Well read his thread first!
Printable View
Well read his thread first!
Sigh :D
K.
And have fun. It's a long-*** thread. :D
In these cases I don't see it as stealing (for reasons you'll discover {and undoubtedly completely disagree with} if you read the other thread) so I'm not actually saying stealing is alright. You'll have to ask someone else if you want to hear that.Quote:
I'd like to here in what situations it's alright for you to steal something.
if you dont have money to buy a *SOFTWARE* then rip it!
I dont think that *stealing* is a right word to use;D
GOD THAT WAS A LONG BLOODY THREAD. I skipped over some parts of it, but I read most of the text between you and the other guy. Correct me if I say something out of line :D I'll just stem off your last post.
Please elaborate on this. What forms of "side-stepping" are acceptable? Under what conditions are these forms of side-stepping considered appropriate?Quote:
I have no objection to people side-stepping the system, when appropriate, to make things more reasonable.
And what about the system is unreasonable, that people in the far reaches of the planet do not have direct access to a CD store? It seems to me that if they have access to a Napster-like service over the Internet, they have equal access to an online music store such as www.cdnow.com or www.amazon.com. If so, why is there a need to circumvent copyright law?
No, you didn't read the thread properly. This is not what I said and I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth (again). Side stepping is using services like Napster to, as I said, make things more reasonable.Quote:
And what about the system is unreasonable, that people in the far reaches of the planet do not have direct access to a CD store? It seems to me that if they have access to a Napster-like service over the Internet, they have equal access to an online music store such as www.cdnow.com or www.amazon.com. If so, why is there a need to circumvent copyright law?
Good grief, I'm not going to type that all again, if you have something you'd like to say that I haven't already covered then feel free.
"This is not what I said and I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth (again)"
Dude, calm down. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just asking questions. If you can't answer my questions, then let someone else.
"Side stepping is using services like Napster to, as I said, make things more reasonable."
Yes, explain that a little more fully. What, if anything, about the current system is unreasonable?
Argh. You haven't read the thread. I am perfectly calm, except for the fact that I've said this all before.
What's unreasonable about the system is that the selling price of the intellecual property is very rarely the same as the value of that property to the consumer, due to the nature of the fixed-price system. I am not saying we should employ a variable-price system because that is not practical, what I am saying is that the system cannot practically be made more reasonable if one sweeping set of laws apply to everyone, which has to be the case. So the system is destined to be unreasonable. The only way to deal with it in a reasonable fashion is going to be illegal in some cases.
Whether you think everyone should do things legally but sometimes unreasonably or reasonably but sometimes illegally is down to the individual.
The reason I don't view it as theft is because there is no loss to the seller. Really. If you dispute this, please, please read everything I said in the other thread about opportunity cost and the worth of a product to an individual before you reply.
aknisely,
Where do you get off defending these people? Music is an art form, and art should not be comercialized, hoarded, protected, copyrighted, and all that other crap that these guys are doing to it. What if it wasn't music but a painting that we were talking about? They're saying that it would be illeagel to sell a poster with a picture of that painting on it. No one except those who had enough money to buy/see an original would ever be able to appreciate the artwork. Consequently, no one would care about paintings except for the rich so all these paintings would not exsist at all because there would not be a market for it. It's the same thing with music.
No, I do not see anything wrong with logging on to Morpheus or KaZaa or anything else like that and downloading whatever song I feel like. Call it what you will, but p2p file sharing has been a big influence in pop culture today, and music would not be the same if Napster had never come about.
This ripping protection would prevent people who buy CDs legitimatly from listening to it on their computers, copying it to their hard drive so they can just listen to it from there and not have to keep switching discs, and it would also pretty much kill any market for digital audio players.
So basically what I'm saying is that all this crap with Napster and now this is not going to do anything good for the music industry except for giving the already too rich suits more money. Call me what you will, but I'm proud to say that I have 6.5 GB of mp3s, and as long as file sharing exsists, I will be adding to it.:cool:
HarryW,
Well, that's the idea behind living in a democratic nation. Nothing you do will please everyone, you merely try to do the best you can by pleasing the majority of people. You cannot make it so that it's okay to break the laws if you don't agree with them.Quote:
what I am saying is that the system cannot practically be made more reasonable if one sweeping set of laws apply to everyone, which has to be the case"
No, the only reasonable way to deal with it is to let the minority who disagree with the laws in question live somewhere else where the laws are more acceptable to them. You cannot break the law when you disagree with it, nor can you have a system based on something like that.Quote:
The only way to deal with it in a reasonable fashion is going to be illegal in some cases.
Of course there's loss to the seller. If you steal a CD on Napster, the owner of the material loses $15 (or whatever the price) in gross sales.Quote:
The reason I don't view it as theft is because there is no loss to the seller
goudabuddha,
Music is also a business. I believe the French tried to make an altruistic system of art where you could copy everything freely, and art went down the toilet in France for years until they decided that people should be paying to hear and see art.Quote:
Music is an art form, and art should not be comercialized, hoarded, protected, copyrighted, and all that other crap that these guys are doing to it
That's exactly right. If I draw a picture, you cannot reproduce that picture in any way without my permission.Quote:
They're saying that it would be illeagel to sell a poster with a picture of that painting on it.
Therefore, it would be to my advantage to expose my picture to as many people as possible.Quote:
No one except those who had enough money to buy/see an original would ever be able to appreciate the artwork. Consequently, no one would care about paintings except for the rich so all these paintings would not exsist at all because there would not be a market for it
That tells me nothing. What would music be like if Napster hadn't come about?Quote:
Call it what you will, but p2p file sharing has been a big influence in pop culture today, and music would not be the same if Napster had never come about.
This much is correct, I believe that this action violates fair use protection.Quote:
This ripping protection would prevent people who buy CDs legitimatly from listening to it on their computers, copying it to their hard drive so they can just listen to it from there and not have to keep switching discs
You realize how much respect I have for you now?Quote:
Call me what you will, but I'm proud to say that I have 6.5 GB of mp3s, and as long as file sharing exsists, I will be adding to it.
You realize how much I care?Quote:
You realize how much respect I have for you now?
"You realize how much I care?"
Don't reply to this thread again. We're having an adult conversation.
I think you took what I said wrong, I meant that I have even less respect for you.
Then act like an adult :)Quote:
Don't reply to this thread again. We're having an adult conversation.
It's the publisher that loses $15 or whatever that is in REAL money :p The artist probably gets about $5-10 of that. However, a lot of music is shared, and people download it, but they wouldn't have bought it ANYWAY. Yeah, if they want to buy it then they can. Basically, file sharing increases the probability that an album will be bought :)
PS: I have 2GB of MP3s, 1.5GB are ripped from my OWN, BOUGHT CDs.
"Then act like an adult"
Nuts to you, pal :D
"It's the publisher that loses $15"
That's what I said.
"The artist probably gets about $5-10 of that"
Actually, I've heard in most cases it's less than $3.
"Basically, file sharing increases the probability that an album will be bought"
No it does not. If you can get the fully functional and complete product for free, very few people will buy it. Napster (etc) are not sampling services, and it's high improbable that they help any sort of music sale to compare to the vast amounts that have been stolen.
"I have 2GB of MP3s, 1.5GB are ripped from my OWN, BOUGHT CDs."
I have 3.5GB. All of which I have purchased.
Erm...56K modem...it's not really practical to download a whole album, even as MP3 :rolleyes:Quote:
No it does not. If you can get the fully functional and complete product for free, very few people will buy it. Napster (etc) are not sampling services, and it's high improbable that they help any sort of music sale to compare to the vast amounts that have been stolen.
Anyway, I got a song of Napster, and subsequently bought the album (Californication)...so nuts back atcha :D
"Anyway, I got a song of Napster, and subsequently bought the album"
Is that typical of your 500 MB of stolen music?
Besides, that doesn't have anything to do with the copyright matter, because Napster (etc) are not authorized by the copyright owners to provide the music for the purposes of sampling. Even if Napster increases music sales by 10,000%, it's still copyright violation.
Actually, the original purpose of Napster was for starting-out singers to be able to post their music for people to hear, and hopefully it would get around to a record exec and that person would get signed. Then people started putting on CDs that they recorded and Napster got in a whole mess of trouble.
No, not typical at all, considering most of it I wouldn't have bought anyway. Actually, I wouldn't have bought ANY of it, considering that at first look I wouldn't have wanted it. As a plus point, a lot of it is unavailable. OK, example: about 6/7 months ago I downloaded "Drops of Jupiter". That only just got released here in the UK, and when I last heard it was at number 10. Will I buy the album? Probably. Would I have otherwise? No.
If Napster increased it by 10,000% I doubt the copyright holders would complain :rolleyes:
PS: Napster is dead :p
goudabuddha,
That's a load of rubbish and you know it. Before Napster was sued, it advertised things like "Find Any MP3" and "Free music for all." >99% of the music traded on Napster was copyrighted material, and when they got caught, they instantly changed their purpose and claimed they had no control or connection with these people who were misusing the service. You aren't fooling anyone with that unsigned artist nonsense.Quote:
Actually, the original purpose of Napster was for starting-out singers to be able to post their music for people to hear, and hopefully it would get around to a record exec and that person would get signed. Then people started putting on CDs that they recorded and Napster got in a whole mess of trouble.
mike,
"Will I buy the album? Probably. Would I have otherwise? No."
Excellent, but Napster is not authorized by the people that own the material.
"If Napster increased it by 10,000% I doubt the copyright holders would complain"
You'd think so, but in actuallity, Napster was harming music sales, and so the copyright owners did complain. And rightfully so.
ARRRRGHHHHH Are you BLIND man?!? I said it as politely as I could, PLEASE READ THE THREAD PROPERLY BEFORE YOU REPLY.Quote:
Of course there's loss to the seller. If you steal a CD on Napster, the owner of the material loses $15 (or whatever the price) in gross sales.
I HAVE been over this. Opportunity cost is what you're talking about, and if there's no opportunity there is NO COST. Give me strength!
You are totally missing the point about a reasonable system and a practical, legal system. I AM NOT saying the system needs to be changed! Listen and repeat after me: "Harry is not saying the system needs to be changed."
It is not reasonable to restrict the sales of goods only to those whose desire for the goods exceeds a particular boundary of willingness to pay. It is reasonable to price goods with no variable costs at a variable rate, dependent on the value of that product to the consumer. This, however, is totally impractical. Thus we have an unreasonable system, because no other system is practical.
Oh yes you can. It is perfectly possible to break the law. In some cases that is the reasonable thing to do. The law is fallible. The law's primary objective is not to be ethical.Quote:
You cannot break the law when you disagree with it, nor can you have a system based on something like that.
I said that was the original purpose. Their purpose changed.Quote:
That's a load of rubbish and you know it. Before Napster was sued, it advertised things like "Find Any MP3" and "Free music for all." >99% of the music traded on Napster was copyrighted material, and when they got caught, they instantly changed their purpose and claimed they had no control or connection with these people who were misusing the service. You aren't fooling anyone with that unsigned artist nonsense.
I've forgotten how they said they proved that. Could you refresh my memory?Quote:
You'd think so, but in actuallity, Napster was harming music sales
Prove it. Go on. Personally I have found Napster to be invaluable in finding new music that interests me. I buy a lot of music. I have a lot of mp3s. Most of the music I own I first discovered on mp3; believe me, the vast majority of the stuff I have on mp3 I'm never going to hear on the radio or on MTV, or anything like that. It was my main source of new material and new interest. I have downloaded entire albums on mp3, listened to them, then gone and bought the CD. Don't try and tell me I've harmed the music industry by using Napster, because it's not true.Quote:
in actuallity, Napster was harming music sales
I agree 100% with you, Harry. I've bought several albums as a result of first sampling the tracks that I got off Morpheus.
I don't normally buy a huge amount of music, because I live out of the way of any decent music shops, so it costs me £4 (train fare) every time I want to buy anything. That sort of surcharge is excessive for my miniscule income, so I rarely buy things.
However, the last time I went I bought a DVD, and I have a couple of albums I plan on buying as well.
Harry
"I AM NOT saying the system needs to be changed"
Yes, you are. Right now, the system does not allow for people to break the law, regardless of reasonable or unreasonable. The system imposes penalties for people who break the law, in any circumstance. If you want people to break the law without penalty, then you want to change the legal system. If you want people to break the law, but respect the fact that they will suffer penalty, then you don't want the system changed.
"It is not reasonable to restrict the sales of goods only to those whose desire for the goods exceeds a particular boundary of willingness to pay."
Yes, it is. That is one of the very fundamental concepts in capitalism. If I do not wish to sell to you, or if I do not wish to sell something to you at a price that is acceptable to you, then I am not forced to. And you cannot steal it from me. You simply have to learn to exist without my product until you decide to purchase it under my terms.
"Thus we have an unreasonable system, because no other system is practical."
What's your point? You cannot break the law and avoid consequence, reasonable or not.
goudabuddha,
"I said that was the original purpose. Their purpose changed."
It changed, but you cannot merely change your slogan and be done with the problem. Your service faciliates and openly accepts illegal activity, and as a result, it has been ordered to control the flow of music. Napster, with all of the filters in place, is what it should have been when it started if it had hoped to avoid legal trouble.
"I've forgotten how they said they proved that. Could you refresh my memory?"
If it is possible to obtain a fully functional and complete product without having to pay for it, people will use that method. People will not lawfully purchase another copy, because they have in their possession the complete deal. You said yourself that you have six gigs of MP3s; how many of them did you purchase legally?
Harry Again :P
"I have downloaded entire albums on mp3, listened to them, then gone and bought the CD"
Lovely, but there's no control over that. You get the complete deal, and there isn't anything stopping me from downloading a thousand MP3's and burning them to CD's. I suspect that the vast majority of MP3's stolen over the Internet do not incite sales.
That isn't proof, that is a logical explaination. I wanted proof. You obviously have none. And I'll have you know that 85% of the tracks I have were purchased legally. The other 15% are by the same artists I already had to see if I wanted to buy another CD by them.Quote:
If it is possible to obtain a fully functional and complete product without having to pay for it, people will use that method. People will not lawfully purchase another copy, because they have in their possession the complete deal. You said yourself that you have six gigs of MP3s; how many of them did you purchase legally?
"That isn't proof, that is a logical explaination. I wanted proof."
Well, all I can offer is an explanation, and I think it fits pretty well. I don't have proof, although I'm sure that marketing staff for the record companies would have some real statistical proof. I don't have that proof, all I have is that theory. Do you dispute my theory?
"I'll have you know that 85% of the tracks I have were purchased legally."
And 15% were stolen. What is your point?
Yes, I do, because you have no proof to back that theory up, and I have yet to think of a way that a record company could come up with statistics that would prove people don't buy albums specifically because of Napster and the like. How would you propose that one would do that?Quote:
Do you dispute my theory?
"because you have no proof to back that theory up"
That's what makes it a theory, and not a fact. Do you believe my theory is flawed?
"How would you propose that one would do that?"
What on earth do you think a marketing department does?? They take everything, right down to the most insignificant detail and stick it in computers. Everything from competitors sales, domestic and foreign sales, regional sales, catagorical and subcatagorical sales, localle sales, days of the week, days of the month, months of the year, year in a decade, sales of unrelated products, everything. They then spend their entire lives in front of computers thinking about how everything affects the sale of their product. These people make a killing spending weeks on end looking at perhaps one statistical fact.
They know how many of their songs are being traded on napster, how many of the competitors', what sales were like before napster, after, during, and all the other factors that you could possibly come up with, and then they present an incredibly detailed report on what is harming sales, and what can be done about it.
Marketing can prove that the sky is red, or that cows bark, if they wanted.
No, I'm not. Disagree all you want, you're entitled to your opinion, but I know my own mind and I know that I'm not.Quote:
Yes, you are
This is how things are already. The vast majority people who break copyright laws aren't prosecuted. The system gets sidestepped, in both ethical and inethical ways. You are talking about the law. I am talking about reality. They are very different.Quote:
If you want people to break the law without penalty, then you want to change the legal system.
Why not, if there is no cost to you? Is that an reasonable system? No it is not, it is not reasonable to deny someone something they want just because you can. You may think there is a cost, and that's fine, that's your opinion but don't try to refute this on the basis that there is a cost because that will be false logic. This statement that I make is based on the assumption that there is no cost to the producer, and you may well debate that but I am here and now preempting a pointless and issue-confusing response on your part.Quote:
That is one of the very fundamental concepts in capitalism. If I do not wish to sell to you, or if I do not wish to sell something to you at a price that is acceptable to you, then I am not forced to.
It is reasonable to withold a product if there is cost involved to the producer. It is not reasonable if there is not a cost involved.
I don't think there is a cost, because the only cost ny form of piracy, be it music, software or whatever (I'm not talking about piracy on the high seas here), is opportunity cost. The procucer loses the opportunity to sell you that product. If the opportunity doesn't exist in the first place, there is no cost.
What has control got to do with it? You were proposing that mp3 distribution harmed music sales, the owner's control is not relevant to the possible harm caused.Quote:
Lovely, but there's no control over that. You get the complete deal, and there isn't anything stopping me from downloading a thousand MP3's and burning them to CD's. I suspect that the vast majority of MP3's stolen over the Internet do not incite sales.
Given that the average Napster user might collect 20 albums' worth of mp3s over the course of a year (that's a conservative estimate), are you suggesting that this constitutes $300 of lost revenue per user? Consider that those users who download the most are probably kids, with very limited income. How much do you think they can actually afford to pay for music in a year, bearing in mind that (almost) nobody's income goes solely on music? The opportunity to sell a product to someone who is beyond their budget is simply not there.
Maybe it can even prove that mp3s harm music sales.Quote:
Marketing can prove that the sky is red, or that cows bark, if they wanted.
Go Harry! :DQuote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Maybe it can even prove that mp3s harm music sales.
PS: Marketing CANNOT prove the sky is red, because it's bloody obvious that it isn't...although since you're blind at not being able to read Harry's earlier comments they wouldn't have much trouble with you ;)
I'm done arguing with you. You talk an awful lot for someone who never says anything.
can't you just hook up your cd-player headphone jack to the line in on your computer and play your cd player while recording on line-in on your computer??
harry
"No, I'm not. Disagree all you want, you're entitled to your opinion, but I know my own mind and I know that I'm not."
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just stating my evaluation of your position. You are saying that the law should allow peopl to go without penaly if they break a law, in certain cases. Is that right?
"Why not, if there is no cost to you?"
There is cost to me, though. If I don't sell to you, I lose profits from that. It's probably a good idea for me to sell to as many people as I can, maximizing my profits. But if I choose to minimize my sales, however costly this may be to me, that's my choice, and you are not at liberty to circumvent that decision.
"No it is not, it is not reasonable to deny someone something they want just because you can."
It may not be reasonable or capitally wise to do so, but it's legal.
"What has control got to do with it?"
There has to be control over something, you can't just hope everyone does the right thing. It isn't enough to say, "Okay, we'll let you drive cars, but only if you promise not to kill anyone." It isn't enough to trust people, because not everyone will abide by the honourable rule. You have to create laws, and you have to enforce them.
"Given that the average Napster user might collect 20 albums' worth of mp3s over the course of a year (that's a conservative estimate), are you suggesting that this constitutes $300 of lost revenue per user?"
That's very elementary statistical analysis. But you have to assume this, because that's worst damage that someone can do to abuse the system, if he downloads 20 albums in a year.
"The opportunity to sell a product to someone who is beyond their budget is simply not there."
Alright, fine. Create a Napster with a control so that only impoverished people can use it. Collect Income Statements or something before they are allowed access to it. With an open system, such as Napster, anybody, not just poor people, can use it. There has to be control over it.
Oh for goodness' sake. Will you please listen to me? I am not, I repeat not saying the law should be changed, I am not saying the system should be changed, I am not saying anything of the sort. Look, here is what I said, in the post of mine that you just (supposedly) read:How am I supposed to make myself any clearer? If you can't understand me when I say it like this how on earth do you expect anybody to take your opinion seriously?Quote:
I AM NOT saying the system needs to be changed! Listen and repeat after me: "Harry is not saying the system needs to be changed."
No, there isn't, and I've totally explained this several million times already. It's called opportunity cost. Do you understand this term? It's very simple. Really. If you've ever done any kind of basic business study you will have come across it. In order for an opportunity to be lost it has to be there in the first place!Quote:
There is cost to me, though. If I don't sell to you, I lose profits from that. It's probably a good idea for me to sell to as many people as I can, maximizing my profits.
Oh but I am. I can copy your information. It's illegal but it's perfectly possible. You seem to be hung up on legality when what you should be concerned with is reality. Law is all theory, it's clumsy, and it's primary function is social order. People can break laws, they do it all the time. I do it all the time. I don't go around beating people up or stealing their VCRs or anything like that, but I occasionally break the speed limit when it's safe to do so, if I'm cycling along a busy road I may cycle on the pavement, I drank long before the legal age, I occasionally indulge in soft drugs like many other perfectly normal members of society, I download mp3s, I view material that the courts in this country would regard as obscene and illegal. According to the letter of the law I am a criminal on many counts, but in reality I am not a wanted man, people don't cross the street to avoid me, I am (pretty much) a perfectly normal human being.Quote:
But if I choose to minimize my sales, however costly this may be to me, that's my choice, and you are not at liberty to circumvent that decision
Nobody lives their lives exactly to the letter of the law, because the law makes demands that are reasonable in most circumstances but unreasonable in some circumstances. Nobody lives their entire lives in the situations where it is reasonable, unless they have a very short life.
Do not misunderstand me, I am not against the law and the enforcement of it (in general). I am pretty much content with the majority of the laws I live under. If I think a law is unreasonable, though, and I think I can get away with it, I will do what I think is reasonable.
This is not about the 'impoverished', it's about anyone who lives on a budget. I can't buy all the music I have on mp3. I simply don't have the resources. If I like the music then I want to own it, and I will buy it, but only if I have the money to do so. Suggesting that someone with £5000 worth of mp3s has done the music industry out of £5000 is just silly, unless they have a lot more money than I do.Quote:
Alright, fine. Create a Napster with a control so that only impoverished people can use it. Collect Income Statements or something before they are allowed access to it. With an open system, such as Napster, anybody, not just poor people, can use it. There has to be control over it.
"It's illegal but it's perfectly possible."
It's also possible for me to get on a flight to Britain and beat you over the head until I drown myself in your blood. What the hell are we debating, if not the law?
"This is not about the 'impoverished', it's about anyone who lives on a budget"
Fine, but my point still stands.
"Suggesting that someone with £5000 worth of mp3s has done the music industry out of £5000 is just silly, unless they have a lot more money than I do."
But you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS IT. It violates the law, and the law is not unreasonable. You cannot have it, because you did not pay for it. You did no work to earn the music, you paid nothing for it, you take it for granted, and you do it because you can get away with it. You have no self-restraint, no discipline, no understanding of or respect for something that has grown out of hundreds of years of tradition, sacrifice, and moral development.
You steal because you want to, and because no one's going to stop you. Not only does this disgust me, it fills me with pitty for you.
Good grief. I'm not debating whether it's legal (I've got no idea what you're trying to prove), I'm debating whether it's ethical.
1) The law is most certainly unreasonable in some cases, to deny that is plain dumbQuote:
you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS IT. It violates the law, and the law is not unreasonable. You cannot have it, because you did not pay for it. You did no work to earn the music, you paid nothing for it, you take it for granted, and you do it because you can get away with it. You have no self-restraint, no discipline, no understanding of or respect for something that has grown out of hundreds of years of tradition, sacrifice, and moral development.
2) I do it because there is no reasonable alternative. "Pay for it" you say. With what? How is someone who cannot afford to pay for any more music supposed to pay for it? "Then tough sh*t, you can't have it" you say. So I have no way of acquiring this when my having it would not deprive you of anything, since I can't buy it from you. Essentially you are keeping me from having it just because you can. This is supposed to be an ethical standpoint?
3) I have a very good understanding of it thank you very much, that's why I don't think I'm living in some fantasy land where the law equates with morality.
4) I have a healthy respect for the artists, and I will pay for the product as an when I am able to, but denying me the product until I am capable of paying is not productive. I (personally) will pay for it when I can, if I like it to the extent that I would buy it if the mp3s had been a trial thing. I do spend a significant amount of my disposable income on music.
5) I suspect my moral development is quite healthy in comparison to yours, since you seem unable to seperate what is legal from what is sensible and what is ethical.