once it is out of my hands I have no control how those pics are used , sure I can go whining to the courts but in reality I just sold a piece of myself to the consumers.
The way I see it they are free to blow those pics up and hang them on thier wall or to share them with whoever or to take the CD and break it in half , it is thiers, they paid for it.
I dont care (and niether do many others) what the courts rule on that , thier opine matters not.
It is the same with too many other material goods , heck I cant even sell a firearm to a friend without a liscense of some sort , in other words I have to pay Das State to sell something that is mine. Off topic there but the concept is the same.
Once I buy that new (for example) Hank Williams Jr. CD it no longer belongs to him or his record company or the place I bought it from , it is mine.
I can listen to it and chuck it onto the freeway if I wish and I dont need no court to tell me aye or nay.
:)
 
Gollnick said:
Another attempt at a two-wrongs-make-a-right justification... but even if these corporations are "bulldogging," that doesn't license you to steal from them. You can't be responsible for what the record companies do, but you can be personally responsible for what you do.
Click to expand...
GollBush.
Do you need any music ?
I have 250 LP's and have recorded them to my computer.
A gift for you, bro.
When is your birthday ?
Would this be improper ?
Maybe ALL recorders should be outlawed ?
GBA_stan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top