fa-dee-da
Greet-tines!
Yesterday was fun and dandy. I purchased a “mutant” lamp as my mom calls it. She says it looks creepy, I love it. Got a new mattress, its still remains in the van. Guy that rhymes with seven dropped by around 2. Spencer and Reagan were fulfilling their jobs as annoying anyone who is at the house. We went to the library, hoping there would be water there, and nice big chairs. Got there, and it was closed, so we got no water, and sadly, no comfort from the nice, big chairs. So we continued to walk, and he continued to wrap his arm around mine saying how soft it was. J Wondered into the cow pasture. Oh the grassy fields… it was groovy there. The grass, the water hole, the openness was just grand. Then we went to Trey’s, and back to the home of the gremlins a.k.a. My house. He left around 5.
Later that night the cat refused to go outside so we let her stay in. She had her kittens under Reagan’s bed. I wanted to name the orange one Orangejello. Pronounced as Or-on-gello. Not like orange jello. I can tell Reagan didn’t like the name cus she kicked me and many unpleasant sounds gurgled from the shark mouth of hers.
So pleased, my room is coming along nicely.
<><><><><><><><><>
MELTED BRAINCHEESE:
Today’s Topic: Is peer-to-peer file sharing unethical?
Wow… I got bored and did some research.
This topic was starting to hijack the universal ethics thread, so I thought I might bring it up in a new thread. I know very little about this case (I’ve never bothered to use any sort of P2P), so I’ll give my uninformed opinion and expect to be corrected by those who know more than me.
It seems to me that sharing with other people has always been and should continue to be legal. Now that technology has advanced to the point that people can share on a large enough scale that music companies make less money, music companies want to limit the right to share to protect their profits. From this point of view it seems music companies have no case.
So what about copyright laws and intellectual property? Like any other book, movie, broadcast, etc, people sharing such files should not be allowed to sell or profit in any way from shared files. But there’s no copyright problem with such examples as:
• Allowing many people to watch a single broadcast on your TV
• The entire country recording a song broadcast on the radio
• Many people borrowing a copy of a book from the library
• Taking pictures of artwork and posting these pictures on a web site for all to see
Why should file sharing be any different? The two distinguishing features in the case of P2P file sharing is that
1. A special interest group that was making lots of money stands to loose its continued profits from this development, and
2. There might be some technological way of controlling and continuing to make a profit off it, if allowed (as opposed to recording songs off the radio).
I’ve heard some people argue that taking funding away from the artists will stifle music, create only inferior music, lead to the death of art, etc. I find this very unconvincing. First, one might argue that most of the popular crap music companies market doesn’t have much artistic value anyways. But more seriously, people have been making music and other art since before recording industries started making rock stars. Historically, artists have had to adapt to social conditions, and will have to do so now. How many of you have contributed to your local court composer recently? And yet classical music lives on, often driven by new social phenomenon - Motzart could never have imagined that writing scores to motion pictures would be a composer's bread and butter one day.
Musicians will continue to make music. It may be that they will only make money off those who broadcast the music publicly, or for live performances. It may be that only those who make music for the fame or for the love of music will continue to do so. It may be that only the truly exceptional music will gain widespread popularity instead of whatever music companies want to market.
:sigh:
Yesterday was fun and dandy. I purchased a “mutant” lamp as my mom calls it. She says it looks creepy, I love it. Got a new mattress, its still remains in the van. Guy that rhymes with seven dropped by around 2. Spencer and Reagan were fulfilling their jobs as annoying anyone who is at the house. We went to the library, hoping there would be water there, and nice big chairs. Got there, and it was closed, so we got no water, and sadly, no comfort from the nice, big chairs. So we continued to walk, and he continued to wrap his arm around mine saying how soft it was. J Wondered into the cow pasture. Oh the grassy fields… it was groovy there. The grass, the water hole, the openness was just grand. Then we went to Trey’s, and back to the home of the gremlins a.k.a. My house. He left around 5.
Later that night the cat refused to go outside so we let her stay in. She had her kittens under Reagan’s bed. I wanted to name the orange one Orangejello. Pronounced as Or-on-gello. Not like orange jello. I can tell Reagan didn’t like the name cus she kicked me and many unpleasant sounds gurgled from the shark mouth of hers.
So pleased, my room is coming along nicely.
<><><><><><><><><>
MELTED BRAINCHEESE:
Today’s Topic: Is peer-to-peer file sharing unethical?
Wow… I got bored and did some research.
This topic was starting to hijack the universal ethics thread, so I thought I might bring it up in a new thread. I know very little about this case (I’ve never bothered to use any sort of P2P), so I’ll give my uninformed opinion and expect to be corrected by those who know more than me.
It seems to me that sharing with other people has always been and should continue to be legal. Now that technology has advanced to the point that people can share on a large enough scale that music companies make less money, music companies want to limit the right to share to protect their profits. From this point of view it seems music companies have no case.
So what about copyright laws and intellectual property? Like any other book, movie, broadcast, etc, people sharing such files should not be allowed to sell or profit in any way from shared files. But there’s no copyright problem with such examples as:
• Allowing many people to watch a single broadcast on your TV
• The entire country recording a song broadcast on the radio
• Many people borrowing a copy of a book from the library
• Taking pictures of artwork and posting these pictures on a web site for all to see
Why should file sharing be any different? The two distinguishing features in the case of P2P file sharing is that
1. A special interest group that was making lots of money stands to loose its continued profits from this development, and
2. There might be some technological way of controlling and continuing to make a profit off it, if allowed (as opposed to recording songs off the radio).
I’ve heard some people argue that taking funding away from the artists will stifle music, create only inferior music, lead to the death of art, etc. I find this very unconvincing. First, one might argue that most of the popular crap music companies market doesn’t have much artistic value anyways. But more seriously, people have been making music and other art since before recording industries started making rock stars. Historically, artists have had to adapt to social conditions, and will have to do so now. How many of you have contributed to your local court composer recently? And yet classical music lives on, often driven by new social phenomenon - Motzart could never have imagined that writing scores to motion pictures would be a composer's bread and butter one day.
Musicians will continue to make music. It may be that they will only make money off those who broadcast the music publicly, or for live performances. It may be that only those who make music for the fame or for the love of music will continue to do so. It may be that only the truly exceptional music will gain widespread popularity instead of whatever music companies want to market.
:sigh: