Man shared 30 songs, Supreme Court rules him to pay 675,000

[Seegtease]

No, it's okay if you use that song to inspire you to write, preform, and distribute something similar though.

Okay, yeah, I know how the law works. I guess we kind of got distracted from my original point, which is that ownership in this sense isn't ownership as most people know it (like saying this is MY computer). An artist "owns" a song in the same sense that the inventor "owns" post-it notes.

But there's no law preventing me from copying post-it notes using my own resources, so long as I don't call them post-its and try to sell them - just keep for personal use. I don't see why different things need to apply to digital media.

[Bellentino]

I think that is the flaw of the system because most people do the things that makes them most money in the short run and not what is better for the community at large.

This. The big wigs are too concerned about maximizing gains and refuse to acknowledge what happens once they squeeze everyone else dry with their greedy attitudes- Something eventually has to give, one way or the other. What goes up must eventually come down.

[Maharishi]

Okay, yeah, I know how the law works. I guess we kind of got distracted from my original point, which is that ownership in this sense isn't ownership as most people know it (like saying this is MY computer). An artist "owns" a song in the same sense that the inventor "owns" post-it notes.

But there's no law preventing me from copying post-it notes using my own resources, so long as I don't call them post-its and try to sell them - just keep for personal use. I don't see why different things need to apply to digital media.

For the record, my intent was not speaking to law, but to morality.

I don't really want to peruse the post it note analogy, because it's not perfect. Anybody who makes IP has the right to dictate how its used. If they want to release it to public domain in an open source way, more power to them. But if they don't, it should be their human right to say how their IP is released into the world, or not. It's theirs, not yours.

---------- Post added 2012-05-26 at 02:30 AM ----------

This. The big wigs are too concerned about maximizing gains and refuse to acknowledge what happens once they squeeze everyone else dry with their greedy attitudes- Something eventually has to give, one way or the other. What goes up must eventually come down.

The only people who get squeezed dry in a world where people have rights to their own labor are those who don't labor as much.

[Jarlathe]

You seem to be under the assumption that the RIAA is the American government. You are wrong.

Well, based on the resent flurry of legislation, he's not that far off. Pretty much the American government is available to the highest bidder.

[Seegtease]

For the record, my intent was not speaking to law, but to morality.

I don't really want to peruse the post it note analogy, because it's not perfect. Anybody who makes IP has the right to dictate how its used. If they want to release it to public domain in an open source way, more power to them. But if they don't, it should be their human right to say how their IP is released into the world, or not. It's theirs, not yours.

It may not be perfect, but it does illustrate the situation perfectly.

But there has never been anything illegal or immoral about reverse engineering a product for personal use. The post-it was just the first thing that came to my head. It was invented, patented, and someone decides they can save money by making their own. In fact, they could even give them away to their friends for free and be totally legal and really, when you look at it, moral.

And if it's not illegal to reverse engineer something, I don't see how music is any different. You're basically reverse engineering the music with data; taking a song from a CD and making raw data out of it to enjoy and share with friends. It just happens to be a bit more precise, but one could reverse engineer many patented items to be quite precise, and totally legal and totally moral. And the music even takes time and resources (HD space) to duplicate, so it's not even free in that regard (the cheap cost of HD space isn't really pertinent here).

The laws are, quite simply, inconsistent, and I really don't see the morality issue. At least, not as clearly as you seem to. I might be happy with my digital copy of the music, just like some guy might be happy with his copy of the post-it. Others might not be happy with it, and want originals (in the former case, a CD).

So, where do you draw the morality line? Is it quality? If I encode at 128 kbps, is that low enough to not be a real copy? Or maybe if I use a microphone and record it off the radio, is that "moral" then? If not, then why is reverse engineering patented items (not to sell) totally cool to do?

[Deleted]

Yes. Of course it does. You don't send someone to prison for life for stealing a candy bar, and you don't slap someone on the wrist for stealing the entire contents of the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

Uh, okay. Good. Though I was asking Laize....

How many songs do you need to preview in their entirety? Or said another way, how many artists have such a variety of songs on an album that the singles sound nothing like the rest of the album?

Some. Point is that I often find myself deleting 3 or 4 songs of an album.

[ambigiouslynamed]

For the record, my intent was not speaking to law, but to morality.

I don't really want to peruse the post it note analogy, because it's not perfect. Anybody who makes IP has the right to dictate how its used. If they want to release it to public domain in an open source way, more power to them. But if they don't, it should be their human right to say how their IP is released into the world, or not. It's theirs, not yours.

---------- Post added 2012-05-26 at 02:30 AM ----------



The only people who get squeezed dry in a world where people have rights to their own labor are those who don't labor as much.

how naive, the hard workers make all the money and the ppl who dont work get nothing, lol. Guess what? theres this called inheritance and many ppl do nothing there whole life but are still loaded with money. they dont do any work. your view is hopelessly out of place with reality and an insult to anyone who works since your basically telling anyone who isn't loaded with money that its their fault for not working hard enough, its their fault they are in debt, its their fault they arent living the high life or there kids wont go to the best colleges or that they cant retire at the age 65, its their fault they have health issues, its their fault theyll die young and in agony and misery because THEY didnt work hard enough, dying from overworking be damned