Poll: Is Napster Sharing or Stealing?

[SonOfZeuz]

It doesn't matter, there are many other file sharing programs availiable, theres also IRC and FTP so to hell with those recording industry comunist a**holes. I will never buy another CD.

 

[gtd2000]

Well I can honestly say that I would never have heard music from bands such as "Covenant" or "Funker Vogt" living here in Hong Kong and the possibility of buying a CD legitimately would never have existed if Napster had not given me the chance to download and play the music as I pleased. In fact I doubt I could get those bands even legitimately here. Mainstream music is King here

Now there is a distinct possibility that I will go out and buy future CD's from those bands as I am now aware of them

The answer to the poll is that it is "stealing" the music but this is a completely different meaning of the word compared to the current moral definition of the word "stealing" as applied to tangible objects.

This is more a question about ethics than morals.

 

[gtd2000]

SonOfZeus



<< to hell with those recording industry comunist a**holes >>


hehe
Don't you mean &quot;capitalist&quot;?
If they were communists then it would belong to the people anyway
However, I don't think we actually had any true &quot;communist&quot; states to know for sure...

 

[networkman]

I think it's generally stealing; I know some people are going to ask me if I've ever gotten a copied piece software before and ask what's the difference? The difference is, if I like the software or the mp3, I'll go out and buy the software or CD in question. If I find the software isn't something I like or I don't really like the music, then I just delete it off of my drive - I don't believe in archiving it to share with others who may potentially want it.

It's quite simple really: If you like it, you BUY it, if you don't like it, you DELETE it!

End of question.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Plants can and are patented. A plant can be propagated an infinite amount of times, just like an mp3. There is no difference. Anyone producing a song must know that there song can be reproduced so it's okay, right? That's what you said about the plants.

 

[Killer Ape]

Lirion: If most plants are patented, I was not aware of it. I've never purchased a plant with any type of written statement preventing me from allowing it to naturally reproduce or artificially propigating it. Maybe I just didn't notice. You sound as if you have some experience or expertise in this area, so if what you are saying is that certain breeds/strains do possess such caveats, then I am fully willing to believe you. However, in that case it would be stealing to replicate these legally protected plants, in my opinion. How is this different from MP3s?

What I was saying is that the comparison of non-patented/non-copyrighted/self-replicating entities (i.e. the non-protected plants) to one which is patented/copyrighted/non-self-replicating seems to be a stretch. And just because the record companies and artists know that people can and will make copies of the music doesn't mean that it's okay to do it. Otherwise they wouldn't spend the not insubstantial time and money to copyright the material in the first place, and fight long court battles over it later. Granted, their motivations may be more to protect their profit margins (which I agree are inflated) than to protect the intellectual property of the artists, but none the less the copyright laws are (mostly) on their side.

I also still believe the comparison of software &quot;piracy&quot; to MP3 &quot;copying&quot; is a closer analogy.