Jason wrote:

---

 

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

making music with the intent to make money only to have potential buyers copy and paste it from someone else is wrong.


This analogy would assume that all people are trying to make money with their personal image. Its a bad analogy. Move on.

---

When it comes to castration, I am only for it in cases of masturbation

 

---

 

Andy001 wrote:

---

Wow, that escalated quickly.

---

 IT DID, DIDN'T IT?

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

 you can not send sexual fantasies to friends through torrents.

 

---

Oh ****, you're right.  Nevermind then.  You're right about everything...

Jason wrote:

---

 

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

you can not send sexual fantasies to friends through torrents.

 

---

Oh ****, you're right. Nevermind then. You're right about everything...

 

---

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

like I said, its a flawed analogy

---

 

 

Is it my fault that you guys are fighting?

I wish you guys would stop.
-tear-

Jason wrote:

---

Are you actually claiming that because sexual fantasies cannot be digitalized and sent via torrent files, there is no analogy?

If so, I'd like to say that I hate you and the entire Mexican race of people.  You are an inferior lot, and I will see to it that your family is wiped clean from the Earth.

---

 

Jason wrote:

---

 

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

making music with the intent to make money only to have potential buyers copy and paste it from someone else is wrong.


This analogy would assume that all people are trying to make money with their personal image. Its a bad analogy. Move on.

---

So wait... if you aren't trying to make money from your music, you have no just claim to your possession of it?

What if I, a musical artist, were to write songs solely for my own pleasure.  I didn't want anyone else to listen to it -- my music is mine, and I intend for it to be listened to by myself alone.  If someone were to somehow acquire a recording of my songs, do they have full liberties on distributing this music, without my permission?  After all, I did not intend to profit from my musical endeavors.

 

---

You're both kind of misunderstanding the nature and purpose of copyright.

It means exactly what is says: the right to copy. More specifically, it's the owner's exclusive right to make copies of his work, or to license others to do so.

So, if you record a song, and want to be the only one to listen to it, that's fine. You can legally prevent others from copying it (though if you play it in a public setting, you obviously can't blame anyone who happens to pass by, and hears it).

Whether or not a particular work is of significant monetary value is relevant to the amount of damages the owner can recover, but it's not relevant to whether or not the core right has been violated.

However, the analogy to masturbating to a photo is totally flawed. If somebody violates your copyright in a photo, you've been wronged: your creative efforts have been expropriated without your permission.

If they violate your copyright in a photo and then masturbate to it, your sensibilities might be offended, perhaps justly so. However, no cognizable interest has been invaded separate from the initial violation of your copyright.

john31584 wrote:

---

 

Jason wrote:

---

 

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

making music with the intent to make money only to have potential buyers copy and paste it from someone else is wrong.


This analogy would assume that all people are trying to make money with their personal image. Its a bad analogy. Move on.

---

So wait... if you aren't trying to make money from your music, you have no just claim to your possession of it?

What if I, a musical artist, were to write songs solely for my own pleasure. I didn't want anyone else to listen to it -- my music is mine, and I intend for it to be listened to by myself alone. If someone were to somehow acquire a recording of my songs, do they have full liberties on distributing this music, without my permission? After all, I did not intend to profit from my musical endeavors.

 

---

You're both kind of misunderstanding the nature and purpose of copyright.

It means exactly what is says: the right to copy. More specifically, it's the owner's exclusive right to make copies of his work, or to license others to do so.

So, if you record a song, and want to be the only one to listen to it, that's fine. You can legally prevent others from copying it (though if you play it in a public setting, you obviously can't blame anyone who happens to pass by, and hears it).

Whether or not a particular work is of significant monetary value is relevant to the amount of damages the owner can recover, but it's not relevant to whether or not the core right has been violated.

However, the analogy to masturbating to a photo is totally flawed. If somebody violates your copyright in a photo, you've been wronged: your creative efforts have been expropriated without your permission.

If they violate your copyright in a photo and then masturbate to it, your sensibilities might be offended, perhaps justly so. However, no cognizable interest has been invaded separate from the initial violation of your copyright.

 

---

I wasn't saying I knew everything about copyright laws, I was just pointing out what a horrible analogy he came up with

 

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

 

john31584 wrote:

---

 

Jason wrote:

---

 

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

making music with the intent to make money only to have potential buyers copy and paste it from someone else is wrong.


This analogy would assume that all people are trying to make money with their personal image. Its a bad analogy. Move on.

---

So wait... if you aren't trying to make money from your music, you have no just claim to your possession of it?

What if I, a musical artist, were to write songs solely for my own pleasure. I didn't want anyone else to listen to it -- my music is mine, and I intend for it to be listened to by myself alone. If someone were to somehow acquire a recording of my songs, do they have full liberties on distributing this music, without my permission? After all, I did not intend to profit from my musical endeavors.

 

---

You're both kind of misunderstanding the nature and purpose of copyright.

It means exactly what is says: the right to copy. More specifically, it's the owner's exclusive right to make copies of his work, or to license others to do so.

So, if you record a song, and want to be the only one to listen to it, that's fine. You can legally prevent others from copying it (though if you play it in a public setting, you obviously can't blame anyone who happens to pass by, and hears it).

Whether or not a particular work is of significant monetary value is relevant to the amount of damages the owner can recover, but it's not relevant to whether or not the core right has been violated.

However, the analogy to masturbating to a photo is totally flawed. If somebody violates your copyright in a photo, you've been wronged: your creative efforts have been expropriated without your permission.

If they violate your copyright in a photo and then masturbate to it, your sensibilities might be offended, perhaps justly so. However, no cognizable interest has been invaded separate from the initial violation of your copyright.

 

---

I wasn't saying I knew everything about copyright laws, I was just pointing out what a horrible analogy he came up with

 

 

---

You're right. It's not a good analogy.