Does Copying Music = Stealing?
My $.02
Thursday, December 15, 2005 by Arquonzo | Discussion: Personal Computing
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:
I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.
My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.
I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.
Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.
Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?
Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.
My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.
I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.
Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.
Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?
Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
 |
|
Page 4 of 7 | |
|
|---|
kona0197
Reply #62 Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:58 PM
Reply #62 Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:58 PM
Bet you have a least copied a CD for a friend. Maybe you haven't. My point is most the people here who claim P2P and coping is wrong have at one time or another copied or shared music in some form or another.
HG_Eliminator
Reply #63 Saturday, December 24, 2005 4:49 PM
Reply #63 Saturday, December 24, 2005 4:49 PM
stealing is stealing .. wether or not everybody else is doing it...what is popular is not always morally correct 
MilkMan0214
Reply #64 Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:47 PM
Reply #64 Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:47 PM
I base my personal morality on one's action's impact on other people. What I mean by that is that as long as what someone does has no negative impact on other people. For example, if someone wants to sit in his house and shoot heroin and masturbate for 16 hours a day, I have no problem with that. I personally wouldn't choose that lifestyle, but he's not hurting anyone, so let him be. If that person goes out and holds up a liquor store to support his heroin/porn habits, that's where he's done something wrong. Because he took money from the owner of the store, he has negatively impacted the life of the owner.
In regards to music piracy, there is a key difference between shoplifting a CD and burning a copy of one of your friend's CDs. The distinction lies in the fact that it cost money to manufacture, ship and stock the CD. When you steal it from a record store, you are taking the money that the owner of the store paid for the CD. The argument against copying/downloading music is the loss of the potential future revenue for the artist and everyone else involved in the process of making that CD. If you downloaded a CD for free, you're probably not going to go out and buy it. But if you would never buy the CD anyway, then the artist would never get any money from you, whether or not you obtain a copy of that CD some other way.
I'm trying to work my way through college, and I simply don't have enough money to buy CDs. Call me crazy, but I would rather eat and not sleep outside than listen to music. So, no matter what, no artist will receive any money from me until I graduate and have money I can spend on entertainment. When I was living with my parents and had extra money, I bought CDs. When I can afford it, I plan to start buying them again. For now, I download music. I'm not costing the artists anything by listening to it; I'm just enjoying my life more than I would otherwise. In fact, friends have heard music that I've downloaded and wanted to know what it was so they could go buy it. So by illegally downloading music, I've actually made money for the artists.
To answer the question, yes. Copying music is stealing. You are making a copy of something you didn't pay for, and that's against the law. That said, I don't think it's wrong. It may be illegal, but in my situation, according to my ethical standards, it's not immoral. And that's all that matters.
In regards to music piracy, there is a key difference between shoplifting a CD and burning a copy of one of your friend's CDs. The distinction lies in the fact that it cost money to manufacture, ship and stock the CD. When you steal it from a record store, you are taking the money that the owner of the store paid for the CD. The argument against copying/downloading music is the loss of the potential future revenue for the artist and everyone else involved in the process of making that CD. If you downloaded a CD for free, you're probably not going to go out and buy it. But if you would never buy the CD anyway, then the artist would never get any money from you, whether or not you obtain a copy of that CD some other way.
I'm trying to work my way through college, and I simply don't have enough money to buy CDs. Call me crazy, but I would rather eat and not sleep outside than listen to music. So, no matter what, no artist will receive any money from me until I graduate and have money I can spend on entertainment. When I was living with my parents and had extra money, I bought CDs. When I can afford it, I plan to start buying them again. For now, I download music. I'm not costing the artists anything by listening to it; I'm just enjoying my life more than I would otherwise. In fact, friends have heard music that I've downloaded and wanted to know what it was so they could go buy it. So by illegally downloading music, I've actually made money for the artists.
To answer the question, yes. Copying music is stealing. You are making a copy of something you didn't pay for, and that's against the law. That said, I don't think it's wrong. It may be illegal, but in my situation, according to my ethical standards, it's not immoral. And that's all that matters.
starkers
Reply #65 Saturday, December 24, 2005 9:43 PM
Rape is also against the law, for that is also taking something without consent....so is it acceptable because one cannot find/afford a consenting partner?
Same thing applies.....taking something/anything without consent/approval IS Immoral, Unethical, Wrong....as is trying to justify it for lack of funds/a willing partner, etc.
Reply #65 Saturday, December 24, 2005 9:43 PM
To answer the question, yes. Copying music is stealing. You are making a copy of something you didn't pay for, and that's against the law. That said, I don't think it's wrong. It may be illegal, but in my situation, according to my ethical standards, it's not immoral. And that's all that matters. |
Rape is also against the law, for that is also taking something without consent....so is it acceptable because one cannot find/afford a consenting partner?
Same thing applies.....taking something/anything without consent/approval IS Immoral, Unethical, Wrong....as is trying to justify it for lack of funds/a willing partner, etc.
brassblaster
Reply #66 Sunday, December 25, 2005 2:39 AM
It's exactly this type of attitude that causes so much of the grief in this world; the lack of caring. He's up in his room doing drugs, but as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Some people also call this tolerance. Big catch-phrase nowadays. But where is the compassion? Where is the understanding that what we all do DOES affect somebody else? Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't make it right!
Reply #66 Sunday, December 25, 2005 2:39 AM
| I base my personal morality on one's action's impact on other people. What I mean by that is that as long as what someone does has no negative impact on other people. For example, if someone wants to sit in his house and shoot heroin and masturbate for 16 hours a day, I have no problem with that. I personally wouldn't choose that lifestyle, but he's not hurting anyone, so let him be. |
It's exactly this type of attitude that causes so much of the grief in this world; the lack of caring. He's up in his room doing drugs, but as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Some people also call this tolerance. Big catch-phrase nowadays. But where is the compassion? Where is the understanding that what we all do DOES affect somebody else? Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't make it right!
Cataleptic
Reply #67 Sunday, December 25, 2005 5:15 AM
Reply #67 Sunday, December 25, 2005 5:15 AM
I believe I may just be reiterating what's already been said, but I think it needs to be enunciated.
Copying music is not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
Now, obviously, they're both illegal. But the use of the word 'stealing' in the context of (illegal) music downloading makes it all too easy for the RIAA and their ilk to sell the 'one downloaded copy equals one lost sale' line... which is patently absurd, but has nevertheless gained some traction.
The use of the words 'theft' or 'stealing' in the context of illegal copying of music is almost invariably completely spurious.
With regard to the 'unauthorised electronic transfer of funds' analogy, IANAL, but I believe that would constitute fraud, not theft.
Copying music is not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
Now, obviously, they're both illegal. But the use of the word 'stealing' in the context of (illegal) music downloading makes it all too easy for the RIAA and their ilk to sell the 'one downloaded copy equals one lost sale' line... which is patently absurd, but has nevertheless gained some traction.
The use of the words 'theft' or 'stealing' in the context of illegal copying of music is almost invariably completely spurious.
With regard to the 'unauthorised electronic transfer of funds' analogy, IANAL, but I believe that would constitute fraud, not theft.
Jafo
Reply #68 Sunday, December 25, 2005 5:50 AM
Reply #68 Sunday, December 25, 2005 5:50 AM
Same argument...different perps.....and not worth the breath of 'debate'....it's all been said more times than 'honey, I'm not at the pub'....
But...referring to the lone person sitting in his room and shooting up....it can be unthinking to say 'tolerance means its ok'...but there's an even higher/lower [whatever] level....when the poor bastard tax-payer has to foot the bill to shovel him into the ground. Unthinking, selfish bastard that he is.....
Though...
He may not have robbed a bank or knocked over a granny to get the dough...
Still gives Joe Public grief...somewhere down the line.... inquests...contacting relatives... mopping out the effluvia from a messy demise....whatever....
starkers
Reply #69 Sunday, December 25, 2005 10:27 PM
Same shit, different stink!
Semantics...language manipulation...dictionary amendments; omissions; alterations; incomplete entries! Why the hell can't people call a spade a spade?
Copyright infringement is acquiring somebody's 'property' without consent.....AS IS STEALING.
Killing someone with a knife, spear or gun is murder and is tried that way..regardless of the weapon used.
So if no actual weapon is used and somebody deliberately scares someone to death....is is not still murder?
All these 'blind' semantics will create completely new and confusing terms.....like: Spearicide; knificide; bow and arrowicide; revolvericide. And for the poor person scared to death...frightenedtheshitoutof'emicide.
Judge: "How do you plead to the homicide of stabbing this man to death?'
Plaintiff: "Not Guilty yer Honor. It was more a case of: Hefellonmyknifeicide."
C'mon!
Reply #69 Sunday, December 25, 2005 10:27 PM
Copying music is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. |
Same shit, different stink!
Semantics...language manipulation...dictionary amendments; omissions; alterations; incomplete entries! Why the hell can't people call a spade a spade?
Copyright infringement is acquiring somebody's 'property' without consent.....AS IS STEALING.
Killing someone with a knife, spear or gun is murder and is tried that way..regardless of the weapon used.
So if no actual weapon is used and somebody deliberately scares someone to death....is is not still murder?
All these 'blind' semantics will create completely new and confusing terms.....like: Spearicide; knificide; bow and arrowicide; revolvericide. And for the poor person scared to death...frightenedtheshitoutof'emicide.
Judge: "How do you plead to the homicide of stabbing this man to death?'
Plaintiff: "Not Guilty yer Honor. It was more a case of: Hefellonmyknifeicide."
C'mon!
Spc Nobody Special
Reply #70 Sunday, December 25, 2005 10:42 PM
Oddly enough, while this is logical, it's not necessarily true. Legally there are several degrees of murder, including manslaughter.
And often the differentiating factor? Who was killed, how many were killed, and what was the weapon, not to mention intent. Were there mitigating circumstances?
In my humble opinion should it all be the same? Sure. I say string 'em up. Is it a legal practicality in America? Nope.
Reply #70 Sunday, December 25, 2005 10:42 PM
| Killing someone with a knife, spear or gun is murder and is tried that way..regardless of the weapon used. |
Oddly enough, while this is logical, it's not necessarily true. Legally there are several degrees of murder, including manslaughter.
And often the differentiating factor? Who was killed, how many were killed, and what was the weapon, not to mention intent. Were there mitigating circumstances?
In my humble opinion should it all be the same? Sure. I say string 'em up. Is it a legal practicality in America? Nope.
Arquonzo
Reply #71 Sunday, December 25, 2005 11:08 PM
Reply #71 Sunday, December 25, 2005 11:08 PM
Hi. You guys STILL going on about this? I thought we settled this issue ages ago. 
MilkMan0214
Reply #72 Monday, December 26, 2005 2:52 AM
Wow starkers... if you had bothered to read the post rather than merely scrolling down to the last paragraph because trying to read big words like "so" and "I" hurts your head, you wouldn't sound like such a moron. The whole point of my post was to say that as long as you don't harm anyone else, you're not doing anything wrong. I think rape would qualify as negatively impacting someone's life, which I believe (and said multiple times in my post) is wrong. All those creationist idiots should hold you up as proof that Darwin's theory of evolution is false... you apparently have found a way to circumvent "survival of the fittest," or in your case, "survival of the less retarded." I know a couple people who never read. I don't think very highly of them, but at least they have the common sense not to write an angry letter to the newspaper they didn't read because they disagreed with the three sentences they struggled through before giving up and going to watch TV. If you are going to come on to a forum and try to engage in a discussion with people who actually graduated junior high, I highly suggest you partake in the whole experience, and actually READ what someone says before getting pissed off at them about something they didn't say. F'ing troglodyte.
That said, now I'll respond to the people with multiple digits in their IQ.
I was just citing an extreme example. Anyone who actually behaves like that has serious problems and should seek professional help immediately. If I knew someone in that situation, I would try to help them. I don't think what they're doing is immoral or wrong in any way, but I think it's stupid and self-destructive. What I'm trying to say is that I base my personal code of ethics on their real world impact on other people, not on some BS a bunch of idiots who got drunk and thought a bush was talking to them dictated to someone who could actually read and write. A majority of the hate, anger and wars throughout human history have been fought because of or were at least influenced by religion. Religion is the bane of humanity. If it's not causing hatred and violence between people who have different beliefs, it's making people do stupid things because they would rather wrap themselves in comforting layers self-deception rather than think logically. For example, people who literally interpret the Bible and actually believe in the creation story, exactly as it's written. To quote Jay Mohr: "Thinking that the world was created 5,000 years ago isn't a religious belief... it's just stupid."
I know I'm going WAY off topic and ranting about all sorts of stuff, but it's Christmas and I'm a little drunk, and starkers’ stupidity pissed me off. Anyways, I’m just trying to say that morality should be based on the real world, not on external guidelines. By that logic, if what you do has no negative effect on other people, you’re not a bad person for doing it. Forget whatever the Bible, Koran, Torah or anything else says. Just think about it for yourself.
P.S.
I’m sorry if I forgot to offend anyone in that post... if you feel left out, just let me know and I’ll throw a few ethnic slurs into the next one for you.
And this might help: What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? A Good PR campaign.
Let the flaming begin.
Reply #72 Monday, December 26, 2005 2:52 AM
| Rape is also against the law, for that is also taking something without consent....so is it acceptable because one cannot find/afford a consenting partner? Same thing applies.....taking something/anything without consent/approval IS Immoral, Unethical, Wrong....as is trying to justify it for lack of funds/a willing partner, etc. |
Wow starkers... if you had bothered to read the post rather than merely scrolling down to the last paragraph because trying to read big words like "so" and "I" hurts your head, you wouldn't sound like such a moron. The whole point of my post was to say that as long as you don't harm anyone else, you're not doing anything wrong. I think rape would qualify as negatively impacting someone's life, which I believe (and said multiple times in my post) is wrong. All those creationist idiots should hold you up as proof that Darwin's theory of evolution is false... you apparently have found a way to circumvent "survival of the fittest," or in your case, "survival of the less retarded." I know a couple people who never read. I don't think very highly of them, but at least they have the common sense not to write an angry letter to the newspaper they didn't read because they disagreed with the three sentences they struggled through before giving up and going to watch TV. If you are going to come on to a forum and try to engage in a discussion with people who actually graduated junior high, I highly suggest you partake in the whole experience, and actually READ what someone says before getting pissed off at them about something they didn't say. F'ing troglodyte.
That said, now I'll respond to the people with multiple digits in their IQ.
| It's exactly this type of attitude that causes so much of the grief in this world; the lack of caring. He's up in his room doing drugs, but as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Some people also call this tolerance. Big catch-phrase nowadays. But where is the compassion? Where is the understanding that what we all do DOES affect somebody else? Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't make it right! |
I was just citing an extreme example. Anyone who actually behaves like that has serious problems and should seek professional help immediately. If I knew someone in that situation, I would try to help them. I don't think what they're doing is immoral or wrong in any way, but I think it's stupid and self-destructive. What I'm trying to say is that I base my personal code of ethics on their real world impact on other people, not on some BS a bunch of idiots who got drunk and thought a bush was talking to them dictated to someone who could actually read and write. A majority of the hate, anger and wars throughout human history have been fought because of or were at least influenced by religion. Religion is the bane of humanity. If it's not causing hatred and violence between people who have different beliefs, it's making people do stupid things because they would rather wrap themselves in comforting layers self-deception rather than think logically. For example, people who literally interpret the Bible and actually believe in the creation story, exactly as it's written. To quote Jay Mohr: "Thinking that the world was created 5,000 years ago isn't a religious belief... it's just stupid."
I know I'm going WAY off topic and ranting about all sorts of stuff, but it's Christmas and I'm a little drunk, and starkers’ stupidity pissed me off. Anyways, I’m just trying to say that morality should be based on the real world, not on external guidelines. By that logic, if what you do has no negative effect on other people, you’re not a bad person for doing it. Forget whatever the Bible, Koran, Torah or anything else says. Just think about it for yourself.
P.S.
I’m sorry if I forgot to offend anyone in that post... if you feel left out, just let me know and I’ll throw a few ethnic slurs into the next one for you.
And this might help: What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? A Good PR campaign.
Let the flaming begin.
brassblaster
Reply #73 Monday, December 26, 2005 3:42 AM
No, by their actions are they know. And I do believe in the biblical account of creation. The timeline, I don't know, I wasn't there.
And, no, I'm not offended. The path to understanding and respect is through discusion.
Besides, if you're deluded enough to believe that some sludge on the side of the ocean is your long, lost auntie...
I won't hold it against you.
Peace, pal.
Reply #73 Monday, December 26, 2005 3:42 AM
| And this might help: What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? A Good PR campaign |
No, by their actions are they know. And I do believe in the biblical account of creation. The timeline, I don't know, I wasn't there.
And, no, I'm not offended. The path to understanding and respect is through discusion.
Besides, if you're deluded enough to believe that some sludge on the side of the ocean is your long, lost auntie...
I won't hold it against you.
Peace, pal.
starkers
Reply #74 Monday, December 26, 2005 6:38 AM
Reply #74 Monday, December 26, 2005 6:38 AM
Milkman....Hopefully the college you attend teaches whippersnappers like you some manners and respect, though given your attitude, it's unlikely you'd attend those classes. As you're just 16 yo know it all, one could only expect you to respond with a personal attack and a diatribe of insults when found wanting
And in keeping with the topic....my reply addressed your apparent propensity to steal without compunction or remorse. Irrespective of impact...regardless of how great or small, whether affecting many or just a few, only one even....a crime is crime. and there you were, boasting that you're morally and ethically okay with stealing music....whatever else you mightn't be able to afford, given your attitude and lack of social conscience.
If you want to be able to justify a lack of scruples and get an approval rating, go someplace else cos you won't get it here....and you call me a moron?
And in keeping with the topic....my reply addressed your apparent propensity to steal without compunction or remorse. Irrespective of impact...regardless of how great or small, whether affecting many or just a few, only one even....a crime is crime. and there you were, boasting that you're morally and ethically okay with stealing music....whatever else you mightn't be able to afford, given your attitude and lack of social conscience.
If you want to be able to justify a lack of scruples and get an approval rating, go someplace else cos you won't get it here....and you call me a moron?
Jafo
Reply #75 Monday, December 26, 2005 7:30 AM
Reply #75 Monday, December 26, 2005 7:30 AM
I think a little less of the personal attacking would be nice. We DO have rules. All should try to respect them.... [references to 'moron' and Darwin's theory, etc]
[references to 'moron' and Darwin's theory, etc]
UBoB
Reply #76 Monday, December 26, 2005 7:30 AM
Reply #76 Monday, December 26, 2005 7:30 AM
Every blues song I've ever heard sounds exactly the same. Same notes, *sometimes* different words. I wonder, do the people who write the blues face a lot of copyright infringement suits? 
mr.bo
Reply #77 Monday, December 26, 2005 9:06 AM
Reply #77 Monday, December 26, 2005 9:06 AM
Just about every library I have ever been in has a copy machine for use to copy copyrighted material. I don't own the book, but I am able to make perfectly legitimate copies of the copyrighted material in the library's books. to bring home and read.
I don't understand how copying music (even a friends music) for my personal use is any different. A judge here in Canada agreed with me, but the poor "Big Money" corporations that are losing so much have done everything in their power to turn that ruling around.
It isn't the copying of music that they are upset about. It is the free distribution. If artists don't have to sign over huge chunks of their profits to the Recording companies in order to get their music heard then the recording companies will have the problem they are really afraid of.
I don't understand how copying music (even a friends music) for my personal use is any different. A judge here in Canada agreed with me, but the poor "Big Money" corporations that are losing so much have done everything in their power to turn that ruling around.
It isn't the copying of music that they are upset about. It is the free distribution. If artists don't have to sign over huge chunks of their profits to the Recording companies in order to get their music heard then the recording companies will have the problem they are really afraid of.
starkers
Reply #78 Monday, December 26, 2005 12:48 PM
Oh dear...seems like your media player's playlist is stuck on the same tune as well
Actually, I'm a great lover of blues music and find there's quite a variety: ie, Hendrix blues is different to Mayall blues; Hooker blues is different to Buchanan blues, and etc, etc.
Guess you could say the same of RAP (won't call it music cos I don't like it)....all sounds the same to me, bloody awful Each to their own, I guess
Reply #78 Monday, December 26, 2005 12:48 PM
| Every blues song I've ever heard sounds exactly the same. Same notes, *sometimes* different words. |
Oh dear...seems like your media player's playlist is stuck on the same tune as well
Actually, I'm a great lover of blues music and find there's quite a variety: ie, Hendrix blues is different to Mayall blues; Hooker blues is different to Buchanan blues, and etc, etc.
Guess you could say the same of RAP (won't call it music cos I don't like it)....all sounds the same to me, bloody awful
Each to their own, I guess
UBoB
Reply #79 Monday, December 26, 2005 1:57 PM
Oh, I agree. There are definate standouts amoung blues artists. I've listened to a great deal myself, and for the most part I enjoy the genre. But you have to admit, (and being a musician I can tell you for sure that a great deal of the melodies in various blues songs are almost note for note the same), there is a great deal of 'borrowing' going on between artists.
Reply #79 Monday, December 26, 2005 1:57 PM
| Actually, I'm a great lover of blues music and find there's quite a variety: ie, Hendrix blues is different to Mayall blues; Hooker blues is different to Buchanan blues, and etc, etc. |
Oh, I agree. There are definate standouts amoung blues artists. I've listened to a great deal myself, and for the most part I enjoy the genre. But you have to admit, (and being a musician I can tell you for sure that a great deal of the melodies in various blues songs are almost note for note the same), there is a great deal of 'borrowing' going on between artists.
LordCobalt
Reply #80 Monday, December 26, 2005 2:26 PM
Good point! Now...the defense of my favorite music out of the way, on to the main point.
My wallet is thin these days. Whose isn't? We're getting asked to shell out for everything. I could make a list here, but you all know what I'm talking about. I have a store in my area that sells USED CD's. I get bargains there. The artists get no royalties for a second-time sale of their CD. Those selling to the store profit, and by marking up the CD, and reselling the store makes profit. This is legal. So if I cut out the middle-man and download, cutting out store profit only, it all of a sudden becomes IL-legal. If I can save $6.99 on buying a used CD, sure, I'm there! My conscience doesn't hurt a bit. And when the RIAA thinks that spying into people's computer's is okay, that only makes me angry. No sympathy here.
Reply #80 Monday, December 26, 2005 2:26 PM
| Actually, I'm a great lover of blues music and find there's quite a variety: ie, Hendrix blues is different to Mayall blues; Hooker blues is different to Buchanan blues, and etc, etc. |
Good point! Now...the defense of my favorite music out of the way, on to the main point.
My wallet is thin these days. Whose isn't? We're getting asked to shell out for everything. I could make a list here, but you all know what I'm talking about. I have a store in my area that sells USED CD's. I get bargains there. The artists get no royalties for a second-time sale of their CD. Those selling to the store profit, and by marking up the CD, and reselling the store makes profit. This is legal. So if I cut out the middle-man and download, cutting out store profit only, it all of a sudden becomes IL-legal. If I can save $6.99 on buying a used CD, sure, I'm there! My conscience doesn't hurt a bit. And when the RIAA thinks that spying into people's computer's is okay, that only makes me angry. No sympathy here.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:45 PM
Nope. I haven't. And like the saying goes, if all your friends go and jump off a bridge, does that make it something you should do too?
Stealing is wrong. If everyone does it? It's still wrong. Everyone dies too, but amazingly enough they still have doctors.
As a musician? I say hell yes it's stealing. I've known more than a few people that never saw a damned cent for the work they did, or far less than they earned.
How 'bout Rachmoninoff? One of my favorite pianists, but he got ripped off at an early age for his prelude in C sharp minor, and it haunted him until his death. He was forced by poverty to tour, and to perform the piece that was his downfall for forty years.
Yes, music is often expensive. Yes, they're bilking you when you buy that frickin' brittney spears album. But....you don't have to buy it. I don't go crying about how I should get to steal Ferraris because Ferraris are overpriced, and the maker is getting an unfair profit.