Quote:
Originally posted by lumberjim
and dar512, if that is your real name, ...
|
No, it's not my real name. 'undertoad', 'wolf', 'jinx', and 'lumberjim' - those are
real names. dar512 is the handle I use in a number of places on the internet. 'dar' comes from my initials. 512 is one of those magic numbers in programming since it's a power of 2.
Feel free to call me dar if you like.
Quote:
Originally posted by lumberjim
...since you have taken the position of morality cop on this particular thread...
|
No cop involved. I'm just expressing my opinion. Ethics and morality are topics that come up on the cellar on a regular basis. The ethics and morality of intellectual property are difficult to begin with. Plus, it is easier to assuage one's conscience when stealing something that is invisible and untouchable. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
Quote:
Originally posted by lumberjim
what is your morality radar telling you about the borrowing of said cds? Is it wrong for you to lend your neighbor the hedge clipper, when the manufacturer could have sold him one? are you cheating them? I think that as long as you are not turning a profit from the use of a product you have purchased that competes with the sales of the same product, you've done no real wrong.
|
Intellectual property (IP) is different from physical property. If you loan your friend a clipper, you can't use it while he has it, can you? With IP like a CD, you are not really loaning the CD, you are loaning the rights to the performance. If you loan a CD to a friend, you don't have the right to the performance while he has it.
So to answer your question - if you loan a cd, song, whatever to someone and you don't listen to the cd, song, whatever while it's gone, I think that is ethically moral. The RIAA might still hassle you about it, but I wouldn't.
If you make a copy of the cd before loaning it, and you both listen to it during that same period, then that's wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by lumberjim
this is enough time for us to sample the music contained therein, and if we like it we can take our lovely money down to the record store and pay the 19.99 for a cd we really only know that we like one song from,so that the authors of said cd can earn their $.37 which is their legal and "rightful share" after all of the fucking money grubbing machinery of the record industry has picked over the carcass of the band's work. hmmmpfh!
|
There's no doubt in my mind that major labels have a veritable monopoly. That doesn't give us the excuse to also be immoral.
I think you can work this ethically, if people are willing to put away the cds that the music originally came from while their favorites collection is out on loan.