Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Beans
    67
    Distro
    Ubuntu Studio 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    I've recently been exposed to a huge number of websites centered around many people's belief that DRM should be abolished and music should be free to everyone. These sites range from logical arguements to all out rage speeches about the nazi record companies and their evil ways. My question is, why should music be free? Many professional musicians get most of their money from record deals and producing albums and getting them out into the world is almost the only way to achieve any real fame as a musician. Why should we not pay for the hard work (it may be fun but musicians still work hard) that these people put in? I understand that record companies pocket a huge share of the earnings but isn't this a problem in the setup of modern record companies. Believe me, I have no love for modern record companies because their greed has spawned a generation of musicians who know nothing about sophisticated music; nevertheless, why should we not pay for someone else's hard work?

    Opinions (please keep your posts civilized, I don't appreciate hate speeches)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
    Beans
    4,722
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    both piracy and DRM are wrong
    DRMing your content is like saying i am using DRM take that pirates, someone is going to say challenge accepted
    DRM prevents stuff from being usable on certain devices/software
    piracy takes potential profits way
    some people pirate so they don't have to worry about drm
    a true pirate will pirate regardless
    it does not really matter how much drm is used it will get cracked in the end, they would make more if there was no DRM on anything, as long as they market it as drm free
    Laptop: ASUS A54C-NB91 (Storage: WD3200BEKT + MKNSSDCR60GB-DX); Desktop: Custom Build - Images included; rPi Server
    Putting your Networked Printer's scanner software to shame PHP Scanner Server
    I frequently edit my post when I have the last post

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Beans
    67
    Distro
    Ubuntu Studio 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    I do agree that DRM can be a royal pain in the backside and I tend to agree it's not a good thing. But piracy is still wrong and I don't understand those people who truly believe that all music shoul be free, if you want free music, go listen to Pandora or go on youtube and find one of the millions of talented artists who feel the need to share their talent with the world on that site (or just look up music videos)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Internets
    Beans
    51
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    An artist once said that the purpose of his art was not to profit, but to enlighten the world with art.
    There are millions of musicians, painters, poets and other artists out there who release all their content "free". And they all can live perfectly fine with it.
    The reasoning I asked was because they instead held exhibitions. Patrons would pay the artist to perform live and they would gain money in that way, much like every musician does now.

    The only thing which would differ, financially speaking, would be to remove the record companies from the whole equation. And they are the real ones who make money on the records anyway, not the artist. And this whole DRM battle and the likes of it comes not from the majority of the artists, but from the label companies who want to maintain their cash flow.

    The truth is that most of the western world is extremely consumption oriented. So the point of all of this is just to simply max out profit in every single way.

    That being said. I support my favorite artists by giving money to them, not to the label companies.
    They say the pen is mightier than the sword...but Steven Seagal is mightier than the Pen AND the Sword. http://tinyurl.com/ybnsx2w
    Don't have Dropbox or any cloud-hosting yet? Click this -->http://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTE1MDE3NzY5

  5. #5
    monkeybrain2012 is offline Grande Half-n-Half Cinnamon Ubuntu
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    874

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Your argument falsely assumes that DRM actually stops piracy, well it doesn't and never will. It only hassles the legit customers, it may backfire if it gets too far because at some point even paying customers may get pissed off to the point that he or she would simply download, that was what happened with Apple music.

    BTW, my favourite local bands make money by live performance, if you buy a ticket you get a free CD, and believe me, the CD is more like a promo, there is nothing like live music.
    Last edited by monkeybrain2012; May 29th, 2013 at 05:37 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Beans
    470
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by linuxlover42 View Post
    I've recently been exposed to a huge number of websites centered around many people's belief that DRM should be abolished and music should be free to everyone. These sites range from logical arguements to all out rage speeches about the nazi record companies and their evil ways. My question is, why should music be free?
    How can you justify the ownership of information?

    Many professional musicians get most of their money from record deals
    Thats not really true, record labels make more money off of record sales than musicians do. Musicians tend to make money off of merch sales and such, oddly enough now record labels want to get into that, and musicians can keep a small fraction of THOSE sales... give me a break...

    Why should we not pay for the hard work (it may be fun but musicians still work hard) that these people put in?
    We dont reward hard work (people who do manual labor often make minimum wage and work over nights), we reward ownership of property and manipulation of finances. Im trying to keep this vague so that I dont spark a political conversation here.
    KDE is the best

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beans
    2,336
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Here's my take:

    If I make something -- a song, a book, a painting, an apple pie, whatever -- then I, and I alone, get to decide if, and how, anyone else has access to it. In other words, I hold all the rights to the thing I created. No one else has any rights to it unless and until I transfer those rights to them.

    The legal concepts of copyright and intellectual property were intended to protect those rights. They don't create them. Laws only acknowledge , protect, or inhibit the exercise of rights. They can't create them.

    Nothing mystical exists that gives anyone else a creator's rights in something he or she has made. The anti-IP and anti-copyright crowd seems to argue that when someone makes something everyone else on the planet magically owns it. That's wish-fulfillment nonsense.

    On the other side, we have the corporate abuses of IP and copyright which, in their own way, are as destructive of a creator's rights and the principles underlying copyright and IP law.

    *Both* camps are cynically crafting and leveraging ideology in pursuit of their own selfish, materialistic, objectives.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Beans
    470
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzingrobot View Post
    Here's my take:

    If I make something -- a song, a book, a painting, an apple pie, whatever -- then I, and I alone, get to decide if, and how, anyone else has access to it. In other words, I hold all the rights to the thing I created. No one else has any rights to it unless and until I transfer those rights to them.
    Why? Why do you get to own anything? What is ownership?

    This question is more rooted in philosophy than politics, so I think its well within the rules here.



    Nothing mystical exists that gives anyone else a creator's rights in something he or she has made.
    What about a mystical force that allows a person to own things? Where does that come from?
    KDE is the best

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beans
    2,336
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterMadness View Post
    Why? Why do you get to own anything? What is ownership?

    This question is more rooted in philosophy than politics, so I think its well within the rules here.

    What about a mystical force that allows a person to own things? Where does that come from?
    I think the philosophical spin on this is not very interesting or important. But, I'd argue that rights to something come into existence only when that thing comes into existence. It seems to me that it is considerably less "mystical" that the person who made the thing also controls all the rights inherent in the thing.

    If I bake a pie tonight, it's my pie. It doesn't belong to any of the other several billion people on the planet.

    Also, reasons other than profit sustain an artist's interest in retaining rights to his work. E.g., ensuring that a play or music is performed correctly, making sure that when people buy a book with his name on the cover that he is, in fact, the author.

    The ease with which digital products can be copied illicitly, altered, or simply faked means people have even more reason to carefully guard their rights to control their work.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Beans
    470
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Pirated Music and Intellectual Property

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzingrobot View Post
    I think the philosophical spin on this is not very interesting or important. But, I'd argue that rights to something come into existence only when that thing comes into existence. It seems to me that it is considerably less "mystical" that the person who made the thing also controls all the rights inherent in the thing.
    Philosophy is how we discover what is true. All knowledge comes from philosophy. Science is a philosophy of empiricism, mathematics is a philosophy of rationalism. Beliefs that reject these two are also philosophies. Even political science and such are forms of philosophy. Philosophy is not a group of hipsters sitting around talking about how subjective everything is. The only way, I repeat, the only way to justify property ownership is through philosophy. If the philosophy of it doesnt make sense, then property ownership doesnt make sense, and society should abandon the idea. There is no philosophical spin here, this is a philosophical discussion in its purest sense, and the philosophy of the matter is of the highest importance. Every right that anyone has ever talked about came from philosophy, because its a philosophical topic.


    If I bake a pie tonight, it's my pie. It doesn't belong to any of the other several billion people on the planet.
    Prove it. Also, I'm fairly keen on logical fallacies, so I'm just going to let you know that if you ever say "because the government says so", I will jump all over that.

    Also, if you're in an argument about whether or not property ownership legitimately exists, why on earth would your opponent say that YOU dont own something and everyone else does? If someone is saying property rights dont exist, they dont exist, they arent saying they exist for groups and not individuals, or for some people. I dont understand how you could take what I said to mean everyone ELSE (or a subset of them) owns your pie but you dont.

    Also, reasons other than profit sustain an artist's interest in retaining rights to his work. E.g., ensuring that a play or music is performed correctly, making sure that when people buy a book with his name on the cover that he is, in fact, the author.


    The ease with which digital products can be copied illicitly, altered, or simply faked means people have even more reason to carefully guard their rights to control their work.
    Why does an artist have a right to say how works are played, even if the artist "invented" the work?
    Last edited by WinterMadness; May 29th, 2013 at 11:01 PM.
    KDE is the best

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •