Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
 Posted - Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:55 am |
|
|
| bonnder wrote: | | Quote: | | Graeme and Caleb have told us in general terms what Congress wrote (what the law says). But I did not ask what the law / legislation says. I asked what the courts have said. |
Actually, as stated in my post, I was referring to UK law and what had been upheld in the UK courts. However, it's my belief that the US is little different in interpretation of (what is) and extremely complex subject.
This does not mean that individual cases are always decided on in the same way - the court's interpretation of the law is not always unanimous.
For an interesting example of what can happen, see this thread on the other forum;
http://www.audiomastersforum.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=36
|
|
William Rose
Location: USA
Posts: 467
|
| Posted - Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:15 pm |
|
|
The limited license that is granted to you when you buy a recording applies to the "material" on the recording. Not the physical object itself. This may be obvious, but it's an important distinction to make, because what it means is this - You can make copies of the recording, and the license is still applicable to these copies, and, theoretically it is legal for you to download copies of the same recording. I say theoretically because, the person sharing that file is almost certainly in the wrong. But I'm not sure, perhaps they're not doing anything illegal when a legitimate transfer like this is taking place.
So, if you bought a copy of Leo Kottke's "Mudlark" in 1972, you could download any of the tracks that appear on that record, even if you don't currently possess a copy of it. However, if you bought a copy of the original release of Led Zeppelin's Fourth album, you would not be able to download the version of Stairway to Heaven that's on the Remasters compilation. It's been digitally remastered, so it's not the same recording!
Oh, and as for a song from the radio ? It's yours. Just like a vhs rental from Blockbuster. You can make a copy of it for private home exhibition.
|
|
|
|
|
yem23
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Fri Aug 08, 2003 2:23 pm |
|
|
|
so I quit trying to take this sample from kazaa, and tried a cd i own. I put the disk into the F drive, used the wmp to play the cd, and pushed record on the "transport buttons". Im still not getting a wave form. Just the "unrecognized format" from the file box.(yes, I checked the volume and record controls). Any suggestions?
|
|
Caleb
Posts: 93
|
| Posted - Fri Aug 08, 2003 2:46 pm |
|
|
My vote is that you got a virus from your time on kazaa.. we seem to hear that a lot here.
_________________
Caleb
|
|
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
| Posted - Fri Aug 08, 2003 4:50 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | yem23 Posted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I put the disk into the F drive, used the wmp to play the cd, and pushed record on the "transport buttons". Im still not getting a wave form. Just the "unrecognized format" from the file box.(yes, I checked the volume and record controls). Any suggestions? |
I would suggest using some sort of CD Burning software (Exact Audio Copy, or even Adaptec EZCD Creator) to "extract" the file to your harddrive and then open it in CEP. 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
yem23
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:50 am |
|
|
|
so Ive had a break through. I copied the sample onto my C drive and played it using the wmp, then recorded with cep2. Many of my problems were because I didnt fully understand how the volume and record buttons worked, (having the wrong box selected at the wrong time) or the differance between the two. I didnt understand that if I can get the sample to play in wmp, I can record in cep2. Radiokennys tutorial on "setting your volume and recording controls with cool edit" was helpful. As for the "unrecognized format" ... I still dont know what is up with all that crap. Any how...thanks for all the help. Im sure Ill be back with more stupid questions...
|
|
MusicConductor
Location: USA
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted - Sun Aug 10, 2003 12:56 pm |
|
|
Hey, now that's just great to hear of the success! Thanks for keeping us posted. It's always nice to hear good news.
And keep those questions coming...
|
|
William Rose
Location: USA
Posts: 467
|
| Posted - Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:22 pm |
|
|
Okay but, if you can get the sample to play in "Media Player" like I said earlier, this narrows your problem down to CEP. Specifically, CEP's MP3 filter. It sounds like yours is corrupt.
Being able to play an MP3 in "Media Player" and record it in CEP doesn't strike me as an acceptable "solution". Just curious, when you're finished with the recording, can you save a copy of the file as MP3 in CEP ? If so, can you open that file in CEP ?
|
|
bonnder
Posts: 215
|
| Posted - Mon Aug 11, 2003 10:20 am |
|
|
Regarding my questions about US copyright law on Page 1 of this thread: since the Audition forums are set to open in a week and this site might go dark then, I am holding off on any follow up here. In the near future I will post some relevant links at AudioMasters and we can continue the discussion if anyone is interested.
To wrap the subject up here for now: in the U.S., no individual has been brought to trial for any of the activity described in my questions. So the whole arena of personal downloading of mp3 files is legally undefined as it pertains to individual behavior. The law provides for personal, noncommercial copying. It prohibits organizational, commercial copying. The only court cases that have been decided so far have been against organizations which were making, or hoped to make, money off of their operations - which clearly violates copyright law.
yem23 asked a valid question: "Is file sharing stealing?" I know many people want to answer "yes". And those same people perhaps want to believe that people like yem23 know that they are stealing. The truth is, in the US, the courts have not yet said that file sharing by individuals is illegal/stealing. But the law and court decisions do say plenty that at a casual glance would support the notion that file sharing is ok. Actually, file sharing has been ruled ok. It is the question of whether or not it is ok for individuals to upload and download music files over the Internet that the courts have not yet weighed in on. When they do, they will likely point out that no one can share files over the Internet without someone making some money (ISP providers; local phone company; file-sharing company such as Kazaa). It is the making of money that causes the problem - because that making of money is reserved for the copyright holder - not the sharing of files between individuals.
For some introductory reading, try these two links:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
Betamax case comments
-------------------------------
Edit:
Above, I said "Actually, file sharing has been ruled ok.". Careless choice of words on my part. What I meant to say was "Actually, copying has been ruled ok.". And by extension, non-commercial file sharing must be considered ok. From the "Betamax case comments" link above:
| Quote: | | The hearings and floor debate on The Act indicate that issues of privacy, enforcement, and non-commercial use were of concern to Congress when they discussed the problems raised by home recording. Congress received expert testimony that the extent of home taping would make copyright controls impossible to enforce, and that enforcement would necessitate undesirable invasions of the privacy of the home. In floor debate, Representative Kastenmeir, sponsor of The Act, assured a colleague that non-commercial home recording aimed at personal listening pleasure would not be considered a violation of the copyright laws. |
Although not specifically stated in the "Betamax case comments" link, logic requires us to accept that the individuals debating the issues understood that the person who made the copy would not likely be the only one listening when the copy was played back. The individuals debating the issue also had to understand that someone other than the one who made the copy would play the copy at some point. At its most basic, this is an acceptance of file sharing - but squarely within the context of non-commercial use. This logic can be further developed when we start a thread over at AudioMasters.org - assuming that anyone is interested in developing/debunking it further.
|
|
Caleb
Posts: 93
|
| Posted - Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:17 am |
|
|
File sharing isn't limited strictly to music. However, from what I can gather from your response, is that, not being strictly defined by law, it is ok.
Just for the hell of it, I went to Kazaa and found a perfectly functional copy of CEP 2.0.. since the user I uploaded it from didn't make any money from me, nor did kazaa make any money from me, is it ok?
Just so you guys know, I immediately got rid of the pirated copy of CEP.. I have my own legit version:D
As far as people not knowing that it is stealing, I have to say thats BS. My mom taught me about right and wrong long before I understood the function, use and general uselessness of laws. I daresay that most other people have shared a similar parental experience.
Hopefully I have some time soon to study this in a more in depth manner. thanks for the cornell link.
_________________
Caleb
|
|
|
|
bonnder
Posts: 215
|
| Posted - Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:25 pm |
|
|
Caleb - see the edit to my post above.
Some points in response to your response:
* I am not attempting to fully develop an argument here; I'll do that at AudioMasters in the near future - complete with relevant links to the law.
* My posts on Page 1 of this thread state that I am discussing what is legally permissible, not what is ethical. I agree with your comments about ethics, but that is not what we are discussing here;
* The laws to which I point are specifically about copying music (and, indirectly, copying video). There are separate laws that cover the issues involved in copying/sharing computer code and other things.
Part of the reason for heated debate about "stealing" music is that most people are unclear on what role the central government plays in deciding what people can do with their lives. Many (most?) people think that they can do whatever they want, produce whatever they want, and benefit from the products of their own effort however they want. That attitude is based on an unclear understanding of individual rights that are granted by the central government, and what rights over the individual the central government reserves for itself.
Do you understand this: in the United States, you do not have a "natural" right to your own creations. You maintain control over your personal creations only at the pleasure of the Federal government. Right now, the Federal government decrees that you may maintain control of your creations for life plus some odd years. They could have set the term at six months. The term is not the issue. The fact that it is the Federal government that says what you can do with your own creations, and not you yourself, is the issue. In some form or another, this is true for other countries as well. Once you understand that this is true, the discussion of file sharing moves to a new level.
It helps in the understanding of this issue if I start at Point A and go to Point Z. Logic will then build on logic, and things will make more sense. We are not doing that in this thread, and so I don't want to get much more involved in this discussion. We can set the discussion up properly at AudioMasters. Having said that, I am going to include some quotes below that will help to illustrate what I said about government control over individual creations. These quotes come about one quarter of the way through the document.
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html
| Quote: | Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
[p.429] The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).
As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product. Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly. n10
Notes
n10 In its Report accompanying the comprehensive revision of the Copyright Act in 1909, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives explained this balance:
"The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. . . .
"In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly." H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909). |
|
|
|
|
|
bonnder
Posts: 215
|
| Posted - Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:09 pm |
|
|
| Caleb wrote: | | .. since the user I uploaded it from didn't make any money from me, nor did kazaa make any money from me, is it ok? |
Caleb, if you make a tape of a record and hand it to a friend in your home, the only entity that made money in this transaction will be the store that sold you the tape and the manufacturer who made the tape and the manufacturer who made your tape recorder and the electricity company. You won't make any money, and your friend won't have spent any money.
Go here and click on Subchapter C:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html
Through this law, Congress has created a way for the record company to get paid for the copy you made above and gave to your friend - by placing a small fee on all of the items you used in your transaction. So you do pay the record companies for the copy you made, but indirectly. Now - whether the record company passes the artists share of those fees on to the artist is a different matter. But if the artists does not get paid, it is not the file copier that is stealing from the artist, it is the record company. Basically, payment has been made to the record company whether you copy a music file or not.
Now - about your download. Your ISP, Kazaa, electricity company and phone company all made money from you for that download (unless you get phone calls, electricity, and ISP service all for free). And the uploader's ISP, electricity company, phone company, and Kazaa all made money from the uploader (but not because you downloaded the file). In both instances, Kazaa is a business entity that is attracting funds (if not generating income) because it can demonstrate that it has eyeballs (yours, the uploader, and everyone else who uses it).
Point: money is being made by business entities in the process of Internet file sharing. You are not making any money; the uploader is not making any money. But business entities are making money / attracting investor funds. And Congress has not yet passed a law that places a small fee on all of the business entities involved in the Internet transaction so that the record company gets paid per the link I gave above - although Congress could, and may yet do so.
Non-commercial file sharing has not been ruled illegal between individuals (see the discussion above). Commercial entities making money off of the file sharing without compensating the record companies HAS been ruled illegal. So far, nobody has developed a way to share files over the Internet without some business entity making money (ISP; electricity company; phone company; etc.). When you sign on to share a file on the Internet, you had to have paid somebody something for that capability. Therein lies the problem. Not with you. With the entity that has received money for your transaction. And that is where the court judgements have been made. Against the business entities involved in the transactions - not against the individuals.
File sharing between individuals has not been ruled illegal by the courts. Nobody has yet ruled that it is illegal for individuals to share files over the Internet. Find a way to do it without paying anybody and the "stealing" problem goes away. The individuals involved in the file sharing are not stealing. The business entities who receive money for enabling the Internet file sharing are "stealing" - insofar as they are not paying the record companies. But the Internet business entities have offered the record companies a deal similar to the one laid out at the link provided above. The record companies have refused to accept such a deal, which suggests that they are not dealing in good faith. Could Congress force the record companies to accept such a deal? Certainly. Will Congress force them to accept such a deal? Will the Courts? Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:50 pm |
|
|
I've largely stayed out of this, waiting to see what exactly what is trying to be proved here. However, I can't let this bit slip by without comment.
| bonnder wrote: | | The individuals involved in the file sharing are not stealing. |
This is total rubbish - of course they are stealing, in the very real sense of the word. They are stealing from the legitimate holder of the copyright of whatever it is they are sharing. It doesn't matter if it's music, applications or a copy of the Mona Lisa - someone will hold the copyright to that product and people who are sharing files are denying that person the right to earn his livlihood from that copyright.
You can argue about it as much as you like, but file sharing is ethically, morally and legally wrong. How can you possibly say it's never been ruled otherwise, when P2P networks have been shut down by the courts? Just because individuals have been left alone neither condones nor legalises the practice. The truth of the matter is simply they are harder to catch - although Andrew Rose would tell you a different story.
It seems to me the only people in favour of 'file sharing' are those who are too mean to purchase something legally, or totally incapable of producing anything sufficiently original for them to make money from.
If you published a song, or wrote an application program, and then found out that, instead of buying their own copies, 100,000 individuals had 'shared' a copy, don't try and tell me you wouldn't be totally pissed about it and all the money it had cost you.
|
|
yem23
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:17 pm |
|
|
| William Rose wrote: | Okay but, if you can get the sample to play in "Media Player" like I said earlier, this narrows your problem down to CEP. Specifically, CEP's MP3 filter. It sounds like yours is corrupt.
Being able to play an MP3 in "Media Player" and record it in CEP doesn't strike me as an acceptable "solution". Just curious, when you're finished with the recording, can you save a copy of the file as MP3 in CEP ? If so, can you open that file in CEP ? |
ok...sounds like you may know whats going on here. Now I cant save the sample. I get a warning about how I may be saving In a lossy or compressed format, then it tells me "cannot load file filter". Thanks....
|
|
William Rose
Location: USA
Posts: 467
|
| Posted - Tue Aug 12, 2003 8:52 pm |
|
|
Bingo. A re-install should solve your problem. If it doesn't, then you've got a problem with the installer. I would suggest that you contact support for a new filter, but I don't know how responsive they are these days.
The file in question here, and it should be in your Coolpro2 directory, is fhtpro.flt. When you re-install, it should be overwritten with a fresh copy. If the new copy doesn't work, then you need to re-download CEP2.
I don't usually buy the claim of a "corrupt download" if the installation finishes normally. So, keep us updated as to your solution.
|
|
William Rose
Location: USA
Posts: 467
|
| Posted - Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:41 pm |
|
|
Bonnder, your argument wouldn't convince a third grader, you're leaving out all the important points, and then trying to make a reasonable case out of what's left.
Sure, file sharing is ok. In fact, the system has enormous legitimate potential, but I'm afraid all these kids (along with all the retarded adults) are going to ruin it for everybody. Big surprise.
Anyway, file sharing is ok. But my friend, sharing of copyrighted material is illegal as cocaine, period.
The largest flaw with what you have posted is a massive one. And it's based on your misconception that "profit" or "revenue" must somehow be generated to constitute a crime, and that's absurd.
Is it legal for me to receive a TV set that was stolen from down the block, as long as I don't pay for it ? Or better, let's be specific, is it legal for me to make 100 copies of "Blood on the Tracks", and then give them away on the sidewalk ? OF COURSE NOT ! It's fundamental !
The legal term you're ignoring, and it's the one that applies here, is distribution. And it makes no difference how distribution takes place, if the material in question is copyrighted, that means you are not free to distribute that material, nor are you allowed to make copies of it if you intend to distribute that material.
|
|
|
|
|
Emmett
Location: USA
Posts: 59
|
| Posted - Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:49 pm |
|
|
Graeme,
With all due respect, I beg to differ with a few points. To some degree, I will agree that it is morally and ethically wrong. I disagree that is is legally wrong, at least as it has been defined to date. It's still so incredibly fuzzy, that you can't simply say that it's not legal.
The largest problem with file sharing is that many people don't see that it is morally and ethically wrong. Is it morally wrong if a 10 year old who doesn't know any better downloads the latest hip hop tune? I think, as crazy as it sounds, people need to be educated about file sharing. A few PSA's...Just like you see to disuede smoking. Whatdyathink?
_________________
Emmett
KPNT, St. Louis, MO
|
|
|
|
William Rose
Location: USA
Posts: 467
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:43 am |
|
|
A distinction needs to be made between "file sharing" and "pirating". They are not synonomous. If you want to refer to pirating that occurs on P2P networks, may I suggest "p2pirating" ?
But it's clouding the issue somewhat, to ask "Is file-sharing morally or ethically acceptable ?" It's like asking "Is listening to music ok ?". File sharing isn't the issue, pirating is.
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:03 am |
|
|
| Emmett wrote: | | With all due respect, I beg to differ with a few points. To some degree, I will agree that it is morally and ethically wrong. I disagree that is is legally wrong, at least as it has been defined to date. It's still so incredibly fuzzy, that you can't simply say that it's not legal. |
Well, as William Rose has already said, there is a distinction between 'file-sharing' and pirating. The simple truth of the matter is that 90% (possibly more) of the material which is made available through P2P networks is copyright material. There is no argument that the copying/sharing of copyrighted material (i.e., pirating) without paying the necessary fees, is legal. Quite simply, it isn't - and there's not a court in the world which would say it was.
The whole idea of copyright is for the protection of whoever owns it. The very name says it all - it's the right to copy something. If I painted a picture, then I would have the right to copy that painting, or I could pass that right on to you, in exchange for something else (usually money, but not necessarily). Copyright exists for just about anyting you can think of, although it may be the copyright owner allows people to copy for nothing (in computer terms, this is really what 'freeware' is).
Copyright issues have always been 'fuzzy', there's nothing new about that - and it's not been made any easier by the proliferation of formats and media which have emerged over the last twenty odd years but, no matter which way you try and cut the cake, the basic tenet is the same. You want something which is copyrighted, then you have to pay (or come to some other arrangement with the holder of the copyright) for the privilege if you want to stay on the right side of the law.
| Emmett wrote: | | The largest problem with file sharing is that many people don't see that it is morally and ethically wrong. Is it morally wrong if a 10 year old who doesn't know any better downloads the latest hip hop tune? I think, as crazy as it sounds, people need to be educated about file sharing. |
Although I wouldn't disagree with you about education, I doubt if it would make a lot of difference. The majority of P2P users are fully aware that what they are seeking is something they should really be paying for. Unfortunately, we now have a society which believes that the world owes it a living and if they can get something for nothing, they will do so - regardless of the legality issues.
|
|
-Mac-
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:05 am |
|
|
| yem23 wrote: | | ok...sounds like you may know whats going on here. Now I cant save the sample. I get a warning about how I may be saving In a lossy or compressed format, then it tells me "cannot load file filter". Thanks.... |
It sounds like the filter that loads and saves mp3's is broken. You can get a better mp3 filter here : http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/cool_lame.zip
Just extract that into the Cool Edit Pro directory, and you should be able to load and save mp3's. (you might have to go to file->open and select the LAME (*.mp3) option.
By the way, the warning saying "you are saving to a lower fidelity format" is meant to be there, it's just reminding you that mp3 isn't as good a quality as wav, so if it's something important you might want to save it as a wav instead
|
|
liddlebidago
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:42 am |
|
|
Questions to ponder:
Have you ever traded a video game temporarily for a week, and traded back?
Have you ever let a friend borrow a cd with intent on getting it back.
Have you ever bought a cd and played it for a friend in your car.
Are any of these wrong?
Have you ever ate in a restaurant and had a terrible experience with food or service and consequently had your money refunded?
Have you ever had a software trial to see if you like it?
Have you ever played a demo of one level from a video game to see if you like it?
Have you ever wondered why it's ok for blockbuster to buy a movie for $15 and rent it out 1000 times at $5 a pop?
Have you ever downloaded a song off of Kazaa or Napster and then bought the entire cd because you did in fact like that song?
Have you ever downloaded an entire cd (every song) that you know you want, instead of paying for it?
Where should a line be drawn, why, and how would it be enforced?
|
|
liddlebidago
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:49 am |
|
|
| liddlebidago wrote: |
Have you ever let a friend borrow a cd with intent on getting it back.
|
If this is ok to do, have you ever had a friend that didn't return it to you? If you happened to have a recording of the cd on cassette, and he now has the cd in his posession forever, is that the point at which it becomes wrong? What if he only has it for a week... or a month... or a year?
|
|
Caleb
Posts: 93
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 9:09 am |
|
|
Most of these questions are irrelevant. However, I will answer them and perhaps you will see why.
1)"Have you ever traded a video game temporarily for a week, and traded back?"
-Yes, however this is not an infringment, as there is no copy made
2)"Have you ever let a friend borrow a cd with intent on getting it back."
-Again, this is no more an infringment that getting someone a CD as a gift.
3)"Have you ever bought a cd and played it for a friend in your car."
-No copying done here.. Thus no copyright infringment
4)"Are any of these wrong?"
-So far, No
5)"Have you ever ate in a restaurant and had a terrible experience with food or service and consequently had your money refunded?"
-Absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand.
6)"Have you ever had a software trial to see if you like it?"
-Software trials are released by the manufacturer specifically for this purpose.
7)"Have you ever played a demo of one level from a video game to see if you like it?"
-See answer above
8)"Have you ever wondered why it's ok for blockbuster to buy a movie for $15 and rent it out 1000 times at $5 a pop?"
-They have obtained legal license to do so.
9)"Have you ever downloaded a song off of Kazaa or Napster and then bought the entire cd because you did in fact like that song?"
-No. This is the strongest argument for the legality and morality of file sharing, but its still a pretty weak one, considering that most bands have somewhere online(try cdnow.com) that one may listen to a sample of the music before buying the cd.
10)"Have you ever downloaded an entire cd (every song) that you know you want, instead of paying for it?"
-No. Thats stealing.
11)"Where should a line be drawn, why, and how would it be enforced?"
-As you can see by the above answers, the lines are already pretty well in place.As for enforcing them , thats another issue entirely. perhaps to be taken up in more detail on the new board
_________________
Caleb
|
|
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 9:16 am |
|
|
| Quote: | liddlebidago Posted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever downloaded a song off of Kazaa or Napster and then bought the entire cd because you did in fact like that song?
Have you ever downloaded an entire cd (every song) that you know you want, instead of paying for it? |
No and.... ! Hell NO 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
MusicConductor
Location: USA
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted - Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:05 pm |
|
|
I think some perspective on Bonnder's comments is important, as he's admitted to playing "devil's advocate," for whatever reason, while agreeing with another member that the morals of this are a different matter. Unfortunately, it does put in a pretty clear light the awful state of law enforcement against a billion microscopic petty crimes -- what an impossible nightmare!
The question is, are you going to live according to the intent of the law, or according to how much of it the courts can actually enforce? Living by the latter creates a "I'll do as much as I can get away with" mentality, which seems to be very common these days. The problem, as Emmett stated so well, is that the average 10-year-old no longer is taught any sense of morals or ethics that instills a sense of respect for intellectual property under copyright. Sure, file sharing itself isn't immoral, it's just computer networking. And downloading mp3s of CDs you own isn't even wrong (but why waste the time when ripping and encoding locally is faster?). But giving others access to things that otherwise must be purchased, well that's another story.
Liddlebidago, not only are few of your questions true of me, but they are situational matters that have little bearing on Bonnder's original thought-provoking post or the ethics of the matter. I think you've already seen enough from us to know that "we," using the term loosely!, don't agree with this line of questioning.
|
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Thu Aug 14, 2003 2:59 am |
|
|
One small point I'd like to pick up on...
| liddlebidago wrote: | | Have you ever wondered why it's ok for blockbuster to buy a movie for $15 and rent it out 1000 times at $5 a pop? |
I don't know how it works in the USA, but here in Spain (where many of my clients are in the DVD hire business) I'm told they actually pay a lot more for their discs than a private individual does. Presumably, this is how the copyright holder makes his money back.
|
|
liddlebidago
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Thu Aug 14, 2003 10:23 am |
|
|
Here are the reasons that I asked some of these questions:
Personally, when I hear of something new that I might be interested coming out I do one of the following.
Rent a video game or play a demo and buy it if I like it. Download a software trial and buy it if I like it and feel it's worth the cash. Listen to a song or two off of a cd and buy it if I like it. In the last case, if I don't know of anyone that has it, I download a song or two off of Kazaa. If I like them, I BUY THE CD. I do this because honestly not only is it wrong to download the entire cd, but it is a total waste of time and effort to track down every single song, download them, and burn a cd. I mean it's only 10-20 bucks for the cd anyway. Although ideally I feel that there should not be a problem with this, i'm aware that there is - many people abuse it and download anything and everything that they can get their hands on with no intention to ever pay for any of it. My solution is for the record companies to do what some of them are doing already - release a preview on the web. Or play singles like they do on the radio. But before i'll rely on this, it has to be across the board. The other thing is being able to download single songs for a small fee. I like | | |
All Forums
p2p to file box in cep2
Topic 
As for all the contreversy over Kazaa, Im not a theif, and have had no intentions of stealing any ones work. but Ive not considered file sharing to be stealing either.(Is file sharing stealing?) This discussion has been very informitive,and given me a broadend POV on matters. I just wanted to play with some samples on my Kazaa desktop. (Is that wrong?...I mean Im not making money doing this,just my personal amusement...) And arent there companys out there like kazaa that kick back royalties or somthing?Thanks.