Bono Blames ISPs For Music Industry Decline > Bono right or wrong? Hell, I don't know but.....

Bono right or wrong? Hell, I don't know but.....

My dad later explained that if everyone that walked through the orchard took an apple there would be none left for Mr Soles to sell which was his only source of income.

I guess the second story is how I feel about pirating music.

I would agree with you if once a song was downloaded, the original was deleted. Except in the case of copyright infringement it is more like you saw the apple, used a magic device to make a duplicate of the apple, and then you ate the duplicate. Mr. Soles would also have the same device to duplicate as many apples as he would want to sell.

Unfortunately for Mr Soles, you can't sell something that has unlimited quantities and is ubiquitous. It just won't work.

So, how do we resolve this problem? You DON'T solve it by forcing people to smash all of their magic apple copying devices so that Mr Soles has the only one left. I will not side with the music industry because this is the method they prefer to use.

Copyright protections in this country have been expanded to protect works for far longer than even when they were actual physical copies.

When the author of a book was considered to be protected with a copyright duration of less than 20 years in an age where you had to physically manufacture new copies has changed to where copyrights now last longer than a newborn child can expect to even LIVE, and the medium no longer requires the extensive manufacturing buildup...

reply to ImaDuffer264
I fully agree with your second story. But I'm sorry to have to punch a few holes in your opinion.

When you took an apple from Mr. Soles, you were physically stealing something. Whereas with downloading music, movies, software you are not physically stealing anything. You are transferring data (1's and 0's). There is nothing physically being taken away from these artists, nor the RIAA.

Theft is when you physically steal something. This is copyright infringement (if that) at best. The problem with this whole ridiculous situation is that people are unable to understand the difference.

I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether or not I feel it's right or wrong, just correcting you in hopes that you'll better understand.
--
Weeeeeee

Well everyone has there opinions and I respect yours. Look at my first story. My friend Tom thought that it was perfectly O.K. to grab as much music as possible because "everyone else was doing it".What I said to him was that with that train of thought theoretically one person could go to the record store and buy a cd, take it home, then offer it up on the internet for the entire world to download for free. So, the artist and the recording studio, the distributors, the trucking companies delivering the product, the record store, etc, etc who combined have hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars involved could, again theoretically, end up with a one time sale of $15.99 yet hundreds of millions of people would have the product. He said "that'll never happen". Yes, Tom you are probably right but if everybody except for one got it for free that's what would happen.

To me it doesn't matter what it's called. I say that the person that offers it for download is infringing on the copyright and the people downloading it without compensating the artist are nothing but common thieves.

Here's another story:
About 25 years ago I put a hot water baseboard heating system in my house. My dad was able to "borrow" off a friend of his a piece of asbestos that I could put behind that pipes as I soldered so prevent the possibility of fires. After I was finished my dad came by and asked if I had returned the pieces of asbestos to Jim. I said I hadn't. He reminded me that it did not belong to me and that I should either return it or offer to pay for it.

I think the lessons to me were clear. If it does not belong to you either pay for it or return it. Simple as that.

Maybe my moral standards are just set way too high. Hell, I don't know. I just know that I will continue to believe that downloading music is nothing more than stealing.

reply to ImaDuffer264
New Stories:

One time when i was young I was walking through an apple orchard near my house, and I thought that the trees looked pretty. So I took a picture of them. When I got home, I admired the picture a bit then put it in a box and forgot about it.

A year later my dad was looking through my boxes of pictures and noticed this picture of the apple orchard. He asked me if I paid the owner of the apple tree for the picture that I took. I said no. And my Dad started telling me that now that I had that picture I had taken of the apple tree, I had stolen from the orchard owner and needed to pay him for it, otherwise I was stealing.

Maybe it's just my moral standards are too high, but I will still continue to believe that if you ever took a picture of something that doesn't belong to you then it's nothing more than stealing.

One day I was hanging out at the neighbors house. They had asked me to come over and watch the house and let the dog in and out while they were gone. I popped in one of the movies they had and watched it. Unfortunately my dad caught me and explained to me how I had just stolen from the movie producers because I had not paid them for the ability to watch that movie. He said that the owners of the home that had purchased the movie had paid, but that I had not. It was that day that I realized that everything I watch or hear that I don't own and I haven't paid for is stealing.

reply to ImaDuffer264
I certainly respect the fact that you were brought up with proper morals. As was I. But your thoughts on copyright infringement and theft are still incorrect. What I explained above was not opinion, it's fact. Nothing physical is being stolen. Regardless of how high your moral standards are, copyright infringement is not stealing. It is simply an infringement of copyright.

That being said, it's unfortunate you look at it as theft. The reason I say that is because you are one of many who are uneducated in this whole situation and because of that, the RIAA/MPAA are allowed to run rampant and sue people left and right for outrageous amounts of money etc. If you're unfamiliar with the differences between theft and copyright infringement, it might be time to do a little research. What is happening with the RIAA/MPAA and ISP's around the world isn't JUST going to effect downloading/uploading/sharing music, movies or software. It has begun to effect the Internet in its entirety. Network neutrality isn't a joke.
--
Weeeeeee

reply to ImaDuffer264
I strongly agree with DSU's replies to your posts, Imaduffer. When the day comes when a judge convicts a P2P user for "theft" of files instead of copyright infringment, get back to us. Especially since the copyright law isn't even 100% clear about the legality of unauthorized downloading; it's uploading and making files available for uploading that P2P users are being sued for.

Also, when you state "I have no idea how P2P actually works," then when you assert that infringement equals theft it reads to be a frighteningly ignorant statement. I understand how you feel and wish more people look into alternative sources, but as DSU has stated we all need to do research about copyrights and how file transfers are made.

reply to ImaDuffer264