Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Stigmata66 · Feb 22, 2004, 07:52 pm

I am personally for the sharing of files over internet because I believe if I've bought a CD I can rip it to my computer and share or do whatever with it (hence me having to pay for it). What would you rather have the Mona Lisa or some shitty photocopy of it; people will buy CD's because they support the bands they like.

mooseboy84 · Feb 22, 2004, 08:47 pm

yes it is copyright infringment. people arent getting paid. 99 cents for one song, OK...........

im not gonna make in lame excuses some people say about "bad albums", movies or crappy this or that. its free. if you could download food from the internet people would do it. if you could Download a fine german automobile from bravaria over the internet, people would do it. if you can get something for free, then people will get it.

there is no way theyre going to stop it. i think sharing of music definatly helps artist, because you can get a sample of there music before tyou buy it. i know that i have download music and enjoyed it that i would have never listened too if i only could walk into the store and purchase it based on the art cover or what section it was in.

oddly enough, the #1 thing that rutinely has its copyrights infringed and shared more than anything is pornography. there are more illegaly traded porn movis there are are MGM, yet i dont hear them complaining.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 22, 2004, 09:42 pm

We already have this forum topic. Thrice. But whatever. It's illegal, yes. There's no doubt about that. If the record companies had enough lawyers and enough evidence, they'd put every last person with an mp3 collection behind bars for theft.

But is it wrong?

Stigmata66 · Feb 22, 2004, 10:42 pm

Yes, there's no doubt it's illegal, it's should be "right or worng" not"illegal or legal". But I don't think it's wrong.

kharmajunkie · Feb 23, 2004, 01:30 pm

In the long run it will level the playing field for the artist. Musicians see very little of the fifteen or so dollars you pay for an
album; they make more doing live shows. It's getting towards a point were a musician can be financially successful without the help of a record company because they could do their own site, have control over merchandise, albums, etc. The legality of file sharing isn't what the record companies should be worried about; they need to find a
new outlet to make money because the days of them controlling multitudes of artist's careers is coming to an end.

Major Billy · Feb 24, 2004, 06:35 pm

I support file-sharing so much, I shall share one with y'all today:

http://greaseman.c-s-p.com/audio/best_of/4...BedroomGolf.mp3

dannyp · Feb 24, 2004, 06:36 pm

go kharmajunkie.

seriously you can't stop transfer of filetypes. its all information. it can be shuffled around too easily. the majority of those who are against it are record companies. namely riaa.

this will be around probably as long as the government doesn't control information and the internet.

its like books and fahrenheit 451, come on.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 24, 2004, 08:39 pm

I'm not commenting on music but for sharing copyrighted programs to which you need a license inorder to use, it's something I disagree with.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 24, 2004, 11:22 pm

the way that music distribution is set up now is not compatible with digital music/the internet.

Before...bands had to record their music on a cd and a company would make those and get most (or all) of the money to distribute them.

Now... a band can simply record digitally and upload to the net. There anyone can download.

As soon as you download it you can do with it as you please. Give it to whoever.

The bands will be foolish to charge for the music anyway. Recorded music will be more like advertising for when the bands go on tour.

Tours are where bands make the big bucks.

As it is now..it's the reverse. Bands sometimes put on free tours (and make nothing) to promote sales of their cd's (in which the distributors get most of the money).

And then to top it all off...when you buy a cd you usually (there are exceptions) get 1 or 2 good songs and the rest are fillers. Why not simply download the song you want? Makes sense to me.

castille · Feb 25, 2004, 08:19 am

According to the logic of music "politically-motivated" pirates, since I own this CD, it must belong to me, so I can copy it as much as I can.

Does this mean I can take photos of you, stick them on a website, and write "THIS PERSON IS RAPIST; DONT GO NEAR HIM", then print it out and hand it around the neighbourhood?

Since the photo is MINE, doesn't it mean I can do anything I like with it?

RebelWithanAK · Feb 25, 2004, 12:20 pm

Straw man, Castille.

AnonT · Feb 26, 2004, 03:22 am

Yes, Castille, you can; and I can sue you for libel and slander, unless you have proof. Lord knows how you'll get proof, seeing as I haven't raped anyone, but feel free to try.

Anyway, from a moral standpoint, I feel that it's ok to pirate music, movies, software, etc. if you intend to buy it if you like it. I've pirated songs, only to buy the artists' albums because I liked the music. I've pirated games, then bought them even though I had a working copy on my hard drive. If you use filesharing as kind of a "try before you buy", then it's perfectly fine from a moral standpoint (in my opinion, at least). Most artists who have more talent than they have popularity agree on that point; artists who get high cd sales because of a handful of good songs while most of the music they make is crap generally disagree.

laserkid · Feb 26, 2004, 04:33 am

File sharing my view:

If its available for sale where you live downloading it is immoral and illegal.

If its NOT available for sale where you live its moral, and illegal.

Generally if I download music, ROMs, or movies, its stuff the markert isnt making available to me in any for to buy.

Take for instance Legendary Wings, a NES game Capcom made that I loved to rent a lot as a kid but never was able to buy it. Now I have the cash, but Capcoms neither selling the NES game, nor a remake. And the resellers market gives no money to the company that made it. So why is it any diffrent if I give money to joe shmoe for the game that has no money going to Capcom, versus downloading it, forgoing the crazy bididng process, and playing it? If however I downloaded it under these situations - and Capcom tommorow releases a GBA port, I am MORALLY OBLIGATED to buy that port as its now BECOME available and I owe Capcom that sale.

Thats generally my call.

castille · Feb 26, 2004, 08:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
Yes, Castille, you can; and I can sue you for libel and slander, unless you have proof. Lord knows how you'll get proof, seeing as I haven't raped anyone, but feel free to try.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well if you share files, you can be sued for theft :)

Same concept. Sharing files, slander. Did YOU make the files? No. You are essentially profiting from someone else's work. If I spend hours making software, only to let some pirate steal it, I'd hang him off Tiananmen Square.

File sharing is theft, whether you like it or not.

mucsavage · Feb 26, 2004, 09:42 am

My first post wow!!!

Right here are my two points:

1.
If the amount of money i spent on music cds in a shop was sensible compared to the cost of the production of the cds, and taking into account a fair profit due to the artist, i would make it my point not to download.

i feel that this is not the case at the moment for one reason in particular: when i was younger it cost me less to buy tapes. tapes are now more expenive to manufacture (my opinion) and so cds should be cheaper.

2.
Music does not always sell or not sell due to its merit. Some of the most influencial artists probably sell way less these days then your average one-shot pop wannabe. Yet there merit could enable long term profits (slow but consistent income). Their influence increases with the sharing of their music so i think it helps them.

of course this is not helpful to short term income

cheers
muc

**Pooeypants** · Feb 27, 2004, 03:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)

Well if you share files, you can be sued for theft :)

Same concept. Sharing files, slander. Did YOU make the files? No. You are essentially profiting from someone else's work. If I spend hours making software, only to let some pirate steal it, I'd hang him off Tiananmen Square.

File sharing is theft, whether you like it or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Having said that, piracy and file sharing is more prevalent in China and east asia states more so than any where else in the world, was that last bit irony?

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 27, 2004, 12:44 pm

File sharing is not theft. In order for a theft to have happened, someone has to lose something that they once owned.

However, with sharing, the original owner still has his/her copy.

No theft.

**Pooeypants** · May 17, 2004, 03:07 pm

Ah one could argue, you didn't pay for his/her work. It's all down to your morals and whether you respect intellectual property or not. Although the fact the gov't enforces it might have a deciding factor...

Lava · May 23, 2004, 06:56 am

Lets get some perspective here. Music file sharing has been going on since at least the 1920s.

First the files were shared by radio. Initially they were recorded at home on discs of wax or aluminium - recording on alu blanks at home was fairly easy to do, and not at all expensive.

Then along came wire recorders. Then along came reel to reel tape which finally allowed top quality recording. By this time numerous radio and TV stations were sharing their analogue music files on a worldwide scale.

Since then ther have been 8 track cassette, compact cassette, CD, DVD, HDD and now RAM chips to store the files in. And one or two other oddities that remain obscure.

And the sharing pathways have been radio, TV, giving physical recordings to friends, internet, etc.

There is nothing new about this. Music companies were campaigning against file sharing in the 80s with the slogan 'home recording kills music'. Obviously it didnt...

Whats it all about? Money - what else?

Regards, Lava!

bugsbunny04 · May 23, 2004, 02:00 pm

It does somewhat cause the artist to make less money off of album sales. But the ones that tour make plenty of money that way if their live show is worth half a nickle, so I dont think they are actually being hurt, since most of them are still able to by Bentleys, and for a lot of newer artists, that is how they get exposure starting out because they dont have a record deal yet and all they have is some live resordings recordings, or the record deal is with somebody too small and the record is not available in many places.

View Poll Results: Do you support the sharing of files over the internet with programs like Kazaa?
Yes, the files are my property I can do what I want with them.	18	50.00%
No, it hurts the music recording industry and corparations.	3	8.33%
No, but I do it anyways.	14	38.89%
I'm an indecisive moron.	1	2.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote

Feb 22, 2004, 07:52 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	I am personally for the sharing of files over internet because I believe if I've bought a CD I can rip it to my computer and share or do whatever with it (hence me having to pay for it). What would you rather have the Mona Lisa or some shitty photocopy of it; people will buy CD's because they support the bands they like. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 22, 2004, 08:47 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
mooseboy84 Molten Ash Location: Cognitive Dissonance Posts: 60	yes it is copyright infringment. people arent getting paid. 99 cents for one song, OK........... im not gonna make in lame excuses some people say about "bad albums", movies or crappy this or that. its free. if you could download food from the internet people would do it. if you could Download a fine german automobile from bravaria over the internet, people would do it. if you can get something for free, then people will get it. there is no way theyre going to stop it. i think sharing of music definatly helps artist, because you can get a sample of there music before tyou buy it. i know that i have download music and enjoyed it that i would have never listened too if i only could walk into the store and purchase it based on the art cover or what section it was in. oddly enough, the #1 thing that rutinely has its copyrights infringed and shared more than anything is pornography. there are more illegaly traded porn movis there are are MGM, yet i dont hear them complaining. <<because i f**kin said so>>™

Feb 22, 2004, 09:42 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	We already have this forum topic. Thrice. But whatever. It's illegal, yes. There's no doubt about that. If the record companies had enough lawyers and enough evidence, they'd put every last person with an mp3 collection behind bars for theft. But is it wrong? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 22, 2004, 10:42 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	Yes, there's no doubt it's illegal, it's should be "right or worng" not"illegal or legal". But I don't think it's wrong. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 23, 2004, 01:30 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
kharmajunkie year of the monkey Location: Milwaukee, Wi Posts: 663	In the long run it will level the playing field for the artist. Musicians see very little of the fifteen or so dollars you pay for an album; they make more doing live shows. It's getting towards a point were a musician can be financially successful without the help of a record company because they could do their own site, have control over merchandise, albums, etc. The legality of file sharing isn't what the record companies should be worried about; they need to find a new outlet to make money because the days of them controlling multitudes of artist's careers is coming to an end. Sanity is the playground of the unimaginative. anonomous Words we say, never seem to live up to the ones inside our heads. Chris Cornell

Feb 24, 2004, 06:35 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Major Billy Molten Ash Posts: 90	I support file-sharing so much, I shall share one with y'all today: http://greaseman.c-s-p.com/audio/best_of/4...BedroomGolf.mp3 >>>--~(ô¿ô)~--->

Feb 24, 2004, 06:36 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	go kharmajunkie. seriously you can't stop transfer of filetypes. its all information. it can be shuffled around too easily. the majority of those who are against it are record companies. namely riaa. this will be around probably as long as the government doesn't control information and the internet. its like books and fahrenheit 451, come on. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Feb 24, 2004, 08:39 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,470	I'm not commenting on music but for sharing copyrighted programs to which you need a license inorder to use, it's something I disagree with. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 24, 2004, 11:22 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	the way that music distribution is set up now is not compatible with digital music/the internet. Before...bands had to record their music on a cd and a company would make those and get most (or all) of the money to distribute them. Now... a band can simply record digitally and upload to the net. There anyone can download. As soon as you download it you can do with it as you please. Give it to whoever. The bands will be foolish to charge for the music anyway. Recorded music will be more like advertising for when the bands go on tour. Tours are where bands make the big bucks. As it is now..it's the reverse. Bands sometimes put on free tours (and make nothing) to promote sales of their cd's (in which the distributors get most of the money). And then to top it all off...when you buy a cd you usually (there are exceptions) get 1 or 2 good songs and the rest are fillers. Why not simply download the song you want? Makes sense to me.

Feb 25, 2004, 08:19 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	According to the logic of music "politically-motivated" pirates, since I own this CD, it must belong to me, so I can copy it as much as I can. Does this mean I can take photos of you, stick them on a website, and write "THIS PERSON IS RAPIST; DONT GO NEAR HIM", then print it out and hand it around the neighbourhood? Since the photo is MINE, doesn't it mean I can do anything I like with it? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 25, 2004, 12:20 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Straw man, Castille. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 26, 2004, 03:22 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	Yes, Castille, you can; and I can sue you for libel and slander, unless you have proof. Lord knows how you'll get proof, seeing as I haven't raped anyone, but feel free to try. Anyway, from a moral standpoint, I feel that it's ok to pirate music, movies, software, etc. if you intend to buy it if you like it. I've pirated songs, only to buy the artists' albums because I liked the music. I've pirated games, then bought them even though I had a working copy on my hard drive. If you use filesharing as kind of a "try before you buy", then it's perfectly fine from a moral standpoint (in my opinion, at least). Most artists who have more talent than they have popularity agree on that point; artists who get high cd sales because of a handful of good songs while most of the music they make is crap generally disagree.

Feb 26, 2004, 04:33 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	File sharing my view: If its available for sale where you live downloading it is immoral and illegal. If its NOT available for sale where you live its moral, and illegal. Generally if I download music, ROMs, or movies, its stuff the markert isnt making available to me in any for to buy. Take for instance Legendary Wings, a NES game Capcom made that I loved to rent a lot as a kid but never was able to buy it. Now I have the cash, but Capcoms neither selling the NES game, nor a remake. And the resellers market gives no money to the company that made it. So why is it any diffrent if I give money to joe shmoe for the game that has no money going to Capcom, versus downloading it, forgoing the crazy bididng process, and playing it? If however I downloaded it under these situations - and Capcom tommorow releases a GBA port, I am MORALLY OBLIGATED to buy that port as its now BECOME available and I owe Capcom that sale. Thats generally my call. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Feb 26, 2004, 08:43 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,) Yes, Castille, you can; and I can sue you for libel and slander, unless you have proof. Lord knows how you'll get proof, seeing as I haven't raped anyone, but feel free to try.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well if you share files, you can be sued for theft :) Same concept. Sharing files, slander. Did YOU make the files? No. You are essentially profiting from someone else's work. If I spend hours making software, only to let some pirate steal it, I'd hang him off Tiananmen Square. File sharing is theft, whether you like it or not. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 26, 2004, 09:42 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
mucsavage Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	My first post wow!!! Right here are my two points: 1. If the amount of money i spent on music cds in a shop was sensible compared to the cost of the production of the cds, and taking into account a fair profit due to the artist, i would make it my point not to download. i feel that this is not the case at the moment for one reason in particular: when i was younger it cost me less to buy tapes. tapes are now more expenive to manufacture (my opinion) and so cds should be cheaper. 2. Music does not always sell or not sell due to its merit. Some of the most influencial artists probably sell way less these days then your average one-shot pop wannabe. Yet there merit could enable long term profits (slow but consistent income). Their influence increases with the sharing of their music so i think it helps them. of course this is not helpful to short term income cheers muc

Feb 27, 2004, 03:27 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,470	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Well if you share files, you can be sued for theft :) Same concept. Sharing files, slander. Did YOU make the files? No. You are essentially profiting from someone else's work. If I spend hours making software, only to let some pirate steal it, I'd hang him off Tiananmen Square. File sharing is theft, whether you like it or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Having said that, piracy and file sharing is more prevalent in China and east asia states more so than any where else in the world, was that last bit irony? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 27, 2004, 12:44 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	File sharing is not theft. In order for a theft to have happened, someone has to lose something that they once owned. However, with sharing, the original owner still has his/her copy. No theft.

May 17, 2004, 03:07 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,470	Ah one could argue, you didn't pay for his/her work. It's all down to your morals and whether you respect intellectual property or not. Although the fact the gov't enforces it might have a deciding factor... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

May 23, 2004, 06:56 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Lava Igneous Magma Posts: 716	Lets get some perspective here. Music file sharing has been going on since at least the 1920s. First the files were shared by radio. Initially they were recorded at home on discs of wax or aluminium - recording on alu blanks at home was fairly easy to do, and not at all expensive. Then along came wire recorders. Then along came reel to reel tape which finally allowed top quality recording. By this time numerous radio and TV stations were sharing their analogue music files on a worldwide scale. Since then ther have been 8 track cassette, compact cassette, CD, DVD, HDD and now RAM chips to store the files in. And one or two other oddities that remain obscure. And the sharing pathways have been radio, TV, giving physical recordings to friends, internet, etc. There is nothing new about this. Music companies were campaigning against file sharing in the 80s with the slogan 'home recording kills music'. Obviously it didnt... Whats it all about? Money - what else? Regards, Lava!

May 23, 2004, 02:00 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	It does somewhat cause the artist to make less money off of album sales. But the ones that tour make plenty of money that way if their live show is worth half a nickle, so I dont think they are actually being hurt, since most of them are still able to by Bentleys, and for a lot of newer artists, that is how they get exposure starting out because they dont have a record deal yet and all they have is some live resordings recordings, or the record deal is with somebody too small and the record is not available in many places. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!