File-Sharing Kids: “I really don’t care, it’s not my problem. Singers and actors are rich enough”
Written by enigmax on August 13, 2007According to a study into children’s safety and how they use the internet, European kids appear to have a basic grasp of the law when it comes to file-sharing. However, they aren’t really bothered by it and just carry on downloading - music in particular.
The ‘Eurobarometer’ study covers many aspects of electronic communication used by kids between the ages of 9 and 14 but of course, we’re interested in the internet section and in particular, file-sharing.
When asked how they ‘learned’ how to use the internet, many of the children said they couldn’t remember - an indication of how early in a child’s life computers are introduced these days and summed up nicely by a 9-10 year old boys group from the Netherlands: “There is nothing to learn” and from a group of German boys: “It is in my blood. I am a computer freak.”
Most say that they were shown the basics but went on to teach themselves and other people, including their parents: “My parents do not teach me, I teach them!” (Boys group, 12-14 years, Ireland)
In respect of file-sharing, the 9-10 year old groups didn’t show much interest, the complete opposite of the 12-14 year olds, especially the boys who really enjoyed downloading new games.
It’s obvious from the samples given in the report that those kids questioned in the older groups had some grasp of the law relating to file-sharing. However, the bad news for those planning on enforcing copyright law on them when they become adults is that they don’t really care about it. Right across the European countries questioned, for the kids, awareness of the law didn’t really translate into a concern for operating within it.
Amongst the kids there was generally an attitude of “everyone is doing it, so i’ll do it too”. Add this to the fact that many kids watch their parents file-sharing: “Dad does it all the time” (Girls group, 12-14 years old from Norway), there’s a real challenge for the media companies in trying to get these kids to stop or change habits in the future.
A group of 9-10 year old Belgian girls share the opinions of millions of file-sharers world-wide when they said: “But I do not understand that it is illegal”.
The older boys group (12-14 years) from Denmark said: “It’s illegal, but it does not look like it is illegal” while the girls from the same age group in Belgium proclaimed: “It is wrong but not our fault”.
Almost nailing current perception of European copyright law, the 12-14 year old boys group in Finland claimed “Downloading is illegal, it is not punishable whereas sharing the files is punishable”. It’s generally felt that downloading is not an offense in Europe, where uploading probably is.
The French boys get it totally right when they said: “People download, but if is just for themselves, it is less serious than downloading for burning and reselling”. Indeed, selling copyright material is generally a criminal offense whereas file-sharing is nearly always a civil issue in Europe.
The older boys from the UK could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion they came to: “I don’t really feel guilty. It wouldn’t be on the Internet if it was like really illegal, they wouldn’t have it there”.
The older Czech boys felt that paying for stuff wasn’t necessary: “They have a lot of money ! They don’t need my money”, an opinion shared by the Italians: “I really don’t care, it’s not my problem. Singers and actors are rich enough”.
Having paid their ISP for their internet connection, the 12-14 year old boys from Portugal feel they have done their part: “We pay because we are spending megabits!”
Most of the children when questioned said they intend to carry on downloading and nothing is likely to stop them, however something that continually crops up in the internet part of the report is the concern the children have for downloading a virus. Indeed this is their major concern, although a 9-10 year old boys group from Slovakia had a solution:
“… Just download anti-virus software.”
The report can be downloaded here.
Thanks to Chris Pirillo for the great artwork
Previously: Suprnova: What Will Change and What Will Remain The Same?
Next: Torrentz.com: Growing Bigger and Better
93 Responses
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
[quote comment="146548"]There aren’t any “proper” methods of influencing legislation that don’t involve breaking the law or exploiting them through informal fallacy.
Do you really want our children to go through politics the “normal” way? It would be a tragedy to breed more lobbyists.[/quote]
Actually, i did a little research and the way to change laws is to talk to your state representatives. Yes, it is slow but it’s the way we have in place right now. This page from Arizona explains it a bit more.
http://www.lawforkids.org/changeit/index.cfm
I wish there were an easier way myself, but this is the way we are stuck with. So how do we change things like this?
I think we need to elect better people. The problem is, we keep electing the same type of person to office. Politicians. I think we need more regular everyday type people in there. People who don’t have loyalties to big coroporations. People who “get” our point of view. People with knowledge of computer and internet happenings. People who understand that it’s not all about “the internets and tubes!” You want change? Get some of these web 2.0 people to start running for office! Yes, they won’t win at first but they may make a dent in time. When that happens, then we can start to really affect the laws and see change for the better. Just my opinion though!
[quote comment="146566"]breaking the law can and does change things, a classic example being civil disobedience during the American civil rights movement last century.[/quote]
Ok, touche! However, do you really think that people who file share are being persecuted like the African Americans were? Will that girl who was sued and then used by Pepsi and iTunes as a spokesperson be remembered as the Rosa Parks of the file sharing age?
It seems a bit “off” to compare wanting your favorite song free to people wanting their basic rights as a human being, don’t you think? I concede you your point, that law breaking can and has lead to change, but in your example, the change was not just a materialistic goal.
And by the way, yes I know the link I sent is for kids, but the basic idea is there. Contact your representatives.
[quote comment="146464"]Downloading music and movies is from the internet is TERRIBLE! And by terrible I mean its hard finding the music you want, downloading it via a reliable high speed connection, and having it organized and easy to use for everyday use, parties, in any room of the house, playing on my stereo, in my car, on my television, on my computer, and to take with you to work, or on the bus, or in the car. If you want me to pay for internet music, fix those problems. OH WAIT Apple has already gotten started. They let me play my music in two places, and they help me organize it and download it quickly. They still restrict what I can do with it, but sort of in a way I can live with for now. Yeah, sure I’ll pay 99c for that.[/quote]
What decade are you living in?
[quote comment="146576
Ok, touche! However, do you really think that people who file share are being persecuted like the African Americans were?[/quote]
No, it is obviously not as serious an issue as basic human rights, however the basic principles of social change are fundamentally related.
I am not meaning to trivialise the civil rights movement by comparing it to wanting your “favorate song free”, in fact it is not really about ‘getting somthing for nothing’
we are currently in a transitory period between the age of physical data management (books and paper records) and virtual information management (digital). p2p allows data to move without the restrictions imposed by a physical medium, being so easy to copy data can be available to everyone. To impose the rules of the physical universe unnecessarily on data, is stifling and counterproductive.
As an example consider the printing press, arguably, before digital data, the printing press was the technology that allowed more people access to information, taking it out of the exclusive control of medival monestaries. imagine monestaries used their lobbying power to outlaw the printing press, so they could maintain their control over information dispersal.
This is analagous to the various media companies imposing DRM restrictions, harsh copyright laws, etc on filesharing.
sorry folks, dont know what happed in the above post.
[quote comment="146576]
Ok, touche! However, do you really think that people who file share are being persecuted like the African Americans were?[/quote]
No, it is obviously not as serious an issue as basic human rights, however the basic principles of social change are fundamentally related.
I am not meaning to trivialise the civil rights movement by comparing it to wanting your “favorate song free”, in fact it is not really about ‘getting somthing for nothing’
we are currently in a transitory period between the age of physical data management (books and paper records) and virtual information management (digital). p2p allows data to move without the restrictions imposed by a physical medium, being so easy to copy data can be available to everyone. To impose the rules of the physical universe unnecessarily on data, is stifling and counterproductive.
As an example consider the printing press, arguably, before digital data, the printing press was the technology that allowed more people access to information, taking it out of the exclusive control of medival monestaries. imagine monestaries used their lobbying power to outlaw the printing press, so they could maintain their control over information dispersal.
This is analagous to the various media companies imposing DRM restrictions, harsh copyright laws, etc on filesharing.
I’m 23 and I’ve been sharing files since I was 13. I’ve never been caught, or known anyone that was. It’s like this - if I HAD the money to buy entertainment, I would. Also, I think most of the things I download, the creators take pride in their work being seen/heard/read by many people. I know I would if I wrote a book, made a film, or made some great music. If you’re in it for the money, you’re in it for the wrong reasons. Large conglomorates like the RIAA and MPAA are no longer needed in our world - a good band can make it on myspace, a filmmaker can use YouTube, and a writer can use Xerox’s print on demand service to sell copies of a work that otherwise would’ve never seen the light of day.
most nerds with a sense of entitlement to other peoples’ work steal music*
Unfortunately Gnetsurpher, the proper channels, at least in the United States, have stopped listening to the people a long time ago. Christ, even the voting system is compromised.
*
Capital Hill is greased by money, and groups like the **AA’s use that to keep their laws in place.
*
If the system you refer to works we would not BE in Iraq. This is a bigger problem than songlifting. We could be facing the draft and young American songlifters have a better chance of ending up dead in a desert protecting BushCo’s oil than in court over lifted songs.
*
My take on the situation.
[quote comment="146550"]So you advocate breaking the law? I hardly think that will change things. Maybe eventually it might convince people to take a look at things, but if you are caught, your immediate future might be unpleasant having to deal with the ramifications to that law breaking. As long as it is law, you will have to face the consequences, regardless of whether you agree with the law or not.[/quote]
That kind of logic only contributes toward the degeneration of social progression, if you ask me. I believe breaking kaws is sometimes necessary to illustrate a point to an otherwise stubborn government.
For instance, you can’t expect slaves to say, “Well, even though this whole slavery thing is a blatant abuse of human rights, we’ll just go along with it for now and see if we can eventually talk some sense into our oppressors!” Had no one bothered to spark a civil uprising and demonstrated raw emotion against the laws they disagreed with, social progression would have been a much more tedious process.
Obviously, slavery is a much stronger issue. I, by no means, am trying to contrast the issue of piracy with such a comparisson. However, I think modern government has become much more efficient at disabling groups from insinuating new causes and ideas. So if the pirate movement were to ever take off, I think it would have to be a full-scale call for anarcy. ;)
(P.S., of course that was just a joke)
Anyway, do you think the recording industry has any actual concern for ethics? They’re exploiting people for the harmless act of information sharing, and then parading it around like it’s some moral crusade about intellectual property. All this nonsense about monetary damages is just more scum on the bottom of the pond.
The simplest way to discern fact from fiction is to consider how something is asserted. An assertion that is sensible and can stand freely on its own merits is worth consideration. An assertion that requires others to be decieved and mislead is obviously fishy. Take a hard look at the recording industry’s methods and judge for yourself what their intentions are. They cannot hide behind the law forever.
The simplest way to discern fact from fiction is to consider how something is asserted. An assertion that is sensible and can stand freely on its own merits is worth consideration. An assertion that requires others to be decieved and mislead is obviously fishy. Take a hard look at the recording industry’s methods and judge for yourself what their intentions are. They cannot hide behind the law forever.
Best way to do that is to upload a transcript, a particularly nasty transcript out of their computers.
That top part was supposed to be a quote.
Tell ya what, when company’s stop paying actors and artists 50 Million + per movie and albulm, then I wont have any hesitation in paying for it. But when life guards, police officers and search and rescue people dont make anything remotely like that, in their whole entire lives, then I cant help but not care whether or not Snoop Dogg or Tom Cruise get another gold plated cappucino maker. Sorry, but carefactor -10. They are ENTERTAINERS ffs !!! In other words, they dont do shit.
“We pay because we are spending megabits!”
[quote comment="146447"]
…
What’s to stop them from stealing a soda from a store, money from a bank, life from another human? Yeah, that’s extreme, but what is to stop them from saying, I’m thirsty, I’m poor, that guy annoys me and then going and doing those things?…
[/quote]
Mostly nice reading, except for the quoted section here…
I hope the writer of the post does understand the difference in “stealing a soda” and “sharing digital data”.
In the first example the resource itself is displaced and hence the “wealth” is displaced.
With filesharing there is NO resource displacement. I agree, that it is questionable, if “wealth” displacement occurs, though I myself don’t think so.
What I’m trying to say is, please, PLEASE, do NOT compare “sharing files” with “stealing resources”. It is as dumb as stamping a baby sex offender cause he touched his moms breasts.
NB: If resources could be replicated as the data today, we wouldn’t have this conversation and also “stealing a soda” wouldn’t be a problem either.
Thank You for Your time!
[quote comment="146447"]The underlying problem here is that the kids do not care that they are breaking the law. Yes, it may be a dumb law or you may not like it, but it still is the law. If you want it changed, you need to go through proper channels, not just go and
break the law. [/quote]
But if so many people breaks the law without a second though, might it not be that the law should have been changed?
[quote comment="146447"]These kids are not being taught right from wrong by their parents. As much as you want to blame the kids, it’s the parents’ fault. They need to learn about computers if they are going to parent a child who uses one. They NEED to understand what’s going on.[/quote]
My parents and others parents that i know of already knows about computers and understands what is going on. The “problem” is that they care as much about the law as i do. They actually asks me to download for them sometimes.
[quote comment="146447"]Yes, this is a simple case of file sharing, but what about in the future when they grow up? What’s to stop them from stealing a soda from a store, money from a bank, life from another human? Yeah, that’s extreme, but what is to stop them from saying, I’m thirsty, I’m poor, that guy annoys me and then going and doing those things? They already have the attitude that it’s “Not their problem”. They are already blaming others for their own actions. This will only continue onto bigger things as they grow.[/quote]
There’s a huge difference in stealing and filesharing. In the case of stealing the owner loses the object which is stolen. in the case of filesharing, new copies are being made and the original is still there. A totally new file made up of the exact same sequence of one’s and zero’s is being created, and which the computers then interpret as a movie or a song which is exactly like the original. If i would walk into a store, look at the receipt on the soda bottle and make my own soda thats exactly the same as the soda in the store, then the soda in the store is still there unlike if i would have stolen it. If lots of people would make their own soda the soda companies would lose money, but would they be criminals because the soda company had “copyright” on the soda, or should they be considered criminals.
Sure, the artists behind a music album or the people behind a great movie have worked hard for their product and needs money in return to be able to live. But it would still be practically the same if i would walk into a store look at some clothes and make my own. The clothes have been designed by someone and others have worked in factories to produce them. Behind all products there is someone or a lot of someones who may have worked their ass of so that we consumers may enjoy their product. But if we create copies of their products they can’t get their money, but making an identical copy of something is not stealing. Should my great-grandmother be considered a criminal because she bakes bread thats almost the same as the bread sold in the store?
[quote comment="146447"]Kids do not truly understand the shades of grey in these matters. They only truly understand right and wrong. File sharing is a grey area. For kids though, they should be taught simply, it is against the law, so you don’t do it. When they are older, they can think about things and look at the problems that DRM causes and why people do turn to file sharing, such as Google’s recent decision to get out of the business and not allow you to play their drm files anymore despite the fact you paid for them. Is that right? Should those people be denied the product they paid for? No of course not! So go ahead and redownload it off of a torrent site or filesharing app. These people tried to do the right thing and got screwed! Does FOX allow me to watch missed episodes of Hell’s Kitchen? Nope, just clips! SO hell with that, I’m going to download it. I’m not waiting for them to put out a DVD! ABC plays the last few episodes of their shows, as does NBC, so if I miss an episode, I go to their site and watch it their, even with an ad or two. With a legal alternative, I will choose that method. However, mess around with that legal method, and yes, I’ll turn to filesharing.
You understand this, and kids may say, yeah I get that, but they really don’t. They are not adults yet, despite the fact they grow up quicker today than ever before. Black and white is what they truly understand. For these kids in the story, they are basically saying “Yes, this is wrong but I don’t care. Everyone else does it, so I will too.” Well, as my parents used to say, if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? I always said no, of course not.
Maybe today’s children haven’t been told that. Maybe they think, yeah, I would jump of a bridge, why not?[/quote]
Filesharing is indeed a greyzone but the kids do understand that it is against the law and they do understand that crime is wrong. But they still don’t care because it’s socially acceptable. The people around them, not just their kid friends but adults too, doesn’t think there is anything wrong with filesharing. it’s probably not just “Yes, this is wrong but I don’t care. Everyone else does it, so I will too.”, i think it may be more like this in many cases “The stupid laws says this is wrong but everyone else thinks it’s okay so why shouldn’t i do it too.” If you steal something or abuse someone, which is also a crime, then you are hurting other people and most kids thinks it’s wrong to hurt other people, but in the case of filesharing they probably don’t think they are hurting someone, because the people around them thinks it’s ok. That is not the case of stealing, stealing is wrong in public opinion and that affects the children. They are taught by society that stealing is wrong, but they are not taught that filesharing is wrong, quite the opposite actually.
It is not a case of doing something wrong because other people do it. It is a case of doing something that they think is not wrong.
Btw i wouldn’t watch FOX whatever shows are on, it’s probably the worlds most biased news channel and i strongly advice anyone to NOT watch it.
[quote comment="146460"][quote]
You’re all criminals, that’s the bottom line.
An artist has the right to protect his or her creation.
Stop trying to take away that freedom.
[/quote]
Back already? :P
Controlling what someone else does with something you made is not freedom.
Controlling what someone else does is the exact opposite of freedom.[/quote]
Technically it’s “controlling what someone else does with something that previous mentioned someone him/herself has made that is exactly like something you have made is not freedom”
It’s definitely not freedom even if it’s against the law. And what are the purpose of the laws? To protect the people or to protect the profit of big companies?
[quote comment="146467"]We here in Portugal pay for our use of the internet, trust me it isnt cheap… As some of the kids stated… thoughs fuckers are rich enough what the hell do they need our money for? So Jay-Z can have the money to sell 10 kilo’s more of some fine fish scale or so Eminem “Marshal Mather’s” can continue poping his colorfull pills? or so DMX can buy more bullets to kill people that annoy him and write more songs??
I know most of what I just stated may or may not be true but the point of it is that they are surely going to get payed either way.
I say keep the US laws in the US and lets get these anti-p2p groups out of this side of the world.
Anyone want to join in with a revolt?[/quote]
You’ve got a point there but all artist are not that rich. But they are not that rich because they are not that popular and thus isn’t as exposed to filesharing as the big artist are. But their main source of income will be live-performances anyway if it isn’t already.
I’ve heard artist state that their main source of income is indeed live performances and that they actually see filesharing as a way to reach out to more people, increase their popularity, draw more people to their live-performances wich in the end contributes to more money in their pockets. I have never heard an artist state that filesharing is impairing their income and makes it harder to live.
[quote comment="146479"]I feel bad for artists, I really do, because its not their fault. They hired a large and largely successful group of people to promote them, care for their interests, and make their music available to as wide an audience as possible. The people who run the music industry are to blame, and if they decide to take their mistakes out of the pockets of artists, then once again, they are to blame. Lets lay blame where blame is due: squarely on the shoulders of frightened, ininspired, no-risk, no-reward music executives.[/quote]
Exactly, the problem with the big music corporations is that they doesn’t try to adapt to this great change and maybe also opportunity that is filesharing. Instead they try to resist in order to secure profit but in the end they will just lose money.
[quote comment="146519"]Data is not property? The “data” as you say, is a song (or album). A song that was written by someone, recorded, and then put up somewhere for others to purchase and listen to. It most certainly is property. And, it is copyrighted property. It matters not if it is data or a hard copy. Copyrighted material is copyrighted material. It is protected by law that others cannot use it for monetary gain until a certain number of years is up. I mean, that’s very basic of course.
Anyway, this is NOT the future. Content will never be totally free. Sure, an artist may start out by wanting to have his music heard, his message gvien to the people, but eventually that artist is going to need to eat. That’s where selling will come in. Unless he is independently wealthy, he’’s not going to give all of his stuff away for free always. So, how is it you think content will be free in the future?[/quote]
This is almost answered in my answer to the previous quote, not fully. Even if it is music it is still data. Even a “hard copy” (which i interpret as a cd) is just a plastic disk with data on it, just a lot of one’s and zero’s. Sure, it is copyrighted property, but it shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t make money from it at all, they should make their money from live-performances. This definetly IS the future whether you like it or not, or are you saying that filesharing is diminishing?
It is and should be possible to sell something you have created.
It is but should NOT be possible to prevent others from creating identical objects for themselves.
[quote comment="146534"][quote comment="146447"]The underlying problem here is that the kids do not care that they are breaking the law. Yes, it may be a dumb law or you may not like it, but it still is the law. If you want it changed, you need to go through proper channels, not just go and break the law. [/quote]
Laws at a fundamental level are there to protect people and facilitate civilisation, thus when they are no longer relevant, they are ignored.
The fact is that the internet and p2p technology are changing the way which people interact with information. Society changes first, the law will follow later.
Don’t worry too much about artists, they managed to make great music long before megacorps tooks over their interests, they will be fine in the p2p age.[/quote]
Exactly my point but in a more compressed, thought-out and easy to read format. Above quoted person has defenitely grasped the situatin here, i hope you all will come to the same understanding sometime.
The post by Agmar was so good so i won’t bother answering any more today, if i did this post, which is already all too long, would be so long so nobody would have the psychic stamina to read it all.
Please read all the other posts by Agmar also.
Sharing is caring
No idea why my above post and several others ended up in a quote by Agmar but who cares. This discussion should reach a conclusion soon. And to all of you who still don’t get the situation after reading all posts: “resistance is futile”
It may not be the Borgs who are coming, but it’s nonetheless impossible to stop. Filesharing is here to stay. Adapt.
[quote comment="146401"]You’re all criminals, that’s the bottom line.
An artist has the right to protect his or her creation.
Stop trying to take away that freedom.[/quote]
Well, freedom is what it comes down to. Artists need their freedom to create and live of their music, but I need some freedom as well. I’m talking about the freedom to listen to music I like, the freedom to discover new music and the freedom to share music I love with my friends.
I download lots of music, but if I like the artist then I want more from that artist. Best way to do it is of course to give money and support, so I buy records and merchandise and try to see a concert or two.
Music is problematic, compared to other things. Most things you can taste or try in the store (of course true for music as well) and some things can actually be returned if you don’t like it. If I buy something that looks good in the store, say a shirt and then when I get home I find that the shirt doesn’t match the pants I wanted to wear it with. Well,then I go back and return the shirt.
Now, when I buy an album and find out at home that it’s stale and repetitive, what are my odds at returning it? Even if we are just talking about a store credit. I can tell you, they are slim to nothing. Ergo I download, try it and THEN I might buy it. That’s my freedom!
http://www.izimi.com is a file sharing site that won’t have this problem because of the clever self-policing way in which files that should not be shared get taken out of the system. izimi operates a black flagging system where users can black flag content for whatever reason e.g. copyright infringement. 4 black flags and the file has gone. The other cool thing about izimi is that the files currently are served directly from users’ PCs, yet are searchable via the site.
[quote]Does an artist lose money when a file is shared? No, the music companies do. [/quote]
No, no one looses money. It’s just that they don’t gain what they potentially might have gained.
[quote]So you advocate breaking the law? [/quote]
I do.
[quote]Actually, i did a little research and the way to change laws is to talk to your state representatives. [/quote]
What if I don’t want to change the law, what if I want to abolish it, along with the government?
What bureaucrat would I talk to then?
[quote]It seems a bit “off” to compare wanting your favorite song free to people wanting their basic rights as a human being, don’t you think?[/quote]
Isn’t my right to be left alone by governments and media cartels a basic human right? Isn’t it my right to share with other people without being forced into jail?
If it’s a band I really like, I buy the CD. I bought the Linkin Park CD even though I could’ve downloaded it soooo easily. I downloaded the new Reel Big Fish Album before it came out, then went and bought it because they are my favorite band. I download a boatload of music, but mostly stuff that I wouldn’t have bought anyway. If a friend shows me a new CD, I borrow the CD and rip it into iTunes. Is that illegal? As far as I understand, that falls under Fair Use. I got it firsthand from someone who bought the CD.
My brother buys all his music, either hard copies or on iTunes, same with DVDs. I tell him I can get it for free, but he doesn’t. It helps to have money to burn, but still.
[quote comment="146879"]If a friend shows me a new CD, I borrow the CD and rip it into iTunes. Is that illegal? As far as I understand, that falls under Fair Use. I got it firsthand from someone who bought the CD.[/quote]
Fair Use says you can make a backup of your CDs and music. If you are borrowing your friend’s CD, then making a copy wouldnt constitute fair use.
I like the analogy of making a copy of a can of soda. Here’s the thing though, when you copy the soda, you have to take your OWN ingredients and mix them together just right. With a song or data file, the technology allows you to just make a copy. What if you had to play the music yourself to make a copy? What if to make a copy of the song to share YOU yourself had to perform it? The soda? You’re copying it, anyone can) but you are actually creating it again from scratch from a recipe with all new materials. You’re not taking the contents of the can and turning it into a new copy. The song? You are just taking it and copying it. IF you had to do it all again yourself and create the song from scratch, guitars vocals and all, then I could see it being allright to copy. It’s more like a cover version of a song then. The soda is like a cover version of the soda.
What about copying a book? IF we photocopy a book and pass it around to friends, that is considered illegal as well I believe. I dont think many people do this because it is a lot tougher to copy a 400 page book then it is to copy a 3 mb file. The basic idea is the same though. It’s illegal as well.
I do believe that an artist has a right to ask for compensation from a song, whether it be a file or cd. Again, no one has really said much about my example of making my own song, and hoping to get my cut of the 99 cents every time it sells on iTunes. IF it sells 1000 times, I get a cut of that. If one person buys it and shares it, I have lost out on a lot of money.
It doesn’t matter if one is rich or not, if they would like to get compensated, they should be if people like their stuff. Painters, authors, musicians, whatever. They deserve to get paid. Do they deserve as much money as they do? Probably not. I take a lot of issues with the sports stars getting the million dollar contracts, while our teachers (myself included) make next to nothing. If I write a book about teaching, I’d hope to get compensated by people buying it. No I wouldn’t be in it for just the money, but without the money, I’d be broke and unable to live.
Thinking that artists should just be happy their stuff is out there and being seen, is a very Utopian view of a world we don’t live in and won’t for an extremely long time. To get people to do things just for the sake of doing things without compensation somehow is not going to happen right away. Think about it, would you do YOUR job, go to work everyday, just because someone said you should? No, of course not, you go because you need the paycheck. And while some people love their jobs, take their paycheck away, and see how long they continue to do it. Same with artists.
http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html
SIGN THIS PETITION FOR ABOLISHING THE DIGITAL MILLENIUM ACT! [there is very small chance of congress actually taking this seriously but it is still worth a try]
SIGN IT NOW!
[quote comment="146937"]
I like the analogy of making a copy of a can of soda. Here’s the thing though, when you copy the soda, you have to take your OWN ingredients and mix them together just right. With a song or data file, the technology allows you to just make a copy. What if you had to play the music yourself to make a copy? What if to make a copy of the song to share YOU yourself had to perform it? The soda? You’re copying it, anyone can) but you are actually creating it again from scratch from a recipe with all new materials. You’re not taking the contents of the can and turning it into a new copy. The song? You are just taking it and copying it. IF you had to do it all again yourself and create the song from scratch, guitars vocals and all, then I could see it being allright to copy. It’s more like a cover version of a song then. The soda is like a cover version of the soda.[/quote]
When i download a song a new identical song is being created from scratch from a recipe with new materials, materials being a lot of one’s and zero’s.
If i did it all myself and created the song from scratch, guitars vocals and all, it would not be an identical copy of the song, it would be a cover as you said. But since sounds is vibrations, i could use my mystery-device to analyze the song and create a new series of vibrations identical to the first and thus the new copy of the song would indeed be an exact copy. The analogy with the clothes is better in this case because it is easier to create an exact copy with the right skills and tools.
[quote comment="146937"]
What about copying a book? IF we photocopy a book and pass it around to friends, that is considered illegal as well I believe. I dont think many people do this because it is a lot tougher to copy a 400 page book then it is to copy a 3 mb file.
The basic idea is the same though.
It’s illegal as well.
[/quote]
I have thought of that too. It happened with the last Harry Potter book. I’m tired and can’t come up with anything about books now but i shall quote this interesting comment by Agmar just because:
[quote comment="146603"]
As an example consider the printing press, arguably, before digital data, the printing press was the technology that allowed more people access to information, taking it out of the exclusive control of medival monestaries. imagine monestaries used their lobbying power to outlaw the printing press, so they could maintain their control over information dispersal.
This is analagous to the various media companies imposing DRM restrictions, harsh copyright laws, etc on filesharing.[/quote]
[quote comment="146937"]
I do believe that an artist has a right to ask for compensation from a song, whether it be a file or cd. Again, no one has really said much about my example of making my own song, and hoping to get my cut of the 99 cents every time it sells on iTunes. IF it sells 1000 times, I get a cut of that. If one person buys it and shares it, I have lost out on a lot of money.
[/quote]
True that they might lose money from filesharing, but they might gain also. If an artist would share his songs for free, willingly or unwillingly, that artist might reach out to a lot more people that would not have bought his/her music anyway. That would increase the artists popularity and draw more people to his/hers live performances which IS the artists main form of revenue.
[quote comment="146937"]
It doesn’t matter if one is rich or not, if they would like to get compensated, they should be if people like their stuff. Painters, authors, musicians, whatever. They deserve to get paid. Do they deserve as much money as they do? Probably not. I take a lot of issues with the sports stars getting the million dollar contracts, while our teachers (myself included) make next to nothing. If I write a book about teaching, I’d hope to get compensated by people buying it. No I wouldn’t be in it for just the money, but without the money, I’d be broke and unable to live.
[/quote]
We have this stupid “cassette-fee” which is a fee on all empty storage-media like dvd’s and mp3’s that are sold here in sweden. It’s purpose is to compensate the copyright owners for when a private person makes a legal copy for his/her own usage.
I don’t think anyone should be compensated just because people like their stuff. If they want money they should produce an object or a service of some kind that people are willing to pay for. in the case of musicians, it’s live performances, not plastic disks with a few songs on. They should instead give away the songs for free as a means to spread their music, increase their popularity and draw people to their concerts, which i repeat is their main stream of income.
[quote comment="146937"]
Thinking that artists should just be happy their stuff is out there and being seen, is a very Utopian view of a world we don’t live in and won’t for an extremely long time.
[/quote]
Ask an artist where his/her income comes from. It’s certainly not 100% album sales. Someone should have made a survey about that to see just how much impact file sharing has and could have on the artist income, not the fat music corporations who is desperately fighting file sharing to secure their profit instead of adapting and actually secure their profit.
Now i will go too sleep since the clock is already 01 am here. Goodnight, although you may not read it until it’s morning again.
[quote]IF it sells 1000 times, I get a cut of that. If one person buys it and shares it, I have lost out on a lot of money.[/quote]
Ok, you lost money; So what? Don’t do it again. Why should you use the law to guarentee your profits?
[quote]If I write a book about teaching, I’d hope to get compensated by people buying it.[/quote]
And you still would without copyright.
Just you might have to make sure the book is good and not overpriced.
[quote]To get people to do things just for the sake of doing things without compensation somehow is not going to happen right away. [/quote]
It happens in the file sharing world, as well as many other places.
People spend their time and often money to make releases. They don’t get paid for it, they just like doing it for the spread of free culture.
Also another example is open source. A great deal of open source software development is not for profit, but instead about making the best software possible.
[quote]No, of course not, you go because you need the paycheck. And while some people love their jobs, take their paycheck away, and see how long they continue to do it. [/quote]
You are in the delusion that artists would go broke without copyright.
People will always want to go to concerts.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.