ArrowHead
Well-Known Member
Would like to hear someone debate this?
why? I'm literally BEGGING people to drop the semantics and get into the meat of the issue again.
Would like to hear someone debate this?
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
that once something leaves the ownership of the initial producer
It's not illegal
why? I'm literally BEGGING people to drop the semantics and get into the meat of the issue again.
And because intellectual property is not the same as physical property
All law is semantics, why do you think lawyers do such good business?
Look, I'm arguing the "deprive of property" part. Copying does not do that, it simply cannot deprive someone out of anything, because it is copying. You may view it as immoral, the law may say that it is illegal, but this is a pretty damn important technical difference regardless of your views on the ethics of piracy.
And "stealing" isn't a legal term. Piracy, Theft, and intellectual property ARE.
So lemme get this staight. Its ok to steal... as long as you buy other things similar to it?"but your honor, I CLEARLY didn't have to pay for those sunglasses I shoplifted... I bought shoes at payless earlier that day!"
*sigh.
Really? You've never heard of DRM then? You've never heard of the EULA and all the copyright shenanigans? Here's a neat little glimpse of the future for you:
Microsoft Patents Kinect DRM That Detects Number Of Viewers
If these people have their way, you'd have to pay for each person watching a movie that you bought. Next you wouldn't be able to lend a book to your friend because he wouldn't be able to open it unless he pays the damn publisher.
No you're not. In 20 or so years - yeah, maybe, but right now the good ol' labels are still alive and kicking.
I JUST explained this, man.
STEAL=theft
STEAL=piracy
THEFT=/PIRACY
Steal just means you're taking something you're not supposed to. It is NOT a legal term. Piracy and theft ARE.
So tired of the people that feel the need to take a great debate and turn it into a semantics debate.
If you pirate, you're STEALING. Period.
So as long as it's not illegal you might as well do it? People love to argue about the ethics and morality of piracy, saying it's wrong. Second hand products are pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to software, games, music, movies, all that stuff. I've read several times that used console games sales are actually hurting the market more than piracy, believe it or not. And yet nobody seems to argue about the ethics of used products.
You'll never get everyone to start using the legally correct terms.
Retailers are middle men. Do you steal guitars from retailers because they are middle men? I mean, they didn't make the guitars . . . .Well, you know, they are middlemen. They don't make anything, they're just the guys with the money trying to make more money. I'm not talking about indie labels here, of course, I'm talking about the big ones.Damn the industry for trying to profit from the product they have been in the business of selling
Music, books, and photographs are copies. If they are legally and legitimately published they are property with assignable rights. Just because it is easy to make and acquire additional copies does not legitimize it. If selling copies is what a band or a label does and you come by your copy of a copy from someone that does not hold the rights to that piece of work you have taken property - you have stolen. You can slice it any way you like in order to make yourself feel better about it, but it doesn't change it. This isn't a morality thing . . . this is an actuality thing.Copying is not stealing. Regardless of your views on morality of copying, it is simply not the same thing as stealing.
We have been living the future for more than the last century - what you cite is what has been law for a very long time. The same arguments were made when cassette, VHS, BETA tapes and CDR/W drives hit the market as well. You should take the time to see what copyright and patent protections do for the people that take the time to create the things these laws protect - these things that are worth your while to find and make copies of but not feel compelled to compensate the creators for.Really? You've never heard of DRM then? You've never heard of the EULA and all the copyright shenanigans? Here's a neat little glimpse of the future for you:Owning it comes from having paid for it
Microsoft Patents Kinect DRM That Detects Number Of Viewers
If these people have their way, you'd have to pay for each person watching a movie that you bought. Next you wouldn't be able to lend a book to your friend because he wouldn't be able to open it unless he pays the damn publisher.
You know what? I am - and so are you. If you aren't then you are lazy or a bad business person or both. International publishing and copyrights are little more than filing the correct paper work. There is nothing from recording, duplication, distribution, to promotion that can't be done as easily or well/appropriately/legally from the same computer you are sitting in front of as it can from a label.No you're not. In 20 or so years - yeah, maybe, but right now the good ol' labels are still alive and kicking.We the artists are in the same driver's seat that the industry enjoyed
what you cite is what has been law for a very long time
If you aren't then you are lazy or a bad business person or both. International publishing and copyrights are little more than filing the correct paper work. There is nothing from recording, duplication, distribution, to promotion that can't be done as easily or well/appropriately/legally from the same computer you are sitting in front of as it can from a label.
let's... go back to discussing the effect of piracy in regards to the LEGAL purchase and distribution of music, which was what the first 15 wonderful pages of this thread were about.
But we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps)
. . . . we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps) where you'd be able to say that the artists are truly in the same driver's seat. The technology is already here, but not enough people are using it.
Of course, but a law is worthless without the means to enforce it. Nobody takes these laws seriously because the police doesn't raid your house when you have too many people watching a DVD. The future I'm talking about is where these things can be enforced. And believe me, they'll milk it 'til the last drop.what you cite is what has been law for a very long time
This "new age" is nearly 20 years old now. That's longer than most musical era's we've experienced in the last 200 years. I was booking DIY shows, pressing zines, recording demos, building my first home studio, etc... back in the early 90's.
Why bother? You can just record at home alone and release it via the internet.Can you afford to fund tours, recording, duplication, promotion, distribution, merch, and still feed yourselves?
If I could do it then ANYONE can do it now.
and it's a good thing if you see music as a business at all as opposed to just a hobby
Not sure how I feel about that. Seems kind of harsh, but if you can't do the time don't do the crime I guess.
It's fucking absurd, that's what it is.
My reason for being concerned has more to do with how unreliable it is to find violators and how easy it would be for someone to be blamed unjustly.
Congratulations. As far as I'm concerned though, I've never heard any worthwhile non-electronic DIY music until fairly recently.