It's also stealing gain rather than a product i'll grant you that. So it's depriving people of renumeration for services, in the case of what we are talking about entertainment rendered. In this way it's like Rape you're getting what you want, keeping the item of entertainment intact and not having to pay for the dinner and courtship rituals involved in normal sexual relationships. I guess you're right, it's more like Rape than normal theft.
Well I really think you should not be as certain as you are about saying they are boith stealing by law. First of all that is not true universally, and secondly even where it seems to be true, close analysis shows it really... is not. It's more about copyright violation, very different.
Secondly- well, I am unsure why I need a basis other than what he says is not automatically totally unreasonable. Music is not fundamentally a commerical product, that is just the way it has developed. Heck, much of the commercisliation of music was 100% about the distribution of media to hear it on... and the basis for that no longer exists.
So I feel that a justification for music being commerical is probably needed and quiero would be entitled to not accept such a justiciation.
And- again, perception just fine, what I said all along, certainly worried about yours though- once more, I am saying he may be right. You certainly aren't making anything close to a case to make out he is certainly wrong. It's eminently believable that complaining artists may be in the wrong.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
I don't think it is ever ok to steal, and nothing I said in those quotes suggests otherwise. I said I have less of an issue if it's ultimately paid for, not that I am ok with the stealing part, just than I see less reason to sit here and debate when ultimately it's achieving a respectable end, not that I COULDN'T get into a moral debate about the part of it I don't condone.
Stop being a weasel. I clearly agreed they were different cases, speaking in terms of severity, but not in terms of theft, as they both are.
Do you think illegally downloading music is stealing? Yes or no? Honest question.
Then let's answer.
Of course artists want to usually be heard and enjoyed. So now what?
Ignoring your entirely ludicrous analogy to rape, that statement of yours is misleading. If it boils down to 'intellectual theft is the same thing as stealing in the sense AC used at the start of the thread' then... no, it's not. At all.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
He clearly implied that the artists should be grateful, not that they can, that they should be. I don't believe THAT is true. I believe if, by choice, you do not care that you are being stolen from as long as you are being enjoyed, up to you, but the assumption should not be "I'm enjoying your work either way, you shouldn't be moaning.".
Why would artists be in the wrong for complaining that someone illegally acquired their copyrighted material, without them receiving benefit?
There are reasons for the existence of such organisations as F.ederation A.gainst C.opyright T.heft.
Ok then, so let's clear it up instead of you dodging every question I ask.
You asked if musicians want their music to be heard and enjoyed, the answer is most likely yes. So now what?
Here's why I am pretty certain you were implying what I said:
Were you unaware that this is the stance most musicians take; wanting their music to be heard and enjoyed? Did you not know that before asking? I'm pretty sure you believed all musicians want that, and I'm pretty sure you "knew" that, so the only reason for asking such a question would be to justify another stance, in this case; illegally downloading music.
If it was an honest question as you claim, that would mean you genuinely were unaware and alien to the concept of musicians wanting to be heard and enjoyed, which I find very hard to believe.
Once more, if you are saying 'copyright violation is theft in the way AC made it out to be at the start of this thread" then, again... no it is not. Not even vaguely.
Basically, same response to you, AC. They can use the word all they like bit the title doesn't mean shit, only the content of the law. And it's about abuse of copyright, not what laws about traditional theft and burglary concern themselves with.
It doesn't equate, and it's a waste of time trying to make out it does because the general perception would never be like that, and the sooner anti-piracy campaigners stop trying to market such a mis-match as a justification the better because it's just bouncing off people.
The artists may be wrong, btw, because being in a system where their work is copyrighted may be an error. Like I say- this may, very simply, not be approrpriate. It's a VERY recent development in music and may well be seen as a very short period of music history where it was.
The rest of what you say is opinion, and fairly much just that, and I see no reason to bellieve it over Quiero's. As I say, you certainly are not being convincing enough to override his argument.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 18th, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Copyright theft and violation is a rather complicated mess, though, not the least reason being that every single country has different laws on the matter. It's not at all a straight-forward, cut-and-dry thing.
I mean, if we want to get right down to it, AC's signature is violating copyright
I've already clarified that I am not equating severity, even if it seemed so due to an initially poorly communicated point.
My point is that if you download copyrighted material, you are stealing it, and you can get into legal trouble for it. You are depriving someone of something, just in a different way. It's still stealing, it's theft.
It's entirely appropriate as technology advances, to make sure people are getting what they owed in an industry where you can so easily be robbed, because the costs of touring haven't changed etc.
Bands still need to be paid for what they are doing as much as possible, and if copyrighting their material is a counter-action to the wave of people who could acquire it without paying them, then copyrighting is entirely necessary.
Yeah, I know musicians want to be heard. I also think that removes some sympathy when somebody downloads a song (the person doing it is obviously a fan anyways), instead of some one robbing a gas station or stealing your tv. And in that same post, I said that I believe they get their panties in a bunch more so because they feel some one's giving them finger, as opposed to stealing something that would actually hinder their everyday life in some form.
You've simply re-stated points there without actually responding to criticisms of them, which is not good.
You say you it is stealing it- I don't think you've established that, to be honest, and I think there is a good argument against the term. You say you are depriving them of something. I don't think you've established that either, and that point is very often manifestly not true. Often artists lose nothing from piracy, nothing at all.
You say copyrighting is a necessity. But only in the musc industry as we currently understand it. That whole system may well fall apart- aside from anything else, because it might become entirely irrelevant.
Music kicked off being paid for at live attendances only. It may return to that again.
May is the word here. I'm pretty neutral in this debate but I acknowledge the possibility.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
KMC Community Forums
Oct 18th, 2007 10:19 PM
