Music downloading is it good or bad?

[Dak]

Regarding my brother, he has recorded some of his songs but hasn't bothered putting them into CDs, since he can never find a complete band worth of people who will practice consistently.

Your painting analogy is flawed, since you assume from the start that the original was stolen. Most uploads are from people who purchased sai "art". So your analogy doesn't back up your argument at al.

All paper money is, in essence, counterfeit. It's just which printer has the "official" blessing. But that's an entirely different subject.

So you told them you would pay them for a job and then didn't? So you lied (broke a contract) and kept the profit the workers helped earn you. Sounds like a record label. What does this have to do with downloading an album?

 

[razoredge]

Ah... lets see... when you download a album you STEAL it... DUH

 

[Dak]

From who?

 

[razoredge]

this is getting dull like a lead pencil

from the person that put the work and expences into the music and the recording

are you really this fucking dense ? or is this like some Monty Python thing ?

 

[Dak]

How did I still it from them? Did I sneak into their studio and grab the copy? Did I hack into the artists network and download it? Did I break into a CD store and steal it? Etc.?

No.

 

[Silver Incubus]

How did I still it from them? Did I sneak into their studio and grab the copy? Did I hack into the artists network and download it? Did I break into a CD store and steal it? Etc.?

No.

Yes. You downloaded an illegal digital copy. The copyright symbol is right there on a CD therefore, making and then knowingly giving a copy of it to someone else breaks the copyright- which belongs to the artist/company and guess what COPYRIGHT MEANS??????

The Right TO COPY!!!!!

Therefore, as a consumer you do not gain the right to copy that content because it only belongs to the person with the physical copy, or a authentic digital copy.

Its no different from computer games, or movies, or anything of the sort. Sure there are some people who hobby create computer games or movies, but most people have ambitions to make money and being sucessful.

 

[Dak]

And now I go back to pointing out that the discussion is about whether it's good or bad, not whether or not it is against current copyright laws.

 

[razoredge]

stealing is generally considered bad and frowned upon, at least on most other clouds.

Copyrite and patent laws were put in effect for a reason, it was part of the intelectual evolution of mankind, please do try to catch up

 

[Dak]

By that logic, Lady Gaga is also part of the "intellectual evolution of mankind".

You haven't proved it's stealing other than based off the current copyright laws, which we haven't confirmed as valid in a moral sense.

 

[razoredge]

"stealing" "valid in a moral sense" "we havent determined" "in a moral sense"

thus proving we are no doubt decended from apes... still somehow apes are able to recognize territorial matters, such ponderous things are these

 

[Dak]

 

[Silver Incubus]

By that logic, Lady Gaga is also part of the "intellectual evolution of mankind".

You haven't proved it's stealing other than based off the current copyright laws, which we haven't confirmed as valid in a moral sense.

HAHAHAHAHA

LOGIC?
FAIL!

Laws don't guide morals? Are you fucking Joking?
Breaking the law isn't considered bad in society? I Can't believe you said or at least insinuate that. You are mentally........special........and it is the opposite of genius.

Wake up Internet ape and realize your human potential to understand the greater effect of actions that have no relation nor affect on you. Your apparent ego-centric view of this matter deletes and distorts your perceptions on how downloading media illegally is creating rift between the talent and the consumer of said talent. How do you think an artist feels when people take their music, and may even be huge fans of that music but won't shell out a few bucks to show gratitude for give the consumer the opportunity to be taken into the magical atmosphere of music.
They like it,they love IT!, just not enough to pay for it.

 

[Dak]

Obviously yourself and razoredge have difficulty seeing things outside of their current parameters or beyond the status quo.

Laws are created to meet a perceived need. Who perceives the need has a lot to do with whether or not a law is created to meet it. Nothing about that process guarantees a law is moral or good.

If it takes a "special kind of person" to think that breaking the law isn't accepted in society, just check and see how many people speed on a constant basis, and that is just the easiest example to point out. Apparently the large majority of people in the "motorized" world are special.

If consumers generate demand (this is like, economics 101), then what is egocentric about not paying for something that can be created and deleted with about as much effort as blinking takes. Album sales are dropping, but there are more bands and music choices now than ever before, so something isn't adding up in your argument.

I am more than willing to shell out a few bucks to support an artist. It's called concert attendance (or other merch purchasing, such as posters,shirts,etc). Labels need to die for music to truly innovate and progress, and downloading is the most lethal threat to them, not to artists.

 

[monoxide_child]

Can products of the intellect be considered 'property'?

yes
"products of the intelect" really can be considered property, click here
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...rfai=CosvX7SxwTMOFHI_KMo3svd4PAAAAqgQFT9AH8Ns

 

[Death Aflame]

yes
"products of the intelect" really can be considered property, click here
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...rfai=CosvX7SxwTMOFHI_KMo3svd4PAAAAqgQFT9AH8Ns

I was speaking rhetorically, attempting to question the assertions of the underlying argument in favor of IP. The term I am not particularly happy with is 'products of the intellect' which I think obscures the debate in a way that is not constructive, we are talking about the ownership of an idea not the physical form that the idea may take (notwithstanding the requirement for an idea to take physical form for the copyright/IP assertion to be considered valid under current law). For example, if I was the person who invented the idea of the house, I ought to, under IP or copyright law, be able to sue anyone for copyright infringement for taking my idea and utilizing it without any royalties paid in my direction.

Such an assertion is ridiculous of course, which is part of the reason I have been lead to question the legitimacy of copyright or IP in the first place (this is a fairly crude argument, but it is simply meant to illustrate a point).

 

[monoxide_child]

I was speaking rhetorically, attempting to question the assertions of the underlying argument in favor of IP. The term I am not particularly happy with is 'products of the intellect' which I think obscures the debate in a way that is not constructive, we are talking about the ownership of an idea not the physical form that the idea may take (notwithstanding the requirement for an idea to take physical form for the copyright/IP assertion to be considered valid under current law). For example, if I was the person who invented the idea of the house, I ought to, under IP or copyright law, be able to sue anyone for copyright infringement for taking my idea and utilizing it without any royalties paid in my direction.

Such an assertion is ridiculous of course, which is part of the reason I have been lead to question the legitimacy of copyright or IP in the first place (this is a fairly crude argument, but it is simply meant to illustrate a point).

you can't put a copyright on the idea of a "house" because houses existed BEFORE copyright laws

 

[Dak]

Lrn2example

 

[Death Aflame]

you can't put a copyright on the idea of a "house" because houses existed BEFORE copyright laws

Of course, it was just a theoretical example, a 'thought experiment' designed to illustrate a point. That point being, imagine if someone or some organization held the copyright/IP for the design of generic dwellings we call houses and, as a result those who live in such a dwelling would each have to pay tribute to that person/company because they originally, according to patent filings/documents and laws protecting such 'rights', conceived of the idea and implemented it through a design/structure. Absurd, no?

 

[monoxide_child]

Of course, it was just a theoretical example, a 'thought experiment' designed to illustrate a point. That point being, imagine if someone or some organization held the copyright/IP for the design of generic dwellings we call houses and, as a result those who live in such a dwelling would each have to pay tribute to that person/company because they originally, according to patent filings/documents and laws protecting such 'rights', conceived of the idea and implemented it through a design/structure. Absurd, no?

yes
it would be a monopoly
just like the oldest telephone company used to have

 

[_Mindrust_]

Can products of the intellect be considered 'property'?

Products of the intellect take no less resources to create than tangible goods. In this case, creating a song takes time, energy, investments (gear, guitar lessons, education in music, etc), and even risk (not knowing if the resources you spend on creating music will pay off).

It's really no different.