Copyrights & Theft

[Ynot]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away
someone once said
Violating copyright is THEFT, plain and simple

What's people's views on this?

As far as I see it ("the rebel alliance view")

Copyright infringement is a civil offence
you can't be locked up for it, it's not criminal
It's a civil matter, meaning you can only be sued

Theft, on the other hand is a criminal offence
and can carry custodial punishments

In order for theft to occur, you have to deprive someone of their own property, against their wishes.

Is downloading copyrighted material off the net without paying for it, theft?
Who has been deprived of their property?

- You buy a sandwich from a shop, and you bump into me further down the street.
- I have a device that can duplicate this sandwich at zero cost to anyone.
- I duplicate your sandwich. We now have a sandwich each.
- Have I stolen from the sandwich shop?

[Carôusoul]

Sadly it is more like

you go to a sandwich shop, and duplicate the sandwiches on sale and take them home with you.


So the sandwich shop is losing out on business.

it isn't theft, but its as good as.

[Replicon]

Like some standup comedian once said:

Would I steal a car? No. But if my friend bought a car, and told me he'd burn me a copy, I'd be ok with that.

[Ynot]

So the sandwich shop is losing out on business.
Aah, shame......
their business model is broken, revise it or go bust

A company does not have any right to make a profit.
especially if they're trying to sell something which is no longer a scarce commodity

With the invention of the sandwich duplicator, sandwiches are no longer a scarce commodity.
therefore you cannot sustain a business model of selling sandwiches for profit.

[Oneironaught]

I'd say it is theft because the product is the information, not the distribution method. When you steal and/or distribute that information - be it music, software, photos, etc... - without permission, you divert business away from the rightful owner. That's not to say that everyone who obtains illegal copies would have bought it to begin with but, the fact is that some would have and no longer will.

[Umbrasquall]

Well you can't really compare real physical examples with electronic ones.

If copying software becomes widespread, then software developers will have no incentive to produce anything. Why spend so much money to develop something when only one person is going to spend money to buy it, and then share it with all his/her friends for free? It's the underlying reason why communism fails.

Even if we take your example... what do you think the sandwich shop should do? How should it revise its business model? There's no way for it to sustain itself by making sandwiches anymore.

And it's not just a business model. It's captialism, that's how it works.

[arby]

Well, there are (electronic) business models that work with free goods. Namely advertising.

Hell, TV is supported fully by ads. Why can't other stuff be? Such is the nature of business. You have to re-model to fit whats happening.

[Adam]

Aah, shame......
their business model is broken, revise it or go bust

A company does not have any right to make a profit.
especially if they're trying to sell something which is no longer a scarce commodity

With the invention of the sandwich duplicator, sandwiches are no longer a scarce commodity.
therefore you cannot sustain a business model of selling sandwiches for profit.

I'm sorry but that is such a stupid answer!!!

Ripping off someone else's idea/product is a good as theft. Music production for example, it is possible to illegally obtain the music produced, so what you saying? People should stop making music because it can be ripped off easily? Goes for anything really which infringes copy write laws.

[pj]

I'm a musician.

I have spent my life learning my instrument, purchasing equipment and lessons and gaining experience, both playing and with life in general.

From my unique combination of life and musical experience, I write a song.

I can't get a major label interested in my song because they aren't making money anymore with all the pirating going on. So I start my own label, SquirrelyDog Records (squirrelydog.com,) as a business entity to finance what comes next.

I go to a studio with my guitars and amps, hire a bass player, drummer and singer to show up, pay the engineer and the studio and record the song. It costs a lot to get this little piece of my soul recorded and mixed.

Then I take it to a mastering house and pay them to prepare it for commercial release.

Then I pay to have CDs copied and printed. Then I need to decide whether to pay to try marketing it or not, as I'd have to sell several hundred (at least) CDs to cover my expenses thus far - and those are just the "hard" expenses of the technical side of things. None of this takes MY time, talent, inspiration or artistic sense into account.

Then somebody with the tragically common attitude rips my song and puts it up on a torrent. I net $0 from every copy that is downloaded, and every copy that is distributed dilutes the value of the CDs I am trying to sell.

That is theft, and it is theft of a particularly insidious nature. It is far worse than you coming into my store and shoplifting, because this thing - book, song, photograph or whatever - is a unique piece of ME. The thief has become a parasite, sucking my life blood from a place I cannot ever reach to squash him.

So yeah... I'm a little sensitive to copyright issues.

[skysaw]

I'm with PJ on this one (and am a musician to boot!).

I can hear the gears turning in some of your heads... "But what if we just take the big label's music? They have so much money it shouldn't affect them much!"

Imagine I bust my butt finally getting someone interested in my music. Wow! I got a contract with Arista to put out an album! They think it's great, and predict I will sell tons of records! I further bust my butt getting the record recorded, produced, mastered, pressed, etc and everybody loves it! In fact, they love it so much, that they go immediately online and find it for free. Now what happens? Well, Arista decides to pass on extending our contract to another recording. "Sales were really lower than we expected, sorry. You know how it is these days. Good luck." Career over.

[Adam]

I'm not a musician but a DJ - So I download a hell of a lot of music each month (legally). I have to have a licence to play out too to prove I can play this music. It pisses me off to hear other DJs go on about how they download all their tracks for free!!!

[Marvo]

That's really nice formulated PJ.

[arby]

You guys forget that selling CDs isn't the only way of making money.

Oh, and forgive me, I don't think its morally right to infringe on copyright (in fact, all the music I listen to comes from artists who give it up for free listening.) But I can't help but play devil's advocate.

There is a huge market for music but people only seem to look at the CD portion of it. The two biggest other ways of making money are making music for movies/tv shows and playing live (and not just concerts, mind you)

[Alex D]

Now with music, I only ever download to 'sample' things I'm not sure I'll like or in some cases, preview an album that is leaked online early. I delete the stuff I don't like and buy physical copies of the things I do. Somehow I've convinced myself this is ok, though obviously it's not

[arby]

Now with music, I only ever download to 'sample' things I'm not sure I'll like or in some cases, preview an album that is leaked online early. I delete the stuff I don't like and buy physical copies of the things I do. Somehow I've convinced myself this is ok, though obviously it's not
Morally, thats fine. If everybody did this. There would be (almost) no issue.

Of course, the people you didn't buy from might be unhappy because you didn't buy it thinking you'd like it =P

[pj]

Now with music, I only ever download to 'sample' things I'm not sure I'll like or in some cases, preview an album that is leaked online early. I delete the stuff I don't like and buy physical copies of the things I do. Somehow I've convinced myself this is ok, though obviously it's not

Alex - you make a very good point. I (and most independent musicians I know) give away some songs for this very purpose, or at least make samples available. The point there is that it is a choice we have available to us, right up to the moment somebody else decides to take that choice away from us.

Obviously (responding to prior posts now) CDs are not the only way to make money in music, and obviously there is a trade-off in publicity value if something I do give away gets really popular and my name gets known. I've done a great deal of writing over the years with expressly open copyright, for example, in hopes that somebody would take note of my writing skill and style and become willing to pay for a column or something. None of this is relevant to the question at hand though. What is key is whether you are getting something that really and truly belongs to somebody else with or without their blessing.

If it is without the owner's consent, then it is theft.

[Identity X]

Well, there are (electronic) business models that work with free goods. Namely advertising.

Unfortunately I see that AdBlocker is the most installed Firefox entension and there are calls to integrate one into the mighty Opera browser I use. This is down right fucking stupid, it's not exactly killing online business now but if it becomes a popular tool...

[Oneironaught]

Well, there are (electronic) business models that work with free goods. Namely advertising.

Hell, TV is supported fully by ads. Why can't other stuff be? Such is the nature of business. You have to re-model to fit whats happening.
Save for cable/satellite TV. But that's beside the point. However, to expect everything to be supported solely by ads is ridiculously naive. What happens when everything is expected to be given away for "free" because everything is expected to be supported by advertisement? Where will all of these advertising revenues come from when every one's giving their product away? Who's going to pay to advertise when every one steals their product anyway?

You guys forget that selling CDs isn't the only way of making money.
No, neither is bagging groceries or selling insurance or repairing automobiles or... But just because there are other ways to produce income doesn't imply license to steal.

There is a huge market for music but people only seem to look at the CD portion of it.
We're looking at the distribution aspect of music, whether that be in hard copies or electronic transfers.

The two biggest other ways of making money are making music for movies/tv shows and playing live (and not just concerts, mind you)
You're acting like it's easy for a musician to come by a movie soundtrack gig. Nothing's farther from the truth. And as far as playing live goes, you're again kidding yourself. I was a working drummer for over 6 years and, let me tell you, staying in gigs isn't as straight-forward as you seem to believe. I also know comedians in the same position.

Luckily I was able to get in with a guy who had a rather large following in the Tampa area or I'd have been sitting on my ass not playing out much. But I know of plenty of very good bands that can't get bookings because there's always some damn karaoke DJ lined up waiting to undercut the real bands. Remember, we're in an age where live music takes a back seat to canned, cheap-dollar shows. Most of the local bars - that used to thrive on live music - now lure in drunks with karaoke crap. And guess how much money the real musicians are making from most of these DJs who take their product and make money from its use? Diddly-squat: that's how much. I can guarantee you that MOST DJs are not paying ASCAP/BMI or other licensing fees.

So, before you try to put the blame on the victims, maybe you should target the real problem: people who shamelessly steal and exploit copy-written material.

[Adam]

And guess how much money the real musicians are making from most of these DJs who take their product and make money from its use? Diddly-squat: that's how much.

So, before you try to put the blame on the victims, maybe you should target the real problem: people who shamelessly steal and exploit copy-written material.

Wrong!

As a DJ I pay for my licence to play this music out, which goes back to the artist. I buy the music to play, which goes to the artist. If a CD is made, be it compilation or otherwise then a proportion goes to the artist.

DJ's don't get their music free (well ok I get a load of promotional material free) but we still have to pay a lot to actually play this. And if it wasn't for the DJ a lot of this music wouldn't get the air time which makes it so fucking popular! All these radio DJ's who can make or break records by playing them, if anything are doing that artist a huge favour!

Oh and how much does the artist pay me to promote their material for them? NOTHING! :)

[Oneironaught]

Wrong!

As a DJ I pay for my licence to play this music out, which goes back to the artist. I buy the music to play, which goes to the artist. If a CD is made, be it compilation or otherwise then a proportion goes to the artist.

DJ's don't get their music free (well ok I get a load of promotional material free) but we still have to pay a lot to actually play this. And if it wasn't for the DJ a lot of this music wouldn't get the air time which makes it so fucking popular! All these radio DJ's who can make or break records by playing them, if anything are doing that artist a huge favour!

Oh and how much does the artist pay me to promote their material for them? NOTHING! :)
Yes, Adam. But you are doing things the legal way. Unfortunately, most don't. I'm not talking about radio DJs anyway. Radio stations are forced to pay the fees. I was in a comedy club a few weeks ago. After the show, they go on to do karaoke. Just like most DJs doing that crap here in town, they had books and books of burned CD. And I can tell you, the DJs around here ARE NOT paying usage royalties AT ALL. I know enough people in the industry to know that for a fact.

The argument here is about those who don't follow the legal channels: and there are far more that don't than do.

And another point: What people like hasn't got sh!t to do with what makes it to the radio. That's all part of the internal politics of the commercial pop music industry. Again, I know this. I'm not talking out of my ass.

[Adam]

Yes, Adam. But you are doing things the legal way. Unfortunately, most don't. I'm not talking about radio DJs anyway. Radio stations are forced to pay the fees. I was in a comedy club a few weeks ago. After the show, they go on to do karaoke. Just like most DJs doing that crap here in town, they had books and books of burned CD. And I can tell you, the DJs around here ARE NOT paying usage royalties AT ALL. I know enough people in the industry to know that for a fact.

The argument here is about those who don't follow the legal channels: and there are far more that don't than do.

And another point: What people like hasn't got sh!t to do with what makes it to the radio. That's all part of the internal politics of the commercial pop music industry. Again, I know this. I'm not talking out of my ass.

Ah ok, I thought you were refering to DJs as a whole. And yes, I know a fair few DJs who refuse to buy their music. Which is a shame really.

[Ynot]

Ok, first off
It's not just about music
It's about information

In the good old days, information was scarce. It had to be written to, stored, and used from a physical medium produced by a manufacturer. The ability to get this information without having the manufactured medium was difficult and costly.

It was a good business model to sell the medium with the information stored on it.
The media was mass produced in bulk, and cost the end-user far less than they could ever hope to achieve on their own.

Today, information is not scarce.
I can get this information quicker, cheaper and easier than the manufacturers can provide.

This goes for music, films, shopping, anything
am I stealing the checkout girl's wages 'cause I shop online?
you may say "no"
but then, what if everybody buys online, and the local high street shop closes....What then?

As I said, it's not just about music
but music seems to be used here, so I'll reply with music in mind...

The ability to sell music on physical digital media is dying.
For the most part, I personally don't want (or need) the physical media
I note that there's a lot of DJ's replying - well add one more.

I DJ vinyl
I also buy vinyl
it's actually useful to me as a physical product.


Now, PJ ;)
I net $0 from every copy that is downloaded, and every copy that is distributed dilutes the value of the CDs I am trying to sell.
"I net $0 from every copy that is downloaded"
It also hasn't cost you anything.

let's say, for now, that one person has downloaded your track off the net.

You have not lost any money.
You've failed to make a profit,
but you haven't incurred any loss.

You still have the same number of CD's out there on the market
(let's call the number of CD's sold 'n')

only difference is, it's possible for n+1 people to listen to your track.

Now....
the problem comes when the availability of the free online version eclipses that of the physical CD version.
(number of downloaded copies - 'd')

When d is far (far) greater than n, you're getting angry (and it's understandable)

But no-one is stealing any n's from you.
the only thing their getting for free, is the information stored on the n's.

"every copy that is distributed dilutes the value of the CDs I am trying to sell"

Oh, it does....horrendously....

The major problem at the moment, is that legally purchased music is less useful than freely obtained music.

CD's have copy protection, and some (sony in particular) twist the ISO standards - relying on the in-built error correction to compensate - CD standards to such an extent that playback isn't always guaranteed on all players.

legal downloads are locked to certain players, and certain proprietary formats, and are usually lower quality than the freely obtainable versions.

The problem is intentionally making the product you're trying to sell inferior to that of the freely obtainable versions....

Solution:
Make the n's (physical CD's) more attractive than the d's (downloads)
basic business, in all honesty.

Put a voucher inside every CD case, that gives the buyer free admission to one of your gigs.

You download the CD, you get the tracks only
no problem, because you know it's not viable to sell music alone any more.

But, you buy the CD, you get the tracks, plus a free gig, and maybe a poster as well.

[arby]

Save for cable/satellite TV. But that's beside the point. However, to expect everything to be supported solely by ads is ridiculously naive. What happens when everything is expected to be given away for "free" because everything is expected to be supported by advertisement? Where will all of these advertising revenues come from when every one's giving their product away? Who's going to pay to advertise when every one steals their product anyway?

Material goods.

You see, you can classify it into 2 different categories. Intellectual property and material property. Material property is pretty much the stuff that had to be constructed / put together in a plant.

Intellectual property however is simply an arrangement of something that already exists. If a million monkeys at a million keyboards ... would eventually produce all the intellectual property in the world type of thing.

Now, the economy was founded almost solely on material goods. The food we eat, the clothes on our back. If you take these out of the equation, there is really no economy. If everyone was supplied with all the necessary things for life, and you no longer have a real need for money.

Its a subject I personally find fascinating. What if we automated the material world? If we replaced all human workers with machines? It'd be like a perfect communist system because nobody would be FORCED to work. We would evolve to a world based solely on reputation and what you have done.

But back on topic.. All money originates in material things and all money returns to material things. (the artist has to eat)

Also, consider history. Change is inevitable and change will happen. Do not think of this as an isolated event or a first-time occurrence. History is cratered with change such as this. There really is no way to stop it (i'm not saying this makes it a good thing) but those who are wise, will change themselves before the world changes itself.

[Ynot]

consider history. Change is inevitable and change will happen. Do not think of this as an isolated event or a first-time occurrence. History is cratered with change such as this. There really is no way to stop it (i'm not saying this makes it a good thing) but those who are wise, will change themselves before the world changes itself.
In a nut-shell
it's a poor business practise to try and sell an abundant (ie. non-scarce) resource or commodity

From a musicians point of view,
Digital music is abundant
Vinyl is scarce
Live gigs are scarce

Way of the world, unfortunately
Adapt or die

[arby]

Yeah, with ynot's earlier point, lots of people arn't too much against paying. Its just that its a hassle... really.. If you can just click a button in the comfort of your own home instead of driving out to the store, looking for a copy of a CD, waiting in line, paying, driving home.. you get the point. Even online paying is inherently annoying due to security issues.

[Identity X]

Yeah, with ynot's earlier point, lots of people arn't too much against paying. Its just that its a hassle... really.. If you can just click a button in the comfort of your own home instead of driving out to the store, looking for a copy of a CD, waiting in line, paying, driving home.. you get the point. Even online paying is inherently annoying due to security issues.

And DRM. But from a few news articles I care not to recall, it does seem that DRM is being abandoned - albeit if you pay a premium.

And I don't see online payment as annoying or too much hassle at all. Just make sure you have good fraud cover... in fact, I've heard stories of criminals replicating CHIP & PIN machines to clone cards, and that's a problem you don't get with online payments.

The whole "hassle" thing, with the advent of DRM-free paid downloads, will become a hollow excuse.

[FreeOne]

well i dont think its theft. sure its bad, im not saying that it isnt, but you didnt deprive the sandwich shop of a sandwich, just their buisness. And the new sandwich shop opened across the street is depriving them of buisness too. Are they stealing? no. Copyrighting is bad, but the punishments shouldnt be as bad as theft.

[pj]

It also hasn't cost you anything.

You never even read my post, did you?

Ah well.

[Ynot]

I thoroughly read, and replied to, your post....

you are trying to sell a (now) abundant commodity
and complaining when people side-step the purchase

*edit*
PJ, the whole bottom half of my long post is aimed at answering you
you have to sell something that can't be gotten for free (and usually of a higher quality) elsewhere

[pj]

Your idea of "it didn't cost you anything" is MOST telling.

I'm afraid we have no common ground here. I don't know how else to put it, and I have absolutely no way to warp my perception to see things your way. The money was spent and the time was spent. It is mine to do with as I please, not yours to take as you please, no matter how you choose justify it. The lack of economic viability of an endeavor does not cancel out ownership.

You do not have the right to give away or take something that is does not belong to you. There is no simpler way to put it. It is theft.

And I give up.

[arby]

I and (i'm pretty sure) Ynot sympathize with you PJ. But when you can't beat em, join em.

I'm effected by this too. As a flash game creator (well, I've never really finished one..but I know the circumstances surrounding it) you get it just as bad. I mean, all good flash games are simply taken and spread too all different sorts of websites. Now, normally this would be a bad thing for the developer who wishes to make money. As it would be for your music. But you can get your games sponsored.

Basically, the site pays you to put their name/logo/link/preloader into the game. You then make sure your name is in it and release it into the internet (and let your sponsor host it). When all sorts of flash sites steal it and all sorts of people play it.. Both you and your sponsor get huge amounts of attention and they get page hits.

Viola! All you need is a little entrepreneurial spirit and you can turn a potentially devastating situation into one that gets you plenty money <3

All you need is a fresh approach.

[Oneironaught]

Hmmm, where to start? Some people just don't get it at all.

Ok, first off
It's not just about music
It's about information

In the good old days, information was scarce.
Availability has no bearing on whether it's ok to steal or not. It's not only about music or information. In this case it's also about entertainment. But really, why does it matter what the product is? Stealing is wrong whether you're stealing an iPod or feeding slugs into the parking meter.

It was a good business model to sell the medium with the information stored on it.
The media was mass produced in bulk, and cost the end-user far less than they could ever hope to achieve on their own.
I fail to see how this excuses theft. Really.

Today, information is not scarce.
I can get this information quicker, cheaper and easier than the manufacturers can provide.
No, but the info YOU want is. There's only one of that song you're proposing theft of. Again, I fail to see the relevance.

This goes for music, films, shopping, anything
am I stealing the checkout girl's wages 'cause I shop online?
Uh, no. But you're comparing shopping elsewhere to stealing. They are hardly the same thing.

you may say "no"
but then, what if everybody buys online, and the local high street shop closes....What then?
Street vendor: Apples and oranges... Get your apples and oranges here. You're seriously comparing legitimate free-market competition to stealing?

The ability to sell music on physical digital media is dying.
For the most part, I personally don't want (or need) the physical media
I note that there's a lot of DJ's replying - well add one more.
...and that excuses stealing how?

Now, PJ ;)

"I net $0 from every copy that is downloaded"
It also hasn't cost you anything.
Bzzt, wrong. It did cost him. Do you work for free at your job? No, huh, I wonder why you'd want to be paid yet think others don't deserve to be.

You have not lost any money.
You've failed to make a profit,
but you haven't incurred any loss.
Again, wrong. There has been the loss of a potential customer. "No sense buying it now. I already have a copy."

But no-one is stealing any n's from you.
the only thing their getting for free, is the information stored on the n's.
Information and work. Why do you deserve the information - the product of some one else's hard work and creative efforts - for free?

But, you buy the CD, you get the tracks, plus a free gig, and maybe a poster as well.
It must be nice to live in your delusional word.

Material goods.

You see, you can classify it into 2 different categories. Intellectual property and material property. Material property is pretty much the stuff that had to be constructed / put together in a plant.
Why does it matter the nature of the product? A product is property whether it's concrete or abstract, material or intellectual.

Intellectual property however is simply an arrangement of something that already exists. If a million monkeys at a million keyboards ... would eventually produce all the intellectual property in the world type of thing.
Way to devalue the work of countless musicians, writers, and many other professions. I'll bet you enjoy the music you fill your MP3 player with, don't you. Wonder how many monkeys starve every time that music is stolen rather than purchased.

I really don't get you people. So, somehow, the fact that, in a google years of a google monkeys jabbing at typewriter keys, a legible block of text may be produced by random luck, that gives an open licence to steal from those who put forth real talent, work, time and effort. OK...

More attempts to justify stealing and downplay the fact that music (and other forms of structured information) is a product that took effort to produce.

In a nut-shell
it's a poor business practise to try and sell an abundant (ie. non-scarce) resource or commodity.
If a given song you want is so abundant then go out and buy it. Why steal something that's so easily obtainable?

From a musicians point of view,
...my music is mine to sell, not yours to steal.

Digital music is abundant
...thanks to the hard work of hundreds of thousands of musicians who produce music for a living.

Vinyl is scarce
Because it's essentially outdated and no longer in demand. But the information on it is. You said it yourself. Here, I'll remind you: "Ok, first off
It's not just about music
It's about information"

Yeah, with ynot's earlier point, lots of people arn't too much against paying. Its just that its a hassle... really.. If you can just click a button in the comfort of your own home instead of driving out to the store, looking for a copy of a CD, waiting in line, paying, driving home.. you get the point. Even online paying is inherently annoying due to security issues.
A real hassle. Give me a break. If you can go to a store for every other thing in your life then you an do so for your music. That's yet another lame excuse for the inexcusable. Besides, it's not like you have to go out every day for the sole purpose of obtaining music.

Plus, most of the members here don't have a credit card anyway. And as such, they couldn't legally buy music online if they wanted to.

well i dont think its theft. sure its bad, im not saying that it isnt, but you didnt deprive the sandwich shop of a sandwich, just their buisness. And the new sandwich shop opened across the street is depriving them of buisness too.
But, selling your own product is NOT the same thing as stealing and selling some one else's product.

Are they stealing? no.
Yes, because they aren't making their own, albeit similar, product. They are stealing some one's product by reproducing the information. The information IS the product.

By your logic, it should be perfectly ok to start photocopying the latest Harry Potter book and selling those copies. Or what if some one reproduced Dreamviews, right down to the domain name . I'm talking about making a carbon copy of DV then using it as their own, collecting the pittance of ad fees. Is that stealing? It's the very same thing.

Copyrighting is bad, but the punishments shouldnt be as bad as theft.
No, copyrighting is GOOD and yes, the penalties should be just the same.

But when you can't beat em, join em.
Great attitude :rolleyes:

"Every one else is breaking the rules so I might as well too."


That should hold me for now.

[arby]

Why does it matter the nature of the product? A product is property whether it's concrete or abstract, material or intellectual.

I explained why further down in the post. Plus that was in reply to - if this doesn't make money, what will?

Way to devalue the work of countless musicians, writers, and many other professions. I'll bet you enjoy the music you fill your MP3 player with, don't you. Wonder how many monkeys starve every time that music is stolen rather than purchased.

I really don't get you people. So, somehow, the fact that, in a google years of a google monkeys jabbing at typewriter keys, a legible block of text may be produced by random luck, that gives an open licence to steal from those who put forth real talent, work, time and effort. OK...

I was just providing an example to show what each is. Intellectual property IS just pre-existing notation re-arranged. But it takes some serious skill to do so. I never said it didn't.

A real hassle. Give me a break. If you can go to a store for every other thing in your life then you an do so for your music. That's yet another lame excuse for the inexcusable. Besides, it's not like you have to go out every day for the sole purpose of obtaining music.

Plus, most of the members here don't have a credit card anyway. And as such, they couldn't legally buy music online if they wanted to.

Exactly! They don't have a credit card! So, that makes it even more difficult.

You know, what would happen if all businesses said "Oh, well they don't have a credit card, so they'll just have deal with it" rather then "Hey, lots of our market don't have credit cards. Perhaps we should do something about that so we can sell more."

Originally Posted by arby http://dreamviews.com/community/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?p=494414#post494414)
But when you can't beat em, join em.


Great attitude :rolleyes:

"Every one else is breaking the rules so I might as well too."



What? So you just read the headlines now and let the rest of the post go? If you would actually try and understand what I was saying, you would realize i'm not trying to tell anyone to "break the rules" I'm saying go with the flow

So my bottom line: You can't really stop this. This is where we are headed. It would be plain silly to try and fight it when you could see it as an opportunity instead. Only stupid business people fight the stupid customers.

(Oh, and i DO NOT support copyright theft. I am merely making a point)

[Oneironaught]

You know, what would happen if all businesses said "Oh, well they don't have a credit card, so they'll just have deal with it" rather then "Hey, lots of our market don't have credit cards. Perhaps we should do something about that so we can sell more."
But when you're talking about online business - which you are - then credit cards are the only way to do business (besides Paypal, which isn't any different than credit cards in practice).

What? So you just read the headlines now and let the rest of the post go? If you would actually try and understand what I was saying, you would realize i'm not trying to tell anyone to "break the rules" I'm saying go with the flow
I read the entire post. But you say if you can't beat then join then. Well, if the "joining" means joining in on the theft then it still doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

So my bottom line: You can't really stop this. This is where we are headed. It would be plain silly to try and fight it when you could see it as an opportunity instead. Only stupid business people fight the stupid customers.
No, only businesses who value their product fight against theft of said product.

I guess it all really comes down to respect. Do unto others, and so forth. It's always easier to justify stealing when the victim is faceless but, that doesn't make it more right.

(Oh, and i DO NOT support copyright theft. I am merely making a point)
Point taken: kind of.

[Replicon]

The flipside of this whole thing is, a LARGE portion of the music I am into now, and PAYING FOR, I got into because I illegally sampled an album or two. If it weren't for that activation energy sparking my continued interest in the band, I would never have paid a dime. You don't buy a car without test driving it, either. I usually buy CD's when I have reached a point where I trust that the money won't go to waste.

[arby]

But when you're talking about online business - which you are - then credit cards are the only way to do business (besides Paypal, which isn't any different than credit cards in practice).

Well, only if you're practicing the old style of business. Advertising anyone?

I read the entire post. But you say if you can't beat then join then. Well, if the "joining" means joining in on the theft then it still doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

I mean join them as in go with it instead of against it. Profit off it.

[MindDaguerreotype]

Two points...
* Is illegal copying covered by the legal definition of theft ? The objective answer is NO. It's not theft or stealing, patent infringement, armed robbery, or terrorism. It's copyright infringement. It may be easier and more emotionally charged to call it "theft", but it's the wrong term. I think the original question was just over the correct term to use, not over the moral implication of the act in itself. However, since this was the main point of the debate...

* Now, is there more damage by "copyright infringement" (indirect loss) than by "theft" (direct loss) ? Is there any damage at all ?
You really need to differentiate two kinds of illegal downloaders: the one who downloads an album instead of buying it, and the one who wouldn't have bought it anyway. Only the first kind is a loss of profit.
One of the big mistake of the record companies in their current litigations against "pirates" (charged term...) is that they always claim that the financial dammage is directly proportionnal to the number of songs downloaded. "100GB of mp3 on your harddrive=> dammage of 1700 unpaid albums" (It's even worse than that, they claim that 1 downloaded album should be counted as 2 or 3 unpaid albums because it gets copied by friends...). If illegal copying was impossible, do you believe that the compulsive downloader would have bought ALL those albums instead ?

Studies have been done on the impact of mp3 sharing on sales of CDs : there is no clear effect. Obviously each study is biased one way or another: those funded by the RIAA announce the end of the world, independant ones says "no correlation", and more importantly, point to other cause for the drop of CD sales: people get the same budget than before, but share it between more entertainement (DVD, game consoles, mobile phone... by the way, record labels/publishers now make a huge profit in selling ringtones of their songs).

They push for strong legislation, copy protection on CD (rendering them unplayable on some CD-players, unrippable to easily keep in mp3 form in your computer), Digital Restriction Management (which make your copy unusable if your specific computer crash, or if you change your portable player), and wonder why people prefer the more comfortable pirated version in plain mp3 . (However EMI seems to have seen the light and is trying "non-DRM" digital downloads.)
They want more sales ? Lower the price. CD and digital downloads are overpriced. Don't worry for the artists: the abusive contracts give them at most 5% of the CD price. It's possible to have a cheaper album (bought by more people) with a better margin for the artist, if we cut the greedy intermediaries. Look at http://magnatune.com : 50% for the artist, for an album without DRM, that you can listen entirely for free before, and buy at the price you chose ! This is the way to adapt a business model when confronted to piracy, in the "if you can't beat, join then"-style: honest people buy (and pay less), semi-honest keep buying because it's cheap and no DRMs are in the way, and piracy freaks never pay anyway.


PJ: Ynot says "It also hasn't cost you anything", and precised it hasn't cost you anything MORE. The fixed cost of producing your album is already done, whether your sell 1 million or none. A thief steals your guitar, it cost you a guitar. A pirate downloads your song... it doesn't change anything. He could have bought it. Or maybe NOT, because he didn't like it enough to pay. That's why we don't use the word "theft" here.

Of course you may discuss of the more personnal aspect here, while we discuss technicalities, which could explain the disconnection... So I must add that I, too, disaprove the "act" because of the "negative implications" it has on the artist (those generic terms should be OK for everyone ;) ).

[Never]

I will read all the posts in this thread later, as there seem to be some good arguments, but I think PJ got it right. As a musician myself, I feel the same.

The odd thing is, I readily give away free CDs quite a bit, but people do not realize it costs over a grand to get them replicated. The money earned from the music pays not only for the replication, but also for the next batch. Profit is little or none in my case because I only sell my music for very cheap or give it away. Then there is equipment, time, etc...

Copying and downloading for free is stealing unless one of two conditions are met. 1) You either have permission from the artist or the artist encourages such downloading, or 2) You download the song to hear it and either buy the CD afterwards or delete the file.

I don't do this to make money, but I need money to do this at all.

[pj]

I'm continuing to read the topic, as it was spawned by one of my decisions here as a moderator. Thanks to all of you for your replies to it. I hope the discussion continues, though my contribution to the discussion is over after this post.

One thing that seems to have been missed here... I built that whole "I wrote a song" thing as an example case. It is a very generalized little fiction about the very real things that any aspiring musician, writer or any other artist or programmer must go through to market their product. While all of the bits in my little story are based in fact and experience, (and Squirrelydog Records is a real label,) my fictional song isn't the point at all.

The reaches some of you stretch yourselves to in justifying theft, (including arguing the very definition,) amazes me. It really shouldn't surprise me, as all of the criminals I've known in my life, (and I've known more than my share,) are masters of justifying their actions to themselves.

No matter what is ultimately concluded here, it remains illegal to breach copyright and against the board rules to be posting links to warez and any other protected material that is circumventing the rights of the owners. My responses here were in hopes of some of you gaining an understanding of the damage that is done through "sharing" - not only to the people whose property is being exploited, but to all of us as the viability of being a musician or programmer or artist or writer is diminished through the practice.

It is likely that none of us would even be here in this place we call DreamViews if it wasn't for Steven LaBerge putting the effort into writing that book and getting it published. Of ALL the people we should try to show some respect to, it is him.

So believe what you want, but don't do it here. That is NOT going to change.

[dodobird]

I tend to lean towards the side that says that piracy isn't such disaster.

It's a bit difficult to explain, but I'll try...

I'll start with an example, lets say a guy, say John is a stop motion animation artist, making animations for films such as Clash of the Titans. He spends years to learn it, and invest money and time ( which is more money as time=money).
Then comes some smart-ass and invent the computer, and computer 3D animations. Now lets say everybody likes this new technology more then Stop Motion Animation, and poor John's investment goes down the drain. He can cry "they are stealing my livelihood!" Or, he adapts by going to new markets, for example he makes animations for Children TV programs that still want Stop Motion Animation.

Example 2.
John has a stage couch service in 19th century America, driving people across from place to place. Now comes the train invention, and John loses his business. Or he adapts by starting an exclusive high security service for banks to move gold around.

Now John is a software or music producer, and someone invents the CD burner and file sharing programs. He will go out of business, unless he adapts, by writing software for businesses, or making music for TV and movie industry, or making more and bigger live shows or whatever else he can think of.

Humanity is driven by two drives. Instinct and morals:
Instincts:
1) One instinct is the survival instinct. This means we want to spend as lass money as possible, because money is our means of survival.
2) Because of the our survival instincts we also don't want to get in trouble with the law, because that will not be good for our interests.

Morals:
3) We are moral, and we don't want to hurt others. We don't want to break into someone's house and take stuff from them because that will hurt them.

All our decisions are basically based on these factors.
So what happens when you need to make a decision of burning a pirate CD of music or software?

You balance all these factors in your head:
Instinct factors:
1) It will save me money, and help my survival
2) The chance that I will be caught by the law and persecuted is virtually zero

Moral factor: Making one CD copy will not hurt anyone much.
Why is this the moral consideration?
For several reasons. only some of them apply for each case:
When I say "I" here, I don't mean myself, just an example possible person:
1) I probably wouldn't have bought this CD anyway, so it doesn't make any difference.
2) The artist/company is already rich, so why do I care if they get a little less money.
3) One copy, wouldn't make such a difference.
4) I'm in favor of the free-knowledge, open source paradigm.
5) I'm an anarchist and I don't care if the capitalist money-based commercial system topples down.
6) I already bought some of this artists CD's, or went to his concerts, so I paid my share already.
7) I am poor. One day when I have more money I will buy all this artists CD's
8) I am sampling. If I like this CD, I may go buy some of his other CD's
9) This is music, which is supposed to be Art. Something which is done for the sake of creation, and not for the sake of money. Other wise it's not Art but craft, and this Artist claims to be an Artist, and not a craftsman.
10) Everybody does it anyway, and the CD based commercial music industry is doomed already, the artist should find other means of selling his music, or change profession.

So the "instinct" factors make you want to burn the CD.
The moral factors, creates at least a partial justification for burning the CD: You do not deeply believe that it's right, but you are willing to make this moral sin because some of these justifications I mentioned make it look like a small sin. Now you can argue with me on how large or small is this sin, but it does not matter: For many people who consider themselves to be moral, the sin is looks small enough because of these justifications.

No one is morally perfect. Every body does something which they consider to be not right.
Maybe you sometimes drive slightly above speed limit.
Maybe you sometimes eat food that you know its production is causing damage to the environment.
Maybe something else... No one is morally perfect.

So, taking the instinct factors, and these justifications I mentioned, and the fact the no one is morally perfect into account, you see why Piracy happens. It just has to happen because this is human nature!

So now we come back to the beginning to my post. My point is that the CD based breed of the music industry is a dying breed, whether you like it or not.

You can say all day that piracy is theft but it will not make any difference, because of the reasons I mentioned above. Just like the couch driver, and the Stop Motion animation artist, you must learn to adapt if you want to survive. It's cruel, but that how the world goes.

I'm also a musician, and I also don't like piracy, but fighting this piracy is like trying stop a tsunami wave with a spoon. It's futile, so for your own good, find a way to adapt.

[Oneironaught]

Again, the point is being either ignored or purposely side-stepped.

It's a bit difficult to explain, but I'll try...
Your "explanation" is nothing more than the same tired excuses and justification for knowingly stealing something.

I'll start with an example, lets say a guy, say John is a stop motion animation artist, making animations for films such as Clash of the Titans. He spends years to learn it, and invest money and time ( which is more money as time=money).
Then comes some smart-ass and invent the computer, and computer 3D animations. Now lets say everybody likes this new technology more then Stop Motion Animation, and poor John's investment goes down the drain. He can cry "they are stealing my livelihood!" Or, he adapts by going to new markets, for example he makes animations for Children TV programs that still want Stop Motion Animation.
I can't believe you guys are still trying to compare competition with stealing. They are not the same thing, which means your examples are flawed beyond the point of usefulness.

Words that mean nothing.
I won't bother picking apart the rest. I've already demonstrated that viewpoint to be hogwash. You can tell yourself whatever you think will clear your conscious but the fact is that it's stealing. And it's wrong.

Whether CDs as a means of distribution becomes extinct and whether or not something better comes along, decreasing demand for CDs, makes no difference in the issue. All of that is simply looking to justify what the perpetrator knows full well to be wrong.

[dodobird]

Again, the point is being either ignored or purposely side-stepped.


Your "explanation" is nothing more than the same tired excuses and justification for knowingly stealing something.


I can't believe you guys are still trying to compare competition with stealing. They are not the same thing, which means your examples are flawed beyond the point of usefulness.


I won't bother picking apart the rest. I've already demonstrated that viewpoint to be hogwash. You can tell yourself whatever you think will clear your conscious but the fact is that it's stealing. And it's wrong.

Whether CDs as a means of distribution becomes extinct and whether or not something better comes along, decreasing demand for CDs, makes no difference in the issue. All of that is simply looking to justify what the perpetrator knows full well to be wrong.

Your response to my post is shallow. It looks like you did not bother to read it thoroughly and think about it deeply.

[Ynot]

Maybe it would be useful to illustrate and describe alternative business models available to musicians....

[skysaw]

2) The artist/company is already rich, so why do I care if they get a little less money.
On what planet are the majority of artists rich? A TINY percentage of artists make enough money soley from their art. The term "starving artist" may be a cliche, but it is an apt stereotype.

3) One copy, wouldn't make such a difference.
And when a million people say this, how many copies are we talking about?


4) I'm in favor of the free-knowledge, open source paradigm.
I'm in favor of free money, but that doesn't mean I can go take some from my local bank.

5) I'm an anarchist and I don't care if the capitalist money-based commercial system topples down.
Please...

9) This is music, which is supposed to be Art. Something which is done for the sake of creation, and not for the sake of money. Other wise it's not Art but craft, and this Artist claims to be an Artist, and not a craftsman.
And if you're stealing "craft" that is better?

10) Everybody does it anyway, and the CD based commercial music industry is doomed already, the artist should find other means of selling his music, or change profession.
Whether an artist adapts to the situation or not has nothing to do with its illegality.

I'm also a musician, and I also don't like piracy, but fighting this piracy is like trying stop a tsunami wave with a spoon. It's futile, so for your own good, find a way to adapt.
I agree with this. However in this context I believe it is a distraction from the subject of this thread. Wrong is wrong.

[dodobird]

sigh,
I admit I'm sometimes too lazy to explain myself when I am misunderstood, as the case is now.
Maybe I shouldn't participate in these debates because of this laziness...
I'll try anyway...
skysaw, your arguing against the "justifications" I mentioned shows that you misunderstand my argument: These are not my opnions, I was only trying to show what goes on on a person mind. Like I said, some justifications apply to some people and in same cases, and some apply to others.
But these are examples of the sort of moral justifications that may or may not go on a person's mind, that may ultimately convince them that piracy is a wrong they can live with.
This is the reality, and this is why piracy exists.

[Oneironaught]

Your response to my post is shallow. It looks like you did not bother to read it thoroughly and think about it deeply.
No, the post I was responding to is shallow. And yes, I did read it but there wasn't much to think deeply about. You're not going to convince me that stealing is acceptable.

[pharaoh43]

How would you feel if you made this and someone took it from you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

[Oneironaught]

How would you feel if you made this and someone took it from you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
I'd actually be quite pleased if some one stole that from me.

[Never]

5) I'm an anarchist and I don't care if the capitalist money-based commercial system topples down.

I find this one amusing. You are right Dodo, most people do actually think this way, but it is all backwards. The truth is if they really knew how the system works, they wouldn't be stealing from the rich artists, because 99% of them are commercial garbage, so their point is null. "I want to steal crap, and I don't care if the crap comes down because of it".

Great music is actually against the music industry and all of it's "promote catchy untalented fads to make money" mentality. Stealing music helps big business, it doesn't harm it. For every blow to the industry in such a manner, underground music gets a grenade. There will always be another factory-set drum machine to take the place of the last number one hit. On the other hand, musicians have to actually learn to play music and work hard and long hours composing it.

[dodobird]

I find this one amusing. You are right Dodo, most people do actually think this way, but it is all backwards. The truth is if they really knew how the system works, they wouldn't be stealing from the rich artists, because 99% of them are commercial garbage, so their point is null. "I want to steal crap, and I don't care if the crap comes down because of it".

Great music is actually against the music industry and all of it's "promote catchy untalented fads to make money" mentality. Stealing music helps big business, it doesn't harm it. For every blow to the industry in such a manner, underground music gets a grenade. There will always be another factory-set drum machine to take the place of the last number one hit. On the other hand, musicians have to actually learn to play music and work hard and long hours composing it.

Thats a good good point.
It's interesting that novels do not suffer so much from piracy, because most people don't find it fun to read from a computer screen, or even a hand-held device.
This can show us something: The only way to fight piracy is to sell only products that can't be easily and cheaply duplicated.

[arby]

The only way to fight piracy is to sell only products that can't be easily and cheaply duplicated.
Correction: Products that do not have a cheaper or easier way of being duplicated.

Theres a big difference.

[imran_p]

Correction: Products that do not have a cheaper or easier way of being duplicated..

When I read that line, I imagine Rafiki saying it.