Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
I wouldn't go so far as to say for "free". The producer, publicist, record label, promoter, song writers ... (think Ari from Entourage)...need to get paid. The artist has to share the earnings (or agree to only $X amount in a contract which ensures everyone affiliated with the song gets paid). Plus, by getting the song on the radio, you do indeed run the risk of the public taping it off the air (but usually the song is cut off, faded out, talked over at the end), but the benefits and the hope people will pay for an entire album is a far better chance. And Not 100% sure, but I think the difference with TV shows is that it's a "public/broadcasted viewing" (broadcasted tv shows - the networks pay for it, there are advertisements to offset costs, you pay a cable bill) verse "private viewing" (DVDs you rent from the library and seen in the privacy of your own home) matter. |
I am not justifying it, but it is different from stealing from a store. By doing the latter you are depriving someone else of the use of a good. Making a tape or copying a DVD does not prevent someone else from enjoying a good. |
|
You ask if it is "ok" to copy the DVD. By "ok" do you mean illegal or immoral? The two are not the same. Some things are illegal but not (in my opinion) immoral. For example, I don't think that sex between consenting adults of the same gender should be illegal but in some states it still is. Some things are immoral but not illegal -- like cheating on your girlfriend.
Where I come out is that we all should generally follow the laws because we are bound by a social contract and a law-abiding society is a more orderly, safer place. Who wants to live in a country where people wholesale don't respect the law? So even if I think there is no point to sitting at a red light at 3am with no car in sight, I do it. Because someone else might think it is ok to run that red light if, in that drivers "judgment," he/she can make it before I in my car reach that same intersection. I don't want that, so I draw a bright line on that. However, I think we should not follow laws, such as say the Jim Crow laws, that deeply go against what we know to be fair and just. Acts of civil disobedience are ok, but it should be done not to benefit oneself, but for the benefit and betterment of society at large. In other words, if you are doing it because you want to buck the system and you know you can get away with it, it is not ok, regardless of whether it is a victimless crime or not. Just my opinion. But if you have to ask, it is probably better not to. |
You are not only paying for the paper, binding etc but a copy of the story. The story in the book is value added to that good. Obviously you would pay less for the same book which did not have a story than one that did. So when you copy a DVD, you are stealing the content. Make sense? |
You are not depriving someone else of the story by copying it. Make sense? |
| I love this message board. |
| The story is intellectual not physical property. Theft of intellectual property is not based on depriving someone else of the physical property because it only physically exists in whatever form it is recorded like on paper in a book or digitally in a computer. |
| If you copy some DVDs or videos, and then later get nominated by the president to a cabinet position, will the fact that you made the copies thwart your nominaton? |
|
I remember a story a few years ago about president Bush having Beatles songs on an MP3 player. This was technically illegal, since you aren't supposed to copy your CDs to MP3 format, and the Beatles weren't/aren't available in MP3.
http://torrentfreak.com/george-bush-vs-the-riaa/ BTW no idea of the validity of this story, but I think it answers the cabinet nomination question! |
| In answer to the original question, not yes, but hell yes. |
Our kids always us for daddy to make copies of every DVD & VHS video that we rent.
|
Forgot the word remind. It should read: Our kids always remind us for daddy to make copies of every DVD & VHS video that we rent.
|
|
"Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html |
My God! $80,000 per song? Why didn't she seriously just buy them from Itunes for 99 cents each. Sheesh. |
| What's next? Everyone is going to start claiming that they all drive at the speed limit? |