Posted on 02/06/2007 9:17:22 AM PST by dbehsman
I'll answer: none of it is stealing.
However, after the first one you are probably guilty of copyright infringement, as they likely go beyond fair use.
How is a person supposed to know what is legal and what is not legal? How do I know if the person who owns the copyright to the files hasn't released them to the public?
This is a BIG problem these days. Some people keep trying to get a law introduced that would require copyrighted material to be re-registered or lose its protection. It'll never fly though, as the copyright cartel wants (and is getting) easy perpetual copyright.
You can eat a candy bar. A song is only an an idea. Try quinching your hunger with a song.
No, I am not clueless. I am merely projecting my attitude to the inevitable future culture.
Ever heard the phrase "Change a word, get a third."?
Music today is like shoeing horses was as the model T caught on. And yes, people still shoe horses to this very day. It is not considered a significant source of income for anybody though. There will still be a need for professional musicians to teach, write movie sound tracks, commercial jingles, etc. But when LOTS of people from every corner of the planet can write, produce and publish their music, and are willing to do it for free because, frankly, it is FUN, why would anybody honestly think it is an endeavor worthy of a substantial income?
That IS where we are headed. Check out all the myspace accounts. And this is just the very beginning. Making money off pre-recorded music had a good run. So did the laserdisk, the 8-track and open reel. But technology moves on and so does our culture and public sensibilities.
Failure as a musician? ;)
That is the first non-joke I have ever read on FR that actually made me spew coffee. And you accused ME of being ignorant.
But I am rationalizing, just as americans rationalized as they drank alcohol during prohibition.
My shower head releases water at a greater-than-government-required-maximum rate as well.
Are you trying to justify theft of non-significant amounts of money?
"Paying $.89 for a song? Is that too much to ask?"
How many times do I have to pay for a song before it is mine to do with as I please? You expect me to pay $.89 for "my Sharona" when I've bought the damn thing 5 or more times throughout the years. Am I paying for the medium or the music? What exactly is the shelf life of my purchase? When do my rights to listen to what I have paid good money for end? How is this any different from recording a song off the radio? Why were double-cassette recorders invented and sold to non-recording industry consumers? Why were two whole generations allowed to copy music at will and now people are not allowed?
I'm 39 and I don't watch MTV. I'm not paying any more money for songs I have heard all my life for free.
You may know more about this than I do, but by "statutory," is that like "punitive"?
My point was that some defense lawyers seem to be arguing that a $750 fine is not a just punishment for someone who took 70 cents worth of merchandise.
>>Are you trying to justify theft of non-significant amounts of money?<<
Nope. I haven't stolen a dime. "They" have as much money as they would have had if I had never owned or used a computer.
Why didn't you just say, "Yes"?
>>Why didn't you just say, "Yes"?<<
Because that would be the wrong answer.
"Are you trying to justify theft of non-significant amounts of money?"
By downloading music? Here's what the RIAA knows and you should too. They cannot put a dollar amount on it because they lose nothing. How much did me downloading "Puttin' on the Ritz" cost the music industry? ZERO. Same for every download I have. It costs them nothing. Not one red cent. I'm not making a cent and they aren't losing a cent. And don't giver me that "lost sales" crap either. Nobody's going to the store to buy "Just Like Heaven" because they got drunk and wanted to hear it before they went to bed.
Tell you what, when musicians in bars get nailed for playing other people's music for money, call me.
When bar owners get nailed for playing other people's music to make money, call me.
When every high-school dance in the country gets nailed for making money off other people's music, call me.
Until then, spare me.
>>Nobody's going to the store to buy "Just Like Heaven" because they got drunk and wanted to hear it before they went to bed. <<
Wow! In that short sentence you just nailed the elephant in the room that the RIAA does not want to acknowledge - that is, WHY people are downloading.
Nicely done!
They're only one step above smokers on the scum scale...
If a musician wants to rent a room, charge admission and perform copyrighted music he must have a concert license from ASCAP, BMI or anyone else who owns the rights to the material he is performing.
Just because there are lawbreakers concerning this, does not mean that it is OK to violate the copyright laws.
If you don't want to buy the music, fine. But to steal it is to break the copyright laws.
If you want a list of the bar owners and musicians who have gotten "nailed" for violating copyrights, you can probably get a list from ASCAP.
How about paying ditch diggers a royalty on the water that runs through the finished ditch?
However I would rate them as a mere step above thread hijackers.
Bingo, if you can tape music off the radio, where's the infringment again?
If they wanted to defer their compensation until someone bought the product, that would be their decision to make.
To paraphrase: "No one ever went broke under-estimating the taste of the American public."I'm a big Howard Stern fan (see above), and every so often, Howard will play clips from the Billboard Top 5. Invariably, it's some of the most God-awful music ever produced by man or machine, and it all sounds exactly the same, yet it sells. Evidentally this garbage is worth something to someone.
Same thing with American Idol: who the hell is watching that? Who the hell thinks what they do there is music? Someone does, I guess, because those clods aren't going away anytime soon.
So this, in a nutshell, is America. We all like to think we have some taste, but really, the lowest common denominator is where the rubber meets the road.
>>If they wanted to defer their compensation until someone bought the product, that would be their decision to make<<
Assuming someone else would not be happy to dig the ditch for money up front.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.