Come on then people, do your favourite pass-time. Debate on this one for a bit! What are your thoughts on illegal downloading?

Simple. It's theft, so if you would have no problem shoplifting if you could easily get away with it, you should have no problem with illegal downloads.

Illegal downloading. 'Nuff said.

Even downloading a song or two from a new band to try them out? Even if, if you liked them, you would buy the CD afterwards? Do you guys consider this unfair?

I have a CD collection which probably cost 300quid+, the majority of them bought 3 years or longer ago before I discovered the wonders of internet downloading.

I must admit, I download because I'm cheap. I'm aware that the artists (the real ones anyway) deserve a cut of it but I don't want to fork out 15 pound+ everytime I want an album, considering the CD cost all of 1 or 2 penny to create.

The only time I pay for albums these days are if you cant get a proper version online, so EPs etc. Or, if I REALLY like the group in question.

I think what'll happen is in a few years, record companys will slice prices in half as many have done in the States. It'd definitely bring me back if I could pop out and pick up a CD for 5-7 pounds.

Could it also be argued that people being able to download music easily has increaed their music taste? There are bans I'm into now that I would never have been into before, simply because I would never have spent my hard earned cash on something like a CD. But when I get try bands out for free, it obviously makes thigns much easier and increases my range of music taste.

If you're getting them from the selling website, then it's a free sample as if you were in the store. Otherwise, no.

But honestly, do you think that downloading a band, say, like U2, is wrong? They have millions upon millions of dollars, who cares about 10-15 bucks here or there?

For smaller bands, absolutely, they deserve money for their hardwork. But for huge bands like U2, Rolling Stones, etc, come on.

Or how about bands in which the members are dead, or mostly dead?

You could same the same thing about anything you have to buy. Most things are are produced by giant corporations these days.

It doesn't matter if you think it's OK; it is not for you to say if it's OK or not because you don't own the rights to the property.

It is theft plain and simple; whether you care or not is another story.

To me it's a principle thing...it's not okay to steal even from a rich person. I don't go around lecturing my friends who do it, though.

It's wierd, because I would never steal from anyone in real life. The thought never even crosses my mind. I think I'm a good person and would never take anything that didn't belong to me. However, with downloads, I'll quite happily get albums, films, even games over bittorrent and I don't 'see it' as stealing for some reason. Obviously, it IS stealing, but it's not treated as 'real' stealing by like, 95% of people who do it... I wonder why that is when it obviously is theft... hmmm...

I generally support abandonware of products which you really can't get without searching through ebay or some such. Meaning games and software that are either hard or impossible to get otherwise. No one is harmed from that, I would have gladly bought the original ultima games and other similar classics if they were available, but alas I was born a bit too young to have them legally.

However, illegally acquiring products that are still available I'm fully against, since it's basically theft. My opinion is that it's not considered stealing simply because you can get away with it so easily without any risk what so ever. Generally I'm much more against illegally downloading games than anything else. It simply appals me when I see people who illegally downloaded games such as planescape torment (I'd understand if someone did it today since it pretty much falls to the abandonware cathegory allready). I partially blame these people of the fact that decent PC games are very few and far between these days.

It's wierd, because I would never steal from anyone in real life. The thought never even crosses my mind. I think I'm a good person and would never take anything that didn't belong to me. However, with downloads, I'll quite happily get albums, films, even games over bittorrent and I don't 'see it' as stealing for some reason. Obviously, it IS stealing, but it's not treated as 'real' stealing by like, 95% of people who do it... I wonder why that is when it obviously is theft... hmmm... I feel the same way...

Gotta go, MPAA's on to me! :outta:

Ownership and trade of copyrights and all the so called intellectual property is not the same as owning the fruits of one's labour, things received in exchange for it, gifts or what ancestors have left you (even if the latter may fall under the "system" category). I would never like to be the judge or prosecutor in the case of someone who copied or downloaded files not for profit. I believe it's ridiculous when the punishment for copying a game is harsher than for stealing an original one from the shop. I hate copy protection that prevents owners of legally purchased software from making back-up copies. I actually believe that if piracy is theft, then, logically, depriving you of your back-up copy that way is also theft or extortion of some kind. Especially if you end up buying a new copy because you scratch your CDs or whatever such. Or lose the license/box/whatever.

Companies, lawmakers and law enforcement are mixing up criminal and civil law. It's understandable that to a certain extent, the customer should be able to prove or make probable that he bought the software or music legally. But in a criminal trial, the prosecution should always be required to prove that he downloaded or illegally "burnt" it. Where the heck is the presumption of innocence and the benefit of doubt? Even in lawsuits, the plaintiff is normally (by any civilised law) to prove his claim, not the defendant to disprove it. Ordering the defendant to destroy the CDs or confiscate them could perhaps be reasonable in some cases, but any sort of damages should be awarded only if the company lawyers manage to prove that your software or music is pirated. Bad for corporations? Pity. It's better to make big corporations suffer a little in the name of fair trial and civil rights than to make civil rights, fair trial and citizens themselves less important than corporate interests.

Next, prices are obviously too high. It's a myth that you can buy or abstain from using. Corporations create and stimulate the market, advertise, inspire the demand. Then, they manipulate the supply for their own benefit (i.e. further stimulating the demand and teasing). All the ties between various local markets and various branches of the universal, global market, make certain things necessary. Those who govern those things are at an advantage and can and will make sure they squeeze that last dollar out of it. I don't think any country, state, society, which is after all a collection of individual citizens (who are also customers) and laws which are the emanation of the will of such a collection of citizens, should be forced or required to uphold and protect that kind of selfish motives with exploitative tendencies.

This is why, with regard to the software and musical industry, we need to ask the question: who benefits? Who gets screwed? Benefits are stashed by the publishers, distributors and other kinds of middlemen. Artists and developers are not exactly amongs the wealthy citizens, are they? It's not the artists or developers who set up retail prices, either. And how much do they get? Do they always get their due in due time and without difficulties on the part of the publisher? Hell, no. It all too often needs to be sued out of them, as they will try to turn down almost any and all claim the artist makes.

The same way customers are screwed. Prices and copy protections are tied together. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but are console games really more costly to make than PC games? They are more difficult to copy and they are more expensive. If copying were impossible, how much would publishers and distributors charge? Just why don't they cut copy protection research and implementation expenses and lower the retail price by that same amount? Isn't scratching your CDs and buying a new license part of the intended sweet profit, really, even if technically a side-effect of copy-protection? Just why if you dowloaded songs and are caught, you aren't charged triple each invidual song's calculated price (e.g. 3 times total playing time of the album divided by the song's playing time times the album's retail price), or even triple the price of all CDs involved, but actually thousands of dollars? You would never be ordered to pay that much to the shop's owner if you stole it!

People and especially those who aren't proficient in copyright laws, ask themselves why can't I send the song I'm listening to to a friend? Why shouldn't I record the song I like from the radio to listen just to that one song later on, as many times I like. Why one copy per computer (per person sometimes)? There are many things which is believed that should be legal because many people do them. In the case of some countries, downloading or copying is something which is illegal despite the fact that the majority of citizens does it. Very democratic... Of course, apart from the fct that something is wrong with piracy. But still, corporations rule us even politically. It sucks when the authorities (have to) side with corporations despite their primary duty being towards the citizens.

I'm not saying that piracy should be made legal and publishers forced to deliver, but corporate interests must be at least balanced against the citizens' interests. Corporations should not be allowed to dictate prices as they see fit (as high as they can get away with), let alone dictate the law! Software and music needs to be cheaper, artists and developers need to get more, EULAs can't be the law, for decency's sake... Patents need to be limited as well. They should serve to make sure the inventor is rewarded. Not to restrict the particular solution to the first guy that comes up with it so that others can't anymore because someone else has already come up with it and patented it before them. Plagiarism is bad but it's also bad if you're forced to pay someone who came up with the same ideas as you but before (company and product names excepted, within reason).

I also feel obliged to point out that not everything which is illegal is automatically wrong or evil. Downloading and/or copying relies on taking something you don't pay for, which is bad, but it isn't always so clear. In past centuries, artists were paid by sponsors and there was no such thing as copyrights or even patents. So it's not really the natural order of things, doesn't need to be like that and hasn't always been. There *are* different solutions and they *can* work. Capitalism is not innate common human morality, either. Plus, no one should be the judge in his own case, so one shouldn't listen to corporate representatives and lawyers as if they were ethical oracles. Same goes for those who download or copy, though, so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It's all the unilateralism characteristic of the current approach to copyrights which really pisses me off.

Bloody hell chev, lol, I'll read that when I have about 5 hour spare :lol: :thumb: .

i don't have any problem with downloading. I do it all the time, so i can't complain about it. My thing is that if you really like the artist then you should buy their cd, but if there's only a couple songs you like why waiste your money on a cd if you could just download them?
I don't really consider it as theft. I mean, there's plenty of websites like purevolume and myspace where you can go and listen to the artist on your computer... so what's the difference if you download it instead?
And from the artist's perspective, honestly, what's so bad with people downloading your songs? it's a great way to get your music out to the masses. So provided that they buy your cd if they really like you, what's there to complain about? it's a win-win situation if they do that.

I don't like big corporations at all. It's just that in the current situation the only ways to support the artists are buying the cd's and going to the concerts, maybe buying some merchandise too - and sadly, numerous middle men get hefty slices from all of these.

As it is, I don't think corporations are going to lower their prices or anything like that. Also I think there are lots of people who will never pay for something they can get for free, no matter how cheap it is or how much they like it.

Illegal downloading, ideally, should be stopped. But the way to stop it is not copy-protections. If record companies focused more on creating legal online marketbases and laws were tweaked to serve the consumers better, this whole thing might actually be getting somewhere.

And from the artist's perspective, honestly, what's so bad with people downloading your songs? it's a great way to get your music out to the masses. So provided that they buy your cd if they really like you, what's there to complain about? it's a win-win situation if they do that.That's a big if. It's a win-win only for an unsigned band, really. If an artist doesn't mind being stuck at McDonalds instead of playing their music anywhere outside their home town, doesn't mind recording their stuff with modest home equipment and incompetent amateur engineers, getting the music to the masses through free downloading is indeed enough.

If you download your favorite smalltime band instead of buying their cd's, don't hold your breath for them coming to play in your town.

Illegal downloading is. 'nuff said about the legality. It's also wrong. Whether or not it causes material harm or not (there're some fascinating arguments backed with some evidence available at the Baen Free Library's website) is irrelevant. So long as the creator and/or company of the product you are downloading would rather not have you download it, you're in the wrong.

Of course, I do illegaly download on occasion (very rare at this point; not for, oh, eight months or so), though I tend to end up purchasing, sooner or later, those products I enjoy.

On the other hand, corporations are in part to blame for the problem of piracy. $20 for a CD that cost pennies to make? DVDs costing $30 (of course, to combat piracy, the film industry is contemplating $1 DVD releases in parts of Asia simultaneous to a film's theatrical release in America/Europe, which says something about the product's value...)? And so on. Software prices tend to be justified, but only to a point; $60 console games have inflated prices, pure and simple.

That's why it borders on a stinking lie when corporate anti-piracy speakers call upon ethical arguments such as pay the artist or compensate the manufacturer, without giving numbers. There's a concrete reason why they are not being concrete about numbers, isn't it? If shipping CDs or DVDs to Asia for a couple of bucks each (let alone one dollar) is worth it, then why not sell the same for even $10 in Europe or the US? Because if you threaten people with jail, you can extort more?

I hold to the theory that the reason the recording industry in particular is having such difficulties is godawful management; the Mariah Carey incident ($80 million to sign record deal, $20 million a year or two later to end it early) stands out as a rather breath taking example of that. This also true of the film industry, but to a lesser degree.

Of course, arguments about practical harm don't address theoretical morality...

For smaller bands, absolutely, they deserve money for their hardwork. But for huge bands like U2, Rolling Stones, etc, come on.Well, Bono needs that money to *not* pay the third-world debt he keeps foisting on power gov'ts and for those bloody sunblockers he wear. The Stones, heck, *how* many ex-wives and paternity suits do these guy have now? David Bowie is right out because he *is* the corporation! :lol:

I don't d/l that often to begin with and the music available online is not stuff I want anyway. Like others said before, it's called illegal downloading for a reason.

heh, I can't believe that nobody mentioned yet that actually downloading is not illegal. What is illegal (in the sense that it violates copyright) is distributing copyrighted works (which is no theft, either; is copyright infringement).

Of course, it might not be ethical... but then, what's the copyright period now? 90+ years? It started with 7, went on to 14, 50, somehow now is longer than a lifetime. That's not quite right either.

Is called illegal downloading because people are mostly clueless, and would rather swallow the line the recording industry pushes, rather than educating themselves a little on the matter.

I mean, there's plenty of websites like purevolume and myspace where you can go and listen to the artist on your computer... so what's the difference if you download it instead? The difference is between listening to the radio and making a bootleg CD. Websites get views, which translates into advertising, which translates into money they can pay the musicians to play their songs; radio stations get listeners, which translates into advertising, etc. Something downloaded on your computer which you can listen to any time you want to without having to support the artists in even the slightest way is stealing unless you paid to download it.

I'm firmly with BTA on this one; it's just plain stealing. You may think that 10-15 bucks doesn't amount to much, and that's true...for YOU. All YOU have to pay is 10-15 bucks; all the artists miss out on is thousands or millions. And of course they then raise the prices to make up the difference, and the people you really end up stealing from is your friends, who have to pay twice as much for the next CD because you cheaped out. You want to listen to one of their songs, you have to pay for it one way or the other. A guest star on the Simpsons may have said it best...
If you watch one minute of PBS and don't pay for it, you're a thief! A COMMON THIEF! - Betty White (old woman from the Golden Girls) Of course, splitting up the songs on a CD so that you could pay to download them separately would be a good idea, but it would still have to be from a licensed distibutor website.

EDIT:
Here's another idea. A song with advertising at the beginning could pay for itself but be extremely annoying. :D

Huh. How about buying a used book, Felinoid? Is that stealing, too? After all, the artist (writer) does not get anything from this.

Somebody mentioned above the Baen free library. Here's a link (http://www.baen.com/library/). Read the "Prime Palaver" part; that's where the editor makes the case that free dissemination of work is good, since it leads to exposure for the authors. An excerpt

The first [theme], repeated over and again, is that the major obstacle which little-known writers face is their obscurity. (And almost ALL writers are little known.) Readers are hesitant to spend money on an author they are not familiar with. As I argued in my introduction to the Baen Free Library, that's why authors should welcome the internet -- despite the inevitable piracy which it entails -- rather than dreading it. I can say with great confidence, based on these 123 letters, that I've sold four or five times as many books of my own because of the exposure which the Free Library and Webscriptions have given me than I've lost through putting the books up online for free. Also, from the same site, read Macaulay's essay on copyright.

Of course, splitting up the songs on a CD so that you could pay to download them separately would be a good idea, but it would still have to be from a licensed distibutor website.It's coming along; iTunes would be one example. From what I hear, there's still plenty of kinks to be worked out yet, but we can hope :)


And I've never...EVER d/l a song without full permission of the rights holder. The closest I've come to even downloading ANY music is a couple of 20-30 sec snippets out of curiousity. Yes I've got a sizeable chunk of my hard drive taken up with .wma's but they were all ripped from my CD collection :good:
(since I'm lazy and hate fiddling with the effin' jewel case - creation of satan! ;) )


Now software...two things, one morally impeccable, the other...erm.

The first sort of d/l I'll make is a demo or OPEN-SOURCE s/w. Former is to investigate whether purchasing, the latter is if I find the freeware fulfills my needs (since again, lazy as well as cheap :) )
Each of these instances is completely legal (you cannot steal that which the owner is freely giving to you).

The second...is abandonware; I salve my troubled conscience with the knowledge that I WOULD pay for the s/w, but the rights holder does not distribute it anymore (Ultima has been cited as an example, old Microprose games are another) Most a/w sites will remove any title that the rights holder asks to not be distributed, so that makes me feel better...

Note, I have NO tolerance for 'wArEz' and their purveyors - if it's in the stores, I'll go get it there (and save time by asking for a proctological exam while the vendors have me at their whim...but that's a different issue than my obeying the law...)

How about buying a used book, Felinoid? Is that stealing, too? After all, the artist (writer) does not get anything from this.Yes they do; they get the original purchase money. The only way this would hurt the author is if it was a used pirated book; citing a standard transfer of ownership is a pretty weak example, IMO. :rolleyes: If you want to get further into the book analogy, loaning your book for someone else to read would be akin to lending a music CD and then getting it back; a permanent gift would be transfer of ownership again. What these illegal downloads would be is someone printing off new copies without permission and giving them away. I imagine there would be considerably fewer writers in the field if a bestseller amounted to a few dozen books that then get reprinted by everyone else.

I assume all those writers in the Baen Free Library gave permission? They get paid with exposure; those who don't need exposure tend to prefer money. :heh: And by the enormous ruckus they're raising, I'm guessing that the big name bands aren't just handing out permission to copy.

People can buy and sell originals all they want because someone payed for the original, and they can then sell or give it as they want (Fair Use / Ownership). The problem is when you get into copying, and giving more than one person the ability to use something at the same time when you only paid for one. (This also gets into installs of a game from a single game disc onto multiple computers, but that gets only slightly hazier if one person owns all of the "multiple computers". Otherwise, it's still definitely wrong, and the main reason why now most games require the actual disc to play.)

Well, the artist also gets some initial money for music which is traded on the net. After all, we may assume that some CD have been sold to people who put the music up for download. And if that music is popular (i.e., dwnloaded many times), we might moreover assume that there have been quite a lot of CDs sold :) .

Of course, it is much easier to copy music than books. But then I would say it is just a matter of degrees; a book gets transfered maybe 5 times, a song 100 times (and I don't buy the time shifting argument- that is, is okay if multiple persons enjoy the same book/CD, as long as they do not do it at the same time - it makes no difference from the artist's perspective).

And come on, does anybody want to seriously argue that there would be no music being produced if somewhat freer sharing were permitted? It is true, big name bands won't make so much money (probably a smaller number of people would want to pay the money to get a original CD), but then, would that be so bad?

Software and music needs to be cheaper, artists and developers need to get more, True: I read somewhere that of the 16 dollars you pay, only 1 or two actually get sent to the artist. Sucks for them. In a fair society, the artist would get most of it. Of course, in a fair society, we wouldn't be run by greed, and the corporations would not have as big of a deal with sharing (since downloading is illegal, the sharing part isn't).

*sigh* In anycase, for the people who find it immoral, or whatever, so be it. You don't have to do it. For the others, let us go ahead and do it: if we get caught, sucks for us. Personally, I think the law should be changed. I think the law should be changed so that the corporations don't run the law, and that the punishment isn't paying extreme amounts of money: I think the offenders should either have to paythe equivilent amount of money that they owe, or just delete all of their downloaded stuff. So far, all of these extreme punishment cases have done nothing to stop sharers.

I will try to reform, I'll start deleting my downloaded movies... :( Anyways, I don't want the MPAA on my ass. I'd rather not pay 25 dollars for a movie worth 5, but hey, I live in ****ing America.

EDIT: It is true, big name bands won't make so much money (probably a smaller number of people would want to pay the money to get a original CD), but then, would that be so bad? No, that would be great. What would be even greater is if the huge record companies got 10 %, the producers/mixers 30%, and the band got 60%. But noooo, that would at least be semi-fair. Those companies need 90% of the money, because they need to ruin smalltime bands.

Note: those percentages were made up.

I assume all those writers in the Baen Free Library gave permission? They get paid with exposure; those who don't need exposure tend to prefer money. So one would assume, but, as it turns out, one would be in error. Yes, a number of the authors in the Free Library absolutely need more word of mouth. Others (David Weber and David Drake come to mind), most emphatically do not--at least in terms of maintaining an income that is above what most Americans will achieve in their lifetime.

Even for the them, the benefits outweigh the downsides. I can only suggest you read the essays in the library (and, uh, the books too, obviously--I recommend David Drake ;) ), as they contain all the pertinent information, links to additional resources with additional evidence (yes, even from musicians, and not no-name types either. Not the likes of Metallica, but also not ye olde garage band) supporting the case. As it turns out, exposure leads to money--even if one is already established in one's field.

In my opinion buying most CD's is wrong.
What the record companies don't need is more money to fund their jihad against consumers. Their sales going down is their fault and their fault only, the scene had nothing to do with that. I'm not buying something from a huge organization whose aim is to press more money out of me no matter if I warez or not.

They say warez is risky. I've gotten one virus from warezed software. I've gotten my machine needing a reformat countless times from perfectly legal software. In addition warezed software tends to work better most of the time.

For some reason, all the games I tend to play a lot except Civs I have as legal versions, though. Civs because I tend to just throw the CD away when I'm frustrated at not being able to easily stop.

But at the current prices I won't buy the games/applications/music unless I'm suddenly a millionaire - and if the copyprotection schemes keep going in the same direction, I wouldn't buy them even then.

I have no problem with illegal downloading. In my opinion warezing shouldn't even be illegal as long as it's not for profit.

(My current stance is a result of the new copyright law they pushed trough in Finland recently. Result? More people who have sworn that they won't buy a single CD anymore.)

Ahh... someone's mentioning used stuff. Publishers and distributors would ideally make your license intransferrable. Just look at Microsoft. They've only recently okayed selling "used" licenses.

IMHO, when publishers put restrictions of all kinds on you (one computer, no copying etc etc) but at the same time force people to buy from them instead of each other, in order to get double the money rather than just the original price of what they sell, it's really close to extortion in the moral sense, even if it's legal for them.

Check out this site
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000420067137

there are other sites that are stating that the creator of the final fantasy series is one of those that is really pushing for this to be in the ps3. If sony does it , the other console makers won't be far behind. On a seperate but related issue , when i got my psp i could download and play most of the old nintendo games but after the psp upgraded with grand theft auto it will not allow you to play any of these games.

If anything is the theft in this industry, that kind of thing is. It's worse than piracy. It's a great shame that something like that happens in full daylight. It also means that you can't lend your games or borrow from friends even without charging. What is worse, if your console goes poof or is stolen or you lose it, you have to re-purchase all games. This is theft, plain and simple. If they implement it, they should go to jail for it. I wouldn't shake hands with filth like that.

On a seperate but related issue , when i got my psp i could download and play most of the old nintendo games but after the psp upgraded with grand theft auto it will not allow you to play any of these games. I read in PCGamer that you can hak that back in if you know how, but I'm not going to tell you. :p Buy a PCGamer (I think it was the November issue, but I may be off by a month or two) if you really want to know.

@khaavern et al.:
The problem is still copying. "Sharing" is okay because you still only have the one copy you paid for; several people listening to a song at a party is okay because of Fair Use, but they can't all take a CD home unless the host was generous enough to buy one for each of them. Getting two (or more) when you only paid for one is wrong unless there was some sort of sale in the store. And again, if the artist has not okayed free stuff, then guess what? It's not okay! :rolleyes: (What is so f***ing hard to understand about this?)

And if that music is popular (i.e., dwnloaded many times), we might moreover assume that there have been quite a lot of CDs sold . Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? More free downloads means they don't have to buy the CD, so why would they shell out the ridiculous price (which they indirectly caused with previous theft :rolleyes: ) when they've already got what they want?

@Saber:
Don't even get me started on downloaded movies. :shake:

I wouldn't worry Fel: As soon as I can get over to my dad's house (he is away right now), I'm going to sack all of my downloaded movies for two reasons: I reeeallly don't want the government/corporations/MPAA on my ass; and I have found that my apparent illegality of downloading movies has lowered the respect that I recieve (or so it seems). While I don't care what most people think, I would prefer it if all of you respected me, as I do you.

And again, if the artist has not okayed free stuff, then guess what? It's not okay! [Roll Eyes] (What is so f***ing hard to understand about this?) So you argue that the artist should have complete control on his creation. It is not an unreasonable position to take... however, one might argue that the artist has a debt to the public, too. After all, it is public appreciation which makes his art meaningful. Otherwise he could simply create his song, or book, or whatever, and keep it in his attic. Nobody is making him share it.

Of course, this is not what's happening. The artist shares his art with society, and society gives something back. Copyright is a mechanism of enforcing this give back; the ideea is that the artist would have the unique right of distribution for a certain time, so he can make some money. But this is a right which society gives him; not a natural right. So once he made his money, his art should pass into the public domain, and be free for others to copy, and distribute. After all, the artist benefited himself from this public domain too; his art was not created in a vacuum, either.

More free downloads means they don't have to buy the CD, so why would they shell out the ridiculous price (which they indirectly caused with previous theft [Roll Eyes] ) Do you seriously believe that the high price of music is due to piracy? I think is very unlikely, to say the least :) .

This being said, I think is very good for you that you take this ethical stance regarding copying :) . It is very well and good to rememeber that we have an obligation toward the people which create our art/enterntainment. However, one in general should not forget that they also have an obligation toward us. One which the movie and record companies have tended to disregard lately (see the extension of copyright limits, the shenanigans which the software companies play with their software... licensing, indeed).

Art and getting appreciation for it, gaining renown and celebrity status is like flirting with the public. In flirting you shouldn't give control to just one party. You aren't responsible just for what you do but also for what you inspire, what you create craving for.

Do you seriously believe that the high price of music is due to piracy? I think is very unlikely, to say the leastThey say they are raising the prices all the time because of piracy but the truth is that they are rising them because they can. Extremely high piracy could in fact mean the necessity to raise prices to make it pay off, but not just piracy. Compare with Playstation, where piracy is practically impossible for individual users and still hard for organised groups of pirates, and prices are much higher than for PC games.

The artist has a debt to the public? :bs: They're enriching our lives with their art, and some people just aren't satisfied until they've taken everything they can. This is just another symptom of taking what you have for granted; you should be glad that they share their gift, not asking them to give it away for free so that everybody else's got a couple more bucks while they starve. (Well, that wouldn't happen even with piracy, but I hope you get my point; I know it's in there somewhere. :heh: )

Unless 'the public' has some sort of contract saying that each of these artists must produce, they don't owe us squat. The seller is not endebted to the buyer, and the only part of that transaction that entails obligation is that if the buyer pays for something, then they had better get it. Nowhere do we pay them in advance to make more songs.

Regardless, any sort of public obligation you think they may have is more than balanced out by the slander and smut of the tabloids and "celeb" sites, looking to degrade them for a quick buck. If you really want to scr*w them more than everyone else already has, that's your business, but I hope you can look at yourself in the mirror after that. They don't owe us, we owe them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More free downloads means they don't have to buy the CD, so why would they shell out the ridiculous price (which they indirectly caused with previous theft [Roll Eyes] )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you seriously believe that the high price of music is due to piracy? I think is very unlikely, to say the least .
Maybe if they lowered the price, there wouldn't be as much piracy. They raise the prices and less people will buy it. Dumbass-corporations, with their greed and stupidity...

why would they shell out the ridiculous price (which they indirectly caused with previous theft )This is simply untrue. Go back and check CD prices from the years before downloading became in vogue (or even practical, given dial-up restrictions). Prices were just as high, if not higher.

The real problem is the middle men. They buy the music for next to nothing, tack on their cut, and after a few steps, they have more than doubled the price. The problem is that these media are more expensive than they need to be. Corporations create a culture where we are to want everything they make, but then get pissed off when people find ways to get them without them getting the money...

I suspect that if these middle men were to cut their profits, the porblem of piracy might be reduced.

I download so many things, I'm thinking about buying an eyepatch and a parrot.

I can borrow a DVD from a friend, watch it, and then return it. I see no difference from downloading an .avi from someone who could be a friend, watching it, and then deleting it.

Edit:

I equate it to the good old days when people would record songs off the radio or albums and make mix tapes.

I especially see nothing wrong with downloading television shows that were broadcast over the airwaves. Just because I wasn't home to watch "Lost" doesn't mean I should have to wait until the network decides to rebroadcast that episode. Especially, when each episode builds on each other.

[ December 05, 2005, 15:21: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

@Snook: Hehe, would you then, by chance, agree with my concept that copyrights are no "intellectual property" stemming from natural law, but more of a social construct proportional in rise to the influence of middlemen corporations? ;)

@Gnarff: Same what I say. ;) In fact, I believe middlemen would earn more if they were less short-sighted enough to notice that lowering the price makes more people buy the product and their costs mostly come down to CDs, manuals (two bucks together or something), shipment etc which are a fraction of the product's final price. But raising prices, putting bucks in copy protection and pressuring the lawmakers is easier and requires much less effort. Especially cerebral effort. :rolleyes:

[ December 05, 2005, 18:46: Message edited by: chevalier ]

@Chevalier

Yes, I do agree with that concept.

@TGS:
Ah, but there's the rub. TV shows have commercials in them, which is how the artists (in this case, writers, actors, et al.) get the money. It goes right back to my inserting ads into the songs idea. Sure you could just fast-forward past the ad in either situation, but at least then they'd be getting something. As it is, it's still something for nothing without consent.

Well if record companies actually released more good albums rather than one hit wonders with fillers...

The internet is actually awesome for smaller bands to spread their music around. Most of these bands are more interested in creating music rather than making money. It's always the big name bands or record companies that start up a fuss about downloading.

I buy all my CDs, BTW. I will definitely support bands worthy of my money.

Commercials are partly good, partly crap we all have to watch. Decimate middlemen, cut their profit, give more to artists and they will earn money on their work rather than commercials. We can't really say that middlemen create artists who profit from it by being famous enough to star in commercials. After all, artists themselves are the reason why middlemen exist in the first place. ;)

@felinoid

I don't buy the commercial argument. There are plenty of devices that enable people to not watch commercials (TIVO, VCRs, DVRs, etc.). They may want you to watch commercials, but they can't force you to. Besides who actually watches them, I'm too busy changing the channel.

Decimate middlemen, cut their profit, give more to artists and they will earn money on their work rather than commercials.Precisely! If you don't have those damn greedy middlemen, artists might actually get more than 1 dollar per CD, and there wouldn't be a problem with commercials. Plus, if there is no middlemen, and say, a CD now costs 7 dollars (3 to producer/company, 4 to artist, or something), I would buy all my CDs, as would many other people. Middlemen force us to pirate their expensive music.

Middlemen force us to pirate their expensive music. :hahaerr: Rationalization and nothing more. You could also refuse to buy (or steal) the music until they lowered their prices. You do not need the music; it is a luxury, pure and simple. If you really feel the need to steal it, then you've got to re-examine your priorities.

I do not acquire music because the cost is not worth it. It's not worth the money, and it is most certainly not worth stealing (a much higher price IMHO). If you really can't be without the latest CD, then the middlemen have done their jobs to make you want it that much, and deserve their piece of the pie. :p

The point is that illegal downloading is anonymous, and hard to track and harder to prosecute. For that reason, many people will opt for that as opposed to plunking down 20 bucks a pop for a CD when they can put a little effort into it and find the songs on the internet for free. It does not make it right, but most people don't care about that...

You do not need the music; it is a luxury, pure and simple. BLASPHEMY!!! Music is my life! Without music, i'd be a mindless drone living life without excitement, passion, or love! Well, maybe not to that extreme, but I do need my music. I can't imagine the dull existence it would be to live without music.

Me either, but you don't have to acquire music to listen to music. I hum little diddies all the time (free speech), and sometimes even make up my own (though those are so disjointed they would make your brain bleed ;) ). I've got a radio in the shower to keep up with any new songs, and that's all I need. Naturally there will be songs I don't like, and of course commercials and jabber, but that's the price you pay for free music. :p

Yes, but with the music I listen to, no radio will ever play it. Have you ever heard throwdown blaring over the radiowaves? Not from where I come from, at least... :(

Well, TD is a bad example, because I paid for their music, but still, with my genre, it is difficult to find free and legal music of... (not saying I only like Hardcore, but I like listening to specific music, so I would prefer if I had it in my own library).

Unless 'the public' has some sort of contract saying that each of these artists must produce, they don't owe us squat. Well, then that's fine with me; as I said, nobody's making them distribute their music, and I don't really expect anything from them . However, if I am on some website and I come up on a song which I heard 15 hundred times on the radio before, I won't have many qualms downloading it.

It's kind of stupid trying to restrict access, though. I don't really buy/listen to music, but take books, for example. I spend a reasonable amount on these; however, I pretty much never buy something new from an unknown author. Spending almost 10$ for something which might be crap is too much. So when looking for something new, I generally buy used, or borrow from friends. OTOH, I'll buy a new book if it's from an author I know and like, and I would do so even if it would be available for download through internet. So that means that in order to get me to spend more money, I should be given more occasions to get exposed to new stuff.

And I would say that most people, after they get a job and grow up, would do the same. College-age people are a different matter, I agree :) but one you get past that stage, it simply becomes too bothersome to shift through too much free garbage, and you are okay with paying a reasonable amount for something you like. And companies should appreciate young people getting hooked on their stuff, even if it's `free', since these will be their future customers. After all, Microsoft did not become a monopoly by charging $200 for every installed copy of Windows :grin:

Saber does have a point. If you have more unusual tastes, it is less likely that you will be able to legally acquire what you want. This is a failing of capitalism. If you only cater to the masses, there will flourish a counter culture that will get their fix in other ways.

The point is that the consumer has certain expectations for the money they are asked for. Where these expectations are perceived to be unmet, the customers will seek other means to pay the price they consider fair for it. Since reduced prices is not always an option, then they instead steal or pirate the works in question.

Well if it was not for kazaa-lite or similar programmes, my CD collection would be much smaller and not as diverse. I think its excellent tool for promoting smaller or even large foreign artists.

If I like an album, I buy it, and if I don't like, then its sent straight to the 'recycle bin'.

As for programmes like Dreamweaver or Qbase, I will purchase these when I make my fortune as a webdesigner or musician ;)

Question: Is it illegal to go to a library and borrow their CDs? If you really liked the music, you could borrow them for extended periods of time, and you could keep checking them out. However, that would prevent other people from using the library's resources. Wouldn't it be more considerate to rip the CD onto your computer so you could keep listening to it without obstructing others' opportunites to?

Question: Is it illegal to go to a library and borrow their CDs? Uh, nooooo. :nuts:
If you really liked the music, you could borrow them for extended periods of time, and you could keep checking them out. However, that would prevent other people from using the library's resources. Most libraries have rules against that sort of thing. :nono: (You can only check something out a couple times in a row before you have to give it back, or something like that.)
Wouldn't it be more considerate to rip the CD onto your computer so you could keep listening to it without obstructing others' opportunites to? Now that's illegal. Also, see above.

Haha, my question was sarcastic: I know it isn't illegal, I was asking it rhetorically...

I think?

How is ripping library CD's illegal?

And oh, you failed at explaining that already.

(Perfectly legal around here, as it should be. Copyright laws should protect against companies, not individuals.)

Ripping library CDs is illegal (at least in the US)because you are violating copyright. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to decide who can make copies of his work (with certain restrictions like fair use and library/archives); if you have not been given the right either by the copyright holder, or because you fall within the restrictions, you cannot legally copy it.

And I completely disagree that copyright laws should not apply to individuals.

I was just getting annoyed at him generalizing. It's perfectly legal here.

I mean individuals as in "people who do not gain any profit from copying the music" - "valuable music" isn't profit. :p

(Sorry, that previous was a tired post.)

EDIT: FELINOID generalizing. I really shouldn't post tired.

[ December 08, 2005, 00:35: Message edited by: Taza ]

Wait, how did I generalize?

I don't download music generally - though if I don't care about the band enough to want to spend money on their music I might. However - I have no real problem with pirating, I just like having the original for the joy of collecting.

It's stealing, yes - but not from anywhere I care about. I feel no obligation to throw money at record companies, and seeing that the artist gets **** all...

It would be nice if there were ways set up to donate directly to the artist - then those who say that they're only interested in avoiding CD company rip offs could put money where their mouths are when they pirate.