If they are androids and can record the music directly in their brains, then yes.fiendik wrote:Should I make sure that none of my friends listen to music that I bought because they didn't pay for it's use?
1987 Back To The Street?
-
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:53 am
- #1 Album: Beat the System
- Pethead since: 1985
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- x 3
- Contact:
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
0 x
-
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:53 am
- #1 Album: Beat the System
- Pethead since: 1985
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- x 3
- Contact:
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
Let's say a person is an independent musician. He buys a lot of musical equipment and then spends a year of his time (12 hours a day) to create a musical album. He then manages to release a CD of it. The total production cost of this CD comes to $100000. After all time and money spent it turns out only 1 guy in the world buys his CD. This guy turns out to be your friend and he copies it to you for free. Now there are two copies of the CD. This should mean that you just stole music worth $50000. You might object that your friend surely didn't pay that much for his CD, but for the artist, that is what he spent creating your CD.fiendik wrote:I don't really see why ripping a CD should be illegal, or why it would be morally wrong.
0 x
-
- Extreme Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 3947
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:56 am
- #1 Album: JAH
- Pethead since: 1980
- Location: Earth
- x 56
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
No hatred here my friend just some users here that are in the music market that work hard and put their own money up to get their product out to the fans and it just rubs them the wrong way when someone copies and gives out their product for free without paying for it.fiendik wrote:Yikes! I always thought everybody hated me before I attempted to make an online presence, but now I know it! It seems that nothing I say can't be attacked. Please note that I am heavily sarcastic and not everything should be taken exactly as it sounds (e.g. "...they're so generous."). Now, this conversation is bringing out some aspects that I'd not really thought about before. But is it wrong to borrow a CD (from the library or a friend), rip it to mp3, and listen to it without actually buying a CD? And what about music that isn't sold anymore?
Also, I find it hard to believe that the artist would actually get any money even if I bought it legally...
0 x
FORGIVE! FORGET! & LET GO!
-
- Extreme Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 3947
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:56 am
- #1 Album: JAH
- Pethead since: 1980
- Location: Earth
- x 56
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
My understanding of the copyright laws are that the user has to follow the copyright laws that the artist produced the product from; in other words if the artist set up the copyright for that particular product in the United States then the user has to follow those laws no matter where the user bought the product.p-freak wrote:I was going to say "not much discussion going on here, just a bit of slamming, bashing and pounding (take it easy, Brent, take a deep breath, drink a beer, walk your dog, then come back and make your point without the blunt instruments....)", but then I continued reading your post. That is a very interesting point you're making. The law is behind because internet never existed until fairly recently. It developed unrestricted, so now a set of laws needs to be made that actually fits the environment we're dealing with. Internet is a world where a lot of stuff is shared, so I can imagine that there would a distinct difference between digital theft and physical theft.Dan wrote:I am enjoying this discussion, I believe the Internet has made us all thieves because I would imagine we all have watched something or listen to something on here that we do not own. The problem is the law has always been behind, not in sync with technology and terminology used to define it.
This is where you need to take your valium and drink a couple of beers. A tad bit harsh, quite unnecessarily so, and phrased a tiny bit too strongly (note the irony here ).brent wrote:Well, your logic is flawed. File sharing has killed an industry and did nothing to replace it. Going to the MP3 and ripping music is illegal. You can't possibly practice being a thief and be a Christian. You will reap what you sow. You will not benefit spiritually from something you have stolen. Your opinion of what is right and wrong does not change what the laws actually allow, the morality and how all of this affects artists. Hopefully, someone will break into your house and steal everything and everyone you have. THEN and only then you will understand what some people are living through as a result of idiots like you.
Not all countries have the same laws. Up until recently it was perfectly legal for me according to the laws of my country to download anything I wanted for free. When I buy a carrier for digital information (either a laptop, a hard disc, a CD-R or anything similar), I pay a small extra fee that I given to our national copyright administration organisation, who would distribute these profits among their registered members. So the artists get their due and I get my music for free. Now we are not allowed to download from illegal sites anymore, but I can still copy all the CDs and DVDs that my brothers and friends have free of charge and I can legally own a copy of any recording. So it's very nice that the US laws are different, but if I'm not a thief according to my laws, I'm not thief. Even if US laws would say something else...
And the moral issue is a completely different one and goes much deeper than just a few downloads.
BTW I think Brent and other artists have the right to be harsh because their product is being rip right from their hands without any compensation. It's called stealing and its one of the Ten.
0 x
FORGIVE! FORGET! & LET GO!
-
- Extreme Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 3947
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:56 am
- #1 Album: JAH
- Pethead since: 1980
- Location: Earth
- x 56
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
fiendik wrote:I don't really see why ripping a CD should be illegal, or why it would be morally wrong. Seems about the same to me as going to someone's house and listening to it there. Should I make sure that none of my friends listen to music that I bought because they didn't pay for it's use?
Just because you don't see it that way does it make it ok or right to do it? No it does not. Are you in authority to change or dictate the law? No you are not. It's illegal and morally wrong; the Bible makes it clear not to touch or take what is not yours. I know you would expect someone to have respect for your property so you should do the same.
0 x
FORGIVE! FORGET! & LET GO!
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
So you were being tongue in cheek the whole way through and really didn't acquire a third of your Petra library through theft?fiendik wrote: Please note that I am heavily sarcastic and not everything should be taken exactly as it sounds (e.g. "...they're so generous.").
0 x
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
Ripping a CD for personal use or playing it in a private setting such as your home, even when friends are present, is covered by fair use laws. Distributing the music or publicly broadcasting it without authorization (for instance, playing it at a block party) is illegal. Copyright laws are not nearly as murky as you seem to think.fiendik wrote:I don't really see why ripping a CD should be illegal, or why it would be morally wrong. Seems about the same to me as going to someone's house and listening to it there. Should I make sure that none of my friends listen to music that I bought because they didn't pay for it's use?
0 x
- fiendik
- Pethead
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 11:48 am
- #1 Album: Beat The System
- Pethead since: 2010
- x 1
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
It depends on how you calculate it... I bought NSD and MPTY on cassette and then got someone else's CD recording for my mp3 player. Also, I don't own most of "my collection" because it's bought primarily by my father or my brother, not actually me. You can see as I have some very strange situations, which can be confusing. For example, my father bought JAH when it was released. But to avoid damaging his original, my brother made a duplicate CD to listen to. Is that illegal? I only have 4 albums that I didn't buy on any format, and only have on mp3.Mountain Man wrote:So you were being tongue in cheek the whole way through and really didn't acquire a third of your Petra library through theft?fiendik wrote: Please note that I am heavily sarcastic and not everything should be taken exactly as it sounds (e.g. "...they're so generous.").
I have been thinking about my real thoughts and motives on this issue, though, and after re-reading my posts can see that my logic is pretty bad. After all, I did have to come in yelling my defense... a bad start for sure.
To be consistent with my standard view of morals, I would logically be more strict on this point than I am. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (which I hold to) states that "The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others," and "forbiddeth whatsoever doth, or may, unjustly hinder our own, or our neighbor's wealth or outward estate." So as far as morals are concerned, I think it would be good to ascertain whether the online downloading of music for free does this... admittedly, I've probably been a hypocrite this whole time.
0 x
"Fiends are a gift from above, fiends are devoted and true..."
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
I am not an artist/musician. However, I DO work for a living. I don't appreciate being ripped off and not paid for my own hard work; why should the artist feel any different. The only difference is how easy it is to do. But ease and anonymity don't make it OK. It's called stealing. If you do it, you are not only hurting your neighbor (the artist), but you are also setting yourself up to be bitten in the backside at some point. The Hindus call it Karma.
Andy
Andy
0 x
"Never surrender. Never, never surrender!"
- Sir Winston Churchill
- Sir Winston Churchill
- fiendik
- Pethead
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 11:48 am
- #1 Album: Beat The System
- Pethead since: 2010
- x 1
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
I'm not a Hindu, and I don't care about their Karma. Neither Karma, luck, nor the fates have any place in my worldview. I don't care if the Hindus think something bad is going to happen to me. I'm only concerned that I may be doing wrong by God's standards; besides, people do wrong things all the time and "get away" with it. "Karma" is nonsense. God is judge, and brings punishment in his own time.Tutor_23 wrote:The Hindus call it Karma.
0 x
"Fiends are a gift from above, fiends are devoted and true..."
- sue d.
- Extreme Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:44 am
- Pethead since: 1993
- Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI
- x 23
- Contact:
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
I did "right" and just renewed the domain thepetrazone.net for one more year... argue on, folks!
0 x
-
- Pethead
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:34 pm
- #1 Album: Ruptured IT&S
- Pethead since: 1972
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
Karma is the hindu version of reaping what you sow. People do bad things. People do good things. Getting away and getting rewarded are not always visible to someone watching from the outside. Some people will get "theirs" at judgement. Some people will get "theirs" on earth. But everyone will get "it" in the end.fiendik wrote:I'm not a Hindu, and I don't care about their Karma. Neither Karma, luck, nor the fates have any place in my worldview. I don't care if the Hindus think something bad is going to happen to me. I'm only concerned that I may be doing wrong by God's standards; besides, people do wrong things all the time and "get away" with it. "Karma" is nonsense. God is judge, and brings punishment in his own time.Tutor_23 wrote:The Hindus call it Karma.
0 x
- fiendik
- Pethead
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 11:48 am
- #1 Album: Beat The System
- Pethead since: 2010
- x 1
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
That's what I was saying, but I have a strong dislike for using heathen terminology... the Bible never talks about Karma, so neither do I.
0 x
"Fiends are a gift from above, fiends are devoted and true..."
- sickasadog
- Pethead
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:50 pm
- #1 Album: This Means War!
- Pethead since: 1984
- x 98
Re: 1987 Back To The Street?
"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind" Hosea 8:7Edlastic wrote:Karma is the hindu version of reaping what you sow. People do bad things. People do good things. Getting away and getting rewarded are not always visible to someone watching from the outside. Some people will get "theirs" at judgement. Some people will get "theirs" on earth. But everyone will get "it" in the end.fiendik wrote:I'm not a Hindu, and I don't care about their Karma. Neither Karma, luck, nor the fates have any place in my worldview. I don't care if the Hindus think something bad is going to happen to me. I'm only concerned that I may be doing wrong by God's standards; besides, people do wrong things all the time and "get away" with it. "Karma" is nonsense. God is judge, and brings punishment in his own time.Tutor_23 wrote:The Hindus call it Karma.
0 x
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests