Downloading

A bargain compared to t the tongue-lashings I get from others around these parts.  The check is in the mail.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: We3l if you don't care about law, what can we say.

You can commend me for having a strong ethical sense.

Also, in most cases that would apply to me, I think the law is ethical, so you don't have to worry about me not following it.

Pnoom! wrote: You're committed to debating the law, which I don't care about. I'm committed to debating ethics, which it seems you think are superseded by law. We've hit a dead end and can only go in circles from here.

Pnoom! wrote: So, suppose I download an album.  Then I delete it from my HD.  Am I doing a double wrong because I've destroyed a copy of his work?   No, that's absurd, read the copyright law thjhere's not a lñegal rule that forbids to destroy a copy of a work, the limits are others copyy it, lend it, rent it, play it in public places, etc, but not deleting a copy., Suppose I buy a digital copy of the album, then burn a CD of it?  Am I doing something wrong, because after all he owns every copy except the one he sold me?   again, read the copyright Law, it's obvious you don't know it very well, if you have a legally bought copy, you are entitled to make a SECCURITY COPIES FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE,. even when RIAA and Sony are trying to change this.

Pnoom! wrote: So you're creating something new that belongs to the artist. The artist still has everything he had before you copied it.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2009 at 21:34

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2009 at 21:35

Pnoom! wrote: Moreover, I never said it wasn't a crime.  I said it wasn't stealing.  You're arguing a straw man. Legal definition of steal:   The act of taking something away from a lawful owner without that owner's consent and with the taker having no legal right or justification for taking the thing.   You are taking the song or album from a lawful owner You don't have his consent You have no legal right or justification to take that copy. Ergo, it's stealing. And yes, you're depriving the owner of his right to gain money with that album, and BTW....The artist used TIME AND MONEY to record that album and you are apropriating without paying him for his time, just as you would do with a lawyer or doctor.   You can say you weren't going to buy it anyway, and so the car thieve can say he wasn't going to buy your Honda, that's not trascendental.   Yes.  And then I weigh the expected benefits with the expected costs (likelihood to get caught, etc). You have the right to question the legality or morality of a law but as long as it isn't revoked, you have to obey it.    Something is not illegal because you are caught, it's illegal because of the text of the law and the authority of who gave the law.   Any society that has an unethical law ought to change that law, or it is directly acting against the interests of its citizens.  Because it's acting against the interests of its citizens, any force it uses to enforce that law is an unethical use of force on its part.  I have no ethical obligation to obey an unethical law, only (perhaps) a self-interested one.   You have the obligation while the law is valid, if you don't like it, go to the Supreme Court and ask the inconstitutionality of it.   You can not force the people to accept your concept of moral, so you have to accept the law.   You may not have a moral right, but being that the only thing that counts is the LEGAL OBLIGATION; you have to accept it and only fight against it using LEGAL methods.   Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2009 at 21:02

I think you are all just going around in circles. Those who steal won't stop, and haven't stopped because it is illegal. Those who don't steal have no effect or influence on those who do.
Ranting about the artist losing money is hypocritical unless you question the current business model used by record labels, especially the major ones. There is  a solid case to be made that many acts are able to make a living touring BECAUSE their music has been spread through P2Ps. Not all, but some. And those that can, are also able to finance their recordings without corporate interference as to what should be put out.
This is not to say that some acts have not been negatively impacted. But, and this is a bit BUT ... there is rarely a mention of the increased competition for the consumer's dollar. To the ancient media like TV & movies, add DVDs, Video Games (which are in the midst of a boom period), the Web itself, along with products such as IPods, IPhones, and cellphones.
THEN, add to the mix that sales were artificially boosted for a 40 year period by the explosion in the late 60s - the emphasis on LPs, the arrival of big money in the industry; then new formats - cassettes & CDs that had people buying Led Zep IV for the 2nd & 3rd time (assuming you hadn't bought it a few times before as your vinyl wore out), followed by an series of major "new" & massively popular genres such as Hair Metal , Grunge, Pop Punk, Boy Bands etc that eventually led to a music biz that acted like every other boom market known to man.
Meaning - when the boom goes bust, everyone involved looks for the boogeyman to blame.
Reality - music sales are back to normal, where they were until the mid 60s.  A very few mega stars, some 15 minute Fads, a number of mid sized acts that have built a lasting career, a lot of smaller acts that make a living, and more that never quite get past recording a few songs, and playing a few gigs.

Answer - forget the arguement if it's stealing or not, moral or not. It's not going away. Take some time to thik of a realistic option where the artist CAN get paid. Maybe not as much as Pearl Jam did in the 90s, or that Tull did in the 70s. But more than Hank Garland, Hubert Sumlin or others did in the pre-historic daysof the music industry.
Subscription services. No DRM. You own the music. Burn it, upload it to your IPod, stream it on your computer, to your Stereo, delete it when you want more free space on your PC, download it just for tonight's party, order it up on a whim, whatever, wherever.
It's happening in China, in Denmark, in Europe, and rumours abound that Steve Jobs is still pressing and will get this to happen in America within a year or two. It works for Cable TV, it works for Internet access, for phone services and the like. People paying less, but more people paying. And people will pay for a secure, handy, and readily accessible and simple way to do so. Whywait two days for a torrent download ? Why expose your PC to viruses, malware & Spyware through LimeWire and the like ? Heck even  Amazon.com has started having daily sales on MP3 albums. Check it out. $9.99 for an album. Uh Uh. Today & today only $3.99. Or $1.99. How can they make money ? VOLUME !!!!!!!


And that folks is what you should be fighting for. A way to give people a legal & reasonably priced choice, a way to get artists a cut of the action that they aren't getting today

P.S. a cursory search of the web will net you articles as to how record labels tried to decrease royalty rates on CD sales back in the mid 80s (new media not included in old contracts) - an album's price goes up by $8-10, the artist's share goes from 74 cents to 81 cents. And the labels did the same thing for MP3 downloads.

Henry Plainview wrote: The T wrote: So yes, you're breaking a law... Did anyone disagree with that? But on the other hand, I'm sure that you don't think someone who watches a live video of a band on Youtube should be fined $125,000, even though that is technically just as illegal...

I don't like MP3 or computer based music, I prefer hard copies of everything, this problem I have never had as I never have feel attracted to music stored in a hard drive.