Hold on a sec....some people have said that because of file sharing if they dowload some songs that they really like then they will go buy the CD....i could see this happening with DVD's because of the quality but songs generally have good quality and hence why would anyone buy the CD when they have the good quality songs for free....i dont see the logic behind that???

 

 

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

 

Does anyone know if since the onset of napster, have album sales gone down? B/c if they havent significantly it isnt that big a deal. Online downloads are not theft, b/c as someone said u are sharing somehting someone bought.

 

 

In reference to online downloads not being theft...........so what your saying is that just because some guy in California purchases a digital download, its OK for him to "share" it with 5,000 other people?

 

:lol

 

I know. It's just ridiculous. You're "sharing" with people you don't even know. Very generous world we live in.

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

Hey guys I just bought a Hummer H2 and Id like to "share" it with all of you.

 

Ill make it available so ALL of you can use it FOREVER for FREE.

 

 

If I buy a monet or a klimt and display it somewhere that the whole world can see, how is that not sharing with 5000 people i dont know?

 

 

 

 

Completely different.

 

If you were to buy a specific Monet you would then own the RIGHTS to the painting.

 

When you purchase a single via digital download you are purchasing the right to listen to the song. You are NOT purchasing the RIGHTS TO THE SONG itself.

Hold on a sec....some people have said that because of file sharing if they dowload some songs that they really like then they will go buy the CD....i could see this happening with DVD's because of the quality but songs generally have good quality and hence why would anyone buy the CD when they have the good quality songs for free....i dont see the logic behind that???

 

 

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

 

Does anyone know if since the onset of napster, have album sales gone down? B/c if they havent significantly it isnt that big a deal. Online downloads are not theft, b/c as someone said u are sharing somehting someone bought.

 

 

In reference to online downloads not being theft...........so what your saying is that just because some guy in California purchases a digital download, its OK for him to "share" it with 5,000 other people?

 

:lol

 

I know. It's just ridiculous. You're "sharing" with people you don't even know. Very generous world we live in.

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

Hey guys I just bought a Hummer H2 and Id like to "share" it with all of you.

 

Ill make it available so ALL of you can use it FOREVER for FREE.

 

 

If I buy a monet or a klimt and display it somewhere that the whole world can see, how is that not sharing with 5000 people i dont know?

 

 

 

 

Completely different.

 

If you were to buy a specific Monet you would then own the RIGHTS to the painting.

 

When you purchase a single via digital download you are purchasing the right to listen to the song. You are NOT purchasing the RIGHTS TO THE SONG itself.

 

 

Interesting distinction. What if i were to lend you my copy of 101 dalmations, and you in turn lend it to ur aunt, who lends it to her barber? Different?

Hold on a sec....some people have said that because of file sharing if they dowload some songs that they really like then they will go buy the CD....i could see this happening with DVD's because of the quality but songs generally have good quality and hence why would anyone buy the CD when they have the good quality songs for free....i dont see the logic behind that???

 

 

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

 

Does anyone know if since the onset of napster, have album sales gone down? B/c if they havent significantly it isnt that big a deal. Online downloads are not theft, b/c as someone said u are sharing somehting someone bought.

 

 

In reference to online downloads not being theft...........so what your saying is that just because some guy in California purchases a digital download, its OK for him to "share" it with 5,000 other people?

 

:lol

 

I know. It's just ridiculous. You're "sharing" with people you don't even know. Very generous world we live in.

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

Hey guys I just bought a Hummer H2 and Id like to "share" it with all of you.

 

Ill make it available so ALL of you can use it FOREVER for FREE.

 

 

If I buy a monet or a klimt and display it somewhere that the whole world can see, how is that not sharing with 5000 people i dont know?

 

 

 

 

Completely different.

 

If you were to buy a specific Monet you would then own the RIGHTS to the painting.

 

When you purchase a single via digital download you are purchasing the right to listen to the song. You are NOT purchasing the RIGHTS TO THE SONG itself.

 

 

Interesting distinction. What if i were to lend you my copy of 101 dalmations, and you in turn lend it to ur aunt, who lends it to her barber? Different?

 

 

 

Im not gonna go there but I'll say it again : When you purchase a single via digital download you are purchasing the right to listen to the song. You are NOT purchasing the RIGHTS TO THE SONG itself.

Hold on a sec....some people have said that because of file sharing if they dowload some songs that they really like then they will go buy the CD....i could see this happening with DVD's because of the quality but songs generally have good quality and hence why would anyone buy the CD when they have the good quality songs for free....i dont see the logic behind that???

 

 

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

 

Does anyone know if since the onset of napster, have album sales gone down? B/c if they havent significantly it isnt that big a deal. Online downloads are not theft, b/c as someone said u are sharing somehting someone bought.

 

 

In reference to online downloads not being theft...........so what your saying is that just because some guy in California purchases a digital download, its OK for him to "share" it with 5,000 other people?

 

:lol

 

I know. It's just ridiculous. You're "sharing" with people you don't even know. Very generous world we live in.

 

 

:thumbup

 

 

Hey guys I just bought a Hummer H2 and Id like to "share" it with all of you.

 

Ill make it available so ALL of you can use it FOREVER for FREE.

 

 

If I buy a monet or a klimt and display it somewhere that the whole world can see, how is that not sharing with 5000 people i dont know?

 

 

 

 

Completely different.

 

If you were to buy a specific Monet you would then own the RIGHTS to the painting.

 

When you purchase a single via digital download you are purchasing the right to listen to the song. You are NOT purchasing the RIGHTS TO THE SONG itself.

 

 

Interesting distinction. What if i were to lend you my copy of 101 dalmations, and you in turn lend it to ur aunt, who lends it to her barber? Different?

 

 

 

Im not gonna go there but I'll say it again : When you purchase a single via digital download you are purchasing the right to listen to the song. You are NOT purchasing the RIGHTS TO THE SONG itself.

 

the reason you're not going there is b/c the tough issue here is 'borrowing and lending" as opposed to stealing. The issue of rights to the song itself has to do with making money off the song. If you legally download some songs and burn them into a CD to sell, then you are violation copyright laws and the such. However, if i buy somehting and give it to my brother im not violating those laws.

Legacy, my problem with file sharing has nothing to do with people letting their Aunt Betsie borrow a copy of A Clockwork Orange.

 

My problem with it is a pimply faced kid in Torrance, CA purchases a single on Napster. Then via that ONE purchase, 5,000 other people get to hear the WHOLE track over and over and over without paying a single cent for it.

 

That my friend is theft. You can spin that all day and all night but its theft in its purest form.

But if legacy lends a book to his friend who reads it, the book industry loses because the friend will no longer purchase the book since he has already read it.

 

Why is that accepted and music sharing not?

We could probably go back and forth on this well into Dontrelle entering free agency but I'll give another example.

 

If music should be "shared" :lol then I think property owners should start "sharing" their land. Allow me to elaborate.

 

 

A guy in his 20's (we'll call him Adrian) lives in a cramped apartment in Miami. Adrian has nothing but a Mac, Pro Tools and a couple of old analog keyboards. Other than that he is flat broke. Adrian writes a song, lands a recording contract and the track is released on ITunes.

 

Adrian OWNS the rights to his song that he worked on for two months. A chick in Denver purchases the track and "shares" it with 5,000 TOTAL strangers (not aunts and unlces folks).

 

But then a guy in his late 50's (we'll call him Tom) buys an oceanfront mansion in Malibu and invites a few friends over to ENJOY THE VIEW. Tom owns the rights to this mansion. Tom worked hard to afford the mansion.

 

Shouldnt we ALL get to "share" Tom's beautiful oceanfront Malibu property? :mischief

But if legacy lends a book to his friend who reads it, the book industry loses because the friend will no longer purchase the book since he has already read it.

 

Why is that accepted and music sharing not?

 

 

For one, there is an enormous difference of degree. One at least has the potential to destory an industry, and the other you're talking about a dozen people if most, and only then if you want to get crazy with the whole thing. Who lends books to their barber?

 

For two, at least the book is not self-replicating. Only one person gets to enjoy it at any one time. With music sharing, you are ballooning from one copy of the product which was paid for into 5000 copies which were not.

We could probably go back and forth on this well into Dontrelle entering free agency but I'll give another example.

 

If music should be "shared" :lol then I think property owners should start "sharing" their land. Allow me to elaborate.

 

 

A guy in his 20's (we'll call him Adrian) lives in a cramped apartment in Miami. Adrian has nothing but a Mac, Pro Tools and a couple of old analog keyboards. Other than that he is flat broke. Adrian writes a song, lands a recording contract and the track is released on ITunes.

 

Adrian OWNS the rights to his song that he worked on for two months. A chick in Denver purchases the track and "shares" it with 5,000 TOTAL strangers (not aunts and unlces folks).

 

But then a guy in his late 50's (we'll call him Tom) buys an oceanfront mansion in Malibu and invites a few friends over to ENJOY THE VIEW. Tom owns the rights to this mansion. Tom worked hard to afford the mansion.

 

Shouldnt we ALL get to "share" Tom's beautiful oceanfront Malibu property? :mischief

 

 

 

As you said yourself lets keep the focus on intellectual property. The mansion that wa spurchased gives rights to the owner to do as he pleases, so if he wnats 5000 people in his house then he can by all means. Your analogy is off, because it is not analogous. Keeping to the mansion, it would be more like someone signs a lease to that mansion and then lets his friends use it under that same lease. Sounds like an assignment to me, which is legal. As is sharing of music and movies.

But if legacy lends a book to his friend who reads it, the book industry loses because the friend will no longer purchase the book since he has already read it.

 

Why is that accepted and music sharing not?

 

 

I like the book analogy.

 

I mean, let's face it, anyone who works in book sales knows that it's not the most wealthy of entertainment industries. And a lot of author's do lose money when people share books instead of buying them. Especially if it's a little known book; let's face it, for every Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling there's someone else writing really good stuff nobody reads.

 

So, why is that okay and the other not?

We could probably go back and forth on this well into Dontrelle entering free agency but I'll give another example.

 

If music should be "shared" :lol then I think property owners should start "sharing" their land. Allow me to elaborate.

 

 

A guy in his 20's (we'll call him Adrian) lives in a cramped apartment in Miami. Adrian has nothing but a Mac, Pro Tools and a couple of old analog keyboards. Other than that he is flat broke. Adrian writes a song, lands a recording contract and the track is released on ITunes.

 

Adrian OWNS the rights to his song that he worked on for two months. A chick in Denver purchases the track and "shares" it with 5,000 TOTAL strangers (not aunts and unlces folks).

 

But then a guy in his late 50's (we'll call him Tom) buys an oceanfront mansion in Malibu and invites a few friends over to ENJOY THE VIEW. Tom owns the rights to this mansion. Tom worked hard to afford the mansion.

 

Shouldnt we ALL get to "share" Tom's beautiful oceanfront Malibu property? :mischief

 

 

 

As you said yourself lets keep the focus on intellectual property. The mansion that wa spurchased gives rights to the owner to do as he pleases, so if he wnats 5000 people in his house then he can by all means. Your analogy is off, because it is not analogous. Keeping to the mansion, it would be more like someone signs a lease to that mansion and then lets his friends use it under that same lease. Sounds like an assignment to me, which is legal. As is sharing of music and movies.

 

 

Sharing of music is legal? Correct me if Im wrong here but I dont believe thats what our courts have decided.

Like someone mentioned earlier, there are so many forms of acquiring media, even aside downloading, that who's to say where you cross the line?

 

People are ALWAYS going to find a way. Before Napster and burners came along, it was normal to tape songs off the radio and CD's. It wasn't the best quality but it was better than spending 13 bucks on a CD where you might only like one song. Is it just as wrong to TIVO a movie as downloading one? There are far too many circumstances. And why are CD/DVD burners on every shelf of every Best Buy?

 

Personally, I don't download movies. I'm too lazy and I'll probably feel uneasy because they're such big files. I do download music day and night but like many others here, I'll buy a CD if it's good stuff.

I'm not entirely clear on the legality of sharing certain things. I do know that Sony was sued back in the day by some movie studio or other because the studio was concerned that the VHS system would be used for copyright infringement. Sony won a narrow 5-4 decision, though, because the Supreme Court felt there were enough proper uses OTHER than the illegal distribution of media to justify the existence of VHS. Does that make sharing legal? I don't know.

 

I do know that a bunch of the online file-sharing communities have tried to win their suits based on the same principle, that their communities have other proper uses, and all of them have failed.

 

So, when you lend someone your book, I'm not positive you are technically allowed to do so. I know in school, there is a very finite limit to how much of a textbook the school is allowed to distribute to its students before the books have to be bought outright.

 

Someone mentioned upthread about Australia trying to legislate against the spread of VHS tapes. The US has basically said screw it, we have better things to do. But those copyright protections still exist, and it may still be illegal. I don't know. But I do know that the US won't be able to continue to turn a blind eye if file-sharing begins to destroy the entertainment industries.

 

I love how people continue to maintain that file-sharing is legal. It isn't. It'll be hard to move this discussion if forward, if people continue to refuse to accept that.

I'm not entirely clear on the legality of sharing certain things. I do know that Sony was sued back in the day by some movie studio or other because the studio was concerned that the VHS system would be used for copyright infringement. Sony won a narrow 5-4 decision, though, because the Supreme Court felt there were enough proper uses OTHER than the illegal distribution of media to justify the existence of VHS. Does that make sharing legal? I don't know.

 

I do know that a bunch of the online file-sharing communities have tried to win their suits based on the same principle, that their communities have other proper uses, and all of them have failed.

 

So, when you lend someone your book, I'm not positive you are technically allowed to do so. I know in school, there is a very finite limit to how much of a textbook the school is allowed to distribute to its students before the books have to be bought outright.

 

Someone mentioned upthread about Australia trying to legislate against the spread of VHS tapes. The US has basically said screw it, we have better things to do. But those copyright protections still exist, and it may still be illegal. I don't know. But I do know that the US won't be able to continue to turn a blind eye if file-sharing begins to destroy the entertainment industries.

 

I love how people continue to maintain that file-sharing is legal. It isn't. It'll be hard to move this discussion if forward, if people continue to refuse to accept that.

 

 

 

I agree. I dont see this discussion going anywhere. File sharing is illegal because it is theft. Someone please prove otherwise.

But if legacy lends a book to his friend who reads it, the book industry loses because the friend will no longer purchase the book since he has already read it.

 

Why is that accepted and music sharing not?

 

 

I like the book analogy.

 

I mean, let's face it, anyone who works in book sales knows that it's not the most wealthy of entertainment industries. And a lot of author's do lose money when people share books instead of buying them. Especially if it's a little known book; let's face it, for every Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling there's someone else writing really good stuff nobody reads.

 

So, why is that okay and the other not?

Because you can only share a book with one person at a time and it usually takes awhile to get through the book whereas a downloadable movie or CD can be downloaded by thousands of people at any time and there only restrictions are the size of their harddrive and the speed of their internet connection.

 

It's like going to a buffet or some type of all you can eat thing. You take what you can get when you're there, but you don't get to take it outside with you, nor can you share it with everyone around you or else you're breaking the rules.

But if legacy lends a book to his friend who reads it, the book industry loses because the friend will no longer purchase the book since he has already read it.

 

Why is that accepted and music sharing not?

 

 

I like the book analogy.

 

I mean, let's face it, anyone who works in book sales knows that it's not the most wealthy of entertainment industries. And a lot of author's do lose money when people share books instead of buying them. Especially if it's a little known book; let's face it, for every Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling there's someone else writing really good stuff nobody reads.

 

So, why is that okay and the other not?

Because you can only share a book with one person at a time and it usually takes awhile to get through the book whereas a downloadable movie or CD can be downloaded by thousands of people at any time and there only restrictions are the size of their harddrive and the speed of their internet connection.

 

It's like going to a buffet or some type of all you can eat thing. You take what you can get when you're there, but you don't get to take it outside with you, nor can you share it with everyone around you or else you're breaking the rules.

 

 

 

Excellent post Fritz. The buffet is a very good analogy. You probably explained it better than I did in my post above.

Like someone mentioned earlier, there are so many forms of acquiring media, even aside downloading, that who's to say where you cross the line?

 

People are ALWAYS going to find a way. Before Napster and burners came along, it was normal to tape songs off the radio and CD's. It wasn't the best quality but it was better than spending 13 bucks on a CD where you might only like one song. Is it just as wrong to TIVO a movie as downloading one? There are far too many circumstances. And why are CD/DVD burners on every shelf of every Best Buy?

That's a good point.

 

If you download the song but don't subsequently make it available for upload (freeloading), aren't you doing the same thing as if you were recording a song off the radio? Additionally, if you download a CD off the internet but don't give it to anyone else, isn't it the same as your buddy burning you a copy (which isn't questioned)?

Big company makes movie+Big company gets very rich+Poor person copies movie+Poor person makes some money to feed their family and pets. Whats wrong with that. Its called charity.

Big company makes movie+Big company gets very rich+Poor person copies movie+Poor person makes some money to feed their family and pets. Whats wrong with that. Its called charity.

 

 

 

 

And here all this time we were waiting for someone to come along and solve this riddle for us.

 

And charity was the answer to it all.

 

:plain

Like someone mentioned earlier, there are so many forms of acquiring media, even aside downloading, that who's to say where you cross the line?

 

People are ALWAYS going to find a way. Before Napster and burners came along, it was normal to tape songs off the radio and CD's. It wasn't the best quality but it was better than spending 13 bucks on a CD where you might only like one song. Is it just as wrong to TIVO a movie as downloading one? There are far too many circumstances. And why are CD/DVD burners on every shelf of every Best Buy?

 

Personally, I don't download movies. I'm too lazy and I'll probably feel uneasy because they're such big files. I do download music day and night but like many others here, I'll buy a CD if it's good stuff.

 

 

HeatGirl03...

 

Not sure if you remember it, but 15 years ago, WQAM carried a oldies format called "Kool Gold" They played old and semi-obscure stuff....stuff I hadn't heard in years and stuff I never heard...period. Years later, when I was using WinMX (RIP), i was looking for that stuff..not the more well-known stuff. Lar$ and the other a**holes of Greedtallica wouldn't have to worry about me depriving them of the equivalent of a pack of smokes.

 

And..like I said before...I still tape off the radio. I'll tape concert programs. I guess if I'm listening in my car...others might hear it and I'll get life at Starke...

Like someone mentioned earlier, there are so many forms of acquiring media, even aside downloading, that who's to say where you cross the line?

 

People are ALWAYS going to find a way. Before Napster and burners came along, it was normal to tape songs off the radio and CD's. It wasn't the best quality but it was better than spending 13 bucks on a CD where you might only like one song. Is it just as wrong to TIVO a movie as downloading one? There are far too many circumstances. And why are CD/DVD burners on every shelf of every Best Buy?

 

Personally, I don't download movies. I'm too lazy and I'll probably feel uneasy because they're such big files. I do download music day and night but like many others here, I'll buy a CD if it's good stuff.

 

 

HeatGirl03...

 

Not sure if you remember it, but 15 years ago, WQAM carried a oldies format called "Kool Gold" They played old and semi-obscure stuff....stuff I hadn't heard in years and stuff I never heard...period. Years later, when I was using WinMX (RIP), i was looking for that stuff..not the more well-known stuff. Lar$ and the other a**holes of Greedtallica wouldn't have to worry about me depriving them of the equivalent of a pack of smokes.

 

And..like I said before...I still tape off the radio. I'll tape concert programs. I guess if I'm listening in my car...others might hear it and I'll get life at Starke...

 

I dont like what metallica did only because they had made so much money. But it was still their money they were losing so I can understand it. Downloading files is wrong, but I still do it so what does that tell you

It tells me you are content being a theif. Other than that Im sure you are a great guy.

It's a pretty moot argument, regardless of how 'wrong' it might be. It's one of those illegal things (like weed) that people are always going to do and it just can't really be enforced.

I have the XMEN 3 dvd sitting in front of me, if that answers the question regarding my stance.

 

Then again, who is to say my cousin, BRETT RATNER, did not give it to me? :lol

I have the XMEN 3 dvd sitting in front of me, if that answers the question regarding my stance.

 

Then again, who is to say my cousin, BRETT RATNER, did not give it to me? :lol

 

No offense, but your cousin is a hack. :plain

my little heineken keg can.

 

it's so cute!