It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

page: 12
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
The fact is, most people don't have money to pay for any form of art.
This (lack of money) in fact prevents spreading and sharing knowledge.
Money is the means of control.
This decision is good, very good.
Copyright should have nothing to do with money.
Copyright is the means of control, you pretentious git. Artists hold copyright over the things they make. They can sell it, give it away, or barter it for watermelons, whatever. Piracy violates that right by going "oh no, you don't get to control your work anymore".




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Man just post the name of your band already so we can youtube you and see if your music is even worth buying...you seem mad, therefor you must be a "struggling artist".



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


If you already own them then why download them? That makes no sense... because of the media changes since LPs? Besides "knowing" music and "owning" a copy is totally different, there is a grey area in that if you already paid for it (and can prove it) you are entitled to a backup copy. Let's say that if you already payed for a copy of a recording you can legally get a digital backup, just to avoid that argument.

Let's stay with downloading something you never owned previously. We can agree that taking a product that you never paid for is stealing, correct?



It makes a lot of sense. Here is why. Technology changes. I had, still have, but it is not in use any more, a turntable. Then I bought CD player. Outdated that one too. I did this many times. Newer technology arrived. Now I have a PC. I paid for it. I cannot use my old records any more. They are still there, collecting dust. Maybe they have some value on the market of antiquities. PC is now the primary multimedia device. Do I really have to pay again for the same thing?

Technological advance is not really absorbed as a common value, it has been perverted by parasites - and in this case it is too obvious. Those people do not deserve to collect money for something they never created in the first place. It is the system that makes it legal and logical, but it is not - true. And even the system in many cases do not support the demands from those who claim the right of property.

Knowledge is common property of humanity. Pornography which is called music - I am all for that, it should be taxed and paid well. Those who like things that destroy them, they should pay dear price for that. But not everything is pornography.


So if you own something on one media, you have a right to the same content on any media that ever exists in the future? That's what you're saying here.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
possession implies ownership, thus the arbitration of the shared media is in the hands of the owner. If the owner does not lose possession that does not negate ownership. The owner is the buyer, at which point, well...this is obvious.
edit on 5-10-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 



Here is another question for you.

1. If you have purchased a song already, why should you be required to pay for it again? Do you go to home depot and buy a lawn mower every time you cut the grass? Do you buy an ipod every time you listen to a song? Do you buy a new car every time you get in one? It's the same principal of the matter. Why should you be required to re-purchase a song every time you want to take a copy with you? That makes no sense as I have given you questions to answer that are on the same merit. So please answer the questions as they relate to this discussion?


You're still avoiding his question, and Gish Galloping him with a few dozen more "simple" questions. You're pretty transparent.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Tulkor
 


So, Tulkor, do you think books should be for free? They're just stories, after all. Just ink on paper.

Non-tangible things can have worth, no matter how much rhetoric you throw out.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The matter would be different if a person were to buy an item, reproduce this item and sell it in the marketplace...that is real piracy. p2p, torrents, e.c.t is, in all reality, the complete opposite of piracy.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by 000063
 


If someone stands outside your window and listening to YOUR music, shouldn't he be reported to the police for stealing it from you?
No, I'd report him for being a creeper. If he snuck in through my back door, copied my CDs and got caught on my security camera, I'd call the cops. If he copied my CDs of music which I had actually made, then I'd definitely call the cops.


Maybe we should send to those property owners an MP3 with clinking clanking sound of money? Right?
edit on 5-10-2011 by DangerDeath because: (no reason given)
Are you going to actually answer my question, or just make up straw men? If someone takes something of yours without your permission but does not make money off it, is it stealing?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 



Artists have a thing called "touring" which nets them more money than any album could.

Good point. But can you really imagine a world where every band on the planet either pulls big crowds or is reduced to music-making as a hobby? The only music to succeed would be mainstream - hardly a suitable crucible for creativity...

I download my music through the nokia music store, but its not worth the effort anymore, I got a legal account that I have to register every week. They make it nearly impossible and nokia has no support online.







I've probably listened to thousands of bands online over my lifetime, if people like their music they can download it and share with friends and so like them on facebook, or myspace and so spreading their popularity and so opening their market for bigger touring shows etc and I'm from south africa so chances are I will never get to see 95% of the bands I like. But when bands I like have toured south africa I went to see at least two shows haha


I download my music through the nokia music store, but its not worth the effort anymore, I got a legal account that I have to register every week. They make it nearly impossible and nokia has no support online.
edit on 5-10-2011 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
The matter would be different if a person were to buy an item, reproduce this item and sell it in the marketplace...that is real piracy. p2p, torrents, e.c.t is, in all reality, the complete opposite of piracy.
In that someone is reproducing creative works without permis--no, wait, that is the exact definition of piracy. It doesn't require one to make a profit, just the reproduction without permission. I don't think anyone can sensibly argue that someone needs to make money off of taking something to be considered a thief, so why this absurd condition for 'real piracy'? Certainly, getting something for nothing constitutes a profit. Do you agree with my previous sentence?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by upgrayeddc310t
reply to post by 000063
 


Man just post the name of your band already so we can youtube you and see if your music is even worth buying...you seem mad, therefor you must be a "struggling artist".
I am, but not music. Not that it matters.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


What question did he even ask?

I asked him many questions and he could not answer one of them.

I will ask you the same questions? so answer them. frely and openly..

I would rather be transparent, then not.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
possession implies ownership, thus the arbitration of the shared media is in the hands of the owner. If the owner does not lose possession that does not negate ownership. The owner is the buyer, at which point, well...this is obvious.
edit on 5-10-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)
The person who buys the reproduction of the work is not the owner. They are more akin to a lessee or licensee. They are granted the right to read/listen/watch/whatever the creative work, but not to reproduce it themselves, barring personal, private use, unless the original owner waives or loses their copyright.

Copyright violation is what makes piracy piracy.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


many books are free to read. Go to your library.

You are reading free material on this site...I tell you some people can't see in front of their own eyes.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by 000063
 


What question did he even ask?

I asked him many questions and he could not answer one of them.

I will ask you the same questions? so answer them. frely and openly..

I would rather be transparent, then not.


Here you go;


Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


Is downloading copyrighted material without paying for it stealing?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by Tulkor
 


So, Tulkor, do you think books should be for free? They're just stories, after all. Just ink on paper.

Non-tangible things can have worth, no matter how much rhetoric you throw out.



Steven King and J. K. Rowling should give away their writings and rely on reading the stories aloud to an audience to pay the bills.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kykweer
I've probably listened to thousands of bands online over my lifetime, if people like their music they can download it and share with friends and so like them on facebook, or myspace and so spreading their popularity and so opening their market for bigger touring shows etc and I'm from south africa so chances are I will never get to see 95% of the bands I like. But when bands I like have toured south africa I went to see at least two shows haha


I download my music through the nokia music store, but its not worth the effort anymore, I got a legal account that I have to register every week. They make it nearly impossible and nokia has no support online.
edit on 5-10-2011 by kykweer because: (no reason given)
Boo hoo, you get to listen to thousands of bands, yet take a little hassle to compensate them for their work. You are a spoiled parasite, you are.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by Ookie
 


because say you have just one hit album and its sells for decades why should you suddenly not get paid for it after a set time? If an artist paints a painting and its sold 40 years later don't they deserve the money?


No they don't. The artists should no longer get paid for their work after 20 years. If they want more money they should WRITE NEW MUSIC. That makes more music for everyone. Just because you wrote it doesn't make it yours forever. That is stupid. Artists should benefit from their work. For a limited time. Then they should be forced to make new works. I see nothing wrong with that. It's the forever we have now that makes no sense. You wrote a hit song? Great! There is no reason you should still get paid for it when you're 70. Unless you write it at 50.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by 000063
 


many books are free to read. Go to your library.

You are reading free material on this site...I tell you some people can't see in front of their own eyes.


Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
For those who feel that downloading of music (to listen to on your mp3 player) is stealing....
Do you think the libraries are complicit in allowing people to steal by not buying the books they read?
Libraries paid for their books or had them donated, and only one person gets them at a time. An infinite number of pirates can effectively listen to one CD.

So, no. Photocopying an entire book would be stealing, and more akin to piracy. Even more so if the paper, ink, power, and copier cost effectively nothing.


Scroll down to the bottom of the screen;


This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.

edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: +


You didn't actually answer the question; should books be free to read? Yes/no/IDK.
edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: +



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
If someone takes something of yours without your permission but does not make money off it, is it stealing?


Copyright infringment is not theft. Copyright law says I can't make a copy because there is a monopoly on the copy and distribution of IP. It is not theft because theft means the taking of personal property and copying does not include taking anything.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join