U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2010, 08:23 AM
 
Location: USA
701 posts, read 993,877 times
Reputation: 651

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Justifying stealing intellectual property because others work the fringes of the law to their personal gain just doesn't fly.
Actually, it did fly ... for Walt Disney and company.

Interesting discussion. I didn't think this thread would go on as long as it did.

$1.5 Million for 24 songs? Talk about abuse of power. Bad publicity. Waste of money. Inneffective strategies. David vs. Goliath.

Why don't the record companies put copy-protection on their products, much like they put electronic tags on CDs to prevent you from walking out of the store with them?

Oh, because studies have shown that sales go down when a product has copy protection and it affects their bottom line. Well, then come up with a better plan, rather than waste all the time and money prosecuting and making an example of this individual.

And while you're at it, start going after all those mass-production piracy outfits in Asia.

Oh, they can't. Sure, they make a show and publicize some "raids" and all, but that's all it is: a show. Cause it's much more difficult overseas and you have a different business model for there: "let them pirate the software so we can sell them the hardware. While the stupid Americans pay through the nose for both hardware and software in the Northern American market".

Personally, I believe "stealing is stealing" and I respect the author/artist rights to the fruits of their labor. They should be compensated for their work. But not for "a lifetime". Why not limit it to 15 to 25 years? After all, it's just a product and like most of the free market, products are copied and improved. Artists should think about better ways to distribute their work and make a living.

But in the end, it really boils down to the greed of the software, record and movie companies and their lawyers clout. And until they come up with a better and more fair business model for distribution, people will always download software, music and movies. I don't have any sympathies for the executives and lawyers, who will make their money anyway by inserting themselves between the artists and the consumers. They don't really add value to the end product.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2010, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
34,276 posts, read 59,597,037 times
Reputation: 33307
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastninja500 View Post
Actually, it did fly ... for Walt Disney and company.
Point being... Do you have personal values you live by (Yes, as you discuss below) or do we rationalize our behavior based on the behavior of others?
So Jeffrey Dahmer had the munchies? That doesn't justify me mirroring his behavior.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fastninja500 View Post
Interesting discussion. I didn't think this thread would go on as long as it did.

$1.5 Million for 24 songs? Talk about abuse of power. Bad publicity. Waste of money. Inneffective strategies. David vs. Goliath.

Why don't the record companies put copy-protection on their products, much like they put electronic tags on CDs to prevent you from walking out of the store with them?

Oh, because studies have shown that sales go down when a product has copy protection and it affects their bottom line. Well, then come up with a better plan, rather than waste all the time and money prosecuting and making an example of this individual.

And while you're at it, start going after all those mass-production piracy outfits in Asia.

Oh, they can't. Sure, they make a show and publicize some "raids" and all, but that's all it is: a show. Cause it's much more difficult overseas and you have a different business model for there: "let them pirate the software so we can sell them the hardware. While the stupid Americans pay through the nose for both hardware and software in the Northern American market".

Personally, I believe "stealing is stealing" and I respect the author/artist rights to the fruits of their labor. They should be compensated for their work. But not for "a lifetime". Why not limit it to 15 to 25 years? After all, it's just a product and like most of the free market, products are copied and improved. Artists should think about better ways to distribute their work and make a living.

But in the end, it really boils down to the greed of the software, record and movie companies and their lawyers clout. And until they come up with a better and more fair business model for distribution, people will always download software, music and movies. I don't have any sympathies for the executives and lawyers, who will make their money anyway by inserting themselves between the artists and the consumers. They don't really add value to the end product.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 08:48 AM
 
40,169 posts, read 41,775,319 times
Reputation: 16740
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
IDK, it was Walt Disney who wanted the rules changed. I guess you should send him an e-mail and ask him why he wanted his friends in Congress to pass the The Mickey Mouse Preservation Act. I suspect it has something to do with corporate greed though.
As I already suggested the length of copyright needs to be adjusted, what do you think is fair amount.



Quote:
Well file-sharing programs have been around for quite a while now, and people seem to be using them a lot. And before that there were VCRs and tape recorders, that could be used to make copies. Yet even with all that copying going on. There still seems to be enough money to be had, to keep people producing the content.
True but recording to tape or VCR isn't quite comparable. Analog recordings reduces the quality and each subsequent recording reduces it more. A VCR has relatively low resolution even compared to the original SD broadacst. Plus it's a lot of damn work and time because the recordings could only be done real time. You still need to purchase the blank tapes too. Having been around when both of these formats were introduced I can tell you few people actually spent the time to make recordings. Most people just made mixed tapes for audio at the most.

In comparison you have instant access to high quality copies now.

Quote:
So it probably doesn't effect the producers pocketbooks one way or the other.
Sorry but that's not a very good argument for having illegal copies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 08:55 AM
 
40,169 posts, read 41,775,319 times
Reputation: 16740
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
If I create something, I put it out to the public domain. I can think of other inventors who felt the same exact way, and someone else took the credit for their invention, because they were the ones to patent it.

There's a lot of people that do that especially in the software industry. The people doing this are mostly doing it for fun, it's not their day job.

If you want free music you can find all the free music you want especially from small local bands. The issue is everyone wants the over hyped garbage promoted by the recording industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 09:18 AM
 
40,169 posts, read 41,775,319 times
Reputation: 16740
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastninja500 View Post

Why don't the record companies put copy-protection on their products, much like they put electronic tags on CDs to prevent you from walking out of the store with them?
CD's would of had it if they knew what was going to happen, they didn't envision CD burners and mp3 when the format was introduced. Plus there hasn't been a successful way for them to protect anything. Blu ray protection was supposed to be "unbreakable" and it lasted a mere 6 months.

While copying is problem especially among the younger generation the bigger issue as I see it is the CD format itself. It blew up in their face because it no longer has a short "shelf life". Prior to that formats like tape or vinyl easily degraded or were broken over time. Plus you always have the next latest and greatest physical format on the horizon. The business model has been to sell you the same content over and over...vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD. There's better formats now than CD but they don't justify buying into them for most consumers.

You have people like myself who have gone out and purchased most of the music they want on CD and I don't ever have to purchase it again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 41,840,053 times
Reputation: 10962
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
There's a lot of people that do that especially in the software industry. The people doing this are mostly doing it for fun, it's not their day job.

If you want free music you can find all the free music you want especially from small local bands. The issue is everyone wants the over hyped garbage promoted by the recording industry.

Well, the question would be: is my work good enough that someone else would WANT to pay for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:32 AM
 
40,169 posts, read 41,775,319 times
Reputation: 16740
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Well, the question would be: is my work good enough that someone else would WANT to pay for it?
Probably a market somewhere, I've seen some pretty lame ass things people have called art.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
11,815 posts, read 13,954,365 times
Reputation: 8047
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post

True but recording to tape or VCR isn't quite comparable. Analog recordings reduces the quality and each subsequent recording reduces it more. A VCR has relatively low resolution even compared to the original SD broadacst. Plus it's a lot of damn work and time because the recordings could only be done real time. You still need to purchase the blank tapes too. Having been around when both of these formats were introduced I can tell you few people actually spent the time to make recordings. Most people just made mixed tapes for audio at the most.
Agree and disagree.
It is comparable and it is not.
Comparable: Most people do not rip to lossless formats. So most people getting music from these sites are, indeed, getting "low resolution" copies.
Comparable: I also grew up in the generation. I had lots of full copies of cassettes. My friends and I swapped tapes all the time... full length, not mix tapes.
Not Comparable: The big difference being my friends and I were pirating maybe 5 copies at best. Today if I rip a CD and share it on Limewire, 5,000,000 people have access to it... not just 5.
People copying movies back in the days. Might make 3 or 4 copies and give them to friends. Rip it and put it on Limewire? Again 5,000 people might download it in the FIRST HOUR.
That's a HUGE difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 41,840,053 times
Reputation: 10962
I used to copy music to cassette tapes. Often, I even owned the original (unless I taped it off the radio). But as he said, I wasn't sharing it with a lot of people. It was actually for my own use.

Was I illegal? Technically. Was I within MY rights? I think so. I wasn't duplicating it to give or sell to others, I was duplicating for my own use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:33 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,090,722 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
True but recording to tape or VCR isn't quite comparable. Analog recordings reduces the quality and each subsequent recording reduces it more. A VCR has relatively low resolution even compared to the original SD broadacst. Plus it's a lot of damn work and time because the recordings could only be done real time. You still need to purchase the blank tapes too. Having been around when both of these formats were introduced I can tell you few people actually spent the time to make recordings. Most people just made mixed tapes for audio at the most.

In comparison you have instant access to high quality copies now.

Sorry but that's not a very good argument for having illegal copies.
That's a bad rationalization for accepting VCR copies but forgoing digital ones. Just because the medium changes doesn't mean the law nor the intent of the law does. Read: 1st amendment rights from a time when people were still hand-writing books to today with instant access internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:53 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top