Technology or Piracy?

[penchief]

I just saw another story on CNN about the "piracy" of artisitic rights. Both sides play this issue like a fiddle, IMO.

On one hand, the music industry wants to make everyone who possesses a copy of a recording to pay THEM because, obviously, the entertainment to the individual would not exist if it were not for the artist. I somewhat agree with this argument.

On the other hand, it could also be said that anyone who pays for a product should have the explicit right to do whatever they wish with the item that they purchased. That's what "buying" shit is all about; of it belongs to you you should be able to do with it whatever you wish. Once I buy a share of that property, that small piece which I own belongs to ME. And I have the right to do with it whatever I please.

Isn't that the same philosophy that impels the stock market? If you or I by a piece of a stock, the risk (as well as the benefits) belong to us. Right?

[Chiefs Express]

I just saw another story on CNN about the "piracy" of artisitic rights. Both sides play this issue like a fiddle, IMO.

On one hand, the music industry wants to make everyone who possesses a copy of a recording to pay THEM because, obviously, the entertainment to the individual would not exist if it were not for the artist. I somewhat agree with this argument.

On the other hand, it could also be said that anyone who pays for a product should have the explicit right to do whatever they wish with the item that they purchased. That's what "buying" shit is all about; of it belongs to you you should be able to do with it whatever you wish. Once I buy a share of that property, that small piece which I own belongs to ME. And I have the right to do with it whatever I please.

Isn't that the same philosophy that impels the stock market? If you or I by a piece of a stock, the risk (as well as the benefits) belong to us. Right?

I agree as long as you don't copy that recording and resell it or put it out on a shareware site.

[DanT]

I just saw another story on CNN about the "piracy" of artisitic rights. Both sides play this issue like a fiddle, IMO.

On one hand, the music industry wants to make everyone who possesses a copy of a recording to pay THEM because, obviously, the entertainment to the individual would not exist if it were not for the artist. I somewhat agree with this argument.

On the other hand, it could also be said that anyone who pays for a product should have the explicit right to do whatever they wish with the item that they purchased. That's what "buying" shit is all about; of it belongs to you you should be able to do with it whatever you wish. Once I buy a share of that property, that small piece which I own belongs to ME. And I have the right to do with it whatever I please.

Isn't that the same philosophy that impels the stock market? If you or I by a piece of a stock, the risk (as well as the benefits) belong to us. Right?

When you buy a share of stock, you are buying partial ownership of the company. That's not the same as buying a recording. Being an owner of a company is different than being the owner of a reproduction.

[penchief]

When you buy a share of stock, you are buying partial ownership of the company. That's not the same as buying a recording. Being an owner of a company is different than being the owner of a reproduction.

I agree, which makes Chiefs Express right, IMO. We should be able to make copies for our friends and family as long as we don't sell them. That is my opinion. According to them, all of those compilation cassettes that we made in our time were illegal. I don't think they were. As consumers, we should have the right to make compilation CDs from music we have purchased, even if we wish to give them away.

[DanT]

I agree, which makes Chiefs Express right, IMO. We should be able to make copies for our friends and family as long as we don't sell them. That is my opinion. According to them, all of those compilation cassettes that we made in our time were illegal. I don't think they were. As consumers, we should have the right to make compilation CDs from music we have purchased, even if we wish to give them away.

If it was commonly understood back in that time that compilation cassettes could be made and distributed to friends and family without penalty and without any widely-publicized complaint from the recording industry, then in DanT's jurisprudence, they weren't illegal in any meaningful sense. If it was a widespread practice and nothing was being done to try to stop it, then it's reasonable to suppose that the recording industry considered the right to engage in that practice to be part of what they were selling when they put their recordings up for sale.

[listopencil]

I think a more fitting analogy would be pages of a book then stock. What if you had a reproducing device that allowed you to make a readable copy of a book within a few seconds. Do you think it would be OK to go buy popular books at your local bookstore and then print up copies to give to all of your friends who shared your interests in reading material? If you wear out a favorite book from reading it over and over do you get pissed that you can't just go get another copy for free at the mall? Do you think it is your right as a book purchaser to make copies of your books in case something happens to the original, and is that "right" worth fighting for?

[Reaper16]

Isn't the precedent that it's not technically illegal to download, but to make available for download?