how-to block ads
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Thaler
Re: money
For all those who say 'it's stealing' and 'it hurts the artist' etc, etc, I say maybe you are all asking the wrong question. Maybe the question shouldn't be 'is it stealing or is it copyright infringement', rather the question should be 'is copyright a just law'?
Copyrights are VERY new, artificial controls on information. Up until just over 200 years ago, it was unheard of. Then the idea of a LIMITED (14 years) copyright was introduced for the benefit of the artist. However, today, this concept of copyright has been bastardized, and needs to be coplelete reverted. You say I'm over-reacting, I say absolutely not. One of the absolute tenets of democracy is an 'educated populace'. Without an educated populace, there can be no democracy. The copyright laws as they exist today work to suppress the expression of ideas, the exchange of information, and ultimately lead to a fascist state, not democracy.
Ask yourself, how is it that human civilization survived for 5000 years without these artificial copyright laws? How is it that mankind advanced through the renaissance without copyright? What benefit, if any, does the SUPPRESSION of ideas bring to society? If laws exist to benefit mankind, then the definition of an unjust law is one that doesn't benefit mankind, and that is todays copyright laws. Rol them back to the original 14 year period. No extensions, no exceptions.
--
Grand Poobah | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| Ah, Poobah, you are arguing for an informed historical perspective and I am arguing for an informed philosophical perspective. Sadly, most argue for a capital perspective. People are putting the end-all value on the possibility of capital, not on the value of free information in democracy. Unfortunately, no matter how much sense we make in these matters, some people just will not see past the "product to profit" doupoly they rules capital thinking, even in regard to information suppression. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to s
said by s :
Your right!
I will stop listening to the radio, TV and going to Movies!
I will not read the paper or news online.
The only way to make this stop is to stop supporting the ones who make the stuff for us to buy, it's brilliant!
From now on I will only listen to music I make, Movies I make news I make and Books I write. It will be FUN!
This would work if the majority agreed with you, and it's obvious, they don't. Those that are upset by all of this usually have something to loose - like the ability to share music for free. I bet it's also the same group that bitches about banner ads on website and call them annoyances, you know, those things that keep a site free? Then when the banners are removed and the site becomes pay, again, people bitch. Funny how things work.
Again, I know I am not the popular voice here, but that's probably those that know better wouldn't be here wasting their time. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah  :Copyrights are VERY new, artificial controls on information. Up until just over 200 years ago, it was unheard of. Then the idea of a LIMITED (14 years) copyright was introduced for the benefit of the artist. However, today, this concept of copyright has been bastardized, and needs to be coplelete reverted. You say I'm over-reacting, I say absolutely not. Wow... and how old is our country again? Seems like 200 years is a grand majority of our existance. Stop living in a global world. It's aparent you don't like the U.S. and it's out to get you. Woudl you like some money to buy a ticket out? I'd paypal it to you RIGHT NOW.
We the people make the laws in our country. Though the legal system is not perfect, it's much better than many other forms of governments. I'd love to see you move to another country, experience their rath, and then wish you could come back... and all becuase you can't have music without buying it.
Why should the government say who owns what for how long? You advocate that the government state that your work is only yours for 14 years? Get real! I guess for that matter, Bart Simpson should be public ware now, and so should all the movies that are still making money today that are 14 years old. I guess E.T. should be free now too right?
What exactly is your platform. What exactly do you want? A weak America where there is no financial control? This would weaken out economy and hurt national security. I know, it's hard for you to comprehend how an entire system of rule works and the impact that goes with each decision, but let me make it easy for you - it didn't work before so it was changed! That's why it's not like it was 200 years ago. | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| "This would weaken out economy and hurt national security" !
I win! I win!.. hahaha, the bet was that someone would bring up that terrorist win if we weaken the copyright laws!
What in the hell does national security have to do with copyright law?
--
Grand Poobah | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by G_Poobah :"This would weaken out economy and hurt national security" ! I win! I win!.. hahaha, the bet was that someone would bring up that terrorist win if we weaken the copyright laws! What in the hell does national security have to do with copyright law? Here's an idea. Go complete high school and get your diploma and when you grow up, let's talk.
You did NOT win. First, I said NOTHING about terrorism. Funny, it must be on YOUR mind because it was National Security which was one my mind. Terrorism isn't the only threat facing America today, yesterday, or tomorrow.
Second, it was not copyright law that I said would weaken our economy, care to re-read? It said that a weak America with no financial control would hurt our security. But of course, in your world, bombs, weapons, and the military all grow on trees, right? If financial stability is not held in our country, or ANY country, the economic structure fails, governments can't operate effectively, and secuirty is hurt.
Of course, if you have complted the 12th grade where most schools teach civic and economics, you would understand this.
So, in a childish way... "You don't win! You don't win! hahahaha" | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :If we are to have a system of ethics, it should be a logical, reasoned one. And let's keep it pretty short and sweet. Yes, you can describe all-the-doo-dah-day that "its data", "they weren't going to buy it anyways", etc., but the plain and simple truth of it is: you're taking something that didn't belong to you.
Say you were at a museum, run by some rather shady opearatives, and don't allow you to photograph anything inside - rather, buy copies of the artwork at the gift shop. There is a big, honking, "No Photography Allowed" sign everywhere you go. Are you going to smuggle in your camera, take pictures of the art you like, and then justify yourself with "I wasn't going to buy it anyways", "the museum operators suck", "the gift shop is overpriced", etc.?
Hell no.
That museum has clearly established that these are the ways that they care to perform business, and you've violated the shady museum operator's business by your actions. As despicible as the museum-natzis might be, you haul your ass to another museum with less restrictions, better business ethics, etc., and spend your time where the museum fully accepts photography, duplication, etc. I know their system sucks, and I know "they only pay the artist X% percent", etc. You know what you do about people/companies whom you don't like business plan? Don't use their product. There are independant bands who are wanting to give their music away (and rock too), there are your public air waves that you have the established right to record off of, and/or you can realize that the end music product these days is inferior, and not worth owning anyways. These are the steps I have personally undertook, as I fall under the category of people who hate how the "industry" treats its artists and customers, and I have yet to find many CDs worth owning.
I don't understand how one could honestly look me in the face, and tell me that their P2P CD bootlegging is fair, just, and honest, when it's plain as day that the very same product costs X amount, through Y kind of media. Douse yourself in as much "creative thinking" as you like, but using P2P to build a permemant music collection w/o a single iota to pay is still stealing, even if you are stealing from the devil himself.
Two wrongs, my friend. | |
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| reply to Thaler
Here's what I think, someone that downloads a CD likes it and then buys the CD is like the friend that borrows a CD, likes it and goes out to the store to purchase it. The person that downloads the song and never buys it, would be the same person to borrow a CD and either give it back when their done or hope you forget you gave it to them and keep it. Either way record company isn't getting any money out of them. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :Copyrights are VERY new, artificial controls on information. Up until just over 200 years ago, it was unheard of. Then the idea of a LIMITED (14 years) copyright was introduced for the benefit of the artist. True, copyrights are relatively new, but it's not as though they are "mysteriously" applied w/o the developer's consent...the developer explicitly goes out of their way to get said bastardized copyright, so they can squeeze out every dime they can. Let's at least put the blame where it lies, not with the patent office, but with the developer getting and demanding these P.O.S.es that is the copyright today.
So, these designers are wishing to sell their product to the marketplace, with the stipulations attached w/ the copyright they've gone and procured. Are you going to tell me it's the "ethical" and "moral" right to tell this businessman to stuff it, jack their product, and say "no harm was done, I wasn't going to pay for it anyways, and they're bad people"?
No. If you don't like how business is run with people/companies you are dealt with, you use your free-market right to go elsewhere for your business. These aren't life necessities, as I have yet to find copyrights on food, water, shelter, etc., and so life will go on; either without the copyrighted thing for which you don't agree upon its terms, or using an alternative in which the terms of ownership are more acceptable.
Technically, Microsoft still "sells" Windows 3.1 and 95, even though these products are hideously out-of-date. "Selling" being losely used, as Microsoft doesn't actually sell the software, but they do demand that you pay licensing if you do use them. So here, is it the moral thing to tell big-bad-MS to go kiss off, install a bootleg copy, and write it off as "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways?"
Hell no. Scoot your ass over to Linux, kiss the very cubersome Microsoft copyrights goodbye, and maybe even slip your fav. Linux distro company a few bucks for working to a public good. School the companies that go for these insane copyrights with your wallet, not by doing another immoral act, and writing off two wrongs for a right.
said by G_Poobah :Ask yourself, how is it that human civilization survived for 5000 years without these artificial copyright laws? Hell, we did just fine w/o the internet until several years ago, and I'd probably have to cut you if you threatened to take it away. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea of a "free" society a rather new invention either, compared to human history?
These cubersome copyrights will come to pass in time, when people demand better from the companies that seek to file these damned things. However, "stealing for the greater good" is hardly the way to go, as you will simply justifiy the enforcement of these very same laws you wish to have repealed. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :Unfortunately, no matter how much sense we make in these matters, some people just will not see past the "product to profit" doupoly they rules capital thinking, even in regard to information suppression. I'd hardly call exercising moral and fiscal restraint to not purchase and/or steal the seasons of "The Simple Life" or the albums of "NSYNC" information suppression. 
Many of the products people wish to digitally pilfer aren't even worth the HD space they occupy, IMHO; you wouldn't catch me dead making P2P bootleg copies of the latest garbage release which the industries would like to lable as "music".
Sure, I'll use P2P to prove to myself that the latest 'Diddy (there's no P anymore, right?  ) album isn't worth bubkiss, should I so feel inclined, but that's as long as the garbage stays on my HD. If I amazingly find a CD with more than 4 songs I'd like to listen to, I buy it...but those instances are becoming rarer and rarer. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to stickfigure
said by stickfigure :Here's what I think, someone that downloads a CD likes it and then buys the CD is like the friend that borrows a CD, likes it and goes out to the store to purchase it. The person that downloads the song and never buys it, would be the same person to borrow a CD and either give it back when their done or hope you forget you gave it to them and keep it. Either way record company isn't getting any money out of them. ...wait, somehow I lost your track of thought here. Wouldn't situation A lead to the industry selling 2 CDs, whereas the digital pirate situation would lead to the industry selling 1? | |
kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427
| Since I started this, I might as well finish it!
To equivicate p2p to a common criminal act takes arrogance from some very hypocritical people. The same people barking about the legality of p2p are the same clowns that have no problem when it comes to breaking traffic laws such as speeding, following to closely, or jaywalking. Furthermore, since countless people such as OJ Simpson, and Jeffery Skilling (Enron)have proven that money buys verdicts, do not insult us by insisting that this is about law, not money. Plain and simple, the RIAA quashes musicians that want honest exposure, and extorts money from fans of the people it allows through. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by kdandaoc :Furthermore, since countless people such as OJ Simpson, and Jeffery Skilling (Enron)have proven that money buys verdicts, do not insult us by insisting that this is about law, not money. Again, it also has something to do about personal ethics too, IMHO. True, the legal system has been "bought out" on occasions such as the ones you meantioned, but that still doesn't give me the right to start breaking them myself.
said by kdandaoc :Plain and simple, the RIAA quashes musicians that want honest exposure, and extorts money from fans of the people it allows through. It extorts the ignorant (as many businesses do) music fans, but with some information and "wake-the-f***-up juice", they will realize that they're in a plethora of choices besides the **AAs. Your average music consumer has been lulled into accepting that 1-2 good music tracks per CD is acceptable, and that (insert same punk/rap/hip-hop/etc. spin-off style) artist is the next best thing since sliced bread. Ask your average music listener today to take a step back, and they'll realize that they've been listening to the same rehash crap for years...simply with a new/different artists' name on the circulation.
Real innovation and talent is rarely found in the RIAA "music prodigies", and rarer still is a CD that isn't 90% garbage tracks. These are the main problems that RIAA should be concerned about in times of "sluggy sales", not the small percentage of people who are adamant in getting their music for free. There will always be pirates; what RIAA is hemmoraging out today is customers. | |
doctrine
join:2002-04-26
Denver, CO
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by G_Poobah :"This would weaken out economy and hurt national security" ! I win! I win!.. hahaha, the bet was that someone would bring up that terrorist win if we weaken the copyright laws! What in the hell does national security have to do with copyright law? Here's an idea. Go complete high school and get your diploma and when you grow up, let's talk. You did NOT win. First, I said NOTHING about terrorism. Funny, it must be on YOUR mind because it was National Security which was one my mind. Terrorism isn't the only threat facing America today, yesterday, or tomorrow. Second, it was not copyright law that I said would weaken our economy, care to re-read? It said that a weak America with no financial control would hurt our security. But of course, in your world, bombs, weapons, and the military all grow on trees, right? If financial stability is not held in our country, or ANY country, the economic structure fails, governments can't operate effectively, and secuirty is hurt. Of course, if you have complted the 12th grade where most schools teach civic and economics, you would understand this. So, in a childish way... "You don't win! You don't win! hahahaha" What irony - you tell a poster to complete high school when you use "loose" instead of "lose" and misspell words in almost all of your posts. Did you finish high school? I'm thinking you probably went to clown college. Does releasing albums nobody wants to buy hurt national security? This is the number one reason record sales have been down. Maybe you should send some record execs to Gitmo. It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where the RIAA exists for the good of America. | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to kdandaoc
said by kdandaoc : do not insult us by insisting that this is about law, not money. No, it's not about law, it's about right and wrong. Copyright and wrong. And that absolutely makes it about money. Money that you owe me for taking the product of my labors, the music I made by playing my fingers bloody for years, and making it available for free to anyone with an internet connection.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to Thaler
Are you going to smuggle in your camera, take pictures of the art you like, and then justify yourself with "I wasn't going to buy it anyways", "the museum operators suck", "the gift shop is overpriced", etc.?
I wouldn't go that gallery. I'd just download photos of the artwork off of the Internet and write the artist an e-mail telling him/her I appreciated what he/she was trying to get across.
There are independant bands who are wanting to give their music away
I know. I'm in one and have been for years.
My main premise remains the same. DEMAND determines the value of a product. If, by some INNOVATION, a product becomes free then well, the product is no longer able to be profited on and the economic market changes. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
Art will continue to be made regardless of copyright laws and if people are copying it and distributing it because art is NOT product. Art being made is not contingent on profit. Art's existence is not dependent on the demand side. However, labels willingness to mass market that art as glossy product is contingent on it. The art is not the product. The product is the idea (or image) of the art that the label is marketing. If the labels dissolved and no profit could be made, artists would still make art (music, poetry, whatever) and I would argue it would be FAR better without the guiding hand of a corrupt industry not concerned with art but selling what is worth essentially nothing.
________
The labels are holding on to an outmoded business model. Imagine if we all still had to pay the same amount (plus inflation) for any given product. Think of how expensive computers would be?
Cost of production, thanks to P2P is now zero, and thusly, the market will treat it like its worth zero dollars. Art is essentially worthless. When people pay for art, they pay out of their good graces (from an economics standpoint). Its not about record labels just being corrupt, its about them having a business model that the market is making obsolete. That's what progress is and that's the point of capitalism. With the right models, consumers ideally pay no more than cost of production for a particular product (i.e. for THAT particular piece of information, for THAT particular CD).
In fact, Marx would probably side with the record labels here. He'd say "but they deserve more than just cost of product, they deserve compensation, labor time value for the studio time they paid for and the hard creative work they put into this piece!"
Any of the hardline conservatives here (FIBERGUY) care to defend their positions in bed with Marx?
Hopefully, those record execs will just have to get real jobs. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| I'm going to have to say that at least art does have value. It's not a commodity value that is quantified by physical worth over other items. It's entertainment value and artistic value. So for some it's like going to a movie, which has value to people who want to enjoy themselves for the duration of the movie (notwithstanding complaints over high ticket prices). For others it's deeper and the music touches them on an emotional level. For many people that in of itself has value as well.
I guess what I'm saying is just about everything you said I agree on, except the value of art. I don't think artists are paid by our good graces. I believe art is valued and as such artists deserve to be paid for it. Copyright law was a way to help promote artists so they can continue creating art in a world that was increasingly attempting to exploit what others value. Granted the law is being exploited by the very people the law was meant to protect artists from. But that's another rant for another time. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| I guess what I'm saying is just about everything you said I agree on, except the value of art.
As a musician, I personally agree, but for the sake of an argument about money and the market, it doesn't. Of course, I love art and music and for me there is an amazing value. When I pay an artist I am being a patron of the arts, not a purchaser of a product, but somehow saying "hey man, what you're doing is excellent and I know that the system we happen to work within doesn't really allow for you to do what you do with ease, so here is something for your artwork." But that something is more a charity than a capital-driven exchange of goods. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
1 edit | reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :I wouldn't go that gallery. I'd just download photos of the artwork off of the Internet and write the artist an e-mail telling him/her I appreciated what he/she was trying to get across. Ugg, you have to go and make a neat lil' theretical example into a complex one. Fine then. Say that the art in question wasn't avaliable anywhere else, but this control-phreak gallery. What then? Wait for someone ELSE to break the laws for you and then download, or smuggle out photos yourself and assist in further pilfering? Either way, I'd find it hard-stressed to say that you're acting with any sense of morals.
said by broadbander :My main premise remains the same. DEMAND determines the value of a product. If, by some INNOVATION, a product becomes free then well, the product is no longer able to be profited on and the economic market changes. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. This isn't "innovation", this is thievery begetting theivery. Just because you weren't the first one to slap unauthorized copies of the tracks, doesn't make you any less guilty for "getting while the getting's good".
Again, write it off as innovation, the system sucks, etc...but it boils down to this: the artist, through RIAA, has released their music via an agreement for compensation via CD costs, per-track-downloads, etc. If you don't like their methods, then don't steal their product.
Your reasoning of "well, the option to steal is there, so it's okay to take it" is invalid, nomatter how much you'd like to free-think it. Hell, guns are readily avalible, does that make it okay should I feel the need to blow someone away?
Yes, stealing via P2P currently is easy, readily avaliable, etc. That still isn't justification for doing so. Honestly, for someone bringing up such new thoughts and ideas to the subject, I would think you'd be able to stand back and see the big picture of your actions, rather than point-by-point "reasoning" the means by which you steal.
said by broadbander :Hopefully, those record execs will just have to get real jobs. True, just like the artists. Look at today's world, where we'll put saving a quarter by shopping at Walmart over the cost of supporting businesses w/ better ethics. I, for one, believe that living off the good graces of fans would be a disaster, and there would soon be no insentive at all to produce art, save for the recreational warm fuzzies involved.
It's kinda hard to feed yourself off good intentions alone. Artists should be able, through some extention of copyright or something, to guarantee that they'll have their next meal, somewhere to live, and God forbid, a family of their own. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| The nature of art makes it impossible to be stolen. Only produce can be stolen. Art is no more a product than what I am saying right now is. Art is extensionally the same as words. I can't steal words from someone.
When I buy a CD, I am paying for the physical CD. I am also being duped into paying far more than the real capital value of that CD. I am not paying for the sounds the CD generates. Those sounds are not product. I may THINK I'm paying for those sounds, because they're what I want to hear, but I'm not. I'm paying for the CD and the idea of those sounds. P2P allows people to pay for what they want and they pay the cost-of-production for it ... zero dollars and zero cents. And any right-minded economist would say "right on, that's how the system works, if innovation allows it, its supposed to happen."
Maybe you're right. Maybe certain particular artists don't want me hearing or seeing their work for free. However, their want does not make my act immoral.
I am a journalist.
Certain Congressman would appreciate it if I didn't write down certain things they said. But I still write it down and report it. Am I preforming an immoral act?
Certain private citizens say things that I hear and then research on and report using various sources. Am I preforming an immoral act if they don't want me to report on what they said?
P2P distributes an artist's expression. You cannot own an expression or a sound. You CAN own the profit made from an expression or a sound, and THAT is what copyright laws were produced to protect, one's right to exclusive REAL, MEASURABLE profit on their particular expression. The irony of this whole situation is it is the RECORD LABELS violating the original spirit of copyright by exploiting the profits of particular artists.
If artists do not want to be heard, they shouldn't speak out loud (aka record digitally in the first place).
Even if it IS stealing (which I will not concede, but for the sake of your personal feelings, let's say hypothetically), it is still not inherently wrong ...
take this example ...
Imagine a regime. They are evil. The regime kills thousands of its citizens every day. The regime steals wealth from the hard working and funnels it into other countries. No free expression is allowed. Let us imagine, that in order to overthrow the regime, a group of revolutionaries must destroy their capital building (for whatever reason). However, the regime is guarded by a wall of puppies. In order to get in and overthrow the regime, the revolutionaries must kill the puppies. What should they do?
Shouldn't they kill the puppies and save the vast majority of suffering the regime inflicts?
I would say yes. And I'm a vegetarian!
Now, I have explained in several ways how file downloading is not immoral and may, in fact, be a pro-actively moral act. The record labels are part of an outmoded market that innovative technologies are making moot. The point of the capital system is not to feed people or generate capital, exclusively. It is meant to continue innovation and progress to improve the lives of the majority of people, not ensure the well-being of the few. Thusly, from an economical standpoint, file-sharing is just.
Artists will continue to make art regardless of who shares their files, and, if they want total control over their expression, they should either keep it to themselves or only perform live (like they did for thousands of years) and ban recording devices from their shows. I am not violating the artists ability to create an expression by downloading materials. If that artist were really an artists and cared for the expression they were making, they would continue to make that expression regardless of the capital they are generating. The audience gives charity to an artist for something essentially worthless. A sincere artist is grateful for anything.
Philosophically, one cannot own a sound or expression. Art is not a product (as I proved in several ways in an earlier post) and cannot be owned. The file information is not was is owned, because copies of files are not the original file.
If corrupt profits from artworks ceased to exist, art would improve. Even if file-sharing is "stealing," it may not be intrinsically wrong, at least from a utilitarian perspective, as the results of their collapse, or at the very least, restructuring, could be good for artists and the majority of consumers.
Economically, philosophically and I'd say even ethically file-sharing is A-ok. | |
|
