Although I don't trade music online, it's a riot to see the RIAA "pleading with consumers." I'm buying/listening most of my music on vinyl these days, are they pleading with me to start buying CD's instead?
The answer is NO! :listen:
Full Version: Piracy. Theft or not?
LOL...
Although I don't trade music online, it's a riot to see the RIAA "pleading with consumers." I'm buying/listening most of my music on vinyl these days, are they pleading with me to start buying CD's instead?
The answer is NO! :listen:
Although I don't trade music online, it's a riot to see the RIAA "pleading with consumers." I'm buying/listening most of my music on vinyl these days, are they pleading with me to start buying CD's instead?
The answer is NO! :listen:
QUOTE
Originally posted by fewtch
LOL...
Although I don't trade music online, it's a riot to see the RIAA \"pleading with consumers.\" I'm buying/listening most of my music on vinyl these days, are they pleading with me to start buying CD's instead?
The answer is NO! :listen:
LOL...
Although I don't trade music online, it's a riot to see the RIAA \"pleading with consumers.\" I'm buying/listening most of my music on vinyl these days, are they pleading with me to start buying CD's instead?
The answer is NO! :listen:
Somehow I knew you was going to be an analog freak...
LOL
QUOTE
Originally posted by smg
Somehow I knew you was going to be an analog freak... LOL
Somehow I knew you was going to be an analog freak...
LOL Well... the music I'm collecting is mostly unreleased on CD.
That said... I did buy a better turntable/cartridge lately, and it's sounding very good. I see no reason not to start expanding musical horizons (on vinyl), & probably get an even better turntable in a year or two. I listened to a lot of album rock on vinyl in the late 70's/early 80's and it seemed to sound much better than the CD releases.
I definitely have little interest in surround, SACD & all that... digital is really kinda boring. :sleeping:
QUOTE
Originally posted by Ardax
I'm not entire sure that I agree entirely with what you're saying here. I do believe that computers and other modern technologies have altered the legal landscape, but the old laws are not necessarily out of date. This is the same line that the dot commers said about \"old-world\" business, that the Internet would revolutionize business, and that the old business rules didn't apply. Guess what: The old rules did apply, and look at what happened.
I'm not entire sure that I agree entirely with what you're saying here. I do believe that computers and other modern technologies have altered the legal landscape, but the old laws are not necessarily out of date. This is the same line that the dot commers said about \"old-world\" business, that the Internet would revolutionize business, and that the old business rules didn't apply. Guess what: The old rules did apply, and look at what happened.
Most of those dotcomers if not all were selling physical products via the internet. Here we are talking about selling pure data. Pure content. Sans media. I sense a fairly big difference.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Ardax
The spirit of the old laws are in the right place, but they need tweaked to deal with these new wrinkles. Now crap like the DMCA and the CDPBBBT (uh, that other one
) aren't the way to fix it. With all good luck, in time things will change and a new balance will be struck -- but it's going to take time, and a lot of it (Think: Prohibition).
The spirit of the old laws are in the right place, but they need tweaked to deal with these new wrinkles. Now crap like the DMCA and the CDPBBBT (uh, that other one
) aren't the way to fix it. With all good luck, in time things will change and a new balance will be struck -- but it's going to take time, and a lot of it (Think: Prohibition).I agree 100% that the spirit of the old laws cover it. But the words do not. I have encountered several people of late using those words out of context and against the spirit in which they were written in.
"Begin Sillyness"
QUOTE
Originally posted by Doobie at the Divx.com Forums
If anyone owns content it would be society and it is society (via copyright law based on the Constitution) that chooses to give rights to the content creator. Thus, if copyright infringement is theft, it's not theft against the content creator but against ourselves (society). If I let you borrow my lawnmower (if I give you a right to use my lawnmower), you don't own my lawnmower and if someone steals that lawnmower, he's stealing my lawnmower not yours. And, because it's my lawnmower, it's my right to set the rules for its usage and those rules should be in my interest, which includes letting your borrow it (maybe because this way you'll mow my yard). The only reason a lawnmower is a bad analogy is because it's real property. A better analogy would be if I let you borrow the number 5. What, you say I can't own a number?
If anyone owns content it would be society and it is society (via copyright law based on the Constitution) that chooses to give rights to the content creator. Thus, if copyright infringement is theft, it's not theft against the content creator but against ourselves (society). If I let you borrow my lawnmower (if I give you a right to use my lawnmower), you don't own my lawnmower and if someone steals that lawnmower, he's stealing my lawnmower not yours. And, because it's my lawnmower, it's my right to set the rules for its usage and those rules should be in my interest, which includes letting your borrow it (maybe because this way you'll mow my yard). The only reason a lawnmower is a bad analogy is because it's real property. A better analogy would be if I let you borrow the number 5. What, you say I can't own a number?
"End Sillyness"
No you are not reading it wrong. He is saying that any one of us as creators of content have no rights to our content. That somehow it is society that gives us any rights to our content if any at all. By him all our creations are immediatly the property of society. And he as a member of society has rights to it. Therfore he can download anything he likes and be perfectly within his rights. He has posted other such inane drivel.
I will not deny that I have pirated before. But I also do not deny that it is wrong. I understand it has adverse effects. As such I make an effort not to do so.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Ardax
On the same token, I don't believe that the concept behind copyright and patents are unconstitutional. Their current implementations are horribly broken though. What's copyright up to now, 75 years + 75 extension, if applied for (too lazy to look up right now)? Pantenting algorithms? While not everyone may agree on the particulars, most would probably agree that things are broken. That doesn't necessarily mean we toss out the baby with the bathwater though. The idea of copyright -- to \"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts\" -- still makes damn good sense.
On the same token, I don't believe that the concept behind copyright and patents are unconstitutional. Their current implementations are horribly broken though. What's copyright up to now, 75 years + 75 extension, if applied for (too lazy to look up right now)? Pantenting algorithms? While not everyone may agree on the particulars, most would probably agree that things are broken. That doesn't necessarily mean we toss out the baby with the bathwater though. The idea of copyright -- to \"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts\" -- still makes damn good sense.
Ok I could not resist. This snippet actually comes before the other. But I think you can see why I put it here.
"Begin More Sillyness"
QUOTE
Originally posted by Doobie at the Divx.com Forums
\"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.\" is the words of the Constitution. The word \"own\" does not appear and it's clear that ownership has nothing to do with the puprose of the Constitution's statement. Anyone claiming to \"own\" content cannot correctly mean anything more than they've been *given* rights to that content. Even if they \"own\" content, a *copy* of that content does not deprive them of that content.
\"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.\" is the words of the Constitution. The word \"own\" does not appear and it's clear that ownership has nothing to do with the puprose of the Constitution's statement. Anyone claiming to \"own\" content cannot correctly mean anything more than they've been *given* rights to that content. Even if they \"own\" content, a *copy* of that content does not deprive them of that content.
"End More Sillyness"
To him somehow piracy equals progress. Don't ask me how. Sure copyrights and corporations need some fixing. But piracy is only gonna muck things up more.
QUOTE
Originally posted by smg
Neo you should have just ask for opinions that were in line with yours, and you would have been happy. Instead you ask for everyones opinions and opinions are not always what you might conceder rational but more often emotional. Sorry
Neo you should have just ask for opinions that were in line with yours, and you would have been happy. Instead you ask for everyones opinions and opinions are not always what you might conceder rational but more often emotional. Sorry
I don't care if the responses make me happy or sad. I am not looking for for happyness here. Just clarification. His views do fall in line with mine that is a plus for me to be sure. He is also one of the few posters at this point who is sticking to the basic topic as outlined. We have hit such topics as resale of used media. Licensing for radio play. Corporate greed, etc. All of which do have relation to the topic, but are not what I am looking for, not what I was asking for.
Not only was he on topic. I think he did a bit better job of defining parts of it than I did. Maybe I got over excited.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Neo Neko
(referring to Doobie's posts)
No you are not reading it wrong. He is saying that any one of us as creators of content have no rights to our content. That somehow it is society that gives us any rights to our content if any at all. By him all our creations are immediatly the property of society. And he as a member of society has rights to it. Therfore he can download anything he likes and be perfectly within his rights. He has posted other such inane drivel.
That doesn't sound like inane drivel to me. Reading your two excerpts from his forum posts, it sounds like a fairly well-written argument that clearly defines his opinion. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't make his opinions "inane drivel" by any means. People can be wrong and still be worth listening to (referring to Doobie's posts)
No you are not reading it wrong. He is saying that any one of us as creators of content have no rights to our content. That somehow it is society that gives us any rights to our content if any at all. By him all our creations are immediatly the property of society. And he as a member of society has rights to it. Therfore he can download anything he likes and be perfectly within his rights. He has posted other such inane drivel.
He also didn't specifically tie his arguments into a defense of freeloading piracy, from what I could see. (I've already made the mistake of assuming dissatisfaction==piracy once in this thread!) He also never says that, just because content cannot be "owned", the creator of such content should not be compensated. Therefore, it sounds like he means "free as in speech", not "free as in beer". I do align myself with this interpretation of his ideas, although not to his extreme.
Of course Science and the Arts could benefit society most if they were free to use, appreciate, distribute, and build upon. The only problem is, we don't live in a Utopia where everyone has enough food, shelter, clothing, and recreational time to be happy. That's why we restrict the distribution and use of Science and the Arts, because by restricting them and creating a demand for their distribution and sale, we give the authors and artists the income they need to live well and to continue to create new works.
But what if, as a caring and philanthropic society, we could give money to these people out of appreciation for their work, not on a purchase-by-purchase basis? Publicly-funded science and the arts would be nice, but it wouldn't work because any two-bit musician would apply for "federal aid", and (here in the U.S. especially) people are very anal about spreading their wealth, even moreso through taxes and the government. Unfortunately, I don't see a goodwill system working because, frankly, I don't think the people in this world (the taxpayers or the artists) have much goodwill.
I think Doobie's real argument was something along the lines of what I've said in the past three paragraphs. It's far from drivel, even if it is an idealist pipe dream. If it could be made to work, it would actually be the best solution for everyone. In this perfect system of financing art and science, piracy wouldn't be a problem because the concept wouldn't even exist. Artists could continue to create and share, create and share. They would still get credit for their work; art wouldn't become nameless at all, and art would no longer be "tarnished" by the taint of money and financial entrepreneurship. Artists just couldn't restrict their work's distribution in any way.
But even though this is the way I believe it should be, I can't just pirate everything I want right now. Although I may dream of a perfect world where "intellectual property" is an oxymoron, I live in reality, on planet Earth and in the U.S., where art comes in a shrink-wrapped jewel case with an impossible-to-open security sticker and a $17.99 price tag.
P.S. This really isn't a new idea, since this sounds to me a lot like the open-source software philosophy. I Just realized this after reading over my own post and imagining Emmett replying to the thread
Sorry I keep editing this post ;-)
As I am a "sharer" of music, and have masses of gigs of such and share with people, I do share, but I do not call myself a "pirate" ..
It'd be a cold day in hell I buy another cd from a music store -- benefitting the RIAA is not something I like to do. Rather, I usually download music and sample it, and donate directly to the artist and keep it if I like it. If not, it's deleted. This way, I save money, and they make more money, everyone is happy.
Except the RIAA, screw them
-r
It'd be a cold day in hell I buy another cd from a music store -- benefitting the RIAA is not something I like to do. Rather, I usually download music and sample it, and donate directly to the artist and keep it if I like it. If not, it's deleted. This way, I save money, and they make more money, everyone is happy.
Except the RIAA, screw them
-r
QUOTE
Originally posted by meff
Except the RIAA, screw them
-r
Except the RIAA, screw them
-r
I agree... all talk of piracy aside, hell with the RIAA. Even if a new CD came out I liked (hasn't happened since the mid-90's), I'll wait until a copy is available at half.com or another used store & buy it there. Who needs the high prices, 'copy protected' CD's & other hassles? And who wants to support such a greedy, corrupt group of companies?
yeah!
that'd be great!!!
that'd be great!!!
QUOTE
Originally posted by Annuka
Boycotting CDs, DVDs and games does not put any money in the pockets of the artists and labels. Not a single cent!
Boycotting CDs, DVDs and games does not put any money in the pockets of the artists and labels. Not a single cent!
Boycotting shows what music we will buy at a given price. If we don't buy it, they have to lower the price to increase demand. If we still don't buy it, there's no demand. That way sales and prices would reflect what people want. Aren't artists entitled to make money of their work?
QUOTE
Originally posted by meff
It'd be a cold day in hell I buy another cd from a music store -- benefitting the RIAA is not something I like to do. Rather, I usually download music and sample it, and donate directly to the artist and keep it if I like it. If not, it's deleted. This way, I save money, and they make more money, everyone is happy.
Except the RIAA, screw them
-r
It'd be a cold day in hell I buy another cd from a music store -- benefitting the RIAA is not something I like to do. Rather, I usually download music and sample it, and donate directly to the artist and keep it if I like it. If not, it's deleted. This way, I save money, and they make more money, everyone is happy.
Except the RIAA, screw them
-r
Just out of cuoriosity, How do you donate directly to the artist.
QUOTE
Originally posted by rocketsauce
Maybe, in an ideal world, it shouldn't. How do you propose to eliminate it? I'm not an economics expert, but it seems to me that bureaucracy is an inevitable outgrowth of doing business, any kind of business. There will always be people who are willing to pay others to do the things that they can't or don't want to do. The record companies pay RIAA to sue Napster because it is easier and cheaper than each bringing their own legal action. A songwriter hires ASCAP to make sure that s/he is being paid their radio performance royalties because it would be impossible for an individual to monitor every radio station and make sure they're getting what the law says they are due. Those costs are ultimatley passed on to the consumer. Unless there is some huge shift in thinking about the way (all) business operates, it seems to me that this is unlikely to change.
Maybe, in an ideal world, it shouldn't. How do you propose to eliminate it? I'm not an economics expert, but it seems to me that bureaucracy is an inevitable outgrowth of doing business, any kind of business. There will always be people who are willing to pay others to do the things that they can't or don't want to do. The record companies pay RIAA to sue Napster because it is easier and cheaper than each bringing their own legal action. A songwriter hires ASCAP to make sure that s/he is being paid their radio performance royalties because it would be impossible for an individual to monitor every radio station and make sure they're getting what the law says they are due. Those costs are ultimatley passed on to the consumer. Unless there is some huge shift in thinking about the way (all) business operates, it seems to me that this is unlikely to change.
Exactly. No musician can manage everything that affects his music. Touring, tuning guitars, booking studio time, manage website, manage publishing rigths, manage distribution, do interviews, et cetera. So burecracy pops up. It's just another part of the business that goes with commercial music.
But the matter of fact is, that if we as consumers feel the music isn't worth the price, we can alter that by not buying the music until we feel the price reflects our demand. That is our legal consumer power
(OOC)
that might turn out to be quite difficult, actually, but if you want an artist to get a larger percentage of your money than he would get when you buy an album:
[list]
etc.
(/OOC)
QUOTE
Originally posted by smg
Just out of cuoriosity, How do you donate directly to the artist.
Just out of cuoriosity, How do you donate directly to the artist.
that might turn out to be quite difficult, actually, but if you want an artist to get a larger percentage of your money than he would get when you buy an album:
[list]
etc.
(/OOC)
QUOTE
Originally posted by SometimesWarrior
But what if, as a caring and philanthropic society, we could give money to these people out of appreciation for their work, not on a purchase-by-purchase basis? Publicly-funded science and the arts would be nice, but it wouldn't work because any two-bit musician would apply for \"federal aid\", and (here in the U.S. especially) people are very anal about spreading their wealth, even moreso through taxes and the government. Unfortunately, I don't see a goodwill system working because, frankly, I don't think the people in this world (the taxpayers or the artists) have much goodwill.
But what if, as a caring and philanthropic society, we could give money to these people out of appreciation for their work, not on a purchase-by-purchase basis? Publicly-funded science and the arts would be nice, but it wouldn't work because any two-bit musician would apply for \"federal aid\", and (here in the U.S. especially) people are very anal about spreading their wealth, even moreso through taxes and the government. Unfortunately, I don't see a goodwill system working because, frankly, I don't think the people in this world (the taxpayers or the artists) have much goodwill.
A socialist society would work very well for this (if I'm remembering my theory correctly). Unfortunately, people tend to screw that one up too by either getting greedy or not having any desire to excel.
QUOTE
Originally posted by smg
Just out of cuoriosity, How do you donate directly to the artist.
Just out of cuoriosity, How do you donate directly to the artist.
It's not hard at all. Check out Musiclink (formerly Fairtunes). Fairtunes was created in Napster's heyday by a couple of Canadian college students. It was a site that would let you donate any amount of money to any artist. They would then track down the artist and send them a check.
Of course, they lost thousands of dollars with that setup (it really wasn't a commercial venture, after all), but instead of giving up closing shop after losing their life savings, they re-opened as Musiclink, which takes 20% of your donation as overhead, then sends 70% to the artist and 10% to a coop fund (to all artists). All you do is type in an artist's name, a dollar figure, and your credit card number, and you get a nice warm feeling.
Although they have a 20% "service charge", I think they deserve it, since they already spent all their free time and money over the past couple years building the site and tracking down artists so they can send out .50 checks.
It certainly beats paying ~90% bureaucratic overhead.
QUOTE
originally posted by Ardax
[b]A socialist society would work very well for this (if I'm remembering my theory correctly). Unfortunately, people tend to screw that one up too by either getting greedy or not having any desire to excel.
Well "Socialism" is a very dirty word here in the States. I have no idea how citizens of a Socialist European country would respond to a public art fund. Any takers?
[b]A socialist society would work very well for this (if I'm remembering my theory correctly). Unfortunately, people tend to screw that one up too by either getting greedy or not having any desire to excel.
QUOTE
Originally posted by SometimesWarrior
Well \"Socialism\" is a very dirty word here in the States.
Well \"Socialism\" is a very dirty word here in the States.
That's putting it lightly.
We'll never mind the amount of it that's already going on here. Oh yeah, it's not "socialism", it's "government subsidies" or "taxpayer funding". I understand that sometimes the government HAS to step in and socialize things a bit in some areas, otherwise nothing could get done.
QUOTE
[b]I have no idea how citizens of a Socialist European country would respond to a public art fund. Any takers?
<joke>
I imagine they'd take it in much the same way as we do here: "Does it raise our taxes? Then no."
</joke>
A wise man once told me; start here
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2792
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2800
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2871
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2922
http://news.dmusic.com/article/3186
EDIT;
sorry, I found this using search, didn't see how old it was! Oh well
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2792
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2800
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2871
http://news.dmusic.com/article/2922
http://news.dmusic.com/article/3186
EDIT;
sorry, I found this using search, didn't see how old it was! Oh well
Physical world vs virtual world. Or, Why Intellectual Property is a myth.
If Star Trek food replicators became reality, suddendly there won't be a need for purchasing food anymore. Suddendly, there won't be a need to buy or sell food at all, you would simply use the replicator.
In real world, if you steal something, that physical object is removed, forever.
In virtual world, if you copy something, the original remains there, intact.
Can these two things be treated equal?
Yet, there are people who want you, insist you, on thinking both cases are the same. But they are not. Yet, as any major advances in human culture, certain things can not be avoided, just delayed, as long as the "powers that be" can. Imagine what the gas companies that used to illuminate New York felt when the light bulb was invented?
Certain things, certain advances in human technology, does change drastically the way we see things or used to see things. There are endless examples: robots vs workers, planes vs trains, the press vs, spoken words, machine guns vs swords, cars vs horses, etc, etc, etc (study human history, play Civilization, or such).
And in all ages, there are those who wanted to let things remain as they always were, and those who wanted to change it all. The struggle that resulted between these two groups ended in what we know today, and the same struggle of the same groups of today will shape what we will know tomorrow.
Thanks, and happy thoughts
If Star Trek food replicators became reality, suddendly there won't be a need for purchasing food anymore. Suddendly, there won't be a need to buy or sell food at all, you would simply use the replicator.
In real world, if you steal something, that physical object is removed, forever.
In virtual world, if you copy something, the original remains there, intact.
Can these two things be treated equal?
Yet, there are people who want you, insist you, on thinking both cases are the same. But they are not. Yet, as any major advances in human culture, certain things can not be avoided, just delayed, as long as the "powers that be" can. Imagine what the gas companies that used to illuminate New York felt when the light bulb was invented?
Certain things, certain advances in human technology, does change drastically the way we see things or used to see things. There are endless examples: robots vs workers, planes vs trains, the press vs, spoken words, machine guns vs swords, cars vs horses, etc, etc, etc (study human history, play Civilization, or such).
And in all ages, there are those who wanted to let things remain as they always were, and those who wanted to change it all. The struggle that resulted between these two groups ended in what we know today, and the same struggle of the same groups of today will shape what we will know tomorrow.
Thanks, and happy thoughts
Funny you should use the Star Trek replicator in your example... that is the same construct I use to show why music piracy is indeed theft.
First, I define theft as you being in possession of something without the consent of the entity who created said something. Next, I believe that when you buy a CD, you don't buy a piece of plastic. You are really compensating the artist for the MUSIC. The artist, thru the record company, has stipulated that for you to listen to the music you have to pay. That is all that matters.
If you copy said music and then give it to someone else, yes the physical CD is still in your possession, but since what actually matters is the music, the other person now is in possession of something without following the stipulations set by the creator. You do NOT have the right to distribute the music, since you do not have the permission of the artist to do so. Some artists let you do it, especially with bootlegs, but not all.
It does not matter that you paid for the music. That money is compensation for the hours of work put into the album. It entitles you to make as many backups as you want, since they are all YOUR backups. And of course, you can share the music with other people. The fault is when the other person then acquires the music, without compensating the author. Really, it's all a matter of common sense. Of course, you can get into someone else's car and listen to their CDs. But if you like the music, the ETHICAL thing to do is compensate the artist for their work. And the artists set their price. If you think it is too expensive, then don't listen. Period.
The replicator thing comes into play as a demonstration that physical things have no value. When we develop the replicator technology, it will "cost" you the same to get a Ferrari or a Yugo. After all, it is just matter that is configured in different ways. When that day comes, the only thing that will have value is your Intellectual Property. This is obvious even today, when all CDs are made the same, but the difference is in the "ethereal" content of the disc, not the disc itself.
Notice that I have not mentioned any laws. Copyright, trademarks, and patents... they do not concern me. This is not a legal thing, its about ethics and morals. If I like someone's work, that means that they deserve my money. I download MP3s just like everyone else, and when I have money I go out and actually buy the CD. I've done this plenty of times. I have also stolen plenty of tracks. But not once have I tried to rationalize my actions, or pretend that it is the right thing to do.
Information wants to be free, except when it's yours... place yourself in their shoes... tell me if you want your hard work being spread around without a care in the world. After all, you don't really have to eat, or pay bills.
First, I define theft as you being in possession of something without the consent of the entity who created said something. Next, I believe that when you buy a CD, you don't buy a piece of plastic. You are really compensating the artist for the MUSIC. The artist, thru the record company, has stipulated that for you to listen to the music you have to pay. That is all that matters.
If you copy said music and then give it to someone else, yes the physical CD is still in your possession, but since what actually matters is the music, the other person now is in possession of something without following the stipulations set by the creator. You do NOT have the right to distribute the music, since you do not have the permission of the artist to do so. Some artists let you do it, especially with bootlegs, but not all.
It does not matter that you paid for the music. That money is compensation for the hours of work put into the album. It entitles you to make as many backups as you want, since they are all YOUR backups. And of course, you can share the music with other people. The fault is when the other person then acquires the music, without compensating the author. Really, it's all a matter of common sense. Of course, you can get into someone else's car and listen to their CDs. But if you like the music, the ETHICAL thing to do is compensate the artist for their work. And the artists set their price. If you think it is too expensive, then don't listen. Period.
The replicator thing comes into play as a demonstration that physical things have no value. When we develop the replicator technology, it will "cost" you the same to get a Ferrari or a Yugo. After all, it is just matter that is configured in different ways. When that day comes, the only thing that will have value is your Intellectual Property. This is obvious even today, when all CDs are made the same, but the difference is in the "ethereal" content of the disc, not the disc itself.
Notice that I have not mentioned any laws. Copyright, trademarks, and patents... they do not concern me. This is not a legal thing, its about ethics and morals. If I like someone's work, that means that they deserve my money. I download MP3s just like everyone else, and when I have money I go out and actually buy the CD. I've done this plenty of times. I have also stolen plenty of tracks. But not once have I tried to rationalize my actions, or pretend that it is the right thing to do.
Information wants to be free, except when it's yours... place yourself in their shoes... tell me if you want your hard work being spread around without a care in the world. After all, you don't really have to eat, or pay bills.
Actually, I've bought five albums because of P2P. Three FFIX ones, Joe Satriani - Surfing With the Alien, and if the shipping ever gets it here, Thrice - The Illusion of Safety. I used to tell people it was a bunch-a BS that excuse, until I noticed myself on cdnow.com myself!
Plus, buy the CD or not; the artist gets practically nothing of what you give them anyway. I still buy, but I will also still share.
Plus, buy the CD or not; the artist gets practically nothing of what you give them anyway. I still buy, but I will also still share.
As one of the articles I linked to said;
Also, please, don't mix software and music; they're two very different things.
Also, another from a link two posts ago;
QUOTE
I load up ScourSx. I type in, "Metallica I Disappear." I view the results and begin to download the MP3. This is not piracy.
The motivation for this particular article stems from comments I've read recently (on dmusic articles) where a person says something to the effect of, "you're all theives and you deserve to die! you're stealing music! you bunch of nerdy pirates!"
Let's get something straight. I want you to understand the general definition of words like piracy and theft. I say, "general definition" because apparently a few of you seem confused. (Smile)
Theft, in the case of music, is when you physically take the storage unit used to hold music (usually a CD) - as in the case of shoplifting, where the actual supply of music disks goes down because something physical has been removed, stolen. Perhaps that is the beauty of digital distribution - the idea that demand increases as supply is eternal. When I copy a digital file, the supply for that file does not go down.
Piracy is when you've got a person or group of people who take a plastic disk (or tape or whatever) and reproduce it onto many other pieces of plastic (CDs) and sell those little disks. This person or group of people is obviously making a profit using the art of other people (much like the record labels). That, my friends, is piracy.
When you think about MP3s you have to remember something. That file originally came from a CD. In fact, the MP3 file is NOT even the same quality as the original piece of music. The supply of that music has not gone down; in fact, the demand has increased. Thusly, the artist profits.
The industry has brainwashed people into thinking downloading MP3s is piracy.
The motivation for this particular article stems from comments I've read recently (on dmusic articles) where a person says something to the effect of, "you're all theives and you deserve to die! you're stealing music! you bunch of nerdy pirates!"
Let's get something straight. I want you to understand the general definition of words like piracy and theft. I say, "general definition" because apparently a few of you seem confused.
(Smile)Theft, in the case of music, is when you physically take the storage unit used to hold music (usually a CD) - as in the case of shoplifting, where the actual supply of music disks goes down because something physical has been removed, stolen. Perhaps that is the beauty of digital distribution - the idea that demand increases as supply is eternal. When I copy a digital file, the supply for that file does not go down.
Piracy is when you've got a person or group of people who take a plastic disk (or tape or whatever) and reproduce it onto many other pieces of plastic (CDs) and sell those little disks. This person or group of people is obviously making a profit using the art of other people (much like the record labels). That, my friends, is piracy.
When you think about MP3s you have to remember something. That file originally came from a CD. In fact, the MP3 file is NOT even the same quality as the original piece of music. The supply of that music has not gone down; in fact, the demand has increased. Thusly, the artist profits.
The industry has brainwashed people into thinking downloading MP3s is piracy.
Also, please, don't mix software and music; they're two very different things.
Also, another from a link two posts ago;
QUOTE
In an link(www.dmusic.com/news/news.php?id=3420,article) posted earlier this week regarding the submission and win of an artist who claimed first prize with a creation not entirely his own, the question arose as to what exactly are considered to be the definitions of ripping, sampling, and plagiarism. I’m aware that the visual art community currently considers ripping to mean nothing more than stealing another’s work, but I hope to try somewhat redefining the nature of the word.
I see ripping as no different from sampling. To me, they are synonymous. They are both defined as taking another’s creation and somehow incorporating it into a new work. My definition does not distinguish between legal or illegal ripping/sampling because it is possible to accomplish it both legally and illegally. I infer no moral (or immoral) connotations from either of those two words. I also consider it feasible to do it legally or illegally multiple times in one new work. Plagiarism, on the other hand, cannot be argued. It is defined as the passing off of a new derivative work as an original creation without giving any and all original contributors proper credit and/or royalty. Also known to me as ripping off. It is wrong (and illegal) to plagiarize and should always remain wrong (and illegal). To me, the difference between ripping/sampling and plagiarizing is simply the difference between getting or not getting the original artist’s approval for profit.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s put semantics aside and think about the following dozen fine-line situations, which are entirely hypothetical. In no instance should you consider the original artist being contacted in any way (except, of course, in #1, for the purchase), so the question of legality should not be an issue. Which of them do you consider “a problem,” and which are either “not a problem” or, in fact, “desired?”
1. A photographer sells an original copyrighted photo to a client for $10. The client then turns around and prints up 1000 t-shirts boldly displaying the bought photo front and center.
2. Same situation as in #1, but this time the client is selling the shirts, now emblazoned with the client’s logo underneath the image, in the park for 15 bucks a pop, although they cost the client only $5 a shirt.
3. Same situation as in #2, but this time the client is selling the shirts in the park for $5 each, no more than he paid for the shirt, and without the emblazoned logo.
4. Same situation as in #3, but this time consider that the printed shirt also proudly displays the photographer’s name and contact info.
5. Same situation as in #3, but this time the shirts cost $6 each.
6. A songwriter goes to the store and buys an album that has been recently released by her favorite artist. She brings it home and promptly sticks the first 10 seconds of Track-5 into her spiffy new Akai S5000 sampler. After playing with the sound quite a bit (very nearly but not quite beyond recognition), she loops the results indefinitely and raps off a new lyric in an impromptu session, using the twisted sample as the entire backing track. She feels quite happy with how it sounds, so she considers it finished.
7. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off to friends presenting it as an original creation.
8. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off in the park presenting it as an original creation.
9. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.
10. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and for $1 each — exactly what she paid for the tape — sells them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.
11. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and for $2 each sells them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.
12. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter copyrights the song and submits it to a publisher.
Just for the record, all 12 of the above situations are currently considered illegal. However, it’s obvious that some laws need to be changed. Where do you feel the line should be drawn? How much distributional control should remain with the original creator if it means extra exposure? While retaining control of profitable use, does free-form distribution help or hurt the copyright holder? Is it ripping or ripping off? Let us know your thoughts.
I see ripping as no different from sampling. To me, they are synonymous. They are both defined as taking another’s creation and somehow incorporating it into a new work. My definition does not distinguish between legal or illegal ripping/sampling because it is possible to accomplish it both legally and illegally. I infer no moral (or immoral) connotations from either of those two words. I also consider it feasible to do it legally or illegally multiple times in one new work. Plagiarism, on the other hand, cannot be argued. It is defined as the passing off of a new derivative work as an original creation without giving any and all original contributors proper credit and/or royalty. Also known to me as ripping off. It is wrong (and illegal) to plagiarize and should always remain wrong (and illegal). To me, the difference between ripping/sampling and plagiarizing is simply the difference between getting or not getting the original artist’s approval for profit.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s put semantics aside and think about the following dozen fine-line situations, which are entirely hypothetical. In no instance should you consider the original artist being contacted in any way (except, of course, in #1, for the purchase), so the question of legality should not be an issue. Which of them do you consider “a problem,” and which are either “not a problem” or, in fact, “desired?”
1. A photographer sells an original copyrighted photo to a client for $10. The client then turns around and prints up 1000 t-shirts boldly displaying the bought photo front and center.
2. Same situation as in #1, but this time the client is selling the shirts, now emblazoned with the client’s logo underneath the image, in the park for 15 bucks a pop, although they cost the client only $5 a shirt.
3. Same situation as in #2, but this time the client is selling the shirts in the park for $5 each, no more than he paid for the shirt, and without the emblazoned logo.
4. Same situation as in #3, but this time consider that the printed shirt also proudly displays the photographer’s name and contact info.
5. Same situation as in #3, but this time the shirts cost $6 each.
6. A songwriter goes to the store and buys an album that has been recently released by her favorite artist. She brings it home and promptly sticks the first 10 seconds of Track-5 into her spiffy new Akai S5000 sampler. After playing with the sound quite a bit (very nearly but not quite beyond recognition), she loops the results indefinitely and raps off a new lyric in an impromptu session, using the twisted sample as the entire backing track. She feels quite happy with how it sounds, so she considers it finished.
7. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off to friends presenting it as an original creation.
8. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off in the park presenting it as an original creation.
9. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.
10. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and for $1 each — exactly what she paid for the tape — sells them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.
11. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and for $2 each sells them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.
12. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter copyrights the song and submits it to a publisher.
Just for the record, all 12 of the above situations are currently considered illegal. However, it’s obvious that some laws need to be changed. Where do you feel the line should be drawn? How much distributional control should remain with the original creator if it means extra exposure? While retaining control of profitable use, does free-form distribution help or hurt the copyright holder? Is it ripping or ripping off? Let us know your thoughts.
Also;
1) It isn't theft, since no one lost money(I didn't take anything downloading the song; the store has lost no money)
2) It isn't piracy. If the person I was downloading from said, "You can download this .ogg/.mp3/.wav, etc, for $1", then it would. With no exchange of money, there is no piracy.
Also, the worth of said CD comes to mind if it is indeed so easily duplicated...
1) It isn't theft, since no one lost money(I didn't take anything downloading the song; the store has lost no money)
2) It isn't piracy. If the person I was downloading from said, "You can download this .ogg/.mp3/.wav, etc, for $1", then it would. With no exchange of money, there is no piracy.
Also, the worth of said CD comes to mind if it is indeed so easily duplicated...
Why argue about the terminology? P2P file sharing is illegal, plain and simple.
Please explain why it shouldn't be.
Please explain why it shouldn't be.
QUOTE(Pearson @ Mar 22 2003 - 02:18 PM)
Why argue about the terminology? P2P file sharing is illegal, plain and simple.
Please explain why it shouldn't be.
Please explain why it shouldn't be.
*Great* arguement there, I see you backing up every word you say.
Just as differences seen in audio are to be backed up by an ABX test, statements like that have to be backed up by something more than "you know it's wrong".
QUOTE
Please explain why it shouldn't be.
I give five links to articles, showed two articles, and write something of my own, I explained. Maybe you should read it.
QUOTE
Why argue about the terminology? P2P file sharing is illegal, plain and simple.
One problem is that files are shared between countries and they all have different laws regarding file sharing. In Sweden for example it's not illegal to share mp3s (I'm 99% sure), but to make profit from it is. Different countries view it differently. In the US it's definitely illegal.
I kind of agree that it's not entirely right to share mp3s all over the place. However technology will ALWAYS beat the system. I think the only way to settle this is to make cd's cheaper or in some way lure/attract the buyers with something not downloadable that comes along with the cd.
Personally, I've bought a heck of a lot more cd's since I started downloading stuff. It's just so much more to choose from.
QUOTE(Differenciam @ Mar 22 2003 - 11:11 PM)
1) It isn't theft, since no one lost money(I didn't take anything downloading the song; the store has lost no money)
You took the music which was supposed to be available to you only against payment.
QUOTE
2) It isn't piracy. If the person I was downloading from said, "You can download this .ogg/.mp3/.wav, etc, for $1", then it would. With no exchange of money, there is no piracy.
Check out dictionary definition of piracy: The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy. Sharing mp3s without permission from artist is pirating.
QUOTE(Jon Ingram @ Jul 8 2002 - 11:31 PM)
So, I'm not a Music Rapist - I'm taking music for a Test Drive. I'm doing exactly the same thing as I was before, but now it sounds calm, sensible, reasonable. "It would be hard to argue that piracy is not theft" indeed - but is test driving also theft?
But with a test drive you have permission. It is the right of the person who owns the commodity to decide it's distribution. If a car dealer didn't offer test drives would you feel validated in breaking into one of the cars and driving off? Besides, record labels do authorise "test drives". Go to amazon.com and look at an album. You'll be able to "test drive" half the songs on the album.
That being said, I hate the way the music industry is right now. When I download an album I know I'm fucking someone, and I don't care. If there were no record companies and the only way to get an album was at the band's show, I would be totally cool with that. On the other hand, I refuse to download movies (well, I downloaded Bowling for Coumbine, but that was only because it's not out yet, it's shipping to me the day it's released). I'm actually impressed with the movie industry. $20 for 2 hours of high quality MPEG2 plus proporly-mastered AC3 sound is a good price.
QUOTE(DigitalDictator @ Mar 23 2003 - 12:20 AM)
In Sweden for example it's not illegal to share mp3s (I'm 99% sure), but to make profit from it is.
I'm afraid that file sharing is illegal in Sweden, too. Under Swedish copyright laws you're allowed to make copies of music for personal use, and to your closest relatives and friends (which roughly could be considered as your brothers, sisters, parents, children and perhaps two or three of your closest pals). A p2p network allows people you don't know to download your files, and that is clearly beyond the limit. An FTP server would probably be within the "grey area", given that you're not giving out accounts left and right.
Differenciam wrote: "*Great* arguement there, I see you backing up every word you say." ... "I give five links to articles, showed two articles, and write something of my own, I explained. Maybe you should read it."
One main purpose of the copyright laws is to ensure that artists and others stay in control of the distribution of their music, literature etc. Whether the laws are efficient or not could of course be debatable, but none of your arguments has so far convinced me that the copyright owners should not be in control of all copying and distribution of their music.
QUOTE
I'm afraid that file sharing is illegal in Sweden, too. Under Swedish copyright laws you're allowed to make copies of music for personal use, and to your closest relatives and friends (which roughly could be considered as your brothers, sisters, parents, children and perhaps two or three of your closest pals). A p2p network allows people you don't know to download your files, and that is clearly beyond the limit.
Hmm. I beg to differ. First of all, it is not illegal to share mp3s in Sweden because NO LAW SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT IS. To say it clearly falls under the copyright laws is to simplify it a bit too much. Why? Well, an mp3 is not a copy, and you don't share it. Since 90% of the data is discarded you can't really say you share it. So any record company (or whoever) can of course sue a file sharer on basis of the copyright law but that gives room for loop holes. Of course the artist (not all) and the music industy say it is clearly illegal but it has never really been tried in court in Sweden. And when one of our politicians openly encouraged people to download music (it's true), then I'm pretty sure it is still not illegal.
I can record every darn song I hear on the radio without that being theft! That is because the government decided so. So as long as filesharing (which is very new) has not been defined to be right or wrong, one can't really say it's illegal.
I have to say that I'm not in favor of file sharing (or against it for that matter). I'm just saying that one can only have an oppinion about how it should be or not. If some howdy-county-land decides filesharing is perfectly legal, all we can do is accept it. It is legal "there" but not "here" and we can cuss all we want about it. That won't do any good. It's like saying the US is wrong still having the death penalty. That is totally unthinkable in Sweden and most certainly illegal!! But who are we to judge the way they do it in the US. So don't rip on people living in countries where it's not illegal to share mp3s.
This thread has gone on far enough. What kind of a question is that, is piracy theft or not? IF PIRACY WERE NOT THEFT IT WOULD BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE. To ask the question is not academic, but rather evidence of a weak grasp on the english language and a weak moral foundation.
Jeff
Jeff
QUOTE(Case @ Mar 22 2003 - 03:22 PM)
You took the music which was supposed to be available to you only against payment.
Thank you! I said that just so someone could tell me that.
If it is stealing, so would be listening to a friend's CD. Same concept. With P2P, I'm listening to the music in something way off from the original CD that was supposed to only be available for listen if I pay(which is questionable). It takes only a part of the product(the music out of the CD), compresses it, and sends it. That isn't the CD. I'm listening to something that isn't mine that I downloaded, just like if I listen to a friend's CD. And same concept; my friend is letting me hear the CD, without actually having it, and it's "music which was supposed to be available to you only against payment", just like the guy on the other end that I'm downloading from is letting me hear the CD, without actually having it. You can't put an orange on P2Pp ya know. That's where music differs from software, someone can enjoy it as if it were theirs without actually having it.
So if I have a boombox, and put it on the floor of my swim club during a pool party, and seven people listen to my CD that I bought and am playing, well hey; it's the equivalent of seven uploads on P2P now isn't it?!
Then by definition the R.I.A.A. is just as wrong as I am! They charge $10-$17 an average CD, and give $1 to the artist. The artist deserves to get more, and the CD isn't worth as much. That's not stealing, but this little tidbit is;
QUOTE
Every Music CDR since the AHRA was enacted has a hidden tax built into the price! (2% of the manufacturers sales) This is supposedly to pay the artists for home recording. Who Collects the Tax? The RIAA under the auspices of the AARC. Who shares office space with the RIAA and has many of the RIAA employees working for it. I haven't been able to find one artist that was paid a cent of the money. 4% is set aside for non-featured artists, of the remainder 40% for the featured artist and 60% for the labels. To date I have not found one artist who has received one cent of this money.
Off of www.boycott-riaa.com .
They actually steal, without a doubt. Actually, taking the money. Those are two examples. Also,
QUOTE
In 1999 music sales were up 11% not down
Testimony of Hank Barry quoting a RIAA survey
Chief Executive Officer
Napster, Inc.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
In the first quarter of 2000 music sales are up 8% over last year
Testimony of Hank Barry
Chief Executive Officer
Napster, Inc.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Testimony of Hank Barry quoting a RIAA survey
Chief Executive Officer
Napster, Inc.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
In the first quarter of 2000 music sales are up 8% over last year
Testimony of Hank Barry
Chief Executive Officer
Napster, Inc.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Many say they buy albums because of P2P. The R.I.A.A. is fighting something that has been helping them. Just because people don't like %95 of promoted music being bad punk rock(avril lavinge) or gangsta rap(I'm a teenager; and it's the most annoying thing to hear while I'm trying to do some laps in the pool at the college some idiot faking being a "gangsta" listening to it, I do listen to eminem sometimes since the beat is good, but this stuff with cops and drugs over and over gets so damn annoying; especially when *EVERYONE* is faking being one of them, exactly).
Especially, with how popular gangsta rap is; over half of it isn't as much music, as it is some guy talkin' fast about drugs/police/killing(which would be something I could understand, if he actually was what he said), to a few keyboard presets.
Sales were up, but blaming them on this, is pathetic.
There are many things people overlook.
Software, I halfta say, is definate piracy without in excuse(in most cases; in M$'s case, they deserve everything they get, making propriatery standards and forcing people to pay tremendous prices for them since it's the only way, what do they expect? Yet pirating stuff like nero, etc, that you'd actually be able to buy, is damned wrong).
Hey Differenciam, you keep mentioning all the usual banter:
1. CDs are way overpriced, and the artist gets almost nothing
Ok... the real world works like this. Record companies are Venture Capitalists. They loan artists money to make a whole bunch of CDs. Why? Because you cant ship 1 million CDs without at least 1 million dollars. So when you buy a CD, you really are just paying back the money that they loaned the artist, with a little left over as profit. Now you can rant and rave about how much money they make, etc... but the fact remains that someone has to take the risk and get the money up front. Think about how much you are really paying that bank for the car you drive or the house you live in. It is really absurd, just like music companies "loans". But if you don't buy the CD, then the artist gets screwed, because the loan has to be paid one way or another.
2. It is not stealing because the store didn’t lose money
See above. And I'm sure you heard this already, but if you are listening to it, they DID lose the money that you didn't pay to listen it. It is not "potential" money... it is the cold hard cash that you should have paid to be in possession of said music.
3. Listening to friends music in the car is alright, so why not download the song and be done with it?
As I said in my original post, the whole issue is an ethical and moral one. Sure there is money involved, and there are laws involved as well. But what matters to me is that YOU feel that the artists don't get a say on what happens to their music. Let me put it this way. If I record an awesome song, and I tell people to give me a dollar to listen to it, I expect people to respect my wishes, since after all, I generated the content. It is about RESPECT. It is about RECOGNITION. You NEED the artists to make the music for you. They have WORKED to record this album. There are other people who have WORKED with the artists. You thing they should be compensated for what they did?
4. CDs are cheap to make
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE FUCKING CD. I don't give a FUCK about how much the disc costs!!! I CARE ABOUT THE FUCKING MUSIC!!!
5. Physical and Intellectual property is different
See my first post. I bet if you come up with a really good idea at work you would expect some reward for it. But hey, it's an idea... so it should be free right? What about computer code? What about books, where the paper is not important, but the words are? What about that $100k BWM, made with the same metal as any other car, but is engineered better?
1. CDs are way overpriced, and the artist gets almost nothing
Ok... the real world works like this. Record companies are Venture Capitalists. They loan artists money to make a whole bunch of CDs. Why? Because you cant ship 1 million CDs without at least 1 million dollars. So when you buy a CD, you really are just paying back the money that they loaned the artist, with a little left over as profit. Now you can rant and rave about how much money they make, etc... but the fact remains that someone has to take the risk and get the money up front. Think about how much you are really paying that bank for the car you drive or the house you live in. It is really absurd, just like music companies "loans". But if you don't buy the CD, then the artist gets screwed, because the loan has to be paid one way or another.
2. It is not stealing because the store didn’t lose money
See above. And I'm sure you heard this already, but if you are listening to it, they DID lose the money that you didn't pay to listen it. It is not "potential" money... it is the cold hard cash that you should have paid to be in possession of said music.
3. Listening to friends music in the car is alright, so why not download the song and be done with it?
As I said in my original post, the whole issue is an ethical and moral one. Sure there is money involved, and there are laws involved as well. But what matters to me is that YOU feel that the artists don't get a say on what happens to their music. Let me put it this way. If I record an awesome song, and I tell people to give me a dollar to listen to it, I expect people to respect my wishes, since after all, I generated the content. It is about RESPECT. It is about RECOGNITION. You NEED the artists to make the music for you. They have WORKED to record this album. There are other people who have WORKED with the artists. You thing they should be compensated for what they did?
4. CDs are cheap to make
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE FUCKING CD. I don't give a FUCK about how much the disc costs!!! I CARE ABOUT THE FUCKING MUSIC!!!
5. Physical and Intellectual property is different
See my first post. I bet if you come up with a really good idea at work you would expect some reward for it. But hey, it's an idea... so it should be free right? What about computer code? What about books, where the paper is not important, but the words are? What about that $100k BWM, made with the same metal as any other car, but is engineered better?
QUOTE(LoKi128 @ Mar 22 2003 - 06:49 PM)
if you are listening to it, they DID lose the money that you didn't pay to listen it.
That's ridiculous. They are losing the money that I WOULDN'T SPEND ANYWAY?
If an artist's motivations are making money then the music is going to SUCK ANYWAY.
QUOTE
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE FUCKING CD. I don't give a FUCK about how much the disc costs!!! I CARE ABOUT THE FUCKING MUSIC!!!
When I said that about the CD, I did mean the music.
The artist only gets $1, so it doesn't matter if I spend $50 for a single CD, the person that made the music is getting practically shit from it. You prove my point; you say it is the music on the CD that matters, yet the ones suppling the actual music get nothing. The people that provide the CD and case, which in turn is worth almost nil(a few bucks tops), get all the money. It's the other way around. And it shouldn't be.
QUOTE
That's ridiculous. They are losing the money that I WOULDN'T SPEND ANYWAY?
So true!
I have bought albums I've heard on P2P, but there was an #80 4 disc album of classical music I wanted, four CDs, over 100 tracks, all repetetive crap; THREE TRACKS WORTH GETTING!!! The "singles" so to say. Stuff like thrice and joe satriani and Nobuo Uematsu I always buy when I hear off of P2P since I know I'll like the music after I hear it on P2P(all the music is good, not one track is good with the rest being crappy lyrics added to slightly tuned keyboard presets) and at least $1 goes to them anyway.
QUOTE(Differenciam @ Mar 22 2003 - 05:59 PM)
Then by definition the R.I.A.A. is just as wrong as I am! They charge $10-$17 an average CD, and give $1 to the artist. The artist deserves to get more, and the CD isn't worth as much. That's not stealing, but this little tidbit is
Exactly. So who the hell cares. I'll buy all my CDs at concerts, won't bother me at all. It costs millions to make a movie, and they're sold for $18. It costs a few grand to make a cd and they're selling for the same. It's bullshit.
layer and diff:
you are listening to the music right? so you should have spent the money... whether you did or not is your business...
and layer, the artist does not get $1 ... that is his profit... the rest of it goes to pay off the loan... or do you think that recording studio time is free?
now now i just want to make this clear... I am not pro RIAA... they are a bunch of loan sharks. What I would like to see is artists putting up their music on servers, people download the MP3s, and if they like the song they send them some money. Remember, they have to pay for the bandwidth used by people downloading the songs.
The problem is... if people get used to getting their music for free, the artists will NEVER get compensated. A sad day indeed.
you are listening to the music right? so you should have spent the money... whether you did or not is your business...
and layer, the artist does not get $1 ... that is his profit... the rest of it goes to pay off the loan... or do you think that recording studio time is free?
now now i just want to make this clear... I am not pro RIAA... they are a bunch of loan sharks. What I would like to see is artists putting up their music on servers, people download the MP3s, and if they like the song they send them some money. Remember, they have to pay for the bandwidth used by people downloading the songs.
The problem is... if people get used to getting their music for free, the artists will NEVER get compensated. A sad day indeed.
No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney. Theft is theft. Lots of weasel words here to justify stealing. B)
QUOTE(LoKi128 @ Mar 22 2003 - 08:48 PM)
you are listening to the music right? so you should have spent the money... whether you did or not is your business...
You think that listening to music without paying for it is wrong.
Sorry, but the radio stations in my area are FREE. The CDs in my library are FREE.
If you think that listening to music without paying for it is wrong somehow, TAKE IT UP WITH THEM.
Maybe you want to eliminate all that book "piracy" the library does too while you're at it. SHEEEESH
If I want to support an artist I can do it directly, WITHOUT making all the greedy middlemen and their sheister lawyers even RICHER.
Until the RIAA chokes on it's own greed and dies a painful death, I will NEVER buy another CD. Period. End of story...
layer, as I've been saying... its up to you. There is nothing wrong with listening to the radio... or your friends songs... but if you like what you hear then you should pay up. I think we agree on this, since you mention supporting the artist directly.
That is all fine and dandy... but sending Sigur Ros your $10 won't help them more than buying their CD. Why? Because they have bills to pay. So they just take your money, pay their bills... and pocket the rest. Different process, same goal.
You don't want to buy CDs? Fine... just don't pretend to be fighting the good fight against the RIAA... you are not a rebel fighting for musical freedom...
That is all fine and dandy... but sending Sigur Ros your $10 won't help them more than buying their CD. Why? Because they have bills to pay. So they just take your money, pay their bills... and pocket the rest. Different process, same goal.
You don't want to buy CDs? Fine... just don't pretend to be fighting the good fight against the RIAA... you are not a rebel fighting for musical freedom...
Music, should be free. Live concerts should be paying. Musicians should work more, like everybody else. Not living the good life just doing few songs. Free music for all. I said. Period.
QUOTE(LoKi128 @ Mar 22 2003 - 09:27 PM)
sending Sigur Ros your $10 won't help them more than buying their CD. Why? Because they have bills to pay. So they just take your money, pay their bills... and pocket the rest. Different process, same goal.
You don't want to buy CDs? Fine... just don't pretend to be fighting the good fight against the RIAA... you are not a rebel fighting for musical freedom...
You don't want to buy CDs? Fine... just don't pretend to be fighting the good fight against the RIAA... you are not a rebel fighting for musical freedom...
No, I'm not a rebel. I'm just a pissed off consumer who finally got WISE and said ENOUGH's ENOUGH.
Just a little clarification here. A few people think that:
You be the judge. I have nothing further to say on this matter.
Later.
QUOTE
Piracy is theft because Pirates are high seas thievs, and piracy is named for Pirates.
However, piracy is not simply theft of goods. If you check your dictionary, you will find that piracy also means "to use or reproduce the work or invention of another without authorization."You be the judge. I have nothing further to say on this matter.
Later.
1) A download does not represent a lost sale or an acquired one, and it is wrong to label it. How do you know if I'll buy it or not? I don't have an original, I may not want to have to buy blanks, I may want the original, I may want to support the artist.
2) P2P is a royal PAIN IN THE @$$!!! Seeing we have major audiophiles here(obviously ), getting even one song is annoying. Queues, then bad speed, then the quality(even if I can manage to get a 192k copy of the song, I get a lot of xing, blade, and way old LAME ones, no joint stereo), then the fact that it is the same as the friggin' radio(decreased quality, and not on any hard medium) or the same as a friend listening to it(same concept, listen to it without actually having the full product).
Also, when you pay for your CD, you are getting the CD. I'm not getting the original, I'm not getting the design nor the case nor the booklet, nor the original CD. I'm getting the music in a different format. And how is it copyright infringement, if I never actually changed the work?
TURBO; GOD YES!!! Saying you run from the government and do drugs does not equal millionare! Joe Satriani and people that make music do deserve it.
And, I would *NEVER* buy a CD of music I haven't heard. Radio, I can't replay, or tune into a specific song with(WAIT; I CAN!!! A TAPE!!! Look what happened then, now no one gives a shit if I tape music off the radio. Oh dear, look!!! Someone's taping an episode of pokemon on digital TV, theifs! ). Time heals all wounds, and sooner or later, the BS the R.I.A.A. spews about losing sales and protecting artists will stop, and no one will care, just like with tapes, just like with records, and all will be well again.
Theft, is not a good word to describe it. I'm not stealing anything. Stealing is not copying, and with no money being exchanged, there is no proof of loss of it, except for the %11 up in sales since a very popular easy way to use P2P came up.
Actually, there was an %11 increase in CD sales with napster. Now, they shut it down, and they say the sales are down, after they destroyed by far the best way of P2P. No wonder sales are down.
2) P2P is a royal PAIN IN THE @$$!!! Seeing we have major audiophiles here(obviously
), getting even one song is annoying. Queues, then bad speed, then the quality(even if I can manage to get a 192k copy of the song, I get a lot of xing, blade, and way old LAME ones, no joint stereo), then the fact that it is the same as the friggin' radio(decreased quality, and not on any hard medium) or the same as a friend listening to it(same concept, listen to it without actually having the full product). Also, when you pay for your CD, you are getting the CD. I'm not getting the original, I'm not getting the design nor the case nor the booklet, nor the original CD. I'm getting the music in a different format. And how is it copyright infringement, if I never actually changed the work?
TURBO; GOD YES!!! Saying you run from the government and do drugs does not equal millionare! Joe Satriani and people that make music do deserve it.
And, I would *NEVER* buy a CD of music I haven't heard. Radio, I can't replay, or tune into a specific song with(WAIT; I CAN!!! A TAPE!!! Look what happened then, now no one gives a shit if I tape music off the radio. Oh dear, look!!! Someone's taping an episode of pokemon on digital TV, theifs!
). Time heals all wounds, and sooner or later, the BS the R.I.A.A. spews about losing sales and protecting artists will stop, and no one will care, just like with tapes, just like with records, and all will be well again. Theft, is not a good word to describe it. I'm not stealing anything. Stealing is not copying, and with no money being exchanged, there is no proof of loss of it, except for the %11 up in sales since a very popular easy way to use P2P came up.
Actually, there was an %11 increase in CD sales with napster. Now, they shut it down, and they say the sales are down, after they destroyed by far the best way of P2P. No wonder sales are down.
QUOTE(ger@co @ Mar 22 2003 - 09:57 PM)
Just a little clarification here. A few people think that:
You be the judge. I have nothing further to say on this matter.
Later.
QUOTE
Piracy is theft because Pirates are high seas thievs, and piracy is named for Pirates.
However, piracy is not simply theft of goods. If you check your dictionary, you will find that piracy also means "to use or reproduce the work or invention of another without authorization."You be the judge. I have nothing further to say on this matter.
Later.
You're not reproducing the work. You're making your own, you can't shove the actual CD through a DSL line no matter how many KBps it can upload.
I need sleep, I look forward to reading people's comments later B)
i am poor
I guess the question is: If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, do you DESERVE it? I think this has to be thought about. Do you seriously deserve what another person has spent time producing, if you wouldn't have bought it anyway. And what is the motivation to not buying it: the price, in which case, this is not an excuse. If it is that you do not like the music, then why do you want it?
Also, the psychological effect that the music has on you is another issue that needs to be addressed. The ease of downloading music that you would have never heard without paying for it, and the music that you would have never heard at all period without the internet both have effects on you that you cannot remove. Music is not just a static object, because it in itself effects what you will buy and do in the future (through its style and its influential aspects). Have you ever thought how different you would be in your music tastes and even overall as a person if it wasn't for filesharing? Is this state that you are in because of listening and experiencing music that you have not payed for, is this okay, because it is as I said, unchangeable.
The test drive analogy is flawed because you are being given permission to test drive the car, but not permission to test drive the music through filesharing.
Oh, and btw, doesn't Bill Gates have access to unlimited money? Regardless, this still does NOT justify theft.
Artemis3, yes, the Star Trek analogy to replicators is good, I was thinking the same thing.
Also, the psychological effect that the music has on you is another issue that needs to be addressed. The ease of downloading music that you would have never heard without paying for it, and the music that you would have never heard at all period without the internet both have effects on you that you cannot remove. Music is not just a static object, because it in itself effects what you will buy and do in the future (through its style and its influential aspects). Have you ever thought how different you would be in your music tastes and even overall as a person if it wasn't for filesharing? Is this state that you are in because of listening and experiencing music that you have not payed for, is this okay, because it is as I said, unchangeable.
The test drive analogy is flawed because you are being given permission to test drive the car, but not permission to test drive the music through filesharing.
Oh, and btw, doesn't Bill Gates have access to unlimited money? Regardless, this still does NOT justify theft.
Artemis3, yes, the Star Trek analogy to replicators is good, I was thinking the same thing.
I really would like a clarification of this point. My local library, which is CHOCK FULL of copyrighted material, SHARES IT FREELY. Furthermore, guess what they HAVE there??? That's RIGHT, you GUESSED it... a COPY MACHINE.
They must be the BIGGEST pirates of ALL TIME!
They must be the BIGGEST pirates of ALL TIME!
QUOTE(layer3maniac @ Mar 22 2003 - 10:22 PM)
I really would like a clarification of this point. My local library, which is CHOCK FULL of copyrighted material, SHARES IT FREELY. Furthermore, guess what they HAVE there??? That's RIGHT, you GUESSED it... a COPY MACHINE.
They must be the BIGGEST pirates of ALL TIME!
They must be the BIGGEST pirates of ALL TIME!
My uncle has 60 CDs minimum he got off of library CDs he just wiped off and copied with Nero. You can even order rarer CDs online at the library.
QUOTE(Differenciam @ Mar 23 2003 - 07:59 AM)
And, I would *NEVER* buy a CD of music I haven't heard. Radio, I can't replay, or tune into a specific song with(WAIT; I CAN!!! A TAPE!!! Look what happened then, now no one gives a shit if I tape music off the radio. Oh dear, look!!! Someone's taping an episode of pokemon on digital TV, theifs! ).
). Artists get paid when their works are presented in radio or TV and taping them for your personal use is perfectly OK. With P2P it's not personal or fair use anymore, you share to same music piece to possibly millions of people.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.