EzraPound said:
ravensheart18 said:
No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.
A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.
Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.
Kind of missed the point, here--that YouTube doesn't involve the
possession of media, therefore the piracy argument is even more tenuous than it would be with downloads (which is enough of a minefield, anyway). Also, where does your logic end? If users sharing videos with each other on YouTube is "releasing", then is someone playing an album for someone else doing the same? Presumably you're predicating your argument on some standard of reproduction.
The problem I find with your argument about playing the album vs. posting a video on youtube is that by playing an album the music retains its rival nature, i.e. that it is data
physically embodied in the form of a disk. If all music was stored this way only, it would be a rival good, as only people with access to the disk could use it, and as such its distribution could be more easily controlled.
If posted on a website such as youtube, however, the IP embodied in the work becomes non-rival. It is capable of infinite duplication to an unlimited number of people (provided they have access to a computer). The problem here is that it removes incentives for people to pay for such goods, as they can listen to the song as many times as they like on youtube or record the song whilst playing it on youtube using a recording program. This is what IP rights are designed to control. Whether or not you agree with that aim is up to you.
EzraPound said:
Also, ever heard of something called Fair Use? These details get trampled underfoot by the corporate brainwash campaign, which you've obviously bought into:
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Personally, I don't think full allowance of YouTube publication would make much of a difference, commercially. I know the main thing I use it for is sending others a song or video whereas I couldn't with a hard copy--something buying a CD or DVD wouldn't change. If I like an artist's songs I hear on YouTube, I'll download their album, and then maybe pay to see them live. Actually, I just got back from seeing Lil' Wayne, Nicki Minaj, and Rick Ross in Buffalo yesterday--I wouldn't have got into the guy's music in all likelihood if it weren't for file-sharing, and now I've picked up a poster, a t-shirt, and $300 in concert tickets.
. . .Of course, that's not to suggest that file-sharing is making the industry more profitable. But who cares? Major record labels have never done scat for artists, a download is not akin to physical theft, and half of the great popular music songs were stolen from somebody else anyway, before you downloaded them on Pirate Bay.
I think if you look into the background of fair use clauses such as this you'll find that the use they're referring to is in reference to the artist's work in a work of your own, such as writing lyrics in a gig review, etc. I really don't think that applies in the case of downloading music for personal pleasure, as you are circumventing the exact contract relationship IP rights are designed to protect, which I hardly think can be called "fair use"...
And yeah, major record labels can be dicks to artists, but I've never viewed this as an acceptable excuse to download music illegally. Some money is better than no money, and if the artists were unhappy about the deal they're getting then they wouldn't be in it! I suppose it helps that very little music I listen to could ever be described as being on a "major" label, but still...
EzraPound said:
AccursedTheory said:
No, all that matters is ownership, whether its the rich, the poor, or corporations
Poverty has never been an excuse to steal, especially when its something like video and music, which, last time I checked, was not a necessity for life.
What do you mean poverty isn't an excuse to steal? Of course it is!
Let me hit you with a little bit of basic level political philosophy. There is a
social contract. It requires that citizens adhere to the rules established by a government, provided the rules are fair. When the rules are fair, it is the moral prerogative of the government to punish citizens for disobeying them. When they are not fair, it is the moral prerogative of citizens to subvert them by the means available.
This is, in fact, what a revolution is--the appropriation of government property by masses who've (often) been grossly abused by a small elite. Even crime is mostly the product of disenfranchisement--there are always sickos out there, but crime rates globally basically correlate with levels of poverty and oppression.
If people are oppressed enough by legal means, it rationalizes the violation of their means of oppression--in this case, laws. I'm not saying that the demographic that uses the Escapist is "oppressed", by any means, but I just object to your juvenile, Randian use of the term "never."
Declaring there to be a social contract is pretty presumptuous, don't you think? Social contractarian theories are just one jurisprudential explanation of just society among many... However, being American I imagine you might have been taught that such theories are gospel (I'm not saying this to be rude, but common national ideals in the USA conform tightly to Lockean and Nozickian paradigms).
Also, you seem to be skewing the context of what we're talking about here. In the case of IP rights, the kind of uprising you depict would surely be in rallying against patents for things such as pharmaceuticals etc. not copyrights in artistic works?
I would also be interested to know how the use of the term "never" can be "Randian". I assume you are referring to Randian objectivism, but how or why I have no idea...
