Quote:
Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob
bob's recent responses
|
there is some confusion in your interpretation of how i believe today's world should handle copyrights and what i foresee and hope to see in the future. i won't discuss my vision of the future in this post, although would be happy to later on. you've also grossly exaggerated and incorrectly extrapolated my views. furthermore i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, i'm simply voicing my opinion. stop demonizing me for having differing views than you.
it's one thing to question what my beliefs may imply, but for you to say that i believe your incorrect analysis of the implications without giving me a chance to better explain myself isn't right.
i believe that a digital copy of a work, produced by someone other than the artist for personal use, or to introduce someone to said work does not have monetary value(a fact of capitalism). i believe sharing a digital music file over a p2p network is the same as:
- recording something off the radio onto cassette tape
- buying a movie/album/painting and showing it to your friends in your house, or displaying it in your driveway, etc.
- purchasing a piece of designer furniture, and crafting your own duplicate for your own personal use and not restricting a friend of yours from seeing the piece of furniture and crafting their own duplicate.
- learning to play a song on guitar that someone else wrote and playing it for your friends' or own personal pleasure
i believe the above statements do not describe theft, i believe it's possible to take the above statements to be theft if you were to profit off said duplication, or if you intend to thwart the intent of the artist. where you and i seem to differ on this is i believe that it's not the digital copy that has value, it is the artist's intent that holds value. (i think unless i've misunderstood your stance, that you believe both have value to the artist regardless of whether or not the 'pirate' intends or succeeds to profit or limit profit of the artist by their actions)
i agree with you that the artist's intent is key and should be respected, and believe the artist has the right to safeguard their intent. however i believe that in respect of true fair use, an artist that releases an album in today's culture, behavior, and technology that they intend to have it digitally copied by the listener for their personal use and to show to their friends. for an artist to release their work and not expect anyone to share it, or copy a cd to their ipod so they can listen while they jog, and further expect the listener only to listen in complete seclusion so no one overhears a part of the tune is ridiculous. the out of touch artists who believe they should have such control can't have their cake and eat it too, just like the unfortunate podcasters who signed up for podshow can't belong to podshow and retain control of their content. responsibility cannot fall solely on the consumer.
it's because of this conflict that i believe an artist that doesn't intend for their work to be listened to without their explicit consent down to the individual listener does not release recordings to the public, but instead performs live. 'piracy' has been around for decades before the internet, and so artists releasing their work through such avenues came after piracy and those works are released into that pre-existing environment.
it's because of this, perhaps in some rare cases unintentional, intent that the term 'pirate' does not apply to me. i'm not a thief either as you cannot steal something which has no value, ie: a digital copy. if you understand capitalism, then you can only agree that a digital copy has no monetary value as i explained previously in this thread, nor should it, as it conflicts with true fair use, as clarified above.
i don't hate music, i don't hinder music, i support and participate in the arts, i don't circumvent drm(although i think it's proven to be impractical and cripple true fair use and in it's current form should be, has been, and is being boycotted).