"File Sharing": Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » "File Sharing" » "File Sharing"

"File Sharing"
Ye or ne

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"File Sharing"

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 203

Posted 06/15/09 - 11:52 AM:	#11
Cadrache wrote: I don't give a #$!! about the transfer of money aspect. The availabiity of what I want is a larger issue. They have reduced some of the problems; by allowing you to download individual tracks. Yet a good 8 hour playlist is still past the 200$ range. Take into account that you'll likely make at least 1 of these playlists a month; that's 2400$ a year that they expect to acquire from my pocket. I have a 35,000$ income. Not alot for Calgary, I know. But living at a bare minimum; you can have approx 9500$ to spare. Add savings of 10% of my gross income; and I've got 6 grand. The record companies expect a whopping 40% of my disposable income! Oh, all right, maybe I'll listen to music on the radio. Hmm... Damm CRTC. For every song, there is X amount of talking. So maybe 1/4 of the radio is used in talk time. For crap I don't even give a damm about. And then they have the audaciousness to replay the same song list 4 times a day! And that's during the 'normal' 16 hour range that most people are awake. I wanted to listen to music.... Not a 20$ track list. So are you advocating theft of luxury items that you cannot afford just because you want them?
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 106
Total Posts: 2825

Posted 06/15/09 - 01:46 PM:	#12
No; I'm advocating loss of sales to company X because said luxury items are not enjoyable. Simple accounting of a "I-want" system really. Pay for your own personal copy or Listen to free Radio. 1. Radio. Do they play music? Yes? How much? 15 minutes per hour. Quality of enjoyment? 75% loss of value. On any Day x, How many songs have value; based on a 15 song rotation? 1...? Loss of value of 14/15 or 93%. Of course I don't know which I'm suppose to apply first. If Radio is valued at 100$ per day per person, should I subtract the 75$ first then take 93% of that as the true value? Or should I subtract 93$ and then take 75% of that number to arrive at the true value of radio? For an assumed 100$ value. For me personally, the true value of 1 day of radio as a luxury item is worth either 25 cents, or 1.75$. 1.75 + 0.25 = 2$ / 2 = 1 $. Coincidentally... what I stated the cost of each song would be.
Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Maxvilly
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2009

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 244

Posted 06/15/09 - 07:44 PM:	#13
mway wrote: people like you are the reason for the inequalities in the world. Good reasoning, we have to start somewhere right? What do you suggest instead, and how will you pave the way for the free era, I guess you have no game plan. I write you off as a lose goose without visions. Fine.
I had details here, ones.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 586

Posted 06/15/09 - 09:31 PM:	#14
Maxvilly wrote: Good reasoning, we have to start somewhere right? What do you suggest instead, and how will you pave the way for the free era, I guess you have no game plan. I write you off as a lose goose without visions. Fine. I have had a game plan for years, and eventually it will come to fruition. The first two steps are to create strong AI (which I have more or less completed, but will be a slow process introducing it into the mainstream), and to work towards a human paradigm shift, whereby all humans become aware of their equality in the universe by removing their illusionary ideas of self importance. The next step is to replace all necessary jobs with machines, eliminating the economy, and freeing humanity from the choke hold of scarcity. The 'game plan' is much more elaborate then this piece, and addresses many of the problems people apply to this techno future, but to view this perspective all you have to do is look at the trends and where they are headed.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

universalanomaly
sporadically active

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Location: Reston, VA

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 136

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/17/09 - 12:15 AM:	#15
I agree with swstephe's analysis. The issue is not about stealing (in the sense that you are taking something from someone else). It is about rewarding artists for something they have created. If you freely download some music and you hate it, should you pay for it? I think not. On the other hand if you freely download some music you really like I think you should support that artist and by doing so you are also supporting any work they create in the future. Basically my position is support only the software/music/games/programs you benefit from or enjoy. I care only about the artists and creators. The record labels in the music industry and their analogs for other types of created works, which deal with production, manufacture, distribution, marketing and promotion, are becoming obsolete and as far as im concerned, are no more than leeches on the actual created works. They should die a natural death because their medium is no longer required. So the issue is how to set up a system where everything is free (which is ideal and made possible though file sharing), but where we are compelled to support the creations we benefit from or enjoy most.
Taking evolution as the starting point for morality is no different than claiming the laws of physics are necessarily good because they are the laws of physics. "Any desire is imperative to the extent of its amount; it makes itself valid by the fact that it exists at all." William James

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 106
Total Posts: 2825

Posted 06/17/09 - 10:52 AM:	#16
Starbucks "pick of the week" songs have a statement on their little card. Cash value 1/20th cent Though I personally don't look at the whole issue as a money thing either. When we get to the point of giving people money in this way; we are in reality looking at intellectual property rights.
Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

universalanomaly
sporadically active

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Location: Reston, VA

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 136

Posted 06/17/09 - 04:13 PM:	#17
Intellectual property is a much broader issue that is contestable in its own right but when it comes to the internet, it is unrealistic to try to make people pay for every copyrighted piece of data they download, watch, or listen to. First it would severely limit the amount and types of media people are exposed to, which is one of the great things about the internet. Also it would, I think, require monitoring of what you're looking at, listening to, or downloading, destroying personal privacy and anonymity which are both highly valued by most people using the internet.
Taking evolution as the starting point for morality is no different than claiming the laws of physics are necessarily good because they are the laws of physics. "Any desire is imperative to the extent of its amount; it makes itself valid by the fact that it exists at all." William James

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3767

Posted 06/17/09 - 05:01 PM:	#18
If the artists and record companies would benefit more from people just downloading their songs and people who feel like they benefited from it and will reward them in return I'm pretty sure they would have done that already. Face it, they are not allowing it because it is as moronic as giving your things away for free and expect anyone to pay in return for whatever they think it is worth. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 06/17/09 - 06:16 PM. Reason: flaming.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Incision
Dust in the wind

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: The endless sea

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 1209

Posted 06/17/09 - 09:12 PM:	#19
Maybe the industry needs to change; maybe something along these lines: swstephe wrote: Open source is extremely popular and free for download. The people who work in it get their benefit back from being able to use the technology as well, plus free development, free user-testing, free translation, free documentation, etc, which is the equivalent of additional income in the software industry. If you're giving back to the community approximately what you take, and we've all agreed that that's the condition for taking, then I don't see any objection to taking. One way to give back is to pay; another way would be contribute your own music. But most of us (I assume) aren't contributing free music to the pool, and there's no general agreement to exchange on those grounds. So if we're not paying, either, then we're just taking. I don't see how that's going to usher in utopia. I'd suggest that in general we pause before defending the appropriateness of actions that are presumably unfair and in our own interest.
The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 106
Total Posts: 2825

Posted 06/18/09 - 10:47 AM:	#20
Did you note what Open Source exchanges? Normally non-physical entities. We can look at this another way. If I pass along a street and hear X band playing; then I am currently legally supposed to pay them. Even though I don't own the song. Even If I didn't like it. The thing with the record companies is they are not providing music. They are providing a medium to acquire music. If I want to hear George Somebody and he isn't standing beside me; then I need a medium to listen to him. A telephone call maybe? A Cd? A digital version of audio? AS well, I legally have to pay him for actually providing the service as music. Payment of musician is independant of payment of person providing a medium to listen to the song.
Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.