|
Music sharers to face lawsuits - We just got screwed!!! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| alec |
| You're not sharing, your friends are though, they're reaping the rewards of someone elses work with out any cost to them except their monthly cable internet bill |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by alec
You're not sharing, your friends are though, they're reaping the rewards of someone elses work with out any cost to them except their monthly cable internet bill |
which is why the music industry should receive some royalties from internet providers...it should be a small part of your internet bill. I could tolerate this if it would shut all the whiners up...especially the Record companies. But nope...they're going to go after individuals instead, proving how vindictive and stupid they are. Typical corporate thinking. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| I BACK UP ALL MY MUSIC AND MOSTLY CARRY AROUND COPIED CDs WHILE ORIGINALS STAY ON MY CD-TOWERS. YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIME I USED TO BUY THE SAME CD OVER AND OVER BECAUSE IT GOT SCRATCHED / DAMAGED (BY ME, ACCIDENTS, OTHER PEOPLE, EVEN THE CD WALLETS CAUSE DAMAGE!!!)? THATS WHY I AM AGAINST COPY-CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. I DONT DO UPLOADS - MY COMPUTER HAS BEEN A TERRIBLE THING AT IT WHEN I TRIED IT, AND IT SLOWS DOWN TO A HALT - SO I DONT SHARE. AS FOR DOWNLOADING, I BUY AND OWN A LOT OF CDs (I JUST BOUGHT 6 TODAY!!!) AND I DOWNLOAD WHAT I CANNOT FIND IN STUPID F-KING RECORD STORES WHO ONLY SELL MAINSTREAM SH-T AND NOTHING THAT I LIKE, SO BITE ME, RIAA! SO WHAT THAT I MAY HAVE COPYRIGHTED MP3s - I GOT HUNDREDS OF LIVESETS AND STUFF, AND I DONT U-P-L-O-A-D OR HAVE FOUND A TIME TO BE A SHARING MACHINE! AND I DONT USE PATHETIC KAZAA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! CD SALES ARE NOT GONNA GO UP BECAUSE OF THIS ACTION, ITS ONLY GONNA MAKE PEOPLE FIND A DIFFERENT WAY OF SHARING MUSIC, AND NAPSTER CHANGED THE MUSIC WORLD FOREVER! |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
Alec, yoiu still haven't realy countered anyone's points, just keep painting a picture using examples... stealing clothes is the same as stealing music..
If I were making hard-copy versions of the products that the industry sold, then yes, I would be stealing. However, I simply share and trade digital versions of music, I do not rip it from their CDs.
The companies didn't create those mp3s, simply commissioned and PAID artists to produce the music so they could sell it on CDS. The artists have been paid by the company to create the music, so they are taken care of. The companies then give the music to some people, license it to others (radio stations, movies, commercials, etc) and packagfe it along with artwork and other goodies as an album.
I do not buy these albums since I can't fathom paying what the companies ask for what essentially is packaging and overhead. (we are all in agreement that minimal $$ of each CD is for or given to the artist). Having digital versions of ths music is not stealing any more than taping it from the radio is since those mp3s usually originate from the licensed copies GIVEN to members of the public. The music companies merely have had us by the throat since the 1900s because they controlled what we hear, when we hear it, and large in part WHO we hear. The new file sharing format let's the public have more control, and that's what this is really about.
I am sure you are familiar how music, such as Happy Birthday, is considered public domain. As are many songs that have been passed down through time. Who is fighting for the estate of that Irish Folksinger who came up with Danny Boy?? Where's his great great grandson's royalties, afterall, people have been singing that tune for decades!!
Art and artists are different from other traditional trades, like your love for the "clothing analogy". The artist is usually commissoned to make the art, that is how they are paid, like say a designer is paid by a shop to fashion a line for them. The artist is paid by the shop to create, the shop then takes their little product and mass produces and sells it. Stealing the actual clothes/cd as manufactured and produced by the shop/record company is theft, but not aquiring a knock off version else where. You took nothing from the shop or the artist. You went out and got a cheapie version elsewhere since you didn't like the price of the other shop. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
Alec, yoiu still haven't realy countered anyone's points, just keep painting a picture using examples... stealing clothes is the same as stealing music..
If I were making hard-copy versions of the products that the industry sold, then yes, I would be stealing. However, I simply share and trade digital versions of music, I do not rip it from their CDs.
The companies didn't create those mp3s, simply commissioned and PAID artists to produce the music so they could sell it on CDS. The artists have been paid by the company to create the music, so they are taken care of. The companies then give the music to some people, license it to others (radio stations, movies, commercials, etc) and packagfe it along with artwork and other goodies as an album.
I do not buy these albums since I can't fathom paying what the companies ask for what essentially is packaging and overhead. (we are all in agreement that minimal $$ of each CD is for or given to the artist). Having digital versions of ths music is not stealing any more than taping it from the radio is since those mp3s usually originate from the licensed copies GIVEN to members of the public. The music companies merely have had us by the throat since the 1900s because they controlled what we hear, when we hear it, and large in part WHO we hear. The new file sharing format let's the public have more control, and that's what this is really about.
I am sure you are familiar how music, such as Happy Birthday, is considered public domain. As are many songs that have been passed down through time. Who is fighting for the estate of that Irish Folksinger who came up with Danny Boy?? Where's his great great grandson's royalties, afterall, people have been singing that tune for decades!!
Art and artists are different from other traditional trades, like your love for the "clothing analogy". The artist is usually commissoned to make the art, that is how they are paid, like say a designer is paid by a shop to fashion a line for them. The artist is paid by the shop to create, the shop then takes their little product and mass produces and sells it. Stealing the actual clothes/cd as manufactured and produced by the shop/record company is theft, but not aquiring a knock off version else where. You took nothing from the shop or the artist. You went out and got a cheapie version elsewhere since you didn't like the price of the other shop. |
If I only was a great lawyer who thought like this, then I'd be going crazy downloading and sharing music to the whole world, cause then I'd probably win in court ... :toothless :crazy: :eyespop: |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| people will always SHARE music, be it the old fashioned tapes, or CDs and MP3s of today's age... it's just a matter of how greedy industry decides to be at a time - back when you were trading tapes with your friends they didn't feel like going after you because it didn't pay off to do it, but now when there are millions of people online sharing the music with each other, hmm, money! |
|
|
| Skipper |
The fact of the matter is, millions of people everyday are downloading full CDs, burning a copy to CD, without ever considering buying a copy from a store. Before they were able to do this, they would have just gone and bought the CD.
By then sharing this downloaded with others, more and more people are able to do the exact same thing. There is a viral effect - more people sharing the same file makes it easier to download and less appealing to buy. You did not just download the file for personal use, you downloaded it for personal use and to then pass off to others.
If you think two wrongs make a right, so be it. I sure wouldn't want to live on that philosophy though. But face it: if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
The fact of the matter is, millions of people everyday are downloading full CDs, burning a copy to CD, without ever considering buying a copy from a store. Before they were able to do this, they would have just gone and bought the CD.
By then sharing this downloaded with others, more and more people are able to do the exact same thing. There is a viral effect - more people sharing the same file makes it easier to download and less appealing to buy. You did not just download the file for personal use, you downloaded it for personal use and to then pass off to others.
If you think two wrongs make a right, so be it. I sure wouldn't want to live on that philosophy though. But face it: if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. |
I disagree with you, Sarah.
First of all, some guilt may lie with the original ripping groups that take the songs from actual CDs and encode them into MP3s and distribute them. However, it's hard to distinguish between those people, and people who simply ripped the CD so they can make Winamp playlists and not have to open up their CD tray every 5 minutes to change what's in there. I've actually done this, with REAL CDs, and if those files happen to make their way into my shared collection, so be it - I didn't specifically rip them with the intent of spreading them to millions of people.
I know that was a digression from the main point, so back to that: there is physically no evidence whatsoever that MP3s have actually hurt CD sales. The fact that CD sales have gone down since '99 and MP3 downloading has gone up is not even showing a correlation, let alone a cause - by the same logic, I could claim that broadband Internet technologies are responsible for the current state of Nortel and other telecommunication companies, since they did start losing money around the same time as when those technologies were introduced.
That logic would of course be flawed, however. It's called "jumping to conclusions." Broadband technologies have actually helped that industry, because if it weren't for those technologies, the industry would be even worse than it already is. If you look a little closer at those CD sales, you'll see that CD sales were actually up during Napster's lifetime, and plumetted down after Napster was shut down.
Assuming that file sharing hurt the RIAA is employing a whole host of logical fallacies including post hoc, joint effect, complex cause, and genuine but insignificant cause.
If someone could show causal evidence of file sharing hurting CD sales, I might be convinced, but no such evidence exists.
Edit: I forgot to add, likening music sharing to stealing a pair of jeans really does not make sense. As Rob said, jeans are made to be sold, so that argument doesn't fly. Jeans are saleable goods - music is intellectual property, even the RIAA will admit to that. The only saleable goods are the physical media with the music imprinted on it. Orchestral sheet music is a saleable good - however, if the orchestra performs it, makes a recording, and gives the recording away for free, they aren't in violation of any copyrights. The music itself is public domain. So before you start feeding us false analogies relating to stealing other random objects, try to understand the difference between physical property and intellectual property. |
|
|
| Skipper |
Aaron, why do you chose to share your files?
Edit: and what specific statistics would you consider to show or disprove a correlation between declining CD sales and MP3 downloading? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Aaron, why do you chose to share your files? |
Assuming a lot here, aren't we? I never specifically said that I share files. My comment about those files happening to be shared with my collection was hypothetical - I haven't used any file sharing services in a while now.
Having said that, if I did use P2P services, my reason for sharing my files would be that it supports the existence of P2P, and that if nobody shared files, there would be nothing to download either.
| quote: | | Edit: and what specific statistics would you consider to show or disprove a correlation between declining CD sales and MP3 downloading? |
I'm not sure what you mean by "specific statistics" - but as mentioned earlier, the fact that CD sales have slumped is totally insufficient. There are statistical methods for determining correlation, which is actually a continuous function (weak to strong) rather than a "yes" or "no" function. When two things are found to be very strongly correlated, that is when further study is usually done to determine possible cause. The RIAA hasn't showed any strongly correlative evidence (which makes sense, since they would obviously end up with a very weak correlation).
Here are some examples of:
Anticausal evidence
Research shows internet boosts album sales
Study: File sharing boosts music sales
Anticorrelative evidence
File Sharing: Innocent until proven guilty (suggest reading the actual study, which is linked to on that page)
The Boulder Inquisition
So, to answer your question, this is what I mean by "statistical" evidence.
And again, even a strong correlation does not imply causation - many things can be shown as correlated if the samples are sufficiently skewed. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Having said that, if I did use P2P services, my reason for sharing my files would be that it supports the existence of P2P, and that if nobody shared files, there would be nothing to download either |
This is the stupid (sorry) part of the argument though!
if you want the CD as a back-up, or you want a copy on your computer, just COPY THE FILES FROM THE CD TO YOUR COMPUTER. You don't NEED to download from a P2P server and you certainly don't need to SHARE them if you're only using them as a backup.
Like, why do people download music instead of buying it IF it is readily available in stores? Why?? Because it's FREE? Just admit it people, you don't want to pay for something that YOU SHOULD BE PAYING FOR. That music is copyrighted, and just because there isn't a security guard there watching or a camera up in the ceiling, doesn't mean that what is going on is ok.
People skirt around the issue, blaming the record companies for their own actions...like, why can't you just pay for the freakin' CD?! |
|
|
| alec |
| right on, its true, i won't stop downloading cuz it allows me to sift out from good, but at the same time, I'm still stealing and so are you guys its just we don't care. |
|
|
|
|
