how-to block ads
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to broadbander
Re: money
said by broadbander  :When I buy a CD, I am paying for the physical CD. There's your first mistake. Like it or not, in today's society, you're paying for a license to play said music. Nobody really "owns" music - we're paying for the right to use it under the terms of fair use. It is, essentially, an agreement of sorts to buy music. And with any agreement one makes, you can't pick & choose what you will follow, after you have agreed to said terms.
said by broadbander :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 dunno. If an artist submitted their art under copyright laws, such that I am agreeing to the terms I said above...and then turn around and break my agreements "because they suck", I would be in the wrong. The time for barter on agreements and terms is before a transaction, not after. Should I not like how the current "paying for the rights to play" system works, (which I detest) then I shouldn't enter into such agreements. This is where recording broadcasts, indy artists, etc. all come in.
Buying music under today's methods is a package deal. You either buy the product, with terms and agreements set forth by the vendor, or you take your business elsewhere, which I do.
said by broadbander :P2P distributes an artist's expression. Well, then let those artists put their tracks out digitally. It seems pretty damn clear to me that the majority of bands who have agreements w/ RIAA never intended for their works to become freely avaliable.
said by broadbander :Imagine a regime. They are evil... ...then imagine you enter into a contract with the leader of said regime. And then you decided to break terms with your contract when it best suited you. Again, nomatter how evil RIAA is, by buying their CDs, you have agreed to their terms in today's copyright laws.
When you strike a deal, verbally or otherwise, knowing that you won't live up to your agreements, that is lying, and again, wrong. True, today honesty is about as disposable as toilet paper, but when I enter into agreements, I live up to the terms of my obligations...or rid myself of entering into said agreements altogether.
I guess I do now have an agreement, that P2P isn't so much "stealing", but rather lying to the current day copyright holders for your own gain. Again, this might just be me, but lying in any way, shape, or form is wrong IMHO. If one honestly were seeking copyright reform, the best and ethical way would be writing letters, and expressing your opinon by not purchasing (or downloading) music. Violating copyright laws only fuels the copyright holders' position for further enforcement of their "property".
And while we're in tangentville...
said by broadbander :Shouldn't they kill the puppies and save the vast majority of suffering the regime inflicts? Why should I be the one to impose upon someone else's regime? Sure it can sound downright hellish to me, but that's the way of life they're accustomed to, and real change can only be started from within. Sure, waiting for people to overthrow a suppresive regime might take longer than militarily going in and rooting out "the problem", but then it would be their own society's natural development, and not just our will imposed upon them.
Society progresses naturally throughout time, and its rather closed-minded to play "world police" and demand that everyone model themselves after "the best society". If people feel their society sucks, they will change it. Going in there and forcibly causing artificial change only opens up a whole new can of worms, for which the imposers are to blame. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| It is, essentially, an agreement of sorts to buy music.
Explain logically, with respect to the arguments I made already debunking the notion philosophically.
The time for barter on agreements and terms is before a transaction, not after.
The artist is not who a purchaser is contracting with. They are contracting with the distributor/seller of the CD. Who I'm buying from does not change what I'm buying.
Now, that said, from the downloader's perspective, I have no contract with that distributor when I download a file, so I cannot be violating one. I never entered into the agreement with them. And if I upload my file that I have downloaded from wherever, then again, I am not breaking that contract. It is possible that the first upload was a breach of some contract (regardless of how valid and logical that imposed contract is). This may be true, depending on the particular circumstances of that initial upload.
I don't know if people who work for labels or independent record stations (who are the ones who generally distribute material in the first place) have a particular contract that says they will not upload a series of sounds into a particular file. Contracts have little to do with morality anyway.
You either buy the product, with terms and agreements set forth by the vendor, or you take your business elsewhere, which I do.
Right. I buy indie music as well, but I do so to support artists and their way of life, not as a reaction against the mainstream music industry. Those who DL files are taking their business elsewhere; to free distributors who happen to charge real cost-of-product; zero.
It seems pretty damn clear to me that the majority of bands who have agreements w/ RIAA never intended for their works to become freely avaliable.
I've explained why artists intent is irrelevant to the morality of downloading and uploading.
when I enter into agreements
I didn't enter it, only those who purchase CDs and then upload them entered it (not sure how I feel yet, an interesting assertion though, good thought). The majority of music made available online is most likely not done so from ripped CDs, but from promo CDs and within labels own employment infrastructure.
that P2P isn't so much "stealing", but rather lying
This is an interesting take I have never heard and seems well-reasoned. I'll have to think about it.
Society progresses naturally throughout time, and its rather closed-minded to play "world police" and demand that everyone model themselves after "the best society". If people feel their society sucks, they will change it.
I assume you opposed the Iraq War then? 
Another spot we differ a bit, but that's for another thread.  | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to Thaler
Okay lets straighten a few things out. This is starting to get ugly. What seems to be happening here is a battle over what is considered ethic and unethical in P2P. But before we explore that lets take a look at the legality of file sharing. For one there really is no precedent that shows individual users sharing music is copyright infringement. Not one case has gone to court. No verdict has been made. For companies, yes. But that's another matter altogether considering they are profiting from their endeavors.
Lets further explore this by looking into Fair Use. There are four factors that go into determining what is considered fair use:
1 - Is what's going on for profit. File sharers are doing just that. Sharing files. No money is made.
2 - Nature of the copyrighted work. We're talking about music, which is a medium where you can reproduce an IP just by using your own voice. Remember boys and girls copyright is on the song. Not the recording.
3 - The amount of the work used. This doesn't apply here. It more applies to when someone makes a derivative work that is very much like a copyrighted work (Hip Hop artists taking a groove from an original song, muzak, remixes, etc).
4 - The effect on the market. No proof that P2P is affecting the market in any substantive way.
This is not even delving into other portions of copyright law like how you can't collect royalties twice on something (you share music from a CD you bought royalties have already been paid). Also there is a section saying no action can be taken against copying based on non-commercial use of a digital medium.
So far the RIAA is rolling forward with a single grey area in copyright law where it says "sales and distribution" by saying it's infringement when you distribute regardless of any sales. However this conflicts with some fair use elements if you dig deeper. Until the courts really make this decision it is still a very big question on calling sharing music infringement.
Now that we have this out of the way all that's left is each individual's moral thoughts on the issue. You feel it's wrong to trade music? Fine. Don't do it. Many people feel it's wrong to have sex before marriage while others don't. You can shake your head all you want, but you can't change a person's personal ethics just simply saying they are wrong.
I support file trading so long as it's not abused. That's my position. The nutcase who boasts downloading gigs of music a night in my opinion is wrong. They aren't buying albums later on. They aren't doing it for the love of music. Just bragging rights. That's where I draw the line. If you guys are going to continue to argue over what line you draw this thread will just go on in perpetuity because no matter how much you try you the other person believes what they believe. Lets just leave it at that. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
1 edit | I dunno. I kinda try and do the simplified blockhead approach, so that my ideas are easily digested. I've seen friends who have burnt buttloads of CDs, don't intend to pay a dime, and will continue to do so until, A.) the artist becomes broke, or B.) someone sues their happy ass. Thus is the nature of living by good graces - there are a lot of people who don't have them, lol.
Basically, how the situation breaks down to me is this:
Company A (RIAA and the bands whom have aflliated/signed under them) makes product X (the tunes!). Company A, being a greedy son-of-a-B, releases their product, under certain stipulations that customers concede to follow by purchasing. (copyright laws/fair use terms/EULAs, etc.) Among these terms is the agreement that won't begin duplication of said product. Company A later rolls in dough, but eyes people who are now sporting home-made, perfect copies of product X, and gets pissed. Soon after, lawyers are involved, squeezing money out of unauthorized product X duplicate users (and dead grannies w/o a PC alike) and getting Company A's second fleet of BMWs.
We can argue 'till the cows come home that Company A is greedy, their aggreements suck, and for the most part, should rot in hell. However, somewhere along the lines of their customers/agreements, someone broke their word. (ie. lied) What's up for personal interpretation is wether making copies off said breach-of-contract material is moral or not, seeing as how the manufacturer is pretty clear they never intended for outside duplication. As for myself, doing such wouldn't sit well with me, as it feels like the endorsement of immoral acts. So, that's my grand macro simplified view of things, take of it what you wish. I'll still use P2P to sample songs regardless of what the industry would have me belive my fair use rights are. And to those of you, downloading GBs of songs, and have no intentions of supporting the artist/musician, I'd like to personally slap you with a fish. 
said by SRFireside :You can shake your head all you want, but you can't change a person's personal ethics just simply saying they are wrong. True, but a few staples of morality are what I've seen...or at least hope, are commonplace. No killing, no stealing, and staying honest are among the more commonplace ethics between the various schools of thought, without going into much more detail. If you do know of a culture/civilization that doesn't have something to say about killing, stealing, and lying, I'd love to hear. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| I guess the dissension lies in the concept of the EULA implied when getting a CD. All it states is unauthorized duplication is prohibited. So now we're back to what's authorized and what's not. We both know of the exceptions to a copyright holder's exclusive rights so is authorization necessary in these instances? Now we are on the track regarding fair use and whether or not it applies. So essentially the "agreement" between customer and vendor is not nearly as cut and dry as "You buy it you can listen to it, but you can't make copies."
What the manufacturer intends to happen to the CD is a moot point once they get their money (and royalties) from you if you ask me. As long as I am not profiting from the material then they got everything required by law. Also keep in mind mp3's are not digitally perfect copies. While to many ears it's close to CD quality it's still a compressed, lossy format with only a few benefits over ferric oxide cassette tapes (namely no degradation the more you replay it).
So again it's back to what do you feel is the right thing. You have admitted to using P2P to try new music (and subsequently buy) so apparently P2P isn't wrong to you. You do say it's wrong to abuse it like what you see some friends do. I'm down with that too. Sounds a lot like what I preach to my stepdaughter regarding P2P. All these thoughts on "art isn't a commodity thus there is no solid value" and "sharing music is lying to artists" tend to be more philosophical. In the end artists are indeed being compensated and make a living from their craft and people are either paying or not. Since we still have a music industry apparently the former is still the majority. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by SRFireside :What the manufacturer intends to happen to the CD is a moot point once they get their money (and royalties) from you if you ask me. True, but by purchasing the CDs/iTunes/etc., you have agreed to the terms set forth by EULA/copyright indefinately. It's a crappy deal, but hey...they agreed to it. Don't sign your soul away to the devil if you're not expecting to pay.
said by SRFireside :Also keep in mind mp3's are not digitally perfect copies. True, most things you find off the P2P channels are ripped by a crack midget. Two things, however:
1. More experienced audio-crazy rippers either use lossless compression algorythms, or variable-rate MP3 encoding, as to get a perfect/near-mint copy of the song.
2. CDs/MP3s are vastly superior to the old days of piracy, as you do have a perfect master from which to duplicate. Records/tapes were all analog, and would suffer degradation from the very first play. Not to meantion, making copies of copies sucked in those days, as you'd keep losing quality w/ every generation rip. Now comes the MP3, perform a File -> Copy, and you have a 100% identical copy.
said by SRFireside :So again it's back to what do you feel is the right thing. You have admitted to using P2P to try new music (and subsequently buy) so apparently P2P isn't wrong to you. No, I don't think P2P technology is a "super huge evil demon", like the **AAs. The people who abuse said technology...that's a different matter.
And I personally would think that using P2P to "sample" would fall under already established fair-use laws. When you buy a CD, you're allowed to let a friend borrow it, listen to it, play it for him, etc. There's nothing different between asking a friend for a CD and hopping on the P2P channels to listen to said same CD. It's a different approach, but they both have the same goal. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Well maybe the world wants to worship the almighty dollar, but that doesn't mean you have to play that game completely. That's why I have no problems sharing certain tracks from certain CD's on P2P, regardless of EULAs. That's why when a buddy wants to make a copy of a CD I have no probs. Just because "they" say it has to be done a certain way doesn't mean you have to play along with it.
I mean where in the world would I be able to go in order to purchase a pristine copy of the music I love AND be able to share the joy? If I simply followed the you-have-to-agree-to-our-terms road then essentially the only option for me is to just download the songs and not buy the CD. Now the artist truly suffers. So no thank you. I'll unwrap my CD and ignore the "warning" labels. I feel this is better for me, other music fans, and the artist. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to doctrine
Wow! The pickin's are certainly there today.
First off, maybe it is YOU who should grow up. I post quite a few posts on this board; I don't live on it. I do make long, lengthy, and often substance filled posts. Just because I don't go back, re-read every word, proof read them, spell check them 100% doesn't mean I am not educated. I am VERY education. I own a business, two homes, one worth $750,000 and the other worth $450,000; I would say I am at or above in middle class. I didn't get here without an education, little boy. It does, however, show that when someone like you has can only attack someone on the basis on a few typos, that your intellect is ranked more in the childish category rather than the grown up and educated category. For gawd sakes, this is a message board not a book. I think typos are acceptable I am HARDLY the only one that has them in their posts. If you want to read something typo free then go buy a book and even then I have seen typos in published books at before too.
Second, while you were busy proof reading my message for words misspelled, you failed to grasp my very messagebut not just in one message, rather TWO messages! GP also tried to accuse me of the very same thing you did on music and national security. Please QUOTE MY POSTS where I stated specifically that stealing music would hurt national security. It's completely obvious that you failed to even read the very message that you so cleverly TRIED to one-up me on, and I remind you - you failed. I will not repost or reply to explain the point to you again. Take some time and actually read the post and answer your own comment. I know it's probably not your "thing" to actually read... but seriously, if you want to be part of a conversation, open your ears, or in this case, your eyes, and read!
Clown school? Didn't know they existed, however, you know what they say,... a skunk smells his own scent first!
Honestly? Your post didn't even deserve a reply. However, for pure entertainment value, I felt that you needed to be ousted for this one. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| I am VERY education. I own a business, two homes, one worth $750,000 and the other worth $450,000
Farrell: You do not talk to me like that!! I work too hard to deal with this stuff!! I work too hard!! I'm a Division Manager in charge of 49 people!! I drive a Dodge Stratus!! | |
|
