Is it Wrong to use Limewire to steal.....

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

......Religious Christian rock music?

If I do it, will it make the baby Jebus cry?

[Mook Jong]

it would be wrong if it was worthy of being called music.

[monji112000]

stealing implies taking away something from someone else. downloading music is not paying a company profit, but you are not taking anything away from the company. food for thought:
1) artists get almost nothing from cd sales
2) artists mostly don't "own" the music they write
3) the original law on copywrite was if I remember correctly 15 years, recently it increases every time micky mouse is about to go into public domain. its currently life plus like seventy years. How do you judge the life of a owner that happens to be a company? Its also funny that micky mouse comes from a public domain character steam boat willy. Got to love Disney they get all their classic content from public domain ideas, and then won't let other people do the same. If you think about it all the classic books, and music wouldn't probably have half the effect they did(and do) if they were released with our laws(and future laws).

[NJM]

People still use Limewire?

[Yum Cha]

I believe this is what you call situational ethics.

Right or wrong is not the same thing as fair and unfair. I think the big issue is fairness. Its wrong because your elected officials made it wrong by law. The law may however be unfair, and lots of people in marketing believe it is patently stupid regardless. Hopefully, the law will catch up with the reality.

Just to add, I think Mickey is a trademark, which is different than a copyrighted image. (That's kinda like a corporate copyright, I believe).

Artist own the rights to their music. They may sell those rights in many different ways, and many of course, do get ripped off. Think John Fogerty, even Prince (debatably).

Again, I may be wrong, but I believe the issue with copyright is not the having, but in the profiting from someone elses IP. I.e. its not illeagal to make a copy of me on the cover of Kung Fu Magazine, and to post it in your Shaolin Do DoJo for inspiration, but It is a violation to sell it to club members for $100 in a gilt frame. ( So, everybody doing that, send at least $50 to Gene TODAY, and he may not sink a bootie into your cods).

So, the issue with MP3's should be, is anybody profiting from trading them around, whereas it is instead the "Alleged" loss of revenue that results.

The standard was set with Vinyl, when you could burn a tape and pass it around. Record companies didn't like it, but it wasn't illeagal. The justification was that it was a poor quality copy.

MP3s are likewise poor quality copies...

Anyway, look at all the old blues on the market. The cheap CD's of Robert Johnson and the like. I'm under the sneaking suspicion that that content is out of copyright, and into the public domain, and the people that sell the CDs are making 100%.

I think I'm on the ball, but any of you real copyright experts out there, feel free to fill in the blanks and correct my mistakes.

I think the same applies to video footage and photographs as well, and certainly writing.

stealing implies taking away something from someone else. downloading music is not paying a company profit, but you are not taking anything away from the company. food for thought:
1) artists get almost nothing from cd sales
2) artists mostly don't "own" the music they write
3) the original law on copywrite was if I remember correctly 15 years, recently it increases every time micky mouse is about to go into public domain. its currently life plus like seventy years. How do you judge the life of a owner that happens to be a company? Its also funny that micky mouse comes from a public domain character steam boat willy. Got to love Disney they get all their classic content from public domain ideas, and then won't let other people do the same. If you think about it all the classic books, and music wouldn't probably have half the effect they did(and do) if they were released with our laws(and future laws).

[CLFLPstudent]

As a person in the music industry, lets break this down a bit....

stealing implies taking away something from someone else. downloading music is not paying a company profit, but you are not taking anything away from the company. food for thought:
1) artists get almost nothing from cd sales

Not true. What is true is the artist's main money maker is touring, but artists DO make money on CD sales, depending on how many 'points' they get and if the cost of the CD is recouped. And by copying it over and over the CD will never be recouped.

2) artists mostly don't "own" the music they write

They don't "own" it if they don't write it. If they write it, they absolutely own it. They may ( probably) split a portion with a publishing company, but it is not a large percentage. Say 2 people write a song, each agrees they wrote 50% of it. A song is divided into 2 parts - Publishing and Writing. Now your 50% is divided between the Publishing and the Writing piece, 25% each. Your "Writing" portion you ALWAYS retain - no one can take that from you. Of the "Publishing" portion, a standard publishing agreement will have you split 50/50 with your administering company, so they get 12.5% of your 25% on the Publishing side. A little confusing, but in this scenario. Of your 50% shar of writing this song with someone, your actual take is 37.5%

3) the original law on copywrite was if I remember correctly 15 years, recently it increases every time micky mouse is about to go into public domain. its currently life plus like seventy years. How do you judge the life of a owner that happens to be a company? Its also funny that micky mouse comes from a public domain character steam boat willy. Got to love Disney they get all their classic content from public domain ideas, and then won't let other people do the same. If you think about it all the classic books, and music wouldn't probably have half the effect they did(and do) if they were released with our laws(and future laws).

Again, the Publishing portion and agreement is usually for life. If you are lucky you may get it written into a contract that your publishing returns to you after x many years, but not very common at all.

Even if in fact the "artist" didn't write the song, SOMEONE did, and you are in fact stealing from that person.

-David

[CLFLPstudent]

Anyway, look at all the old blues on the market. The cheap CD's of Robert Johnson and the like. I'm under the sneaking suspicion that that content is out of copyright, and into the public domain, and the people that sell the CDs are making 100%.

Not true. Someone definately owns the publishing to these songs if they are originals ( blues are tricky as who knows who had actually written a lot of the stuff is up in the air).

This was the original trouble people got into with sampling. And what people with money did to make more money. They bought up old Publishing catalogs with the hopes that someone would sample something, it'd be a hit and then they'd sue and then they'd take all ( or most) of the publishing since they owned the rights to publish it.


-David

[monji112000]

I believe this is what you call situational ethics.

Right or wrong is not the same thing as fair and unfair.

right ,wrong, fair unfair are not applicable in law. Its illegal and legal, social morays have little baring on writing law. Judges not wanting to set a precedence is much stronger factor.

I think the big issue is fairness. Its wrong because your elected officials made it wrong by law. The law may however be unfair, and lots of people in marketing believe it is patently stupid regardless. Hopefully, the law will catch up with the reality.

Its not wrong to download music. Its not stealing by definition. Its illegal, like many other things. Its illegal to let a child have a small sip of wine, its not wrong.

Just to add, I think Mickey is a trademark, which is different than a copyrighted image. (That's kinda like a corporate copyright, I believe).

trademark is worse than a copywrite. It doesn't change the fact that they used a public domain character, and made it impossible for others to do the same. Thats WRONG.

Artist own the rights to their music. They may sell those rights in many different ways, and many of course, do get ripped off. Think John Fogerty, even Prince (debatably).

I am not an expert on the trends in so called music and their legal contracts with corporations. BUT, last time I checked most artists didn't own their so called property and made very little on CD sales. I think around 10 cents a cd. again I don't know and don't care. I don't buy or download music. Don't support the people that bring you down. Just copy CD's from friends. If artists are going to support the RIAA, then they don't deserve my money. I buy none RIAA material legally.

Unless you are going to a open network and downloading the songs I would not suggest doing it.

Again, I may be wrong, but I believe the issue with copyright is not the having, but in the profiting from someone elses IP. I.e. its not illeagal to make a copy of me on the cover of Kung Fu Magazine, and to post it in your Shaolin Do DoJo for inspiration, but It is a violation to sell it to club members for $100 in a gilt frame. ( So, everybody doing that, send at least $50 to Gene TODAY, and he may not sink a bootie into your cods).

fair use still exists today but not for long.

The cheap CD's of Robert Johnson and the like. I'm under the sneaking suspicion that that content is out of copyright, and into the public domain, and the people that sell the CDs are making 100%.

public domain is the issue. works are not going into public domain. the rights of the consumers , the people, have been slowly chipped away.
if you want to learn more about the topic visit http://www.lessig.org/
his books are VERY good.
you can read some of them for free.
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
this presentation says allot. ideas are free, nobody truly owns an idea. They are free as air is free.

[CLFLPstudent]

Monji - How can you say it is not stealing?

Websters definition:

transitive verb1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>

You don't buy it, but you use it? It is stealing. How can you say 'most artists don't own their music'? Who are you referring to? Like I said, the Writing portion of any music ALWAYS remains property of the writer. No one can take that away.

You split part of your Publishing share with a company ( or not, up to you) in return for services that Publishing company does for you - a good publishing company will set you up with other writers to create more music, will shop your music around for other srtists to cover, try and place the songs in movies/tv shows/video games.

There is a service - actually many - that let you buy a single song instead of a whole album, iTunes being the leader in this regard.

If anything - by downloading songs and not paying for them hurts new artists far more than older established ones.

-David

[monji112000]

Monji - How can you say it is not stealing?

Websters definition:

transitive verb1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>

You don't buy it, but you use it? It is stealing. How can you say 'most artists don't own their music'? Who are you referring to? Like I said, the Writing portion of any music ALWAYS remains property of the writer. No one can take that away.

You split part of your Publishing share with a company ( or not, up to you) in return for services that Publishing company does for you - a good publishing company will set you up with other writers to create more music, will shop your music around for other srtists to cover, try and place the songs in movies/tv shows/video games.

There is a service - actually many - that let you buy a single song instead of a whole album, iTunes being the leader in this regard.

If anything - by downloading songs and not paying for them hurts new artists far more than older established ones.

-David

legally its stealing, but in reality its not. You are not taking anything from anyone.
If I "copy" your car and build an exact replica is that stealing? What if I were to put your wife through a "magic" duplicating machine. If I a married the duplicate is that stealing? No. Its not paying for using your "Property". Property should be only used for physical entities, not ideas (JMO).

again the specifics of who owns what don't really matter to me. Once you make money of music you have "sold out" in my book.

is it stealing to charge so much money at the movie theater? Yah. Is it stealing if I get my moneys worth and watch three movies for the price of one.. legally yes, morally thats questionable.

just becouse you write a song doesn't mean you you alone created it. You built on thousands of generations of prior ideas public domain ideas. Don't you think that thousands of generations in the future want the same benifit?

Since the RIAA and many other corporations decide to steal my right, I have not issue with not giving them their profit for music. If A musician has a issue with that don't be part of the RIAA.

[monji112000]

Monji - How can you say it is not stealing?

Websters definition:

transitive verb1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>

You don't buy it, but you use it? It is stealing. How can you say 'most artists don't own their music'? Who are you referring to? Like I said, the Writing portion of any music ALWAYS remains property of the writer. No one can take that away.

You split part of your Publishing share with a company ( or not, up to you) in return for services that Publishing company does for you - a good publishing company will set you up with other writers to create more music, will shop your music around for other srtists to cover, try and place the songs in movies/tv shows/video games.

There is a service - actually many - that let you buy a single song instead of a whole album, iTunes being the leader in this regard.

If anything - by downloading songs and not paying for them hurts new artists far more than older established ones.

-David

legally its stealing, but in reality its not. You are not taking anything from anyone.
If I "copy" your car and build an exact replica is that stealing? What if I were to put your wife through a "magic" duplicating machine. If I a married the duplicate is that stealing? No. Its not paying for using your "Property". Property should be only used for physical entities, not ideas (JMO).

again the specifics of who owns what don't really matter to me. Once you make money off music you have "sold out" in my book.

is it stealing to charge so much money at the movie theater? Yah. Is it stealing if I get my moneys worth and watch three movies for the price of one.. legally yes, morally thats questionable.

just becouse you write a song doesn't mean you you alone created it. You built on thousands of generations of prior ideas from public domain. Don't you think that thousands of generations in the future want the same benifit? I'm one person its not like anyone cares about what I have to say.

the sad truth is that when napster first hit, people purchased MORE cds becouse they were able to listen to so many new stuff. Things they would never buy or even borrow. The whole downloading music and movies is a big farce. We are being sold something that looks and smells like music but in reality isn't. Who really cares if some smo gets millions or not for writing shack your A$$ or whatever imitation musical whatever. Get a real job.


Since the RIAA and many other corporations decide to steal my right, I have no issue with not giving them their profit for music. If A musician has an issue with that don't be part of the RIAA.

[CLFLPstudent]

If I "copy" your car and build an exact replica is that stealing?

Faulty logic. The reason digital duplication differs from say making an audio cassette copy of a CD is that the digital duplication is a 1:1 duplicate, no generation loss. Not the same with CD to cassette. The copyright infringement is that you now have an EXACT duplicate of a CD/Song whatever.

again the specifics of who owns what don't really matter to me. Once you make money off music you have "sold out" in my book.

Ahh, I see. Here is where you are coming from. Are you an old hippie or a young one? What do you do for a living? Do you perform a service for people?

legally its stealing, but in reality its not. You are not taking anything from anyone.

Again, it is stealing. Fine you hate the RIAA, but you are taking money out of the hands of people who wrote the music you like to listen to. Whatever little amount you may think it is, it is stealing.

ust becouse you write a song doesn't mean you you alone created it. You built on thousands of generations of prior ideas from public domain. Don't you think that thousands of generations in the future want the same benifit?

Everything created is inspired by something. Where the actual line is drawn if something is "inspired by" or a "copy of" is vague. I've heard of suits that were won whne a few notes were "copied", and others that were lost when whole musical phrases were "borrowed". This is a different argument from copying music and trading it online.

Since the RIAA and many other corporations decide to steal my right, I have no issue with not giving them their profit for music. If A musician has an issue with that don't be part of the RIAA.

What, exactly, right did the RIAA 'steal' from you? Like everything else in the world, it costs money to produce a CD ( produce meaning writing songs, record the song, pay the engineers, rent studio time, duplicate CDs, promote them, etc). This money is recoupable by the people fronting it. If you can do all of this without using other peoples money, then you can sell your music much cheaper than the big industries you hate. People are doing it now - recording equipment quality has gone way up at a relatively cheap price. You can make music in you bathroom that sounds 'professional'. You don't even need to duplicate CD's, just upload the stuff to iTunes and get paid directly from them.

But don't try to sugar coat what you are doing. It is stealing. And it is morally wrong.


-David

[Lucas]

I download most all the music i have.

However I generally download music I have listened to for years.

Often times the music I download nowdays, I have already purchased in the form of cassette tapes, and CD's several times over. IMO its my due. I purchased the songs in a format that was designed to break down and make me spend more money. I spent way too much money on the same songs over and over.

Now i have it on MP3, Ill never have to buy/download it again, because I store a back up.

edit: i do purchase CD's from time to time, and rip them. Also there are lots of local artists where i live. I buy their CD's without a second thought, they arent already rich. Rich people get no financial sympathy from me in any form.

[Jingwu Man]

I download music with limewire, but it's usually stuff I already have the CD to.
I have an irritating CD/MP3 player that doesn't actually play commercial CD's (the reason i bought it), but only MP3 cd's. So I often have to download songs i have on disc to put them on mp3 cd, especially newer cd's with encryption (the new foo fighters cd) where you can't even put the songs on your computer to listen to them.

[stricker]

......Religious Christian rock music?

If I do it, will it make the baby Jebus cry?

yes that is totally WRONG!!!!

the only CORRECT thing to do with p2p and christian propaganda is get a load of black metal, and re-name it to christian rock names, and then distribute it.

make the world a better place!