Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink (Read 56223 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #25
No amount of rationalization gets around the fact that stealing is stealing.

No amount of rationalization gets around the fact that copyright infringement is not stealing.

When somebody takes a CD from a record store without paying for it, they rob the store of the actual cost of the piece of plastic. The object itself has an actual monetary value, the store has already paid for it, they won't see that cash again, and they can't ever sell the object to anybody. That's stealing.

When somebody makes a digital copy illegally, no money has been lost by anybody. Nobody paid anything for that copy. The original is still there for someone to sell and someone to purchase. Nobody's been robbed of anything, except for a potential (and I can't stress that word enough) sale. The equation results in $0 instead of a potentially positive number, while stealing a CD always results in a negative number.

Please stop equating copyright infringement to stealing - it's just not the same. Period.

 

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #26
Would it ever become profitable to publish recordings of new classical music, for instance? Would as many experimental acts be published if the risk involved in producing them would not be offset by large amounts of guaranteed income?


My music collection is very diverse but about half of it is classical, and I personally know more classical musicians, including fulltime professionals, than any other genre, so I can speak to that.    Classical will do OK.

First of all, there is not anything like the widespread music theft in classical as there is in rock and pop genres.  Unlike rock and pop listeners, classical listeners do not start with a sense of entitlement  to the music, so they are used to the idea that they have an obligation to support their music financially.  Even the most popular and best-known orchestras and chamber ensembles routinely run donation and subscription campaigns and other fund-raisers.  My wife and I are financial contributors to several orchestras and chamber ensembles - unlike rock bands, classical ensembles develop close relationships with their listening audience and are often set up as 501( c ) 3 's  (US tax code for non-profits so donations can be made on a tax-exempt basis).    So there's a whole different culture in the classical community - we know that the music exists only because we support it -  IP thieves feel no obligation to support the music they enjoy - they expect to get it for free.

In addition to that, classical musicians are less expensive.  Many of them have other jobs such as conservatory teaching or coaching, and in general they don't aspire to the expensive and glamorous lifestyles of big name rock-stars.    The care and feeding of even the most prominent world-touring and world-class chamber quartet is a fraction of a major world-class 4 piece rock band.



Please stop equating copyright infringement to stealing - it's just not the same. Period.


All the armchair philosophizing in your posts and those of Artemis3, etc, are just your personal opinions.  But you can't cite any case law or other legal opinion by anyone with any professional expertise in copyright or intellectual property to support you.    The bottom line is that virtually everyone who has devoted their professional lives to studying this disagrees with you.  And case law is completely against you, not just in the US but in the UK and EU, too.

Offer us something other than a plain assertion.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #27
Quote
All the armchair philosophizing in your posts and those of Artemis3, etc, are just your personal opinions. But you can't cite any case law or other legal opinion by anyone with any professional expertise in copyright or intellectual property to support you. The bottom line is that virtually everyone who has devoted their professional lives to studying this disagrees with you. And case law is completely against you, not just in the US but in the UK and EU, too.


ad verecundiae own, really.
sadly, outside the church they are less than convincing when posited without any supporting statements, and they come across as generally obnoxious, since you're tying to exclude people by claiming that 'expertise' is necessary to take part in this debate, which isn't the case, for the below reason.

The whole point of this thread is (imho) to point out that current IP laws might be outdated given how music is viewed these days, [as i pointed out in my last post, which you sadly seem to have missed] and what might need to be changed in order to make them more relevant to today's society.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #28
All the armchair philosophizing in your posts and those of Artemis3, etc, are just your personal opinions.

Excuse me, there's no "philosophizing" going on in my post at all. I could have argued that copyright infringement is not that bad when it is commited by poor people - that would have been "philosophizing". But I didn't. I stated simple, unquestionable facts (not opinions). Stealing is actually taking something away from someone. Copyright infringement is unauthorized replication - the owner keeps his goods. I didn't bother arguing the morality of either crime.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #29
All the armchair philosophizing in your posts and those of Artemis3, etc, are just your personal opinions.

Excuse me, there's no "philosophizing" going on in my post at all. I could have argued that copyright infringement is not that bad when it is commited by poor people - that would have been "philosophizing". But I didn't. I stated simple, unquestionable facts (not opinions). Stealing is actually taking something away from someone.

One of the definitions cited was "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully".  The music is clearly appropriated without right or leave so even the meaningless semantic point you are trying to make fails.


And the bottom line is that you and others here are trying to use semantic devices to justify taking things which you have no legal or moral right to. 

Nor did I ever say the IP laws should not be reconsidered, but the US, the UK and the EU are all democracies so if you don't like the law then convince your fellow voters to change them.  Until then sharing of copyrighted music is illegal.

WRT canar's comments:
Quote
1) Software. Nowadays, it is quite common to see people releasing software and its source code at no cost.
2) Music. Nowadays, it is quite common to see people releasing music at no cost.
3) Writing. Likewise, via blogs and the Internet. Wikipedia is a proof-of-concept that a professional quality resource can be created without compensation for its writers.
4) Web development, which is designed around cost-free content.
5) Photography. There is no shortage of free stock photo sites.
6) Games.

These are all choices that the creator made freely.  I've also written open-source software, and I've also released some of my visual art over the web (including a recent anti-Iraq-war poster).  But that choice is (and should remain) up to the artist.

Despite all the free stuff, most commercial stuff is doing just fine, thank you, so customers must think there's something worth paying for.  Maybe the stock photos are better, or maybe they offer other advantages.  I've used GIMP and Photoshop CS and I don't think there's any comparison for doing professional work.  Likewise I've used Open Office and Microsoft Office, and I got tired of reporting bugs on O-O.  Also the Wall Street Journal reported recently that Linux's share of the desktop market may have actually shrunk in the last could of years - they attribute this to OSX, not Windoze.

And even in music, the only real problem WRT file sharing has been in popular, mass-market formats such as rock, hip-hop, etc.  The fans of classical, folk, jazz, etc, have a more mature attitude toward their music and don't feel like they're entitled to get their musical enjoyment for free.

So my point is that free products are fine if you like them and if the creator agrees to it.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #30
And the bottom line is that you and others here are trying to use semantic devices to justify taking things which you have no legal or moral right to.

Care to back this up?

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #31
All the armchair philosophizing in your posts and those of Artemis3, etc, are just your personal opinions.  But you can't cite any case law or other legal opinion by anyone with any professional expertise in copyright or intellectual property to support you.    The bottom line is that virtually everyone who has devoted their professional lives to studying this disagrees with you.  And case law is completely against you, not just in the US but in the UK and EU, too.


Right and Wrong
The copy-right infringement.

Quote
Someone going into a bookstore and taking a book without paying for it is committing theft. Copyright infringement is not involved in the action of stealing the book. If a work is scanned and made available online without permission, it is copyright infringement, but not considered theft. The differences are significant, but seem to be confused by many. The chair of a major publisher should not confuse the two.


Quote
After all, the music industry isn't making it easy for someone who buys a CD to use it how the customer pleases. For those with a conscience, it's merely copyright infringement, not stealing. And the offense doesn't even rank as a petty crime, no matter how hard the RIAA beats its drums.


Quote
Copyright infringement is a legal offense, subject to monetary damages and injunctions imposed by a court of law. It occurs when a person, knowingly or unknowingly, violates the exclusive right of the copyright holder to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, or make a derivative version of a certain work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. The holder of the legal copyright isn’t necessarily the author of the work and, moreover, the infringer cannot save him/herself from a lawsuit by correctly attributing the work.


Note that they are in whole separate sections:
TITLE 17—COPYRIGHTS
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Also note TITLE 18 chapter 31 is not TITLE 17 chapter 5.
In short, from a legal stand point: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is not THEFT.

Laws, are made by people. Laws can be changed. Laws are not always right. Go back to the time when slavery was legal, and releasing them was not. As i said current US laws mostly benefit the corporations, because its them who pay US politicians to do so. In most countries that would be corruption, a crime. In USA, its institutionalized with the figure of the lobby system. Founders of that country, thought that it should be the rich and wealthy the ones influencing political decisions, since they are supposedly the educated, unlike the rest whom they considered "ignorant masses". This school of thought still prevails to this day, whenever they mention it or not. It is not the populist dream of Abraham Lincoln (of the people, by the people, for the people). The word Democracy means the people has the power, it is not certainly the case here. Only a few really have this power, and these few are controlled by a few rich. It is much closer to Aristocracy if something. Just because you have limited freedom of speech (no pics of US dead soldiers coming back, for example) and some meaningless rights to vote (bi partisan almost the same choices) does not make it a democracy. In fact the concept of democracy is heavily distorted there, and the media enforces this distortion. Otherwise ideas threating capitalism itself might surface, people might start caring; and you know what happens when masses think they can make choices and rule a country; according to that school of thought...

So these corporations who puppet the stronger country makes it bully others to establish laws the way they want it. Some oppose, but they never stop. Trading agreements, WTO, threats, direct intervention, etc. Yet, laws are not the same everywhere. In Spain, copying for non profit uses is allowed by law. Many are proposing just that elsewhere, or at least to restore the original Copyright spirit; put limits to it and restore the balance and rights for the people.
She is waiting in the air

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #32
. . .
Quote
Copyright infringement is a legal offense, subject to monetary damages and injunctions imposed by a court of law. It occurs when a person, knowingly or unknowingly, violates the exclusive right of the copyright holder to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, or make a derivative version of a certain work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. The holder of the legal copyright isn’t necessarily the author of the work and, moreover, the infringer cannot save him/herself from a lawsuit by correctly attributing the work.


Note that they are in whole separate sections:
TITLE 17—COPYRIGHTS
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Also note TITLE 18 chapter 31 is not TITLE 17 chapter 5.
In short, from a legal stand point: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is not THEFT.

If you look into Title 17, Section 506 provides that certain kinds of willful infringement constitute criminal violations.  There is then a reference to Title 18 for the specification of how the offense is punished.

Whether this means criminal infringement is a form of "theft" seems to me to be a semantic argument.  Copyright laws are federal and there is no federal law of "theft."  Theft is usually the common English word used to describe a criminal offense against property, where the offender appropriates the property in some way.  Under that simple definition, criminal infringement could be considered theft.

As to whether infringement carries the same moral implications as other forms of theft (and whether it should be criminalized at all) - that is a separate question.  But that confuses prescription (what ought to be) with description (how it is).

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #33
Just my 2 pence: Labels will be smaller, but they will not die. They have 2 important functions:

a) They are guardians of a huge back-catalogue music where I can purchase without the hassle of trying to find them from p2p muppets.

b) They provide reliable quality. As for quality I know about loudness race and all that. In fact that change my musical taste. (Now I only listen to jazz, blues, folk and classical and I enjoy them much more.) Still they offer reliable and good quality compared to p2p (or allofmp3 etc)

Triza

PS The cited article was indeed a rant rather than a balanced cool analysis of the situation.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #34
Who pays $15 - $18 per CD? 

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #35
CDs in Germany usually cost 15-18 EUR (20-25 USD).  :-(

SG


When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #37
Here, a newly released CD by a local artist, or anything from overseas that isn't entirely mainstream pop rubbish will cost you around NZD $28 which is more than $20 US. That's a lot of money for someone (eg. a student) who plans on buying more than a few CDs a year.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #38
i just read on blabbermouth that trent reznor had an oink account.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #39
Just my 2 pence: Labels will be smaller, but they will not die. They have 2 important functions:

I've been in situations where i had to think about the overall model from a literature and music perspective of a creator, and as most of you from a user. There are quite a few parallels between the two. To be honest, i do not think, that the middleman will anymore be like THIS, or like THAT - a modern middleman which is efficient for both, creators and consumers, will instead offer modularized services (no transfer of rights and bullshit!) which can be tailored to the needs of the creators. Thus, i dont think that the future of the middleman will have one or two specific forms, but instead a varied and dynamic form. It is also possible that there wont be a single catch-it-all middleman per project, but instead multiple specialized middleman - i can for example imagine marketing and promotion models which would work totally different than anything people have seen so far.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #40
And the bottom line is that you and others here are trying to use semantic devices to justify taking things which you have no legal or moral right to.

Did you not read what I wrote at all? And what do you not understand about the difference between taking something away from someone, and unauthorized replication?

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #41
The numbers argument is funny. Of course one cannot own a particular number as it is not unique (comparatively). When the number reaches several hundred or thousand digits it becomes unique and, therefore, copyright able (property).

An obvious analogy would be letters (as in alphabet) vs literature (a novel is, after all, just a collection of letters).

All of this is merely the growing pains of the digital age. New problems require new definitions.

The thinly veiled "CD's cost too much money therefore my pirating is justified" argument is silly. Capitalism. Supply and Demand, baby.
Believing something is overpriced does not justify theft. You have a choice: buy it or don't. If enough people do not the supplier will be forced to lower prices or go out of business. Simple economics.

Having said all of that.....

I shamelessly download Gig's of music.
I just happen to be an honest non-delusional thief that does not spew forth lame rationalizations to justify it to myself / others.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #42
Not one single person in this entire thread is justifying piracy.

If you or plnelson think you can prove me wrong, feel free to try.

...but to address your point about supply and demand, when the price of something is too high, less people will be willing to buy it.  Record companies should start here instead of pretending that every illegal copy accounts for a lost sale.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #43
An easy solution to this dilemma could be devised tomorrow -- or yesterday, or three years ago, for that matter. Simply require a reasonable flat fee and then allow those who wish to upload/download to their hearts' content. Tracker logs will readily display the numbers of each and every file, thus allowing for a fair and equitable distribution of the money.

Had such a system existed over the past few years, had Torrent sites been allowed to be set up as registered legal entities functioning in the manner of stores (required to report their 'sales' and income), the distributed profits generated from, say, Oink, would have amounted to a significant financial benefit to all concerned.

So why hasn't this been done? It's an inescapable conclusion that the RIAA, BPI, etc. care less about alleged "lost potential sales" than they do over the potential loss of their monopoly distribution status.

Contrary to the absolutist copyright (read: corporatist) screes from the likes of plnelson, I can speak more directly and authoritatively on this particular manner. He wants 'expertise'? Then I will provide it for him. I had at least three of my own releases available at Oink; I did not upload them. One of them, my first record is currently considered to be the 'intellectual property' of a formerly independent label, now owned by a major. Said label never paid, has consistently asserted that they own all rights to this recording, regualrly fails to provide proper (read: any) accounting, refuses to turn over the master tape to which they have no legal document that proves their 'ownership', etc, etc. On top of that, said record has been deleted ever since the major label acquired the company. They have no plans to re-release it, yet they firmly assert their dodgy 'right' to this material. To add insult to injury, they will not even license the record -- a record they have no interest in releasing -- to me, the original artist. But their multi-national attorneys have been kind enough to send me a letter warning me not to attempt to 'distribute by phonographic, electronic or any other means' my own record. This letter is what I received simply because I demanded a full legal accounting of their vague claims to legal ownership.

Had I signed a bad deal, giving my copyrights away, that would be another matter. I did not do that. According to four different copyright attorneys I have consulted, the master tape and the rights to this material are mine. However, the only way for me to assert those rights is to challenge a team of multi-national attorneys and prevail in a court of law. As the major label and their legal team are well aware (and as you've no doubt already surmised), I am not in possession of the astronomical amount of money required to mount such a challenge. Meanwhile, I could conceivably be sued for uploading MY OWN RECORD, had I done that. Fortunately, some unknown person did upload it, and I am grateful, because that was the only way you can get the record, bar finding a used copy somewhere -- and I wouldn't make anything from the sale of a used copy either.

I am not seeking sympathy for what may appear to amount to a sob story. Not at all. On the other hand, if a copyright purist such as plnelson wishes to contribute to my legal defense, I'd be happy to accept. The rub, of course, is that his rhetoric is identical to that of the BPI and RIAA. He invokes the 'artist's rights and protection' as the sentimental clencher to his inflexible law-and-order binary arguments, when he should be (and perhaps even is) well aware that the strongarm tactics borne from the 'copyright' assertion rarely if ever serve the interests of 'the artist'.

Quote
And then there's the moral reciprocity issue - if you steal some music you are enjoying the efforts of the musician, not to mention the sound engineer, producer, etc, not to mention all the time and effort they all put into to developing their professional skills, without compensating them for the enjoyment they have given you. Is it right to enjoy the fruits of someone's labors without compensating them? The musician gave you something - what have you given him for his efforts?


Please get off your moral high horse. For whom are you speaking? You speak as if you are a Thatcherite clasroom swot and not an artist. If financial motivation is your utmost concern, being an artist of any sort is not for you. First and foremost, the artist desires that his/her work will be appreciated. Financial compensation is welcome, but hardly a motivating factor. This is not a job, and one does not clock in and out. More to the point, I tell you something: if the major label currently in possession of my first record rereleased it tomorrow, neither I nor the other musicians nor the producer nor the sound engineers would receive a damn thing. But the major label would. Sod them. I'd rather you did not hand over your money to them.

Speaking as someone who HAS seen his own music available at Oink, I can say with certainty that I would MUCH rather see you enjoying 'the fruits of my labours' for free, rather than paying an incompetent and immoral corporation for the 'privilege' of doing so. As for my other records -- which, yes, I unambiguously own outright -- I would much rather someone hears them than not. Judging from my experience and that of other musicians I know, the worst thing was not seeing your record on Oink. Rather, it was seeing it there and noticing that no one downloaded it. Fortunately for me, several people did download my work, and -- one hopes -- it was enjoyed. Now, what do you, plnelson, propose happen to those people at Oink who enjoyed my work? Sue them? Incarcerate them? Please do tell.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #44
well said, pepzhez.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #45
And yet, Pepzhez is not the only one...

So plnelson, Do you get the message? It doesn't matter, others do. Your antiquated position will fade away leading to different model. The current generations will demand no less. Call it a "paradigm shift" or some other buzzword if you will and try to make benefit from it or go the way of the dinosaurs. But be assured that things won't remain the way they are, and threating your customers and fans like criminals will not win their hearts to you...

So be it.
She is waiting in the air

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #46
An easy solution to this dilemma could be devised tomorrow -- or yesterday, or three years ago, for that matter. Simply require a reasonable flat fee and then allow those who wish to upload/download to their hearts' content. Tracker logs will readily display the numbers of each and every file, thus allowing for a fair and equitable distribution of the money.

You wouldn't like the outcome of such a system. Such systems do already exist in some countries for "public performances" and similiar stuff - they are just as mucha mafia as the record industry - small artists get screwed in terms of rights and they at best get a few pennies from all the cash which was collected "in their name". Such systems would again just benefit stars and the middleman - and thats why i would reject such a system. Give me an easy, standardized, honest and legal way to pay the artist directly with near 100% profit margin instead - just about 2-3$ per album would benefit the artist multiple times more, than if i buy a CD for 18$. I dont want even more greedy middleman-parasites which perform capital-destruction.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #47
usually artists dont earn much from cd sales unless they sell alot of cds...most of their income come from concerts and merchandise

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #48
Personally I like this idea of an ideal state-of-the-art music distribution:

Record companies (or contractors) have something that is similar or identical to private trackers just like OiNK. But you'll have to pay a minimal fee to get access to them, in exchange you get access to the entire catalog of the label in CD quality.

The system should make use of P2P technology, no it must make use of it. For instance just like in private trackers, uploaders are rewarded and leechers are punished.

With a top ratio, you get some benefits like, free merchandise and promo material, "dinner with the stars" or free concert tickets.

With a constant good ratio you get, your access fee paid back.

With an ok ratio, you get the normal stuff, access to the whole catalog, etc...

I don't know if it's wise to punish leechers as they still might simply go to "illegal" trackers instead. But it's not impossible to find a solition for all the fine tuning on a large scale network...

Anyway the point is, that certain P2P communities like OiNK are the thing. That's the technical standard of music distribution today. I'm strongely convinced it is. It's getting more popular each month. And the labels are just silly to not start their own trackers.

Would I join a tracker of a distributor for Sub Pop, Kill Rock Stars, Recommended Records, etc. music? Sure I would! In fact I'm sure that something exactly like this might pop up anytime.

Artists and people who whine about the loss of the "package" (i.e. that ugly plastic box with the ugly error-prone plastic disc in it) should get a life (or a PC) and grow up! When I have the choice between looking at >600dpi artwork on my 21" screen and looking at a tiny 12x12cm piece of halftone printed paper, I choose the digital image without pre-print processing, of course!

When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink

Reply #49
Artists and people who whine about the loss of the "package" (i.e. that ugly plastic box with the ugly error-prone plastic disc in it) should get a life (or a PC) and grow up! When I have the choice between looking at >600dpi artwork on my 21" screen and looking at a tiny 12x12cm piece of halftone printed paper, I choose the digital image without pre-print processing, of course!
(emphasis mine)
So... preferring the real thing, that you can browse through anywhere you want (on the couch, in your bed, in the subway), over sitting at a desk staring at a computer screen, is antisocial and immature? Is preferring books over PDFs antisocial and immature too? I wonder what gran'pa would have to say about that...