Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch
No, because what you do when you purchase a movie ticket is rent a seat in the theater for a certain block of time, where a particular film will be shown. I think you know this but you want to keep arguing.
Yoav, I don't think you will understand this until the day the shoe is on the other foot. You still think that because it's being done by so many people all over the world, that it must be okay, that we no longer have value to our products because there's so many of them out there. Bob is completely right in every point he has made. I don't know if it's boredom or blinders that keep you from seeing that and continuing this argument.
If digital copies had no value, the woman in the article would never have been convicted and fined. The Napster guy would not have been sued. Kids all over the country would not be getting C&D letters. If there was no value to the art, the entire industry would shut down because there would be no value to anything they put out, except for the cost of the disc.
I can make a copy of any music I purchase. I can put the copy of the song on my ipod, transfer the same copy to my portable hard drive, even burn the copy of the song to a physical CD. This way when one storage device is no longer functioning, I still protect my purchase and retain my product. The moment I give you the disc, or the hard drive, or my ipod, I am now the pirate, and you the thief, because my purchase did not give me the right to distribute to anyone else, and you did not purchase the item at all. Just because I gave it to you does not mean it was okay for you to take it. I know it goes on all over the place, but that does not make it okay. The end.
|
yes i do know that, the point was that you're renting a seat in the theatre, you're paying for distribution, not art.
you say that you 'can' make a copy, it's only legal to make a backup, and to restore that backup, you can't copy a song from a cd to your ipod for listening on your ipod, that's illegal. you need to own the copyrights to do that. it's considered theft of a digital copy. there's no such thing currently as 'owning the art' you either own the copyrights, or you own a copy.
i think we all see the conflict and how the current system impedes the consumer's rights.
bob is suggesting that there should be the concept of 'owning the art' which i believe is impractical and has implications like when you pay for a movie in a movie theatre according to his logic, you've purchased a copy of the movie, and if you play a cd in your house with your friends/family, that they havn't purchased the right to the art.
i'm suggesting that a musician releasing a cd, while has benefits, also has implications, the same as releasing a song on the radio has implications that it will be taped onto cassette. and pointed out that in the current system you never buy the art but instead the medium, or distribution method.