Is downloading songs/movies/etc illegally different than shoplifting?

[Very_Boring_Name]

Poll question: Is downloading songs/movies/etc illegally different than shoplifting?

[AlabamaLibrul]

1. Yes, different, but I refuse to say that either is necessarily "bad" to begin with n/t

[badtoworse]

6. Shoplifting isn't bad? How do you justify it?

[AlabamaLibrul]

9. I've been hungry enough to lift food before

and would not judge anyone who has done so.

That's how.

[LanternWaste]

21. I would imagine many people's ethics

I would imagine many people's ethics are dependent on situations rather than convictions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Eaten any good CDs lately?

[William769]

71. +1.

:thumbsup:

[AlabamaLibrul]

79. And where did it ask about shoplifting CDs, specifically? n/t

[Atman]

88. What's a CD? You mean those discs that people use to burn copies of their stolen music...

...so they can give copies to their friends?

[AlabamaLibrul]

177. I don't normally (ever) do this

but you're being so over-the-top obtuse, so ridiculous that I'm going to announce putting you on ignore.

Just so you don't expect a response.

[joshcryer]

196. USB sticks are all the rage these days.

Plus, the big corporate media companies profit from devices that can hold so much data that no normal person could ever legally fill them up (ie, an iPod that's 100+ gigs is not going to be filled with legal material and the maker of the iPod doesn't give a shit).

[MedicalAdmin]

421. I store a lot more than music on my ipod and i phones.

They are just portable hard drives, basically. I use them to transfer large files of data, images, video, podcasts etc from office to office within the company. IT works really well. Music is only one of many uses for these devices.

[Atman]

301. I don't care that Alabama is ignoring me...but this is just plain ridiculous...

Classic case of internet misunderstanding. I said nothing derogatory toward the poster, nothing insulting, nothing at all offensive. I was joking about CD's, how they're becoming obsolete. It's part of the overall debate...the manufactured music industry is dying rapidly, CD's are largely unnecessary as people now download most of their music and transport it on digital devices. The fact that someone took offense to my observation is amazing to me. But then again, it IS DU. Someone will take offense at a post about the weather.

[geardaddy]

420. I can't believe you just said that about the weather.

Consider yourself on ignore!

[uppityperson]

332. Download music illegally rather than buying a CD? nt

[MineralMan]

8. Really? Stay out of my store, then!

[AlabamaLibrul]

13. Not planning any trips up north but duly noted, thank you n/t

[bluestateguy]

2. That question is so 2003

What if you pay for the song? What if the artist or producer puts it online and gives you permission to download it?

[Very_Boring_Name]

7. Clearly the poll is asking about doing so illegally

I thought DUers were smart enough to realize that without it having to be explicitly mentioned.

[badtoworse]

3. Intellectual property is just like any other property...

...Taking it without paying for it is stealing - period.

[edhopper]

4. k and r

[EOTE]

14. Not exactly. When intellectual property is stolen, no production costs are stolen.

So, if the person never planned on purchasing the intellectual property to begin with, the owner of the intellectual property is technically no worse off. When other property is stolen that has associated production costs, the one selling that property is worse off regardless of whether the one stealing the item had intended to buy it or not.

On edit: typo.

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. Wrong - production costs into the price charged for intellectual property

and illegal downloading = the loss of a sale, whether (for music, example) the cost of the CD or, for the download, the advertising, studio time, labor, etc that was involved in the creation of the music.

Simply put, if there are no production costs there is no production. If it exists, there were production costs.

[EOTE]

97. So what is lost if someone pirates something they weren't originally going to purchase?

If you can tell me that, then I'd agree that production costs are lost when intellectual property is pirated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

134. If they weren't going to purchase it, they can damned well do without it.

If they go to the trouble to illegally download it, they must have wanted it. If they want it, they can buy it.

If somebody hacks my computer and downloads my novel, which is not yet ready for sale, is that stealing?

[BoWanZi]

157. I used to be a big pirate in the '80s with copying floppies but I had no money to buy anything

I figure that 90 percent or more of pirates would not bother buying what they have downloaded. For example, big programs like Adobe CS and Microsoft Office and so on are programs that a lot of pirates want but would have no intention of buying if they couldn't download it. If they can't download it, they would just do without. i know that when I was younger and copied floppies, if there was a game I wanted but could not copy, I would just do without.

That is the whole point behind pirating, you either download it or you just do without.

Do I condone it anymore? Not really but I do know that the large majority of pirates would NEVER bother buying the programs that they could not download but wanted.

That is why I do disagree with a lot of the statistics shown by the big anti-piracy companies. They use made up numbers alleging that every illicit download is equal to a sale but in reality, probably only about 5-10 percent of illicit downloads would be equal to an actual hard sale.

[Chef Eric]

208. Yes, that's stealing. What's it about? ;-)

[Exilednight]

253. Legally? Yes. Actually? No. I would call it a violation of privacy, but as long

they don't try to sell it, then I wouldn't call it stealing.

Of course, I am also of the opinion that every kid, upon leaving the wound, should be given a free set of encyclopedias, the complete works of Shakespeare along with biographies of Ghandi, MLK and Benjamin Franklin.

[EOTE]

303. You didn't answer my question.

You still have the ability if you'd like. None of what you say is false, but you still haven't addressed what I've said.

[GOTV]

322. Your points are correct but do not support the idea that illegal downloading = loss of sale

In the napster days I downloaded a bunch of music.

Yes, it's because I wanted to hear it.
Yes, I could have bought it.
Yes, I could have damn well done without it.

There was no way I was going to purchase all of that music. I was interested enough to download it but not to buy it.

Had there not been a napster I would have damn well done without it. I also probably wouldn't have purchased all that music that I've purchased since then from some of my favorite artists that I discovered through napster.

I do understand what I did was illegal and I agree it should be.

[PurityOfEssence]

83. But if "hard goods" are stolen, it may stimulate more need for production, benefitting the creator

Once again, it's not that easy.

A movie's negative cost stays the same, and distribution costs stay the same, but the owner and distributor gets no revenue. Maybe that product wasn't desirable enough to the THIEF for the thief to have paid for it, so there is no loss of revenue to the owner, but maybe not; maybe the owner really DID lose revenue.

If a curling iron is stolen, production cost for that particular item has been taken, but it may stimulate the production of more to fill the need, thus benefiting the creator and distributor. Perhaps it would just pull an item out of stock that never would have been sold, freeing up space and saving inventory costs.

If you've ever had your intellectual property stolen and seen others make money and career gains from it, you'd probably take a much dimmer view of the act. Many artists accept this dynamic, but that's their choice.

It's simply not that easy, and the

[EOTE]

104. Yes, someone will typically suffer when hard good are stolen.

Sometimes it's the creator, other times it's the vendor. The point I was trying to make is that when intellectual property is stolen, the creator does not lose anything, especially if the one doing the stealing never planned to purchase it in the first place.

[Ohio Joe]

136. So only production has value?

All the time someone spends working on a program is not of value? The time someone spends creating a song is of no value?

What a big old pile of bullshit being used to justify theft.

[EOTE]

304. No one said it isn't of value.

Just that if someone steals intellectual property they never had an intention to buy, the creator of that intellectual property loses nothing. That's really hard to deny.

[Ohio Joe]

336. Fascinating how people justify their theft

There was no cost involved in creating the IP? No time? No effort? No overhead? All free, huh?

[EOTE]

392. Are you even responding to my comment?

Because yours seems like a wild non-sequitor. I haven't said a single thing you seem to be accusing me of. If you'd like to respond to what I actually said, you're more than welcome to.

[Ohio Joe]

403. Do you listen to what you say?

Because it does not seem like it.

"When intellectual property is stolen, no production costs are stolen."

"Just that if someone steals intellectual property they never had an intention to buy, the creator of that intellectual property loses nothing."

There is no cost involved in creating an IP?

Wait... wait... I do not plan to buy this car, so I just stole it.... no loss.

What a bunch of bullshit.

Thieves justify their theft in amazing ways.

[EOTE]

405. Sigh. Once again, you are ignoring EVERYTHING I've said.

You haven't addressed a single point I've made. OF COURSE there is cost involved in creating an IP. Does that mean if they don't sell any of their IP, that people have stolen from them? After all, a good amount of effort was put in to creating it, right? Now, does the creator of the IP fund any of the distribution costs if the IP is placed on a peer to peer network? No. Once again, the point I'm trying to make is this: If someone steals intellectual property they never had an intention to buy, the creator of that intellectual property loses nothing.

You have yet to respond to that one sentence. You've created quite a few strawmen, but you haven't responded to that. To respond to one of your stupider strawmen: Wait... wait... I do not plan to buy this car, so I just stole it.... no loss. Ummm, no. You clearly don't understand how capital works or are just being insanely obtuse. If someone steals a car, even if they wouldn't have planned to buy it anyway, the manufacturer is losing out on all the associated production costs of the vehicle. Comprende? Probably not.


If you're going to respond again, I'd suggest actually responding to something I've said.

[Ohio Joe]

406. Once again, you simply justify theft

"You clearly don't understand how capital works or are just being insanely obtuse. If someone steals a car, even if they wouldn't have planned to buy it anyway, the manufacturer is losing out on all the associated production costs of the vehicle. Comprende?"

You continue to ignore the cost of the IP. That it costs the creator nothing for the set up of the theft of the IP means nothing, it costs the manufacturer of the car nothing for the set up of the car theft either.

Both have an investment that is stolen. Comprende? I bet not.

[EOTE]

407. Nope. I haven't done that at all.

But you refuse to answer a simple question. I never once said there were no associated costs with the creation of an IP. Just that there are no costs associated with the distribution. I'm going to once again repeat something that you'll surely not respond to:

If someone steals an IP they never intended to purchase, the creator of the IP loses nothing.

If you can show me how this statement is incorrect, I'd be more than happy to listen to you. But instead, you're just going to reply how I'm justifying theft. I look forward to your next non-sequitor or strawman.

[Ohio Joe]

408. I have answered... repeatedly

You just want to be able to steal.

"If someone steals an IP they never intended to purchase, the creator of the IP loses nothing."

You base this bullshit on the concept that the original is still in it's place, so nothing is taken. Bullshit, plain and simple. You have taken possession of something you did not pay for... Something that someone put a lot of time, effort and money into creating and you simply steal it. You offer nothing in return for what the creator put into the creation, you simply take it without any care.

A car maker has to invest more then the IP maker to make another copy... So what? It is still theft. Where do thieves draw the line? A donut maker has little investment to make another donut... Is that OK? A physical CD cost next to nothing, is it ok to steal that? A printer can make another copy of a book in no time and at little cost, is that ok? A person just has to work another week to earn their pay check, is that ok to steal?

Where does the thief draw the line? The entire concept of "I would not have purchased them but I will steal them" is bullshit. Stealing because you need to eat is one thing... Doing it because you feel the artist is beneath you paying is another. It is a douchebag move, plain and simple.

[Atman]

409. +1000

.

[EOTE]

411. OK. Then surely you should be able to point to me where the distribution costs come in.

You should be able to very easily show me where in this economic model, the distribution costs arrive. And please tell me how the owner of an IP loses for something they never paid to distribute. And for you to bring up material goods just shows one of two things:

1) You know so little about this issue you think it's appropriate to compare something completely ethereal to something material.
or
2) You're being incredibly obtuse.

Your idiotic logic keeps insisting that I'm justifying or even promoting the theft of IP, I haven't done anything of the sort. I've simply stated an irrefutable fact. An irrefutable fact that seems to have you frothing at your mouth.

[Ohio Joe]

415. WTF?

What do distribution costs have to do with anything?

Again... Because you seem to be slow. Costs vary, some are low and some are high. The cost to distribute a song are low... a game are low... a car are high.

You seem to think that P2P are a distribution cost to the IP owner, they are not... They are pirate (read... thief) costs, and are low.

The cost of distribution has zero bearing on if it is ok to steal.

"Your idiotic logic keeps insisting that I'm justifying or even promoting the theft of IP"

That is exactly what you are doing... Good jumping jeebus, now you deny this.... WTF?

[EOTE]

416. Funny you'd use the word "slow".

Because frankly, I'd think that would be a kind word to describe your thought processes.

Now, because I'm so slow, explain to me, precisely, how, and to what extent, the owner of an IP loses something when his IP is stolen by someone who wouldn't have purchased it?

"The cost of distribution has zero bearing on if it is ok to steal." Wow, I have to wonder what kind of drooling simpleton would form that as a response to anything I've said. Since you seem to be huge on non-sequitors, it really is beautiful outside, ain't it? How about them Orioles?

[Ohio Joe]

419. Just because you seem to have trouble understanding, I'll try it one more time

You seem to be ignoring what I say and not addressing it, instead putting out your bullshit about "not purchasing it anyway".

Try again.

You base this bullshit on the concept that the original is still in it's place, so nothing is taken. Bullshit, plain and simple. You have taken possession of something you did not pay for... Something that someone put a lot of time, effort and money into creating and you simply steal it. You offer nothing in return for what the creator put into the creation, you simply take it without any care.

A car maker has to invest more then the IP maker to make another copy... So what? It is still theft. Where do thieves draw the line? A donut maker has little investment to make another donut... Is that OK? A physical CD cost next to nothing, is it ok to steal that? A printer can make another copy of a book in no time and at little cost, is that ok? A person just has to work another week to earn their pay check, is that ok to steal?

Where does the thief draw the line? The entire concept of "I would not have purchased them but I will steal them" is bullshit. Stealing because you need to eat is one thing... Doing it because you feel the artist is beneath you paying is another. It is a douchebag move, plain and simple.


Welllllll.... I'm waiting....

[EOTE]

422. If someone steals an IP they never intended to purchase, what does the creator of the IP lose?

I know this is very difficult for you, so I'll be patient and ask you once again. I'm sure if you think really hard about this, you'll be able to provide an answer which is more than your masturbatory, emotional tripe. To be clear now, little Timmy, I'm not referencing anything about morals or theft. I'm asking a simple question. But if you're incapable of providing an answer, I'll take another emotional outburst and give you a gold star for effort.

[Ohio Joe]

424. They lose their IP

Is that not enough?

Again with the justification of "I would not have bought it anyway", then why steal it?

Edit - You STILL do not address my questions but rather fall back on bullshit.

[EOTE]

426. Ahhh, so they no longer have their IP?

Where did it go? Did it disappear into the ether? Funny, I would have thought that the IP would still be theirs. But I'm just a simpleton, all these bits and bytes confuse the hell out of me.

[Ohio Joe]

430. I guess you are a simpleton

Theft seems to escape you.

[EOTE]

436. I've worked in IT since the day I turned 16.

I'm quite knowledgeable regarding this. You, on the other hand, can't answer a question most 8 year olds would have no problem with. Funny, that.

[Atman]

441. IT and IP...

So if someone steals the code you've written, you're cool with that? After all, it's just code. You can write some more. Nothing is actually stolen.

Douche bag.

.

[EOTE]

443. Sure, although I've never written anything commercially.

I've made a number of little programs to help with mundane tasks for my friends. None of that has anything to do with what I've said, though.

[Atman]

446. It has EVERYTHING to do with what you said.

Why is computer code any less/more valuable than musical notes?

Full disclosure: my son is a programmer for a major software company. I'm sure he'd disagree with you that his work is up for grabs.

[EOTE]

447. Once again, you're arguing with someone who doesn't exist.

Because nothing you've said is in response to anything I've said. But have fun arguing with whoever the hell it is you're arguing with. But if you continue much longer, you might want to check yourself into a mental ward.

[Atman]

448. Maybe the thread has gotten too long...

The replies are no longer nesting under the post they're replying to. At least, not on my two 22" screens. Chill out. The points made are still valid.

[EOTE]

449. Regardless of the validity of anything you've said.

Nothing you've said addressed anything that I've been saying. I made a simple statement of fact and numerous posters got frothing mad over it. I could tell you that the sky is blue as well, it wouldn't be consequential to the conversation, though. A simple statement of fact is not the same thing as condoning stealing.

On edit: Oh, by the way. You chill out, douche bag.

[joeglow3]

433. I really don't understand why you can't just admit you like steal shit nt.

[EOTE]

437. I don't understand why you can't admit you no like English.

It seems like you have an enormous difficulty with both the English language and anything approaching logic.

[joeglow3]

450. Wow. Attacking grammar on a message board.

Good deflection.

[EOTE]

451. Funny. The very post I responded to was a deflection.

And an unwarranted attack at that.

[joeglow3]

452. Simple question

If you don't want to buy something (and wouldn't) why the need to steal it?

[EOTE]

453. Sure, just as soon as you answer mine.

If you don't like someone, why do you feel the need to kill them? I mean, can't you just let them be? Why the need to let it cross over into murder?

[EOTE]

427. RE: your edit.

I've been asking you the same question a good dozen times now. The best response I've gotten out of you is "IT'S WRONG TO STEAL!!!! WHY DO YOU JUSTIFY STEALING?". So you'll excuse me if I don't give one flying fuck about your new questions until you at least take the time out to address the one question I've been posing to you from the beginning.

[Ohio Joe]

431. Again, I have ansewered

You simply do not like it, you seem to feel theft is OK if it does not involve prodution on a certain scale. You do seem to avoid ansewering my questions though.

[EOTE]

435. If someone steals an IP they never intended to purchase, what does the creator of the IP lose?

Tough one, ain't it?

[Ohio Joe]

438. No, it is simple

It is theft justified by bullshit. Why steal something you do not want?

oh wait... I do want it, I just do not want to pay for it.

I'm done with IP thieves and their bullshit about how it is ok to steal.

[EOTE]

439. If someone steals an IP they never intended to purchase, what does the creator of the IP lose?

I see you've now stopped even trying to answer that question. Instead, you simply accuse me of stealing shit and justifying it because I ask a question you can't answer.

[Atman]

442. "Never intended to purchase." Because they knew they could STEAL IT easily.

Don't you get that? If you "never intended to purchase" it, just listen to it on the goddam fucking radio. If it is so valuable to you that you want to own, BUY IT. You fucking thieving moron.

[EOTE]

444. You seem to be having an argument with someone who doesn't exist.

Because I'm neither a thief, nor have I attempted to justify any thieving. I've simply stated a fact. One which seems to have put you into a frothing, berzerker rage.

[Ohio Joe]

423. Lets put this out there as well

If someone makes a knockoff purse... or jeans... or anything, it does not cost the original creator anything... Is that ok?

[EOTE]

425. You want to talk about "OK" now?

I know your mind has a tendency to wander, it's tough sticking to one point. I'll address your question anyway. "OK" is a very relative term, what's OK for one might not be OK for another. It's really impossible to make any sort of determination with the information you've provided. Now, if you'd like to ask an objective question, such as "If someone makes a knockoff purse... or jeans... or anything, does the original creator lose anything by this?" The answer would most likely be "Yes", because that knockoff most likely will cost him sales of the item he created. If the knockoff did not cause a loss in sales, than the original creator lost nothing. See how easy that is? You ask a stupid question and get a detailed answer in response. Surely you can take my example and provide an answer to me that's more than an emotional outburst.

[Ohio Joe]

428. bwahahahahahaha

"The answer would most likely be "Yes", because that knockoff most likely will cost him sales of the item he created."

Thank you for folding... oh but wait.... You fall back on the bullshit of not buying it but stealing it... What a load of shit.

[EOTE]

434. Your hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

That would be like my asking you if the sky was blue. Then, with your inevitable answer, me claiming that it's justified everything I've said. Someone needs a serious course in logic here.

[Spike89]

440. Actually, there is a real loss

It isn't the concrete physical product, but rather the value/perceived worth that has been injured or destroyed. The fallacy in your argument is that you want to posit people only stealing those songs/programs/books, etc. that they would "never buy" as if all decisions were truly binary and have no effect on other decisions. What you're not considering is the value lost and the lowering of the equation of "would I buy" this.

For example, you illegally download my song, but maintain you would never buy it so I'm not harmed--ignoring the ethical bullshit--the reality is that you've now set the price for my music. Just that very act compromises the value of my song everywhere--the equation should be "do I like this product enough to pay for it or can I live without it" when you add the weasel option you harm the value of my product in very concrete terms.

What happens is that only "great" products are worthy of being bought, but because the creators of these "great" products spent years making merely "good" products (good enough for you to steal, but not pay for!) they need to cash in and charge a hefty price for their "great" product...well, now you can say "I'd never have paid that huge price, so I can steal it and no one got hurt!"

It is a circular, bullshit argument. There is value being destroyed when something gets stolen.

[joeglow3]

412. +1 Abso-fucking-lutely amazing how people can rationalize their theft.

nt

[EOTE]

413. I haven't rationalized shit.

You haven't a fucking clue to where I stand on this issue. I've simply stated a fact which is wholly irrefutable. That this fact seems to piss people off incredibly is very telling.

[joeglow3]

429. Okay. People are downloading shit they don't want.

Makes sense. Go ahead and download until you heart's content. Maybe you can tell youself that you can't afford it, thus wouldn't buy it and then proceed to steal it.

Like I said: abso-fucking-lutely amazing.

[EOTE]

432. Like I said, you haven't addressed a single thing I've said.

But I'm sure that your outburst makes you feel a lot better.

[Rage for Order]

268. But there are opportunity costs associated with producing intellectual property

They're harder to quantify, but they are there nonetheless. The artist could have spent the time he spent producing the song that an individual would never buy producing a different product that an individual would buy.

[GOTV]

323. But if a lot of people buy your work, and one guy steals it ...

... You're probably better off not tailoring your work to appease the one guy who didn't think your work was worth paying for.

[Throd]

15. Not for a lot of people on DU it isn't

They will come up with a million different reasons as to why it is OK. They are never honest enough to admit that they just don't want to pay for things.

[joshcryer]

I don't want to pay for things.

Particularly things with zero marginal cost (I would consider being forced to pay for such things actually authoritarian).

[provis99]

16. oh, bullshit. Intellectual "property" is not like real property.

It is a contrived idea cooked up by the greedy, and runs exactly counter to capitalism.

[KittyWampus]

25. As an artist, I can absolutely tell you greed has little to do with it. Make your own f*cking music

if you're too cheap to pay for it.

[Wait Wut]

65. +1 and +1 for my husband.

He's a blues piano player/singer/writer. I brought up a similar discussion that we had here and he damn near popped a vein. I won't share some of the choice words/phrases he had for people who think it's okay to steal art.

Not all artists wanna be starving artists. Some would like to feed their families. That goes for us web designers/graphic artists, too. Screw you if you think we work for free.

[joshcryer]

183. As an actual artist I can say I don't give a shit what you do with it.

[Name removed]

293. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GOTV]

326. Not all musicians can play concerts. Their work is still of value or no one would take it.

[Atman]

27. Says someone who clearly does not make a living from intellectual property.

If you are a writer or a musician or an illustrator, chances are you have studio expenses, production expenses, overhead expenses, education expenses, EXPENSES, and groceries to purchase and kids to buy clothes for. Your lame attempt at moral rationalization just because the other side of the coin doesn't apply to you is, frankly, pathetic.

[Throd]

29. If you want to give away your creative output for free, go right ahead.

Don't be so generous with other people's property.

[MineralMan]

63. What nonsense. You want music for free?

Learn to play an instrument, then, and write your own music. Good luck with that.

[LanternWaste]

90. Yours sounds like a perfect rationalization for plagiarism too.

Yours sounds like a perfect rationalization for plagiarism too...

[GKirk]

115. Did you just...

...plagarize yourself? :)

[JuniperLea]

93. Wrong

My entire livelihood is based on intellectual property... my career is based on it... it's what the firm is all about, actually.

[PatentlyDemocratic]

179. I don't think that you understand intellectual property

Have you ever spent years writing a novel? If you have, you automatically acquire copyright protection.

Have you ever created a valuable, novel invention? If you have, then you would have also applied for one or more patents.

Own a business with a recognizable logo? Guess what? You'd want to register the trademark.

Have a secret formula for something that can't be reverse engineered? You'd better believe you'd protect it as a trade secret.

If someone distributes photocopies of your novel, copies your patented design, copies your logo, or steals your trade secret, I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be too happy about it.

To deny the utility of intellectual property would demonstrate profound ignorance of the marketplace during the last two centuries. In many ways shoplifting can be far less damaging than misappropriation of intellectual property.

[joshcryer]

188. I would be gleeful.

[eridani]

292. So, if I buy a book and lend it to 20 of my friends, I'm plagiarizing?

What will probably happen is that a few will like the book enough to get their own copy to reread.

[provis99]

295. then you agree with Righthaven suing DU.

Always interesting reading the words of someone who's taking Righthaven's side against a site they post on.

[krispos42]

297. And that is all well and good

And I agree with you on all points.


However, unlike what you mentioned, music is routinely played for free over the radio, often the same song several times a day. Sometimes for years on end. 99.1 WPLR in Connecticut plays "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Who Are You" about a dozen times a day. Each.

It's how I know I'm on 99.1. :-)



So that, I think, is what makes music different from other items. 1) It is all over broadcast radio and radio and TV shows and commercials. 2) An MP3 player is treated like a radio or Walkman in our everyday lives, so putting the song on your MP3 player is both logical and reasonable. 3) Because the music is so commonly available and pervasive for free, and the ability to download, copy, and distribute the music is also so commonly available, free, and pervasive, then using it seems both reasonable and natural.



My only issue with ebooks and audiobooks is that, with no production costs aside from the initial digitization, they cost as much or more than a new regular, paper book. This seems a bit OTT.

[CBGLuthier]

454. The reason music is promoted on radio "for free" may surprise you

It is because they want to SELL their music and they consider the trade off a fair one.

I can think of a lot, an awful lot, of things that may feel free and natural that are most certainly illegal, Hell at any given time I may be doing 2 or 3 of them while posting.

[reorg]

185. under capitalism, everything becomes a commodity

and thus a "property" that can be stolen, a true marxist would say, I guess. OTOH, disregarding property rights could be a revolutionary act.

[joshcryer]

187. Correct, intellectual property has zero marginal cost.

As Eben Moglen http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_and_Open_Software:_Paradigm_for_a_New_Intellectual_Commons">says:

If you could make as much bread, or have as many fishes, as you needed to feed everyone, at the cost of the first loaf and the first fish plus a button press, what would be the morality for charging more for loaves and fishes than the poorest person could afford to pay? It’s a difficult moral problem, explaining why you are excluding people from that which you yourself value highly and could provide to them for nothing.

[GOTV]

328. It's an interesting thought experiment but there's a moral aspect to food that is absent from music

People die without food so I agree it would be immoral to charge people for excess food that cost nothing to produce.

The same cannot be said of music or other arts. You might feel like dying without music but you won't.

[onenote]

312. those silly founding fathers

Including that contrived idea about "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

[Confusious]

359. yea, a "limited time"

that used to be 21 years, when it took a month to get to Europe by boat, but now is 100 years plus the life of the author.

doesn't seem like a "limited time."

[onenote]

385. so you only download songs that are more than 21 years old?

Right.

[Confusious]

391. Did the point of my post go completely over your head?

It must have, because you didn't respond to what I wrote, just made insinuations that you have no proof of.

here:

"that used to be 21 years, when it took a month to get to Europe by boat, but now is 100 years plus the life of the author.

doesn't seem like a "limited time.""

maybe you'll understand it this time and respond to that statement, not the question you read last week.

[GOTV]

325. It's different that physical property but is still "like" physical property in that it has value...

... and also often requires effort to acquire. That effort should be compensated (assuming the IP does indeed have value).

[tammywammy]

85. +1 n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

162. It is??? So, if I steal a car, the owner still has the car?

And the only harm to the owner is they lose the opportunity to sell the car to me?

Moreover, if I give my stolen car to somebody, I (a) still have it, and (b) am harming the rightful owner further???

I didn't know that! :crazy:

[badtoworse]

175. In both cases, you are taking something to which you have no right

The manner in which you determine the value of your theft is irrelevant - you are still stealing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

181. Lots of things are "taking something to which you have no right".

Is rape theft? Is illegal parking theft?

Calling copyright violation (the correct name of that act) "theft" is hyperbolic rhetoric. That some law made in the 1990s chose to enshrine that mislabeling as its title (not even as a legal term, just a title) doesn't make it so.

[badtoworse]

194. A meaningless distinction

You have no more right to violate a copyright than to steal a car. In both cases, you are in possession of and enjoying the use of something that you acquired illegally and that does not belong to you. Rape is not theft; it is a physical assualt and a much more serious crime. Illegal parking depends on the circumstances: Not feeding the meter is theft; blocking a fire hydrant is endangering the public safety and double parking is creating a public nuisance - take your pick.

[uncle ray]

224. then keep it locked up in a safe.

big software companies know how to secure data, it's time the recording industry learned as much.

[badtoworse]

260. Record companies should do more to protect their property, but that wasn't the point.

Just because one thing is easier to steal than another, doesn't make stealing it less wrong.

[uncle ray]

282. in your black and white world where "stealing is stealing" you secure your shit if you value it.

the recording industry cares about as much about illegally downloading music as the tobacco industry cares about preventing kids from smoking.

[badtoworse]

300. What passes for morals in your world?

[uncle ray]

317. are you suggesting i am immoral?

rhetorical question.

[Atman]

358. Not immoral. Amoral.

.

[damntexdem]

5. It depends -- if you pay those with rights it's more like shopping.

And if you download unprotected content, it's like picking through the free bin.

[Atman]

10. I chose "Other" because of poor/vague poll choices.

When you purchase a song from iTunes, you then download it to your computer. When you save a Creative Commons released photo to your hard drive, you are downloading it. Both are perfectly legal. Point being, "download" is NOT a synonym for stealing copyrighted material via a torrent or some other nefarious means. Everything you transfer from a remote location to your computer is "downloaded." So no, downloading is not the same as stealing. Stealing is stealing.

[Johonny]

121. same

[JVS]

11. Yes.

If you shoplift an orange, the grocer cannot sell that orange to another customer. If you download a song, the owner of the song can still sell it to someone.

[Atman]

19. Bullshit. You obviously have no clue as to what "copyright" means.

It matters not whether an orange can be re-sold or whether a song can be downloaded repeatedly. The law gives the copyright owner the rights to his/her intellectual content, and it's not up to you to decide whether or not you agree with it. You deprive an artist of payment. Artists need to eat, too, you know. If you take their work without paying for it, you are stealing, period.

[JVS]

30. "It matters not whether an orange can be re-sold or whether a song can be downloaded repeatedly. "

The question was if there is a difference. There is a difference.

[Juche]

124. You don't make money off of second hand sales either

Why would I buy a new CD for $15 when on ebay and craigslist I can buy used CDs in bulk lots for $1-2 each (lots of people sell their collection wholesale online), or a single CD on swapacd for $3-4? The artist makes no money when I buy a used CD since it is already in circulation. Even if I need a single CD that I can't find in a wholesale lot of other music I like or at places like swap, swapacd or another website I am all but guaranteed I can get it cheaper used via half.com, amazon or some other website. There is no incentive for me to buy a new CD when used ones are so much cheaper. Should I be banned from buying used since it takes food out of your mouth? I haven't bought a new CD, book, video game or DVD in years. Everything has been used. I've never owned a new car either for the same reason, a used one is so much cheaper.

That is a major problem holding back digital books, you can't transfer ownership. With physical media you can sell an old copy, with digital media like kindles the books can't be resold. If I buy a new book I can resell it. If I buy a used book I can resell it. I cannot sell a Kindle book.

Not only that, but using a VCR or DVR to record TV shows, or recording music on the radio is not banned.

There are a lot of gray areas.

[Confusious]

361. resale is the holy grail for the IP people

they would love to end it, no matter what.

[Chef Eric]

192. Fair enough. But suppose the performers and songwriters have been dead for 40 years.

If you download their song, then from whom are you stealing?

[LanternWaste]

37. I imagine that is value equals what we are willing to pay for a thing...

I imagine that as value equals what we are willing to pay for a thing, those who steal music believes it holds no value.

ed: spelling

[laundry_queen]

199. Maybe not that it holds no value

but that the price that is charged for the music is so far above what the real value is, that those who find themselves wanting but are short of funds may take the risk (Think of a $50 loaf of bread - far more will be apt to just take it and risk being caught). Another problem - when a song is actually legally downloaded and PAID for, there are still so many restrictions that sometimes illegally downloading the same song may be necessary to get it to play on other computers/media. Not many people are willing to pay for the same song twice.

[GOTV]

329. Some who steal music do believe it has value but steal it anyway because it's cheaper ...

... Given the choice of having the CD you want for $10 and the CD for free, some will choose free even though they would have been willing to pay the $10 if that was the only choice.

[Logical]

226. Wow, you are not serious I hope! n-t

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr. Strange]

404. Why not?

That sounds like a very clear difference. He's not saying that downloading isn't theft--simply that it's different. (In that the artist can still continue to sell their music, whereas the grocer cannot sell the stolen merchandise.)

[aSpeckofDust]

12. I view it the same way we used tapes to grab songs from radio's/TV. n/t

[MineralMan]

17. That was illegal, too.

Same thing, exactly. Stealing is stealing.

[aSpeckofDust]

24. Yup. However, I don't condone the high price of media these days either.

[MineralMan]

56. Not the issue. I don't like the price of television sets, either.

I know how much they cost to make. That does not make it OK for me to steal one. Prices are irrelevant. If you take what belongs to someone and is not within your rights to take, you are a thief. Simple stuff.

[badtoworse]

26. Self delete

[Hannah Bell]

49. it was legal unless you sold it. and still is, i believe.

American contextThe doctrine of fair use should make it legal to record songs from the radio for private use. Traditionally, the recording industry expressed little or no concern with individuals who recorded music from the radio on a cassette recorder. However, the digital format in this case changes the whole issue since it does not degrade over time and can be easily copied.

That PopCatcher has developed a technology that automatically removes commercials may lead to a legal case similar to ReplayTV’s and SonicBlue’s. In 2001 these DVR manufacturers had issued a Digital Video Recorder equipped with a Commercial Advance feature enabling the automatic removing of commercials from recorded programming. They were sued by 28 companies of the Entertainment Industry in the USA until they ran out of money to pay the expensive litigation. In 2003, they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The case itself has never been judged.

The Audio Home Recording Act also lays out certain legal rights on the part of consumers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_music_ripping#Legal_issues


The Act also includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial analog audio copying, and for digital audio copies made with digital audio recording devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

[MineralMan]

54. It was legal to record from your own record, but never from

the radio. You may not remember the rules from those days. It's still legal to rip tunes from CD's you've bought, for your own use. It remains illegal to rip tunes from the internet, unless permission is granted to do so by the copyright holder. It's also illegal to rip tunes from your radio, just as it was back then.

It's even more illegal to rip stuff from sites that engage in file sharing. It's never been legal to make copies for others. It's still not. It's theft, pure and simple. Some folks don't seem to care that much.

[Hannah Bell]

75. i remember quite well. perhaps you don't understand what "blanket" means.

American contextThe doctrine of fair use should make it legal to record songs from the radio for private use. Traditionally, the recording industry expressed little or no concern with individuals who recorded music from the radio on a cassette recorder.

*****

[Baby Bear]

153. The issue is morality, not legality

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the law well enough to judge the case.

On moral grounds, however, it is clearly wrong to deprive another worker of the fruits of his labor.

[JVS]

55. Yeah. The real problem that the music industry has isn't that it's possible for people to make...

their own copies for personal use and share with friends without personal gain. It's that we now have the technology to easily make copies for ourselves, our friends, and everyone else in the world if we're willing to pay for some bandwidth.

[MineralMan]

Copying from material you own for your own use has been permissable

for a long time now. For others, it is not permissible, and so it has been for a long time. Copying what you do not own, too, is not permissible. In fact, it's downright illegal. Yes, it's easy. That doesn't matter, really. It's an ethical thing, as well as a legal one.

[GReedDiamond]

256. As I recall, The Recording Industry,...

...back in the day when cassette tape recorders became readily available to the general public, lobbied for adding a tax to the cost of blank cassettes, payable to themselves, which they justified as a way to recapture "lost profits" from the recording of their copyrighted material from radio broadcasts.

The tax was never passed, but, somehow, miraculously, the Recording Industry survived long enough to bring us a slew of artists who rely heavily on the use of autotune.

Thanks for The Audio Home Recording Act links, Hannah.

[RegieRocker]

118. It happened all the time by many people. Nothing new here.

It's the risk the artists take when they make it big enough to have their music played on air or through digital means. I guess making it big time and a lot of money just isn't enough. They want it all. Every nickel and dime. Back in my day artists we're happy with their success and the money their fans had given them and didn't grieve over some of their music being recorded.

[Teaser]

143. Was it?

I seem to remember a court ruling that making copies for personal use (and not resale) was OK...

[CBGLuthier]

148. No, that was legal and has been legal since 1992

analog copying for personal use only.

We could also legally use our vcr's to record shows, again under the same rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

[fishwax]

186. No, that was legal for personal use

Using VCR's to record broadcast TV was legal (I can't recall if premium cable channels were treated differently, but it seems to me that they were) as was recording radio signals, provided it was not for commercial use.

[Modern_Matthew]

18. Voted not as bad, but I don't consider it bad at all. I strongly encourage it.

I don't believe in the theft of something that's intangible. I will and forever consider it a preposterous notion.

[NeedleCast]

36. Spoken Like Someone Who Never Made a Living as an Artist

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modern_Matthew]

61. I'm glad you and yourself are in agreeance. nt

[blondeatlast]

120. And likely never will, regardless of how talented he is. nt

[Lucian]

418. You want to make money?

Don't be a fucking artist.

You do it because you like doing it, not because you're out to make money.

[badtoworse]

40. You need to be careful then because the law sees it very differently

Infringing on intellectual property rights can get you sued big time.

[joshcryer]

193. Agreed.

[PVnRT]

327. Your identity is intangible. I guess you wouldn't report that theft?

[randr]

20. At one time the word "burn" meant to steal from or deceive someone

I always thought it ironic and appropriate that people used the term to download something for nothing.

[pintobean]

173. You're obviously not familiar with the terminology

Burning is the process of transferring data to a cdr or dvd. A laser burns the code into the disk.

[randr]

302. That I know

The use of the word "burn" that I described preceded the current use. Hence the irony.

[Electric Monk]

22. Is recording TV on to a VHS tape different than shoplifting?

What if you then proceed to lend the VHS tape to a friend?

I would say yes, those are both different than shoplifting.

[Atman]

33. It isn't illegal to record a TV show to video tape.

It would be illegal for you to make copies, distribute them for profit, or show the TV show in a public venue for profit.

[scheming daemons]

23. When you shoftlift, the item is GONE... when you download, it is still there

If I took a banana from a grocery store that had 10 bananas.... and magically, the grocery store STILL had 10 bananas after I took one.... then it would be the same as downloading a song.

[Modern_Matthew]

32. Exactly. Here's a song that will explain it to the easily confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

[Atman]

39. Not even worth watching, because YOU ARE WRONG.

You are rationalizing your own illegal behavior, nothing more. It doesn't make a shits bit of difference if it's "still there." WTF, you think you only have to pay for something if you eat it or keep someone else from having it?

[joshcryer]

197. No one is debating legality, people are debating dishonest terminology. Copying is not theft.

[onenote]

309. I take it you are equally troubled by the term "identity theft" and

by informal refernces to libel and slander as "theft of one's good name".

[KittyWampus]

34. If you download a song illegally, you've got something you didn't pay for- it's stolen.

If you sneak into a movie theater- you're engaging in criminal behavior.

[LanternWaste]

73. Bananas grow back, and replenish themselves, yes?

Bananas grow back, and replenish themselves; much like ideas, yes?

[originalpckelly]

89. And how did the bananas get to the store?

The price of the banana comes from purchasing the land, the banana plants, the stuff used to grow them, paying the farm workers, harvesting their fruit, keeping them from bruising which is exceedingly hard, transporting them, arranging them at the store, paying the people who arrange them, and of course and funny little stickers along the way.

So, you can see, there is big problem there. The bananas don't just grow back, they cost money to make, and there is a direct loss of money to the store owner and all the people down the line.

On the other hand, it is technically possible for someone to illegally download a work of art they simply would not have purchased, and because it is in digital form, it doesn't cost the producer anything more for another copy to be produced than it did for only the legal copies.

With a physical item, there is always a loss of income, because the maker/farmer/etc. loses out on resources.

But with digital items, it's completely possible to duplicate something without a direct additional cost to the maker. The only time actual harm occurs is when the maker has been robbed of a potential sale.

So, if you were planning to go buy a CD, but you instead downloaded it for free illegally, you are harming the various individuals involved in the production of the CD.

But if you are some dumb teenager who could afford the CD, and you download it illegally, you are not harming the creator of the work because they are not being deprived of a potential sale.

[LanternWaste]

84. Yours sounds like a great justification for plagiarism too.

Yours sounds like a great justification for plagiarism too.

[LanternWaste]

28. The tortured rationalizations alone...

The tortured rationalizations and righteous justifications alone are enough for this thread to be entertaining.

[originalpckelly]

31. Shoplifting entails stealing a physical copy, the manufacturer loses out on a potential sale.

In a situation where a person would not have purchased a digital or physical copy of the work, there is no legitimate loss of income and it cannot be claimed.

If, however, it can be reasonably shown that the person would have purchased a copy of the work, it is a loss of income. You should minimize harm to the system by restitution of the full purchase price, plus a fine that is a flat percentage of the person's income.

[Atman]

43. Illegal dling entails stealing a protected copy, the creator has lost out on what should be a sale.

[originalpckelly]

51. Don't you have to prove the potential existence of a sale?

If someone would have purchased the work, indeed that is a loss to the creator.
But if they wouldn't have purchased the work, the creator loses out on nothing, and may in fact gain from wider enjoyment of the work in advertising by word of mouth.

[Atman]

57. The downloader has NO RIGHT to download the song if he didn't pay for it.

The issue of whether or not he would have bought it otherwise doesn't enter into the law.

[originalpckelly]

62. Not all laws are just laws. Some industry groups unfairly influnce the political system.

You claim a loss of money, but if a purchase of the song or other art would not have occurred, there is honestly no loss to the artist, and the harm claimed in nonsense.

[KittyWampus]

66. If the purchase would not have occurred, then the thief wouldn't have the song.

There really are some wild attempts at rationalizations here. Amazing.

[originalpckelly]

70. And would the person selling the song have income?

NO!

The harm comes not from stealing the song, but depriving the artist of the income, right?

Then you should have to prove a loss of income to prove harm. That's totally reasonable and possible.

[LanternWaste]

95. Plagiarism is then not harmful?

"Then you should have to prove a loss of income to prove harm. That's totally reasonable and possible...."

Plagiarism is then not harmful?

[originalpckelly]

99. Plagiarism is bad because it decreases the use of one's original perspective.

The point of writing something on your own, or making the attempt, is to create something unique.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[LanternWaste]

114. It cannot be harmful per your own dictum-- the loss cannot be proven.

It cannot be harmful per your own dictum-- the loss cannot be proven, unless of course you continue to add more qualifiers as you go on..

There are many more reasons for writing than originality and creativity; e.g., half my work-day is used to write corporate blogs, ad copy, technical writing and handbook-- the point is most certainly not to create something unique. :shrug:

[originalpckelly]

116. "the point is most certainly not to create something unique"

Maybe that says more about you than it does a plagiarist.

And if it needs to be created, the it did not exist before, and it is unique.

[onenote]

313. So I should be able to steal a rolls royce because I would never buy one?

But if I steal a Honda Civic, I should be locked up?

[GOTV]

330. Stealing a physical object prevents the owner from using or selling it ...

... not so with IP.

[onenote]

335. actually making a copy of a work of intellectual property does prevent the owner from selling it

If I make a copy, I don't have to buy it.

And let's take this to the next step, if I take a book out of the library and make a hundred copies of it and stand outside my local bookstore giving them away, I haven't stolen a physical object, but I sure as hell am harming the owner of the content in that book who is compensated by sales of the book. I'm curious whether you think that giving away copies of copyrighted works made without the authorization of the copyright owners is okay and if its not, but the person making the copies hasn't stolen anything (since he/she didn't take any physical object away from anyone), what exactly are they guilty of? What if instead of making physical copies of the work, I took the original copy, scanned it into my computer and sent files consisting of the content of the book to a hundred people, or posted it on a blog so that anyone could access it. The original physical object hasn't been misappropriated, so do you think that its okay to do anything with the content?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

164. See #162. -nt

[AtomicKitten]

35. The availability of data on the interweb is tough to control & fines for internet "piracy" are huge.

[Newest Reality]

38. Other ...

It is a copy of something.

We have yet to deal with the impact of technology in an appropriate and progressive way. I won't agree with the criminality of obtaining an available copy of anything when there is no motive of financial profit involved. That is a ridiculous argument based on industry propaganda and pressure.

While large companies attempt to criminalize what has been a private issue of intellectual property rights, (along with the remedies of private lawsuits) I will separate the remuneration truly deserved by artists from the parasitic giants that only give most of them pennies on the revenue dollar.

Do support your favorite artists, writers, etc., but why buy into biased campaigns to convince you that there is a new level of criminal to contend with? We already have enough victimless crime problems and look what they did with drugs for various, vested interests over decades.

[KittyWampus]

41. if you download music illegally there is certainly financial profit involved. The thief is profiting

from the cost of money not spent on the music they stole.

[Atman]

44. Exactly. The thief still has money which actually belongs to the copyright holder.

And the thief can still spend that money on other things which the artist cannot, because he didn't get paid for his work.

It's fucking stealing. No way around it.

[originalpckelly]

48. Only if the work would have been purchased.

If the work would not have been purchased, then there is no loss of income.
There is a burden of proof that should rest upon the claimant to prove an actual loss would have occurred.

[GOTV]

331. True, but it doesn't mean you would have had a sale if you could have prevented the illegal download

[originalpckelly]

46. And can you prove they would have purchased said music?

The threshold for downloading something is much lower than buying it. In addition, if the amount of material illegally downloaded is large enough, it would not be reasonable to claim any loss beyond the income and credit line of the person, as they would not have been able to purchase the work in the first place, thereby eliminating any net loss on the part of the work's creator.

In addition, the fines imposed for illegal downloads are draconian and unreasonable, and overvalue the contribution of the work to society.

[Atman]

50. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

You go with that rationalization of yours. In fact, post a list of all the music you've illegally downloaded, and see if the copyright holders agree with you. Anonymity doesn't make it legal.

[originalpckelly]

58. Actually, I buy my music.

I tend to think, however, that most artists are a little vain and tend to overvalue their contribution to society.

[They_Live]

211. wow.

I cannot believe your attitude.

[Newest Reality]

130. I am trying to point out the difference between

a tort and an actual crime. I would hope that it would be obvious and why calling a person who downloaded a copy of something, (Xeroxed it, and I am supposed to add a (tm) here according to Xerox Corp.) a criminal, (or thief as you put it) is a dangerous way to look at law and an invitation to Draconian corporate infringements on OUR rights.

Try this one:

If I build a shed and go over your property line, that's not legal. You find out, and yes, you may be pissed, but do I deserve a criminal sentence for that? No. That's not how it works. You take me to court and prove that I have breached your property line. If the court finds for you, something is worked-out, one way or another, to your satisfaction. I pay you or tear down the shed or both. That's a tort, not a crime.

Why do we have to buy-into a corporate, industry interpretation of what they think laws should be and how they apply? That's the equivalent of the way some people buy into the Koch model of government.

Can't we agree that artists have rights in a tort sense without acquiescing to the criminalization of people who are not reusing or reselling a copy for profit? Should they be criminals, really?

[KittyWampus]

158. Ideally, yes. The music delivery system is terribly flawed. As is book publishing.

Flawed and archaic.

[ecstatic]

45. Not the same. Potential/theoretical loss vs. physical/real loss

Items in a store are real, physical items that have value.

Publishers don't lose actual money when someone downloads an electronic file online, at most, they lose potential money. There is no evidence the downloader would have made a legal purchase of that item

[Atman]

47. It ceases to become a "theoretical" loss the moment you steal the work.

It is a real loss, because you are supposed to pay for it.

[Electric Monk]

59. The CEO of Adobe once said he'd rather people were pirating his software than buying his competitors

fwiw

[originalpckelly]

68. One cannot underestimate the value of piracy to those make intellectual property.

They may not buy the version of the software which they pirated, but go on to buy another because they liked the software or the piece of art.

They might even be viewing the art illegally, then go on to buy the a higher quality version of it from a legitimate source.

And the amount of advertising that it produces is probably in some cases more valuable than the loss of income. Everyone knows about Photoshop, probably because it is so widely pirated.

[onenote]

315. If i buy a book, make copies and give them away outside the bookstore

Should that be okay since the only loss is the "potential" loss of sales. After all, the store has the same number of books it had before. The fact that I, as an author, am getting absolutely no compensation from the sale of the copied books apparently means nothing.

So many DUers apparently view material objects as having value, but content as having none. Steal a book of blank pages -- bad. Steal a book with a novel printed on the pages bad. Steal the novel but leave the book behind, no worries.

[devilgrrl]

52. Other: People have a right to listen before they purchase

If you like something enough - you'll pay for it.

[pintobean]

53. When the RIAA tried to outlaw the sale of used CDs

they told me that their product has no value.

[BOG PERSON]

67. you're right,

intellectual property has absolutely no value.

[Shiver]

96. As stated above,

spoken as someone who has never had to make a living as an artist.

[Paradoxical]

60. If I purchased every song I own, I would have spent over $10,000.

[Atman]

77. Your point?

You took $10,000 out of people's pockets, or you would have no music on your iPod?

[Paradoxical]

78. Every human needs music. And most of us cannot afford it.

[Atman]

80. Get a radio.

.

[Paradoxical]

81. Most music on the radio is crap.

I'm talking about good music.

[Atman]

92. If it is GOOD, it must have some value to you.

So fucking BUY IT.

[Paradoxical]

94. And what if I don't have money to buy it?

[Throd]

98. Face it guy, you just don't like paying for shit.

[Paradoxical]

101. Yeah, I refuse to pay 10,000 dollars for music.

[Throd]

107. That bike isn't chained up. It's mine now.

I don't have the money for a fancy bike like that so it is OK because I want it.

[Paradoxical]

108. I don't own that bike.

It's only a picture.

[Atman]

109. But would you STEAL IT because you want it and can't afford it? If not, why not?

Just askin'

[originalpckelly]

113. The bike is a physical thing.

The creation of the bike cost someone money.
The creation of the music cost someone money too, but to create a new copy of the music, there is no direct relationship between the production costs and the new copy. With the bike that relationship exists.

You could make a million copies of that song, it wouldn't cost the creator one dime more in production costs.
If you stole a million bikes, it would cost the manufacturer more money to replace them, and they lost out on the physical cost of production.

If you deprive the creator of the IP of money, then there is a loss. That's a fairly easy thing to prove, and it should be done.

But you've got some of these asshole record companies going after 15 year old kids for music and other shit, fucking ruining their lives, and they couldn't have purchased the songs in the first place, even if they worked. There is a point where you have to minimize harm to society as a whole, and prosecuting this, or pursuing a civil remedy is just outrageously expensive when compared to the actual loss at hand.

And the penalties are outrageous too.

In some cases, a physical copy of the song could have been stolen, and the thief would have been able to get off with a much less significant punishment.

[Atman]

119. The bike manufacturer/reseller all made significantly more than the pennies the recording artist

If the creator of the music made back his production costs after just selling a couple of copies, well...you'd still be wrong. Please don't bring the "asshole record companies" into it. We are talking about other art as well. And your feeling toward the record companies still doesn't change the copyright laws. It just gives you a rationale for your ridiculous stance that stealing is okay as long as you dislike the people you're stealing from.

[originalpckelly]

129. Why do recording artists make so little money?

I think the asshole record companies usually have something to do with that, you know.

[Atman]

139. No, it's about volume.

A $3,000 titanium bike is only anticipated to sell very few copies to a small niche market. Music (I was going to "records"...how quaint) are expected to sell thousands, hopefully hundreds of thousands, or ideally millions, of copies. All things being equal, they're not equal.

[They_Live]

229. Not every artist has a huge asshole record company.

I fact most of us are barely scraping by, work at some crappy day job, and spend what little extra income is left on equipment, groceries, recording time, fuel, and advertising. The reason recording artists make so little money? Everybody thinks it should be free, or that they can "try it out" for a year to see if they like it enough to actually purchase one.

[Paradoxical]

232. Recording artists are poor because they aren't popular.

That's basically what it comes down to. You don't make enough money because you don't have a big enough audience.

P2P programs and torrents don't hurt underground bands that have a 50 person or even a 1000 person fan base.

That's the hysterical nature of this argument. P2P programs take revenue away from bands and record companies that are hugely popular. Bands that already make massive amounts of money.

[Confusious]

362. sorry, I don't buy if I can't try

been burned to many times buying a 15 dollar cd, 1 good song on the entire tape. Or crappy games that sell for $50. If I can't try, I have no problem doing without. There's always something else, and probably better, too.

[Throd]

110. I'm sure you could find a way to justify stealing it.

[JVS]

111. Did you copy the picture?

:rofl:

[Atman]

103. I wonder what he paid for that sweet bike in his sig line.

Or maybe he stole. After all, it was just chained to a pole...no one was using it.

[Atman]

100. I don't have money to buy a Porche Cayenne. So I make do with what I have.

I think you inadvertently admitted your endorsement of stealing. Doesn't a bank robber make the same rationalization? "I needed the money?" Or a burglar who takes your stuff?

If you don't have money to buy something you want, join the goddamn club. There is plenty of FREE music available to you, just as there are plenty of cars available to me that aren't Porche Cayennes.

[Paradoxical]

105. And like I said below, without music, I'd probably be dead.

Music is not merely a commodity. It's an art. It speaks to a higher form of being.

And in that capacity, you cannot place a value on it. It's simply too important to be withheld.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

142. I paid like 10 dollars to be a part of DU. Which is 1000 times less.

than the amount of money required to legally purchase all of my music.

This isn't a matter of priorities. It's a matter of dealing with reality. No one can afford to possess a substantial music collection unless they are already fairly well-off.

I am not well-off.

[joshcryer]

198. Let's face it, 98% of all iPod / large capacity music players *are putting illegal content on them*.

Otherwise those music players would sit, almost empty, with nothing on them.

The electronics makers know this and they turn a blind eye because they are profiting from illegality..

So rather than blame the manufacturers of these devices, we blame the plebs who are duped into buying them to begin with.

[Atman]

207. Really? 98%? Did John Kyl give you that figure?

Just curious.

[joshcryer]

214. It's just a common sense extrapolation.

A typical iPod can hold 40k songs, a typical person cannot pay $40k to fill up their iPod. But they can get a torrent on tpb or demonoid and fill it up.

[Atman]

219. There is no common sense at all in that argument.

If you can't afford to fill it up...WTF are you doing with an iPad in the first place? And how are you paying the monthly fee?

Common sense? Don't flatter yourself.

[joshcryer]

231. Let's see, hundreds of millions of iPods have been sold.

All but the small ones can hold tens of thousands of songs.

Why else do you fucking think people buy them? As pretty storage devices that they put their legally copyrighted songs on in lossless format? Let me tell you, I'm not going to believe such nonsensical arguments. And you want to know why? Because of experience.

[Atman]

249. Experience? Ex-fucking-perience? Are you serious?

How many vinyl albums do you think I've purchased in my life? Then 8-tracks, then cassettes, then CDs. I have copies of Abbey Road in every conceivable format, and I PAID FOR THEM. Now you people are complaining that your iPods have too much space so you have to steal music in order to fill it up? Are you fucking serious? Do you think that would have worked for me in my youth? "But your honor, I got this awesome new turntable, and my stereo shelf holds at least a two hundred albums...I had to steal them! How else could I fill up my shelf?" You can't afford to fill it up? Do what everyone did, save a few bucks to purchase your favorite "album," but please don't blame your thieving on the fact that your iPod has a really big storage capacity.

[joshcryer]

251. I don't have an iPod.

And you're still confusing copying with theft. I find USB sticks on the ground all the time, just the other day I found one that was 8GB and was full of music and movies. I tracked the girl down on Facebook and returned it to her. I didn't delete the files though you probably thought it was immoral of me to not call the police because she copied some shit.

[Atman]

255. Oh, please.

Stay focused. No one is talking about you finding a USB stick on the ground. You insinuated a correlation between storage capacity and ones need to steal music.

[joshcryer]

257. No, I was talking about enabling, not needing.

I do think Paradoxical, for example, does not need 25 days worth of continual music. No way in fucking hell. However, the fact that he has it shows that the technology enabled him to get it easily. You have a storage device. That storage device does one or two things (plays music or video). Its software is linked to music.

What the fuck do you think it's enabling you to do? Particularly when you're a kid and don't have $10-50k laying around somewhere? Why golly gee, you go and you type in Google the name of the file you want, and Google (the greatest piracy search engine on the planet) will find it.

[Paradoxical]

267. I discover a new album almost every day.

At the very least, 2 or 3 times a week. If I purchased every single album I discovered, I would have no money for anything else. In fact, I don't even make enough money to afford such a lifestyle.

I don't even own an Ipod. My headphones cannot be driven by one.

[NeedleCast]

333. You simply have a false understanding of how life works

In your world:

You desire something.
You can't afford it.
You use this to justify theft.

In the real world:

You desire something.
You can't afford it.
You don't get to have it.

(In the real world, you also don't get to put a value on the product of an artist, nor do you get to claim that you "need" music so badly it justifies theft).

You should join us here in the real world. The world in which we pay for the things we want (unless they are free). I love music to. In fact, I love it so much that I go to concerts on a regular basis to support artists and as often as possible I buy directly from the artist if possible to maximize their percentages even though its more time consuming to do so.

I could at least respect you if you said "I steal music." and left it at that, but you're continuing to try to justify it. Worse, it seems like you think theft from the smaller artists, the ones who need to income most to provide you with the music you "need" are the ones you have the least problem stealing from.

[joshcryer]

343. I think you have a false understanding of how life works in the information age.

Does one:

Work 8 hours a day to earn a paycheck to spend a small amount of it on internet and on digital media.

Or.

Work 8 hours a day to earn a paycheck to spend a small amount of it on internet connection which allows them to "illegally" acquire digital media.

It's a cost-benefit analysis. A lot of people "believe" it's cheaper to buy digital media from those stores that offer it, because the "effort" required to find that media via other streams is worth as much as working a few tens of minutes a day. ie, if I get paid $10 an hour, and I spend 30 minutes finding a file that is for sale for a dollar, my 30 minutes is worth $5 so by downloading something illegally I've 'spent' $5 as opposed to $1. But I'd argue that given the era of Google scraping almost every site on the planet, no file need take that long to find, and indeed, you'd spend about as much time as you might on any of those media selling services, only you won't have to pay in the end.

[Atman]

394. I understand completely. You're a thief.

Period. You justify your thieving because you can't afford the stuff you want. It's pretty clear to everyone reading this thread. You. Are. A. Thief.

.

[Paradoxical]

348. Actually, this is the real world. P2P programs and torrents are the real world.

Hate to burst your bubble.

[joshcryer]

351. Direct downloads are where it's at now.

Companies offering file hosting for ad revenue. They take down flagged files, copyright infringed files, so they skirt the niggling distribution aspect of copyright. It's actually ironic. A kid sharing files will get sued and if he fights it, he will lose, and pay tens of thousands of dollars. A corporation shares files, by enabling generic file sharing, and what do you know, they're completely immune from such lawsuits, they simply "remove the file" and pow, they are free and clear.

Nevermind the tens of hundreds of people who download those files before the file is flagged and inspected and then finally removed.

[Paradoxical]

353. I sometimes use direct downloads. But I have super secret access...

To a super epic torrent website called What.CD

Their torrents are free, clean and fast. Like with my internet connection I can download at 2 Mbit/s.

My friend pays for a membership to a direct download site. Sometimes I'll take stuff from his computer.

[Atman]

395. They are the "real world" to thieves.

Just because you no longer have to don a ski mask and risk being shot by the clerk at the 7-11 doesn't make it anything less than theft. Now it's just CONVENIENT theft.

[NeedleCast]

400. I'm not arguging that those things arent part of the real world

You're just using them to steal things.

You seem to be confusing access to P2P networks with permission to steal. Being given the ability to steal rapdily and mostly anonymously doesn't make you any less of a thief.

[krispos42]

298. A new MP3 player starts pretty cheap.

The cost of perhaps 3 albums, perhaps 36 songs.

2GB iPod Shuffle, $46 at Best Buy.


Assuming an MP3 is 1 MB/min, that's 2,000 minutes (33h 20m) available on the player. Assuming the average song is 4 minutes long, that's 500 songs. Assuming each song is $0.99 on iTunes, that's a $46 player filled up with $495 worth of music.


However, for 4x the cash, you can get 8x the capacity... an iPod Nano. So you can fill up a $170 player with $3,960 worth of music.



The ultimate is the iPod Classic. For 5.3x the money ($244) you get 160 GB of storage, or 160,000 minutes, or 2,667 hours, or 111 days worth of music. That's 40,000 songs, or $39,600 worth of music.




Saying I shouldn't buy an iPod Classic for $244 because I can't afford to put a new BMW's worth of music on it seems nonsensical.

[Bluenorthwest]

212. So you steal what you value as life giving from those who

made it, who you say give you life. A higher form of being might think that was some dangerous karmic salad there. I'd be dead without it, but I'd not pay for it, while I do pay for other things. Yeah, 'can't live without it' is why junkies think they are permitted to steal any and every thing. It is not a new or valid argument for the theft of luxury items.

[Paradoxical]

230. Your argument is self-defeating. A luxury item is not a necessity.

Music is not a luxury item.

You are attempting to present two separate and mutually exclusive positions. You have to pick one or the other.

[jdp349]

149. go get it?

really? I mean really?

[Paradoxical]

151. Yes, let me just go pick up 10,000 dollars.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

155. I have 43 gigs worth of music. About 7200 songs.

A CD costs about 15 dollars on average. Which works out to slightly more than a dollar per song. So my collection would cost between 9000 and 10000 easily.

I'm not at all an abnormality. There are millions of other people out there just like me. In fact, my music collection is relatively small.

[Atman]

161. So you've STOLEN $7,200 worth of music? And you're admitting this on a public message board?

Last I checked, I had slightly more than that in my library. Most of them were ripped from CDs I already bought and paid for. Lots of them from legal free download sights. The rest were bought and paid for, downloaded legally.

What's your problem? Like the other poster said...you just don't like paying for shit. Admit it, dammit. Thievin' is cool with you you.

Hey, recording artists...are you reading this?

[Paradoxical]

163. For the most part, recording artists make more than enough money.

Relative to the size of the product they produce.

I will go to concerts and occasionally buy an album if I think it's exceptional.

But the real issue here is with the record companies, not people like me. The record companies make the big bucks and often screw over the artists.

You can't honestly sit here and tell me that well known or gifted musicians are suffering because I download music through a P2P program. You just can't. Popular musicians make a lot of money. A lot of money.

[Atman]

165. Holy shit, are you out of touch!

Blame your thieving on the greedy record companies. Ever heard of indies? Most of what I own are from indi labels.

[Paradoxical]

168. Most indie albums I have are from indie artists who make millions.

If you're talking about truly underground artists, I almost always buy their albums when I go to their show. They are too small to even be considered for torrents.

I'm not out of touch. You're just overstating the plight of popular artists.

[They_Live]

243. Like who, for instance? (indies making millions)

I don't think you have any idea how much musicians earn, whether "successful" (making them okay to steal from), "indie" (might steal from if you think they make millions, or you think their album isn't up to par), or "underground" (who you'll go out of your way to both pay cover and buy their cd at their show). So as soon as a musician starts earning a living wage, it makes it okay to take things from them for free?

[Paradoxical]

244. I'm friends with several people who are in underground bands...

Who do nothing but play tiny venues in places like Trunk Space or the Rhythm Room in Phoenix.

They also torrent music.

A band for instance? How about Grizzly Bear or Menomena. Relatively unknown bands that still push a lot of product and are most certainly living very comfortable lifestyles.

[Ohio Joe]

170. What a stinking load of horse-shit

You don't have the money
You refuse to pay it
Music is to important to be withheld
Artists make more then enough money
Record companies make enough money

blah blah blah, you are a self admitted thief, you should be ashamed at how you justify it.

[Paradoxical]

174. I'm not ashamed at all.

I have legitimate reasons. You just refuse to accept them.

[Atman]

184. Again, the bank robber had "legitimate reasons" to rob the bank.

You're just an amoral thief. Go ahead, alert on me again thief.

[Paradoxical]

191. Comparing P2P sharing to robbing a bank is the height of absurdity.

Nice try though.

[Atman]

195. No, ignoring the comparison is the height of absurdity.

Both involve legal property. Period.

[Paradoxical]

271. Yeah in the same way that punching someone in the face is the same as mass murder.

I mean, both deal with intentional injury.

[onenote]

310. so punching someone in the face should be okay because its not mass murder?

[Paradoxical]

349. ...

face/palm

[Ohio Joe]

284. So would a court

The old "I wanted it" defense does not often work. Self justification for stealing does not equal a "legitimate reason", it is simply self justification for the crime you are committing.

[Paradoxical]

285. Your argument is worn out.

Seriously. P2P and torrents do not pirate music from bands just "getting by".

I feel absolutely no remorse because my actions have not caused any substantive harm.

[Ohio Joe]

286. So are your justifications

You are a thief, you admit to it, that you only hurt people a little bit does not change that.

[Paradoxical]

287. I take a few bucks from millionaires. I'm glad you're so concerned about their well being.

Like if you're actually trying to make me feel bad for "theft", you should really not use the hyper-wealthy as an example of someone I should feel bad for.

If torrents were actually hurting the little guy, I would reconsider my actions. But they don't hurt the little guy. They are designed to cater to ever more popular bands.

[Ohio Joe]

289. Yeah, stealing 10k worth of stuff is not much

Of course, that is only what is in your possession and does not include what you helped others steal. It is not about defending the rich but thats another nice way for you to justify your theft. I am not trying to make you feel guilty, thieves rarely do, I would rather just prefer you stopped trying to justify your theft and be straight up about it. You steal because you want it. Lets see a list of the musicians you have stolen from and see just how many of them are the hyper-wealthy

[Paradoxical]

291. I'm of the philosophy where I don't care if it's theft or something else.

If it is theft, I'm taking a few bucks each from a group of very wealthy musicians. If that's theft, I am a thief. And I really don't give a shit.


There's also no possible way I'm going to spend the time copying and pasting every single artist I've pirated as that would literally take hours if not days. But here's a taste.


Deadmau5

AFI

The Arcade Fire

The Beatles

Tool

The entire Chopin collection

Kanye West

Lady Gaga

Led Zeppelin

Moby

Modest Mouse

Nirvana

Passion Pit

Red Hot Chili Peppers

Rogue Wave

The Roots

Talking Heads

[Ohio Joe]

342. See, that was not hard

You just don't give a shit, the real reason most people commit theft.

[Paradoxical]

347. No, I don't give a shit because I'm taking a very small amount from the incredibly rich.

[AlabamaLibrul]

234. Have you ever reposted a photo on the Internet without permission? n/t

[walldude]

215. Yeah I'm reading this...

and I also know how the music industry works. $7200 worth of music? I don't think you are even close.

First of all from $15 CD the artist gets.. a buck. YEah the person that made the music gets a dollar while the record company gets $14.

Now when you download a song you have eliminated most of what the record company is there to do. Manufacture, advertise and distribute.

So why then is the cost of a single song still a dollar? There is no need for distribution, studio costs are down to almost nothing.

Do you think that if music was distributed at 20 cents a song there would be less downloading?

The problem here is both of you are wrong. Downloading is stealing. True. But paying for downloads is the same as ripping off the artist who actually created the music. You are paying wildly inflated prices most of which does not go to the people that actually created the music.

The solution will come soon enough. Many artists are already writing recording and distributing their own stuff. Many artists are giving away some of their music and others are running on a "pay what you can" plan. Many others are selling CD's at their shows.


The solutions are out there and when we get there both the musician and the listener will benefit while the huge Corporations that are sucking the life out of the music business will wither and die or go find someone else to rip off.

[JonLP24]

221. Exactly right

Based on what an artist told me anyways. She tells me that musicians make their money doing tours, playing at concerts. They don't see much money from CD sales.

[walldude]

236. Touring and Merch... That $50 t-shirt you bought cost

them 5 bucks...

[Atman]

225. Very good points all. We are in the midst of a paradigm shift.

Once the CD market is totally dead -- which will be soon -- the entrenched old school manufacturers will realize they've been liberated from manufacturing and production costs. That's when the prices will finally start to drop. This is no different than any other industry in transition throughout history.

[joshcryer]

237. You're behind the times, a lot of artists have got 70% of their profits for almost a decade now.

Catch up. CDs are not the means to make money these days. Almost every artist knows this. Digital distribution is the future, but the era of artists profiting from it will be short lived (because people will no longer see a reason to continue to pay for media that has zero marginal cost).

[walldude]

239. Yeah hopefully we'll come around sooner than later

the problem at this point I think is things like American Idol that are promoting the "lottery" style careers of "shower singers". What ever happened to the days of paying dues? Touring sections of the country in a shitty van, sleeping 5 guys to a hotel room, eating baloney and ramen and building up chops, working it till it's honed down to something professional..

We did it because we loved to play. Now days they do it to become rich and famous.

I'm keeping my eye on Radiohead. While they are not my favorite band they seem to be the ones who are ahead of the game on Internet Distribution. I think they will lead the way...

[joshcryer]

242. *sigh* guys it's happening *now*, the paradigm shift you're looking for started years ago!

from this paper: http://mortimer.fas.harvard.edu/concerts_01oct2010.pdf

[joshcryer]

245. That's 600 hours worth of songs. Or 25 days straight without ever hearing a dupe.

That's pretty crazy man. Do you have an OCD problem where you just "collect"? I know a whole lot of people like that. Guys who have entire discographies from hundreds upon hundreds of artists.

Don't even like music. :rofl:

[Paradoxical]

248. I regularly listen to more than half of it.

I'm an audiophile.

I'll hear about a good band, check them out and if I like them, I'll either download their album or, rarely, go out and buy it. Over the years, I've collected a vast amount of music. That 43 gigs doesn't even count the other 10 or more gigs of FLAC format files.

[joshcryer]

254. I just listen to indy internet radio (which the artists provide music royalty free).

Soma FM is my favorite: http://somafm.com/

Artists just provide their content for free because they know exposure is 100x better than immediate returns.

[KittyWampus]

159. College radio stations- left side of the dial.

[LanternWaste]

82. I think you conflate desires and needs....

I think you conflate desires and needs. Unless or course you believe deaf people need music... :shrug:

[Paradoxical]

91. I think the deaf are unfortunate in that they cannot listen to music.

But music is something that has kept me alive for a long time. It was there in my darkest hours of depression. I honestly don't think I'd be alive without it.

[LanternWaste]

102. I imagine most of us have more strength than we need...

I imagine most of us have more strength than we need... which seems far more positive than using the darkness in our lives to excuse our actions.

On edit: The small child in a bicycle who "needs" his father to run along behind him to maintain the bicycle's balance... that is, until he turns around and suddenly realizes his father stopped half a block ago and the child has been doing it on his own merit.

Again... I think you conflate desires and needs. :shrug:

[Paradoxical]

112. I'm simply saying that music helped me through some dark times in my life.

And it wouldn't have been there if I had to pay for it.

[LanternWaste]

117. You were simply saying "we need music to survive". The rest was an example.

You were simply saying "we need music to survive". The rest was merely an example. :shrug:

[Atman]

122. Robbing the liquor store helped the theif through some rough times, too.

:shrug:

[Paradoxical]

127. Okay, and?

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

126. Sez the guy who can't afford a car ashtray. nt

[Paradoxical]

128. Never said I couldn't afford one. I said I never thought of buying one.

[BOG PERSON]

64. obviously, yes

anybody who thinks otherwise must be unable to tell the difference between mind and matter.

[glen123098]

72. Maybe copyright infriengment is technically wrong, but it doesn't change that the corporations own..

The United States of America. Corporate stooges like Sony Bono gave us the mickey mouse protection act, which extended copyrights to an absurd amount of time. As a result, Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted which is absurd, and a ton of movies while trust fund kiddies line their pockets. The corporations also write the laws that give copyright infringement violations absurd penalties. FOr example this woman was fined 1.5 million for downloading about 24 songs.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/148/minnesota-mom-hit-with-15-million-fine-for-downloading-24-songs/;_ylt=Ak5UA5G3fkWFq8e_S7weLOJhyCUv?page=2#comments

This is beyond fucking outrageous and these are not the actions of a legitimate democracy


Copying is not the same as stealing, in fact its probably not as bad, but the penalties for it are insane because corporations own our congresscritters.


If someone makes 9 dollars an hour working at McDonalds and can't afford to purchase a CD movie or game, I have no problem with them copying it.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Meh. The best bands are taper/trade friendly, anyway.

[RegieRocker]

123. Truth hurts.

[TheBigotBasher]

86. You have your ones and zeros on your hard disc

I copy said ones and zeros. You still have your ones and zeros.

Where is the theft?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

138. So you have no problem with plagerism or violating intellectual property rights either...

Both instances leave the original work intact so I guess there's no crime. :eyes:

[TheBigotBasher]

141. I did not say there was no crime,

crime is decided by law and guilt is decided by a judge and/or jury.

I just pointed out it is not theft.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

145. If claim it is not theft, then you must also claim it is not a crime...

the crux of the "illegal download" issue is that the crime is a crime of theft.
Access to and independent use of material which was not bought or paid for by the end user... THEFT.

If you claim downloading songs which were not purchased is not "theft" then there must be no "crime".
In this matter, they are mutually inclusive.

Do you feel plagerism or use of others' IP is theft?

[darkstar3]

167. Mistaken use of terms.

Plagiarism isn't theft. It doesn't even qualify as petty theft.

[Atman]

311. Comparison: in Vermont, re-selling a ski lift ticket is "Theft of Services."

Yes, you bought the physical lift ticket. If you only ski for an hour, why can't you sell it to someone in the parking lot? But the law in Vermont says such a sale deprives the mountain from selling another ticket to the guy who would have bought his own ticket anyway (seriously, who drives all the way to a ski resort hoping to score a cheap ticket in the parking lot?). So there IS such a thing as "theft" even if the item isn't tangible like a car or even a physical CD.

[joshcryer]

352. The law made it perfectly legal for lenders to make sour deals and rate tham AAA.

The law isn't always right.

[Atman]

367. So you rationalize your moral values to fit your needs. Good for you.

Fuck your friend's wife because she is prettier than yours. Steal your friend's Bimmer because your Escort is in the shop. As long as you can rationalize your behavior, all is okay. Okay. I understand where you're coming from. Really, I do. And it's a sad place.

[joshcryer]

372. No one mentioned having affairs of stealing cars.

That's your unfair projection.

[Atman]

396. Yes, someone did. Me.

You just want to find a way to rationalize your illegal activity.

In retrospect, though, I shouldn't have included fucking your neighbor's wife. That's not illegal. But I'm sure you could find a way to justify that, too.

[JuniperLea]

87. It's test driving... or trying on jeans before you buy them...

There are artists to whom I am completely loyal and I will always buy their recordings ear unheard. Everyone else gets a test drive... if I like, if it fits, I buy. There are also albums I've bought several times over... vinyl, cassette, CD... and if the CD is skippy, you damn betcha I'll download the album.

In the old days I'd buy vinyl, record it to metal tape, then create cassettes as needed (I wore many out). Now, I buy a CD, rip it to mp3, and put it on my stick. The CD gets put away for safe keeping and if my stick corrupts (usually my fault) I just load it up again.

I will download things that cannot be purchased as well. I know many artists who put their own show bootlegs up for grabs, for example.

[JI7]

125. how about the person who eats a grape before deciding whether to buy it ?

if they decide not the buy are they stealing the grape ?

[Shiver]

137. Yes.

Although a single grape won't cause much concern. It's expected. If they have a whole bag of grapes and they're eating them as they walk through the store and do their shopping, then it becomes a concern.

The grape analogy isn't the best one. I work in a grocery store, and we don't mind a single grape picked off and eaten. More often than not, that grape will result in the person buying a whole bag of grapes. If not... well, they're sold by the pound, and a single grape barely weight enough to cost one cent. If you want to test out a song, or an ebook, there are way to do it without stealing - samples on the artist's website, or Amazon's 'Look Inside' feature. That's the sample you take to decide if you want to buy.

[Chef Eric]

182. Of course they are stealing. nt

[FLPanhandle]

131. Other

If a song is readily available and reasonably priced on iTunes, I'll buy it.

If a record company won't sell a particular song unless it's bundled into buying an entire album, then fuck 'em. I tried to buy it but they wouldn't let me, so I'll go download it from somewhere.

If it's overpriced, then, again, fuck 'em.

Give people a chance to buy a product at a reasonable price and I believe most people will do so. Try and gouge them for something, and they get nothing.

[zalinda]

133. This subject has lots of twists and turns

For example: If you get a DVD from the library, are you stealing? The same with a CD? Or a book?

Where the real problem is in bootlegging. If the entertainment industry spent as much money on finding the people who are selling the copies, or even the containers coming from China, full of bootlegs, they would probably do more for the artist than themselves. But, this isn't about the art, it's about money. Without doing much work, they can take Americans to court because the have 24 songs on their computer that they downloaded or their kids have downloaded. And these judgments are absolutely ridiculous.

It doesn't take much common sense to know that the majority of Americans do not know how to download youtube, much less find copies of songs or movies. It is actually a small portion of people who are into downloading. And why do they download? Many reasons come to mind, many can't afford to go to the movies, or buy the CD's, and they don't want to wait until it gets to the library (if it ever gets there) or until it plays on TV. Some just love the thrill of doing something illegal. But, for a large majority, it is for an entirely different reason......they collect. I never understood a 'friend' of mine from my Commodore 64 days, he had just about every program that you could get for the Commodore 64, many were copies, and some were bought, and come to find out, some had been shoplifted. Many of his real programs were not even opened, he just had to have them, not use them, but have them. Over my many years in among computer users, I have found that there are A LOT of collectors, of digital information. They do more collecting, than watching or listening. Would they ever buy the songs or movies, no. They would probably find something else to collect.

Any day you can walk down the street in a large downtown city and find bootleg movies for sale for $5, and they sell. Were these movies downloaded from the Internet and burned, no, not in this country. They look like real movie DVD's, they are made by the thousands, most likely in China. When the entertainment industry, gets tough with these people who are really stealing and making a buck off of it too, then I will think that the companies care about their artists, or even their industry.

zalinda

[Atman]

144. Thailand was an eye-opener.

Every street vendor has the latest American theatre releases for sale for just a few bucks. They print their own sleeves, no plastic cases. Even the fine hotels had current videos available for free to guests. Most of them, though, were like those in the old Seinfeld episode...recorded with a camcorder in a crappy theatre. But they are everywhere.

Now, here's where the artist comes in; if Big Label wants to release the title on the world market, there is little point in doing so. Everyone has already seen the movie overseas before it's even been released to DVD in the US. And the writers, actors, musicians, etc, are all deprived of royalties and residuals.

It is STEALING. I just don't see how any rational human can see it otherwise.

[JonLP24]

169. Reminds me

from when I was in Iraq & Kuwait. I would often find bootleg movies and shows at the shops the locals have in-bases(most soldiers call them "Haji shops" but not me). The quality is like you describe, people would film in a movie theater. It was hilarious to watch someone get up and walk in-front of the camcorder. Other times the quality was excellent. Many DVD players here won't play them but an XBox 360 will play just about any DVD movie.

Customs let us take 15-20 movies with us but not any more 'cause I guess they thought we would sell them. Also we weren't allowed to take home more than 1 copy of a movie or TV show. I still have them but never watch them because of the quality and I can watch almost anything has been released through DVD on Netflix.

[yurbud]

140. at the moment, this is like asking a cancer patient if they are worried about getting a cold.

we've got bigger fish to fry, hopefully before they eat us.

[Iggo]

146. Yes.

[flvegan]

147. Not as bad as shoplifting. And it has nothing to do with money.

The money part is a wash. However, oftentimes shoplifting may invite a confrontation from a somewhat non-interest third party. That can lead to violence and injury. Most of the time, illegally downloading (whatever media), one is using third party software/websites to do so.

[Atman]

150. That's a large part of the problem...anonymity.

If you boost a DVD at Best Buy you stand a substantial risk of being pinched. But sitting in your underwear in front of your pc, you can steal an entire FYE store without worry.

Or so you hope.

[joshcryer]

202. Yet if you share files with other people, you get fines that are incomprehensible...

...but if you shoplift you get a slap on the wrist, restitution, and a niggling misdemeanor mark on your record (which will likely disappear).

[Atman]

210. Really, though...who actually gets these "incomprehensible" fines?

A couple of high-profile cases used to set an example and deter other thieves. But get serious...if the threat of these massive fined and prosecution was real, would all of you guys be bragging about your illegal downloading on a popular public message board? Really?

[joshcryer]

218. The vast, overwhelming majority of people "caught" settle out of court.

The people who do not settle are the ones who get the big fines. If everyone refused to settle you'd see a lot more of those "high profile cases." Particularly because the people who did not settle lost in court, setting precedent for someone paying tens of thousands of dollars for a few dozen songs.

I don't share files therefore I do nothing illegal. The most that could happen to me is for my bootlegs to be confiscated or deleted (I don't use CDs/DVDs anymore, hard drives are cheaper, so "format D:" pow, done, gone).

You'll note that copyright infringement is not the fault of the person receiving but the person illegally distributing without permission. The person receiving can always claim that they thought the person distributing had the right to do so and no court on the planet would be able to prove otherwise.

[Safetykitten]

152. The kids with the downloady facey things! Such a big deal.

[Sheepshank]

156. It's more like pick pocketing

it's stealing directly from the owners, and is petty.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

160. Wow, now even "bad but not as bad" enacts hissy fits of pearl-clutching indignation?

:banghead:

[yawnmaster]

166. Why should intellectual property be owned by anyone? It should be shared freely with...

the community as should most other property.

[KittyWampus]

171. So I can drive your car anytime I want? Eat your food? Sleep in your bed?

[yawnmaster]

314. Yes!...as there should not be...

"my" car.."my" food..."my" bed.
The community should have those things and people should have use of them when they are needed.

Even more so (if there can be a more so) with intellectual properties.

[Recovered Repug]

299. Damn, I wish my teachers in high school had that attitude

during finals.

[lumberjack_jeff]

172. Every time you use the likeness of Mickey Mouse ©, or sing "Happy Birthday" ©...

...without giving money to the heirs of the estate, people will refuse to make songs or draw. Oh, and the baby Jesus ©...cries.

Open source is the solution.

[Atman]

204. Wrong. Original copyrights lasted 28 years.

Thus, Happy Birthday can be sung and recorded by anyone, because its copyright expired. Disney, however, had a company which renewed their copyrights and enforced them.

Ever wonder why classical music is played/recorded/used in ads so often? It's old...in "public domain." Past the original 28 years. No legal copyright exists any longer.

Elvis is another good example. His estate still has teams of lawyers enforcing illegal use of his likeness on velvet paintings and other chotckes.

In case you haven't figured this out yet, it's my career. I've dealt with this my whole life. I've sued and been sued. You keyboard lawyers who think you have it all figured out because you have access to a bit torrent...get a clue. Legal is legal. Just because something convenient and easy to do doesn't make it legal. Or right.

[lumberjack_jeff]

213. No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

The combination of melody and lyrics in "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912, and probably existed even earlier.<2>, pp. 31–32 None of these early appearances included credits or copyright notices. The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for $15 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million.<5> Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it. In one specific instance on February 2010, these royalties were said<6> to amount to $700. In the European Union, the copyright of the song will expire on December 31, 2016.<7> The actual American copyright status of "Happy Birthday to You" began to draw more attention with the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998.

Copyrights are now 120 years.

"Happy Birthday" earns AOL Time-Warner about $2 million annually.

[joshcryer]

222. And they're trying to get these terms extended even longer, it's absurd how people...

...are so quick to defend corporate hegemony.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

324. A fucking men.

Moreover, I regard the widespread acceptance of illegal downloading as a much-deserved backlash for precisely THAT.

[joshcryer]

344. I consider it an apathetic approach to enabling technology.

There's no political reason for it for most people, they just want shit for free.*

But I'm fine by that.

*the cost of the electrons which drive their equipment and internet costs if there are any (note: I did a lot of downloading at the library when I had no internet connection, and they paid for the electricity! talk about absolute freeness right there buddy!).

[lumberjack_jeff]

398. I think a lot of people consider it a form of civil disobedience. n/t

[darkstar3]

176. Obviously.

They are treated differently by the police, by the courts, and by just about everyone I know, so yes, they must be different.

Think about this: It's criminal vs. civil. Shoplifting is an actual crime, often termed as petty theft, and is handled in criminal proceedings. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is a tort, and is handled in civil proceedings.

The biggest difference is found in policing. The local|state|federal government is responsible for policing with regard to criminal activity. The allegedly injured party is responsible for policing in a civil case. You can't call the local cops when you find out that someone stole your patented or copyrighted idea. You have to go to court yourself.

And THAT is where the big problem lies. Conglomerates of publishing and recording companies, who give very little to the actual CREATORS, are trying to change it so that the government will be responsible for policing in civil matters. They are trying to rewrite the rules of the justice system to fit their own ends, and every time someone buys into the idea they're spreading that copyright infringement (a civil action) is the same as theft (a criminal action) they get one more tiny step closer to victory. And if they're successful, get ready to reap the whirlwind.

I hope one day to be a successful writer, and I support artists, and if you'll actually do some reading you'll find that many artists don't feel that the corporate conglomerates making noise about illegal downloading really speak for them. In fact, many musical artists feel that having their music available for download is great, because it lends them more exposure.

Go to the concerts and buy the schwag, and let the RIAA fuck off and die.

(BTW: Downloading different types of art, like music, movies, and written works, are different arguments due to different production methods, but that's an argument for another time.)

[BlueJazz]

178. Depends on the price of the software.

[Chef Eric]

180. Yes. If the singer and songwriter are dead, then from whom are you "stealing"? nt

[Atman]

189. Their children. Or the people who own the copyright.

Why is this difficult for people to understand? You all really believe that only a "thing" is of value? Were books valuable before they got put on Kindle? Now they're worthless, free for all? JESUS! I can't believe this is DU.

[joshcryer]

200. Copyright that keeps getting perpetually extended?

:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. The Disney Corporation. n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

190. push poll

no thanks

[lumberjack_jeff]

201. I make boat plans. I also make boats. I would much rather someone steal the former.

No one who has ever actually made anything, would think that stealing a song is like stealing a car. If someone steals my boat design, I don't have to buy another.

[joshcryer]

205. Interesting thing about that, apparently the USPTO made it so that boat plans...

...can be copyrighted even though they would more closely fall under patents. It's called VHDPA, or "Vessel Hull Design Protection Act."

Fashion designers are also trying to make their designs copyrightable (again, even though they'd better fall under patent law): http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

So your case is almost ironic, a guy whose intellectual property has specific copyright provisions, yet willing to at least forgive those who copy your plans.

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. If someone were to sell my plans, or produce boats to my design for resale, I'd squawk.

short of that, I really don't care.

Admittedly, if I found the plans on a Torrent site, I'd be unhappy, but I wouldn't hunt down the "criminals" involved.

And I sure as hell wouldn't do it based on one of my grandfather's designs. The copyright limit (120 years) is far too long.

Hull designs don't fit very well under patent law because there's not that much patentable about technology that humans have been using for 20,000 years.

[joshcryer]

247. Sounds really cool, re: your grandfathers designs. Would be fascinated if you made those available.

Not just for the historical POV but just to see how that stuff was "done" back then.

But yeah, I don't think anyone who is talking up file sharing here is actually saying that monetary profit should be made by reselling stuff. Paradoxical, I have no doubt, would be against selling his collection of music (that apparently would take him something like 25 days to listen to :rofl: ).

[lumberjack_jeff]

261. The "grandfather" bit was metaphorical.

I'm afraid I'm a first generation boatbuilder. :hi:

But if old boat designs are something of interest to you, visit the mystic seaport online.

[Bluenorthwest]

216. The song is like the boat, not like a plan for the boat.

The songs people obtain by purchase or theft are produced products, finished, arranged, there could be dozens, even hundreds of people involved in making that product. It might have cost far more than your boat. It took days, weeks of work at various levels to be there to be obtained. It is a finished boat. So the analogy does not work.

[lumberjack_jeff]

217. Complete fail.

Unlike you, I know what goes into the design.

The design is intellectual property. The boat is personal property.

[Imagevision]

206. Well WTF are the recorders for!

[Atman]

209. Read through the thread...recording for your own use is perfectly legal.

DVRs, VHS, doesn't matter. Just don't sell 'em or display them in public for a profit.

Of course, if you're recording off of illegal cable -- which I would assume Paradox thinks is okay -- that's another story.

[Imagevision]

227. I am recording for my own use...

[joshcryer]

233. Do you think one should be able to legally decrypt satellite signals falling on their property?

:rofl:

[Dappleganger]

220. When Pandora first became popular I quit buying music, for the most part...

except an occasional cd for xmas. Music on the radio is crap, Pandora lets us listen to a broad choice (and happily stumble upon new choices).

With Netflix and streaming movies/shows and Hulu, there's little reason to buy dvd's anymore. EXCEPT for those certain awesome sci-fi and kung-fu movies with the extras. :) Really, really good movies are worth seeing in the theater setting, although we wait for $5 Sunday showings.

WRT ebooks, I take advantage of Free Fridays on B&N and any other posted free books on the 'net. Dh and I also have a library membership which lets us checkout ebooks for 3 weeks (although there's a waiting list for most newer/popular books). Otherwise, we just hunt it down at the thrift store (closest place) or our favorite used bookstore downtown, or Amazon's marketplace.

How do I feel about shoplifting? AFAIK if it's not done in our home it's none of my business.

[Logical]

223. Jesus, of course it is stealing. Wow, I am shocked at this place. n-t

[Shandris]

228. You know, atman, we get it.

You're mad as hell that people are DARING to question the legitimacy of laying criminal statutes for downloading 'music', 'movies', or whatever. You're absolutely right that it is presently illegal. But that doesn't mean it's right -- it means that enough corporations and others of their...ilk...managed to get it pushed through Congress.

All creative works are derivative. That chain of derivation stretches back to the beginning of time. If your music has so much as two fucking notes in it, I guarantee you there's a piece of music, SOMEWHERE, that has had those same two notes put together. Pay up. Track down the familial line and pay the fuck up. That's what you want, right?

On the other hand, I'd also like someone to show me how to 'download music'. I can't seem to accomplish it. All I manage to do is download specially-constructed TCP packets of a specific length, each containing the exact same 2 numbers: 1 and 0. That's true whether I'm typing here, playing an online game, or downloading something. Could you show me how to 'download music'? I think there's a place for that technology, it would be amazing.

By the way...those packets change from computer to computer to computer, from frame to frame across different routers, so you can't claim an identical sequence either.

[AlabamaLibrul]

238. +1

[Electric Monk]

241. Ceci n'est pas une pipe

Did I just pick René Magritte's pocket?

[Shandris]

246. I'm both ashamed and enlightened.

Ashamed I didn't catch it, enlightened since I had to look it up. :)

[joshcryer]

250. Everything is a Remix:

http://vodpod.com/watch/4440879-everything-is-a-remix-part-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HuenDPZw0

[Atman]

263. Sorry, I'm just one of those crazy artists who prefers to not have my work stolen.

Why is my work product less valuable than that of the baker at the local donut shop? If you steal a donut, you're a thief. But if you illegally download my artwork, it's all cool 'cuz it's just the internet.

[joshcryer]

269. I would frankly be honored if people "stole"* my work.

So far my android apps haven't been stolen very much. :(

*infringed on the copyright of.

[Confusious]

368. which android apps did you do?

I don't have a phone that runs android, but I'm sure your apps are good enough to infringe.

[Paradoxical]

270. I will bet you money that no one on Earth has pirated your music.

[joshcryer]

273. It's always pretentious blowhards who are loudest about this sort of thing, imo.

I've seen this discussion take place dozens upon dozens of times over the years, participated just as often, I never came across anyone who had a legitimate claim to cry about. Android applications and games have a 90% piracy rate, but no one I know in the Android development community sits back and pretends that those pirated downloads was money "lost."

Instead we just are adapting and going toward ad revenue approaches.

[Paradoxical]

276. Metallica was like the leading voice in the anti-piracy movement.

Around a decade ago.

And no one can deny the fact that Metallica is one of the highest grossing bands in history. Each member is probably worth tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

And who else has been promoting "the fight"? The RIAA

The CEO of the RIAA makes $2 million a year.

[joshcryer]

280. These fucking mega corps have duped the artists, imo.

Completely duped them. Convinced them that the big scary kids online (and poor people, ohmigosh!) were going to take away all the non-profits that they could ever have!

Know a guy personally who has an Android game that has a 98% piracy rate. Now, when you see 10,000 downloads and you only get paid for 200 of them, of course it's going to fuck with your head, mentally. "Fuck! I am out $9,800!" Most people are sane, however, and they know when money exists and when it doesn't. Though this thread may indicate otherwise...

Anyway, this discussion is very outdated, very much so. As you point out, the Metallica thing is well over a decade ago. Independent artists have moved to digital distribution as of 5-6 years ago. iTunes has been open and CDbaby have been open and running for almost a decade (in 11 days iTunes will have been open 8 years). The day of record houses is long since past, it's amusing to say the least. Bandcamp only takes a 10-15% cut (half or a third what other sites take) so it's only getting better for the artists.

And just in case anyone is reading this, everything us dirty "pirates" predicted came true, independent artists started touring more, their profits skyrocketed due to the ease of sharing that piracy facilitates, and the big megacorps didn't see a hit in their income, indeed, it went up.

Ultimately, art is going to fucking be art again, and not a profit mechanism.

[WillyT]

235. Yeah... A Lot Less Likely To Get Caught...

:evilgrin:

[kenny blankenship]

258. Pirates have seized the nation state - and you want me to be concerned about kids downloading music?

[eridani]

259. When you shoplift something, there is an empty space on the shelf

Not so with file sharing.

[Atman]

262. Stealing

by any other name is stealing.

[joshcryer]

264. Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

You can "feel" "stolen from" but that doesn't change the fact that they're completely different.

[onenote]

307. Its "misappropriation" of property

which is a form of theft.

Just like identity "theft" is a form of misappropriation of something that doesn't belong to you.

[Atman]

318. There is also "Theft of Services."

No tangible "thing" exists, but if you didn't pay for it, you stole it.

What if you were a painter? It's not like someone else is deprived of a freshly painted living room just because you didn't pay your painter, right?

So just fuck him. What's he gonna do, take back his paint?

[joshcryer]

345. Property is a form of theft.

If you want to talk rhetorically.

[Very_Boring_Name]

265. Does that mean taking something someone else has written and pretending it's your own isn't stealing

since there's no empty space on the shelf?

[Beaverhausen]

274. it completely boggles my mind that some people are so unaware...

....of the time, lessons, training, equipment, instruments, rehearsing, writing, rewriting, recording, gigging, promoting, manufacturing and most importantly the heart and soul that we musicians put into the music we create.

For the general public to think it's OK to just take what people create because it's not a solid piece of matter that they can hold in their hands is just plain sad.

I am done trying to convince those who won't be convinced.

We artists get it.

[Paradoxical]

275. "We artists get it." - No some of you "get it". Plenty of you don't.

And this comes from personal, intimate relationships with artists. Specifically musicians and photographers.

[Electric Monk]

277. Metallica vs Radiohead

I borrowed these from a google image search, just for this thread :D

vs

I'm tempted to post this as a poll...

[Paradoxical]

278. Fuck Metallica. I worship Radiohead and have purchased their albums.

Metallica is overblown, overproduced shit. And the band members are a bunch of assholes.

[eridani]

290. The Grateful Dead understood that by letting people make and circulate recordings--

--of their concerts, that they'd generate a market for superior reproductions. Here's Janis Ian--

http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/article_26.jsp
Let’s take it from my personal experience. My site gets an average of 75,000 hits a year. Not bad for someone whose last hit record was in 1975? When Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who’d downloaded Society’s Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they wanted more information.

Of those 100 people, 15 bought CDs. Not huge sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales a year. But in my book that translates into $2700, which is a lot of money to me. And it doesn’t include the ones who bought the CDs in stores, or who came to my shows. Every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up.

<snip>

Realistically, why do most people download music? To hear new music. Not to avoid paying $5 at the local used CD store, or taping it off the radio, but to hear music they can’t find anywhere else. Face it – most people can’t afford to spend $15.99 to experiment. That’s why listening booths (which labels originally fought against, too) are such a success.

You can’t hear new music on the radio these days; I live in Nashville, “Music City USA”, and we have exactly one station willing to play a non-top-40 format. On a clear day, I can even tune it in. The situation’s not much better in Los Angeles or New York. College stations are sometimes bolder, but their wattage is so low that most of us can’t get them.

In the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful – exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. In 37 years as a recording artist, I’ve created 25+ albums for major labels, and I’ve never once received a royalty check that didn’t show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show.

I spend hours each week with the press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date. Why? For exposure to an unfamiliar audience. So, when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they’d downloaded a song and got curious, I am thrilled!

[onenote]

308. Did the Dead give away their recordings? If so, I want my money back.

Because the Dead allowed tapers to record their shows hardly establishes that they would have supported the sale of pirated/bootlegged copies of the recordings that the Dead released commercially for sale to the public.

[eridani]

341. They wasted no energy whatsoever on trying to stop it.

Where they got their money was from concerts and from a lot of people being willing to pay for better production values.

[eridani]

288. Does someone assert authorship of a piece of music by listening to it? n/t

[onenote]

321. what does authorship have to do with it

The issue isn't authorship. Its that copying something that belongs to someone else without their authorization is a form of theft.

[eridani]

337. So, it's theft if I take a book that I have bought whose words are owned by an author--

--and give it to a friend? Am I stealing if I sell it to a second hand bookstore?

[onenote]

339. No. Because there is something in the law called the "first sale" doctrine

that allows you to transfer ownership of a tangible copy of a copyrighted work. But you can't transfer a copy of that book. And when you download a song, you are making a copy of it no less than if you took a book and reproduced its pages on a copying machine.

[eridani]

340. Books can be easily scanned, just as songs can be downloaded

There are all kinds of freebie books onlin which readers are also willing to buy. Freebies in both cases are HUGE boost to EXPOSURE, which is what creators need in order to earn money, and which most have no way of getting without easy copying. If you like a downloaded song, there is a very large likelihood that you will pay to get a much better reproduction than the shitty production values characteristic of most downloaded music. I see no reason to charge people for trying to find out what songs they like.

[Very_Boring_Name]

334. You're deflecting the question

Your -ONLY- listed criteria for something being considered "stolen" was that "there is an empty spot on the shelf." In other words, if it isn't physically gone, it cannot be considered stolen. Now you're moving the goalposts to conveniently cover up the gaping hole in your argument.

[eridani]

338. My point is that at some time or another, a creator must lose control

If I sell a book that I bought to a used bookstore, I am depriving the author of the income that s/he would receive if subsequent purchasers bought the book new. The real question is "What business models can generate income for creators in a world in which copying information is cheap and easy?" I have described one such business model in aother post.

[patrick t. cakes]

266. my morality has nothing to do with capitalism...n/t

[Paradoxical]

272. I'm moderately confused as to why the OP even bothered to create a poll.

Clearly he or she has made up her mind and only created this poll to find people to troll.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

320. This is the correct answer. -nt

[Prometheus Bound]

279. No it's perfectly okay and you have my permission to do it.

I regularly give people permission to photocopy my books if they can't afford them.

I have had a number of people steal my books and when they were stopped by the security guard I told him to let them have them. I was flattered.

Why do we write but to be read. There's enough money to be made from those willing to pay. Why force those that can't afford it to pay. They'll just do without.

[joshcryer]

281. Prometheus Bound, what are your books if I may ask?

[Prometheus Bound]

388. ...

high school textbooks

[Rochester]

283. It is different and it is not bad at all.

I detest the concept of "intellectual property" and I support the right to pirate at will on the condition that the piracy is done for personal use and not profit. Unlike actual theft, piracy does not deprive the shopkeeper or record company or whoever of anything such as a record. "But it makes my product worth less!" says they. "Cry me a river," says I.

[onenote]

306. so its okay to pirate at will if you just give away copies?

Another person who sees the value in a tangible object (and thus would argue that its wrong to steal a book) but sees no value in the content that goes into the book, and thus sees nothing wrong, apparently, in copying the book and giving those copies away for free.

[eridani]

294. New business models for artistic creators

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x880004

[pampango]

296. It's easy, music/movies are great, and little danger of getting caught - what's not to like?

(sarcasm off)

It makes you wonder how the economy would function (and how honest we would each be) if we could "download" groceries, clothes, electronics, cars, toys, etc. It would allow to have more stuff than we can really afford, but how long would others keep producing the stuff?

It's ironic that, as the West produces more and more intellectual property while the Third World produces more and more physical stuff, it is the physical stuff that continues to receive more legal protection. Could be a great equalizer in terms of wealth distribution around the world. The West loses from the theft of intellectual property, while the developing world benefits from universal protection of the physical property that it produces.

[onenote]

305. It seems like a number of DUers on this thread only value material objects

Apparently, stealing a book is bad, but the content of that book has no value and thus if you can take it without paying for it while leaving the book intact, that should be okay.

Under this type of thinking, if I write a book which I arrange to have publlished pursuant to an agreement where the publisher pays me for each material copy that is sold, stealing the books out of a bookstore is bad. But buying a copy, copying it and then selling or giving away the copies without giving me anything is just peachy keen.

Or, to use another example -- I film a movie which I arrange to have shown in a theatre to paying customers. Someone comes in the theater and uses a camera to film my movie as it plays and then makes copies of the movie that they distribute to people for free, causing people not to pay to see my movie. My movie is still playing in the theater, so apparently I'm not hurt according to some here.

[Atman]

316. Over 320 posts in the thread...not one positive rec showing.

I think that gives a better indication than the poll.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

319. Ooops, thanks for reminding me. I almost forgot.

Unrec.

[joshcryer]

346. Doubtful.

The breakdown is about what you'd expect normal people to do with downloads.

[Paradoxical]

350. Yes, I think it gives a good indication that no one gives a shit about a whiny artist.

Who complains about P2P programs and torrents when he or she has probably never been pirated ever.

[joshcryer]

354. Correct. And I can give ample examples of people who *have* been pirated before...

...actually trying to understand it and mitigate it. Amazingly in the games industry it's as simple as lowering the fucking price.

Look at this huge discussion about PC game piracy: http://www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html

[Name removed]

355. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

356. What exactly do you make?

[Name removed]

357. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

369. GODDAMMIT MODS! WTF did I say?

I can't respond to you directly, so you'll delete this too... But WTF? Have the balls to say why your skeered to let my fellow DUrs read and think for themselves! Elad, Dave...what's up? What did I post that was not factual?

[joshcryer]

370. Just so you know, I didn't alert on your insults.

And I frankly think it sucks that some good stuff got deleted (I missed any of your responses). I really am working on those tools though.

[Atman]

371. Josh, we disagree on stuff, but I don't know why others can't read our disagreements

I'm saddened by this deletion. I've been a DUer for damned near forever. How a legitimate, spirited debate can be deleted is beyond me. I'm almost as disillusioned with DU as I am with Obama.

[joshcryer]

373. I think the mods did their job, though.

Some of the vulgarities issued forth by you were certainly questionable.

[Atman]

374. Vulgarities?

Sorry. Maybe I gave you too much credit.

IBTD

[joshcryer]

375. I saw the stuff you said to Paradoxical.

It was very disappointing since we've been mostly civilized the whole discussion. And it managed to take out some good discussion with it.

[Atman]

376. Really? In the deleted sub thread? But you saw nothing wrong with Paradoxical's posts?

Oh, that's right...you two are on the same page. I apologize for taking you seriously.

[joshcryer]

377. I didn't see any of the responses.

I just saw you call him very vulgar things. Did he respond in kind? I'm curious.

[Atman]

378. "Very vulgar things?" Really?

I deny that vehemently. But of course, our fellow DUers won't be allowed to determine this for themselves.

.

[joshcryer]

379. Yes, very vulgar.

I wish I copied it since you're now going to deny saying those things! Wow!

[Atman]

380. I guess since the thread is deleted, and you two are blood bros, you can make up anything you want

Go for it. I'm sure you and your twin have already alerted on this sub-thread, too. It's much easier than an honest discussion.

.

[joshcryer]

381. I know what you called him, are you alleging he said similar things to you?

If so that would surprise me, but since you denied ever saying the things you did, I don't know whether to trust what you say here.

[Atman]

382. But what about the things he said about my mother in that thread?

Oh, wait...you got the thread deleted. So no one will be able to verify what either of us said. Hmmm. How convenient for you.

[joshcryer]

383. I did *not* get any thread deleted. If he said those things, then he should apologize.

But I don't expect you to apologize for saying what you said.

[Paradoxical]

384. I said nothing about your mother. I also didn't report anything.

[Atman]

397. Sure. Prove it...now that the thread is gone.

Nice work.

[Name removed]

360. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DeadEyeDyck]

363. it's different

ya can't stick downloaded music down your pants.

[wayupnorth1]

364. How bout recording it?

Is recording from the radio stealing? Back in the 80s lots of kids recorded music from their favorite FM station with cassette tapes. Is using a recorder to record music from the internet any different?

[joshcryer]

365. There are apps that allow you to do that. Those applications do not violate the DMCA...

...and therefore, they are perfectly legal.

All that music on YouTube? You can record legally. YouTube does not encrypt it.

[Recursion]

366. If I steal a candy bar, the store owner doesn't have the candy bar anymore

If I download and MP3, the label still has the MP3.

[onenote]

386. if its okay to take the author's content without compensating them

simply because the work remains available to be purchased, is it okay for you to make 1000 copies and give them all away as long as the original is still there? If not, why? If there is nothing wrong with you making a copy without the owner of the content's authorization, shouldn't it be even more okay for you to make copies of what you claim is something that belongs to you?

[Recursion]

389. If artists made money of album sales I'd feel differently (nt)

[Major Hogwash]

387. This thread sux.

It really does.

[joshcryer]

390. Almost twice as many posts as the second largest thread in GD.

:rofl:

[joeglow3]

414. It is a sad thread

Mainly because I never realized how many people there were on DU who work so hard to rationalize their apparent stealing habits.

[TroglodyteScholar]

393. Whether you approve of it or not...

...it is a simple fact that downloading does not prevent another consumer from coming along to buy that same product. You have not removed a unit from the market as in shoplifting. There IS no "unit" in the digital realm.

[Aerows]

399. Shoplifting deprives someone else of a physical asset

Downloading deprives someone of a potential financial benefit. I say potential, because there is no evidence they would have bought it had it not been available for download. I pay for things that I enjoy - I want artists to continue making money so that they can continue offering their work to the world.

I view downloading and watching old movies that have been shown on television, etc., pretty much the same way I view checking out books in the library or watching a movie at a friend's house - it's not like there hasn't been plenty of opportunity to see it before hand. I did actually purchase, however, the entire extended addition of Lord of the Rings and several other movies.

Some crap isn't even worth downloading. Believe it or not, MANY record companies and movie studios have released their own movies to generate buzz. The fact that they then turn around and sue people for distributing movies makes them hypocrites. This has been a well known fact since the scandal of the "security" outfit that had an email leak and several high profile clients (Sony, etc.) paid them to monitor the popularity of their movies, and they were even hosting them.

[Sivart]

401. I hate this debate........

First off, someone earlier mentioned that artists do not make alot of money from CD sales. The number they gave was one dollar per CD sold. From my experience, this is not accurate. It is actually alot less for most artists. So first, you have to understand that the record industry is the one who is not getting paid when you illegally download music.

Second, you have to look at the publishing rights of the particular song. Many many many artists are conned into giving the publishing rights to their music over to the record company in exchange for distribution. To me, this is the theft the artists should be pissed about. In this situation, the record company - not the artist - is the one who makes money off of the use of the song. the person or company that owns the publishing rights to the song makes the money when the song is sold or used in a commercial, or whatever.

And it is absolutely true that most artists make their money from touring and merchandise. Many artists now days look at releasing an album as a way to generate interest in a new tour, which is where they make their money. This is why t shirts cost 40 or 50 bucks at a concert.....touring is expensive, and the artist has to make a living on top of the touring expense.

But most importantly, we have to accept that this is the new reality. The business model of the big record companies is no longer unchallenged. But strangely, the record companies refuse to change and adapt. Basically, they have been exploiting and conning artists for decades, and they are very upset that they are having a hard time keeping it going.

While it is true that it is currently illegal to download and use protected music without permission, it is also true that some laws are obsolete, outdated, and/or just plain wrong.

To me, this is like saying pot smokers are taking money from beer and big pharma because without pot, they would need to use legal intoxicants.

that is my two cents.....I am an active, professional musician. I know many many more musicians who have been screwed blue by record companies than have been screwed by people downloading their tunes. Most musicians want to have their tunes downloaded. The pros far outweigh the cons.


The movie side of this debate may be a different story altogether, and I am not knowledgeable in that area.

[lame54]

402. It's equal to charging $16 for a CD

[Atman]

410. Who the hell charges $16 for a CD anymore?

In fact...are there still CD stores? Other than at the register at Starbucks, I haven't bought a physical CD is years. They take up space. And they're pointless, since I just rip them to my computer anyway, then have a hunk of plastic I have to store.

Even iTunes doesn't charge $16 for a regular "album." Most are about $9.99 to $12.99. And if you just want to cherry-pick a couple of songs, even less.

[Lucian]

417. I don't think shoplifting is necessarily "bad" in the first place.

I don't care if someone stole from a multi-billion dollar corporation.

[Atman]

445. This whole "never intended to purchase it" argument is ludicrous.

The only reason you "never intended to purchase" the music is because you knew you could download it for free. You obviously like the music enough to want it, to own it, to take the time to download it. Just because your PC makes it convenient to steal doesn't make the stealing anything less than THEFT.

.