User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 122

  1. #61
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I think that's probably a lot of it - if not all. There definitely seems to be a pretty large generational gap (and not just talking about this forum) when the topic arises. The thing that frustrates me about it is that the basic argument often winds up being "but it's easy, and nobody will ever know" or "record companies suck" - now while both of those things are probably true, neither even begins to address the moral issue that you're taking benefit of someone else's work, for which they intended to be paid, and not paying them for it. I'm waiting for some overenthusiastic pedant to bring up the "it's not stealing - it's just copyright violation" excuse... and although technically true, is a morally corrupt viewpoint, as I see it. If someone's charging more for their work than you think it's worth - you have a recourse... don't use it (or buy it). End of story.

    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.

    Oh, and the other difference between downloading content off of the internet and listening to music on the radio... the radio station pays for the right to broadcast the music. When items are downloaded (illegally) - nobody's paying the artist/producer etc.

    Anyway, I've ranted enough - call it a pet peeve
    My dad grew up in the late sixties. He's got his Beatles and Fleetwood Mac collection on LP (he was a softy), yet nowadays, he does download music.

    I like radiohead's approach. It's brilliant.

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    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.

    , 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?
    Pragmatic. Downloading IS easy and I won't get caught. Why the hell not do it. I do still buy albums, just mostly on impulse, and regularly the more cult stuff.

  2. #62
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    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.
    Oh, don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against using the internet as a distribution mechanism - even a free distribution mechanism. I'm all for artists (or independent labels, etc.) doing things like releasing their music online for free to expand their audience, or driving concert sales, etc. But when a product is made available for a cost - for someone to not pay and then try to rationalize away the fact seems like a violation of the golden rule. Would you want someone to not pay you for your work? Even if the artist says "the record company hates it, but copy our stuff if you like it" just means that the artist is violating their agreement with the label (however distasteful the label may be, that's not right either).

    Would it be great if the smaller labels that encourage free online distribution thrived? Absolutely. I'm all for it. But how they distribute their music is their choice - not the choice of anyone who thinks they can get away with unauthorized copying.

    Anyway, I think everyone knows (probably far more than they want to ) my opinion on the matter by now .
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #63
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    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.


    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 pa.y for it.
    The "it would take tyrannical policy to catch me" isn't what I would consider as the strongest argument for unrestricted file sharing. The open and free sharing of information is one of the ideals the internet was founded upon, and eroding those standards can put the internet itself in jeopardy.

  4. #64
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Even if the artist says "the record company hates it, but copy our stuff if you like it" just means that the artist is violating their agreement with the label (however distasteful the label may be, that's not right either).
    Well, if I signed a contract i then realized was screwing me every which way but not promoting me as best it could, while tying my hands, I frankly wouldn't mind the record company getting a huge shaft if it meant that more people ended up at my concerts, giving me a significantly larger share of the profits than the pennies on the dollar from the company that owns my life. But I'm not a moralist.
    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

  5. #65
    Emerging Tallulah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I'm wondering if the divide on this issue is between people that grew up with easily downloadable "free" music and those who didn't. When I grew up, the only way to hear music was to listen to the radio, be in a public place playing music, buy a record, or buy a concert ticket. We've ALWAYS paid for music. It was a product like any other.

    Perhaps younger people grew up thinking that stealing music from the internet was the baseline for how music is distributed...i.e. "they're taking something away from us that we've always had" instead of "we always paid for it, then for a little while some computer geeks found a way to get it without paying for it, and now content providers are just trying to figure out a way to put it back right again."

    The perspective isn't there, and I can tell when I read quotes like the above, where music is seen as some sort of honor system where if you really like it you might buy it, or if you like every song on the album you might buy it. YouTube is not the same. It's like promotion, and you can't take it with you. It's not at all the same thing as downloading a song for your own use on your iPod or to burn to CD. You don't want to buy a whole album? Fine, that's why iTunes sells songs for 99 cents. You don't have the money to buy the music you want? Well, that stinks. There's a lot of things I'd like that I don't have the money for. I just don't understand why people think it's okay just because it's easy to do.
    Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head with a lot of it. Music's always been free to the generations that came after ours, and they don't see the need to pay for something they can get for free. I don't see things that way, but I do think that the reality of the situation is that the industry will have to rethink the way it distributes music. Technology has changed things, and apparently the honors system isn't going to work. You can't make people feel bad about something they never grew up experiencing as "wrong." Though I'm kind of surprised that parents didn't encourage buying cds rather than downloading for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I think that's probably a lot of it - if not all. There definitely seems to be a pretty large generational gap (and not just talking about this forum) when the topic arises. The thing that frustrates me about it is that the basic argument often winds up being "but it's easy, and nobody will ever know" or "record companies suck" - now while both of those things are probably true, neither even begins to address the moral issue that you're taking benefit of someone else's work, for which they intended to be paid, and not paying them for it. I'm waiting for some overenthusiastic pedant to bring up the "it's not stealing - it's just copyright violation" excuse... and although technically true, is a morally corrupt viewpoint, as I see it. If someone's charging more for their work than you think it's worth - you have a recourse... don't use it (or buy it). End of story.

    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.

    Oh, and the other difference between downloading content off of the internet and listening to music on the radio... the radio station pays for the right to broadcast the music. When items are downloaded (illegally) - nobody's paying the artist/producer etc.

    Anyway, I've ranted enough - call it a pet peeve
    Yeah, not buying might stick it to The Man, but it also sticks it to the artist.

    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.
    and because of this-->



    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.


    , 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?
    But does "stealing back" from the parasites make it right? Or does pragmatism always trump morality? Does morality just not enter into it?

    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?

    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.
    I really don't understand this. Are you saying that just because you can't be caught, intellectual property shouldn't even matter? And that just because it's not a thing you can hold in your hands, it can't be stolen? That the originator has no rights to it, just because it can't be un-shared? This must be another generational disconnect thing.
    Something Witty

  6. #66
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    But does "stealing back" from the parasites make it right? Or does pragmatism always trump morality? Does morality just not enter into it?
    I think it doesn't occur to many. And I think pragmatism trumps with some who do think about it. The rest just want free stuff. Then there's the set who may think two wrongs don't make a right, but finds it satisfying to cheat the parasites.
    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

  7. #67
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    I really don't understand this. Are you saying that just because you can't be caught, intellectual property shouldn't even matter? And that just because it's not a thing you can hold in your hands, it can't be stolen? That the originator has no rights to it, just because it can't be un-shared? This must be another generational disconnect thing.
    No I think intellectual property matters. I like commercial business rights and trademarks. But to assert control against sharing intangible items like sound at the cost of compromising internet standards? I don't support that. We both agree that it's unenforceable without creating drastic policies we both are against right?

  8. #68
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    The "it would take tyrannical policy to catch me" isn't what I would consider as the strongest argument for unrestricted file sharing. The open and free sharing of information is one of the ideals the internet was founded upon, and eroding those standards can put the internet itself in jeopardy.
    the internet is not above the law, no matter what ideals its founders may have based it on.
    I'm feeling rough, I'm feeling raw, I'm in the prime of my life.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Alpha Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    XXXX
    Enneagram
    XXXX
    Socionics
    XXXX
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    You shut up.
    I don't take orders from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I have to admit, I love having these mature conversations.
    It permeates your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I guess the thing is, I just don't like the idea of living in a totally closed-off world where you don't have the option of doing anything wrong. For instance, if you go into a store in real life... you know that if you found the right situation and set up, you could quite possibly steal something and get away with it. Granted, I wouldn't, but it would somehow freak me out to think that I had absolutely no chance of getting away with it if I tried it, or that I didn't even have the option of trying. It takes away my feeling of my will being important. It's no longer my own choice to be fair, or to avoid an unwise choice that could land me in a lot of trouble.... it's imposed on me. I need to feel like the reason I'm doing good and playing fair is because I CHOOSE to, not because the alternative is almost impossible.It's important for me to be able to think to myself, "Wow, I really want that. I could take it if I wanted to, but there might be consequences, and it would be unethical. I choose not to."

    Does that make sense?
    No, it doesn't. Why do you want to have the option of stealing? Are you too poor to be able to earn it? What happens when your feelings change, (just like your previous claim that you should shut up, yet you don't), will you take what belongs to someone else? What if this bullshit you're describing would apply to everyone, and they did not have self-control, ever thought of that?

    You're afraid of getting caught, rather than being mature about it. Your desire for your will to be felt as important is misplaced. Change, it will be healthy for you.
    Hit like a heavyweight, breathe deep, meditate
    Make the whole crowd get loud, make 'em levitate
    I ride through my city like a presidential candidate
    L-A-X, Phantom double-R, and accelerate

  10. #70
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by miked277 View Post
    the internet is not above the law, no matter what ideals its founders may have based it on.
    There is a large variety of crimes involving the internet in which policing is perfectly enforceable. It's just that the regulation and surveillance of all file sharing to make sure the wrong few megabytes don't get shared is unenforceable without extreme measures that aren't worth taking or are justified.

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