Downloading

i cant wait until 5 or so years from now when we'll be saying how much of a big deal illegal downloading was, when an even BIGGER problem will be going on.

also with illegal downloads, the concept of "Rock Stars" is dead, though im sure many here already knew that

darkshade wrote: also with illegal downloads, the concept of "Rock Stars" is dead, though im sure many here already knew that

Preeeeeeeeeetty sure the two aren't correlated.

NaturalScience wrote: It boils down to what one thinks the scope of copyright should be - should an artist have unconditional control over the work in perpetuity?   Not for perpetuity, but I believe it's 90 yeards from the date of release.   But of course they should, why?   If you own a house, you are entitled to leave it to your kids, if you CREATE something, it's your property just as the house, property can't be limited, so yes, they are entitled.   But mostly for other reasion, according to some laws, the Producer or label own the album for the first 20 years, it's the case of Rick Wakeman, A&M owned the rights of No Earthly Connectrion and Criminal Record according to contractual agreement.   A&M had no interest in releasing the albums again so Rick asked them to allow him to release them with his own money, A&M said no, so Rick had to wait two decades to really receive some benefits from his work. Basically take an album out of print - should the artist have the right not to make it available to anyone?    You can buy a car and leave it in the garage for decades, why can't you stop your creation from being used, maybe the artist doesn't want to be remembered by that album.   Remember something HE OWNS THE MUSIC, if you own something you can use it, sell it or destroy it, it's your right. Copyright, patent, and trademark law arose to encourage innovation and to protect intellectual property - but did it ever mean to come to this?   Of course, nobody has the right to tell me what to do with something that is mine. I'm fine with people that feel that downloading is wrong, no matter what.  I'm just saying my main concern is the artist.  If there's a way to acquire the album such that the artist gets compensated, I'll take that approach over an (illegal) download every time- if such a way does not exist, my conscience is clear about obtaining it in another way.   There are different ways an artist gets compensated, sometimes and specially in a non popular genre as Prog, the artist signs a contract to receive some amount of money for certain number of albums (Remember that ELP had signed a contract abnd was forced to release Love Beach, so this guys released a sub standard album and was crap, I'm sure Atlantic would rather leave them free), then the label takes the risk, if the album is not popular, they loose their investment.   Some artists resign to their royalties of studio albums, but keep the right to release live versions (I believe that in Germany this is not allowed).   Laws have a logic, not just absurd rules placed without a reason.

So the gate is open, and we're arguing about what should be done to make sure the horses that have escaped do not do so again ... if we get them back in the first place ...

The arguement is pointless.

The true debate should be how do you use this technology to pay the musicians now. Not based on what was the business model 10 years ago. But what is the reality now. And that is the debate that is still not of interest to the major labels. Because they know that it will mean CEOs having to do without personal jets, platinum expense accounts, and million dollar bonuses. And that also means that many musicians will have to work at their career as if it was a business. Which it is. Money is needed to finance, revenues are expected to exceed expenditures. If this happens, you decide whether there is enough "profit" for you to want to continue.

But in the end, the unlimited subscription model is here. All that remains are the rest of the dominoes to fall. And so enable artists to get their share. And music fans to get their music. Securely, conveniently, and fairly priced. period.

NaturalScience wrote: Why not?  If the reasons is valid for 90 years, why not forever?  See your house argument below.  I could keep my property and pass it down to my descendants ad infinitum - why not so with a creative work? I'm not saying 90 years is the correct choice, just mentioning what the law says, only that. Echoing many other previous arguments, if someone were to steal my car, despite the fact that I store it and don't drive it, I would still be deprived of the car.    Because one of the rights of the owner is to destroy his property, you can't limit his right to stop new releases of his album that's one of the atributes of property, as simple as that.   The artist who refuses to re-release an album is not making any money off it in the present, and a download of an album would effect his situation not in the slightest.   He wants to stop the release, he's entitled to, it's his work, he created it, he can destroy it , or at least stop more releases, Of course, and I can't dispute that he holds the rights of distribution to his own music - as I've said, no one here is disputing the illegality of downloading without consent, and (I think) everyone recognizes the artists right to his/her own work. One of his rights is to avoid releasing it, you can't limit the rights of property. You have a right to your image, if the artist wants to keep his image away from that album, who are we to order him to release it again.  And wy should anybody make money with his work?   As for not wanting to be remembered for an album, well, I think that would be an exercise in futility, as copies do exist, and trying to turn the clock back on history never works.  Information wants to be free, as it were. Well, it's his right to try to do it...How many albums have been released in such small numbers that no copies are availlable? If it's futile or not, is irrelevant, he doesn't want that album to be released again that's all that matters, because the only truth is that it's his creation and he can do whatever he wants with it without limits except those imposed by laws, and you can't deprive him of that right.   We are not talking about material property, we are talking about intelectual property, with ddifferent realities, but the same rights and atributes of property.   Iván

Natural Science:

Property rights do wear out over time.  For example, if a company leaves its railroad cars on the tracks for a year, and some homeless people start living in them, after a while, the homeless people gain property rights over those railroad cars.

I can't convey it any better than that, but that's what my philosophy professor is currently working on.  It's fascinating stuff.

Once again, I'm talking morals.  Yes, I used a real example, but I chose it specifically because the law agreed with the way I view morality.

It's not productive for you to respond to all of my points about morals with points about what the law says.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: It's not productive to try to sell us your morals, what is moral for you, may not be moral for me.   Iván

Well then that would seem to indicate that there is a problem with one or both of our morals, and the only way to resolve the dispute is to debate the merits of each view.

In that case, the only reason it wouldn't be productive for me to try to "sell us your morals" is if people are too stubborn and close-minded to consider opinions outside of their comfort zone.  That's probably true, at least in some cases, but there are some people who are willing to engage in civil debate and it is productive to debate with them.

Also, I almost always learn something if I debate my ethics with someone, and that allows me to refine them, in which case it's hugely productive for me.

Moreover, Natural Science specifically said he was talking about morals, meaning that my response was entirely appropriate and clearly desired by him, since it was part of the discussion he wanted to have.

Well, obviously choice 2 is fine.  I don't believe illegal downloads are killing music, though it isn't completely helpful either.  The music industry is killing itself due to greed, poor choices, poor marketing, poor artists, poor people, dumb people, and resistance to change.  Not that I'm all for jumping in the change boat, but times do indeed change and if the boat leaves and you aren't there, its your own fault for missing it.

NaturalScience wrote: And we're at an impasse, as usual with these types of discussions. Not convinced that jaywalking laws were passed with that purpose in mind - they're for everyone's safety. And by illegal parking spaces, I simply meant places where cars aren't technically supposed to go - please don't assume I park in handicapped spaces, that is something I find immoral. My point is I don't always obey every law:  in almost every case I try to, but there are times when I do not.  Everyone is free to take away from that whatever opinion of me that they wish.