Posted: 3/16/2008 12:00:58 AM EDT
| Do you feel file sharing falls under communism or thievery, and the government should stop it by full extent of the law, or do you believe it isn't the government's business to step in and is the right of privacy to share files over the internet, or is a problem that businesses alone should use measures to stop? |
It's a problem that in practical terms probably can't be stopped, and concerned businesses would be wise to just accept it and move along. If you want an example of acting realistically, then you can look at porno web sites. -Of course, you can look at them anyway, but in this case you can actually claim to have some high-minded reason. When porno sites first got online, they tried lots of different way s to prevent people from copying the still photos they showed online. Some of these were pretty simple (using Javascript to disable right-clicking) and other ways were pretty complex (using a downloadable plugin to view scrambled images clearly). And sooner or later (generally pretty soon) every one of these types of protection was broken. Sometimes protections that took months to develop were broken literally within HOURS. So what all the porno sites did was, they went to the government and asked for vicious excessive criminal penalties for anyone caug- -NO- they didn't do that. What they concluded was that there was no practical way to prevent people from copying what they were publishing online, and that they would simply have to produce a constant stream of new quality material. And that's what they do. The most that they do is print their website name on the image somewhere, because they assume that if you really like a picture, you will go to the site and look for more like it. But you see--you can go to most porn sites now and right-click-save every photo on their entire site, some even let you use site-ripping utilities, that copy off EVERYTHING on the site with just a couple mouse clicks. They come out with new stuff all the time and if you want to see it ASAP, you have to pay for the membership. According to what the RIAA and MPAA claim as "damages", there shouldn't be any more porn sites online; they should have all gone broke and failed years ago from people being able to freely copy and distribute their content. ~ |
That's a really good argument. |
You guys will get a kick out of this.  FYI, all the money the RIAA has collected from the lawsuits, not one penny of that has gone back to the artists. *edit* Source for my last statement. slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/28/2123213&from=rss |
One should distinguish between file sharing, a technology used for many perfectly legal purposes, and sharing copyrighted files, currently illegal under copyright laws. |
|
Yeah, it is probably stealing, ie the artist is not getting their due royalties but.... the RIAA are a bunch of sharks and asshats simply looking for a buck! From what I have read, according to the RIAA, you are not even allowed to make a copy of a cd you purchased for you own use, say as a backup to the original! That's bs! |
|
The thing is even with programs like Itunes or legalsounds, it's a LOT cheaper to buy(for those of us that buy, I won't disclose whether I do or not) individual songs or CD's than to buy them in the store. I'd rather obtain a bunch of songs that I want from an artist online instead of going to Walmart, and buying the CD with songs I don't want. |
|
I don't download copyrighted stuff simply because I need to keep my nose clean for work. I think the moral question of whether it's stealing is simple: If you would be willing to pay for the music but don't, it's stealing because you deprive the artist of income. If you're simply not willing to pay for music, it's not stealing because the artist doesn't get paid either way. You deprive them of nothing. It's really a question you have to ask yourself honestly any time you download a copyrighted work: "If I couldn't download this for free, would I be willing to buy it?" |
|
Check this out......the 20 biggest mistakes of the record industry. Guess what number 1 is. blender.com/articles/default.aspx?key=18696&pg=0 |
Today Youtube exists because "they" realize the mistake, but unforutnately the genie has been uncorked and there is no way to put him back in the case of Napster.
|
|
Where is the loss in the download of a digital copy? There is none, there is exposure though, which is uch more valuable than even a CD copy. If I like a band, I will definitely look them up on itunes and buy more of their work. If I find them to be not my thing, I can safely delete their files and no one, not me, nor the artist are out a thing. Well, other than my tie. But it is a labor of love, after all. |
There isn't one, and in fact, someone "illegally" downloading a song or game, is having a chance at listening to or playing a future purchase. I believe this type of distribution and leaking is working to the advantage those companies, and the more people who claim it is theft, the more they can use the law to their advantage and creep further into our privacy. |
| Question - Assuming that when I was in college I bought 100 cd's of all the greatest bands of the time and my roomate stole them from me. Is it copyright infringement to go and down load all of those songs again without paying AGAIN? I mean the artists already got their $$ from me. |