| Author |
Thread |
|
choonland
Advanced Member
Colombia
1,100 posts
Joined: Dec, 2007
|
 Posted - 2010/09/07 : 03:03:23
say you go to your local public library and read a complete book, and then return home very happy for all the information you gained, and you didn't spend absolutely any money
Does that make you a criminal becuase you didn't buy the book?
So if you can read this book for free in your library, what difference does it make if you read it in your library of if you download it?
could it be the same for music?
I do believe artists of all kinds must be paid and rewarded for they work, but I also believe that all knowledge and cultural information (music included) should be available to anyone and everywhere in the world.
discuss
__________________________________
https://soundcloud.com/naturatech
Alert moderator 
|
H3RO
Junior Member
United States
145 posts
Joined: Jun, 2010
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 03:30:03
It would be the same thing as borrowing the CD from a friend and giving it back. You're friend bought the music as the library bought the book. No where in here are you keeping the book or the CD, where as file sharing your keeping whatever you download. The author/artist has already been paid for that copy of what they have done, you'd simply be using it for a short period. Now, if you were to go to the library, check out the book and keep it, that's a much different story. That's theft. Same as file sharing.
Alert moderator
|
latininxtc
Advanced Member
United States
7,307 posts
Joined: Feb, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 04:18:16
that is the dumbest argument comparison for filesharing.
1st of all, you return the book from the library you don't physically get to keep it you're borrowing it. the majority of ppl who fileshare KEEP the songs they don't say "oh i've listened it to a couple times, that's enough." they rarely delete them
2nd, you're not copying the book in any way. even when you are using it for a book report, you are still writing your references for your report as the majority of schools expect you to give credit where you are paraphrasing or getting your general fact from. also, ppl may photocopy a book, which in college ppl do, and that is illegal. so same goes for filesharing. also illegal is if you borrow a cd from a friend, rip the songs 2 ur pc, and then return it
and as far as cultural knowledge from books and music, you can listen to the song on the radio/dj mix/youtube/live set, etc. and you should be getting sufficient "cultural knowledge" from a song in that way. if you enjoy the product that much, then you go out and buy it for yourself. you go to a movie, you enjoy it, then you go buy it when it comes out on dvd. same can be said about a book you really enjoy and you want a copy of it for yourself. there are plenty of books out there where you find something new in it every time you read it.
Alert moderator
Edited by - latininxtc on 2010/09/07 04:21:29 |
ozmium
Advanced Member
United States
521 posts
Joined: Jun, 2008
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 04:25:00
some where i heard that listening to a song after downloading then deleting it within 24 hours wasent illegal
__________________________________
(= ozmium =)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ozmium/
http://soundcloud.com/ozmium
Co Owner of Hardcore energy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HardcoreEnergyPromo
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hardcore-Energy
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 04:36:16
using filesharing to collect a database (much like a library) is maybe the only way to actually achieve a complete library of tunes. But it's still illegal.
Closest you can get to a library online would be Spotify, since you can play the track you want, plus it's licensed for play. The same with libraries. You didn't think the libraries got the books for free right? Unless it's a big famous one maybe.
And copying parts of a book are actually fully legal in some countries. But it also depends on what you're going to use the copies for (it is legal to use them for studies).
ozmium: that's a urban legend. Alot of sites (especially for game roms) says that, but no company (or any laws nowadays for that matter) allows it either. Nintendo would definitely not allow it :P
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
Edited by - Samination on 2010/09/07 04:44:28 |
latininxtc
Advanced Member
United States
7,307 posts
Joined: Feb, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 05:39:10
quote:
Originally posted by ozmium:
some where i heard that listening to a song after downloading then deleting it within 24 hours wasent illegal
i remember seeing that statement on many sites back in the day. i thought there was some truth to it, but as samination said it isn't
and you are right there is nothing wrong with copying from books. most law states that if it is for educational purposes, then it is ok. altho copying the whole book isn't legal. i've actually run into sites that have the whole textbook on there, with the exception of probably 20 pages out of 200. i'm guessing that's to cover their asses from legal lawsuit. anyways reading an entire book on a computer hurts my eyes so i just get the book at a resale shop
as far as songs go, that's a bit tricky. fair use policy allows for some copying of media as long as it's not-for-profit purposes, and possibly for educational purposes as well. but because copyright laws do not allow ppl to copyright ideas and themes, then there is that loophole that can work into songs.
Alert moderator
|
whispering
Moderator
Finland
8,453 posts
Joined: Nov, 2002
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 06:03:59
Here its legal to copy a CD or whatever from a friend. Its also legal to copy a CD that you borrowed from the library (for personal use). But playing live anything copied where you havent paid a copying fee is illegal. Meaning that if i buy an mp3, transfer it to a CD, i will have to pay royalties for the copy to be able to play it live.
Alert moderator
|
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 07:52:07
I'd like to point out thats its also illegal to use songs in free mixes, as I found out recently.
Every artist ignores that rule at events and stuff, so I don't know why they get so uptight about filesharing. If they want to abide by the laws, they need to sort out their fundamentals. The fact they condemn filesharing, yet condone using tracks in mixes is contradictory.
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Wilky
Banned
United Kingdom
6,198 posts
Joined: Mar, 2008
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 08:18:26
quote:
Originally posted by H3RO:
It would be the same thing as borrowing the CD from a friend and giving it back. You're friend bought the music as the library bought the book. No where in here are you keeping the book or the CD, where as file sharing your keeping whatever you download. The author/artist has already been paid for that copy of what they have done, you'd simply be using it for a short period. Now, if you were to go to the library, check out the book and keep it, that's a much different story. That's theft. Same as file sharing.
__________________________________
R.I.P ush.net
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/wilky
This post was made by Spunk Licker
who is currently on your ignore list .
Display this post.
Alert moderator
|
Yoko
Average Member
United States
173 posts
Joined: Dec, 2005
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 09:13:19
Just wait till we have cyber-brains, so it will technically be in our memory (as per your example about the book).
__________________________________
After 8 years, I finally made "Average Member"
Alert moderator
|
Yoko
Average Member
United States
173 posts
Joined: Dec, 2005
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 09:15:12
So say I have a boom box and I'm playing it live out in public walking down the street like they did in the 90's. Do I have to pay again after I bought the CD? Is that no different than say me streaming a radio station from my bedroom with CD's that I have bought legally?
__________________________________
After 8 years, I finally made "Average Member"
Alert moderator
|
Hard2Get
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts
Joined: Jun, 2001
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 11:33:57
Many people have different opinions about the topic and justify it in their own way, but it doesn't matter, the law remains the same in all cases no matter how right you feel it is.
Alert moderator
|
Wilky
Banned
United Kingdom
6,198 posts
Joined: Mar, 2008
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 12:14:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wilky:
quote:
Originally posted by H3RO:
It would be the same thing as borrowing the CD from a friend and giving it back. You're friend bought the music as the library bought the book. No where in here are you keeping the book or the CD, where as file sharing your keeping whatever you download. The author/artist has already been paid for that copy of what they have done, you'd simply be using it for a short period. Now, if you were to go to the library, check out the book and keep it, that's a much different story. That's theft. Same as file sharing.
Say i download it off a ******* or rapidshare.. Somewhere along the line its been paid for so ur statement is flawed
__________________________________
R.I.P ush.net
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/wilky
This post was made by Spunk Licker
who is currently on your ignore list .
Display this post.
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 14:05:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wilky:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilky:
quote:
Originally posted by H3RO:
It would be the same thing as borrowing the CD from a friend and giving it back. You're friend bought the music as the library bought the book. No where in here are you keeping the book or the CD, where as file sharing your keeping whatever you download. The author/artist has already been paid for that copy of what they have done, you'd simply be using it for a short period. Now, if you were to go to the library, check out the book and keep it, that's a much different story. That's theft. Same as file sharing.
Say i download it off a ******* or rapidshare.. Somewhere along the line its been paid for so ur statement is flawed
Big companies are driving this one argument to the ground. Even if you obtained a copy of the work illegally, it's still paid for originally (unless it's a pre-release or promo given out). IT depends on how they lost a paid copy or not. It's still wrong, but it's still not stealing. Unless this big labels intend to rewrite the word stealing in every country that exists, stealing and illegally copying is not the same.
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
Edited by - Samination on 2010/09/07 14:06:00 |
latininxtc
Advanced Member
United States
7,307 posts
Joined: Feb, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 14:06:33
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
I'd like to point out thats its also illegal to use songs in free mixes, as I found out recently.
Every artist ignores that rule at events and stuff, so I don't know why they get so uptight about filesharing. If they want to abide by the laws, they need to sort out their fundamentals. The fact they condemn filesharing, yet condone using tracks in mixes is contradictory.
i don't want to resurface the whole situation with what happened with the album you created, but just wanted to say that i asked about djs in my media law class yrs ago and was told by my teacher that in the US djs are supposed to pay royalties to the labels every time they play their tracks in live sets. it's hard to regulate that at events and raves, but with clubs they pay some type of licensing fee to a major company (BMG is a prime example) in order for them to be allowed to play whatever they want under that label without restrictions
that law is for smaller labels such as the ones in hardcore labels as well, BUT because they are a much smaller label and most of them won't have a legal team to seek out royalties, there's no way they can restrict it. but that doesn't mean because they have very few resources compared to larger labels doesn't mean we should take advantage of these labels. When in doubt, alwasy read the terms of use/conditions on the sites you buy your music from. if it's still not clear to you, then send an email. better to be safe than sorry.
Alert moderator
|
NekoShuffle
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,480 posts
Joined: Nov, 2009
|
Posted - 2010/09/07 : 15:54:22
I always thought that the DJ thing was common knowledge that while YES it's technically illegal it's accepted all across the board that DJs mixing your records and playing them in sets is good advertising for the label.
If I am brutally honest for a moment:
This thread just seems like an opportunity for filesharers to attempt to justify their filesharing activities with pointless comparisons and roundabout logic that does not hold up in the real world in the slightest.
I don't know if this is an effort to clear their concience of the filesharing they do or if they are trying to obscure the issue to such an extent that they can try to make the act more acceptable but simply in the end the old point still stands: If you like it, buy it. What better way to support the musician?
Alert moderator
|
Printer friendly
