Will you stop sharing as a result of RIAA act?
- Thread starter Dime5150
- Start date
Cat
Registered
If I use the lawnmower my neighbor lent me, I'm not stealing it. If I borrow your CD, I'm not stealing it, you gave me your consent to use it for a certain period of time. I use it, yet I don't own it, neither have I stolen it, right?
The problem is translating this from objects to files. I can share a CD with my roommate, I own it, we both enjoy it. This is fair and reasonable. So what's wrong if I share the CD digitally? The problem is when I share hundreds of CD's to a very large group (hundreds of thousends) anonymous "friends". That is not just illegal, it is also morally wrong. Crossing with red is illegal too, and plain stupid in heavy traffic. Crossing with red in the middle of the night without traffic is another matter. It is still illegal, but I wouldn't dub it morally reprehensible. Same applies to filesharing. As I said above, there is a fine distinction between fair and reasonable use, including sharing online and rightout heavy illegal abuse of p2p networks. I do not think fair and reasonable use is morally reprehensible even if it is literally illegal. By the letter of the law I would need written consent from author and publisher to backup my aging vinyl on tape...
RIAA should also start to sue the radio stations and radio owners.
If you have a radio with a cassette recorder with it, you can record music to a cassette (or to a cd). That's what the kids did in the 1980s when nobody had $ to buy cds. And you can still do that.
A radio broadcasting music is sharing it. Shut down all major radio stations.
Negative side of RIAA doing so would be that if you don't hear something in radio, you rarely know some artist. And this applies especially to the cra.. consumer music (chart). If no one knows who is Ricky Martin or Shakira nobody buys their music, period.
The more i hear of these weird acts of RIAA the more I want to switch to the free alternative : buy a radio and listen to the music FREE and legally.
How are the internet radios considered? As radios, or as file sharing stuff? Is grabbing music from internet radio stream to mp3s or aacs anything different than grabbing the music from 'old fashioned' radio to audio cassettes or cds?
You have the legally free alternative: RADIO.
And radios are sharing all their music with 100s of 1000s of people for free, they really should shut them down.
PS. It was just in Slashdot that the file sharing apps are up 10 % more traffic after the Riaa thingy.
If you have a radio with a cassette recorder with it, you can record music to a cassette (or to a cd). That's what the kids did in the 1980s when nobody had $ to buy cds. And you can still do that.
A radio broadcasting music is sharing it. Shut down all major radio stations.
Negative side of RIAA doing so would be that if you don't hear something in radio, you rarely know some artist. And this applies especially to the cra.. consumer music (chart). If no one knows who is Ricky Martin or Shakira nobody buys their music, period.
The more i hear of these weird acts of RIAA the more I want to switch to the free alternative : buy a radio and listen to the music FREE and legally.
How are the internet radios considered? As radios, or as file sharing stuff? Is grabbing music from internet radio stream to mp3s or aacs anything different than grabbing the music from 'old fashioned' radio to audio cassettes or cds?
You have the legally free alternative: RADIO.
And radios are sharing all their music with 100s of 1000s of people for free, they really should shut them down.
PS. It was just in Slashdot that the file sharing apps are up 10 % more traffic after the Riaa thingy.
myotherpc'samac
Registered
I was forced to start using Kazaa because of the copy-protected cd's - how do I get them onto my ipod? I had to go peer-to-peer (until I bought a powerbook, which I have found lets me rip my copy protected cd's no problem, hurrah hurrah).
This is a knee-jerk, last-ditch attempt to cling onto power by the record companies - they have consistently rejected consumer lobbying that CD's are too expensive - and now the backlash begins. Does anyone have sympathy for Warner? Not likely - they've been screwing me and the artists alike (excluding chart junk, and frankly they don't deserve a red cent in the majority of cases) for years.
I've never illegally downloaded a song I don't already own. But the aggressive tactics of the music companies have driven me to a position where I am much more likely to - copy-protected CD's really ARE broken! I do't pay gb15 for a small silver disk - I pay the money for the right to listen to the music, when and where I like - so preventing me from doing that anywhere except in my living room (the only place I have a CD player) is removing a huge part of the value of the purchase for me.
I agree with the poster above who said that people are paid a lot of money for constructive solutions to problems like this - even WMA and DRM are more appropriate than broken CD's and lawsuits.
This is a knee-jerk, last-ditch attempt to cling onto power by the record companies - they have consistently rejected consumer lobbying that CD's are too expensive - and now the backlash begins. Does anyone have sympathy for Warner? Not likely - they've been screwing me and the artists alike (excluding chart junk, and frankly they don't deserve a red cent in the majority of cases) for years.
I've never illegally downloaded a song I don't already own. But the aggressive tactics of the music companies have driven me to a position where I am much more likely to - copy-protected CD's really ARE broken! I do't pay gb15 for a small silver disk - I pay the money for the right to listen to the music, when and where I like - so preventing me from doing that anywhere except in my living room (the only place I have a CD player) is removing a huge part of the value of the purchase for me.
I agree with the poster above who said that people are paid a lot of money for constructive solutions to problems like this - even WMA and DRM are more appropriate than broken CD's and lawsuits.
solrac
Mac Ninja
I'm not worried about the RIAA! I'm a leech! My shared folder option has been turned off since Napster version 1.0! HAHAH! Same thing with water conservation. Since everyone ELSE is taking 2 minute showers, I can take my daily 2 hour shower and rest easy knowing my sole over-use of water is not contributing to the drought. YAY!!!
So now I can download and amass terabytes upon petabytes and yottabytes of MP3s and since my shared folder is off I will NEVER be targeted! HAHHAHA. Time for my shower.....
So now I can download and amass terabytes upon petabytes and yottabytes of MP3s and since my shared folder is off I will NEVER be targeted! HAHHAHA. Time for my shower.....
Cat
Registered
Isn't it technically possible to collectively own copyrighted material? We start an association, of which we are all members, and the association, being a juridical person, legally buys the music, which then subsequently can be shared among all the members of the association, just like collectively owning a house or a car.
Could this be possible? I just start a website, a forum, let everyone mail in their subscribtion & requests, register the association, require funds for membership ($1,-), I go out there and legally buy CD's, DVD's, applications, etc. and then distribute them to the members through a P2P network.
How does this collective ownership sound?
Could this be possible? I just start a website, a forum, let everyone mail in their subscribtion & requests, register the association, require funds for membership ($1,-), I go out there and legally buy CD's, DVD's, applications, etc. and then distribute them to the members through a P2P network.
How does this collective ownership sound?
Cat
Registered
Well, IANAL, but collective ownership is legally possible. We can in fact form an association and that association can legally own things. Like corporations own things. IBM, as a corporation, owns its chip-plants. Or like married couples own their homes together. If we were all official members of an association, with the right to represent it and use the collectively owned facilities, we could also collectively own property like music ...
It may not be legal to let thousends of people use my house, but if we were a thousend and bought the house all together, collectively? It would be ours and we all could use it...
It may not be legal to let thousends of people use my house, but if we were a thousend and bought the house all together, collectively? It would be ours and we all could use it...
If a legal entity can own copyrighted music in the same way they own property then why are they required to buy software companies to buy multiple copies of their software or purchase a company wide license which is undoubtedly much more expensive than a single user license?
My point is that it is one thing to buy the right to the music which a record label has, or for example Michael Jackson owns much of the rights to the beatle's collection because he purchased it.
So unless we have the money that Michael Jackson has then I am guessing that our attempts to buy single user licensed copies of music does not give the group the right to make unlimited copies for our members.
My point is that it is one thing to buy the right to the music which a record label has, or for example Michael Jackson owns much of the rights to the beatle's collection because he purchased it.
So unless we have the money that Michael Jackson has then I am guessing that our attempts to buy single user licensed copies of music does not give the group the right to make unlimited copies for our members.
Fahrvergnuugen
I am the law!
Eventually, the IRAA will realize that the fact that people are insanely interested in sharing, trading and buying digital music is a GOOD thing.
The problem is, they're too hung up on the Compact Disc. They just have to learn how to use it to their advantage.
This was before my time, but when the VCR came out, the movie industry flipped out, just like the recording industry is now. They were terrified that they were going to loose all kinds of money... What happened? They ended up MAKING tons of money.
The simple fact that so many people want to have huge collections of digital music on their computers, in their cars and in their pockets only says one thing, the general interest in Music is very high.
I personally can say that since iTunes and the iPod came out, I listen to music WAY MORE than I ever did before. As soon as the recording industry can grasp this basic idea, things will get much better.
The problem is, they're too hung up on the Compact Disc. They just have to learn how to use it to their advantage.
This was before my time, but when the VCR came out, the movie industry flipped out, just like the recording industry is now. They were terrified that they were going to loose all kinds of money... What happened? They ended up MAKING tons of money.
The simple fact that so many people want to have huge collections of digital music on their computers, in their cars and in their pockets only says one thing, the general interest in Music is very high.
I personally can say that since iTunes and the iPod came out, I listen to music WAY MORE than I ever did before. As soon as the recording industry can grasp this basic idea, things will get much better.
TommyWillB
Registered
You should add an option that says, "I don't share now."
I certainly am NOT "insanely interested in sharing".
Sorry if you think that is odd. (...or should I say "insane"?
)
I certainly am NOT "insanely interested in sharing".
Sorry if you think that is odd. (...or should I say "insane"?
)