Posted on 03/24/2009 9:47:56 AM PDT by max americana
you drive by stand, BUY a tomato, then distribute the seeds for free so other people don’t have to buy tomatoes from the stand...
(s) The riaa needs a bailout package...they are too stupid to be allowed to fail.(/s)
Of course it does. If the people decide a law is unconstitutional or unjust they will elect an Executive and a Legislature that will nominate and appoint judges who agree, and through them, either strike down the law as unconstitutional or amend the Constitution.
LOL. My wife and kids used to laugh at me for the number of cds I kept in my car. They constantly tried to devise methods for keeping them straight.
The 120gig iPod has completely replaced cds in the car. Of course, I had to pull the car stereo out to plug the 2 rca connectors into the aux input, cleverly placed on the back of the unit.
but a physical cd needs a factory to make, teamsters to load the boxes, teamsters to drive the truck, a record store to physically sell the CD, a store front in a mall or building, etc. etc.
It is an unjust law and I am carrying out civil disobedience. And perhaps I am a thief and/or a hypocrite, but it is irrelevant as I am neither with regards to this issue.
If they do not, I will have failed, in so far as one can fail in the pursuit of what is right and just.
___________
In your view, then, it is right and just that you should not have to pay for the music you want to listen to when you want to listen to it. Do I have that right?
I purchased the CDs and imported every song on my iPOD. The collection has been fairly static over the past few years. I have little time to listen to the radio to hear anything that might pique my interest. When I do take the time, I'm not hearing anything that would motivate me to make a purchase. The problem lies with the producers of the music. They aren't producing anything I want to hear. It's not even good enough to steal off the net.
The only use I have for BitTorrent is downloading Linux releases or updates. Lately, I've found that to be a waste of time and bandwidth. I can order the DVDs from DiscountLinuxDVD for less than it takes to download, label and burn my own. I've recently booted the "btdna" processes off my Windows boxes. It was sucking bandwidth (network and CPU) and enabling potential theft at my expense. I did my most recent upgrade of the Debian platforms from 4.0r3 to 5.0 using only "apt-get dist-upgrade".
I want to know where everybody is getting these CDs that only have 1 or 2 good songs. That’s a favorite meme in copyright discussions and frankly of hundreds to maybe now thousands of discs in my collection there’s maybe half a dozen that are like that. People need better musical taste.
True, but I’ve lost several collections to DRM corruption on different occasions. Eventually I’ve just lost interest in music altogether - I don’t need it.
Personally I have no sympathy for the RIAA who regularly rips off artists and has such a lock on mass production and distribution and airplay that lesser knowns and people who actually have talent barely have a chance without touring constantly. The ‘net however IS a way for a new business model which can and should be dominated by the artists selling directly to the customer via digital download. There is still a place for CDs and DVDs because lots of people, myself included, like having the box and the liner notes etc. However the price has to be reasonable, and the product must be worth the price. As long as the music industry keeps trying to sell garbage people will react by acting as if it has no value.
30 years ago I could go down and for $1 buy a 45 of the latest punk or new wave band that hardly anyone had heard of. The internet should now be the equivalent and for 50 cents or a quarter get a song. The RIAA could be making money hand over fist if they would stop freaking out over control.
Of course it does. 'Theft' and 'stealing' are English words that have definitions. You can look them up in these books called 'dictionaries.' If there is no loss (i.e., $0.00 damages) then there is also no theft in any meaningful sense.
The content provider loses copy control.
OK. And it may be that they have had their Constitutionally-recognized "Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" violated. That's serious enough without using inflammatory, inaccurate language about "stealing."
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to exercise "copy control" they shouldn't distribute any copies.
Sorry but there is absolutely NOTHING unjust about copy right law. And by breaking it you ARE a thief. And by categorizing theft as civil disobedience and likening your behavior to the Founders you ARE a hypocrite of the sleaziest and most disgusting variety.
If I drive past the vegetable stand and don’t buy anything, the farmer *still* isn’t receiving pay for his labor. Is that also stealing?
_______
No, but I am at something of a loss as to how you think this relates to the topic at hand. In this example you provide, the person driving by without stopping is not enjoying the fruits of the farmer’s labor.
In the case of an illegally downloaded song, the person is enjoying the fruits of the artist’s labor, and for reasons known only to themselves (we have read a number of justifications on this thread), they choose not to compensate the owner. How is that not stealing?
It’s because people have particular tastes. I’ve not purchased (or downloaded) any music for the last five to ten years or so, except an occasional rare exception (once - and I paid for the download 5$ for 36 tracks directly from the artist) - because it all sucks and is not worth it.
Just look at book sellers.
They adamently work against ANY digitizing of the books as much as humanly possible.
Quite frankly I would rather pay $1 for a digital copy of an “just read it” book (contrasted to a book I want to collect) so I can cary it in my PDA for reading or computer reading it for me when I drive.
>> Of course it [the law] does [require the agreement of the law breaker]. If the people decide a law is unconstitutional or unjust they will elect an Executive and a Legislature that will nominate and appoint judges who agree, and through them, either strike down the law as unconstitutional or amend the Constitution.
The “people” have made no such decision. Thus, you’re a criminal. This law is neither unconstitutional, nor unjust. Protection of private property is among the limited powers of government — as is imprisonment of those who violate private property (including intellectual property).
Spare me the lectures on Constitutional law. Copyright law does not require your individual consent, only the consent of the majority of duly elected legislators and the executive. That consent was obtained when the law was passed.
Bottom line, you’re SOL — and, therefore, a criminal.
SnakeDoc
Sorry but your definition of theft is wrong. Here’s from that book called “dictionary” for theft:
an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
and here’s for stealing:
: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Violating copy right is unlawful taking of property. There doesn’t have to be a loss, that’s your own false addition to the definition of the word.
I’m not using inflammatory inaccurate language. I’m using TRUE language. Violation of copy right is theft and stealing.
That’s simply BS. There’s plenty of great music being made. Apparently you like NIN so you like some loud stuff. Monster Magnet and Alice Cooper have both come out with great albums in the last year or two. It doesn’t all suck and there’s plenty worth it.
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.