I was shocked to see an MEP was sent to EU parliament with such controversial views on copyright laws.
listening to an interview on 5 live his view is that downloading media is fine because ultimately people will make copies of files and distribute on filesharing p2p networks.
IMO it is pointless to strengthen copyright laws because infringment of media has become a part of everday life...
and is it really effecting artists on a huge scale...
it has actually opened up the way for new talent such as underground RnB artists to come on the music scene.
Fact is that people wont pay for something they know that they can get faster and for free on p2p networks.
Especially applies to youth of the modern day where filesharing is just the norm and not seen to be wrong.
Sooo....what are your views on this controversial topic..........?
The title sounds computery
It is.
His questions are:
1. Should people be punished for downloading stuff that infringes copyright?
2. Why would people pay for things they can get for free.
3. Should the laws be stronger?
4. Surely everybody does it, so it can't be that wrong?
My answers, in not any particular order:
2. Why would people pay for things they can get for free.
Because they can. Because they like the product. Because they like shiny. Apart from students, people will money do not mind spending it if they feel like they are getting value, so if you want to be paid for a product, make it have value.
3. Should the laws be stronger?
IMO no. Copyright is important because it gives the artist/author rights. It allows the people to protect their work from being twisted, others claiming ownership etc. An aspect of this is allowing the artist to make monetary gains.
However, when it comes to monetary gains, historically musical artists have made money by live performances and they can still do that. Digital distribution allows them to make *more* money, but it does not force them to starve or anything. More, much of the money from digital distribution is pocketed by the societies, associations with little going to the actual author/artist.
You may argue that these societies then allow for the artform to continue, but I doubt many would agree with that especially in popular culture where pop idol etc are "surefire" ways to success. I would argue further that if an artform cannot succeed on its own, it should be allowed to die. Failure is an option.
There is also the argument that knowledge wants to be free. Many people believe that and if e.g. teachers decided that they wanted to control what their students could use their learnt knowledge on, the world would be a worse place. Just imagine Plato and Aristotle not allowing others to build on their philosophies, theories.
1. Should people be punished for downloading stuff that infringes copyright?
Most people who download would have not paid for it anyway. Some may do so, and others do pay for stuff along with downloading - I have read an article somewhere which suggested those that download in general spend *more* money on that artform than those that don't. I would asusme they never focussed on skint students, but the point stands, it is these lovers of the artform that cannot get enough that also make it a viable medium, so criminalising them is IMO a very wrong thing. for the artform.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
you never answered question 4
"ThiS WoRlD Iz A PrIsOn 4 A BeLiVeR AnD PaRaDiSe 4 A NoN-BeLiVeR.........."
cos question 4 is stupid? if lot's of people jumped out a window would it be ok? if lots of people supported Man U would it be ok?
OF COURSE NOT!
Also, I kinda get admin's point.
There is nothing wrong with an artist/musician/filmmaker wanting to get money from their work.
But where (on the whole) artists/musicians try to MAKE MONEY so they can create things, the labels/corporate people CREATE THINGS, in order to make money.
Former is good, latter is bad. In my opinion. Well, not 'bad' I guess, that's too strong a word. But I don't think it's worth supporting/paying for, anyway.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
... But is it? Of course you're right that the majority aren't always right- i.e if most people raped regularly would that make it ok, no it wouldn't. But what about in this particular case?
it's generally human nature for most people to think rape is bad but if so many people think illegal file sharing is not that bad, then maybe it's not that bad? Surely if it was so immoral then ALL those people wouldn't be so indifferent to it?
I'm talking about THIS situation. Not about politics or the past or the tyranny of the majority.
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
The major difference between those situations is that copyright infringement is seen as a victimless crime.
Or if there is a victim, it's the greed of mega-corporations.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Hmmm... 200 years ago, the majority of rich, white landowners in America thought slavery was fine.
It was also close to a 'victimless crime', since slaves aren't real people - they only have the value of 3/5 of a full person (according to the American Constitution).
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Is that the only part you read?
I specifically asked you not to give me other examples and to focus on this particular situation :/
Honestly Cube :roll:
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
I do what I want!
You're not the boss of me!
!!
Don't just do something! Stand there.
If you cbb to read my comment, don't bother replying to it :/
xD
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8779130
It's not that simple really - if the government and businesses want to move more stuff online, they can't simply cut people off.
and if they did, they may even go against human rights legislation depending on how many essential services there are that are primarily accessed through the net.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Copyright law change means iPod users are no longer criminals
They may not have known it, but users of MP3 players, CDs or DVDs have probably been breaking the law for years as they transferred their favourite song from one format to another.
Today the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, will back plans that will legalise the practice, and also give the makers of spoof videos free rein.
Under the proposals, based on recommendations made in the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property, the sharing of legitimately purchased media across platforms, and with immediate family members, will be allowed by law.
Under the UK's current copyright laws, transferring media from one format to another – for example, from a CD to a computer or an iPod – is illegal, even if the owner is the only person who ever uses the media. And, last year "Newport State of Mind", a popular video parodying Alicia Keys and Jay-Z's song "Empire State of Mind" was removed from YouTube after the songwriters complained that it infringed their copyright. Strict laws also govern how resources like academic journals can be used.
In his response to Professor Ian Hargreaves' review, commissioned by David Cameron to look at how copyright law should be modernised to fit in with digital advancements, Mr Cable will say that he wants to introduce "exceptions" to the UK's copyright laws. In his report, Professor Hargreaves said that sharing of legitimately purchased media across platforms and with immediate family members should be allowed by law. Professor Hargreaves also said that parodies should be excepted from copyright law.
The move is likely to be welcomed by performers, who would be allowed to spoof work without seeking permission from the copyright holder, proposals the Business Secretary will accept when he delivers his response at a conference this morning.
A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesman said that thousands of people copy music privately every day, "assuming it is already legal to do so". He added: "This move will bring copyright law into line with the real world, and with consumers' reasonable expectations."
Mr Cable said: "Allowing people to create parody or satire without fear of copyright infringement has the potential to boost the creative industries and expand their freedom of expression.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/copyright-...
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Should Copyright laws be strengthened NO Thanks
I wonder what the copyright laws say about Bluetooth file sharing via mobile phones and other such deceives that have that, lets say my friend has a music track on his phone that I like and I tell him to Bluetooth it over to me I have not paid for the track he has so could I be done for copyright theft?
With copyright laws it depends from case to case its only us in the UK EU US CA that care about these things people in China, Pakistan, India, and don't seem to give a monkeys about it everything is available before its release
My English is not very good