How does CAG feel about Pirating?

I don't like it. I lose respect for those who take part in it - however, I really dislike when people attempt to justify their actions. Now, I'm not talking about the type of justification like, say, you want to play an old NES game and the only way to play it is to track down some old used cartridge or pirate it. It's not something I would do, but I'm not going to get into some big argument with someone who does it. Now, someone who downloads some new release PC game or movie and justifies it because the cost of going to the theater is too high or they don't like the DRM on the PC game... ugh. those kinds of people annoy me. Right along side the ones who feel that they're saving the world, pirating one Brittany Spears CD at a time...
 
Music? fuck the majors. The idea of the RIAA being allowed to exist in it's current form is absurd. DMCA is horseshit. IIRC the majors were putting rootkits on people's computers illegally in an attempt to fight piracy. I have no qualms for paying for old or good stuff (lol jazzman) but if the artist is getting fucked over I won't feed the label.

Movies? I'm with Bob on this one. Once the income stream for the original cast and crew has dried up I have no qualms about pirating.

Games? Fan translations are cool. If a company wants to make an awesome game but keep it in Japan forever, then fuck them. Also if the original creators aren't seeing any more cash from the game (i.e. it's out of print and you can only get it used) then it's all fair.
 
We've done this a gazillion times here...

But I'm 100% anti-piracy. Never pirated any music, movies etc. and never will and think there's zero excuse for it.

That said, the studios/labels/publishers have to give some as well as all this DRM and stuff is non-sense as well as we should have the same fair use rights for say an e-book that we have for a paper book--ability to loan it out (while not keeping a copy), sell it (without keeping a copy) etc. etc.
 
The widespread piracy in today's society is merely a symptom of the real problem.

We need to get back to the core issue - how can we, as a society, incourage art, science, and the spread of knowledge.

To see it solely as a question of markets, profit, and what is best for big business is simply and utterly absurd.
 
Movies? I will download movies. I have no issues with that. On many occasions Ive downloaded a movie, liked it and then gone to amazon and ordered myself a copy of it because I enjoyed it so much. Like for instance I never saw young frankenstein or dr strangelove, I grabbed them off a torrent and I watched all of strangelove and half of young frankenstein, deleted the files and order them off of amazon. I dont burn them to sell as bootlegs, I dont reupload them, I dont share them to me since I pay for some premium channels on cable all I am basically doing is getting to see them ahead of schedule. And old movies like I found dr strange tv movie from like 1974 on a torrent I consider that fair game for anyone because you havent been able to buy it since vhs was getting started.

Music? Yeah I do sometimes when I cherry pick some songs. I never downloaded whole albums but I do on occasion pirate music. Like when I found out I lost a megadeth cd, overkill and a commodores cd at some point in time the past couple years I had no problem going to rebuy them because it was worth it so I got them new off like deepdiscount.com without batting an eye. I would be willing to buy more music if the quality of the music I dont have was worth it, Ive boughten too many cds and find the music to be total shit with the exception of one song and Im not paying as much as cd's are for one song (I dont like digital for music, I like real copies of what I buy. Ill rip a cd I have if I want it digitally).

Games? Only time I download a game illegally is when its a old game I cant find on a store shelf and havent been able to for a long time. I never downloaded a console game but I have downloaded pc games like say old commodore games or something like that because chances are I wont be able to get it to run anyway. But I do buy games from GOG when they have stuff I want because they are DRM free, I can play the game offline, I can download the whole game and back it up and so on. Im willing to buy old outdated games from them.

But for anyone who gets on their high and mighty horse of how they are 101% anti piracy and never stolen anything in their whole pure lives is a fucking liar lying to you and lying to themselves. Piracy is stealing and everyone has knowingly stole in their life. Whether you dubbed a vhs or cassete tape back in the day, a friend burned you a cd, you took that ink pen home from the post office or your work, or took more free samples than the sign said you could have, or you got something extra in a order that you didnt return or pay for, refilling your drink from a soft drink fountain or taking some drinks before filling back up when your not supposed to, recharge your cell phone at work using their electricity, taking a extra newspaper from the machine or taking a towel home from the hotel. People steal shit all the time but they can justify it to themselves so its not stealing to them.
 
Music? I'll download to sample a CD I may be interested in. If I like it, I'll buy it. If not, it gets deleted.

The only movies I've ever pirated are the original versions of the Star Wars trilogy (the laserdisc rips). I feel no shame about that.

I've downloaded plenty of old video games, from the NES through the N64. No shame there either given that they can't be bought new anymore (and I've owned many of them at one time or another).
 
Priracy has a long term impact on culture.

Culture depends on artists and musicians. It you cut them off financially, over time it effects society as a whole.
 
Here is how I deal with pirating...

If you do pirate, DONT brag about it.

If you dont pirate , DONT hate other people that do pirate and stay out of their business.
 
[quote name='Xevious']Priracy has a long term impact on culture.

Culture depends on artists and musicians. It you cut them off financially, over time it effects society as a whole.[/QUOTE]

I guess that explains why there is no artwork before the invention of copyright.
 
[quote name='camoor']I guess that explains why there is no artwork before the invention of copyright.[/QUOTE]

Some people will create just out of love for the art etc. And they're free to do so today as well.

Nothing is stopping people from giving away paintings, putting music and movies up for free download online etc.

But those that choose to do it for money need to have their rights to control their creations protected.

That said, again consumers need protections in terms of fair use rights for content they legally by and not be hampered by DRM on products they own. So there's give and take on both ends.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbq_1Wy70rE

I generally only "pirate" abandoned stuff: old games, music or movies that are no longer being actively sold or supported in any way. Other than that, I use it as a last resort for impossible to obtain movies and music produced outside of the US. However, if they do release it later I'll usually pick it up.
 
I am conflicted about piracy. I create music myself, and always have and always will give it away for free, and let people pay for it if they like it enough. I don't live off of the money I make (the small amount, I should say) from my music, and I love it enough to do it without caring about getting paid for it.

I think word of mouth is THE MOST important factor on getting your music or film or game out into the public. If somebody downloads your cd, enjoys it, and lets others know about it, it could potentially pay off in the long run. If somebody pays $15 for your cd and thinks it shit, they will either tell others to not waste their money or forget about it.

Unless you're at super-star status, merch sales are where musicians make their money. Put your music out there for free, get the people to the shows, and you'll potentially sell a couple hundred dollars worth of shirts and other items. It's also been shown to help out by digitally distributing your media through torrents (Ink definitely paid off by doing a donation-based download) and Trials-HD (I could be completely wrong, please say if I am) ended up being thrown onto a torrent tracker and spread throughout the internet, and Redlynx embraced that and ended up selling 1.5 million copies of their games in 2009.

Again, if you're too lazy to wait for a movie to come out on DVD and you must download a cam or an R5, just go to the cheap theater and spend $3. The closest theater within a 40 mile radius only has 6 screens, but I don't need to see new movies that much, so I can't complain. If you really enjoy a band, give em a few dollars and get an item from them or two. fuck, you can find any new games for $40 or so through CAG at almost any time. I don't think rappers are losing their homes from losing a couple thousand sales, but I do honestly believe the more their is headway made through finding a middle ground between pirates and the media industry, the better sales will begin improving.


Hell, Jackass 3D is gonna make around $50 million it's first weekend. Do you guys see a problem. Anybody?
 
Yeah, it's movie piracy that really baffles me in today's age where movie rental's are so damn cheap.

There aren't many people who truly can't afford the $8.99 +tax a month for netflix for 1 dvd out at a time and unlimited streaming, or $1 here and there to rent a new release from a Redbox etc.

It's not something where people are getting bent over and screwed on pricing and have no cheap options for seeing movies legally. Some people are just super cheap and lazy I guess.
 
I think music prices are fine given the replay ability. I'll listen to a song/album I love a ton of times over the years. Where as I seldom replay games, only rewatch my favorite movies once every few years, seldom re-read a book etc.

I have little problem with $1 a song, or in my case $10-15 an album since I still buy CDs and don't buy MP3s.
 
But you need to have a lot of music, and that's when it becomes impractical to have tracks priced at $1 a piece. I'm not like those people who need 10,0000 songs, but even I have about 500.

That's just too much money. Hell, even to make a party playlist as a college student could put you back 50-$100 if everyone had to buy legally. And that music will be dated in the next year when everyone wants to listen to new stuff (which is priced at $1.50 at release).

Then again it's a good thing that playlist websites exist. And those are legal. I recommend Grooveshark =D
 
Like anything the expenses are spread out over time. I have 300 some CDs, but I've been buying them since the mid 1990s. Have over 300 movies, have been buying DVDs since 1998 etc.

It's a shit ton of money if you add it all up, but not that much on a monthly basis etc.

And as you note, there are lots of free options for checking stuff out now with streaming music and video sites, libraries etc.

In any case, something costing to much is no excuse for stealing it. If something's priced to high for your budget or sensibilities just do without it, wait for price drops or deals etc. etc.
 
For newer readily available stuff? I'm against it.

For older and not so readily available stuff? I'm totally for it. I love playing older arcade games in MAME, and since real arcades have gone the way of the drive-in movie theater, the only way to play them is emulated or have the original hardware that you're going to have to jump through your own butthole in order to get it working.

I'm also totally for emulators because free emulators generally do a better job of emulating games than official ones. So many more control options, game settings, and display modes are at your disposal. It's shameful that, for instance, the Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection completely lacks Sonic 3 lock-on modes. PC emulators have been doing that for a decade, and for free!
 
I'm totally against it. For movies, I think the studios would be completely, 100% justified if they set out to create the be all, end all computer virus and started using it on people who illegally downloaded just-released movies on file shares. It would be no different then someone getting caught by the police while shoplifting from Wal Mart, resisting arrest, and then getting maced in the face and beat down with batons. That is totally justified and so is bricking a pirate's computer.
 
[quote name='Survivor Charlie']I'm totally against it. For movies, I think the studios would be completely, 100% justified if they set out to create the be all, end all computer virus and started using it on people who illegally downloaded just-released movies on file shares. It would be no different then someone getting caught by the police while shoplifting from Wal Mart, resisting arrest, and then getting maced in the face and beat down with batons. That is totally justified and so is bricking a pirate's computer.[/QUOTE]

Well actually that would be more like a security guard saw you shoplifting at walmart and then started busting out the windows in your car.
 
Want to beat the people who constantly use the word "steal" in the hopes of getting some type of moral kneejerk reaction out of people in the hopes of bolstering their position. Kind of like anti-abortion people using the terms "murder" and being "pro-life"

[quote name='Survivor Charlie']I'm totally against it. For movies, I think the studios would be completely, 100% justified if they set out to create the be all, end all computer virus and started using it on people who illegally downloaded just-released movies on file shares. It would be no different then someone getting caught by the police while shoplifting from Wal Mart, resisting arrest, and then getting maced in the face and beat down with batons. That is totally justified and so is bricking a pirate's computer.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's company policy for security to not get physical with a resisting shoplifter and to get their license plate number when they leave to give to the police...but you're right, it's totally ok to damage somebody's personal property because they are hypothetically causing your company to lose money.

Guess that means it's also ok to DDOS a site if they are doing something you don't agree with?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Like anything the expenses are spread out over time. I have 300 some CDs, but I've been buying them since the mid 1990s. Have over 300 movies, have been buying DVDs since 1998 etc.

It's a shit ton of money if you add it all up, but not that much on a monthly basis etc.

And as you note, there are lots of free options for checking stuff out now with streaming music and video sites, libraries etc.

In any case, something costing to much is no excuse for stealing it. If something's priced to high for your budget or sensibilities just do without it, wait for price drops or deals etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

But why do without it when you could have it for free? Do I steal cars from dealerships because I want one? No, it's difficult and risky. But copying a CD from the library? Why not? It's easy and practically risk free. And hell, if you never tell anybody you did it, the world will remain unchanged. Everything goes on being the same, except you're happier because you have an awesome song. What's the harm?

But then again, I'm a man of few morals. So think what you will.
 
Yeah, that's just it. You either have the morals or you don't. *shrugs*

Just because something is easy and low risk doesn't make it right.
 
With quite a few games coming out(only one I can think of offhand is Mercs 2) with glitches galore in them, some of which never get fixed, I see no issue with 'sampling' games that might be glitchfests. if they turn out to be decent and not too glitchy, then I'll buy a legit copy.

As for music, most albums that come out have 1-2 'good' songs that are released and get a shitton of airplay, while the rest of the album is total crap that ends up being worthless. In that case I'd probably download the 'good' songs at no more than $.99 a pop from a legitimate site(such as iTunes or whatever).

Movies, on the other hand, are on a downswing for me. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a movie in a theater or even the local drive-in(where $6-7 gets you two movies). Most of the crap out now is either rehashes of old movies or just holds no interest for me.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Want to beat the people who constantly use the word "steal" in the hopes of getting some type of moral kneejerk reaction out of people in the hopes of bolstering their position.[/QUOTE]

If you don't think of it as stealing, what do you think of it as?
 
Honestly? I used to be a massive pirate. I had every DS game ever made on my 1TB HDD, I had over 60 burned 360 games, over 150 burned PS2 games, over 100 Wii games on an external HDD and one day I realized that it just isn't fun anymore. Piracy, ignoring the harm it can do to the industry, actually ruins the experience for yourself.

It's the pirate's curse. most games "suck" and even AAA titles seem mediocre when you pirate them. You feel no obligation to give any game a fair chance, since you didn't buy it. you can just ditch the game and move on.

Since then I have sold all my consoles, deleted/threw away all my pirated games, and bought a PS3, and updated it so I'm not tempted by the newest hack. I only own 3 games for it now, but I love them and It feels good to buy my games now.
 
Honestly, I'm more worried about the fly-by-night lawyers who file lawsuits on the behalf of movies.

Who's to know what these extortion factories are really up to?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you don't think of it as stealing, what do you think of it as?[/QUOTE]

What it is, copyright infringement...but that doesn't get the kneejerk negative reaction out of Joe Q Dipshit. That's why I brought up anti-abortion people trying to get people on their side by saying they are pro-life and using loaded terms like murder.

Is it wrong? In most situations, yes.
Is it the same thing as stealing? No.

What do you think of when you think of stealing? Somebody taking something from another person. Why is it bad? Because it causes them a loss and deprives them of their item. If I steal your car, you can no longer drive. If I steal your iPod, you can no longer listen to music on the go. If I steal your food, you won't be able to eat. In all these cases, I would cause you a loss since not only would you be missing the thing you bought but you would have to replace whatever I took.

Now, let's think about downloading. If I download the new Neil Young album in FLAC, the store isn't out of a copy, I didn't take money out of Neil Young's wallet but I have a exact copy of what they are selling. It's wrong but it isn't a slam dunk like stealing a physical item. You can view it as a lost sale but that's on the thought process that A) I have the money to buy it to begin with and B) I would have bought it if a free source wasn't around. That I'm not just downloading the album out of a compulsive or curious urge. It's alot easier to take chances when the fee is free instead of $11.88 a pop.

Now, does that mean I think that all art is worthless and should be downloaded? No. I am a strong believer that you should go out of your way to support what you love if you have the money (and if you don't have the money, spread the word and help that way or see them when they play live or buy some merchandise). I hate the people who download everything when they have the money and act like it's no big deal (or even worse, gloat about it)

[watch out, it's about to get a little crazy]

I do my best to support the artists I love but my resources aren't infinite. I give as much as I can.

Recent example. Alessandro Cortini. He's the former keyboardist from Nine Inch Nails. He creates amazing music as modwheelmood/blindoldfreak/SONOIO. Even though I could have downloaded everything, I bought everything instead. I want to see him succeed. I want to reward him for his work and the feeling feels (at least for me) mutual. He wants to give me a better experience for supporting him (bonus demos, signed/numbered stuff, more bang for my buck). A few months ago, I splurged and spent $66.85 on his latest project SONOIO. For that I received a signed and numbered CD/signed poster/exclusive preorder demos and awesome t-shirt.

Now around that time, I'm not going to lie, I downloaded alot of albums. If I would have only bought the $7.99 SONOIO digital download, would I have spread that other $58.86 around and bought some of those albums? No. Because I was spending money I really shouldn't have. I was going out of my way to give him even more money. If every other free route closed and it was either buy those albums I downloaded illegally or don't listen to them...I would have chosen don't listen to them.

It may sound like bullshit to some people but that's the way it is with me.

I think the thing the industry has to keep in mind is that these "pirates", at the end of the day, are mostly fans. And while it's easy for them to go, "Sporadic, you didn't buy the majority of those Nine Inch Nails albums/bootlegs you have on your computer. Give us $30,000 per song YOU STOLEN FROM US", it becomes a little more murky when you realize that I've spent $400+ on tickets since 2005 along with a t-shirt/posters at each of the four Nine Inch Nails shows I attended. Was it a dick move to download the songs? I guess. But did it lead to me putting most of my expendable income in the pockets of artists I love? Most of the time, yes.

I also have to say, I don't get the backlash to downloading considering there are perfectly legal options like getting something from the library or buying a used copy or paying a small monthly fee for unlimited access to something (Netflix) where the artist gets little to no compensation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyX81N02V0E
 
[quote name='Xevious']Priracy has a long term impact on culture.

Culture depends on artists and musicians. It you cut them off financially, over time it effects society as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Artists used to have patrons. What did this mean?

They would only be supported if they produced something the patron liked.

That said, I'm all for the try before you buy model when it comes to non-physical media. You might pay a creator full price for an experience because at the end, it was that damn good. Why should you have to pay full price to a company that markets a black box? If you receive a shoddy product for the same price as an excellent product, couldn't it be argued that someone is stealing from you, rather than vice versa?

There's a favorite story of mine, it's the first in a collection called The Case of the Marble Monster, and it goes a little like this. A poor student is accused of stealing the smell of fish (from his landlord) and using it to flavor his plain rice, when the smell is floating freely in the air. The landlord sees this as an opportunity to hit up the offender for some extra cash he might not otherwise obtain, but fortunately the judge (Ooka) rules that "the price of the smell of food shall be the sound of money."

Personally, I think the music industry likes to cry about losing revenue to piracy when in reality it's their expectation of continuously increasing profits (while sticking a homogeneous product in a saturated market) that is the culprit. If you have just enough disposable income to buy fifteen CDs in a year, then they're not losing any revenue on the 285 CDs that you "sample." Not one dime, because you couldn't afford them any way. You needed those 285 CDs just as much as a junkie needs crack on the streets. Should we say then that the profits of the drug dealer should be protected no matter how much vitality is drained from society in the process?
 
Theft is theft, even if the thing you're stealing is non-rivalrous. Admittedly, "piracy" is a silly term with connotations that are hilariously inappropriate given the conduct it's being used to describe. But a "pirate" is still taking something they have no right to take; it's that simple, regardless of how attenuated the effect upon the artist may be or how undeserving or despicable they might think movie studios/record companies/game publishers are. Moreover, any attempt to justify "piracy" on a moral level (see, e.g. "It's a victimless crime!" or "I wouldn't have bought it anyway!") is intellectually dishonest, which is why pro-"piracy" arguments don't hold up under sustained scrutiny.

Nevertheless, "piracy" isn't going away any time soon, given how easy it is to engage in and how minimal the stigma is for doing so. In the long run, then, the discussion really shouldn't be whether it's "right" or not, but rather how to sustain industries producing things which, if they aren't provided for free, a significant subset of the population will simply take. Because I, for one, think it's really nice to live in a society with a class of self-supporting artists.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Theft is theft, even if the thing you're stealing is non-rivalrous. [/QUOTE]

oh hey, it's that guy i was talking about earlier
 
[quote name='Sporadic']oh hey, it's that guy i was talking about earlier

may i direct you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22[/QUOTE]

On a legal level, sure. But just because something isn't covered in the criminal code under the heading of theft or larceny/covered by whatever definition the jurisdiction might have for conversion doesn't mean people can't consider it to be "stealing." I read the topic to be thinking in more of the abstract moral sense, in which case there's no real way to get past what at least I think is most people's basic concept of "stealing": taking something you have no right to. This is certainly at the low end of the "stealing" scale, but stealing it is, nonetheless.

If your real problem is the terminology, though, what would you rather call it? "Copyright infringement" is a legalistic term that's pretty hard to grasp despite what eight paragraphs on Wikipedia might suggest. "Piracy" certainly isn't any better since at it base it's just a PR tool designed to condemn something most people find about as morally blameworthy as turnstile jumping. And I'm sort of at a loss for anything else that adequately describes it.

EDIT: I should probably include an example. Say I run over and kill your dog. Legally, the thing you can then sue me for to collect damages is "conversion." If I were to then, in defense of my actions to the outraged public, say "Hey, it's not that bad. I only converted his dog," would you expect them to be all "Oh! No big deal." in response?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are all talking about people stealing for individual enjoyment, but I don't think Piracy/Stealing/Theft would be such a phenomenon if other people did not upload to the internet for thousands of other people for free.

I mean honestly would piracy be such a problem if people weren't such vindictive assholes that spread what they stole (or bought) to other people for free.

I am not talking about letting your friend borrow or burn a cd, but the assholes who list thousands of movies/songs/games on torrents for the sole purpose of letting people they do not know download them for free.
 
I am disgusted by DRM. For example, if I pay $20 to buy a digitally distributed movie on some service, the fact that they can say that movie will no longer be available for download by some date is bullshit. I PAID for the ability to download it whenever I want, otherwise what's the point of cloud-based movies?

I do, on occasion, bittorent movies. This is mostly because I watch a great deal of foreign movies that usually don't come out officially in the states on dvd. I don't really feel bad about that because I PHYSICALLY can't pay for the movie unless I fly to Asia or Europe.

Also, it agitates the shit out of me when studios force me to see advertising for a movie and then it doesn't get released within 100 miles of me. I kinda don't feel bad about pirating then either.

But I do not download movies that I can conveniently go to the theater to see.
 
[quote name='camoor']The widespread piracy in today's society is merely a symptom of the real problem.

We need to get back to the core issue - how can we, as a society, incourage art, science, and the spread of knowledge.

To see it solely as a question of markets, profit, and what is best for big business is simply and utterly absurd.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on this one. It has become less about art and more about making money.

As for pirating, I've watched bootleg movies. If I like the movie, I go buy it at the store. To me, it's like borrowing it from a friend.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']On a legal level, sure. But just because something isn't covered in the criminal code under the heading of theft or larceny/covered by whatever definition the jurisdiction might have for conversion doesn't mean people can't consider it to be "stealing." I read the topic to be thinking in more of the abstract moral sense, in which case there's no real way to get past what at least I think is most people's basic concept of "stealing": taking something you have no right to. This is certainly at the low end of the "stealing" scale, but stealing it is, nonetheless.

If your real problem is the terminology, though, what would you rather call it? "Copyright infringement" is a legalistic term that's pretty hard to grasp despite what eight paragraphs on Wikipedia might suggest. "Piracy" certainly isn't any better since at it base it's just a PR tool designed to condemn something most people find about as morally blameworthy as turnstile jumping. And I'm sort of at a loss for anything else that adequately describes it.

EDIT: I should probably include an example. Say I run over and kill your dog. Legally, the thing you can then sue me for to collect damages is "conversion." If I were to then, in defense of my actions to the outraged public, say "Hey, it's not that bad. I only converted his dog," would you expect them to be all "Oh! No big deal." in response?"[/QUOTE]

Is there anything more intellectually dishonest (using your words) than trying to apply a serious term to something it doesn't apply to? To repeat it over and over, despite knowing that it doesn't apply, in the hopes of standing on some type of moral high ground?

Let's take your dog example (which I don't like because you are trying to compare life and real world happenings to downloading something). I'm driving down the road, your dog bolts in front of my car and I hit it. It dies instantly. You come out and start call me a murderer. I apologize for what happened but try to explain there was nothing I could do to change what happened. You don't give a shit and continue to call me a murderer. There's nothing else for me to do so I apologize again and leave. That should be the end of it. But the next day, I return home to see my neighborhood papered with flyers stating "SPORADIC IS A MURDERER", I turn on my TV and there you are screaming to a newsreporter that I murdered your best friend yesterday and I should be in jail for 20-to-life and/or pay you $30,000 for your pain. You are using loaded terms like murder and murderer to get people to kneejerk fall on your side...but that doesn't make me a murderer because A) that implies that there was malice behind my actions and B) that I killed another human. That's what murder and murderer mean.

I have my foobar2000 set to random and Phish popped up. I didn't pay for that album. Does that make me a thief? According to the actual definition of that term and the law, no. Does that make my actions right? No, there is a law in place saying I'm not. You can say I'm amoral or infringing on Phish's copyright but you can't call me a thief (well, you can and most likely will but you shouldn't)

But would you be complaining if Phish popped up on foobar2000 via my XM radio add-on on the Jam On Channel? No, because I'm paying for it. But how much money of that subscription fee, if any at all, is getting back to Phish?
 
The thing is that piracy/copyright infringement does need to be taken more seriously and viewed as more of a wrong than it is today.

Maybe calling it theft isn't the way to go since there's no physical product that is stolen. But it should be treated as a more severe wrong than it is.

We're going to get to a point in our lifetimes (for those of us that reach old age) where physical movie and music discs, books etc. are a thing of the past and theft is no longer possible in the traditional sense. The only threat to sales in the fully digital era is illegal downloads and other forms of piracy/copyright infringement.

Eventually I think we'll see it made a criminal law and dealt with much like shop lifting. That will both send a stronger message about the wrongness of the act, as well as getting away from the absurd fines awarded in civil court where cruel and unusual punishments are applied.

Hopefully this is coupled with big expansion of fair use rights for legitimate consumers of digital goods so those of us who do buy everything aren't hampered by draconian DRM etc.
 
To go along with what you are saying, dmaul, I think it's safe to say that at some point DRM will just totally disappear. It has to. Look at MP3's. Many places sell MP3's legally, and do quite well.

At some point DRM will die. Content providers will realize they can't win. When this happens, everyone will win. As long as most people know it's wrong to sell their own copies of it, or copy it for friends - it will just "work out".

I'm not jumping on the digital content bandwagon until it's DRM-free.
 
Yeah, the only digital content bandwagon I've jumped on is e-Books.

Just so much easier than hassling with the library or buying books I'll only read once in paperback etc. And I seldom re-read so I don't really care about DRM and view it more as a rental anyway.

Besides, I don't see Amazon and the Kindle going away, and if they do it's easy enough to strip DRM and convert an e-book to another format if it did somehow die and I wanted to re-read an e-book years down the road.
 
I get beyond annoyed with the brats that try to justify it. You can rant on how you hate such and such industry, but that's irrelevant. You don't steal a CD from Walmart because you think it's too expensive and really want it. You should look at digital downloads the same way.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I get beyond annoyed with the brats that try to justify it. You can rant on how you hate such and such industry, but that's irrelevant. You don't steal a CD from Walmart because you think it's too expensive and really want it. You should look at digital downloads the same way.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. It's baffling how morals differ between physical and digital products.

Yes shoplifting is harder and riskier, and yes a store is losing a tangible product rather than just a potential sale.

But at the end of the day in both cares you've wrongly acquired goods and can own and enjoy them without paying a retailer for them, or getting them through a legal source such as a library or borrowing from a friend etc. that are covered by fair use laws.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The thing is that piracy/copyright infringement does need to be taken more seriously and viewed as more of a wrong than it is today.

Maybe calling it theft isn't the way to go since there's no physical product that is stolen. But it should be treated as a more severe wrong than it is.

We're going to get to a point in our lifetimes (for those of us that reach old age) where physical movie and music discs, books etc. are a thing of the past and theft is no longer possible in the traditional sense. The only threat to sales in the fully digital era is illegal downloads and other forms of piracy/copyright infringement.

Eventually I think we'll see it made a criminal law and dealt with much like shop lifting. That will both send a stronger message about the wrongness of the act, as well as getting away from the absurd fines awarded in civil court where cruel and unusual punishments are applied.

Hopefully this is coupled with big expansion of fair use rights for legitimate consumers of digital goods so those of us who do buy everything aren't hampered by draconian DRM etc.[/QUOTE]

If that's the case, we also need to see true copyright reform in the direction of the people instead of the corporations. The fact I can still get busted for downloading a Jimi Hendrix album when he's been dead for forty fucking years is beyond absurd. Same with the copyright extensions to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain.

[quote name='berzirk']I get beyond annoyed with the brats that try to justify it. You can rant on how you hate such and such industry, but that's irrelevant. You don't steal a CD from Walmart because you think it's too expensive and really want it. You should look at digital downloads the same way.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't steal a CD from Walmart because if I did, they would be out that product and it would be definitive loss for them. If I had some magic machine that could copy that CD without disrupting the product they have on the shelf...I would most likely use it.

But hey, I'm just as annoyed with fucking idiots, like yourself, trying to compare me downloading something to stealing a car.

[quote name='dmaul1114']But at the end of the day in both cares you've wrongly acquired goods and can own and enjoy them without paying a retailer for them, or getting them through a legal source such as a library or borrowing from a friend etc. that are covered by fair use laws.[/QUOTE]

So, who are we protecting? The companies or the artists?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Is there anything more intellectually dishonest (using your words) than trying to apply a serious term to something it doesn't apply to? To repeat it over and over, despite knowing that it doesn't apply, in the hopes of standing on some type of moral high ground?[/QUOTE]

How does it "not apply?" I've given you a definition of stealing: taking a thing you have no right to take. I doubt many people would disagree that this adequately describes "stealing," though I suppose I could be wrong. You're going to have to explain to me how this "doesn't apply" to the individual act of downloading a song/film/game you haven't paid for, because I don't get it.

And how am I taking the "moral high ground" on you? You admit that downloading something without compensating the creator (Is this a better term?) is morally wrong. So what other moral ground is there to take?

[quote name='Sporadic']Let's take your dog example (which I don't like because you are trying to compare life and real world happenings to downloading something). I'm driving down the road, your dog bolts in front of my car and I hit it. It dies instantly. You come out and start call me a murderer. I apologize for what happened but try to explain there was nothing I could do to change what happened. You don't give a shit and continue to call me a murderer. There's nothing else for me to do so I apologize again and leave. That should be the end of it. But the next day, I return home to see my neighborhood papered with flyers stating "SPORADIC IS A MURDERER", I turn on my TV and there you are screaming to a newsreporter that I murdered your best friend yesterday and I should be in jail for 20-to-life and/or pay you $30,000 for your pain. You are using loaded terms like murder and murderer to get people to kneejerk fall on your side...but that doesn't make me a murderer because A) that implies that there was malice behind my actions and B) that I killed another human. That's what murder and murderer mean.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the point. Words have colloquial and literal meanings other than the nuanced ones they've developed in law. In the hypothetical you describe, I would be overreacting. However, say I (oh boy) brutally tortured your dog, flayed it alive, and set it on fire on your lawn. Did I still not "murder" it? From your perspective, no, because one can't legally "murder" an animal. But do you really think someone would then be improperly asserting the "moral high ground" to call me a murderer?

To pose yet another example, say I stab someone in a bar fight. They later die. The DA, for whatever reason, elects to charge me with "manslaughter." Can people then still not call me a murderer? (Example me is a pretty bad person, it seems.)

[quote name='Sporadic']I have my foobar2000 set to random and Phish popped up. I didn't pay for that album. Does that make me a thief? According to the actual definition of that term and the law, no. Does that make my actions right? No, there is a law in place saying I'm not. You can say I'm amoral or infringing on Phish's copyright but you can't call me a thief (well, you can and most likely will but you shouldn't)[/QUOTE]

Of course it makes you a thief. But it doesn't make you a "bad person," because, like I said, lots of people find downloading music without compensating the artist to be no big deal, but when asked about it will admit, or at least I think they'll admit, that it's stealing. This is why I said this style of argument is intellectually dishonest; you're more than willing to admit that the act is immoral but rail against someone taking the "moral high ground" on you because what you're doing doesn't meet the technical legal definition of "theft" or "larceny" and isn't indictable as a criminal offense.

[quote name='Sporadic']But would you be complaining if Phish popped up on foobar2000 via my XM radio add-on on the Jam On Channel? No, because I'm paying for it. But how much money of that subscription fee, if any at all, is getting back to Phish?[/QUOTE]

The difference is obvious: nobody forced them to make their song available on XM, so you're no longer without right to have access to it. Obviously, however, they didn't have a choice in putting it up to be pirated. But really, this is beside the point, because I fail to see how the fact that artists aren't properly compensated somehow justifies taking their works even more blatantly and unapologetically.
 
Doesn't Disney basically slightly change Mickey Mouse to get a copyright extension? That really is BS, that you can slightly change something enough to warrant another copyright.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']If that's the case, we also need to see true copyright reform in the direction of the people instead of the corporations. The fact I can still get busted for downloading a Jimi Hendrix album when he's been dead for forty fucking years is beyond absurd. Same with the copyright extensions to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain.
[/quote]

Agreed, we need fair use law expansion and copyright law reform. They should last no longer than death of the artist--or maybe 5-10 years beyond to not discourage late in life works. Copyrights need protected, but legitimate owners of material need to have their fair use rights protected and copyrights shouldn't last forever as things should enter the public domain when the creator is no longer around.

So, who are we protecting? The companies or the artists?

Both. No reason to be anti-corporation. Artists sign over the rights to their material, so the companies who own the copyright deserve protected as well.

Though hopefully as we move further into the digital era we'll see more and more self publishing and see the middleman (studios etc.) cut out more often.
 
bread's done
Back
Top