PDA

View Full Version : Study finds kids justify illegal downloads



Sporkman
August 13th, 2007, 03:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070813/tc_nm/media_piracy_dc_1



Study finds kids justify illegal downloads

Sun Aug 12, 11:47 PM ET

BRUSSELS (Hollywood Reporter) - Children in Europe are aware of the risks of illegal downloading, but often rationalize their act by saying that everyone -- including their parents -- is doing it, according to a major European Commission survey.

Other excuses included: the download is for personal and private purposes; the Web sites presumably remunerate the artists; claims of harm inflicted on artists lack credibility; and DVDs and CDs are simply too expensive.

Almost all of the children surveyed in the 27 European Union member countries as well as in Norway and Iceland said they expect to continue downloading. They also said the risk of downloading a virus was far more dissuasive than the risk of legal proceedings.

The survey results, released Friday, found that most kids use the Internet several times a day and, while Internet use is to some extent limited by parents, most own their own mobile phones, the use of which is largely unsupervised.

The survey also found that children are much more attuned to such potential online risks as security, viruses, identity theft and potential dangerous contact with strangers than parents imagine, and tend to know about the necessary precautions.

juxtaposed
August 13th, 2007, 04:07 PM
To justify it would assume that someone first thinks it is wrong then decides it isn't.

I havn't been presented a rational argument on why people should be able to retain control of something after you sell it to someone (copyright), so i'll keep downloading stuff until someone presents a rational argument for that.

dasunst3r
August 13th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Add this to their list of reasons: Legally-purchased tracks are crippled, whereas illegally-downloaded tracks are not. Anybody in the right state of mind would not pay for something defective when they can get something of better quality for free. Mind you, I download my music off iTunes only because it's just that I pay for something I get, but it's saddening that I have to break the law in order for me to enjoy this content on other devices that I own.

init1
August 13th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Of course kids will continue to do this. If there is no enforcement, they will find no reason to stop.

init1
August 13th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Add this to their list of reasons: Legally-purchased tracks are crippled, whereas illegally-downloaded tracks are not. Anybody in the right state of mind would not pay for something defective when they can get something of better quality for free. Mind you, I download my music off iTunes only because it's just that I pay for something I get, but it's saddening that I have to break the law in order for me to enjoy this content on other devices that I own. Reminds me of Windows and Linux :D

a12ctic
August 13th, 2007, 04:36 PM
I don't see why most people would consider buying a cd unless directly from the artist. Here are some main points.

+DRM and other crapware will cripple your music and leave dirty "rootkits" on your computer.
+CDs cost next to nothing to produce.
+Maisntream record labels rob musicians blind. Even if you do buy the cd the artist sees next to nothing of this profitt.
+With the very low creativity level used in todays popular genres (gangster rap, pop, hip hop, whatever) very few of these cds took a lot time to produce.

If you really want to support a band/singer you like, go see them live, and buy some merch from them personally, it'll mean a lot more to them than buying a cd would.

tigerpants
August 13th, 2007, 04:42 PM
Hear hear, don't feel sorry for record companies. Bunch of thieves. Sooner record companies die the better. Artists can then sell direct to the consumer via the internet without being shafted by execs.

Keep it illegal, I say.

Ebuntor
August 13th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Children in Europe are aware of the risks of illegal downloading

What risks are they referring to? Risks as in being caught? Downloading movies and music (not software) is legal in the EU. It falls under the "personal copy" law. Only sharing is illegal.

PetePete
August 13th, 2007, 05:07 PM
children <16 normally dont have a job (or if they do its very low pay) so to afford CDs they must use their parents money, which often comes in the form of pocket money. maybe things have changed these days but would have prob taken me 2-3 weeks to buy an album with the amount i was given!

with the ever changing popularity contest of the pop charts an 'artist' at #1 could be #50 by 3 weeks time.

maybe also relates to the culture of wanting everything and paying later (or in this case no paying)

When i was younger (now 21) I downloaded music, why, ... because I couldn't afford to buy it and wanted to listen to the music on the radio/friends were listening to.

Anthem
August 13th, 2007, 05:36 PM
In other breaking scientific news: water is still wet, the pope still wears a funny hat, and grizzlies still cr*p in the woods.

Still no cure for cancer.

FuturePilot
August 13th, 2007, 05:56 PM
They also said the risk of downloading a virus was far more dissuasive than the risk of legal proceedings.

What's a virus?:lol:

blithen
August 13th, 2007, 06:07 PM
Reminds me of Windows and Linux :D

Yes! that's exactly right. But still people don't switch :/

Daishiman
August 13th, 2007, 06:38 PM
When I was in high school I bought only one CD and was given another one as a gift. During that time I downloaded thousands of tracks. When I got a real job and disposable income I started collecting LPs out of historical importance and out of spite for the record companies. Now I'm back to buying CDs but only from independent labels, and I actually go the artists's gigs. I'd much rather pay for stuff that actually supports the artists.

As far as those downloaded tracks? Not the least bit of guilt. I feel more guilty passing up the opportunity to buy great LPs at good prices.

Freddy
August 13th, 2007, 06:41 PM
What risks are they referring to? Risks as in being caught? Downloading movies and music (not software) is legal in the EU. It falls under the "personal copy" law. Only sharing is illegal.
You should read up on the law, European union made a directive a a bunch of years ago, that all it's members should more or less implement the same law. My country (Sweden) was pretty late with the implementation of the European copyright law, but here it's against the law to upload and download all copyrighted material, it's even against the law to bypass or crack a copy protection for personal backups.

Maybe your country had refused to sign this law but in most of Europe, it's against the law to share copyrighted material in both directions.

/Freddy

hessiess
August 13th, 2007, 06:54 PM
i dont download music, it has normaly been compresed with some form of lossy comprsion, witch makes cd,s higher qualaty sound

kellemes
August 13th, 2007, 07:03 PM
What risks are they referring to? Risks as in being caught? Downloading movies and music (not software) is legal in the EU. It falls under the "personal copy" law. Only sharing is illegal.

Downloading illegal copies of movies/music for personal use legal?
Don't think so..
You got it mixed up with creating a copy of a movie/album you bought for personal use.
Although even in this case the legality is not clear I believe.

23meg
August 13th, 2007, 07:09 PM
Everyone posting to this thread should watch the "Christian Rock Hard" episode of South Park.

dannyboy79
August 13th, 2007, 07:25 PM
i can't believe some of you people's thinking process. What if you coded for a living and decided you wanted to make money on it, then all of a sudden your program was being "shared" over the internet with a crack to it so it could be used at their disposal without purchasing a license. How would that make you feel? How would that impact your income for that software title? I mean come on guys, you can come up with all the excuses you want, that still doesn't make it legal, it's illegal and it's costing people lots of money regardless of whether you think the Huge Record labels are ripping off the artists to begin with, so you're going to rip them off as well???? I just can't believe the youth today. What has happened to children growing up where they believe everything is theirs for the taking????




PS thepiratebay is the bomb but I don't use it!!! wink wink wink

hardyn
August 13th, 2007, 07:32 PM
I don't know if there are similar things going on else where in the world, but here in Canada, the government has applied an artist levy to blank record able media and they are gunning for an "ipod tax" as well.

CD-Rs receive a 25c / disk levy, and the proposed ipod levy will be 15-80$, and there is no proof that the levy is being received by the artists.

is has been the opinion of several legal professionals, that due to these taxes, in Canada, we have paid for our music downloads.

PriceChild
August 13th, 2007, 07:50 PM
A lot of money from record sales is disappearing into record companies...

I loved the way Prince gave his new full album away for free in a newspaper in the UK lately. Imagine how many pence the DM paid him for each copy.... and do you think he'd do this for less money than he got from Sony or whoever for previous albums? ;)

juxtaposed
August 13th, 2007, 08:17 PM
What if you coded for a living and decided you wanted to make money on it, then all of a sudden your program was being "shared" over the internet with a crack to it so it could be used at their disposal without purchasing a license. How would that make you feel?

Honoured that someone would take the time to crack my software and share it with the world. I doubt i'd loose any money, just the people who never could afford it would be able to use it, and the people who can afford it will try it and find they like it (if they do like it) and maybe buy it.


so you're going to rip them off as well????

Piracy isn't ripping anyone off unless you sell what you download (a dollar or so to cover the cost of a blank DVD doesn't count - I mean like selling a pirated DVD for 10$ or anything with the intent of gaining money overall, not just loosing money).

tigerpants
August 13th, 2007, 08:50 PM
I think we've all arrived at a beautiful place now.

Record companies are thieves.

People will always hack and share, its human nature.

Trying to protect anything is pointless so we need to look into other ways of distributing work with suitable recompense for those that actually created the work.

There are several solutions that are viable but that would mean The Man in Hollywood and in Recording Inc, losing control. So they cry thief at filesharers.

There is no evidence that filesharing damages sales.

The whole media industry needs to change the way it interacts with consumers and distributes its wares.

This argument is circular and will continue without end until those currently enforcing their dodgy distribution methods die.

Thus endeth todays lesson.

Praise the Lord.

Darkhack
August 13th, 2007, 08:51 PM
Honoured that someone would take the time to crack my software and share it with the world. I doubt i'd loose any money, just the people who never could afford it would be able to use it, and the people who can afford it will try it and find they like it (if they do like it) and maybe buy it.

What dream world are you living in? Before I got caught with illegally downloading (yes, I was one of the few unlucky ones) I could afford most of what I downloaded with the exception of Adobe software. Even then I *could* afford it, if I charged it on a credit card and went into debt temporarily. I had no intention of ever paying. Most people who can afford a computer with internet access can afford the $1 for a song off of iTunes but many still do not purchase it. The only reason people don't steal more from Wal-Mart is because it is too easy to get caught and the punishment is too severe. If a riot were to ever break out in a city and looting began, you can bet your *** that everyone from church attending families of four, and little old grannies would participate. Remember after Hurricane Katrina how in addition to stealing food (justified) that many also stole televisions, jewelry, and other expensive items? Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of good people out there that wish to maintain order and are very fair when it comes to compensating people. A majority are not however and if they can get something for free without getting caught, then they'll do it. Especially if that something can be copied indefinitely and is not a solid object (music, text, videos, and other data) because the human mind doesn't see that as the same thing as stealing from a department store where it is something you can hold in your hand and there is only "one" of that object.


Piracy isn't ripping anyone off unless you sell what you download (a dollar or so to cover the cost of a blank DVD doesn't count - I mean like selling a pirated DVD for 10$ or anything with the intent of gaining money overall, not just loosing money).

It is ripping someone off if I download a song or movie and then not pay for it. I'm a potential customer that has stolen something instead of purchasing it. Your analogy is the equivalent of saying that stealing a car is not ripping anyone off unless you resell it or give it to a chop-shop.

jgrabham
August 13th, 2007, 08:53 PM
What's a virus?:lol:

All my mates download music from limewire - they all also complain about pop-ups, crashes and viruses : D

finer recliner
August 13th, 2007, 09:02 PM
downloading music is illegel? i guess i hadnt noticed.



meh.

DoctorMO
August 13th, 2007, 09:20 PM
*Yawn*

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dghzxrqs_8g522cb&hl=en_US

I'm sick of ignorant people spouting that copyright infringement is theft; no it isn't, not legally and not morally. If you take the car analogy, if someone had a car and made a perfect copy of it, then they gave that copy away for free, and made 10 more copies and gave all those away. I'm sure ford or nissan would be mortified that potential customers are getting cars for free.

though luck, the economy (as outlines in the above link) shows the current music, movie and book publishing industries are on a collision course with death; mainly because they've failed to solve the golden problem: how can you sell something that has an infinite supply.

family
August 13th, 2007, 09:24 PM
My mom always taught me to share EVERYTHING I have.:)
I support my fav. artists who DESERVE it. If it's crap when I download it I wont reccomend it or pay for it. If it isn't, I WILL.

EDIT: Don't use Limewire, a girl on TV got sued $261,000 for doing so.
EDIT: BitTorrent clients are safe? Go port forward and download, say, the entire DBZ collection. Take a look at your peers. All of their IPs and ports are shown, along w/ country of origin (uTorrent at least). Seems awfully easy to get caught

Sporkman
August 13th, 2007, 09:26 PM
If you take the car analogy, if someone had a car and made a perfect copy of it, then they gave that copy away for free, and made 10 more copies and gave all those away. I'm sure ford or nissan would be mortified that potential customers are getting cars for free.

But what about all the engineering & testing effort that went into designing those cars? That costs $$$.

MetalMusicAddict
August 13th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Nevermind. The kids dont care and never will.

smoker
August 13th, 2007, 09:42 PM
Study finds kids justify illegal downloads

good luck to the kids, i remember copying songs from the radio to cassette tape when i was a kid, and heard the cries of woe and scare mongering from panicked record companies threatened with bankruptcy...

reyfer
August 13th, 2007, 09:53 PM
good luck to the kids, i remember copying songs from the radio to cassette tape when i was a kid, and heard the cries of woe and scare mongering from panicked record companies threatened with bankruptcy...

Yes, I remember that too. And I also made cassette tapes to give as gifts to friends and family.... and when a friend got an album I liked and couldn't afford, I gave him a cassette tape and he would record it for me... and record companies are still here....uhmmm.....

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 10:03 PM
Doesn't matter, it's still stealing someones pay for his hard work.

There is only one thing that i hate more than bigots and that is pirates.

Don't try to discuss this subject with me either, don't try to justify your stealing, as i see it pirates are no better than the common theif, if it wasn't for you a-holes we wouldn't have DRM, WGA and other crap but still you try to pin that on others that spend their money on trying to stop your stealing rather than blaming yourselves for causing it.

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 10:07 PM
*Yawn*

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dghzxrqs_8g522cb&hl=en_US

I'm sick of ignorant people spouting that copyright infringement is theft; no it isn't, not legally and not morally. If you take the car analogy, if someone had a car and made a perfect copy of it, then they gave that copy away for free, and made 10 more copies and gave all those away. I'm sure ford or nissan would be mortified that potential customers are getting cars for free.

though luck, the economy (as outlines in the above link) shows the current music, movie and book publishing industries are on a collision course with death; mainly because they've failed to solve the golden problem: how can you sell something that has an infinite supply.

Yes it is, you are basically stealing the money they have a right to by pirating.

It's theft and if you pirate you are a thief, you can paint it in pretty colors all you like but that is what you are and that is how i'll define you.

There is plenty of free music, radio stations and more out there so trying to justify your stealing doesn't only make you a thief, it also makes you morally bankrupt and an a-hole.

smoker
August 13th, 2007, 10:08 PM
Don't try to discuss this subject with me either,

don't worry, i won't!

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 10:25 PM
don't worry, i won't!

Good for you because it's not a discussion you can possibly win.

Depressed Man
August 13th, 2007, 10:25 PM
What dream world are you living in? Before I got caught with illegally downloading (yes, I was one of the few unlucky ones) I could afford most of what I downloaded with the exception of Adobe software. Even then I *could* afford it, if I charged it on a credit card and went into debt temporarily. I had no intention of ever paying. Most people who can afford a computer with internet access can afford the $1 for a song off of iTunes but many still do not purchase it. The only reason people don't steal more from Wal-Mart is because it is too easy to get caught and the punishment is too severe. If a riot were to ever break out in a city and looting began, you can bet your *** that everyone from church attending families of four, and little old grannies would participate. Remember after Hurricane Katrina how in addition to stealing food (justified) that many also stole televisions, jewelry, and other expensive items? Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of good people out there that wish to maintain order and are very fair when it comes to compensating people. A majority are not however and if they can get something for free without getting caught, then they'll do it. Especially if that something can be copied indefinitely and is not a solid object (music, text, videos, and other data) because the human mind doesn't see that as the same thing as stealing from a department store where it is something you can hold in your hand and there is only "one" of that object.



It is ripping someone off if I download a song or movie and then not pay for it. I'm a potential customer that has stolen something instead of purchasing it. Your analogy is the equivalent of saying that stealing a car is not ripping anyone off unless you resell it or give it to a chop-shop.

Not a dream world. Different idealogies. Like my dad says, we have 5 fingers on a hand. Each one acts and thinks differently. (Surpisingly my dad has alot of insight into human behavior despite not getting any formal psychological training like I am.. though I likely want to become a psychologist because of his influence on me).

Frankly I believe any music, knowledge, technology, medicine, any research scientists are doing, etc.. should all be public domain. So everyone can benefit. Though there are others that think it should remain private so people can make money off of it. With the arguement that "it gives them money so they can work on the next thing". Of course this means that some people may not get it (because of the cost).

But like I said, different idealogies and beliefs.

For example if I were to code anything I let it go back to the community. Though frankly I'm not that good of a coder, but all the other things such as my photography and what not. I let people do whatever they want with them. I don't even bother watermarking it.

Now my sister will watermark all her art she draws and will ask people to remove it.

It sucks that you got caught with what the businesses see as illegal (and sadly they have the money to "persuade" the government to side with them.. at least in the US of A).

However, whether it's theft. Well copying something is not the same as taking something from a store. When you make a copy your duplicating it. Essentially cloning an object (or in most cases data). The actual company doesn't lose any property. It's not like stealing a car from Ford or Toyota. In which Ford and Toyota notice "Hey we're missing a car!".

What is argued is that they are losing potential customers. And maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Though with probability it is possible that they are losing some customers (though I doubt nearly as much as they like to claim). Just cause they have a copy of their product doesn't mean they would've bought it orginaly. For example, I have a copy of Windows Vista (though I haven't installed it since I am really not fond of it). I would've never bought it anyway even if I didn't have the copy since I use Ubuntu most of the time. My laptop came with it preinstalled (bleck, bloody preinstalled OSes).



And as for copying to floppies.

http://truthhappens.redhatmagazine.com/2007/08/09/dont-copy-that-floppy/

family, alot of the "evidence" the organizations put forth in the court (if you can even get to the court room can be refuted. As you mentioned IP addresses. Yes that does place the marker closer to you. Though what if that person had a unencrypted wireless connection? It's alot harder to prove now that it's actually this person that downloaded it. Granted most people did download whatever. Though that also goes to this second point.

Alot of times organizations like the RIAA and MPAA will just sue you out of your home state). So you'd have to first get to the court room before you could even defend yourself. It's a dirty trick sadly. Alot of the times that the RIAA and MPAA win is because of how the court process works in the US. Sadly the courts also need to be redone (in both civil as well as other situations such as domestic violence). God are those courts horrible when it comes to handling domestic violence cases and child custody.

kellemes
August 13th, 2007, 10:27 PM
Yes it is, you are basically stealing the money they have a right to by pirating.

It's theft and if you pirate you are a thief, you can paint it in pretty colors all you like but that is what you are and that is how i'll define you.

There is plenty of free music, radio stations and more out there so trying to justify your stealing doesn't only make you a thief, it also makes you morally bankrupt and an a-hole.

You're the light in this thread.. ):P

Ocxic
August 13th, 2007, 10:30 PM
here's my argument to add to this thread:

I have satalite and with that comes, music channels, and movie channels, if i were to record said movie or song, would that be piracy??? for that matter, would that mean that any show or movie you record off of t.v would be piracy aswell???
case and point, movies and music are publicly shown and played, iether on tv, radio or internet.. are you saying that recording these things are also priacy every time you do it???
in that case I guess I should erase the 20-30 movie I've recorded over the years off of television...
or is this only limited to things you can/do download???


which brings me to my main point.. WHY the hell put a record button on things, if you don't want people copying, things for themselves.

starcraft.man
August 13th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Hats off to DoctorMO, he's spot on with the final question.


how can you sell something that has an infinite supply?

The answer is, very difficultly. Two factors make it hard. The digital nature of information and media (at least when sold digitally) make it such that it is easy to copy. When you have an MP3, you right click and push copy and then paste. Boom! You got two copies of the same song at zero effort (you can also obviously do it infinitely more).

The second factor is the internet. It is an incredibly powerful medium of communication of anything. If I am in an IM with a person, I can share any file with them I want without regulation instantly (unless a filter intervenes). Torrents and such technology are simply the natural extension of such things to their perfect, decentralized and mass sharing peak (maybe there is more, but mostly bittorrent does all that is needed).

You (people who think it's evil/stealing) will find that people have been copying and redistributing copyright material all through history. In the old days of books before press people were paid to copy the text, sometimes without any permission at all from the authors (who at that time held the copyright, not the publishers).

More recently a good example is Metallica, who many know as being against napster and stealing or music and such. What you may not know (or forgot) though is that Metallica made their mark via bootlegs and other underground copies or recordings of concerts. This has been going on forever. It's natural (whether approved of or not). The digital age of media and the internet have simply made it as easy as opening a torrent in a client. There are lots of other examples through the ages, none ever reached the digital scale that is the only difference.

The simple fact is the old music and movie industries don't get digital. Unless they change, they'll be dead soon. I'd continue and say how the whole distribution means is in it's deathrows and what needs to be changed but it'd take way too long, I've written enough for now.

Oh and I hope I'm not the only one that doesn't find the study results surprising. It's been coming for a while. Oh and I'm not saying everyone should pirate, I'm just saying it's not in the least surprising. These industries should have seen it coming with the advent of the digital age and been prepared.

juxtaposed
August 13th, 2007, 10:36 PM
I could afford most of what I downloaded

You are one of the very few then.


Most people who can afford a computer with internet access can afford the $1 for a song off of iTunes but many still do not purchase it

Right, but most people that can afford a computer with internet access can't afford their entire music collection on iTunes, or their entire movie collection at a DVD store.


It is ripping someone off if I download a song or movie and then not pay for it.

I don't think so.


I'm a potential customer that has stolen something instead of purchasing it.

Or, you are not a potential customer and have downloaded it (copied, not stolen) instead of not having it at all.


Your analogy is the equivalent of saying that stealing a car is not ripping anyone off unless you resell it or give it to a chop-shop.

You can't digitally copy a car, and if you could, then digitally copying the car wouldn't be stealing.


good luck to the kids, i remember copying songs from the radio to cassette tape when i was a kid, and heard the cries of woe and scare mongering from panicked record companies threatened with bankruptcy...

And the movie industry crying that "VHS is to movies that the boston strangler is to a women at home alone".


Doesn't matter, it's still stealing someones pay for his hard work.

Not at all.


There is only one thing that i hate more than bigots and that is pirates.

You're the former, i'm the latter ;P


don't try to justify your stealing,

Again, it is not stealing.

Stealing is taking something away from someone else, which would mean that you now have posession of it and they don't. Copying is much different. You can't steal a digital file (unless you made a copy for yourself and deleted the original that someone else has).

Once someone has transfered posession of something (like a CD) to someone else they have no right to try and force the other person to use it only the way they want.

You can't have it both ways. Copyright is a hybrid of posession and non-posession, where the record companies (,etc) can enjoy the benefits of someone else posessing it (they get money) and themselves posessing it (control over it).


that spend their money on trying to stop your stealing

They spend money to try to stop copying, because they believe copying will hurt their profits.


Yes it is, you are basically stealing the money they have a right to by pirating.

You don't suddenly have some natural right to profit from something. I have a right to do what I want with something I own, like a CD. If you sell it to me then I own it. No partial ownership, that's just artificial. If you don't want me to do something with it that I will do then don't sell it to me.

If I had an idea, I could profit by selling it to someone, but they would then also have that idea and be able to sell it to anyone they want. If I wasn't satisfied with the profit (or lack of profit) from that idea then I don't have to make any more ideas. It would be horrible if I suddenly made a law so that anyone who knows the idea I made can only use it how I want just so I can profit more.


It's theft and if you pirate you are a thief,

Why must the pro-copyright anti-freedom people change the meaning of words to suit their interest in profits?

Depressed Man
August 13th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Ocxic, that's the battle between the fair use supports and those who claim piracy (I think it's defined as piracy by them at least). Depending on the side you'll get different answers.

Actually it's more like a range. With fair use being one extreme and the businesses that claim piracy on the other. There are those in the middle.

Edit: I wonder who came up with the idea to name this act pirating, piracy, and what not though. I'm sure they had no better idea on how to describe it. Though the name really doesn't fit. I've always wondered about this. I mean what does "piracy" nowadays have to do with the piracy of the old? Your not depriving someone of physical property, and nor are you raping and pillaging.

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 10:39 PM
here's my argument to add to this thread:

I have satalite and with that comes, music channels, and movie channels, if i were to record said movie or song, would that be piracy??? for that matter, would that mean that any show or movie you record off of t.v would be piracy aswell???
case and point, movies and music are publicly shown and played, iether on tv, radio or internet.. are you saying that recording these things are also priacy every time you do it???
or is this only limited to things you can/do download???

which brings me to my main point.. WHY the hell put a record button on things, if you don't want people copying, things for themselves.

No, but distributing them without a licence IS.

As long as it was bad recordings on tape so you could play it in your car or give it to a friend it wasn't a big deal (there was even a deal between the cassette producers and the record compaines that was fair for both) but when the modern day piracy came along where one distributor can reach millions of people it's a lot different.

The worst of the worst are the pirates that complain about DRM, what in the hell are you complaining about YOU CREATED IT and now we all have to suffer because your too damn cheap to pay for what you want.

hardyn
August 13th, 2007, 10:43 PM
More recently a good example is Metallica, who many know as being against napster and stealing or music and such. What you may not know (or forgot) though is that Metallica made their mark via bootlegs and other underground copies or recordings of concerts.

Autodesk and autoCAD is another good example of this... and guess who has the defacto standard in 2D CAD?

in the early 80's while not encouraging piracy per-se, they definitely turned a blind eye to it, and they turned around in the early 90's sued everybody.

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 10:48 PM
You are one of the very few then.



Right, but most people that can afford a computer with internet access can't afford their entire music collection on iTunes, or their entire movie collection at a DVD store.



I don't think so.



Or, you are not a potential customer and have downloaded it (copied, not stolen) instead of not having it at all.



You can't digitally copy a car, and if you could, then digitally copying the car wouldn't be stealing.



And the movie industry crying that "VHS is to movies that the boston strangler is to a women at home alone".



Not at all.



You're the former, i'm the latter ;P



Again, it is not stealing.

Stealing is taking something away from someone else, which would mean that you now have posession of it and they don't. Copying is much different. You can't steal a digital file (unless you made a copy for yourself and deleted the original that someone else has).

Once someone has transfered posession of something (like a CD) to someone else they have no right to try and force the other person to use it only the way they want.

You can't have it both ways. Copyright is a hybrid of posession and non-posession, where the record companies (,etc) can enjoy the benefits of someone else posessing it (they get money) and themselves posessing it (control over it).



They spend money to try to stop copying, because they believe copying will hurt their profits.



You don't suddenly have some natural right to profit from something. I have a right to do what I want with something I own, like a CD. If you sell it to me then I own it. No partial ownership, that's just artificial. If you don't want me to do something with it that I will do then don't sell it to me.

If I had an idea, I could profit by selling it to someone, but they would then also have that idea and be able to sell it to anyone they want. If I wasn't satisfied with the profit (or lack of profit) from that idea then I don't have to make any more ideas. It would be horrible if I suddenly made a law so that anyone who knows the idea I made can only use it how I want just so I can profit more.



Why must the pro-copyright anti-freedom people change the meaning of words to suit their interest in profits?

Look, you are taking someone elses work and using it for your amusement, you are robbing him of the pay he deserves for having done that for your amusement.

When you buy a cd, you buy the physical cd and the rights to use it as yours, you buy the rights to resell it but you do not buy the rights to copy it and distribute it as if it was your work, is this really that hard to grasp or are you just pretending to be overly daft?

I most definently have a right to profit from my work whether i'm a singer, a movie star or a construction worker, please stop making up these idiotic comments, i can provide you with much better ones myself.

You are forced to abide the license of any product, including this distribution, what makes you think that you can skip the laws and licenses that you dislike, if so, can MS do the same and incorporate GNU code without using the GPL licence and claiming it as theirs?

starcraft.man
August 13th, 2007, 10:51 PM
Autodesk and autoCAD is another good example of this... and guess who has the defacto standard in 2D CAD?

in the early 80's while not encouraging piracy per-se, they definitely turned a blind eye to it, and they turned around in the early 90's sued everybody.

Yup. The only difference between those two times was scale as I said. Bootlegs and other such things in the 80s were limited by physical media and couldn't really be produced on that large of a scale. Also distribution certainly wasn't the whole world, it was mostly local places. This is in stark comparison to what I described with digital which, as I explained, is large scale and easy thus being so popular.

The media companies have to stop being greedy and do what iTunes did, sell cheap and easily downloadble media. Even undercut iTunes, make non-DRM songs 50 cents and make albums half price. They need to accept a certain % are going to download and pirate and undercut that by competing WITH piracy (yes, that is how they need to think). I have low expectations that they will ever realize this though.

RichPeter
August 13th, 2007, 10:54 PM
I have a soft spot for musicians, but most of the revenues go to record label fat cats, and it's hard to feel sorry for them.

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 11:10 PM
Autodesk and autoCAD is another good example of this... and guess who has the defacto standard in 2D CAD?

in the early 80's while not encouraging piracy per-se, they definitely turned a blind eye to it, and they turned around in the early 90's sued everybody.

That is rewriting history, what they did was that their later versions was that they required a hardware dongle (the best way to stop piracy back in the day). They didn't sue and they didn't turn a blind eye to it before, but it was easy to pirate it, much like it's easy to pirate anything.

super breadfish
August 13th, 2007, 11:16 PM
Music piracy is not theft. Nothing has been taken, artists/record companies still have the music too. Stealing income? I don't see how that stands up if you had not intention of buying it in the first place.

For me, there is additional reason the comes from my personal political views. There is a difference between "supporting" and "making rich". The first, ok, we all need that, the second, I don't see why anyone has the right to that.
Music is hardly necessary to live, hell, the bin man does a more important job than some bloke with a guitar. Why should they get more?
But as I said, that's from me personally, so take that as you will.

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 11:17 PM
I have a soft spot for musicians, but most of the revenues go to record label fat cats, and it's hard to feel sorry for them.

Another done to death try to justify stealing the money that the artist is entitled to, if the artist get just a little bit, will he not get less if you do not pay to listen to the work he has made for you to enjoy?

There is no justification good enough for this kind of stealing of the money that you should pay the musician (regardless of how small part he recieves) for enjoying his work.

Can i have a plumber over and enjoy his work in my house without paying the company he works for because i feel that he should have a larger share of what i pay the company? Of course not.

WishingWell
August 13th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Music piracy is not theft. Nothing has been taken, artists/record companies still have the music too. Stealing income? I don't see how that stands up if you had not intention of buying it in the first place.

For me, there is additional reason the comes from my personal political views. There is a difference between "supporting" and "making rich". The first, ok, we all need that, the second, I don't see why anyone has the right to that.
Music is hardly necessary to live, hell, the bin man does a more important job than some bloke with a guitar. Why should they get more?
But as I said, that's from me personally, so take that as you will.

I'm going to get a plumber to my house to do the work and when he says he's done i'm not going to pay because i had no intention of buying the work he did, i just wanted it done for free.

You are enjoying the work of a musician, i'm enjoying the work of a plumber, if you don't have to pay, why should i have to pay?

You say that music is hardly necessary to live, well then, live without it or pay for it if you think it's worth it.

Seriously, how hard is that?

Don't get me wrong, i hate buying albums with one or two songs that are good while the rest are crap and paying for the entire album, that is why i don't do that anymore, if you cannot afford $1 for a song you think is worthwhile having you'd better start looking for a different way of life because a minor fluctuation in inflation could leave you starving.

It's not that people can't pay for it, everyone pretty much can but people of today have a sense of entitlement, they think they are entitled to a whole lot of things that they are not, one of them is piracy and that goes for music, movies and software.

Darkhack
August 13th, 2007, 11:36 PM
Yes, I remember that too. And I also made cassette tapes to give as gifts to friends and family.... and when a friend got an album I liked and couldn't afford, I gave him a cassette tape and he would record it for me... and record companies are still here....uhmmm.....

I'm sure people shoplift from stores like Wal-Mart and get away with and and Wal-Mart is still here. What if you ran a business and I stole half your property? It may not be enough to put you into bankruptcy, but you still lost money as a result.


Frankly I believe any music, knowledge, technology, medicine, any research scientists are doing, etc.. should all be public domain. So everyone can benefit. Though there are others that think it should remain private so people can make money off of it. With the arguement that "it gives them money so they can work on the next thing". Of course this means that some people may not get it (because of the cost).

I completely understand where you are coming from on this. I fought with myself over this very same issue for a long time as to whether or not I thought those things should be public domain or not. I believe at some point, they should be, and the copyright expires. I believe that my stance is a balance between the two. It provides artists with money to compensate for their work and to help build the next big thing while still eventually allowing that work to become free at a later time.


However, whether it's theft. Well copying something is not the same as taking something from a store. When you make a copy your duplicating it. Essentially cloning an object (or in most cases data). The actual company doesn't lose any property. It's not like stealing a car from Ford or Toyota. In which Ford and Toyota notice "Hey we're missing a car!".

Okay, fair enough. I'll accept your argument that this may in fact not be stealing, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. It's just a different term for something that I am against morally. What if you were a car salesman? I bet you would be pretty mad if all your customers could walk up, point a "copy-ray" at a car and make an exact copy of it without having to buy it from you. They didn't take the car itself but they made a copy and you lost a sale as a result. Eventually you would go broke.


What is argued is that they are losing potential customers. And maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Though with probability it is possible that they are losing some customers (though I doubt nearly as much as they like to claim). Just cause they have a copy of their product doesn't mean they would've bought it orginaly. For example, I have a copy of Windows Vista (though I haven't installed it since I am really not fond of it). I would've never bought it anyway even if I didn't have the copy since I use Ubuntu most of the time. My laptop came with it preinstalled (bleck, bloody preinstalled OSes).

I never intended to pay for all those songs and movies I illegally downloaded. I don't have a copy of Vista (legal or illegal) but in that case, where I didn't pay for it, I should go without. This argument of "well I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" is still pathetic because you still have something you didn't pay for. If I stole a car from your dealership I could say that I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, which may be true, but if it is true... then I should be without a car! You either pay for something or you don't get it. Not this half-way "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so that justifies me getting it illegally" bull.


here's my argument to add to this thread:

I have satalite and with that comes, music channels, and movie channels, if i were to record said movie or song, would that be piracy??? for that matter, would that mean that any show or movie you record off of t.v would be piracy aswell???
case and point, movies and music are publicly shown and played, iether on tv, radio or internet.. are you saying that recording these things are also priacy every time you do it???
in that case I guess I should erase the 20-30 movie I've recorded over the years off of television...
or is this only limited to things you can/do download???

which brings me to my main point.. WHY the hell put a record button on things, if you don't want people copying, things for themselves.

I understand where you are coming from on this, but there are limits to this scenario. IANAL, so I can't tell you the exact law but there is a difference between your example, and that of downloading media online in mass. It is a different case with different rules, thus it is void for this argument.


You are one of the very few then.

Excuse me? You're trying to tell me that someone who can afford a computer with internet access can't afford $20 for a DVD or $1 for a song? I'm sorry, but you fail.


Right, but most people that can afford a computer with internet access can't afford their entire music collection on iTunes, or their entire movie collection at a DVD store.

And that justifies stealing them? If you can't afford it, you don't get it. Pay for what you can or shut up. I can't afford a yacht, does that give me the right to steal one?


You can't digitally copy a car, and if you could, then digitally copying the car wouldn't be stealing.

Okay, so I'm copying instead of stealing. Does that make it fair or legal? Different term, but it is still wrong. Making copies of money isn't robbery but it is counterfeit. Different word, but it is still morally wrong.


You don't suddenly have some natural right to profit from something. I have a right to do what I want with something I own, like a CD. If you sell it to me then I own it. No partial ownership, that's just artificial.

You're not paying for the object itself, you are paying for the data on it. When you buy a solid object (like a car), it is impossible to copy it. You can do anything you want to it. Break your own headlights for all I care. With data you are buying a license. Not ownership of the data itself. Licensing and ownership are two different things.


If you don't want me to do something with it that I will do then don't sell it to me.

If you don't agree to the licensing terms, then don't buy it. The seller is in control since they own it, not you! If you were having a garage sale and were charing $50 for an antique table, I can't just walk up and slap $5 in your face and say, it's mine. As the seller, you are in control of how much it is and under what terms I get it.


If I had an idea, I could profit by selling it to someone, but they would then also have that idea and be able to sell it to anyone they want. If I wasn't satisfied with the profit (or lack of profit) from that idea then I don't have to make any more ideas. It would be horrible if I suddenly made a law so that anyone who knows the idea I made can only use it how I want just so I can profit more.

You can sell an idea in which case the new owner can do anything they want. They are now the copyright holder. When you buy a movie or song, you are buying a license, NOT the idea itself for ownership. Do you see the difference? If you don't agree to the licensing terms, then don't purchase it.


Why must the pro-copyright anti-freedom people change the meaning of words to suit their interest in profits?

Because otherwise they wouldn't make a profit? If your primary source of income was selling music/movies/books, then I'm sure your stance would change pretty quickly once the bills come in.

super breadfish
August 13th, 2007, 11:41 PM
I'm going to get a plumber to my house to do the work and when he says he's done i'm not going to pay because i had no intention of buying the work he did, i just wanted it done for free.

You are enjoying the work of a musician, i'm enjoying the work of a plumber, if you don't have to pay, why should i have to pay?

In the case of the plumber, the plumber has lost his time and effort doing the work. In the case of music, the artist/record company has lost nothing.

You seem to thing that "want" and "buy" are the same thing.

Someone might want a song, but wouldn't buy it. If that person doesn't want it, the artist/record has lost nothing, if that person duplicates it the artist/record company has lost nothing, because although the person wanted it and couldn't duplicate it they wouldn't have "bought" it to get it.


You say that music is hardly necessary to live, well then, live without it or pay for it if you think it's worth it.

Well if I could go "I will give you this much money to support you but not more to make you rich", I'd happily do that. But I can't.


It's not that people can't pay for it, everyone pretty much can but people of today have a sense of entitlement, they think they are entitled to a whole lot of things that they are not

No, all most people want in life is a fair deal. Which they rarely get buying music. Buy a CD? Overpriced, artist gets little return. Buy online? DRM makes it practically unusable.
The mass file sharing of today is not people wanting something for nothing, it's people expressing their opinion, and until they are satisfied things will never change.

tigerpants
August 13th, 2007, 11:48 PM
this thread has gone the way of all threads on this subject - its bitten itself on the butt.

Depressed Man
August 14th, 2007, 12:05 AM
Okay, fair enough. I'll accept your argument that this may in fact not be stealing, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. It's just a different term for something that I am against morally. What if you were a car salesman? I bet you would be pretty mad if all your customers could walk up, point a "copy-ray" at a car and make an exact copy of it without having to buy it from you. They didn't take the car itself but they made a copy and you lost a sale as a result. Eventually you would go broke.


I never intended to pay for all those songs and movies I illegally downloaded. I don't have a copy of Vista (legal or illegal) but in that case, where I didn't pay for it, I should go without. This argument of "well I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" is still pathetic because you still have something you didn't pay for. If I stole a car from your dealership I could say that I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, which may be true, but if it is true... then I should be without a car! You either pay for something or you don't get it. Not this half-way "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so that justifies me getting it illegally" bull.



Sorry for the messed up quoting (it never seems to quote the previous people for me when I press the quote button). Probably to prevent pyramids. Anyway,

If I were a car salesman, for that example to work. A person would have to buy a car from me, then give the copy it to give it to his/her friends, family, their dog, whatever. Would I lose potential sales them? Maybe. They could've been planning to buy a car from another dealer (I would've never gotten their money anyway), maybe they weren't even interested in getting another car (again I wouldn't get their money). Or maybe they did (in this case I lose money if their only choice was to buy it from me).

The second arguement goes back to what I said before. Different opinions. You stated yourself that your viewpoint is more in the middle (till the copyright runs out on it or what not).

But my belief is that there shouldn't be a copyright on it to begin with.

Frankly if I could (sadly you just can't do old fashioned psychological experiments anymore for "ethical" reasons). I'd like to run an experiment where I could stop all the pirates and what not. Just to see how many of them would go out an start buying whatever it is (software, songs or what not). See if they don't buy anything. See if they try opensource or free alternatives. etc..

My hypothesis would likely be is, a small amount would start buying it. Though the majority would just do nothing (don't buy anything or do the alternative thing).

I'd have to say this is my favorite quotes (likely taken out of context as I'm sure it was first meant to reference homosexuality and how it was deemed "immoral" by society). But it can also apply to morals in general.

"What we call 'morals' is simply blind obedience to words of command." -Henry Havelock Ellis

I see the words, "it's wrong" ,"it's immoral", etc..being used alot. Besides that I've already pointed out what you value may not be what others value (which is partially what morals are). It really is just obedience to words from another. And throughout the history of mankind. Morals have changed from culture to culture, from time period to time period. Some things have remained the same, other things have changed.

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 12:20 AM
The worst of the worst are the pirates that complain about DRM,

Pirates don't complain about DRM. DRM doesn't affect pirates much.


what in the hell are you complaining about YOU CREATED IT

No, THE RECORD COMPANIES CREATED IT. Pirates crack it :)

Saying pirates created DRM is like saying if person A pokes person B, and person B kills person A, then person A killed themselves.

The record company might do something because of us, but that doesn't mean we did it.


When you buy a cd, you buy the physical cd and the rights to use it as yours, you buy the rights to resell it but you do not buy the rights to copy it and distribute it as if it was your work, is this really that hard to grasp or are you just pretending to be overly daft?

It's all artificial, just some psuedo-posession that benefits record companies. I don't reconize it.


I most definently have a right to profit from my work whether i'm a singer, a movie star or a construction worker,

If you are a construction builder do you get to decide how the building is used? No, when you make a building for someone it is their building. Sure, you can decide who you make a building for based on what you think they will do with it, but once you make a building for someone that building is theirs.

What if the psuedo-posession thing from copyright was reconized by government on physical things like buildings? What if construction companies could make a building for someone and profit from it, yet retain control over it until 80 years after all the workers died? Obviously ignoring the fact that you can't digitally copy a building...



It's not that people can't pay for it, everyone pretty much can

Maybe you can afford your downloading if you download a few songs from limewire, but you will find you probably can't if you download discographies from bittorrent or something.


but people of today have a sense of entitlement,

The record companies think they are entitled to profits and will use the government to enforce their profits.


What if you were a car salesman? I bet you would be pretty mad if all your customers could walk up, point a "copy-ray" at a car and make an exact copy of it without having to buy it from you.

Right, but people get mad at a lot of things. I'm sure a car salesman would also be mad if a big car company sold cars for cheaper beside his car lot too. Does that make it wrong?


"well I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" is still pathetic because you still have something you didn't pay for. If I stole a car from your dealership I could say that I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, which may be true, but if it is true... then I should be without a car!

I'll explain something to you...

Two scenarios;

1. I download an album
2. I don't download the album (but don't buy it)

Now there is only one difference between those two scenarios. In one scenario I have an album and in another I don't. The profit of the record company never changes.

The "I wouldn't buy it" thing makes no sense unless it is digital and able to be copied. Stealing a car "because I wouldn't buy it" isn't an argument, because the owner of the car lost something. Copying an album "because I wouldn't buy it" is an argument because no one looses.


Excuse me? You're trying to tell me that someone who can afford a computer with internet access can't afford $20 for a DVD or $1 for a song? I'm sorry, but you fail.

Do you honestly think that people just download a DVD or a song? That's foolish. Most people have collections, which could potentially be worth many many many times what their computer is worth.


If you can't afford it, you don't get it.

Or someone who can afford it copies their copy and I can get it.


I can't afford a yacht, does that give me the right to steal one?

It gives you the right to magically copy the yacht if the owner of the yacht (the person who posesses it, not the yacht company) lets you... But you can't physically do that.

You should learn the difference between something physical and something digital. The digital one can be copied easily, the physical one can't. I can copy an album so that there are now two copies of the album. I can't copy a yacht so that there are now two copies of it (easily).


Different word, but it is still morally wrong.

In your opinion it is wrong. So don't do it. I won't try to force you (or even convince you) to do something you think is wrong. But I don't think it is wrong so I do it.


If you don't agree to the licensing terms, then don't buy it.

I don't buy it. I get copies.


If you were having a garage sale and were charing $50 for an antique table, I can't just walk up and slap $5 in your face and say, it's mine.

Right, but I can't sell it to you and say "Ok, but guess what, I didn't sell you the table, I sold you a license to use it. I profit from selling it and still retain control over it. You are not allowed to paint it green, or use it with more then three people in the room. You bought it but I still own it."


Because otherwise they wouldn't make a profit? If your primary source of income was selling music/movies/books, then I'm sure your stance would change pretty quickly once the bills come in.

So should the law always enforce profits?

I'm sure someone wouldn't like it if I set up shop beside them and sold stuff for cheaper. They might even go bankrupt. Should they use the law to enforce their profits and make me stop underselling them?

If you don't make enough profit doing something, don't do it. Simple.


Just to see how many of them would go out an start buying whatever it is (software, songs or what not).

I know I wouldn't start buying it. I don't want to support anyone who uses the law to enforce profits.

WishingWell
August 14th, 2007, 12:20 AM
In the case of the plumber, the plumber has lost his time and effort doing the work. In the case of music, the artist/record company has lost nothing.

Ah, so the musician who made the music that you enjoy as a service from them has lost nothing by you not paying them for that service (the music)?


You seem to thing that "want" and "buy" are the same thing.

Of course not, i may want to listen to some music but i'll have to buy it to listen to it legally (in this discussed scenario)


Someone might want a song, but wouldn't buy it. If that person doesn't want it, the artist/record has lost nothing, if that person duplicates it the artist/record company has lost nothing, because although the person wanted it and couldn't duplicate it they wouldn't have "bought" it to get it.

There are a lot of things that i might want but i am not going to have it unless i buy it, you are the perfect example of the people who feel that they are entitled to everything that i wrote about earlier. The spreading and distribution (come on, duplication as copying a cd and giving it to a friend, who cares, not you, not me, not the record companies) of someones work will reach millions with todays technology, even if only one tenth of them would actually buy it that is still a lot of cash you have stolen from their revenues by spreading it.




Well if I could go "I will give you this much money to support you but not more to make you rich", I'd happily do that. But I can't.

You'll pay the price required for the service or you won't recieve the service, it works the same in all aspects of life, whether it's a hooker, plumber or a musician spreading their work.


No, all most people want in life is a fair deal. Which they rarely get buying music. Buy a CD? Overpriced, artist gets little return. Buy online? DRM makes it practically unusable.
The mass file sharing of today is not people wanting something for nothing, it's people expressing their opinion, and until they are satisfied things will never change.

DRM is what pirates have created, blame them for it and either stop being a part of it or just accept that you are nothing but a lowlife thief for pirating.

The correct way of doing things is NOT BUYING and NOT USING, most people will never get that but it works the same way that pirating windows and it's software is bad for the alternatives like Ubuntu, just like pirating and listening to big bands and labels who generally overcharge draws attention from the smaller bands that do not.

You'd think that people involved in FOSS get that but the majority just have their sense of entitlement and go with that.

MetalMusicAddict
August 14th, 2007, 12:30 AM
WishingWell. Really. Just let it die. They will rationalize this 6 ways from Sunday. They don't care about the legality and will do it 'till they are caught. Nobody who has been or actually known a struggling artist would be able to say the things in person that are in this thread.

NOTHING gives the consumer right to have music unless you bought it. Or was a legal download. ie: Things like Jamendo.

Period.

WishingWell
August 14th, 2007, 12:31 AM
I'm going to give up on this thread now, i have no real time to spend on the children of the entitlement that couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

It's like arguing with a spoiled five year old "but i want it, i want it, i want it and i should be able to have it, have it, have it" *whines on and on and on*

And good luck with providing services without having any profit, when you move out of mums basement and lose your allowance that will be a problem though. Communism rules, but only in hell.

WishingWell
August 14th, 2007, 12:33 AM
WishingWell. Really. Just let it die. They will rationalize this 6 ways from Sunday. They don't care about the legality and will do it 'till they are caught. Nobody who has been or actually known a struggling artist would be able to say the things in person that are in this thread.

NOTHING gives you the right to have music unless you bought it, you're the artist/label or it was a gift in original form.

Period.

Great minds think alike. ;)

I guess it takes one to know one.

starcraft.man
August 14th, 2007, 12:49 AM
I'm going to give up on this thread now, i have no real time to spend on the children of the entitlement that couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

It's like arguing with a spoiled five year old "but i want it, i want it, i want it and i should be able to have it, have it, have it" *whines on and on and on*

Hate to break it to you but in my quick glancing over the vigorous arguments raised on both sides you've said some pretty childish things yourself (as did others). Case in point:


Communism rules, but only in hell.
And that was right in this same post I'm quoting, too easy. Marxism (the real philosophy/theory) is no more flawed than Capitalism (or any number of the other names of the theories, it's really a class with a lot of subsets). The two theories are sound to a degree (both have theoretical/philosophic failings). And they both have been perverted and twisted in their implementations around the world (Communism in Russia and China being two of the worst perversions ever I'd say). So please don't spit out childish remarks when your so quick to call others out for such. Really just looks... childish.

Edit: Oh and MetalMusicAddict, I agree Artists should be compensated. They make wonderful things from books, to music to film. That doesn't mean it's childish/stupid (or wrong, definitely shouldn't be guilted) to question the systems for distribution in place today or even the legality of making copies of something digital in nature (we make copies to text and other digital things after all daily). Change never happens unless people talk and discuss and make change happen. I for one am certain that the system as it is now will never really give artists what they deserve, labels have ensured that. Anyway, were there not some "childish" people in this thread, we probably could have had an enlightening discussion. Alas, it was for nought. Someone should probably lock it.

Oh and this post definitely has the most uses of childish I've ever done, hope I made a point.

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 12:49 AM
DRM is what pirates have created

You're just talking foolishly...


i have no real time to spend on the children of the entitlement that couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

Pirates don't think that they are automatically entitled to anything. If someone has a CD or DVD and offers to make a copy for everyone and you say OK, that is not thinking of entitlement. We don't demand that people copy their CD or DVD, but if someone wants to and we want it, then we will get a copy.


NOTHING gives the consumer right to have music unless you bought it.

NOTHING gives someone the right to sell something and retain control over it.

Period.

MetalMusicAddict
August 14th, 2007, 01:08 AM
NOTHING gives someone the right to sell something and retain control over it.

Period.

Hate to break it to you, laws do. ;) Thats what the tread is about. Look at the topic. Morality is a whole other issue.

If you don't like the law, change it. If you don't like the way the product is presented, don't buy it. You have no right to it.

Bye kids.

hardyn
August 14th, 2007, 01:09 AM
That is rewriting history, what they did was that their later versions was that they required a hardware dongle (the best way to stop piracy back in the day). They didn't sue and they didn't turn a blind eye to it before, but it was easy to pirate it, much like it's easy to pirate anything.

i don't recall ever requiring a hardware dongle... but i haven't used it since 2001
i know quite a bit of other CAD software does.

Depressed Man
August 14th, 2007, 01:10 AM
There are laws in the US where if a man and woman walk on a sidewalk the man must step onto the road (or some funky thing like that).

Just cause it's a law doesn't mean it's right. Not to mention laws are easy to get passed. Especially when compared to removing them.. Where it's incredibly hard to remove (which is why that law still exists). Not to mention time consuming.

MetalMusicAddict
August 14th, 2007, 01:18 AM
There are laws in the US where if a man and woman walk on a sidewalk the man must step onto the road (or some funky thing like that).

Just cause it's a law doesn't mean it's right. Not to mention laws are easy to get passed. Especially when compared to removing them.. Where it's incredibly hard to remove (which is why that law still exists). Not to mention time consuming.

Like I said, "Morality is a whole other issue." If you want to take it there, thats off-topic and a argument nobody can win because its all opinion. ;)

Ok. Now I'm done because the legality in every country is clear. Know your county's laws. If you're morally against it. Work to change the law. Being "time consuming" is no excuse to break the law.

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 01:23 AM
Hate to break it to you, laws do.

Just because some oligarchs make and reconize a new form of posession doesn't make it real :)

Someone could pass a law that said the earth was flat...


Thats what the tread is about. Look at the topic. Morality is a whole other issue.

I'm pretty sure it is about morality.

The topic was "kids justify illegal downloads', it has already been established that it is illegal. They justify it, now we are talking about the justification.


Being "time consuming" is no excuse to break the law.

"I don't agree with it" is a perfect reason to break the law though.

Depressed Man
August 14th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Like I said, "Morality is a whole other issue." If you want to take it there, thats off-topic and a argument nobody can win because its all opinion. ;)

Ok. Now I'm done because the legality in every country is clear. Know your county's laws. If you're morally against it. Work to change the law. Being "time consuming" is no excuse to break the law.

I'm not even talking about my effort. I mean for the polticians in any country. Not to mention if they're going neglect that law and not enforce it, then why not that one? Seems to me that's lopsided when it comes to laws that people should follow.

WishingWell
August 14th, 2007, 01:39 AM
Hate to break it to you but in my quick glancing over the vigorous arguments raised on both sides you've said some pretty childish things yourself (as did others). Case in point:

Hey, let's take this thread off topic and call me names because you don't have a living chance in a debate? OK.

You want to have something and they want money for you to recieve that service, you feel that you are entitled to use that service without paying, that is clearly theft and you are one of the young ones who have a sense of entitlement that doesn't make any sense in the real world where even you have to make money.



And that was right in this same post I'm quoting, too easy. Marxism (the real philosophy/theory) is no more flawed than Capitalism (or any number of the other names of the theories, it's really a class with a lot of subsets). The two theories are sound to a degree (both have theoretical/philosophic failings). And they both have been perverted and twisted in their implementations around the world (Communism in Russia and China being two of the worst perversions ever I'd say). So please don't spit out childish remarks when your so quick to call others out for such. Really just looks... childish.

Communism cannot exist within a democracy because it would mean that the majority would always vote on things that would make them richer while the minority grew poorer, a dictator with a fair sense of distribution of wealth would be what would work but that isn't going to happen because "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Pure capitalism has only been tried once and it was a fiasco too that resulted in basically the same thing, as it is now, all economies of the first world are mixed economies, it just goes to prove that extremes never work, which is what i said in a not so drawn out sentence.

You are calling me childish, but if anyone here is naive it is you son.

Now sudo go away. ;)

GFree678
August 14th, 2007, 01:48 AM
Bah. All this thread says to me is this:

People believe it's OK to break a law they consider immoral/rediculous.

The question therefore becomes whether that's an appropriate response. If we tolerate piracy because we think the law is stupid, what other laws can we break on the same basis?

starcraft.man
August 14th, 2007, 02:09 AM
Hey, let's take this thread off topic and call me names because you don't have a living chance in a debate? OK.

I got all day if that's what you want to do. I don't name call though, just point things out like I see them (like silly things). I might remind you that your the one that began with the name calling everyone who took a side against you children. I am most certainly not! You should not assume so either, you have no facts to base that upon. Is it because my username is starcraft.man on the forum, that makes me kid like? I will have you know I could be a happy 70 year old man who plays that game (I am not, but my dad who is old even played starcraft back in the day). Point being, don't make such silly assumptions.


You want to have something and they want money for you to recieve that service, you feel that you are entitled to use that service without paying, that is clearly theft and you are one of the young ones who have a sense of entitlement that doesn't make any sense in the real world where even you have to make money.

Firstly, I don't want to have anything (it is poor form to make such baseless generalizations, least in my book) I'm just taking a side in a debate and I'd appreciate it if you didn't use "you" so often. I know what I want/think and will speak for myself when I want to explain myself. I don't need "you" to arrogantly tell me what I think. Yet again you assume what is not in evidence. I don't have a sense of entitlement, I do like to play devil's advocate (as my instructor in philosophy often did) and represent whatever side I believe needs support in the discussion. Don't make anymore assumptions about any forum members, know what your saying before you put text to post. Oh and again, "young ones", why is it that only young people can take a side against you? Aged people never break the law or discuss other viewpoints? Their set in their ways? I don't know where you got that idea from...


Communism cannot exist within a democracy because it would mean that the majority would always vote on things that would make them richer while the minority grew poorer, a dictator with a fair sense of distribution of wealth would be what would work but that isn't going to happen because "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Pure capitalism has only been tried once and it was a fiasco too that resulted in basically the same thing, as it is now, all economies of the first world are mixed economies, it just goes to prove that extremes never work, which is what i said in a not so drawn out sentence.
I'd get into this but I don't think you'd be listening, not to mention philosophy and economic theorem are complex issues with many nuances that take much time to dissect and discuss. I certainly don't like absolutes like "it just goes to prove that extremes never work", there are many factors that contribute to such things.


You are calling me childish, but if anyone here is naive it is you son. Don't patronize me by calling me son. You sir have no idea how old I am and should not presume (you fill your posts with false assumptions, that sir is a poor debating habit). I don't need to say my age publicly, you should be the one with more respect in the first place (you were the one after all that implied we "we're all children" (paraphrasing)).


Now sudo go away. ;)
Not very funny, don't go into comedy to make a living.

I hope you don't discuss/debate like this publicly elsewhere.

Darkhack
August 14th, 2007, 02:19 AM
It's like arguing with a spoiled five year old "but i want it, i want it, i want it and i should be able to have it, have it, have it" *whines on and on and on*

AKA: juxtaposed


Someone could pass a law that said the earth was flat...

Laws of physics and laws of a nation are two different things. One is a declared fact that is proven with evidence, the other is a set of rules to live by.


"I don't agree with it" is a perfect reason to break the law though.

I don't agree with the sex offender laws. Does that give me "perfect reason" to rape women and children?

I'm sorry juxtaposed, but you have yet to provide a valid argument other than what I have quoted WishingWell as saying. You think that just because you want it, that you can have it. if that is enough justification for yourself, then fine. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be anywhere near you though for fear that you might be able to justify stabbing me and taking my money.

DoctorMO
August 14th, 2007, 02:27 AM
Now sudo go away

I find your comments so far to be irksom, I feel like you've missed the clue train several miles behind. This isn't an issue of weather I personally find is reprehensible to make copies without permission;

I'm a Copyright creator, I'm a programmer, writer, graphics artist and I love creating things and will continue to do so and license them how I see fit; how DARE you Mr WishingWell accuse me sir of disrespecting copyright or of committing a crime.

Now I'll be kind to you WishingWell and repeat the message again so you can at a later date make your apologies for your rude behaviour:

1. You can not call copying without permission stealing or piracy; the terms do not make sense in that context and are both morally, contextually, structurally and LEGALLY different; don't confuse people by spreading badly thought out FUD. I'm still saying it's very wrong but I'm also saying YOUR wrong calling it stealing, because not even a judge of the crown calls it stealing and he should know the law you know.

2. (and this point really passed you by) It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel about it, the fact is that economically the current situation is grim; there is a vast ability to make lots of money on well produced copyright works through the internet but big business doesn't want to invest in them. So these markets _are_ going to rail road those businesses and there is nothing you, I or the law can do to stop them because the market economics of free trade and human nature would have to die first. If you read my google doc I specifically give advice to copyright owners on how they can positively reduce copyright infringement by meeting the demand in the market before the market meets the demand without your permission.

3. Laws and morals are made up, there is no right way for the universe to be ordered; there are a set of moral principles which are a fairly stable guide to how someone should act and at the moment most people don't see copyright infringement as going against those basic moral principles. It doesn't harm anyone, it just doesn't help anyone either.

4. My own position on media is: I'm currently boycotting all media from RIAA produced companies, I will not buy dvds of movies until they remove css encryption and do not download anything that I don't have permission for. I shall make digital copies of CDs I own as I see fit and I will go to watch live music and see movies at the picture house instead (I also like to read and watch plays).

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 02:38 AM
Originally Posted by WishingWell View Post
It's like arguing with a spoiled five year old "but i want it, i want it, i want it and i should be able to have it, have it, have it" *whines on and on and on*
AKA: juxtaposed

I want it you say? I already have it, and you're whining about why I shouldn't :)


I don't agree with the sex offender laws. Does that give me "perfect reason" to rape women and children?

Rape is harming another person. Copying a file that someone other then the person who posesses it claims to own isn't.


You think that just because you want it, that you can have it. if that is enough justification for yourself, then fine.

You have definitally twisted anything you know about me into being conveinent for your agument. I don't demand someone to provide me with access to movies and music. Far from it. I just demand to be left alone from the RIAA, MPAA, government, etc when I share files with other people.


I sure as hell wouldn't want to be anywhere near you though for fear that you might be able to justify stabbing me and taking my money.

I don't use force against anyone else unless they used force against me.

starcraft.man
August 14th, 2007, 02:45 AM
Laws of physics and laws of a nation are two different things. One is a declared fact that is proven with evidence, the other is a set of rules to live by.

I don't think you know that much about science to make that comment. In the interest of correctness and knowledge, I'd like to fix that. Thing's certainly aren't all "proven facts", this is an acceptable definition of science (from my years with it):


Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] Science as defined here is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs.

"Facts" are passing, what's believed proven one day is tomorrow's lie (the earth is flat, the sky is blue, etc...). It is about observation and knowledge, the two most important parts and always striving for a better understanding.

That said, I think you missed the point. He was (correct me if I'm wrong) trying to illustrate the triviality of laws and how little they need do with reality. They are completely artificial.

Oh and +1 to DoctorMO :D. Irksom is a great word.

xpuser357
August 14th, 2007, 02:53 AM
:-kI heard that when you download mp3`s, on limewire,bearshare, and
others. (p2p) as long as you do not allow anybody to upload from
your computer it will not go against you in court of law

WishingWell
August 14th, 2007, 02:55 AM
I find your comments so far to be irksom, I feel like you've missed the clue train several miles behind. This isn't an issue of weather I personally find is reprehensible to make copies without permission;

I'm a Copyright creator, I'm a programmer, writer, graphics artist and I love creating things and will continue to do so and license them how I see fit; how DARE you Mr WishingWell accuse me sir of disrespecting copyright or of committing a crime.

Now I'll be kind to you WishingWell and repeat the message again so you can at a later date make your apologies for your rude behaviour:

1. You can not call copying without permission stealing or piracy; the terms do not make sense in that context and are both morally, contextually, structurally and LEGALLY different; don't confuse people by spreading badly thought out FUD. I'm still saying it's very wrong but I'm also saying YOUR wrong calling it stealing, because not even a judge of the crown calls it stealing and he should know the law you know.

2. (and this point really passed you by) It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel about it, the fact is that economically the current situation is grim; there is a vast ability to make lots of money on well produced copyright works through the internet but big business doesn't want to invest in them. So these markets _are_ going to rail road those businesses and there is nothing you, I or the law can do to stop them because the market economics of free trade and human nature would have to die first. If you read my google doc I specifically give advice to copyright owners on how they can positively reduce copyright infringement by meeting the demand in the market before the market meets the demand without your permission.

3. Laws and morals are made up, there is no right way for the universe to be ordered; there are a set of moral principles which are a fairly stable guide to how someone should act and at the moment most people don't see copyright infringement as going against those basic moral principles. It doesn't harm anyone, it just doesn't help anyone either.

4. My own position on media is: I'm currently boycotting all media from RIAA produced companies, I will not buy dvds of movies until they remove css encryption and do not download anything that I don't have permission for. I shall make digital copies of CDs I own as I see fit and I will go to watch live music and see movies at the picture house instead (I also like to read and watch plays).

It irks you because you know i'm right, i can't do much about that.

1. You are using a service, whether it is a movie or a music file or a program you are using a service, why do you think they call it "stealing cable" and you'd be guilty of theft from the cable company if you tried it? It's the same thing, exactly the same thin in fact, you are stealing a service you are required to pay for.

2. /ignore rant about market powers, supply and demand.

3. Laws and morals are made up by the society you live in son, you don't bypass the laws, you work to change them, that is how a responsible citizen of a society acts.

4. First of all, i applaud you for that, second, you know that it was the pirates before you that caused the RIAA and MPAA to grow and protect, right?

Without piracy, RIAA and MPAA would not exist and neither would DRM or WGA.

The pirates put us lawful people in this position where even us who are legal are questioned about our legality, that is the core of my hate for pirates.

And as i said before, it's always amusing when pirates complain about copy protection since without them, there would not be a need for it.

MetalMusicAddict
August 14th, 2007, 03:01 AM
Just let it die. This can't be argued from a technical P.O.V. because its clear in every country. Only a moral position (which yeah, the thread is about) can be taken and nobody wins there. It's all opinion. :)

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 03:09 AM
1. You are using a service, whether it is a movie or a music file or a program you are using a service,

I wouldn't call an album a service. Maybe getting the band to come to your house to play for you could be a service though.


It irks you because you know i'm right, i can't do much about that.

That statement reminds me of someone in a few of the backyard debates... Can't remember who though.


3. Laws and morals are made up by the society you live in son, you don't bypass the laws, you work to change them, that is how a responsible citizen of a society acts.

Ignoring the laws en masse is always better then begging the powerful to leave us alone.


it's always amusing when pirates complain about copy protection since without them,

Like I always say, DRM doesn't affect pirates much. Anything will be cracked.

WishingWell
August 14th, 2007, 03:12 AM
Just let it die. This can't be argued from a technical P.O.V. because its clear in every country. Only a moral position (which yeah, the thread is about) can be taken and nobody wins there. It's all opinion. :)

I know i should let it be but the ignorance astounds me.

WishingWell
August 14th, 2007, 03:20 AM
I wouldn't call an album a service. Maybe getting the band to come to your house to play for you could be a service though.

It is a service, someone did record that, someone playd that guitar/bass/drums/whatever and for you to be able to listen to their work they require a fee to service you with the pleasure of their music. You can spin that any way you want, you're still nothing but a common thief.


That statement reminds me of someone in a few of the backyard debates... Can't remember who though.

So you have been proven wrong before, that does not surprise me in the least.


Ignoring the laws en masse is always better then begging the powerful to leave us alone.

No, that will not change anything, it just proves that you are too damn lazy to get a job and pay for the service and too damn lazy to try to change the law instead of breaking it, it just proves that you are a lazy entitlement stricken youth of today and when you go to the PMITA prison for our theft, call me first, i want to laugh you in your face you lazy bum.



Like I always say, DRM doesn't affect pirates much. Anything will be cracked.

Exactly, it's us who don't steal that pay the price for your theft. Should we tolerate that? Nope.

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 03:29 AM
So you have been proven wrong before, that does not surprise me in the least.

Your ignorance astounds me. It's almost if you were trying to sound like that.


and too damn lazy to try to change the law instead of breaking it, i

I don't want the law changed, I want it abolished, but that's another discussion...


it just proves that you are a lazy entitlement stricken youth of today

"Darn new fangled kids these days, no respect for their elders"

You're such a stereotype :)


Exactly, it's us who don't steal that pay the price for your theft.

Copying is not theft. If anything it is infringing on an artificial concept called copyright.

But anyway, first you say pirates made DRM, then you say DRM is needed to stop pirates. DRM doesn't stop pirates. Don't get mad at pirates for DRM, get mad at the people who force DRM on to you, like record companies and movie companies.

But anyway; Heh. Your desperate attempts to somehow justify copyright law and force profit over freedom is futile anyway.

DoctorMO
August 14th, 2007, 03:41 AM
It irks you because you know i'm right, i can't do much about that.

Your attitude irks me Mr WishingWell. It's not what you're saying, it's that you're an arrogant troll, beating people up with ignorance instead of reason; I find you an offensive, vile and repugnant individual.


1. You are using a service, whether it is a movie or a music file or a program you are using a service, why do you think they call it "stealing cable" and you'd be guilty of theft from the cable company if you tried it? It's the same thing, exactly the same thin in fact, you are stealing a service you are required to pay for.

Not according to the law. Even in the cable case it would be called 'misappropriation of cable services' or service fraud depending on the country or state.


2. /ignore rant about market powers, supply and demand.

I think this just sums up your entire mental processes for rational discourse. Ignore anything that's inconvenient to your arrogance. You miss this point at your peril, because it involves how certain laws, markets and people are currently set up.


3. Laws and morals are made up by the society you live in son, you don't bypass the laws, you work to change them, that is how a responsible citizen of a society acts.

OK, no one but my father gets away with calling me son; you attempt to demean me, sir, by asserting that you know better than me because you're my father. How DARE you. As for your position: I would be unable to abide by an immoral law, doing the right thing comes before doing the legal thing. I just don't happen to think there is anything moral about copyright infringement.


4. First of all, i applaud you for that, second, you know that it was the pirates before you that caused the RIAA and MPAA to grow and protect, right?

This is a lie. The RIAA and the MPAA existed way before digital markets started springing up. And they wouldn't be such a bastion of irrational behaviour if the people behind them didn't insist on keeping an 18th century model of copyright distribution. I may think copyright infringers are doing something wrong, but I think the RIAA and the MPAA are doing something FAR worse, orders of magnitude more immoral and corrupt. I also consider your attitude to be more wrong than a single file sharing event. So far, I've got you marked down as a bad seed capable of file sharing at the drop of a hat.

cobrn1
August 14th, 2007, 03:46 AM
I find your comments so far to be irksom, I feel like you've missed the clue train several miles behind. This isn't an issue of weather I personally find is reprehensible to make copies without permission;

I'm a Copyright creator, I'm a programmer, writer, graphics artist and I love creating things and will continue to do so and license them how I see fit; how DARE you Mr WishingWell accuse me sir of disrespecting copyright or of committing a crime.

Now I'll be kind to you WishingWell and repeat the message again so you can at a later date make your apologies for your rude behaviour:

1. You can not call copying without permission stealing or piracy; the terms do not make sense in that context and are both morally, contextually, structurally and LEGALLY different; don't confuse people by spreading badly thought out FUD. I'm still saying it's very wrong but I'm also saying YOUR wrong calling it stealing, because not even a judge of the crown calls it stealing and he should know the law you know.

2. (and this point really passed you by) It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel about it, the fact is that economically the current situation is grim; there is a vast ability to make lots of money on well produced copyright works through the internet but big business doesn't want to invest in them. So these markets _are_ going to rail road those businesses and there is nothing you, I or the law can do to stop them because the market economics of free trade and human nature would have to die first. If you read my google doc I specifically give advice to copyright owners on how they can positively reduce copyright infringement by meeting the demand in the market before the market meets the demand without your permission.

3. Laws and morals are made up, there is no right way for the universe to be ordered; there are a set of moral principles which are a fairly stable guide to how someone should act and at the moment most people don't see copyright infringement as going against those basic moral principles. It doesn't harm anyone, it just doesn't help anyone either.

4. My own position on media is: I'm currently boycotting all media from RIAA produced companies, I will not buy dvds of movies until they remove css encryption and do not download anything that I don't have permission for. I shall make digital copies of CDs I own as I see fit and I will go to watch live music and see movies at the picture house instead (I also like to read and watch plays).

May I complement you on a finly written post! Not only was that very interesting (and strengthened by your credentials) but you also manage to remain neutral, not condoning piracy or doing it youself, but not damning it either.

Could you please post a link to the google doc you mention (if possible) as it sound intreguing...

Also, your post hits on a key point - the economics of the situation. Hence:

2. /ignore rant about market powers, supply and demand.is a great shame...

As someone once said, people pirate because it makes economic sense - same product, but lower price. Also, with DRM the free product is also better than the original (BTO).

There is a whole market out there on the internet waiting to be exploited. Using advertising to pay for your content is a good (and already popular option, if not with the music and film industries, then with the online newspapers, mags, etc) option. In many ways it seems ideal.

The seemingly (to some/many) unfair price of media is what drives many people to piracy (not that they can't afford it, but they think it's overpriced). Again, this is where the content companies have failed to see the potential, and I think DoctorMO's post has a lot to be said for it...



Another thing I'd point out is this issue of entitlement - I think you may have the wrong idea... I think the feeling is less of a spoiled brat wanting everything, but more a feeling that media (inparticular music) is a part of our culture, and the **AA cutting people off from that, or charging for that is unfair - so people cut them out and turn to piracy. Maybe this is like the new generation of hippies?! Only with ideals about media ownership, copyright, etc.



:-kI heard that when you download mp3`s, on limewire,bearshare, and
others. (p2p) as long as you do not allow anybody to upload from
your computer it will not go against you in court of law

This is slightly ambiguous... at the very least you are unlikely to be sued if you only download. However, most of there programs (especially p2p) involve you uploading as you download (it's a incredibly clever idea) maximising bandwidth usage (so a server doesn't get bogged down).

The point is that the **AA colect logs of you uploading the data on the network while you're downloading, and use that in court to show that you were breaking copyright by illegally distruibuting. Whether or whether not they can sue you for downloading is ambiguous, it would seem that they might be able to, but it is far easier to do you for distribution (so that is what they do).




Without piracy, RIAA and MPAA would not exist and neither would DRM or WGA.

The pirates put us lawful people in this position where even us who are legal are questioned about our legality, that is the core of my hate for pirates.

And as i said before, it's always amusing when pirates complain about copy protection since without them, there would not be a need for it.

I'm not sure this is 100% fair. The **AA would still exist, and would still be trying to screw money outof people (infact, the RIAA were set up for standardisatio purposes - look it up on wikipedia - it's quite interesting).

If people didn't share then people wouldn't be people, so I can't see WGA or DRM not being invented at somepoint. However, even if piracy wasn't as rampant as it was, please consider this - DRM is also used as a tool to extract more money fro you, the paying customer - you allowed 1 copy of the file, and if you want to put it on another music player, tough - pay for another copy. You want it in another format - pay up again. You bought fromone store, but you don't have their player - tough, you'll need one cos their files only work on their player... So you see that DRM would still exist, as the majority of it's uses are to force you to pay more even though you have rights that are being denied - this is very appealing to the content companies (hence the reluctance of them to remove it - they still think they can screw the paying customers, because, lets face it, DRM clearly doesn't stop piracy).

So really, your anger at pirates is misplaced, both because DRM would be made anyway, but because they didn't make the decision to make it, the **AA did.

Also, I think you'll find that generally pirates don't complain about DRM, since it's easy for them to get around it. Some pirates do complain, but these are your friends - they are the ones looking for a amicable solution all round, one which you both agree doesn't include DRM - they're complaining to try and get change, not because it inconveniences them - try to remember that.




Anyway, I just thought that these were a few things that needed to be added to the convo. Please note that inkeeping with DoctorMO's example, I'm not aiming to condone or damn piracy, so don't quote me saying that I'm taking either viewpoint - I'm categorically *not*.

starcraft.man
August 14th, 2007, 04:03 AM
Your attitude irks me Mr WishingWell, it's not what your saying it's that your an arrogant troll, beating people up with ignorance instead of reason; I find you an offensive, vile and repugnant individual.
I gotta admit, I think he's (MO) got ya pegged. You (WishingWell) wouldn't happen to be trying to provoke this purposely would you? Being amused by sabotaging the discourse?


not according to the law, even in the cable case it would be called 'mis-appropriation of cable services' or service fraud depending on the country or state.

To add to DoctorMO, since law is something WishingWell likes:
THE LAW (in Canada) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada)
Excerpt:

Canada has the greatest number of file sharers per capita in the world according to a report by the OECD. [1] As well, the same report states that the number of file sharers in Canada is steadily rising unlike the number of file sharers in the U.S.A., bringing to the forefront issues dealing with the legality of file sharing. However, contrary to popular opinion, file sharing in Canada is legal. Important distinctions have been made regarding the legality of downloading versus uploading copyrighted material. Copyright decisions in Canada have seemed to make it legal only to download copyrighted songs (but not other media, such as movies or software) for personal use.
As you can see, the law varies! Especially where the RIAA has less hold.


I think this just sums up your entire mental processes for rational discourse. ignore anything that's inconvenient to your arrogance. You miss this point at your peril because it involves how certain laws, markets and people are currently set up.
He does seem to ignore things, like my last post. Can't argue.


OK, no one but my father gets away with calling me son; you attempt to demean me sir by asserting that you know better than me because your my father; how DARE you. As for your posision; I would be unable to abide by an immoral law, doing the right thing comes before doing the legal thing. I just don't happen to think there is anything moral about copyright infringement.
+1

The "son", "you" and "young ones" nonsense really is getting annoying and down right rude. If you were in a debate in any public forum (real one in person, I have been in both in College and in clubs) you would have been thrown out by now. Such disrespect and general lack of decorum isn't tolerated in real debates.


This is a lie, the RIAA and the MPAA existed way before digital markets started springing up. And they wouldn't be such a bastion of irrational behaviour if the people behind them didn't insist on keeping an 18th century model of copyright distribution. I may think copyright infringers are doing something wrong, but I think the RIAA and the MPAA are doing something FAR worse, orders of magnitude more immoral and corrupt. I also consider your attitude to be more wrong than a single file sharing event, so far I've got you marked down as a bad seed capable of file sharing at the drop of a hat.

+1

I'd also add complacency is a factor. It combined with apathy, a bit of sheepishness and some general ignorance about the real issues (sometimes perpetuated by an inept media and government) have lead to the state of affairs. There is no rational reason for the majority of good users to be punished for the crimes of the minority (and piracy is a very SMALL minority of digital distribution, read some studies not by RIAA lap dogs).

Pirates didn't cause what is today, we (the people) did by letting the RIAA and others do it to us!

Darkhack
August 14th, 2007, 07:28 AM
Rape is harming another person. Copying a file that someone other then the person who posesses it claims to own isn't.

It harms them financially. Do you believe ALL copyrights are wrong? Do you think it is unfair for movie producers, musicians, programmers, photographers, painters, authors, and other artists to be paid for their work? Do you think that all those people should not make a profit from their creative works because people like you download? If you don't believe in copyright, please explain to me how you expect them to make money from their work. I'd be interested in hearing your explanation.

goumples
August 14th, 2007, 08:00 AM
What does illegal mean?

runningwithscissors
August 14th, 2007, 08:15 AM
I don't download music or movies. They're not worthy of my bandwidth.

Also, the argument that downloads are harming the entertainment industry is hogwash. The entertainment industry shows significant growth every year. Of course, greed dictates that the growth be higher than it currently is, hence the villification of filesharers.

runningwithscissors
August 14th, 2007, 08:43 AM
It harms them financially. Do you believe ALL copyrights are wrong? Do you think it is unfair for movie producers, musicians, programmers, photographers, painters, authors, and other artists to be paid for their work? Do you think that all those people should not make a profit from their creative works because people like you download? If you don't believe in copyright, please explain to me how you expect them to make money from their work. I'd be interested in hearing your explanation.
Simple. They get paid for their time and effort. The artists get paid for recording sessions and concerts. The distributors get paid for shipping the stuff to stores. And the stores get paid by customers.

Just like I get paid for my time to write software. I have no say in how it is going to be sold or used by customers. Do you think ordinary software developers too should get royalties on the code they wrote for some company?

I don't see how downloading a song deprives any of these people of revenue.

I used to download some music way back when you had ratio driven ftp sites and dial-up connections. I downloaded because I was a teenager and liked music that was not available in cheap cassette-tape form at the local music store.
Not downloading it wouldn't make a cassette magically appear at the store, nor would it convince the rich 'artist' to come down and personally entertain me.

I stopped downloading music way back too simply due to loss of interest in music and extreme disgust at those peddling their rubbish in the entertainment industry.

DirtDawg
August 14th, 2007, 10:04 AM
Hmmm. Where's the "Study finds multinational corporations justify slavery" thread?

PartisanEntity
August 14th, 2007, 10:50 AM
I don’t want to get into the mess concerning the legality of file sharing, but what I do want to mention are the following points:

First of all, people will always share things. Back in the days we shared less because you had to physically borrow a tape, LP or video cassette from your friend or relative. Today, due to the digital nature of these items and due to the increased networked environment you don’t have to leave your home to do so.

The main issue as I see it is that these multinational corporations in the music industry want to continue making a lot of money based on an old business model that no longer applies. This is why they may, IMO, exaggerate the effects of sharing while trying to use DRM technology to prevent it.

What these massive corporations must realise is that they have to adapt to the new era. They must recalibrate their expectations, no longer will they be able to charge €20 for an entire CD and force their customers to buy a whole album.

Today people want to buy individual songs for a few cents or maybe a euro or two. Today people want to pick and mix. This of course means selling perhaps less and therefore earning less as far as the music corporations are concerned.

I believe that in the future, we will by buying music directly from the artist or through sites like jamendo. We no longer need a music corporation to press an LP or CD for us. Today the technology to make music and sell it is affordable and abundant, plus it does not require an army of technicians and sound engineers. Anyone can make music, record it and sell it from their computer and home studio.

The music corporations know this, which is why, IMO, they are trying to enforce an old world business model on us. The digital age has made music corporations redundant.

In the future, many corporations that came into being because they controlled the distribution of a medium on which the product was sold will cease to exist or become much smaller. Many corporations and business will go bankrupt and be replaced by new business models.

We don’t need the middle men anymore when it comes to certain digital products, but right now they want to force their existence on us. Soon you might not need book and print publishers anymore, etc..

Finally, concerning digital products such as software, music, images, videos and books, we all need to adapt to the digital age. We cannot sell electrons like we sell paper, a CD or a video cassette. New business models will have to be thought up.

Yes true, a software makers, artists and actors put huge effort into making their digital products, but in the end these products are nothing more than 1’s and 0’s travelling around as electrons in a computer. We all will have to adapt concerning how much we can pay and how much we can earn from electrons and 1’s and 0’s.

Many of us approach the digital age with an old world view, I do it too, but it won’t work. A new age needs new ideas and new business models.

argie
August 14th, 2007, 11:15 AM
You know what? I loved Volition, and still do.
You know why? They were lovely. Everything about Freespace 2 was done right. The licence allowed you to give copies of the game to friends and acquaintances provided you didn't charge, the source code was later released, and the game rocked. That company really did 'get with the program'.

aysiu
August 14th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Here's one take that hasn't really been presented yet in these ten pages of discussion:

If you don't want to support "greedy" corporations, don't listen to the music they produce. It's the same reason Bill Gates wants China to pirate Windows. He'd wants them to pay, of course, but if they're going to use anything, he'd rather they pirate Windows than use Linux.

If you believe so much in the artist and in not supporting big-name music studios, buy independent; use Magnatune, eMusic, or Jamendo.

Just a perspective to consider.

gnomeuser
August 14th, 2007, 12:20 PM
I see no problem with regards to personal downloading. My personal experience is that you get exposed to a lot of great new music and thus you tend to buy more music - I know I did. I also moved from buying what the store has which is largely top 100 albums to finding stuff that I genuinely liked.

My main source of music today is Magnatune.com, I don't mind paying for music, I even pay more than the minimum required. What I do require are fair terms (Magnatune is plenty fair, no drm, cheap, the format I want, I can listen to every song as much I want before buy and they encourage me to give away copies of my music) and I require the record label to be fair to the artist. Nothing pisses me off more than those ads saying I create starving artists by not paying 15$ for a CD, when I know perfectly well that even the best deal for a major selling artist is only 1-1.5$ per cd - with magnatune's 50/50 sharing before costs are covered even at the minimum 5$ pr album payment the artist gets twice that.

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 02:41 PM
May I complement you on a finly written post!

I think so too.


It harms them financially.

No, they arn't harmed, they just don't gain (assuming the person would have bought it).


Do you believe ALL copyrights are wrong?

Yes.


Do you think it is unfair for movie producers, musicians, programmers, photographers, painters, authors, and other artists to be paid for their work?

No, but they can get paid for their work without copyright. People will still buy albums, just maybe not if they are overpriced.

Like Marilyn Manson said; "People will always want to go to concerts, people will always want to go to the movies".


Do you think that all those people should not make a profit from their creative works because people like you download?

They should, and will, even without copyright. Just they might not be able to afford as many mansions and yachts.

The Grateful Dead didn't make much money from albums because they didn't sell very well, but they made money from shows (and they even let anyone tape them) and you didn't see them starving on the street.


If you don't believe in copyright, please explain to me how you expect them to make money from their work. I'd be interested in hearing your explanation.

People will probably still buy albums, just the artists would probably have to work on making them better (like selling them in lossless if it is digital).

If they want more money, they can play shows.

But anyway, why should you use the law to enforce profits?


I believe that in the future, we will by buying music directly from the artist or through sites like jamendo.

That would be great and would really make me very seriously consider buying music (of course not all of my collection, but i'd still like to support the artist if they needed it).

maagimies
August 14th, 2007, 04:20 PM
I pirate software, music and video, but atleast I'm not fooling myself, I know I have no right to do so but I still do it.
I really despise people who make excuses for it that would make it "alright", they look just sad :D
Especially the argument "it's not really stealing" gets to me.

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
Of course, one could argue that you just copy it, like going to a car shop and copy-raying a car and driving off.
Well, this argument goes both ways.
In digital realm, as it's a copy, it's actually still the same object. Thus still being an object in ownership of an other person, and you are using it without permit.

@trophy
August 14th, 2007, 04:25 PM
Here's one take that hasn't really been presented yet in these ten pages of discussion:

If you don't want to support "greedy" corporations, don't listen to the music they produce. It's the same reason Bill Gates wants China to pirate Windows. He'd wants them to pay, of course, but if they're going to use anything, he'd rather they pirate Windows than use Linux.

If you believe so much in the artist and in not supporting big-name music studios, buy independent; use Magnatune, eMusic, or Jamendo.

Just a perspective to consider.


I've been using irate for quite some time, and there's some good stuff out there! Unfortunately there's also a lot of crap. But since it's free, I guess beggars can't be choosers.

dannyboy79
August 14th, 2007, 04:51 PM
What dream world are you living in? Before I got caught with illegally downloading (yes, I was one of the few unlucky ones) I could afford most of what I downloaded with the exception of Adobe software. Even then I *could* afford it, if I charged it on a credit card and went into debt temporarily. I had no intention of ever paying. Most people who can afford a computer with internet access can afford the $1 for a song off of iTunes but many still do not purchase it. The only reason people don't steal more from Wal-Mart is because it is too easy to get caught and the punishment is too severe. If a riot were to ever break out in a city and looting began, you can bet your *** that everyone from church attending families of four, and little old grannies would participate. Remember after Hurricane Katrina how in addition to stealing food (justified) that many also stole televisions, jewelry, and other expensive items? Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of good people out there that wish to maintain order and are very fair when it comes to compensating people. A majority are not however and if they can get something for free without getting caught, then they'll do it. Especially if that something can be copied indefinitely and is not a solid object (music, text, videos, and other data) because the human mind doesn't see that as the same thing as stealing from a department store where it is something you can hold in your hand and there is only "one" of that object.



It is ripping someone off if I download a song or movie and then not pay for it. I'm a potential customer that has stolen something instead of purchasing it. Your analogy is the equivalent of saying that stealing a car is not ripping anyone off unless you resell it or give it to a chop-shop.

i am pleased to see that another individual, using the least bit of common sense, can understand what I am saying.

dannyboy79
August 14th, 2007, 05:09 PM
*Yawn*

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dghzxrqs_8g522cb&hl=en_US

I'm sick of ignorant people spouting that copyright infringement is theft; no it isn't, not legally and not morally. If you take the car analogy, if someone had a car and made a perfect copy of it, then they gave that copy away for free, and made 10 more copies and gave all those away. I'm sure ford or nissan would be mortified that potential customers are getting cars for free.

And you're saying that this car analogy is not legally wrong or morally wrong????????? You're calling us ignorant?? WOW! Ain't that the kettle calling the pot black????

Here's the WIKI on copyright infringement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Methods_of_copyright_infrin gement
Here's the copyright law info: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Read up before you post something so obsurd.

dannyboy79
August 14th, 2007, 05:10 PM
I pirate software, music and video, but atleast I'm not fooling myself, I know I have no right to do so but I still do it.
I really despise people who make excuses for it that would make it "alright", they look just sad :D
Especially the argument "it's not really stealing" gets to me.

Of course, one could argue that you just copy it, like going to a car shop and copy-raying a car and driving off.
Well, this argument goes both ways.
In digital realm, as it's a copy, it's actually still the same object. Thus still being an object in ownership of an other person, and you are using it without permit.

+1

Darkhack
August 14th, 2007, 07:04 PM
It took 10 pages but we finally got a decent explanation out of you juxtaposed. I think if copyrights were completely abolished though then no one would go to the movies or concerts. Don't get me wrong, there are still some die-hard fans that would and also pay for donations, but a vast majority of their audience wouldn't. I don't even pirate media and I haven't gone to the movie theater in over five years and have probably only been 4-5 times in my life, most of which was when I was a little kid and my parents took me and paid for it. Concerts are an even bigger ripoff. Never been to one and don't intend to. WAY too expensive and there is nothing to do but just sit there (if you're lucky enough to have seats and it's not a standing concert) and listen to loud music hurting your ear drums and stupid crowds yelling all around you. I'll listen to the music in the comfort of my own home thank you. If copyright laws were abolished, artists would lose 80% of their fan base and only the most hardcore would stick around while the rest downloads it online.

In addition to that, anyone can claim the song as their own. Any imatators could play the song without paying royalties and thus the "music as a service" motive is severely undercut. Sure, competition is great, but not when it is your original peice that you are competing against!

Depressed Man
August 14th, 2007, 07:21 PM
It took 10 pages but we finally got a decent explanation out of you juxtaposed. I think if copyrights were completely abolished though then no one would go to the movies or concerts. Don't get me wrong, there are still some die-hard fans that would and also pay for donations, but a vast majority of their audience wouldn't. I don't even pirate media and I haven't gone to the movie theater in over five years and have probably only been 4-5 times in my life, most of which was when I was a little kid and my parents took me and paid for it. Concerts are an even bigger ripoff. Never been to one and don't intend to. WAY too expensive and there is nothing to do but just sit there (if you're lucky enough to have seats and it's not a standing concert) and listen to loud music hurting your ear drums and stupid crowds yelling all around you. I'll listen to the music in the comfort of my own home thank you. If copyright laws were abolished, artists would lose 80% of their fan base and only the most hardcore would stick around while the rest downloads it online.

In addition to that, anyone can claim the song as their own. Any imatators could play the song without paying royalties and thus the "music as a service" motive is severely undercut. Sure, competition is great, but not when it is your original peice that you are competing against!

The people who would want to go to the concert are those who would want to hear the original artist singing it. Just like they do now. People rarely go to concerts just for the heck of it. And the benefit of having it being unrestricted for anyone is that if anyone thought they could improve it or change it then they can. The music industry right now does it itself (but with much more complexitiy as the have to broker deals between the companies to let other artist use their songs). There have been songs that I find the newer version is much better then the older version. It just happens to be the pros and cons of copyrights.

Unlike you, I have "pirated" stuff (I still think that term is odd). But I also pay to go see the movies and live concerts. While you don't "pirate" stuff yet don't go to movies and live concerts (at least anymore from what your post says). It's really just an individual difference.

I can say that the music I've "pirated" has actually gotten me to buy more music from the artists I like and have me spending money on concerts I would otherwise not go to. Then again the person across the street from me can be "pirating" everything and never go to a movie or concert again.

On a sidenote: I've never really found concerts that bad on the ears. It's more of the screaming fangirls (and maybe fanboys) that really hurt my ears since they tend to be right next to you or behind you.

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 07:57 PM
It took 10 pages but we finally got a decent explanation out of you juxtaposed.

You must be ignoring everything I say because I have said nearly the exact same things on this topic as well as others.


I think if copyrights were completely abolished though then no one would go to the movies or concerts. Don't get me wrong, there are still some die-hard fans that would and also pay for donations, but a vast majority of their audience wouldn't.

Why though? People will always want to go to concerts, and to a lesser extent movies too. If someone can provide a better movie experience in a theatre then your home and you find the money to be worth it you will probably go.


Concerts are an even bigger ripoff. Never been to one and don't intend to. WAY too expensive and there is nothing to do but just sit there (if you're lucky enough to have seats and it's not a standing concert) and listen to loud music hurting your ear drums and stupid crowds yelling all around you.

I've only been to a couple concerts, they were great, but I agree; The cost was too high. I think 20$ is a fair price for a concert.


If copyright laws were abolished, artists would lose 80% of their fan base and only the most hardcore would stick around while the rest downloads it online.

Why would you loose a fanbase if they downloaded it? People who download music arn't fans now? :P

Sure, the richest probably won't make as much, but the strugling artists will probably make more.


In addition to that, anyone can claim the song as their own. Any imatators could play the song without paying royalties and thus the "music as a service" motive is severely undercut.

Music isn't a service (unless it is a concert, that could be considered a service).

Why shouldn't people be allowed to play songs that other people wrote? Do you think that not only does someone own a file they made (nomatter the fact that they sold it to someone), but they also own the words, and the guitar chords and such that make up the song? Scary...

starcraft.man
August 14th, 2007, 08:30 PM
And you're saying that this car analogy is not legally wrong or morally wrong????????? You're calling us ignorant?? WOW! Ain't that the kettle calling the pot black????

Here's the WIKI on copyright infringement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Methods_of_copyright_infrin gement
Here's the copyright law info: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Read up before you post something so obsurd.
Before I actually respond to this, I might point out that it is ridiculous to quote something that is 8 pages old (yes we are now at page 11, and that quote is mid page 3). So many arguments past that original one from MO have been raised and talked about that you (in my opinion) are taking quite the cheap shot at his original statement. Seems only proof that you didn't have any serious intent in responding to a current post (i.e. last two pages) or contributing to the discussion. Had you paid attention, he has posted countless times since, more recent and notably thus:


I find your comments so far to be irksom [responding to WishingWell], I feel like you've missed the clue train several miles behind. This isn't an issue of weather I personally find is reprehensible to make copies without permission;

I'm a Copyright creator, I'm a programmer, writer, graphics artist and I love creating things and will continue to do so and license them how I see fit; how DARE you Mr WishingWell accuse me sir of disrespecting copyright or of committing a crime.

Now I'll be kind to you WishingWell and repeat the message again so you can at a later date make your apologies for your rude behaviour:

1. You can not call copying without permission stealing or piracy; the terms do not make sense in that context and are both morally, contextually, structurally and LEGALLY different; don't confuse people by spreading badly thought out FUD. I'm still saying it's very wrong but I'm also saying YOUR wrong calling it stealing, because not even a judge of the crown calls it stealing and he should know the law you know.

2. (and this point really passed you by) It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel about it, the fact is that economically the current situation is grim; there is a vast ability to make lots of money on well produced copyright works through the internet but big business doesn't want to invest in them. So these markets _are_ going to rail road those businesses and there is nothing you, I or the law can do to stop them because the market economics of free trade and human nature would have to die first. If you read my google doc I specifically give advice to copyright owners on how they can positively reduce copyright infringement by meeting the demand in the market before the market meets the demand without your permission.

3. Laws and morals are made up, there is no right way for the universe to be ordered; there are a set of moral principles which are a fairly stable guide to how someone should act and at the moment most people don't see copyright infringement as going against those basic moral principles. It doesn't harm anyone, it just doesn't help anyone either.

4. My own position on media is: I'm currently boycotting all media from RIAA produced companies, I will not buy dvds of movies until they remove css encryption and do not download anything that I don't have permission for. I shall make digital copies of CDs I own as I see fit and I will go to watch live music and see movies at the picture house instead (I also like to read and watch plays).

Page 8 FYI. I advise you that it'd be best if you actually read all the comments a person makes (or for that matter a whole thread to present) before being so critical.

Now as to responding to your question:

And you're saying that this car analogy is not legally wrong or morally wrong?
First lets distinguish that what is legal and moral are two different things. Legal is what a court or political body defines and then enforces with force, the court is the final word though usually superseding the politicians. Moral is what a group of people proclaims to be right (i.e. religious body, culture, community, etc...). The two are very different, especially since what is moral usually has no binding enforceable component and is just a guide line. Morality also varies quite a bit culturally (the term is called Cultural Relativism) and you'll find that different places believe different things (like Canada, eh?).

Now as to the morality of duplicating said car. If I take said car and have a process whereby I can clone the car with no effort at all and without hurting anyone/taking that doesn't belong to me. I then have two copies, I take one car (new one I believe) and drive it to a friend who I know has difficulty travelling (due to x reason) and could not afford to buy a new or even used car. I give said car to him and wish him luck in life. Morally who was hurt? I didn't injure anyone in the copy, my friend didn't hurt anyone and the car companies believe it or not weren't hurt because the friend wouldn't have bought a car anyway, he didn't have the money (at best he'd buy used and that doesn't filter to the car companies either, it's a private sale and to my knowledge is only subject to taxation). So, morally, copying a car in this instance can't be condemned (at least in this example of morality) it doesn't hurt anyone. Car companies may be upset that said person got a free car, but being upset doesn't lead to something being moral or not. You may or may not agree with this progression of logic, morality is difficult to clearly define and prove and often simply depends how you put things. That is why legislating morality has often proved very ill fated and often completely wrong. Morality is best left out of legal arguments IMO.

The second point is legality. This gets a bit trickier, and I am admittedly not a lawyer (I may get things wrong, if you are a lawyer point me to said Canadian laws on the matter). I am fairly sure that there is no law in Canada to my knowledge that prevents you from reproducing a wheel or a car seat (and by extension the whole Car) if you use your own means. So long as you copy it with materials/means that are yours and you fabricate the clone yourself, you didn't do anything wrong in the law as far as I can see. The one notable error is if the make and model are left as those fall under trademark law, therefore those would not be cloned. I suppose another condition would be any patented parts (I don't know if there are many in cars), assume there were none for the example or if you like that in the fabrication process all patented parts were replaced with original parts I made. There doesn't seem to be anything legally wrong in this example. So yes, I think it is legal (unless another law I am unaware of stipulates such) to reproduce a car you own.

Now, I hope your happy. Said car analogy does work (albeit with help, it isn't the greatest analogy and MO did make it a bit hastily). I wouldn't have used it (rather something else) in defence of p2p and copyright things.

As for copying of copyright material itself, let's get into that on the same two points (since that seems to be what your really interested in). First this time legality, and this I do know. I will even quote your favourite resource, Wikipedia:

THE LAW (in Canada) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada)
Excerpt:

Canada has the greatest number of file sharers per capita in the world according to a report by the OECD. [1] As well, the same report states that the number of file sharers in Canada is steadily rising unlike the number of file sharers in the U.S.A., bringing to the forefront issues dealing with the legality of file sharing. However, contrary to popular opinion, file sharing in Canada is legal. Important distinctions have been made regarding the legality of downloading versus uploading copyrighted material. Copyright decisions in Canada have seemed to make it legal only to download copyrighted songs (but not other media, such as movies or software) for personal use. Uploading or distributing copyrighted material is not allowed according to recent copyright decisions.


As you can see, what exactly constitutes copyright infringement is not absolute it in fact varies! The Canadian high courts have (from what I've read) deemed it perfectly legal to first use a file sharing program (i.e. p2p) and secondly to download copyright songs. Uploading has recently been ruled illegal I believe but we will see if that isn't overturned some time soon. That fact alone has not changed either of the two prior rulings of the court. So there you have your legality of copyright infringement. There are other case studies of other countries you may want to read before commenting on the legalities.

Now morally, please see the same experiment I went through with copying of car. Depending on how you form it you can come out to different moral conclusions (it is more subjective/varied I believe a thought experiment than the car one). The ambiguity of said morality though is largely irrelevant (and at the same time a great flaw), people do things that aren't moral every day. Some amoral things (depending on your version of moral) are even legal (and vice versa). Morality is ambiguous on it's best day and should never be used as a justification for doing (or not) something in my mind, certainly not a matter such as copyright. Morality is best left to the big things like not killing, or hurting someone else (and I believe a case can be made strongly without any reference to morality that said things are wrong, regardless of your moral stance). So point being morality to a great degree is subjective, depending on pov or for that matter the moral theorem you subscribe to. There are in fact at least 6 large theorems (off top of head) that may be used and they might not all agree.

Oh and I add one more thing in closing, when calling (probably inferring better word) others ignorant it is best IMO to not make spelling mistakes, like absurd.

That is all. In future, contribute something of value to a discussion and don't attack others simply because you can snipe a post that is pages old. That is both very poor form and bad forum etiquette in my mind.

Edit: Oh and one last thing. People seem to keep attacking me (and others) personally (mostly it was WishingWell) for defending the side of p2p/copyright infringement. I would submit that said people should cease with the personal attacks and get with the valid arguments on the subject. For all you know I (or others) am taking a side in a discussion and don't do any of this, I in fact often play devil's advocate to whatever side my interest lies in at the moment. Point being if your trying to have a serious discussion have one, if you just want to attack people best to do that elsewhere.

dannyboy79
August 14th, 2007, 09:41 PM
Before I actually respond to this, I might point out that it is ridiculous to quote something that is 8 pages old (yes we are now at page 11, and that quote is mid page 3). So many arguments past that original one from MO have been raised and talked about that you (in my opinion) are taking quite the cheap shot at his original statement. Seems only proof that you didn't have any serious intent in responding to a current post (i.e. last two pages) or contributing to the discussion.
I posted back on sheet 2, went and did some work, came back to the very active thread. I saw his post and I responded by quoting him. I have every write to quote and comment on any thread I'd like to even if it were 2 years ago, that is my right. I am sorry you feel that I don't have anything "serious" to contribute. I felt the copyright law was very fitting for the subject. I see your points on all accounts but I have to point out that it is illegal to "copy" a car. In order for it to be a copy, it would have to be the same, all of it would have to be the exact same. If it's the same and NOT produced by the manufacturer than the part would be falsely identified because the part was NOT produced by the manufacturer, it was copied. There are laws against this and I can only site a law for the FAA but not the automotive industry due to time constraints.
http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/transportation-equipment-aircraft-parts/3940729-1.html
You or anyone can use any analogy you want, it still makes it illegal to break copyright laws. I don't know how the silly car analogy came into play but as you can see there are reasons that this is illegal as well, not due to copyright infringement but due to other reasons.

This topic is always a very contraversal and I am done trying to reason with people.

Depressed Man
August 14th, 2007, 09:53 PM
The car analogy came into play as one of the most frequent arguements I've heard (in various forms is). "you wouldn't go steal a car, (or walk into whatever store and steal the CD)" so why are you "pirating" a copy?

cobrn1
August 14th, 2007, 10:05 PM
I pirate software, music and video, but atleast I'm not fooling myself, I know I have no right to do so but I still do it.
I really despise people who make excuses for it that would make it "alright", they look just sad :D
Especially the argument "it's not really stealing" gets to me.

Of course, one could argue that you just copy it, like going to a car shop and copy-raying a car and driving off.
Well, this argument goes both ways.
In digital realm, as it's a copy, it's actually still the same object. Thus still being an object in ownership of an other person, and you are using it without permit.

Why are people +1ing this comment?

Superficially, this is the 'honest pirate' plea, but look more deeply... You admit that you think what you are doing is wrong, but you do it anyway - you feel vindicated by your ability to 'be honest' and say this on the forum to everybody, so this makes you less bad than all the other pirates who make excuses.

The other pirates, on the other hand, believe firmly that they are doing no harm, and that copyright law is wrong, and therefore believe they should ignore it.

Do you see the difference? - they are following their moral compass, you are not. Which is really worse?

<please try not to take this as a personal attack, more of a niggling observation>


It took 10 pages but we finally got a decent explanation out of you juxtaposed. I think if copyrights were completely abolished though then no one would go to the movies or concerts. Don't get me wrong, there are still some die-hard fans that would and also pay for donations, but a vast majority of their audience wouldn't. I don't even pirate media and I haven't gone to the movie theater in over five years and have probably only been 4-5 times in my life, most of which was when I was a little kid and my parents took me and paid for it. Concerts are an even bigger ripoff. Never been to one and don't intend to. WAY too expensive and there is nothing to do but just sit there (if you're lucky enough to have seats and it's not a standing concert) and listen to loud music hurting your ear drums and stupid crowds yelling all around you. I'll listen to the music in the comfort of my own home thank you. If copyright laws were abolished, artists would lose 80% of their fan base and only the most hardcore would stick around while the rest downloads it online.

In addition to that, anyone can claim the song as their own. Any imatators could play the song without paying royalties and thus the "music as a service" motive is severely undercut. Sure, competition is great, but not when it is your original peice that you are competing against!

Going to the cinema, or going to a concert is a service, and one that people will continue to buy for years. I think that the cinema is overpriced, but the I found a cheap local one and go there... Point is that allowing free distribution of the media won't kill these markets atall - I can't wait to see certain films in the cinema, and even though my friends have offered to download them, I've said no - I want to see them big screen... Other films it wouldn't be so bad watching them an a small screen.

Many music enthusiasts would tell you that nothing compares to seeing (and listening) to your favourite band in the flesh - and people will continue to pay for that for years to come.



I think so too.



No, they arn't harmed, they just don't gain (assuming the person would have bought it).



Yes.



No, but they can get paid for their work without copyright. People will still buy albums, just maybe not if they are overpriced.

Like Marilyn Manson said; "People will always want to go to concerts, people will always want to go to the movies".



They should, and will, even without copyright. Just they might not be able to afford as many mansions and yachts.

The Grateful Dead didn't make much money from albums because they didn't sell very well, but they made money from shows (and they even let anyone tape them) and you didn't see them starving on the street.



People will probably still buy albums, just the artists would probably have to work on making them better (like selling them in lossless if it is digital).

If they want more money, they can play shows.

But anyway, why should you use the law to enforce profits?



That would be great and would really make me very seriously consider buying music (of course not all of my collection, but i'd still like to support the artist if they needed it).

Without copyright, artist probably wouldn't be as rich as they are today - it's true, but why should they be...

No business model has a divine right to succeed - the musician model of signing up to a music corp is just the same - it's succeeded for many years, but that doesn't mean that artists have a right to become rich from their work - they have a right to earn a living from it, and they have become rich in the past, but things maybe changing...

Consider for example, the average job. You turn up to work, you do several hours of work and you get paid for those hours... Now consider music... you go to the studio, spend a couple of hours recording music, and then... get paid over, and over, and over again for those few hours work? Seem fair. And don't even say that it's more than a few hours work, because while that's true, it's also true that the pay is disproportionate to the amount of work done.

On the other hand, if you record your music, release it for free, and then go doing concerts, you are working and getting paid for the work - seems more reasonable, doesn't it.

If you are going to use an example of a manufacturing business getting paid over and over - that is different - they are pulling lots of cogs together, and making lots of products (physical things), wheras music/media can be copied - once made there is an infinite supply of it.



Oh, and did anyone read DoctorMO's googledoc, because he hits the nail right on the head there, at least interms of economics.



Anyway, once again, my diclaimer - I am not condoning or damning piracy, copyright infringment in any way, so donot quote me saying that I am. Please also consider that any people here are playing devil's advocate to keep the conversation interesting (and enlightened) - I am merely pointing out a few things that the conversation seemed lacking in.

aysiu
August 14th, 2007, 10:09 PM
Why are people +1ing this comment?

Superficially, this is the 'honest pirate' plea, but look more deeply... You admit that you think what you are doing is wrong, but you do it anyway - you feel vindicated by your ability to 'be honest' and say this on the forum to everybody, so this makes you less bad than all the other pirates who make excuses.

The other pirates, on the other hand, believe firmly that they are doing no harm, and that copyright law is wrong, and therefore believe they should ignore it.

Do you see the difference? - they are following their moral compass, you are not. Which is really worse? I guess the implication is that they are not following their moral compass but just justifying outwardly what they inwardly know to be wrong.

juxtaposed
August 14th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Do you see the difference? - they are following their moral compass, you are not. Which is really worse?

Good point.


No business model has a divine right to succeed - the musician model of signing up to a music corp is just the same - it's succeeded for many years, but that doesn't mean that artists have a right to become rich from their work - they have a right to earn a living from it, and they have become rich in the past, but things maybe changing...

That's what I have been trying to say, for the most part. People say "well, copyright is needed so the artist makes money"; well, they'll probably make money without it, and if it isn't enough, then they can stop doing it. They shouldn't use the law to enforce profits.

buzzmandt
August 14th, 2007, 10:47 PM
I download a few songs, I don't have a vast library of gigs worth of mp3's. Most music I donwload is in the form of music videos. Not sure the law on this. I don't have an mp3 player and burning music to cd's is extremely rare. I listen to them on the pc and that's about it. I listen to sirius radio while on the road (truck driver out for 2 weeks, home for 2-3 days). No music cd's, just sirius radio, again, i don't burn cd's for the most part. When I'm home I can sign in to sirius online and listen to the same music station as when i'm on the road and wait for song X to come on and listen to it. I download it so i can play it at my whim. To steal something it has to be worth money. I have no interest in buying the song. If it comes down to buying it, i'll just wait for it to be played when i'm listening to the radio. Since it isn't something I'm going to buy, it's hard to call it stealing as it has no value for me to own it. The record company, the artist, walmart, and everyone else involved is not out ANY money since i would not buy it anyway.

The plummer: If I have a water line burst (other than fixing it myself which i would do) and i needed to call a plummer, his services have value that i'm ready to pay for. I see value in the water line getting fixed, therefore it is worth money.

The car: If it's an exact copy of car X, it's stealing plain and simple. mp3's are not exact copies as it is a lossy format and loses quality. the exact car copy is not a good argument because of this fact.

Rich: Getting rich is along the lines of supply and demand, when the demand is higher than the supply the supplier gets rich, and should. When the supply is higher than the demand the supplier doesn't get rich. copyright laws are in place only to mantain the law of supply and demand in favor of the supplier (i.e. record co. and movie ind.). If the way you do something doesn't make money, do it some other way (i.e. Itunes). The market shouldn't be dictated by courts, it should be dicated by supply and demand.

maagimies
August 15th, 2007, 12:37 AM
Do you see the difference? - they are following their moral compass, you are not. Which is really worse?

<please try not to take this as a personal attack, more of a niggling observation>Well, as aysiu noticed, I personally feel most people are really just making up excuses in order not to feel bad about themselves, instead of truly believing in what they say for their defense.
And I do not really try to make myself higher then they are, nor am I defending piracy in any way.
I just hate when people do something but do not admit it or find ways around it.
And yes, perhaps people who pirate, but truly believe in what they say are better people than me.
And I do have rather odd morals compared to people around me.

And I won't take it personal, you presented your post clearly and discreetly. :)
You raised a good point.

I didn't say this in my original post, but I do not pirate that much nowadays.
I've seriously lessened this habit, and I don't try to indirectly make myself seem better than other pirates, by posting what I post.
edit:
If anyone didn't understand even one word what I said above, I'm just really tired and should go to bed soon. :P

Dimitriid
August 15th, 2007, 01:01 AM
Well, as aysiu noticed, I personally feel most people are really just making up excuses in order not to feel bad about themselves, instead of truly believing in what they say for their defense.


That value judgment is based on nothing. This is why I hate this discussion, people impose opinions as facts, people assume that their moral value system is superior, people even assume nobody can have a different moral value system without being: a) Inferior/wrong/invalid or b) Hypocritical.

aysiu
August 15th, 2007, 01:11 AM
This is why I hate this discussion I hate this discussion for a different reason--mainly that there are no common assumptions. Discussions are most interesting when party 1 and party 2 both agree on assumption A, but party 1 argues conclusion B from assumption A, and party 2 argues conclusion C from assumption A.

There are way too many disagreed upon assumptions here, though. The two sides do not agree on what is moral or what is legal. So why even bother trying to argue for a common conclusion from different assumptions? It's silly.

WishingWell
August 15th, 2007, 02:44 AM
If MS was to pirate one line of code then the lot of you hypocrits would be all up in arms about it, but if you steal music by not paying for the service the musician has provided for you then you feel entitled to enjoy his music without paying.

IOW, you support the stealing of code and music, that means that you are not Ubuntu members, you are merely lowlifes who feel entitled to free things that others have worked to create, in my opinion, this is not a community i want to be a part of at all.

juxtaposed
August 15th, 2007, 03:09 AM
If MS was to pirate one line of code then the lot of you hypocrits would be all up in arms about it,

If you had a watergun you would throw it at the moon.

I can lie about others too (just not in any seriousness) :D


but if you steal music by not paying for the service

Again, stop making new definitions of words.


you then you feel entitled to enjoy his music without paying.

If someone has something in their posession and has the ability to copy it and give me a copy, and they choose to offer me a copy, I have a right to accept it if I want, without being forced into jail or something.


IOW, you support the stealing of code and music,

That's like saying "you stole my idea". You might have created the idea, but I only copied the idea, you do not own the sole posessor idea, unless you are the only one who knows it. Same applies to digital data.


that means that you are not Ubuntu members,

What are you talking about?


you are merely lowlifes who feel entitled to free things that others have worked to create,

I am entitled to be left alone from music and movie cartels to live my life, whether they are afraid of lost profits or not. Period.

Profits should never come before freedom. People who think profit is more important then freedom scare me very much.


this is not a community i want to be a part of at all.

Not to be rude, but you can leave if you want.

misfitpierce
August 15th, 2007, 03:13 AM
What's a virus?:lol:

haha :)

knopper67
August 15th, 2007, 03:27 AM
But is it considered piracy if an Artist Distributes their own music for free? Would the Record companies sue the artist because their hurting their profit?

The Record companies are the real thieves...stealing from the actual artists who wrote the music.

psionyk
August 15th, 2007, 03:45 AM
If MS was to pirate one line of code then the lot of you hypocrits would be all up in arms about it, but if you steal music by not paying for the service the musician has provided for you then you feel entitled to enjoy his music without paying.

IOW, you support the stealing of code and music, that means that you are not Ubuntu members, you are merely lowlifes who feel entitled to free things that others have worked to create, in my opinion, this is not a community i want to be a part of at all.

I'm normally not interested in responding to a thread which I feel (and see) has included argument (and in your case a *lot* of argument). Not to mention name calling, and perceived questions in my mind about the seemingly low quality of your life that you feel justified to insult people instead of discussing with them rationally, but I digress....

Have you even read (intently) some of the enlightened posts in this thread, to realize that when you talk about the artist providing the service, and as a result getting paid for it, that you are already brainwashed by the big faceless corporations? That's exactly what they want you to think. Artists see jack squat of the total money earned from the purchase of an album. You're putting that money into the pockets of corporations, and the people that already have too much money for what they do in the first place. PartisanEntity (I believe that's who it was, but I'm too tired to search back through the thread) hit the nail on the head, when saying that this is a new age, and things need to change, period. People are tired of being ripped off, I for one being among them.

No, I don't download music, but only once in a blue moon will I buy an album. Why?
1) I'm not a huge music fan to begin with.
2) I'm not rich to buy them all the time
3) I honestly believe there is more crap music being charged for than good music, and not enough quality and original talent, and so much of what comes out now sounds the same to me
4) I sometimes want only select songs, not the whole album
5) I don't want any more CD's stacked around gathering dust
and most importantly...
6) I'm not about to pay for the yacht of uncaring corporate fat cats.

Movies? Same deal, replace all of the above with references to movies, but keep the reasons. Once in a while I will buy a movie that I like, and will go to a theatre to be entertained by seeing something worthwhile, but that's it. In my opinion with music, movies and television entertainment, the cost versus reward scales are very rapidly tipping in the wrong direction. Namely, the cost you pay is not worth what they feed you in return. I don't even own cable at home for that very reason. I cannot honestly justify paying each month for IMO 90% garbage programming (and most of it the same redundant stuff at that) they call "entertainment" on television. I will sit down and do something interactive like play a game, or read a book instead of aimlessly losing lifespan watching that stuff.


...that means that you are not Ubuntu members, you are merely lowlifes who feel entitled to free things that others have worked to create...

Wow. Do you realize how incredibly ironic (and insulting) this is? Does that make all of us in this community low-lifes (yourself included since you are on this forum) because we use something free, Ubuntu (and Linux), that others have created? If you're going to discuss things -- sorry, argue -- with people, at least take the time to think about what you say before putting your foot in your mouth.

A lot of Ubuntu/Linux users are here for that very reason. We are tired of being ripped off. Tired of software companies taking advantage of us with programs and OS'es that are not worth the cost, and locking us in to their options, and what they want us to do with our computer. Tired of paying for inferior products, tired of.... and so on, ad nauseum.

Same applies to downloading... people are tired of lining the pockets of others that don't deserve it, and feel they are entitled to something better. Again, that doesn't make piracy right, and I'm not condoning it, but it does indicate that there are much bigger issues at work here that need to be evaluated.

To those of you that have contributed balanced and thought out discussion on this thread (and you know who you are), thank you.

To WishingWell.... um.......
I wish you well.

Have you considered a vacation?

starcraft.man
August 15th, 2007, 03:51 AM
I posted back on sheet 2, went and did some work, came back to the very active thread. I saw his post and I responded by quoting him. I have every write to quote and comment on any thread I'd like to even if it were 2 years ago, that is my right. I am sorry you feel that I don't have anything "serious" to contribute.
I never said you couldn't (didn't mean to come off a bit rude as I did), it does seem far off topic though to do so (MO was already replied to on his point, and as such I saw it as rather fruitless and noted that). You can equally thread resurrect something two years old it'd be equally likely irrelevant to the moment. Ah well, whatever you like your free to do so, Linux is about that freedom. :)



I felt the copyright law was very fitting for the subject. I see your points on all accounts but I have to point out that it is illegal to "copy" a car. In order for it to be a copy, it would have to be the same, all of it would have to be the exact same. If it's the same and NOT produced by the manufacturer than the part would be falsely identified because the part was NOT produced by the manufacturer, it was copied. There are laws against this and I can only site a law for the FAA but not the automotive industry due to time constraints.
http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/transportation-equipment-aircraft-parts/3940729-1.html

Hmmm, didn't consider it like that. I believe you've a point, I feel obligated to concede to you that. Whether or not the law in itself is correct is another matter outside the scope of the argument since the car is already tangent enough from the matter at hand.


You or anyone can use any analogy you want, it still makes it illegal to break copyright laws. I don't know how the silly car analogy came into play but as you can see there are reasons that this is illegal as well, not due to copyright infringement but due to other reasons.
The Canadian Courts disagree with you on the matter of copyright (as I linked to) on songs (maybe more later >.>). I don't believe it's as ironclad as you think. Our courts certainly don't legalize things haphazardly.


This topic is always a very controversial and I am done trying to reason with people.The most interesting topics are always controversial, if they had a simple answer people would have said it, proven it and there wouldn't be more than one post. Ah well, another day perhaps more reasoning :).


If MS was to pirate one line of code then the lot of you hypocrits would be all up in arms about it, but if you steal music by not paying for the service the musician has provided for you then you feel entitled to enjoy his music without paying.

IOW, you support the stealing of code and music, that means that you are not Ubuntu members, you are merely lowlifes who feel entitled to free things that others have worked to create, in my opinion, this is not a community i want to be a part of at all.
LOL! Does it make you feel better saying that slander, not very Ubuntu like yourself. I might add you voluntarily signed up to the forum and voluntarily continued to post here, no one forced you to do anything. So you are quite free to do as you like, including not being a part of this forum/community if you wish. Oh and I wish you'd stop inferring we all (or even most) pirate just because we take that side of the argument... its a discussion.


But is it considered piracy if an Artist Distributes their own music for free? Would the Record companies sue the artist because their hurting their profit?

No, they would own their own music (assumed they hadn't originally sold it to a label). They would license their own music under something else usually like Creative Commons (google). They could even sell their own music if they liked direct to fans (Jonathon Coulton did this and he's still making good money it appears). The record labels can't sue an artist unless he's violated an agreement he signed with them.


The Record companies are the real thieves...stealing from the actual artists who wrote the music.
That statement may be the lest controversial thing said in the whole thread :).

Edit: Oh and wow psionyk, guess I and MO aren't the only ones slightly annoyed by WishingWell.

Depressed Man
August 15th, 2007, 03:55 AM
Actually I think (not sure about this, at all since I don't know how they license the music and what not). But if a artist signed the copyrights of their music over to the record companies or the record company entered a contract for licensing of that music from that artist. If that artist then decided to distribute his/her music for free on the internet then he/she could possibly be sued then by said companies.

starcraft.man
August 15th, 2007, 04:06 AM
Actually I think (not sure about this, at all since I don't know how they license the music and what not). But if a artist signed the copyrights of their music over to the record companies or the record company entered a contract for licensing of that music from that artist. If that artist then decided to distribute his/her music for free on the internet then he/she could possibly be sued then by said companies.

Of course. Signing the rights to your music over to a label voids any say you get in the matter. They then own the music for a very long time (copyright now stands at your natural life + 70 years I think, then it enters public domain). They certainly wouldn't let you then turn around and give away the same songs. Depending on the contract, new material may also be covered, it is very tricky. If you never sign a contract though and license your own media/music no company can sue you.

psionyk
August 15th, 2007, 04:16 AM
Edit: Oh and wow psionyk, guess I and MO aren't the only ones slightly annoyed by WishingWell.

Slightly annoyed? You my friend have a gift for understatement....

I had to bite my tongue so many times I've left a welt on it. Nice to know I'm not alone in this. Even nicer to know that others also have tact.

Sorry, WishingWell, I almost left you out, how rude of me....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tact

There you are. Enjoy. That one's free, you don't even have to download it.

BarfBag
August 15th, 2007, 04:18 AM
Suing the crap out of people and ruining their lives isn't going to stop people from downloading illegally. There's really nothing (morally) wrong with it. All you're doing is depriving pocket change from people who became rich off of the talent of others. Personally, however; I just go to the store and buy the CD. It's DRM free and you have the original source, which means you get the best sound quality.

Frak
August 15th, 2007, 04:27 AM
I agree, unless you physically torture the person, nothing is going to stop them. Heck, I've been given a warning 5 times for downloading music illegally. I really don't think [Record Corporations] even care anymore. They are still getting paid, and pretty damn well at it too.

Dimitriid
August 15th, 2007, 04:28 AM
Suing the crap out of people and ruining their lives isn't going to stop people from downloading illegally. There's really nothing (morally) wrong with it. All you're doing is depriving pocket change from people who became rich off of the talent of others. Personally, however; I just go to the store and buy the CD. It's DRM free and you have the original source, which means you get the best sound quality.


Casual users still use mp3 but nowadays its easy to find lossless formats like flac audio.

Depressed Man
August 15th, 2007, 04:38 AM
*sighs* I'd like to use FLAC though my 2 GB mp3 player doesn't support it (not to mention aren't they a bit heavier on the file size?)

I've been pondering if I want to get a bigger mp3 player (since I don't listen to most of what's on my 2 GB mp3 player anyway). Though I guess one with video and picture support would be nice.

starcraft.man
August 15th, 2007, 04:39 AM
Slightly annoyed? You my friend have a gift for understatement....

I had to bite my tongue so many times I've left a welt on it. Nice to know I'm not alone in this. Even nicer to know that others also have tact.

LOL! Well, I try not to get too heated/involved and always remain calm (usually succeeding I think). Oh and always good to see another Canadian around :).

tenshi-no-shi
August 15th, 2007, 07:38 AM
Man reading all this comments.... it's sad...

I try not to download stuff. I mean most of the time I try to rent it.
I use my PS2 to play games. I mean I rent games that I want to try and Buy the ones I want either used or when they get to the cheapest price. I rent moives and series I want to see, or just see it on TV. I read Manga and all.

I only really download things if a) I want to hear a song I remember and haven't heard it a while, usually deleting it after listening it to few times or b) A movie or a Series that I can't rent because of obscurity. I mean a lot of the older Japanese Animations are hard to find. I would rent them if I could, but the video stores have a lousy selection. There used to be a comic book store that rented Japanese Anime, but they closed down.

Oh I also download Manga. I mean only really read the things that are unlicensed and unavailable in the English language. Some of the Series I have read have made me go out and Buy them in the store when they come out. Thought lately I found servers that host the fan translated manga on them so I read them from there since it means that if a company licenses it, they can have it removed from that site (It's had to keep track of what manga in my collection has been licensed by a us company)

My Thoughts on file sharing is this. If you can afford it buy it, if you can't either live without it, or if you really need to hear the song, just get it temporarily and then get rid of it.

I think the idea of owning a thought or idea ridiculous. I mean if that was the case I would be copyrighting random letters strung together into words and then charging people if they use them. I think that people that create something should get credit for it, but it does not entitle them to the concept of it. I mean if you want to play a song of some artist your guitar, is that considered piracy? I mean I could playing a song that does not belong to me. Hey maybe I am even playing it in public sharing it with others. I think that once you allow your idea to escape from oneself you must accept it as public domain. You no longer own those works, they belong to the hearts and minds of the people that experience them.

I do not support copyright laws for a major reason. It's a slippery slope to go down.
It starts with no longer sharing music, then goes to no longer reproducing that music on ones own instruments. They it slides further going into things like, well that guitar rift in your song sounded to much like the one in my song and all that. Next it's the people that write stories off of other peoples works for their own and other enjoyments well be sued and people that draw pictures of characters from books and media well be sued. Maybe even if you take a picture of some location that someone else has you can be sued.

Also what about the music in which the person that created it is no longer alive. What about Bach, Chopin and Mozart. I mean they are no longer alive, but you still can't download and share their music. I know that people have played that music, but does it give them any more rights to it then the countless others that have.

I personally wish things go back to how they where before one had the technology to record such things. To when an artist was payed for playing a song for people, and not for machines. To when an artist was paid for the works he did, and not for the countless copies that where made by machine.

In that logic, it should be the machines that make the CD and the prints of paintings that make all the money. They are after all producing those things.

BTW... I listen to music from radio stations either online (from legitimate sources) or on FM in my car. I only own on album and that was a gift to me. I like listening to the DJs and the Music they pick, and if I don't like what they are playing, then I change the station. It also gives me and excuse to listen to music I would not normally, like in the mornings in my car all of the rock stations are talk, so I listen to Classical Music on Public Radio, and at night on the way home from classes my local Rock station plays The House of Blues Radio Hour, with Elwood Blues(Dan Akyroyd). And at home on the computer I listen to Virgin Radio Classic Rock, because I like their selections and the British commercials.

Anyways sorry for the rants. Make of it what you will, just please don't flame me for my comments. It's just mean spirited to do so to people that mean no harm.

Bou
August 15th, 2007, 08:42 AM
Downloading illegal copies of movies/music for personal use legal?
Don't think so..
You got it mixed up with creating a copy of a movie/album you bought for personal use.

He's dead right. At least here in Spain folks are entitled to have a copy of any audiovisual material, copyrighted or not, whether they purchased it or not, if they're going to employ it for personal, non-profit purposes.

It's called personal copy and it's a different concept from safety copy, which you are talking about.

dannyboy79
August 15th, 2007, 01:54 PM
well I can tell you here in the US, there's a huge fine for any duplication of any movie/music (or anything copyrighted for that matter), whether it's for personal use, whether it's to back up your own stuff, or not. Heck, it's at the begining of every movie I've seen produced in the US. It goes like this, "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

I suppose everyone already knew that, this thread subject is about people justifying to themselves that it's ok to download music but I thought I'd through this in here.

le_vainqueur
August 15th, 2007, 03:15 PM
I don't see why most people would consider buying a cd unless directly from the artist. Here are some main points.

+DRM and other crapware will cripple your music and leave dirty "rootkits" on your computer.
+CDs cost next to nothing to produce.
+Maisntream record labels rob musicians blind. Even if you do buy the cd the artist sees next to nothing of this profitt.
+With the very low creativity level used in todays popular genres (gangster rap, pop, hip hop, whatever) very few of these cds took a lot time to produce.

If you really want to support a band/singer you like, go see them live, and buy some merch from them personally, it'll mean a lot more to them than buying a cd would.

Defninitely one of the most instightfull statements made on the subject! The mainstream is crap...VIVA INDEPENDANT MUSIC!

juxtaposed
August 15th, 2007, 03:23 PM
I mean if you want to play a song of some artist your guitar, is that considered piracy?

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8890/RIAA+Strikes+Again,+Accuses+Guitar+Teacher+of+Copy right+Infringement

That's PATHETIC.

tenshi-no-shi
August 15th, 2007, 04:32 PM
Exactly, Copyright Laws are a slippery slope to go down. Even innocent things are at risk with such concepts as owning an Idea.

No not to say that you can't make money off of that idea, it's just you have to accept that people are going to copy and use that idea for their own ends.

Now you want to talk about things that are much more disgusting how about the record labels themselves, They steal the music from the artist. I mean artist that are starting out have to basically give up all rights to their works in order to get a record deal, but that is okay. Yet people copy the music off of the internet for personal use is not. Oh and don't forget making a copy of CDs and DVDs that YOU own so that you can keep the originals from getting damaged or stolen, well that is illegal to.

Oh and calling cds a service is a falsehood. A service is when you receive labor from a person for money paid. CDs and the songs they contain are products. They are something physical that you buy. Concerts are a service, because you are paying for those people to play their music for you and everyone else that bought a ticket. Really CDs are just an excuse for artists and Mainly Record industries to make money without having to provide any addition effort on there parts.

Oh and another example of Copyright laws at their worst. Volkswagen of America a few years back suddenly started suing companies that made money by servicing or providing reproduction parts for old VWs which Volkswagen no longer produced parts for. They confiscated parts that bared the VW symbol on them, which while a forceful act can be justified, but they did not stop there, nor did they start there. They sued people for having Volkswagen in their business names, even in cases such as "Bob's Volkswagen Repair" or such things. Even in the cases such as the Volks Cafe, the Old Volks Home and Volks Store, they sued. They sued over businesses using line drawings of their cars, which they no longer produced, even though these where drawings that where done by independent artist and where not the property of Volkswagen. They sued over people having Pictures of Volkswagens in their ads, if they contained the VW emblem, which is ON the car.

Businesses went to Volkswagen to try and purchase licenses in order for they to to be able to produce such parts and use such images. VoA (Volkswagen of America) told them no. VoA destroyed hundreds of businesses. They sued them for absorbent amounts which forced them to go out of business. They forced businesses to lose money, both in merchandise and lose business.


My Point to all this, copyrights allowing people power over ideas that are both unnatural and unethical. It allows them to destroy others for things that are petty and immature. I mean the RIAA have sued people over playing (as in with instruments) their songs. It has allowed them to destroy peoples lives with the horrendous lawsuits that they have done. The current copyright laws have allowed people to sues individuals that draw drawings based on their works, or people that write stories based on their works, for no profit at all. they have gone passed protecting individuals from having their ideas stolen and used buy others for profit, into just suing others for incidences where no profit is lost, nor profit made from those people using those copyrighted materials.

Anyways yet another pointless rant. Also I am not encouraging "piracy" or whatever you want to call it. I am encouraging people to use material and other such things that are open. Like instead of using a unlicensed version of Windows, use Linux. I mean I much rather sacrifice convenience and "ease of use" over freedoms any day.

red_Marvin
August 15th, 2007, 06:09 PM
I'm posting in this thread late, as I'm very torn in the question, as I believe that copyrights should exist in some form, but maybe not as today.
I think it copyright/patents should exist so it protects the inventor of a product long enough to build a business on the product, instead of it being sucked up by megacorp with money and means to start producing both better and cheaper versions, than the inventor would be able to in the beginning, and thus leaving the inventor without a dime.

In the same way I think that a photographer (which I have easier to relate to than a musician) should be compensated if his/her picture is published,
but I also think that it's ok for a private person to use a photo as a wallpaper without having to pay for it.

However I absolutely detest the way the music corporations act;
DRM, RIAA's random suing and lobbying for laws/suing that make the punishment for copyright infringement worse than abuse and other acts of violence,
and on top of that sony's rootkit, which shows their real self and hints at how far they will go if they think they'll get away with it.

Finally, please, please stop with the flawed car/whatever analogies, digital media is a whole different thing, it's like saying rm and cp is the same.

M7S
August 15th, 2007, 08:07 PM
well I can tell you here in the US, there's a huge fine for any duplication of any movie/music (or anything copyrighted for that matter), whether it's for personal use, whether it's to back up your own stuff, or not. Heck, it's at the begining of every movie I've seen produced in the US. It goes like this, "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

I suppose everyone already knew that, this thread subject is about people justifying to themselves that it's ok to download music but I thought I'd through this in here.
Don't just take everything RIAA or MPAA says as a fact.

There is a fair use law in USA that says you have the right to make personal copies for backup purposes. There's also a law that says you're not allowed break copy protection mechanisms. AFAIK (and IANAL), there has never been a court case where these two laws has been put up against each other, so you can't say for sure wheter you are allowed to break copy protections for fair use reasons.

Music (and movies if you can find any) without copy protection mechanisms are without a doubt legal to copy for fair use.

M7S
August 15th, 2007, 09:48 PM
Since I've started writing I might as well give my two cents about this whole subject.

This whole debate would be much smother if people would stop calling copyright infringement for theft. It's not. You can say that it's just as wrong as theft if you feel that way, but don't say that they are the same the same.

Maagimies made the best argument for why copyright infringement should be called theft that I've seen, but he missed one point. You don't own a piece of music (or any other copyright protected work). You can be the creator and/or the copyright holder but not the owner of a piece of music. The copyright laws were not invented to declare ownership over a work, they were made to boost creativity by giving the creator (or the copyright holder whoever he is) monopoly on copying the work for a limited time and thus giving him or her a chance to make money from his work. If you don't own something it can't be stolen from you.

"But", you might say, "the term Intellectual Property suggest that it's really property, something you own." Intellectual property is a term made up to make something that isn't property look like property. You might perhaps say that the copyright law, patent law etc. make intellectual property resemble real property, but it's not real property any more than a imaginary girlfriend is a real girlfriend. (Not to toot my own horn, but sadly I think that I just made the first analogy in this whole thread worth to be called an analogy)

Others have said that copy right protection is theft because the copy right holder loses his income. A loss of income doesn't equal theft. In fact a income is another thing you don't own. You get your income, you don't own it and as such it can't be stolen.

Observe that this far I've only discussed wheter copy right infrigement is theft, not if it's right or wrong.

I think that the copyright laws has their use since they can stimulate creativity. People who create should get paid for it. A recent study has shown, though, that as little as fourteen years would be the optimal length for the copyright period if you want the copyright to stimulate creativity as much as possible.

There is clear problems with the music industry today. People don't consume music the same way as before. I think people listen to more music than before and since a copy of a piece of music costs nothing to produce it wouldn't matter if the companies sold an album for 20 € to 10 000 buyers or for 2 € to 10 0 000 buyers. The music industry indirectly asks us to consume less music and it's worth questioning whether it's morally wrong not to obey, as long as you put as much money on music as you would if actually would follow their request.

So I would say that downloading music illegally isn't always wrong. I won't judge anyone who do download music, even if I don't do it myself. (I have only one illegally obtained album on my computer and that's because the cd had drm on it and it would therefor, according to Finnish law, be illegal for me to rip it to my hard drive anyway. I really wanted that music and If I have to be illegal anyway I choose the way that doesn't support the company that puts drm on the music.)

Wow, that was two lengthy cents...

diesel1
August 16th, 2007, 12:42 AM
Music piracy is not theft. Nothing has been taken, artists/record companies still have the music too. Stealing income? I don't see how that stands up if you had not intention of buying it in the first place.

For me, there is additional reason the comes from my personal political views. There is a difference between "supporting" and "making rich". The first, ok, we all need that, the second, I don't see why anyone has the right to that.
Music is hardly necessary to live, hell, the bin man does a more important job than some bloke with a guitar. Why should they get more?
But as I said, that's from me personally, so take that as you will.

Although I agree that there should be more equilibrium in payment for any kind of work, I also think WishingWell is correct in his assertion that society in general seems to think that it is entitled to a lot more than it really is. When the UK has had floods and uninsured people cry that they have lost everything and everybody else should pay for their losses, I think about people in Bangladesh and Indonesia who could not even get insurance if they could afford it.

WishingWell, I think human greed makes communism bad, but some kind of responsible, respectful, liberal, socialism is the utopia that Humanity would be most comfortable with, of course that is just my view. ;)

Anyhow, piracy is wrong but so is the abuse of copyright law by global-multinational companies against democratic citizens of the World.

I think Richard M. Stallman describes these issues well in his book 'Free Software, Free Society'.

Diesel1.

juxtaposed
August 16th, 2007, 02:44 AM
I also think WishingWell is correct in his assertion that society in general seems to think that it is entitled to a lot more than it really is.

Which can go the other way; Record companies think they are entitled to massive profits, which is especially stupid when, as people said, this is an "unlimited supply, limited demand" thing.



WishingWell, I think human greed makes communism bad,

No, that's what makes capitalism bad, because capitalism is greed. What makes communism bad is that people give up on it and don't want to give up power after the revolution and instead go to state capitalism.

tenshi-no-shi
August 16th, 2007, 03:21 AM
Why is it that people draw parallels that do not exist. Like Communism and greed or Socialism leads to Communism and other such things. No Communism is the bastardization of Marxism or at least the forms of communism that we go off of.

Capitalism is not greed, but it allows for greed to breed within it. If you enact laws in order to curb the greed you can control it, but if you do not then it well run ramped and destroy that capitalistic system (Also Capitalism is a form of economy, not government. There is no such thing as a capitalistic government.). Copyright laws, anti-trust laws and patent laws where created to protect the individual from having their ideas taken from them and used to make a profit for a corporation. They where to stop corporations from getting away with things that allowed them to push out and crush competition before it even formed. Without those laws our Capitalistic system collapses, because there is no longer competition, but just a few major corporations that control everything (like Rollerball, the original I mean). They were never intended to punish those that are using those ideas for endeavors which result in zero income. They were not meant to punish people that are using there property as they please. They were not meant for a corporation to retain control over an idea for as long as they deem fit.

juxtaposed
August 16th, 2007, 03:52 AM
Capitalism is not greed, but it allows for greed to breed within it.

Capitalism is based on motivation by personal profit and therefore I find it inherently flawed and based on greed.


If you enact laws in order to curb the greed you can control it,

But the rich and the powerful tend to intermingle, along with their interests, and that doesn't happen.


(Also Capitalism is a form of economy, not government. There is no such thing as a capitalistic government.).

Right, but capitalism needs government to protect the rich from the people made poor by the rich.


Copyright laws, anti-trust laws and patent laws where created to protect the individual from having their ideas taken from them and used to make a profit for a corporation. They where to stop corporations from getting away with things that allowed them to push out and crush competition before it even formed.

It's possible that was the original intent, but that is not the way the laws are used now.


Without those laws our Capitalistic system collapses, because there is no longer competition, but just a few major corporations that control everything

No, without those laws the corporations loose a lot of power, and there would be a lot more competition.


They were never intended to punish those that are using those ideas for endeavors which result in zero income. They were not meant to punish people that are using there property as they please. They were not meant for a corporation to retain control over an idea for as long as they deem fit.

But that's what they are used for. You can't reform them to fix anything, you can only abolish them.

GuitarHero
August 16th, 2007, 06:31 AM
I don't care what idealistic views you have about copyright laws or ethics, downloading music is wrong. You say it's fine because the record companies are ripping off musicians? Well guess what.... musicians decide to go the label route, they could market themselves if they dont want to pay the record companies. And for those of you who say musicians don't deserve to be rich - they aren't. The musicians that are rich are mostly the untalented type in main stream music, and I agree with those types not deserving riches. The ones who don't write their own music or just rap over some generic beat they didn't create. They represent a small fraction of musicians. And as a musician myself, I do not have any downloaded music. All of the music on my ipod is ripped from cds that I have bought myself. I will not buy music online and suffer through drm and lossy audio(not that most people who complain about lossy formats can tell the difference).

No matter what you say I view downloaded music as theft.

markp1989
August 18th, 2007, 11:58 PM
I know that downloading music or films is illegal,
but here in the UK its over £7 for an adult ticket at the cinema ticket, over £5 for a child ticket

So say i went to the cinema with my family, thats me my parents and my 3 sisters all who are over 15 so all have to pay an adult ticket, that ends up costing over £30, and with minimum wage being just over £5 thats over 7 hours worth of pay for a few hours entertainment, so no i don't feel guilty about going to the town center and buying a dodgy dvd for £5 or downloading it so that we can watch as many times as we like,

to end my small rant its the movie industry fault, they have over priced them selfs, and have ripped us off for years, so why should we feel guiltty for getting a few pirated films?

freeflyer57
August 19th, 2007, 12:10 AM
I download european F1 race videos. No one sells them and since i live in the States i have to stay up at 0400 to watch anything. You can't buy the videos anywhere. Also, I download music from other countries. If I want to buy a new Die Ärzte cd from Germany, I could very well pay $70.

juxtaposed
August 19th, 2007, 01:22 AM
I don't care what idealistic views you have about copyright laws or ethics, downloading music is wrong.

If you think it's wrong, don't do it. I don't force you to download music so don't force me not to :)

warbread
October 3rd, 2007, 01:37 PM
I don't care what idealistic views you have about copyright laws or ethics, downloading music is wrong. You say it's fine because the record companies are ripping off musicians? Well guess what.... musicians decide to go the label route, they could market themselves if they dont want to pay the record companies. And for those of you who say musicians don't deserve to be rich - they aren't. The musicians that are rich are mostly the untalented type in main stream music, and I agree with those types not deserving riches. The ones who don't write their own music or just rap over some generic beat they didn't create. They represent a small fraction of musicians. And as a musician myself, I do not have any downloaded music. All of the music on my ipod is ripped from cds that I have bought myself. I will not buy music online and suffer through drm and lossy audio(not that most people who complain about lossy formats can tell the difference).

No matter what you say I view downloaded music as theft.

Downloading music is not theft. Here's a simple thought expermient:

I download an album from the latest wonder-group on Clear Channel's networks, "The Sad, Whiney Kids". Let's make clear that I hate this band, that I will never go see them in concert, buy their merchandise or support them in the least. Still, I have their album, and in fact I burn it to cd not once, but several hundred times. I now have stacks of this album that I loathe, that I will never let touch my ears. Instead of listening to it, I put every single copy away into a safe, then launched towards the sun (using Captain Kiddo's Super Science at Home Ground Control and Rocket Pad that I got for my 12th birthday and haven't used until now) and delete the digital content from my hard drive, making sure to dd /dev/random into entire partition I had the music on. In short, all I've done is downloaded the content, never once enjoying the sweet sound of the emo-rock sensation crying about scars and torn hearts. Nor have I distributed it in any way, save for an extra-terrestrial encounter between Earth and the sun (but we all know aliens have better taste than middle schoolers, so they promptly trash the cd stash).

Have I done anything wrong? At the very least, have I done anything that warrants jail time, massive lawsuits or condemnation? Is it stealing if I don't listen to it? The implication is that the theft happens when the content is enjoyed at no cost to the consumer, but that might not happen, and I doubt it happens very often. How many times have you listened to an album once and then tossed it aside? I know I have a lot.

It's very hard, in my mind at least, to justify legal action against something that I think is happening. Since we can't very well police what people are listening to on their computers, it seems to me that the best indicator for whether or not something is being stolen is whether there is a loss of sales. As has been pointed out, there is no such drop in sales. The music industry is doing fine despite the rampant "theft" of "property". Moral or not, I can't think of a reason to move for legal action against downloaders.

As an aside, I am not a music pirate. I'm not a pirate at all, in fact. But then, I'm hardly a music consumer. I mean, what is there to chose from? Crap and... crap? I'm not justifying piracy here, just being critical of the idea that downloading music is theft.

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 02:31 PM
I know that downloading music or films is illegal,
but here in the UK its over £7 for an adult ticket at the cinema ticket, over £5 for a child ticket

So say i went to the cinema with my family, thats me my parents and my 3 sisters all who are over 15 so all have to pay an adult ticket, that ends up costing over £30, and with minimum wage being just over £5 thats over 7 hours worth of pay for a few hours entertainment, so no i don't feel guilty about going to the town center and buying a dodgy dvd for £5 or downloading it so that we can watch as many times as we like,

to end my small rant its the movie industry fault, they have over priced them selfs, and have ripped us off for years, so why should we feel guiltty for getting a few pirated films?You should feel guilty because even though you think that they ripped you off, you just stole what took millions of dollars to make. Don't blame someone else for your actions. Stealing is stealing no matter how you look at it.

Circus-Killer
October 3rd, 2007, 02:39 PM
when i was still in high school, i was quite the pirate. i too rationalized it by using the point of cost. at the prices of cds, its just too expensive for a kid. also, my high school days were also my windows days, when i had no morals.

however i have changed. firstly, i have a full time job and can now afford to buy cds, which i do. for those of you who posted something along the lines that "there is no decent argument for retaining control over something you've just sold", that doesnt cut it for me. how can you use that as a rational when you didnt BUY the cd, thus the cd was not SOLD to you, thus they have every RIGHT to keep control of said product. and as for sharing what you have BOUGHT, that which was SOLD to you, i still think they do deserve some control over what you do with that item they sold to you, such as whether or not you plan to copy/share/sell at their expense.

and seriously, if you think that you should be allowed to share online a cd you bought, you clearly have no concept of how the world works, and how fragile things can be. i also see you as a selfish person that only looks for self-gains whilst ignoring those around you. who are you to start ripping off people because its easier for you?

the funny thing is i only started having such strong moralls since i switched to linux. i'm a firm believer of, if you want it, buy it! just because i can steal a BMW doesnt mean i should. just because my friend buys a merc doesnt give me the right to steal it and sell it to someone else. just because you cant afford a rolls doesnt mean you can steal one.

the way i see it is, if you want a cd, buy it. if you want a computer game, buy it. if you want hooker, rent her for a couple of hours. if something is offered to you for free, jump at the chance. but i see no reason why downloading commercial music should be considered legal. to me, i see it was belonging to the artist. when i purchase the cd, i am purchase that copy of the cd, without right to duplicate, sell or rent, as often printed on the cover.

i have no objections to legitimate use of mp3 technology. for example, i keep my entire cd collection backed up to my harddrive, and also keep mp3 cds in my car for my mp3 player. but as for sharing and downloading, i am against it.

i guess another reason why my opinion has changed is also because of the fact that i can afford these things because i have a job and work hard. and by me working hard for my money, i see how others work hard for their money. and as i am a developer, it brind me closer into the frey when it comes to pirating software. we all in this world together, we all tryna survive. make a living. and its time i think society realises this. some things in life are free, some things are not. for some things its only free depending on who you are (some people have to pay for sex).

my point is whilst we have this beautiful free comminuty, that embodies the spirit of freedom (both in money and and in code), we must not forget that proprietary products and money are still very important aspects of this world. for linux to be accepted, we will need to start accepting certain forms of proprietary code (like how nvidia/ati drivers have slowly been warmed up to). we must not think that because so much can be done for "free" does not necessarily mean that the world can be "free". the principle of money is over 2000 years old, and i dont see a single techonology, or even multiple techonologies, being able to break down our societies need for monetary value and control. money after all is what keeps order. yes, it does cause unfairness and different social classes, but it also defines what is fair, which results in unfairness.

the point is that whilst we all dream of a world without money, social classes, war, and all that, selfishness and greed will not get us there any quicker.

Circus-Killer
October 3rd, 2007, 02:45 PM
Have I done anything wrong? At the very least, have I done anything that warrants jail time, massive lawsuits or condemnation? Is it stealing if I don't listen to it? The implication is that the theft happens when the content is enjoyed at no cost to the consumer, but that might not happen, and I doubt it happens very often. How many times have you listened to an album once and then tossed it aside? I know I have a lot.


You need to look up the definition of theft. if i steal a carton of cigarettes for the sole purpose of drivingto the river and throwing them in the river, its still theft! theft is gaining possesion of something that you are not legally entitled to (whether you gain pleasure from it or not). same as rape is still rape, even if you dont cum. you are not legally entitled to download music (unless said artist/record label gives permission).

Incense
October 3rd, 2007, 03:04 PM
This is an interesting conversation. I can justify anything, anyway that I want, but if I can be taken to court, and have to shell out a lot of money maybe it's something I should not be doing. Amazon has a really nice service that I can use on Linux, and Magnatune has a lot of great music as well. Kids just don't know any better. It's just too easy to fire up limewire and go crazy. Can you believe that it's been almost 10 years since Napster came out to show everyone how easy it was to download and share music?

blueturtl
October 3rd, 2007, 04:28 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/copyright.jpg

People will justify what ever it is that they want to do. Rarely do people stand up and enforce something that is not convenient for them. I'm not arguing about if it's right to download music or not. I think every person needs to decide for themselves and on a per-case basis.

I do have to question the reasoning of some folks who post here though. I think we can all accept that:


Musicians need to be paid for their creative work
Someone needs to mix and master the music performed by the band
Currently artists receive their income through concert tours and record sales


Now you can argue that the record companies are an unnecessary middleman and that the artists are being ripped of. However record sales are still a major source of income for musicians. If you really like the artist or their work you are usually willing to spend money on concert tickets and CDs. The main debate here seems to be over wether or not do we want to pay so much for plastic discs. That's not the issue. The issue is how to pay the musicians who make the music that is recorded on the discs! Just because the middleman sucks does that mean you can do whatever you want? If you don't want to support record companies that's fine, but it is my firm belief lot's of people are just trying to find a comfortable place in their own minds. The record companies are evil anyway so it's ok to download all the music online without paying anyone anything. It's true that replicating music costs nothing but does that mean we should neglect the price of the production and work that went into making it? The same thing applies to movies and games btw. All these things take effort and money to create. If people don't want to pay for overtly priced CDs we should be talking about what you would be willing to pay for.

The kind of attitude where we just throw our arms up in protest without having come up with a better solution isn't going to get us anywhere.

Mr. Picklesworth
October 3rd, 2007, 05:41 PM
Here in Canada, I'm paying for piracy in advance via levies on recording media. While before I would definitely not illegally download that stuff, I now have no problem doing so; after all, I am already convicted and paying for it!

(It just sucks when I use those disks for free software...)

Actually, I still don't download music the illegal way (though the powers that be are so intent on accusing me of it that I almost feel required to). I stream from LastFM quite often, and that's really all I need. Avoids repetition, and wastes no space on my hard drive :)

Celegorm
October 3rd, 2007, 06:03 PM
To those of you who think downloading music is stealing- it's not. Here's my example. Suppose you are in a store, and slip a pack of gum in your pocket and walk out. Two things happened here: you got a free pack of gum and hence the store did not gain the revenue it would have if you bought the gum, since the satisfaction you gain from it would cause you to buy one less pack of gum than you would have before (someone giving you a free pack of gum outside the store would have the same effect), and, more importantly, the store lost a pack of gum. Or another example, if some kids are playing with a ball, and someone comes along and steals it, they get very upset. Why? It's not because they didn't get the money they might have made if they sold it, but because they don't have a ball to play with anymore!

The thing with downloading music, is that the artists/record labels don't actually lose anything as a result. The harm is in profits not gained which would have presumably been gained had you not downloaded the music.

I'm not trying to say that downloading is ok, but it's not the same as stealing (half-stealing maybe?). Also, if I were going to rationalize downloading or file sharing, I would do so by saying "well, if I like it, I'll buy the album." In which case, even though I enjoy the music before purchasing it legally, there is no harm done all in all, since the artists/record labels still got their money from me. Also, if my friend hadn't illegally given me a couple of songs by an artist, I might never have heard them and decided I liked them enough to buy the album. Conversely, if I buy an album, and then download it (for instance if I forgot to pack the album when going on vacation- I'm not going to buy another copy just to listen to for two days) then I don't see that as being wrong either, since I already paid for it as many times as I am going to.

Oh, and no, I don't download music (so it's not like I came up with all this just to assuage my own conscience), I prefer streaming, such as from youtube or an internet radio station like pandora.

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 06:12 PM
To those of you who think downloading music is stealing- it's not. Here's my example. Suppose you are in a store, and slip a pack of gum in your pocket and walk out. Two things happened here: you got a free pack of gum and hence the store did not gain the revenue it would have if you bought the gum, since the satisfaction you gain from it would cause you to buy one less pack of gum than you would have before (someone giving you a free pack of gum outside the store would have the same effect), and, more importantly, the store lost a pack of gum. Or another example, if some kids are playing with a ball, and someone comes along and steals it, they get very upset. Why? It's not because they didn't get the money they might have made if they sold it, but because they don't have a ball to play with anymore!

The thing with downloading music, is that the artists/record labels don't actually lose anything as a result. The harm is in profits not gained which would have presumably been gained had you not downloaded the music.

I'm not trying to say that downloading is ok, but it's not the same as stealing (half-stealing maybe?). Also, if I were going to rationalize downloading or file sharing, I would do so by saying "well, if I like it, I'll buy the album." In which case, even though I enjoy the music before purchasing it legally, there is no harm done all in all, since the artists/record labels still got their money from me. Also, if my friend hadn't illegally given me a couple of songs by an artist, I might never have heard them and decided I liked them enough to buy the album. Conversely, if I buy an album, and then download it (for instance if I forgot to pack the album when going on vacation- I'm not going to buy another copy just to listen to for two days) then I don't see that as being wrong either, since I already paid for it as many times as I am going to.

Oh, and no, I don't download music (so it's not like I came up with all this just to assuage my own conscience), I prefer streaming, such as from youtube or an internet radio station like pandora.It is the same as stealing. You are taking something that you didn't pay for. That's stealing.

Celegorm
October 3rd, 2007, 06:23 PM
It is the same as stealing. You are taking something that you didn't pay for. That's stealing.

I take a copy of my school newpaper every day without paying for it. They put tons of them out for free- this is not stealing. If you would care to elaborate on how downloading specifically is stealing, I would love to hear your viewpoint, however.

markp1989
October 3rd, 2007, 06:23 PM
the funny thing is i only started having such strong moralls since i switched to linux. i'm a firm believer of, if you want it, buy it! just because i can steal a BMW doesnt mean i should. just because my friend buys a merc doesnt give me the right to steal it and sell it to someone else. just because you cant afford a rolls doesnt mean you can steal one..

You cant compare downloading music to theft of a car, its nothing alike

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 06:34 PM
I take a copy of my school newpaper every day without paying for it. They put tons of them out for free- this is not stealing. If you would care to elaborate on how downloading specifically is stealing, I would love to hear your viewpoint, however.The difference is that your school prints those newspapers with the intention that the students will take them. That is not stealing because they are free.

Pirated songs or movies on the other hand were never intended to be given away. The music and movie studios spent millions to make that product, and you are taking them without paying them the price that they asked for. Do you consider stealing a CD or DVD from a store to be legal? If you don't, then you should think downloading that same CD or DVD legal either.

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 06:35 PM
You cant compare downloading music to theft of a car, its nothing alikeHow is it different? In both cases you are taking something that you didn't pay for.

curuxz
October 3rd, 2007, 06:37 PM
You cant compare downloading music to theft of a car, its nothing alike

+1

I am not going to get involved in this debate too much because the lack of knowledge here (no offense to the few people that know what they are talking about!) is amazing.

I will provide a few points that have already been said I think but I want to just reiterate them nice and clear for those that still don't get it and you can disagree on morals or ethics or what ever until you are blue in the face but I know I am right:


Piracy is the illegal reproduction of goods to sell them for profit. You download a DVD copy it and then sell the copy to your friend you are a PIRATE.
Downloading music or films or software etc for personal use IS NOT PIRACY....never will be. Its Intellectual property (IP) infringement.
(in the UK at least) Piracy is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, IP infringement is a civil courts matters. Translation, you start bootlegging DVD's you go to prison but if you download 4534657467 billion films for just your self to watch they can never ever ever ever ever put you in prison. The most they can do is sue you in a civil court for the loss of sales, ie make you pay for all the films they can PROVE you watched.
The film and music industry indulge in totally unethical scare tactics, in short they lie to you. They play big trailers about downloading music is theft download films is theft. Its not. Again its a totally different law to 'piracy' and you will never be jailed for it.
It is a FACT proven time and again that illegal downloading of content boosts the profits of the companies involved. If there was no illegal copies of windows then Microsoft would have kissed its market share good bye long long ago.So remember people downloading films maybe illegal but all this stealing car crap is just FUD. You cant compare the laws on prostitution with tax evasion because they are two completely different things and like wise comparing piracy with IP infringement is stupid and shows an extreme abuse of trust by the multimedia industries.

Don't download illegally unless you are prepared to pay for what you download, but if anyone tells you that you could do to prison for it...Laugh at them, they are talking out their ***.

Celegorm
October 3rd, 2007, 06:53 PM
The difference is that your school prints those newspapers with the intention that the students will take them. That is not stealing because they are free.

Pirated songs or movies on the other hand were never intended to be given away. The music and movie studios spent millions to make that product, and you are taking them without paying them the price that they asked for. Do you consider stealing a CD or DVD from a store to be legal? If you don't, then you should think downloading that same CD or DVD legal either.

Did you even read my entire post? I didn't even touch on the subject of legality. The only argument I've heard from you so far is that taking something without paying is stealing, except if it's free. Well, music downloads are free. The people that uploaded them fully intended for others to download them. Give me some decent points or counter-arguments to deal with. For instance, webster's definition of larceny (the legal term for stealing) is "the taking of personal property without consent and with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it." I maintain that downloading music is not larceny, nor is it stealing or theft.

pjkoczan
October 3rd, 2007, 06:56 PM
Here's one thing I've been tooling around in my head for a while. Back in the day when cassette tapes were the primary, mainstream form of music, they cost $10. When CDs first came out, they were $15-$20, which is understandable for a new technology yet to gain a foothold or established mass production techniques.

However, CDs quickly became popular and mainstream and continue to be the primary physical medium for music. They cost pennies to press as opposed to cassettes which probably cost 50 cents to a dollar or more to manufacture. And what's the price of a new CD of new popular artist? $15-$20. There is absolutely no good reason that CDs now should cost any more than cassettes did when cassettes were mainstream.

This brings me to my point, record labels have been gouging consumers. As much as file sharing can be viewed as simply people wanting to get something for nothing, it's also valid to view it as a giant "screw you" to the record companies that have been screwing customers all these years. This, in my mind, is customers taking them to task, though I think someone really ought to take them to task legally (I do believe price gouging is a crime).

Also, I think it's a little ridiculous that purchasing songs online costs the same if not more than buying the already overpriced CD when nothing physical is even being produced.

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 07:05 PM
Did you even read my entire post? I didn't even touch on the subject of legality. The only argument I've heard from you so far is that taking something without paying is stealing, except if it's free. Well, music downloads are free. The people that uploaded them fully intended for others to download them. Give me some decent points or counter-arguments to deal with. For instance, webster's definition of larceny (the legal term for stealing) is "the taking of personal property without consent and with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it." I maintain that downloading music is not larceny, nor is it stealing or theft.While it may not be stealing according to the dictionary, it is in my book. According to me, stealing is taking or using something that you should of paid for. For example, you walk into a movie theater and watch a movie without buying a ticket. Did you actually "deprive" them of their personal property? No, but you did steal from them by watching the movie that you didn't pay to watch.

curuxz
October 3rd, 2007, 07:06 PM
Did you even read my entire post? I didn't even touch on the subject of legality. The only argument I've heard from you so far is that taking something without paying is stealing, except if it's free. Well, music downloads are free. The people that uploaded them fully intended for others to download them. Give me some decent points or counter-arguments to deal with. For instance, webster's definition of larceny (the legal term for stealing) is "the taking of personal property without consent and with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it." I maintain that downloading music is not larceny, nor is it stealing or theft.

exactly it cant be theft because you are not depriving them of their music, they still have it. Your not assuming the rights of ownership because your not selling it (if you do then that is piracy which is theft) and your not copying it (which again is piracy).

Ethics be damned, the point here is they say its stealing and its not, they want a debate about IP we will have it but don't tells we are arguing apples then talk about oranges.

curuxz
October 3rd, 2007, 07:14 PM
While it may not be stealing according to the dictionary, it is in my book. According to me, stealing is taking or using something that you should of paid for. For example, you walk into a movie theater and watch a movie without buying a ticket. Did you actually "deprive" them of their personal property? No, but you did steal from them by watching the movie that you didn't pay to watch.

Firstly...and I say this with the greatest respect...the world does not run on 'your book' nor does it give a damn how you chose to define words. If you think its ok to kill people that does not suddenly make it legal nor if you think that downloading music should result in a prison sentence it will just happen.

As for your movie theater scenario I really really wish people would stop using abstract examples that are totally off point.

Entering a movie theater is private property, you have a legal contact (the ticket) to enter their building and use their facilities which happen to include the privilege of watching a film while sat in their seats they they have licensed to show people in their building. You enter it with out a ticket, you will be arrested for trespassing not piracy.

Would people please stop quoting stolen cars and no ticket examples THEY ARE DIFFERENT LAWS.

Its scary to think that you are all people who lead your lives and go around playing this great game we call a planet with no concept of what the rules of that game is. This is why I really think law needs to be taught in schools because a lot of you here really dont know your rights and have allowed the movie and music business to dictate your perceptions of right and wrong.

Downloading music maybe illegal but its nothing compared with theft or piracy. Getting a parking ticket is worse than downloading a film...thats how minor it is.

argie
October 3rd, 2007, 07:19 PM
How many of us would object if someone took GPL code and put it in a proprietary product? It's not 'stealing' either. Everyone switches sides of the fence when they're the content creator.

For me, it's just about respect for the other person. If I wrote a book, I think I should have the right to be paid for it (and not simply for the physical value of the pages). You respect the other person's right to do what they'd like with stuff they made. It's the content creator's decision on whether or not you should have it free. It's not yours. As far as I know, the current laws are in line with this.

aysiu
October 3rd, 2007, 07:20 PM
Just because the middleman sucks does that mean you can do whatever you want? If people want to practice vigilante economic justice, they should be consistent about it, not do it only when it's convenient. I'd like to see the downloaders who are proud of downloading not pay for a car, because most of the money goes to the CEOs of car manufacturers or the middlemen, and then use that money instead to pay the hardworking factory workers who assembled the car, or track down the engineers who came up with the designs for the car and pay them.

It's ridiculous.

The economy isn't fair. Those who make $200,000 a year are not working ten times harder than those making $20,000 a year. And a huge portion of my tax money goes into the military instead of education. Do I then withhold all my tax money as civil disobedience and donate the money straight to schools... or, better yet, straight to the teachers? Well... if I did, then it might make sense to download music (that isn't otherwise legally cost-free) and then just go to the concerts. At least that would be a consistent lifestyle practice--ignore the economy in place already, steal what you want, and give to wherever you think the money should go.

This idea that the musicians are the only ones who should get money is absurd. It's the same kind of narrow thinking that makes university students divide up the total tuition by the number of classes to see how much each class is worth. When you go to university, you're not just paying to attend classes. You're paying for mailings and events the admission office does. You're paying for food. You're paying for lodging. You're paying for the registrar creating the course schedules. You're paying for the athletic facilities and grounds upkeep. You're paying for dinners that cater to alumni to get them to donate more money to the school.

Likewise, with music, if you choose to listen to music from the major labels, you're paying for production quality of the sound recording, distribution, and advertising costs. If you don't like music from the major labels, don't listen to it. I don't buy for one minute this crap of, "Oh, yeah... I like the music enough to listen to it, but not enough to buy it." If you don't like it, don't listen to it. If you like it, pay for it.

Have I ever downloaded illegally? Sure. Am I moving away from that? Yes. More and more these days, I'm buying CDs, and I enjoy buying CDs. It's made me love music again. Downloading whatever crap I could get my hands on doesn't make me appreciate music--it cheapens music. Having to save money to buy a CD you really want--that makes you appreciate music. And artists can use CD sales numbers to negotiate for better contracts. And, hey, they signed those contracts. If they didn't want to play by the record company's terms, they could have started their own label or just distributed on MySpace or Magnatune. And some artists do get a huge percentage of their CD sales. You shouldn't assume they all have crappy contracts, just because that idea makes you feel better about downloading music illegally.

dannyboy79
October 3rd, 2007, 07:20 PM
While it may not be stealing according to the dictionary, it is in my book. According to me, stealing is taking or using something that you should of paid for. For example, you walk into a movie theater and watch a movie without buying a ticket. Did you actually "deprive" them of their personal property? No, but you did steal from them by watching the movie that you didn't pay to watch.

I would say that unless the person uploading the music/movies/game onto the internet has written consent to post that item, that would make that person a suspect for piracy or copy infringment. Then the downloader is stealing whether he knows it or not. Also, come on people, the places that illegal music/movies/games are at (where we go to get our free stuff), are definitely locations that we all know have illegal content at them. Most servers are over seas where piracy laws aren't enforced as much or are different.

Bottom Line, it's stealing/copy right infringment/piracy in general, maybe not for the downloader himself, but somewhere along the line someone has made it possible for a product that should generate revenue be available for free, which is stealing from the person/coorporation that should be getting a piece of that generated revenue.

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 07:39 PM
Firstly...and I say this with the greatest respect...the world does not run on 'your book' nor does it give a damn how you chose to define words. If you think its ok to kill people that does not suddenly make it legal nor if you think that downloading music should result in a prison sentence it will just happen.Of course the world doesn't run by my rules. This is an opinion thread and that is my opinion.


As for your movie theater scenario I really really wish people would stop using abstract examples that are totally off point.

Entering a movie theater is private property, you have a legal contact (the ticket) to enter their building and use their facilities which happen to include the privilege of watching a film while sat in their seats they they have licensed to show people in their building. You enter it with out a ticket, you will be arrested for trespassing not piracy.I didn't say that doing that was breaking the same law, I was just giving an example of a case where you can steal without actually taking something.


Its scary to think that you are all people who lead your lives and go around playing this great game we call a planet with no concept of what the rules of that game is. This is why I really think law needs to be taught in schools because a lot of you here really dont know your rights and have allowed the movie and music business to dictate your perceptions of right and wrong.

Downloading music maybe illegal but its nothing compared with theft or piracy. Getting a parking ticket is worse than downloading a film...thats how minor it is.Please don't insult us just because we believe something you don't. Some people believe something is right while others believe that its wrong. And I don't allow the movie and music business to "dictate your perceptions of right and wrong."

Everyone has their own opinions. That's all.

aysiu
October 3rd, 2007, 07:52 PM
I think it's kind of silly that there are two active threads on the same topic, but since we're moving toward putting stuff in recurring discussions instead of merging threads, I've moved these two threads to that subforum instead of merging them together.

curuxz
October 3rd, 2007, 07:56 PM
Of course the world doesn't run by my rules. This is an opinion thread and that is my opinion.

I didn't say that doing that was breaking the same law, I was just giving an example of a case where you can steal without actually taking something.


But you don't steal anything in your example thats my point. I am not trying to offend anyone but a lot of people here are saying that downloading is theft as a fact not an opinion and its not.

My 'opinion' is that IP infringement is wrong, but I think what the music biz does is worse than IP infringement by telling us its piracy, its like the banks charging penalty charges, they know its wrong and illegal but they do it (and people for a long time did not challenge them) because we assume that big companies cant get away with lying to us on matters like law. The fact remains that organizations like FACT should be sued and shut down for distributing trailers on films that say downloading music is piracy or theft because they are inaccurate and we are SUPPOSED to have organizations to protect us against inaccurate advertising.

I don't want to have a debate on downloading music until we are only having a debate on downloading music and thats my point, people have been brainwashed in to even entertaining the idea that downloading is theft, your movie theater example is a classic example of people knowing its not theft but being conditioned to believe it is.

I really am not trying to offend you only to point out how corrupted this debate is because of the film and music companies and that it must be centered around facts before ethics can be considered.

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 08:59 PM
But you don't steal anything in your example thats my point. I am not trying to offend anyone but a lot of people here are saying that downloading is theft as a fact not an opinion and its not.

My 'opinion' is that IP infringement is wrong, but I think what the music biz does is worse than IP infringement by telling us its piracy, its like the banks charging penalty charges, they know its wrong and illegal but they do it (and people for a long time did not challenge them) because we assume that big companies cant get away with lying to us on matters like law. The fact remains that organizations like FACT should be sued and shut down for distributing trailers on films that say downloading music is piracy or theft because they are inaccurate and we are SUPPOSED to have organizations to protect us against inaccurate advertising.

I don't want to have a debate on downloading music until we are only having a debate on downloading music and thats my point, people have been brainwashed in to even entertaining the idea that downloading is theft, your movie theater example is a classic example of people knowing its not theft but being conditioned to believe it is.

I really am not trying to offend you only to point out how corrupted this debate is because of the film and music companies and that it must be centered around facts before ethics can be considered.Please don't assume that we only learn what the media tells us. I can actually think on my own too. I believe that downloading movies, music, or anything is wrong if you don't have the permission of the creator. You may have different opinions.

curuxz
October 3rd, 2007, 09:21 PM
Please don't assume that we only learn what the media tells us. I can actually think on my own too. I believe that downloading movies, music, or anything is wrong if you don't have the permission of the creator. You may have different opinions.



My point was though that the majority here really do believe its theft, and my that mistake they are show an alarming trend.

What I was trying to get at is this, if a police officer comes to your house tomorrow and says "you have downloaded a film, therefor you are a pirate and will go to prison" by your posts you would agree with him and go off to pay your time in prison (assuming you HAD downloaded something illegally). This is where I get to my point that there is a alarming lack of basic legal knowledge because if anyone here for even a second thinks that they really are 'stealing' by downloading music or films then they are leaving them selfs open to be completely done over by the likes of the film companies.

If we know what we are doing, and why its wrong then we can better change our behavior but if we are continually told by the film people that its piracy or theft then it forces all discussion on the subject as criminal, its not criminal its illegal and there is a big distinction.

As I said before I am not trying to offend anyone, I have deep respect for members of this community but I am worried that by accepting the film businesses definitions of words and allowing them to abuse our legal system we as consumers are open to be the ones being illegally abused.

I hope the way I have worded my argument has not caused offense I sincerely do.

Nano Geek
October 3rd, 2007, 11:11 PM
My point was though that the majority here really do believe its theft, and my that mistake they are show an alarming trend.

What I was trying to get at is this, if a police officer comes to your house tomorrow and says "you have downloaded a film, therefor you are a pirate and will go to prison" by your posts you would agree with him and go off to pay your time in prison (assuming you HAD downloaded something illegally). This is where I get to my point that there is a alarming lack of basic legal knowledge because if anyone here for even a second thinks that they really are 'stealing' by downloading music or films then they are leaving them selfs open to be completely done over by the likes of the film companies.

If we know what we are doing, and why its wrong then we can better change our behavior but if we are continually told by the film people that its piracy or theft then it forces all discussion on the subject as criminal, its not criminal its illegal and there is a big distinction.

As I said before I am not trying to offend anyone, I have deep respect for members of this community but I am worried that by accepting the film businesses definitions of words and allowing them to abuse our legal system we as consumers are open to be the ones being illegally abused.

I hope the way I have worded my argument has not caused offense I sincerely do.I don't see why its wrong to have morals and know not to take what doesn't belong to you. Why is it alarming that we don't steal?

Frak
October 4th, 2007, 12:21 AM
I don't see why its wrong to have morals and know not to take what doesn't belong to you. Why is it alarming that we don't steal?
Stealing = Theft
Theft = Person taking item; where item = some ownership then where item ≠ present
Owner ≠ Item

Now downloading music
Artist -> Song
Song = Consumer
Consumer <-> others
others = Song
Yet
Artist = Song

Where = is ownership or equals, -> is Yeilds, <-> Share, ≠ no ownership (anymore)

Celegorm
October 4th, 2007, 02:57 AM
I don't see why its wrong to have morals and know not to take what doesn't belong to you. Why is it alarming that we don't steal?

Agreed, but this is not an argument about morals. This is about whether downloading music is stealing, according the general populace's view on what stealing is, and whether various corporate entities are being misleading when they claim that downloading music is the same as stealing.

Nano Geek
October 4th, 2007, 04:13 AM
Agreed, but this is not an argument about morals. This is about whether downloading music is stealing, according the general populace's view on what stealing is, and whether various corporate entities are being misleading when they claim that downloading music is the same as stealing.Alright, personally, I think its stealing. But I'll leave you alone now.

lespaul_rentals
October 16th, 2007, 08:12 PM
i can't believe some of you people's thinking process. What if you coded for a living and decided you wanted to make money on it, then all of a sudden your program was being "shared" over the internet with a crack to it so it could be used at their disposal without purchasing a license. How would that make you feel? How would that impact your income for that software title? I mean come on guys, you can come up with all the excuses you want, that still doesn't make it legal, it's illegal and it's costing people lots of money regardless of whether you think the Huge Record labels are ripping off the artists to begin with, so you're going to rip them off as well???? I just can't believe the youth today. What has happened to children growing up where they believe everything is theirs for the taking????

Anyone who writes, performs, or otherwise plays music for the purpose of making money is not a musician. If you want to code a program for the purpose of making money, that's your choice, but you don't have my support. Money is a piece of paper, a relative determination of wealth. I will go to gigs, buy CDs, etc. of underground, truly talented bands I like because I want to help them out, but if a band is playing music as slaves to the almighty dollar, that is wrong. We all came from the earth, some idiot thought of creating a piece of paper to spend. Music is a primitive thing, humans have been attracted to music since the beginning of time, way before the idea of wealth was ever conceived, whether it was the chirp of a bird, the whisper of the wind, or the rythmic thumping of rocks. Using music for the gain of wealth is raping a traditional art that was never meant to be abused for such purposes.

happysmileman
October 16th, 2007, 08:23 PM
It's even against the law to bypass or crack a copy protection for personal backups.

Are you sure, I was under the impression that it was perfectly legal to bypass the protection as long as it's only for personal use, though either way I'm gonna bypass it.

It's still legal to copy a music CD onto a blank disc for personal use right?

popch
October 16th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Anyone who writes, performs, or otherwise plays music for the purpose of making money is not a musician. If you want to code a program for the purpose of making money, that's your choice, but you don't have my support. Money is a piece of paper, a relative determination of wealth. I will go to gigs, buy CDs, etc. of underground, truly talented bands I like because I want to help them out, but if a band is playing music as slaves to the almighty dollar, that is wrong. We all came from the earth, some idiot thought of creating a piece of paper to spend. Music is a primitive thing, humans have been attracted to music since the beginning of time, way before the idea of wealth was ever conceived, whether it was the chirp of a bird, the whisper of the wind, or the rythmic thumping of rocks. Using music for the gain of wealth is raping a traditional art that was never meant to be abused for such purposes.

Anyone who digs coal out of the earth for the purpose of making money is not a miner. Mines are primitive things, humans have been attracted to things which can be mined before the idea of wealth was conceived. Using mining for the gain of wealth is raping a traditional art that was never meant to be abused for such purposes.

lespaul_rentals
October 16th, 2007, 08:51 PM
Anyone who digs coal out of the earth for the purpose of making money is not a miner. Mines are primitive things, humans have been attracted to things which can be mined before the idea of wealth was conceived. Using mining for the gain of wealth is raping a traditional art that was never meant to be abused for such purposes.

Very funny, Smart Alex.

Coal is used for one thing, and one thing only: energy. People who take coal out of the earth are doing it for economic reasons. People can buy the coal and use it to generate heat, or generate power. The reason why people mine is because they want to make money.

Music, on the other hand, is notes pieced together to sound pleasing to the ear. It wasn't something that was created for economic reasons, it is a biological tendency.

popch
October 16th, 2007, 09:05 PM
Coal is used for one thing, and one thing only: energy. People who take coal out of the earth are doing it for economic reasons. People can buy the coal and use it to generate heat, or generate power. The reason why people mine is because they want to make money.

Not true. Coal is also a very valuable base for the chemical industry. Many dyes are made from coal. In coal mines you also find often fossils which make them attractive for scientists.


Music, on the other hand, is notes pieced together to sound pleasing to the ear. It wasn't something that was created for economic reasons, it is a biological tendency.

For several centuries now, music has been a highly developed art form taking years of study and practice. In modern music, pleasing the ear is rather a byproduct or side effect and is often not aimed at. People who are trying to make a living of writing or performing music will be grateful to hear you say that they are not real musicians.

popch
October 16th, 2007, 09:32 PM
(Music) wasn't something that was created for economic reasons, it is a biological tendency.

On second thought: that's also not quite true. They use what must be termed 'music' in super markets to increase sales. Governments control what kinds of music can be published and performed for the propaganda value of music.

It does have a biological (neurological) base. That does not make someone banging rocks against each other a musician.

Sporkman
October 16th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Has this thread jumped the shark yet?

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 11:15 PM
Are you sure, I was under the impression that it was perfectly legal to bypass the protection as long as it's only for personal use, though either way I'm gonna bypass it.

It's still legal to copy a music CD onto a blank disc for personal use right?
You're thinking of the EU and Canada.