Copyrights and Downloading

[vh13]

Many seemed satisfied with the criminal behavior of our government.

But mommy, some other kid did it, so it must be okay.

 

[sync0s]

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.

Downloading isn't going to stop because it is just to easy and convenient (plus free). Limewire made hundreds of millions of dollars off of simply charging a membership fee. The copyright owners of digital content like movies and music are stifling innovation by teaming up with the RIAA.

 

[The Ruiner]

Downloading isn't going to stop because it is just to easy and convenient (plus free). Limewire made hundreds of millions of dollars off of simply charging a membership fee. The copyright owners of digital content like movies and music are stifling innovation by teaming up with the RIAA.

Stifling innovation? WTF does that mean to you? What's the point?

 

[vh13]

Downloading isn't going to stop because it is just to easy and convenient (plus free). Limewire made hundreds of millions of dollars off of simply charging a membership fee. The copyright owners of digital content like movies and music are stifling innovation by teaming up with the RIAA.

What is this, 1999?

It's 2011, there are many legitimate services that allow consumers to access whatever music they like while rightfully crediting the original authors with compensation.

 

[DSB65]

99% of all my movies are downloaded off the internet and i have hundreds..but i dont try to sell them..all for me..even running windows 7 ultimate which i got off pirate bay...i love free stuff and im going to get it all...

 

[txpete77]

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.

The broadcast content you are listening to isn't free. Broadcasters pay royalties to the copyright holders in order to play the music, they pass down the cost to advertisers, who in turn pass this cost to a consumer.

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?

Doesn't matter, you are free to reject the prices offered at any time. I have found that sometimes I can buy a complete album digitally for much less than the physical counterpart on Amazon (DRM-free as well)

3) It's the greed of the record companies that pushes this agenda.

Greed also drives theft... The record companies hold the copyright, and can charge as little or as much as they want. This all comes down to the principle of property rights.

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?

Legally you can, under fair-use clauses of our copyright laws (U.S., I cannot speak for other jurisdictions)

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.

Those movie production companies have the permission of the studio to modify thier films for showing in other locations. Conditions of those agreements may or may not grant full rights to the production company making those edits. If the movie is sold to you under the guise that it is fully original, then you should seek a refund from the company that sold it to you. This does not give anyone the right to steal the 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.

Just because it is theft of a lesser value does not discount the fact that it is theft.

 

[redivider]

for it to be theft somebody has to lose something.

for example, i take my friend's TV. he doesn't have the TV anymore. i STOLE his TV...

this is how the spirit of 'theft' was originated, and this isn't the case with music.

the artist should be paid per performance. a digital copy of a file DL'd costs a tiny amount of bandwith. maybe.

try again.

 

[vh13]

for it to be theft somebody has to lose something.

for example, i take my friend's TV. he doesn't have the TV anymore. i STOLE his TV...

this is how the spirit of 'theft' was originated, and this isn't the case with music.

the artist should be paid per performance. a digital copy of a file DL'd costs a tiny amount of bandwith. maybe.

try again.

So there is no cost to producing a recording, and the artist did not sacrifice their time and energy to produce the recording? And without such recordings, and profit motive to distribute them, how would anyone know about their music and thus want to pay for a performance?

Without money there are no recordings.

It might be cheap for you to steal the end result, but there is a significant cost to provide the file for you to download.

 

[Mr Neutron]

But mommy, some other kid did it, so it must be okay.

Not quite. Do you obey every law? No, so don't be a hypocrite.

 

[vh13]

Not quite. Do you obey every law? No, so don't be a hypocrite.

Another fallacy, eh?

Since we're all growing weed, we might as well become murderers and rapists while we're at it.

 

[sso]

still, the material can now be copied infinite times.

and sold infinite times.

..its the same with everything, on earth, there is only so much of everything.

why should musicians get that much more of the share? even if they are Really Good?

same with any company or whatnot, even if the job is important, no one should get that much more of the share (not if it bloody means people starve elsewhere

but hey, thats a long discussion.

 

[vh13]

still, the material can now be copied infinite times.

and sold infinite times.

..its the same with everything, on earth, there is only so much of everything.

why should musicians get that much more of the share? even if they are Really Good?

same with any company or whatnot, even if the job is important, no one should get that much more of the share (not if it bloody means people starve elsewhere

but hey, thats a long discussion.

Communism stifles the production of new art forms. A capitalist free market allows more emerging artists to flourish.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Another fallacy, eh?

Since we're all growing weed, we might as well become murderers and rapists while we're at it.

Hyperbole...

 

[vh13]

Many seemed satisfied with the criminal behavior of our government.

Red Herring...

 

[sync0s]

So there is no cost to producing a recording, and the artist did not sacrifice their time and energy to produce the recording? And without such recordings, and profit motive to distribute them, how would anyone know about their music and thus want to pay for a performance?

Without money there are no recordings.

It might be cheap for you to steal the end result, but there is a significant cost to provide the file for you to download.

This is what I mean by innovative technologies. There are many ways of making money on the internet without selling the product. If record labels launched their own torrent sites with advertising THEY could be raking in the millions of dollars that the file sharing sites are making. The whole concept that they need to sell the CD to make money is a load of shit.

 

[sync0s]

What is this, 1999?

It's 2011, there are many legitimate services that allow consumers to access whatever music they like while rightfully crediting the original authors with compensation.

And they are still not stopping illegal downloading, are they now? The industry needs to progress and work out ways of making money while giving music away. Radiohead and many other bands are already doing it quite successfully.

 

[txpete77]

for it to be theft somebody has to lose something.

for example, i take my friend's TV. he doesn't have the TV anymore. i STOLE his TV...

this is how the spirit of 'theft' was originated, and this isn't the case with music.

the artist should be paid per performance. a digital copy of a file DL'd costs a tiny amount of bandwith. maybe.

try again.

The theft is that someone now has something that the artist did not give them permission to take, which was the artist's creation. If you obtain a pre-release copy of a new movie then start charging for private viewings in your home, what has the movie studio lost?

 

[vh13]

This is what I mean by innovative technologies. There are many ways of making money on the internet without selling the product. If record labels launched their own torrent sites with advertising THEY could be raking in the millions of dollars that the file sharing sites are making. The whole concept that they need to sell the CD to make money is a load of shit.

There are many legitimate services which can provide the experience you describe:

Pandora
iTunes
Rhapsody
Napster (post-lawsuit)
Playlist
Grooveshark

Just to name a few.

What's wrong with them?

 

[txpete77]

This is what I mean by innovative technologies. There are many ways of making money on the internet without selling the product. If record labels launched their own torrent sites with advertising THEY could be raking in the millions of dollars that the file sharing sites are making. The whole concept that they need to sell the CD to make money is a load of shit.

The fact is that they own the rights to the piece of work (unlike the torrent tracking sites), until the copyright/patent expires. What they do to exploit profits from those rights are entirely up to them.

 

[sync0s]

There are many legitimate services which can provide the experience you describe:

Pandora
iTunes
Rhapsody
Napster (post-lawsuit)
Playlist
Grooveshark

Just to name a few.

What's wrong with them?

Oh Pandora where I'm only allowed to skip so many songs before I'm forced to listen to every song it picks for me for an hour?
Itunes: because paying $.99 per song equals more than $10 for the album (Last thing I would want to do is buy an Apple product. oh god)

I don't know anything about the rest. Like I said, they aren't stopping the illegal downloading, but they are a start.