Liliy Allen has a go at older artists

[Guest Guest]

And I haven't seen a single satisfactory answer, at least not one that would justify breaking the law in my view.

 

Im sorry but we've been patient with you for 9 long pages but may i ask, who do you think you are to sit in judgement of everyone else?

Edited September 28, 2009 by witch

[mossj]

I've ripped CDs to my own MP3, and that's it. I have never downloaded music that I haven't paid for, never downloaded a game or software which I didn't have the appropriate license for, and never downloaded a pirated eBook.

 

So yes, I can actually take a moral stance here.

 

+1 rep for simply being able to take that stance...

[LeMarchand]

I was thinking that when I got home I'd have time to address some of the arguments that have been put forward on this thread, but the way things are going it may not be long until it gets so heated that it's locked. So I'll just ask this of those that think that the sort of copyright infringement that has been discussed here does no harm:

 

Do they allow the children in their schools to make use of P2P networks to infringe copyright? If not, why not?

[localzuk]

I was thinking that when I got home I'd have time to address some of the arguments that have been put forward on this thread, but the way things are going it may not be long until it gets so heated that it's locked. So I'll just ask this of those that think that the sort of copyright infringement that has been discussed here does no harm:

 

Do they allow the children in their schools to make use of P2P networks to infringe copyright? If not, why not?

 

A multitude of reasons - 1. because schools are for education, not downloading music (I also block legal music sites), 2. because our ISP also blocks it (ie. our LEA). and 3. because having to put up with legal threats due to people downloading stuff in school would be annoying.

[LeMarchand]

A multitude of reasons - 1. because schools are for education, not downloading music (I also block legal music sites), 2. because our ISP also blocks it (ie. our LEA). and 3. because having to put up with legal threats due to people downloading stuff in school would be annoying.

 

What if you were at a boarding school where no-one had been savvy enough to block such activities before you took over then?

[Guest Guest]

What if you were at a boarding school where no-one had been savvy enough to block such activities before you took over then?

 

Id block them because i have to, not because i feel morally obligated to. Infact (apart from my obvious requirements to do so) I dont see it as my duty or my right to block anyone from doing anything. If you want to break the law then you must be willing to face the conciquences if you are caught. Obviously if i saw someone getting beaten up then thats a different story, but otherwise i dont really see what it has got to do with me.

[browolf]

 

 

So surely supporting Spotify would be another way to show support for the new models, rather than ignoring the new models in favour of illegal downloads and so preventing them from truly getting off the ground?

 

I'm not saying that you do this, but a substantial number of people do. If that number were to switch to Spotify (preferably the subscription one, give them a little support) then it'd be a much clearer indication of preference than avoiding both paid options.

 

 

Let's not forget, before lots of people jumped on the spotify bandwagon, I use it quite a lot myself, there was pandora, and that place was awesome (and way better than spot not least in its ability to find similar tracks), but the people in licensing couldn't be "reasonable", whatever that was, and we all lost out. :-S

[localzuk]

What if you were at a boarding school where no-one had been savvy enough to block such activities before you took over then?

 

A school is not an ISP, therefore it does not have immunity from being prosecuted for what is transmitted over its network. As the law currently stands, the activities discussed here are illegal, so it is the responsibility of the school to ensure their students aren't breaking that law. Whether it was blocked previously is irrelevant.

 

Let's not forget, before lots of people jumped on the spotify bandwagon, I use it quite a lot myself, there was pandora, and that place was awesome (and way better than spot not least in its ability to find similar tracks), but the people in licensing couldn't be "reasonable", whatever that was, and we all lost out. :-S

 

Never heard of Pandora. Did they do any advertising? And that exact same reason (that the people in licensing couldn't be reasonable) is why Youtube blocked UK access to most of its music videos for the last 6 months or so.

[webman]

Never heard of Pandora. Did they do any advertising?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_(music_service)

[jamesb]

Im sorry but we've been patient with you for 9 long pages but may i ask, who do you think you are to sit in judgement of everyone else?

 

All that I'm asking for is an argument in defense of copyright infringement which is both sensible, and carries some weight. A good, solid argument for breaking the law. I've yet to see one which isn't completely subjective. It seems that in many cases people are breaking the law as a form of protest, but there are many musicians who are bypassing the record publishing companies which people are protesting against. Surely more support for these musicians, which would be completely legal, would be a better option than continuing to break the law? Combined with a boycott on those that people object to would make the position stronger still.

 

As to being patient, I've been insulted several times during this thread. I've yet to hand out any personal insults, and I won't do so since I view this as a moral/philosophical debate, not a personal argument. I've also corrected my use of the term theft to describe it.

[localzuk]

All that I'm asking for is an argument in defense of copyright infringement which is both sensible, and carries some weight. A good, solid argument for breaking the law. I've yet to see one which isn't completely subjective. It seems that in many cases people are breaking the law as a form of protest, but there are many musicians who are bypassing the record publishing companies which people are protesting against. Surely more support for these musicians, which would be completely legal, would be a better option than continuing to break the law? Combined with a boycott on those that people object to would make the position stronger still.

 

That's your opinion. Also, all the methods you talk of do not negate each other. ie. you can support the musicians who don't follow the usual record industry methodology, you can boycott purchases and you can still download songs.

 

What you seem to be saying is simply that you disagree with the methodology of the protest. So be it. Many people objected to the methodology of many protest movements. Doesn't stop it happening though. And when you add all the different methods together, you get a comprehensive package of ways of forcing the companies to change.

[jamesb]

That's your opinion. Also, all the methods you talk of do not negate each other. ie. you can support the musicians who don't follow the usual record industry methodology, you can boycott purchases and you can still download songs.

 

What you seem to be saying is simply that you disagree with the methodology of the protest. So be it. Many people objected to the methodology of many protest movements. Doesn't stop it happening though. And when you add all the different methods together, you get a comprehensive package of ways of forcing the companies to change.

 

I think you've just summed up my position actually. Thanks for helping me clarify it to myself as much as anything else.

[MbroTech]

I remember a good number of years back that Mike Oldfield was taking part in a Radio Show about this very subject, and he was accused by one of the then current musicians (it may even have been that guy out of The Prodigy) of being an old dinosaur who should move on (well he had been around 20 years since the early 70s). He may have had a good point to make until it was revealed that he was actually older than Oldfield himself, who had of course made it big whilst still a teenager and at that time was still under 40.