how-to block ads
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to r81984
Re: money
said by r81984  :Just do not buy movie tickets, songs, or dvds. Instead download them for free from the glorious interweb. Ugg. This is the complete opposite of what you should be doing, if you're protesting a company's policies. If you wouldn't buy from Walmart, due to ethical reasons, you would then be justified in stealing from them? Get real; two wrongs don't make a right.
Honestly, if you wish to stick it to the **AAs in their wallet, there's plenty of legal ways to do so, but minor sacrifices would be made.
1. Don't go seeing the same crappy movies - big loss there, I know.
2. Don't go paying $15-20 for a CD that you want 1-3 tracks for - It's your money, demand better content for your buck.
3. Enjoy free radio/TV - you don't have to buy into the advertisements, at least not yet, lol.
4. Seek legal alternatives to your entertainment - many indy bands/sites would welcome new listeners/watchers.
Again, just stealing your favorite song/movie off the internet "because they charge too much"/"treat customers like crap"/"smell funny"/etc. is no excuse. What the **AAs peddle isn't life-critical, nor are they forcing you to buy their crappy product. Exercise some financial muscle, and show them what you want/expect through your purchasing power.
Stealing a crappy product is still stealing; demand a better product. | |
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| Aqua, I have to say this is a pretty compelling argument showing sharing files is not equal to stealing.
"FICTION: File sharers are thieves.
FACT: Put at its simplest, to steal something is to remove it from its original owner without his or her permission, causing deprivation through loss. File sharing means exactly what it says. Sharing. Nothing is stolen and no one is deprived of anything. To the contrary, file sharers are exposed to music they may never have otherwise heard. Mp3s are inferior, compressed copies of original CD tracks meant primarily for portable devices. People who listen to mp3s frequently go out to buy the originals so they can be played on home stereo systems.
Moreover, no money changes hands and no profits are made or lost."
Also noted in that article, they state how file-sharing actually doesn't have an impact on sales which I feel reinforces the fact that file-sharing is not "stealing" anything. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by stickfigure :Aqua, I have to say this is a pretty compelling argument showing sharing files is not equal to stealing. What you are mentioning here is sampling, and that's fairly up for debate, IMHO. The pre-cut 15-30 sec playtime "samples" of "sample tracks" that stores present you don't do a shopper justice, honestly. Myself included, there are people who use P2P to see what a CD is all about, and if we like...we buy the damn thing. If I think it's a load of crap, I delete it. True, the music industry would like you to think that sampling as such is illegal...but it's no more immoral than listening to a CD that your friend has purchased. And honestly, if I did get caught, I'd be more than happy to take RIAA to court over my sampling habits.
On the flip side though, I do have friends who live by P2P, and have no intention to purchase CDs, even if they like the songs. Folks like these check the P2P networks, download (CD title here), burn it to CD, and then rinse-lather-repeat. Now that, is stealing. True, it boils down to nothing more than the free exchange of 0s and 1s...but it is still equivalent to walking into (Music Store Name here), putting the CD in your pants, and walking out.
So, again, while I have no beef with people who use the P2P channels to sample, the folks that use P2P soley to gather music w/o paying the artist are adding to the fuel to the **AA's anti-P2P fire. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to stickfigure
More importantly there is precedent that states copyright infringement is not theft or stealing. U.S. vs. Dowling to be exact. So even if you equate sharing music to copyright infringement not only can you not define it as stealing scholastically but also legally. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by SRFireside :More importantly there is precedent that states copyright infringement is not theft or stealing. U.S. vs. Dowling to be exact. Screw legally, I'm talking morally. There is no excuse for those who use P2P to farm up their music collection, and have no intentions to purchase a damn thing. Complain about the product and the company policies all you want, but if its good enough for you to steal, its good enough for you to buy. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by Thaler :There is no excuse for those who use P2P to farm up their music collection, and have no intentions to purchase a damn thing. Agreed. Just keep in mind those types of people have always been around. WAY before P2P. Also keep in mind they aren't nearly as big a group as you think (they certainly are the loudest though). Most people who trade music still buy albums. Forget the "boycott the RIAA" group because I don't think they really know what they are talking about. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by SRFireside :Also keep in mind they aren't nearly as big a group as you think (they certainly are the loudest though). Oh, I most certainly do think they're in the minority, but I hate it when people post the "solution" to big, bad **AA, is to simply download (ie. steal) their products, until they come up with a more acceptable business model. | |
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | reply to Thaler
People like your friend would never have bought the music anyway, so the RIAA wouldn't have lost anything.
--
"I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult." -Rita Rudner | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by koolman2 :People like your friend would never have bought the music anyway, so the RIAA wouldn't have lost anything. ...that still doesn't excuse thievery. If I bring a product out to market, and someone takes it...again, that's stealing.
Maybe it's just me, and my morality, but pilfering an unauthorized digital copy of a product is stealing, and wrong. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Thaler :said by koolman2 :People like your friend would never have bought the music anyway, so the RIAA wouldn't have lost anything. ...that still doesn't excuse thievery. If I bring a product out to market, and someone takes it...again, that's stealing. Maybe it's just me, and my morality, but pilfering an unauthorized digital copy of a product is stealing, and wrong. Its not thievery. There is no way to prove logically that it is extensionally equivalent to theft. Nothing has been physically taken. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by broadbander :Nothing has been physically taken. True, it is a digital copy of itself, but you have to be pretty dense to not grab the big picture, and see that you are in essense, lifting a copy of the CD by downloading & keeping. The vendor of a product put it up, at some price, and didn't intend for it to be mass copied at convenience. By downloading it and burning it yourself, you would be, again, equivolent to walking up to a Tower Records and shoving that CD in your pants.
Just because you found a loophole in the distribution system doesn't make what you're doing legal, and most importantly to me, moral. If you're going to take a person's product that they're selling, and then not pay them...it's stealing, even if you caught them while they weren't looking. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| But your Ps and Qs aren't in order.
If we are to have a system of ethics, it should be a logical, reasoned one.
Here is your conclusion ...
Downloading files is extensionally equivalent to stealing CDs.
Now, how is that the case?
You are not taking the product, and you are not costing anyone any money. The argument that this is stealing and based upon hypothetical gains, not physical losses.
There is no cost of production for a digital copy of something. In the end, demand determines price, not supply. If demand can get something for the price of zero, why wouldn't it be taken as such?
The solution here is for companies to innovate and come up with new ways of selling whatever. Maybe not even music or films.
The solution for artists is to go back to making a living the way they made a living for thousands of years ... performance and through the support of a community.
Most artists don't make their money in sales (been there, trust me). They make it on touring, merchandise and licensing. The institutions who file-sharing might make suffer are the bloated, outmoded and corrupt labels that have been working with immoral, outdated business models since the 1950s. | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Thaler
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 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. | |
|
