Not quite, since not even a nice high-bitrate .mp3 file comes close to the sound quality you get from a redbook audio CD – and a home-rolled audio CD burned from .mp3 is liable to be extrapolating a 50mb song from a 4mb file, and depending on the encoding, can be quite glitchy or “squashed.”
I was looking through my CDs this morning and found a few more that I’ve bought because of file sharing… Cake, 2 CDs. Southern Culture on the Skids, 1 CD. Blue Man Group, 1 CD.
That’s a total of 14 CDs, somewhere between $210 and $280.
I might send my friends a copy once in a while, on the same scale as I might make mix CDs for my friends now, but I wouldn’t put them on Kazaa. As long as I’m getting a fair deal that doesn’t make me resent paying for the album, then screw anyone who wants me to give it to them for free; they can get the same fair deal I got. (I bought a TMBG MP3 album from eMusic for less than $10 and didn’t share that either.)
This would be easier to believe if it were possible to get a broken/scratched/lost CD replaced, or upgrade from a cassette/LP to a CD, for the price of the media - since, after all, you’ve already paid for the license to use the music.
I suggest you look up the meaning of ad hominem tu quoque.
- Rick
Thaks for your input. It’s refreshing to see you maintaining your habit of self-important condescension.
I know exactly what it means. But the fact that you can trot out latinisms doesn’t make my point irrelevant.
I have never made any any argument in this thread that file-sharing is legal. I’m well aware that it isn’t. I’m also aware that there are some important moral and ethical arguments against it. I just want to know whether all those who have been complaining about file-sharing are doing so from a position of personal integrity, or whether they simply think that their own theft isn’t as bad because they don’t share songs on the internet.
A perfectly reasonable question, in the overall context of this debate. The answer that those people give to the question will not make their arguments any more or less cogent, but they will give me a position from which to evaluate the sincerity and honesty of those making them.
Even this analogy is flawed. It’s more like, somebody who you once rented your house out to has made a digital copy of your house that can be enjoyed on a holodeck, and has distributed the layout to thousands of people who are thoroughly enjoying replicas of your house.
You bought a license. You did not buy the license. The license you bought is incorporated in the media, and if you destroy or damage the media, you have destroyed your own license. Certainly you wouldn’t expect Tom Clancy to send you a new book if yours burns in a house fire, but the fact that you own a single copy of the book does not mean you have the right to print your own copies and desceminate(sp?) them for free. You must see the difference.
I used to have Kaaza, and I downloaded maybe 30-40 songs off of it. Interestingly, of the songs I downloaded, most were not commercially available anyway, I got a bunch of live Dead cuts. I think file sharing of protected material is a form of theft, but I was ok taking my chances with it.
What I object to is the people who are sceaming about the evil music business on the grounds that they are evil for suing people who are stealing from them. (Though, I think from a legal standpoint it will be difficult to show that the file sharing actually caused damage, but that is another argument…). From my POV, they have the right to enforce their rights, just like you or I do. I think the fundemental reason why sales are down is that most music being produced today blows, not because of file sharing, but that too, is another topic…
Nonsense. If the license is “incorporated in the media”, then open up a CD and show it to me. I receive a license through the act of paying the copyright holder for a copy of the music, it’s not hidden somewhere inside a piece of plastic.
If I buy a CD and copy it to a cassette or an MP3 player, I have the right to listen to those copies (see RIAA v. Diamond). If I step on the CD, I still have the right to listen to the cassette or MP3 copy, because I licensed the music. The license doesn’t just evaporate when the CD becomes unplayable.
I wouldn’t expect him to do it, but neither would I expect Sony to send me a new copy of a broken CD for a buck unless required by law. That only means they can get away with telling me to buy a new copy; it doesn’t mean their argument holds water, or that they shouldn’t be required by law to replace my broken CD.
I do, but I’m afraid you don’t. It’s perfectly legal for me to photocopy that Tom Clancy book for my own use. Yes, if I disseminated the copy, that would be illegal, just as it is illegal to disseminate copies of music. But it’s perfectly legal to make copies for one’s own use.
And, though I would never download unauthorized music (and I’ve never done it), I have made CD copies of some of my CDs. Why? Simple–I’ve got several CDs that are now out of print, and I may want to listen to them occasionally. It’s very easy to damage them–easier than you’d think–so I copy them and listen to the copies. I suppose I could do that with books, too, but if my apartment burned down, not having those books would be one of the last things I’d be worried about.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Of course it isn’t actually printed on the CD.
Right. Nothing I said contradicts that. I’m well aware of fair use.
You think that sony should be required, by law, to replace any CD you break, at any time? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth here, but is that what you are saying?
No argument from me, and that wasn’t my point. I never said it was illegal to copy Tom Clancy, I said it was illegal to make copies and then sell/give away those copies.
I have made a number of copies of CDs from other CDs as well. I have some rare CDs I don’t want to scratch in the car, I will copy those. I don’t think that has anything to do with file sharing.
It is? I’ve always been told the opposite at my jobs at photocopy stores - that it’s only legal to make copies of works if it’s a small portion of a larger work, or the work is itself very short, and it’s for personal or educational use.
I have to agree with you until someone has a very clear cite otherwise, for a work of that time frame of copyright. The inner jacket of the Tom Clancy book I’m holding right now even says:
HOWEVER…then I open the cover of a 1981 Bantam printing of “Dracula” by Bram Stoker, which, no matter what the Industry says is in fact in Public Domain, I see the following:
This is clearly a bald-faced lie at worst, and horribly misleading at best. “Dracula” was first published in 1897. It is in Public Domain, by any reading of US law. I have the right to reproduce any part of the book I want which is original content from the 1897 publishing, and Bantam Books can eat my ass if they think they’ve created a new copyrighted work when they also claim that the work is based on the original 1897 publication, and that ‘NOT ONE WORD HAS BEEN ALTERED’.
There ought to be a law punishing people from claiming false copyright privledges…perhaps:
(emphasis added)
Of course, in the case of both books I mentioned, the words “may not be reproduced in whole or in part” is a lie as well, as Fair Use would allow limited quoting and reproduction of parts of either works, regardless.
Hmmm…I think the laws may be different in the UK, where I’m more familiar with them. I know that the Copyright laws there allowed at least 10% of a work that you didn’t own, say, from a library, to be copied. (Seems like a lot, but I remember the statute well from the side of the copy machine at the library.) I don’t think there were any laws against copying a work that you did own, but didn’t hold the copyright to, so long as it was for your own use.
Jeez, who benefits from making the copying of a book for one’s own use illegal? Are they hoping that, to use Rhum Runner’s analogy, your house will burn down and you’ll be forced to buy another copy? It’s not like you could make big bucks by buying a book, making a photocopy, then selling your book used–you wouldn’t even be able to recoup the cost of the photocopying. It may be law, but if it is, it’s absurd.
Ah, but if you claim the license is only associated with the original CD, you are contradicting it. If I have the right to listen to a copy I’ve made of a CD I bought, even after the original is rendered unplayable, then clearly I still own a license even if I break the original disc.
Yes: If I can prove that I bought a CD, and the original is broken, then I should be able to get it replaced and only pay for the media and shipping. Also, if I can prove that I bought an album in one format, and it’s re-released in another format, I should be able to get a copy in the new format for the cost of media+shipping.
:rolleyes: This has gone on long enough…
-
The RIAA represents ITSELF. No one person or group of people will be able to convince me that the royalties and fines that they will collect is going to go in equal part to each and every affected artist. It cannot, and IMHO, it will not.
-
No one debates the so-called legality of music sharing. The problem is that today, we leave a digital trail behind us wherever we go. The irony here is that the industry that refuses to embrace their consumers technological culture to SELL their products, is now using that same culture to go all David-and-Goliath, and make examples out of a 71 year old man and a 12 year old girl. :rolleyes:
-
Yes, copying and sharing copyrighted material is illegal. BUT.
The industry did not have the right to invade our homes, businesses and dorm rooms in 1980 to check for pirated music, and after the dust settles on these lawsuits, I would hazard a guess that they STILL won’t. (A quick and resourceful lawyer and a prolific file swapper may in fact argue that the search of that individuals’ computer by a corporation or government agency is, in fact a 4th amedment violation, since while file sharing may be illegal as described, it is not, as of yet, wholly criminal) -
Perhaps it is time to change the laws. Perhaps it is time to make everyone aware of the laws, (ignorance of the law is no excuse? poppycock! think of a better excuse than NOT KNOWING A LAW BEFORE YOUR BREAK IT i’m speaking of copyright laws not violent crime or drug laws, so let’s not open THAT can of crap)
Perhaps it is time that artists took control of the industry, and gave their customers what they WANT! -
The RIAA and its’ ilk are middle men, looking to profit from the existence of a necessary culture, THAT is what makes them so vile. THAT is what makes them so hated, and THAT is what makes people distrust large corporations.
Say you don’t have to listen to music…Go on, say it.
It is our CULTURE. Music is our bloody CULTURE! It is the stories we tell, it is the emotions we feel, it is what we lean on in times of struggle and worry, and what we use to celebrate our victories and mourn our defeats. In this pressure laden, dollar driven society, we have lost, completely lost the meaning of music. Today music means only middlemen, vendors, filesharing, lawsuits, and dollars and cents.
Music no longer means uplifting harmonies and joyful songs, it means lawyers and agencies. Music no longer reflects who we are and what we have to say, it means payments, settlements and amnesty. Music no longer tells of our triumphs, and our defeats, it tells of greedy, dollar-mad middle men who take from both the artist AND the consumer. Music no longer means expression of self through words and notes, it means the wringing of hands and pockets, and the judgements against 12 year old girls. Music no longer has the power to free you, it is only a force to bind you to a lifetime of debt to the people that manage the people that manage the artists. Music is no longer political expression, but expression by the industry TO the politicians to wring more and more and more money out of the hands of both artists AND consumers.
It sounds a bit melodramatic saying it, but regardless of the outcome of both the lawsuits and the future of file sharing, it appears that music, OUR music, the music from all over the world that makes up the tapestry that is American music, is dying, rapidly.
That is a bit different. If I have you copy a work at Kinko’s, you’re being paid for it. You can’t legally be paid for making a copy of copyrighted work.
However, no money changes hands if I use my own photocopier to do the copying.
And I’m sure a lot of people keep what they like and go download the rest of the album instead of buying what they already have.
**
I agree it’s nice to have an original copy with art and all, but I think more people care about free music then about having the cover art of the album. Of the many people I know who DL, a bunch of them go to cover websites and DL the art to print out.
To them, paying $18 for the liner notes and cover art is even more ridiculous then paying that for the actual music.
**
Yes, but you don’t go distribute the photocopy to 2,000 people.
**
Of course I have, but again, I haven’t distributed it to 2,000 people.
**
I’ll try and give it a rest, but I don’t think it being illegal is a given.
**
The DCMA is total shit, and the RIAA should go straight to hell.
**
Agreed.
And it’s not easy. A habit like that, you miss a couple of days, and the zing is gone. I have to work to keep it fresh, baby!
If your point was that a person who has illegally pirated music in the past has no standing, or diminished standing, to now argue it’s improper, then your point is NOT relevant; it’s a logical fallacy most often identified by the “latinism” I trotted out. I’m at a loss to understand how you can claim to understand exactly what the fallacy is in one sentence, and then commit it in the next sentence.
If I were a mass murderer and serial arsonist, and I posted messages on this board suggesting that mass murder and arson were wrong things to do, could we conclude otherwise merely by observing that I was being hypocritical?
The rightness or wrongness of music piracy is not decided by the fact that some people arguing against it have committed it.
That’s why your point is irrelevant, and because it’s such a common fallacy in argument, someone made up a whole string of latin words to identify it as a fallacy.
Of what relevance is their sincerity and honesty? Insincere and dishonest people can make accurate statements; the argument should carry or fail on its merits, not on the sincerity of the person advancing it. That’s the general case of the ad hominem fallacy.
- Rick
A quick and resourecful lawyer would know better than to even try such a foolish argument.
When you share files, in a peer-to-peer system that’s open to any user that may choose to download, you give up any expectation of privacy you may have had.
Even if corporate action could implicate the Fourth Amendment, which it cannot, you have no Fourth Amendment standing to complain that files that you offered to the public for download were in fact downloaded and then used as evidence against you.
- Rick