Tell Me :
Talk
you need to work on your analogies, skippy. and maybe thumb thru a dictionary sometime. it can be a very enlightening and relaxing experience.
But then this wouldn't be even nearly half the fun. That's fine. I can spot jealousy miles away. You know the bank idea is the best ever analogy. You can't handle the analogous truth!
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
It's illegal but that will change soon of course. I think it's pointless to call downloading stealing because you havent stolen anything, the song is still there, nobody stole it. It's not an item you can steal. And one other thing, think about how people used to get ripped off in the good old times when it came to credits for writing music, producing, playing on a song etc.
Come on, these are cheap arguments that intentionally avoid the true subject of the discussion.
First, because they are based on the assumption that copyright laws, as they are, are the ONLY solution, that there is no other option if you want to save the artist. And the reference to the two friends that shot themselves to support this assumption is very simply bad taste.
Second because they show that the author knows nothing about the so called free culture movement, or, worse, is willingfully misrepresenting their positions. Read this:
[www.free-culture.cc]
its a litte out dated, but still a good read. Once you did, you will see that the free culture movement does not say what Mr Lowery's represents in his letter.
Quite stupid arguments as well. Sure buying a song from the internet is easy as your A B C, provided you have a credit card. How many teenagers have a credit card?
As noted above, free culture is a good thing. One may argue that also to be able to walk on the moon is a good thing, but this is no good reason to allow everybody a free tiket on the next expediton.
Well, the point is that today there are ways to make free culture affordable - both for the people and the atists.
This is the true argument that should be discussed.
To be honest, there is one thing that Mr Lowery says that is true: considering the costs of hardware and connection digital music costs a lot (free or not). To the point that it is cheaper to buy a CD (well, the oldies, at least) rather than the inferior quality mp3 from the internet.
C
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 20:56 by liddas.
In France, the law does not allow this. And AFAIK, it's similar in most countries. There is a tolerance for such copies, for private use, within the family. As I explained on the previous page, a tax on media covers this tolerance for the artists.
You do own the records - but not the songs on it. In France, because you pay a tax on CDs and cassettes, you can burn the CD for yourself or members of your family. However, by the law, you are not supposed to even give it to a friend, although nobody was ever prosecuted for this.
The french SACEM (who protects copyright owners) is very active however in making sure that you pay a fee when playing records in public - even at weddings or birthday parties. A designer who played his own songs at a fashion show was even fined for not paying the SACEM fees!
France SACEM <=> GEMA in Germany
liddas, you are obviously not trying to make a living in the music industry. This is the artists best stand and until I see the value put on the efforts of artists that allows them to create for us all, your arguments and discussions of free culture (ie free media) hold little weight.
I'm not sure what you do for a living but imagine that overnight because of some geek engineer's technological advancement, your wages or income were vanished, and your goods or services were being stolen and given away for free.
Law is law, there for a hopefully well debated reason and Copyright law, althought somewhat outdated, is still what has made Keith and Mick what they are today, whatever that is. I am a fan and willing to pay for what I believe in. Taking it for free in the name of free culture just doesn't sit right with me. peace
I can understand your point of view. But you cannot at the same time praise technology when it suits you, and discard it when it doesn't. Over the centuries, technology was really important for music.
The digital revolution didn't happen overnight - there was an initial reaction from the music business that "oh, mp3 is such a crap format, and it takes for ages to download - nobody will prefer it to CDs". They completely ignored Moore's law that computing power, bandwidth evolution and bigger digital storage would over a few years make it possible to download full albums in HD in just a few minutes.
Plus they didn't realize that, just as not everybody eats organic or gourmet food, MP3 was good enough for most people who listen to music while cooking, jogging, driving to work or working on their computer. It may be a shame, but it seems to suit most people.
that's mighty, mighty....now you're just lettin' it all hang out....
Do not do not do not do not make me blow yer house down!
Absolutely true gwen, a double edged sword in a way when you consider the ease this creates in pirating music content.
It's all pretty simple really once you understand the law and the your choices in the matter. Kind of like the coffee shops which are serve yourself and ask you to put your payment into a jar by honor. Some people will always drop a couple pennies into the jar and take their two full cups, some people will include a tip with the right amount they are supposed to pay for the coffee.
Just because you can do it, get away with it and your friends are doing it seems to be the usual answer but it doesn't make it right and puts the responsibility for the choice on the individual. It takes maturity and a sense of ethics to do the right thing. The world can be a real cesspool. peace
where can i download these items for free?
Are you really talking about sharing a song? No one would blame you when you'll listen to a bought copy of a song (and only that's what you have gotten in the shop, the original songs belongs still to his owner) together with a friend at home.
But if you'll give your friend a selfmade (digital) copy from that song, so he/she can listen to it with his/her friends otherwise, and you still use the song for your own, you'll have problems with the lawyer ...
There is no problem to sell used songs. But to sell or give away some copys from your copy you still own will be against the law, because you down't own the right to copy them: the copyright.
Right?
You sir, are a thief.
But if I dont give or sell a copy of the song, just have it on my computer and let others have access to my computer, share my computer and whats on it it's not stealing. I see the copyright problem but I think it's just something that will change because the technology is here and will just get better.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: July 18, 2012 18:27
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
StonesTod
as lorenz correctly stated, stealing is when i take something that's not mine away from someone. now i have it and "someone" doesn't. call it anything else you like, but filesharing ain't stealing by most people's definition.
So illegally downloading is not stealing, it's a suspended form of borrowing. Shouldn't the artist make some money for the work though? Studios aren't cheap.
So...if I rob a bank, it's not stealing because...the people willingly put "their" money in the bank.
Right!?
you need to work on your analogies, skippy. and maybe thumb thru a dictionary sometime. it can be a very enlightening and relaxing experience.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 18, 2012 18:30
Quote
StonesTodQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
StonesTod
as lorenz correctly stated, stealing is when i take something that's not mine away from someone. now i have it and "someone" doesn't. call it anything else you like, but filesharing ain't stealing by most people's definition.
So illegally downloading is not stealing, it's a suspended form of borrowing. Shouldn't the artist make some money for the work though? Studios aren't cheap.
So...if I rob a bank, it's not stealing because...the people willingly put "their" money in the bank.
Right!?
you need to work on your analogies, skippy. and maybe thumb thru a dictionary sometime. it can be a very enlightening and relaxing experience.
But then this wouldn't be even nearly half the fun. That's fine. I can spot jealousy miles away. You know the bank idea is the best ever analogy. You can't handle the analogous truth!
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: July 18, 2012 18:34
the bank analogy is the worst! the worst, jerry! it would work better if somehow the robber was sharing the money with the depositers...or even better if he was making good copies of it for himself.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: July 18, 2012 18:36
LOL....Quote
StonesTod
the bank analogy is the worst! the worst, jerry! it would work better if somehow the robber was sharing the money with the depositers...or even better if he was making good copies of it for himself.
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 18, 2012 18:54
Are you telling me that a bank is not like a cloud with a expensive silver lining?
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: July 18, 2012 19:46
Could someone make 1 (one) example of an artist starving as a consequence of digital "piracy"?
I know artists that starve because they don't have a hit record or can't get out of the local bar scene. When artists start to have problems with illegal downloading, usually they already "made it".
Those who download "pirate" copies of "top ten" songs (the great majority of the "problem") are not record buyers. If internet didn't exist they would just listen to the radio. Now the ipod killed the radio. That's all.
Then again, as noted above, this means nothing.
The real debate is not if digiatl "piracy" is killing art, because this is not true, but if the actual copyright laws are "intelligent" and effective laws.
I don't think they are.
According to a statistic that I read, the benefits in terms of revenues obtained by the majors in their war against digital pirates, does not even balance the legal costs incurred to support said war!
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 19:47 by liddas.
I know artists that starve because they don't have a hit record or can't get out of the local bar scene. When artists start to have problems with illegal downloading, usually they already "made it".
Those who download "pirate" copies of "top ten" songs (the great majority of the "problem") are not record buyers. If internet didn't exist they would just listen to the radio. Now the ipod killed the radio. That's all.
Then again, as noted above, this means nothing.
The real debate is not if digiatl "piracy" is killing art, because this is not true, but if the actual copyright laws are "intelligent" and effective laws.
I don't think they are.
According to a statistic that I read, the benefits in terms of revenues obtained by the majors in their war against digital pirates, does not even balance the legal costs incurred to support said war!
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 19:47 by liddas.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 18, 2012 19:59
This pretty much sums it up for me. From The Trichordist - Artists for an Ethical Internet. A provacative read in any case. peace
[thetrichordist.wordpress.com]
[thetrichordist.wordpress.com]
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: July 18, 2012 20:32
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
StonesTod
as lorenz correctly stated, stealing is when i take something that's not mine away from someone. now i have it and "someone" doesn't. call it anything else you like, but filesharing ain't stealing by most people's definition.
So illegally downloading is not stealing, it's a suspended form of borrowing. Shouldn't the artist make some money for the work though? Studios aren't cheap.
So...if I rob a bank, it's not stealing because...the people willingly put "their" money in the bank.
Right!?
It's illegal but that will change soon of course. I think it's pointless to call downloading stealing because you havent stolen anything, the song is still there, nobody stole it. It's not an item you can steal. And one other thing, think about how people used to get ripped off in the good old times when it came to credits for writing music, producing, playing on a song etc.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: July 18, 2012 20:54
Quote
Naturalust
This pretty much sums it up for me. From The Trichordist - Artists for an Ethical Internet. A provacative read in any case. peace
[thetrichordist.wordpress.com]
Come on, these are cheap arguments that intentionally avoid the true subject of the discussion.
First, because they are based on the assumption that copyright laws, as they are, are the ONLY solution, that there is no other option if you want to save the artist. And the reference to the two friends that shot themselves to support this assumption is very simply bad taste.
Second because they show that the author knows nothing about the so called free culture movement, or, worse, is willingfully misrepresenting their positions. Read this:
[www.free-culture.cc]
its a litte out dated, but still a good read. Once you did, you will see that the free culture movement does not say what Mr Lowery's represents in his letter.
Quite stupid arguments as well. Sure buying a song from the internet is easy as your A B C, provided you have a credit card. How many teenagers have a credit card?
As noted above, free culture is a good thing. One may argue that also to be able to walk on the moon is a good thing, but this is no good reason to allow everybody a free tiket on the next expediton.
Well, the point is that today there are ways to make free culture affordable - both for the people and the atists.
This is the true argument that should be discussed.
To be honest, there is one thing that Mr Lowery says that is true: considering the costs of hardware and connection digital music costs a lot (free or not). To the point that it is cheaper to buy a CD (well, the oldies, at least) rather than the inferior quality mp3 from the internet.
C
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 20:56 by liddas.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
gwen
()
Date: July 18, 2012 21:21
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I make a CD of the Stones. From the albums I own. It doesn't matter if I play it at home, in my truck or give it to a friend.
Right?
Right. I own the records. It's a copy. No different than making a tape back in the day.
In France, the law does not allow this. And AFAIK, it's similar in most countries. There is a tolerance for such copies, for private use, within the family. As I explained on the previous page, a tax on media covers this tolerance for the artists.
You do own the records - but not the songs on it. In France, because you pay a tax on CDs and cassettes, you can burn the CD for yourself or members of your family. However, by the law, you are not supposed to even give it to a friend, although nobody was ever prosecuted for this.
The french SACEM (who protects copyright owners) is very active however in making sure that you pay a fee when playing records in public - even at weddings or birthday parties. A designer who played his own songs at a fashion show was even fined for not paying the SACEM fees!
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: July 18, 2012 21:38
france rocks. and i think we need to make skippy any honorarian parisian or something.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
HighwireC
()
Date: July 18, 2012 22:05
Quote
gwenQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I make a CD of the Stones. From the albums I own. It doesn't matter if I play it at home, in my truck or give it to a friend.
Right?
Right. I own the records. It's a copy. No different than making a tape back in the day.
In France, the law does not allow this. And AFAIK, it's similar in most countries. There is a tolerance for such copies, for private use, within the family. As I explained on the previous page, a tax on media covers this tolerance for the artists.
You do own the records - but not the songs on it. In France, because you pay a tax on CDs and cassettes, you can burn the CD for yourself or members of your family. However, by the law, you are not supposed to even give it to a friend, although nobody was ever prosecuted for this.
The french SACEM (who protects copyright owners) is very active however in making sure that you pay a fee when playing records in public - even at weddings or birthday parties. A designer who played his own songs at a fashion show was even fined for not paying the SACEM fees!
France SACEM <=> GEMA in Germany
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 18, 2012 22:18
Quote
liddasQuote
Naturalust
This pretty much sums it up for me. From The Trichordist - Artists for an Ethical Internet. A provacative read in any case. peace
[thetrichordist.wordpress.com]
Come on, these are cheap arguments that intentionally avoid the true subject of the discussion.
First, because they are based on the assumption that copyright laws, as they are, are the ONLY solution, that there is no other option if you want to save the artist. And the reference to the two friends that shot themselves to support this assumption is very simply bad taste.
Second because they show that the author knows nothing about the so called free culture movement, or, worse, is willingfully misrepresenting their positions. Read this:
[www.free-culture.cc]
its a litte out dated, but still a good read. Once you did, you will see that the free culture movement does not say what Mr Lowery's represents in his letter.
Quite stupid arguments as well. Sure buying a song from the internet is easy as your A B C, provided you have a credit card. How many teenagers have a credit card?
As noted above, free culture is a good thing. One may argue that also to be able to walk on the moon is a good thing, but this is no good reason to allow everybody a free tiket on the next expediton.
Well, the point is that today there are ways to make free culture affordable - both for the people and the atists.
This is the true argument that should be discussed.
To be honest, there is one thing that Mr Lowery says that is true: considering the costs of hardware and connection digital music costs a lot (free or not). To the point that it is cheaper to buy a CD (well, the oldies, at least) rather than the inferior quality mp3 from the internet.
C
liddas, you are obviously not trying to make a living in the music industry. This is the artists best stand and until I see the value put on the efforts of artists that allows them to create for us all, your arguments and discussions of free culture (ie free media) hold little weight.
I'm not sure what you do for a living but imagine that overnight because of some geek engineer's technological advancement, your wages or income were vanished, and your goods or services were being stolen and given away for free.
Law is law, there for a hopefully well debated reason and Copyright law, althought somewhat outdated, is still what has made Keith and Mick what they are today, whatever that is. I am a fan and willing to pay for what I believe in. Taking it for free in the name of free culture just doesn't sit right with me. peace
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
gwen
()
Date: July 18, 2012 22:34
Quote
Naturalust
I'm not sure what you do for a living but imagine that overnight because of some geek engineer's technological advancement, your wages or income were vanished, and your goods or services were being stolen and given away for free.
I can understand your point of view. But you cannot at the same time praise technology when it suits you, and discard it when it doesn't. Over the centuries, technology was really important for music.
The digital revolution didn't happen overnight - there was an initial reaction from the music business that "oh, mp3 is such a crap format, and it takes for ages to download - nobody will prefer it to CDs". They completely ignored Moore's law that computing power, bandwidth evolution and bigger digital storage would over a few years make it possible to download full albums in HD in just a few minutes.
Plus they didn't realize that, just as not everybody eats organic or gourmet food, MP3 was good enough for most people who listen to music while cooking, jogging, driving to work or working on their computer. It may be a shame, but it seems to suit most people.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 18, 2012 23:38
Can't discard technology when it doesn't suit you? That seems a bit narrow from my point of view, of course we can! Plenty of technologies I choose to discard even though there is an aspect of meeting on of my needs there. For instance, chemical warfare has been around for ages but most countries choose not to get involved with it. Good choice, imho.
Technology like that sold to America by the big Pharmeceutical companies and would probaly make me feel real good for a while I also choose to discard. We do have a choice in all these new ways technology is affecting our lives. Unfortunately it seems most important decisions are made by judges in obscure court cases which have very little to do with my slice of life.
The case is clear for me as far as artists rights go, behind every illegal download is a company or entity making the choice to make it available. peace
Technology like that sold to America by the big Pharmeceutical companies and would probaly make me feel real good for a while I also choose to discard. We do have a choice in all these new ways technology is affecting our lives. Unfortunately it seems most important decisions are made by judges in obscure court cases which have very little to do with my slice of life.
The case is clear for me as far as artists rights go, behind every illegal download is a company or entity making the choice to make it available. peace
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
gwen
()
Date: July 18, 2012 23:44
What I meant - many musicians go digital because it makes their life easier. So convenient for non destructuve editing, unlimited overdubs, full total recall mixing, easy transport to other studios worlwide, even your hotel room... It's the same technology that makes it possible to make unlimited exact copies of a music file.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:15
If I make a record, regardless of the cost, and people illegally download the songs (why I'm going to avoid right now, it's just 'out there'), I can not pay for the recording process etc that has been fronted. Or I'm left in a hole regardless.
Making money from live shows is not meant for covering the cost of recording. That should not be the essence of why one makes records.
That's the part I don't like/can't understand, how that equates to not stealing. I spend $10,000 making a album and no one pays to have their own copy of it, they just get it for free because it's "sharing"?
How is that OK? How does that equate to the financial part of the aristic integrity? That's the issue, to me anyway. Record label, big or small, loses, the artist loses, everyone BUT the downloader loses.
How does that equate to making more recordings? If one goes broke everytime they make a record - and of course, this is going strictly with illegal downloading/sharing being the only course of distribution - why bother?
That's the part I don't understand. That's why I see it as stealing. It doesn't matter if it's The Rolling Stones, with their oodles of millions, or some "up and coming" band that's spent x amount for recording (ie regardless of how cheap it was). There has to be a way to make it worth while and that costs money. People have no problem shelling out stupid money for Bon Jovi, Bryuce Springsteen, U2, ZZ Top, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, Def Leppard, The Rolling Stones, Madonna, Wilco, Metallica, Areosmith or Beck and on and on but they won't spend such a small amount of a record?
That's what boggles my mind. I build you a brick house with bricks you found, you still have to pay me to provide the wood and the labour.
Making money from live shows is not meant for covering the cost of recording. That should not be the essence of why one makes records.
That's the part I don't like/can't understand, how that equates to not stealing. I spend $10,000 making a album and no one pays to have their own copy of it, they just get it for free because it's "sharing"?
How is that OK? How does that equate to the financial part of the aristic integrity? That's the issue, to me anyway. Record label, big or small, loses, the artist loses, everyone BUT the downloader loses.
How does that equate to making more recordings? If one goes broke everytime they make a record - and of course, this is going strictly with illegal downloading/sharing being the only course of distribution - why bother?
That's the part I don't understand. That's why I see it as stealing. It doesn't matter if it's The Rolling Stones, with their oodles of millions, or some "up and coming" band that's spent x amount for recording (ie regardless of how cheap it was). There has to be a way to make it worth while and that costs money. People have no problem shelling out stupid money for Bon Jovi, Bryuce Springsteen, U2, ZZ Top, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, Def Leppard, The Rolling Stones, Madonna, Wilco, Metallica, Areosmith or Beck and on and on but they won't spend such a small amount of a record?
That's what boggles my mind. I build you a brick house with bricks you found, you still have to pay me to provide the wood and the labour.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:26
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I build you a brick house with bricks you found, you still have to pay me to provide the wood and the labour.
that's mighty, mighty....now you're just lettin' it all hang out....
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:33
Quote
StonesTodQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I build you a brick house with bricks you found, you still have to pay me to provide the wood and the labour.
that's mighty, mighty....now you're just lettin' it all hang out....
Do not do not do not do not make me blow yer house down!
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
loog droog
()
Date: July 19, 2012 05:11
As far as "sharing" goes...
There's someone on the board who regularly posts the pages of Stones-related articles from the latest issues of various magazines.
Other than that, he brings nothing to the table. But people seem to enjoy the fact that he does this and spares them the cost/effort of getting these mags for themselves.
If these articles were a couple of years old, I wouldn't see the harm. But to post new product that is currently available at newsstands for sale cuts into those sales. Eventually, it's death by a thousand cuts for the publishing business.
In the future, people here will lament that nobody ever publishes cool magazines about the Stones anymore. Why would anyone bother to do so? There's no money in it.
We're all making sure of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-19 05:11 by loog droog.
There's someone on the board who regularly posts the pages of Stones-related articles from the latest issues of various magazines.
Other than that, he brings nothing to the table. But people seem to enjoy the fact that he does this and spares them the cost/effort of getting these mags for themselves.
If these articles were a couple of years old, I wouldn't see the harm. But to post new product that is currently available at newsstands for sale cuts into those sales. Eventually, it's death by a thousand cuts for the publishing business.
In the future, people here will lament that nobody ever publishes cool magazines about the Stones anymore. Why would anyone bother to do so? There's no money in it.
We're all making sure of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-19 05:11 by loog droog.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 19, 2012 06:53
Quote
gwen
What I meant - many musicians go digital because it makes their life easier. So convenient for non destructuve editing, unlimited overdubs, full total recall mixing, easy transport to other studios worlwide, even your hotel room... It's the same technology that makes it possible to make unlimited exact copies of a music file.
Absolutely true gwen, a double edged sword in a way when you consider the ease this creates in pirating music content.
It's all pretty simple really once you understand the law and the your choices in the matter. Kind of like the coffee shops which are serve yourself and ask you to put your payment into a jar by honor. Some people will always drop a couple pennies into the jar and take their two full cups, some people will include a tip with the right amount they are supposed to pay for the coffee.
Just because you can do it, get away with it and your friends are doing it seems to be the usual answer but it doesn't make it right and puts the responsibility for the choice on the individual. It takes maturity and a sense of ethics to do the right thing. The world can be a real cesspool. peace
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: July 19, 2012 14:02
Yes but the coffee is sold, the jar has to be refilled. If I share a song with you the song is still there. There is a possible lack of profit, the possibility that you would have bought a copy of the song.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: July 19, 2012 14:13
talk about downloading...what about these folks who have Coffee Enemas...like where do they pay
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: July 19, 2012 14:26
Quote
Naturalust
It takes maturity and a sense of ethics to do the right thing. peace
where can i download these items for free?
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
HighwireC
()
Date: July 19, 2012 14:31
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Yes but the coffee is sold, the jar has to be refilled. If I share a song with you the song is still there. There is a possible lack of profit, the possibility that you would have bought a copy of the song.
Are you really talking about sharing a song? No one would blame you when you'll listen to a bought copy of a song (and only that's what you have gotten in the shop, the original songs belongs still to his owner) together with a friend at home.
But if you'll give your friend a selfmade (digital) copy from that song, so he/she can listen to it with his/her friends otherwise, and you still use the song for your own, you'll have problems with the lawyer ...
There is no problem to sell used songs. But to sell or give away some copys from your copy you still own will be against the law, because you down't own the right to copy them: the copyright.
Right?
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
andrea66
()
Date: July 19, 2012 15:48
i usually download, official stuff and bootlegs, from different sites.
I also buy a lot, If I had more money i 'd buy more, but I cannot.
until downloading will be tolerated i will do it. doing like that i knew many new bands , and sometimes ,after that, I bought their cd or I went to see them live.
if i was richer i would respect more the downloading rules .
i would also buy more organic and natural food , oil (maybe the one who Sting
uses, 30 euros per bottle), i would do many other things that I cannot do now.
I also buy a lot, If I had more money i 'd buy more, but I cannot.
until downloading will be tolerated i will do it. doing like that i knew many new bands , and sometimes ,after that, I bought their cd or I went to see them live.
if i was richer i would respect more the downloading rules .
i would also buy more organic and natural food , oil (maybe the one who Sting
uses, 30 euros per bottle), i would do many other things that I cannot do now.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 19, 2012 17:19
The NME thread is interesting. I probably couldn't find that copy of NME if I wanted to. So because someone copied it and put it on here I can see it. I'd buy it if I could but I can't so I won't.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 19, 2012 17:29
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
The NME thread is interesting. I probably couldn't find that copy of NME if I wanted to. So because someone copied it and put it on here I can see it. I'd buy it if I could but I can't so I won't.
You sir, are a thief.
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: July 19, 2012 17:32
I see no reason to buy NME, unless you're an Arctic Monkeys fan
Re: OT: Opinions about sharing/downloading
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: July 19, 2012 17:52
Quote
HighwireCQuote
Redhotcarpet
Yes but the coffee is sold, the jar has to be refilled. If I share a song with you the song is still there. There is a possible lack of profit, the possibility that you would have bought a copy of the song.
Are you really talking about sharing a song? No one would blame you when you'll listen to a bought copy of a song (and only that's what you have gotten in the shop, the original songs belongs still to his owner) together with a friend at home.
But if you'll give your friend a selfmade (digital) copy from that song, so he/she can listen to it with his/her friends otherwise, and you still use the song for your own, you'll have problems with the lawyer ...
There is no problem to sell used songs. But to sell or give away some copys from your copy you still own will be against the law, because you down't own the right to copy them: the copyright.
Right?
But if I dont give or sell a copy of the song, just have it on my computer and let others have access to my computer, share my computer and whats on it it's not stealing. I see the copyright problem but I think it's just something that will change because the technology is here and will just get better.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
agu82 , big4 , bitusa2012 , BlueLands , cyclist , Domonkos , EJM , falo01 , Green Lady , IsakSun , JDSAM1994 , jiggysawdust , JordyLicks96 , JumpingKentFlash , LovingCupola , maidenlane , MichaelLassen , midimannz , MingSubu , mosthigh , Mr Jimmy , P@py , pjb , portlandphil , rcfoxy , rogerriffin , rtr , Slop , snoopy2 , soundboard , spunky , steenhorst , stone3009 , TW2019 , waterrats , wineaux
Guests:
2369
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10