take on piracy

[diomedes2012]

my opinion that "pirating" is not really stealing technically. in fact in my eyes downloading seems like a fine perfect part of everyday life

 

[LeftyHenry]

my opinion that "pirating" is not really stealing technically. in fact in my eyes downloading seems like a fine perfect part of everyday life

I think it's retarded that you musicians make millions and millions of dollars for something that really should just be a hobby and then slap a three-zero fine on you for downloading it for free. What happened to the love of music. Music has stopped being art and is now just a money-making competion.

 

[Seeker]

Piracy is wrong. If bands/studios don't get money for their work, how do they feed themselves? If you don't give money to your favorite band/studio, your not really supporting them.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Piracy is wrong. If bands/studios don't get money for their work, how do they feed themselves? If you don't give money to your favorite band/studio, your not really supporting them.

uhhh.... get a real job or a regualr salary. I know it seems weird but they don't have to own 15 mansions and 12 lambourginis to write good music.

 

[diomedes2012]

Piracy is wrong. If bands/studios don't get money for their work, how do they feed themselves? If you don't give money to your favorite band/studio, your not really supporting them.

yea well i hate to tell you but how much money does a person actually need. radio stations a television has to pay to play the music. videos have to pay royalties to the musicians. all of these should make plenty of money that musicians need.

 

[nkgupta80]

yea well i hate to tell you but how much money does a person actually need. radio stations a television has to pay to play the music. videos have to pay royalties to the musicians. all of these should make plenty of money that musicians need.

piracy is inevitable. Once artists take their music/art/literature, whatever, and turn it into electronic data, its impossible for them to keep the information from spreading. Thats the consequences of the internet and the information revolution.

 

[diomedes2012]

piracy is inevitable. Once artists take their music/art/literature, whatever, and turn it into electronic data, its impossible for them to keep the information from spreading. Thats the consequences of the internet and the information revolution.

thats the point i have been trying to make. it is ridiculous that people are fined for pirating when its a normal part of society now.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This depends entirely on what you mean by "piracy".

When laws concerning copyright were passed, it was impossible to make flawless copies of media for free. New copies had to be printed on physical media, and the copying process involved industrial machinery.

Copyright laws were not intended to prevent free distribution of media; they were intended to prevent people other than the creator and legally authorized agencies from profiting from others' work.

Personally, I think people who sell bootleg CDs and DVDs at flea markets ought to be prosecuted; I nearly said "to the fullest extent of the law" before I remembered just how distorted those laws have become. They should be prosecuted, fined severely, and in cases of gross copyright infringement there should be the possibility of imprisonment.

However, our current interpretations of copyright laws do not support their original intent-- and media publishers have been cautiously exploring their options in dealing with institutions that have always been protected from copyright issues.

First, the length of copyright has been extended far beyond any practical limits-- essentially, in the United States, it is "however long Walt Disney's been dead plus twenty years". This does not promote further artistic endeavors, it stifles them, and it is a gross example of our government selling out to business interests.

Second, before the advent of digital media, copyright laws were never concerned with free distribution of media. Libraries were expected-- encouraged-- both to lend out free copies of materials and to reproduce those materials themselves. (This is important as several book publishers have attempted to prevent libraries from lending out new and popular titles recently.) People were not prohibited from copying books or cassettes and sharing them with friends.

Technically, this may have been illegal, but it was overlooked; I cannot recall a single case of prosecution for (or litigation against) freely-distributed media before Napster.

Attempts to prohibit peer-to-peer file sharing violate the intent of copyright laws and disregard the nature and function of information. The free distribution of knowledge and culture is desirable behavior, regardless of the interests of media conglomerates; artists are still fantastically well-paid for their efforts, and despite their dire warnings, the media companies are still making considerable profits.

I agree that artists, musicians, and authors deserve-- and should be able to expect-- to be paid for their work, and I agree that this requires producers and publishers to be able to profit from this work. These are full-time jobs and people should not be expected to "get a real job" when they are contributing to the cultural wealth of our society.

However, to promote these ends at the expense of the free distribution of information-- whether in libraries or on peer-to-peer networks-- is intolerable.

 

[Schweddy]

However, to promote these ends at the expense of the free distribution of information-- whether in libraries or on peer-to-peer networks-- is intolerable.

As always, this is a well thought out and consise take on the situtation.

How else would folks share info without promotion?
I can give my friend a CD and he/she copy it - perfectly legal. If he/she mass produces it for profit - that is very illegal. But alas, I am legally able to share with my friends.

If I "sign up" for a sevice that doesn't make money, isn't that a non-profit club of friends?

Why do some folks think this is illegal?

 

[diomedes2012]

As always, this is a well thought out and consise take on the situtation.

How else would folks share info without promotion?
I can give my friend a CD and he/she copy it - perfectly legal. If he/she mass produces it for profit - that is very illegal. But alas, I am legally able to share with my friends.

If I "sign up" for a sevice that doesn't make money, isn't that a non-profit club of friends?

Why do some folks think this is illegal?

the most people who think this are the music companys who sue for it adding even more money to their bank accounts.