So what's the INTP consensus on piracy?

[Polystom]

I've always presumed that marvellous Ti core tells almost all INTPs to adapt and embrace piracy. I mean, let's face it: P2P's here to stay; Bittorrent on the whole's still a rudimentary technology, albeit with much potential; eXeem's on the verge of championing Suprnova's de-centralisation.

What has the future in store for piracy? Or what has piracy in store for the future? Are the litigation frenzies warranted or not? To whom does he onus of resposibility lie more?

Piracy to me just seems like the logical outcome of one the biggest technological issues today: epistemological complacency. There's so much media about the world today, and so much connectivity. We ultimately get one take at life on Earth so let's stay comfortably. And hey, getting stuff for free's great.

(Forum debates on piracy usually develop into WTFCANNOTJUSTIFYITFAG versus DONOTCAREMINIMALEFFECTSANYWAY, and that's more than acceptable, so long as we can get real opinions on the bench.)

[garak]

In a practical sense I think it's pretty dumb to even try to fight it. There are legit legal uses of P2P and you can't fight human nature. If people want to do something, they'll find a way to do it.

As far as actually pirating stuff myself, I really don't care. There are a million ways to try and justify it, but in the end, I just don't care. If I can download something for free instead of paying a lot of money for it (I don't have much money so just about any media is a substantial amount of money to me), and there is extremely little chance of being caught, why not? The only reason I don't steal from people or perhaps even small businesses is because I think it's morally fucked up. A large corporation is much different. The only reason I don't shoplift from larger stores is because I don't want to suffer the consequences of being caught. With pirating things on the internet, I don't have either of these problems, so pirate I shall.

In the end, I guess it's a combination of ease, apathy, and extremely low chance of negative consequences. There ARE many possible arguments for why piracy isn't bad, but it's a topic I've talked too much about in the past, so playing devil's advocate isn't so interesting anymore.

[Polystom]

but it's a topic I've talked too much about in the past, so playing devil's advocate isn't so interesting anymore.

Yeah, see that's why I thought explaining the propensity either to or from piracy in regard to MBTI might refresh the arguement a little. I dunno.

[file cabinet]

I don't mind piracy. I don't like Bittorrent because it's being monitored[paranoid++].
exeem isn't released yet and doesn't sound that promising as noted by this Slashdot post:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/30/2311234&tid=95
Newsgroups, private channels/FTP's and person-to-person are the most 'secure' methods compared to all the p2p stuff out there.

yeah.. I typed this reply but I went to some other site and forgot what else I was going to say... so.. in conclusion, piracy is okay.

[Wolfchylde]

As Im going into intellectual property law I have to say I am against it, in reality I dont care;)

[Polystom]

Gah, adware. Talk about purpose-defeating.

[jimkopelli]

I'm currently at a lan party. I have enough new games that I didn't have before to last me till the end of the semester once school starts. I have another gig of music I didn't have before I got here.

Pay for it?

Arr, matey. Ye be foolin' yerself.

[Shai Gar]

Brilliant, lets blame our personality on our desire and love of free games software music and documents.

i am in.

[coffeezombie]

Getting stuff for free is always cool. Also, in a capitalistic system, it's a good way to weed out good stuff from the crap. Here's an example of what I mean. Say everyone is "stealing" music. That means that people who make less music will make less money, and less music will then be created. Of the music that is created, only the people who really love music will still create it. Those who only do it for the money will stop doing it. Therefore, the quality of music will become much better. That's the way I look at it. The capitalist system corrupts our natural love of doing the kind of work that we really should be doing with the "artificial evil" of money. Do what you love and don't worry about how much money you make doing it, that's how the world should be.

[Boneca]

I like your argument, coffeezombie.
For myself, my excuse is that the stuff I download is stuff that I would not buy if I had to pay for it. If there is a band f.ex. that I really like, I will buy their albums. (I might mention that I only had some 15 albums in total before I started downloading music...)
Same goes with games and software. It's cool to have, but if I had to pay for it, I'd find another way to waste my time.

[Edmond Zedo]

mp3s don't sound as good as a well engineered cd, let alone tape or vinyl. I'll only pick up a few here and there for fun.

Mpegs look like complete shit compared to film/dvd. It was fun to see some before they hit the theaters, like a pre-final cut of American Pie (called East Great Falls High at the time, I believe). But I went to see it in the theater after that.

Games? Well, you don't lose quality, but I'll buy one if it's worth it. Back in the day, anyway. I got Fallout from a friend and played it through, then bought it because the developers deserve some credit.

[Claverhouse]

garak encapsculated mine own position, such as it is: 'cos I don't do it since I doubt if there's much I'd like or want. Ordinary people no; Corporations and their greasy share-holders... who cares ?


But the use of the word 'consensus' along with 'INTP' was amusing.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

But the use of the word 'consensus' along with 'INTP' was amusing.

aye i thought the same thing, i was going to go against the flow with my post just to spite the title but i got bored.

and it is not just intp who love downloading free shit. hell look at the entire internet it seems moulded around free shit

[Polystom]

Brilliant, lets blame our personality on our desire and love of free games software music and documents.

sup reading comprehension?

I'm looking for a correlation between Type dynamic and web-based activity, not speed-dialing Goat to scape something. You seem hesitant upon larger assertions - I mean, arguments against the practice are welcomed, but either sock it to us or don't even bother. Do not teeter.

The idea of piracy being "natural" could very well be a predominant NT commonality. I'm focusing on cause, not effect. As for replication of quality, counters exist for just about every medium: lossless encoders for music, dvd-rips for films.

(And if an INTP cannot play with language, well...)

[ApeTheDog]

You can't stop piracy by asking/telling/expecting people not to download what is there. You have to come up with a way to force it upon them. By downloading warez, I am helping them understand that expecting people not to download warez is a bad idea, by means of making them feel the consequences. If I did not download warez, and many did so with me, they might ultimately believe that trying to coax people into not downloading warez by appealing to their morality was a sollution, which it isn't, thus I would be leading them down a dead end street, setting them back on coming up with a way of forcing people not to pirate things several years. I am ultimately doing them a favor.

I am the fire that shows people not to build their houses too close, especially not if they're all made of wood. Am I a bad thing? Yes. But better I happen now than later, when casualities will be higher. Piracy right now as opposed to for example piracy popping up 50 years from now, whence it will possibly be unstoppable and/or destroy the economy, is the lesser of two evils.

The record and gaming industry need not even thank me explicitly. The warez I download and play/watch are reward enough for me.

[coffeezombie]

I've never bought into arguments that say "I do what I do so people learn how to stop me." I think one needs to come up with better justifications than that or else one is just a criminal. Would you rape women just so they learn how to better protect themselves?

[Claverhouse]

Don't even go there.

These are rugged individualist philosophers remember, no namby-mamby regulations imposed by a disgusting state machine are gonna restrain them from exercising freedoms allowed by their own private moral codes.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

The record and gaming industry need not even thank me explicitly. almost siggable

[Shai Gar]

not speed-dialing Goat to scape something
siggable

[ApeTheDog]

I've never bought into arguments that say "I do what I do so people learn how to stop me." I think one needs to come up with better justifications than that or else one is just a criminal. Would you rape women just so they learn how to better protect themselves?

Well, I don't think you can compare the two. It's human nature not to rape women. It's not human nature not to steal things when one can do so, unpunished.

But if you must know, I download warez, of course, because I'm selfish. I was kidding with the whole altruism thing.

[mgb]

Its funny, when Napster was around I used to download music like it was going out of style. Then it did. I haven't found a medium that was as easy to use as Napster or as free.

Now I find that I watch a lot more movies than listen to music and most of the music I listen to comes from movie soundtracks. The movies I have downloaded were awful quality and not really worth the time to download and to be honest they were only movies that I wouldn't pay to see which aren't really worth watching anyways.

I suppose if someone had a free, excellent quality, no virus, zero risk chance of prosecution, way for me to download movies and/or music I would probably use it. But it doesn't seem to be out there. Until then I just go to the theatres and spend way to much on DVDs.

[coffeezombie]

Well, I don't think you can compare the two. It's human nature not to rape women. It's not human nature not to steal things when one can do so, unpunished.


Obviously you haven't studied history very much, particularly the history of human warfare.

In a less offensive vein, I don't have anything against stealing under certain circumstances (ie when I'm obviously getting ripped off by somebody's mediocre music, or when I'm trying to find out about a new band), but I'd never steal from anybody who I would want to continue creating works of art that I like. You just end up biting the hand that feeds you, then. With musicians, of course, you can still give them money by going to their concerts.

[mgb]

In a less offensive vein, I don't have anything against stealing under certain circumstances (ie when I'm obviously getting ripped off by somebody's mediocre music, or when I'm trying to find out about a new band), but I'd never steal from anybody who I would want to continue creating works of art that I like. You just end up biting the hand that feeds you, then. With musicians, of course, you can still give them money by going to their concerts.

I always thought that was a good justification for downloading music...being overpriced. But then Manny really beat that argument to shit on those anti-piracy ads before movies. Its stealing no matter how you try and justify it, you just have to be ok with that to do it.

And if you don't like it, why download it?

[ApeTheDog]

Obviously you haven't studied history very much, particularly the history of human warfare.

I stand by what I said. It takes a sick individual to rape a woman, even if he can do so unpunished. I'm aware that amongst war-troops it was (is) often custom to rape women, but this would have had more to do with lust, and having been deprived of sex for months, than with human nature. Assume normal circumstances. Put a man and a woman together on an island, I'm sure you can agree that the man will not rape the woman. Put a man and another persons property on an island, and he will take the property.

[Doug]

Piracy?

[Sam172]

I don't agree with the whole piracy thing. No matter what reason you have for trying to justify it, in my eyes it's still stealing. I wouldn't want anyone stealing from me, so I'm not going to steal from anybody else. Even if it is a large corporation which is screwing over the general populus with its greed, it's still stealing.

[Claverhouse]

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

Stealing is always wrong unless there's no alternative for survival; but when the thieves are in charge, as in any free-market ( or communist ) economy, the rules change a bit.

Edgar J. Steele, the right-winger I've mentioned here before, has just sent a newsletter about excessively dull accounting stuff, with a link to a 300 page pdf on 'FASB's stock options opinion' ( thanks, but no thanks ).

He includes the facts that back in 1973, when he threw up accountancy for ever,

That led to my first job as a Financial Analyst in San Francisco's Financial District with a major international firm that never paid a penny of US tax (a story for another day, as the reasons why still exist and still redound to the detriment of American taxpayers). &

P/E (Price/Earnings) ratios, already stratospheric by historical standards, will evaporate altogether for many firms (divide by zero or a negative and get infinity). Microsoft's P/E ratio, for example, will be infinite for most of its existence, right through today. Microsoft, the most profitable tech company in history, has never made a single penny if one recasts its financial statements to reflect the expensing of stock options since its inception.
I didn't understand a word of his post, but it's not that difficult to perceive that some people are getting away with murder...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[coffeezombie]

And if you don't like it, why download it?

Well, I have downloaded first-run movies before that I wanted to see but did not think spending $7 was a justifiable price. I was bored that night. lol I might have seen them for a dollar, maybe.

Most of the time I don't do that, though. I spend most of my time downloading anime and manga for free, mainly for the reason that it is not in the United States yet. If it's licensed in the US, I'll usually rent it or just read it in the bookstore. So mainly it's a question of it not being available in the US, and me not having the patience to wait for it.

[Asmodiel]

"Pirate" is such a dirty word to describe those who simply want to hear their favorite songs without having to pay the absurd price of CDs these days.

Also, from what I hear, apparently musical artists make the majority of their money from touring and endorsements, not on CD sales.

[mgb]

"Pirate" is such a dirty word to describe those who simply want to hear their favorite songs without having to pay the absurd price of CDs these days.

Also, from what I hear, apparently musical artists make the majority of their money from touring and endorsements, not on CD sales.

Its stuntmen like Manny and set painters like David(?) that are really out when someone illegally downloads something (for movies).

I thought "pirate" was just a cleaned up word for stealing. I agree the prices are absurd, if anything I hope this "problem" causes the record execs (really making and losing all the money) that they can't fuck everyone over forever with overpriced crap. It doesn't seem like they are realizing that though so I guess it will continue.

[Sackanaka]

Evolution, unlike Celine's heart, will go on.

[indie]

Looking at history, we can see that Hollywood moaned when VCRs came out. They were worried that VCRs would make people stay at home rather than go out and attend the bigscreen, therefore causing Hollywood to lose millions of dollars. Once they figured out how to make money off the VCR, however, they were satisfied (making billions). The same thing applies to movies and music from the Net.

Napster was sued into oblivion by the record industry, and once the industry figured out how to give people what they want, swarms of them signed up. The IPod/Applie ITunes is very successful. They're just going to have to figure out how to do the same thing for movies.

Granted, there will always be that Dark Net (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/topsite.html) with a few thousand computer savvy people who are able to get free copies of games and movies, but the industry need not worry as much about them. . . the industry just needs to figure out a good business model.

As far as personal opinion on piracy . . . I can see both sides of the issue, but I side with the consumers. Hollywood movie stars, music giants, not to mention the industry structure behind them . . . they all make too much money anyway. :)

[Crazy]

If someone made full sized color copies of the Mona Lisa, and was giving them out on the street, and I took one and framed it and hung it in my house, would that be stealing?

[mgb]

If someone made full sized color copies of the Mona Lisa, and was giving them out on the street, and I took one and framed it and hung it in my house, would that be stealing?

If someone made copies of the Mona Lisa and was selling them and you stole one, that would be stealing.

[Biff_Loman]

That Wired article was a hoot - I love how they consistently try to portray this process as sinister or threatening in some way. The use of the word "terrorize" was equally amusing, to me.

Anyone who provides something for free ain't stealing. I'm sorry. The Mona Lisa image is dead on. These people are providing a service, and it costs the end-user nothing. Consider it a charity.

If I owned some land, and grew food for free and distributed it to whoever came along: would I be stealing from farmers? Well, not really, although I'd be making their lives that much harder. (note: I have a farming background myself; this is only theoretical, and I am fully aware of the financial outlay required to produce crops.) So, what if I owned a server. . . ?

Corporations, large and small, compete for your money. Wal-mart "terrorizes" other store chains as thoroughly as the pirates "terrorize" the entertainment industry. The difference: the "dark net" that feeds the P2P networks provides the same services, only they don't want your money. I think it's obvious which, as the consumer, you would feel led to use.

What about the artist? Fuck the artist. I'm serious. Fuck the artist. No voice spoke from heaven dictating that they ought to be able to make a living by producing art. If they can find a method by which they make money producing art: awesome. We are under no obligation to pay for a service which they are powerless to provide directly.

[mgb]

I agree with the Mona Lisa argument in principle. I also agree with the "fuck the artist" principle.

The artist have one thing on their side that Da Vinci doesn't...licensing agreements. Some artist don't care and distribute their music freely...look at xmoogle, from the site. Like your farmer they produce music it and give it away. The farmer next door is free to sell his goods if he wants, and just because the first farmer is giving food away, it doesn't mean that you can just take food from the other farmer that is trying to sell it.

If you don't want to pay for something, it doesn't make it free. If you don't like the price being charged, don't pay it, hell, even write a letter to whoever cares. But just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you can just go ahead and take it.

If you buy music it doesn't mean you own the rights (unless you are willing to buy the rights then you can do whatever the hell you want with it). When you buy the cd there is an implicit contract that says you aren't free to dissiminate its contents as you wish.

I don't consider it a form of terror, just a form of theft.


As for a "life size" copy of the Mona Lisa, you would be in for a big disappointment it is 12 inches by 18 inches, and won't take up a whole lot of space on your wall.

[garak]

We are under no obligation to pay for a service which they are powerless to provide directly.
I don't quite understand what you mean here.

[nona]

Mona Lisa is public domain, knock yourself out. :)

OTOH if you were to copy some work of art and pass it out on the street for free then yes you are stealing under US law. Same as if you simply replicate a trademark like the Nike Swoosh. Or even something as Inocuous as the olympic "five ring" symbol. Hell, If you are a US Athlete and win an olympic gold medal you cannot say use the image of the medal on your web site without permission, and the USOC will NOT give you permission... Go figure.

Moraly? Well that is another question. Is the law good or bad? Debatable. But under todays law, yes, you are stealing.

Works, of art or otherwise, belong to the creator automaticly. That is the presumption of the law.

[nona]

OOPS... Previous post should have said "if you copy some work of art THAT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT and pass....

[nona]

Ordinary people no; Corporations and their greasy share-holders... who cares ?
:


Got a 401 K? You greasy slimy shareholder you!... LAMO at your unthoughtout embracing of a 20th century stereotype!

[nona]

Getting stuff for free is always cool. Also, in a capitalistic system, it's a good way to weed out good stuff from the crap. Here's an example of what I mean. Say everyone is "stealing" music. That means that people who make less music will make less money, and less music will then be created. Of the music that is created, only the people who really love music will still create it. Those who only do it for the money will stop doing it. Therefore, the quality of music will become much better. That's the way I look at it. The capitalist system corrupts our natural love of doing the kind of work that we really should be doing with the "artificial evil" of money. Do what you love and don't worry about how much money you make doing it, that's how the world should be.

CoffieZombi, Your logic is for shit! You make the totaly ludicrous assumption that people who love to make music make better music then those who do it for money. Absurd and totaly unsubstantiated by even the most cursory evaluation of the market.

Go look at IFilm and tell me people who "love" to make short films are better at it then the icons who have made movies for big $$$ for years. IFILM is 99.9 % hacks and kiddies with no idea what they are doing making wretchedly ill crafted product. There are a precious few gems there. About 1 in a thousand. The same is true for music on the free sites. If anything, the democratization of the distribution channels has opened the world up to a lot more crap then there was before. Kind of like when e-mail got to be free, we got a lot of spam.

[nona]

I didn't understand a word of his post, but it's not that difficult to perceive that some people are getting away with murder...


Claverhouse :ph34r:[/font]
[/font]

Hummm... If you don't understand it, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on it.

For my part it isn't that difficult to understand. And I DO NOT have a financial background.... What is so difficult to understand about that para on stock option expensing? It seems pretty straight forward to me?

But the real question is what are these people getting away with? Exactly?

[nona]

What about the artist? Fuck the artist. I'm serious. Fuck the artist. No voice spoke from heaven dictating that they ought to be able to make a living by producing art. If they can find a method by which they make money producing art: awesome. We are under no obligation to pay for a service which they are powerless to provide directly.

And the artist is under no obligation to provide you with a product you don't pay for.

[nona]

Okay I've posted a lot of more or less inflamatory stuff here... Sitting back now to see what happens... :)

But seriously, Those who say this will result in new and better buisness models are essentialy correct. The existance of piracy and the push to overcome it's effects are a good evolutionary force. The music industry was mired in a sad buisness model and piracey forced it to evolve. This doesn't make piracy good, even though the end result improves the situation. Kind of like death isn't good, even though it clenses the gene pool from time to time.

One thing I am surprised that no one has picked up on is that there is one fundemental difference between piracy and classic theft.

Piracy does not deprive the person being stolen from of the use of the pirated object. It mearly deprives them of the theoretical profit from the sale of the item.

If someone steals your car, you cannot use it. If someone pirates your software, you can still use it, you just can't make as much money selling it.

not saying this makes it more or less wrong, it just seems to me to be a significant difference that makes a lot of the theft analogies somewhat suspect.

[Claverhouse]

Hummm... If you don't understand it, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on it.

For my part it isn't that difficult to understand. And I DO NOT have a financial background.... What is so difficult to understand about that para on stock option expensing? It seems pretty straight forward to me?

But the real question is what are these people getting away with? Exactly?
Perhaps you should read more carefully. Since you did not receive the email from good Lawyer Steele ( a noted anti-semite and conspiricist ) you are not in any position to judge whether I should either understand it or comment upon it's gist. It regards Stock Options and their usage in financial fraud, and includes words such as this:




Here's how the FASB explains the need for this new rule change: "Users of financial statements...expressed to the FASB their concerns that (the current handling of stock options) results in financial statements that do not faithfully represent the economic transactions affecting the issuer, namely, the receipt and consumption of employee services in exchange for equity instruments. Financial statements that do not faithfully represent those economic transactions can distort the issuer's reported financial condition and results of operations, which can lead to the inappropriate allocation of resources in the capital markets." FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Dec 2004). (emphasis supplied)



It's like a firm that sells a mortgaged asset to its bank, then leases the asset back, expensing the monthly lease cost. Immediately, the firm's balance sheet cleans up by removal of the debt associated with the asset (the asset value goes, too, of course, but the debt removal is of far greater significance to financial ratios followed by bankers and analysts), though the future obligation to pay for the asset actually has increased due to lease fees and transaction costs. At least, in the leasing example the income statement still takes a hit.


With stock options, never is there a financial statement hit taken by the company. The hit always is borne by existing shareholders, whose stock values become diluted as the company merely issues new stock to employees exercising their options...a non event for income-statement purposes. A direct lift from existing shareholder wallets, in other words, which are worn close to a part of the anatomy which serves as the basis for the old chestnut "taking it in the shorts," a procedure distinguishable only by being more visible.



Fundamentals and historical P/E ratio analysis dictate a coming market of about 4,500, less than half what it is today, when ratios revert to their mean averages, and revert to the mean they always do, rest assured. And that is before financial statements get restated for stock options, by the way, which will make things much worse for some. At the same time, the dollar probably will decline by another 40 or 50 per cent. Net result to those of you who stand pat: a loss of about 75% of the purchasing power of your stock market investments during the coming few years. Factor in the 25% decline of the past two years and you are looking at a net loss of 85%!



I can certainly comment that this financial stuff is gibberish to me; and at the same time admit that the tenor of his commentary is probably correct. And that corporations such as Enron and Microsoft are overcharging & greedy thieves who damage the rest of society by their greed...








Claverhouse :ph34r:

[mgb]

To sum up and bring this part back to music....

Just because not everyone understands how someone steals something it doesn't mean there is no theft.

I don't understand how the software that allows me to download a song works...but I know I didn't pay for the song so that makes it theft, not from the person I got the song from, but from the person who made the song.

[matthew0028]

One thing I am surprised that no one has picked up on is that there is one fundemental difference between piracy and classic theft.

Piracy does not deprive the person being stolen from of the use of the pirated object. It mearly deprives them of the theoretical profit from the sale of the item.

You made my point for me. Under classic theft, the person who previously owned the product is now out the cost of the product. And if you were stealing something from a store that you would've bought otherwhise, the storeowner is losing double--the cost of the item, and the profit they would've made from selling it to you.

Now, with piracy, if you wouldn't have purchased the item in question anyway, the company that produces the item is out nothing. If you would have, the company that produces the item is out the cost of the item.

This tends to suggest that maybe it's okay to pirate something iff you were not going to buy it anyways. Maybe.

It's a sticky issue. *shrug*

[mgb]

The problem is that you now own something that you didn't pay for and it is something that has a value assigned to it. Other people had to pay for it but you have managed to "outsmart" the system. It is no less a crime.

Is it classic theft? No, it is piracy.

If you weren't going to buy it anyways then why did you download it. You obvioulsy were interested enough in the product to try and obtain it, so it probably is something that you wanted, just weren't willing to pay for. For example, say you were a shoplifter and you went to a music store and took a cd. Would a valid defense for taking the cd be, "It's not stealing, I didn't really want it anyway."

The exception to downloading music would be if an artist decided to offer the music to you at no cost for your private enjoyment. Outside of that, it is piracy.

[matthew0028]

For example, say you were a shoplifter and you went to a music store and took a cd. Would a valid defense for taking the cd be, "It's not stealing, I didn't really want it anyway."

This example is ignoring my point. The difference with the shoplifter in question is that he took something from the store, which the store loses in the process. So, the problem I'm trying to point out is not that he obtained a free copy for himself, but that he took that copy away from the store. In other words, the store has had something they own (the CD) stolen from them, and as they no longer have it, they can no longer sell it. Thus the store no longer has the CD, and is out that item and its associated profit, regardless of whether the shoplifter wanted the CD in the first place.

On the other hand, if the same thief were to somehow copy the CD and then return it, the thief would still have the songs, but the store would still have its CD. So the store isn't missing the item, and can still do with it as they please (i.e. sell it for profit). This is more the analog to the piracy issue, since with piracy, nobody is losing a copy of the music that they paid for (either in producing, or buying from the producers, or what have you).

Another analogy would be a book store. Say person A walks in, takes a book, and walks out, stealing the book. The store is now out the book, so any money they used to pay for it is now lost, and cannot be made up by selling the book they no longer have. On the other hand, if person B comes in, photocopies all the pages of the book (I have no idea why the store owner thought it'd be a good idea to have a photocopier handy :D) and puts the book back on the shelf, the store still has the book. Sure, person B also has a copy of the book, but he didn't deprive the store of the book in the process.

So in this way, "piracy" (I hate that term, btw) is totally different from stealing.

However.

However, the one counterargument that I think is valid is that by copying the book/music/software, the book/music/software company is out of money if and only if the person receiving the copy would have otherwise bought the book (or if said person gives copies away to people who would have otherwise bought the book). If the person would never have bought the product otherwise, the company is not out anything--money, product, or the like. On the other hand, if the person *would* have bought the book, the company is now out the profit that they would have made if the person copying the product had bought the book.

So, if you feel that the act of "piracy" is wrong because it hurts the people who produce the item, I feel that that claim is only valid if the pirate would have otherwise bought the product. If not, the company who produce the item isn't losing anything they would have had anyway. On the other hand, if piracy causes the pirate not to buy the product, then the person producing the item are in fact hurt.

On the other hand, if you feel "piracy" is wrong because of, say, the fact that the company produced the product, and thus should have a say in how/if the product is used/obtained (i.e. you can't copy this software), then I would agree that under that definition the piracy is wrong.

So basically, I think the issue boils down to why one feels piracy would be wrong. If it's wrong because of loss of profit to the producers of the product, then logically it's only wrong if there is actual loss of profit involved--i.e. if the pirate would have bought the product otherwise. Else it's not wrong (by that definition of why it's wrong). However, if one feels that piracy is wrong for other reasons, then they have to be evaluated on their own merits, and not because of loss of profits.

So, to conclude, I want to ask you this: why do you feel piracy is wrong?

---

Pirates most hated and feared enemy (and the feeling is mutual): the NINJA :ph34r:

Though I think the Ninja Pirate would trump all.

---

Oh yeah. My little disclaimer: I'm not saying I necessarily think that piracy is wrong (or not wrong). Just pointing out what I think the issue is. (Me, and INTP? Nah... :D)

[Shai Gar]

i now have a new code of ethics, i send a letter to whatever artist whose music i download and i send 5-6 dollars money order for every album i rip off. i figure that he/she will be happier that way

[matthew0028]

i now have a new code of ethics, i send a letter to whatever artist whose music i download and i send 5-6 dollars money order for every album i rip off. i figure that he/she will be happier that way

Just don't make it too traceable if you don't want the RIAA at your doorstep... </paranoia>

[MacGuffin]

Here's an example of what I mean. Say everyone is "stealing" music. That means that people who make less music will make less money, and less music will then be created. Of the music that is created, only the people who really love music will still create it. Those who only do it for the money will stop doing it. [....] Do what you love and don't worry about how much money you make doing it, that's how the world should be.

I am going to disagree with you there. The ones making music to make money have bigger pockets than the smaller artists just doing it mostly cause they love it.

But if they cannot sell their music cause everyone steals it, then it becomes harder to make it. They cannot afford studio time, a producer, production costs. The moneymakers will take a hit, but still able to go on.

They may still make music cause they love it, but they are less likely to produce music in a form one can buy/steal.

[mgb]

However, the one counterargument that I think is valid is that by copying the book/music/software, the book/music/software company is out of money if and only if the person receiving the copy would have otherwise bought the book (or if said person gives copies away to people who would have otherwise bought the book). If the person would never have bought the product otherwise, the company is not out anything--money, product, or the like. On the other hand, if the person *would* have bought the book, the company is now out the profit that they would have made if the person copying the product had bought the book.

So, if you feel that the act of "piracy" is wrong because it hurts the people who produce the item, I feel that that claim is only valid if the pirate would have otherwise bought the product. If not, the company who produce the item isn't losing anything they would have had anyway. On the other hand, if piracy causes the pirate not to buy the product, then the person producing the item are in fact hurt.

On the other hand, if you feel "piracy" is wrong because of, say, the fact that the company produced the product, and thus should have a say in how/if the product is used/obtained (i.e. you can't copy this software), then I would agree that under that definition the piracy is wrong.

So basically, I think the issue boils down to why one feels piracy would be wrong. If it's wrong because of loss of profit to the producers of the product, then logically it's only wrong if there is actual loss of profit involved--i.e. if the pirate would have bought the product otherwise. Else it's not wrong (by that definition of why it's wrong). However, if one feels that piracy is wrong for other reasons, then they have to be evaluated on their own merits, and not because of loss of profits.

So, to conclude, I want to ask you this: why do you feel piracy is wrong?

---

Pirates most hated and feared enemy (and the feeling is mutual): the NINJA :ph34r:

Though I think the Ninja Pirate would trump all.

---

Oh yeah. My little disclaimer: I'm not saying I necessarily think that piracy is wrong (or not wrong). Just pointing out what I think the issue is. (Me, and INTP? Nah... :D)

I don't think you can make the distinction between Person A wanting the product and downloading it and Person B who just downloaded a song just because. The fact is both people now have the song and have obtained it without buying it. The motivations become irrelevant. As I said in my last post, which was carefully disregarded save one sentence, Person B was obviously interested in it enough to download it and it could easily be reasoned that Person B would have bought it had they not been able to download.

This makes piracy tantamount to theft. When you obtain something without paying for it (whether it is as victimless as you are claiming it can be, or not) you are stealing. Consider that the CD store is still out because they have inventory sitting on their shelves that would otherwise had been purchased were people obtaining the music without pirating it. And my point of the quote you took was that the shoplifter saying he isn't a thief because he didn't really want it anyway is not better than you saying it.

In the end, I don't think a judge is going to care if you "felt" like you were committing a crime or not. He is going to care whether you "did" commit a crime or not, and unless the laws have changed, piracy is still a crime.

[matthew0028]

I don't think you can make the distinction between Person A wanting the product and downloading it and Person B who just downloaded a song just because. The fact is both people now have the song and have obtained it without buying it. The motivations become irrelevant.

I don't necessarily agree. If the problem with piracy is that it deprives the company who made a prduct of profits, then there is a big difference. Person A (if he would have bought it otherwise) was doing the wrong thing, since he clearly is depriving said company of profits. However, person B (if he would not have bought it otherwse), is clearly not depriving the company of profits. Thus under this definition of why piracy is wrong, he hasn't done anything wrong.

However, if you are saying that piracy is wrong for other reasons, then you may be right about motivation being irrelevant. The problem is, you have yet to post any reasons (or I missed them). So if you have other reasons why you think piracy is wrong, feel free to share them.


As I said in my last post, which was carefully disregarded save one sentence, Person B was obviously interested in it enough to download it and it could easily be reasoned that Person B would have bought it had they not been able to download.

Not true. Here's a concrete example. Several years back I was given a copy of Photoshop (legally). Now, this was a fun product that I have used quite a bit, off-and-on, since then. Now, if I were the software pirating type, and if I wanted to use Photoshop (for play, not for work) without being the lucky benefactor of a gift, I would pirate it.

However, in this case, I can make a very strong case for why I would not have bought the software otherwise. Being in school full time with only a part time job, I don't have much extra money to throw around. And when I do, a $400 software product that I would just play around with is not what I would buy. Thus in this case, there is absolutely no chance that I would buy the product. Thus Adobe would be losing no money from me.

So in this sort of example, your reasoning is incorrect.


This makes piracy tantamount to theft. When you obtain something without paying for it (whether it is as victimless as you are claiming it can be, or not) you are stealing.

Perhaps I'm being to literal, but if I were to buy a new computer and gave it to you, you would not be stealing it. Despite the fact that you are obtaining it without paying for it.


Consider that the CD store is still out because they have inventory sitting on their shelves that would otherwise had been purchased were people obtaining the music without pirating it.

Again, only true if said people would have bought the CD from them in the first place.



And my point of the quote you took was that the shoplifter saying he isn't a thief because he didn't really want it anyway is not better than you saying it.

Again, the difference here is that the shoplifter has taken something of value from the store, while simultaneously depriving the store of that thing. In the piracy example, the pirate takes a *copy* of something valuable from a company *without* depriving the company of the item.


In the end, I don't think a judge is going to care if you "felt" like you were committing a crime or not. He is going to care whether you "did" commit a crime or not, and unless the laws have changed, piracy is still a crime.

True. Piracy is illegal. Because of that, the judge should convict the criminal of the crime.

However, my points were more about whether piracy is unethical, not whether it is illegal. Big distinction there.

[booyalab]

Again, the difference here is that the shoplifter has taken something of value from the store, while simultaneously depriving the store of that thing. In the piracy example, the pirate takes a *copy* of something valuable from a company *without* depriving the company of the item.


so I assume you endorse counterfeiting then.

[mgb]

I don't necessarily agree. If the problem with piracy is that it deprives the company who made a prduct of profits, then there is a big difference. Person A (if he would have bought it otherwise) was doing the wrong thing, since he clearly is depriving said company of profits. However, person B (if he would not have bought it otherwse), is clearly not depriving the company of profits. Thus under this definition of why piracy is wrong, he hasn't done anything wrong.

However, if you are saying that piracy is wrong for other reasons, then you may be right about motivation being irrelevant. The problem is, you have yet to post any reasons (or I missed them). So if you have other reasons why you think piracy is wrong, feel free to share them.



Not true. Here's a concrete example. Several years back I was given a copy of Photoshop (legally). Now, this was a fun product that I have used quite a bit, off-and-on, since then. Now, if I were the software pirating type, and if I wanted to use Photoshop (for play, not for work) without being the lucky benefactor of a gift, I would pirate it.

However, in this case, I can make a very strong case for why I would not have bought the software otherwise. Being in school full time with only a part time job, I don't have much extra money to throw around. And when I do, a $400 software product that I would just play around with is not what I would buy. Thus in this case, there is absolutely no chance that I would buy the product. Thus Adobe would be losing no money from me.

So in this sort of example, your reasoning is incorrect.



Perhaps I'm being to literal, but if I were to buy a new computer and gave it to you, you would not be stealing it. Despite the fact that you are obtaining it without paying for it.



Again, only true if said people would have bought the CD from them in the first place.



Again, the difference here is that the shoplifter has taken something of value from the store, while simultaneously depriving the store of that thing. In the piracy example, the pirate takes a *copy* of something valuable from a company *without* depriving the company of the item.



True. Piracy is illegal. Because of that, the judge should convict the criminal of the crime.

However, my points were more about whether piracy is unethical, not whether it is illegal. Big distinction there.


Can you trying posting in one coherent thought rather than spacing them out through quotes, I don't think I said anything that complicated.

You keep saying that it is ok to pirate something you weren't going to buy anyway. If you weren't going to buy it anyway you obviously perceive no value in having it, so why pirate it anyway and risk some sort of jail sentence? Obviously if you are willing to go to jail for it (no matter how small the risk) you must place a high value on what you have taken.

If you are willing to defend the ethics of it all you feel that the current legal system should obviously not have any recourse in this situation. In that case I disagree with you because as I have already stated piracy is tantamount to theft. It is because in the case of music the buyer does not get to determine the price. If you feel the price of something exceeds the value then wait for it to go on sale. Your feeling that a piece of music is worth nothing is wrong on two counts. First, if you felt it was worthless then why do you have it. Second, the maker of the music would disagree with you and their rights here supercede yours.

As for your software conundrum...you are free to use it as you wish. A licensed copy of it was given to you for business purposes. The important part there was that it was given to you to use. For some reason you seem to confuse "gifting" something (a legal term) with stealing it. Your computer example is ridiculous. Before pirating something are you checking with the artist to see if it is ok for you to download their music?

[matthew0028]

so I assume you endorse counterfeiting then.

Not at all. Okay, two things. First of all, I never said I endorse piracy. In fact, about the only thing I've endorsed in my posts is the logical reasoning process (if not explicitly). What I was saying is just that piracy *might not be* unethical.

I have on several occasions said that *if* the reason piracy would be considered unethical is because of loss of profits for the company producing the item, *then* piracy is unethical iff the pirate would have purchased the item otherwise. This is because if he wouldn't have purchased the product, then there is no loss of profits for the company, and thus under this criteria (piracy is unethical if it causes financial loss for the producers of the product) piracy is not unethical. Note that it may be unethical for other reasons. Just not for the reason stated.

As for the counterfeiting issue, the parallel argument would be that counterfiting is unethical if it cause loss to the government (or more generally, though I hadn't stated it explicitly, loss to others). Now, under this criteria, counterfeiting would be wrong if someone were to counterfeit money and then spend it (or giving it to others to spend). Why is this wrong? It's wrong because the added money presumably (I don't know much about economic theory) would devalue money in general, hurting the economy, as well as everyone else in it.

However, if someone counterfeited money, and did not spend it, then I don't see any harm being done to anyone else. The counterfeiter is not introducing the money into the economy, so nobody else is losing.

[matthew0028]

Can you trying posting in one coherent thought rather than spacing them out through quotes, I don't think I said anything that complicated.

You keep saying that it is ok to pirate something you weren't going to buy anyway. If you weren't going to buy it anyway you obviously perceive no value in having it, so why pirate it anyway and risk some sort of jail sentence? Obviously if you are willing to go to jail for it (no matter how small the risk) you must place a high value on what you have taken.

If you are willing to defend the ethics of it all you feel that the current legal system should obviously not have any recourse in this situation. In that case I disagree with you because as I have already stated piracy is tantamount to theft. It is because in the case of music the buyer does not get to determine the price. If you feel the price of something exceeds the value then wait for it to go on sale. Your feeling that a piece of music is worth nothing is wrong on two counts. First, if you felt it was worthless then why do you have it. Second, the maker of the music would disagree with you and their rights here supercede yours.

As for your software conundrum...you are free to use it as you wish. A licensed copy of it was given to you for business purposes. The important part there was that it was given to you to use. For some reason you seem to confuse "gifting" something (a legal term) with stealing it. Your computer example is ridiculous. Before pirating something are you checking with the artist to see if it is ok for you to download their music?

I guess I try posting without spacing them within the quotes. Though it does make me somewhat subconsciously nervous for some reason. I guess that's because I'm trying to respond to individual points, and I figure it's more likely to be understood if I make it explicit as to what I'm referring to. But if it bothers you, I'll do my best to not quote you multiple times. Since I figure that the point of a debate such as this is to get to the truth, and if you bother a person with your mannerisms, it tends to put them off, which hurts the process.

As for the risk of "why pirate something worthless if it puts you at risk of going to jail," I think the answer is "you shouldn't." But that's not at all for ethical reasons, but for purely pragmatic reasons. There's no point in taking unneccessary risks for no gain. However, that has nothing to do with whether piracy is ethical or not. If one were talking to a violent man who had a gun to your head, it would be unwise to annoy him by preaching how unethical what he was doing is, since that increases your chance of getting shot, regardless of the ethics of your statement.

If I'm getting the gist of your third paragraph right, you feel that piracy is wrong because the producer/owner of the music copyrights should be able to determine if/for how much to sell the item. (Forgive me if that's not the point you were making.) I agree with this sentiment. So, if you feel that this is a valid point, then by that definition piracy *is* unethical.

I'm not entirely certain I see your point in your final paragraph. And could you please elaborate why you think my computer example was riduculous? You don't seem to defend the statement, and since I don't know what you were thinking when you said it, I can only guess. I.e. please let me know what you thought was ridiculous about my example so I can either defend myself, or concede the point. Thanks.

[Birdsnest]

Question. http://stores.musictoday.com/Store/bands/171/images/splash/spacer.gif

What do I need if I do want to make a copy of a cd?

[matthew0028]

It's very simple on a computer. In fact, my Mac had two different pieces of software I could use if I wanted to copy music. The first, DiskCopy, would make an excact duplicate of the disc with very little problem. If I just wished to copy songs (mix & match from different CDs, as it were) I could import the music using iTunes and a lossless encoder, then use iTunes to burn the music onto a new CD. Simple, and with software that came with my computer.

[Birdsnest]

I have to get something, either for computer or stereo that does this. My computer only came with a dvd player/cd player. Guess its some kind of cd burner I need. Do you mean you can put the cd into the dvd slot, and it will copy onto another cd in another slot in same computer? Thats what I need.

[file cabinet]

there are numerous options for copying a CD...

you will need these(blank CD's):
http://www.newegg.com/app/manufact.asp?catalog=71&DEPA=1

You will also need the cd burner itself:
http://www.newegg.com/app/manufact.asp?catalog=5&DEPA=1

Then you will need some freeware software to be able to do what you need:
http://www.burnatonce.com/

[mgb]

I'm not entirely certain I see your point in your final paragraph. And could you please elaborate why you think my computer example was riduculous? You don't seem to defend the statement, and since I don't know what you were thinking when you said it, I can only guess. I.e. please let me know what you thought was ridiculous about my example so I can either defend myself, or concede the point. Thanks.

I was speaking to this:

[qupte=mathew0028]
Perhaps I'm being to literal, but if I were to buy a new computer and gave it to you, you would not be stealing it. Despite the fact that you are obtaining it without paying for it.[/quote]

You were blurring the distinction between a gift and stealing. If someone "gives" you something, or even gives you consent to take something of theirs, that is ok. It is when you take something without their consent (piracy) that you are stealing from them.

[Birdsnest]

Perfect information, Thank you. The cd burner isn't too expensive, thats what I will get.

[matthew0028]

I was speaking to this:



Perhaps I'm being to literal, but if I were to buy a new computer and gave it to you, you would not be stealing it. Despite the fact that you are obtaining it without paying for it.

You were blurring the distinction between a gift and stealing. If someone "gives" you something, or even gives you consent to take something of theirs, that is ok. It is when you take something without their consent (piracy) that you are stealing from them.

Again, I know I was being too literal, but what you said was:


When you obtain something without paying for it (whether it is as victimless as you are claiming it can be, or not) you are stealing.

If something is a gift, you are not paying for it. By your statement, when you obtain something without paying for it, you are stealing. Thus, by using basic logic and your statement, if you are receiving a gift then you are stealing.

((A => B) ^ (B => C)) => (A => C)

Yes, I realize that I was arguing what you said, rather than what you meant. However, if something isn't clearly stated, it's often hard to figure out what exactly is meant. Thus my statement was more a cry for clarifictaion than anything, since I assumed you didn't think that receiving a gift was the same as theft.

[mgb]

To say you have taken my comment out of context again would be an understatement.

[Birdsnest]

I think you can legally make copies using a cd burner if its for private use, at home.

[mgb]

I think that CD's can be burned for personal use, say to keep the original in good shape. It should not be for distribution, or rip the CD and put the contents online, although you could rip it to leave it on the computer.

[file cabinet]

I think that CD's can be burned for personal use, say to keep the original in good shape. It should not be for distribution, or rip the CD and put the contents online, although you could rip it to leave it on the computer.

your avatar was tapping to the beat of the track I'm listening to.

[mgb]

your avatar was tapping to the beat of the track I'm listening to.

Weird. Although, it is a catchy beat.

[matthew0028]

To say you have taken my comment out of context again would be an understatement.

Granted. But even *in* context, it sounds like you're making a statement about obtaining free stuff in general. I guess if you had qualified it, or something... *shrug*

[Jezebel]

I have mixed feelings about music piracy, but I think it can be both a good thing and a bad thing for musicians.

I have a fixed amount that I budget for myself from each paycheck for entertainment (including music, books, movies, software, etc). I can't go over this amount, so I will not buy anything I'm not sure I will like.

Most bands I usually like don't get much radio play, and 30 second samples and single song downloads of random bands does not prove that an entire cd will be good. So I download albums, and the ones I like the most get purchased first. I keep albums that I can't buy right away and extras to trade with other people. Regardless of how many mp3s I have, I can only buy a fixed number anyway.

Almost all of the cds I own (a few hundred) were downloaded in mp3 format first. If I had not downloaded them first, I wouldn't have bought the cds. I have also went to concerts of bands that I downloaded mp3s from that I would have otherwise looked over.

While what I'm doing doesn't make it more legal, I don't consider it unethical. In fact, I think it is beneficial to bands who otherwise don't get a lot of media coverage. I don't consider mp3s alternatives to cds and going to concerts, I see them as a way to discover new music and have a quality filter to make sure I'm getting the most out of what I spend money on. The problem is when people download so they don't have to pay. I do think musicians deserve money for their work, and it's a misconception if you think that all talented musicians are rich.

[mgb]

I have mixed feelings about music piracy, but I think it can be both a good thing and a bad thing for musicians.

I have a fixed amount that I budget for myself from each paycheck for entertainment (including music, books, movies, software, etc). I can't go over this amount, so I will not buy anything I'm not sure I will like.

Most bands I usually like don't get much radio play, and 30 second samples and single song downloads of random bands does not prove that an entire cd will be good. So I download albums, and the ones I like the most get purchased first. I keep albums that I can't buy right away and extras to trade with other people. Regardless of how many mp3s I have, I can only buy a fixed number anyway.

Almost all of the cds I own (a few hundred) were downloaded in mp3 format first. If I had not downloaded them first, I wouldn't have bought the cds. I have also went to concerts of bands that I downloaded mp3s from that I would have otherwise looked over.

While what I'm doing doesn't make it more legal, I don't consider it unethical. In fact, I think it is beneficial to bands who otherwise don't get a lot of media coverage. I don't consider mp3s alternatives to cds and going to concerts, I see them as a way to discover new music and have a quality filter to make sure I'm getting the most out of what I spend money on. The problem is when people download so they don't have to pay. I do think musicians deserve money for their work, and it's a misconception if you think that all talented musicians are rich.

Do you use iTunes? It would be a great way to sample music at a lower price while doing it legally. As well, most music stores will allow you to listen to a cd before you buy it.

Intent and actions are two different things. You can try and justify your actions with intent, but like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[matthew0028]

Intent and actions are two different things. You can try and justify your actions with intent, but like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

True. But I would argue that Jezebel's actions cause nothing but benefit for the artists/CD companies since she wouldn't have bought the music otherwise. And since she's not downloading music so she doesn't have to buy the CDs, and instead goes out and purchases the music she enjoys (and the other music she wouldn't have purchased otherwise), she's not harming the artists/producers of the music.

So, if one feels that an action that is beneficial to the people who should be benefited, and not detrimental to them is "ethical," then I feel that her actions are ethical (or at least not unethical).

[mgb]

True. But I would argue that Jezebel's actions cause nothing but benefit for the artists/CD companies since she wouldn't have bought the music otherwise. And since she's not downloading music so she doesn't have to buy the CDs, and instead goes out and purchases the music she enjoys (and the other music she wouldn't have purchased otherwise), she's not harming the artists/producers of the music.

So, if one feels that an action that is beneficial to the people who should be benefited, and not detrimental to them is "ethical," then I feel that her actions are ethical (or at least not unethical).

I am not criticizing her per se because I believe that she actually intends to buy the CDs after downloading them and just wants to get an idea of what she is buying.

There are other ways to go about "trying out" CDs before you buy though. And her actions could easily be misconstued as though she is just downloading the songs for personal benefit (ie. to save the money of buying them).

[Jezebel]

Do you use iTunes? It would be a great way to sample music at a lower price while doing it legally. As well, most music stores will allow you to listen to a cd before you buy it.
Most of my collection doesn't come up in the search results, because like I said, a lot of it doesn't get good media coverage (not that I don't like anything more popular, but I wouldn't limit myself to only purchasing that). In addition, iTunes charges $.99 per track, so that's not much less than a real cd. I never claimed I buy cds ONLY because I'm a saint-- I pay for the artwork, booklet, and having an uncompressed version of an album. I consider downloaded music inferior, and if I'm going to pay almost the same price anyway I'll stick with just buying cds. Though I do think iTunes is a great idea for those who are into more popular music and don't care about collecting full albums.

I could go to stores and listen to cds, but I don't see the point when I have a better selection at home and can save time and gas money. Back when I lived in a small town, local music stores didn't have a lot of what I was listening to so it just wouldn't have worked. I order most of my cds online anyway.


Intent and actions are two different things. You can try and justify your actions with intent, but like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sorry, but you're going to have to do better if you're trying to explain how I am harming musicians with my actions rather than benefitting them. My intentions and actions are not separate things, as I have acted according to my intentions, so you'll need to find a better cliche to prove your point.

I realize some of you have your views of right and wrong set to what the law says, and if that's what it takes to keep you in line I congratulate you on finding something that works. However, I don't believe that everything is either all wrong or all right. You can argue all you want that I am stealing or breaking the law (which I never denied), but it doesn't mean much to me until you explain how my behavior is doing more harm than good to the musicians I enjoy.

[mgb]

Sorry, but you're going to have to do better if you're trying to explain how I am harming musicians with my actions rather than benefitting them. My intentions and actions are not separate things, as I have acted according to my intentions, so you'll need to find a better cliche to prove your point.

I realize some of you have your views of right and wrong set to what the law says, and if that's what it takes to keep you in line I congratulate you on finding something that works. However, I don't believe that everything is either all wrong or all right. You can argue all you want that I am stealing or breaking the law (which I never denied), but it doesn't mean much to me until you explain how my behavior is doing more harm than good to the musicians I enjoy.

I wasn't so much talking about you when I used the good intentions line.

Let's do it this way. Say you were an singer. Say being a singer was your job. When you are just starting out online music trading would be great, it would really get your music out there, which is good and hopefully your music will be popular enough that it leads to you getting signed. Awesome, online trading really worked for you (which for the smaller bands you support might be doing to get their music heard of).

So, you are now signed. A company spends a lot of money on you, making your album, and marketing it. As the artist your career as a singer is now starting to pay off because you are getting money from the sale of every album, not to mention money from tours and such.

Rather than the internet you now use the radio to get your music out. But now people are trading your new music online. They don't have permission to, like they used to, but they are still doing it anyways. Now, every song that is traded online means that you aren't getting royalties from that album being sold. Also, the company that spent all the money, time, effort is now out a lot of money because people aren't buying your album.

Are you still making lots of money. Not as much as you should be. You put the labour in and now to paraphrase Manny, "Someone can just take your music at the touch of a button." I realize that it is hard to feel sorry for the musicians but they do put the effort in and not purchasing their work is a failure to recognize that.

In the larger picture a career in music may not seem like a viable alternative to some artists and their music will never get made. So those little independant bands you like right now may not exist the future because there is no chance of them making it.

I agree that laws aren't perfect and this could easily slip into the abyss of discussing what morals are and if they are correct. I would say that right now the laws we have are a snapshot of the morality of society. And right now they say that pirating music, with any intention, is stealing and therefore is wrong.

[SensEye]

I agree that laws aren't perfect and this could easily slip into the abyss of discussing what morals are and if they are correct. I would say that right now the laws we have are a snapshot of the morality of society. And right now they say that pirating music, with any intention, is stealing and therefore is wrong. Interesting point. However, the laws we have right now came to pass long before peer-to-peer technology existed. I would say based on the the popularity of file sharing, it could be argued that the morality of society finds such actions acceptable. Perhaps the laws should be changed to reflect this. I myself would support such a proposal.

The downside would be the potential that lower returns on music and other shareable media would result in less of it being produced. It's a chance I am willing to take. The laws could easily be changed back if supply dries up.

Also, I suspect if the various industries could not appeal to the courts for a solution, much more vigorous anti-piracy technologies would be persued.

I am a pretty small time offender myself, but I certainly suffer no qualms of conscience when I do pirate something. The way I see it, producers are trying to maximize their profits and I, as a consumer, am trying to minimize my costs. Seems like neither of us can stake out the high moral ground.

When I see the average earnings of popular musicians, movie stars, and commercial software developers drop below mine, I may start to feel some guilt relative to the amount of my wealth I transfer to them. Not before.

[Crazy]

It is unethical to take someone elses intellectual property, replicate it, and redistribute it to the public. I do not believe it is unethical to recieve said reproduction of the aforementioned intellectual property for personal use.

[mgb]

It is unethical to take someone elses intellectual property, replicate it, and redistribute it to the public. I do not believe it is unethical to recieve said reproduction of the aforementioned intellectual property for personal use.

But when buy a cd, rip it and upload it, do you know where it is going after that?

Is this a case of the "dealer" being the bigger problem than the "addicts"?

[Miss Anthropic]

It is unethical to take someone elses intellectual property, replicate it, and redistribute it to the public. I do not believe it is unethical to recieve said reproduction of the aforementioned intellectual property for personal use.
What is the difference between that and say, receiving an item such as a stereo system or jewelry from someone who stole them? If you accepted such stolen property knowingly, you would be an accessory to the crime.

I'm not really disagreeing, just noting what I see as faulty logic. I download lots of music without any qualms. Just like we used to tape and share record albums back in the day of the dinosaur. Of course most of the music I download isn't current popular music.(Excuses) I'm not stealing from JayZ or J-Lo or Good Charlotte, blah blah blah. Most of the $$ spent on CDs goes to the record company anyway. If musicians want to make any money they tour and gouge fans on ticket prices and t-shirts.

[Miss Anthropic]

Perfect information, Thank you. The cd burner isn't too expensive, thats what I will get.
I love this Birdsnest! Everyone is yammering on about ethics of downloading music and you are asking how to set up to burn CDs. (I couldn't read [translate: didn't want to read] through all those posts, so I don't know if you had an ethics opinion piracy or why you want to get a CD burner, but the placement of your post and the replies were kind of ironic in the middle of the debate)

[matthew0028]

I agree that laws aren't perfect and this could easily slip into the abyss of discussing what morals are and if they are correct. I would say that right now the laws we have are a snapshot of the morality of society. And right now they say that pirating music, with any intention, is stealing and therefore is wrong.

So, you would say that stealing with any intention is wrong. Care to explain why you feel that way?

I'm not saying stealing isn't wrong, but most of my points have been why I feel piracy may not neccessarily be wrong, backed up by reasons of harm/benefits/etc. However, your point has pretty much been that piracy = stealing, and is therefore wrong. Now, in order for me to fully understand your standpoint, it'd be useful for me to know exactly *why* you feel stealing is wrong (and possibly, what constitutes stealing).

Just sayin'...

[mgb]

Is stealing wrong? Taken out of the realm of the non-essential (music) it gets pretty complicated. I think if you can pay for something you should, if you can't pay for something then maybe you shouldn't buy it.

You can only really go so far with that can't you? I mean, how do you tell someone that is hungry not to steal some food for themselves and their family? Or that they have to pay their power bill even though some gigantic corporation is completely gouging them on the price (see California) and that paying it may come at the expense of paying for food.

Even here I think you can find ways around stealing, food banks, subsidies for power, using less power, etc. Can everyone always make it work with what little they have, no, hopefully there is some sort of aid to help them out. If all else fails is it ok to steal? I can't really answer that. I would say that if you have to steal you probably haven't exercised all your options.

Bringing this back to music, it isn't an essential service and shouldn't be stolen or pirated. People can live without having music downloaded on their computer, believe it or not.

Why do I feel it is wrong? You are doing harm to someone else (however negligable you feel that might be) by stealing someone's labour.

Let's put it this way. You see Bill Gates walking down the street, and a money clip with some cash in it falls out of his pocket. You pick it up and it has about $1000 dollars in it, which is the exact amount you need to pay your heating bill, which has been hard to pay. Do you give the money back to him? I would because it isn't my money and I know exactly whose money it is.

[Jezebel]

mgbradsh, I still disagree...

1. You assume that all bands follow a linear path from being unknown, to becoming more popular, to getting signed, to getting radio play. This is false. The radio does not choose bands based on who is signed. There is a certain sound that the music industry looks for based on what they think is most accessible to most people or what is trendy at the time. Everything else is thrown out the window regardless of talent or having variety. There are countless signed bands, that no matter how long in existence, no matter how popular they are within their genre, will never get radio play.

2. You assume that because people use one method to listen to new music, they will discard all others. Do you really think that everyone who has mp3s doesn't listen to the radio? Do you think that the only reason people listen to the radio is to discover new music? Are people who don't download mp3s also obligated to listen to the radio? What about people who think the radio sucks and discover all their new music by borrowing CDs from their friends? Are they wrong too? By your example they are, because they are also cheating those poor record companies out of royalties everytime they hear an album.

3. Radio usually only plays one or two hit songs from the most popular artists. This does not prove that an entire cd will be good from front to back nor provide a variety of music for what is really out there.

Those are just in general, but I do have a satellite radio subscription so you'll have to do better than using the radio as an example to prove how I am cheating bands out of money.

[mgb]

You are right, I agree that there is no roadmap to success in the music industry. And I have never worked at real radio station so I have no clue how they pick the music, I have to assume that someone gives them music to listen to and hopefully play. I also have to assume that that a radio station will give their ear to some people more than others when it come to recommendations. If I am terribly wrong here, please correct me.

As for number two, you are giving me a lot of questions about how people discover and listen to music, and not a lot of answers. I don't know how all people listen to music, nor do I really care. I realize that there are a multitude of ways to discover new talent, concerts, shows, tv, etc, etc, etc. Rather than write a book about the music industry I wrote one path in an attempt to illustrate that there are people behind the music that you are doing a dis-service to by not paying for their music (and when I say you I mean everyone).

It is not like you are saying that you tape songs off the radio, you are downloading entire albums off the internet to decide whether or not you should buy them. I believe you when you say that you intend to eventually buy the albums but you are still pirating music. I can't make you believe that is wrong or not, and I am not here to do that.

I guess my question to you would be, why do you think that what you are doing isn't wrong? Why do you bother eventually buying the CD if you already have it's contents downloaded on your computer (besides the covers and whatnot)? Seemes like you already have the milk, why buy the cow?

I am guess you buy the cow because you understand that there is someone behind that music that gets paid when you buy their album. In order to inform yourself about the music the artist you like make, you download their albums online to determine whether or not you should buy them. So how do you find out about the music in the first place? And couldn't there be a better way to discover the music on a CD without downloading it? Because believe it or not, not all people buy the CD after they already have it on their computer.

[Crazy]

What is the difference between that and say, receiving an item such as a stereo system or jewelry from someone who stole them? If you accepted such stolen property knowingly, you would be an accessory to the crime.

I'm not really disagreeing, just noting what I see as faulty logic. I download lots of music without any qualms. Just like we used to tape and share record albums back in the day of the dinosaur. Of course most of the music I download isn't current popular music.(Excuses) I'm not stealing from JayZ or J-Lo or Good Charlotte, blah blah blah. Most of the $$ spent on CDs goes to the record company anyway. If musicians want to make any money they tour and gouge fans on ticket prices and t-shirts.


The difference there is that the stereo or jewelry is stolen, the intellectual property is not, it is only being distributed illegally. That person has every right to have that music on thier computer, they don't break the law until they start to distribute it. It's just like with medications. Controlled medications are legal for you to have, but they are illegal for you to distribute to someone else.

[Miss Anthropic]

The difference there is that the stereo or jewelry is stolen, the intellectual property is not, it is only being distributed illegally. That person has every right to have that music on thier computer, they don't break the law until they start to distribute it. It's just like with medications. Controlled medications are legal for you to have, but they are illegal for you to distribute to someone else.
YES controlled substances are illegal for you to distribute to someone else, but also illegal for the person to whom they have been distributed to have. If music is downloaded for your personal use, but is on your computer in a shared file which may be uploaded by someone else, is that not similar distribution? Or are you saying that because they upload it from you for THEIR personal use, that is different?

[Miss Anthropic]

Let's put it this way. You see Bill Gates walking down the street, and a money clip with some cash in it falls out of his pocket. You pick it up and it has about $1000 dollars in it, which is the exact amount you need to pay your heating bill, which has been hard to pay. Do you give the money back to him? I would because it isn't my money and I know exactly whose money it is.
Wow, it must be REALLY cold in Canada!

[mgb]

Wow, it must be REALLY cold in Canada!

Heating bills add up :whistle:

*shrugs*

[charred_heart]

I adamantly oppose outlawing piracy.
I mean, imagine if downloading an mp3 was considered theft in Saudi Arabia :horror:

[Nighthawk]

Arrrrrggghhhhh ... run up the jolly roger. That's where I stand.

[HackerX]

What is the difference between that and say, receiving an item such as a stereo system or jewelry from someone who stole them? If you accepted such stolen property knowingly, you would be an accessory to the crime.

I'm not really disagreeing, just noting what I see as faulty logic. I download lots of music without any qualms. Just like we used to tape and share record albums back in the day of the dinosaur. Of course most of the music I download isn't current popular music.(Excuses) I'm not stealing from JayZ or J-Lo or Good Charlotte, blah blah blah. Most of the $$ spent on CDs goes to the record company anyway. If musicians want to make any money they tour and gouge fans on ticket prices and t-shirts.


I haven't bothered to read this thread yet but....

Piracy isn't stealing (software piracy of course, real piracy tends to include a fair bit of stealing). Nothing is physically taken from the artist/record company/mob. Nothing prevents the artist/record company/mob from continuing to sell their product, even after you've pirated it.

It's an important difference.

[Ellipsis]

I adamantly oppose outlawing piracy.
I mean, imagine if downloading an mp3 was considered theft in Saudi Arabia :horror:

yup...I feel the same was about downloading movies/games....


The funny thing here is...the goverment has no way of rounding yup all of us...and we will say there are many more people intrested in making piracy legal (lets not count the people who think it is stealing...)...thus the strange thing is that law makers should not be making laws againist it.....its the companies making the laws(which are intrested in thier own profit) not the state....

[ctnd]

I think in a digitally networked world it would be very naive to expect people not to share data when they have the choice.

[Doctor-Alvis]

Yikes, that was some reading.

As a fastidious consumer, I like to try things before I buy them to make sure I'm not getting ripped off. As an unemployed lazybones who wants things now, I cut out the purchasing steps and just sample the full versions. Forever.

Although there are some things I've downloaded that, if forced to choose, I would delete instead of paying for because it wasn't worth the cost.

[NightCrawler]

What is the difference between that and say, receiving an item such as a stereo system or jewelry from someone who stole them? If you accepted such stolen property knowingly, you would be an accessory to the crime.
The difference is that the owner doesn't lose anything except potential.

Jewelry or stereo -- now without the ownership.
Music or movies -- now without the profit of sale that could've been made, had it been distributed as intended.

[silady79]

I think in a digitally networked world it would be very naive to expect people not to share data when they have the choice.


I definitely agree with that. I think that if people want to share there stuff they should be allowed to do so. Sharing music, books, movies, is just what people used to do with actually sharing the physical cd, book, etc., pre- internet. There was no contreversy over loaning someone something that way, so why is there one now.

[Ferrus]

I definitely agree with that. I think that if people want to share there stuff they should be allowed to do so. Sharing music, books, movies, is just what people used to do with actually sharing the physical cd, book, etc., pre- internet. There was no contreversy over loaning someone something that way, so why is there one now.
There was however controversy over physically copying goods. Not that anyone cared unless you sold it. The difference now is that the previous system of copying was bridled by the costs of production, which do not apply on the internet.

[jleonardbc]

First of all, it is important to recognize that, under current law, piracy is illegal, regardless of whether we think it should be or not. Pirating digital materials is lawbreaking activity; there is no getting around that.

Our society and economy are built on rewarding good ideas. The patent system, for example, is a way to ensure that a person is entitled to royalties from the use of their ideas by others. It is true that copying digital files does not 'cost' the creator anything--but that is only part of the story of how profit is made with intellectual property. Profit equals income minus expenses. To sell chairs, say, the expense for each chair is the cost of the wood and materials used in the chair, wages for the craftsmen who made it, and a fraction of the cost of the tools used to produce it. If a chair was stolen, each of these expenses would go unpaid, to the loss of the entrepreneur selling the chairs. For digital files, however, the expenses involve the quality of the final product, not the quantity: it costs exactly as much to produce one copy of a digital game as three million copies. However, if only one person paid for a copy of the game, the expenses of wages, materials, tools, etc. would still go unpaid. As a consumer, you are not entitled to indulgence in the ideas of others at their own expense. It may be true that, for example, some musicians find that giving away free copies of their songs helps them become more popular and make more money in the long run--but this procedure is a decision of an individual artist, not a decision of the consumer. As a musician and INTP, I have great respect for the imagination, creativity, and hard work that goes into the media I consume, and I intend to do what I can to keep it from being cheapened, taken for granted, or incurring loss rather than profit for the artist by my consumption of their product.

[Carmin]

I'm going to quote Dinosaur Comics
http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-390.png
and
http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-614.png

[!diom]

Bump.

Piracy is good.

[Imhotep]

I won't attempt to justify my actions, I honestly don't care. Piracy=entertainment/tools that I otherwise wouldn't have had access to.

[foodeater]

I'll stop pirating when I have spare cash in my pockets.

[Lucylie]

Its almost like stealing from Wal-Mart rather than an old mom and pop shop. Rich corporate walruses can suck a fat one. I'm pro-pirate.

[d100la]

Definitely pro-pirating, if its available and free .. take it. There are enough people who are against piracy out there to keep the money going for the big corporations

[MacGuffin]

I am so looking forward to ripping off stuck at bronze.

[Oso Mocoso]

I am so looking forward to ripping off stuck at bronze.

Do you have a link to the Stuck at Bronze torrent? PM me.

I'm also pro-pirate when it comes to music. If his torrent doesn't suck I'll gladly pay $50 or so to see SaB perform live along with some other bands, or buy SaB stickers and a t-shirt, but buy an mp3? No way. If I can't get a free mp3, the artist basically doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.

[ApeTheDog]

It's the same as with a library. I'll borrow books and if I really like them I'll buy a physical copy regardless of it being available for free - just to have a physical copy. Having a downloaded copy of a game or a movie sort of equated to borrowing, for me. I never burn them to DVD after I'm done - just delete.

[stopharian]

It's the same as with a library. I'll borrow books and if I really like them I'll buy a physical copy regardless of it being available for free - just to have a physical copy. Having a downloaded copy of a game or a movie sort of equated to borrowing, for me. I never burn them to DVD after I'm done - just delete.

what if book copying technology became so prevalant that a book copier came installed with every computer and for a cost of say $1.75 in paper and cardboard you would be able to copy any book perfectly?

[ApeTheDog]

what if book copying technology became so prevalant that a book copier came installed with every computer and for a cost of say $1.75 in paper and cardboard you would be able to copy any book perfectly?

That's a good question.

I don't mind spending money on things I like but I'd probably get the digital one just because I don't have to put on shoes to get it.

[Oso Mocoso]

what if book copying technology became so prevalant that a book copier came installed with every computer and for a cost of say $1.75 in paper and cardboard you would be able to copy any book perfectly?

You're right. I think the publishing industry is going to radically change in a way that favors writers. Book publishers are probably fucked for the most part. How many people are going to pay for a printed book when they can make one themselves that's "good enough". I think there will still be an up-market for really fancy books, but they'll only be purchased by people like hardcore Harry Potter fans who want their Deathly Hallows to look like a wizard's tome, or by serious bibliophiles.

Now, as to how the writers make money - they can self-publish on the web and have ads inside their digital media files. They can easily release value-ad material on their websites and publish their books one chapter at a time so readers have an incentive to go to their websites. Wouldn't you rather go to Stephen King's website and read his blog as you download Chapter 6 of Salem's Lot 2 than just download the file from Pirate Bay? (assuming the file is identical and free at both locations).

There's also what writer Greg Stolze calls the Ransom Model. That is, he says "I'm working on the following six projects. If you want to see one of these released, pay me some money." Depending on what project is popular that's how he steers his work. When enough people have paid him, he'll release his work for free as a PDF. I was skeptical that this would actually work, but he has demonstrated proof of concept. I don't know of another writer who uses the same model, however.

/business bear

[Resonance]

Doesn't Radiohead do something similar? Or is it just 'here is our music; please give us money so we can make more'?

[ApeTheDog]

There have been a few "pay us what you think it is worth" projects that I know of. One was Radiohead's cd "in rainbows", the other was recently the game "World of Goo".

[!diom]

A good musician can make tons of money without ever selling a copy of their work. As for something like, say, a good game designer, that's not exactly true. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who make games are more intelligent, creative, and resilient than the people who make music. They should be able to profit even with widespread piracy amongst people who can't afford to spare money, or simply have something better to do with it but still want to play games. I recently pirated Street Fighter 4, and now I'm probably going to buy it. Why? I can't play the pirated copy online.

[d100la]

If musicians and movie makers and game designers joined forces and tried to stop piracy, they probably wouldnt be able to. All the security is created by smart people who get paid to do so, but the internet is full of those smart people who do it just for the kicks. No matter what they throw at the general public one day it will get exploited. Piracy is here to stay (and i am glad it is so, because truly, if you like something a lot, chances are you WILL buy it anyway)

[teleforce]

A good musician can make tons of money without ever selling a copy of their work. As for something like, say, a good game designer, that's not exactly true. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who make games are more intelligent, creative, and resilient than the people who make music. They should be able to profit even with widespread piracy amongst people who can't afford to spare money, or simply have something better to do with it but still want to play games. I recently pirated Street Fighter 4, and now I'm probably going to buy it. Why? I can't play the pirated copy online.

i'd say that making money from music has little to do with being a good musician, but a lot to do with having good business sense. often, the actual quality of the product doesn't matter much if it can be sold sold sold. marketing is largely dependent on the industry (whatever it is) as well, so traits like intelligence, creativity and resilience going unpaid can be simply part of the nature of whatever industry the artist/designer is involved in. however, i do think that certain "useful" manifestations of good traits are generally noticed and rewarded, and they of course manifest differently depending on the craft/profession. to use your example, the best of creativity in game design can only be subjectively better than the best of musical creativity (and vice versa, and i believe this goes for any two fundamentally different crafts).

anyway, piracy's fine with me mostly because i don't care. in most cases i think it benefits all parties in some way, and if the artist is signed to a big label, dead or otherwise not receiving "proper" royalties, to me it makes little to no difference. with music, just listen to the shit, and if you think it's worth your money, buy it and/or go to their shows. with independent artists, i think it's important to give them the support you think they deserve, not because they're independent (!= deserving), but in consideration that there's no (or not much of a) middleman and you'd be supporting them directly, usually.

[MacGuffin]

I'm also pro-pirate when it comes to music. If his torrent doesn't suck I'll gladly pay $50 or so to see SaB perform live along with some other bands, or buy SaB stickers and a t-shirt, but buy an mp3? No way. If I can't get a free mp3, the artist basically doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.

You prefer the SP artisan performer to the NT rational architect?

[Hermione]

I don't pirate anything. But I have paid money to see Johnny Depp play a pirate. I'd pay double for that, too. He's so cute. Sorry, carry on. I just had to get that out of my system again. arrghh lovez that pirate. Now, back to geeky shit talk. . .

So, as we were saying, what does Oso know about being human anyway? That bear is all business. GD capitalist regime. No one's got any principles anymore.

[Oso Mocoso]

You prefer the SP artisan performer to the NT rational architect?

Was that even in question? Of course. The SP artisan rocks. That's why I married one of those.

[oxyjen]

If you do support piracy, how far does your support for it extend? To what scale?

In the States this discussion focuses almost exclusively on personal, noncommercial piracy or small-scale personal economic exchanges.

Where I'm at now, piracy is a commercialized venture. The cable "company" pirates its cable but charges its customers.

At the video rental place, they rent out pirated bootleg DVD's of the new Twilight movie and Paranormal Activity for $3 a movie. Several shops sell burned music CD's for $10. They likely won't buy the "original" movies to rent, and they don't sell the "original" music. Should these cases be treated differently than personal-use piracy?

[Bebop]

Piracy is good.

I buy albums that I really like when I can afford them. If I can't find them, I don't buy them at all until I can. Times are tough, piracy helps. Me.

[Google Monster]

Arrrrrgh

[stuck]

Doesn't Radiohead do something similar? Or is it just 'here is our music; please give us money so we can make more'?

Having several hundred million dollars can take the edge off a painful moral decision.

[Qlippoth]

Though I do buy CDs, I also download music and I don't feel bad for it, because the industry is in such a position that I feel apathetic towards their interests.

I think the proper analogy for stealing in this case would be: If Hitler was charging $100 for you to take a picture of the Mona Lisa, with $.01 going to Leonardo da Vinci who is locked up in a death camp, would you feel guilty for sneaking in and taking a picture without paying?

[stuck]

I am so looking forward to ripping off stuck at bronze.

So let's compare numbers and see if they make any sense.

http://www.archive.org/details/EAR016 - downloaded about 3,600 times.

I've sold about 200 of those here (http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/googleplex). (the free version has 5 songs, while the cd has 9)

I'd have a positive balance of probably $26,000 if all those dl'ders bought a cd. Probably 1/2 of the physical/mp3 sales have come from people downloading first and then asking where a physical cd/better copy was. I just about break even- not that I've put much effort into promoting it, and we don't play live.

You wouldn't believe the density of some folks, though. I get people coming to my myspace, asking "WHERE CAN I GET A CD?" Obviously, the link is big and huge right on the front page.

Basically, I'm ambivalent.

[Faust06]

So let's compare numbers and see if they make any sense.

http://www.archive.org/details/EAR016 - downloaded about 3,600 times.

I've sold about 200 of those here (http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/googleplex). (the free version has 5 songs, while the cd has 9)

I'd have a positive balance of probably $26,000 if all those dl'ders bought a cd. Probably 1/2 of the physical/mp3 sales have come from people downloading first and then asking where a physical cd/better copy was. I just about break even- not that I've put much effort into promoting it, and we don't play live.

You wouldn't believe the density of some folks, though. I get people coming to my myspace, asking "WHERE CAN I GET A CD?" Obviously, the link is big and huge right on the front page.

Basically, I'm ambivalent.

You're lucky to break even being so unknown. Keep it up, I guess.

Outlets like forums are a great way to promote yourself without having to spend a dime. As long as you find the right niche audiences, you will find support. Just don't act like a glorified bot and advertise from the get-go, or all the time. If you're a member of the "community" you are respected. You seem to spend enough time on this one, so I'm sure you can do it.

ANYWAY, an analogy I like when it comes to this whole piracy debate is enjoying a piece of visual art. You don't need to own the Mona Lisa to enjoy a nice crisp image of it somewhere online, and this is acceptable. It's a visual stimulus that you can't "own", just like music is an auditory stimulus that you can't "own". Bands do need support, but in order to desire to support a band it helps to, you know, LIKE them first. And in this day and age, it takes more than a sample for me to like a band. There are hundreds of thousands out there fighting for attention, attention nobody needs to give, and if they want it they better put out some ear candy before asking for money. That's the bottom line. I give better judgement over what I like than someone paid to review a promo (though this is still important in terms of getting yourself out there). The absolute best way to get support is from touring, and if you don't tour chances are you aren't a full-time musician anyway so it doesn't matter.. get your material out there, and people will send you money if it's any good. Deal with the competition; piracy is to your complete advantage as an independant musician.

Countering the "visual" argument, there are movies. An audio-visual stimulating experience. Hm. My attitude towards movies is different in a way that contradicts mine towards music, and I find it difficult to justify why. Basically, movies are trial and error almost 100&#37; of the time, and there's usually no need to see a good movie more than once anyway. They take a shit-load of cash to produce, and they need a lot in return. As long as I have a clear idea what the movie is about, and in what fashion and style it's made, I can judge whether I want to see it or not. Taking one look at a Transformers trailer is enough to dissuade me. That being said, if there's a movie out there I want to see, I'll pay for it each time unless I can't find it here. The method I use for music isn't so effective. I need only watch There Will Be Blood once, and I'll never buy it even if it's a great movie. The replayability doesn't compare, and this poses a problem. Obviously there are some movies I can watch over and over, but it takes a damn special one.

I'm not completely against pirating movies, but less so than music even if that makes no sense whatsoever to any of you.

[SensEye]

Since I'm an old fart, I can actually recall the days before the CD. Yes, vinyl was the rage. IIRC when CD's first came out, vinyl cost about $9.98/$10.98 in the Canadian market. CD's came out around $17.98.

Being young and niave, I thought this brand spankin new technology just cost more and was therfore worth it. Of course, soon I became aware that due to the digital nature of the production, CD's could be churned out at a fraction of the cost of vinyl.

Now, did the big media labels pass these savings on to consumers? Did they consider the moral and ethical aspects of doubling their prices? Of course they did not. Why not? Because they could get away with it.

So why do people download illegally? Because they can get away with it.

Karma's a bitch.

Corporate media congolomerates can find a way to make unauthorized downloading technically impossible, or find a way to make the legal threat of prosecution untenable. But spare me the moral and ethical histrionics.

[Google Monster]

Since I'm an old fart, I can actually recall the days before the CD. Yes, vinyl was the rage. IIRC when CD's first came out, vinyl cost about $9.98/$10.98 in the Canadian market. CD's came out around $17.98.

Being young and niave, I thought this brand spankin new technology just cost more and was therfore worth it. Of course, soon I became aware that due to the digital nature of the production, CD's could be churned out at a fraction of the cost of vinyl.

Now, did the big media labels pass these savings on to consumers? Did they consider the moral and ethical aspects of doubling their prices? Of course they did not. Why not? Because they could get away with it.

So why do people download illegally? Because they can get away with it.

Karma's a bitch.

Corporate media congolomerates can find a way to make unauthorized downloading technically impossible, or find a way to make the legal threat of prosecution untenable. But spare me the moral and ethical histrionics.

QFT

[Tommo3]

Prices are not at all reasonable, Itunes for example still sells most songs at 99p or 79p each. It costs them literally nothing to reproduce it digitally, a CD I can understand the physical costs, but in today's world, where things are available so cheaply, it makes sense to lower the price. If albums were 2 or 3 pounds(Itunes), it would make a lot more sense than albums that cost 8 pounds.

Until such a time when prices are at such a level that they are closer to what it actually costs to produce (still make a profit but not so ludicrously), piracy is one of the alternatives.

[MacGuffin]

Prices are not at all reasonable, Itunes for example still sells most songs at 99p or 79p each. It costs them literally nothing to reproduce it digitally, a CD I can understand the physical costs, but in today's world, where things are available so cheaply, it makes sense to lower the price. If albums were 2 or 3 pounds(Itunes), it would make a lot more sense than albums that cost 8 pounds.

Until such a time when prices are at such a level that they are closer to what it actually costs to produce (still make a profit but not so ludicrously), piracy is one of the alternatives.

Yes, the price ONLY reflects the actual physical manufacture of a song.

How many hours go into writing, recording, mastering, and marketing said songs?

I preemptively eyeroll at anyone objecting to the marketing part, I'm sure you're actively searching myspace right now for the next great song.

[Chunes]

Yes, the price ONLY reflects the actual physical manufacture of a song.

In this case the "physical manufacture" is literally zero, and the "reasonable profit" is for the oh-so-difficult creative process. And I do eyeroll at the marketing part. This is the fucking era of youtube and 24/7 connectedness between a zillion different devices and communities. The good stuff floats to the top by sheer human networking.

The extent to which any shitty songs make their way toward the top is as a result of marketing, which is actually a hindrance to the more natural ranking.

[MacGuffin]

In this case the "physical manufacture" is literally zero, and the "reasonable profit" is for the oh-so-difficult creative process. And I do eyeroll at the marketing part. This is the fucking era of youtube and 24/7 connectedness between a zillion different devices and communities. The good stuff floats to the top by sheer human networking.

The extent to which any shitty songs make their way toward the top is as a result of marketing, which is actually a hindrance to the more natural ranking.

Woah, woah, woah. Where is studio time? Engineering? Mastering? I know we all like to pretend everyone records songs on boomboxes, but it isn't so.

[Spartan26]

In this case the "physical manufacture" is literally zero, and the "reasonable profit" is for the oh-so-difficult creative process. And I do eyeroll at the marketing part.I usually feel sick when I have to defend Hollywood studios, heaven knows I'm going to feel souless after putting a case in for the music industry. Physical manufacture is far from literally zero. What do you think, that all lines leading into iTunes top out at one G4 Mac? They have multiple servers throughout North America and probably world. Giant locations that require 24/7 maintenance and monitoring by live people. Digitizing songs even initially to meet specs must happen. Labor costs big time! iTunes employs a huge legal staff. Songs must also be cleared to determine if the little red explicit goes in up next to the song. There are security measures that must be maintained. QC to make sure songs download correctly. Then there's accounting, reporting sales to unions, and if you want to trade electricity bills with iTunes, I'm sure they'd love to talk to you.

EDIT: Some of this maybe should've been directed to Tommo3.

This is the fucking era of youtube and 24/7 connectedness between a zillion different devices and communities. The good stuff floats to the top by sheer human networking. I have no idea where you came up with the notion that record labels marketing budgets are zero or that they don't need to spend anything to break a song or artist. First off, when a song plays on YouTube, payments have to be made. The record label gets a royalty payment. Some of them are flat rate that labels have overall agreements set up with youtube, some of the named artists will get a payment based on hits. well, the label will. Even bob in Duluth can get paid. Not sure what the number of hits that need to happen before one can become a "Partner" but yes, you have a great song that's seen by 3M people, you'll get a check.

How does this happen if no one pays to look at YouTube? Banner ads. or imbedded ads. Ads on any site cost money. The Nicki Minaj ads you see at the bottom of every song until you click to close it or you see at various websites is a marketing costs. The more targeted the market, the higher the rate. Sites with huge numbers of eyeballs also cost a lot. The Lady Gaga standees or Christina Ag posters on buses & billboards cost millions. And before you may say those weren't the acts you were referring to, you should know is that labels will use the success of top acts to fund smaller names.


The extent to which any shitty songs make their way toward the top is as a result of marketing, which is actually a hindrance to the more natural ranking.Please define shitty song. Is that a song by Taylor Swift? Wil.i.Am? Justin Bieber? Kanye West? Paramore? Persistence is tantamount for most to find success in the record industry. But there's nothing to suggest that quality of work has a direct correlation to sales or performance. Many times the groups most respected with the most loyal fan base will be niche artist. Radiohead may be one of the most revered bands in the past quarter century but they're not selling out a stadium tour, no matter how much money a label puts in support of them. Sure, ideally EMI spends more money on them than Britney or at least does more to support smaller "quality" acts but the industry and consumer base is large enough to hold both. Labels try to duplicate success, not limit it. They don't try to promote acts through scarcity.

Even if costs were exorbitant, (which I'm not saying they are or aren't), what makes you, specifically, so entitled to get music for free when you have done nothing to warrant it?

[Chunes]

Even if costs were exorbitant, (which I'm not saying they are or aren't), what makes you, specifically, so entitled to get music for free when you have done nothing to warrant it?

Because it's literally zero effort and costs near-zero resources to duplicate digital products. To attempt to cease this marvelous functionality is an indication of jealousy or mental smallness. It's exactly the same thing as having a star trek replicator and regulating it and continuing to let some people starve, instead of just letting people replicate more replicators.

Luxuries matter even less than essentials, so people ought to be even more open to this, not less.

The point is this: the reason 95% of us even "have" to work is because of artificial scarcity. ANY sort of concession to this mindset is a disservice to humanity, and that includes the duplication of software and media, which is ultimately a battle over harmful copyright law.

[Eceleptium]

I agree with that.

Also, I treat piracy like I treat buying food. If it is available free of charge, I will probably grab it because I know I am being ripped off most of the time, but I will also gladly pay for quality stuff, especially from small companies who don't have much to spare and don't usually charge much in the first place.

[Spartan26]

Because it's literally zero effort and costs near-zero resources to duplicate digital products. To attempt to cease this marvelous functionality is an indication of jealousy or mental smallness. It's exactly the same thing as having a star trek replicator and regulating it and continuing to let some people starve, instead of just letting people replicate more replicators. Did you not read one M'F'ing thing that I just wrote? It costs virtually zero for you to hit copy save, but for the song to go from inception to iTunes has a significant amount of costs involved. Another analogy would be based on medicine. They brought it up on an episode of West Wing years ago. The exchange went something like: "I can't believe these big behemoth drug companies can't send AIDS medication to Africa when the pills cost literally $.03 to make."
"Correction, the second pill costs three cents to make. The first one costs $6 billion."


Luxuries matter even less than essentials, so people ought to be even more open to this, not less.??? Based on what? I honestly and truly don't mean this in an inciting l way but based on what you've written, "petulant" is the only word I have to describe your position on all of this.

The fact that millions, dare I say billions of people don't have access to clean water bothers me. I give of my time and money but I don't know what God's gonna say to me on judgment day about all the people dying around me while I was watching Wanted on blu ray on my 46" high def flatscreen. I mean, I only have two bookshelf speakers not full surround sound, so that's gotta worth something, right?? I think more of a concerted worldwide effort should be made in making sure people have access to the second most crucial element needed for life. I see no reason why all 7.2 billion people on the earth need to hear Miley Cyrus f.o.c. I have one view, you have another. Apparently, the rest of the world has another. What you've failed to prove is why just because you feel a certain way it should be so.

Most people at least rationalize what they do, you haven't offered a reason why you should get free music and whereby everybody else should pay. Divine right, anything?? We have people use the dept charge code for mailing and overnighting packages for personal use from time to time. One lady felt she could because "I'm a VP!" Someone else said, "because if they didn't make me work through lunch 3 days in a row, I would've had time to go to post office." I don't know or care if that makes it right or not, but at least they're reasons. You haven't done that. Only made the untrue assumption that there's artificial scarcity of music. Even I, as an isolated INTP, have met some super sick talented musicians who aren't living off their art or craft. They'd luuuuuv it if 50,000 - 60,000 thousand acts went away. It still wouldn't be a guarantee.

One of the best first albums I've ever heard was by this group called Acroma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5W3OYowh6E). I paid more in shipping than I did for the album itself. They had already broken up by the time I heard of them about 5-6 years ago. Though I don't know the reason why they disbanded, odds are if they're like so many other groups during that era, they probably got bumped because of slow album sales, which, had they been around maybe 5 years prior, the label would've been in the position not to dump them. You can say, "oh wow, big woop, 5,000 songs of theirs were downloaded, doesn't mean if they had been sold legally that would've saved them. And who knows if only 1,000 songs would've been downloaded if they had to be purchased," but when Eminem or Pink or Foo Fighters open to 170,000 units instead of 250-300K, the entire industry buckles.

If your significant other wants to write and perform a song for you for free and give it to you as a gift that's great. I think if you dedicated your life to contribute something to the world and have it taken away from you, you'd at least recognize the fallacy in your position that these items are without inherent or intrinsic value.

[Tommo3]

oh, I do enjoy being hated.

[Spartan26]

oh, I do enjoy being hated.Sorry, no hate. These arguments for pro-piracy hold less water than slotted spoons.

[fripping]

i'm not going to pay for the goddamned thing either way so why bother limiting myself. can't pirate x? doesn't exist to me.

[Fluffywolf]

Pirating and sharing copyrighted shit is a bad thing, shame on those people!

But that doesn't mean it is hipocritical to download that what is being shared by others. That's just good business.

That's basicly my take.

[SensEye]

Sorry, no hate. These arguments for pro-piracy hold less water than slotted spoons.I don't know about that. The key argument, as follows, seems to hold.

Consumers will practice piracy until such time and the industry can technically prevent piracy or ecomonically enforce legal punishments for violating piracy (copyrite) laws.

At present, the industry is not effectively capable of either, so piracy continues.

I don't think you can ethically justify piracy if that is the arguments you refer to, but so what. It's basically irrelevant as to whether or not it will occur.

[Spartan26]

I don't know about that. The key argument, as follows, seems to hold.

Consumers will practice piracy until such time and the industry can technically prevent piracy or ecomonically enforce legal punishments for violating piracy (copyrite) laws.

At present, the industry is not effectively capable of either, so piracy continues.

I don't think you can ethically justify piracy if that is the arguments you refer to, but so what. It's basically irrelevant as to whether or not it will occur.That would maybe be the reason why it happens, the reason I got for why they do it was "I want it and they're meanies for not giving it to me for free."

[ApeTheDog]

I've started paying for games on steam because of the convenience of not having to care about patches, cracks and storage. It's good to alway have an online backup copy of my games.
Music I download because I see no reason not to. I think music needs to change business models. Maybe put advertisement tracks on CD's or have musicians come to terms with making their money from performing.
The real way to stop piracy is to have downloading not be the path of least resistance. Apple knows this. If I'd had a credit card registered to my iTunes and synced my iPod with it I'd probably be impulse buying lots of things too just so I'd not have to look for torrents, correct track information, import it myself etc...

[msg_v2]

Piracy is awesome. Bucaneers kick ass and they get to drink a lot of rum. Plus, female pirates are hot.

Oh, you mean the boring kind of piracy that involves bit torrents, which results in me always having to watch public service announcements before movies.

Ambivalent, but I think that anyone who try and makes it sound "radical" because they're fighting back against the corporations or whatever are full of shit. Wow, a way of fighting for change that involves no struggle and just means getting free shit! How convenient!