View Single Post
Old 11-28-2009, 02:56 PM   #114
ardeegee
Maratus speciosus butt
ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ardeegee ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
ardeegee's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,292
Karma: 1162698
Join Date: Sep 2009
Device: PRS-350
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
No, because the person was freely providing the music -- he is explicitly "giving the entertainment away. Somewhat equivalent to free software that you can download for nothing and if you choose to support with donations or pay what you want. Still the two are not exactly equivalent because in one case it it the "entertainment" that is being provided, not the rights to the song or to use it yourself.

We're really getting pretty far off the topic I think though so let's stick with that if possible.
No, the person is playing in the hopes of getting paid by the listeners. If you listen and don't pay, then, by your definition, you are a thief. Having a digital copy of a song, or book, or movie that you didn't pay for is the same thing. In both cases, the "content creator" is out only a "potential sale," which is a lawery way of saying "nothing." It is exactly the same topic.
ardeegee is offline   Reply With Quote