>>5
I stumbled on that link just days ago, now someone posts it. It just like how whenever I learn a new word, someone is going to use it within a few day.
I am a musician, and I don't appreciate you creating a download button where there shouldn't be one. I don't want my music stolen. This is what is wrong with the state of the music business. People downloading songs illegally. Musicians work hard to create their products, and they should be compensated for their work. If piracy keeps up, you won't have any more music, because nobody could make a living writing music. It is already happening. Is it too much to ask to pay 99 cents to download a song? You can find a penny on the ground if you look closely.
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 14:24
>>9 Musicians work hard to create their products
Then why do they forfeit their work to record companies and let them have most of the money?
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 16:32
d u b s
u
b
s
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 17:14
Get out, Maja.
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 20:52
>>9
It's not too much to ask to pay 99 cents for a song. It's too much to ask society to cease sharing music. It's not wrong to have a living in writing music, it is wrong to restrict society's right to see, hear and share culture. If you find your business model is failing, then you need to stop your business.
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 21:00
I am a programmer, and I don't appreciate you creating a download button where there shouldn't be one. I don't want my programs stolen. This is what is wrong with the state of the software industry. People downloading programs illegally. Programmers work hard to create their products, and they should be compensated for their work. If piracy keeps up, you won't have any more software, because nobody could make a living writing programs. It is already happening. Is it too much to ask to pay $99.99 to download a licensed copy? You can find a penny on the ground if you look closely. Just do that ten thousand times.
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 21:02
When you think about it it's pretty weird that music or other sounds could be considered property.
If it's illegal to listen to sounds without paying the owner then shouldn't it also be illegal to force unwanted sounds upon people?
I mean, it's essentially forcing them to receive stolen goods, right?
And if unwanted sounds are played over the radio then doesn't that constitute illegal dumping of garbage and trespass on other's property?
I for one don't want radio and sound waves filling up my property, so please stop bombarding me with them immediately.
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 21:15
>>15
It's not the sound, it is the digital representation of it. You can't get in trouble for playing pirated music (assuming it was played for personal, non-commercial use).
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 21:19
>>16
Yeah, but if it's the digital representation then simply compressing the music or changing its format would make it legal, right?
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 21:27
>>17
By that logic, releasing an abridged version of a book, or releasing a translation of a book, without the copyright holder's permission is legal, which I don't believe it is in the United States and probably not in Europe either.
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 21:37
>>18
Yeah.
So it must be the analogue representation. What we hear / read / whatever, not how it's stored.
Either that or derivations of the original version.
But if that's the case then just playing music is in effect creating a new derivation of the original.
Maybe it only matters if it's saved. But in that case why do radio stations need to pay royalties for music they've bought? They're not saving derivations, they're just broadcasting a song.
Name:
Anonymous2014-02-14 22:03
This might clear things up for you stupid pretend-lawyer autists: the law is written for human, by humans - not computers. It's not meant to be a perfect set of instructions that never need changing, nor can it fit any and every edge case you can think up.