Jefferson

That's fine, you're expressing your opinion.

You're also justifying stealing.

chrisg967

I agree with Jefferson and Tristanrobin. "Sharing" music files over the internet is stealing. It is not sharing. Real sharing is loaning someone your purchased copy of a recording and then getting it back. Real sharing is playing your purchased copy of a recording for someone who is in the same room as you. The musicians and songwriters put effort into their creations, and we as consumers should put in some effort of our own (read that as earning money) to purchase a copy of their work.

It matters not how much money the musicians make. Making copies of their work without their permission is wrong. If the musicians and songwriters want to share, then they should put their work online for that purpose and label it as such. Otherwise, it's stealing, no matter how popular the activity is.

Antithesis

I think I read somewhere that a growing number of musicians are accepting file sharing as a legit way of transferring music. Dave Matthew's Band and Disturbed have done so, but idk of any other specific bands. It's mostly older artists who get angry about the notion, ones like Metallica and Led Zeppelin (the latter of which won't even sell their music on legitimate channels, so it's impossible to preview the work before you by it).

__________________
"Every time I hear the phrase 'Christian nation' I run to my car and blast a Slayer album at full volume." - Me

Katczinsky

This made me think of something...

That's really what is happening in file sharing. It's just that instead of lending someone the material, they're sharing the digital files on the CD that someone already purchased. When do you consider sharing to not be sharing anymore? When it goes digital? Or a certain amount of people that get to hear the music?

I mean, I could send out a purchased CD of mine to go around to all my friends, and their friends, and they could legally rip the CD onto their computer for listening purposes (keep in mind this is a feature in all Windows systems and in all CDs made, thus perfectly legal). This is essentially the same thing, the only difference is I am literally giving someone material. File sharing just skips the step of physically putting the CD into your drive, but reaches the same ends. I don't see how this is so much worse than the other.

The original CD was purchased. Stealing would be for someone to go into the store and physically steal the CD, then rip the CD onto other people's computers.

No, I'm justifying file sharing. Look at my above response to chris.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

chrisg967

You are looking at it as just files, not content. I believe the content has a copyright.

Long before it was a file, it was a notion in someone's head. This is intellectual property. Do we not have patents on products? Isn't this the exact same thing?

Jefferson

1 friend lets his buddy borrow, and listen to, his Metallica CD. Then his buddy gives it back.

Another friend loans his buddy his Metallica CD. His buddy burns a copy of that CD, then lets several of his buddies burn copies of his burned copy.

One is legal, one is illegal. One is borrowing, one is stealing.


We're not talking about dollar amounts, nor are we talking about net worth of anybody involved. We're not talking punishment. We're talking about what's right and wrong. We're talking about borrowing versus stealing.

The fact that you can get by with something does not make it legal, nor does it make it right.

Antithesis

Au, contraire, it does make the artist look cheap and materialistic. I remember a few of my friends swore off Metallica after Lars Ulrich made it clear that it's not about the music. That behavior alone made me realize how jaded somebod can get. This is appreciation, not theft.Nobody says, "Hey, I'm gonna download some Metallica because they're jerks." People stop listening to them for that.

It's like Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. It's been stolen more than a few times by people looking to profit, but you also have people buying reproductions because they love it so much. Edvard Munch never sees many profits from it, partially because it is so well known and also because he's, well...dead. Every time it's stolen I bet he'd be proud, just to know something of his is so valued that people are willing to break the law to get it.

I respect the rights of artists to profit from their work, but when they get overprotective and start punishing fans for being fans, even though they already have everything they've ever dreamed of, that's when I know that they don't deserve their place. Making a living is one thing, but enforcing the lw for the purpose of your own excesses is something completely different.

__________________
"Every time I hear the phrase 'Christian nation' I run to my car and blast a Slayer album at full volume." - Me

chrisg967

"It's been stolen..." There you have it. There is no way around this - it is wrong to steal. The amount of money the victiim has is immaterial. It is wrong.

Do you not understand copyrights? Copy - rights.

Jefferson

No, clearly he does NOT understand that.

It's a little scary, isn't it?

Antithesis

I fully understand the law. This is not an issue of whether or not stealing is legal or illegal. This is an issue of something going from the public to private domain.

When you make a song, you should expect it to be played on the radio, MTV, and stereo systems nationwide. Initially, you have the rights to the song. You made it, you should profit.

After this happens and it becomes more well known, expect people to buy it less and less, and then to find it for free more and more. Newer albums with songs that are more in demand will be sold, and people won't be willing to pay for music tha isn't in high demand anymore. At this point, enforcing copyrights is frivolous and makes you seem like the bad guy when really, there is none. There's an artist and fans.

There is a point when you can no longer draw from the private domain and the song must go public. That is why record companies no longer rely on the same old songs. They could draw infinitely from every playing of the song with minimal new releases, but they do not because they know people will get sick of paying to hear the same song they've heard a million times. That is when the song has to go into public domain, when the bulk of the profits have been attained and further enforcement is relatively useless.

The perfect example is "Happy Birthday." That song is probably one of the best known in the world, yet existing copyrights still exist. By now, the great grandchildren of the writer, people who weren't even alive when the song was written, are reaping profits. There's a point when art cannot be privatized anymore. With an invention, any engineer can tell you that yes, you should be able to profit from your innovation, but there is a time when you must recognize that you've made a tidy profit and, for the sake of society, you have to offer your idea to the public and, for the good of society, let it be used freely.

File sharing shows an inadequacy in the law and acts as a sign that reform is necessary.

__________________
"Every time I hear the phrase 'Christian nation' I run to my car and blast a Slayer album at full volume." - Me