NationStates Jolt Archive

Another blow has been dealt to the poor record company executives recently. As everyone knows, numerous record company execs have become homeless and a large percentage are chronically malnourished due to file sharing sites taking away their meager livelihood. Now Limewire, another cruel and criminal file sharing site has hammered another nail in the coffin of the lousy music production industry by suing the RIAA.

How many more musicians like Pink and Christina Aguilara must end up dead from selling their bodies on the streets to make ends meet and how many more record company executives like David Geffen must be forced to eat out of dumpsters for lack of a steady paycheck before someone takes action against these file sharers?

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1299

Yes the record companies and music artists are really turning poor aren't they? All that they work for and now they are selling their mansions because of evil file sharing.

I for one love LimeWire and hope it remains strong. :)

Another blow has been dealt to the poor record company executives recently. As everyone knows, numerous record company execs have become homeless and a large percentage are chronically malnourished due to file sharing sites taking away their meager livelihood. Now Limewire, another cruel and criminal file sharing site has hammered another nail in the coffin of the lousy music production industry by suing the RIAA.

How many more musicians like Pink and Christina Aguilara must end up dead from selling their bodies on the streets to make ends meet and how many more record company executives like David Geffen must be forced to eat out of dumpsters for lack of a steady paycheck before someone takes action against these file sharers?

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1299

Why oh why does no one recognize the plight of the 4th homeless record executive? The shame of having to stay with friends when the industry decides that the hotspot for the next 2 months is the Hamptons instead of LA, Aspen, or Vale.

Out on the streets wearing sandwichboards that read "will swindle you out of the profits from sale of your music for food."

Selling their own blood so that they'll be able to catch a decent buzz off of a bottle of L'Evangile Imperial.

That's right. They (recording company artists and executives) have way more money than they need. Why? Because we say so.

How is acquiring copyrighted music via file-sharing not theft?

That's right. They (recording company artists and executives) have way more money than they need. Why? Because we say so.

How is acquiring copyrighted music via file-sharing not theft?

I have never bought a record in my life. I download all my music. If the industry never would have got my money anyway, what am I depriving them of? I'm not physically taking anything, and they wouldn't have benefited either way.

That's right. They (recording company artists and executives) have way more money than they need. Why? Because we say so.

How is acquiring copyrighted music via file-sharing not theft?

It is, but I think my post was funny anyway.

Noooooooooooooooooooooo! Not BearShare! Why wasn't I notified of this?

Its so sad...how dare people get free music, they should have to pay to be entertained. Pay how, why in large amounts so the record companies will have enough money to pay for their food...I mean now they cant even get a decent 12 cource dinner or have their long 3 foot desert line of coke. Its so wronge how we share our music with one another while musicians have to save up money...I mean SAVE MONEY its so not like cool at all they dont even know how to use savings accounts how can they just now be expected to make one. We are taking away the lifstyle of musicians, the lifstyle where they can buy islands, large mansions and pounds and pounds of the weeks special drugs. Now they have to buy the cheap Crack and vodka, its such a shame.

It is, but I think my post was funny anyway.

I like your post. I just get a little worried about the views of the posters that say things like ...

"Its so sad...how dare people get free music, they should have to pay to be entertained."

or especially,

"I have never bought a record in my life. I download all my music. If the industry never would have got my money anyway, what am I depriving them of? I'm not physically taking anything, and they wouldn't have benefited either way."

How is acquiring copyrighted music via file-sharing not theft?

It is theft. Sweet beautiful melodic theft.

File sharing is theft.

However, I refuse to pay a company executive a necropimp fee for me to download music by dead artists.

For live artists, the few I enjoy, I usually just buy the album directly from the performer. Or if they live on another continent, I buy from labels that support the local music industry. These are often hard to come by, but worth it.

Most of the small scale performers who would be negatively affected by file-sharing are also doing it, as many can not afford to pay 30$ for a CD, so that complicate things.

There is also a debate going on in the artistic community as to what constitutes copying, whether copyright laws are even applicable in the arts, and who actually profits from copyright protection.

It is theft. Sweet beautiful melodic theft.


Well free music won't be theft for too much longer. Thank Bob for the ad based free downloading program thats coming about in Dec.

I have never bought a record in my life. I download all my music. If the industry never would have got my money anyway, what am I depriving them of? I'm not physically taking anything, and they wouldn't have benefited either way.

You still obtain something which is not yours while the rightful owners do not wish you to have it. Whether or not you think they should not give a damn "because they would not have benefitted anyway" is irrelevant, since that is not your decision to make.

I have a question about downloading music illegally. So say I have a movie or game, and it has music on their that I really like, can I download those sogn legally since that music is on the game/dvd I bought?

I have a question about downloading music illegally. So say I have a movie or game, and it has music on their that I really like, can I download those sogn legally since that music is on the game/dvd I bought?

(I'm assuming that you are not talking about PC games)

No, you still have to buy the songs seperately. AFAIK you would have to by another CD even if you have previously owned the CD but lost it/damaged it.

I have a question about downloading music illegally. So say I have a movie or game, and it has music on their that I really like, can I download those sogn legally since that music is on the game/dvd I bought?

That depends on your countries copyright laws. It is possible, yes - since you probably have the right to make backups.

How is acquiring copyrighted music via file-sharing not theft?

How else am I supposed to get into bands that are not played on mainstream radio?

(and for the record, I have some 300 CDs, and most of those albums I tried out before I purchased them.)

How else am I supposed to get into bands that are not played on mainstream radio?

That is the problem those bands should solve themselves. Possibly by offering legal downloads.
But you cannot force them to act intelligently...

That depends on your countries copyright laws. It is possible, yes - since you probably have the right to make backups.

Yeah, thats what i was hoping...back ups ;)

Yeah, thats what i was hoping...back ups ;)

Don't get too happy - if so it is quite likely you actually pay a small additional fine every time you buy a game (or a cd, dvd etc) to compensate for this "backup right". Which somewhat sucks if you do not make backups of everything.

That is the problem those bands should solve themselves. Possibly by offering legal downloads.
But you cannot force them to act intelligently...

Well, i'm actually referring more to defunct bands than current ones. (since for modern bands myspace pages, etc. are usually enough)

Well, i'm actually referring more to defunct bands than current ones. (since for modern bands myspace pages, etc. are usually enough)

That depends on what those bands want themselves. If they do not give a damn anymore - download away. If they still wish to enforce copyrights ... too bad. Their songs, their decisions.

Yep, it's just the big bad record execs and artist, who should of course be entertaining you for free because you're soooo worth it and sooo grateful, and movie execs and stars that are hit by pirating, not the thousands of crew persons and technicians who put in 14-15 hour days, expertise and thousands of dollars worth of equipment to produce the work that get hit, or the smaller struggling artists who don't have DVD player and stereo sales to cover themselves like companies like Sony, their not hurt at all.

And of course you all deserve to be entertained for free. I mean it's only right. We should be doing it for the love.

Unfortunately, my landlord, grocer, and utility company don't take love for payment. And they're not buying that they should let me live, eat, and have power for the love. They're funny that way...

Yep, it's just the big bad record execs and artist, who should of course be entertaining you for free because you're soooo worth it and sooo grateful, and movie execs and stars that are hit by pirating, not the thousands of crew persons and technicians who put in 14-15 hour days, expertise and thousands of dollars worth of equipment to produce the work that get hit, or the smaller struggling artists who don't have DVD player and stereo sales to cover themselves like companies like Sony, their not hurt at all.

And of course you all deserve to be entertained for free. I mean it's only right. We should be doing it for the love.

Unfortunately, my landlord, grocer, and utility company don't take love for payment. And they're not buying that they should let me live, eat, and have power for the love. They're funny that way...

Until they start coming up with original shit in the entertainment field, then I say we don't pay them. I mean Santa Claus three? Why should we pay to see thet BS? Now if they made a movie about a man turning into an easter bunny, I'd pay to see that.

Until they start coming up with original shit in the entertainment field, then I say we don't pay them. I mean Santa Claus three? Why should we pay to see thet BS? Now if they made a movie about a man turning into an easter bunny, I'd pay to see that.

I tried telling the guy at McDonalds that his burgers sucked and so he should give them to me for free, that didn't work either...

Until they start coming up with original shit in the entertainment field, then I say we don't pay them. I mean Santa Claus three? Why should we pay to see thet BS? Now if they made a movie about a man turning into an easter bunny, I'd pay to see that.

I wouldn't watch the santa clause three even if it was free. WTF is anyone doing downloading shit that they wouldn't pay to see or hear? It just makes no sense. Don't people have better things to do?

I tried telling the guy at McDonalds that his burgers sucked and so he should give them to me for free, that didn't work either...

The actual method is to get someone to buy a burger, have him technologically duplicate it, then give it to you.

That depends on what those bands want themselves. If they do not give a damn anymore - download away. If they still wish to enforce copyrights ... too bad. Their songs, their decisions.

Depends who owns the copyright or distribution rights. The artists themselves may not, and be helpless to distribute it even if they want to.

I like a counter puncher. I may even do the unthinkable and pay for the upgrade from free Limewire to Limewire pro on the strength of their battling the RIAA. Limewire wont just let the big RIAA bully steal Limewire's lunch money and then drop out like so many others have.

Depends who owns the copyright or distribution rights. The artists themselves may not, and be helpless to distribute it even if they want to.

True, but it was the artists decision to give those rights up. Not yours, not mine.
And that is all I care about really. I believe music should be free. But since I do not create, distribute or make sure the artists of said music can buy food to stay alive I also recognise my opinion is worth exactly nothing.

it's kinda like making a mixed tape and sharing it with the world...

only everyone gets to decide which songs on your 'mixed tape' they want to keep for future listening and they don't have to bother with the rest of the crap you wanted to share with them.

:p

Things are getting even worse for the RIAA now though - theres a hand held satellite radio that you can save whatever songs you hear (saving the whole song while deciding at any point in the song to save it) to it as well as load mp3s on it and listen to those.

You still obtain something which is not yours while the rightful owners do not wish you to have it. Whether or not you think they should not give a damn "because they would not have benefitted anyway" is irrelevant, since that is not your decision to make.


Downloading music is the same as sharing it with friends. It's not stealing if my friend and I sit down and listen to music. It would be stealing if we made money off of the artist's work. Sharing isn't stealing.

Downloading music is the same as sharing it with friends. It's not stealing if my friend and I sit down and listen to music. It would be stealing if we made money off of the artist's work. Sharing isn't stealing.

And again: that is your opinion. Not necessarily that of the owner.
And surprisingly enough the opinion of the owner trumps yours.

Downloading music is the same as sharing it with friends. It's not stealing if my friend and I sit down and listen to music. It would be stealing if we made money off of the artist's work. Sharing isn't stealing.

That's only because there is no realistic way for the record companies to charge you a little bit more money for a CD if you listen to it in the car with your friends.

That's only because there is no realistic way for the record companies to charge you a little bit more money for a CD if you listen to it in the car with your friends.


I think it is time to revoke all music held by all people and create special pay per listen booths. You will get credits initially for all the music you turn in but after that it's one person per booth!

That's right. They (recording company artists and executives) have way more money than they need. Why? Because we say so.

How is acquiring copyrighted music via file-sharing not theft?

And how is bullying companies out of business because someone uses their product to look up something illegal fair? They did not provide the content any more then the phone book company does when someone uses their product to look up a number and receive property illegally.

And how is bullying companies out of business because someone uses their product to look up something illegal fair? They did not provide the content any more then the phone book company does when someone uses their product to look up a number and receive property illegally.

True. Limewire, kazaa etc are not at fault. The guilty ones are those that distribute copyrighted material without the owners permission. One could even argue that the downloading of such material is not theft - since the downloader could be assuming the uploader has permission to spread the songs. That is of course rather weak, and somewhat like saying there is nothing wrong with buying a mint sportscar from a junkie for $100 since "he could be the legal owner" - but hey.

And of course you all deserve to be entertained for free. I mean it's only right. We should be doing it for the love.

Unfortunately, my landlord, grocer, and utility company don't take love for payment. And they're not buying that they should let me live, eat, and have power for the love. They're funny that way...

i'd like to get paid to (officially) surf the intraweb. nobody seems to buy that one either. meh.

(I'm assuming that you are not talking about PC games)

No, you still have to buy the songs seperately. AFAIK you would have to by another CD even if you have previously owned the CD but lost it/damaged it.

well by that standard there should be no free am/fm radio and no tape/or other d/l available from radio/tv/any other source

any free radio d/l would be using the music w/o paying the artist his due - however there would be little popular music then either as most wouldn't listen to anything

ymmv

well by that standard there should be no free am/fm radio and no tape/or other d/l available from radio/tv/any other source


In several countries a small fee is added to the price of blank tapes, cdr's etc. for precisely this reason. And the radiostation needs to pay the artists every time they broadcast the song..

BTW: http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/ ;)

While I immensely dislike online piracy, and find something morally repugnant about it, the RIAA incurs my wrath for many more and greater reasons. I agree with Limewire on so many of their claims against the RIAA, and support them in this effort. Limewire itself is much akin to Xerox, and should be protected much as Xerox is, from being blamed for the misdeeds of their users.

You still obtain something which is not yours while the rightful owners do not wish you to have it. Whether or not you think they should not give a damn "because they would not have benefitted anyway" is irrelevant, since that is not your decision to make.
I really feel sorry for you because this obviously angers you when it doesnt affect you in any way.

I really feel sorry for you because this obviously angers you when it doesnt affect you in any way.

Actually the downloading doesn't anger me. But the way people try to wiggle out of admitting they are doing something wrong definately annoys me, yes.

Start having balls and admit that what you do is indeed wrong, but that you have decided to do it anyway. End of problem for me.

Fucking owned, I hope the RIAA gets their asses handed to them on the anti-trust charges and have to go sniveling back to their fucking mansions for a while before their lawyers can think up another good suit about how record execs, Aerosmith, and Metallica are all fucking poor from people sharing their music.

Actually the downloading doesn't anger me. But the way people try to wiggle out of admitting they are doing something wrong definately annoys me, yes.

Start having balls and admit that what you do is indeed wrong, but that you have decided to do it anyway. End of problem for me.

it ain't wiggling if it aint wrong in the first place. intellectual property is incompatible with the standard justifications for the existence of property in the first place, let alone in the face of the strong critiques of the whole concept.

it ain't wiggling if it aint wrong in the first place. intellectual property is incompatible with the standard justifications for the existence of property in the first place, let alone in the face of the strong critiques of the whole concept.

So.. you are also against patent rights - which are more or less the basis for our entire civilisation ?
(or at least the reason the industrial revolution occured in England).

It would however help if the critiques consisted of more than "I do not wish to pay".

Start having balls and admit that what you do is indeed wrong, but that you have decided to do it anyway. End of problem for me.

It is wrong in that it is against the inane copyright laws of the US and wherever they spread it to, yes.

I rather dislike how aggressive the RIAA is, the monopolistic tendencies it exhibits, how it's unwilling to give leniency in situations where someone has illegally downloaded music (think the family of the guy who died, the dead guy had downloaded a whole bunch of music, and after he died, the RIAA sued his family, supremely tasteless) and their refusal to recognize that P2P software is totally legal in and of itself, and that it might be used for an illegal purpose in inconsequential.

It is wrong in that it is against the inane copyright laws of the US and wherever they spread it to, yes.

Fine. Explain why your opinion is more important than that of the people that actually create the stuff you want.

So.. you are also against patent rights

of course. ideas are not scarce - me using an idea does not necessitate you being excluded from using it.

patent rights...are more or less the basis for our entire civilisation

no they aren't, that's just silly.

It would however help if the critiques consisted of more than "I do not wish to pay".

i take it you are unaware of the philosophical debate about property that has been going on for centuries then, yes?

Fine. Explain why your opinion is more important than that of the people that actually create the stuff you want.

Soon as you can explain which of those creators' opinions is most correct as they do differ between them.

True. Limewire, kazaa etc are not at fault. The guilty ones are those that distribute copyrighted material without the owners permission. One could even argue that the downloading of such material is not theft - since the downloader could be assuming the uploader has permission to spread the songs. That is of course rather weak, and somewhat like saying there is nothing wrong with buying a mint sportscar from a junkie for $100 since "he could be the legal owner" - but hey.

While I agree in theory for the most part there is the reasonable suspicion clauses in most place … being in possession of illegal material gets you in trouble too even if you did buy it from someone

Though that’s not what most of these individuals are getting charged with … they are getting charged with DISTROBUTION of illegal material … Cause most of these applications “Seed” even partially downloaded files as you continue to download

But at no time are most of these in POSESSION of the stolen material any more then a phone book would be.

Same thing for those that try to hit torrent trackers … there are so many legitimate uses for torrents that it is insane … how do you think I get every Linux DVD ISO (legal) that I own.

No no, even better.
Explain why people who did not create the work's opinion is more important than mine.

Ugh, if you're going to claim it's wrong, at least use an accurate description as to why it's wrong. Theft = "illegal taking of someone's property without their permission." By downloading a copy, you are not taking anyone's property, because it's a copy. At most, it's infringement of their copyright, but it is not theft. Copying is infringement, not stealing.

The RIAA and MPAA also claim that if I download a song that I don't own, it's stealing. This too is not always the case. The law recognizes that many uses of copyrighted works - even without the permission of the copyright holder - are not an infringement. While there is no "right" as such to make a fair use, the making of such a use is not an infringement.

Thus, if you make copies for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, it is not an infringement of the copyright, even if the copyright holder does not want you to do so.

As long as you do not make a profit from your downloading, you are not stealing. You are infringing.

So.. you are also against patent rights - which are more or less the basis for our entire civilisation ?
(or at least the reason the industrial revolution occured in England).

It would however help if the critiques consisted of more than "I do not wish to pay".

How's this?

Radio exec's already put music out in the public domain (just not the Public Domain) to promote it in the form of radio play and MTV. It has already been determined that people are fully entitled to record broadcast music. It is also legal to copy CD's that you yourself own.

As for bases of civilization, the information transfer technology is the new transportation revolution. People are allowed to share files on the internet.

It's not limewire's fault if people misuse their technology anymore than Xerox is to be blamed if you use their machines to produce pirate copies of a novel.

“[The RIAA’s] goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.”

Limewire: My hero.