But it takes time and effort - a LOT of time and effort to produce good music, and the only person who has a right to give away someone's time and effort is the person who put in that time and effort in the first place - not some dickhead with a computer (or a tape recorder for that matter).
They clearly did give it away, otherwise how would you have a copy of it? The point is, they want to restrict you from making copies so that people have to go to them to get it. What right has he got to that?
Surely it is an inalienable right to attempt to profit from your labours.
Jesus, no it isn't. If I dig holes all day it doesn't mean I have an inalienable right to profit from it. What's the missing factor here? That's right, someone who is willing to pay me!
If there is no copyright, and copying of electronic media is essentially effortless and free, how then do content creators profit from their labours?
The same way everyone else does, by entering into contracts of mutual agreement. Ya know, the honest way to make money.
Surfers would like to surf all day. Some surfers manage to get people to sponsor them. Most surfers do not. To suggest that surfers should be able to force people to pay them to surf is rediculous.. regardless of how you manage to package up their skill. If they can find someone who is willing to pay them, then all the more power to them.
Sorry, what? How can you suggest that people should have the right to "own" a song? Every time I whistle it I should give them a penny should I? There's no natural right here. The debate is over whether or not the copyright system adequately encourages artists to produce. It does. If the copyright system were less lax then would it continue to? I say yes, you might say no. But we're not talking here about whether or not people should be able to own ideas.. that argument is over (and has been for centuries).
Free-form piracy so no artists get paid for anything? You don't have a right to someone's music.
This is what your argument boils down to. You refuse to see the other side of the equation. I have a right to copy and share anything I want. The only thing that stops me is law. You have no evidence to suggest that this law is necessary for artists to get paid. Yet you declare it as fact.
What is the law "standing in the way" of?
Me being free to use my computer as I see fit! Duh!
I was pointing out that you were making bullshit assumptions that have been shown to be incorrect.
But if you want my opinion on what would happen if file-sharing was tomorrow declared legal and polluting file-sharing systems with junk files was declared illegal, I'll tell ya. First off, all the dinosaurs of the media business would die off. People would start using for-pay file-sharing systems more for the sole reason that they provide a better service. Artists would make more money because there'd be no middleman and customers would feel they are not being forced to pay, that instead it is their choice. Blatant commercialisation of music would stop, resulting in people forming their tastes from actually listening to a selection of music instead of being spoonfed what is "cool". Artists would, as a result, have more freedom to express themselves.
That's the will of the people. The law is standing in the way of it to keep a bunch of fat cat lobbyists giving them money.
It's also the "will of the people" to speed and end up killing people and getting into car accidents, but we keep those speed limit signs firmly in place regardless because we know it's right.
except it isn't. Studies in Europe have found that street signs and traffic lights do more to distract people from what is happening on the road than they do to stop accidents. Take away all the street signs and traffic lights and people actually start paying attention to what is happening on the road and drive more safely.
The whole point of the article is that you are forced to pay for the song as you legally can't get it from anyone else. If you don't think that is "force" ask the people who have had criminal charges brought against them for copyright infringement. If I go to an artist and ask them for a song, I expect them to charge me.. but I then expect to be free to do with that work as I please - I've paid for it. If that means I want to resell it for less than the artist then that's my right. Copyright law prohibits me from doing that, and it does it by the force of law. We used to accept this in our society because so few of us had the means to copy things. Now we all do and rather than stand up and demand that we be given back our right to copy we acted like criminals and copied in the shadows. Now the law says we are criminals (and after acting like such, what did we expect?) and we're royally fucked.
For those who consider the slippery slope a fallacy of logic, I give you copyright law.
Let's not forget the rest of Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Always seemed to me that Britney Spears songs and Arnold Schwarzenegger films was not what the founding fathers had in mind. Not to mention limited != ever increasing.
protect the inalienable rights of the minority. Not the artificial government issued rights. Those the government is supposed to repeal as soon as the majority find them intolerable. Copyright is largely ignored by the majority and when they get sued for violations it's largely intolerable. If any significant number of these cases actually went to court the system would soon right itself. But the court fee system is currently structured so that it's cheaper just to settle. And so the RIAA gets can opportunity to "re-educate" the public.
Am I supposed to cry? It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a sufer. It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a rock climber. It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a poet or a philosopher. Here's a crazy idea: don't.
The constitution doesn't guarentee you the right to force other people to pay you if they want to hear your music. It allows for congress to enact laws that restrict the people's right to copy music but seeing as the majority of people have demonstrated that they have no respect for such laws they should be abolished. No culture makes the fundamental claim that you can force others to pay for your work. If it did the majority of work done would be unproductive as you wouldn't have to find anyone to voluntarily pay you to dig holes and fill them up again, you could just force people to do it. If musicians can't figure out a way to get people to voluntarily pay for their services then they should go do work which people will voluntarily pay them to do.
Way to dodge the issue. If you don't believe that laws should represent the will of the people then you should leave your democratic country right now and go find a nice dictator to live under.
Are you saying that it is alright to pirate music then?
Wow, do you think you can ask a more loaded question? Can I ask you one then? Are you saying that it is alright to enact laws that the majority of people don't want? Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government.
Killing the guy who takes your mate is human nature too. What a stupid argument. It's not "human nature" that laws should be aligned with, it's the "will of the people" and on the matter of file sharing the people have spoken: we want to share.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wait, you did.
That's the whole point of this thread. Please don't jump into the middle of a conversation, we've already covered this ground.
Which is why the constitution made it optional for congress to make copyright laws. There's nothing in the constitution that requires copyright.
But it takes time and effort - a LOT of time and effort to produce good music, and the only person who has a right to give away someone's time and effort is the person who put in that time and effort in the first place - not some dickhead with a computer (or a tape recorder for that matter).
They clearly did give it away, otherwise how would you have a copy of it? The point is, they want to restrict you from making copies so that people have to go to them to get it. What right has he got to that?
Jesus, no it isn't. If I dig holes all day it doesn't mean I have an inalienable right to profit from it. What's the missing factor here? That's right, someone who is willing to pay me!
If there is no copyright, and copying of electronic media is essentially effortless and free, how then do content creators profit from their labours?
The same way everyone else does, by entering into contracts of mutual agreement. Ya know, the honest way to make money.
Surfers would like to surf all day. Some surfers manage to get people to sponsor them. Most surfers do not. To suggest that surfers should be able to force people to pay them to surf is rediculous.. regardless of how you manage to package up their skill. If they can find someone who is willing to pay them, then all the more power to them.
How is music any different?
Sorry, what? How can you suggest that people should have the right to "own" a song? Every time I whistle it I should give them a penny should I? There's no natural right here. The debate is over whether or not the copyright system adequately encourages artists to produce. It does. If the copyright system were less lax then would it continue to? I say yes, you might say no. But we're not talking here about whether or not people should be able to own ideas.. that argument is over (and has been for centuries).
Wow, you say that like it's a big revelation. Everyone likes getting something for nothing. There's nothing wrong with that.
A Japanese woman who lives in Japan wanted to go out with a guy who wasn't Japanese? Riiiight.
This is what your argument boils down to. You refuse to see the other side of the equation. I have a right to copy and share anything I want. The only thing that stops me is law. You have no evidence to suggest that this law is necessary for artists to get paid. Yet you declare it as fact.
What is the law "standing in the way" of?
Me being free to use my computer as I see fit! Duh!
I was pointing out that you were making bullshit assumptions that have been shown to be incorrect.
But if you want my opinion on what would happen if file-sharing was tomorrow declared legal and polluting file-sharing systems with junk files was declared illegal, I'll tell ya. First off, all the dinosaurs of the media business would die off. People would start using for-pay file-sharing systems more for the sole reason that they provide a better service. Artists would make more money because there'd be no middleman and customers would feel they are not being forced to pay, that instead it is their choice. Blatant commercialisation of music would stop, resulting in people forming their tastes from actually listening to a selection of music instead of being spoonfed what is "cool". Artists would, as a result, have more freedom to express themselves.
That's the will of the people. The law is standing in the way of it to keep a bunch of fat cat lobbyists giving them money.
By that logic you might as well call it murder.
It's also the "will of the people" to speed and end up killing people and getting into car accidents, but we keep those speed limit signs firmly in place regardless because we know it's right.
except it isn't. Studies in Europe have found that street signs and traffic lights do more to distract people from what is happening on the road than they do to stop accidents. Take away all the street signs and traffic lights and people actually start paying attention to what is happening on the road and drive more safely.
The whole point of the article is that you are forced to pay for the song as you legally can't get it from anyone else. If you don't think that is "force" ask the people who have had criminal charges brought against them for copyright infringement. If I go to an artist and ask them for a song, I expect them to charge me.. but I then expect to be free to do with that work as I please - I've paid for it. If that means I want to resell it for less than the artist then that's my right. Copyright law prohibits me from doing that, and it does it by the force of law. We used to accept this in our society because so few of us had the means to copy things. Now we all do and rather than stand up and demand that we be given back our right to copy we acted like criminals and copied in the shadows. Now the law says we are criminals (and after acting like such, what did we expect?) and we're royally fucked.
For those who consider the slippery slope a fallacy of logic, I give you copyright law.
Let's not forget the rest of Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Always seemed to me that Britney Spears songs and Arnold Schwarzenegger films was not what the founding fathers had in mind. Not to mention limited != ever increasing.
protect the inalienable rights of the minority. Not the artificial government issued rights. Those the government is supposed to repeal as soon as the majority find them intolerable. Copyright is largely ignored by the majority and when they get sued for violations it's largely intolerable. If any significant number of these cases actually went to court the system would soon right itself. But the court fee system is currently structured so that it's cheaper just to settle. And so the RIAA gets can opportunity to "re-educate" the public.
Am I supposed to cry? It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a sufer. It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a rock climber. It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a poet or a philosopher. Here's a crazy idea: don't.
The constitution doesn't guarentee you the right to force other people to pay you if they want to hear your music. It allows for congress to enact laws that restrict the people's right to copy music but seeing as the majority of people have demonstrated that they have no respect for such laws they should be abolished. No culture makes the fundamental claim that you can force others to pay for your work. If it did the majority of work done would be unproductive as you wouldn't have to find anyone to voluntarily pay you to dig holes and fill them up again, you could just force people to do it. If musicians can't figure out a way to get people to voluntarily pay for their services then they should go do work which people will voluntarily pay them to do.
wow, you are indoctrinated. Exactly how is sharing files a "rip-off" of someone else?
Way to dodge the issue. If you don't believe that laws should represent the will of the people then you should leave your democratic country right now and go find a nice dictator to live under.
Same reason drugs are illegal. The state no longer represents the will of the people.
You shouldn't believe everything you see on television.
Wow, do you think you can ask a more loaded question? Can I ask you one then? Are you saying that it is alright to enact laws that the majority of people don't want? Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government.
Killing the guy who takes your mate is human nature too. What a stupid argument. It's not "human nature" that laws should be aligned with, it's the "will of the people" and on the matter of file sharing the people have spoken: we want to share.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
How many fuckin' times do we have to tell you?
STOP CALLING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT THEFT!
and now we know why the US feel the need to spell things differently. Personally I'm starting to feel that need myself. Fuckin' French.