[Bohemianism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif People who torrent and download music illegally would actually go out and purchase the music if it wasn't for the fact that a lot of music today is horrible. THAT is why the music industry is in the **** state it's in today, not because of people torrenting/downloading music. You can't go out and demo music in stores anymore. I personally download music and if I find myself enjoying the album enough, I'll go out and purchase the album. If anything, music downloading only increases a consumer's awareness of and interest in music.

You can't really make the assumption that people illegally downloading music would then go and buy a copy if music was generally better.
Also what about all the old 'good' music that is being illegally downloaded.

As far as saying you find music you like by downloading and then buy a copy if it's good. I've heard this argument many times, most people use it. I used it when I used to illegally download music.
But what about the 5 so-called 'bad' CD's that are still saved onto. You've still cheated those musicians. You've still cheated the industry out of five CD's.
With the large amounts of cheap hard-drive space today, very few people delete those sub-par CD's.

As far as the speeding this goes. Speeding is bad, it kills people, BUT unless something goes wrong and in most cases it doesn't (please don't construe this as defending speeding because I'm not), nothing happens.
There isn't really any scenario where you can steal and someone isn't affected.
So stealing is always a crime with a victim(s). Speeding isn't; It's just when there is a victim it's worse.

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Same here - at Borders, at FYE, and at Best Buy.

I haven't found a place where I can demo electronic music where I live (San Ramon, CA). Anyone know of a place in the bay area? Until I find one, I have absolutely no qualms about downloading music to see if I enjoy the music or not before I make my purchase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bohemianism /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as saying you find music you like by downloading and then buy a copy if it's good. I've heard this argument many times, most people use it. I used it when I used to illegally download music. But what about the 5 so-called 'bad' CD's that are still saved onto. You've still cheated those musicians. You've still cheated the industry out of five CD's. With the large amounts of cheap hard-drive space today, very few people delete those sub-par CD's.

If the CD was bad then the artist never deserved my money in the first place. How have I cheated the artist from money that he was never going to get originally?

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the CD was bad then the artist never deserved my money in the first place. How have I cheated the artist from money that he was never going to get originally?

Ah, but how would you have known he was bad without buying the CD?

Of course, "bad" and "deserve" are subjective terms. "Copyright law" and "legal obligation" are objective terms. I'll tell you which I'd rather have in court with me.

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, but how would you have known he was bad without buying the CD?

Listen at your friend's house, youtube, the artists website (if the artist provides samples), lastfm, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course, "bad" and "deserve" are subjective terms. "Copyright law" and "legal obligation" are objective terms. I'll tell you which I'd rather have in court with me.

Please do if the RIAA ever decides to change its mind about suing people ( http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/...ays-it-pl.html )

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Listen at your friend's house, youtube, the artists website (if the artist provides samples), lastfm, etc.

Well there you go. 4 legal ways to hear music. With all these options, do you still lionize piracy?

 

[Bohemianism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the CD was bad then the artist never deserved my money in the first place. How have I cheated the artist from money that he was never going to get originally?

Well if you delete it as soon as you hear you don't like it, I guess I may bend my opinion of illegal downloading. But the vast majority of people don't do that, they keep it due to hard drive space being so cheap. And then, even if you don't like the recording, you're still stealing it.

I don't like turkish delight chocolate. But I steal one. I wouldn't have payed for it, so the company wouldn't have gotten my money anyway. Therefore I didn't do anything wrong.
Now admittedly that is slightly different and I am always stealing materials that went into the chocolate, but it isn't different in the eyes of the law. And even if you're downloading something so there's no physical media. That song and album are still products.

 

[synaesthetic]

dead horse = beaten so thoroughly it's no longer recognizable as an equine corpse.

what I wouldn't give for a "no arguments about piracy" policy like we have for religion and politics.

 

[dvse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif dead horse = beaten so thoroughly it's no longer recognizable as an equine corpse. what I wouldn't give for a "no arguments about piracy" policy like we have for religion and politics.

While I don't think prohibiting any topic is a good idea, you are all too right - the discourse is remarkably simplistic (especially on the copyright proponents side, as the Bohemianism's post above illustrates - "copyright = physical property" indeed!) and all the arguments have been countlessly repeated.

Still, the two that are not heard so often are the worrying extent of surveillance needed to police it and both the encouragement of uninspired 'for profit' works and difficulties in putting together such unequivocally useful things as fully searchable online libraries.

This is one of those near religious issues where only a change of generations would help (without a revolution).

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvse /img/forum/go_quote.gif the discourse is remarkably simplistic.

That's because the issue is remarkably simple. The RIAA has yet to lose one of these cases. The only thing being debated is the amount of disbursement, not the legal obligation.

You can pursue your thinly veiled ad hominem rebuttals all you please, but the crushing weight of decided cases is not on your side. Present me an argument that does not stem from a hypothetical situation, and I'll happily elevate this discussion.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because the issue is remarkably simple.

Snap!

It is a very black and white issue. Stealing is stealing, and all the justifications are nonsense.

My favorite rationaliztion so far is the "How can it be stealing when the music is horrible?" argument. I really, really think this is hilarious. Since most of these kids in favor of stealing claim they don't have much money (yet are still somehow running hi-fi setups

), they probably drive crappy cars. I guess that, since the car is horrible, nobody would be hurt if I decided to steal it.

 

[dvse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because the issue is remarkably simple. The RIAA has yet to lose one of these cases. The only thing being debated is the amount of disbursement, not the legal obligation.

The only reason they have had any success is because these are not criminal cases and standards of proof are laughably low. Also they take advantage of the high cost of legal representation to settle is quite a bit below what it would cost to attempt any defense - hardly better than racketeering.

Even so, it's been quite a PR nightmare, so RIAA are now looking at backing off with individual suits: Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits - WSJ.com

In any case, all of this means nothing as exact terms of copyright protections are set by the Congress.

As to ad hominem, there isn't much one can say to those who believe that copyrights are equivalent to property - it's effectively a religious view that is orthogonal to reason.

 

[Sherwood]

So far as I can tell, DVSE, no one here said copyrights were equivalent to property other than you. Can you produce that post?

The persistent postscript you feel necessary to add on equating your opponents' beliefs to "religious views" baffles me. You're the only one arguing religion, here. The rest of us are arguing legality and morality.

 

[dvse]

Well, here are a few quotes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif <...> As to where the music industry will be in ten years, I thoroughly hope that it will be drastically different. I even expect it to be drastically different. I do not, however, feel that the state of the current system is justification for me to take what is not mine. On that point, we will apparently disagree. <...>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bohemianism <...> I don't like turkish delight chocolate. But I steal one. I wouldn't have payed for it, so the company wouldn't have gotten my money anyway. Therefore I didn't do anything wrong. Now admittedly that is slightly different and I am always stealing materials that went into the chocolate, but it isn't different in the eyes of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 Stealing is stealing, and all the justifications are nonsense.

As soon as you make the assumption that copyright is the same as property, any rational discussion of copyright becomes impossible, since most people have a rather strong believe that private property is a natural right. Try having a rational debate with a Christian about the 10 commandments.

 

[vcoheda]

sharing music is so commonplace that it has the appearance of being legal. it's not, but the prevalence of doing so and the lack of enforcement make it seem that way.

 

[4N6]

A definition of "Copyright" that I found. I have added italics in seemingly appropriate places.

From Wikipedia:

Copyright is a form of intellectual property which gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation; after which time the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete. Some jurisdictions also recognise "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work.

The intent of copyright is to allow authors to have control of and profit from their works, thus encouraging them to create new works and to aid the flow of ideas and learning.

Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the author's death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate authorship; some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.

Most jurisdictions recognize copyright limitations, allowing "fair" exceptions to the author's exclusivity of copyright, and giving users certain rights. The development of the Internet, digital media, computer network technologies, such as peer-to-peer filesharing, have prompted reinterpretation of these exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, and inspired additional challenges to copyright law's philosophic basis. Simultaneously, businesses with great economic dependence upon copyright have advocated the extension and expansion of their copy rights, and sought additional legal and technological enforcement.