You're dodging my question, which was; if a living person has his or her work distributed for free, what rewards exactly does copyright bestow upon them?
But yes, that does give me the right to free music. This is the entire point of copyright laws -- to reward creators for the contributions they bring that define our culture.
If the music is taken for free, reward them with what exactly? Warm fuzzies?
Also in a real democracy, the role of government is to insulate the rights of a minority (the right to profit off of your own creations) from the majority (who won't pay you for your creations). This is why copyright infringement is illegal.
A bootleg is not an album release, and on occasions when Dream Theater have released live albums they have requested that distribution of the bootlegs stop, as happened with the Amsterdam "Dark Side Of The Dream" concert. Your point again?
You know the worst bit? This is one of the most insightful comments in this thread, and half the people have responded by playing the "infringement != theft" semantics game (which means "oh fuck."):)
11 or 12 cents is still an amount of money. That's 60 dollars if you sell/not sell 500 copies, 120 for 1000, and 1200 dollars if you sell 10000. I'm sure someone will reply saying "But he probably won't sell that much", but it doesn't matter. People are still gipping him off.
What it doen't give me is an excuse from being prosecuted in a court of law. Just like any form of civil disobediance. Like not getting up from a bus seat even though the law says you should*.
The difference is this. Rosa Parks wanted to rebel against a society which discriminated against her because of something she couldn't change; the colour of her skin. You, however, want free music.
There's a very very big difference.
The music corporation is nothing more then a middleman who isn't needed anymore.
Which is why lots of new bands sign to record labels. Obviously.
...what? What the hell are you on about? It may have cost you 200 dollars, it however probably cost someone else less. More to the point, no amount of money can change the fact that it is STILL JUST SOFTWARE.
1) The price of music does in no way give you a right or justification to pirate it. 2) A "sane copyright law" is subjective, and is currently not "actual copyright law". It doesn't matter.
He probably means that he doesn't personally like the act of it, but that it's other peoples' choice whether to have an abortion and not that of the government, a view I agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
You're dodging my question, which was; if a living person has his or her work distributed for free, what rewards exactly does copyright bestow upon them?
Please tell me how I might have paid again and again then. I'm begging to know so I have the right to be a cheapskate and pirate stuff. PLEASE.
But yes, that does give me the right to free music. This is the entire point of copyright laws -- to reward creators for the contributions they bring that define our culture.
If the music is taken for free, reward them with what exactly? Warm fuzzies?
I'm not. I have hundreds of CDs, and I don't feel harrassed one little bit.
I believe it was Winston Churchill.
Also in a real democracy, the role of government is to insulate the rights of a minority (the right to profit off of your own creations) from the majority (who won't pay you for your creations). This is why copyright infringement is illegal.
They all understand that the internet is a miracle from god to spread their work
It's not if you want to make money. The "spreading" part works though.
Well said. :)
I can't afford a steak right now. Am I "deprived" of the steak because I don't want to go and steal it?
There's no need to have a copy of a piece of music. No need at all. Deprivation doesn't come into it.
A bootleg is not an album release, and on occasions when Dream Theater have released live albums they have requested that distribution of the bootlegs stop, as happened with the Amsterdam "Dark Side Of The Dream" concert. Your point again?
But i dont understand why do i have to pay again and again for what was already produced
You don't. I've bought all my CDs exactly once. No "again and again" involved.
You know the worst bit? This is one of the most insightful comments in this thread, and half the people have responded by playing the "infringement != theft" semantics game (which means "oh fuck.") :)
The things that make up our culture no longer belong to us nor do they really have any chance to.
They will belong to you when their copyright expires. And at any rate, that still does not give you an entitlement to free music.
If a friend gives you a stolen car for your birthday, are you the criminal?
If you knew it was stolen and you were in the UK, then yes. It's known as handling stolen goods and carries a maximum term of 14 years in jail.
But here, I'll give you $10 to make up for pirating it later
Yes, because THAT HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE.
In reality, most people (outside of Slashdot, and probably inside Slashdot too) download shit off P2P and it ends there.
I'd much rather that they were tuned in and practiced civil disobedience as a statement rather than out of ignorance.
Every time someone calls copyright infringement (i.e getting free shit) "civil disobedience", Rosa Parks spins in her grave.
You miss the point. That point being, these people have enough money to buy their music but they see such little value in it that they don't want to.
They're not customers if they don't pay for their music.
11 or 12 cents is still an amount of money. That's 60 dollars if you sell/not sell 500 copies, 120 for 1000, and 1200 dollars if you sell 10000. I'm sure someone will reply saying "But he probably won't sell that much", but it doesn't matter. People are still gipping him off.
Yes. It's all down to the botnets, twitter.
It's ALL BECAUSE OF THE BOTNETS.
*rolls eyes*
He/she can rent a studio for ONLY 100 DOLLARS AN HOUR?!
What fucking world are you living in where people can pay that sort of money?
What it doen't give me is an excuse from being prosecuted in a court of law.
Just like any form of civil disobediance. Like not getting up from a bus seat even though the law says you should*.
The difference is this. Rosa Parks wanted to rebel against a society which discriminated against her because of something she couldn't change; the colour of her skin. You, however, want free music.
There's a very very big difference.
The music corporation is nothing more then a middleman who isn't needed anymore.
Which is why lots of new bands sign to record labels. Obviously.
...what? What the hell are you on about? It may have cost you 200 dollars, it however probably cost someone else less. More to the point, no amount of money can change the fact that it is STILL JUST SOFTWARE.
2 things:
1) The price of music does in no way give you a right or justification to pirate it.
2) A "sane copyright law" is subjective, and is currently not "actual copyright law". It doesn't matter.
He probably means that he doesn't personally like the act of it, but that it's other peoples' choice whether to have an abortion and not that of the government, a view I agree with.