What Would You Do If Filesharing Became Illegal

[falconx80]

did illegalizing prositution stop ppl from having sex? HELllz no!

 

[DougyDanger]

<< If the Bible were copyrighted and copyprotected, it would have been lost long ago and all of us today would be Godless. >>



And your evidence for that is.....Or are you just asking everyone to accept your assumptions blindly? Using that as any kind of persuasive device is very intellectually lazy and illogical. Not to mention factually errant in light of Romans 1:20.

 

[silveronsilver]

<< And your evidence for that is.....Or are you just asking everyone to accept your assumptions blindly? Using that as any kind of persuasive device is very intellectually lazy and illogical. Not to mention factually errant in light of Romans 1:20. >>



The evidence for that is common sense. If Bible had copyprotection, people would not be able to make extra copies for safekeeping. Once all the original copies were destroyed, lost, or became unreadable due to old age (as everything eventually becomes, even CDs) then we would not have the Bible. This would take 1-2 centuries at most.

Romans 1:20 means nothing, because when the Bible is lost, Romans 1:20 is lost as well. So the entire world would become Godless THANKS TO COPYRIGHT LAW.

Therefore, copyright law is the Mark of the Beast.

 

[Kilgor]

Software, Music and Movies are all products. Just because you can find someway to rationalize your thievery, doesn?t mean you?re not stealing. If you go out a buy a coke you can share it with your friends, but when it?s gone you don?t get anymore unless you buy some more. People don?t make Software and Movies for free, why would they. How would you feel if you worked 40 hours and only got paid for thirty?

Just saying that if you didn?t get it for free you wouldn?t have it doesn?t make any sense, if you didn?t want it why did you steal it? Obviously you wanted it so you took it without paying.

 

[silveronsilver]

Also, if the Bible were copyrighted, witnessing would be a copyright violation.

Therefore, copyright law = Godlessness

 

[Jerboy]

I somehow feel the feds won't show much interest unless monetary transactions starts taking place, because there is something called tax that they worry about.


Technically, public department of health prohibits distribution of anything for consumption without a proper permit. Does that prevent the fun loving kids from selling some home-made lemonade at the corner of the street? nope.

 

[edjam]

If there was a good version run by the RIAA I would use it, but there isn't something with the choice of some filesharing progs, so there

 

[silveronsilver]

There will never be a good filesharing system run by record labels.

By "good" of course I mean a large selection of high quality tracks served as non copy controlled mp3's.

This will never happen because record labels want complete control over the distribution process. That is how they have plundered the public's money for so long and they do not want to give up their leech-like middleman position. They want a cut out of every transaction.

If they sold non copy controlled tracks, people might share them with one another, and their leech-like middleman position and the resulting income might be threatened.

That is why any filesharing system run by record labels will be limited, copy controlled, tightly policed, therefore worth sh!t.

 

[tm37]

<< The evidence for that is common sense. If Bible had copyprotection, people would not be able to make extra copies for safekeeping. Once all the original copies were destroyed, lost, or became unreadable due to old age (as everything eventually becomes, even CDs) then we would not have the Bible. This would take 1-2 centuries at most. >>



You attempts to use religion in this article are senseless. The free distribution of god is what allowed it to become such a wide spread faith. IF it was to expensive people would have found another god to worship. You can always tell true faith by hte cost of worship (see sientoligy)

Bottom line If I write something, spend the money to produce it (this cost is on limitied to the accuall cost of pressing the CD) I SHOULD have the right to determain how it is distributed. The writers of the bible elected to make it free to thoose who wanted it. Also During the rise of christianity Only the rich could afford bibles due to there high costs. (Biles had to be rewritten by hand) so you arguement just doesn't fly.

If you are looking for a way to justify you theivery you may want to try the home recording act that allows you to make copies for you and your friends. Otherwise you just sound like a fool. Of course I really don't think you have a million freinds but atlease you have a senblence of an arguement.

My take is this. IF you do not use the distribution method that is set up by the creater of the work YET still use the creators work then you are infringing on the copyright and BREAKING THE LAW. The current copyright laws are there to protect the artists and companies that produce software, print, and media. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR CHOSEN DISTRIBUTION METHODS DON'T USE THEIR PRODUCT! It's really that simple. Don't like the cost of CD's ? There's this WONDERFUL thing called A RADIO you can listen to music ALL DAY LONG with cost to you other than the cost of the RADIO (these can be purchased at you local retailer for just under $10).

 

[gopunk]

man this thread is scary....

i'll just post my rationale, you want to disagree, fine, but i don't want to hear any of this bible sh!t.

i wouldn't buy the cd anyways, therefore they are not losing money. i play cd for my friends, rave about the band, etc. indirectly, i am doing more good for the artist (not necessarily the record company mind you), than bad.

if you want to disagree, i *don't* want to hear crap about how this is a weak argument, justification, etc. you post an argument (not unfounded accusations) against what i've said, and then we'll talk.

 

[tm37]

<< i wouldn't buy the cd anyways, therefore they are not losing money. i play cd for my friends, rave about the band, etc. indirectly, i am doing more good for the artist (not necessarily the record company mind you), than bad. >>



Ok but you are using the artists products without their permisson. If File sharing were not an alternitive then you wouldn't have ON DEMAND play back of your favorite music. Your indirectly arguement is flimsy because the label already pays quite abit for publisity. I am also willing to bet that your freinds don't run out and purchase the CD after you rave about them.

 

[silveronsilver]

<< If File sharing were not an alternitive then you wouldn't have ON DEMAND play back of your favorite music. >>



How about taping from the radio?

We used to do that all the time back in elementary school.

Taping from the radio = Filesharing

Your argument is just dead. Admit it.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm gonna pull a "Bill Clinton" here...

My "Filesharing" is illegal depending on what your defination of "Filesharing" is

I mean, sharing files is a BROAD topic. How far are you going to go? Are you going to ban FTP Servers? Outlaw sending E-Mail attachments? Do random searches of people's CD-R and floppy collections, to make sure that they do not contain copyrighted material?!? ALL of these methods are legimate methods of sharing files, which are used every day to get work done. But, they can all be used to pirate copyrighted material. Both leglislating and implimenting this law would be impossible.

 

[ultimatebob]

Eh, it's a Sunday. I'll give these guys a little slack. Besides, WHY would you want to copyright a BIBLE, anyway? If you were God, wouldn't you want your message to be spread in every method possible?

Besides, from what I've heard, certain religious institutions actually ENCOURAGE the theft of bibles. The Gideons (those guys who put Bibles in all the hotel rooms) actually LIKE it when someone steals a bible from a hotel room, for example. It means that someone was interested enough to at least look at it, and they might actually read it and learn something from it.



<< How come people are discussing religion in a thread on filesharing? Since when are these two things related? >>

 

[silveronsilver]

<< Eh, it's a Sunday. I'll give these guys a little slack. Besides, WHY would you want to copyright a BIBLE, anyway? If you were God, wouldn't you want your message to be spread in every method possible?

If you were a true artist, wouldn't you want your music to be spread in every method possible?

 

[tm37]

<< How about taping from the radio?

We used to do that all the time back in elementary school.

Taping from the radio = Filesharing

Your argument is just dead. Admit it. >>



Accually no it is not.

When a station plays a song they must pay royaltiyes to the Record lable (and the song writer recieves this)

When you swap MP3's there is no royalaty paid (anywhere)

Also taping off the radio is LEGAL under the home recording act if you do not distribute it. Where as Swaping files (ala Napster and Morpheus) is not.

Again it goes back to how the producer of said product wants it to be distributed. If I write a hit song and want to put it on a website and make it FREEWARE i can. If I want you to pay for it and you elect to put it on a website for free distribution then you are infringing on my rights. It is up to the artist or the company THAT OWNS THE RIGHTS to the music to decide how said music (or media) should be distributed. It is not up to you. If you start a radio station and just go out and buy CD's and start playing them over the airwaves then you would be in violation of Copyright law.

I for one feel it should be up the the person or company who PAID to develop a piece of music to determain how it will be played or distributed!

 

[tm37]

<< did illegalizing prositution stop ppl from having sex? HELllz no! >>



It did make it harder to find a whore house though!

 

[ultimatebob]

<< If you were a true artist, wouldn't you want your music to be spread in every method possible? >>



Yeah, but how many pop stars on the Billboard hot-100 are "true artists"? Although their PR guys would never let them admit it in public, most of them are in it for the money. Take the rap star Ludicris, for example. He likes bragging about how rich and popular he is in his music videos. Do you think that he LIKES it when people rip off his music and put it on Morpheus? I doubt it.

 

[tm37]

<< If you were a true artist, wouldn't you want your music to be spread in every method possible? >>



That's a nice though but it doesn't pay the bills.

I don't want anyone to tell me how much money is TOO MUCH MONEY.

Lets say you are an up and coming artist. You decide that you are more interested in GETTING YOUR MUSIC OUT THERE that making money. You go into a studio and spend say $20,000 to produce an album and then you give it to someone and they make a million copies and give them away. you record takes off and every one is copying it and listening to it. Now you have the most popular song EVER! and you have 20K in debt and no royalties.

If there were a SACTIONED way to download MP3's that was approved by the record companies and artists, that would allow my to burn thoose MP3's to CD I would pay for it. For now I will buy the CD's and rip them to make my mix CD's that I listen to!

 

[BigToque]

There are 3 types of people involved in this discussion:

1) The 'filesharing is wrong and you are a thief for downloading" type
2) The "its not stealing cause i woulnd't buy it anyway/nobody is loosing any money by my copying/the artists are already rich" type
3) The 'i don't give 2 Sh!ts about your reasons for me being a thief, if you don't wanna download thats fine, but leave me alone. If I want Photoshop 6, I can have it for free." type.

I fall into group 3. I like photoshop so I downloaded it. I like my music, I downloaded it. I don't care what you use your computer for, so stop worrying about what I use mine for.

 

[tm37]

<< There are 3 types of people involved in this discussion:

1) The 'filesharing is wrong and you are a thief for downloading" type
2) The "its not stealing cause i woulnd't buy it anyway/nobody is loosing any money by my copying/the artists are already rich" type
3) The 'i don't give 2 Sh!ts about your reasons for me being a thief, if you don't wanna download thats fine, but leave me alone. If I want Photoshop 6, I can have it for free." type.

I fall into group 3. I like photoshop so I downloaded it. I like my music, I downloaded it. I don't care what you use your computer for, so stop worrying about what I use mine for. >>



When someone proclaims their theviery publicly should expect some backlash!



<< I like photoshop so I downloaded it. >>



Rather then Buying IT!