Liliy Allen has a go at older artists

[mac_shinobi]

What about every other type of copyrighted document in the world? Why are you focussing on one item??

 

 

 

Ripping CD's is down to a user's actions also...

 

 

 

Irrelevant - the law is still the law, until it is changed.

 

1. That was an example of one type of copy righted document that I could think of

 

2. Yes - correct and I obviously missed that out in my post above so thanks for th@

 

3. I was not debating that I was still a bit puzzled as to why its still included in the UK version if it is still illegal and was just a thought as to why it is still included and never said that was the reason it was just me guessing.

 

If I own the original cd's then I use that feature of iTunes just for my personal use so I can listen to them in the car without having the need to swap discs whilst trying to drive.

 

So put my hands up to that and if its illegal then for the time being so be it because I am not going to pull over and stop to keep changing discs.

[Guest Guest]

I was still a bit puzzled as to why its still included in the UK version if it is still illegal and was just a thought as to why it is still included and never said that was the reason it was just me guessing.

 

Because although Apple would love you to buy all your music again from their store they are not stupid enough to think that would happen. If there was no way to get music onto your iPod (since you can only use iTunes to put music on there) then i dont think they would have sold many iPods

[jamesb]

But like localzuk said its still illegal, so why exactly do you feel that your morals are better than someone elses to make the judgement of what is right and what is wrong?

 

Because, simply put, I choose not to steal copyrighted material. I did in the past through ignorance, but not now.

 

And im sorry but; someone who only buys music from online stores in digital format lecturing people on artists not getting payed enough. You do know how much (or rather how little) they get from the sale of an mp3 dont you?

 

I'm not lecturing about artists being paid too much. I just honestly cannot understand how people can happily steal something and then justify it with such comments as 'everyone does it', or 'they charge too much'.

 

Its interesting that people are so quick to attack me for not stealing. I have similar reactions when I try to explain that I don't watch television and so don't have a television license. Apparently both downloading and watching television are healthy, normal activities and someone who makes a choice not to do them should be attacked and ridiculed.

[Guest Guest]

Its interesting that people are so quick to attack me for not stealing.

 

No one is attacking you for not stealing, they are attacking you because you have jumped up on your high horse and started attacking everyone else, which given that you admit to "stealing" yourself (and its not stealing however much you would like it to be) is rather hypocritical.

[jamesb]

No one is attacking you for not stealing, they are attacking you because you have jumped up on your high horse and started attacking everyone else, which given that you admit to "stealing" yourself (and its not stealing however much you would like it to be) is rather hypocritical.

 

In that case, what would you call the illegal downloading of copyrighted material without payment to the copyright holder?

[webman]

In that case, what would you call the illegal downloading of copyrighted material without payment to the copyright holder?

 

Copyright infringement.

 

I wouldn't call it theft or stealing - those would imply that the original owner is deprived of said item - which is not the case with digital downloads.

[witch]

No one is attacking you and they certainly aren't ridiculing you - it's just that you did lay yourself open to criticism by baldly stating that you 'never' did anything illegal with music downloading etc. As you have seen, it turns out that actually you have. You can't blame people for gloating just a little!

The problem is that the laws haven't caught up with the 21st century and the technology that exists now.

[jamesb]

No one is attacking you and they certainly aren't ridiculing you - it's just that you did lay yourself open to criticism by baldly stating that you 'never' did anything illegal with music downloading etc. As you have seen, it turns out that actually you have. You can't blame people for gloating just a little!

The problem is that the laws haven't caught up with the 21st century and the technology that exists now.

 

Yes, I'll admit I did leave myself open to that. I just still don't get how its considered acceptable.

 

I've had friends (not for long) who I could never get to understand that shoplifting was wrong. It just becomes irritating that a large proportion of the world seems to act as though copyright infringement is perfectly acceptable, and even defensible.

[Guest Guest]

Yes, I'll admit I did leave myself open to that. I just still don't get how its considered acceptable.

 

I've had friends (not for long) who I could never get to understand that shoplifting was wrong. It just becomes irritating that a large proportion of the world seems to act as though copyright infringement is perfectly acceptable, and even defensible.

 

 

But thats the point, who are you to decide that filesharing is wrong while ripping cds isnt? They both come under the same act. You can either decide that the law is right and follow it to the letter, or you can make a moral judgement and decide what you think is right, but in doing so you must accept that not everyone is going to share your opinion.

[mac_shinobi]

I personally - not sure about anyone else and am certainly not going to vouch for anyone else do not want to fork out two lots of money just so I can listen to music on my ipod ie

 

I purchased [name of band(s)] album or single(s) on CD and do not see why I should have to re pay again to have them in my iTunes just so that I can legally listen to music on my ipod as I like to have the original discs where as if I purchased through iTunes and for whatever reason my hard drive died or data got corrupt or whatever then that would mean I would have to re purchase the same music / albums without the ability to re download what I had paid for and I understand its not there fault and you can make a backup etc but if its on a CD then I at least have something to fall back on assuming that the original cd's are looked after or are in a safe place and yes I still do make a copy of my iTunes library on another hard drive seperate to the one where it is stored.

 

Not to mention the quality of music through iTunes store is not as high quality as what you can rip from a CD ie AAC versus apple lossless

[jamesb]

But thats the point, who are you to decide that filesharing is wrong while ripping cds isnt? They both come under the same act. You can either decide that the law is right and follow it to the letter, or you can make a moral judgement and decide what you think is right, but in doing so you must accept that not everyone is going to share your opinion.

 

When did I say that ripping CDs wasn't wrong?

 

I said that I'd done it, and at the time I was unaware of the law. So yes, my mistake and ignorance isn't a defense, but knowing otherwise now I wouldn't rip CDs.

 

But what I still want to know is why you believe that (illegal rather than legal) filesharing is morally right?

[LeMarchand]

It just becomes irritating that a large proportion of the world seems to act as though copyright infringement is perfectly acceptable, and even defensible.

 

I've been sort-of following this discussion and James has a good point. There are a bunch of arguments that people use to justify infringing copyright, but I have yet to see one that is valid and not just a flimsy justification for doing something that the infringer knows to be wrong.

 

I agree that there are some aspects of the law that need to be brought up to date (e.g. the ridiculous current legal stance in the UK on copying your own CDs to other media - though I can understand why the law was put in place) and see that organisations like the RIAA are taking an overly heavy-handed approach to defending their property; but I don't understand why it is considered bad for someone to hold copyright in a piece of art that they have produced and would like to make money from.

[Guest Guest]

But what I still want to know is why you believe that (illegal rather than legal) filesharing is morally right?

 

I dont think its right, but then i dont think its as wrong as you seem to think it is. I started listening to the charlatans again and since i cant find my CDs i went on youtube. Now as a result of getting back into them i am going to see them in december. Is what i have done wrong and of no benifit to the band?

 

Please, make the distintion between a 13yr old girl who downloads desposable artists and has never, and likely will never, go and see a band live, but their merchendice etc., and me who has a record collection which can hardly fit in my bedroom

[jamesb]

I dont think its right, but then i dont think its as wrong as you seem to think it is. I started listening to the charlatans again and since i cant find my CDs i went on youtube. Now as a result of getting back into them i am going to see them in december. Is what i have done wrong and of no benifit to the band?

 

Please, make the distintion between a 13yr old girl who downloads desposable artists and has never, and likely will never, go and see a band live, but their merchendice etc., and me who has a record collection which can hardly fit in my bedroom

 

Why? Should I make the same distinction between someone who shoplifts a chocolate bar because they're hungry, and who shoplifts a bar they wouldn't eat otherwise?

[Guest Guest]

Why? Should I make the same distinction between someone who shoplifts a chocolate bar because they're hungry, and who shoplifts a bar they wouldn't eat otherwise?

 

And as has been said several dozen times in thread alone, copyright infringement is not stealing. God theres more intelligence in my left knacker!

[mac_shinobi]

And as has been said several dozen times in thread alone, copyright infringement is not stealing. God theres more intelligence in my left knacker!

 

Lesson 101 on how to start a flame war ? Just kidding.

[jamesb]

And as has been said several dozen times in thread alone, copyright infringement is not stealing. God theres more intelligence in my left knacker!

 

So because its not stealing, its perfectly moral?

 

I've still yet to see an actual reason put forward that it isn't wrong, despite the fact that personal attacks are now being used.

 

Shoplifting is the closest real-world comparison I can think of. If you can think of a better one, go ahead.

[localzuk]

What a lot of people say regarding the music industry is that they haven't kept up with modern times. They are fighting against their customers - ie. forcing DRM on people, suing old women who don't own computers, charging prices for downloads that end up being as expensive as a physical disc even though the costs of hosting that file for download are a tiny amount compared to a physical disc.

 

What a lot of proponents of file sharing say is that they spend money on things they want, and don't pay for things they don't want. This argument is used for movies more than songs - as youtube and spotify are more suited to that for music (although, both of these are either very recent or undergo annoying interludes where music is not available due to arguments of licensing by, yes, the music industry). An example - a massive amount of people downloaded the new Star Trek movie when it came out at the cinema. The versions available are obviously going to be awful quality, but they still do it. Yet, at the same time, the box office take in huge amounts of cash, and when the DVD comes out, I'm sure that'll sell well too. Those that downloaded the movie use it as a preview, ie. will i want to buy the movie myself?

 

Another argument is that music tracks themselves are not a profitable business, so why try to force them to be? Instead, why don't the music industry make concerts, merchandise and the like into the main profit makers, and instead use the tracks as promo material. Nine Inch Nails do this now. They also make special editions of their stuff, and people buy it up by the bucket load.

 

What you're trying to say is that the industry should carry on as it always has been, paying peanuts to the artists, whilst the richest get richer. What most proponents are saying is that artists should be in control of their own work, earning the money they deserve.

 

And shoplifting is *not* the same as downloading a song! A valid comparison would be for me to go into a shop, take my own materials and make copies of items in there. Could you say that was stealing? I wouldn't.

[Guest Guest]

So because its not stealing, its perfectly moral?

 

I've still yet to see an actual reason put forward that it isn't wrong, despite the fact that personal attacks are now being used.

 

Shoplifting is the closest real-world comparison I can think of. If you can think of a better one, go ahead.

 

Ohh forget it, if you cant see the difference between depriving someone of something and copying their idea then there really is little point in disscussing this with you any further.

[webman]

Shoplifting is the closest real-world comparison I can think of. If you can think of a better one, go ahead.

 

I'll try and explain slowly

 

As I and others have said before - stealing and theft is when you deprive the proper owner of said item and they can no longer make use of it. This is different to copyright infringement.

 

Taking a chocolate bar from a shop is depriving the shop of one chocolate bar which they can no longer sell to other people, as you now have it.

 

Downloading digital files does not deprive their owner(s) of the files - so it is not theft.

[mac_shinobi]

I'll try and explain slowly

 

As I and others have said before - stealing and theft is when you deprive the proper owner of said item and they can no longer make use of it. This is different to copyright infringement.

 

Taking a chocolate bar from a shop is depriving the shop of one chocolate bar which they can no longer sell to other people, as you now have it.

 

Downloading digital files does not deprive their owner(s) of the files - so it is not theft.

 

But it still deprives the owner of money because had there not of been anywhere for said user to download the songs or whatever those items may of been then it would of forced them to purchase them in some way shape or form hence making the correct owner more money and even though its not physically stealing a cd or dvd from hmv or wherever then just because its downloading from a source(s) and obtaining the same thing digitally what would that be classified as - am presuming someone will say "copyright infringement" because you are illegally obtaining a copyrighted material(s) ie cd, dvd or w/e

[localzuk]

But it still deprives the owner of money because had there not of been anywhere for said user to download the songs or whatever those items may of been then it would of forced them to purchase them in some way shape or form hence making the correct owner more money and even though its not physically stealing a cd or dvd from hmv or wherever then just because its downloading from a source(s) and obtaining the same thing digitally what would that be classified as - am presuming someone will say "copyright infringement" because you are illegally obtaining a copyrighted material(s) ie cd, dvd or w/e

 

No it doesn't. That is working on the assumption that the person would have bought the song if they hadn't downloaded it without paying, a fallacy which has been shown to be wrong time and time again.

 

It is exactly as you say - copyright infringement. Nothing more, nothing less.

[jamesb]

What a lot of people say regarding the music industry is that they haven't kept up with modern times. They are fighting against their customers - ie. forcing DRM on people, suing old women who don't own computers, charging prices for downloads that end up being as expensive as a physical disc even though the costs of hosting that file for download are a tiny amount compared to a physical disc.

 

Thank you, an actual reason at last.

 

However I don't see why the fact that I disagree with copyright infringement means automatically that I support the music industry. I agree completely that the music industry is archaic, draconian, and incredibly short-sighted.

 

What a lot of proponents of file sharing say is that they spend money on things they want, and don't pay for things they don't want. This argument is used for movies more than songs - as youtube and spotify are more suited to that for music (although, both of these are either very recent or undergo annoying interludes where music is not available due to arguments of licensing by, yes, the music industry). An example - a massive amount of people downloaded the new Star Trek movie when it came out at the cinema. The versions available are obviously going to be awful quality, but they still do it. Yet, at the same time, the box office take in huge amounts of cash, and when the DVD comes out, I'm sure that'll sell well too. Those that downloaded the movie use it as a preview, ie. will i want to buy the movie myself?

 

Isn't that what trailers are for? This argument does seem to get rolled out a lot, but to take an example if I were to download an electronic copy of a book for free, bypassing the copyright, and find that I liked it but not enough to actually buy a physical copy, this doesn't apply. What about those who download episodes of things they have seen on television instead of buying the copies that are available legally?

 

I can see that there's some validity to the argument, but it doesn't apply in many cases. I've heard it rolled out with relation to music and movies, but what about games and other software, or music where the artist doesn't actually do shows, or simply doesn't have a tour date within reasonable distance of the downloader?

 

Another argument is that music tracks themselves are not a profitable business, so why try to force them to be? Instead, why don't the music industry make concerts, merchandise and the like into the main profit makers, and instead use the tracks as promo material. Nine Inch Nails do this now. They also make special editions of their stuff, and people buy it up by the bucket load.

 

Yes, why don't they do that? It would be a good idea (in many cases, there are exceptions). However the point isn't whether it would be a good idea or not, the point is that they don't do this at the moment. Again, I seem to be being accused of music industry sympathies - I don't have them, and I agree with many of the things that people say about them needing to update and revamp. The difference is I don't feel that this justifies my, or anyone else's, copyright infringement.

 

If I object to the way that they sell music, I won't buy it, and I won't hear the music. Same applies with films and games. Why does their bad practice justify other's illegal practices?

 

What you're trying to say is that the industry should carry on as it always has been, paying peanuts to the artists, whilst the richest get richer. What most proponents are saying is that artists should be in control of their own work, earning the money they deserve.

 

At no point have I said that. I do not defend the music industry, and I do not agree with them. I also hold out hopes that things will change. What I don't do is engage in illegal practices because I disagree with the way things are, and then try to justify it by saying that someone's out of date.

 

And shoplifting is *not* the same as downloading a song! A valid comparison would be for me to go into a shop, take my own materials and make copies of items in there. Could you say that was stealing? I wouldn't.

 

Okay, so if I go into a bookshop and photocopy a book, its okay so long as I use my own materials and disagree with the publishing industry?

 

I am, by the way, now convinced by the 'not theft' arguments and will stop using that term. I still don't see any reasonable justifications for illegal activity however.

[Guest Guest]

But it still deprives the owner of money because had there not of been anywhere for said user to download the songs or whatever those items may of been then it would of forced them to purchase them in some way shape or form hence making the correct owner more money and even though its not physically stealing a cd or dvd from hmv or wherever then just because its downloading from a source(s) and obtaining the same thing digitally what would that be classified as - am presuming someone will say "copyright infringement" because you are illegally obtaining a copyrighted material(s) ie cd, dvd or w/e

 

Key word; may.

 

If i hadnt been able to find the charlotans on youtube etc then there is no chance i would have went and bought their CDs again, and as a result i wouldnt be going to see them in december.

 

As localzuk has said record companies need to move with the times. Do you really think the charlotans care that i downloaded their tracks given that i am going to pay £25 to go see them live?

 

 

The music and film industry has been miling it for that long that good films/bands are few and far between. Maybe if they started investing their time in them instead of going after kids who couldnt possibly afford to buy all the desposible trash that comes out we'd see more respect for the music industry. They created the disposable and ondemand/now culture so as far as im concerned they can put up with it.

 

TBH i dont care whether people think its wrong but ill admit i have downloaded things to vet them before i buy, which i feel perfectly justified in due to teh reason above. If i didnt vet CDs then tbh id just do without altogether as there is no way i am paying £15-25 for something which i will listen to/watch once (or gets turned off half way through) which since around 2000 has happened more often than not.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Guest

[webman]

But it still deprives the owner of money; because had there not of been anywhere for said user to download the songs (or whatever those items may of been) then it would of forced them to purchase them in some way shape or form - hence making the correct owner more money

 

A copyright-infringing download does not automatically mean that the person would have definitely bought the CD; so you can't say for certain.