Monday, September 06, 2004
File sharing debate
The mredkj filesharing debate page lists pros and cons of P2P. The thesis, if you want to call it that, isn't to come to any conclusions. The point I originally had in putting up the page was to show how there are only so many arguments one can make. It started off as a short list. Well, that list kept getting bigger and bigger, and then I started adding lots of references to back up my simple arguments. Maybe I underestimated the debate just a little bit.
If you have an opinion on file sharing, post a comment here.
posted by Keith [9/06/2004 10:47:00 PM] - permalink - 9 comments
9 comment(s):
wrote:
well, after reading this it willl be obvious that i am a supporter of music downloading. being a college student, i dont have alot of money, and when i do, it goes to food. i have been into the underground music scene for most of my life now and as so ive spent the majority of my money on cds in high school at least. i go to shows and buy merchandise when i can to show support for the band. if it werent for filesharing, i wouldnt have been able to hear some of the music ive heard. also at this point in life im learning how to save money, and even with my lust for new music, i dont buy that many cd's because they are overpriced especially for the culture that im in. the bands that i listen to support filesharing also because without someone like me hearing of band and downloading their music and then telling my freinds to do the same, the fan base that we build from doing what is considered illegal right now, makes that band more money in the long run due to the quietly growing popularity of that band because of us. the bands that i listen to and hang out with arent in it for the money anyways, they love music just as much as i do and dont really care about how much they make as long as they can eat and have a place to sleep in between shows. so down with the law!!!!
Posted [12/05/2004 04:00:00 PM]
wrote:
If the RIAA can sue me for copyright infringement, should I be able to sue them when I lose a CD they've prevented me from copying? Should I be able to sue them for all those old cassette tapes that I purchased which are no longer playable since everythings moved to CD's and Mini-Disc? And how about my records I still have are they going to give me some type of exchange since I already paid for the copyright? Hell no. Its about time we had another option to replace the media we've already bought. We bought VHS and now they're useless. We've paid for copyrights over and over again when will the madness end? If they start a trade in media program then I'll stop downloading music. Till then I think you're all a bunch of....
[][][] [] [][][]
[][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][]
[][]
[][]
[][]
[][]
( )
( )
()
Use your imagination.
Posted [12/06/2004 04:12:00 AM]
Keith wrote:
Thanks for the comments. I came up with a variation of the thought "We've paid for copyrights over and over again" and added it to the MREDKJ file sharing page. (In the Pros and a rebuttal in the Cons)
Indirectly this brings up the question... what is actually bought when you buy music? Is it the copyright? Is just a piece of plastic? I tried to look for an authoritative article or document, but only found people's opinions. If anyone has a good link explaining this, I'll consider including it as a work cited.
Posted [12/06/2004 11:05:00 PM]
wrote:
people need to chill out about the file sharing thing. its not like artists dont make enough money off of tures and shit like that. besides if i really like a cd ill buy it in the stores because it sounds better on the real thing than a burned cd. besides i cant get my music up here... how am i suppose to get it????
Posted [4/04/2005 11:54:00 AM]
wrote:
Who cares, the artist aren't losing much money, just a porsche. Fuck Metallica, they suck..
Posted [4/05/2005 09:01:00 AM]
wrote:
the artist make enough money from clothing, and touring don't ban peer to peer
Posted [4/11/2005 10:29:00 AM]
eMansipater wrote:
I've got a different slant to the issue than any you've got listed above:
digital files are not products, they're services.
If you think about, you'll soon realise it's true. There is no such thing as a 'file' that gets transfered around or replicated. It's just a term for a particular way that a computer is configured. This completely changes the way the issue can be looked at, and immediately strips the entire issue down to what exactly we mean by intellectual property instead of getting confused with who is and isn't making money and who feels they've been wronged.
Basically--if a singer writes a song and performs it and you hear it--are you allowed to go around humming/singing it to others?
When viewed this way, we can see that copyrights are not a matter of ethics but rather of economic incentive. The issue is not whether copyright infringement is 'right' or 'wrong.' The issue is how and if copyright will work in the modern world as an effective incentive for innovation.
And that's a whole other discussion.
Posted [12/15/2005 05:05:00 AM]
Keith wrote:
Thanks for leaving your thoughts, everyone.
mans, I could probably add another bullet that gets into your explanation.
I'd say "There is no such thing as a 'file' that gets transfered around or replicated" is in the same ballpark as when I said "MP3s are not a physical thing, so no actual value is lost by "stealing" a song"
I'll give some thought as to how I can add yours into my list.
As for your rhetorical question:
"if a singer writes a song and performs it and you hear it--are you allowed to go around humming/singing it to others?"
Just make sure not to do it in a public place while the ASCAP is around (they're an agency that collects royalties for performances of songs)
Posted [12/15/2005 08:06:00 PM]
wrote:
I like to go with the Radio side of this debate... Most of us poor folks can listen to that artists song for free on the radio. That is, if the radio will even play that song. Dating myself here, but I grew up with a boom box on my shoulder and a cassette tape to record that song so I could listen again when I wanted to and to play it for friends who havent heard it. Just as TV signals are going HD and better quality, we can record that, so Radio will go better quality. Quality increases, its just a sign of the ever increasing technology.
It then boils down to money, I am a computer programmer who works in an office with another programmer who is also a musician. Does he stop making music just because he cant make money at it? NO, making money is not what drives a TRUE musician. Music is an ART, it comes from the heart and soul of a person.
If you have a true gift for music, people will follow you and the money will come one way or another. Take another industry for example - Utimate Fighting Championships, I watch the matches on TV for free, and then go and buy T-shirts or other merchandise which supports the people in the industry.
To see how musicians like Michael Jackson and Brittany Spears spend their money, and behave accordingly makes me think that them having so much wealth is not a good thing anyway. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So for the stealing side of this debate, I see it as an issue of Semantics. If I steal your car, and you no longer have a car, I have deprived you of the use of the car. However, copying a song, is not depriving the other person of said song. It is depriving the Industry of money to be gained if you had to buy the song, BUT, would you have bought the song if you couldnt have copyied it? In my case NO. Call me cheap, but don't call me a theif. I have listened to songs on the Radio for free for the last 40 years, and will continue to do so.
