Sonys brilliance continues...."Copying" music you own is "Stealing"

[0roo0roo]

..

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Err I don't think this kind of definition is anything new. I can see where they are coming from, but still. However, I don't care, I haven't bought a CD in Years.

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Err I don't think this kind of definition is anything new. I can see where they are coming from, but still. However, I don't care, I haven't bought a CD in Years.

I thought that everyone shared the outlook at as long as you owned something (be it a movie or music), then you could download it legally.

If copying = stealing, why haven't ALL P2P downloading mediums been halted? Wouldn't that make everything clear cut?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Err I don't think this kind of definition is anything new. I can see where they are coming from, but still. However, I don't care, I haven't bought a CD in Years.

I don't think the law agrees with them

 

[Mermaidman]

Sony is double-dipping.

Decide whether the consumer owns the physical media (e.g. CD), or the rights to listen to the song. If the consumer owns the media, then he has the right to do whatever with the media. If he bought the right to hear the song, then he has to be allowed to download it in other forms. Sony can't have it both ways, at least IMHO. (Same with software, etc.)

 

[Dirigible]

Read the copyright laws. They're right. Ripping a CD you buy to play on an MP3 player is not legal. It's an unauthorized copy. No more and no less legal than "pirating" music, movies, etc.

This just shows how silly the "pirating" and "stealing" labels are. They're inflammatory descriptions used as part of a PR campaign. What is really happening in each case is the violation of copyright laws. Those laws do not mesh with most people's views of what the laws should be.

Tizyler: many companies would love to halt all p2p downloading mediums. It's only unauthorized copying = that is a violation of copyright laws ("stealing" in many companies' vocabulary). Some p2p downloads are authorized and not against the law. Thus, p2p as a whole keeps going and the MPAA must go after individual copyers. (Oversimplification, but whatever.)

I could go on a rant, but just go read Lessig's work. That way I can stop typing.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Err I don't think this kind of definition is anything new. I can see where they are coming from, but still. However, I don't care, I haven't bought a CD in Years.

I thought that everyone shared the outlook at as long as you owned something (be it a movie or music), then you could download it legally.

If copying = stealing, why haven't ALL P2P downloading mediums been halted? Wouldn't that make everything clear cut?

Because P2P is just the method used.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

The word Stealing is so misused nowadays its not even funny.. Everyone seems to have forgotten the real meaning behind it

For you to steal something, you have to TAKE AWAY SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE, however since digitally there is an infinite number of copies lying around, no matter how many times I download an album, I will never hurt the band or label, because I am not taking away from them at all! At the most, they get 0$ profit from me, which would happen either I downloaded or not

Also note that no one goes around downloading and saying its their own music, and that would be stealing as well (not physical but property nonetheless), but no one does it, so what are they stealing again? If I had my own band and released an album, I would be glad it spread all over the internet as fast as possible, for it would gather alot of potential buyers that wouldnt have known the band in the first place, and thus get me alot more profit than I could ever hope for through traditional methods... And this is why that is all bullshit, and you dont hear about bands quitting for lack of money, even the underground ones, because as much as they complain, its the very pirates that are said to "steal" from them that make it possible for them to be where they are, and if you think otherwise, think again

 

[mundane]

I saw the thread and was going to post a suggestion to visit Arstechnica's in depth coverage, but see you have already cited it. There is also a second update for day two of the trial.

 

[MrPickins]

What happened to "Fair Use"?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Err I don't think this kind of definition is anything new. I can see where they are coming from, but still. However, I don't care, I haven't bought a CD in Years.

I thought that everyone shared the outlook at as long as you owned something (be it a movie or music), then you could download it legally.

If copying = stealing, why haven't ALL P2P downloading mediums been halted? Wouldn't that make everything clear cut?

Very few people share that outlook, and those who do think that way don't know the law.

I think most people share the outlook that as long as you own something it is MORALLY ok to download it.

 

[SludgeFactory]

If the labels wanted complete control over their media and distribution, they should have stayed analog. Ripping vinyl and cassette is a PITA

But then they would have missed out on that massive CD windfall, getting people to buy the same albums a 2nd or 3rd time and covering up a lot of serious problems in their industry. Internet distribution could have been the same thing, but they completely missed the boat. You'd think it's 1997 by the way they're still trying to stomp out the ants one by one.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

whatever, sony opened up their walkmans and dumped atrac. thats good enough for me.

 

[soydios]

so the DMCA's "Fair Use" provision doesn't apply anymore?

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...u-own-is-stealing.html

that company is scum.

"Pariser has a very broad definition of "stealing." When questioned by Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft. The dirty deed? Ripping your own CDs or downloading songs you already own.

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said. "

we are all criminals by sonys standards!! :|

If Sony thinks that copying CD's is sooo bad, why do they produce and sell both the media and burners do to it?

Amazing... This would be like the CEO of Penthouse or Hustler saying that masturbation is evil

 

[anxi80]

have you seen sony's new screen or mp3 player? sony is no longer scum. they have atoned for their past sins and all has been absolved.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
If Sony thinks that copying CD's is sooo bad, why do they produce and sell both the media and burners do to it?

Amazing... This would be like the CEO of Penthouse or Hustler saying that masturbation is evil

LOL, no kidding. Not to mention their MP3 players...if I buy a Sony CD, use a Sony CD drive to rip it to MP3, and transfer it to my Sony MP3 player, I guess I just deprived Sony of property?

 

[Kadarin]

Sony's content division: Open ass, insert head.

 

[Squisher]

Am I allowed to sing a song in the shower without paying royalties?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Squisher
Am I allowed to sing a song in the shower without paying royalties?

No. Just like you aren't allowed to steal somebody's handbag in the shower.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
The word Stealing is so misused nowadays its not even funny.. Everyone seems to have forgotten the real meaning behind it

For you to steal something, you have to TAKE AWAY SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE, however since digitally there is an infinite number of copies lying around, no matter how many times I download an album, I will never hurt the band or label, because I am not taking away from them at all! At the most, they get 0$ profit from me, which would happen either I downloaded or not

Also note that no one goes around downloading and saying its their own music, and that would be stealing as well (not physical but property nonetheless), but no one does it, so what are they stealing again? If I had my own band and released an album, I would be glad it spread all over the internet as fast as possible, for it would gather alot of potential buyers that wouldnt have known the band in the first place, and thus get me alot more profit than I could ever hope for through traditional methods... And this is why that is all bullshit, and you dont hear about bands quitting for lack of money, even the underground ones, because as much as they complain, its the very pirates that are said to "steal" from them that make it possible for them to be where they are, and if you think otherwise, think again

We're "stealing" because the companies would like us to buy a copy for at home, for at work, for at the computer, for in the car, and for taking a jog. And maybe a limit as to how many times you can listen, so that you'll have to pay for it again and again.

More money still isn't enough.

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
If the labels wanted complete control over their media and distribution, they should have stayed analog. Ripping vinyl and cassette is a PITA

But then they would have missed out on that massive CD windfall, getting people to buy the same albums a 2nd or 3rd time and covering up a lot of serious problems in their industry. Internet distribution could have been the same thing, but they completely missed the boat. You'd think it's 1997 by the way they're still trying to stomp out the ants one by one.

Maybe that's when it began, when they got a taste of the revenue streams generated when people bought another copy of what they already owned.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Squisher
Am I allowed to sing a song in the shower without paying royalties?

Only if you don't have an audience.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
We're "stealing" because the companies would like us to buy a copy for at home, for at work, for at the computer, for in the car, and for taking a jog. And maybe a limit as to how many times you can listen, so that you'll have to pay for it again and again.

More money still isn't enough.

Too bad for them that they can't roll back to the mid 90's and resell the public a bunch of Eagles and Zeppelin CD's another time. The ironic thing is that before CD's got big, they didn't really know that the back catalog could be so lucrative. But I wonder how many times you can repackage "Back in Black" or license "Born to Be Wild" for the trailer of the latest lame-o Disney movie before the public just says enough.

Maybe that's when it began, when they got a taste of the revenue streams generated when people bought another copy of what they already owned.

No doubt they want it to continue. I've read a few articles lately that have hit on this point, that they thrived on total control and scarcity, but we're in an era of media abundance now.

I don't think the guys that currently run these companies will ever get it. The internet is the only future. It will either kill or absorb all their traditional outlets for promotion and distribution. The file-sharing genie is out of the bottle and they need to forget about fighting unwinnable battles, how about offering some internet products that blow them away. They should be licensing like crazy to big-name websites and internet ads. They should be figuring out how to effectively market online to a tremendously fragmented listening audience. Something is weird to me when so many people's main source of music discovery appears to be Ipod commercials and Grey's Anatomy soundtracks.

These suckers better adapt while they still have a business left to salvage, but they probably won't. Private equity will have to come in and mop up the mess to get it done right.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
No doubt they want it to continue. I've read a few articles lately that have hit on this point, that they thrived on total control and scarcity, but we're in an era of media abundance now.

....and they're coming to realize their own obsolescence. As a result, they're throwing a legal temper tantrum.

They pissed and moaned about VCRs, too. VCRs were said to be the end, the death, of the movie industry. The industry fought against their release as if an army of the things was going to murder every living being, or worse, burn every last dollar bill. Now look at how many billions of dollars they take in from sales of "home movies." Change hurts initially, but ultimately, those who adapt can profit.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Change hurts initially, but ultimately, those who adapt can profit.

There's definitely a ton of money to be made. It's just going to take some creative ideas to come up with the killer apps, and if (when) they come from outside the industry, some luck not to get sued out of existence first.