What is the difference?
By cfrdjlilbrat
@cfrdjlilbrat (248)
United States
February 11, 2007 5:45am CST
What is the difference between downloading music from the internet and burning yourself a copy of a friend's cd? You did not pay for either, yet one is an "accepted" way of getting music where the other is not. Why is this? Just because your friend can come to your house instead of connecting to you online? Does it being a personal form of getting free music make a difference?
3 people like this
7 responses
@kpfingaz (1027)
• Saint Vincent And The Grenadines
11 Feb 07
Yes it makes a big difference. The friend bought the cd and shared it with you. If you burned it it is not a crime or they should put a ban on cd burners and laptops with burning capabilities. When you download I don't see anything wrong if it is readily available and you did not go out of your way to get it but you did not pay for it either.
@cfrdjlilbrat (248)
• United States
13 Feb 07
i'm actually surprised they haven't thought of a ban on the burners.. or at least some way to fix the cds so that they can only be copied one time. Kinda like the way some dvds are now.. you cannot copy them at all.
@LightninStrike (5915)
• Saint Vincent And The Grenadines
13 Feb 07
actually you can brat, you just have to find the proper software and hardware to do it....the problem is that once the rule is created, the shortcut to avoid it is created right away...so this is like a story that never ends.
perhaps they should think about charging burners with a tax when you buy them...dedicated to the royalties of the authors, so that you could burn freely....CD's in spain are already charged with a tax like that.
@LightninStrike (5915)
• Saint Vincent And The Grenadines
11 Feb 07
I don't think there is a real difference. I don't think that a personal form of getting the music changes nothing at all...after all you're making an "illegal" copy because you're not buying the original CD so, what's the difference?
1 person likes this
@cfrdjlilbrat (248)
• United States
13 Feb 07
From a legal standpoint there isn't one. i was wondering what other's thought about from a personal and moral standpoint though.
@jumpinjack00 (3054)
• United States
11 Feb 07
You're right they're both illegal. The only thing
that separates the two different ways is you can't
get caught with your friend. You can get caught on
line if they wanted to. Your computer has a unique
ISP address that is traceable. The industry would
never come after you though. They're after the big
time traffickers.
1 person likes this
@mridula123 (734)
• India
11 Feb 07
well..both are illegal..not much difference between the both..who can resist gettin a copy from a friend??its unavoidable!..and very muchrisk-free..i guess thats all da difference it has when compared with downloads..
1 person likes this
@alantae (243)
• United States
11 Feb 07
They're both illegal by definition but the difference between the two is that the music on the internet is being mass distributed, which is why it is looked down upon more than simply burning a copy for a friend. I actually don't even know of people who still burn copies for their friends. Most just rip the cd's onto their hardrives and then there's no proof that it ever happened illegaly.
@tigerdragon (4297)
• Philippines
13 Feb 07
there is a difference looking at it in the business point of view.correct both are illegal because it is an infringement of a copyright.well, they are not shutting down limewire maybe because it is a file sharing site which is different from a site downloading it directly from their main library.but in actuality, you are correct it is no different if we download it from our friend's cd.maybe another reason is its audience spread where a friend is just one wnd the net caters to everyone.remeber the times when we dub music from the radio or from the vynil record to our cassette tape? it was not illegal unless you sell it and make money out of it.
people make ways to infringe us just to make money out of something that use to be o.k.
