[Groop] (File Sharing)
Groopunk at aol.com
Groopunk at aol.com
Thu Jan 29 13:47:06 PST 2004
In a message dated 1/29/2004 4:25:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
grooless at yahoo.com writes:
> Go into a music store - you can ask the attendant to put a CD on to listen
> to before buying.
> ? - Is this illegal and is the store violating copyright
> ? - Only difference between that and Seth's "sampling" from the internet is
> when you leave the store you don't take the CD with you.
> - Seth's hard drive will still contain the song until he deletes it.
> Now if bands/artists/labels had sample websites where you could stream and
> hear songs without downloading them . . . . . ?
(1)You're suggesting the music store has every cd ready and available for
customer requests? (just a question)
(2)According to other posts here, yes, it is because that store is allowing
everyone in the store to hear a song and they aren't licensed to be a
(3)No you don't take it with you, but the store has now broadcast a song to
the store's customers - which would fall under that DVD copyright agreement
discussed in an earlier email
(4) true my harddrive will still contain the song after I delete it, but I'm
no longer accessing it or allowing it to be accessed my the www.
(5) Yes, it IS a great thing when artists stream some of their songs. It's
very helpful and that too has assisted me in purchasing new work.
Unfortunately filesharing took off before many bands were doing this.
(6) Lastly, I don't want it to come across as though I'm some massive
copyright infringer. I'm really not. And it's kinda scaring me that my name is
being attached and used such as "Seth's 'sampling' from the internet" and "Seth's
hard drive will still contain the song until he deletes it." I'm simply
trying to hold up another end of this issue. I think filesharing is ok when used
properly/sparingly. I DO NOT support blatently ripping off artists and their
ideas -at all. Not every downloader is doing it with malicious intent, that's
all I'm trying to say. And the arguments against filesharing are kind of
scattershot. I understand many of them, but at the same time, I don't think they
hold up on a broad-based scale. For example the argument that filesharing has
killed the music industry. Yes, I'm positive there's been some effect, but
no one seems to ask, "Well, what about the conglomeration of companies?" "What
about the unreasonably high prices of CDs?" "What about the albums that
contain 85% filler and 2 singles?"
If it's the erradication of wrong-doing we're after then we should fight just
as vigorously those that have illegal cable, those that make mix tapes, those
that TiVo shows and edit commercials, those that have let a piece of paper
fall to the ground without picking it up.
All of that stuff hurts somebody somehow, but everyone has done a bit of it.
It's the rampant abuse that seriously damages everything.
But really, please, I don't want to be the bad guy. I'm not sitting at my
computer all day long sucking art off the internet and then distributing it at
I have a LARGE music collection and aside from the stuff that was given to me
I've purchased it. I like tangeable art. I buy music, I buy comics, I buy
books, and I buy fine art.
sweating nervously as the Groop hunts me down,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Groop