Piracy

they own all copies, at whatever point they're made. as soon anything pirated is created, they own it, so you took it from them.


@ norsefire, (too jumbled to quote you here, i'll be clear though) yeah i was addressing spidergoat.

i don't think severe punishment is fair, give them benefit of the doubt, try to rehabilitate them (so they can keep contributing to society and their friends/family) and if they keep offending increase the severity. criminals who aren't a risk to society don't need to be ostracized.

libertarian sounds right, lets go with that.

i posted in your bigotry thread a while back, and i agree with you, but i still like multiculturalism, think hospitality is important and am not concerned by dangerous cultures. between the law and my expectations of acculturation its a manageable threat or whatever.

i'm taxed, and give willingly and generously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You realise you're basing this on a false presumption. You're presuming the billions that are "lost"(Technically they never existed) is due to it not being spent on the pirated material. But can you prove it would be spent on said pirated material if people didn't download?
I think not. So anything further was entirely theoretical.


Further to that point, record sales are increasing more than ever despite the fact downloads are more widespread than ever before, except in the sale of singles, which have also sign a huge price rise. Coincidence? You should also note the charts are less dominated by single mainstream acts than before, and tracks don't stay in the charts as long as they used to on average. Legal downloads are only now becoming of reasonable quality and price to be a factor in a market that was left untapped for so long.

Further to THAT point, where the heck were you during the days when people held tape recording devices close to the stereo and "pirated" music that way? Or when tapedecks on stereos allowed for direct "pirated" tapings of on air material? Do you think things have really changed? Do you think people won't just find other ways to get the music? What about the millions that would be lost from selling blank tapes, cds, and other material that is sold ready to record on?
Why not just have some common sense, if you appreciate something then pay for it(and many people do), and it will continue to exist and flourish. If an artist isn't worth paying the price demanded, people won't pay. No artist goes out of business because of downloads, they go out of business because they suck. End of.


EDIT: I'll wager that you won't hear a closing statement to an argument like that for quite some time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I personally don't pirate because it's illigal. But some of those stars are so selfish, they need to do a little out reach.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hope you paid James R for the right to use his words in a quote.

 

And if people stop paying for it, it will stop existing.

There was a time before copyright; in that time if you wanted to hear good new music you had to physically travel to where the musician was, and the musician's expensive presence was supported in that location by people who had no other means of hearing good music. In this approaching new time of no (effective, actual) copyright, even that option may not exist - musicians of high quality are as expensive as ever (consider the world of lesser quality necessary to produce them), and whether anyone will be willing to support them in preference to the world of digital download remains to be seen.

We have already begun to see the more easily visible effects of not paying writers, not paying reporters, not paying editors and other writing evaluators, etc.

But look on the bright side - the rich and powerful have even more use for intellectual "content" than in the past, as modern propaganda distribution becomes ever more sophisticated, and may be willing to pay the premium for the best, professional work. Look at the book contracts available to the likes of Palin or Beck - there's money in there for professional services, such as actually writing the words. Music may enjoy some similar arrangements.

 

nope he just stole them.

 

I am all for piracy on the internet- but buyer beware.

 

Are you in the US or England?

 

That isn't plagiarism, since I'd be quoting him and giving him credit. If I claimed his creation as my own, then it would be plagiarism and that is illegal. I would simply be quoting him, and he agreed to the Terms and Conditions of Sciforums just like everyone else.

 

Do you see a difference between one person recording, downloading, trading, etc. a song for personal use vs a bootleg company mass producing CD's or whatever for profit? Or would you say "off with their heads" in both circumstances?

In the former situation, a case could be argued (note - I won't say "won", necessarily) that recording a song for personal use could increase an artist's revenue over the long term. For example, I download a song (illegally) from a bit torrent, then listen to it with my friends. This results in several of them buying not only the original song, but perhaps the entire album, sharing that with friends, who in turn buy more albums, etc.

Do you account for this in any way, or would you say the phenomenon does not exist at all? Seriously, you can't possibly say there is no value in the advertising wrought from individual downloads of individual songs. This is not an endorsement of piracy, merely a pragmatic assessment of reality. What say ye?

To the other, those large firms, say based in China, that produce duplicate copies of existing CD's, by the (literally) boatload are a different kettle of fish. This allows consumers to purchase something they would have had to go to a regular music store to buy, only for half the money. And none of that money ends up in the artists' pockets, or even the promoters'. This clearly impacts musicians' incomes, whereas I'm not convinced on a practical level that individual "stealing" of songs doesn't actually level out revenue, or even increase it, when all is said and done.

Nor am I trying to justify my own "theft" of music, I freely admit I do it all the time. I can also assure you, for whatever it is worth, that I would not have bought the album in question had I not been able to download one particular song for free. I simply would have foregone the choice of being able to listen to a particular song at a particular time, and listened to the radio instead. Those bands that I really like, I will buy their CD's. I do this because it is more convenient than trying to find it in Limewire or some other torrent downloader...

See, people go to a concert for many reasons, one of which is to hear their favorite bands live, another as a "cool experience" with their friends, etc. Some will be motivated to go out and purchase the album from that tour - some won't. Same idea with sharing music with friends, same idea with the radio stations paying pennies to play a given song for their audiences, etc...

To sum up, some copyright infringement is worse than others, and I'm not at all sure that any of it warrants "chopping off their heads".

P.S. Are you a musician, by any chance?

 

Regardless of the practical benefit, it is still theft; and it doesn't matter if that one song meant you payed for more. You still stole once and that makes you a thief and therefore unjust and therefore immoral and therefore an enemy of the state and therefore a virus of society. Simple, really.

You just try to justify it, and it's pathetic. Why not even pay for the very first song? Good idea. Since it's what you are supposed to do, instead of stealing.

No, I'm not a musician.

 

Look, Norse, the last thing I am trying to do is "justify". I freely admit(ted) that downloading songs without paying for them is piracy. My only point was that it might actually make more money for the band over the long run.

Also, per your definition, yes I am "a thief and therefore unjust and therefore immoral and therefore an enemy of the state and therefore a virus of society", where did I state otherwise? And, yes, it is quite simple really.

However, you have failed to address either of the issues I raised:

Do you think it possible that individual downloading of songs may increase the overall revenue of a band? And if so, is that a "good" or "bad" thing?

Second, do you differentiate between, the casual "theft" of music vs wholesale counterfeiting of CD's, etc.? Is one worse than the other, or is it simply a case of absolutes? (i.e. stealing is stealing, without regard to impact on the "victim"?)

 

It is a bad thing, because you still stole.

Obviously robbing a bank is worse than taking a dollar from somebody, but both cases are theft and theft is theft is theft.

 

So you stand on principle, rather than pragmatism. Well, if my position could be proven true, I imagine a great deal of musicians would disagree with your hypothesis. They would probably rather have the increase in revenue... Don't ya think?

It's not obvious 'till we agree that it is, Norse. And, yes, I agree both are theft. However, the possibility exists that one form of theft actually counteracts the harm that you assert in your OP. Being the practical sort of person that you are, don't you think that merits some consideration?

 

Tell you what: if you get written explicit permission from the artist and/or company permitting you to download and share, then you're fine. Otherwise, you are stealing.

I usually do advocate that the ends justify the means, always, but in this case the ends is the maintenance of rules instead of profit. And you are breaking the rules.

 

Hey, it's your thread - I'm not going to argue with your a priori assumptions...

[...my words...] - just to be clear.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, our laws are different in the US.

 

Sorry, but that's a factually wrong statement. If it were true, then people who pirate music would be charged with theft. But they aren't charged with theft; they're charged with copyright violations. Because copyright violation is not the same crime as theft.

The whole "getting something without paying for it" definition that you (and the music companies, etc) like to throw around just isn't accurate. For someone to commit theft, you must take another person of their property. Making an illegal copy of a song, movie, etc. does not take anyone's property away from them. It arguably deprives them of revenue that they were legally entitled to because of their copyright on the material in question, but that alone doesn't qualify as theft, because you aren't actually taking anything away from them.

The whole "copying stuff is stealing" line of BS is simply an attempt by the music and software companies to simplify the issue and avoid real discussion on the ethics of intellectual property and copyright infringement.