The Cellar - View Single Post

wst3 · 01-18-2001, 09:18 AM

this is just the sort of thing I was talking about in my previous post (BTW, I am Bill, not Adam - Tony explained that my rambling style could be mistaken for Adam's, and I don't want the poor guy to be accused of belief's that aren't his<G>)

Anyway, I have this side job that keeps me in contact, on a very peripheral plane, with the music industry. I'll bet I can come up with a much larger laundry list of reasons why the entire industry should have gone down the drain than most. These are some of the most short-sighted, irresponsible "business people" on earth. It's frightening really what they have done to the entertainment industry, they have made innovation a dirty word, and a sure career ending move.

But that is not the point!!! It is completely irrelevant to the discussion of downloading unauthorized material from the net.

The industry's shortsighted, paranoid behavior may well be credited with the rise of Napster, but two wrongs never make a right, and downloading unauthorized material is still theft!

You mention that you regularly copy magazine articles from magazines if you find them useful. Did you pay for your subscription to the magazine? If you did then your copy falls under the fair use provisions of intellectual property law. If you didn't, well then, you are stil stealing.

Fair Use provisions were included in intellectual property protection laws specifically to insure that these laws do not hinder further growth.

I really don't think that any fair minded person can argue that just because the industry won't give them "their music their way" is justification to steal. I'm probably wrong... people find the darndest ways to justify stealing!

If an artist wants to produce and distribute their own material I think that's great. The best example I know of is Ani DiFranco, whose Righteous Babe label not only handles her prodigous output, but has also resurected the career of Utah Philips... not too shaby for a one woman shop! And there are thousands like her.

The business climate is changing, and the change is brought on largely by new technologies... but that still doesn't justify stealing from an artist who probably put in no small effort to bring you something you might enjoy.

01-18-2001, 09:18 AM	#3
wst3 Simulated Simulacrum Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pennsylvannia Posts: 39	this is just the sort of thing I was talking about in my previous post (BTW, I am Bill, not Adam - Tony explained that my rambling style could be mistaken for Adam's, and I don't want the poor guy to be accused of belief's that aren't his<G>) Anyway, I have this side job that keeps me in contact, on a very peripheral plane, with the music industry. I'll bet I can come up with a much larger laundry list of reasons why the entire industry should have gone down the drain than most. These are some of the most short-sighted, irresponsible "business people" on earth. It's frightening really what they have done to the entertainment industry, they have made innovation a dirty word, and a sure career ending move. But that is not the point!!! It is completely irrelevant to the discussion of downloading unauthorized material from the net. The industry's shortsighted, paranoid behavior may well be credited with the rise of Napster, but two wrongs never make a right, and downloading unauthorized material is still theft! You mention that you regularly copy magazine articles from magazines if you find them useful. Did you pay for your subscription to the magazine? If you did then your copy falls under the fair use provisions of intellectual property law. If you didn't, well then, you are stil stealing. Fair Use provisions were included in intellectual property protection laws specifically to insure that these laws do not hinder further growth. I really don't think that any fair minded person can argue that just because the industry won't give them "their music their way" is justification to steal. I'm probably wrong... people find the darndest ways to justify stealing! If an artist wants to produce and distribute their own material I think that's great. The best example I know of is Ani DiFranco, whose Righteous Babe label not only handles her prodigous output, but has also resurected the career of Utah Philips... not too shaby for a one woman shop! And there are thousands like her. The business climate is changing, and the change is brought on largely by new technologies... but that still doesn't justify stealing from an artist who probably put in no small effort to bring you something you might enjoy.