Copyrights and Downloading

[sync0s]

Let's change gears away from the typical conspiracy ron paul obama and keynesianism topics for a minute.

I want to know what everyone's opinion on people downloading music and such. If I need to do some research to enlighten this topic let me know, I will. For now, I just am curious about others opinions.

 

[cacamal]

art belongs to the consumer!

 

[DelSlow]

If I can't find the cd or if it's not on itunes then I will find it "elsewhere".

I mean, at least I tried to pay for it, right?

 

[vh13]

art belongs to the consumer!

What is made belongs to the creator.

Responsible consumers insure the production of more art they like by supporting the artists who provide it.

 

[sync0s]

Here's the problem: While I believe that the creator deserves their credit and are entitled to their share of the profit the industry is way behind the technological curve. I think that copyright laws extend so much ability to the labels and musicians that they are actually stifling innovative technologies that could provide free music to people while still making the copyright owners the money they want and maybe even more! I admire artists like Radiohead that have decided to break away from that and start releasing music for free and ask for donations.

Continue...

 

[forgetfulpenguin]

Despite all the whining I've heard about piracy costing the music industry the studies I've read do not seem to support that. For example
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/394785/former_google_cio_says_business_misses_key_people_marks

Merrill profiled the file sharing behaviour of people who used Limewire against the top iTunes sales and the biggest iTunes buyers were the same as the highest sharing “thieves” on Limewire.

https://torrentfreak.com/suppressed-report-found-busted-pirate-site-users-were-good-consumers-110719/

But were the site’s users all criminals hell-bent on destroying the movie industry? According to a report from Telepolis, a recent study found the reverse was true.

The study, which was carried out by Society for Consumer Research (GfK), found that users of pirate sites including Kino.to did not fit the copyright lobby-painted stereotype of parasites who take and never give back.

In fact, the study also found that Internet users treat these services as a preview, a kind of “try before you buy.”

This, the survey claims, leads pirate site users to buy more DVDs, visit the cinema more often and on average spend more than their ‘honest’ counterparts at the box office.

“The users often buy a ticket to the expensive weekend-days,” the report notes.

I believe that there are those who are willing to buy various forms of media and those who aren't. I don't see piracy as a force that will change the people who are willing to buy media into people who are not. I see it as a force that can make them more effective consumers.

 

[txpete77]

Intellectual property belongs to the creator, and is up to him/her to define the conditions of its use.

 

[sync0s]

Intellectual property belongs to the creator, and is up to him/her to define the conditions of its use.

Okay, I see you take the stance of property rights. Let me ask you this, is okay then for criminal charges to be pressed (felony) and a $250,000 fine imposed for violating that copyright? (Keep in mind, this is per violation)

 

[DelSlow]

Okay, I see you take the stance of property rights. Let me ask you this, is okay then for criminal charges to be pressed (felony) and a $250,000 fine imposed for violating that copyright? (Keep in mind, this is per violation)

They can charge all they want, no one can afford those fines. But I don't think downloading music warrants felony charges.

 

[txpete77]

Okay, I see you take the stance of property rights. Let me ask you this, is okay then for criminal charges to be pressed (felony) and a $250,000 fine imposed for violating that copyright? (Keep in mind, this is per violation)

This is more of a question whether or not a law and its penalty is just. In your above example, this seems a bit exreme for something that would normally be considered petty theft. My thoughts are that the violation of the copyright depend on the specifics of the crime. If a person is guilty of simply violating a copyright - acting as a consumer, then the punishment for the offense should be equal to an act of physical theft of the same value (shoplifting, misdemeanor theft, etc for values up to $XXX - possible felonies for greater amounts if it can be proved the theft was a single act/download session - multiple misdemeanors if not).

For those who willfully distribute copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission, the level of punishment should be the same as someone who creates or sells counterfeit DVDs, CDs, etc... That offense, in my opinion should be a felony level offense.

Fines should not be more or less than the act of physical theft for the same value. If the copyright holder wishes to seek compensation for damages, they should file suit and let a jury determine and award damages.

 

[redivider]

copyright laws (concerning music) were written to create a multi-million dollar industry. the laws were written when companies incurred manufacturing costs for records n shit.

a digital music file has no owner. it's a group of zeros and ones...

artists should be paid per performance. record companies are an obsolete form of music distribution.

that's what i think.

an artist should have the right to copyright their 'brand' and sell merchandise and be protected by laws.... but should i be expected to pay for a digitized, sound corrected, autotuned piece of pseudo-reality that doesn't really reflect what said artist is capable of??? NO.

but wait, i thought in an ideal libertarian world these laws are considered oppression... wait, laws that stick it to the little man, and help the rich aren't exactly the types of 'regulations' you despise, now are they???

 

[sync0s]

copyright laws (concerning music) were written to create a multi-million dollar industry. the laws were written when companies incurred manufacturing costs for records n shit.

a digital music file has no owner. it's a group of zeros and ones...

artists should be paid per performance. record companies are an obsolete form of music distribution.

that's what i think.

an artist should have the right to copyright their 'brand' and sell merchandise and be protected by laws.... but should i be expected to pay for a digitized, sound corrected, autotuned piece of pseudo-reality that doesn't really reflect what said artist is capable of??? NO.

but wait, i thought in an ideal libertarian world these laws are considered oppression... wait, laws that stick it to the little man, and help the rich aren't exactly the types of 'regulations' you despise, now are they???

Exactly

I think a lot of "libertarian" people get confused about the difference of property rights and intellectual property rights. I mean, the idea that you can own an idea is bureaucratic insanity. On top of that, the fact that I can get fined $250,000 plus damages to the copyright holder and charged with a felony is an obvious sign that its a law that is favoring the big guys. I mean, should Milton Freidman have been thrown in jail and fined $250,000 for popularizing the saying: "There is no such thing as a free lunch" or what?

 

[sync0s]

For those who willfully distribute copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission, the level of punishment should be the same as someone who creates or sells counterfeit DVDs, CDs, etc... That offense, in my opinion should be a felony level offense.

It's obvious it is all over profit because a true artist would want as many people to distribute their stuff as much as possible. Imagine what would happen if the copyright laws didn't cover things like music?

 

[Mr Neutron]

Music:
1) If getting your music free is a crime then we need to shut down every broadcast and internet radio station that plays music for free, now.
2) Even when you buy music online (iTunes, etc), you're getting a compressed file that is not the same quality as a CD or LP. So why does it cost nearly the same as a CD or LP?
3) It's the greed of the record companies that pushes this agenda.

Movies:
1) If I buy a CD, I make a copy of it and use the copy, saving the original as a master. If the CD fails, I have the original to make another copy... why can I NOT do the same with movies?
2) I see movies all the time where the actors dialogue is taken out and other people's voices are dubbed in, in whatever happens to be the language of where it is shown. I say this is fraud. If you are paying to see a movie with Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis or any of the popular actors, then you take out their voices, their words... it is the same as replacing the actors and therefore not the same movie.
3) Movies and music are nearly always downloaded in a compressed file which is not the same quality as the original, so the same value cannot be attached to it.

With that said, I do buy music and movies when I find one of my all time favorites or when I find them at a price I like.
I just recently started to download torrents and when I am searching for files, I feel like I'm in a mine field. It's a real mess.

 

[0011StealTH]

music has became a free thing, you can no longer live off music
with that being said i dont care if my music is downloaded from limewire.

 

[jeff f]

i think the music industry in particular shoots itself in the foot with this.

whats the difference if i have a tape recorder and record a song from the car radio for future listening? thats how we used to do it in the old days.

my nephew got a letter from the cable company the other day. he downloaded something like 10 songs. they threatened to fine him, come into his house, and remove his computer if he didnt erase them asap.

what? thats fucking ridiculous.

when metalica sued napster, i quit buying any of their stuff and dont like them personally.

if you are a good band/artist, you will be noticed, listened to, marketed, and monetarily rewarded. regardless if you get downloaded for free or not.

 

[redivider]

10 songs??

come on jeff, it was surely like 1,000 songs...

i downloaded a 90s playlist, 150 songs, not that long ago... and didn't receive a letter.... what i do is always make sure the files are in .rar or .zip form.... not .mp3 or m4a or any other media file.

 

[The Ruiner]

People will justify any behavior, no matter how rotten. It's not like piracy was a new thing, no one with half of a brain would assert that. It's the scale in which it happens nowdays is just far more rampant than ever before.

If you really think that illegal downloading hasnt killed the record industry, you're delusional. Absolutely dead wrong. It's sad to see criminal behavior that does indeed harm others become justified in the minds of so many.

 

[Mr Neutron]

It's sad to see criminal behavior that does indeed harm others become justified in the minds of so many.

Many seemed satisfied with the criminal behavior of our government.

 

[The Ruiner]

Many seemed satisfied with the criminal behavior of our government.

Yeah...you still have food and electricity, probably some dank, and are able to go online and still illegally download. So, apparently whatever they are doing works just fine for you, just as long as you get to be an armchair critic while benefitting entirely from the way things are. Good point, dude.