Jeff/Ninja Tune wrote:
quoted 5 lines Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they
>Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they
>put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that
>doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of
>stealing.
>
so its stealing if i'm walking down the street and a guy drives by
blasting amon tobin? do you guys have a system setup to take these
royalties payments? how am i supposed to track all the songs i "steal"
on my walk to work? thats rediculous. you cannot charge me for
learning the information you put into the public. you can only charge
me a for a service you provide be it a concert, or a nice shiney cd+art,
or *gasp* hi-quality .ogg files downloads from your speedy trusted
servers. suggesting that the information creator has control over the
disemination of that information is obsene and fascist.
quoted 4 lines If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their
>If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their
>choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people
>with access to the ability to do so.
>
you cannot control what i hear. period. if you want to make money,
provide a service that i find worth paying for, there is no other way.
laziness on the part of artists/labels expecting to reap money off of cd
sales alone while not adapting their business model to follow the times
is not a compelling argument for squashing my rights of free expression.
furthermore, ninja tune literally built its entire catalog off of
"stealing" the intellectual property of other artists, how dare you
suggest this stops with you.
quoted 6 lines I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and
>I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and
>positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly positive at this
>particular juncture of its history), but can we at least admit that when one
>obtains something for free when that thing exists in the physical realm with
>a price tag attached then it technically is stealing.
>
no, i can't. the implications of this statement are too draconian.
quoted 5 lines And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from
>And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from
>them, but then murder laws were presumably made by the people who didn't
>want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman to vote law was probably
>made by some woman who wanted to vote....
>
the difference is that copyright is a restriction on other peoples
rights of free expression, whereas putting a piece of metal through my
head is not a right of yours. they are not comparable.
this is a fascinating debate, and its going to nag us all for some
time. welcome to the 21st century :)
-josh
keep your damned ip protection chips out of my head, your proto-facsist
corperate copy right enforcements androids!!!!!!11!! ;)
quoted 63 lines Jeff
>Jeff
>
>
>
>
>>From: "pixilated" <pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org>
>>Organization: Dartmouth College
>>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:15:04 -0500
>>To: idm@hyperreal.org
>>Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
>>
>>Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is. That doesn't
>>mean that the law isn't a sham supported by parties trying to influence
>>how the law is written and applied for their own benefit. You are taking
>>for granted the concept of intellectual property. Copyright laws didn't
>>even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see no difference
>>between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and an
>>idea? How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't
>>appropriated the ideas of others? You are accepting a construction of
>>reality imposed upon you without criticism. Way to go, sucker. I should
>>copyright intelligence and sell it. God knows I'd make a shitload of
>>money off you.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM
>>To: idm@hyperreal.org
>>Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
>>
>>
>>
>>oh for chist sake
>>pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping
>>who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it...
>>if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING,
>>PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, butt-heads
>>like Metallica, or some starving indie artist.
>>
>>pirate, according to Webster's, by definition means:
>>
>>One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without
>>authorization.
>>
>>which accurately describes the unlicenced manufacture of hit records for
>>retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading.
>>
>>john
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
--
____________________________________________________
independent u.s. drum'n'bass --
http://vitriolix.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org