Downloading

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 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:   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.   You are taking the song or album from a lawful owner You don't have his consent 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.

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.

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.

 

Edited by Pnoom! - February 15 2009 at 21:09

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

The artist still has everything he had before you copied it.

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?

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I'm committed to debating ethics, which it seems you think are superseded by law.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

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

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 I'm committed to debating ethics, which it seems you think are superseded by law.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

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.

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?

Edited by Henry Plainview - February 15 2009 at 23:38

I'm dangerously close to being banned for simply stating my opinions so I'd better stay out of this thread altogether.  

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!   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.   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!    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.