Copying music-legally

[tacit]

QUOTE(Nutterbutter @ Feb 24 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]120039[/snapback]

Tacit, "Enabling" is the word that comes to mind when I think of the "Peer to Peer" software companies.  When they first surfaced, these companies did promote how people could exchange music files from one computer to another over the internet.

Also, the companies that create "Peer to Peer" already know what the people are using it for and aren't blocking these types of transfers that are deemed illegal.

Limewire and all the other's are quite aware what their software is used for; and Apple put a stop to downloading their software from these types of "Peer to Peer" programs years ago.

You could make the same arguments about guns. Gun manufacturers know that their products are used for illegal purposes. Does that mean if a criminal uses a gun, we should arrest the employees at the factory that made it?

Bolt cutters are used for illegal purposes too. Do the manufacturers of bolt cutters enable crime?

Te fact is, peer to peer software has legal uses. Almost all open source software is distributed via BitTorrent and other P2P programs. Blizzard downloads updates to thegame "World of Warcraft" using the BitTorrent protocol. People use P2P software to collaborate on programming jobs.

We live in a country where the law says that if a person commits a crime, the responsibility for the crime is on the person who does it, not on the manufacturers of whatever tools he used to break the law. We hold individuals responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Why should computer software be any different? Why should we say that if you commit a crime using a crowbar, you are responsible, but if you commit a crime using a computer program, the programmer who wrote the program is responsible?

[()]

QUOTE

You could make the same arguments about guns. Gun manufacturers know that their products are used for illegal purposes. Does that mean if a criminal uses a gun, we should arrest the employees at the factory that made it?

Gun manufacturers made a tool for people to protect themselves, their property and for self-defense.  People didn't predict the future on what people would end up using guns for.  It is illegal to own a gun without a gun permit.  you also have to have a gun lock on your weapon, placed in a locked cabinet or strong-box to keep kids from getting ahold of them.  

Software manufactures that produced peer-to-peer software promoted as a way of transferring your files, songs to one another over the internet.  They stopped promoting it, but once you plant the seed, you just can't wash your hands and pretend it was never planted.

Roxio, Napster, and all these companies made it possible for people to copy DVDs, Music, and pass them around to others.  The companies promoted their products to the consumers, and "enabling" them with the software they advertised for burning, coping, and transferring music, movies and other files through the the use of software products that teaches you how to do this.

Look at Mac-The-Ripper...

It's a program that allows you to rent dvd's and then rip them and make identical copies of that DVD.  At the end of the rip you are told that it is illegal to do this, but why put out a program that allows you to rip and burn an illegal dvd, and then at the end of the rip session, tells you that it's illegal.

Bottom line is; If the companies didn't make the products to commit the crime, then we wouldn't have the problems that we have today.

QUOTE

Bolt cutters are used for illegal purposes too. Do the manufacturers of bolt cutters enable crime?

What real crimes are committed with bolt cutters on a scale compared to illegal software downloading.

If people were committing crimes daily with bolt-cutter, you bet there would be an outcry to stop the use of them.  Just like guns.  You now have to go through a background check, mental/psychiatric check, register your name along with the gun, get the safety devices for it before you can even own a gun.  Those that don't follow the proceedures are alredy law breaking people to begin with.

Software companies need to pull the plug on what they create and sell to the consumers.  Thet promoted the illegal use of their software in order to get people hooked.

[chriskleeman]

All right, everyone, and I do mean everyone, time out..
 (except me, for good reason).

I am a performing and recording artist, I have CD's, I sell CD's, people buy them, people copy them  to their friends, I get CD's from friends who want me to hear a particular song, work it out so they can hear me do it, the CD sits in my car forever, gets trashed, etc... I mean I can go on, but here it is in it's most elemental form:

It's always been about the record companies getting the money. Artists have been ripped off from the time records came out! ASCAP and BMI should not be out there strong-arming clubs, restaurants and bars, but that's what the law allows. And that is absolutely shameful.

Artists should get their due, but the bureaucracy created in this world will never get the money where it should go in many situations.

Example: Someone had enough money to copyright the entire Robert Johnson catalogue. Now if you're not a blues afficiando, that may not mean much to you, but imagine if your favorite old-time folk artist's music had become Public Domain (i.e. traditional) and then someone goes and re-copyrights the material, making everyone who records those tune pay licensing fees to them. Does any of this money go to the family or estate of the person who originally wrote the tune?
No, not one penny. And if I want to record a Robert Johnson song, I have to pay this person royalties for a song he had nothing to do with other than buying the rights. I would love to donate the licensing fee to the heirs of Robert Johnson, who  richly deserve it, but instead it goes only to someone who just figured out how to siphon off the money.

The answer? There is no simple one. Support the artists you love, encourage everyone you know who likes them to purchase their own CD... my last CD cost me over $10,000 to produce, and that is chicken-feed to most record companies. I did it with my musician pals all donating their time, and a lot of favors. I'm still paying for it, and the CD before that.

But I can still dream. Support your local artists! Please!

I remain, humbly yours,

Chris K

[tacit]

QUOTE(Nutterbutter @ Feb 25 2007, 06:42 PM) [snapback]120159[/snapback]

Bottom line is; If the companies didn't make the products to commit the crime, then we wouldn't have the problems that we have today.

What problems do we have today? Copying music does not prevent artists from making money; in fact, the Recording Industry Ass. of America's own study showed that P2P file sharing actually promotes CD sales, just like radio airplay promotes CD sales. If you believe that artists make less money when people copy their music, the facts weigh against you.

So what problems do we have today that you believe are caused by P2P software?

And do you believe that all P2P software should be banned? What, exactly, do you propose as the solution to the problems you see?

[()]

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

You put out dvd recorder and burners on the market place.  For what?  to buy and look at, or to record on.  DUH! A seven year old can figure that out.

Companies that make software and hardware products that "enable" people to burn and copy materials.  If you listen carefully...

The companies promoted on how you can burn your "Favorite Music CD's, DVD's, and what ever you feel the need to burn" is all in your (the consumers) hands.

Now that it had gotten so out of control, now the companies are whining about it.

I don't do any illegal burning, but I do burn my DVD's I have purchased and make copies of them so I can put away the original disc away.  When you have kids over, I am not paying out 20 bucks for them to destroy and then go buy another disc.

Those at SWAP-MEETS that burn illegal discs and sell them for a profit is another story.  They are stealing from the artist by preventing the sale of the music or dvd they sell at the swap-meet.  

If I buy a music cd at a yard-sale, swap-meet, or a used record store.  I am buying  a used/recycled item and the artist loses out.  May not sound fair, but that's just the way life goes.  

Now if the record companies didn't overcharge so much on their cd's and dvd's, then there probably wouldn't be so much so-called illegal downloading, pirating going on in our society.

And if companies didn't make it so appealing when it comes to burning dvd's and music cds, then I don't think we would have this huge problem today.

QUOTE

What problems do we have today? Copying music does not prevent artists from making money; in fact, the Recording Industry Ass. of America's own study showed that P2P file sharing actually promotes CD sales, just like radio airplay promotes CD sales. If you believe that artists make less money when people copy their music, the facts weigh against you.

So what problems do we have today that you believe are caused by P2P software?

And do you believe that all P2P software should be banned? What, exactly, do you propose as the solution to the problems you see?

If P2P is promoting such great revenue for the industry, then why try and sue people for downloading music.

P2P allows people to send music, movies, software files globally.  
IT's a BIG PROBLEM!

No! Not all Pq2P software should be banned.  but if Apple can make it so that their products cannot be uploaded and downloaded on P2P (Apple went after Napster and Limewire for this), then other people such as Music Artist and the Film Industry should do the same, but then that alone would put the P2P out of business too.

I say "BAN P2P" and you can stop all the criminal activity altogether.
(Just my take on it!) Nothing personal. Okay Tacit!  

[tacit]

If P2P is promoting such great revenue for the industry, then why try and sue people for downloading music.

Control. If artists can make lots of money using P2P software without the record labels, then the record labels go bankrupt and the executives lose their money. The executives won't let that happen. The executives will do anything to make sure that artists can not promote their music without the labels.