PDA

View Full Version : Open source and moral piracy



Ephilei
April 25th, 2007, 07:34 AM
Now that's you're using open source, do you consider music piracy morally as less wrong, more wrong, or equally wrong than before you've adopted the open source philisophy?

After learning about open source and the piratebay antics simultaneously, I've begun thinking that musical piracy may not be immoral (software and video piracy might be slightly different). My basic thinking is that, like open source, if something good is created, then people should use and enjoy it. Good music, as an art, is created because the creator has the desire to create for its own sake, not for money. Musicians will create music whether paid or not. Their music will be better and more widely used if price and usage restrictions are ignored. Thoughts?

BOBSONATOR
April 25th, 2007, 07:41 AM
im still having mixed thoughts about this issue, but ever since i have switched to ubuntu and open-source applications, the need for piracy is close to none.

Kujen
April 25th, 2007, 07:47 AM
Good music, as an art, is created because the creator has the desire to create for its own sake, not for money. Musicians will create music whether paid or not. Their music will be better and more widely used if price and usage restrictions are ignored. Thoughts?

You seem to forget that people make careers from making music.

ceil420
April 25th, 2007, 07:49 AM
If I had recording equipment, my music would be available free of charge from a website. Concerts and merchandising would pay the bills; I'd prolly charge $5 or something for CD's, too.

But I suck at guitar anyway.

(The Same)

kevinlyfellow
April 25th, 2007, 07:58 AM
Why pirate when there are legal alternatives? No, I can't download metallica, but I can find a few great artists on magnatunes.com. I also listen to last.fm, so I can listen different types of music there legally. I don't like the RIAA but at some point we need to start rewarding the people who do things right and not just take from those who do things wrong. Open source opened up my mind to this idea.

disturbed1
April 25th, 2007, 08:23 AM
Now that's you're using open source, do you consider music piracy morally as less wrong, more wrong, or equally wrong than before you've adopted the open source philisophy?

After learning about open source and the piratebay antics simultaneously, I've begun thinking that musical piracy may not be immoral (software and video piracy might be slightly different). My basic thinking is that, like open source, if something good is created, then people should use and enjoy it. Good music, as an art, is created because the creator has the desire to create for its own sake, not for money. Musicians will create music whether paid or not. Their music will be better and more widely used if price and usage restrictions are ignored. Thoughts?

Ok, I'm lost here. Good music is created not for money? Hmm, wonder why any would ever need a record contract?

Software that is open source is open source because the author(s) have determed it to be so. There is software that is not open source but free, and software that is open source but not free.

I believe you are confusing the term open source with the term free of charge.

There is free music, free software, free art, free video. They are free because the creators have decided not to charge for them.

Somenoob
April 25th, 2007, 09:05 AM
What OS I use doesn't influence my opinion, it's still a copyright violation.

3rdalbum
April 25th, 2007, 09:10 AM
A more interesting moral question: If you were a musician and another musician plagurised your work, would it be immoral to pirate the other guy's song?

Christopher Chadwick 1985
April 25th, 2007, 10:17 AM
I have a large music collection and it is unfeasable for me to copy all my CD's to a Mp3 format I so I do download the music I own for use on a mp3 player but I always make shure it's from the same album as mine because as far as I know it is ok to have a Mp3 copy of what you own. As for software piracy I don't support it same gose for film.

Pobega
April 25th, 2007, 11:25 AM
You seem to forget that people make careers from making music.

Actually, I had a talk with a family member about this recently, and it's really not the artists who make money off of the album's sales but actually the record company needs those sales to survive.

Myself, I haven't pirated in months; music and software; and I don't intend to anytime soon.

b0ng0
April 25th, 2007, 11:36 AM
Open source and music piracy are rather different in my opinion. I still think music is extremely overpriced and record companies are used to making such vast amounts of money that this dent in their profits is enough to make them squeel. Of course artists are the ones to get the brunt of it but in terms of CDs I rarely buy them unless they are very special. I prefer vinyls - dead cheap off ebay and you feel like you're getting your money's worth instead of some poxy plastic CD.

Chilli Bob
April 25th, 2007, 12:59 PM
The thread starter seems to be using some kind of warped logic to justify to themself that it's OK to steal music for no other reason than they are too cheap to pay for the music they like. If someone creates something, anything, then THEY get to choose whether or not they release it to the public domain. It's not up to the general public to decide what is or is not free.

By the treadstarter's logic, I should be able to go to K-mart and steal a PS3 because I would like a PS3 and Sony would have produced the PS3 anyway. Whether it's a plastic box full of electronics, or the digital bits of an MP3, stealing is stealing.

eentonig
April 25th, 2007, 01:06 PM
I still consider music piracy an immoral fact. Because the artist did not intend to give their music away for free.

On the other end, I do agree that the music industry is way to expensive and by doing so, putting people in the position that they don't want to pay that amount of money.

Personally, Allthough I admit it being morally wrong...I do download music occassionally. Simply because I can't afford to buy all the music that might interest me, just to found out afterwards that it actually sucks. But if I do like a piece of music, I buy that CD afterwards. Because I want to be able to hold the CD and read the booklet. And I want to show my appreciation to the author.

JerseyShoreComputer
April 25th, 2007, 01:11 PM
There is a difference - open source software is offered for free. Copyrighted music is intended to be purchased so the creators can pay their bills. I don't really see the connection between the two which is why my opinions on pirated music hasn't changed.

Iceni
April 25th, 2007, 01:15 PM
I'm with eentonig on this one. I also download music or get it from friends, but mostly to try before I buy. I have a hard time being all-negative to music piracy, because everywhere I go nowadays people have different music taste, as opposed to ten years ago when the music industry pretty much decided what we should all like.

Good sites like last.fm or di.fm does a good job and will probably be important in reducing the piracy. Nowadays I hardly ever bother to download music, I just play a stream.

KaroSHiv0n
April 25th, 2007, 01:16 PM
Music piracy is NOT immoral. ANY artist will tell you their money is made via touring and selling merch on said tour. The riaa etc are only up in arms because cd sales hurt THEM not the artist. One of the bands i love practically gives away their stuff (via many many band-made youtube vids, live cd's, etc) and they are on warner bros so not a small band, BUT they tour 9 months a year, that is where the money is - oh , and i wouldent have seen them (or a lot of other bands) live if it wasnt for the "evil and immoral" music piracy. I as a fan would rather support the band than the suit in his desk that doesent know or care about music, just the 100$ bills lining his fat pockets.

AndyCooll
April 25th, 2007, 01:25 PM
I have a large music collection and it is unfeasable for me to copy all my CD's to a Mp3 format I so I do download the music I own for use on a mp3 player but I always make shure it's from the same album as mine because as far as I know it is ok to have a Mp3 copy of what you own. As for software piracy I don't support it same gose for film.

In some countries, believe it or not, this is not the case. Here in the UK for instance you are not legally allowed to keep a "backup" copy of your legally owned music. Having said that, the UK equivalent of the RIAA have officially stated that they will not be going after anyone who does this.

:cool:

samjh
April 25th, 2007, 02:34 PM
Piracy is still piracy. Piracy is also stealing. Stealing is immoral in my mind.

No, my opinion has not changed.

KaroSHiv0n
April 25th, 2007, 02:37 PM
Piracy is still piracy. Piracy is also stealing. Stealing is immoral in my mind.

No, my opinion has not changed.no, its not, stealing (theft) is defined as: 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
[1913 Webster]

if i download a song, the artist still has the song, they can still sing it, its still on cd, and people still buy it.

migla
April 25th, 2007, 02:53 PM
Culture such as music and movies may enhance our life. To be able to copy and enjoy culture for free (pirating or not), enhancing this short life that we have, is so much more valuable than whatever harm it does to corporations or people who are into arts for the money.

Information should be free. We as a human race should make sure talented people can keep making music, movies and other wonderful things even though it's all given away for free. We would loose everyone who's in it for the money, but I don't see that as a problem.

I don't pirate, since there's much free good stuff and I don't want to go to jail or whatever, but I don't think piracy is morally wrong.

jclmusic
April 25th, 2007, 02:56 PM
to me, piracy is wrong if the artists are on an independent label or whatever the software equivalent would be. if most of the money is gonna go to some faceless corporation that gets rich off other people's work (much in the way that microsoft and the major record labels do) then piracy is right in the name of social change.

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 03:46 PM
Bit of a tricky one, but I'll have to go with less objection, although I am personally opposed to it, and don't do it anyway.

Being more exposed to open source has made me more aware of the politics of software development, the various approaches used, and, of course, the ways in which it affects all of us. I am strongly opposed to the use of software in a restricting, oppressive manner - which is unfortunately closely tied with how music is distributed. I'm in a band myself, and although we're unsigned at the moment, we do get paid for gigs. Most artists also make very little money from selling records unless they control everything from production to distribution themselves - which also means they incur bigger costs, thus the money they do earn may well still be only comparable to what they would make with a major label. Bands make MORE money from gigs, and most artists I've spoken to prefer playing live to recording, and that is also true of myself. I have recorded myself and friends from time to time in a semi 'professional' manner - ie, with attention to mixing, using proper equipment etc. While it's an interesting experience, and enjoyable in it's own right, I still much prefer just playing music and not having to worry about microphone positioning and levels and stuff. I also prefer the spontenaity of a live performance to the scheduled, occasionally repetitive recording sessions.

Thus - I am not really THAT objected to people not paying for recordings, and choosing to just pirate them instead. I wouldn't worry about it if I had records out there, and I don't think many artists really are that fussed about the current situation. It seems to be the record industry bigwigs who carp on about it rather than the musicians themselves, and in this day and age, the record industry is not strictly necessary to the spread and enjoyment of music. It's far easier to just download a track off limewire than it is to go out and buy a CD or record, despite my own personal preference to have the album art and stuff too, which I wouldn't get with a pirated download.

Anyway - back to the point - the digital distribution of music is currently tied to horrible, restrictive licensing, potentially harmful software (rootkits) and organizations which target vulnerable, poor, or downright innocent people - without evidence and without even notifying them that they're being sued, until it's too late for that individual to try and settle, or to prepare an adequate defence. I am absolutely against this kind of behaviour, and so am prepared to put aside my objections to piracy/theft in general, in the hopes that organizations like the RIAA are damaged as much as is humanly possible, and hopefully for them to disappear off the face of the earth. I do not condone theft, but I don't view downloading an album as theft, because the people who lose profits are not the artists, but a middle-man who sues elderly women and families who already live beneath the bread-line. A little humanity would go along way, and if they didn't charge obscene prices, perhaps more people would be willing to pay up.

EdThaSlayer
April 25th, 2007, 04:01 PM
I haven't changed my views on the matter if its bad or right. I won't say if I do pirating myself though.

talcite
April 25th, 2007, 04:32 PM
This is a very interesting discussion. I myself personally have not been influenced by going open source. However, we studied this in my economics course.

Music and software in general is very tricky because it can be over priced very easily. Here's why:

How much does a song cost?

In economics, there is a concept of zero economic profit in the long run for a perfectly competitive market. Any profit would hurt the consumer (us) and any negative profit would hurt the producer. Thus, a song costs as much as it costs to develop it. This includes the artist's hours put into it and all the people who produced it, and equipment etc... There are NO marginal costs of another song. Like KaroShivon hinted at, another copy of a song costs nothing. You download it. There is no cost, maybe the fractions of a penny for bandwidth and wear/tear on your hard drive. Record companies and artists should charge nothing more than what they spent to develop it. Anything more would increase their surplus (producer surplus) but at an even greater loss to consumer surplus.

What does that all mean? A song should only be priced to recover their development costs. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course that's nowhere near true in the real world. People making millions of some songs.

So is piracy immoral? Well it's really a gray zone. On one side, piracy really took a huge chunk out of the former power held by record companies, which is good. On the other side, too much piracy can lead to the music industry withering away, or at least suffering far too much, which is bad. One can also point out though that artists usually don't become artists because of the potential for money, but instead for the love of the music. That argument is still kind of sketchy because some people who are essential to the music industry do enter that line of work for the money.

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 04:44 PM
This is a very interesting discussion. I myself personally have not been influenced by going open source. However, we studied this in my economics course.

Music and software in general is very tricky because it can be over priced very easily. Here's why:

How much does a song cost?

In economics, there is a concept of zero economic profit in the long run for a perfectly competitive market. Any profit would hurt the consumer (us) and any negative profit would hurt the producer. Thus, a song costs as much as it costs to develop it. This includes the artist's hours put into it and all the people who produced it, and equipment etc... There are NO marginal costs of another song. Like KaroShivon hinted at, another copy of a song costs nothing. You download it. There is no cost, maybe the fractions of a penny for bandwidth and wear/tear on your hard drive. Record companies and artists should charge nothing more than what they spent to develop it. Anything more would increase their surplus (producer surplus) but at an even greater loss to consumer surplus.

What does that all mean? A song should only be priced to recover their development costs. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course that's nowhere near true in the real world. People making millions of some songs.

So is piracy immoral? Well it's really a gray zone. On one side, piracy really took a huge chunk out of the former power held by record companies, which is good. On the other side, too much piracy can lead to the music industry withering away, or at least suffering far too much, which is bad. One can also point out though that artists usually don't become artists because of the potential for money, but instead for the love of the music. That argument is still kind of sketchy because some people who are essential to the music industry do enter that line of work for the money.

I think your perspective relies too much on the existence of a music industry. Many of us don't believe that a music industry is even necessary - certainly not any more, with the existence of easily distributable media via the internet. The record indsutry (and the RIAA) argue their case that piracy is bad because it harms the record industry and the artists. In many people's view, the idea of a record industry is defunct - it's no more NECESSARY than the appendix. We wouldn't be the same without an appendix, and in the past, maybe we couldn't have survived without it - but now, it's not vital to our functioning. In the same way, yes, how we listen to, create, and distribute music would be DIFFERENT without a 'record industry', but it wouldn't dissappear. A record industry is no longer even necessary to record the music in the first place. Many of us have the technology to produce at least a satisfactory sounding record, and distribution just isn't really a problem any more. One can't help feeling that the record industry exists only for the sake of existing at the moment - I for one believe we could survive quite happily without it. Even producing CDs is not particularly a challenge for most people now. Sure, the supply would decrease if the big four disappeared, but CDs wouldn't disappear altogether - and the advantage of there being no record companies about would be that you or I could copy and redistribute the CDs created by our favourite artists.

samjh
April 25th, 2007, 05:00 PM
no, its not, stealing (theft) is defined as: 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
[1913 Webster]

if i download a song, the artist still has the song, they can still sing it, its still on cd, and people still buy it.

Computers and music CDs didn't exist in 1913. So your Webster definition is outdated. It is also legally wrong in numerous jurisdictions. Most legislation will include a definition of stealing as relevant to the legislation, which can vary widely. Some definitions, such as the one included in the Criminal Code 1899, Queesland, is very lengthy. It would be beyond the scope of this thread to delve into such things, so I will only says that you cannot merely rely on a dictionary to tell you what "stealing" is, if you want to argue it from a legal point of view.

When artists sign a contract with a recording company or a publisher to record and/or publish their music, their contract will most probably include terms that entitle the artist to receive royalties or commission for the sale of their music via the recording studio or the publisher. The artist also holds copyright - in Australian law, this copyright automatically applies from the moment the music is originally created - and any contract with a recording company or publisher will include terms that set out how this copyright is distributed or transferred to relevant parties.

If an artist wishes to engage a distributor, the distributor of the music holds copyright or license for have and use the music for purposes set out in their contract. You do not have the copyright to keep or use the music, unless special laws apply in your jurisdiction (such as "fair use" in the USA), and/or unless you have obtained copyright or a license to keep and/or use the music. In most cases, this means you need to purchase a CD or DVD or video tape or a licensed electronic copy of the music.

By pirating music, you circumvent such a purchase. Therefore you also deprive the artist of any benefits they would have gained if you obtained the music via the intended means (by buying the CD, etc.). You also deprive the distributor of benefits they would have gained.

If you deprive someone of their rightful benefits gained by something they own (such as copyright or a distribution license for music), one can easily consider that to be stealing. You are stealing the benefits entitled to them by circumventing your obligation to pay for the music.

Of course you can disagree. Although not as clearly criminal as someone who steals a TV from your lounge-room, but still comparable to someone who leeches money from an investment you own. For artists, recording studios, publishers (and distributors, who I have lumped with recording studios and publishers), music as their investment. They have rightful claim to benefit from their investment - pirates have no right to leech those benefits from them.

KaroSHiv0n
April 25th, 2007, 05:05 PM
Computers and music CDs didn't exist in 1913. So your Webster definition is outdated. It is also legally wrong in numerous jurisdictions. Most legislation will include a definition of stealing as relevant to the legislation, which can vary widely. Some definitions, such as the one included in the Criminal Code 1899, Queesland, is very lengthy. It would be beyond the scope of this thread to delve into such things, so I will only says that you cannot merely rely on a dictionary to tell you what "stealing" is, if you want to argue it from a legal point of view.

When artists sign a contract with a recording company or a publisher to record and/or publish their music, their contract will most probably include terms that entitle the artist to receive royalties or commission for the sale of their music via the recording studio or the publisher. The artist also holds copyright - in Australian law, this copyright automatically applies from the moment the music is originally created - and any contract with a recording company or publisher will include terms that set out how this copyright is distributed or transferred to relevant parties.

If an artist wishes to engage a distributor, the distributor of the music holds copyright or license for have and use the music for purposes set out in their contract. You do not have the copyright to keep or use the music, unless special laws apply in your jurisdiction (such as "fair use" in the USA), and/or unless you have obtained copyright or a license to keep and/or use the music. In most cases, this means you need to purchase a CD or DVD or video tape or a licensed electronic copy of the music.

By pirating music, you circumvent such a purchase. Therefore you also deprive the artist of any benefits they would have gained if you obtained the music via the intended means (by buying the CD, etc.). You also deprive the distributor of benefits they would have gained.

If you deprive someone of their rightful benefits gained by something they own (such as copyright or a distribution license for music), one can easily consider that to be stealing. You are stealing the benefits entitled to them by circumventing your obligation to pay for the music.

Of course you can disagree. Although not as clearly criminal as someone who steals a TV from your lounge-room, but still comparable to someone who leeches money from an investment you own. For artists, recording studios, publishers (and distributors, who I have lumped with recording studios and publishers), music as their investment. They have rightful claim to benefit from their investment - pirates have no right to leech those benefits from them.
thats the most modern definition in the dictionary, i dont think the word "theft" hase ver changed in meaning. I do disagree as i have NOT robbed any artist, via going to concerts and purhcasing things i download/dvds/clothing/etc if anything i pay more than someone who simply buys the cd. If i have "stolen" from anyone its the music industry, and i refuse to feel bad for them as they have profited billions of dollars and continue to do so on the hard work and creativity of someone else, i will never feel "wrong" in what i do.

samjh
April 25th, 2007, 05:13 PM
thats the most modern definition in the dictionary, i dont think the word "theft" hase ver changed in meaning. I do disagree as i have NOT robbed any artist, via going to concerts and purhcasing things i download/dvds/clothing/etc if anything i pay more than someone who simply buys the cd. If i have "stolen" from anyone its the music industry, and i refuse to feel bad for them as they have profited billions of dollars and continue to do so on the hard work and creativity of someone else, i will never feel "wrong" in what i do.
Your sentiment about the music industry agrees with mine.

We just disagree from a legalistic perspective. ;)

justin whitaker
April 25th, 2007, 05:17 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what moral piracy means. How do you pirate morals?

raublekick
April 25th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Using open source software has solidified my idea that piracy is wrong. Why do I use Linux? Because it is free. Why do I not use Windows? Because it is not free. I am all for free music, but if a band doesn't release their music for free I either buy it or don't listen to it.

However, I don't really like badgering people who think that piracy is OK. Just like I don't badger people who think that using proprietary software is OK.

Darko-TheRaven
April 25th, 2007, 06:15 PM
Now that's you're using open source, do you consider music piracy morally as less wrong, more wrong, or equally wrong than before you've adopted the open source philisophy?

After learning about open source and the piratebay antics simultaneously, I've begun thinking that musical piracy may not be immoral (software and video piracy might be slightly different). My basic thinking is that, like open source, if something good is created, then people should use and enjoy it. Good music, as an art, is created because the creator has the desire to create for its own sake, not for money. Musicians will create music whether paid or not. Their music will be better and more widely used if price and usage restrictions are ignored. Thoughts?

Unfortunatly, 90% of all musicians do it for the money, 9% do it for the music, but money is needed to perform live shows. the other 1% of course are private musicians.**

If you really like the band go and buy their music to support them.(unless they are featured on mtv all the time, no money for them.)

I buy all my music, if i want to look into a new artist without the possibility of wasting money i'll download 1-3 albums. If i like it i go out and buy it if not, thank god for the recycle bin :tongue:

I have run into problems with the albums of artists i like are out of print, then i'll download those.(but if they came back in print i'd be the first in line to buy):guitar:

thats my opinion anyway. from what i read raublekick may agree.

NOTE:**
These figures are in no way accurate so don't go getting all worked up about it, they are estimates based on observation of the music industry.

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 06:20 PM
By pirating music, you circumvent such a purchase. Therefore you also deprive the artist of any benefits they would have gained if you obtained the music via the intended means (by buying the CD, etc.). You also deprive the distributor of benefits they would have gained.

If you deprive someone of their rightful benefits gained by something they own (such as copyright or a distribution license for music), one can easily consider that to be stealing. You are stealing the benefits entitled to them by circumventing your obligation to pay for the music.

Of course you can disagree. Although not as clearly criminal as someone who steals a TV from your lounge-room, but still comparable to someone who leeches money from an investment you own. For artists, recording studios, publishers (and distributors, who I have lumped with recording studios and publishers), music as their investment. They have rightful claim to benefit from their investment - pirates have no right to leech those benefits from them.

Although you certainly seem to know your stuff, I must absolutely disagree here. If I pirate something, I am not 'stealing the benefits'. They would never have had those benefits in the first place, therefore they have suffered no loss - they have only not gained from the transaction, which is a completely different ball game. If I have not entered into a contract with the distributor or artist, I am under no obligation whatsoever to buy their products. The assumption that piracy is theft absolutely relies on the idea that the pirate would have actually bought the product in the first place, and this is impossible to prove.

G Morgan
April 25th, 2007, 06:20 PM
FIrstly what we are dealing with isn't theft or piracy. It is copyright infringement. Theft refers to physical property however much some would like to have a wide reaching definition of theft in order to generate a larger impact when the word is used. Piracy refers to a bunch of guys who sail on a boat, drink grog and pillage the high seas. Neither really comes close to the crime of copyright infringement.

Personally I neither condemn nor support copyright infringement. I don't do it, in fact I just avoid buying music at all until the DRM madness ends. DRM'd music does not fit the use case I had in mind so is worthless to me. Either they give me the technical ability and right to format translate and backup or I just won't buy or 'steal' their music.

daynah
April 25th, 2007, 06:47 PM
I always secrety felt guilty about stealing music and programs. So I stopped stealing programs, and when I did, I found people who had stopped stealing music so I did the same thing.

Granted, I download music directly off of my friend's computers, which my friends may or may not have stolen, depending on the artist. But we all have our comfort levels and that is within my boundries of allowing myself to sleep at night. :)

Eddie Wilson
April 25th, 2007, 07:06 PM
I miss the days when you could go out and buy a single song. Oh you can do that now with crappy mp3s but record companies messed up when they dropped vinyl. Nothing will ever sound as good as high speed tape or vinyl.[-X
Eddie

Hex_Mandos
April 25th, 2007, 07:53 PM
I don't pirate music, mostly because I'm musically impaired and don't really enjoy it too much. But I think the media industries as we know them are on their way out. Eventually, artists will switch to charging for services built around their product (ie. live performances, merchandising, etc), just like open source software companies.

aysiu
April 25th, 2007, 07:57 PM
I like Magnatune's philosophy and business model.

If I liked their music, too, it'd be perfect for me.

AusIV4
April 25th, 2007, 08:06 PM
My view on piracy has changed a little bit after moving to open source. I've always believed that movie and music makers ought to get paid for what they produce, but with DRM being so common these days, and Linux not having any legal ways to handle most DRM schemes, I have committed a few DMCA violations to use the media I've purchased legally. I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA would try and construe this as piracy, but I'm just trying to use what I've paid for.

forrestcupp
April 25th, 2007, 08:08 PM
Making something free (libre or gratis) is the choice of the creator, not the end-user. We as end users don't have the right to infringe on the desires of a creation's author. That's about like me deciding to give your house away.

p.s. I already know the argument of replicatable digital media vs. non-replicatable physical items. But it's still true that the creator has the right to decide whether something is free or proprietary.

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 08:22 PM
Making something free (libre or gratis) is the choice of the creator, not the end-user. We as end users don't have the right to infringe on the desires of a creation's author. That's about like me deciding to give your house away.

p.s. I already know the argument of replicatable digital media vs. non-replicatable physical items. But it's still true that the creator has the right to decide whether something is free or proprietary.

I don't think it carries over. When I 'send' you a file, I'm not losing anything, there is no 'deal' taking place. The record industry doesn't want to accept that music is not a product - and now that digital music is so popular, it's even LESS of a product. They are not losing out in either a physical or a monetary sense, because:
a) Their 'stock' of the music is not affected by me making a copy of it.
b) They assume people would have bought the music anyway.

Point b is pretty questionable - you could well argue that since they wouldn't have bought it, they shouldn't get to acquire it, but the fact of the matter is that they will acquire it, and there's nothing you or anyone can do to stop them. When it comes down to it, digital media is not a product, it is information, and information is replicatable and non-tangible. The only way to stop the spread of information is to never release it in the first place, or to kill everyone who comes into contact with it, and this is why the music industry is doomed - they created the monster which they're now trying to defeat, but it's not a monster you can shoot at or otherwise harm. There is literally no way to stop someone replicating digital information. You can hinder the process, sure, and you can encode the information a million different ways, but all locks are meant to be opened, and all encrypted data is supposed to be decoded. It's only a matter of time before someone somewhere gets around your security.

I'm not condoning it, but it's the way things are. The only way the music industry can win this battle is to make purchasing music more economically viable than pirating music. They can do this by lowering prices and providing more than just music. Pirates will always exist, yes, but there's no reason why the music industry can't make buying music a better deal. At the moment the only choice we have is to buy music, or get the same music for free. Guess which one is the most logical option.

Luggy
April 25th, 2007, 08:51 PM
Actually I think that since I started using FLOSS my opinon on moral piracy has changed. While I still feel that downloading album to hear it before I buy it is just I have taken a differnt stance on software. Programs like Cedega, Crossover Office or VMWare I would gladly pay money for instead of hunting them down on random torrent sites.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine and he suggests that part of it has to do with the deployment of the media. You can download an album in a few seconds while it can take nearly an hour to drive to the store, hunt down the album (if they even have it), buy it, then head back home. It can even take days or weeks if you buy the album from an online site such as Amazon.

Most of the Free as in Freedom NOT as in beer software you can buy you can usually download, give them your credit card info and in a few minutes you are good to go.

Perhaps if things like music, movies and software were eaiser to buy then finding a steady torrent piracy would go away.

forrestcupp
April 25th, 2007, 08:55 PM
I don't think it carries over. When I 'send' you a file, I'm not losing anything, there is no 'deal' taking place. The record industry doesn't want to accept that music is not a product - and now that digital music is so popular, it's even LESS of a product. They are not losing out in either a physical or a monetary sense, because:
a) Their 'stock' of the music is not affected by me making a copy of it.
b) They assume people would have bought the music anyway.

Point b is pretty questionable - you could well argue that since they wouldn't have bought it, they shouldn't get to acquire it, but the fact of the matter is that they will acquire it, and there's nothing you or anyone can do to stop them. When it comes down to it, digital media is not a product, it is information, and information is replicatable and non-tangible.

The question isn't whether people are going to do it, or whether you can stop it. The question is whether or not it's moral that it is going on. The answer is no. There are copyright infringement laws, and until those are changed, it is not moral to do it. Yes, it is going to continue, but that doesn't make it right.

A recording is actually a product, no matter what form it is. Live music is not a product. That is why it's ok to play a copyrighted song live, but as soon as it is recorded, or even if the lyrics are printed and distributed, by law that is a copyright infringement unless you get a license to do it (don't argue this as I have experience in this matter, at least in the US). A band/singer pays a lot of money to record an album. Someone has to pay to rent the recording studio, get a producer, a sound engineer, mastering, etc. The way they recoup their investment and make a living is by record sales. If the only way they made their money back was by touring, they wouldn't record in the first place. I guarantee that there are people who would buy more cd's if the songs weren't available digitally for free.

Now DRM is a different story. That's a load of horse hockey. Telling me I can't legally purchase digital media because I use Linux is ridiculous. iTunes is headed the right direction. If only they would make a Linux version of their software.

zubrug
April 25th, 2007, 08:59 PM
I believe that it is a reasonable social revolution of sort's, it comes down to the cost of music/app's/movies etc.
In ontario there seem's to be a thresh hold on the price of ciggerettes (I am not a tobacco smoker) , when ever the government up's the price beyond it the black market kicks in to share the proffiteering.
I recall when I first arrived in North America in the early eighties, the vendor's on almost every street in New York selling bootlegged music and movies. (on tape or vhs)
Microsoft has acknowledged this with there $3 windows for Asia.
As far as the musicians are concerned, there are now incredible oportunities to market themselves as has been done on You-tube etc.
It is even happening in the pharmaceutical industry with countries creating law's that allow them to break patent's in order to lower the drug cost's.

aysiu
April 25th, 2007, 09:13 PM
Well, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I sort of feel that every opinion expressed in this thread so far is a little bit right.

These all seem to be statements I can agree with:

1. Music companies don't really lose money when a "product" is "stolen." It is replicable an infinite number of times without any additional production cost. In fact, the only costs would be file hosting, bandwidth consumption, and space for the download--all of which are incurred by the "customers," not the originally supplying company.

2. We do need to make distinctions between what is going to happen, what is currently happening, what is ethical, and what is legal. A lot of times people don't make distinctions, and they should, even if they're saying what is legal is unethical or what is happening is illegal but ethical.

3. Even if illegal downloads are, in fact, illegal... even if they are, in fact, unethical--they are a fact of life, and they cannot be stopped by the music companies unless they just stop selling music... or go back to tapes and records only. That doesn't necessarily mean that those who believe those downloads are unethical need to participate in or encourage participation in the activity, but it does mean the music industry needs to consider different viable business models instead of holding on to the old ways of doing things... which obviously isn't working in
our current technological climate.

4. Music companies may be greedy, but they still did something. Maybe they shouldn't get the proportion of money they do get (as opposed to what the artist gets), but the artist is big not just because of talent but also marketing, distribution, recording quality, etc. Music companies deserve something... maybe just not as much as they currently get.

The way I see it going... or at least hope it's going... is having more sites like Jamendo and Magnatunes, but with a wider range of genres (not just electronica/trance and French music). Distribution costs are kept to a minimum, marketing is mainly done through user ratings, and downloads are either extremely cheap or free. And if people really like an artist enough, it's far more likely they'll actually show up to that artist's concerts or buy that artist's merchandise.

G Morgan
April 25th, 2007, 09:31 PM
The question isn't whether people are going to do it, or whether you can stop it. The question is whether or not it's moral that it is going on. The answer is no. There are copyright infringement laws, and until those are changed, it is not moral to do it. Yes, it is going to continue, but that doesn't make it right.

The law has nothing to do with morality. Law is generally established by those with the richest lobby group.

Hex_Mandos
April 25th, 2007, 09:34 PM
Most of the Free as in Freedom NOT as in beer software you can buy you can usually download, give them your credit card info and in a few minutes you are good to go.


I think you're a bit mistaken. If I can find a copy of a Free as in Freedom software package, I don't need to give anyone my credit card number. Free as in Freedom ends up being Free as in Free Beer most of the time.

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 09:54 PM
The question isn't whether people are going to do it, or whether you can stop it. The question is whether or not it's moral that it is going on. The answer is no. There are copyright infringement laws, and until those are changed, it is not moral to do it. Yes, it is going to continue, but that doesn't make it right.
But that's the point. I would argue that it is not immoral. Whether that's the same thing as BEING moral is a different matter - but I infer from your reasoning that you take the position that if something is illegal, it is immoral. I don't believe that at all. In fact, I strongly oppose that kind of thinking. Laws are, and always have been, created by whoever has the most power and the most money - very rarely are they created through popular opinion. Is growing marijuana, for example, immoral? I don't think so. It's your body, do whatever you like with it. Is stealing to support your family immoral? Not if it's your only option. Is killing someone to defend your own life immoral? Again, not if you have no option. They're all illegal though. Morality is subjective, and is defined 'in-context', as it were. In some nations, it is illegal for women to show their faces in public. I would say that that is immoral, but the popular concensus in that nation may be the opposite. You can't just take your morality from the laws of your nation - you have to question everything. Why is music piracy immoral? Not because it's illegal, but because it's theft. Theft is not alway immoral. I don't pirate, because I don't think the situation is currently bad enough to warrant me taking music for free - but if the music industry keeps going the way it's going, then that may change. Laws are only whatever you interpret them as, please don't just accept them at face-value. That is the road to tyranny, my friend.



A recording is actually a product, no matter what form it is. Live music is not a product. That is why it's ok to play a copyrighted song live, but as soon as it is recorded, or even if the lyrics are printed and distributed, by law that is a copyright infringement unless you get a license to do it (don't argue this as I have experience in this matter, at least in the US). A band/singer pays a lot of money to record an album. Someone has to pay to rent the recording studio, get a producer, a sound engineer, mastering, etc. The way they recoup their investment and make a living is by record sales. If the only way they made their money back was by touring, they wouldn't record in the first place. I guarantee that there are people who would buy more cd's if the songs weren't available digitally for free.
A recording is not a product, it is information. A product is something you can hold. Music is a combination of sounds which please you (or not, which is why we all have different tastes). A recording is information, because without some method of interpreting it, it is useless. A spoon is a product, because it has utility in it's own right. A digital recording has no utility - if it is unlabelled, it is not obvious what it is, what it does, or that it even exists. It is possible to alter the interpretation of a digital recording to achieve completely different output.

Let's say there are two songs, A and B. Both are recorded into a digital format. The only way of knowing which is which is listening to them through a media player which recognises the format the songs are encoded in, and interprets them correctly. There is nothing stopping me from writing a different decoder which produces an image, from the information stored in the digital recording. I have not changed the information, only the interpretation of that information. Does that mean then, that the licence holder of the song has rights over this image? I could theoretically decode the information in song A so that it sounds exactly the same as the 'properly' decoded song B. You can see the conflict here - to hold rights over a digital recording, you have to hold the rights to every possible interpretation of that recording. If we accept the 'recording as product', then a licence holder needs to hold all licences for any interpretation of that recording - which is an impossibility because I can interpret the information in any way I please. The ONLY way to stop this, is DRM, which specifices how you can decode that information. As most of us would agree - this is not acceptable. The only acceptable solution for us as consumers is to reject DRM and 'information as product', and, frankly, embrace piracy. Information is not a product, because the interpretation of that information is ambiguous. A real object can only be interpreted one way - the form in which it is in. A digital product can be represented in a million different ways - thus, it is information - just like the information you hold within your own brain. Music is not a product, it is information. A recording is information. The media on which the information is held is the product. Recording is the act of applying information to a media, which is a service, and the act of providing you with a means to enjoy the recording is also a service. The only product the music industry produces is the CD on which the information is encoded. A digital recording is nothing but information, and it is theoretically possible to hold two completely different binary files and interpret each of them in such a way that they produce identical representations. If you're going to allow someone to control how you interpret something, then I would say you're pretty much a lost cause.

super breadfish
April 25th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Imagine you are a craftsman and spent many months making a piece of beautiful furniture. Now, if someone came and took that furniture, sold it, and gave you hardly any of the profit, you would not find that fair, having spent all that time making it to loose most of the profits to someone who has done nothing.

Now, apply this to music, Artists spend a lot of time writing and playing songs, yet the "music industry" who does nothing but slap the songs on a CD gets most of the money. Is that fair? No. They don't even need the hassle of a CD presing now, it just takes a dash of DRM and an online store.

disturbed1
April 25th, 2007, 10:08 PM
Now, apply this to music, Artists spend a lot of time writing and playing songs, yet the "music industry" who does nothing but slap the songs on a CD gets most of the money. Is that fair? No. They don't even need the hassle of a CD presing now, it just takes a dash of DRM and an online store.

It's the artist's choice to sign the contract and to conform to the Industry.

There is no law, nor anything stopping any artist from finding their own means of promotion and marketing.

kevinlyfellow
April 25th, 2007, 10:21 PM
The question isn't whether people are going to do it, or whether you can stop it. The question is whether or not it's moral that it is going on. The answer is no. There are copyright infringement laws, and until those are changed, it is not moral to do it. Yes, it is going to continue, but that doesn't make it right.


If you violate the law, you are not necessarily acting immoral. Henry David Thoreau found himself in jail for not paying his taxes, but did he do something immoral? What about the Kosher Meat Boycott of 1902 where Jewish women took meat from butchers and poured gasoline on it and burned it? Violation of law does not mean immoral behaviour. There are plenty of good arguments for and against the morality of copyright violation, but citing law is not a good argument.

Luggy
April 25th, 2007, 10:24 PM
I think you're a bit mistaken. If I can find a copy of a Free as in Freedom software package, I don't need to give anyone my credit card number. Free as in Freedom ends up being Free as in Free Beer most of the time.

No, I was right on the mark. Programs like Cedega are Free as in Freedom in that you get the source code, however you have to pay for them, thus making them NOT Free as in Beer.

Open Source != Free Software, even though the same term is used to describe them.

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 10:34 PM
No, I was right on the mark. Programs like Cedega are Free as in Freedom in that you get the source code, however you have to pay for them, thus making them NOT Free as in Beer.

Open Source != Free Software, even though the same term is used to describe them.

But you don't have to pay for Cedega - you can compile it yourself. You only have to pay for the binary, compiled version. You're right that open source != free software (in either sense of the term), but it is uncommon to find open source software which is not free (in both senses).

mips
April 25th, 2007, 10:37 PM
Piracy or copyright infringement is wrong, PERIOD. I buy my music on cd and enjoy it.

super breadfish
April 25th, 2007, 10:38 PM
It's the artist's choice to sign the contract and to conform to the Industry.

There is no law, nor anything stopping any artist from finding their own means of promotion and marketing.

Yes, but lets face it - going it alone is an uphill struggle, a struggle a lot of artists can't cope with on top of everything else.

Luggy
April 25th, 2007, 10:39 PM
But you don't have to pay for Cedega - you can compile it yourself. You only have to pay for the binary, compiled version. You're right that open source != free software (in either sense of the term), but it is uncommon to find open source software which is not free (in both senses).

... so I didn't have to pay for Cedega?
I HAVE BEEN BAMBOOZLED!

Luggy
April 25th, 2007, 10:40 PM
Yes, but lets face it - going it alone is an uphill struggle, a struggle a lot of artists can't cope with on top of everything else.

**** Dale says otherwise!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AJxc3Lxn4o

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 10:46 PM
Piracy or copyright infringement is wrong, PERIOD. I buy my music on cd and enjoy it.

But why do you believe it's wrong? Do you not think that the way the music industry treats artists is wrong, or the way it goes about 'recouping its investment' is wrong?

Hex_Mandos
April 25th, 2007, 10:54 PM
No, I was right on the mark. Programs like Cedega are Free as in Freedom in that you get the source code, however you have to pay for them, thus making them NOT Free as in Beer.

Open Source != Free Software, even though the same term is used to describe them.

No. For software to be free, users must be free to use it for any purpose and free to redistribute it. So you may try to sell Free software in physical media, but doing it over the internet is pointless. Cedega IS effectively free as in free beer if it's licensed under a FSF-approved license. Even if it's not originally distributed for free, you can get it from someone else (including p2p networks)

mips
April 25th, 2007, 10:57 PM
But why do you believe it's wrong? Do you not think that the way the music industry treats artists is wrong, or the way it goes about 'recouping its investment' is wrong?

That is irrelevant to the argument.

Yes I believe artist are being screwed but that is no justification for me to infringe on their rights. If I copy a CD of the net or from anywhere else the artists stills looses what is due to him/her.

The music/movie industry needs a shakeup or 180 degree turn. With the current situation I can forsee things changing for the better. DRM does not work, it only screws the legal guy.

soulfly7x
April 25th, 2007, 11:11 PM
If an artist wants to make their music available for free, then they will do so. Aside from those who make their music available for free, acquiring it for free is just theft.

Ubuntu lets me use their OS for free. Microsoft does not, so pirating a copy is theft. The logic remains consistent. It is up to the creator to decide the terms of distribution, not you.

Tomosaur
April 25th, 2007, 11:13 PM
That is irrelevant to the argument.

Yes I believe artist are being screwed but that is no justification for me to infringe on their rights. If I copy a CD of the net or from anywhere else the artists stills looses what is due to him/her.

The music/movie industry needs a shakeup or 180 degree turn. With the current situation I can forsee things changing for the better. DRM does not work, it only screws the legal guy.

I don't think it's irrelevant to the argument - because the argument itself is based on this whole idea. If you copy a CD, nobody is losing anything. Nothing is lost - in fact, something is created which wasn't there before. Nobody loses a physical copy of that recording. Who's to say you would otherwise have bought it? The artists haven't lost anything, they just haven't gained. It's a different thing altogether, and one which I think is pretty important to understanding the whole concept. You are not taking anything away, you are just not giving what you are 'legally obliged' to. Is the artist losing out? I don't think so. You may not ever have bought the album anyway - perhaps the only reason you downloaded it was because it was available for free. In a sense, you're helping them out. You may like the album and decide to buy their next one.

Kvark
April 25th, 2007, 11:17 PM
More objection. Before encountering open source I completely ignored copyright, patents and licence agreements on copyrighted stuff. I just downloaded it and clicked next without reading the licence like everyone else does. The GPL was the first EULA I felt any respect for. After respecting the GPL I started to respect all EULAs but also respectfully disagree with many of them. Now I feel that it is wrong to use copyrighted stuff with non-free licences regardless of if you pay or pirate because using it supports those who push unfair deals onto their customers. I can't agree to their deal so I don't want to use their software.

When it comes to recorded music my idea of a fair deal would be that I first listen to music without paying. Doesn't matter how, could be on webradio, from friends sending songs they like or by downloading music I'm curious on. When I after listening to the music find an artist I like that is when I want to pay to reward that artist. I would also like to go to a concert if they ever have one in my city. But I would also want to share their songs with my friends so they too can discover the great music.

So first they call me a pirate because I'm curious on their music and download it. Then if I like it I reward the artist by paying for it. Then they call me a pirate again for sending it to my friends and maybe gaining more fans for the artist. But not anymore because if anyone thinks listening to music I'm curious on or sharing music I like with my friends is morally wrong then I don't want their music.

PS. I have no problem at all with others thinking those deals are acceptable. My opinions only apply to my personal choices. If someone else uses even the most DRM'd alternative out there but is happy with it thats great.

juxtaposed
April 25th, 2007, 11:52 PM
steal music for no other reason than they are too cheap to pay for the music they like.

Piracy is copyright infringement. Stealing is taking something from someone, thus they no longer have it. Digital piracy isn't like that, it's copying it.


By the treadstarter's logic, I should be able to go to K-mart and steal a PS3

No, but by the logic you don't like, someone should be able to take a magic ray and copy someone elses PS3 if they (the owner of it, not sony) give them permission.


Copyrighted music is intended to be purchased so the creators can pay their bills.

Or for some fat record executive to buy more cocaine and rum, while mass marketing the same pop music to people who will buy it.


I as a fan would rather support the band than the suit in his desk that doesent know or care about music, just the 100$ bills lining his fat pockets.

As would most people :)


and if they didn't charge obscene prices, perhaps more people would be willing to pay up.

I'm sure people would buy more albums if prices wern't so horrible.


That's about like me deciding to give your house away.

You giving someones house away takes it away from the original owner. Someone copying an album from someone elses computer over the internet doesn't take it away from anyone.


The answer is no. There are copyright infringement laws, and until those are changed, it is not moral to do it.

Don't confuse the law with morality. If it's against the law that means that it is against the law, and it has very little to do with if it is moral or not.

Fidelio
April 26th, 2007, 12:38 AM
I am fundamentally opposed to the piracy of any intellectual property.

But I do it all the time. It's just too tempting. And I am weak.

forrestcupp
April 26th, 2007, 01:57 AM
Ok guys, I agree that some laws infringe on morality. I also will submit to the fact that morality is subject to what you believe.

But you didn't really have anything to say about the fact that someone pays an extremely large amount of money to make those recordings with the intention of selling their creation to pay back their investment and to make a living. If people can't make a living making music, then they will do it in their spare time after work. They will have to pay for their recording out of their pockets after paying the bills. Then the quality of music will plummet because of lack of time energy, and funds. And if everyone gets their music for free, why would they then pay for the same music?

It makes more sense to me to pay 99 cents for a song that I can listen to from now on than for a professional basketball player to make millions of dollars.

But once again, DRM is evil.

Phatfiddler
April 26th, 2007, 02:17 AM
If it makes any difference, switching to Linux and BSD has taught me about hard work. You really get a sense of right and wrong when it comes to distribution policies when you experiment with several different licenses.

I chose "More Objection".

I have since removed the 6,000 illegal mp3 files from my PC, and buy albums in the store, since it provides more profit to the actual musicians that way. They make much less when you buy a digital copy online.

But don't get me wrong. I fully support sharing - as long as it is the sharing of legitimate files. I fully support file sharing software such as Bittorent, Limewire etc, since it is the users' responsibility to decide their own actions.

justin whitaker
April 26th, 2007, 02:58 AM
I am fundamentally opposed to the piracy of any intellectual property.

But I do it all the time. It's just too tempting. And I am weak.

QFT! :)

I think that sums up many people's stance on copyright infringement.

Tomosaur
April 26th, 2007, 10:30 AM
Ok guys, I agree that some laws infringe on morality. I also will submit to the fact that morality is subject to what you believe.

But you didn't really have anything to say about the fact that someone pays an extremely large amount of money to make those recordings with the intention of selling their creation to pay back their investment and to make a living. If people can't make a living making music, then they will do it in their spare time after work. They will have to pay for their recording out of their pockets after paying the bills. Then the quality of music will plummet because of lack of time energy, and funds. And if everyone gets their music for free, why would they then pay for the same music?

It makes more sense to me to pay 99 cents for a song that I can listen to from now on than for a professional basketball player to make millions of dollars.

But once again, DRM is evil.

They already pay out of their pockets. The record company gives the artist the money to do what they need to do - but the artist has to pay it back. Most artists will end up in severe debt to their record label, and since the profit they make off record sales is abysmal, this money is recouped through other means - live performances, merchandise etc. This stuff doesn't go through the record company, it goes through the manager and the artist, thus the money is divided amongst the artist(s) first and foremost, then they have to pay roadies and such. Regardless, the money they make off live performances and merchandise, going on TV shows etc, is a lot better than the pittance they make from selling records. You have to be absolutely huge and popular to make big bucks, and even then you probably won't be making the money you thought you would. The RIAA are pretty much just lying when they claim how piracy damages artists. It doesn't, because it makes them more popular and thus more popularity = more live shows, more fans buying merchandise etc etc. Yes, the record industry doesn't make money from piracy, but it doesn't lose money either. It just takes them longer to recoup their investment - and the only way they will ever be able to combat it is to make buying music a better choice than just downloading it for free. Are you happy paying 15 for an album when you know you can get exactly the same stuff for free? I know I'm not. I don't pirate because I believe in supporting the artist, even though I know they will never see most of the money I spend. I can, however, help them gain popularity, and I know that more record sales means that the record company will want to push them more.

If the record industry wants to stop piracy, they need to make it a fair deal for those of us who want to actually pay for music - this means getting rid of DRM and restrictive licences, and giving us more bang for our buck.

forrestcupp
April 26th, 2007, 02:06 PM
Regardless, the money they make off live performances and merchandise, going on TV shows etc, is a lot better than the pittance they make from selling records. You have to be absolutely huge and popular to make big bucks, and even then you probably won't be making the money you thought you would. The RIAA are pretty much just lying when they claim how piracy damages artists. It doesn't, because it makes them more popular and thus more popularity = more live shows, more fans buying merchandise etc etc.

That's true, but for instance, my cousin was in a band. This band was very popular in some venues, they played around the world. But they were not very popular overall. The band retired a couple of years ago and are not playing live shows or recording anymore. But they still receive royalty money for past CD's and digital media that people are still buying. So making them popular to boost their live performances doesn't apply here. But he still gets money from people buying his music. It's like how someone works his life away in a factory, and when he retires, he deserves some kind of pension for all of the work he put in.


If the record industry wants to stop piracy, they need to make it a fair deal for those of us who want to actually pay for music - this means getting rid of DRM and restrictive licences, and giving us more bang for our buck.

This statement is exactly right. I am willing to pay for my music. But since you can't do DRM in Linux there's not any option of legally getting mainstream music. I know about Magnatune, etc., but give me a break. They don't have the music I want. DRM is what originally drove me to Linux a couple of years ago. DRM is the one thing that tempts me to go the other route despite my personal moral objections. If we could at least get iTunes for Linux, it would be a step in the right direction.

Tomosaur
April 26th, 2007, 02:14 PM
T
This statement is exactly right. I am willing to pay for my music. But since you can't do DRM in Linux there's not any option of legally getting mainstream music. I know about Magnatune, etc., but give me a break. They don't have the music I want. DRM is what originally drove me to Linux a couple of years ago. DRM is the one thing that tempts me to go the other route despite my personal moral objections. If we could at least get iTunes for Linux, it would be a step in the right direction.

Agreed. I'm against DRM totally, but we surely deserve some legal way of buying music digitally in the first place. I like using sites like Jamendo and Last.fm, and although yes, it's possible to buy some music, it's nowhere near as extensive as stuff like iTunes. I don't, however, own an iPod, so iTunes isn't really an option for me.

You're right about royalties too, but it seems to me like the people who kick up a fuss aren't the artists themselves. If they own the rights themselves, which many do, then they can continue to redistribute and perhaps make a profit long after they quit the band.

juxtaposed
April 27th, 2007, 12:43 AM
Then the quality of music will plummet because of lack of time energy, and funds.

The quality of music is low when the record companies have more control and power. They don't care about music, all they care about is how much money their latest pop star can make for them.


And if everyone gets their music for free, why would they then pay for the same music?

An album is information, a live show is an experience. You can't put an experience on bittorrent; you can do your best to put the experience into information (taping it), but it certainly isn't the same.

The Grateful Dead survived 30 years by playing live shows for (as far as I know, most of the time) good prices. The quality of the music was amazing, better then whoever the newest pop star with some hit single is.


But once again, DRM is evil.

The record company thinks that making the thing they are selling, worse and restrictive, will make more people buy it. Naive...

imdidactic
May 3rd, 2007, 07:52 AM
I think that withing the next ten years most music recordings will be free and artist will make their money solely on the road (with the way the record companies rape them, this is the only way they make money now, anyway).

maniacmusician
May 3rd, 2007, 08:29 AM
I pirate stuff based on principles. As far as music goes, my criteria for music piracy is where the money from CD sales would go if I were to buy the CD. So, normally, I would pirate music if:

- The artist(s) are already deceased
- Has "disbanded" for a period longer than 10 years
If I download anything outside those guidelines, it's usually just to see how it is. If the music is from an up and coming artist that I really like, I'll go out and buy the CD. So basically, I have a list of artists whose CD's I've downloaded and now want to buy in support of their music. I tend to give preference to new and amateur bands, since they have less money. So if I download say, an REM cd or a RHCP CD, I'll wait longer to buy it because it's more important for me to support the artists that really need the money from CD sales.

So like I said, it's based on principle. As an amateur musician myself, these are the views that I have. I think that even though they don't follow the written, legal law, they're very fair guidelines.

As for other stuff like movies, I don't really care much. I sometimes download movies just to see how they are, but they usually get deleted within a couple of days. I'm not much of a movie person. I don't really pirate any applications or software. I like reading some of the more technical e-books that you see online, some of those are fun.

nphx
May 3rd, 2007, 08:46 AM
If music were open source type & DRM/license free we would have better music & musicians in general. We wouldn't have all these zero talent pop stars shoved down our throats. Todays mainstream music is like 95 % hype and 5% actual music, made in studios by others besides the accredited artist.

Soarer
May 3rd, 2007, 10:11 AM
Copyright (and patents) are a convenient legal fiction. Consider the following two scenarios:

I have recently bought a Nick Drake SACD (on eBay, second-hand). Tonight a friend is coming over, and I will probably share with him my new SACD by playing it on my music player. I infringe no law.

However, I live in the UK and my family lives in Australia (that's the other side of the world for those geographically challenged). I can't legally share it with my brother in Perth, only because he is not in the same room as me. So, apparently, geography makes me a criminal.

Consider also if all the US oil companies get together and decide that gas should cost $100 a gallon at the gas station. Is that legal? Clearly not (anti-trust). If one oil company buys all the others, is it then legal for them to charge $100 a gallon? No, they are 'abusing their monopoly position'.

But that is what copyright (and patents) are - a legal monopoly. Society grants that monopoly, which is an exceptional move as for any other product or service it would be illegal, in return for certain benefits, for example the increased likelihood that the work will be exploited and made available.

I think the problem at the moment is that the creator gets too many benefits from this arrangement (and some want more) and society too little. The balance is wrong and creators (mainly, actually, copyright exploiters who did not themselves create the original) are abusing their monopoly position by charging too high a price for an inferior product.

I would happily pay say 5 ($10) for a high quality recording of a good artist, but not 13 ($26) for an inferior quality DRM-infested CD or a lossy digital copy when I can't hear it first to decide if I even want it.

Of course this doesn't answer the question of whether piracy is immoral, but it does to me show the current system is broken, and needs fixing.

G Morgan
May 3rd, 2007, 11:55 AM
I think that withing the next ten years most music recordings will be free and artist will make their money solely on the road (with the way the record companies rape them, this is the only way they make money now, anyway).

Not sure about that. I've always felt they need to move to online distribution and I don't mean iTunes. What they need is their own store front into which they can plug their own servers or pay for hosting. The front would make money from advertising, the artists get near pure profit on their songs.

They can still tour and would likely lower the prices for the benefits of increased exposure.

aysiu
May 3rd, 2007, 03:14 PM
Not sure about that. I've always felt they need to move to online distribution and I don't mean iTunes. What they need is their own store front into which they can plug their own servers or pay for hosting. The front would make money from advertising, the artists get near pure profit on their songs.

They can still tour and would likely lower the prices for the benefits of increased exposure.
Sounds a little like Magnatune (except Magatune doesn't have advertisements):
http://magnatune.com/info/whynotevil

saulgoode
May 3rd, 2007, 04:30 PM
I think that withing the next ten years most music recordings will be free and artist will make their money solely on the road (with the way the record companies rape them, this is the only way they make money now, anyway).

The analyses that I have seen suggest that bands only receive about 4-6% of what consumers pay for recordings. Bands might indeed be better served to market it themselves or even release their music for free (or at least not permit jack-booted thugs terrorize their fans with sinister enforcement of copyrights).

Personally, I very much obey the wishes of record companies that I not share their offerings; nor do I purchase them. For the last several years, with few exceptions, I have only bought CDs directly from band's websites or at their concerts or music festivals. The exceptions are bands such as the Grateful Dead who are friendly to the concept of exchanging music.

forrestcupp
May 3rd, 2007, 10:43 PM
The analyses that I have seen suggest that bands only receive about 4-6% of what consumers pay for recordings. Bands might indeed be better served to market it themselves or even release their music for free (or at least not permit jack-booted thugs terrorize their fans with sinister enforcement of copyrights).

Personally, I very much obey the wishes of record companies that I not share their offerings; nor do I purchase them. For the last several years, with few exceptions, I have only bought CDs directly from band's websites or at their concerts or music festivals. The exceptions are bands such as the Grateful Dead who are friendly to the concept of exchanging music.

Bands receive 4-6% of what we pay. If we pay nothing the band receives nothing. That's not really right either. Buying CDs from the band's website is a good idea. I wonder if they really get a bigger cut that way, though.