NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an issue that has surfaced before, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on this subject. Do you believe that intellectual property rights exist? And if they do, then does file sharing fall into the "theft" category?

Some believe that intellectual property is but a monopoly privilege that wouldn't exist but for government intervention, and that it should be abolished... while others believe that rights of authors and inventors to control others' copying of their creations. They usually believe this right should have all the conventional attributes of property, including perpetual inheritance. They differentiate between the intellectual property (e.g. a blueprint, or music) and its physical manifestation (e.g. the machine or a copy of the music), the former being used to create the latter. They believe, therefore, that an owner's control over the use of his/her property extends to control over the use of intellectual property. Nonetheless, such a right (in their view) would exist regardless of whether government chose to enforce it.

These are two stances on the issue, and since there are most definitely other opinions, I won't post a poll.

So what do you think? My opinion is conflicted at the moment.

I certainly believe that intellectual property rights exist. But I justify file-sharing by thinking that I am stealing from the corporate record companies, rather than the artists themselves.

I certainly believe that intellectual property rights exist. But I justify file-sharing by thinking that I am stealing from the corporate record companies, rather than the artists themselves.


Exactly. I mean, I'd actually go out and buy music more often, but since the big labels fuck the artists over so much, I just download.

Then again, there aren't many good bands around any more, so the stuff I download is usually at least 15 years old.

Exactly. I mean, I'd actually go out and buy music more often, but since the big labels fuck the artists over so much, I just download.

Then again, there aren't many good bands around any more, so the stuff I download is usually at least 15 years old.

There are still plenty of good bands around, you just have to search for them now.

And those bands are the ones that are most likely to offer free mp3s, and most likely to welcome file-sharing.

I download music and if I like it I will go and buy it. To me it is "Try before you buy."

I refuse to divulge any information regarding file-sharing.

anyway, I found a link that shows a Libertarian stance AGAINST intellectual property rights (http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html). keep in mind that libertarians are split on this issue.

But the thing is with file-sharing: is it theft? You are downloading copyrighted material without permission from the artists who are selling it for profit. It is their property. But, are you distributing the downloaded music for profit? Is downloading a song any different than taping a movie/TV show and giving it to a friend free of charge?

Here's my stance: copyrights exist to give "inventors" enough time to gather resources to introduce their "invention" to the market. They do not exist to support monopolies. Once the product has hit the market or sufficient opportunity to do so has been given (say, a year), then the copyright should cease to exist.

Official Stance of the Untied States:

Copyright Law is FOREVER.

Those that created our beloved Dicky Douse for example must be paid full dued for all uses and references to thier property. Everytime you read this .005 Suckers are transferred to Diknee Inc's corporate account.

Free use does not exist and record labels can sue anybody across the planet due to international adherance to our copyright laws. Fair use only exists for those with permission of or are currently employed by those whom own the copyrights. All others are in violation and must be smitten in the name of Almighty God!

Those opposed to these laws are feeble and unpatriotic. Here (http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html) is an example of such pathetic scum trying to worm thier way into a free meal.

Official Stance of the Untied States:

Copyright Law is FOREVER.

Those that created our beloved Dicky Douse for example must be paid full dued for all uses and references to thier property. Everytime you read this .005 Suckers are transferred to Diknee Inc's corporate account.

Free use does not exist and record labels can sue anybody across the planet due to international adherance to our copyright laws. Fair use only exists for those with permission of or are currently employed by those whom own the copyrights. All others are in violation and must be smitten in the name of Almighty God!

Those opposed to these laws are feeble and unpatriotic. Here (http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html) is an example of such pathetic scum trying to worm thier way into a free meal.
Thats not true. Copyright currently is lifetime of the creator +75 years. Everytime this number starts to get close to Mickey Mouse the Disney corperation campaigns to have it extended (it started out +25).

Anything before 1923 is in the public domain. Ephemeral material becomes largely in the public domain, much of that is championed here (http://www.archive.org/)

Fair use extends to sharing the music with your friends, as long as you don't count any anyone with internet access as your friend.

Record executives do not buy any fewer yachts, rock stars do not party less hard because you download-the person who takes the hit are people like me (buyer for a record store for 5 years) and my friends (reps for minor label distribution). All of us lost our jobs. And don't give me that "changing industry" B.S., you found a way to steal and not have to face the consequences. Quit pretending you're Robin Hood. Forgive the abrassiveness, but screw you if you don't think it affects anyone but the 'big labels.'

As an artist I create something in the same way that a carpenter creates a cabinet. Someone produces and distributes that work and you enjoy it. If you enjoy or consume it, frankly, you owe me money. Don't feel I deserve money for what I provided for you? Don't listen/watch it. Learn guitar. Make your own damn movie. Don't steal my labor.


EDIT:In my frevor I didn't notice that Untied States was talking about his/her nation and not the United States. So for failing my RIF test, I'm a dumbass...the rest stands...

But the thing is with file-sharing: is it theft? You are downloading copyrighted material without permission from the artists who are selling it for profit. It is their property.

Can an idea or a sound or an image really be property?

OOC: It's alright Cannot think of a name. This nation is an exaggerated spoof of the nation you THOUGHT I was talking about. Everything I type MUST and SHOULD be assumed to be a joke of some form or another. That being said...

Glad you realized and could take a joke. =)

Can an idea or a sound or an image really be property?

Is a song just ONE sound? What about lyrics, etc... anyway, that's just one side of the argument. I already posed the question: how is file sharing different from taping a movie/tv show and then giving the tape to a friend?

I'm not going to go far into this, but copyrights serve the common good.
It is ironic that those in the internet community are often most hostile to intellectually property, when those who are devoted to expression should be concerned about rewarding it. Here are some articles to consider:
Copyright: It's for the public good (http://aaupnet.org/aboutup/copyright.html)
Why Metallica is suing (http://www.cnn.com/LAW/columns/king.05.17/index.html)
Artists respond (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mantsch/Artists.htm)

Anyway, Patents and Copyrights actually have their basis in the US Constitution.

Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 8:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

US Copyright law extends back at least to 1710. Here is some background (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html).

In my opinion its no different from going into a store and steal the music, it's just that people get away with it still.

Soon, here in Sweden it will also be forbidden to download music and movies, not just to share it. Altough I have no doubt that it will be circumvented (hell, vene our minister of justice says that they wont go after kids who download music for their own use).

That said, I feel a bit hypocritical, since I have and still from time to time have downloaded music. But that doesn't make it more right, for me it is still stealing.

As far as I'm concerned, music is an industry like everything else. It needs to adapt to the market in real time.
There are so many ways for these companies to make money.
The VCR didn't kill television advertising. File sharing isn't going to kill music, either. Just the way we distribute it.

As far as I'm concerned, music is an industry like everything else. It needs to adapt to the market in real time.
There are so many ways for these companies to make money.
The VCR didn't kill television advertising. File sharing isn't going to kill music, either. Just the way we distribute it.
There is a world of difference between people taping programs at home to watch later and putting something up on the internet for everyone to download. How do you propose they 'adapt' to you stealing and distributing thier product for free?

There is a world of difference between people taping programs at home to watch later and putting something up on the internet for everyone to download. How do you propose they 'adapt' to you stealing and distributing thier product for free?
Firstly, I don't give a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut how they do it.
I'm not a stockholder in a single music-related corporation. I don't care about the guys in the suits in the offices.
They can fend for themselves in the market.

The artists always do. If need be, artists can promote online and via filesharing, and then tour. But then again, I'm not a musician either.

Either way, it's too late. The pooch has already been screwed.

We cant put the genie back in the bottle. And music, movies and software will never be the same. Either you keep up as a corporation with trends in the marketplace, or you go under.

How is that hard to understand? Perhaps you disagree with my apathy, but do you really think we can do anything about it now?

Firstly, I don't give a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut how they do it.
I'm not a stockholder in a single music-related corporation. I don't care about the guys in the suits in the offices.
They can fend for themselves in the market.

The artists always do. If need be, artists can promote online and via filesharing, and then tour. But then again, I'm not a musician either.

Either way, it's too late. The pooch has already been screwed.

We cant put the genie back in the bottle. And music, movies and software will never be the same. Either you keep up as a corporation with trends in the marketplace, or you go under.

How is that hard to understand? Perhaps you disagree with my apathy, but do you really think we can do anything about it now?
First, as I stated earlier, it's not the suits and the stockholders that take the hit, thats only the Robin Hood BS you all feed yourself to justify theft. It's me, my friends, the baseline workers who put thier labor to make that music available to you in the first place that take the hit. So unless your going to hire me, yes I'm going to take offense at your apathy.

"Everyone else is doing it" doesn't make it justified.

You are a thief, you are taking product that people produced and not paying for it. You can put on the green tights and pretend you're 'sticking it to the man' all you want. But it's still just a costume.

There is a world of difference between people taping programs at home to watch later and putting something up on the internet for everyone to download. How do you propose they 'adapt' to you stealing and distributing thier product for free?

It's a Pandora's box Imo. It's been open and there's no way of stoppping it.

I have a few idea's though I don't know it's profitability of it, and whether by implementing it would eventually bankrupt the distributing companies or collapse the artists.

Anyway, why don't they give it all out for free but is of inferior quality and have advertistments? Get companies interested in promoting their goods to help sponsor and keep them afloat.

Try before you buy to me is a great idea.

Like for mp3's.. give them out for free download, but if you buy, you'll get DAMN good quality files without adverstisment. Same goes for anime's, cartoons, movies online. Low/decent enough quality and have advertistments every 30 minutes or so.

It's a Pandora's box Imo. It's been open and there's no way of stoppping it.

I have a few idea's though I don't know it's profitability of it, and whether by implementing it would eventually bankrupt the distributing companies or collapse the artists.

Anyway, why don't they give it all out for free but is of inferior quality and have advertistments? Get companies interested in promoting their goods to help sponsor and keep them afloat.

Try before you buy to me is a great idea.

Like for mp3's.. give them out for free download, but if you buy, you'll get DAMN good quality files without adverstisment. Same goes for anime's, cartoons, movies online. Low/decent enough quality and have advertistments every 30 minutes or so.

Problem being that most people would still share the good quality stuff...and people would download it.

As cynical as I am, the only way I see as to stop people sharing is to forbid any modems or connection that have a higher speed than 28.8 kbit/s...I would like to see someone download a movie at that speed :)

It's a Pandora's box Imo. It's been open and there's no way of stoppping it.

I have a few idea's though I don't know it's profitability of it, and whether by implementing it would eventually bankrupt the distributing companies or collapse the artists.

Anyway, why don't they give it all out for free but is of inferior quality and have advertistments? Get companies interested in promoting their goods to help sponsor and keep them afloat.

Try before you buy to me is a great idea.

Like for mp3's.. give them out for free download, but if you buy, you'll get DAMN good quality files without adverstisment. Same goes for anime's, cartoons, movies online. Low/decent enough quality and have advertistments every 30 minutes or so.
I think you get it. The change is already here. Thinking you can enforce morality on the entire population under 35 is naive, at best.

You're already thinking ahead of most music companies from what it sounds like GP. ;)

Problem being that most people would still share the good quality stuff...and people would download it.

As cynical as I am, the only way I see as to stop people sharing is to forbid any modems or connection that have a higher speed than 28.8 kbit/s...I would like to see someone download a movie at that speed :)
THen the tech industry would have a boom in video and audio compression.
The problem would be fixed within a year, if even that long.

What annoys me is that the copyright law is only used when convienient.

If companies (such as microshaft) are copyrighting everything in sight, then lets extend the law, so that the guy who invented the jet turbine engine, but had it taken form him by the UK government and given away, can reclaim the lost revenue. Xerox who started the whole GUI window thing, they can claim from MS.

Personally, I think that the inventor should just get enough time, to launch the product, and get a 5 or 10 year ROI, before it's released.

I really hope that the EU doesn't give in to the US Style Copyrights and Patents.
(is it true that swinging side to side on a swing has been patented?)

First, as I stated earlier, it's not the suits and the stockholders that take the hit, thats only the Robin Hood BS you all feed yourself to justify theft. It's me, my friends, the baseline workers who put thier labor to make that music available to you in the first place that take the hit. So unless your going to hire me, yes I'm going to take offense at your apathy.

"Everyone else is doing it" doesn't make it justified.
Funny, I use that argument a lot against unnecessary business regulations, graduated taxes, and the like. Those pesky liberals don't get it, though.

It doesn't have to be justified. It's totally, thoroughly, completely unstoppable, and it will continue to happen. Business models will have to adapt to this whether it's legal or not. You can whine and complain all you like, but it still won't save your job.

You are a thief, you are taking product that people produced and not paying for it. You can put on the green tights and pretend you're 'sticking it to the man' all you want. But it's still just a costume.
That is an unjustified attack on Eichen. Nowhere did he admit to having downloaded music. He just confessed his apathy about the fact that it did happen. And again, I'd like to redirect these comments to the liberals.

I think that if file sharing does harm artists (which i think could well be a load of propaganda to get ppl to buy cds) then it actually helps the music industry

Put it this way, a decent band can make a living from live performances which you cant download, crap bands can only make money from singles and if they;re lucky an album or 2.

Some, examples, I went to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers in hype park last summer, with 100,000 people there at £40 a ticket thats 4million from 1 gig alone, they did 5 gigs in the uk that year so £20,000,000, I'm not sure what cut the band gets but lets say 10% at a very low estimate, so between them they're up two million quid for a few months work. Less successful but still good artists can certainly make a good living from live shows. At the other end of the spectrum you have the manufactured TV bands, anyone remember pop stars the rivals?, that worthless TV program for the brain dead masses produced a boy band and a girl band. They were supposed to do a UK tour together but it was canceled because they sold less than half the tickets. The girl band have done ok, a couple of singles, an album but lets face it we'll never hear from them again ... the boy band went no where. As opposed to the Chilis who were massivly popular 10 years ago and still will be 10 years from now. Who knows they might be the next led zepelin.

The point is that file sharing sifts the shit out of the music industry sending all those wannbe pop singers, copycat rappers, and rnb bollox right back where they belong, the gutter

Funny, I use that argument a lot against unnecessary business regulations, graduated taxes, and the like. Those pesky liberals don't get it, though.

It doesn't have to be justified. It's totally, thoroughly, completely unstoppable, and it will continue to happen. Business models will have to adapt to this whether it's legal or not. You can whine and complain all you like, but it still won't save your job.


That is an unjustified attack on Eichen. Nowhere did he admit to having downloaded music. He just confessed his apathy about the fact that it did happen. And again, I'd like to redirect these comments to the liberals.
Thanks, Py, for actually reading my post. I've gotta say, I've been accused of having a "Robin Hood" complex, and of being a "Liberal Commie Pinko", all in one week.
You know that's teh funny! :p

Copyrights, and file sharing runs more deeper than music and dvd's though.

Especiallly the software developers for smaller companies. Thats why 'I cannot think of a name' is pissed. I think he's in the field.

I believe copying copyrighted media is theft. If you like the music (or whatever) and you have respect for the artist and the musicians who created the work you'll buy it rather than try to put them out of work by stealing it.
If you went to work everyday and you knew that everything you did people would just be able to get for free you'd be worried about your job and be a bit pissed off. Restaurants don't give food away for free do they?

I'm wondering how many people that are bitching about "theft", have any illegal software, music or video files in their homes, cars, offices, whatever.

My guess is, they're not completely without sin while tossin them stones. :rolleyes:

File sharing is free speech.

I think that if file sharing does harm artists (which i think could well be a load of propaganda to get ppl to buy cds) then it actually helps the music industry

Put it this way, a decent band can make a living from live performances which you cant download, crap bands can only make money from singles and if they;re lucky an album or 2.

Some, examples, I went to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers in hype park last summer, with 100,000 people there at £40 a ticket thats 4million from 1 gig alone, they did 5 gigs in the uk that year so £20,000,000, I'm not sure what cut the band gets but lets say 10% at a very low estimate, so between them they're up two million quid for a few months work. Less successful but still good artists can certainly make a good living from live shows. At the other end of the spectrum you have the manufactured TV bands, anyone remember pop stars the rivals?, that worthless TV program for the brain dead masses produced a boy band and a girl band. They were supposed to do a UK tour together but it was canceled because they sold less than half the tickets. The girl band have done ok, a couple of singles, an album but lets face it we'll never hear from them again ... the boy band went no where. As opposed to the Chilis who were massivly popular 10 years ago and still will be 10 years from now. Who knows they might be the next led zepelin.

The point is that file sharing sifts the shit out of the music industry sending all those wannbe pop singers, copycat rappers, and rnb bollox right back where they belong, the gutter
During the rise of file sharing we've also had the rise of Britney Spears, N*SYNC, Backstreet Boys etc etc etc. Why? Their fans are the ones who will actually buy thier music. Thirteen year old girls just arn't as prone to piracy. If music had actually gotten better over that last few years I might buy that arguement, but it hasn't. The fact that a newer band can't get a foothold (and Making of the Band bands have many more factors against them) is actually an arguement against the idea.

File sharing is free speech.
Free speech isn't "You get to give away my stuff for free."

There's a difference between being completely without sin and being a criminal.
I must admit I'm not completely without sin on this. I have 9 copied CDs. They were copied for me by a friend who wanted me to appreciate his music collection. Its all stuff that I would never have bought, and it's all from the early 90s anyway, so the bands have all made their living.
Any music I feel passionate about I buy.

I'm wondering how many people that are bitching about "theft", have any illegal software, music or video files in their homes, cars, offices, whatever.

My guess is, they're not completely without sin while tossin them stones. :rolleyes:
I won't do it. Theft is theft.

I think the 'adaptation' is to prosecute the thieves like we would any shoplifter, and the distributers like we would any fence. I don't buy the 'Little Johnny' bit for a second. When 'Little Johnny' got caught lifting a CD he got busted just like anyone else.

File sharing is free speech.
Only if you're the creator of the data, not the copier.

There's a difference between being completely without sin and being a criminal.
I must admit I'm not completely without sin on this. I have 9 copied CDs. They were copied for me by a friend who wanted me to appreciate his music collection. Its all stuff that I would never have bought, and it's all from the early 90s anyway, so the bands have all made their living.
Any music I feel passionate about I buy.
Thats actually fair use, between you and your friends. It's when your friends become "anyone with an internet connection" it becomes something else.

Free speech isn't "You get to give away my stuff for free."
The music you produce is not "your stuff".

There's a difference between being completely without sin and being a criminal.
I must admit I'm not completely without sin on this. I have 9 copied CDs. They were copied for me by a friend who wanted me to appreciate his music collection. Its all stuff that I would never have bought, and it's all from the early 90s anyway, so the bands have all made their living.
Any music I feel passionate about I buy.THis is a pathetic attempt to downplay your own moral shortcomings. I'm judging you based on your own standards. Wishy-washy, and a bit pathetic.

I won't do it. Theft is theft.

I think the 'adaptation' is to prosecute the thieves like we would any shoplifter, and the distributers like we would any fence. I don't buy the 'Little Johnny' bit for a second. When 'Little Johnny' got caught lifting a CD he got busted just like anyone else.
I can respect this. I may not agree, but anyone who sticks to their convictions is far more credible than someone who only wishes to enforce their own compromised values on others. :rolleyes:

The music you produce is not "your stuff".
You don't think you should pay for it, don't listen to it. Learn guitar and make your own music-thats free speech.

Why do you have a 'special' right to how what an artist produces is distributed?

You don't think you should pay for it, don't listen to it. Learn guitar and make your own music-thats free speech.

Why do you have a 'special' right to how what an artist produces is distributed?
I hear it, I like it, I share it. I don't have enough money to pay for all the music I listen and I'm not gonna limit myself to just what I can pay for. Music is not just for the rich. And I suspect the music produced for the rich is crap anyway.

My God! IT's coming from inside your house!"
Is that from the freaky scene in "When A Stranger Calls"? :D

I would steal music / programs / whatever from a shop, but why bother when you can do the same thing with the internet? However if it did somehow become harder to steal music off the internet, I would either stop listening to music altogether, or devise another way to get free music, the music is just not worth that much money.

If someone steals from me, I'm pissed, but I realise they outsmarted me...(it's not hard to outsmart me, I leave my car unlocked most of the time... the car cost me a dollar). If someone stole something off me because they needed it more, so be it... if I find out who it is I'll break their legs, but I expect the same to me if I steal something.

What gets me ticked is when someone needlessly destroys something, but that's for another thread.

I think the fact that the CD costs around 50p with case, another 50p for the printing, that means that advertising, promotion and profit get £9 to 14.

That in most peoples opinion is at least £5.00 too much.

I know of bands that release thier own material on CD, with printing for £5 each.
and they are making a good profit on them.

For software, I have Paid and installed from the web software that has crashed and required reinstall, but been told that I cant download from them again. So I got a copy from someone else. This is not theft as I have a valid licence, but it is making me use the P2P networks as if it was.

Companies (recording in particular) need to look at what is happening an think that maybe they are overcharging.

I am happy to pay an artist for their work but think that the multi-millionares need to think, am i taking the micky? and make adjustments accordingly

The same can be said for some of the software corporations.
I looked at an email system for the Co I work for, Linux solution was £17,000 all in, MS was £73,000. Who is ripping who off?

Copying music is not theft. The original owner still has his original CD.
Copyrighting music is theft.

I hear it, I like it, I share it. I don't have enough money to pay for all the music I listen and I'm not gonna limit myself to just what I can pay for. Music is not just for the rich. And I suspect the music produced for the rich is crap anyway.

Yeah, and I think IP should only exist in the sense that people get credit for their work. Sure artists shouldn't starve, but they won't. I mean, some people would pay. I know I download most of my music, but when it comes to a band I LOVE I do buy albums...

And the idea of intellectual property with regard to things like medications is an absolute farce, enabling profits to be placed ahead of lives.

Yeah, and I think IP should only exist in the sense that people get credit for their work. Sure artists shouldn't starve, but they won't. I mean, some people would pay. I know I download most of my music, but when it comes to a band I LOVE I do buy albums...

And the idea of intellectual property with regard to things like medications is an absolute farce, enabling profits to be placed ahead of lives.
It's a necessary evil I'm afraid, without IP on medications no private firm will invest ANY money into R&D :(. Sad, but true.

Is that from the freaky scene in "When A Stranger Calls"? :D
Paraphrased, but yeah. It's the best I could come up with. Other peoples locations where cracking me up so I thought I should lay one down.

THis is a pathetic attempt to downplay your own moral shortcomings. I'm judging you based on your own standards. Wishy-washy, and a bit pathetic.


Me? wishy-washy? Nonesense! And your insults show more about your own personality than they condemn mine.
I don't have any moral shortcomings. I don't download music (or anything else) from illegal sites. That is stealing to a massive degree. The host of the site is basically continually stealing from the artist, and downloadees are supporting that.
If I like music I buy it! What's wishy-washy about that?

Fuckit I'll give every artist that dl'd a track off them 1 cent US and it'll be more than they would of made from me buying the CD.

Record companies is were intellectual property theft takes place :mp5:

I hear it, I like it, I share it. I don't have enough money to pay for all the music I listen and I'm not gonna limit myself to just what I can pay for. Music is not just for the rich. And I suspect the music produced for the rich is crap anyway.
"I'm not going to limit myself to just driving what I can pay for. The automotive industry just needs to adapt to the fact that we're gonna just take the cars as they come out of the factory."

People worked to get you that music, you owe them something.

I pay for concerts and for the bands of my friends, but actually I don't pay for rewarding anything. I pay when I know those people need money. I wouldn't pay for a concert of Metallica. They have much more money than me anyway. I usually bring something to record the concert (videos and audios) and I share it.
I'm a software developer and I contribute for free on linux.

"I'm not going to limit myself to just driving what I can pay for. The automotive industry just needs to adapt to the fact that we're gonna just take the cars as they come out of the factory."

People worked to get you that music, you owe them something.
no. You working does not mean I owe you anything.

no. You working does not mean I owe you anything.
It does if you want the product of my labor.

You don't think you should pay for it, don't listen to it. Learn guitar and make your own music-thats free speech.

Why do you have a 'special' right to how what an artist produces is distributed?

So if I tape a radio broadcast, I'm a thief? Or if thats ok, what if my neighbour happens to stroll in, do I have to turn the recording off so that he doesn't become one by hearing it?

If I subscribe to a pay-per-view TV-programme, lets say a boxing match, can I invite friends to watch it with me? How many at most before its considered an abuse of intellectual property law?

The real reason why things developed into what we have today is becasue there was a need for distribution, at that time distribution cost money, but obviously people were willing to pay for the product. An opportunity to make money appeared, and a media "industry" was created by thrifty individuals.

All according the law of supply and demand.

These conditions have changed, and the opportunity passed.

What is happening now is that the old type of distributor fight tooth and nail to prevent the consumers from realising the old way is obsolete, a footnote of history so to speak.

The way the movie industry and some commercial "artists" want it is like if a construction worker thought we should pay him for life because he built a house once...

When the market change, big actors often try to change the market to suit their needs, f e through legislation, instead of adapting to the new reality.

Times change, and now we have no need for a media "industry", at least not the way it was incarnated before.

Get over it.

If you as an artist and want/need to make money, do as they did before the recording industry existed, go on a tour and actually work for a living.

It does if you want the product of my labor.

Unless you steal it... I see nothing wrong with stealing anything, except that it's too risky :(.

Take a wild guess why I want to become an accountant when I leave school? :P

So if I tape a radio broadcast, I'm a thief? Or if thats ok, what if my neighbour happens to stroll in, do I have to turn the recording off so that he doesn't become one by hearing it?

If I subscribe to a pay-per-view TV-programme, lets say a boxing match, can I invite friends to watch it with me? How many at most before its considered an abuse of intellectual property law?

The real reason why things developed into what we have today is becasue there was a need for distribution, distribution costs money but people were willing to pay for the product. An opportunity to make money appeared, and a media "industry" was created by thrifty individuals.

These conditions have changed, and the opportunity passed.

What is happening now is that the old type of distributor fight tooth and nail to prevent the consumers from realising the old way is obsolete, a footnote of history so to speak.

The way the movie industry and some commercial "artists" want it is like if a construction worker thought we should pay him for life because he built a house once...

Times change, and now we have no need for a media "industry".

Get over it.

If you as an artist and want/need to make money, do as they did before the recording industry existed, go on a tour and actually work for a living.

But... but... that 2 weeks it took to make that song should be enough to make you a billionare...

I don't have any moral shortcomings.Wow. Must be nice!
http://www.boilingpoint.com/~graphitti/shop/files/images_backup/t_82171.jpg

It does if you want the product of my labor.
no it doesn't.

It's a necessary evil I'm afraid, without IP on medications no private firm will invest ANY money into R&D :(. Sad, but true.

Which is why capitalism sucks.

And even in this system, governments run research institutes. Many awesome discoveries were made at universities, etc. *Plugs Melbourne Uni - Howard Florey, McFarlane Burnett... We rule! :cool: *

Which is why capitalism sucks.

And even in this system, governments run research institutes. Many awesome discoveries were made at universities, etc. *Plugs Melbourne Uni - Howard Florey, McFarlane Burnett... We rule! :cool: *

Heh, Melbourne sucks :P.

Yeah I was thinking of alternate systems to the current one, perhaps offer like prizes for getting cures for things?

Like say, offering 3 million dollars to the team that cures aids (Example, don't get up my ass for nothing).

Which is why capitalism sucks.

And even in this system, governments run research institutes. Many awesome discoveries were made at universities, etc. *Plugs Melbourne Uni - Howard Florey, McFarlane Burnett... We rule! :cool: *
Fuck them. In my country, they collect money from donations for the research on cancer and then they patent their product to make money from their research.

So if I tape a radio broadcast, I'm a thief? Or if thats ok, what if my neighbour happens to stroll in, do I have to turn the recording off so that he doesn't become one by hearing it?

If I subscribe to a pay-per-view TV-programme, lets say a boxing match, can I invite friends to watch it with me? How many at most before its considered an abuse of intellectual property law?
WORLD of difference between inviting your friends over to watch a boxing match (which you know full well is legal) and sending that boxing match to anyone with an internet connection. Same argument thats been made three times now...

The real reason why things developed into what we have today is becasue there was a need for distribution, at that time distribution cost money, but obviously people were willing to pay for the product. An opportunity to make money appeared, and a media "industry" was created by thrifty individuals.

All according the law of supply and demand.

These conditions have changed, and the opportunity passed.

What is happening now is that the old type of distributor fight tooth and nail to prevent the consumers from realising the old way is obsolete, a footnote of history so to speak.

The way the movie industry and some commercial "artists" want it is like if a construction worker thought we should pay him for life because he built a house once...

When the market change, big actors often try to change the market to suit their needs, f e through legislation, instead of adapting to the new reality.

Times change, and now we have no need for a media "industry", at least not the way it was incarnated before.

Get over it.

If you as an artist and want/need to make money, do as they did before the recording industry existed, go on a tour and actually work for a living.
Recording costs money still, even if your download doesn't. And I'm a filmmaker, that costs a ton of money and I'm no philanthropist.

Again-
If you don't think you should pay, then don't listen. If you take it without paying you are a theif, and pretending you're Robin Hood doesn't change it.

Fuck them. In my country, they collect money from donations for the research on cancer and then they patent their product to make money from their research.
One of our lecturers, and a top academic left us to head a Biotech company in the US... Apparently he's cashing in. Hooray.

WORLD of difference between inviting your friends over to watch a boxing match (which you know full well is legal) and sending that boxing match to anyone with an internet connection. Same argument thats been made three times now...


Recording costs money still, even if your download doesn't. And I'm a filmmaker, that costs a ton of money and I'm no philanthropist.

Again-
If you don't think you should pay, then don't listen. If you take it without paying you are a theif, and pretending you're Robin Hood doesn't change it.
I'm a philanthropist. And I don't see why I shouldn't listen to the music I don't want to/can't pay for. And pretending I'm a thieft won't change anything.
And if you are no philanthropist, just stop working.

no it doesn't.
Gosh you're right. Because you have an internet connection and a sense of entitlement I should work to entertain you for free, and I shouldn't complain about it for a second because you're going to do it anyway. What a fool I was for thinking that there should be some exchange-I should labor for free because you can find a way around paying me for it.

Hell, if I can get the VIN off a car I should get that for free, too.

I'm a philanthropist. And I don't see why I shouldn't listen to the music I don't want to/can't pay for. And pretending I'm a thieft won't change anything.
Then choose how your work goes out. When you make that decisions for others you aren't pretending you're a thief, you are one.

Then choose how your work goes out. When you make that decisions for others you aren't pretending you're a thief, you are one.
Are you trying to ascertain that he is a thief, and do you actually care about people who steal shit.
Most of my friends are klepto's, myself, I only steal stuff I need and can't afford easily, which considering I work two jobs isn't a whole lot.

Are you trying to ascertain that he is a thief, and do you actually care about people who steal shit.
Most of my friends are klepto's, myself, I only steal stuff I need and can't afford easily, which considering I work two jobs isn't a whole lot.
So now you're Jean Valjean?

Music and movies aren't bread.

I can't actually continue this merry-go-round without eventually succumbing to flames, and since at the very least no one has been doing that I have a responsability to remove myself before I start.

I'll close with the re-iteration that theft is theft and since the same argument for keep coming around and around it's still theft-you found a way to get away with it and the rest is just the BS you've come up with to justify it. If you want the music, pay for it just like you would anything else. At the very least don't bitch if when you're caught you have to pay the penalty.


Since this is not new information please do not respond to it directly. The conversation can continue without having to directly address me. But since this is close to the bone for me (for the reasons review posts) hearing people justify this with just the same ol' is pissing me off too much to remain civil for too long.

Fuck man your heads ploughed right up your ass. Mate if I was you I stop looking for the sun obviously you havent seen it and heads that far up it. I'd say the sun ain't shining out of it no more if ever.

I hope you don't belive the shit sprouts from your mouth. got another agenda bearing zealots in this forum.

Fuck man your heads ploughed right up your ass. Mate if I was you I stop looking for the sun obviously you havent seen it and heads that far up it. I'd say the sun ain't shining out of it no more if ever.

I hope you don't belive the shit sprouts from your mouth. got another agenda bearing zealots in this forum.
Alright, everyone but this guy has been civil...

Damn str8 you haven't said damn thing you've just sprouted on about nothing with providing any actually fact Whats the differance between A " watching pay per view with 50 mates B watching a DVD with 50 mates C downloading 50 mp3's

let me guess a world differance ..... wow entighten me

... so wait.

Let's look at things like this:

Hypothetical situation: It's impossible for me to download music. I download no music, I buy no CDs, I go without music. The record companies/distributers/artists get $0.0 out of my wallet.

Real life situation: I can download music. I do so. I find music I really like, I buy the CDs. The record companies/distributers/artists get roughly $30-$50 off me annually.

What the fuck are they complaining about here? By letting me access their goods in advance, they GET MY MONEY (well, unless their product is shitty. But in that case, I delete it, so everything is well). It's advertising, in the only form I'll tolerate it.

Damn str8 you haven't said damn thing you've just sprouted on about nothing with providing any actually fact Whats the differance between A " watching pay per view with 50 mates B watching a DVD with 50 mates C downloading 50 mp3's

let me guess a world differance ..... wow entighten me
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Start there, work your way out. Use spell check. And please respect my decision. You can discuss the subject or even the things I've brought up without direct address to me.

I'm a who?
But yeah I should have said wanted, not need... most of my friends however steal a bunch of shit on impulse, which to me is like the random destruction of property, pointless.

I mainly only download songs to see if I like the album. I don't have that much money, I generally cannot afford to throw away money on things I will hardly use.

Also a lot of the time shops don't have stuff I like in stock or they horrendously overprice. Yes I feel sorry to the little people (ie not the corporate execs) I might be contributing in screwing over, but I am not shelling out twenty quid for half an hours worth of music.

Different with movies though. I never download them, my internet connection is crap and I cannot be arsed waiting a ridiculous amount of time for something that I can only watch on my computer.

1 I know copyright law
2 I know what perpetual copyright is
3 I know how to spell just I don't know how much I've had to drink
4 I know how to present and close an argument in a coherent fashion just not after so much bourban

WORLD of difference between inviting your friends over to watch a boxing match (which you know full well is legal) and sending that boxing match to anyone with an internet connection. Same argument thats been made three times now...

Oh really? So its ok if I invite, lets say 250-500 people to watch (I got plenty of friends, a big family, and a really, really big TV)?

The concept is the same, only methodology and scale differs.

Or is it ok to "share" with friends and family, but not with strangers?

What legal text do you base that on?

Recording costs money still, even if your download doesn't. And I'm a filmmaker, that costs a ton of money and I'm no philanthropist.

So dont record then. If it isn't economically viable you really shouldnt in a market economy.

Does that mean you're out of a job?

Tough sh1t muchacho. There are LOTS of people and even entire industries going out of business all the time. Do something else or starve for all I care, nobody owes you to keep you in business, if reality doens't carry you the way you wan't that is your problem.

I'm not saying you have no rights, I'm saying things will not become as they was, they never do.

Yuo need to adapt to change, everybody does, you really can't "fight" it.

Just because something was a certain way yesterday does not mean it will be so tomorrow...


Again-
If you don't think you should pay, then don't listen. If you take it without paying you are a theif, and pretending you're Robin Hood doesn't change it.

Oh yeah, I'm pretending to be Robin Hood here... Ad Hominem extraordinaire there... :rolleyes:

Your comments on this is merely your opinion on the matter, as are mine.

You nor I dictate reality, and the really funny part is the more money spent on futilely fighting this change, the less will be available adapting to it.

Best description of the syndrome would be Big Business inertia, thinking its easier to change reality than adapting to it.

It killed European and US coaling, shipbuilding and numerous other industries, now it will go for Big Media.

Good riddance.

I'm contemplating that if the only people producing things to watch and listen too, are those actually having something they wan't to share instead of sharing stuff to make a buck, that the overall quality may well increase. I'm quite optimistic about this change since frankly, 99% of the "products" Big Media touches turns into bovine feces.

Thing is, as always, either you adapt to change, or change makes you extinct.

SOme things need to become extinct.

Your choice mate.

Then choose how your work goes out. When you make that decisions for others you aren't pretending you're a thief, you are one.
I contribute for free why should I pay other's contributions?

I'm a who?
But yeah I should have said wanted, not need... most of my friends however steal a bunch of shit on impulse, which to me is like the random destruction of property, pointless.

The protagonist from Les Miserables by Victor Hugo.

I posted this link in the other file sharing thread but it seems to be appropriate here, too.

http://www.economist.com/business/d...tory_id=2177244

Bad link.

WORLD of difference between inviting your friends over to watch a boxing match (which you know full well is legal) and sending that boxing match to anyone with an internet connection. Same argument thats been made three times now...

Yet copying a music-file from the internet you weren't going to buy anyway (yet) is *exactly* the same as stealing a $400,000 car as it comes out of the factory? :confused:

I believe in intellectual property, however, I only really care about it if someone else tries to take money for someone elses creation, or say they made it, etc. Sharing it for free, saying who made it actually did, i dont really care about(this coming from a modder though, who does all his work for free).

I believe that sharing a file that is for sale (ie. a pc game or a dvd movie) for another to store in their computer is theft.

Its not theft, however, to share just to just show that person the file (you send a picture, or a copywrighted movie clip to the other party to see without storing it for future use)

Sharing the called 'rips' (a DivX file or a homemade MP3) is also not tecnicaly theft but it is , in my opinion, pelagious thus an intelectual ofense against the author.