stealing music, and the future of copyright

false. its clearly different in terms of legality. sure many laws are antiquated but with this technology it happens much faster than other areas.

but justifying it doesnt legalize it anymore than stealing someones car.

true. if he was morally outraged he would care that they copied it and directly affected the monetary loss of the artist.

i dont care personally. so im ok with it. i just know theres a legal difference.

 

If I lose my original copy am I allowed to listen to the archival backup or am I supposed to buy another one?

If I loan my legally perchased copy to a friend am I allowed to listen to my archival backup while the paid for copy is out of my possesion?

What if I lose my paid for copy and then give th archival backup away without making another copy for myself?

What if I sell it instead of give it away?

 

Fixed.

Stealing is stealing. Just because there is no copyright there to guarantee protection by an enforceable law doesn't change the fact that you are taking something that doesn't belong to you from someone else in both scenarios.

This is where my comment about splitting hairs came from. You can't conveniently ignore stealing unless it is in direct violation of some rule made by a politician. If you are against stealing as a concept then you can't justify taking something from someone just because their product isn't professionally produced.

 

why? as far as i know, copyright is automatic. if my grandma works her ass off perfecting her cookies, then i take the recipe and cook it and tell everyone, that is just the same as if the recipe came from a cookbook. i am still distributing copies of information that i am not licensed to distribute. every person i share that recipe with is one less person my grandma can impress by being the first to serve it to them.

the question is, would my grandma be justified in yelling at everyone who enjoyed the cookies? why should they get to enjoy them when she was the one that made up the recipe? shouldnt they cease and desist? the cops should pull up: "put down the coookies sir".

jokes is another example i used earlier. i cant protect my jokes. and yet i still think up masterpieces and tell folks freely.

1. yes, i am an agent of red china

2. i have always said the right to sell should remain with the copyright holder. i am only for free distribution of information. the chinamen should not be selling the info.

 

that is an extraordinarily well done paragraph.

 

i know i cant. i have no protection. and yet i still try my best to invent the best jokes i can to tell my friends. the stealing hasnt removed the motivation for me to create.

repeating and duplicating are the same thing. if they are repeating my jokes, they are stealing them. they have a copy in their head and they are using it and they are telling others. they are "file sharing" my jokes. it isnt relevant whether i wrote them in a book or not. they are mine. i made them up. my labor, my time, my effort.

again, fair use means "we, the music industry idiots, would be happy to restrict you and take money for free exchange of information, but is not technologically possible. we would be no less justified though"

red, given that free exchange of information is inevitable, that copyright is dying, especially for music, do you think the music industry will be destroyed and no one will have any music to enjoy?

the opposite is true. the democratization of the creation and distribution process will make the audience far more accessible to the artist, and music will flourish. no longer will artists slvae under absurd contracts, while music companies spend all their money marketing lowest common denominator crap to us.

(basically i am trying desperately to justify to myself my stealing. )

 

I don't get it how my archival copy can be called "pirated" if I am legally allowed to make the archival copy and I have paid for the original.

The fact the the copy I paid for has been lost or damaged has no relevance if I have paid for the digital files on he CD. Legally, I should be as free to give away or sell digital files that I have paid for whether they exist on the the original copy or not. I did not pay $15 for a 25 cent CD that happened to contain digital music files on it. I paid $15 for the music that exists in the form of digital files on the 25 cent CD.

Despite the fact that I no longer have posession of the 25 cent CD, the fact that I have legally paid for the music should mean that I have the right to give it away or sell it as long as I don't retain a copy for myself.

To carry the scenario further imagine that I have thousands of albums of music that I have paid for. All of the original copies are at my house but I have made archival backups that exist on a computer in my office. My house burns down, destroying all the original copies. My insurance company is being a real pain in the ass and delaying giving me a check. My family and I are basically homeless and we are sleeping on inflatable mattresses in my office. In order to raise money to pay for a hotel room I decide to burn copies of the music that I have legally paid for and therefore own and sell them on eBay. Knowing the law I delete the archcival copies of each album after I burn them.

Does that make me a crook?