> > > your unalterable right to copy what you > > want, when you want. You don't say "you should be able to make limited > > 'fair use' copies for..." - no, you repeatedly state that it's your > right to > > do anything you want with any creative material, > > File sharing between friends is essential for friendship, which is a > long way back from "anything you want."
As several people have already pointed out, this is nonsense. > and that the original > > creators have no moral right to deny you that. You then try and make it > > sound warm and fluffy by going on to state, with no justifiation, that > > giving away other people's creativity is one of the central tenets of > > friendship - and if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they're horrid, > > unfriendly people. > > Sharing copies is how the youth of today roll, bro. Its self evident. Now you're backtracking wildly. Just because something can be done and done fairly easily doesn't make it your inalienable right to do it. > > Magnatune.com dude. > > > > I'm not saying you *don't* ever buy music. Once you've bought it though > - > > you want to copy it and give it to other people so they don't have to > pay > > for it. > > Please look at www.magnatune.com and note that their business model > allows you to copy all their music and give it to other people so they > don't have to pay for it for the own personal listening. But if they > want to use the music commercially, or modify it, they have to license > those rights. I've looked at Magnatune, and frankly, there's a good reason for them saying you can copy their tracks for free. However, that's a matter of personal taste. > If you were talking about making up mixtapes, or burning a couple of > tracks > > to a CD and say "listen to this - it's fantastic, you should go and get > the > > album", I'd say you have a point. But you're not. You're suggesting > that > > everyone has the right to copy anything and everything, when, how and > where > > they like, not for personal backups, or to play in the car when they've > got > > the CD at home, > > It is inarguable that they should have those "fair use" rights, and > this is a central problem of DRM, since it tramples them. Yes. Agreed. > or to get their mates into their new favourite band, but to > > give to their friends > > This is arguable, and I have a position that differs from the law to > date. But the law isn't an authority on ethics. For example, in living > memory in places in the USA, it was illegal to sit at the front of a > bus if you were black. That something is illegal didn't mean it is > wrong. Ooh - naughty naughty, likening something you don't agree with to racism. This isn't the same and you're trying to bring in more emotive arguments now. > so they can avoid paying any money for it. > > I'm all in favor of sending money to artists whose work we value, and > there are many schemes that can be arranged to make this convenient. > They aren't yet implemented on a large scale. But this doesn't back up your stated belief that you have the right to copy and give away. I think it will happen, because it has to: friend-to-friend sharing is > an unavoidable effect of the Internet, and here to stay. Again - just because you can do something doesn't give you the moral right to do it. >But the paying money happens after getting copies of the music, not >before, like it was in the 20th century. But you're not backing your argument up. I've agreed that the business model is changing, and will probably change more. The point is that you believe you have the right to copy anything and everything, and you're not backing it up at all. > a struggling band trying to make a living from it. There is no right to make a living: Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else. I never said there was that right. I said that you're removing one revenue stream from a band trying to make a living. Everyone has the right to *try* to make a living. But that is the wrong answer because it accepts your implicit assumption: that without cutting up friendship and community, artists cannot possibly be paid a penny. Supposedly it is all or nothing. Removing one revenue stream. There are obviously other revenue streams. Live gigs (although this isn't an option for some artists), merchandise etc. However, the concept of "selling records" is critical to most professional bands. > The business model of the music business *is* changing, you're quite right, > but that doesn't automatically give you the right to take away one large > proportion of a band's income. Its changing because we have that right, and we are exercising it. No. You're trying to stomp all over it by not paying for goods and services. (I appreciate that a digital download may not technically be defined as a "good", but you know what I mean) > It's a loss of revenue. Buggy whips suffered terrible losses of revenue when cars came along and STOLE their POTENTIAL SALES. The horror. Specious comparison. That would be a good argument if you were comparing 1970s prog rock bands and punk, crooners and rock 'n' roll, or even vinyl pressers and CD manufacturers, where one thing supercedes another, but in this case it doesn't hold up. We're talking about you advocating simply giving away the results of someone else's work. > > > It's not an intellectual freedom that you're arguing > > > > No, because that's to do with modification, which is only neccessary > > for functional works, not artistic ones. > > Now you're grasping at straws / trying to derail the argument. A moral > freedom / an intellectual freedom - whatever. You don't have that right. "Whatever"? hohh For functional works like software, intellectual freedom is essential. For artistic works, it isn't. Let me rephrase. For this argument, your choice of terminology is not important. You don't have the automatic right to redistribute someone else's artistic endeavours. Trying to argue that you do, simply because you can is not a valid reason. Bringing in irrelevant metaphors does not make you right. Using emotive language like "friendship" and "community", or trying to argue that your doing the moral equivalent of fighting racism does not make what you wish a fact. You don't automatically have that right. Rich.
