Common Counters: It's Stealing
(Common Counters will be an ongoing series of posts to give examples of ways to counter statements that copyright supporters often use.)
No one can own a song. I may 'take it without permission' because no permission is needed. If I have some public data (such as a song,) I have a right to send it to whoever I want, and no one has the legitimate authority to deny me that right. Exclusive 'copy rights' are fictitious and evil.
Downloading music is stealing a product.Downloading is not stealing. If you steal a book, the bookstore loses the book. When I copy a song, I am not depriving anyone of anything, they still have the song too. The copyright holders of the song are not even involved in the transaction.
No one can own a song. I may 'take it without permission' because no permission is needed. If I have some public data (such as a song,) I have a right to send it to whoever I want, and no one has the legitimate authority to deny me that right. Exclusive 'copy rights' are fictitious and evil.
# posted by indrax @ 9:46 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
i get what your saying but aren't you stealing intellectual property away from the band?
how can a commercial song be public data?
i agree that copyright laws are evil.
do you support creative commons?
how can a commercial song be public data?
i agree that copyright laws are evil.
do you support creative commons?
Information cannot be property, and in general, cannot be stolen.
A commercial song is public data because the artist has chosen to put it before the public.
The creative commmons, like the GPL uses copyright. They do not have the legitimate right to place the restrictions that they do. While I do see some value in them from a stratiegic standpoint, (making a body of work that will remain free, even under copyright law,) I don't think I will ever release anything under a license.
In short, I can't fully support them, but I see much room for cooperation.
A commercial song is public data because the artist has chosen to put it before the public.
The creative commmons, like the GPL uses copyright. They do not have the legitimate right to place the restrictions that they do. While I do see some value in them from a stratiegic standpoint, (making a body of work that will remain free, even under copyright law,) I don't think I will ever release anything under a license.
In short, I can't fully support them, but I see much room for cooperation.
your talking about data/information. im talking about intellectual property.
an artist has not chosen to put it before the public. an artist has chosen to produce music inconjustion with a record/distribute company. in doing so, they are making the majority of their income off this.
an artist has no choice about if their intellectual property is being stolen. a 3rd party must go out of their way to import this music into the mainstream via the internet.
you can say that mp3s aren't stolen information, but you cant say your stealing their music.
an artist has not chosen to put it before the public. an artist has chosen to produce music inconjustion with a record/distribute company. in doing so, they are making the majority of their income off this.
an artist has no choice about if their intellectual property is being stolen. a 3rd party must go out of their way to import this music into the mainstream via the internet.
you can say that mp3s aren't stolen information, but you cant say your stealing their music.
Intellctual Property in the context of copyright does not exist. No one can own a song. The only property involved is my computer and my CD.
The artist HAS chosen to put the song before the public, that's how the public gets it in the first place. Selling CD's in stores, Radio, various performances, all these present the song to the public.
Copying is not stealing music, the artist still has their music. They also still have the ability to get paid for making music. I have take nothing and harmed no one.
The artist HAS chosen to put the song before the public, that's how the public gets it in the first place. Selling CD's in stores, Radio, various performances, all these present the song to the public.
Copying is not stealing music, the artist still has their music. They also still have the ability to get paid for making music. I have take nothing and harmed no one.
This is silly. The artist put in time and effort to produce the song for profit. If you say 'no intellectual property' no one would produce songs because there is no money in it.
And if you go on about money sharing, you aren't talking abolishing of copyrights, you are talking communism.
And if you go on about money sharing, you aren't talking abolishing of copyrights, you are talking communism.
# posted by 
: 8/10/2005 12:03 PM
: 8/10/2005 12:03 PM
Anonymous:
It is entirely possible for an artist to make money by making music. This is obvious given a basic free market. As long as people want new music, they will pay an artist to make it. SeeStreet Performer Protocol. It is a simple matter of supply (talent) and demand (a desire for music.)
Musicians need to market their talents as services, not try to force the market to pretend they are goods.
I think it is clear that I am not a communist.
It is entirely possible for an artist to make money by making music. This is obvious given a basic free market. As long as people want new music, they will pay an artist to make it. SeeStreet Performer Protocol. It is a simple matter of supply (talent) and demand (a desire for music.)
Musicians need to market their talents as services, not try to force the market to pretend they are goods.
I think it is clear that I am not a communist.
Information certainly can be stolen. Just because something is put before the public doesn't mean it's in the public domain. If you leave your car in public parked on a public street, does that mean I can have it?
You make stupid, vacuous arguments.
Copyright infrigement is about more than just "copying" music. You should read the law before making more dumb comments.
You make stupid, vacuous arguments.
Copyright infrigement is about more than just "copying" music. You should read the law before making more dumb comments.
This is a simple rebuttal of a simple challenge. I can make this as complex as you can handle.
This post is about whether or not something is being stolen when a song is copied. To learn why the fact that it is published is significant, consult my response to your other recent post.
I assure you I understand the law quite well.
This post is about whether or not something is being stolen when a song is copied. To learn why the fact that it is published is significant, consult my response to your other recent post.
I assure you I understand the law quite well.
Slots for hire 2021 | DrmCD
We have 제주도 출장샵 multiple 경상북도 출장마사지 casinos, online 영천 출장마사지 casino, online betting, sportsbook, online poker, 순천 출장안마 and so much more. We can make the most of all the information we need 서산 출장마사지 from you by
Post a Comment
We have 제주도 출장샵 multiple 경상북도 출장마사지 casinos, online 영천 출장마사지 casino, online betting, sportsbook, online poker, 순천 출장안마 and so much more. We can make the most of all the information we need 서산 출장마사지 from you by
<< Home
