[Coltrane]

Elrod I have to COMPLETELY disagree with you on one of your points. Kid Rock starving to death would NOT be a tragedy.

I download so I can spend more money at concerts. That way the artists actually get paid.

The theft analogies don't work, because we aren't talking about physically manufactured product. Stealing a painting or a book is nothing like downloading. Not saying it is any more or less wrong, just that the analogy doesnt work.

Listen, the whole I dont have enough money, the artists get paid anyways, music is art, why should rich people get all the music, etc.. stuff is all just rationalization for something that is fundamentally wrong. Just admit it and move on, its ok. I still download quite a bit, but I am not gonna justify it as acceptable. I do it because I can, and because I do not have nearly enough money to buy everything I want. I still buy what I can, and go see as many shows as I can.

 

[Aman]

You purchase two things when you purchase a CD:
1. The materials used to make the physical product.
2. The rights to the artistic material on the disc to use as permitted by the laws of copyright.

The latter is being STOLEN every time you download off the internet.

It doesn't even matter if you're helping the RIAA when you download music. The fact is, many people are, but this doesn't justify the fact that you're breaking the law! There's no way you could possibly deny the fact that you are STEALING every time you download copyrighted music without paying for it. The RIAA may be doing wrong and illegal things too, but the illegal actions on the part of the consumers are no more justified, and aren't helping at all.

Yes, the major record labels are being poorly guided and mismanaged, and yes, the RIAA has committed its share of crimes by prosecuting teen girls for downloading a 64kbs Fergie MP3. But no, that doesn't mean you're immunized from breaking the law.

 

[Zarathustra19]

I think its funny how certain topics always seem to divide a population, even one as seemingly cohesive as Head-fi. Music downloading seems to cause as much of a polarization of opinion as the abortion debate, or the controversy surrounding gay marriage in the U.S. Its unfortunate that this debate had to worm its way into head-fi once again...

Personally, were it the case that I download music (I will neither confirm or deny that, for fear of the RIAA tracing my ip address and investigating me via some obscure clause of the Patriot Act or something, thus discovering my strong liking for crocheted sweater vests in my ebay account's history) it would be in protest to the injustice being served by the Recording Industry Association of America to its very customer base.

To address the OP's question, as we've drifted far from topic here, going into morals and what not, we're not supposed to talk about it because Jude says so, and what Jude says goes here. We don't question the rules. Head-fi is not a democracy, its a dictatorship, albeit a very pleasant one to exist in.

 

[LawnGnome]

One thing you don't seem to realize, in many countries it is NOT illegal to download music.

It is not illegal in Canada, France, Russia, Pakistan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Kuwait, Thailand, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, most likely many more.


Also, saying it stealing is a stretch. You are reproducing something. To say its like stealing a car is completely absurd. If you want to try a proper analogy, try this one:

Its like replicating a car for yourself with direction on how to do it from many different owners of the car, and then the company who built the cars which were sold, saying its theft.

So, unlike what you are claiming, I do not need to justify anything, as it is legal. Like it is for many others.

 

[Aman]

Are you an American, LawnGnome? I can only ask this because I don't think too many outside of America would have such bulletproof reasoning.

What are you, 16 years old?

Most of the countries you have mentioned don't have specific legislature or court rulings saying that music downloading is legal; they merely haven't had any legislature or court cases ruling in favor of one or the other. This is a very practical and acceptable way of looking at law, but realize that there's a whole field of other legal experts who will claim that what isn't expressly ALLOWED in legislation isn't legal.

Quote:

If you want to try a proper analogy, try this one: Its like replicating a car for yourself with direction on how to do it from many different owners of the car, and then the company who built the cars which were sold, saying its theft.

No, it's not like that at all. You are downloading digital data, something which isn't "replicated" - just copied. As I said before, you are stealing the RIGHTS that you have as the consumer to listen to the artist's copyrighted material when you download music. It's not like when you download copyrighted MP3s off of a torrent site you're getting the original packaging, jewel case, and inserts with it too. No, JPEGs of the sleeves don't count either.

And yes, it is illegal if you live in the United States. I am pretty sure you do. So do I - but unlike you, I am able to distinguish my hatred towards the RIAA from my belief that it's good to be a law-abiding citizen. Do yourself a favor and read up on the MGM v. Grokster case which went through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that even the software engineers themselves are responsible for copyright infringement in such instances!

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... it's reasonable to conclude that we'd be paying LESS for CD's if sales were greater. So all you folks who think it's perfectly legal to download...thanks. You just cost me more money when I bought CD's yesterday.

Not so sure I'd agree with this statement. Record companies and anyone with a commodity that sells well, are known to raise their prices due to supply and demand.

If record companies were selling huge amounts of CD's at $15 and were rolling in the profits, would, historically raise their prices to make even more money. Look at Exxon/Mobil. They claim that they made $13,000 a minute in profit last year and gas keeps going up.

This is not a competetive industry like computers, where the prices keep dropping. Record companies are banded together by the RIAA like the oil companies are banded together in cartels.

Please do not confuse my opinions on supply and demand as being associated with my opinions on illegal downloading being discussed here on Head-Fi. That is cut and dry. Not acceptable.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you an American, LawnGnome? I can only ask this because I don't think too many outside of America would have such bulletproof reasoning. What are you, 16 years old? Most of the countries you have mentioned don't have specific legislature or court rulings saying that music downloading is legal; they merely haven't had any legislature or court cases ruling in favor of one or the other. This is a very practical and acceptable way of looking at law, but realize that there's a whole field of other legal experts who will claim that what isn't expressly ALLOWED in legislation isn't legal. No, it's not like that at all. You are downloading digital data, something which isn't "replicated" - just copied. As I said before, you are stealing the RIGHTS that you have as the consumer to listen to the artist's copyrighted material when you download music. It's not like when you download copyrighted MP3s off of a torrent site you're getting the original packaging, jewel case, and inserts with it too. No, JPEGs of the sleeves don't count either. And yes, it is illegal if you live in the United States. I am pretty sure you do. So do I - but unlike you, I am able to distinguish my hatred towards the RIAA from my belief that it's good to be a law-abiding citizen. Do yourself a favor and read up on the MGM v. Grokster case which went through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that even the software engineers themselves are responsible for copyright infringement in such instances!

Sorry dude, I wont reply to this, your resorting to ad hominem. a good sign someone is no longer able to carry out a debate without just using personal attacks. It sucks when people resorting to nationality and age bashing.

And you not noticing I am Canadian shows your no longer thinking about the argument, and just attacking.

I clearly said I lived in a country which it is legal a few times, and then listed countries where it was, and the USA was not one of them.

But im sure your comments about the rationality of americans will be well heard here.

BTW, something does NOT have to be in legislature to be legal. Also, people cannot be prosecuted for things on which there is no laws.

 

[Aman]

There are many different interpretation approaches to reading and analyzing law. Some will approve your belief that something doesn't have to be expressly allowed in legislature to be legal - others won't. I run in the former category, but you can't claim absolute authority on this matter.

If you're Canadian, then what the hell are you complaining about? You already apparently are legally able to download copyrighted material - what are you wasting everybody's time for? You claim that Canadian law alone justifies your ability to download copyrighted music; why go any further than that? It seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Stephen_Ri]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif The fact is, many people are, but this doesn't justify the fact that you're breaking the law!

Applause--though I would be inclined to minimize the legal aspect, while pointing out what should be (and, in this case, is) the issue: that stealing is simply wrong. Too often the question becomes "what is legal"? and descends into an argument over what is allowed in which country. This question, in its many forms, is, essentially, "what can I get by with." But what is universal, and what should be asked, is "should I download this?" Clearly not, since the question would never be raised if it was the artist's intention to release their music for free download. That some people can maintain that personal artistic "connection," the reason we love music, while shafting those very artists by whatever legal device is convenient is an outstanding example of humanity's ability to superimpose ethics with convenience.

I think the RIAA has constantly done music downloaders a great favor: it has become a moral scapegoat. This thread makes apparent that people justify their downloading, not by arguing that it is ethical (with the exception of the irrelevant "I buy more music now, so they're better off" argument, or the "music is art" nonsense). Now, we can shift the argument away from the morality of pirating music, and throw a barrage of attacks at the over zealous moves of the RIAA (which, of course pertain little to the present discussion).

I am convinced that people who argue for the downloading of copyrighted material without permission are either:
1. Unable to grasp the (hardly) abstract nature of intellectual property right, either because they lack the intelligence or are from a culture without such rights, or
2. Realize that what they are doing is morally wrong, because it is stealing from the artists, and simply do not care.

Most people fit into the latter category. They are willful thieves--quite aware of their status legally and morally (though they ignore this latter element whenever possible), and willing to continue until they are intensely threatened by legal action. Is it any wonder that the RIAA combats these people with such vehemence?

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_Ri /img/forum/go_quote.gif Applause--though I would be inclined to minimize the legal aspect, while pointing out what should be (and, in this case is) the case: That stealing is simply wrong. _____________ I think the RIAA has constantly done music downloaders a great favor: it has become a moral scapegoat. This thread makes apparent that people justify their downloading, not by arguing that it is ethical (with the exception of the irrelevant "I buy more music now, so they're better off" argument, or the "music is art" nonsense). Now, we can shift the argument away from the morality of pirating music, and throw a barrage of attacks at the over zealous moves of the RIAA (which, of course pertain little to the present discussion). I am convinced that people who argue for the downloading of copyrighted material without permission are either: 1. Unable to grasp the (rather minimally) abstract nature of intellectual property right, either because they lack the intelligence or are from a culture without such rights, or 2. Realize that what they are doing is morally wrong, because it is stealing from the artists, and simply do not care. Most people fit into the latter category. They are willful thieves--quite aware of their status legally and morally (though they ignore this latter element whenever possible), and willing to continue until they are intensely threatened by legal action. Is it any wonder that the RIAA combats these people with such vehemence?

Except the supreme court of canada has found it perfectly legal, as well as the courts of france.

And there is no universal code of ethics, and no divine morality. So claiming something is unethical or immoral, as the basis of your argument is a poor strategy. They are too diverse.


So, since your legality issue does not apply. Your left with your ethical argument. Which then leads to the question, Why do you think your ethics are correct over the ethics of others? Or even the supreme courts of other countries? Do you find yourself more educated than they?

Human nature is to push the boundaries. If you give someone an inch of legal breathing room within the piracy laws, and someone uses that inch to its fullest potential, who are you to look down upon them? Our ability to do such things is why we have the societies we do today.

EDIT: I noticed you use a soundcard. meaning you most likely store copies of your music on your computer.

Did you know the RIAA considers ripping against the copyright laws?. Even by the owner for archival purposes.

So I guess your just as much as a "willful thief" as the rest.

 

[Stephen_Ri]

Post removed, as it was directed to one member, rather than for the thought of the community.

 

[immtbiker]

As we can easily see, the nature that this, and all other threads of this nature, has become more than a passionate disagreement between Head-Fiers. Usually these threads are closed right away, and this one is on it's way, because it can have no good coming from it, other than bad feelings, finger pointing and resentments.

Like any political conversation, it is a no-win situation.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_Ri /img/forum/go_quote.gif The first paragraph of my post, which I was expanding as you replied, may shed more light. Though I suspect opacity is the order of the day. Ad-Hominem or not, I will not argue with someone who either does not read or think well enough to post what you have in bold lettering.

Oh, so I understand, ethics is pick and choose for you. Thats OK.

But you fall under both your 1. and 2.

So are you sure that you understand copyright laws?

As you are violating them, yet seem oblivious to it. Ignorance truly is bliss eh?

This is dictionary hypocrisy.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: I noticed you use a soundcard. meaning you most likely store copies of your music on your computer. Did you know the RIAA considers ripping against the copyright laws?. Even by the owner for archival purposes. So I guess your just as much as a "willful thief" as the rest.

Yeah, except for the whole thing about how the RIAA doesn't determine the laws - the government's judicial branch does. The Supreme Court has not ruled against anything regarding the owner of a copyrighted CD ripping to his/her computer for his/her own personal, private use. The RIAA simply says it's illegal in order to combat some of the illegal downloading that occurs in the US. Believe me - those bastards are desperate.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, except for the whole thing about how the RIAA doesn't determine the laws - the government's judicial branch does. The Supreme Court has not ruled against anything regarding the owner of a copyrighted CD ripping to his/her computer for his/her own personal, private use. The RIAA simply says it's illegal in order to combat some of the illegal downloading that occurs in the US. Believe me - those bastards are desperate.

Yes, the RIAA is built of hopes and dreams.

My point though, is he is saying people are robbing from the artist's.

When the RIAA, which represents record companies, which in turn represent musicians, Consider what he is doing robbing from artists.

So he may consider downloaders as thieves of music, but in the eyes of the music industry, he is just as much as a thief.