[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MusicJunkie /img/forum/go_quote.gif How about because you can't afford it? Either get a job that pays more or do without. What's with people today and the whole entitlement attitude?

That's an easy attitude to take when you have money.

Try having some sort of accident happen and becoming finacially ruined.

Then see if you have the same attitude.

Its all about inequality.

And you've kinda hit on a point, how would they lose sales, if the person downloading could never afford the CD in the first place?

The only way P2P can affect sales is if a person who WAS going to buy the CD, downloaded it instead.

This is most likely why record sales really havent dropped, the people who have no intent to purchase music download it, and those who intend to buy albums still do.

 

[james__bean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif You correctly identified that copyright laws enable the holder to reproduce, distribute, and display their works as they see fit, but fail to see that most copyright holders do not license their material to be distributed over P2P. If you obtain material in an unlicensed fashion, you are circumventing their copyright. You are stealing it simply by demonstrating that they don't have it.

Your logic here is completely flawed. First, copyright law doesn't let the holder determine how someone may obtain their works. A copyright owner can't sue me for buying a used cd or stealing a used cd for that matter. Copyright only covers distribution, reproduction, and public display of works. You're correct in stating that someone can't distribute a work over p2p without infringing on their copyright. However, someone downloading a work is not distributing that work. They are reproducing it, but I already stated that.

Second, circumventing or infringing on someone's copyright isn't stealing their copyright. Copyright is a right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display works. Regardless of what I or anyone else does, they still have that right. You can't steal someones copyright just like you can't steal someone's right to free speech or trial by jury or whatever.

I realize this is all semantics and doesn't take away the fact that its still wrong. However, legally speaking, stealing and copyright infringement are two completely different things. There is a reason why stealing a cd will get you a $150 fine while infringing copyright will get you a $150,000 fine.

 

[Aman]

It's good you realize that this is just semantics, because I simply used a poor choice of words. What I simply meant to say was that the CDs cost so much money because of the legal aspects to the works - not the materials used to make the case and CD (which cost only 2 dollars at most for me - including any "assembly" fees). When you purchase a CD, you purchase a means of being able to hear copyrighted material. You are, by American law, restricted to hearing this copyrighted material in certain ways, shapes, and forms. If you are able to permanently store this copyrighted material on a hard disk by obtaining it online for free, you have circumvented the costs which normally allow you to do that. This is getting something without paying for it.

At school, I received a lot of lectures about these arguments and how to separate the questionable from the certain. The point that james__bean brings up was discusses in great detail.

Quote:

That's an easy attitude to take when you have money. Try having some sort of accident happen and becoming finacially ruined. Then see if you have the same attitude. Its all about inequality. And you've kinda hit on a point, how would they lose sales, if the person downloading could never afford the CD in the first place? The only way P2P can affect sales is if a person who WAS going to buy the CD, downloaded it instead. This is most likely why record sales really havent dropped, the people who have no intent to purchase music download it, and those who intend to buy albums still do.

Since when was life fair? Get a better job.

Quote:

T-shirts aren't art.

A lot of fashion designers would be very upset with this statement. This one passage alone discredits any validity you may have (which you don't demonstrate anyway).

 

[Coltrane]

Fashion isnt art.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's an easy attitude to take when you have money. Try having some sort of accident happen and becoming finacially ruined. Then see if you have the same attitude. Its all about inequality.

What is with this line of reasoning? You believe you're entitled to something for free on account of being unable to actually afford it? Things cost money. You want something, you pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you do without it or you acquire it in a less than legal fashion. That's the world.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is with this line of reasoning? You believe you're entitled to something for free on account of being unable to actually afford it? Things cost money. You want something, you pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you do without it or you acquire it in a less than legal fashion. That's the world.

The way I acquire music is perfectly legal. So where was your point?

 

[Night Surfer]

So music is now some sort of God-given right?
And not being able to afford something makes it ok to steal it?

Wow.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by james__bean /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your logic here is completely flawed.

Straight up, you're right. Christ, I was knackered last night. Being a political drunk is worthless, especially when all you're drunk on is sleep deprivation and writers block.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's an easy attitude to take when you have money. Try having some sort of accident happen and becoming finacially ruined. Then see if you have the same attitude. Its all about inequality.

I'm having a hard time believing that you're serious here, lawngnome. By what standards are we measuring our "haves and have nots"?

 

[immtbiker]

Perhaps some people in this thread should rent a padded room, some boxing gloves and have a go at it.

We can line the walls with ERS paper and the floors with Sorbethane.

I picture Satellite talk radio playing in the backround.

 

[Knockturne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you borrow from the library, the artist has been compensated for the copy for the music that you are borrowing and listening to. When you download an illegal copy, the artist has not been compensated for that copy. Earlier, you made a point about how the artist is not compensated by music on the radio. This is flat-out wrong. Radio stations must pay royalties to broadcast copyrighted material.

Well when you download an album the artist has been compensated aswell. Downloading music off the internet is like borrowing it from a library that actually has a decent range of music. Someone buys it, rips it, and shares it. A library buys it and shares it. What's the difference?

Radio stations certainly don't pay much and I doubt much of it goes to the musicians.

To the people saying "get a better job" - what if you or someone close got sick and had to pay medical bills, and therefore you had to sell your music collection? Right now I can't get a better paying job, but I will have one in a few years. So why should I wait for a few years until I can afford it, when I'm going to be paying them eventually anyway?

 

[werdwerdus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well when you download an album the artist has been compensated aswell. Downloading music off the internet is like borrowing it from a library that actually has a decent range of music. Someone buys it, rips it, and shares it. A library buys it and shares it. What's the difference?

This difference is that you are downloading a copy. That means that only one has been payed for but there are now more than one being listened by different people at the same time. The library situation is much different: There is only one available and only one person can borrow it at the same time.

Quote:

To the people saying "get a better job" - what if you or someone close got sick and had to pay medical bills, and therefore you had to sell your music collection? Right now I can't get a better paying job, but I will have one in a few years. So why should I wait for a few years until I can afford it, when I'm going to be paying them eventually anyway?

You should wait because that's legal. Downloading music or movies or software that you don't own is illegal. Piece of cake.

edit: Well I don't know if it's illegal in Australia... so w/e

 

[Knockturne]

So...it's like a library, but better!

Yeah it is illegal here, but I don't really care if it's legal or not.

99% of the stuff I download is indie music and isn't part of the RIAA anyway.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by werdwerdus /img/forum/go_quote.gif This difference is that you are downloading a copy. That means that only one has been payed for but there are now more than one being listened by different people at the same time. The library situation is much different: There is only one available and only one person can borrow it at the same time. You should wait because that's legal. Downloading music or movies or software that you don't own is illegal. Piece of cake. edit: Well I don't know if it's illegal in Australia... so w/e

Ripping music you do own is illegal though as well.

I don't think anyone here would be in the RIAA's good books, and that's something we all could agree, no?

 

[immtbiker]

See, here's a big gray area. Re-ripping your own CD's for preservation or turning them into a format for your own digital player.

I believe the US law states that it's OK for your own personal consumption.
...and yet Sony and other companies DRM and copyright their recordings (which degrades the quality because they are sticking other info in between the original recorded music) so you can't make your own copies.

For this I say, don't buy from these companies.