quote:Hmmmm... have you ever exceeded the speed limit?
Mack answered that for me. Sure I have, sure I've been caught, sure I've paid the tickets, not once have I said that the speed limit idea is arbitrary and should be eliminated.
quote:mp3s take as much effort to obtain as recording off the radio
When was the last time you used a search engine to find a song on the radio? I mean, sure, it's probably just as easy to find "Hey ya" on the radio as it is as an mp3 (though you'll likely miss the beginning and ending of the song to the DJ's mixing, or have talking over it). But try to find "Jump Around" without taping every minute of a radio station in the hopes of just randomly catching it in your net.
quote: mp3s provide publicity just as radio stations do.
I don't think anyone's arguing that mp3's shouldn't exist. That's like saying books shouldn't exist, or any other medium. mp3's are great, and allow people to hear music before they buy it - offering great publicity. They also allow people to put music they've bought into mp3 players so they can carry around hours of their music without lugging CD cases. mp3's are a Good Thing.
However, just as with anything else, mp3's can be abused. If I'm not sure I want to buy the latest Linkin Park album, I can try to find mp3's of the songs online to preview them. If I like them, I'll go buy the album and it doesn't matter if I have them on my desktop. If I don't like them, I delete them.
However, If I like them and *don't* buy the album, then I've just illegally copied music for my own use.
Amazon.com and BN.com all have previews available for songs, though they only offer part of each song and only part of each album. That's great publicity and gives a consumer the option to hear before they buy - just like Borders allows you to listen to music with headphones.
These businesses offer music to aid sales, knowing that no one wants to copy twenty seconds of a song and no one can record from their listening stations. There's no potential for stolen music, only for publicity.
quote:You can tell that they're simply afraid of the technology.
No, they're afraid of the abuse of technology. Nuclear power's great, nuclear weapons are not. A hunting rifle is great for hunting, not for picking off schoolchildren. Computers are awesome, but not when used to make viruses and hack other computers. Similarly, mp3's are a great invention, but not when used to violate copyright.
quote:No matter how you scale it, $205 to BMI once a year does not equal over a million a year.
Yeah, and I'd like to see you record and share music from a skating rink. Think about what you're saying! While webcasts are a great idea, the culture of theft that has appeared on the internet makes them problematic. If you lived in a neighborhood that had a 50% car theft rate, your insurance company would charge you an arm and a leg to protect themselves. Similarly, a webcast is living in that high theft neighborhood, and the music companies are setting an insurance cost. A skating rink has practically zero theft of music, by comparison.
And again, you all are so concentrated on music! This isn't about music, it's about violation of copyright law!
Mack is right when she gets upset that someone asks for her artwork in electronic media - there's no way to protect herself then. She's also right to only display the artwork in a form that's futile to reprint.
This culture of theft does not stop at music. The idea that anything on the internet is free is far larger. Art, poetry, prose, games... the list goes on and on, and these other industries don't have some evil RIAA empire to rail against.
This is bigger than music. It's this deluded belief in free information that's the problem. Art is not free unless you make it yourself, and even that has costs. Music is not free unless you write and play it yourself, and again it has costs. Stories are not free unless you write them yourself, at more cost.
Writers, artists, and entertainers aren't altruists that give of themselves for nothing... if there's no return on their efforts, they stop producing in favor of something that will put food on the table. Or they starve, and they stop producing anyway.
If you like something, pay for it!!! Just as if you got good service at a restaurant, you should tip your waiter or waitress. Stop trying to get something for nothing.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think legitimate digital music stores like iTunes invalidate most justifications for file sharing.
Here are some common arguments for file sharing:
CDs are too expensive! Well, iTune songs are only 99 cents each. You can afford to buy one song a day. Look how much you spent at Starbucks today.
I only like one of the songs on that CD, why should I pay for all of it? You can buy single songs from iTune
MP3 downloads help me expand my musical horizons, which in turn helps the music industry. iTune allows you to preview the music. And this is high-quality streaming music, not the crappy preview you get from Amazon.com
There are some songs that I can only find on file sharing servers. iTunes offer 500,000 selections. Also, let's be honest here, the majority people who download music have not limited themselves to downloading songs that they cannot purchase legitimately from iTunes.
The RIAA steals from the artists, why should I help support them? By not paying for your music, you are no better than the RIAA. When you buy from iTunes, the artist is still getting some money. You can debate whether the artist is getting their fair share, but it is definitely fairer than the $0 they get when people download from Kazaa.
It is the music industry's own fault for not keeping up with the technology. You should really check out iTune and Audible.com. iTunes uses an encoding technology that surpasses the regular mp3 recordings. You can download it, burn it, and stream it on various computers. What more can one ask for?
Having said that, I was a terrible roommate. Regardless of whether I had the right to or not, my actions were disrespectful. Thankfully it wasn't too hard for him to rebuild his library. Regardless of the risk, there are still 3.5 million users on the Kazaa system ready and willing to share some files.
[ January 11, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a fine line, Tres. If I lend a CD to a friend, and that friend gives it back, that's sharing. We shared a single CD.
If I lend a CD to a friend, and that friend makes a copy, then he technically violated copyright law and managed to secure a copy of the CD without paying for it. Essentially, he wanted the CD and found a method to take it without having to pay money.
All semantics aside, that's stealing. The CD may be mine to give or share, but the copy of the CD is technically not. If I ran into OSC's house, copied the files for his next book, then distributed them over the internet - that's stealing. It's no different than if I copied the book after it's published and did the same thing.
Same with music. Same with art.
If you want to own something, you need to pay for it. I don't see why this concept is so difficult.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you talking about? The artists see no money from music sales. They get a flat fee for putting the album together, and the company gets the rest. So, you are not cheating the artist, you are cheating the company.
posted
You ARE cheating the artists, because those companies will be reluctant to spend more money on artists because of previously lost revenue.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The artists _do_ receive money from album sales. As soon as they recoup the advance they were given by the label.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any case, stealing from an individual or a 'faceless corporation' -- either way, it's STILL THEFT! Perhaps you feel less guilt about stealing from the company? Pfft!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it matter whose pocket you're taking money from? Was Robin still not a 'hood? Don't try to justify your actions by painting the victim as unsympathetic.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to download music. Then I downloaded Winamp and spent an afternoon with www.shoutcast.com. MMmm. Internet radio. It's great because it's legal, it's random, mostly ad-free, and is mostly good.
I still download episodes of TV shows that I miss, but they get deleted after I watch them. What's the legality of downloading TV shows? TiVo does it legally (I assume), but can I? It's not like I'd fight for my right to do it, considering that most of the downloads are grainy and postage-stamp sized video files. In any case, that will soon come to an end when I get my Radeon 9800XT/TVD video card *smiles in anticipation* and I get my virtual TiVo.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not exactly sure on TV, but I think it's along the lines of using a VCR. You can make a copy for yourself of a publicly broadcast television show, provided you don't distribute it or broadcast it without written permission.
Though, don't quote me on that.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I think that IANAL is implicit in every post, unless the person is acually a lawyer.
For the acronym challenged, IANAL means "I Am Not A Lawyer." I'm on a mailing list where RPG copyright law comes up about once a month and that tends to get thrown around with reckless abandon.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rpg stuff is interesting to me, since the industry is hurting so badly and part of my income comes from freelancing. What is this mailing list?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
You can't say all semantics aside, and then make a semantic claim like defining file-sharing as stealing.
If two people listening to the same CD isn't theft (and it certainly shouldn't be), then neither is file sharing. After all, file sharing is just an elaborate and far more effective way for two (or a million) people to listen to the same CD. Sharing does not become stealing when it gets more efficient.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Record labels _do_ need to make money too, you know. The music industry isn't a save-the-whales charity.
And no, you don't have to achieve Britney Spears sales to recoup. You do have to sell a lot, but that's also mostly because many artists decide to take a huge advance..which is an awful idea in the long run. The whole reason the money needs to be recouped is because record labels aren't just going to hand anyone $150K and say, "Happy birthday, go record an album or buy a Mercedes or something."
Here's the thing. Record labels have a lot of people to pay, you know. They do have employees, and those employees do need to eat, and therefore they do need a lot of money.
posted
Yes they do, in order to generate Britney style hits and such. I rather suspect a breakdown of expenses would show disproportionate (much higher) expenditure/income ratios for the big acts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My roommate brought up something interesting this morning: Is it morally hypocritical to download from Kazaa but not share your own files?
Of course, viruses and lawsuits are big deterrents to sharing. But if a person benefits from other people taking the risk, shouldn't that person also take the risk as well. It is like dodging the draft for a war you believe in.
[ January 12, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No they don't, fugu. Any album that goes gold has already recouped, unless the artists decided they absolutely positively needed five hundred thousand dollars to buy new Porsches.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't disprove my hypothesis at all, actually.
A band could go gold and have massively recouped the investment on them, while britney could go gold and barely recoup the investment on her, ending her with a higher expenditure/income ratio.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specifically, I find it quite hard to believe that Britney's publicity doesn't cost a whole lot more than that for just signed band x.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Unless you've paid for them through a service like napster or through iTunes; Otherwise you have "stolen" goods and either way you are breaking the law.
Not everyone uses Kazaa for music, some use it for porn. *seriously, how do you think gnutella started? or ANY p2p filesharing program?*
Just because Kazaa is still alive doesn't mean you should / can steal media with it. I've heard some say that downloading mp3's isn't like stealing a cd, *I've said it myself*. Although No matter your reasons for saying it, you are still stealing. especially where the artist is in the need.
Recently, I canned my 13-20 gigs of mp3's. I know what its like, and I did it purposefully. I know what I like to listen to, and honestly it will be better to go about getting it back by buying the cd's, and then ripping to a higher quality. Having the cd as a physical backup if either my hd, or my portable mp3 player died is another benefit.
I still have a some Pirated mp3's *compressed music - Not actually mp3's* but instead of 200 to 1 songs I don't own to ones I do, its now around 2 to 1. I will continue to A get music from my friend, and then if I like it buy the cd, *stuff you DON'T hear on the radio.* since I don't really listen to the radio any more, I use him as a kind of radio, he says you should listen to this, (I then dock my mp3 player, he uploads) if I like I will then proceed to purchasing.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not so sure, pH. I've got a little bet with myself that over the course of their career the larger stars (again, on average) do a little worse in terms of income for the studio than the smaller ones, and that their main purpose is actually to maintain the studio's standing and influence, particularly in relation to radio.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is business like. If you maintain your company's standing and influence, you get a bigger salary and bigger bonuses. I don't think its a conspiracy (well, not any more than a payola-like one, which is about money).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And copyright infringement isn't stealing how exactly?
If I copy a book and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that book illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
If I copy a CD and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that CD illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
All copyright infringement means is stealing the content without stealing the hard copy. Since the hard copy is really just a medium of transmission for content/intellectual property, then the important product is not the hard plastic disc that is a CD, but the content contained therein.
If you take the content without paying for, it YOU ARE STEALING.
Call it what you like. Call it sharing. Call it swapping. Call it unauthorized borrowing. Call it use without permission. Call it whatever. At its root, it's theft of content, pure and simple.
The person who owns the content did not authorize your use of it. It's just like sneaking into a movie theater, or splicing a cable line. You're taking something that isn't yours, that other people are expected to pay for. How is that not theft again?
It's amazing the extent some people will go to couch criminality in socially acceptable terms.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, copyright infringement isn't stealing. Stealing/theft is quite clearly defined as taking something away from someone else (I checked several dictionaries and all were in agreement on this).
In copyright infringement, nothing is taken away. The owner is deprived of no thing they had previously.
Now, there is a strong argument that at least in some cases the owner is deprived of potential future revenue, but that is not a thing currently in possession which can be taken, as theft/stealing requires.
In this way it is similar to fraud. Fraud is not theft (though theft may be involved in fraud), yet under the rather broad definition of theft you seem to be advocating fraud would be theft.
In fact, under your argument I can classify just about anything as theft. "Speeding causes more wear and tear on the roads, therefore it is theft from society" is a silly argument, just as yours is. An overly expansive definition of theft like you desire leaves the word with almost no denotation, making it effectively useless.
I see no reason to use words incorrectly because one feels they convey a more severe moral condemnation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To tackle a specific example or two, who did you take the songs you "stole" from? Who had them before your act that now does not?
And right now we're arguing colloquially, but I'd like to clearly point out that copyright infringement and theft are completely and clearly separated legal notions.
Theft is the taking of present property. Copyright infringement is a reduction of potential future profits (at worst, there are many copyrights which are no longer earning their owner's any profits yet are still enforced). The two share some similarities, but are not the same thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I copy a book and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that book illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
If I copy a CD and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that CD illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
No and no. In neither case does anyone lose any of their property, for the same reason that when you read a library book nobody loses any property. You do get the content of someone's book without paying for it when you go to the library, but that certainly doesn't mean the original owner loses that content. It makes no difference whether you copy it directly from the library book to your brain or you make photocopies as intermediaries - you're still doing the same thing, taking the content and getting the benefit from it (and being capable of giving it to someone else).
quote:All copyright infringement means is stealing the content without stealing the hard copy.
No, I think copyrights are fundamentally different from property rights, as property rights exist without the law explicitly assigning them, whereas copyrights are a social agreement that would not exist if we didn't agree to make them exist (presumably for our mutual benefit.) Copyright infringement is more of a violation of an assumed contract between artist and consumer than a theft. Why? Because you don't OWN ideas or songs. And even if you could, you don't lose them when someone else gets them - instead, you now BOTH own them.
This is important because it means we can simply no longer agree to the contract and we will be no longer bound to it (which I propose we do, because I seriously doubt people will stop creating music just because we don't give them gigantic CD deals.)
posted
Property rights are also created by a social compact and would not exist if we didn't agree to make them exist. If you think you can opt out of the social compact regarding copyrights at anytime, why can't people opt out of the social compact governing property rights?
A song is as much a creation of labor as a widget. If I made a widget, I own it. If you want my widget, you should pay for it. Why are songs any different?
[ January 12, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
People can't opt out of the social compact regarding copyrights. Its still against the law/wrong to infringe copyrights, but its not theft.
Also, your widget analogy is flawed. Taking your widget from you is theft. Creating another identical widget is copyright infringement. You still have the first widget in the second case.
Similarly, if I copy your song you still have the song. You have not lost any value related to your possession of the song, you have lost potential value related to your right to copy the song.
Its really quite different, though there are parallels.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having spent countless hours typing out arguments over this very subject with Tresopax, I don't plan to start again.
However, I would like to address something that was brought up, that downloading mp3s is a Robin Hood sort of thing.
Downloading mp3s is not a way to get back at the recording industry. They see it as theft, and they will never back down on trying to stop it. They can't. Failure to protect a copyright can result in the loss of that copyright, they are legally bound to do everything they can to maintain it. Same reason why authors who use Xerox as a verb will get that little letter from the company about the missing (TM) symbol.
If you are sincere about wanting to get back at the RIAA and not just trying to justify your downloading jones, don't buy or download anything from the recording industry. Get your music exclusively from companies or individual artists who do not do business with the RIAA, and work to change the RIAA from within the system.
Some examples: MagnaTune.com was founded by musicians. It operates on a shareware model, 50% of the retail price goes to the artist, and the artists retain their copyrights. RIAA Radar is a site that lists artists outside of the RIAA boundaries. You can search by artist, record label or UPC code and it'll tell you if it's an RIAA member or not. Work to change the copyright laws. The Electronic Frontier Federation is working up a petition to Congress to make file-sharing legal that offers several different ways to compensate artists and the recording industry.
Found all three of those in five minutes flat. I'm sure there are plenty of others, and none of them involve anything illegal.
If you absolutely must have an RIAA song but don't want the RIAA to benefit, the very least you should do is send the money directly to the artist. Even if you did it anonymously, it'd be a hell of a message to the recording industry. "Here, if you won't treat them fairly, we will!"
[ January 12, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that virtually everything OSC has ever written can be easily downloaded for free in text form.
By the definitions thrown around, it may not actually be theft to download them, even if you don't own copies of the books. It is certainly copyright infringement, but apparently that's not a big deal. After all, he still has his books, you haven't taken anything away from him.
However, if enough people download his books for free instead of buying them, he will have to find another job to support his family and make up for the lost revenue. While I suspect he'd write anyway, his books would be fewer and much farther between.
There are those who would consider this an unfortunate but necessary result of the right to free information. I call it disrespectful to the artist.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Taking your widget from you is theft. Creating another identical widget is copyright infringement. You still have the first widget in the second case.
So let's say OSC just finished the manuscript to his new book, Shadow Warriors, and immediately sends it to his publisher. By accident, the manuscript fell off the mail truck and I picked it up. I make a copy of that manuscript, scribble MY name on the cover page, and published the book myself. (winning both the Hugo and Nebula award.. yay me!)
Oh, I also return the original manuscript back to OSC. That's not stealing right, since OSC still has his manuscript?
edited to add: Arg... Chris beat me to the punch. Darn your professional writers!
[ January 12, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the example would work better if you didn't publish it yourself. That would be fraud.
However, by the arguments posted here you could post it on your website and let millions of people download it, or upload it to a newsgroup. It's not theft, honest. Information wants to be free!
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did I say that copyright infringement is okay?
Oh, that's right, I said it was wrong and illegal.
I'm insisting on the correct terminology, not on information being free.
And no, it would not be theft to publish OSC's book under your name. It would fraud, and criminal copyright infringement (there are two general categories of illegal copyright infringement, civil and criminal), and any attempt to charge you with theft would be laughed out of court by the judge (unless you stole a physical copy of the manuscript; lets say you copied a copy from an ftp server accidentally left unprotected by his publisher).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note I carefully did not name names. My posts were directed at those who honestly see no harm in file-sharing.
While I agree that artist compensation will probably see a major overhaul in the near future, simply because they have to, I also believe that downloading files before that process is in place is unethical.
If an artist gives away their work for free or encourages filesharing, I'm all for it. I support the Free Library at Baen Books and the artists like Dave Matthews that allow distribution of their music. But they are distributed with the consent of the artist. If you have taken and kept a copy of something without the artist's consent and without providing just compensation for the artist, you have acted unethically and without respect for the artist.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu13 I understand your position. I did not mean to imply that you thought downloading music was acceptable. However, you did say that:
quote:I see no reason to use words incorrectly because one feels they convey a more severe moral condemnation.
You seem to think that we should not label copyright infringement as "theft" because it mistakenly convey a more severe moral condemnation than the act of copyright infringement deserves. In other words, you think copyright infringement is bad, but not as bad as theft. (please correct me if this is not your view).
My last (somehwat ungainly) example was my attempt to show that copyright infringement is as bad as theft.
quote:In copyright infringement, nothing is taken away. The owner is deprived of no thing they had previously.
If OSC's manuscript of his new book was posted on the internet before he had a chance to sell the book, didn't he lose something tangible?
[ January 12, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
