Fun Stuff > BAND
The whole downloading music thing...
CryoSilver:
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves ---But why would you be due it? You weren't involved in the creation or distribution of the copies, and it didn't cost you anything. If people enjoyed your work then maybe they would compensate you for it if they could afford it. Just because you do something expecting to make money doesn't mean you will.
--- End quote ---
It costs me the premium charged by the publishing house, assuming I retain the rights to what I write. If it were otherwise, it'd be all profit to me, above the cost of the materials and time used to produce the copy. If I get something published, it's because I can't afford to buy a printing press myself. That doesn't make the product any less MINE. If someone can't afford to have something that I produced, copy or no, then they can't have it. That's the entire premise of capitalism, and that's the "All Rights Reserved" clause of copyright. If they acquire it by illegal means, they've committed a crime, simple as that. I don't always agree with the law, but that doesn't give me the right to break it.
--- Quote from: Johnny C ---What's your position on libraries then?
--- End quote ---
A library is a public borrowing house. I don't object for a couple reasons. One: someone paid for the book (the town, most likely). Two: whoever borrows it can't keep it (well, they could keep taking it out again and again, but eventually the librarian yells at you). Three: There is still only one book; unless someone illegally scans or photocopies the book, there is only the one book, which has been paid for. If a library let you take a free copy of the book to keep, which they produced without compensating the author, I'd object, but they don't. They have one book, which they lend out. If your buddy lets you borrow his CD, but you don't rip it, you just listen for a week and give it back, that's basically how a library works.
Johnny C:
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 19:01 ---That's the entire premise of capitalism, and that's the "All Rights Reserved" clause of copyright. If they acquire it by illegal means, they've committed a crime, simple as that. I don't always agree with the law, but that doesn't give me the right to break it.
--- End quote ---
In order: Maybe that's the problem with capitalism, if it was that simple we wouldn't have a thread about it right now, and why the hell not?
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 19:01 ---
--- Quote from: Johnny C ---What's your position on libraries then?
--- End quote ---
A library is a public borrowing house. I don't object for a couple reasons. One: someone paid for the book (the town, most likely). Two: whoever borrows it can't keep it (well, they could keep taking it out again and again, but eventually the librarian yells at you). Three: There is still only one book; unless someone illegally scans or photocopies the book, there is only the one book, which has been paid for. If a library let you take a free copy of the book to keep, which they produced without compensating the author, I'd object, but they don't. They have one book, which they lend out. If your buddy lets you borrow his CD, but you don't rip it, you just listen for a week and give it back, that's basically how a library works.
--- End quote ---
Nobody paid for the CD at one point?
Beyond that your argument is logically sound, I suppose. Except I can keep borrowing the book. I can lend the book, once I have it, out to my friends - and I do on a pretty regular basis. The art gets around. Maybe one or two of them buy a copy, and that's one or two more than otherwise would have.
CryoSilver:
"Nobody paid for the CD at one point?"
And I have no problem with them lending out the CD. I have a problem with them copying the CD, or ripping it and then distributing the digital files. Now you haven't lent it to someone, you've reproduced it, which is the sole right of whoever holds the copyright (generally the artist or record company).
Johnny C:
And there you have it. The problem is that based on copyright whoever bought the CD has essentially purchased not the music itself but the privilege of listening to the music.
Imagine this: I'm currently sitting enjoying a piece of beef jerky. When I bought it, it was agreed that I owned the jerky now and could do whatever I wanted with it. I didn't pay to have the privilege of owning the beef jerky and having it in my house. I paid for the jerky. I can eat it. I can give it to my friends to eat. I can throw it at a wall or make tender love to it. It's my beef jerky. When whoever made the jerky decided to turn meat into salty delicious meatleather they weren't making a copyright, they were making jerky.
When I buy music I'm buying the music. When I make music I'm making the music. Copyright is so that EMI can sue the pants off of a woman for wanting to hear Kansas without buying a rich band's greatest hits record.
CryoSilver:
You are not, however, allowed to determine exactly how that jerky is made and then produce unauthorized copies of it to distribute to your friends. That right is subject to patent law, which is just copyright for physical objects.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version