Re: Watching Youtube vs. Downloading

jimmy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:00:03 GMT, Rufus <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

jimmy wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:48:04 GMT, Rufus <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

jimmy wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Charmed Snark
<snark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

jimmy expounded in news:t053p4tbp0t8o0ari7e373skl339h1eo3u@xxxxxxx:

Not simply poking the hornets' nest here but instead, a real question,
I hope.

From an ethics point of view, what's the diff between me listening to
a tune on youtube vs. downloading the tune? Wouldn't the artist like
to see us pay for youtube viewing of their tune? If so, why isn't it
just askin',
The answer, I believe, is that the legitamacy of youtube is still not a settled issue. There is some TV content that is now permitted (I forget who made the agreement with youtube), but there is other stuff that is plainly in voilation.

How long youtube will continue in its present form is an open question. It's not over yet..

Part of the reason I ask is that my good buddy and lead guitarist
won't allow his kids, or himself, to download music because he thinks
it's wrong, and we're in Canada where downloading audio files for
personal use is legal...for now. He will however, let them watch
youtube, etc. In fact, we've learned most of our songs from youtube.

Something in there doesn't mesh. I'd say youtoobz days as we know
them, are severely numbered.

hmmm, all these ethical considerations make me want to put on a
smoking jacket, grab a cohiba & cognac, and head for the music

...does he own a VCR? Or an audio tape deck? Or a TiVO?
Maybe a vcr & a tape deck. Why do you ask?

...because if he uses any of those and has no problem using them to record off-air, and then turns around and takes a differing stance when it comes to music or video on the net like from YouTube, I'd consider him a hypocrite.

That's a tad harsh since probably everyone, at one time or another,
could be called hypocritical. What I'm looking to discuss is how this
whole issue is evolving. If you think something is unethical but
there is no law against it YET, is it OK to go ahead & do it? For
example, here in canada we pay a pittence (sp?), supposedly towards
the music industry, when we buy recording media which allows us to
download audio files for personal use. Does that make it right? If
you don't think so and do it anyway, is that unethical? Does the law
of the land over-ride your personal beliefs?

again, just askin',

Yeah - that's about what I'm getting at. I pretty much hold downloading anything off the net to be in the same category as taping something off on-air radio or TV. It's a public place. People have been home taping for decades, and are comfortable with it even if the corporate wonks lament it...the home taping argument has been through the courts (at least in the USA) and home taping and the equipment to do it is/are common place.

Now just because it's on the net, everybody's up in arms over what amounts to the same old (tested) arguments for/against home taping. I don't mind being taxed (lightly) for tape if that supports the industry, and I wouldn't mind it for CDs either. I don't see that as "unfair" to a point, but then what do you do for people with home studios recording their own works?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your personal beliefs don't need to change just because the media a product is delivered on, or the method of it's delivery, changes. People should go about their lives just as they did prior.

- Rufus