about napster
Question:
Everyone here has been dealing in the general sense: "Set your information free!!!" To be specific, it costs MONEY to make a musical album (musicians, producers, recording studio gear, instruments…..). and before you get started don’t even bother with whether the current pricing scheme is fair, that’s a whole different argument. Since these recordings cost money to make, they are sold. They have to sell a set amount before they start to turn a profit. How will this work if someone buys one copy, digitizes it, calls it "information" and provides it for free for everyone else who wants a copy. Here’s a clue, it wouldn’t.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does this give us the right to manipulate either/all? It is human nature to manipulate either/all. Is there a difference between a physical object and an idea or thought? There are no limitations to thoughts and ideas,only objects which are limited by thier physical nature.When something is limited then it is easier to control the distribution of, and fix a price to it.When it doesn’t fit the model of the physical world, how can anyone enforce the rules that apply to things physical,on something that is not? Andrea
Response:
I love Metallica’s music, I think that they are great. I also think that they are Hypocrits! They depended upon the underground music scene to launch their multi-million dollar careers. The Greatful Dead freely encouraged people to record their concerts and distribute the copies. People search all over for specific bootlegs. MP3z are all about getting heard. I don’t belive that the MP3 music coming out of my PC is equal to that of a CD. Plus, I don’t have a MP3 player in my car!! I’ve reverse engineered CDs from MP3s, and they sound terrible. It’s a pain in the ass to adjust levels, and it’s not worth my time and effort just to save $15! I’ve found a lot of bands I’d never heard of, and bought their CDs because I downloaded MP3s of their songs. I say ‘LONG LIVE THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION!’
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Everyone here has been dealing in the general sense: "Set your information free!!!" To be specific, it costs MONEY to make a musical album (musicians, producers, recording studio gear, instruments…..). and before you get started don’t even bother with whether the current pricing scheme is fair, that’s a whole different argument. Since these recordings cost money to make, they are sold. They have to sell a set amount before they start to turn a profit. How will this work if someone buys one copy, digitizes it, calls it "information" and provides it for free for everyone else who wants a copy. Here’s a clue, it wouldn’t. Does this give us the right to manipulate either/all? It is human nature to manipulate either/all. Is there a difference between a physical object and an idea or thought? There are no limitations to thoughts and ideas,only objects which are limited by thier physical nature.When something is limited then it is easier to control the distribution of, and fix a price to it.When it doesn’t fit the model of the physical world, how can anyone enforce the rules that apply to things physical,on something that is not? Andrea
Response:
To be specific, it costs MONEY to make a musical album (musicians, producers, recording studio gear, instruments…..). and before you get started don’t even bother with whether the current pricing scheme is fair, that’s a whole different argument.
It cost "who" money? It is easy for a kid with a ten dollar borrowed microphone from radioshack to download free recording software on the family computer,take the guitar given to him by an uncle for free,put ideas to song, record them, upload them to a free internet site,or burn it onto a CD that costs retail $1.00. If he doesn’t put it on the $1.00 disk,he can unlimited distribute,promote,and deliver entirely for free. Since these recordings cost money to make, they are sold.
They are sold to make money,not because it costs money to make. The album that executives plunked down 100,000 dollars to produce is now as easily distributed as the album that cost nothing to make. Think about recording music and getting it heard being like driving a car to some destination. Imagine being stuck in traffic,in your car,and everyone is stuck trying to get somewhere… Who do you sympathize with,do you feel sorry for the guy in the $100,000 dollar luxury car stuck in the same traffic as you? Andrea
Response:
I love Metallica’s music, I think that they are great. I also think that they are Hypocrits! They depended upon the underground music scene to launch their multi-million dollar careers.
So then they should just give their music away for free because of that? The Greatful Dead freely encouraged people to record their concerts and distribute the copies. People search all over for specific bootlegs.
Metallica have said they aren’t against bootlegs of live material which is not available any other way to begin with. They are against the distribution of MP3s of studio recordings which could potentially cause them to lose money due to lower record sales. Daniel.
Response:
Once something is common practice by the public, how are you going to enforce these "laws"? It used to be illegal for women to wear pants, or show their bare ankles…but now it is common to see woman on the beach wearing nothing more than a few tiny strategically arranged scraps of fabric,held in place by flimsy almost non existant pieces of string. Who knows maybe within the next twenty years scientist will blame clothing as the harbingers of disease,and people will walk in special anti bacterial repellant shoes, and live otherwize comepletely nude,decorating themselves in colorful Mendhi designs.The laws change more to suit the needs of the public.You can’t predict or dictate the future,you can only legislate the present. -Andrea
Response:
Does this give us the right to manipulate either/all?
It is human nature to manipulate either/all. Is there a difference between a physical object and an idea or thought?
There are no limitations to thoughts and ideas,only objects which are limited by thier physical nature.When something is limited then it is easier to control the distribution of, and fix a price to it.When it doesn’t fit the model of the physical world, how can anyone enforce the rules that apply to things physical,on something that is not? Andrea
Response:
Andrea, you have the strangest sense of logic that I’ve heard in a long time. How do you explain patents, copywrights, royalties, etc? These are all ways of legally protecting "information" that is available to the public at a cost. Your definition of "information" is all encompassing, which contradicts some of the statements you are making. Is there a difference between a physical object and an idea or thought? They are both information. Does this give us the right to manipulate either/all? Legally, if you copy anything patented or copywrited, you are breaking the law. This is theft. You can apply whatever pop-philosophy you want to it. It’s still illegal. Surely you’ve written a research paper at one time in your life. Did you credit the quotes you used? Did you list a bibliography? Peace Out
Response:
Absurd. Information is the property of the individual who holds a copyright on it. Morally biased information is morally biased Information is not a property but a utility of words,image,sound that is useful to those who have access to it.
Two things: 1. Legality: Regardless of whether you have philosophical feelings about what information is and how/when it should be distributed, the fact is (in the United States and most of the rest of the world anyway) that there is a legal system here that has been designed to allow people to profit from the work necessary to generate original and unique ‘information’. This primarily consists of copyrights and patents. The bizarro Stallmanesque Information Socialism you’re promoting is illegal when applied to copyrighted work, regardless of whether or not you feel it should be. If you don’t like it, tough. You should be lobbying to have the laws updated rather than defending violation of copyright law on usenet. 2. Morality/Philosophy: As far as the morality of restricting information goes: The basic concepts of copyright and patent are a cornerstone to the success of capatilism as the world’s dominant economic system and have fueled the technological growth that continues to advance/better man’s position in modern times. This system gives people the incentive to do basic research and development with the knowledge that if they manage to successfully create new inventions, ideas, and art that they will be able to profit from that work. In my opinion, a system which doesn’t recognize the value of the work required in the development of new information is both immoral and destined to stagnate. It is immoral because it doesn’t recognize the time and effort required to develop new ideas (and allows "pirates" to virtually "steal" the fruits of that labor by using/enjoying the result of someone else’s effort while not compensating the original developer). It is destined to stagnate if implemented widespread because the incentive/viability of innovation is severely diminished (there are lots of examples from recent Western history of this). If you want to continue to support the goofy "Information Wants to Be Free" cult, fine. Let’s see you argue the rationale behind it. Specifically keep in mind that even if you mange to somehow disprove or discredit the idea that information is property all you’ve done is proven analogies to property don’t apply. You still haven’t proven that: 1. Ethically, information *should* be distributed without restriction 2. Developers do not deserve compensation for the effort of information creation. If you don’t support this position then go ahead and try to propose an alternative economic model to replace copyright and patent law, where information is free and creators still manage to receive fair compensation for the effort and level of innovation of their work. 3. Developers do not have a right to restrict access to information they’ve created. 4. That in the long run it would be beneficial to society if the current rule-set where copyright violation is illegal were abandonded. …but stealing is stealing. I hope you’ll learn that. Nothing has been stolen.
Regardless of whether something has been stolen or not, undeniably, the law has been broken. And not only this, you’ve arguably done something immoral.
Response:
I’m convinced, you finally convinced me, information shouldn’t be copyrighted. I’ve just started copying "The Grape Of Wrath’s", "The Dead Zone", and "The Vampire Lestat" word for word, I hope to publish these soon under my own name and be able to retire by he age of 35. I’ve also started a second project where I’m taking Windows98 and coping the code line by line. That information will soon be sold under my own name Wolfgang98. Then there’s the laser copies of the Mona Lisa I’ve been selling. I’ve also submitted patents under my own name for the telephone, personal computer, television and radio. Oh and the best yet….. Money is only a representation of something real, it’s a form of information, so I’ve started laser coping US hundreds by the truck load. (Note to the FBI- don’t show up at my door, I’m not really doing this) Information shouldn’t be copyrighted or protected right? Please don’t miss the sarcasm!! Wolfgang
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Absurd. Information is the property of the individual who holds a copyright on it. Morally biased information is morally biased Information is not a property but a utility of words,image,sound that is useful to those who have access to it. Secrets are protected information,as long as they are kept,they hold value in not being distributed. If you keep your words,images, and sounds a secret,then you can control the distribution,but if your intentions are to deliver them to the public for consumption,once they are designed and presented for public consumption,and designed to be attractive and useful for mass public consumption,it is out of your hands. Once it reaches the public arena,you start to lose control of it’s distribution.If you are to profit from the distribution of information to the public, then it is at the discretion and whim of the receiving public. Your information may only appeal to a remote few,or many who decide what value if any the information holds. If the public decides that your information is worth 15 dollars on a compact disk, then that is what they will pay.If they however decide it is free,then they will pay you nothing.If most of the information is presented without fee,then why would your information in comparison have more value? You would need to convince the public that information is property.Which is going to be very difficult because the public perceives that information to be free. I perceive information to be alive.I have yet to put a price on this "life",but I definately want information to live. Absurd. A song is not like a painting. A good song is not like a bad song. A newspaper is not like a novel. Yet they are all information. Information does not live. Textbooks are not often popular but they are filled with valueable material. Much extremely valueable information is not popular at all. Most information is lost(dead) or dormant(sleeping).For people to be able to reactivate the information they need access to it or a key to open it up. The Key is a word,or groups of words associated or infused to the information. Of course information can be a physical commodity. You just described a painting as information. It exists in a physical sense. If you steal it or use a copy of it for commercial purposes, you have stolen. The color, form,balance, composition of a painting is information.The physical canvas, and physical globs of paint slathered to the physical canvas are physical property,that remains intact regardless of how many have access to it’s information. Information does not live. Yes it does.it lives to be communicated,replicated and dispersed to as many places as possible. …but stealing is stealing. I hope you’ll learn that. Nothing has been stolen. -Andrea
Response:
Information will never be the property of those who try to limit it’s distribution,nor is information morally biased.
Absurd. Information is the property of the individual who holds a copyright on it. Morally biased information is morally biased. Information is information, whether it is music, art,literature,news or communication.
Absurd. A song is not like a painting. A good song is not like a bad song. A newspaper is not like a novel. Information lives on it’s own popularity.
Information does not live. Textbooks are not often popular but they are filled with valueable material. Much extremely valueable information is not popular at all. Information isn’t a physical commodity like a car or money.The value of theft therfore does not apply.
Of course information can be a physical commodity. You just described a painting as information. It exists in a physical sense. If you steal it or use a copy of it for commercial purposes, you have stolen. Information lives to be communicated.
Information does not live. Learning isn’t stealing.
…but stealing is stealing. I hope you’ll learn that. Dave Heil
Response:
Absurd. Information is the property of the individual who holds a copyright on it. Morally biased information is morally biased
Information is not a property but a utility of words,image,sound that is useful to those who have access to it. Secrets are protected information,as long as they are kept,they hold value in not being distributed. If you keep your words,images, and sounds a secret,then you can control the distribution,but if your intentions are to deliver them to the public for consumption,once they are designed and presented for public consumption,and designed to be attractive and useful for mass public consumption,it is out of your hands. Once it reaches the public arena,you start to lose control of it’s distribution.If you are to profit from the distribution of information to the public, then it is at the discretion and whim of the receiving public. Your information may only appeal to a remote few,or many who decide what value if any the information holds. If the public decides that your information is worth 15 dollars on a compact disk, then that is what they will pay.If they however decide it is free,then they will pay you nothing.If most of the information is presented without fee,then why would your information in comparison have more value? You would need to convince the public that information is property.Which is going to be very difficult because the public perceives that information to be free. I perceive information to be alive.I have yet to put a price on this "life",but I definately want information to live. Absurd. A song is not like a painting. A good song is not like a bad song. A newspaper is not like a novel.
Yet they are all information. Information does not live. Textbooks are not often popular but they are filled with valueable material. Much extremely valueable information is not popular at all.
Most information is lost(dead) or dormant(sleeping).For people to be able to reactivate the information they need access to it or a key to open it up. The Key is a word,or groups of words associated or infused to the information. Of course information can be a physical commodity. You just described a painting as information. It exists in a physical sense. If you steal it or use a copy of it for commercial purposes, you have stolen.
The color, form,balance, composition of a painting is information.The physical canvas, and physical globs of paint slathered to the physical canvas are physical property,that remains intact regardless of how many have access to it’s information. Information does not live.
Yes it does.it lives to be communicated,replicated and dispersed to as many places as possible. …but stealing is stealing. I hope you’ll learn that.
Nothing has been stolen. -Andrea
Response:
Absurd. Information is the property of the individual who holds a copyright on it. Morally biased information is morally biased Information is not a property but a utility of words,image,sound that is useful to those who have access to it.
Information is the property of the individual or company which created it. It need not be useful at all. I use, as an example, one of your posts. Secrets are protected information,as long as they are kept,they hold value in not being distributed.
That’s so much blather from one who advocates stealing the intellectual property of another. If I sing you a song I’ve written, it does not become your song. If you use it commercially to try to sell a recording of me singing it, you have broken what is recognized as law in all civilized nations. If you keep your words,images, and sounds a secret,then you can control the distribution,but if your intentions are to deliver them to the public for consumption,once they are designed and presented for public consumption,and designed to be attractive and useful for mass public consumption,it is out of your hands.
Your statement runs counter to international law. Once it reaches the public arena,you start to lose control of it’s distribution.If you are to profit from the distribution of information to the public, then it is at the discretion and whim of the receiving public.
That idea runs counter to international law. Your information may only appeal to a remote few,or many who decide what value if any the information holds.
That has nothing to do with who controls, by law, that information. If the public decides that your information is worth 15 dollars on a compact disk, then that is what they will pay.If they however decide it is free,then they will pay you nothing.If most of the information is presented without fee,then why would your information in comparison have more value?
If I sign with a record company to release a CD of my music, I’m granting a member of the public to take it home and enjoy it. He or she does not hold a license to copy it for commercial use (selling it) or to copy it and distribute it to others for free. You would need to convince the public that information is property.Which is going to be very difficult because the public perceives that information to be free.
International law and the laws of individual countries say otherwise. What you state as supposed truth contravenes morality and the law. I perceive information to be alive.I have yet to put a price on this "life",but I definately want information to live.
It doesn’t live no matter how badly you’d like that to be so. Absurd. A song is not like a painting. A good song is not like a bad song. A newspaper is not like a novel. Yet they are all information.
All vehicles are vehicles but a bus isn’t a passenger car. If that information belongs to another, it is not yours to do with as you choose. Information does not live. Textbooks are not often popular but they are filled with valueable material. Much extremely valueable information is not popular at all. Most information is lost(dead) or dormant(sleeping).For people to be able to reactivate the information they need access to it or a key to open it up. The Key is a word,or groups of words associated or infused to the information.
It isn’t alive or dead. It isn’t dormant. It is either used often, not used often or not used at all. If it does not belong to you, you may not do with it as you choose. Of course information can be a physical commodity. You just described a painting as information. It exists in a physical sense. If you steal it or use a copy of it for commercial purposes, you have stolen. The color, form,balance, composition of a painting is information.The physical canvas, and physical globs of paint slathered to the physical canvas are physical property,that remains intact regardless of how many have access to it’s information.
That’s funny–I thought I was the one who said that. Information does not live. Yes it does.it lives to be communicated,replicated and dispersed to as many places as possible.
Information does not live. It is inanimate. …but stealing is stealing. I hope you’ll learn that. Nothing has been stolen.
If you have acted upon your theories, it has. Dave Heil
Response:
Look down. Yes, the real world is based on Physical property.Music in the real world is both (unaturally)fixed onto a physical object and is(naturally) information at the same time,it has always been information,just not always fixed onto some physical commodity for sale.
What’s so "unnatural" about fixing music onto CDs, albums etc that isn’t unnatural about ripping those files and posting them on the Internet? Are you proposing a return to the days of sheet music, perhaps? Here it is only information,and information in transit is in constant flux and not" fixed" to any property.Here, it is back into it’s original state. Perhaps the real fear is that people will understand this and cease to want or need a physically fixed peice of infromation,be it on a piece of plastic or paper. Anything that exists as information, once it is out into the public becomes common knowledge,it can’t be quashed,or controlled even by those who created the information in the first place.
The original state of music is far from being an electronic impulse on a magnetic or optical storage medium. Again, your logic appears unfocused. If it didn’t "die" or lose it’s popularity, then we’d have no need for archaeology.The culture of ancient Egypt and other nations of antiquity would be intact to this day.Those things did not decay because of a lack of sophisication,they merely disappeared,because the information about them died.Imagine a culture where the information never dies out or disappears.
Ancient cultures did not die out simply from a lack of information. They did not simply disappear. They were generally wiped out by technologically and militarily superior forces. The idea of some of the crap on the Internet still being there in seven thousand years scares me senseless, I must admit. Imagine a culture where the most powerful communication tool ever devised in the history of the planet takes just two decades at most to become swamped with pornography, pictures of Britney Spears and illegally-copied software and information. That is the reality of the Internet. Yes, but look at who is placing the price.It has never been for the benevolence of the artist,but to profit the manufacturer of fixed information and information distribution.If the artist benefited at all,it was at the discretion of the manufacturer and distribution network.
Yet it is the artist in this case who is suing. Your argument sounds familiar. To quote a famous sage, are you advocating a system that "begins with a C and ends with the fall of the Berlin Wall"? Or are you simply saying that the world will suddenly become more perfect simply because the means of transmitting "information" (stolen music, pictures of child porn, the "I Love You" virus) has improved?
Response:
This would be true if applied to the fact that you will transcode the emotional experience (learning is experiential) of listening to copyrighted material into intellectual information for the pupose of learning how to play it on a musical instrument. That is not illegal. Andrea wrote<< Which is what musicians do,so when someone does this who is not a
musician,does it not count?<< Show me a non-musician who will transcribe a recording, turning it into manuscript or tablature. What would they do with the result? Sell it for profit? That is illegal. Yes, the real world is based on Physical property.Music in the real world
is both (unaturally)fixed onto a physical object and is(naturally) information at the same time,it has always been information,just not always fixed onto some physical commodity for sale.<< Similar to spoken words. They fleetingly exist only in time. When a word such as "Stop" is written on a road sign, it becomes fixed onto a physical object. You can choose to ignore it as you drive your car, but it is illegal to do so. Here it is only information,and information in transit is in constant flux and not" fixed" to any property.Here, it is back into it’s original state. << Where is "here"? I hope you’re talking about live performance, because that’s the only scenario where music is not "fixed". Or are you talking about the Internet? No way. The "information" you speak of has been transcoded and permanently fixed as digital information (bits & bytes). As such, it is copyrighted. Free distribution is illegal. Perhaps the real fear is that people will understand this and cease to
want or need a physically fixed peice of infromation,be it on a piece of plastic or paper.<< By that way of thinking, perhaps we should revert to a time in our early civilization before the written word. Anything that exists as information, once it is out into the public
becomes common knowledge,it can’t be quashed,or controlled even by those who created the information in the first place.<< That statement is simply wrong. Without controls, our (global) society would revert to intellectual anarchy. The controls are in the form of copyrights, trade marks, service marks, patents and other laws covering intellectual property. If it didn’t "die" or lose it’s popularity, then we’d have no need for
archaeology.The culture of ancient Egypt and other nations of antiquity would be intact to this day.Those things did not decay because of a lack of sophisication,they merely disappeared,because the information about them died.Imagine a culture where the information never dies out or disappears. << Bosh! The culture didn’t die — the people merely scattered. Any archaeologist will tell you that there is a wealth of information in a dig. And Egypt is a terrible proof of your claim. The culture of ancient Egypt is described in detail in hieroglyphics (their written language). Sheet music from such dead composers as Mozart, Beethoven and Bach survives. The earliest recordings of music are still quite popular to many. Simply because a song leaves the Top 40 doesn’t mean it goes away forever. A price is indeed placed on the musical works that Napster offers. Yes, but look at who is placing the price.It has never been for the
benevolence of the artist,but to profit the manufacturer of fixed information and information distribution.If the artist benefited at all,it was at the discretion of the manufacturer and distribution network.<< There is nothing at all benevolent about business. You can make idealistic claims all you want but the fact is, music in this form is a business. Everyone from the guy who sweeps the floor in the recording studio to the artist to the manufacturer to the distributor to the mom&pop record store who sells the CD benefits. If you’re upset about Big Corporate Record Company making more than the artist, that’s the way it is. (Although the Internet is slowly but surely chipping away at the iron-fist control that BCRC’s have traditionally held, especially for indies.) If the industry was really for the benefit of the artist, they would never
had to sneak in secretive legislation to steal thier work from them,under " works for hire."<< Be careful here. First of all, the industry does NOT exist to benefit the artist. It exists because of consumer demand, and a business that sprang up to satisfy that demand. Secondly, there are two different issues at stake. A circle-c copyright is owned by the composer. A circle-p copyright is affixed to the permanent recording of the work. The RIAA wants these circle-p’s to be theirs. When an artist records for a major label, that label puts up the money for the artist to record the work. Technically, it then becomes a work for hire. The composer still retains ownership of the song — and they still make a profit on sales of the work-for-hire. The percentage of their profit is negotiated at the time they draft the contract. Regards, Rick Johnston
Response:
Learning isn’t stealing. This would be true if applied to the fact that you will transcode the emotional experience (learning is experiential) of listening to copyrighted material into intellectual information for the pupose of learning how to play it on a musical instrument. That is not illegal.
Which is what musicians do,so when someone does this who is not a musician,does it not count? Unfortunately the real world works a bit differently.
Yes, the real world is based on Physical property.Music in the real world is both (unaturally)fixed onto a physical object and is(naturally) information at the same time,it has always been information,just not always fixed onto some physical commodity for sale. Here it is only information,and information in transit is in constant flux and not" fixed" to any property.Here, it is back into it’s original state. Perhaps the real fear is that people will understand this and cease to want or need a physically fixed peice of infromation,be it on a piece of plastic or paper. Intellectual property is protected by copyright laws. These laws make it illegal to duplicate and distribute musical works unless you have the permission of the owners of the intellectual property.
Anything that exists as information, once it is out into the public becomes common knowledge,it can’t be quashed,or controlled even by those who created the information in the first place. Information lives on it’s own popularity.
If it didn’t "die" or lose it’s popularity, then we’d have no need for archaeology.The culture of ancient Egypt and other nations of antiquity would be intact to this day.Those things did not decay because of a lack of sophisication,they merely disappeared,because the information about them died.Imagine a culture where the information never dies out or disappears. Yes it does (in the real workd). A price is indeed placed on the musical works that Napster offers.
Yes, but look at who is placing the price.It has never been for the benevolence of the artist,but to profit the manufacturer of fixed information and information distribution.If the artist benefited at all,it was at the discretion of the manufacturer and distribution network. If the industry was really for the benefit of the artist, they would never had to sneak in secretive legislation to steal thier work from them,under " works for hire." -Andrea
Response:
i have absolutely no guilt downloading MP3’s from millionnaire musicians.. and not paying a dime to goddamn multimillion record companies..metallica can kiss my ass.. these guys probaly make 20 times what i make a year..i’d like to see their bank accounts…
Then if it’s true that you make 1/20 of what Metallica makes in a year then you shouldn’t have any trouble at all buying every single CD that has a song you like on it… Drew "I wish I could fly from this building, from this wall. If I should try, would you catch me if I fall?" ~BNL "There is a place for me, far far away…With the perfect life, where you never die. You just press rewind."~Jump, Little Children
Response:
I’m guessing you wouldnt mind stealing from your corporate employer, government, or just the guy down the block that makes a good living? Theft is theft. You take what isn’t rightfully yours and you’re doing wrong. It doesnt matter how rich that person/company is. Nice attitude. Peace Out
Response:
I fail to see how the amount of money the person you are stealing from has anything to do with it being right or wrong. Is there a limit? I’d like to know, cuz maybe then I’ll go steal a car from Jay Leno since he’s rich it must be ok. i have absolutely no guilt downloading MP3’s from millionnaire musicians.. and not paying a dime to goddamn multimillion record companies..metallica can kiss my ass.. these guys probaly make 20 times what i make a year..i’d like to see their bank accounts… sorry about the constructive rant.. sergio — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..
Before you buy.
Response:
Information will never be the property of those who try to limit it’s distribution,nor is information morally biased. Information is information, whether it is music, art,literature,news or communication. Information lives on it’s own popularity. Information isn’t a physical commodity like a car or money.The value of theft therfore does not apply. Information lives to be communicated. Learning isn’t stealing. Andrea
Response:
How do you think they got the money!!!??? People bought their CD`S which took YEARS OF HARD WORK… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry but you sound like a big loser! RAT i have absolutely no guilt downloading MP3’s from millionnaire musicians.. and not paying a dime to goddamn multimillion record companies..metallica can kiss my ass.. these guys probaly make 20 times what i make a year..i’d like to see their bank accounts… sorry about the constructive rant.. sergio — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..
Response:
"Lutegirl" wrote Information will never be the property of those who try to limit it’s distribution,nor is information morally biased. Information is information, whether it is music, art,literature,news or communication.
Your definitions work in an abstract sense. Unfortunately the real world works a bit differently. Musical information in this case is intellectual property. Intellectual property is protected by copyright laws. These laws make it illegal to duplicate and distribute musical works unless you have the permission of the owners of the intellectual property. Information lives on it’s own popularity. Information isn’t a physical commodity like a car or money.The value of theft therfore does not apply.
Yes it does (in the real workd). A price is indeed placed on the musical works that Napster offers. US$16.95 for a collection of songs on a CD is a good example. Information lives to be communicated. Learning isn’t stealing.
This would be true if applied to the fact that you will transcode the emotional experience (learning is experiential) of listening to copyrighted material into intellectual information for the pupose of learning how to play it on a musical instrument. That is not illegal. Regards, Rick Johnston
Response:
So equally, you would have no guilt about walking into a record store and filling your pockets with CDs that you wanted, before walking back out of the shop. Or are you one of these people who makes a distinction between the theft of a $15 CD and the theft of the music on it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i have absolutely no guilt downloading MP3’s from millionnaire musicians.. and not paying a dime to goddamn multimillion record companies..metallica can kiss my ass.. these guys probaly make 20 times what i make a year..i’d like to see their bank accounts… sorry about the constructive rant.. sergio — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..
Response:
Wow, the old information wants to be free spiel, eh? Is that you Richard Stallman? This would all be well and good, except that music isn’t information. Let’s not get carried away with our 20th century buzzwords. Now, how to play a piece of music, that is information. But music itself is the creative expression of ideas and emotions through a given medium. The key word there is created, it is an act of creation by a particular person, much like designing a car is creation. A musician may not produce a physical product, but that does not entitle you to have it. As his/her creation, you have no right to use the product of their labor without their consent. New topic, how can anyone own a tree! Information will never be the property of those who try to limit it’s distribution,nor is information morally biased. Information is information, whether it is music, art,literature,news or communication. Information lives on it’s own popularity. Information isn’t a physical commodity like a car or money.The value of theft therfore does not apply. Information lives to be communicated. Learning isn’t stealing. Andrea
Before you buy.
Response:
i have absolutely no guilt downloading MP3’s from millionnaire musicians.. and not paying a dime to goddamn multimillion record companies..metallica can kiss my ass.. these guys probaly make 20 times what i make a year..i’d like to see their bank accounts… sorry about the constructive rant.. sergio — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..
Response:
Sorry but you sound like a big loser! RAT i have absolutely no guilt downloading MP3’s from millionnaire
musicians.. and not paying a dime to goddamn multimillion record companies..metallica can kiss my ass.. these guys probaly make 20 times what i make a year..i’d like to see
their bank accounts… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – sorry about the constructive rant.. sergio — Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..
Response:
Filed under: Lobbying
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.