I wish I had moderator points so I could mod this WAY up. I could not agree more--this topic, to me, is so pointless I can't believe it's still discussed. Our law is that people have IP rights to what they create; in this case, the "artists" create works that are "made-for-hire" (the term used in copyright law) and thus the labels are the legal owners of that property. No one is forcing the musicians to sign with label. That may be the predominant path to success, but so what. All the other arguments are, to me, so much endless ranting. It is stealing, plain and simple, and whether someone, or a large corp., lost money over it or not, is not the point. If you don't like the copyright and related laws, why don't you try to change them? Are you the same people who just decide to shoot someone because you don't like them, as opposed to taking them to court? I cannot believe this shit! Respectfully, Jacques.
OK, so I agree with those of you who say the act is draconian in its punishments. I also understand the arguments about whether this is theft vs. copyright infringement, civil vs. criminal, etc. The moral arguments...blah blah blah.
My view is this: Irrespective of the concerns regarding the erosion of our rights which this act embodies, why is anybody still actually trying to defend the people making copies of these materials? Further, why does anyone care to do it? Doesn't anyone have anything better to do than to go to these lengths to steal, borrow, innocently download (whichever eupheism you prefer) this garbage? Has anyone heard of paying the going price for a luxury, and just not buying it if one (a) cannot afford it; or (b) does not believe the item to be worth the asking price? We are not talking about food, medicine, or housing. We're talking about movies and music, much of which is of poor quality anyhow. If someone is so angry over how much the copyright holders have chosen to charge for their wares, he or she should NOT BUY THEM. But we have no business stealing/borrowing/downloading/whatever items we want just because we want them. If that is OK, why don't we just get rid of all laws, and we'll just all do as we please?
I don't dispute that some of the laws relating to intellectual property have gotten out of hand; nor do I dispute that the RIAA, MPAA, etc., are in some cases being unreasonable; nor that some of the laws, like the one being discussed, do not go to far; but, I mean, come on...there are a lot more things worth worrying about than this, I should think!
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had moderator points so I could mod this WAY up. I could not agree more--this topic, to me, is so pointless I can't believe it's still discussed. Our law is that people have IP rights to what they create; in this case, the "artists" create works that are "made-for-hire" (the term used in copyright law) and thus the labels are the legal owners of that property. No one is forcing the musicians to sign with label. That may be the predominant path to success, but so what. All the other arguments are, to me, so much endless ranting. It is stealing, plain and simple, and whether someone, or a large corp., lost money over it or not, is not the point. If you don't like the copyright and related laws, why don't you try to change them? Are you the same people who just decide to shoot someone because you don't like them, as opposed to taking them to court? I cannot believe this shit! Respectfully, Jacques.
OK, so I agree with those of you who say the act is draconian in its punishments. I also understand the arguments about whether this is theft vs. copyright infringement, civil vs. criminal, etc. The moral arguments...blah blah blah.
:)
My view is this: Irrespective of the concerns regarding the erosion of our rights which this act embodies, why is anybody still actually trying to defend the people making copies of these materials? Further, why does anyone care to do it? Doesn't anyone have anything better to do than to go to these lengths to steal, borrow, innocently download (whichever eupheism you prefer) this garbage? Has anyone heard of paying the going price for a luxury, and just not buying it if one (a) cannot afford it; or (b) does not believe the item to be worth the asking price? We are not talking about food, medicine, or housing. We're talking about movies and music, much of which is of poor quality anyhow. If someone is so angry over how much the copyright holders have chosen to charge for their wares, he or she should NOT BUY THEM. But we have no business stealing/borrowing/downloading/whatever items we want just because we want them. If that is OK, why don't we just get rid of all laws, and we'll just all do as we please?
I don't dispute that some of the laws relating to intellectual property have gotten out of hand; nor do I dispute that the RIAA, MPAA, etc., are in some cases being unreasonable; nor that some of the laws, like the one being discussed, do not go to far; but, I mean, come on...there are a lot more things worth worrying about than this, I should think!
Just my opinion, of course.