On Saturday, October 18, 2003, at 03:55 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:31:18AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
Some isn't more than none?
None isn't none.
It isn't? I think you are too subtle for me :)
If you think that it is accurate to call copying music files from a
friend "stealing", if you think that the only way or best way for
artists to make money from creating music is to sell recordings through
a recording studio, if you contribute money to a recording industry that
does a good job of treating the vast majority of artists as indentured
servants, then it is accurate to say that you have been as thoroughly
brainwashed by the recording industry as many people have been by the
religious establishment.
The solution to the pie being divided unfairly isn't to throw out the pie. Getting rid of IP seems like Luddism to me, a return to the days of craft work and patronage. IP (copyright in the case of music, books and films) allows ordinary people inexpensive access to a huge quantity of well-made art, and facilitates a great number of the creators of this art to make a full-time living out of creating it. That seems like a good thing to me.
It may well be the case that the recording industry is corrupt and the wrong people are getting too much of the money but that is a different issue. The royalty rates for recorded music are about the same as the rates for books.
Is it "stealing" to decline to contribute to a religious charity, despite the fact that this charity has helped some people in the past and will not be able to help as many people in the future if you do not contribute?
Record companies aren't charities :) And they don't 'help' people - they pay them.
Does the artist get "no money at all" if you copy a music file of a new
artist, give it to several friends who you think will enjoy it, and they
go to the artists concerts and buy CDs directly from the artist? And
they give copies of files from the CD to other friends, who give to
other friends, who then buy thousands of tickets to the next concert? Do
you think these people would have heard of this previously unknown
artist at all without copying the files?
Concert tours often lose money since they are used to promote CD sales. And what about artists who create studio-based recordings and don't play live or tour? What about song-writers? What about authors? Are they supposed to make a living from speaking tours and charging for autographs? And movie makers - I guess they'd have to start strip-searching everyone on the way into the theatre to make sure there were no cameras.
Do you think the recording companies would have helped the artist if they didn't see huge profits in it for themselves?
That's capitalism. They should sign up artists they think are going to lose them huge quantities of money?
Do you think when you buy a music recording you actually own the rights
to use the recording to listen to your music? Do you think if you had
bought a phono record or cassette tape, when CD's came out the recording
industry graciously provided you a CD copy of the music you are licensed
to listen to, just for the cost of pressing a CD (a few cents) without
making a huge profit for themselves? Do you think with iTunes that you
will be able to use music you have purchased a license for on new media
that may come out in the future, without buying another license? Do you
think the "license" that you purchase actually gives you any important
rights to use the music in the best way for your needs?
Actually the rights do suit me. YMMV.
P.S.
Do you think it is "stealing" to download files of television series, like, oh, I don't know, Angel?
LOL.
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up." - John Carmack
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
