Replies

File sharing makes no difference to record sales

It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for, unless the copyright holder says you can. Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.

Not to say that I approve of the RIAA's tactics in cracking down on this stuff -- most of their targets are small-time anyway. They'd be better served in trying to stop real piracy rings rather than a few file-swappers.

I really hate this whole issue because both sides are acting like jerks.

It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for, unless the copyright holder says you can. Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.

If I produced a product for profit, and people stole it, but I wound up making more money from it, then I would encourage this "stealing". Liberals don't understand marketing, and that's why most don't own businesses and get angry at file sharing.

Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.

I disagree with your premise. Does listening to a song on the radio result in lost sales to the group? How about listening to the song on your friends stereo? No, of course not. This is how you are 'introduced' to music; some of it you will like, some of it you will not like.

Filesharing results in being able to listen to lower quality (MP3 is NOT as clean as a CD) songs. If you like the music, you may buy the album, or attend a concert. If you never heard the song, the odds are close to zero that you will ever either buy an album, or attend the concert.

Just as cassette tapes did not destroy the video industry (in fact, it accelerated it), cassette tapes did not destroy the RIAA, nor has CD-R destroyed the industry. We burn the songs we like, and play them in our own 'mix' CD. I own over 300 CD's, and not every CD is loaded with good songs. So, I rip the songs I like, and burn them. I loan my CD's to friends, who may find that they like the CD; then usually buy their own copy, or will buy a different album from the same group, and share that with me.

File Sharing is not hurting the RIAA, despite the claims. Just like cassettes, VHS tapes, CD-R or DVD burners will not hurt. They help promote and sell.

It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for, unless the copyright holder says you can. Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.

Morally wrong? I'm not sure. Somethings aren't as black and white.

The record companies are stealing from the artists.

Dealings with the "entertainment industry" (and I use that term loosly), are done in a moral vaccum, IMHO.

I used to tape songs off the radio when I was a kid because I could not afford to buy them. I fast-forward through commercials too. It's all "morally wrong" according to the industry.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

You might have the cart and horse switched. While the technology for digital audio was still being developed for home use, the industry began to demand the law accommodate them in protection against copying (they figured out early on that they couldn't stop it from happening by more technology.) At some point, they pleaded that if filesharing were allowed, they would lose billions.

Now it seems the arguments WRT filesharing were based on false assumptions, at the least. Research like the one cited in this thread might be reason to revisit the law. I say that's a good thing.

when I was a kid I used to record music off the radio. whats the big deal I ask. . .

"It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for"

Actually, there is a case that can be made that the prices are artificially high. You have to imagine, what if the recordable CD had been invented first by Edison? There is no way that record companies could have charged exorbitant fees for recordings for the last hundred years if that were the case. So, their losses are only in comparison to an inflated price schedule.

It's no worse than people like me who have had their programming jobs out-sourced to India. Suck it up RIAA.

It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for, unless the copyright holder says you can. Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.

Then, by your reasoning, allowing a friend to listen to your tape, cd, etc is "stealing" because the copyrighter did not consent to your "broadcast" of the song.

I buy plenty of cds, but I buy NONE unless I have heard the songs first, ALL OF THEM. Because the music industry now controls largely what stations play, this is impossible without downloading. I do the same thing with software. I try it, if I like it, I buy it, if not I hit delete.

BUT, because of all the shoddy code and 1 good song albums out there, I refuse to buy to find out. Been burned too many times when I was younger by all the false hype.

If that makes me immoral in your eyes "O judge of morality", I can live with that.

It is not morally wrong. I have considered the Ten Commandments. I have considered my Christian responsibility to respect property and do the right thing, to show the light of Christ instead of using Satan's logic and perpetuating his evil darkness. But, I do not believe file sharing (when you are downloading only a FEW songs like 3 or 4, not the entire album) to be immoral.

It is morally wrong if you download an entire album or something like that, but it is not morally wrong to download a copied, watered-down, imperfect version of a song when you can't buy a single in stores and you want to preview the song prior to purchasing the album. If you copy a purchased CD onto another CD that is morally wrong. Using a couple lesser quality mp3's is not.

Perhaps if the folks at Wal-Mart etc. would give us more than an opening 25 seconds of a song to preview in the stores on their machines, people would not feel the need to download an entire song so they actually get a feel about whether it is worth it or not. The previews in stores often start at the beginning so you don't get to hear the real part of the song for 10 seconds as it is, already cutting the singing part of the store preview to maybe 15 seconds at best.

If it is wrong to copy a CD for non-commercial, private use, it is wrong to photocopy 20 pages out of a 200-page book. Granted, you can't purchase those 20 pages individually like you can purchase many mp3's online now individually....a good thing and a service I am starting to use a lot (even though the RIAA will get the money instead of the artist since they are money-grubbing bastards, it still feels good to pay for it).... However, the principle is the same....if copying one thing is wrong, copying another is as well. And photocopying....within limits of course....is not a violation of copyright. Therefore, it must be concluded that despite some differences, neither is downloading an mp3 when the downloaded number is equivalent to a fair use photocopying of a publication.