For quite a long time I've been intending to post some sort of commentary on the music industry - piracy, distribution, morality, those types of things. I've thought about it many times, but never gone through with it, because the issue is such a broad, messy one - such a difficult thing to address fairly and compactly. I knew it would result in a rambly, unfocused commentary, and my exact opinion has teetered back and forth quite a bit over the years anyway. But on Monday, when I woke up to the news that Oink, the world famous torrent site and mecca for music-lovers everywhere, had been shut down by international police and various anti-piracy groups, I knew it was finally time to try and organize my thoughts on this huge, sticky, important issue.
if I filled my shiny new 160gb iPod up legally, buying each track online at the 99 cents price that the industry has determined, it would cost me about $32,226. How does that make sense?
*rofl* Why is it always the stealing cars analogy that comes up... why not stealing apples or eggs or stealing ships or airplanes for a change? As if anyone would care about such a hilarious analogy anyway.
An MP3 is a very long number. Likewise, a track on a CD, and indeed, the data on the entire CD are just very long numbers. Making analogies to physical objects is meaningless.
It is absurd to say that you can own a number
When you side with the record industry, you proclaim that numbers can be owned.
numbers are interpreted by a program, so they are more like words. can words be owned? sure they can when put in the right order. take goethe's faust for example. that's what intellectual property is all about.
An MP3 is a very long number. Likewise, a track on a CD, and indeed, the data on the entire CD are just very long numbers. Making analogies to physical objects is meaningless. I am describing here what we are actually dealing with, free of abstraction or metaphor.It is absurd to say that you can own a number, yet the record companies are trying to do exactly that. What's more, they're laying claim to large sets of numbers that happen to sound similar to humans when interpreted to be representations of audio and played back accordingly.
“Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are that [or how] they are, of the things that are not that [or how] they are not.”
because you can all but guarantee two things about most college kids: They love music, and they're dirt poor.
plnelson, I said nothing about rationalizing stealing. There is no stealing happening.What is happening is unauthorized reproduction, nothing more. According to Mirriam-Webster's dictionary, steal means:intransitive verb1: to take the property of another wrongfully ...1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Furthermore, to clarify intransitive definition 1, we need to clarify "take", which in almost all definitions means transfer, which implies that the original party no longer has it.
I firmly believe that only physical objects can be owned. If you would not like a certain number made public, do not publicise it. There's nothing 20th century about this belief. For that matter, I believe that in the ideal case, there would be no concept of ownership, although in the status quo it is required. What exists ideally and what exists presently are two extremely different realms.
...I'm a published writer and photographer, not to mention a software engineer. All of those expressions of my labor and creativity can be encoded digitally and copied perfectly an infinite number of times...
The world economy is increasingly based on knowledge and symbol manipulation - the fruits of millions of people's labor are "just" numbers...
You can not steal what you can’t touch. Stealing involves taking a physical item away from its owner; the owner loses the item forever. A copy, authorized or not, never destroys the original. If you make an illegal photograph of a famous painting, the painting remains intact. We could argue why it is illegal to take a picture on the first place, and who is benefiting. If i show the picture for free outside of the gallery, am i depriving the gallery of funds because the people are no longer going in and paying the fee? Should we defend the gallery owner at the expense of not letting the masses free access to the culture? Those with money will go to the gallery anyway, because its not the same experience. Same occurs with music; if your band is worth it, people will buy the disc and go to their concerts no matter if its available on the net for free, or if they sold their souls to a major label.