stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Here's an interesting question: In America we pay $200 for a copy of Microsoft Windows. Did you know in China and India, places with much higher piracy rates, legal copies of Windows are sold for a discount (like $65)? Does this mean the American consumer is getting gouged? And did you know this is done because 90% of Windows in those countries is pirated, so in response the price was dropped in hopes more would legally purchase a copy. The cost to MS is in the billions due to pirating in these countries. But, according to you, they are only previewing the software and will surely be buying a licensed copy. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me back up and explain the philosophy of myself and others: - Copyright is granted by the US Government (an extension of "the People") - The current copyright regime, which grants life+50 years to created work is too far in providing rights to the author - We'd like to see a more rationale copyright term; something like 7-10 years. - Current copyright law is like welfare to media corporations. Copyright is intended to generate and promote creation; not provide welfare to artists. It doesn't make the fact that millions of consumers have decided its not worth paying for music/movies (I think most folks have just stopped downloading/listening to RIAA music) correct, or legal. That's the argument in a nutshell, call it "civil disobedience". It should be noted that all these cases are being tried under "distribution" related to use of a P2P network. All the articles I seem indicate she was charged with the downloading, but she was really charged with the illegal distribution related to use of a P2P network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 What you're advocating is theft with immunity from punishment. How many bank robberies you figure we'd have, if the law was that if caught, the maximum penalty was that they made you give the money back? If that's the penalty, then why shouldn't I steal? Are Bank Robbers punished criminally? Yes. Are those sued by the RIAA punished Criminally? No. I never said they (piraters) should be free from Criminal Prosecution. Do you like it when people put words in your mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 ... and most people who believe this way (I suppose I'd call it a "digital intelligensia"?) have simply stopped downloading or buying this music and looked for music and artists with different copyright strings attached. I hope one day to be able to record and distribute music for little-no cost. I support Podcasts and other broadcasts that are provided for free... and I find that 10x better solution than listening to the radio. I also do buy music as well; some of what I bought I had downloaded as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me back up and explain the philosophy of myself and others: - Copyright is granted by the US Government (an extension of "the People") - The current copyright regime, which grants life+50 years to created work is too far in providing rights to the author - We'd like to see a more rationale copyright term; something like 7-10 years. - Current copyright law is like welfare to media corporations. Copyright is intended to generate and promote creation; not provide welfare to artists. Why? If I make a song, and it's becomes popular, Why should i cease to make $ from the song 10 years later? It's my song. It's not your song. It's not the City's song. It's mine. I created it. It's pretty telling that you consider it "welfare". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me back up and explain the philosophy of myself and others: - Copyright is granted by the US Government (an extension of "the People") - The current copyright regime, which grants life+50 years to created work is too far in providing rights to the author - We'd like to see a more rationale copyright term; something like 7-10 years. - Current copyright law is like welfare to media corporations. Copyright is intended to generate and promote creation; not provide welfare to artists. It doesn't make the fact that millions of consumers have decided its not worth paying for music/movies (I think most folks have just stopped downloading/listening to RIAA music) correct, or legal. That's the argument in a nutshell, call it "civil disobedience". It should be noted that all these cases are being tried under "distribution" related to use of a P2P network. All the articles I seem indicate she was charged with the downloading, but she was really charged with the illegal distribution related to use of a P2P network. You are not entitled to enjoy other people's work for free. Nobody is forcing you to buy RIAA music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me back up and explain the philosophy of myself and others: - Copyright is granted by the US Government (an extension of "the People") - The current copyright regime, which grants life+50 years to created work is too far in providing rights to the author - We'd like to see a more rationale copyright term; something like 7-10 years. - Current copyright law is like welfare to media corporations. Copyright is intended to generate and promote creation; not provide welfare to artists. It doesn't make the fact that millions of consumers have decided its not worth paying for music/movies (I think most folks have just stopped downloading/listening to RIAA music) correct, or legal. That's the argument in a nutshell, call it "civil disobedience". It should be noted that all these cases are being tried under "distribution" related to use of a P2P network. All the articles I seem indicate she was charged with the downloading, but she was really charged with the illegal distribution related to use of a P2P network. All you all are looking for is entitlement to free music. You couch it in terms of "welfare to media corporations". Last I heard, corporations are not non-profit entities. Why should anyone other than the owner of the music have any rights to the music? Why should an artist be limited to earnings on his creation to a set period of time? As long as the piece is sought after, why shouldn't he/she or the owner be compensated? Why should you ever be entitled to rights over any music? What makes music different than a material possesion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The artist is not entitled to be compensated for 30+ years as well. It just so happens that what the law is. The original law was more in line with 7-14 years as well... have to wonder why in an age where "the world is flat" we've made the laws to be less-flat. I mean I know why *mickeymouse* but it doesn't make it right. Hence, this form of protest I am advocating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The fines were not for downloading music. They were for UPLOADING music so other people could copy it. While the fines may still be harsh, they make more sense if you think of the number of times the song may have been downloaded online. Literally in the thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands. I still think the ruling is excessive for a small timer like her but if she had just stuck to downloading she wouldn't be in this mess. Leave the uploading to experts. :2cents: Oh, and F the RIAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Imagine getting fined $800,000 for that mix cd you made someone. That's not what this is about. She had illegally downloaded more than a thousand items and was redistributing them. They prosecuted her for 24 of them. I don't buy for one minute that every download is a lost purchase and so it's very hard to quantify real damages, but stealing digital media should have real consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Oh, and F the RIAA. I think we can all agree on that. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me back up and explain the philosophy of myself and others: - Copyright is granted by the US Government (an extension of "the People") - The current copyright regime, which grants life+50 years to created work is too far in providing rights to the author - We'd like to see a more rationale copyright term; something like 7-10 years. - Current copyright law is like welfare to media corporations. Copyright is intended to generate and promote creation; not provide welfare to artists. It doesn't make the fact that millions of consumers have decided its not worth paying for music/movies (I think most folks have just stopped downloading/listening to RIAA music) correct, or legal. That's the argument in a nutshell, call it "civil disobedience". It should be noted that all these cases are being tried under "distribution" related to use of a P2P network. All the articles I seem indicate she was charged with the downloading, but she was really charged with the illegal distribution related to use of a P2P network. Lets take this example further than just music...lets say i just spent 14 years writing th most amazing play the world has ever seen. So you are saying that my copyright should last 1/2 as long as it took to create it? I agree that eventually the copyright needs to to run out otherwise there would be logistical nightmares in tracking ownership of rights through the centuries. At some point things do become history and belong to the world. However, in no way should that happen in the lifetime of the creator. If i create it, i should have private ownership over it for my entire life. I can see both sides of the argument as to how long afer the creators death until it becomes public domain, but come on 7-10 years for a copyright is totally crazy. Think about cases where for whatever reason a song, movie or play is out for years before it has any comercial sucess, do you really believe that if i create something that doesnt make any money for 7 years and then blows up that i shouldnt get any of those proceeds. I think your perception is off a bit here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Fergasun, You're not protesting anything. That is simply a strawman to divert attention from the the fact that you, and all others who argue as you do, don't want to pay for music. It is no more complicated than that. You cannot offer up one logical reason why an artist should not be compensated for his/her work indefinately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The artist is not entitled to be compensated for 30+ years as well. It just so happens that what the law is. The original law was more in line with 7-14 years as well... have to wonder why in an age where "the world is flat" we've made the laws to be less-flat. I mean I know why *mickeymouse* but it doesn't make it right. Hence, this form of protest I am advocating. Why not, if I created a popular song, movie, tv show I should be compensated as long as people want to enjoy my creation. Why should some lazy idiot benefit from my hard work 10 years later. If you want free music create your own and give it away for all I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The artist is not entitled to be compensated for 30+ years as well. After 7 - 14 years is it OK if I take all of your possessions? After all, you'll have had reasonable use of them by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Originally Posted by Fergasun - The current copyright regime, which grants life+50 years to created work is too far in providing rights to the author - We'd like to see a more rationale copyright term; something like 7-10 years. As a professional creative person, let me just say... :finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 And here I've always thought it was kinda funny that a company like Sony not only signs & distributes artists, but also manufactures & sells computers that rip music & allow file sharing & blank CDs to record those same ripped songs onto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The artist is not entitled to be compensated for 30+ years as well. It just so happens that what the law is. The original law was more in line with 7-14 years as well... have to wonder why in an age where "the world is flat" we've made the laws to be less-flat. I mean I know why *mickeymouse* but it doesn't make it right. Hence, this form of protest I am advocating. I think you are full of crap. If you want to support creativity you can do it by downloading free legal music from thousands of indi bands who would love the exposure and make their music available for free BY CHOICE. Stealing popular music does nothing to promote creativity. Seriously man, who the **** do you think you are that you can tell me how long I can be compensated for my hard work? And when did you suddenly become a communist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 And here I've always thought it was kinda funny that a company like Sony not only signs & distributes artists, but also manufactures & sells computers that rip music & allow file sharing & blank CDs to record those same ripped songs onto. Yeah it is ironic isn't it? But if they didn't do it someone else would, and they would be out those profits as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 As a professional creative person, let me just say... :finger: As another professional creative person, let me add my :finger: to the chorus. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bch89 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If its such a big !@#$in deal to the RIAA and government then why do computers make CD BURNERS. This argument is so stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If its such a big !@#$in deal to the RIAA and government then why do computers make CD BURNERS. This argument is so stupid. Are CD burners ONLY to burn someone Else's intellectual property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Shoudn't have broken the law. When one of my daughters buys a CD, the other is not allowed to download the songs to her MP3 player. If she wants the songs, she has to buy her own CD. If they want to download music, they have to buy a pre-paid card they can use to make the purchase. If I find music on their MP3 player and they haven't purchased it, they lose the player. My opinion on how the industry works is irrelevent. We are governed by laws on the issue and they are to be followed. Not sure why this seems to be such a difficult concept for many. You're crazy if you think I'd buy two CD's so each of my sons could have one (though they aren't old enough for this yet). I'm glad you have the money to follow their laws to the line, but most don't. I agree with the fact that illegal downloading of songs is just that, illegal, but I think you may be taking this a little too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If its such a big !@#$in deal to the RIAA and government then why do computers make CD BURNERS. This argument is so stupid. That's an excellent point. If shoplifting is such a big deal, why do stores have doors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Are CD burners ONLY to burn someone Else's intellectual property? Exactly...CD's are a media type, not just music discs. They can be used to burn data as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.