illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[Zoots]

I still think there needs to be a way to actually pay the artist!!!

Yeah exactly! How can you just steal someone's music when they're trying to make a living from it? It's one thing if they're doing it as a hobby and not trying to get money for it.

 

[Bonoscoolness78]

Tax those that host torrents and are sharing with torrents, create different packages for internet usages(charge more for those that download music), or some type of combination...

That's probably realistic. Lift a tax from those that develop programs such as soulseek and those that host torrents and use it to offer grants to musicians for the purpose of recording albums or acquiring equipment, provided they are somewhat established. I know that there are similar funds available for that purpose now, but it should be on a much larger scale.

 

[BVS]

Yeah exactly! How can you just steal someone's music when they're trying to make a living from it?

This may mark the third time we agree...

 

[Bonoscoolness78]

but they're not stealing the music. The music belongs to the artist.

In MOST cases somebody originally bought the cd. In ALL cases it's not stealing, it's sharing. Look at it like this:

Somebody paints a picture. Someone takes a picture of it and puts it online. Someone takes that picture and uses it as an avatar or even just downloads a jpg onto their desktop. It's NOT stealing.
It's also no different than downloading a song onto your desktop.
I don't know what your avatar is, bonovox, but by your definition you are probably stealing it. You should find the original, buy it, take a picture of it, and THEN put it online.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

you mean offer the consumer who wants music something other than music?

That's actually not bad.

Record companies could move into the lawn care business.

Lawn care is the future of the record business.

Define music as a sales product then.

What is it?

A stream of bits?

Vibrational mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave?

How are you planning on selling that?

 

[BVS]

but they're not stealing the music. The music belongs to the artist.

In MOST cases somebody originally bought the cd. In ALL cases it's not stealing, it's sharing. Look at it like this:

Somebody paints a picture. Someone takes a picture of it and puts it online. Someone takes that picture and uses it as an avatar or even just downloads a jpg onto their desktop. It's NOT stealing.
It's also no different than downloading a song onto your desktop.
I don't know what your avatar is, bonovox, but by your definition you are probably stealing it. You should find the original, buy it, take a picture of it, and THEN put it online.

Oh please! That analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be that someone buys a novel and then posts every page on the internet. So basically you are getting the novel without buying it, which is stealing because you are not allowed to transfer copyrighted material.

BTW, I painted my avatar...

This has to be the biggest cop out... The other reason your analogy doesn't work is that a picture of a painting and the painting aren't the same. Now some may argue that many of the mp3s are of less quality than the original, and that that may somehow justify, but it's still copyrighted material. The content hasn't changed, in fact in most computer sound systems and mp3 players the quality difference can't be determined.

So yes you are still a thief.

 

[indra]

Look at it like this:

Somebody paints a picture. Someone takes a picture of it and puts it online. Someone takes that picture and uses it as an avatar or even just downloads a jpg onto their desktop. It's NOT stealing.

Yes it IS stealing. Unless the artist has given express permission for the image to be freely shared your example is a violation of the original painter's copyright. The person who took the picture has violated it* and the person who has it as their avatar or desktop images has also violated it. The image -- not just the actual painting -- belongs to the artist.

You should find the original, buy it, take a picture of it, and THEN put it online.

Even if you buy an original painting the rights to the image belong to the artist NOT you unless you have also purchased those rights too, but that is rare. While most artists would not mind the buyer of a painting putting said painting on his/her blog or using it as his/her avatar etc., most would definitely mind the painting buyer selling prints of the painting or putting high quality images online so others could download it and print their own prints. Only the owner of the image has the legal right to distribute the image.


* I want to clarify the violation here isn't so much by taking the photo of a painting as it is by distributing it -- ie, putting it online. If it's clearly just a snapshot of poor quality most artists wouldn't raise a stink -- very much like most musicians don't have a problem with audience recorded bootlegs passed around by fans. But if someone took a very high res image of that painting which could then be used to make prints -- that would be much more problematic. Both are technical violations of most copyright law, it's just the snapshot/bootleg isn't really worth fighting over.

 

[BVS]

Define music as a sales product then.

What is it?

A stream of bits?

Vibrational mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave?

How are you planning on selling that?

Another cop out...

Music as a sales product is that copy of the mastered version that the band recorded and mixed for you. It doesn't matter if it's in CD, tape, 8-track, vinyl, mp3, video, or written form.

Quit trying to cop out folks...

 

[indra]

The other reason your analogy doesn't work is that a picture of a painting and the painting aren't the same.

Actually the image -- not just the actual original painting -- is copyrighted, so yes people who use images of other people paintings and photos without express permission are violating copyright.

 

[BVS]

Actually the image -- not just the actual original painting -- is copyrighted, so yes people who use images of other people paintings and photos without express permission are violating copyright.

True. I guess my point was taking a photo with your cell phone of the Mona Lisa and having the original or even a registered print is completely different quality...

 

[Bonoscoolness78]

BTW, I painted my avatar...

I like it

I guess what my point is - and I'll accept all above corrections to my previous statement - is that everyone steals. EVERYONE.
Maybe that doesn't make it right, but it does raise interesting questions, and maybe a need to redefine the concept of 'stealing' for the purpose of getting some folks out of the thief category.

but for now...I am a thief. Not a very cool one.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Another cop out...

Music as a sales product is that copy of the mastered version that the band recorded and mixed for you. It doesn't matter if it's in CD, tape, 8-track, vinyl, mp3, video, or written form.

Quit trying to cop out folks...

Not trying to cop out at all.

Just being realistic. Regardless of what some of you may think, file sharing is here to stay. The idea of computer files having a "DNA" that can never be hidden entirely from the internet police is fake. Yes, cryptography is strong enough to make any file into what appears as a completely random stream of bits, totally unrecognizable, unless you break the encryption.

I'm only saying that if the industry choose to keep their heads filled with cement, then they are going to lose this fight.

 

[BVS]

I like it

I guess what my point is - and I'll accept all above corrections to my previous statement - is that everyone steals. EVERYONE.
Maybe that doesn't make it right, but it does raise interesting questions, and maybe a need to redefine the concept of 'stealing' for the purpose of getting some folks out of the thief category.

but for now...I am a thief. Not a very cool one.

Ok, I can kind of understand this point, but the difference being is that if you take a pic of the Mona Lisa and blow it up, you aren't exactly going to be able to hang it up in your living room and fool your friends. So it that essence you aren't taking away from the artist.

Downloading copyrighted material for free is taking away from the artist, it's pretty black and white.

 

[MrBrau1]

Not trying to cop out at all.

Just being realistic. Regardless of what some of you may think, file sharing is here to stay. The idea of computer files having a "DNA" that can never be hidden entirely from the internet police is fake. Yes, cryptography is strong enough to make any file into what appears as a completely random stream of bits, totally unrecognizable, unless you break the encryption.

I'm only saying that if the industry choose to keep their heads filled with cement, then they are going to lose this fight.

Which is why some of Paul's ideas aren't crazy.

ISP's are the new distributors of music. Whether they like it or not.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Which is why some of Paul's ideas aren't crazy.

ISP's are the new distributors of music. Whether they like it or not.

But people in your own country would never accept a "music business tax" on their ISP subscriptions, nor should they.

 

[indra]

True. I guess my point was taking a photo with your cell phone of the Mona Lisa and having the original or even a registered print is completely different quality...

Yeah, I thought of that after I had posted. I did add a bit to my first post trying to explain that.

 

[BVS]

Not trying to cop out at all.

Just being realistic. Regardless of what some of you may think, file sharing is here to stay. The idea of computer files having a "DNA" that can never be hidden entirely from the internet police is fake. Yes, cryptography is strong enough to make any file into what appears as a completely random stream of bits, totally unrecognizable, unless you break the encryption.

I'm only saying that if the industry choose to keep their heads filled with cement, then they are going to lose this fight.

This may be true, and that's fine. *For this post it's besides the point.*

But that's not what you asked. You asked what is music as a sales product. My answer still stands as far as what you asked. The ease of copying, manipulating, or stealing that product doesn't matter in that question. For it's still the artists'. It's easy to cheat on a math test, but is it right?

 

[BVS]

nor should they.

But they should accept theft?

That's basically what you are saying...

 

[ybab gnuthca]

This may be true, and that's fine. *For this post it's besides the point.*

But that's not what you asked. You asked what is music as a sales product. My answer still stands as far as what you asked. The ease of copying, manipulating, or stealing that product doesn't matter in that question. For it's still the artists'. It's easy to cheat on a math test, but is it right?

No, but you know perfectly well that unless there is a high risk of getting caught, lots of kids will do it.

And people's moral standards are obviously even lower when we're talking about getting hold of entertainment material.

 

[MrBrau1]

But people in your own country would never accept a "music business tax" on their ISP subscriptions, nor should they.

Ok, so the ISP's don't adapt.

So, we change the copyright laws.

Ideas are no longer protected by law. Have fun with that one.

bye bye recorded music. And movies. And novels.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

But they should accept theft?

That's basically what you are saying...

Demanding money for the music business from people that do not use their internet subscriptions for downloading music IS theft.

 

[MrBrau1]

Demanding money for the music business from people that do not use their internet subscriptions for downloading music IS theft.

That's why you make is subscription based. Like some cable subscribers get HBO, and pay for it, and some cable subscribers don't get HBO, and don't pay for it.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Ok, so the ISP's don't adapt.

So, we change the copyright laws.

Ideas are no longer protected by law. Have fun with that one.

The ISPs do not break any copyright laws. nor should you or the government assume that any person that sign up is going to use his subscription for breaking the law.

Anything can be abused. Should we tax the crap out of anything and everyone because of that?

How would you ever sell a knife or an axe, if you had to make those assumptions? "Sorry Sir, can't sell this to you, because I will have to assume that you are going to kill somebody with it".

 

[BVS]

No, but you know perfectly well that unless there is a high risk of getting caught, lots of kids will do it.

And people's moral standards are obviously even lower when we're talking about getting hold of entertainment material.

That's what this debate essentially boils down to...

But it doesn't make it right. If it were easier to steal cars and not get caught, would it be right?

 

[BVS]

Demanding money for the music business from people that do not use their internet subscriptions for downloading music IS theft.

I never suggested that...

 

[ybab gnuthca]

That's why you make is subscription based. Like some cable subscribers get HBO, and pay for it, and some cable subscribers don't get HBO, and don't pay for it.

And why would all the pirats choose the package where they pay for the subscription if they can buy the cheap one and still download all they want for free?

 

[BVS]

The ISPs do not break any copyright laws. nor should you or the government assume that any person that sign up is going to use his subscription for breaking the law.

Anything can be abused. Should we tax the crap out of anything and everyone because of that?

How would you ever sell a knife or an axe, if you had to make those assumptions? "Sorry Sir, can't sell this to you, because I will have to assume that you are going to kill somebody with it".

Well here is the gray area. Some knives aren't legal, for they are only weapons and not tools...

So why not create ISPs that have certain bandwiths with certain intents? Why not tax those that are using torrents or hosts torrents?

 

[BVS]

And why would all the pirats choose the package where they pay for the subscription if they can buy the cheap one and still download all they want for free?

Now you are still assuming the selfish side of it...

Create a cheaper one that won't allow access to torrents or only to certain torrents...

Some compromise can be met.

 

[MrBrau1]

And why would all the pirats choose the package where they pay for the subscription if they can buy the cheap one and still download all they want for free?

I actually agree with you.

There is no solution.

What we have now is it.

The future is the RIAA suing people like crazy and greedy kids stealing tons of music.

It should be fun.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

So why not create ISPs that have certain bandwiths with certain intents? Why not tax those that are using torrents or hosts torrents?

Because there is nothing 'illegal' in the bittorrent technology per se, just like it is the case with an ISP subscription.

Bittorrent is just a clever technology used to distribute material using a p2p protocol. As long as you only use it to distribute linux distributions, freeware, your own art, etc. there is nothing illegal about it, and taxing everyone using it would be unfair.