What is Digg?117 Comments
- Spellczech, on 10/10/2007, -3/+41It's not even viewed as a crime, really. It's definitely socially acceptable. My parents download via torrents, I know several Police Officers who do the same.
- TheAcidQueen, on 10/10/2007, -9/+41All young people in the UK downloads music. There are almost no punishments handed out, and the record industry here is still successful because the 30+ still by countless amounts of Now thats what I call music! Cds.
- hankyone, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27We have never been "scared" in Canada :D
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24I feel guilty about stealing music. I mean, I hate the record companies as much as anyone but if no one paid for this music the artists wouldn't make it.
- lordtyros, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22Probably because your government protects you from extortionist rackets like the RIAA
- penneyisok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Its because it been legal here (Canada) to share copyrighted material on p2p for sometime now. Not many people actually know that though. Every case the CRIA brings to court gets ruled against them.
The best quote from one of our judges about the matter was, "I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service" - mcottier, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Nothing is wrong with downloading music, as long as you support the musicians some way or another, like concert tickets, merchandise, an occasional CD, etc. Anyways, they will never be able to stop it, so I don't see why they focus so much time and energy on it.
- RDRDreg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I am in the uk and NOT ONE PERSION I KNOW buys any cd's, I buy a CD ONLY if i realy like the band, and I also attend allot of gigs, I have never heard of anyone eing done for downloading anyhting but porn.
Even at gigs I hear the artists themselves promoting limewire and torrenting, Allot of english bands are open to people downloading for free as there is more a spirit of playing music for the enjoyment and not for the money. - MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15It's better than paying for it.
- Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Britian is not the land of sue like America is. If the record companies are smart they will find a way to make money off of giving away music.
- hankyone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I showed a police officer how to download his episodes of the sopranos on torrent once, was weird
- poohat1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10for a tiny island we've produced more genre defining music than any other country. England knows music - and the future of it. Downloading is viewed as an everyday activity - not a crime at all. We have a countrywide passion for music - look at the amount of festivals there are a year, the amount of gigs - all sell out.. There's a reason prince is doing that many dates here - England lives off of music.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10In universities, limewire is the defacto standard for music. Most student internet connections are behind multiple layers of NAT and most p2p apps fold down. Limewire however isn't too fussy about queue ratings and allows NATed downloads. Plus lots of gnutella shares are available in the subnet which makes popular files very easy to get. Too bad gnutella is infested with viruses and trojans and malicious software of all kind.
- sspooner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9That's "couldn't care less"
- cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Ehm, the 4 big record labels:
EMI: British
SonyBMG: Japanese/German
Universal: French
Warner: American - phoomp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6What's immoral about downloading music?
- Smeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Well lets donate one dollar directly to the artist for each album we download. Thats a ton more than they make if we buy the hard copy. Anyone actually producing the hard copy is getting paid by gouging buyers and shortchanging artists for each of the actual CD they sell.
- allyant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7humm, I last payed for a CD back in 1998, that count?
- theoallardyce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Allot of TV shows from the states come out late here sometimes up to an entire series! I want to watch those shows right now and I am prepared to pay or watch adverts but iTunes etc wont sell them to me and the TV networks would play them.
How the ***** is it 'stealing' if the show isn't on sale or otherwise available? In my eyes that's called ***** stupid business practice. - Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The situation is far beyond that. Constantly having to read threats, listen to intimidation, being sued and called a thief and criminal by the industry, combined with the industry lying to consumers, government and media about losses and price fixing in some cases to screw consumers, has only secured the increase of contempt amongst consumers.
- itjamesd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This article is very true in what it says about teens here, my friend actually laughs at me when I buy a CD or even when I use something like allofmp3, saying things like "I cant believe you pay for music". To be honest I've got this guilt in me that says if I really like a band I should pay in some sort of way, kind of ethical in a way, but keeps my mind at ease.
- smurf22, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Go to a concert if hate the RIAA then go home and download the album.
- Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6THANK YOU!!! Idiot people who say "I could care less" obviously have no concept of basic logic.
EG:
I could eat less = I probably eat too much now
I could care less = I probably care too much now
It's not that hard people! - zabaf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Theres nothing immoral about downloading music. It all goes to the RIAA anyway. I still go to concerts.
- shavenlunatic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4no, it's like comparing a jam sandwich to a nuke...
- NewPunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This goes for Canadians too. EVERYONE I know downloads music "because it's free". I download it because the selection is great, and if I really like the album, I'll buy it. But Canadians are not "scared" of getting caught downloading MP3's. Hell my uncle who works for the CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) downloads music every now and then. It's more of a gray area in Canada than in the States.
- hotdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I just went to a concert of an artist I like, spent $40 on a the ticket, about $25 on food and drinks, and $35 on other merchandise. So thats $100 in one evening that goes into the pocket of 1 artist. I feel good about this because I directly supported the artist. When it comes to recorded music however, that only supports the record companies, who are screwing both me AND the artist, and I dont feel good about that so I will just download it! What I think would be a fantastic for bands and artists, is if they would just put a DONATE button on their websites. That would make it very easy for people to support them directly, and at the same time, download the CD so the record companies dont get that money.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Nah, artists make their money from touring and merchandise, not via CD sales. *Some* via CD sales, but not enough to warrant most of them giving a ***** about whether or not you download.
This has been well known for years now. You live under a rock or something? - Erunion, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"Digital Piracy" is by definition not theft.
If there are 100 cd's of a album in the world and I make a copy, I have not stolen anyone's, I have produced the 101st.
Intangible property rights are a con. Property is nature mixed with labor. You need property rights when a good is scarce, in order to resolve disputes. But ideas are not scarce.
When someone claims to own ideas, they can only enforce it by limiting my control over my real property.
The excuse for having patents and copy rights is to increase the amount of art and inventions in the world, but in practice they reduce the availability of art and inventions. The internet has exposed the lie.
Read this:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf - NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6This is actually what the real problem is: rampant piracy that discourages artists. Ultimately, I've been boycotting the RIAA labels for a number of years now, but I don't pirate music either. I buy used discs wherever I can, and I will pay for non-RIAA music that I enjoy and would like to support.
The only real solution is to have a boom of independent artists bring the best music they have to an online distribution model. And hopefully convert a few of the big name artists to give some credence to the whole thing. - ShatteredBlade, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Gotta love Private Trackers.
But I do support the artist, I buy the CD if I really like the band, attend concerts, etc. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Except prices have been going steadily DOWN year on year - a new CD is rarely more than £10 - and FOPP in particular sold CDs at amazing cheap prices.
- hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Stealing is wrong, whether done by fans or by fantasy pushers.
The funny thing is that many of the most politically vocal rich and famous entertainers that strongly promote socialism and even communism -- turn to staunch property rights proponents when it comes to squeezing money out of others.
It's also funny that those same entertainers and producers push "free love" and "try it before you buy it sex," but as for "see first and buy if it's worth keeping" media -- they want you to get married to them -- exclusively.
How do they live with the cognitive dissonance?? Substance abuse of course... which brings us back to the point about their being media pushers hooking others on "pseudo-living." I'll spare you the recap. - Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And if no one comitted fraud, there would be no need for laws.
- Panthro83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3(nitpicking)... I think you mean Britain.. not just England.... don't forget the contribution from the scots and welsh
- amfantasy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3remove the damn link, its annoying
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, well, Rogers is bad, m'kay?
They do all kinds of shady/asshat things that most other Canadian ISP's don't. - zbeast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I buy the same amount of music that I bought before p2p ... that would be none.
- djJohnnyG, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4considering the number of adverts I see for no-win-no-fee 'solicitors' whenever I'm home in the UK these days I don't think we have a leg to stand on anymore when we laugh at America being the land of sue
- zabaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I am scared and live in Canada. It is completely legal. Still most if not all Internet companies have it against their terms of service. So if you are caught they can pull your Internet. This is how Rogers operates at least.
- Po0py, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not that Brits care less it's more that Brits are revolting at the outrageous prices we have to put up with in this country. So we are voting with our bandwidth and not our wallets.
- chochazel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@geekee
> When you copy and distribute something for free, you reduce the price at which the owner can sell the item. Therefore you have stolen something from him. Simple economics.
Worst. Reasoning. Ever.
It's not theft. Theft is a legal definition, not an economic one.
If you believe that the definition of theft is "reducing the price at which the owner can sell the item", then most legal economic activity is theft - Burger King reduce the price at which McDonalds can sell burgers because they are competition. You think that that's theft? Seriously read a book or something.
Downloading music is copyright violation. It is not theft, not legally, not morally.
If you steal a car, that is theft. Most people would find it abhorrent morally, because you are depriving the owner of the car a tangible item of property, and violating their privacy etc.
Any ordinary thinking person and the legal systems of all countries would agree that the victim of the crime is the owner of the car.
Music downloading is morally equivalent only to the extent that the victim of the crime is the car company, who are missing out on the car that the car thief might have bought from them had he not stolen one, assuming that the car thief had the means to purchase a car, and assuming that they would have purchased a car from that car company.
The crime is morally abhorrent because of the effect on the car owner, nobody feels sorry for the car company for their hypothetical loss. - SmallZee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2dont we pay a tax on MP3 players, so that we can download?
- ShaunO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So I got to the second name down the list before I found a british act ....
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Is it *****.
- hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What I'd like to see is for folks to obey the law, and change it peaceably when it can be improved. Granted that may take a little jail time like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi might endorse, to show others the seriousness of the matter.
Current copyright, patent, and trademark law in the US (at least) excessively favors those that make billions in profit at the expense of consumers, workers, and smaller competitors -- using unfair trade practices. Just as anti-monopoly laws have been put in place, the same needs to be extended to those that make absolute ownership claims. Anything made available in public (whether product, media, or service) can only be protected reasonably so long. As a tax payer, I'm not willing to pay for the civil or criminal cases that extend protections to those making billions. They should code, license, or key the product to work for fixed periods.
It's just plain stupid for someone to broadcast a song in public and think that people won't sing it, record it, or make copies. What's changing is the scope of public. The public arena now extends into people's houses and bedrooms via the PC and mobile devices. There is no enforcement activity that should extend into bedrooms -- unless the same thing can be said for consensual sex, and other privacy matters. The point is that what people do in private is hard to regulate or enforce. It becomes increasingly more difficult as newer technologies reduce the cost and time of replication. As a tax payer, I believe it is unreasonable to spend public funds to make individuals obscenely rich. If they want protections, let them build it in to the product or access method. If they can't build it in reliably -- they need to look for new ways of delivering their materials. Such as through live concerts. - HBNDonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sometimes if a friend tells me to check out a band. I download a few tracks and if I like the music I'll go out and buy a few of thier albums. If anything, downloading music is good for the industry in some cases.
Besides. It's not like the big fat wealthy business men are going to become poor overnight because of a loss of CD sales. Id bet that 99% of people who download music werent going to buy the album in the first place. - xerexes1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't feel guilty at all. I doubt the movie industry and record labels could care less about my thousands of dollars spent on crappy, over-hyped movies, one hit wonder CDs/albums/tapes (not to mention having the same damn song/album in several formats), overpriced, nose bleed seating at concerts where you end you watching the video screens because you can't bloody well see the stage, $40 or more cheap ass concert t-shirts, posters, etc. ***** 'em.
- answer42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What did musicians do before record labels? Was there no music back then?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service" USA would be what it use to be when a judge say that and the RIAA filed bankruptcy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is