um… okay [backs away slowly]
It’s a difference in philosophies. You are not talking about anything close to each other to me.
Money, as in what Robin Hood took, is to me a false measure allowing the state to tax the people, and as such, has no consistent or true value whatsoever (as seen in Luke 21:3)
All created things, which include music, and ideas and innovation come from God (John 1:3), not from man, and as such should be distributed to man as a benefit to man.
Music is from above, it is a gift from heaven to the children of the earth. It is more advanced then us and help us along our life’s journey, and as such should be freely distributed. As I stated above at one time the RIAA served that purpose, now they are opposed to that purpose and fighting against it openly.
I’m not saying that artist should not get compensated for performing live, but the goal should be distribution of this gift of God to many people. And charging for copies are using other gifts of God that were not given to the distributing ‘entity’, which calles them into accountability.
Yes I know. I was speaking of the comparison of someone repeating a comedians joke to copying and distributing a CD.
I made my living a for a lot of years doing cover tunes in clubs. The clubs paid fees to ASCAP and BMI for that privilage.
Are his jokes copywritten works? Com’on there’s no comparison whatsoever which was my point.
If the recipe is thier unique creation and accompanied with very specific instructions on how and when to add certain ingrediants then a recipe can be coptrighted. The copyright laws concerning music are pretty specific. Lot’s of music in certain genres have a lot of elements in common. You can’t copyright chords changes or the fact that you used a particular combination of instruments. You copyright exactly how all those things fit together for your unique creation.
Complete hogwash. If your granma didn’t want to give you her old family recipe for corned beef hash would you feel justified in stealing it from her because she had no right to keep it all to herself? Stop with the pathetic justifications. If someone creates a product to sell and it is protected by copyright law, there is no justification for distributing it for free.
This is truly ridiculous. Aren’t the glaring differences enough for you?
There are good specific reasons why some things can be copyrighted and others can’t. A band that used guitar, bass, drums and keyboard on thier song can’t copyright that combination of instruments. A list of indgrediants on a recipe can’t be copywritten. Two different chefs don’t put those ingrediants together in exactly the same way.
A piece of music is a much more complex body of work made up of a series of notes put together is a specific order. The work of a record label is also a very specific product offered for sale. To copy and/or distribute it is a violation of the law. Period. Bullshit comparisons and justifications aside.
If you want to listen to your cousin Vinnie play a a cover tune nobody cares. If you want to own a copy of the original artist doing that song, you should expect to pay for it.
Should people be able to scan novels onto the internet and give them away, robbing the author of sales. Should people offer software that someone laboured n for years for free because it’s digital. How about movies that cost the company a couple of hundred million to make? Music is audio and it doesn’t matter if there’s a physical CD or not. If you want that specific audio then you should pay for it. It’s someone elses labour and effort.
Does that include gangsta rap about killing and sex. It’s god’s gift to humanity? How about the song “One Toke Over the Line” It references Jesus.
As I said before, it’s easy to say that all people’s gifts are from above if we want to look at it that way. If you have a gift to be a good carpenter or mechanic should your labour be for free? Music is not in a special catagory. If someone labours in the field of music because that’s their gift then they should be compensated just as any other person’s gift is. I’m not going to look them up but there are plenty of references in the NT about the labourer being justly rewarded for their work. I’m sure you’re aware of that. It’s not up to other people to steal the fruits of thier labours and then justify by saying “Hey, God wants you to give this away” Look at the sermon on the mount and tell me it’s okay to take something someone offers for sale. Thou shlat not covet thy neighbors mp3s.
I’d also point out that you’re far away from any scriptural reference for this particular interpretation of what you think is righteous according to God.
The whole thing is wierd.
I mean people inherently get that companies wouldnt bother to research any number of things if any competitor is allowed to immediately perfectly copy whatever they come up with and this would be a net loss for society because the profit motivation to do the work/research necessary for developing the product goes out the window.
Yes this can cause problems with outrageous pricing for vital medical technologies or whatever, but they can grasp the general concept that people need a profit incentive in order to invent new things and removing this would obviously have an impact on people bothering to do research on new ideas or products.
Yet when it comes to art the idea goes out the window automatically, even though functionally it is no different to any other invention being copied.
‘Adapt or die’ assumes there is some actual adaptation to make. The reality is if this principle was applied across the board and everyone could copy anything immediately, there wouldn’t be any adaptation to make. You could copy your Porsche 911, but Porsche would never make a 912 because it would be simply throwing money away.
Quite baffling.
Otara
Don’t tell me you actually paid money for that dreck?
It is baffling. It seems like such a simple and obvious principle to me. Someone has put time effort and money into producing a product to sell. They hope they might make a profit. If you want thier product pay for it. If you don’t then don’t. But don’t justify taking their labor and product for nothing.
not the point at all. Not then, not now.
I don’t understand why people insist that products must be delivered up a certain way and consumers have no choice in how they’re offered, and I don’t understand why people try to turn consumer preference into some kind of moral issue.
Tivo allows users to record shows and fast-forward through commercials. Advertising pays for television programming. Should Tivo be outlawed? Do people have a moral responsibility to watch all the commercials?
That’s a legal distinction, not an ethical one. If you want to take the stance that benefiting from someone else’s work without compensation or attribution is wrong, then the same would apply to jokes regardless of their legal status. Why is it ok in your mind for Comedian A to use Comedian B’s jokes but I can’t sing Lady Gaga’s songs at a bar without paying her? Does the latter comedian not labor to create jokes?
I am not stealing anything. That’s the point. Under your ethical framework, just modeling a recipe on hers would be wrong in the same way a cover band modeling their act on another musician’s would be.
Is anyone arguing it’s not currently against the law?
Technically, they would care. They probably wouldn’t bother cousin Vinnie because it’s not worth the effort, but the logic of their argument applies to Vinnie as it does to any “cover band”. My point is that the ethical foundation of that argument is just as silly when it applies to Vinnie as it is to a filesharer.
So long as the aggregate of such behavior doesn’t prevent people from writing, producing software, etc., I don’t see a problem with it. This issue has nothing to do with ethics.
Well, then, why’d you ask the question?
The interesting thing about art, though, is that people don’t create art to make money. They create art because they are compelled to by their creativity. If they have the good fortune to make money from it that’s a bonus, but if they don’t, it’s generally not going to stop them from producing their art. There are plenty of artists throughout the centuries that didn’t make diddly squat from their art…and yet, there has been no shortage of it.
I don’t mind getting music for free and I don’t mind paying for music…with a caveat. I’m not going to pay for music that I can’t put on all my computers and my mp3 players and whatever else I want to do with it in for as long as I decided to keep it the same way I’m not going to pay for a picture I can’t hang in whatever room I choose. Also, I’m not going to pay $18 for an album that has one or two songs I like and ten songs that are not worth paying for. I am also not going to pay for something if it means I have to give up privacy to get it. If that’s the way record companies want to do business, well, they’re going to lose mine and I will find a way around their draconian business practices.
FWIW, I’m quite content to pay for a subscription service for DRM-free music of my choice. Better believe I’m going to share my music with my immediate family. And I’m about to shell out big bucks (significantly more than the cost of a CD) to go see an artist whose music I downloaded for free.
Let’s not split ethical hairs and act like it’s some impressive point won. Someone originally asked about a comedian’s joke being repeated by anyone. I said there’s no real comparison and there isn’t. Ethically speaking it is completely unacceptable for one comedian to steal another comedian’s jokes. Any working comedian will tell you that.
Clubs pay a fee to BMI and ASCAP for the privilage of having bands play copyrighted material. As I said, a recipe is not a valid comparison for reasons I’ve already explained.
yes, are you reading the thread?
The ethical foundation is very simple and the comlete opposite of your position. That’s why clubs pay fees to ASCAP and BMI
You can tell yourself that but the fact is that’s exactly the eventual end result. Someone labors for years to write a specific program that turns out to be popular and useful , and according to you anybody shoould be able to create all the copies they want and distribute them at will. What motive does the software writer have to put all those hours of development into creating a program.
What you seem to be hinting at is that as long as some people pay for it then why should you? Since you like to argue the pure ethics of the situation , try this. If it’s okay for some it should be ethically okay for all correct? And of course the obvious end result is that nobody wants to labour hours and invest there time creativeity and money to give all thier effort and creativeity away. It’s a ludicrious concept.
There are very clear and fairly obvious ethical principles in play here. The most basic one I’ve repeated several times. If someone labors to create something and then offers it for sale , it’s not okay to take their creation for free just because modern technology makes it easy. It violates a very basic principle of fair pay for someone’s product.
It’s like justifying shoplifting by saying , hey it’s their own fault. They should have had it in a locked cabinet.
It’s up to the artist, the creator of the art, to decide that. It’s not okay to take their creation for your own use against their will.
As a consumer you have every right to make choices about what you’ll buy and how much you’re willing to pay. It’s fine and often helpful, to let a merchant know what you’d like. You see , it’s precisely because of the freeloaders and those who will abuse the system for their own advantage that policies change and things become inconvenient for others.
I spent $70 bucks at the grocery store today. They must owe me something for free for that.
“The interesting thing about art, though, is that people don’t create art to make money.”
They do however often need money or time in order to make said art and if their art makes nothing then they may have to cease doing it if they cant sell thier art to cover the costs of making that art. In a world where making something took as much effort as it does to copy it you might have a point.
Eg to take a particular kind of photo, I might need a $5000 camera, various expensive lenses, money for the trip to the scene, training etc etc. But copying it costs essentially nothing.
Evne if you remove the ‘greedy artists’ aspect, creating things often takes resources which dont have to spent to merely copy it, whether its a plane design or a picture.
Otara
“Tivo allows users to record shows and fast-forward through commercials. Advertising pays for television programming. Should Tivo be outlawed? Do people have a moral responsibility to watch all the commercials?”
Sorry I missed this.
Of course they should watch them in an ideal world, its what pays for the program.
Because people are fast forwarding or removing it, that is having an effect on the TV we see, eg one reason why programs like ‘Master Chef’ are becoming more popular where they can plug 200 items during a show are becoming commercially popular vs programs that rely on between program advertising for their revenue. As time goes on we’ll see more and more programs with the ads internal to the program, because thats the only viable solution to fast forwarding.
The only reason they arent disappearing entirely is because Tivo isnt ubiquitous yet and because we dont have an equivalent to Firefox ad blocker for TV yet. If there was a button that blocked advertising both within and between programs, new TV programming would virtually disappear other than ‘phone in to save your hero’ programs like American Idol and advertorials.
Is that progress? In my view, not really.
Otara
No. It’s up to the copyright holder, often not the creator of the art, to decide that. Big label studios have had a notorious reputation for screwing artists for years. From Why should I care about music labels who screw artists?
Now where am I arguing that? You’ve got a funny definition of ‘owe’ there, buddy. Does Costco ‘owe’ it’s customers samples of its products? Does your supermarket ‘owe’ you double coupons? Of course they don’t. They offer free samples and double coupons because it successfully encourages people to spend more money on their products. By offering free or a la carte or pay-what-you-will music, savvy artists create fans. Fans spend a hell of a lot more money on shows and merchandise than they ever will on music. How many CDs of The Fame Monster are you personally going to buy? Well, depending on how many friends you decide to turn on to Lady Gaga, not too many. But when she comes to town, you better damn well believe you’re going to spend more money on your concert tix and merchandise than the CD in your glove box. Lady Gaga is not sipping Cristal from CD sales; she’s making bank from touring and appearances. Obscurity in music kills contracts and careers. Why don’t you head on over to nin.com and download a free album for yourself. There’s no guilt or shame involved and Trent Reznor gets to be free of bloodsucking leeches at his old label and still enjoy success.
If your “art” is measured by the amount of cash it makes, it isn’t worth a wank.
You know, another thing about this argument that pisses me off is that **cosmosdan **keeps arguing about how it affects the artists. But RIAA doesn’t represent the artists. It’s about the labels. The Big Four. They are the ones that file-sharing screws. Nobody cares, though, because the Big Four don’t really care about the about the artists. They don’t care about making sure their art gets out there. They care about how much money they can make off the artists’ backs. If they can’t suck enough blood, they’ll drop the artist like a hot potato and never look back. Why should they? Artists are a dime a dozen and many will put out like a two-dollar whore for a shot at fame. The art’s not commercial enough? Well, luckily, we wrote into the contract full production decision-making on our behalf, so you’ll produce what we tell ya to produce.
They don’t care about consumers, either. Why are CD sales slipping? $12+ per release. That’s overpriced by anyone’s standards. Why pay that when digital media is often available for less than 50 cents per song? So, what about digital media? DRM. People don’t want to rent music and why should they? If the Big Four learn anything from the digital revolution, it should be that soaking consumers, screwing over artists, and power-tripping on fair use is the wrong way to do business in the 21st century.
God’s commandment is to Love Him, and our neighbors. When operating in Love that’s all you need and their is no sin with things done under Love. There is nothing wrong IMHO of smoking up with some friends, as long as it’s done putting your Love for God first and allowing that Love to flow to your neighbors. There is a issue if weed becomes a ‘god’ , something you place in front of God. But hanging out, listening to music with some friends at evening, talking, passing around a joint, IMHO this is one way that God wants us to interact, as it helps us to discover who we really are. It is my belief that those things are there placed by God for our enjoyment and enlightenment.
It is the state that does not want this. They have a interest in preventing you from obtaining self discovery, and use fear to prevent people’s self discovery, not only with recreational drug use, but with work.
The work the Lord wants us to do is enjoyable and light. God wants to give us time to play and interact with others and family. The fear comes in as people feel they need to work long hours or they will lose everything. IMHO everyone has a gift, musicians are one such category, if you find that gift you can leave the 9-5 rat race behind. (as in the song ‘money for nothing, checks for free’). God wants to give us good, but that good is distorted by fear that prevents many of us from living such a life.
And to the first song you mentioned, yes there is music from Hell - that’s OK as God has allowed it, an will serve as a refining fire to those who enjoy it, it will quicken the process of them running into their inevitable dead end and have them start looking for God.
We are talking on different levels, a carpenter in this world labors hard to put wooden structures together for people to live in, this person is not operating in the gifts of God from above, a carpenter in the heavenly sense may help build people’s lives, and very well may be a highly sought after and highly paid master carpenter in this world, but his work is working with lives and souls, not wood.
If they are operating in the gift that God gives them they will be compensated by God, if they sell themselves - they are selling that aspect of their soul, they are splitting their share of compensation with another, and ultimately end up with less.
And I never challenged if the artist should be compensated, but just outrightly stating that the RIAA, while once having a good reason to exist, no longer has that, and should be disbanded as they are hurting the artists, and the public and don’t serve humanity anymore, and are openly hurting it.