The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Music pirates can be deluded no longer > Comments

Music pirates can be deluded no longer : Comments

By Stephen Peach, published 30/9/2005

Stephen Peach argues downloading music from the Internet is theft.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Col Rouge,

The copyright laws are a restriction against people being able to make full use of the Internet to enrich their own lives. For those who can afford to connect to the Internet, the cost of downloading a song is virtually nothing. So, the economy of scale is enormous. Once someone has gone to the enormous trouble to create a musical work it will cost virtually nothing more to cheat two, three ten, a thousand or a hundred million copies. If we place a value of, arbitrarily, say $1 for each copy of this work, then it costs practically nothing extra to change the worth of that work to humankind from $1 to $100,000.

Anything which constrains the public from being to 'create' all this additional wealth with virtually no additional material inputs in a world with limited and diminishing stocks of natural resources, particularly energy, is clearly insane from the point of view of the public as a whole.

The only possible justification could be that to remove restrictions the urge for people to create these works would vanish and, we as a global community, would be worse off.

What evidence is there that allowing intellectual property to be copied freely will cause the potential creators of this IP, whether music or whatever from continuing to do so?

The evidence to the contrary is too massive to brush aside. As just one example, the whole Internet is built upon freely available open source software, either written by people on Government payrolls, payrolls of benevolent private companies or in their own time.

Spendocrat, the only musician, so far, to have contributed to this forum has expressed his willingness to allow his works to be copied freely copied by anyone who wishes to do so.

If we could find an alternative means for all of us to fairly remunerate people for their work, an example of which I have suggested above, what possible objection could anyone have to the free copying of music and other IP, except those with vested interests in maintaining the current inefficient system?

(toBeContinued)
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 13 October 2005 4:36:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedFromAbove)

Do you truly believe that, if an alternative means to pay for their works, other than the restrictive copyright system had been used, that all of those who have created works of music, art, literature and other IP throughout the past centuries, would have ceased to do so? I think it highly unlikely.

And even if a minority had chosen not to devote their lives to creativity as a result, it is more than likely that the void would have been easily filled by many others.

The real criminals and thieves are those who wish to steal from humankind the full potential of the revolution in technology and communications in order to preserve their own vested interests which run counter to the interests of the rests of us.

They would have many ordinary, otherwise well meaning and law abiding people into criminals for nothing more using this wonderful technology available to us at almost no extra cost to the environment for their own benefit and for the benefit of others.

In order to do this they have manipulated our democratic and legal institutions behind our backs to impose these outrageous laws upon all of us without our input and without our consent.

They have created laws which can only be enforced by unacceptable encroachments upon our privacy and attacks on our civil liberties.

They would have our society turned into a police state and you, by your attempts to police expression of ideas on this forum through personal abuse, and by libelling me as a "criminal", have demonstrated that you are more than willing to be a servant of this police state.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 13 October 2005 4:39:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is illegal. Prohibited. Not allowed. Against the law. Unlawful. Illegitimate. Illicit. Actionable. A criminal act. You can be taken to court and fined. If you don't pay your fine, they'll send you to jail."

Only if you exclude "Fair Use exception"
“Fair use exceptions” are well defined but limited.

Private Copying, if there is no generation of a commercial gain or benefit from the copy, whilst not exempt under the legislation, claims for damages by copyright holders have not, generally, been found or supported and thus have not imposed penalty on the private copier who copies from their own purchased original for their own personal use.

Further their is a discussion document at

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdhome.nsf/AllDocs/E63BC2D5203F2D29CA256FF8001584D7?OpenDocument

you might be interested in a read and maybe make a suggestion - all this stuff is presently up for debate.

Daggett “Anything which constrains the public from being to 'create' all this additional wealth with virtually no additional material inputs in a world with limited and diminishing stocks of natural resources, particularly energy, is clearly insane from the point of view of the public as a whole.”

I think you have confused “natural resources” (tangible) with intellectual property (intangible). I would further suggest the “well of resources” for production of intellectual property is “limitless”. So, using the above as a barometer of “quality” I deemed the rest of your post too long to bother reading
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 13 October 2005 9:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the government paper you referred me to, Col, it clearly states:

"The Government is aware some common personal uses of copyright material infringe copyright. Examples include transferring music from a CD onto an MP3 or iPod player or copying a television broadcast to view later."

So it would appear that when you wrote:

>>As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3.<<

...you were in fact aware that it was untrue.

Arguing your corner is one thing. Outright lying to support your case is another.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 13 October 2005 5:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

Of course I understand that the "'well of the resources' for production of intellectual property is 'limitless'" . That was precisely my point.

I have tried to show that it should be possible for our society to derive the benefits of creativity of artists without the almost crippling limitations that the likes of the recording industry would impose on the rest of us, but you are clearly cannot be bothered in taking any time to consider arguments or facts which challenge your own world view.

So, suit yourself, Col.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 14 October 2005 5:17:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

“"The Government is aware some common personal uses of copyright material infringe copyright. Examples include transferring music from a CD onto an MP3 or iPod player or copying a television broadcast to view later."

So it would appear that when you wrote:

>>As for your MP3 - you can playback selected tracks from your "legally acquired" CD through a PC and into an MP3.<<

...you were in fact aware that it was untrue.

Arguing your corner is one thing. Outright lying to support your case is another.”

I refer you to what I wrote before
‘claims for damages by copyright holders have not, generally, been found or supported (maybe I should have added “by the courts”) and thus have not imposed penalty on the private copier who copies from their own purchased original for their own personal use.”

So, no lies, I suggest you get over it and grow up!

Daggett “So, suit yourself, Col.”

I do and I will continue to… and I suggest when you get the law changed you will be happy – until them – you and I are obliged to deal with the reality of it and the fact which seems to evade Pericle’s comprehension that “copyright” whilst applying to all copying, breaches of which have NOT been enforced, by the courts, against personal copying where a legally obtained version has been acquired and their has been no commercial benefit derived from the copy.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 4:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy