User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 122

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Now is it frustrating to see creative artists in the grip of a corporate money-hungry industry? Absolutely. Has the industry abused their stranglehold over marketing and distribution of music to shortchange artists? Almost certainly. It's not like they're innocent here. But simply saying "I"m mad at you, so I'm taking your product without paying for it" sort of forfeits your right to the moral high ground here.

    The amount of the penalty *is* ridiculous (and quite a bit beyond)- but it's not like she's innocent of wrongdoing.
    See, this is what bugs me about this issue and why I keep posting. You've hit the nail right on the head. Do record companies suck? Probably. Does music cost too much? Maybe. But none of that absolves anyone. They're just excuses made after the fact to put a spit shine on your actions. Nobody would ever accept the argument that stealing another consumer product like clothes or electronics is okay because you don't like what it costs or the way the company does business. This is different to some people because they can do it in the privacy of their own homes and they're not stuffing anything under their coat. But it's the same thing.

    And like I said before, tactics like this probably aren't the smartest way for the record companies to go about their business. But that doesn't mean they're wrong.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  2. #52
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Now is it frustrating to see creative artists in the grip of a corporate money-hungry industry? Absolutely. Has the industry abused their stranglehold over marketing and distribution of music to shortchange artists? Almost certainly. It's not like they're innocent here. But simply saying "I"m mad at you, so I'm taking your product without paying for it".
    Many file sharers probably see the record companies as having stolen the product, so it's not theirs in the first place from their perspective.
    and because of this-->


    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    sort of forfeits your right to the moral high ground here.
    I don't think file sharers generally consider themselves to occupy the moral high ground. Some don't consider the "moral" aspect; some reject the moral aspect because they see it as "stealing" from thieves given the pennies the artists themselves get out of the $18 - $20 album; and others see it as a way to check out music before buying it, so they're doing artists a favor as they wouldn't buy otherwise.
    The moral superiority is not generalizable to the group, nor is the belief that music is not property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    The music industry is rotten and corrupt. Art is meant to have meaning and ad purpose to peoples lives. I'll gladly pay to see an art exhibit of a painter I like, or go to a concert or buy a cd of a musician that strikes me. But I won't go around making unidentifiable, corporate ashhole people rich so they can put that money to use enhancing their ridiculous peer-approval based marketing strategies.
    , while I've bought waaaay fewer albums, I've attended exponentially greater number of concerts the last few years. Cut out the meddling, mediocre parasites middlemen as much as possible.

    moral v. pragmatic?
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #53
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    See, this is what bugs me about this issue and why I keep posting. You've hit the nail right on the head. Do record companies suck? Probably. Does music cost too much? Maybe. But none of that absolves anyone. They're just excuses made after the fact to put a spit shine on your actions. Nobody would ever accept the argument that stealing another consumer product like clothes or electronics is okay because you don't like what it costs or the way the company does business. This is different to some people because they can do it in the privacy of their own homes and they're not stuffing anything under their coat. But it's the same thing.

    And like I said before, tactics like this probably aren't the smartest way for the record companies to go about their business. But that doesn't mean they're wrong.
    To enforce this in any real kind of way, people's privacy would have to be seriously encroached upon. Wielding power over all information people share on the net is totalitarian.

  4. #54
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    Many file sharers probably see the record companies as having stolen the product, so it's not theirs in the first place from their perspective.
    Well, if I'm right, the artists generally have to voluntarily sign away their rights to the record company - now I'm not really comfortable with this, but there's really not much doubt that it's voluntary. And... this argument sounds to me like sophistry. It's hard to take someone seriously when their argument just happens to support obtaining things of value for free. A *real* objection to the record companies would be a boycott, or a protest - not simply taking what they sell and not paying them.

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    ...others see it as a way to check out music before buying it, so they're doing artists a favor as they wouldn't buy otherwise.
    Now if people were to check out a piece of music, listen to it once or twice, and then promptly delete it or buy it legally... well, I don't have much of a problem with that. Technically, it's still illegal, but I could see it as morally defensible (although - you can do this by checking it out on YouTube, which the publishers allow for exactly this purpose, without downloading). But the old "well, I like it enough to have it on my iPod for free, but not enough to pay for it, so nobody's losing anything if I don't pay" argument that so often comes up in these discussions just stinks of self-serving.

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    , while I've bought waaaay fewer albums, I've attended exponentially greater number of concerts the last few years. Cut out the meddling, mediocre parasites middlemen as much as possible.

    moral v. pragmatic?
    Don't get me wrong - I'm all for cutting out the meddling, mediocre, parasitic middlemen in such things (although I think it's far too easy for end-consumers to be ignorant of what the middlemen bring to the table - even if its value may be *vastly* overcompensated, it does exist). But that choice is one for the artist to make (by not signing up with an industry label) - not anyone who feels like a free copy of their music.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    To enforce this in any real kind of way, people's privacy would have to be seriously encroached upon. Wielding power over all information people share on the net is totalitarian.
    Don't mean to pick on you, ajblaise, but this is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said that arguments in favor of illegal music copying often boil down to "it's easy and I won't get caught." "It would take a real tyrant to actually catch me, and tyrants are bad, so I might as well take what I want without paying" isn't doing anybody any favors (except, of course, providing an excuse to those who really *do* want to be tyrants).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    To enforce this in any real kind of way, people's privacy would have to be seriously encroached upon. Wielding power over all information people share on the net is totalitarian.
    /agreed Brother AJ

    But that don't make Brother Effem wrong.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  6. #56
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Don't mean to pick on you, ajblaise, but this is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said that arguments in favor of illegal music copying often boil down to "it's easy and I won't get caught." "It would take a real tyrant to actually catch me, and tyrants are bad, so I might as well take what I want without paying" isn't doing anybody any favors (except, of course, providing an excuse to those who really *do* want to be tyrants).
    What do you think it would take to catch everyone who shares copywritten information? Or even 10%? Could it be done without enacting totalitarian policies towards the internet?

    It's not exactly like stealing a physical item. You can't download and essentially replicate clothes or jewelry and send over the internet. When things are stolen, typically the original item is taken out of someone's hands and put into another persons. It's not the case with file sharing.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Don't mean to pick on you, ajblaise, but this is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said that arguments in favor of illegal music copying often boil down to "it's easy and I won't get caught." "It would take a real tyrant to actually catch me, and tyrants are bad, so I might as well take what I want without paying" isn't doing anybody any favors (except, of course, providing an excuse to those who really *do* want to be tyrants).
    +1. This boils down to "You have to do something bad to catch me doing something bad, so why not just let me be?" It doesn't work, because if you weren't doing anything bad in the first place, none of it would have happened. So you're responsible for the backlash, too.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  8. #58
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    /agreed Brother AJ

    But that don't make Brother Effem wrong.
    Legally? Or ethically?

    Ethically, it depends on what standards of freedom and privacy one adheres to.

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    +1. This boils down to "You have to do something bad to catch me doing something bad, so why not just let me be?" It doesn't work, because if you weren't doing anything bad in the first place, none of it would have happened. So you're responsible for the backlash, too.
    Is committing a greater wrong to stop a lesser wrong okay? Which is the greater wrong would depend on how you view freedom/privacy and net neutrality compared to digital copyright issues.

  9. #59
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Well, if I'm right, the artists generally have to voluntarily sign away their rights to the record company - now I'm not really comfortable with this, but there's really not much doubt that it's voluntary. And... this argument sounds to me like sophistry. It's hard to take someone seriously when their argument just happens to support obtaining things of value for free. A *real* objection to the record companies would be a boycott, or a protest - not simply taking what they sell and not paying them.
    What argument: the argument that it's stolen already? I don't agree with that view, but how is this sophistry? I don't think they care if it's responsive to the complaint that it's immoral, and I don't think they care to object in a way that the record companies (or you) would approve.


    Now if people were to check out a piece of music, listen to it once or twice, and then promptly delete it or buy it legally... well, I don't have much of a problem with that. Technically, it's still illegal, but I could see it as morally defensible (although - you can do this by checking it out on YouTube, which the publishers allow for exactly this purpose, without downloading). But the old "well, I like it enough to have it on my iPod for free, but not enough to pay for it, so nobody's losing anything if I don't pay" argument that so often comes up in these discussions just stinks of self-serving.
    Well, that was my point: they don't care about whether it's self-serving or not. It's not an argument for the moral soundness of the position, it's just the reason. moral? perhaps not. pragmatic? you bet. Youtube's good for some but not all. You may say it's "morally indefensible" to check this stuff out, but it's the morally indefensible actions that are often behind a musician garnering a larger following and eventually more sales and concert revenue. If they end up buying the album, they don't give a hoot n holler beyond that. They're not stuck on the morality of it.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm all for cutting out the meddling, mediocre, parasitic middlemen in such things (although I think it's far too easy for end-consumers to be ignorant of what the middlemen bring to the table - even if its value may be *vastly* overcompensated, it does exist). But that choice is one for the artist to make (by not signing up with an industry label) - not anyone who feels like a free copy of their music..
    A lot have avoided the parasitic, predatory record industry for more independent labels or more do-it-yourself methods. And in my opinion they often churn out better music than the shrink-wrapped bubble gum stuff. But there's a lot of dross to wade through in the search for worthy music. It's these smaller, less famous ones that benefit most by word of mouth and file sharing, because most potential fans aren't going to buy that stuff unheard.

    I just know I won't shed any tears for the recording industry because they brought this on themselves.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #60
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    What do you think it would take to catch everyone who shares copywritten information? Or even 10%? Could it be done without enacting totalitarian policies towards the internet?
    Oh, don't get me wrong - it would require some pretty totalitarian, restricted policies toward the internet to catch all copyright violators online. I agree completely - what I'm saying is that "it would take a horrible tyrannical regime to catch me, so I can't be stopped, so I will take what I want" isn't a defense. It's an excuse. It also drives people to propose exactly the sort of tyrannical devices (legally required hardware-based packet inspection at the ISP level, etc.) that go counter to the philosophy that the early internet was founded on and that users (including you, I think) enjoy. But the "you can't catch me, so I'll copy" argument is exactly the wedge that the recording industry needs to convince legislators that required internet monitoring at the packet level is needed. Slippery slope, here we come.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It's not exactly like stealing a physical item. You can't download and essentially replicate clothes or jewelry and send over the internet. When things are stolen, typically the original item is taken out of someone's hands and put into another persons. It's not the case with file sharing.
    Again, I'd put this under the "it's easy and you can't catch me, so I'm doing it anyway" class of excuse. Is it true? Sure, technically - but that doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions that aren't necessarily obvious.

    Although it's crass to describe the worth of a work of art solely in the terms of the money it makes, I'll do it to illustrate my point... imagine that I'm a full-time music editor (I'm not ). I'm not an artist. I *am* a skilled professional. If I spend say, a month of full-time work to get a recording to professional-quality that will be enjoyed by millions, how much was my time worth? Was it worth $9.99? After all, once that digital copy is made, it's darned easy for anyone else to just copy it - even if the one poor slob that paid for it's not losing anything physical, it's a pretty fair bet that he'll never get a chance to buy anything else I work on. I'll be digging ditches or slinging cheeseburgers instead trying to put food on the table.

    Sure, that's an exaggerated example, but I think it illustrates my point - just because (barely) *enough* people bought it to keep me employed, doesn't mean that nobody else should pay for the benefit of my work - maybe if *everyone* paid, I'd be able to put more time into each individual work, making it even better. Maybe I'd be able to buy better equipment - or *design* better equipment. In copying music, you devalue the future expectation of everyone who did pay for it.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Was I being too harsh? :(
    By SecondBest in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-27-2010, 12:52 AM
  2. Piracy and File Sharing
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 01:22 AM
  3. Taking MBTT too seriously
    By snegledmaca in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 02:16 PM
  4. Last Five Files in Your "My Documents" Folder
    By Totenkindly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO