|
Grex > Music3 > #178: The Eighteenth "Napster" Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 72 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 15 of 72:
| 
Apr 13 19:31 UTC 2004 |
Right, the WIPO is NOT the world court. The post previous to *my* last
confused me.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 16 of 72:
|
Apr 23 21:54 UTC 2004 |
Has anyone tracked CD + DVD purchases? or total media buying
dollars. Propably not, as it has, I can guess, gone up dramaticly.
It's just the music part that is in decline.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 17 of 72:
|
Apr 23 23:45 UTC 2004 |
DVD purchases of just the hottest titles have been more than all CDs.
That's not surprising, when you consider that you can buy an entire
movie on DVD for less money than the cost of the soundtrack on CD.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 72:
|
Apr 23 23:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 19 of 72:
|
Apr 24 00:28 UTC 2004 |
Or at least overpriced.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 20 of 72:
|
Apr 26 20:45 UTC 2004 |
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20040425.html
|
krj
|
|
response 21 of 72:
|
Apr 29 21:05 UTC 2004 |
About three or four years ago, in discussing the lack of moral
authority behind the concept of intellectual property, I wrote:
"The Lord did not say, 'Thou shalt not copy thy neighbor's
scrolls.'"
(note to Certain Readers of Agora: it's a METAPHOR)
Skip ahead to 2004: From an article in a Christian news service:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/202004a.asp
"Poll finds music piracy rampant among believing teens"
"A new survey done by Christian pollster George Barna for the
Gospel Music Association finds a disturbing trend among Christian
teens. Not only are teen believers stealing Christian music through
Internet downloads and CD burnings, but they are doing it at the
same rate that non-Christians are pirating secular music."
...
"The Barna survey found that only one in ten Christian teens surveyed
consider music piracy to be morally wrong, and 64 percent of them say
they have participated in some form of music piracy."
The NYTimes has a variant of the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/weekinreview/25lela.html
"Praise God and Pass the Music Files"
|
twenex
|
|
response 22 of 72:
|
Apr 29 21:17 UTC 2004 |
Not only are teen believers stealing Christian music through
Internet downloads and CD burnings, but they are doing it at the
same rate that non-Christians are pirating secular music."
Er, yah.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 23 of 72:
|
Apr 29 21:29 UTC 2004 |
Sidebar: what's up, twenex? Some folks like music, but not secular music.
|
twenex
|
|
response 24 of 72:
|
Apr 29 22:13 UTC 2004 |
They do. What I'm saying is, the only people capable of being surprised that
Christians are downloading Christian music at roughly the same rates as
"seculars" are those who believe that Christians are better than seculars.
I'm willing to bet /that/ section of Christianity probably thinks that about
Muslims, Jews, Insert-You-Favourite-=Religion-Here aand probably any
other sect/branch of Christianity they don't happen to belong too, also.
|
drew
|
|
response 25 of 72:
|
Apr 29 23:21 UTC 2004 |
> "The Lord did not say, 'Thou shalt not copy thy neighbor's scrolls'"
Of course He did. It was on the tablet that Mel Brooks dropped.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 72:
|
Apr 30 00:53 UTC 2004 |
(Christians aren't "better" than 'seculars', but they do sometimes try to live
up to their ideals.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 27 of 72:
|
Apr 30 00:55 UTC 2004 |
Hmm, and "seculars" don't?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 28 of 72:
|
Apr 30 02:11 UTC 2004 |
Different ideals.
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 72:
|
Apr 30 07:12 UTC 2004 |
Hmm.
|
twenex
|
|
response 30 of 72:
|
Apr 30 07:23 UTC 2004 |
Well, I don't necessarily agree. Of course, I don't believe in God, but many
of the things that the Bible proposes, "Love thy neighbour", "Thou shalt not
kill," etc., still make sense to me. If believing in God constitutes an
"ideal", then you're right. Otherwise I think you may be stretching that a
bit too far.
It's also true, of course, that it's by no means certain that all atheists
and agnostics believe in downloading, whilst not everyone who believes in God
is whiter than white.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 72:
|
Apr 30 13:52 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:28: "You shouldn't steal other people's stuff" isn't exactly an
exclusively Christian ideal, though.
|
other
|
|
response 32 of 72:
|
Apr 30 20:13 UTC 2004 |
Copyright violation is not theft.
|
twenex
|
|
response 33 of 72:
|
Apr 30 20:15 UTC 2004 |
Apparently, some would disagree. There's an anti-piracy organization over here
called the Federation Against Copyright Theft.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 34 of 72:
|
May 1 03:31 UTC 2004 |
Oh, that's why the conversation took off.
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 72:
|
May 3 16:59 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:32: It may not be theft in the narrow sense of the word, but it
*is* denying someone compensation for their labor.
|
twenex
|
|
response 36 of 72:
|
May 3 17:01 UTC 2004 |
Ah, so it's "being in charge of the Finance Department", then ;-)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 37 of 72:
|
May 3 18:25 UTC 2004 |
re #35: if I don't buy their product am I also "denying someone
compensation for their labor"? Pretty clearly few people would
argue that I am.
Let's imagine two scenarios, then:
In scenario A I do not buy their product and do not
infringe upon their copyright to obtain a copy unlawfully.
In scenario B I do not buy their product, but I DO
infringe upon their copyright and obtain a copy unlawfully.
The artist has the same tangible possessions and the same amount
of money in both cases, but by your definition one of these cases
is theft and the other is not. What, exactly, have I stolen?
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 72:
|
May 3 20:37 UTC 2004 |
Ah, yes, the "but I wouldn't have bought a copy anyway!" defense. The
difference in the two scenarios is that in A, you're not getting
anything. In B, you're getting something for nothing, something that
cost money to create and produce.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 39 of 72:
|
May 3 23:57 UTC 2004 |
re #38:
> Ah, yes, the "but I wouldn't have bought a copy anyway!" defense.
I'm not defending anything. I'm simply trying to establish what has
been stolen.
It's clear why the copyright interests deliberately misrepresent
infringement as being theft, as it allows them to cast the debate in
terms that are much more favorable to their position. It's also an
implicit admission of their belief in the weakness of popular
agreement with their aims.
If we're going to have a useful debate about infringement (which seems
unlikely in any event) I'd prefer to be precise about what we say,
as sloppiness confuses the issue quite a bit.
|