• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you think downloading MP3 files illegally should be punishable by jail time?

Should people be sent to jail for downloading music files illegally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • No

    Votes: 24 96.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yep, that's why I took on the handle Scarecrow is Great. So many people build strawmen out of what I say that they must really really love me.

I'm fully aware of what the constitution says in regards to patents and copyrights, yet you have to post what I didn't say and shadowbox with yourself.
Ummm Akhbar. You're imagining things if you think I set up a straw man as you. Here's the relevant conversation in full:

Dezaad said:
The purpose of copyright, as a construct, is to benefit society by arbitrarily defining ownership rights (please see the Constitution if you disagree that this is the purpose of copyright in America).
Akhbar said:
That's socialist gobbledy-gook.

The purpose of copyrights, patents, and trademarks is to protect the financial interests of the individual possessing them.
D said:
LOOK THE CONSTITUTION IS A SOCIALIST INSTRUMENT!!!

Don't believe me? Just ask Akhbar...

Well, here's what the Constitution says about why Congress was empowered to create the artifice in America:

The Congress shall have Power ...
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


The Constitution clearly doesn't say:
The Congress shall have Power ...
Clause 8: To grant Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their work for the sake of protecting their financial interests;


Some people use the words "Socialist Gobledygook" far far too loosely. The founders, unfortunately, were not Socialists.


A said:
Yep, that's why I took on the handle Scarecrow is Great. So many people build strawmen out of what I say that they must really really love me.

I'm fully aware of what the constitution says in regards to patents and copyrights, yet you have to post what I didn't say and shadowbox with yourself.

I didn't post anything as a direct quote that you didn't say, nor did I mischaracterize the nature of what you did say. Now I've posted what you did in fact say, and it comports perfectly with what I characterized you as saying. Talking about setting up straw men... are you sure you didn't name yourself that because you fancy yourself an artist at creating them? (not saying that anyone else thinks you're clever or anything).

In any case, not every law made for the benefit of society as a whole is infected with the 'disease of socialism', and that is all that the founders did: create an friendly environment in the sciences and arts; to benefit society.

As another transparent straw man that YOU set up:
I said:
Please explain why we as taxpayers should be forced to pay for the incarceration of people who engage in copyright infringement on artistic work?
What will happen if the law isn't enforced and people's intellectual property is not protected? Well, I know a man who mortgaged his house, designed a helicopter in his living room, and now owns a 200 million dollar helicopter company based on his patents.

That's how patents, copyrights, and trademarks benefit "society". Frank certainly wouldn't have taken that risk if he wouldn't have been able to reap any rewards from it.
Clearly, I didn't ask the question "What will happen if the law isn't enforced and people's intellectual property is not protected?" I requested an explanation of "What will happen if we fail to enforce copyrights on artistic work." You didn't answer that question, you answered your own. I didn't comment on this portion of your reply at the time because it did seem you were just arguing with yourself. That is, until you feebly made me out to be doing it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So do you claim victory on all the debates you lose, or do you have a personal interest in misrepresenting this particular issue?
Yes, where did I claim victory Mr. Strawman?:roll: I'm beginning to think you're a troll here. Show me differently. Pony up the proof.
 
Put on better encryptions, and stop Bill Gates from putting the "Rip" ability on the Windows Media Player! If this doesn't comply, than stop RIAA from sueing! On the measures that they are not doing anything in their power to stop file sharing, but making up for lost profits! How responsible of them! :mrgreen:
 
stsburns said:
Put on better encryptions, and stop Bill Gates from putting the "Rip" ability on the Windows Media Player! If this doesn't comply, than stop RIAA from sueing! On the measures that they are not doing anything in their power to stop file sharing, but making up for lost profits! How responsible of them! :mrgreen:

Now all us cheap skates there will just use a third party softwar to accomplish the same thing that we can with Windows media player.
 
Again. Why would anyone expend effort, ingenuity, time, and money to invent, write, compose, or otherwise be creative if their work is not protected?

What a strange concept. Although classical music was the pop music of their time, the composers were not exactly rich. Aside from this, they created music not for fame, not for money but because of dedication to divinity. They aspired to something divine, as many artists (not to be confused with pop artists) still do.
Personally, I am for material possesion, meaning the richest guy can have the original copy, the original microphone, but copies of that work, copies of the music should be freely distributed.
Honestly, do you think an artist is happier with a listener who buys all the CD's, or a listener that listens to the illegal music, but understands its underdone, and the feeling from the music and is able to live a 'better' life thanks to it?
For the love of beauty, let us not pretend that artists are interested in money, wealth or fame. They are not artists in the first place.

That said, I'm interested in knowing how anyone thinks he can apprehend people with illegal mp3's. I am completely anonymous. I may have cable, but I get a different IP-address everytime I log in. The government can not invade my house without reasonable suspicion, meaning I am completely safe. If it is so difficult to apprehend someone (except the 11-year old kids who have no idea what they are doing), how will you remain serious about this legislation?

Mr U
 
Back
Top Bottom