Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Downloading
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDownloading

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 18>
Poll Question: Is it right to download music for free without the artist's consent?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
13 [22.41%]
24 [41.38%]
4 [6.90%]
17 [29.31%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 20:58
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Moreover, I never said it wasn't a crime.  I said it wasn't stealing.  You're arguing a straw man.

Legal definition of steal:
 
Quote The act of taking something away from a lawful owner without that owner's consent and with the taker having no legal right or justification for taking the thing.
 
  1. You are taking the song or album from a lawful owner
  2. You don't have his consent
  3. You have no legal right or justification to take that copy.

Ergo, it's stealing.

And yes, you're depriving the owner of his right to gain money with that album, and BTW....The artist used TIME AND MONEY to record that album and you are apropriating without paying him for his time, just as you would do with a lawyer or doctor.
 
You can say you weren't going to buy it anyway, and so the car thieve can say he wasn't going to buy your Honda, that's not trascendental.

 
Yes.  And then I weigh the expected benefits with the expected costs (likelihood to get caught, etc).
You have the right to question the legality or morality of a law but as long as it isn't revoked, you have to obey it. 
 
Something is not illegal because you are caught, it's illegal because of the text of the law and the authority of who gave the law.
 

Any society that has an unethical law ought to change that law, or it is directly acting against the interests of its citizens.  Because it's acting against the interests of its citizens, any force it uses to enforce that law is an unethical use of force on its part.  I have no ethical obligation to obey an unethical law, only (perhaps) a self-interested one.
 
You have the obligation while the law is valid, if you don't like it, go to the Supreme Court and ask the inconstitutionality of it.
 
You can not force the people to accept your concept of moral, so you have to accept the law.
 
You may not have a moral right, but being that the only thing that counts is the LEGAL OBLIGATION; you have to accept it and only fight against it using LEGAL methods.
 
Iván
 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2009 at 21:02
            
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 21:09
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Moreover, I never said it wasn't a crime.  I said it wasn't stealing.  You're arguing a straw man.

Legal definition of steal:
 
Quote The act of taking something away from a lawful owner without that owner's consent and with the taker having no legal right or justification for taking the thing.
 
  1. You are taking the song or album from a lawful owner
  2. You don't have his consent
  3. You have no legal right or justification to take that copy.

Ergo, it's stealing.

You're not taking it, you're copying it.  He still has everything you had before.

Quote And yes, you're depriving the owner of his right to gain money with that album, and BTW....The artist used TIME AND MONEY to record that album and you are apropriting of it without paying him for his time, just as you would do with a lawyer or doctor.


You don't pay the artist for the time they spent, you pay them for the product.  And no, I'm not depriving the owner of his right to gain money with that album, because he is just as capable of making money off of it regardless of whether or not I download it.

All I am doing is infringing on his (legal, perhaps also ethical) right to control how it is distributed.
 
Quote You can say you weren't going to buy it anyway, and so the car thieve can say he wasn't going o buy your Honda, that's not trascendental.

But in that case, the car company can't sell the stolen Honda.  The musician can still sell just as many copies of the downloaded album.
 
Quote You have the right to question the legality or morality of a law but as long as it isn't revoked, you have to obey it.
 
Legally, yes.  Ethically, no.  Just stating the same thing over and over in bigger font isn't going to convince me to accept your point.

Quote Something is not illegal because you are caught, it's illegal because of the text of the law and the authority of who gave the law.

 
And if the law is unethical, then NO ONE has the authority to make it.

Quote You have the obligation while the law is valid, if you don't like it, go to the Supreme Court and ask the inconstitutionality of it.

A legal obligation, yes, but certainly not a moral one.

Quote You can not force the people to accept your concept of moral, so you have to accept the law.


Where did I say anything about forcing people to accept my concept of morality?  And no, I do not have to accept the law where it is unethical, because the gov't cannot legitimately enforce an unethical law.
 
Quote You may not have a moral right, but being that the only thing that counts is the LEGAL OBLIGATION; you have to accept it and only fight against it using LEGAL methods.


On the contrary, in terms of whether or not I'm a good person, the legal obligation means absolutely nothing whatsoever.  In terms of being a good person, all that matters is that I behave ethically.

I might follow an unethical law, but the only reason I would do so is that I think the benefits of not following it fail to outweigh the risks of following it.


Edited by Pnoom! - February 15 2009 at 21:09
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 21:10
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

You're not taking it, you're copying it.  He still has everything you had before.

 
 
FALSE: Every copy of a musical work IS PROPERTY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.
 
You don't even own the music in a CD, you own the plastic and the right to use it WITH LIMITS.
 
If you owned the music, you would have no limits, but you can't upload it, share it, lend it, etc, so it's another person's property you are using, and when you appropriate of one copy, you are apropriating of the property of the artist.
 
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

 

Where did I say anything about forcing people to accept my concept of morality?  And no, I do not have to accept the law where it is unethical, because the gov't cannot legitimately enforce an unethical law.
 

 
 
 
The problem is who are you to decide if something is unethical?
 
You are forcing your concept of ethic to everybody.
 
Your ethics are different to the legislator, Judge and probably most people.
 
Some anti abortionists believe abortion is not ethic and it's moral to kill doctors who practice it....So if we leave everybody to decide what's ethic and whatr not, there would be chaos, so until a law is declared unethic and illegal, it's ethic and legal, because it's writen by an institution with authority
 
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2009 at 21:35
            
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 21:18
So you're creating something new that belongs to the artist.

The artist still has everything he had before you copied it.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 21:32
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

So you're creating something new that belongs to the artist.

The artist still has everything he had before you copied it.
 
Again, the artist owns the sequence of notes contained in a musical piece it's intellecttual property, not physiical property, can't be duplicated, if not any artist would clone a song and be no problem saying "it's a new product"
 
So any copy of his work is his work, and he owns it, the artist doesn't protect the album, protects his intellectual creation.
 
Iván
 
 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2009 at 21:34
            
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 21:36
So, suppose I download an album.  Then I delete it from my HD.  Am I doing a double wrong because I've destroyed a copy of his work?

Suppose I buy a digital copy of the album, then burn a CD of it?  Am I doing something wrong, because after all he owns every copy except the one he sold me?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 21:59
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

So, suppose I download an album.  Then I delete it from my HD.  Am I doing a double wrong because I've destroyed a copy of his work?
 
No, that's absurd, read the copyright law thjhere's not a lñegal rule that forbids to destroy a copy of a work, the limits are others copyy it, lend it, rent it, play it in public places, etc, but not deleting a copy.,


Suppose I buy a digital copy of the album, then burn a CD of it?  Am I doing something wrong, because after all he owns every copy except the one he sold me?
 
again, read the copyright Law, it's obvious you don't know it very well, if you have a legally bought copy, you are entitled to make a SECCURITY COPIES FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE,. even when RIAA and Sony are trying to change this.

 
Better read the copyright law, it's explained clearly for almost anybody.
 
 
            
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 22:03
You're committed to debating the law, which I don't care about.

I'm committed to debating ethics, which it seems you think are superseded by law.

We've hit a dead end and can only go in circles from here.
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 22:24
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

You're committed to debating the law, which I don't care about.

I'm committed to debating ethics, which it seems you think are superseded by law.

We've hit a dead end and can only go in circles from here.

LOL    I knew that a couple of pages back, but hey, it's entertainment I don't have to download.

What do I owe you guys?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 22:30
We3l if you don't care about law, what can we say.
 
Just a question...Which ethics you care about, your own, collective ethics or the ethibs of each individual?
 
Must we accept the ethics of the pro Life guy who feels killing a doctor who practice abortions is ethic? Or the University owner who prohibits his students to date with people of different races?
 
Only to finish and for your understanding, Industrial Espionage or Industrial Theft is a crime, you don't take any material thing from the industry, just photos or even photos of manuals, maybe not even photos, you can make a drawing of a scheme, and you can go to prison for stealing secrets.
 
And remember, the owner of the secret hasn't lost anything, he has as many items as before, but it's stealing anyway.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 22:39
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

We3l if you don't care about law, what can we say.


You can commend me for having a strong ethical sense.

Also, in most cases that would apply to me, I think the law is ethical, so you don't have to worry about me not following it. Wink
 
Quote Just a question...Which ethics you care about, your own, collective ethics or the ethibs of each individual?


I care about the ethics that are inherent in a social system composed of rational organisms.  These apply universally to all rational creatures that exist within society.

I can go into more detail on this, but that's an issue for the philosophy thread I started.
 
Quote Must we accept the ethics of the pro Life guy who feels killing a doctor who practice abortions is ethic?


Well there are good ethical reasons why a society shouldn't allow vigilante justice, so the issue just reduces to your standard abortion debate.

Quote Or the University owner who prohibits his students to date with people of different races?


Provided that the university is a private enterprise that all its students choose to attend, then yes, the university owner is not doing anything unethical, even though I disagree with his values.
 
Quote Only to finish and for your understanding, Industrial Espionage or Industrial Theft is a crime, you don't take any material thing from the industry, just photos or even photos of manuals, maybe not even photos, you can make a drawing of a scheme, and you can go to prison for stealing secrets.
 
And remember, the owner of the secret hasn't lost anything, he has as many items as before, but it's stealing anyway.


Now that's a good and accurate analogy.  However, it doesn't undermine my point, because, from an ethical standpoint, I wouldn't classify that as stealing.  It's unethical and a violation of property rights, but it's not stealing.
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 22:39
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

You're committed to debating the law, which I don't care about.

I'm committed to debating ethics, which it seems you think are superseded by law.

We've hit a dead end and can only go in circles from here.

LOL    I knew that a couple of pages back, but hey, it's entertainment I don't have to download.

What do I owe you guys?


I'm suing you for $125,000,000 a post.
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 22:45
A bargain compared to t the tongue-lashings I get from others around these parts.  The check is in the mail.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 22:47
Originally posted by laplace laplace wrote:

music's a luxury. everyone downloading it is unconscionably evil and greedy; it's the same with pornography - an entirely useless industry, and so one harried by leeches that it becomes unsustainable and unrewarding for all those involved you wouldn't download a carriage


Yes, yes I would. I would also download the horse to carriagify it places.
Back to Top
Petrovsk Mizinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 23:06
So I'm confused.
Rules state can't promote illegal activities.
Can I then say that I illegally download music, but I don't condone it and if I could afford it, I'd prefer to buy it instead?
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 23:15
Originally posted by HughesJB4 HughesJB4 wrote:

So I'm confused.
Rules state can't promote illegal activities.
Can I then say that I illegally download music, but I don't condone it and if I could afford it, I'd prefer to buy it instead?
But you're still stealing, because if you can't afford a carriage, you couldn't take one just because you wanted it, right? So by saying that you have done it, you are condoning doing it as long as one is too poor to buy 300 gigs of music and one pinky-swears to buy it once you have made a fortune in the stock market, which is condoning illegal activity, which means we should all be banned.
 
Nuts! We just can't win.
 
PLEASE NOTE: I do not nor have I ever condoned any illegal activities explicitly or implicitly in any way, shape, or form and if it appears that I did so I apologize because that was not, is not, nor ever will be my intention.


Edited by Henry Plainview - February 15 2009 at 23:38
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 23:22
Location: Houyhnhnm
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 15 2009 at 23:31
I'm dangerously close to being banned for simply stating my opinions so I'd better stay out of this thread altogether.  

Whoops!  
Back to Top
Windhawk View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 00:03
I'll say this about the topic at hand:

1. Legalize the spreading of low quality files (56 or 64 kb/s max)
2. As the legislation is already in place - strike down hard on those who spread high quality copies (i.e. above 64 kb/s)

Then we'll have a similar situation as we had in the days of tape trading; people can sample the music at reduced quality; and at last have an incentive to buy - and with a legal variant available, most will want to stay legal.

Some will never buy though - that's the way of the world, some are content with getting it for free even if the quality is vastly reduced. But those are people that never buy anyhow, there's always has been quite a few of those around and always will be.

As for stopping illegal downloading as it functions today I think it will be nearly impossible. Too many people download illegally, and few nations wants to criminalize larger parts of the population by enforcing the current legislation; and opts to go for special cases to try to intimidate others to stop illegal downloading rather than trying to enforce the existing laws to the letter.

And as for existing legal downloads - many use them, but as long as something is available for free people will want to get it for free. One may not like it, but taking advantage of situations to one's own benefit is a distinctive trait of the human being.


Edited by Windhawk - February 16 2009 at 00:07
Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 00:59
There's really only one way the problem would ever be solved - disable the whole idea of accessing files of any size off the internet! Big smile  Think about it: if there was no program code that let you save files off the net onto the PC, would you be able to download?  Obviously not.  But my friends, a whole way of doing business built on communicating seamlessly cutting across physical borders will never be dismantled only for the sake of things like music or movies.  As somebody put it, they are luxuries and it is ostensibly the prerogative of the makers of luxury to take care of themselves; the world will go on with or without them. Harsh it may be, but it's the truth.

There really can be no debate about the legality of dowloading: it has no legality whatsoever, if you download, you steal.  But what would be more interesting to discuss is what would be the ramifications of a music world without downloading - in particular to prog or other non-mainstream artists.  I hope you appreciate how hard it would then be for them to ever break through and attract the attention of potential audiences.  You cannot really get into how they could do it in the 70s - or 80s in the case of metal - because we can only discuss the here and now, the reality of today.  It is true that if you cannot afford it or access it, you should wait till you can.  However, if that were the case, the receipts from stage performances that artists depend on in no small measure as a source of income would imo be dented.  Iron Maiden are returning to India for the third time in three years.  The significance of this in a country where any form of Western music that is not promoted through the medium of Bollywood has negligible, if any, exposure cannot be underestimated.  It in fact would not have happened in the 80s.  A Matter of Life and Death sold well here which is what opened Iron Maiden's mind to a new market but this market was built on the strength of downloading by an audience which had difficulty affording or accessing their music.  You still have to know where to look for the CDs of a band as big as Maiden; you will NOT bump into them in just about any and every store, and I am a resident of India's biggest city, no less.  I really like Henry Plainview's point about videos on youtube;  it's something I do to evaluate whatever recommendations I get - tongue-in-cheek, let me add that if I don't like a handful of videos and give up on the band, I would at least not have stolen a whole album off the artist in the process. LOL  Illegal to upload videos on youtube without the artist's permission?   Yes. But...

I am not really going to get into the details of what I do and don't do; all I can say is my physical collection is already burgeoning in my apartment in this space-starved city; I wonder how rich I would have to be to store a collection as big as Slartibartfast's, buying that many albums would be easier and cheaper in fact!  LOL  In summary, yes downloading is illegal and regardless of what goes on in reality, nobody can tell you the individual that it is ok and that you should feel proud about it.  Having said that, does prog-utopia await in a hypothetical future world where it's impossible to download?  Not really, I am not convinced at all on that count, there is something seriously wrong in the model of the music industry but nobody knows what could possibly be a more feasible one at this point; and if any alternative models have been suggested but haven't been adopted, one has to conclude that the industry is loath to give these a fair shot.  Head buried in the sand, much?

P.S:  I think I made it abundantly clear, but let me reiterate that nothing in my post should be construed as advocating illegal downloads.  It was just a relevant detour to the central point of the discussion.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 18>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.