stealing music, and the future of copyright

I dont own any of the music I record on the sirius which is the recording mechanism and hard drive's function on the stiletto. its not an ipod.

 

fair use = the industry wishes they could stop it, but they can't. i guess they do not care that loaning out books hurts sales. all of a sudden artists do not need to be paid. i can loan my book to a thousand friends that would have bought the book, but that is ok. yunno why it is ok? not because it is different that other information exchange. it is ok because they cant stop you.

every time i buy a new harry potter book i loan it around to my freeloader friends after i am done. 4 or 5 people read it, only one pays. if that means less sales for the author, shouldnt that be illegal? no? why? fair use? right, fair use means nobody can stop me. i dunno why i escape the "you are a thief" accusation here.

ok so we are clear, it ok to copy as long as the copy is not exactly the same as the original. handwritten, not photocopied. even if the words are the exact same. artists do not mind if you distribute their work, just use a pen and paper please.

my bad. i think it really applies well.

 

Paying for the subscription gives you the right to record for personal use. It's in their terms and conditions.

 

im aware of that but it was to make martin's point which maybe is not so clear. they give you the right to duplicate something you clearly do not own. millions and millions of digital songs that you cant even download online legally. edit: w/o paying for them individually.

clearly the sat. radio was not intended to be used to make cds of stuff you do not own yet provides you a way to do so without regulation of any kind. they actually encourage you to do so per se by knowingly providing you with the technology.

the lines are going to become so gray that resistance is futile.

 

correct. and when that time comes, we can either say "well, everyone is an immoral thief" or we can just accept the new way of doing things, the changing profit models for information distribution.

music will not die, movies will not die, neither will software or encyclopedias. technology, even with its ability to allow free distribution, will provide a better situation than ever before.

we will not be sitting around saying "well, we stole so much music, the artists just hung it up and went home. and the next spielberg gave up because you would just take his movies anyways."

what will actually happen is that the next hendrix will have more and cheaper access to inspiration than ever before, and come out rocking 4.6 times as hard as he would otherwise. the next tarantino is stealing kurosawa movies, getting his brain ready to direct the best movie ever.

 

your point on the RIAA/music companies is valid. they clearly enjoyed rights far beyond the scope of many other artistic endeavors/media/whathaveyou and are now stuck trying to swim upstream.

the revenues are still there yet they are forced to change their business model is all. once they completely embrace the inevitable change, technology and everyone else will benefit.

 

this is so foolish Im saddened you believe it. if emeril could keep you from copying his recipes and distributing them freely he would. its simply not feasible to do so the way music has been able to control its content. the ironic thing is that it helps them in the long run by giving them exposure. Much like the music industry is slowly learning.


clearly, someone who spent just as many hours perfecting a recipe should be rewarded financially each time another person uses it the same way a cd is. its just impossible to do so so it not even attempted.

 

right, and this is what people are realizing, they are trying to change copyright to work better with changing technology. like with creative commons and GNU-type licensing. allowing people to redistribute information freely, while still retaining the rights they might choose, for instance the exclusiive right to sell the work.

the future of information is collaborative and open. in the future revenues might come from performance, or product placement or subscription or whatever. maybe even donations, like wikipedia. or a rich dude who just enjoys giving stuff away, like the dude behind ubuntu. who knows.

 

well, i believe firefox came from when netscape went open-source with the navigator code. so originally netscape was not free. but now that it has evolved into firefox it is free, and profitable. actually i think the freeing up of the IP allowed it to improve much faster, to the point where we all use it, even though we have paid for windows and IE on our machines.