Should Music Be FREE????

[Kriminal]

You don't have the right to enjoy the copy you stole.

maybe, but i do soooooo often.

[Kingston]

So you buy a cd, and listen to it just once, because you then have experienced it and are finished with that?

Property or not. You don't have the right to what ever experience, emotions etc. you get out of a stolen copy. Thats the essence.

Ultimate big brother thinking. no right to the experience.. or emotions.


now go c**t off

[laputa_sync]

Does anyone think that technologolology or rather the discussions about the validity of music produced with it (for instance the use of samplers 1980 onwards)has made the idea of musical value differ to the extent the audio compression and increased bandwith and access has...
#

can you see a question in the previous?

[whyterabbyt]

But a stolen copy is only stolen if the physical media is stolen (like a CD from a store). A digital copy isn't a stolen copy, since no-one lost any property. There's a huge difference between copyright infringement and theft, since theft is when you actually steal something.

Thats the legal difference, indeed. The law generally intrinsically differentiates between physical objects which can be stolen, and 'created works' which are merely distributed on a physical media, and which can, ostensibly, be replicated with ease by copying the contents of that media.
The copyright laws (and other laws relating to 'intellectual property rights') primarily exist to grant control over how these work are actually redistributed to their creator.

And I don't agree about the essence. Having the rights to say what people are allowed to do and not with something they buy, or something you actually decide to share with the world, is kindof made up and forced to resemble the rights we have to physical property, eventhough the two are very much unlike in their nature.

Indeed they are. But for legitimate reasons, I believe; both sets of laws exist to protect the 'owner' of something against someone else profiting from their efforts without permission. Thats purely a reflection of capitalism, of course. But the law actually generally differentiates very clearly between physical objects and 'intellectual' objects; its just that the underlying tenet of capitalism is that one generally owns and may sell the things one creates, and the laws exists to protect that, whether you are talking about the object itself, or a replication of a 'created work'.

Try flipping the analogy around. Put non-material values upon something material. What if cars could be created and duplicated endlessly at virtually no cost and no effort. What would the value of cars be? Supply would be endless, demand would be finite. What would the value be?

If that were indeed the case, what would the value be in designing cars? Who would do so? Who would test these cars for safety, efficiency, comfort. Would the only cars available be those which were designed prior to this technology? Would you drive the equivalent of 'open source' cars created by large groups of enthusiastic amatueurs in their spare time?
In short, there is a measurable (or at least assessable) cost in the design and creation of both physical and non-physical products. If the opportunity to recoup that cost, and make a profit, is removed, what reasons would people have for doing so at all?

When something naturally has an endless supply, it's natural market value is zero. What we do with our current copyright system is that we force a made up value upon such things, just to keep the businessess alive. Not to keep the market alive, because the market would still be there (just based on the actual service that is provided, not the copies of the works).

What 'service' would be provided, then, by a plugin developer, or musician who wished to earn their living doing so? For example, this has always been the claim of open source evangelists; that services income will substitute for a product revenue stream. In fact, the actuality has been that for many developers to continue working on their software, they have more or less wound up under a system relatively similar to patronage...

By the way, my own perception is that things like dongles, DRM'd media et.c. are an attempt by the distributors (not necessarily the creators) of intellectual property works to make the distribution media intrinsically tied to the work it carries, thus 'enfolding' objects of intellectual property under as much of physical property law as is possible...

[stefancrs]

Just a quick reply since I'm on my way out:
You don't think people would value and find a way for car models to be developed commercially even if it was free to make more intsances of said model?

[whyterabbyt]

Just a quick reply since I'm on my way out:
You don't think people would value and find a way for car models to be developed commercially even if it was free to make more intsances of said model?

Not really. The investment costs are huge, in time and money. Tens of millions to design, build and test a single model, and years of development. One single company (Ford) makes R&D investments in the billions of dollars.

Who's going to invest that, given that there'd be no return in the product itself. What would provide a return on that kind of investment?

[chrisby]

Maybe someone already pointed this out (didn't read the whole post) but if music cost only what the people who create and perform it actually get paid it would practically seem like it was free already.

[Hovmod]

I wonder why CARS always come up when there's talk about pirating music?

[whyterabbyt]

Maybe someone already pointed this out (didn't read the whole post) but if music cost only what the people who create and perform it actually get paid, it would still practically seem like it was free already.

Well, yeah. In fact, even if music only cost what the people who create and perform it actually shouldget paid it(*) would practically seem like it was free already.

(*) Given that the average signed artist winds up paying all costs of production, promotion et.c. from their royalties, while the record companies pocket the remaining 90% or more.

[Max el Belga]

That's one of the reasons why you can get my music for free (almost) !

The price I ask : a smile on your face.

Have a nice day,

Max... .. .

[Waynemendozza]

Some music is free, some is not... Why care about the not free music, if one does not want to pay for music, just get the one that's free. If one likes something, that is not free, why not pay for it then? Same with software, freeware, shareware... I don't understand the problem!

[respirator]

... the actuality has been that for many developers to continue working on their software, they have more or less wound up under a system relatively similar to patronage...

Interesting and unsubstantiated, or...? Where do you get the idea of open source developers are living under "patronage"?

The open source movement is a very interesting example of a market based development based on abandoning the damaging idea of "intellectual property". And with players such as IBM, Sun etc. backing open source it looks like a serious change in the way the software world works.

[AgonisThorn]

...I am quite convinced that the market still would value game and software development, even if they didn't value the invidual copies that can be made at no cost. Just as one can value music works and artists, even though one does not necessarily value the invidual copies that can be made of their works...

This prompts the question: If there is no monetary return for the individual copies, whence will come the compensation for the developers? "Free music" advocates have stated their appreciation for artists in every forum in which I have encountered this discussion, but I have yet to have ANY of them explain to me exactly HOW I would get paid for the effort I put into creating and recording my music. While it certainly feels good (and is of course one of the reasons I continue to do this despite the still-inadequate compensation), no amount of applause and pats on the back and "dude, your song was so awesome I sent copies to all 1178 people on my buddy list" is going to enable me to afford the tools I need in order to make my works available.

If you want me to scrap the current business model, you damn well better be able to provide me a NEW one, something a bit more specific and detailed than "the developer will be valued".

[Vonbrucken]

people who pirate music are suckers! there is already good free music out there so why stealing the ones you see on telly !
so the question shouldn' be :Should music be free?
Cause there is already free music , and saying the ones free out there are not as good as the ones you got to buy, is confessing that making music and produce it ,could be a plain job you should remunerate

an other question well answered by pedo bear

edit woot my gif wasn't working not it is

[Cryogenic]

The point is, it's not only about the property.
Why do you feel you have the right to what ever experience (joy, anger etc.) you get from the music you've pirated?