USSR is back

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Hortlund
No, see, for someone to steal something, you have to remove something from someone elses possession. Since you are not doing that, you are not stealing anything.

This is very basic stuff, think lawschool 101.

It still boils down to the same thing. Lawyer bull**** aside.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Neubob
The word stealing is used as a euphemism here, Hortland. It's a shorter, more salient word than 'copyright infringement', and being such, commands the attention of those most prone to such an act--teens.

[/b]

I understand why the music industry and the artists themselves want to paint the situation up as being a theft. It is however wrong, and I dont think anyone should be throwing around legal concepts or words that mean something completely different. Just as I dont call it a rape when someone has consensual sex with a prostitute.

On a practical level, however, I see little difference. Either way, you are robbing somebody of their due royalties. You aren't taking money out of their pocket, but, having taken their product for your own enjoyment, you are failing to put it into that pocket. Call it copyright infringement, call it breach of implied contract. It is something, no matter how you slice it. As a onetime aspiring novelist, I think that it should be the artist's choice how his or her material is spread. If payment is what the creator wants, for risk of less publicity, then payment is what he should get.

[/b]
For your analogy to work however, you would have to show that the person downloading a song would buy a copy of that song if he didnt download it. That is a very tall order for you to show.

You also have to take into consideration that it is legal to make a recording of the song if it is performed on the radio. So it is legal for me to have a recording of the song without ever having paid for it in the first place. With that in mind, one can ask the question what the difference would be between recording the song from the radio, or downloading it from the internet. Both are "free" recordings of the song.

You also need to separate the person making the song avaliable for download, and the person downloading the song. You might have a bigger case against one of these two.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
It still boils down to the same thing. Lawyer bull**** aside.

Look, if you dont know what the legal terms mean, then maybe you shouldnt throw them around like you do? It just makes you look silly.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Hortlund
No, see, for someone to steal something, you have to remove something from someone elses possession. Since you are not doing that, you are not stealing anything.

This is very basic stuff, think lawschool 101.

Like I said in response to your post above, hortland, it's a euphemism. 'Steal' and 'thief' ring much louder in the ears of teenagers than does 'copyright infringement'... Or, as the case is with  pirated media, 'unlicensed use'.

And even in lawschool they teach you to first cut through all the bull****, get the root of the injustice, and only then start to contrast the issues and apply all the mumbo jumbo. At least that's the way I experienced it.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Neubob
Like I said in response to your post above, hortland, it's a euphemism. 'Steal' and 'thief' ring much louder in the ears of teenagers than does 'copyright infringement'... Or, as the case is with  pirated media, 'unlicensed use'.

[/b]
Which is why they use it. It is still wrong though, and just as I dont think you should call sex with a prostitute "rape" just to try to score a political/emotional point, I dont think you should call downloading music "theft".  

And even in lawschool they teach you to first cut through all the bull****, get the root of the injustice, and only then start to contrast the issues and apply all the mumbo jumbo. At least that's the way I experienced it.

The legal profession is 95% about being good at bull****ting. you are never allowed to make **** up though, nor are you allowed to be wrong.

"Your honor, I know this is not stealing, but I think this is just as bad as stealing and I want to score an emotional point with the jury"...doesnt really work in a court.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Look, if you dont know what the legal terms mean, then maybe you shouldnt throw them around like you do? It just makes you look silly.

Maybe you should understand I have no respect for you in the least and do not care at all what you think or say.

Your good for a laugh though.

[Neubob]

Hortland,

All true, and especially about the legal industry being 95% about bull****... Part of the reason I've grown to loathe it.

However, in lawschool at least, they do try to distill certain issues down to acceptable reason and logic. Things need to make intuitive sense to the young, moldable mind before that mind can be taught to take that intuitive sense and effectively skew it all to hell.

This issue is a sticky one for me. Like I said earlier though, I approach it not from the standpoint of a lawyer, but from that of an artist. If an artist just wants to be heard, and his message spread to as many minds as possible, all this unlicensed use talk becomes moot. If their primary goal is to get paid, then they should be able to risk loosing exposure in favor of the money.

Just my thoughts.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Neubob
Hortland,

All true, and especially about the legal industry being 95% about bull****... Part of the reason I've grown to loathe it.

However, in lawschool at least, they do try to distill certain issues down to acceptable reason and logic. Things need to make intuitive sense to the young, moldable mind before that mind can be taught to take that intuitive sense and effectively skew it all to hell.

This issue is a sticky one for me. Like I said earlier though, I approach it not from the standpoint of a lawyer, but from that of an artist. If an artist just wants to be heard, and his message spread to as many minds as possible, all this unlicensed use talk becomes moot. If their primary goal is to get paid, then they should be able to risk loosing exposure in favor of the money.

Just my thoughts.

What are your thoughts on the fact that it is legal to make a recording of a song on the radio and keep that recording? we can argue the principles if you like. What is the principal difference between making such a recording and downloading a song?

We can make it even more to poignant; it is now possible to stream radio broadcasts from most stations, meaning that you can download them and listen to them whenever you want. It is also legal to keep that recording. These streaming radio-broadcasts also include music. What is the difference between downloading such a broadcast and keeping it and downloading a song?

[moot]

It's just a loophole.  To be fair, you shouldn't be able to do that.  I personaly don't like the idea, but it's more defendable than taking for free what shouldn't be.

[Tiger]

Originally posted by moot
It's just a loophole.  To be fair, you shouldn't be able to do that.  I personaly don't like the idea, but it's more defendable than taking for free what shouldn't be.

A loophole?!?!?!?!?!?   In 1980 you could slap a casette tape in your stereo, tune to the local top 40 station, press record and ta-da, a legal copy of music.

I Think it has something to do with the whole 'public airwaves' thing with radio and TV.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Hortlund
What are your thoughts on the fact that it is legal to make a recording of a song on the radio and keep that recording? we can argue the principles if you like. What is the principal difference between making such a recording and downloading a song?

We can make it even more to poignant; it is now possible to stream radio broadcasts from most stations, meaning that you can download them and listen to them whenever you want. It is also legal to keep that recording. These streaming radio-broadcasts also include music. What is the difference between downloading such a broadcast and keeping it and downloading a song?

My thoughts on this would have to concur with what Moot just said. I think it's BS. Legality is less and less often an indicator of morality, or whatever word you choose to contrast between right and wrong. To me it seems wrong. And while slapping a cassette into a radio and recording it may be legal, copying and distributing may well be another matter.

I do not see any significant difference (other than perhaps the potential degradation of sound from having been transmitted over the radio as opposed to the cable) between recording a song off the air or downloading it. To the artist, the end result is the same... He will not get paid for that copy of the song.

Now, on these boards, months ago, there was a person I recall who said that it should not matter. If something is easy to reproduce--as is a written document or a sound or video clip, it should not be subject to any penalty. I believe that's a load of crap too. Easy to reproduce says nothing of how easy, or hard, it was to create. I suppose that's why we have intellectual property rights in addition to personal and real property rights, and I doubt that the author of the aforementioned post has ever put time and sweat into the creation of anything original.

But going back to my previous point, there is a benefit to the artist, one way or another. More copies circulated, whether paid for or not, still help that artist. The artist gains fame, commands higher ticket sales... Their career benefits. They just don't see an immediate return. I do think that this should be up to the artist, however. The artist has needs as a human too. To pay the bills, to feed the kids. Those that can afford private jets are far outnumbered by those who are just trying to get a handhold in the industry. Relegating their music to free circulation too early in their career will not build reputation so much as destroy the will and means to continue to produce art.

I think that those policies that you listed above reflect the modern trend of favoring consumer rights over artist's rights. Whether this is good or bad I cannot say. I just with it were a bit more consistent with some sort of underlying goal, as opposed to the usual bureaucratic tripe.

[Vulcan]

If it weren't for piracy there'd be no itunes store, no online music sales, music and movies prices would never come down.

[Neubob]

I paid $10 to see American Gangster on Sunday. If movies are becoming cheaper, I sure haven't noticed. And if they don't become cheaper, I won't care much either. They are as expensive as people are willing pay. If demand goes down because of price, the prices will fall.

As for the other things you mentioned, I would lose a wink of sleep if it never existed. I'd rather artists retain their ability to earn rather than guarantee consumers free or almost free stuff.

Of course other methods of collecting revenue can be expanded--such as selling ring tones, but artists should be concerned with making art, not coming up with new and creative ways to pay the bills. Since only a small minority of artists grow rich from their work, I'd personally not want to play a role in making it any more difficult for them to continue.

Or are you trying to say that Piracy somehow opens new avenues for creators to earn, depriving only the record companies of their inflated profits?

[Viking]

Hortlund, the difference between recording a radio broadcast and downloading music is this: The radio station have to pay royalties to the proprietor of the music. How much royalty they pay is partially based on the number of listeners the radio station got. So in effect the radio station pays for your recording/pod cast of the music. However when you download music nobody pays the proprietor a dime. Btw. this is what neutered Pandora; they simply couldn't afford to pay the royalties for a world audience, so now the service is limited to North America.

Other than that I agree with what you say.

[moot]

Vulcan, two wrongs don't make a right.