What is your view on illegal music downloading?

[quote name='Riyonuk']Sorry, if my 8 year old sister can install Photoshop, and Limewire Pro, all by herself, than it's obviously not that hard. No "know-how" involved.[/quote]

I think it swings in her direction (younger). They've been immersed in the technology long enough. I bet it's not as easy for a 35 year old. The younger generations are going to have an easier time with the stuff.

Hell, I know people my age (20's) that have to ask what a "Limewire" is, and where people get all their free music.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I wonder how people in the wrestling thread would feel since PPV feeds are freely exchanged. :lol:

It's a bit of apples and oranges since most probably aren't copying the feed, but it still is a similar situation.[/QUOTE]

The only difference is time. You're viewing a live video instead of downloading media (and thus can't share it after the fact), but otherwise similar.

[quote name='Riyonuk']Sorry, if my 8 year old sister can install Photoshop, and Limewire Pro, all by herself, than it's obviously not that hard. No "know-how" involved.[/QUOTE]

Being computer literate = know-how. Are you implying she doesn't know how to use iTunes or Amazon mp3?
 
The penalty for dl is so excessive, that its beyond belief. That's the problem. If you fine someone 20 for a dl then its a logical number that they can understand and personally relate to. If you fine someone 325,000 its become such a large amount, one that most people can not relate to. People will not be influenced or threatened by that amount. Its ridiculous of the RIAA to keep trying to fine people such ludicrous amounts. This is the key problem with the RIAA. They are'nt in touch with the average person. They sit in their ivory towers and do blow off the bellies of super models, lighting their cigars with benjamins.
 
[quote name='Rig']I think it swings in her direction (younger). They've been immersed in the technology long enough. I bet it's not as easy for a 35 year old. The younger generations are going to have an easier time with the stuff.

Hell, I know people my age (20's) that have to ask what a "Limewire" is, and where people get all their free music.[/quote]

Sorry, I guess my opinion is biased, since I'm 18, and technology has been with me since I was born :p

People at our school get glares if you don't know what MySpace is, like my girlfriend -_-
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Have you ever met someone who didn't want the largest group of people possible to enjoy his or her invention/creation?[/QUOTE]

Sure. But many/most want people to pay to enjoy their invention/creation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Music piracy is, dmaul, absolute proof that there's no deterrent effect. ;)[/QUOTE]

As I've said many times, I'm no deterrence theorist. I'm an integrationist and Agnew's most recent formulation of General Strain Theory is probably my current favorite theory. :D

That said, there is a deterrent effect, it just doesn't work across the board. I know many people who still pirate a ton of music. And I know others who have stopped--some who got warnings from their ISPs, and others who just stopped after hearing about warnings, law suits etc.

It's the same with anything. Speeding laws keeps some from speeding, and not others. I at least try to do no more than 10 over. If there were no fines I'd drive much faster. :D

But deterrence/rational choice isn't anywhere near a sufficient explanation of crime, just like any simple theory. It's just a tiny part of a very complex equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='MorPhiend']How does someone not being able to listen to my music at will because they are cheap either "harm the public" or "stifle innovation"? The stifling of innovation comes from too many douches stealing something and the creator gets less or no money, thus they stop creating.[/QUOTE]Copyright's original (and correct) intention was to prevent people from profiting off someone else's work by republishing it (like copying a movie, burning your own copies, and selling them). Nowadays, due to the almost frightening influence of the media on Congress and governments all over the world, the distinction between republishing and building upon someone else's work has been almost destroyed. Organizations like the RIAA are responsible for eliminating that distinction.
How does that not stifle creativity?

Not to mention how copyright extension, which these organizations also love pushing for, just robs the public domain from works that should be free for everyone to use.

As far as patents, just look at tech companies. Microsoft recently sued the GPS company TomTom for violating patents regarding personal navigation, something Microsoft has no stake in. Companies hoard patents and make millions off suing and licensing them.
TomTom actually sued Microsoft back (what people call a "patent war"), BUT then dropped the lawsuit and settled because Microsoft is so much larger that TomTom would have spent more fighting the lawsuit than just biting the bullet and paying the licensing fees.
Large companies essentially bully smaller ones with patents to take a share of other companies money, which (to go back to where we started) stifles innovation and harms the public.
 
I thought the RIAA gave up for the most part?

If I ever get new music, I'd say 70% is from my friend, 20% from Limewire and 10% from Itunes.
 
Itunes fucking sucks. If someone can point me to some reasonably priced, good quality, DRM free music I'd thank you. Also,a good selection of more obscure stuff would be nice.

A lot of the P2P stuff I get are bootlegs of alternate recordings, unreleased tracks, and shit from tapes locked in record companies' vaults. For example, Smile by Brian Wilson. Someone stole the tapes from Capitol Records, and they were leaked on the internet. I can't purchase that music, so it's the only way I'd get to hear it.Trust me, it sounds RADICALLY different from what was released recently (about 30 years after Brian Wilson stopped recording Smile).

I've yet to see a REAL example of an artist being negatively affected by illegal downloading, so unless you're REAL small time, and no one buys your shit; that excuse doesn't fly for me. I'm not going to blow$20 on a cd I've heard little if anything from, to end up hating it.

Let me stream the WHOLE song in GOOD quality to see if I like it (none of this 20 seconds shit), and make the music DRM free and I'll be happy to buy more.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Copyright's original (and correct) intention was to prevent people from profiting off someone else's work by republishing it (like copying a movie, burning your own copies, and selling them). Nowadays, due to the almost frightening influence of the media on Congress and governments all over the world, the distinction between republishing and building upon someone else's work has been almost destroyed. Organizations like the RIAA are responsible for eliminating that distinction.
How does that not stifle creativity?

Not to mention how copyright extension, which these organizations also love pushing for, just robs the public domain from works that should be free for everyone to use.

As far as patents, just look at tech companies. Microsoft recently sued the GPS company TomTom for violating patents regarding personal navigation, something Microsoft has no stake in. Companies hoard patents and make millions off suing and licensing them.
TomTom actually sued Microsoft back (what people call a "patent war"), BUT then dropped the lawsuit and settled because Microsoft is so much larger that TomTom would have spent more fighting the lawsuit than just biting the bullet and paying the licensing fees.
Large companies essentially bully smaller ones with patents to take a share of other companies money, which (to go back to where we started) stifles innovation and harms the public.[/QUOTE]

You make these arguments without really saying that this is limited to electronically transferable content. It's fine to take the labor of someone else without remunerating them and use/distribute it how you'd like. Because, after all, you've not taken anything tangible from them that they cannot then resell to someone else.

If we all thought that way, Microsoft would only be in the business of manufacturing consoles they've taken a financial shellacking on, the music and film industry would die immediately, and (as we're seeing anyway), the book and newspaper industries would die off as well.

You're pointing to the absurd and unfortunate use of copyrights to argue that all copyrights are bad. Are some? Sure. But it's disingenuous to think they all are, and that we have free reign over anything anyone produces. It reduces economic transactions to value nothing more than the raw materials that go into the products themselves - so if there are no raw materials, then there's no rational excuse to make it an economic transaction.

You make the "copyrights kill innovation" argument, in spite of the existence of copyright protections providing a financial incentive for people to produce such materials in the first place. And you flippantly disregard the financial incentive, acting as if the profit motive does not drive creative expression on some level.

You're smarter than that.
 
I agree 100% with that. A lot of the uproar about copyrights is absurd.

People write songs, make movies, write books etc. to make a living. Not many do it out of the goodness of their heart to just donate their art to the populace.

They want people to enjoy their work, but they want them to pay to enjoy it. Just because something is digital doesn't mean that you have a right to get it for free.

The digital album should be paid for just the same as a CD. The artist put the same amount of work into writing and recording the songs regardless of the format you pick it up in.

Think the digital version is to expensive for something that's not tangible? Then buy the CD. I do all my listening outside of the car on MP3s but I still buy CDs and have never bought a digital album. Think both the CD and digital album are too expensive? Well if you can't pay $10 for an album then you aren't enough of a fan to need to own it.
 
Indeed.

And I can't wait for the "I'll go see them when they come to town and they can make money that way" argument.

A motherfuckin' Sykes n' Matza wet dream right there.
 
Pretty sure someone made that argument already yesterday, but too lazy to read through the thread.

And yes, definitely a lot of "techniques of neutralization" in any thread discussion digital media piracy on the net.
 
It's been interesting reading the exchanges in this thread, but what if someone 'records' a public broad cast for 'self use'? Sure if we sell it its a crime, but just to listen to again once its been on the radio or streamed into our pc by a board cast. The same would be true of a picture, or video done in public.
 
I think there's regulations on that kind of stuff too.

i.e. for music, some bands allow taping of their shows (some even allow video) and dont' care if fans trade stuff (i.e. Pearl Jam even has a show trading forum on their official site, think Dave Matthews Band does as well). While others don't allow taping or even photography.

So there must be some laws there and it's up to the artist to give permission.
 
[quote name='Steve Albini']They also recognize that a download by someone unwilling to buy a record is not a “lost sale,” because that person has made it clear that he is unwilling to buy a record. You haven’t lost a sale, you’ve made a fan for free.[/quote]

Steve Albini usually says it best when it comes to downloading music.
 
That's still BS. Plenty of people who used to buy lots of CDs stopped when they could download them for free. And plenty of people download in place of buying CDs, they may not have bought everything they downloaded, but would have bought some of it.

And making a fan for free doesn't do the artist much good if that person never buys any of their music, merchandise or concert tickets. And no downloader is going to go see every band live that they download, and many of the people I know/knew who pirated shit where huge cheapasses who definitely wouldn't shell out the money for a concert ticket.

I mean these people are too cheap to pay $1 a song or $10 an album and we expect them to shell out $40+ for concerts (and a lot more for some major acts) in large enough numbers to justify stealing songs?

If bands want to make fans for free, they're welcome to put up mp3s of their songs on their website for free download. Any band can do that, record contracts not withstanding. But fans can't justify downloading songs they didn't pay for from bands who did not make them freely available.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there a difference in buying a used CD v. downloading one? In both scenarios the record company and artist aren't getting anything (which seems to be the main sticking point for people against downloading music). Obviously one is accepted and the other is not - how do you rationalize this? I'm on the fence when it comes to this issue since I think both sides have legitimate points of view.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Is there a difference in buying a used CD v. downloading one? In both scenarios the record company and artist aren't getting anything (which seems to be the main sticking point for people against downloading music). Obviously one is accepted and the other is not - how do you rationalize this? I'm on the fence when it comes to this issue since I think both sides have legitimate points of view.[/quote]

I've tried this route with used games, don't expect to get very far. (Used media stores also sell new media and henceforth support the industry, yadda yadda).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You make the "copyrights kill innovation" argument, in spite of the existence of copyright protections providing a financial incentive for people to produce such materials in the first place. And you flippantly disregard the financial incentive, acting as if the profit motive does not drive creative expression on some level.[/QUOTE]
An overestimation of the importance of money imo.

People that want to make music and film would still do so.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
People write songs, make movies, write books etc. to make a living. Not many do it out of the goodness of their heart to just donate their art to the populace.

They want people to enjoy their work, but they want them to pay to enjoy it. Just because something is digital doesn't mean that you have a right to get it for free.
[/QUOTE]
Heavily disagree.

I believe most people do it for the enjoyment of doing it. If you can make money too, then hey, bonus.
 
[quote name='j1mb07']I am writing a persuasive essay on illegal music downloading and want some input. Im not going to say whether I am for or against it as I want to get opinions from both sides.

Do you think downloading files off a P2P program should be legal?
What are your opinions on the fine of downloading 1 illegal music file averaging $9,250?
Do you believe people illegally download music to sample a CD then possibly purchase, or solely download songs online with no intent to purchase an album?

If anyone has any good points or references to share feel free to. Thanks[/QUOTE]

1) No, it should never be legal. The general public needs to be afraid because they don't have the ethics most people who download do. It would be a smash and grab.
2) It's bullshit. I understand they want to scare people but it's ridiculous when the going rate for 1 music file is .89-.99
3) I think it's a mixture.

[quote name='javeryh']Is there a difference in buying a used CD v. downloading one? In both scenarios the record company and artist aren't getting anything (which seems to be the main sticking point for people against downloading music). Obviously one is accepted and the other is not - how do you rationalize this? I'm on the fence when it comes to this issue since I think both sides have legitimate points of view.[/QUOTE]

With a used copy, it's only one unit. Once somebody buys that used CD on the shelf, it's gone. With downloading, that one CD can become an unlimited amount of copies which will eventually start to cannibalize the retail sales depending on how easy it is for normal people to access it.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']
I believe most people do it for the enjoyment of doing it. If you can make money too, then hey, bonus.[/QUOTE]

Of garage bands and bands playing local bar gigs etc? Absolutely. And those people don't care if people download their music, nor do up and coming bands as many choose to give away their stuff.

But the bulk of traffic on P2P networks, torrent sites etc. is popular music by successful bands who are out to make money.

The P2P issue didn't become a scandal from people downloading songs by a bunch of nobodies no one cares about. It came from people downloading mostly major label acts like Metallica who are big business and out for money. Sure they love music, but it's also their career.

The small timers doing it for the love of the craft aren't the issue, and they're free to put their material out for free. The problem is from big bands on major labels who don't want their materials freely available and want people to pay to own their material.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
With a used copy, it's only one unit. Once somebody buys that used CD on the shelf, it's gone. With downloading, that one CD can become an unlimited amount of copies which will eventually start to cannibalize the retail sales depending on how easy it is for normal people to access it.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It's just one copy that some bought and sold the physical CD--which is fine as long as they didn't keep a copy.

Someone buys a CD rips it and puts it on a P2P and suddenly thousands (and maybe millions for major acts) of people have a copy of the album just from that one sell, and the band/label has lost a lot of sells as some percentage of those people would have bought the album if they had no way to get it for free.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']With a used copy, it's only one unit. Once somebody buys that used CD on the shelf, it's gone. With downloading, that one CD can become an unlimited amount of copies which will eventually start to cannibalize the retail sales depending on how easy it is for normal people to access it.[/quote]

So it's OK to rip off the artists and record companies a little but not a lot? That doesn't seem right either. What about when I buy a CD and my wife and kids listen to it too? They are losing out on 3 more sales!!! The laws might have worked in 1909 but in 2009 they just don't make any sense.
 
[quote name='javeryh']So it's OK to rip off the artists and record companies a little but not a lot? That doesn't seem right either. What about when I buy a CD and my wife and kids listen to it too? They are losing out on 3 more sales!!! The laws might have worked in 1909 but in 2009 they just don't make any sense.[/QUOTE]

It's just the way CDs, DVDs, games etc. are.

You basically bought a disc and a license for any one person to use it at a time. So you're allowed to sell it or trade it as long as you don't keep a copy for yourself after you no longer have the cd. And you can't make copies and give to friends etc.

This stuff just drives me nuts. The younger generation just has this absurd sense of entitlement that they should be able to get things for free or for whatever price they feel they should pay. A bunch of spoiled cheapasses essentiallly (especially on this site obviously).

It's simple, if you want to OWN something you have to PAY for it. If you think it costs to much then you GO WITHOUT IT. You don't make up a bunch of bullshit rationalizations for acquiring it illegally without paying for it.
 
[quote name='javeryh']So it's OK to rip off the artists and record companies a little but not a lot? That doesn't seem right either. What about when I buy a CD and my wife and kids listen to it too? They are losing out on 3 more sales!!! The laws might have worked in 1909 but in 2009 they just don't make any sense.[/QUOTE]

Basically.

With the used market, every copy in it was a formally purchased item. The used market is composed of legit products. With piracy, every copy (by album) is probably sourced from 2-3 of the original CD.

I wouldn't consider your example. I was talking on the big scale. The torrent sites with 100,000+ users

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's simple, if you want to OWN something you have to PAY for it. If you think it costs to much then you GO WITHOUT IT. You don't make up a bunch of bullshit rationalizations for acquiring it illegally without paying for it.[/QUOTE]

Now this is where we disagree.

I'm a massive pirate (250+ GBs) but I purchase the stuff I love. The stuff I really love, I go to live shows when I can, I post on message boards to give them publicity, I do everything in my power to go above and beyond just buying a CD. I want to see the true artists be able to live comfortably for the rest of their life.

It's impossible for me to pay for everything. I could maybe spread my money out more and download less but why should I? I'm not going to limit my musical horizon because I'm broke. The people who deserve my money will get it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's just the way CDs, DVDs, games etc. are.

You basically bought a disc and a license for any one person to use it at a time. So you're allowed to sell it or trade it as long as you don't keep a copy for yourself after you no longer have the cd. And you can't make copies and give to friends etc.[/quote]

Right. But you are also not allowed to rip it to your computer, put it on your iPod, etc. either - unless of course you immediately destroy the CD after ripping it. Just because you want to have the convenience of listening to the CD you bought in whatever format you want doesn't entitle you to do so! Those are all unauthorized copies! The laws make no sense.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
It's impossible for me to pay for everything. I could maybe spread my money out more and download less but why should I? I'm not going to limit my musical horizon because I'm broke.[/QUOTE]

Yep, can't agree with that. It's illegal and being broke is no justification for illegal downloading.

If you can't afford it, you do without, cut back on other expenses, or get a better job that can support your hobbies.

But what can I say, some people have lower moral standards and aren't bothered or shamed by illegal downloading etc. They just shouldn't try to justify it to others or say it isn't illegal etc. etc.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Right. But you are also not allowed to rip it to your computer, put it on your iPod, etc. either - unless of course you immediately destroy the CD after ripping it. Just because you want to have the convenience of listening to the CD you bought in whatever format you want doesn't entitle you to do so! Those are all unauthorized copies! The laws make no sense.[/QUOTE]

No you can rip it. As long as you have the CD you're allowed to have MP3 copies for yourself, or burn back up CDs or a CD for the car etc.

But if you sell the CD you are legally supposed to destroy and and all MP3 or physical copies you made of it as you no longer of the license to use that material.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Is there a difference in buying a used CD v. downloading one? In both scenarios the record company and artist aren't getting anything (which seems to be the main sticking point for people against downloading music). Obviously one is accepted and the other is not - how do you rationalize this? I'm on the fence when it comes to this issue since I think both sides have legitimate points of view.[/QUOTE]

I'll throw up this one. You fuckin' bet there is.

The funny thing about the internet, which should greatly *enhance* the available venues we *purchase* music from, has led to market consolidation. We're buying from Apple, from Best Buy, and from Amazon.

And we're downloading and stealing. We're not buying used albums as much.

Stealing Britney Spears' music has killed off many independent labels (such as Sound Pollution). If mom-and-pop records (or, more accurately, "hip-middle-aged-junkie records" ;) closes because they aren't making the money they were before selling used and new copies of Britney, or fuckin' Madonna, or whomever, then Sound Pollution has fewer avenues to sell their items through. Apple isn't carrying them (anymore), Amazon and Best Buy aren't places to buy records by "fuck on the Beach" and "Spazz." So they have fewer market options, and no longer exist, because we downloaded Britney for free instead of helping keep in business the stores that actually carry their albums.

Does Britney get anything from used sales? No, of course not. But as a physical commodity, it is limited in its distribution. The one copy comes from one person, is sold to one store, and resold to one person. OTOH, if it's uploaded to the internet, that one copy, like the Wolverine film, can, within a 24 hour period, end up in the hands of over 100,000 people. That's lost sales, no matter what Steve Albini says.

If I have someone living on my couch, stealing my shit to pawn for heroin money, according to Steve Albini, I should be grateful that I made a new friend. Whatta fuckin' maroon.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, can't agree with that. It's illegal and being broke is no justification for illegal downloading.

If you can't afford it, you do without, cut back on other expenses, or get a better job that can support your hobbies.

But what can I say, some people have lower moral standards and aren't bothered or shamed by illegal downloading etc. They just shouldn't try to justify it to others or say it isn't illegal etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

And I don't care. I know it's illegal but I don't give a shit.

If it wasn't for piracy, I wouldn't know the majority of the music I currently listen to. It has helped me find bands that would have never normally been able to reach a person like me and it has helped me find some really OOP/rare material I would have never been able to get my hands on otherwise.

Like I said, I could stop downloading and try to spread my money to more artists but that would hurt the bands I really love, limit my new playlist to almost nothing and wouldn't be anything more than a drop in the bucket for others. Should I take away money that I would normally put towards a band like HEALTH or Radio Moscow so I can buy the newest Eminem CD or a CD from an artist that's dead? I don't think so. My money is finite and to tell me to get a job so I can get everything I currently get is :roll:

[quote name='mykevermin']
If I have someone living on my couch, stealing my shit to pawn for heroin money, according to Steve Albini, I should be grateful that I made a new friend. Whatta fuckin' maroon.[/QUOTE]

That's bullshit.

What Steve Albini said is true for an artist. You can try to count every download as a lost sale but it's possible that person will go to a live show or purchase a future CD. Every download doesn't automatically equal a loss.

The sale of creative arts that can be easily replicated (books/music) is a completely different ballgame than anything thing else. It's apples and oranges. To try and compare it to stealing a car or a mooching friend is retarded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the problem right there. How do you own a song?

All digital data is information. Information is valuable when only a few have access to it, however with the internet's purpose being to spread information, it is just an inevitable conclusion.

[quote name='dmaul1114']The younger generation just has this absurd sense of entitlement that they should be able to get things for free or for whatever price they feel they should pay.[/quote]
Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay.

The trick is to make them willing to pay more. Apparently that younger generation isn't as susceptible to the trickery.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No you can rip it. As long as you have the CD you're allowed to have MP3 copies for yourself, or burn back up CDs or a CD for the car etc.

But if you sell the CD you are legally supposed to destroy and and all MP3 or physical copies you made of it as you no longer of the license to use that material.[/quote]

I'm not so sure about this. As is the case with every right to media, it depends on the license that the copyright holder grants you when you purchase the license. I believe iTunes only allows you to "sync" to one computer in the house and a song purchased from the iTunes store can only be transferred to 5 iPods. It doesn't matter if your computer dies or your 5th iPod breaks - you don't have a license to go beyond that.

The only CDs I have access to right now all say something like "FBI Anti-Piracy Warning: Unauthorized copying is punishable under Federal Law." They don't mention exactly what is authorized but I doubt they want you ripping CDs to a computer.

[quote name='mykevermin']I'll throw up this one. You fuckin' bet there is.

The funny thing about the internet, which should greatly *enhance* the available venues we *purchase* music from, has led to market consolidation. We're buying from Apple, from Best Buy, and from Amazon.

And we're downloading and stealing. We're not buying used albums as much.

Stealing Britney Spears' music has killed off many independent labels (such as Sound Pollution). If mom-and-pop records (or, more accurately, "hip-middle-aged-junkie records" ;) closes because they aren't making the money they were before selling used and new copies of Britney, or fuckin' Madonna, or whomever, then Sound Pollution has fewer avenues to sell their items through. Apple isn't carrying them (anymore), Amazon and Best Buy aren't places to buy records by "fuck on the Beach" and "Spazz." So they have fewer market options, and no longer exist, because we downloaded Britney for free instead of helping keep in business the stores that actually carry their albums.

Does Britney get anything from used sales? No, of course not. But as a physical commodity, it is limited in its distribution. The one copy comes from one person, is sold to one store, and resold to one person. OTOH, if it's uploaded to the internet, that one copy, like the Wolverine film, can, within a 24 hour period, end up in the hands of over 100,000 people. That's lost sales, no matter what Steve Albini says.

If I have someone living on my couch, stealing my shit to pawn for heroin money, according to Steve Albini, I should be grateful that I made a new friend. Whatta fuckin' maroon.[/quote]

This may be true but it seems kind of theoretical to me. Also, wouldn't this be in the best interests of the giant record companies? I don't think artists start making music in order to allow mom-and-pop records to exist.
 
[quote name='Sporadic'] My money is finite and to tell me to get a job so I can get everything I currently get is :roll:
[/quote]

No the :roll: is for you schmucks who have a sense of entitlement and think it's perfectly fine to steal shit you can't afford to buy. Telling you to get a job to be able to afford things you want isn't :roll: worthy. It's fucking common sense. If you want things, you get a job and earn money to buy them. If you don't make enough to afford everything you want, then tough, you go without or find a way to make more money legally. Pretty much all of us have things we'd love to have but can't afford. Most of us don't go out and acquire them illegally! We do without or save up.

Just because something is a digital file doesn't make acquiring it without paying for it (when it's not being legally given away for free) any more acceptable than somehow illegally acquiring a CD.

You still own something that's copyrighted and for sale and you didn't pay for it. If it doesn't bother you, fine. But don't get all pissy when people bash you for your unscrupulous morals and sense of entitlement that you have some fucking right to acquire every song that interests you to expand your horizons regardless of your ability to pay for them. :roll:


[quote name='crystalklear64']That's the problem right there. How do you own a song?

All digital data is information. Information is valuable when only a few have access to it, however with the internet's purpose being to spread information, it is just an inevitable conclusion.[/quote]

BS. A digital product is the same as a physical product. You buy a CD you're paying for the content on the CD with a small price added for the cost of the physical materials. With digital content, you simply pay for the content.

So yes, one can own a song or any other type of file. I buy an mp3, or an ebook for my kindle, etc. etc. I own it and can use it as the license/DRM that I agree to by making the purchase allows.

If I don't like that license/DRM then I don't buy it and get a physical copy or go without the item, not make justifications for illegal actions.


Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay.

The trick is to make them willing to pay more. Apparently that younger generation isn't as susceptible to the trickery.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is the younger generation are a bunch of spoiled brats with a sense of entitlement who have no problem with pirating stuff.

[quote name='javeryh']I'm not so sure about this. As is the case with every right to media, it depends on the license that the copyright holder grants you when you purchase the license. I believe iTunes only allows you to "sync" to one computer in the house and a song purchased from the iTunes store can only be transferred to 5 iPods. It doesn't matter if your computer dies or your 5th iPod breaks - you don't have a license to go beyond that.

The only CDs I have access to right now all say something like "FBI Anti-Piracy Warning: Unauthorized copying is punishable under Federal Law." They don't mention exactly what is authorized but I doubt they want you ripping CDs to a computer.
[/QUOTE]

It's complicated and would take a copyright lawyer to clarify, but I think what I stated was true.

Sony tried that crap with rootkits on cds to prevent files being ripped and they got sued and lost.

So I think the law stands that you can make copies of CDs for personal use (burnt cds and mp3s) as long as you still own the physical CD.

DVDs are different as they have encryption on it and it's a federal crime to crack the encryption--so they have a different copyright that currently doesn't allow for the making of any personal copies.
 
I don't care at all. I only buy CD's from artists I truly care about. I don't believe in buying single songs and that kind of stuff. I either like you enough for the whole package or I'm getting your music illegally which basically means I don't really care for you too much.
 
Do you think downloading files off a P2P program should be legal?
If it's copyright holders wish, yes. Otherwise, it's stealing. Tangible or not.

What are your opinions on the fine of downloading 1 illegal music file averaging $9,250?
It's highly inflated. Yes, I get it....if I have it on P2P I'm also supplying it. But how the fuck much do they think they actually lost?! I'm not into the practice of file sharing, but if you figure a buck a song, isn't 9,000 people a bit high to get something from one person? Correct me if I am wrong.

Do you believe people illegally download music to sample a CD then possibly purchase, or solely download songs online with no intent to purchase an album?
The "I can't try it anywhere else" argument is bullshit. Myspace, radio, music stores with listening stations, the band's website in many cases, and that's just a few....
People are going to argue it should be legal and it's not stealing, anything to make them feel they aren't doing something wrong. Give it up guys, the copyright holders are always going to want their money.

Yes, some bands give music away and that's great. Just because some do, doesn't mean that's the intent of all. That should be left to them to decide, not some arrogant prick with an entitlement complex.
Yeah iTunes could probably be cheaper, but it's a buck a song in most cases. Not bad, but honestly I think .25 - .50 would be the sweet spot.

Oh, and fuck the RIAA.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No the :roll: is for you schmucks who have a sense of entitlement and think it's perfectly fine to steal shit you can't afford to buy. Telling you to get a job to be able to afford things you want isn't :roll: worthy. It's fucking common sense. If you want things, you get a job and earn money to buy them. If you don't make enough to afford everything you want, then tough, you go without or find a way to make more money legally. Pretty much all of us have things we'd love to have but can't afford. Most of us don't go out and acquire them illegally! We do without or save up.[/QUOTE]

I would try to explain it to you further but as soon as you read "download" your brain seems to shuts off and you just start foaming at the mouth while growling random words like stealing and "today's brats...in my generation :bomb:".

If you take the time to stop barking at your computer screen, you would see that my stance goes much deeper than a sense of entitlement and that everybody doesn't fall under whatever crazy idea you think a pirate is.

Otherwise, my advice to you is to calm down and realize the world isn't pure black and white. Are some people (or the estates of some people) getting the short end of the stick? Yeah. Are the people I really enjoy and the people who deserve to get my money, get it? That and much much more.
 
[quote name='Rocko']You're pretty condescending, dmaul1114.[/QUOTE]

To jackasses trying to justify illegal actions, absolutely. That and I hate people in general. And particularly younger generations--getting surly and codgerly young since I'm only 30. :D At least I can make them miserable when they sign up for my classes! :D

[quote name='Sporadic']I would try to explain it to you further but as soon as you read "download" your brain shuts off and you just start foaming at the mouth while growing random words like stealing and "today's brats...in my generation :bomb:".

If you take the time to stop barking at your computer screen, you would see that my stance goes much deeper than a sense of entitlement.

Otherwise, my advice to you is to calm down and realize the world isn't pure black and white.[/QUOTE]

With downloading it's pretty black and white.

If the artist makes it freely available, download away. If they don't and it's copyrighted material, buy it or do without. There's no reasonable justification to do otherwise. If you don't like prices, don't buy and write to record labels and tell them why you aren't buying.
 
[quote name='javeryh']This may be true but it seems kind of theoretical to me. Also, wouldn't this be in the best interests of the giant record companies? I don't think artists start making music in order to allow mom-and-pop records to exist.[/QUOTE]

Market consolidation is a fact, shrinking sales due to piracy is a fact, smaller stores closing up shop is a fact.

And it ain't because people's tastes are gravitating to the mainstream so much that there's no viable market in fringe music. It's because you can torrent, blogspot, or limewire virtually any album you want and have it on your computer for the low price of nothing and in about 1/10th the time it takes to go to a music store, hope they have it in stock, and get back to your house (assuming that trip takes 30 minutes).

Is it in the best interests of large record companies? Doubtful. Small record stores going under takes away the opportunity for sales (used) that record labels make no money from, but it also takes away opportunities for sales (new) they do make money from, and is the consequence of an avenue (the internet) that provides infinite opportunities for sales (transactions of albums for no money, a/k/a piracy) that they don't benefit from, either. The market we're in provides more opportunities to gather and share property that record companies don't benefit from than the market we came from, where used sales existed.

[quote name='Sporadic']And I don't care. I know it's illegal but I don't give a shit.[/quote]

I kind of wish you would have stopped your argument there, because you spend the rest of your post justifying your behavior. If you didn't give a shit, you'd leave it at that, rather than trying to psychologically reconcile the fact that you consider yourself a decent, moral, upright citizen with the fact that you openly engage in theft of material goods.

"I don't give a shit." That's a sound argument. "I don't give a shit, and here are my justifications for what I do" is a less plausible scenario. Lamentably, you engaged in the latter.

If it wasn't for piracy, I wouldn't know the majority of the music I currently listen to. It has helped me find bands that would have never normally been able to reach a person like me and it has helped me find some really OOP/rare material I would have never been able to get my hands on otherwise.

Like I said, I could stop downloading and try to spread my money to more artists but that would hurt the bands I really love, limit my new playlist to almost nothing and wouldn't be anything more than a drop in the bucket for others. Should I take away money that I would normally put towards a band like HEALTH or Radio Moscow so I can buy the newest Eminem CD or a CD from an artist that's dead? I don't think so. My money is finite and to tell me to get a job so I can get everything I currently get is :roll:



That's bullshit.

What Steve Albini said is true for an artist. You can try to count every download as a lost sale but it's possible that person will go to a live show or purchase a future CD. Every download doesn't automatically equal a loss.

The sale of creative arts that can be easily replicated (books/music) is a completely different ballgame than anything thing else. It's apples and oranges. To try and compare it to stealing a car or a mooching friend is retarded.
Click to expand...

What I would like you to do is estimate how much money you've given to bands you've stolen from. On average. So include the Eminems, the Pussycat Dolls, the whothefuckevers. Add up the MSRP of the material you possess illegally, and divide that by the sums of money you gave to bands in the form of $10 tickets for 5 band shows, $15 t-shirts, the sporadic (a pun!) cd you actually purchased. How much money, on average, would a given artist receive for the average album, or film, or song?

This is your argument. I think it's foolish as hell, but I also find it fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. This sort of "I steal from them, but I'll go see them when they come to town and buy a ticket or a t-shirt, and expose my friends to them, who will also steal their materials" argument. How much are you "giving back" to the artists you steal from?

To you, it seems that the music industry is equivalent to the "give a penny, take a penny" holder at the liquor store.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I kind of wish you would have stopped your argument there, because you spend the rest of your post justifying your behavior. If you didn't give a shit, you'd leave it at that, rather than trying to psychologically reconcile the fact that you consider yourself a decent, moral, upright citizen with the fact that you openly engage in theft of material goods.

"I don't give a shit." That's a sound argument. "I don't give a shit, and here are my justifications for what I do" is a less plausible scenario. Lamentably, you engaged in the latter.
[/quote]

Exactly. :applause:

If you don't give a shit, fine. But don't go on to through out a ton of lame justifications/rationalizations, and don't get your panties in a bunch when someone bashes you for piracy. You choose to do something illegal, you have to be willing to take the flack. Especially if you're going to talk about it openly and bring the criticism on yourself.

And if people are so convinced it doesn't hurt the artists, why don't all you pirates write all the bands who stuff you have illegal copies of their songs and tell them you have those illegal copies and ask them if they care? Some won't, many more will--else they'd do stuff like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails and put up albums for free on their websites.

But anyway, no reason to go in circles on this. I've said my part and have no interest in reading more bullshit excuses and rationalizations.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']With downloading it's pretty black and white.

If the artist makes it freely available, download away. If they don't and it's copyrighted material, buy it or do without. There's no reasonable justification to do otherwise. If you don't like prices, don't buy and write to record labels and tell them why you aren't buying.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say anything about prices.

And it's not pretty black and white. Here's an example. I'm a massive fan of Nine Inch Nails. When I heard that Saul Williams was opening for him on a few select dates back in 2005, I decided to download his first two CDs so I could see what he was like. I loved them and heard his live show was even more impressive. So when in 2006, I heard that he was opening for Nine Inch Nails again, this time in Pensacola, I drove 8+ hours with a friend to go see the show. Not only did I turn a friend of mine on to him that would have never heard of him otherwise, I also bought a copy of his poetry book. When word of his third album came out, I started threads about it at multiple forums (including this one). When it was released, I bought two digital copies from his website because I enjoyed the method of distribution so much.

Yeah, I may have taken his first two CDs but look at what snowballed from it. He lost two CD sales but he gained a massive fan that not only spread the word to other people (that opens the door for more sales for him) but bought his future products.

Here's another example, I heard of a guy called World's End Girlfriend but their CDs are unavailable in America. I don't have the money to spend $20+ a CD to import it from Japan so I downloaded them. They haven't toured America by me yet (that I know of) so I'm unable to compensate them for their work. I enjoyed them so much that I began to look for other music in a similar vein. I found a man by the name of Kashiwa Daisuke. He does have his music available in America so I bought both of his CDs from Amazon MP3. Is it wrong that I didn't import World's End Girlfriend's CDs from Japan? Yeah but without them I would have never found Kashiwa Daisuke and if World's End Girlfriend ever tours by my town, I'll be the first to buy tickets.

I don't give a shit about downloading music and have been nothing but open with the reasons why I do it despite the fact it's illegal but for you to write me off a some type of entitled brat when you refuse to look at the situation in any of terms other than "DOWNLOAD = ILLEGAL" "BUYING = COMPENTATION" (which is black and white); what type of response do you expect when you act like such a douchebag?
 
Sorry, but it's still black and white. The act of taking the first two cds was still illegal and wrong regardless of how much money you spent on him in the future. And not being able to afford an import doesn't make stealing it ok.

It's black and white. Stealing something is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter the circumstances, whether you buy other stuff (or even those songs you stole) in the future, the intial act of illegally downloading the songs was illegal and morally wrong.

And that's (for real this time!) all I'll say as people like you will rationalize it away all day. But a breaking a law is breaking a law.

People just have some bullshit notion that digital products aren't real products and laws don't apply. I mean if you go to a new record store, like it and steal a couple cds, is that ok if you go back many times in the future spend a lot of money and tell all your friends to shop there? You're doing a similar thing (shoplifting charges and lost product hit to the store aside) by downloading. In both cases the artist loses money and the stores (be it a real record store or digital stores like Amazon or iTunes) are missing out on a sale.
 
Things like this are not black and white... I am pretty sure MP3 sharing was legal until RIAA lobbied intensively (from my memory of High school). I am not sure, so I would like to see the law that this breaks and the exact crime it involves. To add to Sporadic's point, I downloaded a couple of Botch albums last summer (one is OOP permanently). Soon after listening, I bought the album and their DVD. They earned a lot more than they would have if I hadn't downloaded their music ($0). This evidence isn't very strong, but you guys are just yelling "it's wrong!" over and over again.

For the last time, it's not even "stealing" when you're convicted.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sorry, but it's still black and white. The act of taking the first two cds was still illegal and wrong regardless of how much money you spent on him in the future. And not being able to afford an import doesn't make stealing it ok.

It's black and white. Stealing something is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter the circumstances, whether you buy other stuff (or even those songs you stole) in the future, the intial act of illegally downloading the songs was illegal and morally wrong.

And that's (for real this time!) all I'll say as people like you will rationalize it away all day. But a breaking a law is breaking a law.

People just have some bullshit notion that digital products aren't real products and laws don't apply. I mean if you go to a new record store, like it and steal a couple cds, is that ok if you go back many times in the future spend a lot of money and tell all your friends to shop there? You're doing a similar thing (shoplifting charges and lost product hit to the store aside) by downloading. In both cases the artist loses money and the stores (be it a real record store or digital stores like Amazon or iTunes) are missing out on a sale.[/QUOTE]

So, it's better for Saul Williams and Kashiwa Daisuke if I never did the intial act of downloading Saul's first two album and World's End Girlfriend's work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top