Judgemental, aren’t we?
Judge me as judgemental if you wish, though this is rather judgemental of you....lol Your whole argument Abbadon, seems to be summed up in this statement :
- The laws involved in protecting the interests of musical recording are outmoded and not in line with presently available technology, therefore it is fine to break them.
You note :
h_s, your whole argument is that it is against the law and the law is right. - That is an opinion if ever I heard one. You’re welcome to your opinion, but to judge others moral worth on that opinion is taking it a little too far!!
Laws may be open to opinion, but they are laws nonethless and it is not just a matter of opinion as to which ones we obey and which ones we do not. Heaven forbid that should be the case. I am rather surprised at the weakness of your arguments Abbadon. You normally put on a better show.
As it is, my whole argument is NOT 'that it is against the law and the law is right', and I suspect you have not read my many posts on this thread very carefully. My arguments are far more complex and if you read my posts you will note my concerns of the damage being done to individual performers and the rights that they have over their own intellectual property. The Law recognizes the danger, and has done with the published word for over a century where the plaigerism and theiving of intellectual property is concerned. This is what is happening with the present situation of music 'swapping' over the Internet.
Utter rubbish (that’s MY opinion). File sharing is an effortless costless transaction that the artists are not even necessarily aware of. Your comparison is invalid. You might contend with ‘costless’, as you will say it reduces sales, but the research even on this is mixed as the overall downturn in music sales (
It might not surprise you to know that I am going to disagree with your opinion...lol If you read the posts that involved the 'Rolex' illustration, the writer based his argument on cheap knock-offs'. My argument is that what is being produced in ripping mp3's is not a 'cheap knock-off' it is the real Mcoy. The word 'copy' is the only thing this argument has in common with what is happening to musicians songs, and this word is being misused.
Your statement regarding a mixed result on the effect of unathorised copying of music over the Internet is again mistaken. It does reduce sales, the figures speak for themselves. Market polling has been taken in most developed countries and the people who are taking this music from the Internet, themselves admit that since doing so, they purchase fewer CD's.
Very few musicians that I have met in my life are interested in money above art. Record companies are just corporations, greedy and selfish as are most megalithic empires. They differ not one iota in their core values than drug companies, motor vehicle companies, oil companies and the rest. The argument that I attacked is one that states it is fine to take from record companies because they are greedy. Nobody seems to offer a similar defence for these other companies. If you cannot see an unethical self-justification here, then there is no hope.
What you also have not focused on is this issue is that apart from Law, the musicians view ripping off mp3's of their work as stealing ( remember I issued a challenge for five names of well known musicians who agree with this activity ), the record companies view it as stealing from them, it seems the only people who do not view it as stealing are the fans.
DUH! This is the ‘for a few decades it’s been possible to be very rich if you are very lucky in the music industry, this is now an unalienable right’ argument, and it sucks. No one makes people become musicians; if they don't like the conditions of work, they can do something else. $500 a night sounds good to me; if I could do it 50 times a year I'd quit my full time job as I'd far rather have a work once a week lifestyle with some cash limitations than a lots of money but no time doing the 9-6 lifestyle.
The statement quoted above reveals two things about yourself Abbadon. You do not read other peoples posts carefully before you answer them and that you have a woeful ignorance as have had some others on this thread of the music industry. Let me re-iterate for the third time that touring with music has a fatigue factor attached to it that does not allow for it to be excercised at will and that $500.00 on which tax and air flights are paid is less that $500.00. DUH! This is my business Abbadon, I have experience on my side. Music tours are expensive, take a tremendous amount of behind the scenes activity and cannot just be undertaken fifty times a year when a person needs to pay for their bills. Perhaps if you played a small club, on your doorstep you might, but do you think you would fill it regularly...lol As to the urban myth of all musicians being 'very rich' in the pre-internet days and now expecting it as a right, I will not even bother answering this point as I am sure that on second thoughts you will see the weakness of your argument. It again shows a very limited internal knowledge of the industry.
I have highlighted a section of your quote which has nothing to do with the issue at hand, is a rather silly argument and one with which many irate management groups have tried hitting union negotiators around the head with for decades. I hope that you consider retracting this statement.
Anyway, nice chatting to you. I always quit threads when I find that I am wasting time repeating myself. This indicates that either I am not explaining myself very well, or that we are all fixed in our respective positions. If either of these notions are the case then no more can be said than has been said, so I will bugga 'orf now.
Best regards - HS
Yes, I have borrowed CD's, tapes etc. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If I were to make copies of the CD that I borrowed, then it would, just as it would copying software that does not belong to me with a view to cheating the companies who manufacture it.
edited to include an additional paragraph.