Controversial opinions on metal

[Krow]

I used to be a downloader when I had no income then I looked down on people who downloaded once I started buying. I don't think it makes much difference, if you aren't going to buy it, you weren't going to in the first place. I almost always at least sample before I purchase and it's saved me from some real fucking garbage purchases.

But yeah, people that only download were never going to purchase it and support the person making it sooooo I really can't feel like they're stealing. Hell I feel like those people are cheating themselves of the experience of owning and experiencing music the way I feel is proper than the person they're "stealing" from.

 

[Krow]

Also, fining someone 400 million dollars is just scare tactic stupidity, just like it's always been. He will never pay .001% of that.

 

[Internally Deformed]

My statement is that you're committing an act of theft. If you can't prove me wrong, the conversation is over.

The concept of theft doesn't really fully apply to downloading in my view, because you're not actually depriving anyone of something. If I stole $10 from your wallet, that sucks for you because you're now down $10. In the case of music, if I download your album all I'm depriving you of is the potential to sell to me - you don't actually lose anything unless I would have bought your album were downloading not a possibility.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I'm not sure why I remembered $400 million. The number seems to be $550 thousand.

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/4482050

 

[Internally Deformed]

I'm not sure why I remembered $400 million. The number seems to be $550 thousand.

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/4482050

According to the article that guy was actually burning CDs he'd downloaded and then profiting from selling them. So yeah, that guy was stealing.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My statement is that you're committing an act of theft. If you can't prove me wrong, the conversation is over.

Also, my advice is to look up the recent anti-piracy laws in Canada. I believe there was a guy fined over $400 million for music piracy. It was a big story in the last few years.

Do you consider it theft when music out of copyright is downloaded? If not, would you consider it theft if laws retroactively applied copyright to every audio recording ever made, and people then downloaded the same recordings?

And as stated above, bootlegging is a totally different matter.

 

[MrTagoMago]

I'm an entitled white boy. Sue me :/

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

http://www.mcmillan.ca/mobile/showpublication.aspx?show=109506

@Internally Deformed

They definitely have laws now that don't require you to be selling something illegally.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

http://www.mcmillan.ca/mobile/showpublication.aspx?show=109506

@Internally Deformed

They definitely have laws now that don't require you to be selling something illegally.

Please quote the portion of that article you believe to be relevant to your argument.

 

[Internally Deformed]

http://www.mcmillan.ca/mobile/showpublication.aspx?show=109506

@Internally Deformed

They definitely have laws now that don't require you to be selling something illegally.

I'm not saying piracy for personal use isn't illegal. As hbb stated earlier, law =/= ethics.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Do you consider it theft when music out of copyright is downloaded? If not, would you consider it theft if laws retroactively applied copyright to every audio recording ever made, and people then downloaded the same recordings?

And as stated above, bootlegging is a totally different matter.

How many times do I have to tell you that my opinion is not what defines theft, but the outlines of the law? I don't understand why you're unable to understand this.

If someone fails to secure intellectual property under a copyright, it's not owned by anyone so it can't be stolen.

I'm not sure what your hypothetical is supposed to bring to the discussion.

 

[Internally Deformed]

How many times do I have to tell you that my opinion is not what defines theft, but the outlines of the law? I don't understand why you're unable to understand this.

We're not arguing that you can' be convicted for "stealing" music through piracy.

To state this as simply as possible: it's impossible to steal something if the person still has the thing you steal after you steal it.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

We're not arguing that you can' be convicted for "stealing" music through piracy.

To state this as simply as possible: it's impossible to steal something if the person still has the thing you steal after you steal it.

You apparently don't understand intellectual property law in the slightest. Theft doesn't have to consist of stealing a physical item.

 

[Internally Deformed]

You apparently don't understand intellectual property law in the slightest. Theft doesn't have to consist of stealing a physical item.

According to Proudhon, property is theft. Therefore it's actually the musicians who are stealing the music.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

According to Proudhon, property is theft. Therefore it's actually the musicians who are stealing the music.

This must be your way of saying that I'm correct, since you didn't offer any actual evidence to support your argument.

Intellectual property can be owned and it can also be stolen. This is according to actual laws and not my opinions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How many times do I have to tell you that my opinion is not what defines theft, but the outlines of the law? I don't understand why you're unable to understand this.

If someone fails to secure intellectual property under a copyright, it's not owned by anyone so it can't be stolen.

I'm not sure what your hypothetical is supposed to bring to the discussion.

Show me the Canadian law that defines the downloading of music for personal use as theft.

My hypothetical is revealing that you are using law to define your opinion on ethics without critically thinking about the value of those laws. If your views of copyright were a long-standing view, it would be illegal to perform any of the classic symphonies without the permission of their composer's great-great-great-great-etc grandchildren, for example. Or Disney would not have ownership of several intellectual properties that they currently claim to have. I see the value in protecting intellectual property, but it's not a matter of theft, it's a matter of creating an environment that allows creators of IP to be rewarded via the marketplace, and encourage further creation of IP. That is explicitly what the US constitution spells out on IP law, although today it has been distorted to mean the protection of even music long past its release.

Also, copyright doesn't necessarily have to be "secured"; copyright is assumed given by anyone that creates intellectual property. Registration of copyright makes it easier to prove ownership, especially when talking about idea-"theft" (e.g. law suits over similar melodies between popular songs), but isn't necessary to simply establish copyright.

 

[Internally Deformed]

This is according to actual laws and not my opinions.

That's about right, you have laws, we have opinions.

What I've been arguing is that the concept of property as it applies to physical objects doesn't really apply in the same way to intellectual productions, and that therefore the concept of theft as it applies to physical objects doesn't really apply in the same way to intellectual productions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You didn't reply to this btw:

Please quote the portion of that article you believe to be relevant to your argument.

I'm guessing it's because you Googled something like "new canadian copyright law" and just gave me one of the first links it spat back, because your link concerns the obligation of internet providers in reporting violators of copyright and other such things. It has nothing to do with personal downloading of music.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Show me the Canadian law that defines the downloading of music for personal use as theft.

My hypothetical is revealing that you are using law to define your opinion on ethics without critically thinking about the value of those laws. If your views of copyright were a long-standing view, it would be illegal to perform any of the classic symphonies without the permission of their composer's great-great-great-great-etc grandchildren, for example. Or Disney would not have ownership of several intellectual properties that they currently claim to have. I see the value in protecting intellectual property, but it's not a matter of theft, it's a matter of creating an environment that allows creators of IP to be rewarded via the marketplace, and encourage further creation of IP. That is explicitly what the US constitution spells out on IP law, although today it has been distorted to mean the protection of even music long past its release.

Also, copyright doesn't necessarily have to be "secured"; copyright is assumed given by anyone that creates intellectual property. Registration of copyright makes it easier to prove ownership, especially when talking about idea-"theft" (e.g. law suits over similar melodies between popular songs), but isn't necessary to simply establish copyright.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-19.html#h-28

Have fun. You might need to learn to read legal texts in order to understand what this means. I do it regularly as part of my profession.

It basically making an unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material is illegal if you need a tl;dr version. The possible penalties and process for legal action are also outlined here.

 

[Internally Deformed]

So pointless because whether a given act is legal or illegal has absolutely no bearing on deciding whether it should be legal or illegal.