Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Prometheus]

Have at it people... in THIS thread. Thanks for not hijacking the other one.

Just some ideas to get you started:

RIAA didn't want you to put a copy of a song of of your cd that you bought. They wanted you to buy a digital only copy.

Then RIAA wanted you to buy a new license for every device you put it on. One for your computer, one for your IPOD one for your phone....

have at it..............

 

[Gabriel]

Thanks, but I'll use the other thread instead.

 

[jedi]

where is the other thread?

 

[88GT]

Thanks, but I'll use the other thread instead.

When you're there, make sure you check the post where the OP specifically requested that the tangential topic of the copying/pirating music be taken to another thread.

To stay on topic here: the music/rights are owned by somebody. That somebody has given users a license to use/copy for their personal benefit. At a cost. Illegal usage is still theft because it belongs to someone else.

It's not the best analogy but it's the only one I could think of it short order. I OWN the rental properties. But I license their use through a document and payment to other people. Their usage doesn't give them vested ownership with the authority/power to use it as they wish. Their usage is limited to the terms set forth in the agreement (license) outlining.

Copying music isn't much different. It may not be theft from a strictly possessory standpoint, but it is denial of the rights of the true owner. And amounts to theft of sorts for "taking" the profit out of the endeavor.

Just my

 

[KLB]

The RIAA wants whatever will get them the most money.

In the days of Vinyl, I would buy the record and record it onto cassettes. There was no screaming about that then. I simply protected my investment, since the record would wear away with use and get dirty.

 

[steveh_131]

Alright, I'm in.

I'll start with this:

It is work product, not a tangible thing. Someone spent their own time, money, and effort producing that, and offered it for sale. You get to enjoy it, and they are out the cash. What is their incentive to keep working? Their love for music doesn't feed their kids - selling their recording does.

It's sad that they produced something that nobody is willing to pay them for. It really is. What if they had written the worst book ever? Nobody bought this book. Yet they put in their own time and money producing it and now have no way to feed their kids. Is this my ethical responsibility? Am I ethically required to pay them for their time?

 

[steveh_131]

To stay on topic here: the music/rights are owned by somebody. That somebody has given users a license to use/copy for their personal benefit. At a cost. Illegal usage is still theft because it belongs to someone else.

I can agree with this. IF the customer explicitly agrees to a contract with the person who produced it, then they should be bound by that contract not to copy or share with other people. A contract is a contract.

However, anyone who hasn't agreed to this contract should not be bound by it. Right?

 

[rambone]

The RIAA wants whatever will get them the most money.

In the days of Vinyl, I would buy the record and record it onto cassettes. There was no screaming about that then. I simply protected my investment, since the record would wear away with use and get dirty.

Sounds like a capital offense to me. Take him away, boys.

 

[Garb]

Alright, I'm in.

I'll start with this:




It's sad that they produced something that nobody is willing to pay them for. It really is. What if they had written the worst book ever? Nobody bought this book. Yet they put in their own time and money producing it and now have no way to feed their kids. Is this my ethical responsibility? Am I ethically required to pay them for their time?

This isn't what 88GT was addressing. It isn't your responsibility to buy their music, but it is your responsibility to follow the law if you do buy it.

I can agree with this. IF the customer explicitly agrees to a contract with the person who produced it, then they should be bound by that contract not to copy or share with other people. A contract is a contract.

However, anyone who hasn't agreed to this contract should not be bound by it. Right?

The customer doesn't have to agree to a contract in this case. The contract (in this case, a copyright) is between the artist/record label/song writer and the government. It says they alone have the right to copy the songs that they've written and/or recorded. By law, you can not copy it for the sake of distributing it to other parties.

 

[shibumiseeker]

As a writer, I can state that I don't care if someone buys my work and then shares that work with other people by directly lending the purchased copy to them. Or if they buy an electronic copy of my work and then put it on their ipad and kindle and phone.

But if they make copies and then give those copies to other people who will then avoid purchasing my work as a result, it lessens my incentive to do further work.

It pisses me off to no end when RIAA came out with wanting the user to buy multiple copies to play across multiple platforms for their own use. I have rarely pirated music only being guilty of occasionally copying a particular song I wanted off someone elses CD when I did not want to purchase an entire album, and in the old days taping music off the radio, but I buy most of my music because I want to support the artists, and a lot of stuff I try to buy directly from artist's labels or from distributors who don't contribute to RIAA.

I support artists. Not the industry.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

This isn't what 88GT was addressing. It isn't your responsibility to buy their music, but it is your responsibility to follow the law if you do buy it.



The customer doesn't have to agree to a contract in this case. The contract (in this case, a copyright) is between the artist/record label/song writer and the government. It says they alone have the right to copy the songs that they've written and/or recorded. By law, you can not copy it for the sake of distributing it to other parties.

Look out. You're starting to espouse some mighty conservative ideals there .

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I can agree with this. IF the customer explicitly agrees to a contract with the person who produced it, then they should be bound by that contract not to copy or share with other people. A contract is a contract.

However, anyone who hasn't agreed to this contract should not be bound by it. Right?

By purchasing and opening you have entered into a contract protected and enforcable under federal law.

 

[Garb]

Look out. You're starting to espouse some mighty conservative ideals there .

Yeah, I know. I did that in the Amish anarchist thread too. Somebody hurry up and smack some sense into me.

 

[9lock]

 

[steveh_131]

This isn't what 88GT was addressing. It isn't your responsibility to buy their music, but it is your responsibility to follow the law if you do buy it.



The customer doesn't have to agree to a contract in this case. The contract (in this case, a copyright) is between the artist/record label/song writer and the government. It says they alone have the right to copy the songs that they've written and/or recorded. By law, you can not copy it for the sake of distributing it to other parties.

I'm in agreement with you. That is the law. I'm more concerned with the ethics of it, and as a result, whether this should be the law.

By purchasing and opening you have entered into a contract protected and enforcable under federal law.

While I don't agree that a contract should be valid based on swiping a debit card, we can leave that one be.

This still leaves out anyone who didn't make the purchase, right? They are bound under no such contract.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Your point is?

While I don't agree that a contract should be valid based on swiping a debit card, we can leave that one be.

This still leaves out anyone who didn't make the purchase, right? They are bound under no such contract.

Why can we leave that one be? Because you disagree?

The person who didn't make the purchase has still received and is in possession of stolen property.

 

[Westside]

I can agree with this. IF the customer explicitly agrees to a contract with the person who produced it, then they should be bound by that contract not to copy or share with other people. A contract is a contract.

However, anyone who hasn't agreed to this contract should not be bound by it. Right?

Just like the 'FBI warnings" on old VHS types by purchasing the CD you are agreeing to not distribute the contents of the CD.

Whether it be starting your own radio station or handing it to a friend to "rip" a copy onto their computer.

Radio stations pay a fee for the rights to play a songs.


The real question everyone debates is what are you buying? Are you buying the CD itself? Are you buying the Content? or are you Buying Both the CD and the content on it?


Copy right law applies to both music and literature.

 

[Garb]

I'm in agreement with you. That is the law. I'm more concerned with the ethics of it, and as a result, whether this should be the law.

So you don't believe in the protection of intellectual property?

 

[level.eleven]

Your point is?

Bass players are overpaid. At least that was my takeaway.

 

[88GT]

I can agree with this. IF the customer explicitly agrees to a contract with the person who produced it, then they should be bound by that contract not to copy or share with other people. A contract is a contract.

However, anyone who hasn't agreed to this contract should not be bound by it. Right?

If the material is copyrighted/patented, the contract already exists. Use implies agreement.