good links the point of my joke analogy is that these guys dont deserve any less protection than musicians. they only get less because it isnt feasible, you just cant stop joke pirates. i argue that as soon as this is true of music (now?) then the laws will change. and when they do change, it will not kill the music industry any more than the comedy industry is dead now. i agree with the comics in your link suing the person selling the book. information should be distributed for free, not sold.
No, damn it! You can all read the friggin' book, you can't all make a copy of it for yourself. I will not address further permutations on this ridiculous, childish insistence of yours to ignore reality. You aren't debating anymore just being argumentative. You don't. You can listen to it all want for free. But you want to steal a copy for yourself without paying for it. That's completely different. You aren't debating anymore just being argumentative. For two important reasons. 1. Analog copies, especially off the radio, degrade with each copy so that 3rd and 4th generation cops were unlistenable. This was built-in protection from all but the most unsophisticated listeners. Illegal digital copies, on the other hand, give each copy a perfect duplicate of the master original. 2. Blank cassettes and VHS and other media were subjected to paying royalties on each copy to ASCAP and BMI to compensate artists for the music that was going to be illegally copied. You never knew it but you were paying royalties all along. Online digital downloads have no way of building in this royalty. You are attempting to invent new definitions and making philosophical arguments that defy reality. I will not allow this to go un challenged. You may be ahead of your time, but I'm a man of my time and I can wax you on this issue, right here, today. Thats' the bad news for you. You got anything new? If not, give it a rest.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11778602 music companies claim ownership of human knowledge, shut down guy trying to teach peeps to play guitar on youtube. how dare he try to spread what he knows for the benefit of people who want to learn.
i dunno what you think a human brain is other than an information storing device. clearly you can make a digital copy from any source, including the radio, that does not degrade. and you think it is fair that i pay royalties for tapes that use to record my golf swing? the music lobby is way too powerful.
The human brain is an excellent analytical device. It is a poor information storage device and is not a duplication device in any fashion. You are inventing untrue "facts". Nonsense. You can digitally record an analog signal from a radio, but it becomes a second-generation sampling. A digital copy is duplicating the original digital master. You can't so that from a radio. You are inventing untrue "facts". No indeed. This is an unfortunate countermeasure for piracy and would not be needed if thieves like you also didn't steal intellectual property. We live in a capitalist economy and it is much simpler to just buy the product which will legitimately pay the royalties to the artists who created the work and deserve the pay. Your communist arguments go against every free-market, capitalist self-righteous stand you have taken here and you are exposed as just being argumentative, quarrelsome, contrary and polemic on this issue. You don't have a logical leg to stand on.
the emerging science of memetics would disagree with that. humans tend to take information and duplicate it and spread it all the time, like a virus. like my example of the guitar teacher. he has info in his head, how to play guitar, and he wants to spread it. of course the music industry doesnt think he owns that particular memory in his head. they apparently own particular patterns of ones and zeros. they own thought. they also have digital radio nowadays, plus satellite radio. you can clearly make a very high quality recording from a broadcast. this magically does not kill the industry. (even if it did i there is no reason to care) the means of production and distribution of information are quite different than tangible goods, so different rules apply. i have explained that a couple times. capitalism is a means of distributing scarce resources. information is not scarce in the traditional sense. the smart capitalist knows that keeping the government from enforcing monopolies on information distribution is a good idea. anyone should be able to distribute any information in a free market.
More nonsense. They own specific recordings of specific performances. "They own thought" is patently ridiculous. Creators of intellectual property are entitled to sell their product like any other product. Music is a product. Anyone is able to distribute FREE products in a free market. Anyone is able to purchase products that are FOR SALE in a free market. The creator gets to make the choice, not the user. If you don't wan't to pay for it, then choose something free. It's your right. You do NOT have the right to steal. Your whole posture here is a lame attempt to justify outright theft.
didnt you see my article from npr? the music industry will not allow people to teach music. not specific recordings. not specific performances. a guy teaching how to play guitar, spreading his own talent and knwoledge. pay attention. i agree. but they shouldnt be able to restrict the free exchange of information. if you and i exchange information, no matter what that iinformation is, no theft has happened. if you loan me your cd and i copy it, that is not stealing, that is free exchange of information. if i teach you how to play sweet home alabama, that is not stealing. unless the music lobby is defining things, which they are, unfortunately.
I read the article. Some guy was afraid that the music industry might object some day. It hadn't actually happened. Pay attention. The guitar instructor is making a derivative product using copyrighted material. People have been making guitar books for decades and they face the same laws. Some of what they do is free use and no one will object, citing a song for instance or mentioning the guitar riff in a performance. Some usage could violate copyright laws technically, even though no one really objects, such as using it to teach guitarists. This is why editors have to pay a lot of attention to obtaining permission from the publisher to quote from certain photos, songs, and books. Usually it is freely given to researchers, authors, and other publishers who are not using it to deprive a creator of resources. These guys may have lazily neglected to do this. But if someone were to actually publish the sheet music without permission or play the recording of Lynyrd Skynyrd, it would be a true violation and legally pursued by the owners. Of course it is stealing. Loaning a legally purchased product to you is free exchange of information. You can freely play it and even let a friend listen, but copying it is stealing. It's the copyright law, actually. Based on centuries of legal precedent. The music lobby has nothing to do with it.
