The recording industry has finally lost!

fireguy, I thought personal convictions are what prompt debate and are at the root of our posts. My mistake...?

As for chasing away the producers of crap, that is supposed to be the strangth of the consumer (in a capitalist economy). It is the consumer's choice as to where and when to spend one's money on what.

And as for my rights, I don't particularly like a government getting overly involved in the distribution of the fruits of my labor. Are you supporting an argument for the theft of copyrighted material?

fireguy - "I think this decision, if upheld in appeals court, clearly shows that the rightful owner of any trademark material is that of the owner itself whom is allowed to do with it what they want."

How about selling said material with the attached statement, "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION IS A VIOLATION OF APPLICAPLE LAWS"? Sale implies agreement. Sort of like clicking the "I Agree" radio button upon installation of software.
 
An interesting (to me) side note to this issue: The IRAA's propaganda versus downloading has worked so well on the masses that don't understand the isssue that some believe downloading ANYTHING is illegal. This is supposed to be a hurdle Wal-Mart now faces in starting it's online music download service.
 
Nasor
I'm so sick of seeing people try to justify illegally downloading music
Click to expand...
Read the very first post in this thread and you'll see I'm doing nothing of the sort but rather arguing the benefits of 'legally' downloading. Unlike our friendly neighbors to the south, our courts have ruled differently.

jinchilla
I did not authorize your duplication via quotation of something I wrote.... Haha, just kidding. ;)

Okay, I admit my statement does imply or better yet support theft of copyrighted material, and that wasn't necessarilly what I was arguing - once again, my appologies.

This discussion is becoming interesting.. I mean, a Canadian Court has ruled that, necessarily, downloading IS NOT copyright infringement yet, people here vehemently argue to the contrary. I wonder what their interests are for doing so?

As I've already stated: Downloading music via P2P is good for artists - i admit not all artists(nothings perfect)but it is good; I couldn't care less about the financial hit large corporations have taken since the insurgence of P2P sharing(no ones starving here people); e-commerce will change the way people do business, it is up to them(corporations)to keep up or fall to the wayside - again, I couldn't care less about who falls to the wayside; one last time - file sharing in Canada is not necessarily illegal.
 
Can I just say, the word stealing is not appropriate for downloading music, sweeties. Stealing is taking something which belongs to someone else, without their consent, and depriving them of it. This is *copying* something that belongs to someone else, with their consent, and they keep it. My case in point: I'm a teenager. I scrounge money for the movies or to go out with friends. I can very rarely buy CDs, much less albums. It's the same for most people I know. So when I copy music, who exactly is hurting?
Also, there's a bit of a debate about how much record companies are really suffering, and how much of it is due to downloading.
Lastly, jinchilla, that's kind of ridiculous. At least in Canada, there's no law behind the statement. 'Implies agreement' my ass. You could say 'please do not deface or damage this CD' and it would also be reasonable, but the CD buyer won't feel any obligation not to do whatever they want to with the CD.
 
Right on lizey. Your clarification of 'stealing' is brilliant - especially in this debate.

So when I copy music, who exactly is hurting?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, to what extent are people hurting? No ones starving here, hardly!
 
I agree with lizey, its teenagers mostly that download, and they dont have the money to constantly buy crap music in the hope of eventually buying a decent album, a few downloads later they know whats good and worth getting, nobody says it aint copying and illegal but really, who is it hurting? In my opinion its only crap bands that loose out, whereas before you would have had to buy their album to find out its crap(and by then the moneys been made) now you just download some of it, any decent bands will still make money because their albums will sell regardless of downloads.
 
fireguy_31 said:
This discussion is becoming interesting.. I mean, a Canadian Court has ruled that, necessarily, downloading IS NOT copyright infringement yet, people here vehemently argue to the contrary. I wonder what their interests are for doing so?
Click to expand...
Obviously it would be in my interests if it were legal for me to download copyrighted music, just like it would be in my interests if I could rob banks and shoot people who annoy me. Never the less, I don’t support music downloading because I believe in copyrights.

I'm not arguing that downloading music is illegal in Canada; obviously the courts have determined that it isn't. My point is that it's stupid to not regard it as copyright infringement. If I scanned a book into .pdf format and started emailing it to people, obviously that would be copyright infringement. I don't know why music should be treated any differently.
 
You have got me fireguy, now trace my IP and file suit. But that's the interesting thing, the judge refused the CRIA a court order to force ISP's to disclose the identities of their subscribers who are allegedly engaged in copyright infringement. His statements beyond that stand in contradiction to international copyright law as agreed to by signees of the Berne Convention. His statements, which are not what are directly being contested, seem to be his interpretation of "fair use". As an ISP lobbyist said, the privacy of his clients clients was purely what this case was about.

And you're right lizey. The copyright is reserved even without that notice. It's not legally necessary. Just like it's not necessary to inform you that shooting me in the head is illegal no matter how bad you want to.

However, I realize it's in my best interest to leave file sharers believing they're fighting a good fight or I won't have any one to illegally download mp3's from! Just do it on IRC, I hate Kazaa.
 
lizey said:
This is *copying* something that belongs to someone else, with their consent, and they keep it.
Click to expand...

No, wrong. This is copying something without the consent of the rightful owner whom has already set up channels by which you could otherwise legally and morally procured a copy. In other words you are taking something which you have no right to own in direct violation of the wishes of the rightful owner. In short you are stealing! Whether or not you can afford to buy CDs is irrelevant, if you can't buy a CD in the way that the rightful owner of that CD wishes you too then you go without a CD! It's the recording industry's rights as the copyright holders to distribute this stuff in whatever way they like.
 
Mystech said:
No, wrong. This is copying something without the consent of the rightful owner whom has already set up channels by which you could otherwise legally and morally procured a copy. In other words you are taking something which you have no right to own in direct violation of the wishes of the rightful owner. In short you are stealing! Whether or not you can afford to buy CDs is irrelevant, if you can't buy a CD in the way that the rightful owner of that CD wishes you too then you go without a CD! It's the recording industry's rights as the copyright holders to distribute this stuff in whatever way they like.
Click to expand...

Then I'd like to know just how you plan to enforce this without invading privacy or filing lawsuits against little kids for thousands of dollars? :)

-- Long live the Female Messiah!
 
Zero said:
Then I'd like to know just how you plan to enforce this without invading privacy or filing lawsuits against little kids for thousands of dollars? :)
Click to expand...

I don't remember ever having said that those were bad ideas. That's what our justice system is there for, to prosecute criminals!
 
Zero, the first condition of your question is what I find interesting in the court ruling. Privacy was apparently the issue.

On your second condition though, you make filing lawsuits against minors sound distasteful by your verbiage. I wonder, if you were the victim of say vandalism perpetrated by a twelve year-old girl, would you not seek reparations due to her age? Perhaps her gender? Would you not hold a "little girl" accountable for her actions?
 
No matter the answer I think we should all remain wary of little girls with spray paint. . . and especially glitter, they won't hesitate to throw that shit in your hair.
 
musicians who are in it for the money are not real musicians
that's bullshit.
in a capitalist society, everything we do is in search for profits (unless we're running a charity organization, but even then, we have a tight budget where we have to minimize costs)
be it music, or working in walmart, or teaching martial arts.
Nirvana, Hendrix, Elvis... they were all in it for the money

copying is not stealing
Copyright is one of the most important parts of capitalism.
there is a law that protects property from theft
intelectual property is property too
and copying intellectual property without authorization, is the same as taking physical property without authorization

intellectual property includes music, literary pieces, patents (medical, electronic, etc.)
if people stopped obeying copyright law, there would be no more incentive to produce any of the abovementioned

the victim here is the owner of the intellectual property (most immediately affected), and society (in the long run, it's hurt because people will stop producing new things)

you may not agree with it, but copyright is not a recent invention. and let me tell youk, if you're convicted of copyright violation, you will be punished by law

when i download a mp3 and like it, i buy the CD
why would you buy the CD if you already have the MP3?
if you can get the song listing and download any mp3 you want from the comfort of your comfy chair, why bother wasting half a day to getting to the store and actually spending your hard-earned money on some piece of plastic that can be scratched/ lost/ stolen?
if you do, you would clearly do it out of some sort of principle.

if peoples' principles is the only thing that protects artists from starving, artists will stop being artists.
 
"Well the difference is that the teen is once removed from the crime and certainly hasn't got any idea where the CD came from. However when we download music of songs who's album we don't already own a copy of then we are directly pirating, not just "supporting" piracy, we are the pirates ourselves."

i dont mind being a pirate, it gets me free music without giving money to anyone that i dont like

i did a google image search for "mona lisa" 13 200 results, on the first page, 12 were either photos of it, or duplicats of it, i didnt pay a cent for it though

ps is that just cos copyright runs out after a while?
 
I still think that stealing isn't the right term for downloading music for free.
Just in response to the statement that musicians in it for the money aren't musicians. Okay, yes, we're all in it for the money on some level. I do see what you're saying. On the other hand, there's a bit of a difference between Britney Spears and a band/person who can sing, maybe plays an instrument and writes their own songs.
 
yes. britney was drafted by marketers because of the potential of making money with her, and cobain, for example, was chosen because of talant. his label basically made a huge bet on him

but they were both in it for the money
 
Sorry, I've been outta town for a week and missed my opportunity to jump in. :)

But one line caught my eye:

otheadp sez;

if peoples' principles is the only thing that protects artists from starving, artists will stop being artists.
Click to expand...

Once again; who the hell is starving here? And if you think artists will cease to be atrtists when money is no longer their 'pinnacle', then you have absolutely no idea what art or artists are all about - art reaches beyond the spectrum of capitalism and, as a matter of fact, flourishes best when it doesn't nest with capitalist desires.
 
Hey, I didn't read all of the posts here but just want to say that if a musician is good they can and will make lots of money by holding concerts. The more their music is shared and spread about the more popular their concerts. The CD makers are making a killing through being middlemen. Let them be the ushers at the concerts rather than sequester the art. Art should be for everyone's enrichment, not just middlemen or the artist. I'm afraid the recording industries are scared that their days are numbered due to the internet. They don't want to face the music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top