As "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] > [] >[..]
[] > [] > I've digitized all of my 1800 CDs (emails requesting me to share will
[] > [] > be ignored--I paid for my CDs).
[] > [] >[..]
[] > []
[] > [] What the fuck does paying for your CDs have to do with your willingness
[] > [] to share them?
[] >
[] > Um, honesty and integrity?
[] >
[] > I'll share my CDs (not MP3s) with friends who want to listen to them,
[] > of course. I only do this for people I know, and for those that I know
[] > will buy the CD if they want their own copy.
[]
[] Ah, so people who buy and sell things are morally superior to people
[] who share and exchange things for free?

Say, yer new here, aren't you?

Stated my way: "People who buy and sell original works are morally
superior to people who share and exchange copies of copyright
protected works for free."

But wait! Before you reply to that, "name" (if that is your real
name), let me just qualify my statement above by saying that the
people who I feel morally superior to aren't people who "share and
exchange things for free" in the general sense that you framed you
question.

No, I mean "those people who download shared copies of copyright
protected works with no intent on buying work".

Everyone here knows what I meant, so your over-generalization of the
situation wasn't very clever.

[] Do you think libraries should only lend books to people they know will
[] buy the book if they want their own copy?

Ah, another new and excellent argument!

Not.

Libraries keep track of who they loaned items too and they expect the
items back. Also, and this is something you apparently aren't aware
of, it's illegal for someone to make a copy of anything loaned by a
library.

You may get away with going down to the copy-machine store to copy all
pages of the latest Harry Potter, but don't fool yourself into
thinking that it's legal or morally correct.

[] Should radiostations only play music to people they know will buy the
[] music if they want their own copy?

Of course not silly! They pay a royalty for each public broadcast, and
the terms for the use and play of copyright material on the station is
pretty well documented in law.

[] What's the fundamental difference between someone who records a song on
[] tape from the radio for personal use and someone who downloads a song
[] from the internet for personal use?
[] The former is legal ('timeshifting'), the latter is illegal ('music
[] theft') and yet there isn't any rationale whatsoever behind this
[] legislative distinction.

If you applied any amount of reasonable thought here, I'd bet you
could have spotted the difference between a lo-fi radio broadcast onto
analog tape (which has no potential whatsoever of representing
original work) and the hi-fi potentials of the digital copy.

If the labels developed a distribution method that equated to pop
radio, it would work like this:

1) it would be pretty lo-fi. If you want a quality copy, buy it.
2) it would only be a song. If you want the entire CD, buy it.

Come on friend, let's be honest. People are downloading complete CD
copies at better than radio broadcast quality. Some are even sharing
very high bit-rate copies, and many of the recipients of those copies
have no intention of buying the CD (paying the artist and label their
legal due).

[] > [] I bet you turn [off] the music when you have friends over to avoid
[] > [] 'sharing' it with people who haven't properly payed for it.
[] >
[] > Somehow you equate "playing it for them" to "giving them an illegal
[] > copy"?
[]
[] Somehow you presume it's illegal for me to make a copy.

Ah, here again, you infer much more into my words than I intended. We
both know (men of honor again, yes?) that our rights to make copies
for personal use are protected. I fight for that right, and against
copy protection schemes that keep us from doing so.

Just to get you back on course to my intent, which should be obvious
to anyone paying attention, it's not the copying, it's the illegal
sharing. More to the point, it's the downloading of content
duplicated, the illegal distribution.

But sir, let us not banter! More to the point of my original statement
"(emails requesting me to share will be ignored--I paid for my CDs)":

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Often, when I mention that I've
digitized my entire CD collection, I get an email from some dweeb who
wants me to give them copies. Invariably, the request is obvious in
intent: "I want you to share gigabytes of your digital library so I
can have this stuff for free". It usually comes with a "heh, heh".

As I said before, such requests coming from a stranger, I have no way
of knowing if this person is asking for a simple loan and that they
intend on doing the right thing.

[] Actually, since
[] I live in the Netherlands and copyright laws, although equally moronic,
[] are fundamentally different here, I can't even make an illegal copy of
[] music even if I wanted to. Any music I download online is legal,
[] regardless where it comes from.

Good for you!

For my part, it's probably illegal for me to share them with you.
Moreover, I consider it morally questionable.

I haven't mentioned? I'm a musician, not an evil label. And I know
many musicians. If I were to share my personal digitized library (in
part or in whole) with persons of unknown intent, I would be doing me
and my musician friends a great disservice.

This is truth. Even if you think that sharing in general is a good
business model, your opinion so far hasn't disqualified mine as
"moronic".

[] This may sound moronic, and it is moronic, but that's the law (as far
[] as copyright in the Netherlands is concerned)!

You must do as your heart tells you, Luke.

[] > Don't enroll in law school--it'll shatter a lot of your
[] > misconceptions.
[]
[] Legislation is not infallible.

I agree, in general.

[] If the government would ban thought,
[] would you stop thinking?

Oh, I do declare, this is a good comparison to laws protecting owners
of copyright protected works... not.

[] I'm not saying people should ignore laws completely, but they certainly
[] shouldn't take them for granted either.

I certainly don't. And I've put considerable thought behind my stance
in this particular dead horse.

[] Most laws are fairly arbitrary and irrational.

Oh how cerebral! My new .sig...

Why can't you just admit that there's a lot of stealing of CDs and
DVDs? You know there is.

Chris

--
"Most laws are fairly arbitrary and irrational."
-- someone who goes by "name"
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

As "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> so eloquently put:
[...]
[] > For one thing, the broadcasting of the music was bought and paid for by
[] > the radio station. In the US at least.
[]
[] Most music shared online has also been paid for at some point.
[] People don't raid a record store in order to share music online.
[] Most people BUY music and share it with others.

Oh, this is rich. So all 'others' that download the music then buy the
CD if they like it.

What color is the sky on your planet?

Here's a statement for you to sign:

I, "name", swear that if I download something that I like, I then
purchase the official work and pay the copyright owner. If I do not
like the copyright protected work, I delete the copy that I downloaded

Signed, "name".

--
"Most laws are fairly arbitrary and irrational."
-- someone who goes by "name"
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

As "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] dadiOH wrote:
[] > name wrote:
[] >
[] > > Yes, copyright law is a moronic misconception.
[] >
[] > Unless, of course, one earns one's living by creating intellectual
[] > material.
[]
[] There are many people making a living by creating intellectual material
[] who acknowledge that copyright stifles creativity.
[] Brian Eno and Chuck-D (from Public Enemy) to name a few.

Yes, there are "few", not "many".

Does the business model need to change? Yes.

Does that mean that sharing of copyright material is morally justified
before the business model changes?

No.

Quite fooling yourself.

[] > > It's an obsolete and
[] > > redundant invention from the previous century, when the distribution
[] > > of information was up to a limited number of centralized distributors
[] > > who didn't like unfair competition.
[] >
[] > "Sharing" music has nothing to do with the distribution of information.
[]
[] Sure it does. If I have music online and somebody downloads this music
[] from me, I'm *sharing* music with that person. The internet is nothing
[] more than a network to distribute and exchange information.

I think what Dadio means is that "sharing of information" in general
is not the same thing as illegal distribution of copyright protected
material.

[] > >>> And please, don't quote the famous vocal minority celebs (most of
[] > >>> them rich beyond our means) in the industry that lend support for
[] > >>> sharing. It's their opinion and they're welcome to it, but the
[] > >>> don't speak for most in the industry. I know many, MANY more in the
[] > >>> industry who don't share that opinion and in fact depend on their
[] > >>> CD sales to make a
[] > >>> living. They have families, kids, and MP3 sharing hurts them.
[] > >
[] > > People who think sharing information is a bad idea should get the hell
[] > > off the internet.

Non-sequitor.

[] > > Your argument could also have been used to prohibit petrol engines to
[] > > ensure people who are in the business of producing steam engines ought
[] > > to keep their job.

In your far-stretch imagination, perhaps, but that's not what I meant.

Chris

--
" Say what you will about banjos, at least they aren't accordions."
-- A certain someone
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

As "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] > >> "Sharing" music has nothing to do with the distribution of
[] > >> information.
[] > >
[] > > Sure it does. If I have music online and somebody downloads this music
[] > > from me, I'm *sharing* music with that person. The internet is nothing
[] > > more than a network to distribute and exchange information.
[] >
[] > Music isn't information.
[]
[] Can't computers contain files that encode music in digital form?
[] Aren't such files instances of digital information?

Here again, I can see you do not have a degree in copyright law.

Copyright protected materials are "intellectual property".

Let me ask you this: don't you think that the creativity of these
intellectual properties deserve to be compensated for their
contributions to the arts?

That's what the laws are for. Do they need to evolve? Are those rights
abused by business concerns such as poor label contracts? Sure, but in
general, they were instituted to protect the artist.

Until a reasonable business model is developed that shares music as
you envision that does not rob owners of copyright protected works of
their due, there is no reasonable rationale for open, online digital
distribution of said works. Period.

[....]
[] > Music - and the selling of same - isn't exactly a technology. If you
[] > refer to the way it is distributed, then a change in that methodology
[] > doesn't mean that the copyright should disappear.
[]
[] Not necessarily, but are you claiming that technological developments
[] couldn't possibly make copyright obsolete and redundant (or even
[] counterproductive)?

I don't understand. Why should technological developments remove the
protections that creators of art currently hold? What do you mean by
redundant or counterproductive?

Do you even know any musicians? It's a glorious life only for the few.
The rest, the majority, rely on protections to make a living.

[] > > Patents are not intended to
[] > > (and will not) prevent such developments.
[] >
[] > Of course not, never said they would. What they *do* do is protect the
[] > inventor's right to his creation while it is viable and marketable.
[]
[] Right and such viability and marketability is influenced by
[] technological developments. The traditional methodology of producing,
[] marketing and distributing music by the recording industry has been
[] made obsolete and redundant to a large extent by modern technology like
[] computer networks.

I have to say, you two have gone off on this patent tangent, and it
really is far afield of copyright protection concepts.

[] > The fact remains that people want to profit from their creations whether
[] > physical or intangible. And they should...the bucks are what drives
[] > development. That's why there are laws most places protecting the
[] > creators. "From each according to his ability and to each according to
[] > his need" is not, never has been and most likely never will be a
[] > workable way of living. Too many taking and not working now...
[]
[] That is a very controversial and often disputed claim. In my opinion
[] it's not the bucks that drive the developments, but the desire to
[] contribute something worthwhile and the recognition and status derived
[] from these contributions. If money was the only possible motivation for
[] people to create things...

No, sorry, you lost me right there. What a binary point of view that
is. Money as the "only possible motivation"? Please. You can't believe
that.

All of the artists I know are passionate about their work. I mean come
on now, they work in the arts--a very passionate field.

You, sir, are obviously totally unaware of the human aspect here. All
(not many or most but all) of the musicians that I know love their
work and are passionate about it over all, but shit man, they have
families, houses,kids, gardens, cars.. just like the rest of us.

Forget the 1% upper celebs. Most others work and live this way,
passionately, but with a business plan, trust me.

This pie in the sky, naive POV of yours to justify stealing of
intellectual properties does nothing for me.

[] Laws cannot 'protect' creators from the consequences of technological
[] developments.

Yes, yes they can.

[] Technological innovations like machinery, robots and
[] computers have been putting people out of work right from the start,
[] but that doesn't mean we ought to abandon the path of technological
[] innovation to protect their source for income at all costs.

You are so far afield of reasonable thought on this subject, I wonder
why I even reply.

Chris

--
" Say what you will about banjos, at least they aren't accordions."
-- A certain someone
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

"Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> skrev i meddelandet
news:hturc1pq9q8hsshanorb7hhdqi7icgbbft@4ax.com...
Been there, done that since several years back... in the early 60`s I made
recordings on tape and nowadays I place the copies on my harddrives instead. The
albums I don't/didn't buy were those that contained only a song or two that I
like. I don't own 1800 titles like you do, only a mere 700 vinyl albums and maybe
300+ CD albums, but I own them ...

So I say that I belong to those that fit the statement above you're obviously
laughing at ...

On 7 Jul 2005 06:16:35 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

It's a moronic misconception if you're not the developer of IP. If you
are the developer of IP, people who violate copyright laws are
stealing from you. Of course, given your line of reasoning, it's
obvious you'll never be involved in the development of intellectual
property.

Seems the "customers" they are harassing and intimidating aren't
consumers at all; they are, more appropriately, thieves.

The first books were painstakingly copied by monks. The first books
were scriptural works, and the english translation of those works is
FREELY available today. You'll find KJV.TXT freely available from a
number of places. You won't find NIV.TXT freely (at least legally)
available as a corporate entity funded it's translation. Your argument
about monks and copyright is very weak.

New to thinking, huh? The internet was founded for the sharing of
information, not for the piracy of copyrighted information. Not smart
enough to distinguish the difference? That's your failure, not mine.

Bullshit. You're trying to compare technological improvements with
stealing engines.

If the street and internet musicians choose to give their work away
freely, or at a reduced rate, that's their business. If an artist
decides to choose to charge for their work, it's not your right to say
"I'll have the results of your efforts without compensating you for
it." It's theft, plain and simple.

There's a difference between allowing a friend to listen to something
I'm playing on my stereo, and sharing up my entire music collection
on-line for people I've never met to pick through. The first is the
act of socializing; the second is the act of thievery. Still not smart
enough to know the difference?

Free my ass? Is that what you're going to be saying if the RIAA and/or
feds knock on your door? LOL!


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Alice in Chains - Shame in You - Alice in Chains
K:\Audio\Alice in Chains\Alice in Chains\07 - Shame in You.mp3
This is track 155 of 281 in the current playlist.

On 7 Jul 2005 07:40:52 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

Seems the only people who "misconceive contemporary copyright
legislation" are the ones who have nothing to lose by it's
eradication, as they aren't the developers of IP. But then again,
given their weak arguments, it's apparent any intellectual property
they would develop would have no value in the marketplace.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Alice in Chains - Shame in You - Alice in Chains
K:\Audio\Alice in Chains\Alice in Chains\07 - Shame in You.mp3
This is track 155 of 281 in the current playlist.

On 7 Jul 2005 07:02:30 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

If the things being exchanged have been copyrighted, and the copyright
holder has not granted permission for an individual to exchange
something, then yes, the buyers and sellers are morally superior to
those who steal. Can't figure that out?

Weak argument, as are all your others. Do you think the library lends
the material with the belief that the lender will photocopy the book?
Also, if you'll note (that is, if you can read), most libraries have
strong statements regarding copyrights posted in the establishment.

The advertisements played by the radio stations pay the royalties for
the music they broadcast. Plus the radio stations aren't broadcasting
CD quality audio; they are broadcasting FM quality audio. If you like
something you hear on the radio, you trek down to the store and
purchase the CD if you want to be able to listen to the tunes at your
convenience.

There's a great deal of rationale behind this. Time shifting implies
the duplicate will be destroyed once it's been played or viewed; file
sharing implies the other. For example, I have the capability of
duplicating DVDs. I use this capability when I rent a movie so that I
can return the DVD to the rental store immediately; after I've viewed
the movie I delete it.

It is; try making your argument in a court of law and see how well it
stands up.

Then all the people who want to steal music should move to the
Netherlands.

Obviously you haven't needed such a ban to stop you from thinking.

So you don't think people who create music for a living should be
compensated for their works? It's really quite simple; if you create
something, it's your right to determine how it's distributed; it's not
the right of some common self-righteous thief.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Alice in Chains - Shame in You - Alice in Chains
K:\Audio\Alice in Chains\Alice in Chains\07 - Shame in You.mp3
This is track 155 of 281 in the current playlist.

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:39:27 GMT, "dadiOH" <dadiOH@wherever.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

Thanks, although I don't know if it's worthy of the praise.

Since we're on the subject of players that play by track order, I've
made a recent modification to M3Util to allow the user to specify the
directory where tracks will be copied from the play list, as opposed
to the old behavior of creating a folder in the same location as the
play list. The default behavior is for the app to copy and rename the
tracks to a folder in the same directory as the .M3U play list, but at
least now you can over-ride that for devices that show up as mass
storage, or if you want to force the files into a directory for
MP3Gaining and subsequent burning. Right now the copying logic is part
of the same thread as the message handlers, but I'm thinking the copy
logic should be made it's own thread so the UI won't go "brain-dead"
during a track copying operation. I'm also thinking it might be worth
the time to incorporate MP3Gain into the track copying facility.

But anyways, as for the URL:

: http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpo...til/index.html

As usual, fortunecity is a pop-up rich site, so if you wanna browse,
you've been warned.

The version that's posted there now has some brain-dead registration
logic in it, although I think I'll remove that at some point. The
whole UI needs to be reworked; this disaster started out as a Win32
programming learning experience. :-D


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Alice in Chains - Shame in You - Alice in Chains
K:\Audio\Alice in Chains\Alice in Chains\07 - Shame in You.mp3
This is track 155 of 281 in the current playlist.

On 7 Jul 2005 12:54:25 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

How many people paid for the copy they downloaded from someone else's
share?


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Alice in Chains - Shame in You - Alice in Chains
K:\Audio\Alice in Chains\Alice in Chains\07 - Shame in You.mp3
This is track 155 of 281 in the current playlist.

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:10:42 -0700, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> was understood to have stated the
following:

Interesting; it's a music playback device. How much of an OS do you
need?

I guess, since I have a number of playback devices and methods, I like
working with a solution that works across the board. The technique
under discussion was the only solution for my old RIO (one of the
first mp3 playback devices), it works well if I'm burning a play list
to a CD (audio or data) or DVD, or any other device. It's worked for
years.

Every one of those devices would have been sufficient.

Depends. For a HD based solution I can understand an overblown OS, but
I'm not interested in toting a spinning drive around with me. Easier
to load chunks of the collection into high-speed rewritable media, and
play with the various devices.

I forgot when the RIO came out, but it's been a while. Back then,
there wasn't many choices. I overcame a minor device limitation,
learned to deal with the simple technique to compensate, and it works
on *everything*. Move the content from your HD based player to another
player and see if everything works the same.

But then again, if I were toting entire albums around for playback, I
would want the functionality you speak of. I rarely find myself in the
mood to listen to an entire album, so I prefer to create play lists
and mobilize the play lists.

I still prefer the older WinAmps; 2.93 is the version I'm running now.
What it doesn't do that I wanted it to do, I incorporated into a
plug-in I wrote. I have every feature I want in my music playback
system. Why would I want to waste resources on features I don't need,
when those resources can be better utilized on features I do?

Yeah, but if it's temporary storage, who cares? It takes more battery
power to spin the hard drive, but less to pull from flash. Plus there
are far less concerns regarding dropping during operation.

If I recall my Lyra as well as Real on my Palm do the same, but it's
not a feature I utilize. When I'm going portable with my music, I've
usually got things I'd rather be looking at than my device's display.
I create my play list on my PC, and offload it from there. When I'm
tired of a particular play list, I reuse the media. I save the play
list, though, if for some bizarre reason I want to recreate the
sequence; they are only a couple of k.

I don't take a lot of trips out of town, so I can't speak from
experience, but I've bought quite a few SD cards; about 4 gigs worth.
My camera uses them, as do my PDA and mp3 player. I also carry a jump
drive trio as it serves well as a totable PC interface for the card,
as it's much better than dragging a cable around. Jump drive also
serves as a handy extra card carrier, and I mainly use it and it's
card like most folks use thumb drives.

I imagine you're dragging the files into an interface to the MPIO, and
not to an external file system like most flash drives show up. It
would be relatively simple to write an app, thus I am certain one
already exists, that would perform the requisite renumbering as the
files were deposited into the destination directory. I don't load my
media from Windows explorer, as it's such an asinine interface for
music, image, video, or whatever other kind of file management, so
this isn't an issue for me. For dealing with music, I build play
lists, and let the computer do the rest.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Linkin Park - Faint - Meteora
K:\Audio\Linkin Park\Meteora\07-Faint.mp3
This is track 165 of 281 in the current playlist.

On 7 Jul 2005 14:59:34 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

I'll go out on a limb and say yes, but this isn't my argument.

Technological developments will never make the concept of copyright
obsolete, as long as people wish to be compensated for their creative
efforts.

Ever hear of patent infringement? Technology has to develop around the
patent, or license the use of it; it can't blatantly steal it.

If you were doing the development, perhaps, then your opinion might
matter. Until you develop something, though, you have no property to
distribute as you see fit.

Well, there *are* people out there giving music away that they
created. But that's not exactly what we're talking about here, is it?

We're not talking about technological developments; we're discussing
theft. What do you do for a living? Would you do it without the
paycheck?

We're not talking about abandoning the path of technological
innovation; we're discussing theft.

You know what the best thing about this whole sharing issue, while on
the subject of "technological innovation", as you put it? You think
file sharing is technological innovation? About the only innovation is
that it made it easier for people to share up content they didn't have
the right to, and paint a very large bullseye on themselves in the
progress. If I were interested in enhancing my music collection with
stuff I didn't pay for, I would prefer a much more, er, discrete
approach.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Linkin Park - Enth E Nd - Reanimation
K:\Audio\Linkin Park\Reanimation\03 - Enth E Nd.mp3
This is track 171 of 281 in the current playlist.

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
It's not the musicians (or authors) that would suffer from the complete
eradication (or at least a substantial revision) of copyrights. It's
the people who prostitute and exploit them (the fascist recording
industry, publishers, etc) that have to find a different source for
income.

On 8 Jul 2005 05:06:21 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

Really? People who earn their living don't suffer when people steal
their music? Please, tell me more, because I must have missed this
concept in my economics course.

While I don't necessarily agree with the tactics of the publishers,
without those publishers a lot of artists would have never been able
to achieve the recognition that they deserve. In other words, without
financial returns, the artists would not be publishing their work.
These artists would be engaged in other careers to provide the support
they require, and I would be missing out on some music that I consider
to be very beautiful.

--

The last song I started on my PC was: 3 Doors Down - Here Without You - Away From The Sun
K:\Audio\3 Doors Down\Away From The Sun\06 - Here Without You.mp3
This is track 89 of 281 in the current playlist.

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
Don't you think that the internet offers opportunities for innovative
entrepreneurs to generate income from offering creative content even
in case of complete absense of copyrights?
Musicians can still give concerts in the absense of copyrights and if
their music is very popular, they can expect many visitors and hence a
lot of income.

They don't protect the artists. Copyright protects the fascist
recording industry so they can exploit and prostitute artists.

They have had their chance to update their model but now it's too late
and they can't do anything to stop people from circumventing their
outdated business model.

It means people tend to oppose changes and prefer to remain involved in
activities that are no longer meaningful.
Most people who 'work' are actually just wasting their time in exchange
for money. If they stop for a while and think about what the hell they
are doing they might realize this.
Similarly, when slavery was abolished, some slaves protesting against
this because they felt they were being treated fairly by their masters.

Many musicians have become lazy and dependent on their pimp (the
fascist recording industry). Now that the pimps go out of business,
they will have to fend for themselves and after an initial shakeout
period, I'm sure many musicians will enjoy their newfound independence.

Nope, it is closely related.

Have you ever considered what a powerful incentive it might be for
people
who endeavor in the creative field if they have free access to all the
creative output of others?
Most creative output was generated by people who are long since dead
and gone anyway.

Wishful thinking.

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
I think you've slept through the whole economics course because you
seem to misunderstand some basic concepts about money. For instance,
the price of things is determined by laws of supply and demand. You
might put a lot of effort into creating something, but if your creation
isn't scarce, you can't expect to be paid for your efforts.
Music in digital form can be duplicated indefinitely at virtually no
costs and hence this means it isn't scarce. This implies that it is
free. Stealing music is an equally moronic idea as stealing an integer
between 1 and 9. You can put a lot of effort into coming up with the
number 3, but that doesn't mean you can expect to put it in a box and
sell it.
This obviously holds for small numbers, but it holds for arbitrarily
large numbers just the same. All information on the computer is nothing
but a bunch of very large numbers.
People who think they can own, buy and sell large numbers fail to
understand the basics of economics.

This used to be the case, but not anymore (since the advent of computer
networks).

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
There are other forms of compensation besides the monetary kind.

Patent infringement has nothing to do with that.

If you create something, it's wishful thinking to expect that you can
control your creation once you give or sell it to others. Unless you'd
like to see a control freak government that can impose such
restrictions.

The issue is that once you spread your creations, you loose control
over them and the only way to prevent this is by having a control freak
government that can ensure everybody respects copyrights. In such a
world, nobody would need to lock the door of their house or car and
there wouldn't be any crime.

Most people who work, including myself, would be better off killing
themselves. I wholeheartedly support suicide as a reasonable
alternative for wasting your time in exchange for money.

Theft my ass... Prostitution and exploitation of artists by the fascist
recording industry is the issue at stake here.

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
All of them (since blank media has an additional levy to compensate for
copyright
infringement).

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
You seem unable to figure out the distinction between theft and
duplication somehow.

Where I live people are fully entitled to borrow and copy books from
the library.

If I like something on the radio, I go online and copy ('steal' in your
words) it for free. Most of my favorite musicians are long dead and
gone anyway.

Hehehehe, you really crack me up. You steal from the video store and
accuse me of stealing from the record store.

You obviously fail to understand Dutch copyright law.

http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/nl/mp3/pcactive0210/

"According to Dutch law it is therefore legal to copy a rented or
borrowed CD, or to download music from the Internet for one's private
use."

People are sharing ('stealing') music everywhere online.

I think all people who create music should be rounded up and put in a
forced labor camp.
No really... If you create something, you better keep it to yourself if
you intend to remain in control of your creation.
Say you have a suitcase full of money. Do you expect to remain in
control of that money when you open up that suitcase and put it on a
busy marketsquare as you go for a cup of coffee?
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding about your intentions,
you put a note on top off the money saying: "This is MY money, please
don't take it because I worked hard for it and want to keep it for
myself."
What do you think the police will say to you when you complain to them
people took your money without asking for it?

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
I suppose you expect to go to heaven or something when you die?

Not where I live.

http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/nl/mp3/pcactive0210/

"According to Dutch law it is therefore legal to copy a rented or
borrowed CD, or to download music from the Internet for one's private
use. "

Likewise, the use and play of copyright material downloaded from the
internet for free is pretty well documented in law (Dutch copyright law
that is, as far as I'm concerned).

Likewise, there are probably also many people who BUY music BECAUSE
they can download it for free (because it kindles their interest in
music).
Also, many people who download music have no money so they wouldn't be
buying the music in the first place, regardless of whether or not they
can download it for free. Hence, there is no lost revenue for the
recording industry because of
these people obtaining music for free.

My point is that you wouldn't loose anything from sharing your
collection. You still get to keep your entire collection and it could
be just a little effort for you to share it with others. Besides, other
people might have an equally large collection containing stuff you're
interested in which happens to be so rare that you can't even buy it if
you wanted to.

Even when the artists who's music it concerns are long dead and gone?
Do you think record companies are entitled to keep their exclusive
right to distribute the music without any restrictions?

Are you sure about that? What artist could possibly be against free
publicity?
Suppose your music was copied massively online and you would reach the
level of fame of say Frank Zappa, do you think it would be impossible
for you to cash in on that popularity, despite hardly being able to
sell records (if we assume copyrights aren't applicable to online
digital music in practice)?
I'm not saying that the free exchange of online music necessarily
entails that records can no longer be sold, I'm just saying that even
IF this should be the case (in a worst case scenario), there is still
hope of cashing in on your popularity in other ways besides record
sales.
In fact I think one could equally well reason that the free online
exchange of music might stimulate record sales (because it can
stimulate an interest in music).

Ok, just uninformed then (from my point of view).
My main point in this whole discussion is that you can't sell, own or
buy things that aren't scarce. If we would invent a dirt-cheap way to
convert garbage to gold, do you think this should be banned because the
people in the gold trade have a right to make a livelyhood from gold?
Gold wouldn't be any less useful for various purposes if we were to
invent an extremely cheap way to make it in unlimited quantities, but
the price would NECESSARILY drop to zero because of it no longer being
scarce.
Things like software (or other forms of information, like digitized
music, books, etc.) can be duplicated indefinitely as easily and
cheaply as gold generated by the aforementioned hypothetical
gold-from-garbage device.

So you have this issue figured out once and for all, regardless of any
technological developments that might come along in the future?
Suppose in a few decades we can store all the music, books and movies
ever created on a chip the size and price of a grain of salt, how on
earth are you going to enforce copyrights and what the hell do you seek
to accomplish by enforcing them?
Wouldn't it be nice if everybody had access to everything (as far as
human culture is concerned) for free, if technology ultimately allows
for this utopia to be realized?

So if we invent a gold-from-garbage device, we are stealing from the
people currently involved in the production of gold?