This message is posted on both the hydrogenaudio forums and the doom9 forums in the general/off topic sections. I know that by posting here I can expect more objective and intelligent responses.
Recently I have been noticing alot of discrepancies with my reality and the reality of the forum dwellers over at Divx.com. Let's not get into this "They live in a fantasy world" mode. I would like some good insight and opinion on this topic. And this topic is this -> "Is piracy theft or not". I don't mean in the strictest terms as in someone breaking into your house and robbing you. But in the most generic definition of the term. I am not out to debate the effects of piracy either. I would simply like a consesus of intelligent opinion on this.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
My thoughts are thus. Piracy is theft. As such I am a thief when I pirate. I am no better than anyone else. Piracy is theft because something is stollen. It does not matter how abstract that "something" is. It is still a theft. Some one, somewhere along the lines gets hurt by piracy. It does not matter if it is we the consumer or those in the corporations. Someone suffers even if it is in a small way. It is possible to steal by coppying. Ideas can be stolen without taking the original. The same goes for music, videos, and software. If you obtian something by illegal means you have helped to facilitate theft and are therefore a thief yourself.
Piracy is theft because Pirates are high seas thievs, and piracy is named for Pirates. The analogy fits.
If piracy is not theft in one way or another then why is it wrong?
I encourage everyone to reply with their opinion whether or not it repeats someone elses. I wish to either provide them with proof of the fact or to correct my thinking if by some fluke I am shown wrong.
Full Version: Piracy. Theft or not?
It would be quite hard to argue that piracy is not theft, imo. So I won't 
. Whats not so cut and dried are all of the conclusions you draw from that assertion. Is all theft the same?
I'll try to keep this short, but no promises
The way I see it: piracy of intellectual property is an unavoidable byproduct of globalization, and the information age. Most of us wouldn't consider stealing tangible property from a local business owner, because we may know the owner, and realize who we would be harming. Many of us would consider stealing intellectual property, usually over the net, because we have no connection with the distributors, or the creators of said property.
Not only that, but there is no real feedback from stealing IP like there may be from stealing real property: For example, a storekeeper on your streetcorner may be robbed, and lacking insurance, be forced out of business. However, by copying a friends mp3, or divx, etc. what kind of real-world effect is demonstrable? Nothing, except press releases from the RIAA and MPAA with questionable estimates of profits lost. While companies go out of business all the time, determining causality - and attributing it to piracy - is extremely hard, with all the other factors at work in the marketplace.
What I'm saying is that while piracy is thievery, its a new type of thievery unique to our era that is *far* easier to rationalize, and much harder to stop than traditional theft. With with Microsoft's new 'secure' OS on the way, and CPU's set to simply not run stolen IP, its logical to assume that casual piracy might be curbed, while driving the more determined highly underground and even harder to stop. As long as large corporations and conglomerates are controlling all the cards in the IP game, piracy will be hear, in some form or another.
I'm not sure if this was exactly the 'form' of answer you were looking for, but its what came out...
. Whats not so cut and dried are all of the conclusions you draw from that assertion. Is all theft the same?
I'll try to keep this short, but no promises
The way I see it: piracy of intellectual property is an unavoidable byproduct of globalization, and the information age. Most of us wouldn't consider stealing tangible property from a local business owner, because we may know the owner, and realize who we would be harming. Many of us would consider stealing intellectual property, usually over the net, because we have no connection with the distributors, or the creators of said property.
Not only that, but there is no real feedback from stealing IP like there may be from stealing real property: For example, a storekeeper on your streetcorner may be robbed, and lacking insurance, be forced out of business. However, by copying a friends mp3, or divx, etc. what kind of real-world effect is demonstrable? Nothing, except press releases from the RIAA and MPAA with questionable estimates of profits lost. While companies go out of business all the time, determining causality - and attributing it to piracy - is extremely hard, with all the other factors at work in the marketplace.
What I'm saying is that while piracy is thievery, its a new type of thievery unique to our era that is *far* easier to rationalize, and much harder to stop than traditional theft. With with Microsoft's new 'secure' OS on the way, and CPU's set to simply not run stolen IP, its logical to assume that casual piracy might be curbed, while driving the more determined highly underground and even harder to stop. As long as large corporations and conglomerates are controlling all the cards in the IP game, piracy will be hear, in some form or another.
I'm not sure if this was exactly the 'form' of answer you were looking for, but its what came out...
It's such a pity that you, and many others, use the word 'piracy'. Piracy is an overly emotive word. It conjures images of evil lawless thuggery -- the bad hordes against the few battered good souls of the RIAA and the MPAA. You've used the word, so you tell me: what *is* piracy these days? It certainly doesn't mean what it did when I first heard the term.
The words you use can seriously alter any debate. This current situation is like deciding to call talking on IRC by the catch-phrase 'Text Rape'. Spend a couple of million dollars getting the phrase into the public consciousness, get some celebrities to decry 'the evil trend of Text Rape in modern society', and then try explaining to someone that only watches soaps and adverts that there's nothing wrong with being a Text Rapist.
Well, I'm a Music Rapist, and an occasional Video Rapist as well, and there is little wrong with it. Just as with Text Rape, we're a victim of a concerted campaign to make simple and reasonable acts immoral, evil, dangerous.
My preferred analogy? It's one given by Eric Flint, in an article (1) where he assesses the effects of having all of his books available for free download:
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?
There are many other issues to discuss: the commoditization of computers; the growing 'convergence' of entertainment appliances; the history of encryption technology; questioning why the RIAA and MPAA should be the arbiters of the American public's private entertainment. All of these would make me late for work
(1) http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm
The words you use can seriously alter any debate. This current situation is like deciding to call talking on IRC by the catch-phrase 'Text Rape'. Spend a couple of million dollars getting the phrase into the public consciousness, get some celebrities to decry 'the evil trend of Text Rape in modern society', and then try explaining to someone that only watches soaps and adverts that there's nothing wrong with being a Text Rapist.
Well, I'm a Music Rapist, and an occasional Video Rapist as well, and there is little wrong with it. Just as with Text Rape, we're a victim of a concerted campaign to make simple and reasonable acts immoral, evil, dangerous.
My preferred analogy? It's one given by Eric Flint, in an article (1) where he assesses the effects of having all of his books available for free download:
QUOTE
Anyone who has ever bought a car-new or used-knows perfectly well that one of the standard techniques used by a car salesman is to offer you the opportunity to take a "test drive." So far from being concerned that a test drive represents "lost mileage," car dealers know damn good and well that it's often the test drive which closes the sale.
Does it always? Of course not. Usually, in fact, people simply take the test drive and wind up walking away. Does the car dealer then start moaning about "lost sales," or whine about the mileage he's given up on a new car?
Hell, no. The dealer just shrugs his shoulders, writes it off to the inevitable overhead expense of his business, and offers the next customer a test drive. But if car dealers followed the moronic practices of most publishers (and, to the best of my knowledge, the entire music recording industry) they would sternly refuse to let anyone even sit in one of their cars-much less give it a test drive-unless they'd already paid for it.
Does it always? Of course not. Usually, in fact, people simply take the test drive and wind up walking away. Does the car dealer then start moaning about "lost sales," or whine about the mileage he's given up on a new car?
Hell, no. The dealer just shrugs his shoulders, writes it off to the inevitable overhead expense of his business, and offers the next customer a test drive. But if car dealers followed the moronic practices of most publishers (and, to the best of my knowledge, the entire music recording industry) they would sternly refuse to let anyone even sit in one of their cars-much less give it a test drive-unless they'd already paid for it.
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?
There are many other issues to discuss: the commoditization of computers; the growing 'convergence' of entertainment appliances; the history of encryption technology; questioning why the RIAA and MPAA should be the arbiters of the American public's private entertainment. All of these would make me late for work
(1) http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm
I posted this thread in Gnutella forums last month in a thread that had the name "We're sharing, not thieving". I believe it's quite related to your question, so I'll put a copy in here.
(Ps. I no longer write in those forums... it seems too childish at times)
And... yes, as Jon has said in the previous post, using the word "Piracy" is not adecuated.
edit
Addenum :
Usually people say If I've bought the CD, I can do whatever I want with it. I've paid it. . This is completely wrong. You buy the medium (the CD) and the rights to listen to that music (or view the DVD or whatever).
The problem with today's contents is exactly this: You buy rights, not something fisical. This is why it is that hard to decide what is good or wrong.
/edit
(Ps. I no longer write in those forums... it seems too childish at times)
And... yes, as Jon has said in the previous post, using the word "Piracy" is not adecuated.
QUOTE
Subject: Re: We're SHARING not thieving!
Date: June 23, 2002 @ 2:47 PM
Let's see if we can clear this up. I will try to be concrete.
First of, sharing.
We can compare sharing, as if we all could meet in a local, and there, ask for someone who has song X, or album Y, etc...
There, we would have many TAPE recorders (I say Tape, because MP3 is a lossy format) where the owner of the CD (LP, etc..) of that song, copies it and gives the tape to that user. (copying a tape is slow, as it is downloading a file).
This is the best model I can think of, representing the sharing idea. And this clearly shows that the one that shares a COPYRIGHTED material that is not allowed to be copied, is the one that is doing an illegal action. There's nothing to say against this, although we know we do this each day, giving or asking copies of CD's to/from friends and/or family.
This applies to the uploader. Now, what happens to the downloader?
The downloader is the one that gets the Tape. We can say he has payed the Virgin Tape (as we all pay something for internet connection).
From here, serveral question appear:
1st: Is having this "tape" illegal? Meaning... having *copyrighted material* we haven't payed for, is illegal? (we've payed the medium, not the data)
Well.. the answer seems also "yes". Isn't it?
But see the exact point: "we haven't payed for". If someone, after downloading the MP3, goes to buy the CD, he is in his right to have that MP3.
The question, how many go to buy the CD? well.. that's an unclear answer, but as we've seen in here, some do.
To conclude, what happens to those that don't buy the CD?
Well.. first, if he/she deletes the file, he/she is no longer infringing any law. point closed.
If he/she doesn't, then, appart from that he/she is infringing the law, how does this affect to the sellings? Or said in other words. How many of these remaining would have actually bought a CD if they couldn't have downloaded it?
I personally use file sharing apps to get some music that I should need to go to a specialised shop to get it. It is trance basically, from artists out of my country. So here, two things take part: me having problems to locate that music on "real life", and second, not buying music much often (Neither downloading!!!) In the last month, I believe I've just downloaded about 10 files (ten songs). All of them from different artists. Am I supposed to buy 10 different CD's to get ten songs I've found I like? My pocket can't afford that (I have to pay other things).
What I am trying to say (this has gone a bit confusing) is that I wouldn't have bought the CD if I couldn't have found it in internet, and what's more, in most of the cases, is is thanks to internet that I've known of that songs/artists.
I am not a strange case, there are many like me, and like the others I've said.
The only ones that actually "thieve" are those that after downloading the music, they commercialize with it. This is where the piracy really is. But *BE SURE* that if it weren't for filesharing, they would have found it somewhere else.
So, in the end... How much does Filesharing hurts the Industry? From my point of view (and from the point of many here), filesharing is that, sharing, making someone able to have something he is not able to have in another way, or that he wants to check out previous to have.
I hope my arguments are clear and don't hurt anyone. This is what I see that is happening. And this is what the industries should know. Killing filesharing does hurt more than help.
Oh.. btw... I nearly forgot... If filesharing affected music sellings... how much did affect the 11th of september and the recession (hope that is the word) it caused?
Thanks for reading.
Date: June 23, 2002 @ 2:47 PM
Let's see if we can clear this up. I will try to be concrete.
First of, sharing.
We can compare sharing, as if we all could meet in a local, and there, ask for someone who has song X, or album Y, etc...
There, we would have many TAPE recorders (I say Tape, because MP3 is a lossy format) where the owner of the CD (LP, etc..) of that song, copies it and gives the tape to that user. (copying a tape is slow, as it is downloading a file).
This is the best model I can think of, representing the sharing idea. And this clearly shows that the one that shares a COPYRIGHTED material that is not allowed to be copied, is the one that is doing an illegal action. There's nothing to say against this, although we know we do this each day, giving or asking copies of CD's to/from friends and/or family.
This applies to the uploader. Now, what happens to the downloader?
The downloader is the one that gets the Tape. We can say he has payed the Virgin Tape (as we all pay something for internet connection).
From here, serveral question appear:
1st: Is having this "tape" illegal? Meaning... having *copyrighted material* we haven't payed for, is illegal? (we've payed the medium, not the data)
Well.. the answer seems also "yes". Isn't it?
But see the exact point: "we haven't payed for". If someone, after downloading the MP3, goes to buy the CD, he is in his right to have that MP3.
The question, how many go to buy the CD? well.. that's an unclear answer, but as we've seen in here, some do.
To conclude, what happens to those that don't buy the CD?
Well.. first, if he/she deletes the file, he/she is no longer infringing any law. point closed.
If he/she doesn't, then, appart from that he/she is infringing the law, how does this affect to the sellings? Or said in other words. How many of these remaining would have actually bought a CD if they couldn't have downloaded it?
I personally use file sharing apps to get some music that I should need to go to a specialised shop to get it. It is trance basically, from artists out of my country. So here, two things take part: me having problems to locate that music on "real life", and second, not buying music much often (Neither downloading!!!) In the last month, I believe I've just downloaded about 10 files (ten songs). All of them from different artists. Am I supposed to buy 10 different CD's to get ten songs I've found I like? My pocket can't afford that (I have to pay other things).
What I am trying to say (this has gone a bit confusing) is that I wouldn't have bought the CD if I couldn't have found it in internet, and what's more, in most of the cases, is is thanks to internet that I've known of that songs/artists.
I am not a strange case, there are many like me, and like the others I've said.
The only ones that actually "thieve" are those that after downloading the music, they commercialize with it. This is where the piracy really is. But *BE SURE* that if it weren't for filesharing, they would have found it somewhere else.
So, in the end... How much does Filesharing hurts the Industry? From my point of view (and from the point of many here), filesharing is that, sharing, making someone able to have something he is not able to have in another way, or that he wants to check out previous to have.
I hope my arguments are clear and don't hurt anyone. This is what I see that is happening. And this is what the industries should know. Killing filesharing does hurt more than help.
Oh.. btw... I nearly forgot... If filesharing affected music sellings... how much did affect the 11th of september and the recession (hope that is the word) it caused?
Thanks for reading.
edit
Addenum :
Usually people say If I've bought the CD, I can do whatever I want with it. I've paid it. . This is completely wrong. You buy the medium (the CD) and the rights to listen to that music (or view the DVD or whatever).
The problem with today's contents is exactly this: You buy rights, not something fisical. This is why it is that hard to decide what is good or wrong.
/edit
Theft has been around for thousands of years, but theft of copyrighted material has only been thought up in the last 200 years or so. It has become a complex set of artificial laws derived by lawyers and governments which may or may not be fair/right. So who determines if it is right or wrong? Society of course.
1) If the law does not benefit society as a whole it is wrong, regardless whether you think piracy is against the law or not.
2) If society as a whole refutes the law then it cannot be seen as a valid law, unless you live in an autocracy.
In both these cases current piracy laws can be viewed as invalid.
1) If the law does not benefit society as a whole it is wrong, regardless whether you think piracy is against the law or not.
2) If society as a whole refutes the law then it cannot be seen as a valid law, unless you live in an autocracy.
In both these cases current piracy laws can be viewed as invalid.
Since I don't know if CDR in France are subject to a fee that is used to compensate for copies, I don't know if copying an audio CD is piracy :ponder:
If an area gets broadband internet access, and suddenly half the people decide that they're never going to bother buying CDs again, but will just download them from the internet, then the local record shop will go out of business. That sounds like a direct effect of "piracy" to me.
If I "test drive" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I "test drive" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
If everyone decides to download stuff and stop buying CDs, then the industry dies. This is what they're terrified of. Really seriously terrified. It won't happen: we had tapes, but people still bought LPs; we have pirate videos but people still go to the cinema. The reason? People like the nice shiny well-packaged "real thing". The industry should concentrate on this fact.
David.
If I "test drive" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I "test drive" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
If everyone decides to download stuff and stop buying CDs, then the industry dies. This is what they're terrified of. Really seriously terrified. It won't happen: we had tapes, but people still bought LPs; we have pirate videos but people still go to the cinema. The reason? People like the nice shiny well-packaged "real thing". The industry should concentrate on this fact.
David.
If I freely give someone something that belongs to me how can they be a pirate how can they be stealing something I alow them to have. If they broke into my system and took something I have not freely given up, then that would be piracy to me.
QUOTE
...then the local record shop will go out of business. That sounds like a direct effect of "piracy" to me.
When the automobile was invented, that put many blacksmiths, carriage makers, horse sellers etc. out of business.
However, I'm sure you would agree that it was better to allow the development of the automobile rather than ban it for that reason.
I don't want to write a novel:
- Very few people have an unlimited amount of money.
- People pirate stuff because the price of new CDs and DVDs is too high.
- Piracy keeps the interest in new music and movies up.
If piracy was eliminated and people were forced to buy what they used, we would all lose interest in new stuff and just listened to the old stuff. That would collapse the industry would collapse as well.
- Very few people have an unlimited amount of money.
- People pirate stuff because the price of new CDs and DVDs is too high.
- Piracy keeps the interest in new music and movies up.
If piracy was eliminated and people were forced to buy what they used, we would all lose interest in new stuff and just listened to the old stuff. That would collapse the industry would collapse as well.
QUOTE
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
If an area gets broadband internet access, and suddenly half the people decide that they're never going to bother buying CDs again, but will just download them from the internet, then the local record shop will go out of business. That sounds like a direct effect of "piracy" to me.
If I "test drive" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I "test drive" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
If everyone decides to download stuff and stop buying CDs, then the industry dies. This is what they're terrified of. [b]Really seriously terrified. It won't happen: we had tapes, but people still bought LPs; we have pirate videos but people still go to the cinema. The reason? People like the nice shiny well-packaged "real thing". The industry should concentrate on this fact.
David.
If an area gets broadband internet access, and suddenly half the people decide that they're never going to bother buying CDs again, but will just download them from the internet, then the local record shop will go out of business. That sounds like a direct effect of "piracy" to me.
If I "test drive" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I "test drive" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
If everyone decides to download stuff and stop buying CDs, then the industry dies. This is what they're terrified of. [b]Really seriously terrified. It won't happen: we had tapes, but people still bought LPs; we have pirate videos but people still go to the cinema. The reason? People like the nice shiny well-packaged "real thing". The industry should concentrate on this fact.
David.
Excellent post. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Downloading music as a try-before-you-buy is great, and I often use P2P exactly for that purpose. I nowadays buy at least as much CDs as I used to when I didn't have broadband internet access yet.
However, I do know several people who are not as "responsable" as me: they download all their music from P2P networks and don't buy any CDs at all anymore. This is a very bad thing. The most frustrating part of it is that those people don't see anything wrong with this behaviour. On the contrary: they laugh at me and call me stupid because I buy CDs that I just as well could have downloaded from the net. Somehow, I get the impression that those people just don't value music as much as I do.
When I think about those people, I do understand that the music industry is afraid, although I have no idea what the ideal solution for all should be. I really, really hate copy protected CDs. So far, I have been able to succesfully extract the audio tracks of the few protected CDs I have, but I don't like the fact that the CDs are protected in the first place. Also, all protections can be cracked and no protection will prevent an album from appearing on P2P networks. It will only annoy the end users who want to store the audio on their computers or portable players.
Here's what I think about piracy: if you download songs to sample them before you buy them, or if you download songs that you wouldn't have bought anyway (if you wouldn't be able to download or copy them), you are not causing any damage. So I don't really see this as stealing: there is no money lost.
However, I do agree that it can be difficult to distinguish between this and real thievery. How long will you keep listening to the downloaded tracks before you buy the CD ? What if you never get around to actually buying it ? Who says you wouldn't have bought the CD anyway if you didn't have a CD-R drive and didn't have access to P2P networks ?
It's a tough subject.
to my mind, "piracy" is theft used for commercial gain. for example i could download an album in a lossless format, make many copies and sell them illegally as an alternative to the orignal cd. does everyone agree with this?
"theft" is using (listening, watching etc.) to the (still lossless) content as a substitute to buying the original cd. however, i see several perfectly legitimate uses of the files -where they are not used as a substitute, but as a service (that in most cases the record/retail industries fail to provide). for example 1) previewing a cd before you buy, the "test drive": available in some record stores but only a small range of material, and not on your own equipment. 2) listening to individual songs rather than having to buy rights for all the songs on an album: again, this is available is a select few record stores but only with a meagre range. 3) choosing the quality/format to suit your ears/equipment etc..
overall i think record companies should look at this positively and instead of demonising their customers (one tactic is using the word "piracy") should acknowledge that -inflated cd prices encourage theft -unrestriced access to music "previews" widens people's musical tastes and increases their interest in music and could encourage increased sales -they are in a blind panic and need to just calm down
grey areas: should you pay less for: lower quality encodings; only buying the rights to listen (as compensation to the artist) then downloading, rather than the physical medium?
any feedback? cheers, tonderai
ps sorry for the length of this, and arghhh there've been new posts while i was writing
"theft" is using (listening, watching etc.) to the (still lossless) content as a substitute to buying the original cd. however, i see several perfectly legitimate uses of the files -where they are not used as a substitute, but as a service (that in most cases the record/retail industries fail to provide). for example 1) previewing a cd before you buy, the "test drive": available in some record stores but only a small range of material, and not on your own equipment. 2) listening to individual songs rather than having to buy rights for all the songs on an album: again, this is available is a select few record stores but only with a meagre range. 3) choosing the quality/format to suit your ears/equipment etc..
overall i think record companies should look at this positively and instead of demonising their customers (one tactic is using the word "piracy") should acknowledge that -inflated cd prices encourage theft -unrestriced access to music "previews" widens people's musical tastes and increases their interest in music and could encourage increased sales -they are in a blind panic and need to just calm down
grey areas: should you pay less for: lower quality encodings; only buying the rights to listen (as compensation to the artist) then downloading, rather than the physical medium?
any feedback? cheers, tonderai
ps sorry for the length of this, and arghhh there've been new posts while i was writing
QUOTE
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
If an area gets broadband internet access, and suddenly half the people decide that they're never going to bother buying CDs again, but will just download them from the internet, then the local record shop will go out of business. That sounds like a direct effect of "piracy" to me.
If an area gets broadband internet access, and suddenly half the people decide that they're never going to bother buying CDs again, but will just download them from the internet, then the local record shop will go out of business. That sounds like a direct effect of "piracy" to me.
It would be, if it ever happened. Has it happened?
QUOTE
Originally posted by Annuka
- Very few people have an unlimited amount of money.
- Very few people have an unlimited amount of money.
Agreed. One great thing about P2P networks is the ability to download music you wouldn't have bought anyway, because you simply can't buy everything you like. I also mentioned something like this in my previous post.
QUOTE
- People pirate stuff because the price of new CDs and DVDs is too high.
Hmmm. I don't really agree with this one. I've heard this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. The price of CDs hasn't really increased much over the last 10-15 years. If you take the inflation into account, you must conclude that CDs are now more affordable than ever. I remember reading somewhere that if LPs would still be sold and if their prices would be adjusted accoring to the inflation, they would cost about €40 or €50 now.
I gladly pay €15 to €20 for a really good CD nowadays.
QUOTE
- Piracy keeps the interest in new music and movies up.
Yes, this is certainly true for me. However, this effect is partly negated by the "irresponsable" users I wrote about in the previous post. It cuts both ways (as it does for a lot of technology).
(incidentally, I put my post up as a Kuro5hin diary entry (1), linking to this discussion. The following is an expansion of a reply I made to someone in that diary, who made almost exactly the same point as 2Bdecided)
Both 'piracy' and 'test driving' (or perhaps 'sharing') are not inappropriate, but flawed analogies. True, 'test driving' a car does not mean that I keep the car. I'm not keeping the music, either. Unless you're trading in losslessly compressed audio (as with eTree (2)), then I've not been given the original music to keep. I've been given a poor reproduction. The majority of all music out there to be downloaded has been encoded incredibly poorly. That small percentage which is encoded well is still only a reproduction, and one which I would never consider burning to audio CD.
To stretch the analogy, when I download music to test drive the album, I'm not testing the original Mercedes, but a Yugo with a picture of the Mercedes stapled to the dashboard.
(1) http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/7/9/45036/13336
(2) http://www.etree.org
QUOTE
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
If I "test drive" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I "test drive" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
If I "test drive" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I "test drive" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
Both 'piracy' and 'test driving' (or perhaps 'sharing') are not inappropriate, but flawed analogies. True, 'test driving' a car does not mean that I keep the car. I'm not keeping the music, either. Unless you're trading in losslessly compressed audio (as with eTree (2)), then I've not been given the original music to keep. I've been given a poor reproduction. The majority of all music out there to be downloaded has been encoded incredibly poorly. That small percentage which is encoded well is still only a reproduction, and one which I would never consider burning to audio CD.
To stretch the analogy, when I download music to test drive the album, I'm not testing the original Mercedes, but a Yugo with a picture of the Mercedes stapled to the dashboard.
(1) http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/7/9/45036/13336
(2) http://www.etree.org
QUOTE
Originally posted by Jon Ingram
Both 'piracy' and 'test driving' (or perhaps 'sharing') are not inappropriate, but flawed analogies. True, 'test driving' a car does not mean that I keep the car. I'm not keeping the music, either. Unless you're trading in losslessly compressed audio (as with eTree (2)), then I've not been given the original music to keep. I've been given a poor reproduction. The majority of all music out there to be downloaded has been encoded incredibly poorly. That small percentage which is encoded well is still only a reproduction, and one which I would never consider burning to audio CD.
Both 'piracy' and 'test driving' (or perhaps 'sharing') are not inappropriate, but flawed analogies. True, 'test driving' a car does not mean that I keep the car. I'm not keeping the music, either. Unless you're trading in losslessly compressed audio (as with eTree (2)), then I've not been given the original music to keep. I've been given a poor reproduction. The majority of all music out there to be downloaded has been encoded incredibly poorly. That small percentage which is encoded well is still only a reproduction, and one which I would never consider burning to audio CD.
You would never consider it, and neither would I, but a lot of users do exactly this. Remember that a lot of users still consider 128kbps MP3 to be "CD quality". They think the audio files they downloaded sound as good as the original CD (of course they never heard the original CD), so they will keep the MP3s and see no reason the buy the original CD.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Annuka
I don't want to write a novel:
- Very few people have an unlimited amount of money.
- People pirate stuff because the price of new CDs and DVDs is too high.
- Piracy keeps the interest in new music and movies up.
If piracy was eliminated and people were forced to buy what they used, we would all lose interest in new stuff and just listened to the old stuff. That would collapse the industry would collapse as well.
I don't want to write a novel:
- Very few people have an unlimited amount of money.
- People pirate stuff because the price of new CDs and DVDs is too high.
- Piracy keeps the interest in new music and movies up.
If piracy was eliminated and people were forced to buy what they used, we would all lose interest in new stuff and just listened to the old stuff. That would collapse the industry would collapse as well.
- NO people have access to unlimited money. Still this does not justify theft.
- If something is priced too high, boycott the thing. Supply and demand is a natural marketing law. A personal consideration of "too high a price" does not justify stealing
- Piracy and stealing also keeps the income of artists down when they lose a potential buyer.
If piracy was eliminated we would be forced to buy what we used, henceforth people only buying things they wanted, henceforth marketing laws apply. There's a lot of good new music coming out, that I gladly pay for. The music industry was there before piracy was a big issue. No collapse, just different marketing. Propably more diverse instead of the justified pussyfooting they have to use in today music. Yes, I do believe that music piracy lessens the music industry from investing in more off-beat musical chances.
Back to the evolution Question. Only the strong will survive. Just off subject alittle this may be a good thing we would weed out the artist that are in this business for one thing and one thing only MONEY. No Heart - No Soul to their Music. They would Disappear. Along comes your Eric Claptons, Jimmi Hendricks, Stevie Rae Vaughans. Basicly the artist who put their soul into their Music. We could get rid of the Brittney Spears of the Music world. When the Multi-Millions per album dry up so to Make-Believe Musicans.
Just my .02 cents
Just my .02 cents
QUOTE
Originally posted by YinYang
The music industry was there before piracy was a big issue. No collapse, just different marketing. Propably more diverse instead of the justified pussyfooting they have to use in today music. Yes, I do believe that music piracy lessens the music industry from investing in more off-beat musical chances.
The music industry was there before piracy was a big issue. No collapse, just different marketing. Propably more diverse instead of the justified pussyfooting they have to use in today music. Yes, I do believe that music piracy lessens the music industry from investing in more off-beat musical chances.
Exactly, this is one very important point I forgot to mention in my original post.
Nowadays, the truly original and creative bands are having a very hard time getting signed by record companies. Because these companies are already losing money, they are more and more defensive and only want to invest money in commercially "safe" bands/artists. A new boy band or a new Britney Spears-like singer is a much safer investment than some inspired new band trying to make a difference and doing something completely original.
If you look back about 10 years, there were a lot of truly great - alternative - bands who could still sell a lot of albums: Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Soundgarden, Rage Against The Machine, ...
With todays charts full of "teenybopper" crap, it seems almost impossible for a new alternative band to come out and get great sales. I think this is mostly due to the record companies who are not giving those bands a fair chance, and keep signing the same kinds of "safe" bands/artists to their labels, in order to keep the money flowing in.
stop the justifying.
it's wrong, you know it, we know it, we all do it.
Does the industry suffer: yes, but not as much as they think.
I would buy all the things I download but perhaps some of it....therefore the industry does suffer.
it's wrong, you know it, we know it, we all do it.
Does the industry suffer: yes, but not as much as they think.
I would buy all the things I download but perhaps some of it....therefore the industry does suffer.
Making a personal copy from an original source is considered legal in Denmark.
Libraries in Denmark lend CDs and DVDs.
My collection of copied music and movies is therefore completely legal.
In some countries it would be illegal.
There is no wrong or right.
I buy around four CDs or DVDs a month.
This has stayed constant since 1994.
Libraries in Denmark lend CDs and DVDs.
My collection of copied music and movies is therefore completely legal.
In some countries it would be illegal.
There is no wrong or right.
I buy around four CDs or DVDs a month.
This has stayed constant since 1994.
QUOTE
Originally posted by PoisonDan
If you look back about 10 years, there were a lot of truly great - alternative - bands who could still sell a lot of albums: Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Soundgarden, Rage Against The Machine, ...
If you look back about 10 years, there were a lot of truly great - alternative - bands who could still sell a lot of albums: Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Soundgarden, Rage Against The Machine, ...
So, things were better in your day, were they? The early 90s. No crap derivative boy-bands? No mindless techno churned out by the bucketload? No formulaic crooners? No hyped up, one hit wonders?
Things have *always* been this bad, and they *always* will be. Sharing of music has has no effect on this. None. The 60s, the 70s, the 80s... they were all just as bad.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Jan S.
stop the justifying.
it's wrong, you know it, we know it, we all do it. Does the industry suffer: yes, but not as much as they think.
stop the justifying.
it's wrong, you know it, we know it, we all do it. Does the industry suffer: yes, but not as much as they think.
This would be the industry that saw CD album sales *rise* in this supposedly apocalyptic post-Napster age? (1)
If the industry is in trouble now, then I hate to think how much worse it would have been for them if the MP3 'revolution' hadn't saved their skins.
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertain...000/1478158.stm
QUOTE
Originally posted by PoisonDan
Hmmm. I don't really agree with this one. I've heard this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. The price of CDs hasn't really increased much over the last 10-15 years. If you take the inflation into account, you must conclude that CDs are now more affordable than ever. I remember reading somewhere that if LPs would still be sold and if their prices would be adjusted accoring to the inflation, they would cost about €40 or €50 now.
I gladly pay €15 to €20 for a really good CD nowadays.
Hmmm. I don't really agree with this one. I've heard this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. The price of CDs hasn't really increased much over the last 10-15 years. If you take the inflation into account, you must conclude that CDs are now more affordable than ever. I remember reading somewhere that if LPs would still be sold and if their prices would be adjusted accoring to the inflation, they would cost about €40 or €50 now.
I gladly pay €15 to €20 for a really good CD nowadays.
If the CD is really good, price really doesn't matter. But you can't really tell if a CD is good before hearing a few times.
When I say the price is too high, I am talking about convenience. It takes a lot of time to locate stuff on the net and download. You also have to organise it and probably live with a poor quality.
If a CD/DVD cost about $5-$8, I would be willing to take the chance with a lot of music/movies and simply buy without hearing first. And I wouldn't waste my precious time and energy locating the stuff. It is much more obvious with movies than with music. We want music on the computer because changing discs is annoying. But it is much more acceptable with a movie.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Annuka
Making a personal copy from an original source is considered legal in Denmark.
Libraries in Denmark lend CDs and DVDs.
My collection of copied music and movies is therefore completely legal.
In some countries it would be illegal.
There is no wrong or right.
I buy around four CDs or DVDs a month.
This has stayed constant since 1994.
Making a personal copy from an original source is considered legal in Denmark.
Libraries in Denmark lend CDs and DVDs.
My collection of copied music and movies is therefore completely legal.
In some countries it would be illegal.
There is no wrong or right.
I buy around four CDs or DVDs a month.
This has stayed constant since 1994.
I know that and almost my entire collection comes from the library (and are therefore legal) or are bootlegs that you can't buy.
But I do occasionally download something that are illegal and therefore steal.
I'm not gonna try to justify that as it seems everybody is trying to.
It's stealing althought it will only in the rarest cases cost the industry anything.
QUOTE
Originally posted by YinYang
- If something is priced too high, boycott the thing. Supply and demand is a natural marketing law. A personal consideration of "too high a price" does not justify stealing
- Piracy and stealing also keeps the income of artists down when they lose a potential buyer.
- If something is priced too high, boycott the thing. Supply and demand is a natural marketing law. A personal consideration of "too high a price" does not justify stealing
- Piracy and stealing also keeps the income of artists down when they lose a potential buyer.
Boycotting CDs, DVDs and games does not put any money in the pockets of the artists and labels. Not a single cent!
Making a personal copies will result in increased sales of CD-R, hard drives, fast CPUs, 3D graphics cards, computers, PC magazines, broad-band, etc.
Will anyone buy a $500 graphics adapter to play the one game they found worthy of buying.
Does anyone really need a 1 Mbit internet connection at home?
Why did I buy a P4 1,8 GHz computer. My Dual P3-450 was fine...
So boycotting the stuff will cause a lot of people to lose their jobs. Some of these people might have purchased CDs, DVDs, games, etc. So by boycotting I am hurting another industry and hurting the artists in the end.
What people do at home behind closed doors really doesn't hurt anyone.
So it might be theft, but it will be theft for a greater good :p
QUOTE
Originally posted by PoisonDan
Hmmm. I don't really agree with this one. I've heard this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. The price of CDs hasn't really increased much over the last 10-15 years. If you take the inflation into account, you must conclude that CDs are now more affordable than ever. I remember reading somewhere that if LPs would still be sold and if their prices would be adjusted accoring to the inflation, they would cost about €40 or €50 now.
I gladly pay €15 to €20 for a really good CD nowadays.
Hmmm. I don't really agree with this one. I've heard this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. The price of CDs hasn't really increased much over the last 10-15 years. If you take the inflation into account, you must conclude that CDs are now more affordable than ever. I remember reading somewhere that if LPs would still be sold and if their prices would be adjusted accoring to the inflation, they would cost about €40 or €50 now.
I gladly pay €15 to €20 for a really good CD nowadays.
I just paid .99 for The Clarks' latest album at FYE. It sure feels a lot more expensive.
There are very few artists/musicians that I will spend that kind of money on for a CD. Normally I'm at the nearby Disc Junkie or CD Warehouse buying used CDs for much less, but it was one of those CDs that I had to have [b]right now. Yes, I believe it was worth it, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't damn expensive.
Does anyone remember CD prices from the early '90s (or even earlier)? I do seem to recall new CDs being somewhere in the range of -14 in '95/96. Am I wrong on this?
According to the CPI Calculator, .00 in '96 would be today. Considering that many new CDs today are -, I'd say that's more expensive than before. Also consider that the record labels have been found guilty of colluding to manipulate the market, and the standard free-market supply-demand curves get all sorts of screwed up. So the prices aren't really natural.
I'm also glad that others beat me to the "piracy" moniker. It's not piracy -- we're not raping and pillaging on the high seas. It's "copyright infringement". It's not theft, because nobody has lost any property. It's "copyright infringement". Using terms like "piracy" and "theft" are emotional appeals designed to evoke imagery that don't correlate to what's actually happening. These acts aren't malicious. I'm both saddened and impressed by the fact that the propaganda machine has been so successful. Hitler would have been proud.
Now to the original question... Is copyright infringement illegal? It is now. Do I believe that it's morally/ethically wrong? Not in particular. Do I copy CDs sometimes? Sure. Does it replace CD buying for me? Generally not. Save the dozen or so CDs that were stolen and needed replaced. If the music industry believes that my money only only pays for a license to listen to the music, then I'm damn well not going to pay twice for that licenese if some ignorant twerp steals my CDs. Well, there was the time I spent in college too, but who doesn't engange in mass copying (never mind drunken orgies) while in college?
(Anyone remember the MP3 Asylum from '97? The webmaster was my freshman roommate, and the one who got me into this whole mess in the first place. )
QUOTE
Boycotting CDs, DVDs and games does not put any money in the pockets of the artists and labels. Not a single cent!
Considering the way music industry math seems to work, buying as many as you want doesn't seem to help much either.
Besides, that's a really damn weak rationalization if you really believe you're stealing when you copy CDs. Truth be told, if mass CD copying killed the "music industry", I'd be a happy camper. The true artists will always exist: they existed before copyright, and they will continue to do so after it's gone. If the RIAA and the major record labels are obsoleted and disappeared in the meantime, I'd consider that a good thing.
So that's my take on it, with a bit of extra rambling for good measure.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Ardax
Considering that many new CDs today are -, I'd say that's more expensive than before.
So that's my take on it, with a bit of extra rambling for good measure.
Considering that many new CDs today are -, I'd say that's more expensive than before.
So that's my take on it, with a bit of extra rambling for good measure.
Come to the UK - it'll cheer you up. The standard price for CDs in Virgin or HMV is £16 (thats around $22.50). Of course, there are always special offers of one sort of another - but they never seem to include those CDs which *I* want to buy
.
Just found this thread: http://www.tagstrance.com/phpBB/viewtopic....c=148&forum=1&0
Anyway, I believe that the link that Ardax has posted ( the one of the "music industry math" ) is more than enough to get angry with the labels and the laws.
Anyway, I believe that the link that Ardax has posted ( the one of the "music industry math" ) is more than enough to get angry with the labels and the laws.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Jon Ingram
Come to the UK - it'll cheer you up. The standard price for CDs in Virgin or HMV is £16 (thats around .50). Of course, there are always special offers of one sort of another - but they never seem to include those CDs which *I* want to buy.
Come to the UK - it'll cheer you up. The standard price for CDs in Virgin or HMV is £16 (thats around .50). Of course, there are always special offers of one sort of another - but they never seem to include those CDs which *I* want to buy
.Yowch! How much is a DVD on that side of the pond?
Which is yet another reason that reasonable people think CDs are too damn expensive: Their cost is approaching that of a DVD, which has lots of moving things as well as noisy bits.
Never mind that on most DVDs we're getting "extra crap" to boot. Much better than those "hidden tracks" on CDs.
BTW, I know what you mean on the "cheap special" CDs. The price/demand curve does work, it's just shifted funny sometimes.
[JAZ],
Thanks for the article. Here's the original. Might as well send the traffic towards the originating site. I could swear that I've read that article before though. Hmm, maybe it's just deja vu.
You think Love's rant from Salon was interesting? Read this: The Problem with Music
The Google Directory has a whole section devoted to the social issues surrounding IP. Lots of interesting reads in there if you have the time.
One thing I know for sure is that the number of cd's I have purchased since I started with file sharing has increased right out of hand.
I buy two a month at least, where before I might buy four a year. The record companies are absolutely getting more of my money.
The other thing I hear but I am not really sure if it is true, is that the record companies kind of exploit new artists and that the artists really make most of their money through live performances and appearances, at least early in their careers.
So in my usage pattern, I am not sure who is getting hurt.
When I find an albumwrap of a new cd encoded with fastenc at 320 and d/l it, something in the back of my head definitely knows I am doing something wrong though. There is no quality hit (that I can hear anyway). Its easier when you think your screwing a big rich company than some starving artist somewhere.
Maybe the answer is to limit legal filesharing to 160 cbr or something.
I buy two a month at least, where before I might buy four a year. The record companies are absolutely getting more of my money.
The other thing I hear but I am not really sure if it is true, is that the record companies kind of exploit new artists and that the artists really make most of their money through live performances and appearances, at least early in their careers.
So in my usage pattern, I am not sure who is getting hurt.
When I find an albumwrap of a new cd encoded with fastenc at 320 and d/l it, something in the back of my head definitely knows I am doing something wrong though. There is no quality hit (that I can hear anyway). Its easier when you think your screwing a big rich company than some starving artist somewhere.
Maybe the answer is to limit legal filesharing to 160 cbr or something.
what the industry does is not right. but it doesn't really matter what they do: stealing (fine, call it what you will---copyright infringement) is not the Right Thing either. it doesn't matter that everybody does it. it doesn't matter that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. it's against the law here (US; i don't know or care how it is elsewhere). so you obey the laws. you don't like them? well then do something about it. it's a democracy here, right? write a letter to your congressman. start an organization. DO something about.
but i oversimplify... it's not that easy and it's not fun and not everyone that would like to do something has the time to.
still, stealing seems like the immature, lazy way out. it doesn't change anything. it doesn't take any responsibility. i'm not pointing fingers, though. i'm not an inherently good person, and i'm pretty lazy myself. i'm just saying that there isn't any real justification for "copyright infringement."
but i oversimplify... it's not that easy and it's not fun and not everyone that would like to do something has the time to.
still, stealing seems like the immature, lazy way out. it doesn't change anything. it doesn't take any responsibility. i'm not pointing fingers, though. i'm not an inherently good person, and i'm pretty lazy myself. i'm just saying that there isn't any real justification for "copyright infringement."
As far as I'm concerned, a strict definition of "theft" requires that one party actually can prove a loss (for example, when something is shoplifted, the store loses merchandise and thus, something tangible -- that's theft).
By that definition, piracy is not strictly 'theft'.
You asked: "Why is it wrong?" Well, right and wrong are matters of 'personal morality' and should be treated as such. I have one response to that -- if it feels wrong to you, don't engage in it. If you're afraid of legal consequences, don't engage in it. It's important not to be confused about where you stand on the issue!
It seems to me that "piracy" is a pretty good term. It's a gray area, because the music industry, software companies, etc *cannot* tangibly prove any loss. In fact, it might be possible that piracy acts as a form of advertising for their product, resulting in a net gain rather than a loss (although that isn't provable either).
Whether it's illegal or not... that's a matter for the courts in various countries to decide. Legality and morality are two entirely different things, but are often confused -- and this confusion is generally encouraged by authorities, to increase their grip on power.
Again -- just be clear about the topic (mentally, morally, whatever). I've met a lot of people who engage in piracy, then wallow in guilt about it or "I admit I'm stealing, although I know it's wrong" etc. This seems to me to be the height of idiocy (or perhaps... laziness).
By that definition, piracy is not strictly 'theft'.
You asked: "Why is it wrong?" Well, right and wrong are matters of 'personal morality' and should be treated as such. I have one response to that -- if it feels wrong to you, don't engage in it. If you're afraid of legal consequences, don't engage in it. It's important not to be confused about where you stand on the issue!
It seems to me that "piracy" is a pretty good term. It's a gray area, because the music industry, software companies, etc *cannot* tangibly prove any loss. In fact, it might be possible that piracy acts as a form of advertising for their product, resulting in a net gain rather than a loss (although that isn't provable either).
Whether it's illegal or not... that's a matter for the courts in various countries to decide. Legality and morality are two entirely different things, but are often confused -- and this confusion is generally encouraged by authorities, to increase their grip on power.
Again -- just be clear about the topic (mentally, morally, whatever). I've met a lot of people who engage in piracy, then wallow in guilt about it or "I admit I'm stealing, although I know it's wrong" etc. This seems to me to be the height of idiocy (or perhaps... laziness).
QUOTE
Originally posted by Jon Ingram
Come to the UK - it'll cheer you up. The standard price for CDs in Virgin or HMV is £16 (thats around .50). Of course, there are always special offers of one sort of another - but they never seem to include those CDs which *I* want to buy.
Come to the UK - it'll cheer you up. The standard price for CDs in Virgin or HMV is £16 (thats around .50). Of course, there are always special offers of one sort of another - but they never seem to include those CDs which *I* want to buy
.Two answers:
Underground music, and smaller mailorder houses.
I can get brand new CD's of truly excellent music for anywhere from $8-$14. When I look at the price of most of the cd's on these big labels at $18+ a pop, I just have to chuckle a little bit.
3 good places to start:
www.theendrecords.com
www.darksymphonies.com
www.gemm.com (great search engine for rare stuff and to find good prices)
Most of the cd's at these places range from $8-$12 and at least theendrecords has free shipping in the US and Canada. I just got done ordering the new Arcturus album (one of the best albums I've heard this year) for $11 for example.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom
www.gemm.com (great search engine for rare stuff and to find good prices)
www.gemm.com (great search engine for rare stuff and to find good prices)
Watch out for gemm.com, their website is insecure and they pass along credit card numbers to some sellers (a very risky practice). Their online security is a throwback to about 1997, so be careful. For that reason, I don't use their service.
edit: read too quickly... nevermind me
QUOTE
[i]Maybe the answer is to limit legal filesharing to 160 cbr or something.
dude, maybe i'm the only mexican here. On a point of view, economy here is shit against US or UK, so the government minds in lots more stuff than piracy, like corruption, violence, hunger and so on.
Here in Mexico there aren't any laws that punish "copyright enfringement" or whatever. I wanna let you know, that here you can go walking in the street and theres a dude selling Copied cdrs for something like $3 while a policeman a few steps by him. Or markets full of copied psx games, dreamcast, copied music cds, vhs, and stuff, the government knows and just lets ppl do it Why??? i think its a way to let ppl earn some "dirty" money off the rich countries to buy something insignificant like "food".
Culture is fucked up, ill name some examples:
- I have friends that think that 96-128kb/s mp3s are cd quality, therefore love p2p networks, kind of ppl that download and never buy. So 160kbps is even too much for the super fast 56k connections most ppl has. lol
cant believe ppl is happy with such crap...
- You can find crappy vcds encoded from captured pirate VHSs in a crappy encoder with a crappy capture card and sell them like "copied DVDs", they even print the DVD logo in the cd, and man i just ROFLMAO at them :rofl:
- Computers (this really hurts). Most ppl buy crappy $400 computers with 14" monitors, sis mobos, no graphic acelerators, cheap speakers and stuff rather than a gf3 i hardly made it to sell for $260, it was to a friend...
To sume it up, here in latin america that most ppl thinks piracy is ok cheapness is above all. Even above quality, thats why most stuff here is all fucked up.
Myself, i have broadband, a $1500 USD comp i built from parts i got from the US, i use divx 5 pro to backup my DVDs, i use AAC to backup my CDs, the only stuff i keep from the net are songs that are almost impossible to find in a cd here.
So if ppl never gets to recognize good quality original stuff, "copyright rapism" will never end.
$0.02
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
i think its a way to let ppl earn some "dirty" money off the rich countries to buy something insignificant like "food".
To sume it up, here in latin america that most ppl thinks piracy is ok cheapness is above all. Even above quality, thats why most stuff here is all fucked up.
i think its a way to let ppl earn some "dirty" money off the rich countries to buy something insignificant like "food".
To sume it up, here in latin america that most ppl thinks piracy is ok cheapness is above all. Even above quality, thats why most stuff here is all fucked up.
Well, you said it yourself. If it's between food and quality (audio/video/computers), most (sane) people will buy food and live with the poor quality.
It makes much less sense in the USA and other so-called 'wealthy' countries. In that case, it's even crazier. I think maybe it's just human nature to want something for nothing.
QUOTE
Originally posted by fewtch
Watch out for gemm.com, their website is insecure and they pass along credit card numbers to some sellers (a very risky practice). Their online security is a throwback to about 1997, so be careful. For that reason, I don't use their service.
Watch out for gemm.com, their website is insecure and they pass along credit card numbers to some sellers (a very risky practice). Their online security is a throwback to about 1997, so be careful. For that reason, I don't use their service.
Because of these sorts of things, I never use any of their services. I just use it as a search engine to find the albums I'm looking for and then I contact the company directly. Works great for that.
QUOTE
Originally posted by shimage
what the industry does is not right. but it doesn't really matter what they do: stealing (fine, call it what you will---copyright infringement) is not the Right Thing either. it doesn't matter that everybody does it. it doesn't matter that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. it's against the law here (US; i don't know or care how it is elsewhere). so you obey the laws. you don't like them? well then do something about it. it's a democracy here, right? write a letter to your congressman. start an organization. DO something about.
what the industry does is not right. but it doesn't really matter what they do: stealing (fine, call it what you will---copyright infringement) is not the Right Thing either. it doesn't matter that everybody does it. it doesn't matter that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. it's against the law here (US; i don't know or care how it is elsewhere). so you obey the laws. you don't like them? well then do something about it. it's a democracy here, right? write a letter to your congressman. start an organization. DO something about.
Well, I'm not a real big fan of many of the laws in the US, and I make the conscious decision to ignore many of them.
What scares me are the multitude of laws that I'm breaking and have no idea or knowledge of. However, that's for a different discussion in a different forum.
Democracy? I think the term plutocracy fits much more accurately. Even still, IP issues are (er... were, before we decided to wage war on "terrorists") pretty high on the radar of the public consciousness. Our congresspeople are aware of the issues, and (ahem, ideally) were eleceted to represent the people and balance our interests. Frankly, I don't have the inclintation to start an organization -- especially where several already exist.
Is copying stuff only wrong to you because it's illegal? Isn't it a bit odd to let legality influence morality, rather than the other way around? (Is it wrong to murder someone because it's illegal, or is it illegal to murder someone because it's wrong?) Would CD copying suddenly become an okay thing to do if it weren't illegal anymore?
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
i think its a way to let ppl earn some "dirty" money off the rich countries to buy something insignificant like "food".
i think its a way to let ppl earn some "dirty" money off the rich countries to buy something insignificant like "food".
You're getting into a really different arena here. I mean, who needs food?
When people are having basic difficulties like food and shelter, more abstract things like copyright infringement are certainly pretty frivolous by comparison.
QUOTE
Originally posted by fewtch
[b]I think maybe it's just human nature to want something for nothing.
[b]I think maybe it's just human nature to want something for nothing.
Actually, I'd wager that most people don't mind paying for things. But they'd like to pay as little as possible for it -- especially when the savings there would let them spend their money in other acquisitions elsewhere. Ya know, "he who dies with the most toys wins". Since that mantra does drive a large number of people, they'll take all the free crap they can get, then spend their money on whatever they can't get for free. Many people will even break the law to get cheap or free crap up to a certain comfort level. Toss in the nameless/faceless factor of taking from businesses or anyone else considered to be sufficiently richer than average, and you can look around to see the results. Blah.
Edit: Fix my bad quoting skillz.
Interesting read so far. The topic strayed a bit from what I had intended. We all know why people "pirate" stuff. That was never in question. And while pirate is not 100% proper terminology it still does fit. But if it is so wrong then we as a community accused of such need to come up with a more fitting term. Sharring is like having a whole pie and giving your friend a slice. No one holds intelectual property over the pie and as long as you own it you are 100% legal. When it comes to media and software to me sharring is just as inapropriate a term as pirating is. Many of us here go on the try before you buy basis. But we must recognise that we are a minority. I am specifically debating and having dificulties making some see that their intended purpose of illegaly obtaining the media with no intent to purchase is wrong. They see it as some noble crusade against the corporations and the RIAA and MPAA in particular. They think it will lead to lower prices or change in the industry. LOL When in fact their kind are on a crusade against we the consumer. The corporations suffer none or little and in turn they over react and take it out on us.
So far from what I have read I get the impression form most here that they do considder piracy or illegal obtainment of copyrighted materials as theft. For many of us it is a gray area since we do intend to buy a full licensed copy when everything is said and done. But even though I count myself as one of those people I still considder the actions as not being right and as a theft in some small maner.
I find this a very intriguing topic like computers themselves. Everything is so new and there are so few precidents set. Everything is still in the works. And the opinion of the world at large is still in development. People have told me that i am foolish for trying to define theft, and for calling piracy theft. But I can se no other reason why it would be wrong. Just because there are no faces on the net it does not mean no one gets hurt.
So far from what I have read I get the impression form most here that they do considder piracy or illegal obtainment of copyrighted materials as theft. For many of us it is a gray area since we do intend to buy a full licensed copy when everything is said and done. But even though I count myself as one of those people I still considder the actions as not being right and as a theft in some small maner.
I find this a very intriguing topic like computers themselves. Everything is so new and there are so few precidents set. Everything is still in the works. And the opinion of the world at large is still in development. People have told me that i am foolish for trying to define theft, and for calling piracy theft. But I can se no other reason why it would be wrong. Just because there are no faces on the net it does not mean no one gets hurt.
Why are people still buying CDs from the likes of FYE? You're asking to get ripped off at that store. Go to Best Buy, Media Play, or Circuit City. They have the same albums as FYE for about 10-14 USD.
Lately, I've been a huge fan of used CD shops. If you have one in your area, do yourself a favor and check it out. Most used CD shops also sell used DVDs pretty cheap too. You can also pawn off some of your crappy CDs or DVDs.
Lately, I've been a huge fan of used CD shops. If you have one in your area, do yourself a favor and check it out. Most used CD shops also sell used DVDs pretty cheap too. You can also pawn off some of your crappy CDs or DVDs.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Trelane
Why are people still buying CDs from the likes of FYE? You're asking to get ripped off at that store. Go to Best Buy, Media Play, or Circuit City. They have the same albums as FYE for about 10-14 USD.
Lately, I've been a huge fan of used CD shops. If you have one in your area, do yourself a favor and check it out. Most used CD shops also sell used DVDs pretty cheap too. You can also pawn off some of your crappy CDs or DVDs.
Why are people still buying CDs from the likes of FYE? You're asking to get ripped off at that store. Go to Best Buy, Media Play, or Circuit City. They have the same albums as FYE for about 10-14 USD.
Lately, I've been a huge fan of used CD shops. If you have one in your area, do yourself a favor and check it out. Most used CD shops also sell used DVDs pretty cheap too. You can also pawn off some of your crappy CDs or DVDs.
What about used cd shops is this also piracy I don't believe the used shop pays royalties. So in fact someone is legally making money off of what we give away when we share p2p. So I guess it is okay to resale it but illegal ( Piracy) to give it away.
Just a thought to ponder
Used CD shops are in no way equivalent to piracy. Since when is it illegal to sell something that I own? If you look on CDs, it says "unauthorized duplication prohibited." This means "don't copy this CD and distribute the copies" not "you're not allowed to sell or give this away if you don't like it."
If what you were saying was true, selling a car could be considered grand theft auto.
If what you were saying was true, selling a car could be considered grand theft auto.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Neo Neko
I am specifically debating and having dificulties making some see that their intended purpose of illegaly obtaining the media with no intent to purchase is wrong.
I am specifically debating and having dificulties making some see that their intended purpose of illegaly obtaining the media with no intent to purchase is wrong.
Of course you're having difficulties. Morality (right & wrong) are entirely individual matters. How would you feel if someone came here & told you because you don't believe (so & so) was the messiah, you're a sinner, bad, wrong and are going to hell? Obviously they might have difficulty convincing you.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Trelane
Used CD shops are in no way equivalent to piracy. Since when is it illegal to sell something that I own?
Used CD shops are in no way equivalent to piracy. Since when is it illegal to sell something that I own?
Strictly speaking, you "own" the piece of plastic, but the content on it is licensed to you. You may be in a legal gray area if you sell it, unless the license has a provision that gives you the right to transfer to a third party (you'd have to talk to a lawyer).
Of course, if you scraped off the top layer of the CD (thus deleting the content), you would be free & clear to legally sell your worthless piece of plastic...
QUOTE
Originally posted by Trelane
Used CD shops are in no way equivalent to piracy. Since when is it illegal to sell something that I own? If you look on CDs, it says "unauthorized duplication prohibited." This means "don't [b]copy this CD and distribute the copies" not "you're not allowed to sell or give this away if you don't like it."
If what you were saying was true, selling a car could be considered grand theft auto.
Used CD shops are in no way equivalent to piracy. Since when is it illegal to sell something that I own? If you look on CDs, it says "unauthorized duplication prohibited." This means "don't [b]copy this CD and distribute the copies" not "you're not allowed to sell or give this away if you don't like it."
If what you were saying was true, selling a car could be considered grand theft auto.
Lets not be coy about this. The end results are the same. The royalties have been paid once and thats what they are bitching about.
fewtch:
After searching the RIAA's website, I found a link to something of interest that makes transfer (either by sale or giving it away) of a legally purchased CD completely legal. Here's a quote:
Here's the site if you're interested: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html
After searching the RIAA's website, I found a link to something of interest that makes transfer (either by sale or giving it away) of a legally purchased CD completely legal. Here's a quote:
QUOTE
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Here's the site if you're interested: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html
QUOTE
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Interesting. I guess that does make it legal to sell CD's/records.
It also seems to indicate that if I legally obtained an MP3 (the "copy or phonorecord"), I could either trade or sell it as long as I didn't retain a copy myself (e.g. destroyed/erased the original). I wonder how they would enforce something like that?
smg:
Nobody is being coy. The fundumental difference between a used CD shop selling a CD and a guy swapping files on a P2P network is this:
P2P: only one license has been obtained for a multitude of listeners.
Used CD shop: one license for one listener at any given time. If I sell the CD, I gave up my license. The guy who buys the CD now has the license, not me. Please tell me how this constitutes as piracy.
Nobody is being coy. The fundumental difference between a used CD shop selling a CD and a guy swapping files on a P2P network is this:
P2P: only one license has been obtained for a multitude of listeners.
Used CD shop: one license for one listener at any given time. If I sell the CD, I gave up my license. The guy who buys the CD now has the license, not me. Please tell me how this constitutes as piracy.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Trelane
P2P: only one license has been obtained for a multitude of listeners.
Used CD shop: one license for one listener at any given time. .
P2P: only one license has been obtained for a multitude of listeners.
Used CD shop: one license for one listener at any given time. .
Radio.....Multitude of listeners
DJ's........A financial gain playing to a multitude of listeners
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.