OK. Anything else you require me to do? Within the Law, obviously, I don't want you up on a conspiracy charge.
Lots of entrepreneurs put a lot of time, effort and money into setting up a business of some sort. Some make money, others go broke. Their success or failure depends on whether customers are prepared to pay for what they're selling. It does not depend on how hard they worked, nor on how much they need to make a living.
Interesting thread that yet again demonstrates the law has little to do with our perceptions of right, wrong or morality.
Jeezus. If you set up a business and someone robbed you, you'd have cause for grievance, yes? :Banghead: dunwivit
If I set up a business trying to sell something which the customers did not want or need to buy, I would go broke and I would regret it. I might feel I should have chosen a more realistic line of business.
Indeed. The law is often years or decades behind the real world. It is almost unheard of for the law to be ahead of society (a famous exception was the abolition of the death penalty in the 1960s).
I fundamentally disagree with Pete on this issue. He seems to differentiate between goods and services, in that if you avail yourself of the former without paying you are a thief, but it is fine to avail yourself of the latter, if you can get away with it. There is no ethical dimension to his conception of the application of the law. If the law cannot be applied, then it is pointless (I can somewhat sympathise with this view - up to a point). But this inability to apply the law renders the action completely ethical in his view. It's not unlike saying that an minuscule fraction of people are caught for littering, hence it's fine to just chuck anything on the floor any time it pleases you. This is patently bollocks. I also suspect that he feels that musicians aren't worthy of having their work paid for as if they really aren't contributing anything much of value to society. They are no more than the minstrels of the middle ages and should earn a living from live performance alone. Technology does not determine ethics and the law should be to uphold them. I might also point out other things: if the drug problem only catches a small proportion of those implicated in the drug trade, should that trade therefore be deemed legal on the basis that too many people are evading the law? While we are about it, let's also abolish all speed limits, seeing as we know that most people ignore them on a regular basis. We might also ignore on-line pedophiles, seeing as most of them are never caught. Technology in the form of the web and more particularly the dark web has made their capture extremely difficult. If technology decides ethics and the law, then get up to anything you like on line. The difficulties of apprehending you make it all perfectly legal and ethical.
Pete argues because it is possible to copy music for free why should anyone pay for it since it is unlikely that you will be prosecuted. He can argue over what you might be prosecuted for - theft, fraud ... But what he can't argue is that it is still infringement of copyright protected by law. He is saying because you can get away with it you're a mug if you don't. I don't buy that argument, if I like a piece of work produced by an artist I will happily pay for it because there is a better chance they will produce more work of the same or better quality if they get paid. That might be the best piece of work (imo) they ever produce, but that's OK with me too, just because I like one song by an artist I don't have to buy them all. I appreciate most of what I pay goes to the fat cats and only a little trickles down to the artist, but their is no other mechanism in place at the moment. Advancement in technology has caused this gap between what can be enforced by law and what actually happens and the assumption is that this will always remain the case. More and more now there is closer connection between the companies that produce hardware and software that these recordings are played back on (Apple, Google, Microsoft ...) and the owners of the copyright, the publishers. The pendulum will swing the other way. Already there are digital watermarks embeded in downloaded music, I can see a point where the device you buy won't play music unless it can find these watermarks What is most annoying is millions, probably billions, will be invested in protecting copyright and the consumers will pay for it. It isn't a question of ethics, if you consume pirated music now then you are contributing to more expensive music in the future. Unfortunately human nature being what it is knowing that won't change anything, so the free lunch we appear to be having now will lead to a more expensive lunch in the future.
Although I have bought 99% of all my music, I may have copied the odd CD for a friend who may not have the money to buy the CD. And before anyone says "but theyre only £6.99", I have a couple of single mother friends with children (not mine, get lost ) who have very little money and £7 is a lot for them. I dont mind ripping a CD for them as they'd never have bought it anyway. I think the latter point is what Pete is trying to say partly and thats fair enough. Besides its easier to buy music these days. I like iTunes and I dont care.
i have always been in a bit of a minority there. don't buy a lot of music (queen only released about nine or ten albums i like). but i will pay for it. spotify covers all now. so no need. fiver a month well spent.
Bradders - i dont think its a case of being 'holier than thou' tbh and I genuinely think each to their own - we all make choices according to our situation or beliefs - I am not seeking to criticise anyone and what they do I have friends who are professional musicians and my wife is an artist (painting and sculpture) I simply think if you enjoy and appreciate something then its right to pay for it. I recognise that if the musicians etc dont recieve payment they wont be able to afford to continue and I wont be able to enjoy their work - I want them to continue for my benefit If I just randomly bought peoples music to support them then it would be different of course I do have a lot of CDs and I do enjoy owning them - I dont really buy digital stuff much because for me where I can I like to have the orginal thats tangible. However there are some things that were only available digitally so I bought them For lots of people i have then bought another copy to give as a gift - I could have simply copied it but thats not what I would want to do For me I welcome tightening of technology so that people are paid for their hard work and effort just as I expect to be paid for mine I appreciate that the enforcement side can be a challenge but there are lots of examples where enforcement is a challenge but we still try to do the morally right thing - eg tracking down paedos who download child pornography ( a contnetious and topical subject in its own right!) In the same way as the above if I ring a mechanic and pick his brains I would expect to pay him something - I have regularly done this - even though they usually dont want it - so I send a bottle or two of something instead In simple terms I believe that if I want something I pay for it
Do you pay for this forum? Do you pay for facebook? Thats the modern world. Music industry exploited the omline and download world, now moans that peolpe have caught up U2 and Apple just gave away hundreds of thousand, or is that millions, of copies of their latest work Ripping music is the new method of copying your mates tapes or cd, or taping the top 40
Legitimate sources eg Facebook and this forum ( as well as TV, radio, google et al) are all drawing advertising revenue by reason of you me and everyone else visiting and participating. More visitors = more clout in terms of advertising revenue. They are not free in the sense that they are paid for but with alternaive mechanisms. In essence we are paying for them by our visit and time If there was a charge needed for say this forum then people would decide whether to pay and contribute or not
U2 can get tae f***. I cant stand that bonio shitehawk. Sanctimonious get. I adore music and if an artist gives me pleasure from their music I will pay them for the privilege. Orbital have split again. Ive seen them live at least 10 times. I have everything I can get my hands on. I love em.
