i get this. however, the nature of the media being stolen / traded / downloaded is very different than most things (and it's these exact issues that organizations like the EFF help to explore), and can't really be regarded in the same way as an ordinary theft.
absolutely incorrect. you might want to read the article i linked above and get a firmer grasp on how copyright law has evolved and what it means in our modern world. here is the key point:
Mark Rasch wrote:
For users of P2P networks, the actual liability is likewise turbid. If you download a single copy of a copyrighted work, for your personal listening, you probably have committed an infringement (unless you fit within the fair use exception, e.g., you are copying it for criticism, or literary purposes). What if you download the file and it sits unplayed on your computer while others download it from you? Who is the infringer: you, them, or all of the above? Under current caselaw, probably all of you.
notice he says "under current caselaw", which is my whole point: though the current system may suck, it is the current law, like it or not. and while we may petition, beg, cry, and plead for changes, people currently using file sharing services to download copyrighted material are breaking the law. that's the end of that story - case closed. and don't give me any BS that people don't know this, either.
sellthekids, saying something is "just wrong" and referring to people who may have legitimate gripes with the talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates as "misguided youth" doesn't have any argumentative power at all -- it's flag waving. it's so much more complex than that. if you want to support art and artists, purchasing their $18.99 for $2 cost cd may not be the best way to go.
actually what i think i said was:
i still do not understand (ok, in truth it is not 'understanding' but rather 'disbelief') that any kids in the U.S. could think that downloading is not wrong....that's wrong as in theft, wrong as in illegal, wrong as in what your parents/society teaches you.
there is no "just" about it. sorry that you think i am "flag waving" - i just happen to see this issue in black and white. you can argue all the want with explosive language like "talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates" - but the truth of the situation is, this is a business. these businesses are acting in a way to protect their market power and influence. don't like it? then work to change the system or work outside of their market. sorry, but some people
and i do not buy that it is my job to "support art and artist." these artist signed up for the system the are in - the same system run by the "talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates". i shed no tears for bands who cry b/c they get taken advantage of in this day and age. with the boundless opportunities available b/c of the internet, if more bands would take a DIY stance, then maybe the system might change. but you know what? most bands secretly hope/pray/desire to be the next 'it' band and blow up like The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Vines, The Shins...sorry - enough "The"s. anyway - although they all tell you they don't want to 'sell out' - i guarantee you they would have no issues signing with a major label if it meant they would make $25mil in a single year. indie rock isn't as gaudy as rap, but i know humans, and humans are vile, vain, self-worshiping animals. the boomers were not the first "me" generation....
Atomic Ned wrote:
So ... wrapping up this mini-novel, I believe that the only person that I'm really hurting is the used CD place where I used to go once a week and load up on CDs by bands that I had never heard of. I'm taking money out of their pocket and that's what I feel bad about, not about taking money out of the major labels' pockets.
i am not talking about "feeling bad". do i feel bad every time i buy a new CD and i make 2-3 copies for Otter, Ross and my brother? ummm, no i don't. but then again, i wouldn't answer some question from a reporter by trying to defend my actions. when i make copies i am breaking the law. doesn't stop me. why? for the same reason that i don't stop from driving 70MPH in the 60MPH zone: b/c the punishment is a risk that i can assume. the punishment for using a file service? it has gone up pretty substantially lately.
but more than that - i don't use file services b/c they are an inefficient use of my time and resources. pulling 60 files to get the 12 full tracks of the latest Radiohead is moronic. people suck - they can't label their files right: shiet that is live isn't labeled as such, etc etc etc. but again, i hold no illusions - Napster was illegal. i knew that when i used it and i don't make excuses for my behavior...even if it meant i was getting over on the "talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates". (that should be on the back of my Che Guevara t-shirt!)