Posted on 03/24/2009 9:47:56 AM PDT by max americana
>> What is your point?
My point was in the second sentence you quoted ...
“You’re a petty thief — stealing the fruit of other peoples’ labor without compensating them.”
SnakeDoc
I guess. It’s just sad to me to see sound recordings—albums—go the way of the dinasaur. Digital technology killed recorded music.
Except that in this case, there are still just as many tomatoes at the stand when they leave. Oops, doesn’t fit your “stealing” paradigm very well...
___________
Has the artist received payment for his/her work? No? It fits the stealing paradigm quite nicely, IMO.
>> This is an unjust law, and I am carrying out civil disobedience in the face of it.
Requiring you to pay someone for the fruits of their labor is not “unjust”, it is capitalism.
If you think capitalism is unjust, you may be on the wrong board.
SnakeDoc
If they do not, I will have failed, in so far as one can fail in the pursuit of what is right and just.
I disagree.
Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. I like getting paid for my work--all my work. Why should everyone else make money except you? I don't do charity for people who are not in need of any.
What exactly are you protesting by not paying the artist for their work? You continue to paint yourself as non-violent community organizer, but the image of a common thief keeps shining through.
Just wait, SOLID 3D image printers are on the horizon.
Imagine if any small convenience item can just be printed up rather than buying. (think replicators on star trek)
Suddenly all those “little things” that no longer need be bought because they can be manufactured in the house.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/plastic-printer-that-offers-a-3d-glimpse-of-the-future-448046.html
Plastic printer that offers a 3D glimpse of the future
It is not the song that is being affected, here. It is the distribution model. (BTW Virgin Records is shutting down more stores)
>> I guess. It’s just sad to me to see sound recordings—albums—go the way of the dinasaur. Digital technology killed recorded music.
I wouldn’t say it killed recorded music — but it did kill the “album”. The recorded music industry must adapt its business model if it will survive.
People don’t buy albums anymore, they buy individual songs. I buy the songs I like, and pass on the ones I don’t. It is far more efficient. Rather than buying a $15 album for the 2 songs I like, I spend $2 on the two songs.
Actually, the music industry got an increase in business from me. If I only liked 3 songs on an album, I wouldn’t buy anything. Now, I’ll buy the three songs.
SnakeDoc
Steely Dan is touring Europe this summer. And really touring has always been the primary source of income for musicians, most of the money for recording sales stays within the system (the store and the record company), that’s one of the reasons 70s bands toured pretty much non-stop.
This is only true if the choice is between obtaining the song for free or obtaining the song by purchase. That's a false dilemma. The third choice is not obtaining the song at all (which is, after all, what most people do). Compared to that, the 'content provider' loses nothing to downloading.
I love how you thieves squirm at the reality of your deeds. Just admit it. You're a petty thief.
Interesting. I have not stated that I illegally download songs at all. What is your evidence?
>> I disagree.
The law doesn’t require your agreement.
SnakeDoc
Probably many of those lawyer types see the internet as just something to do email.
We don’t know if it will fly but it will come down to the ISP’s if they will follow the law. Right now, there is none. Now on file-sharing: If I bought a pizza from Pizza Hut, and I shared it with you, why will Pizza Hut go after me? I paid for it. That’s the argument that Fed lawyers have to counter-argue. They have a feeling that this will reach the SC just like the birth-certificate issue. They can try but it will be all for naught.
heck, Axxo, the world’s most notorious file uploader lives in Florida and the FBI couldn’t do anything about it.
It’s not an unjust law, and you’re not a carrying out civil disobedience. Copy right law is just and you’re a thief and a hypocrite.
If I drive past the vegetable stand and don’t buy anything, the farmer *still* isn’t receiving pay for his labor. Is that also stealing?
If you’re gaining a copy of the material without paying that’s theft. There’s nothing false in the dilemma. That idea that you wouldn’t obtain if it wasn’t free does not change the fact that obtaining without paying is theft. The content provider loses copy control.
It's all about the business model - and selling a $20 physical CD that might have 1 or 2 good songs does not a good business model make.
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.