How do YOU feel about your music being pirated?

[whyterabbyt]

_starcraft_ quoth to all the retardss that keep bringing copyright and intellectual property in the picture .....get a clue.

I suspect you may not actually be up on what copyright and intellectual property actually are. So you might want that clue for yourself.

virtual product and intellectual property are not sinonimous.

Since there is no legal definition for 'virtual product' that is true. There is, however, a legal definition of 'intellectual property'.

thats what the
guy don't seem to undertand and thats why he can't exactly be considered a bright chap.

What you don't understand is what intellectual property is, and how copyright relates to that, so Im starting to wonder about you, as well.

theres not necesarily ownership of an idea in creatin an intangible product.

Intellectual property is not about 'ownership of an idea'. It relates to 'creative works'. There's a difference, and I suggest you check out what it is.

I'll leave it there. Dredging through the innacuracies, suppositions, flawed logic and conflations of ideas in the rest of your post would take a lifetime.

[fjell_strom]

I'll leave it there. Dredging through the innacuracies, suppositions, flawed logic and conflations of ideas in the rest of your post would take a lifetime.

As would dredging through your endlessly haughty and superior sentiments.

[Hink]

what did the P.A.F. stand for on Gibson humbucker's?...

btw I a;ready know

[herodotus]

My god, it's becoming a free-for-all!

C'mon, lets all hold hands in a circle and sing a nice peaceful song or something.



(Of course we will have to get the composers permission beforehand.)

[herodotus]

what did the P.A.F. stand for on Gibson humbucker's?...

btw I a;ready know

Patent Applied For.

[munchkin]

A car cost loads of money to manufacture. If you copied it then it would still cost a lorra, lorra cash. But music costs virtually nothing to reproduce. Just the initial outlay to create and market it plus the price of a CD. So in effect the only cost music accrues is the initial outlay whereas every car is expensive to manufacture. I don't see how the manufacture of physical goods can be compared to intellectual property like music.* There is no comparison.




* I described music as intellectual property - the man has got me. Aaaaaarrrgghhhh!

[munchkin]

My god, it's becoming a free-for-all!

C'mon, lets all hold hands in a circle and sing a nice peaceful song or something.



(Of course we will have to get the composers permission beforehand.)

I think you'll find 'Kumbuya M'Lord' is copyright free...altogether now...

[shamann]

Now that this thread has been well and thoroughly Godwinised, can we drop it now?

This had me curious, so I went looking.

Godwin's Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Excellent.

[_starcraft_]

I can't figure out if Starcraft is for or against intellectual property rights ... so much for all those words.

i believe in the dignity of the virtual product....as the result of competence, skill and time. I believe in paying for someones CRAFT IF it meets my demand.
i have my doubts on copyright and intellectual property(i don't believe in owning an idea) ....but these issues regard the physcal products too as i explained in my post.(how can someone own the deign of a car , a beer recipe , a shoe shape, a logo , a name?) so i don't understand why these issues are only brought out when discussin virtual products.
is absurd to defend copyright in the real world and attack it in the virtual world.

[fjell_strom]

Classic...but did someone actually cross that barrier in this thread? I know we had slave owners and, I think, anonymous career criminals...I'll have to put Hitler into the KVR search and see what surfaces.

[shamann]

Classic...but did someone actually cross that barrier in this thread?

Indeed someone did.

[tetraplan]

Classic...but did someone actually cross that barrier in this thread? I know we had slave owners and, I think, anonymous career criminals...I'll have to put Hitler into the KVR search and see what surfaces.

Bringing up nazis is according to the letter of the law. While this has indeed happened, there's also the spirit of the law[1] which points to mentioning unspeakable atrocities as lazy thinking. This has happened in this thread, too.

Of course, the full name is Godwin's Law Of Usenet, but since usenet is currently in a state of decay and most of what used to take place on usenet has migrated to online fora, I think it applies to places like this as much as it does to usenet.

Groet, Erik

[1] direct translation from Dutch. Does this translate OK?

[shamann]

yes, translates fine.

[munchkin]

Are the words in this thread copyright? I mean if I quote one of you will you sue me for reproducing your words and your ideas? What if I agree with some of you have I tried to hijack an original idea? Or if I disagree am I competeing in the ideas market?

It's all so problematic! :sigh:

[Amberience]

I starting to think that people should not be allowed to make a comfortable living from anything that could be classed as art. It makes people lazy and contemptuous. If people would recognise music as an art instead of a vocation, then they'd realise some relevant things. One being that music wasn't created by any company, industry, or chart. Music was created by humans and thus should be freely distributable to all humans.

I am daring anyone to think a little differently here. Consider that without the music industry, there would be no broken dreams and no fake pedastals, there would only be the music and people who value it for the music's sake and not the money.