SEIV is being Pirated

Phoenix-D · #1 August 30th, 2001, 05:43 PM

quote:
The only reason you can see a difference between Napster and Warez is that you like Napster, and you don't like Warez. That's called situational ethics, and it's garbage.

Nope. I have over 50 MP3s on my hard drive. All legal. Notice I didn't say ethical- *legal*. Using Napster or a similar service to share *those* files is OK, using it to transfer, say, a work that ISN'T available for free is NOT.

See the difference? It's also difficult to keep said unethical trading off a setup like napster, since MP3s don't have "free yes/no" tag, and even if they did that could be easily changed. Filtering by titles has been attempted but doesn't work all that well.

To use your anaology, Warz is a parn shop, whereas Napster is more like a swap meet, or the guy the pawn shop pays the rent to. Responsible? Only in a roundabout sort of way.

Phoenix-D

LazarusLong42 · #2 August 30th, 2001, 05:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
The fact is, you aren't allowed to copy a song you bought and give it to someone who didn't. And you aren't allowed to receive a song you didn't buy from someone who did.

Except... except... people have been doing this for decades, first using reel-to-reel tapes (side note: my mother still has one of these machines), then using cassette tapes, and in the Last few years using CD-R/CD-RW. I don't think a single one of us can claim to have never made/accepted a mix tape.

Now, is such a mix tape legal? Hell... I'd be hard pressed to come up with an answer to that. There's the matter of enforcement of copyright, as well as the Fair Use clauses, and determining whether they apply here is shaky ground at best. But I think the record companies understnad that mix tapes are, in the end good for business, as they introduce people to more music.

Napster could be (could have been?) like this... but in the end it isn't. When people start using it to trade entire libraries of music, the "mix tape" concept falls through, and whether those were legal or not, Napster wouldn't make the cut.

LL

geoschmo · #3 August 30th, 2001, 06:04 PM

Please note I never said Napster isn't a good idea. Personally I think that it is the wave of the future for marketing and releasing music.

But it needs to be in control of the people actually producing the product that is being shared. They should be the ones getting the lions share of the profits from the system. Otherwise it's pirating. Plain and simple.

Geo

LazarusLong42 · #4 August 30th, 2001, 07:17 PM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
Please note I never said Napster isn't a good idea. Personally I think that it is the wave of the future for marketing and releasing music.

But it needs to be in control of the people actually producing the product that is being shared. They should be the ones getting the lions share of the profits from the system. Otherwise it's pirating. Plain and simple.

Geo

Bingo. And the final problem is determining whether the people in control should be the artists, or the media companies. Unfortunately for them, the artists have to fight that battle. (Though the Tasini et. al. v. New York Times decision might be found in later ludgments to apply to musicians as well. Could be interesting.)

LL