Stance on pirating?

[JerryLove]

Not all assets are tangible, or can be held in ones hand like a watch. Do a little research on "intellectual property" and "royalties", which covers intangible work.

"intellectual property" is a brand new phrase, missing from centuries of copyright.

Royalties are a real thing. I could take your royalties by robbing you of them. I could deprive you of royalties by depriving you of sales. I could also deprive you by suggesting people not buy something for which you receive royalties (perfectly legal), or finding an alternative, or by simply failing to pay due royalties (contractual breech or copyright infringement depending on circumstance).

A copy is not a theft. It is illegal. It should be illegal. But it is not theft.

When someone listens to other music, or finds a substitute for said program the artist or programmer (studio or development company) still doesn't get the same money.

Is not listening to a song theft?

It seems like you are doing what a lot of people do. You don't like people using copyrighted work without paying royalties. You are completely correct in this belief. It's the wrong thing to do. It's illegal and it should be.

Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's theft any more than it's murder or any other crime-that-it-isn't.

 

[markw]

"laser" is a new term that didn't exist a hundred years ago but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist today.

Likewise, there were no laws against wiretapping at the time you mentioned either.

Get used to "intellectual property". It's as real as anything else.

Times change. Laws change and/or are added as circumstances require. Get used to it.

 

[MidnightSensi]

"intellectual property" is a brand new phrase, missing from centuries of copyright.

Royalties are a real thing. I could take your royalties by robbing you of them. I could deprive you of royalties by depriving you of sales. I could also deprive you by suggesting people not buy something for which you receive royalties (perfectly legal), or finding an alternative, or by simply failing to pay due royalties (contractual breech or copyright infringement depending on circumstance).

A copy is not a theft. It is illegal. It should be illegal. But it is not theft.

When someone listens to other music, or finds a substitute for said program the artist or programmer (studio or development company) still doesn't get the same money.

Is not listening to a song theft?

It seems like you are doing what a lot of people do. You don't like people using copyrighted work without paying royalties. You are completely correct in this belief. It's the wrong thing to do. It's illegal and it should be.

Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's theft any more than it's murder or any other crime-that-it-isn't.

They say that if you copy music, or get a copy, it is depriving them of what would otherwise be sold and therefore theft.

The fact is that no matter what it is, it still upsets the previous system. Touring bands like Dave Matthews and Slightly Stoopid are flourishing off of their concerts being passed around college campuses, whereas pop-divas and such not so much.

My feeling is that there just isn't the money there used to be in music and the major labels are fighting that. Some of their sales is probably down due to digital worlds, but the rest of it is because they make albums that only have one good song produced by a team of experts so terrific at what they do that they could make a dying horse go number 1.

 

[krzywica]

"laser" is a new term that didn't exist a hundred years ago but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist today.

Likewise, there were no laws against wiretapping at the time you mentioned either.

Get used to "intellectual property". It's as real as anything else.

Times change. Laws change and/or are added as circumstances require. Get used to it.

The problem is the Music companies push to have the laws created instead of pioneering ways for new content distribution like they should. Grasping at straws from a dead/dying era.

They have had plenty of time to develop new ideas and shift with the market but instead have put up levies and are standing behind them until they inevitably break.

I would say the Movies biz is doing ok. Surely not excelling in this area. But with the implementation of media streaming from the likes of Netflix and Hulu they are headed in the right direction. Lets just hope they keep it up.

 

[markw]

This brings us back to the "Is Morality Relative" Thread.

The problem is the Music companies push to have the laws created instead of pioneering ways for new content distribution like they should. Grasping at straws from a dead/dying era.

They have had plenty of time to develop new ideas and shift with the market but instead have put up levies and are standing behind them until they inevitably break.

I would say the Movies biz is doing ok. Surely not excelling in this area. But with the implementation of media streaming from the likes of Netflix and Hulu they are headed in the right direction. Lets just hope they keep it up.

Spin it whatever you will, but the crux of the matter is that for every pirated song, the artist loses a few pennies. Use whatever means you can to justify that if it helps you feel better about it. Those pennies do add up, particularly when the song is hot.

If you don't feel there's something wrong with that, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. It's that damned relative morality in action again. That, plus the fact that the odds of getting away with it are pretty high.

Digital makes copying so easy that it almost invites theft. This was not a major issue with analog since one-on-one copying was a pain in the butt. Nowadays, once it's on a server connected to the internet, it's pretty much open for anyone to help themselves to and the temptation is too great for many to resist. That, plus they find ways to justify doing it.

 

[krzywica]

Spin it whatever you will, but the crux of the matter is that for every pirated song, the artist loses a few pennies. Use whatever means you can to justify that if it helps you feel better about it. Those pennies do add up, particularly when the song is hot.

If you don't feel there's something wrong with that, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. It's that damned relative morality in action again. That, plus the fact that the odds of getting away with it are pretty high.

Digital makes copying so easy that it almost invites theft. This was not a major issue with analog since one-on-one copying was a pain in the butt. Nowadays, once it's on a server connected to the internet, it's pretty much open for anyone to help themselves to and the temptation is too great for many to resist. That, plus they find ways to justify doing it.

I think you are getting me wrong Mark. I am not trying to justify piracy or say that its not illegal.

I am however trying to spell out the cause and effect of the music industry since the inception of in home broadband data connectivity (the internet as we know it today).

 

[JerryLove]

Spin it whatever you will, but the crux of the matter is that for every pirated song, the artist loses a few pennies. Use whatever means you can to justify that if it helps you feel better about it. Those pennies do add up, particularly when the song is hot.

If you don't feel there's something wrong with that, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. It's that damned relative morality in action again. That, plus the fact that the odds of getting away with it are pretty high.

No one is saying that copyright infringement is OK. We are simply saying "it's not theft".

Look at your own "crux of the matter". If I go get a bootleg copy of Billy-Ray Cyrus, it doesn't cost him anything because: I'm not going to buy his album anyway (for the same reasons I'm not going to go get a bootleg copy).

Did you know that every time you buy a used CD at a pawn shop instead of a new one, the artist looses a few pennies? Every time you tell someone "don't buy that, it's not very good", the artist looses a few pennies.

And what about the numerous "best of the 80s" kinds of albums that, apparently, the studios have not been paying the artists for (see lawsuit thread)?

The crux of *my* assertion is that, in trying to justify calling copyright infringement "theft", you open the door to all of the above counter-arguments.. It shouldn't be happening.

Isn't it enough that it's copyright infringement? Why does it have to be something else?

As to the "laser" post: Lasers didn't exist. Copyright law and copyright violations did exist. Unless you are arguing that creators do and should have some new, different copyright than they have for centuries: it's not a good analogy.

Again, since it somehow keeps getting overlooked. I'm not advocating copyright infringement. I support copyrights.

 

[markw]

I think you are getting me wrong Mark. I am not trying to justify piracy or say that its not illegal.

I am however trying to spell out the cause and effect of the music industry since the inception of in home broadband data connectivity (the internet as we know it today).

That would be a totally different issue that might warrant a new thread.

But, while we're at it, what do you propose to assure the artists get their fair share?

 

[markw]

I'll keep this simple.

No one is saying that copyright infringement is OK. We are simply saying "it's not theft".

Look at your own "crux of the matter". If I go get a bootleg copy of Billy-Ray Cyrus, it doesn't cost him anything because: I'm not going to buy his album anyway.

Yet you still own it. How is this not depriving him of the money that's due him?

You can play word games, which you seem to like, but the end result is the same. Ole mullet-head is out his royalty.

So, if someone takes your car without permission, drives around for a few weeks and the cops finally catch him and it's in good condition with a full tank of gas, did he not steal your car? After all, you lost nothing except it's use for a period of time, just like the artist only lost his royalties for that copy.

and, recorded music didn't exist in the time of English common law, either. It does now and has for the better part of a century. Times change, laws change. Get used to it.

 

[krzywica]

That would be a totally different issue that might warrant a new thread.

True enough.

But, while we're at it, what do you propose to assure the artists get their fair share?

I'm not paid millions to sit around and devise these types of ideas. If I was I would but I'm not so I don't.

I'm sick of seeing these rich fat cats sit around and do nothing creative but make millions because they know how to be manipulative. (Again this could be another thread).

So, if someone takes your car without permission, drives around for a few weeks and the cops finally catch him and it's in good condition with a full tank of gas, did he not steal your car? After all, you lost nothing except it's use for a period of time, just like the artist only lost his royalties for that copy.

Again....apples to oranges. Copyright infringement is not the same as theft.

 

[JerryLove]

Yet you still own it. How is this not depriving him of the money that's due him?

The money he would not have had were I not to get a bootleg either.

Hypotetically: we stop all piracy but none of the people buy what they would have pirated. The artists have the exact same amount of money as when piracy was ongoing. Where's the "theft"?

You can play word games, which you seem to like, but the end result is the same. Ole mullet-head is out his royalty.

From my perspective: I'm trying to stop the word games I see being perpetrated by others. Sadly: the industry seems to have indoctrinated much of the public "either you agree with us or you support terrorists" (I almost put criminals: but I do believe there are "piracy supports terrorism" articles out there too).

It would be the same if the anti-pollution crowd (I'm anti-pollution) started calling it "raping the Earth" and then attempted to assert that a broken catalytic converter was rape. It's not.

So, if someone takes your car without permission, drives around for a few weeks and the cops finally catch him and it'sin good condition with a full tank of gas, did he not steal your car? After all, you lost nothing except it'suse for a period of time, just like the artist only lost his royalties for that copy.

My property, which I owned (the car) was taken from my possession. That's the definition of theft. That I later recovered the stolen goods means that the theft ended.

If I mug you on the street and take your "royalty check", that too is theft (well, technically it's not: it's robbery).

If I cause you to not get royalties through some other means, it's not theft.

Let me give you a easier example. Let's imagine I burn down your house. It costs you a lot of money, and you loose lots of possessions. It's not theft though, nor stealing: it's arson.

You seem to conflagrate my statement "it's not theft" with what I've repeatedly disavowed "it's OK".

 

[markw]

Three words

Theft of services.

You went out of your way to obtain and own the product, you pay for the product. Otherwise, you stole it.

Perhaps you should revisit the "Is morality relative" thread. You seem quite adept at justifying owning things without paying for them.

So, you wouldn't press charges against the guy who "borrowed" your car? Somehow, I don't believe that.

 

[krzywica]

Theft of services.

You went out of your way to obtain and own the product, you pay for the product. Otherwise, you stole it.

Perhaps you should revisit the "Is morality relative" thread. You seem quite adept at justifying owning things without paying for them.

So, you wouldn't press charges against the guy who "borrowed" your car? Somehow, I don't believe that.

Aww come on Mark lets fight some more...my self esteem is rising just talking on these forums...wait a second thats not my self esteem....

 

[markw]

Aww come on Mark lets fight some more...my self esteem is rising just talking on these forums...wait a second thats not my self esteem....

We ain't fighting. We're having a discussion

Wait, that quote looks weird. Who am I responding to?

 

[krzywica]

We ain't fighting. We're having a discussion

Wait, that quote looks weird. Who am I responding to?

Hahahah......just joking around man. LOL.

 

[JerryLove]

Perhaps you should revisit the "Is morality relative" thread. You seem quite adept at justifying owning things without paying for them.

Mark,

I've said at least a dozen times that I'm not condoning copyright infringement.

Seriously: Why do you keep accusing me of justifying copyright infringement when I've done no such thing?

 

[markw]

Mark,

I've said at least a dozen times that I'm not condoning copyright infringement.

Seriously: Why do you keep accusing me of justifying copyright infringement when I've done no such thing?

Why do you not admit that the artist is not being compensated for his work, and that it tantamount to stealing it?

 

[MidnightSensi]

Mark,

I've said at least a dozen times that I'm not condoning copyright infringement.

Seriously: Why do you keep accusing me of justifying copyright infringement when I've done no such thing?

Sinner.

What the hell is there to download anyways?! 192 bit rate mp3s of 50 Cent?

The music this even affects is almost as lame as the word 'copyright infringement.'

Here is the first page of a torrent site I just searched based on popularity:

VA- Country Hits --> Oxymoron, pass.

Breaking Benjamin - Dear Agony --> This one would be good if it wasn't emo crap, was in tune, wasn't full of abrasive drama and asked someone with talent to produce the album for them... pass.

Jimmy Buffet - Buffet Hotel --> Heard every Buffet album from the first three cords of the first song I heard. Next.

The Rosewood Thieves Discography ...

... Next.


Gauravani & As Kindred Spirits - Ten Million Moons Here's a nice piece .... of ****.

 

[JerryLove]

Why do you not admit that the artist is not being compensated for his work, and that it tantamount to stealing it?

Will you admit that giving a negative review of a CD is tantamount to stealing from the artist? If so, I'll put copyright infringement in the same vein for the purpose of this discussion.

But regardless of that: how is not calling it stealing justifying the activity. I would argue against calling murder stealing, but I'm not justifying murder either (nor was I justifying arson in my earlier example).

 

[JerryLove]

What the hell is there to download anyways?! 192 bit rate mp3s of 50 Cent?

Actually: I do a good amount of downloading from 256kbps and up... but it's legal dowloading (mostly from Amazon), and I don't have any fity-cent (though I do have Eminem).