Fun Stuff > BAND
The whole downloading music thing...
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 23:05 ---Why WOULDN'T someone expect that if they came up with something unique, someone else couldn't just come along and say "Hey that's great, I'm going to use it without your permission, okay?"
--- End quote ---
Because it limits creativity and actually limits and reduces any art I (or anyone else) might create. You make that statement sound like a bad thing, whereas to me it's nothing but positive. So a small number of people might see slightly decreased revenue from their intellectual property. That's a small price to pay for there to be more art in the world.
CryoSilver:
--- Quote from: Johnny C ---Nobody making art needs to own their ideas beyond "I created this." You lose the point as soon as you say, "They NEED to benefit from it." The act of creation in itself is its own reward, and the most it's guaranteed.
--- End quote ---
So at what point do people start owning the things that are theirs? If art isn't yours, are ideas? What about plans, schematics, etc? Does the guy who invents, say, a new kind of solar panel own the plans of that solar panel, or is it now in the public domain, where anyone can use it free of charge? What about actual, physical things? What's the substantial difference between an mp3 (a series of impulses recorded on a magnetic plate) and an actual CD (a series of tiny holes on a foil sheet)? Where should the line be drawn?
--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---So, what's your opinion then, downloading opponents, on buying and selling second hand CDs? Surely that's infinitely worse than file-sharing: not only is someone getting their greasy hands on the music without the band seeing a penny, but some interloping racketeer is making a profit out of it instead! How could we allow such things in the 21st century? Surely, once you get tired of a CD, you should be required to drop it in a woodchipper?
--- End quote ---
This goes in the same line as the library thing: if you sell the CD, you no longer have it. One CD (and therefore, one copy of the music) has been purchased and paid for, and, presuming you don't rip it and then sell the CD, one copy of the music exists.
--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---Ever used a VCR? Depending on where you live, taping live television is either fair use, fair use under certain circumstances, or technically illegal but nobody cares. Did you ever watch a film in school? That's illegal, read the warning at the front of a video or DVD some day.
--- End quote ---
Actually, I've never recorded anything on my VCR, and if I watched a video in school, it's my teacher's fault, not mine. But I do get your point, which is that "If everyone does it, it must be fine." The fair use clause is a tricky thing, and usually relates to how much of a work you're quoting/using. But in the case of filesharing, the thing in question, you are distributing the entire package, which does not fall under fair use. The copyright holder reserves the right to reproduce the media in question, which means you don't have it, and you never did. You never bought that right. You COULD buy it, if you have the money to give the record company, or you could get permission (if the artist is really nice), but when you bought the CD, you bought it with the understanding that you would NOT copy it and give it away.
People make a big deal out of filesharing because it's widespread, easy and (mostly) free. Not as many people photocopy or scan books because it's time consuming and boring, but ripping a song and then sharing it is a simple as clicking a button. But if it was as easy to do that with, say, cars, pills or nuclear weapons, people would make a big deal over that. There's always trouble in the electronics industry because of patent infringements; it's the same thing. If the laws weren't there to keep people's ideas theirs, people would have totake it into their own hands, and that couldn't end well at all.
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves ---Because it limits creativity and actually limits and reduces any art I (or anyone else) might create. You make that statement sound like a bad thing, whereas to me it's nothing but positive. So a small number of people might see slightly decreased revenue from their intellectual property. That's a small price to pay for there to be more art in the world.
--- End quote ---
And that is why (originally) copyright expired after 50 years (which is a while, but not so unreasonably long). But the marvelous Disney Corporation stepped in and got it extended to 95 years, which is a bit too long, in my opinion. Patents last for a much shorter time (about 20 years).
Now, I do think copyright lasts too long, but it I still feel it should exist, because people should have the right to security in the things they create. IF they WANT their art to be used by others, they can relinquish their rights; you can always voluntarily relinquish rights, but the moment they get taken away, it's an injustice.
I do realize I'm probably not going to change any minds, but I think it's important to have a devil's advocate and shake up the groupthink a little...
schimmy:
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26 ---What's the substantial difference between an mp3 (a series of impulses recorded on a magnetic plate) and an actual CD (a series of tiny holes on a foil sheet)? Where should the line be drawn?
--- End quote ---
When you steal a CD, it can no longer be sold, so the artist* has lost money.
When you download MP3s, the amount of CDs that can be sold has not changed. They have not lost money. Arguably, they lost money because you might not buy the record, but I think that the tiny sum of money they get per record is easily negated by ticket sales and merchandise.
*Read: record label
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26 ---This goes in the same line as the library thing: if you sell the CD, you no longer have it. One CD (and therefore, one copy of the music) has been purchased and paid for, and, presuming you don't rip it and then sell the CD, one copy of the music exists.
--- End quote ---
But the reseller is still making money off of the intellectual property of the artist. They have, presumably, listened to the record as much as they would like to, and so are selling it on. If they sell it on at the price they bought it, they get all their money back, so haven't they 'stolen' the music on the CD? I admit that they likely won't sell it for full retail price, but they're still getting the CD at a severe discount.
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26 ---Actually, I've never recorded anything on my VCR, and if I watched a video in school, it's my teacher's fault, not mine.
--- End quote ---
You were still participating in the 'crime' of copyright infringement of your own free will.
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26 --- if it was as easy to do that with, say, cars, pills or nuclear weapons, people would make a big deal over that.
--- End quote ---
I don't know if they would. I think everyone would just be all "Oh man I got a sports car for free. Awesome!" And free, unlimited supplies of medicine?* Who could possibly object to that?
* (I assume that's what you mean by pills... the drug industry hardly has a lot of supporters in the media and law)
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26 ---There's always trouble in the electronics industry because of patent infringements; it's the same thing. If the laws weren't there to keep people's ideas theirs, people would have to take it into their own hands, and that couldn't end well at all.
--- End quote ---
Would they? I don't know. Wouldn't the world be a better place if IP didn't exist, and people were free to modify and improve the works of others as they saw fit? Sure, some people could lose some money here and there, but aren't freedom and artistic / technological progress more important than a few dollars?
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26 ---Now, I do think copyright lasts too long, but it I still feel it should exist, because people should have the right to security in the things they create. IF they WANT their art to be used by others, they can relinquish their rights; you can always voluntarily relinquish rights, but the moment they get taken away, it's an injustice.
--- End quote ---
Where does the idea of copyrighting come from? It's a social construct. There more ethically acceptable ways of protecting your work. Take the creative commons license. It states:
--- Quote ---You are free:
* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
*Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
*Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
--- End quote ---
I think that's a much more artistic and fair way of protecting intellectual property.
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26 ---I do realize I'm probably not going to change any minds, but I think it's important to have a devil's advocate and shake up the groupthink a little...
--- End quote ---
That's no problem. A little healthy debate never hurt anyone. And, if any of us are wrong, it's probably better that we at least have a chance of being convinced of the truth, whatever that may be.
CryoSilver:
--- Quote from: schimmy ---Arguably, they lost money because you might not buy the record, but I think that the tiny sum of money they get per record is easily negated by ticket sales and merchandise.
--- End quote ---
So what's the cutoff for how much money it has to cost a record label before it becomes not okay to steal their music? Ten cents? Ten dollars?
--- Quote from: schimmy ---But the reseller is still making money off of the intellectual property of the artist.
--- End quote ---
But now they no longer have access to that property. There is still only one CD, and only one person in possession of that CD: in theory, the person who sold it has to acquire a new CD if he wants to listen to it again after he sells it. You can sell your car, too, and not give more money to the dealership/factory, but now you don't have a car any more. Same thing.
--- Quote from: schimmy ---You were still participating in the 'crime' of copyright infringement of your own free will.
--- End quote ---
Free will? Not really; I had to be in school. But that's getting off the point.
--- Quote from: schimmy ---Would they? I don't know. Wouldn't the world be a better place if IP didn't exist, and people were free to modify and improve the works of others as they saw fit? Sure, some people could lose some money here and there, but aren't freedom and artistic / technological progress more important than a few dollars?
--- End quote ---
I strongly disagree here. If I create something, it's mine, and I should be free to use it or let others use it as I see fit. In my opinion, a song or book is no different than a potato, or loaf of bread: it is something that someone created, and is therefore, their property. And while I might not expect to make a lot of money from my art, that doesn't make it okay to deprive me of even more of it. "I'm only stealing a LITTLE" is not a valid argument. What if there was no money, and the music was traded directly for, say, food? "I'm only stealing some of his food" is okay?
I do know about the Creative Commons license, and I think it's a great thing for people who want to use it. But some of us don't. Some of us want the things we write/compose to be ours, and to remain unaltered. I wouldn't appreciate it if someone painted my car pink because it "looks better now" and in many cases, I wouldn't appreciate it if my characters and settings get altered and Mary-Sued up for the same reason.
schimmy:
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 11:08 ---So what's the cutoff for how much money it has to cost a record label before it becomes not okay to steal their music? Ten cents? Ten dollars?
--- End quote ---
Record labels are superfluous to the art. They have no right to or reason to be making money off of the artists they exploit. And trust me, the artists are being exploited. There's an article written by Steve Albini that I'm looking for that illustrates my point perfectly, but at the moment I can't find it. I'm fairly sure a link's been posted fairly recently on this forum, if anyone can find it, that'd be great.
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 11:08 ---Free will? Not really; I had to be in school. But that's getting off the point.
--- End quote ---
Admittedly, it might be off the point, but if you so object to copyright infringement, then surely you could have at least voiced your concerns and/or asked to not watch it?
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 11:08 ---I strongly disagree here. If I create something, it's mine, and I should be free to use it or let others use it as I see fit. In my opinion, a song or book is no different than a potato, or loaf of bread: it is something that someone created, and is therefore, their property.
--- End quote ---
But what if someone can improve the recipe for a loaf of bread, or find some way to duplicate that bread for free, so as to feed those in the world with no food. Should they be stopped? And, yes, I am comparing art to food. As far as I see it, art is as important to human society as food is.
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 11:08 ---And while I might not expect to make a lot of money from my art, that doesn't make it okay to deprive me of even more of it. "I'm only stealing a LITTLE" is not a valid argument. What if there was no money, and the music was traded directly for, say, food? "I'm only stealing some of his food" is okay?
--- End quote ---
I think this is the point that we will never agree on. You think that artists lose money through downloads, while I think they don't. I guess we should leave it at that.
--- Quote from: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 11:08 ---I do know about the Creative Commons license, and I think it's a great thing for people who want to use it. But some of us don't. Some of us want the things we write/compose to be ours, and to remain unaltered. I wouldn't appreciate it if someone painted my car pink because it "looks better now" and in many cases, I wouldn't appreciate it if my characters and settings get altered and Mary-Sued up for the same reason.
--- End quote ---
They wouldn't be painting your car pink, though. You would still have your car. They would merely have created a pink version of it. And what if their modification makes the car more environmentally friendly, for example. Should a person be stopped from modifying the designs that your car is based off of, and thereby benefiting everyone, just because you want protection from people doing a better job than you could in designing the car, because the designs are your IP.
On the whole, I think the way our arguments fundamentally disagree is on the principle that you believe that downloading is exactly the same as physically taking a CD, while I see it as just duplicating the CD.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version