The default state for works of the intellect, such as ideas, inventions, scientific discoveries, music, written works, etc. is the public domain. It is only by the grace of the government that some works of the intellect are granted protection for a limited time.
Apple Corps. would most certainly sue and win if Apple Computer did that.
It wouldn’t be particularly hard for Apple Computer to start a new company that operated as a label, dealing only with them.
iMusic
Mac Musicians
Macintosh Entertainment
etc.
I doubt that it would be at the peak of the list of things in their way towards proceeding to start operating as a label.
The former CEO of Coral Software (Copeland I think) said that if people were going to pirate software, he hoped that they would pirate his. He understood that not every pirated copy meant a $400 loss to his company (as if it would have otherwise been an automatic sale), but that people often pirated software as a low risk way to try it and learn it. Once they became a regular user the benefits of registration would cause many to get a legitimate copy.
Copyright is supposed to balance the rights of the copyright holder with the rights of the public to have access to works of art. If copyright is too tight then the culture stagnates. What does one do when a piece of music or book goes out of print, and the copyright holder does not want to re-release it or make it available to anyone else?
I would argue that the pendulum of copyright has swung too far in the interests of copyright holders. One famous example is Mickey Mouse which is based on older previous characters not from Disney. Everytime the copyright was to expire on Mickey, and have it enter the public domain, Disney successfully lobbied to have copyright extended. File-sharing can be considered a form of civil disobedience against laws that are unjust.
Other systems are available. In Canada the music industry lobbied for years to collect a royalty on all magnetic recording devices. This is because things like tapes were used to copy music, and this levy was an acknowledgement of this. At the same time sharing copyrighted music became in effect legal. This system has collected over $100 million for the music industry and artists. Now the music industry wants to abolish this system :mad:
Copyright violations are not equivalent to theft otherwise they would just call it theft. A copyright violation is a violation of your exclusive right (subject to some exclusions like fair use) to make a copy of something.
I don’t know what you mean by filesharing. If you mean posting it on some internet site so that everyone can copy them, thats immoral and there is really no excuse for it. If you mean filesharing among friends, then that is still immoral but when I was in highschool people swapped tapes all the time.
The problem is that these days you can copy a thousand songs en masse in a matter of minutes and every high school has that one guy that has every song ever sung on his laptop hard drive who sells 50 songs for $5. Frankly, I have little sympathy for the record companies. They told me that CDs were only going to be expensive for a few years and then they would drop the prices becauswe CDs were cheaper to produce than tapes. It turns out that they just wanted to lower their costs and increase the market price of music. Now they sell music off of their computer servers in California via itunes, etc. to basically reduce their costs of production to basically nothing.
I buy my music but only because I am an adult and the cost of downloading music is really nominal if you have a job. I still remember making tapes of songs off the radio hoping that my reception would stay good. I understand they have to keep putting up the good fight but when I see school age kids getting raided by the FBI and carried off to jail for downloding their favorite songs, I lose what little sympathy I had left for the record companies.
Bullsh*t. You see bands passing out their music for free in front of night clubs hoping it gets enough exposure to catch on. They would be thrilled to find out people are pirating their songs at least until they started making a lot of money and the pirating meant the difference between a mansion and a castle.
How is that, in any way, a parallel of my argument? You entirely missed my point that, as in your example, a real theft leaves the rightful owner *without *the item stolen. That’s where filesharing is not really theft; it’s “theft” of presumed future sales, which can never be proven and are always grossly exaggerated by record companies.
All these charges of “theft” are based on the entirely false assumption that ALL of the people who acquire an album (for example) for free would otherwise have paid $18 for it. That’s an insane assumption. If the financial impact of filesharing were to be calculated realistically, the figures for lost sales would drop dramatically–vastly–and the figures for additional sales stimulated by filesharing would rise almost as dramatically. The only people who would probably still object are those whose sales are so huge that even a small percentage of lost sales is worth crying about.
Hmm. Ain’t that who’s objecting now, primarily? Wonder if they know something they’re not telling you . . .
Bullsht? You essentially agree with my point and yet you call bullsht? 'Smatter, the cat pee in your Cream of Wheat this morning? 
After much carefull consideration, I don’t believe that filesharing is inherently immoral. The nature of the internet pretty much guarantees that once you put a music file out there, it’s going to get copied and distributed. It’s simply a new medium and with any new medium, there will be winners and losers.
That said, the record company is a business. Like any business, it has various aspects to it:
Production - Writing and playing music - the bands, songwriters and producers
Marketing and promotion - Letting people know the music is out there - word of mouth, touring, radio airplay, music web sites, MTV, etc
Distribution - giving people the opportunity to play the music whenever they like - CDs, mp3s
As I see it, file sharing changes the industry in the following manner - On the one hand, it lowers the distribution costs to practically nothing. It also allows bands to reach people who might otherwise not purchase their CD, potentially generating more interest in the band.
On the other hand, the people who stand to lose are the marketers and distributers. Even they won’t completely go away because there will always be a need for promotion, especially since the internet has the potential to become filled with an overwhelming noise of mediocre music.
One case where filesharing is immoral is when someone makes an album available on the internet prior to it’s official release. The artist has a right to make their art available to the public as they see fit. Once it’s out there, they have little control over who sees and hears it, but it should be their decision whether and how it gets released.
[col_10022=quote]
I understand they have to keep putting up the good fight but when I see school age kids getting raided by the FBI and carried off to jail for downloding their favorite songs
[/quote]
Actually, they it’s a civil offense, not criminal, which means they sue you. They don’t haul you off to jail.
Then those who would not pay should have been denied the enjoyment of listening to said music/album at will via their pirated copies.
The default state for everything is public domain. If I’m a cave man and I make a club, it remains mine only to the degree I am able to physically prevent someone else from taking it.
The only reason you can say I “own” something is because we have made up rules regarding “ownership.” Whether that is something physical, like a chair, or something non-physical, like a song.
Unfortunately, the only way we have of determining who would pay for an album and who would not, is if they are required to buy the album to get the benefits.
Additionally, if people are allowed to get the benefits for free of numerous albums, then it’s quite likely a certain percentage of those people will reduce purchases they would have otherwise made because what they have is good enough to entertain them.
It sounds like your argument is “because the internet makes it very easy to copy and distribute, it is no longer immoral.”
I might be misunderstanding your argument, but assuming I’m right, why does the fact that is easy mean that it’s now moral? There are lots of things that are easy to do that are immoral. I don’t see the connection.
That may be a good argument for why the music industry and/or the government should change its stance on filesharing, but it has nothing to do with whether copyright infringement is wrong or not.
Say I steal some of my friend’s money. Then I make some really good investments, double the money, and give it all back to him. Doesn’t make it all right that I stole the money in the first place.
Of course it’s likely. That’s why I said the numbers should be adjusted downward, not done away with entirely.
Neither does this thread.
What if you made a copy of your friend’s money, and somehow–let’s posit legally, for argument’s sake–was able to use those copies for some good? Or let’s say you made copies of your friend’s money just because you liked the way they looked thumbtacked to your wall?
See why that’s not a very good analogy?
But why should we change anything, as you imply we should, about how we approach the sale of music?
Just because there are people that WANT to listen to music without paying for it, why is that a compelling reason for a change to our system? And in what way does that desire suddenly make it moral?
Okay, since we’re in Hypothetical Land, let’s say my friend has some nude pictures of his wife, taken for their own private enjoyment. I happen to come across them, and decide that they would like pretty good thumbtacked on my wall. So, without my friend’s knowledge or permission, I make some copies for myself.
He’s still free to enjoy his own copies, right? I haven’t physically removed any actual objects from his house. Does that mean everything’s cool?
would look pretty good
Dude, your parallels are getting further afield. You’ve added a totally irrelevant “moral” component, placing a moral value on the *content *of the “files,” and asked me to object only to that.
This subject is pretty straightforward; your analogies are only serving to make it less so. Analogies are only helpful when they add clarity. When you play little games who only object seems to to make up an analogy for the analogy’s sake, then that’s *not *helpful.