"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

[ArrowHead]

Would like to hear someone debate this?

why? I'm literally BEGGING people to drop the semantics and get into the meat of the issue again.

 

[nickgray]

that once something leaves the ownership of the initial producer

But it doesn't. You don't own music, you don't own software, you don't own movies. Pretty soon you won't even own your own pants if you've been paying attention to the news in recent years

It's not illegal

So as long as it's not illegal you might as well do it? People love to argue about the ethics and morality of piracy, saying it's wrong. Second hand products are pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to software, games, music, movies, all that stuff. I've read several times that used console games sales are actually hurting the market more than piracy, believe it or not. And yet nobody seems to argue about the ethics of used products.

 

[fps]

why? I'm literally BEGGING people to drop the semantics and get into the meat of the issue again.

All law is semantics, why do you think lawyers do such good business? To get a proper handle on what is legally allowed currently is vital to the whole debate. And because intellectual property is not the same as physical property, in that it is illegal to have a copy of something that is somebody's intellectual property without payment through proper channels, without, essentially, the artist's consent, piracy is definitely illegal. Don't worry about the whole stealing thing, it's illegal, and it happens without the artist's consent.

Would you refute any of that? Because if it's illegal and the artist doesn't want it to happen, isn't piracy just a bunch of self-serving losers taking whatever they want without thinking about anyone but themselves, then turning around like so many children and babies and shouting *nu-huh* until the other side gives up?

 

[ArrowHead]

And because intellectual property is not the same as physical property

SIGH.

But it's not even relevant to this debate, man. I've stuck this one through for all 17 pages. It wasn't about LEGALITY or SEMANTICS until the last few pages when people chose to make it so. And sadly, it's what this issue devolves into every single time.

It's simply that every time this subject comes up, as soon as someone mentions Piracy is stealing some Einstein feels the need to point out that Piracy is not Theft. GREAT! This thread was never about theft. It's about stealing intellectual property.

 

[ArrowHead]

All law is semantics, why do you think lawyers do such good business?

And "stealing" isn't a legal term. Piracy, Theft, and intellectual property ARE.

 

[tedtan]

Look, I'm arguing the "deprive of property" part. Copying does not do that, it simply cannot deprive someone out of anything, because it is copying. You may view it as immoral, the law may say that it is illegal, but this is a pretty damn important technical difference regardless of your views on the ethics of piracy.

I fully understand the legal definitions, the real world implications and your point. And I'm telling you that you are wasting your time and everyone else's by harping on this. You'll never get everyone to start using the legally correct terms.

Give it a rest already.

 

[fps]

And "stealing" isn't a legal term. Piracy, Theft, and intellectual property ARE.

Yeah, it's theft, because it's taking intellectual property without licence to do so. Uploading is the real big one, that is also flat-out illegal use of somebody else's copyrighted intellectual property. Taking a copy of someone's intellectual property is illegal. So in that sense yes stealing is an unhelpful term and argument, it's just the whole thing is being twisted to suggest that doing something to intellectual property of someone else, without their consent, can in any way be justified. If the artist didn't sign off on it, people shouldn't do it!

 

[flint757]

So lemme get this staight. Its ok to steal... as long as you buy other things similar to it? "but your honor, I CLEARLY didn't have to pay for those sunglasses I shoplifted... I bought shoes at payless earlier that day!"

*sigh.

That has been one of the larger arguments here.

Makes no sense to me.

Really? You've never heard of DRM then? You've never heard of the EULA and all the copyright shenanigans? Here's a neat little glimpse of the future for you:

Microsoft Patents Kinect DRM That Detects Number Of Viewers

If these people have their way, you'd have to pay for each person watching a movie that you bought. Next you wouldn't be able to lend a book to your friend because he wouldn't be able to open it unless he pays the damn publisher.


No you're not. In 20 or so years - yeah, maybe, but right now the good ol' labels are still alive and kicking.

This is a problem piracy has created, though. DRM and a shift from ownership to licensing is directly correlated to the existence of piracy.

I JUST explained this, man.

STEAL=theft
STEAL=piracy
THEFT=/PIRACY


Steal just means you're taking something you're not supposed to. It is NOT a legal term. Piracy and theft ARE.

So tired of the people that feel the need to take a great debate and turn it into a semantics debate.

If you pirate, you're STEALING. Period.

So as long as it's not illegal you might as well do it? People love to argue about the ethics and morality of piracy, saying it's wrong. Second hand products are pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to software, games, music, movies, all that stuff. I've read several times that used console games sales are actually hurting the market more than piracy, believe it or not. And yet nobody seems to argue about the ethics of used products.

Libraries is a poor example because anything in a library has been approved by someone to be there.

You have somewhat of an argument with second hand except for one thing. With piracy I buy the CD, upload it and 100's more have the CD (as do I). I buy the video game and sell it, one person still has the video game and I no longer have access to it. With piracy I still have it and it is not one-to-one. Selling second hand is exactly one-to-one and I've transferred my right to play it as well.

The reason in the second hand market the publisher or author doesn't deserve compensation is because it is similar to me buying 1 right to play that game. When I bought it, it was their right given to me and when I sell it, it is my right given to someone else.

Whether one is more damaging than the other is moot because piracy is still more wrong. Second hand has existed since the beginning of time.

 

[ArrowHead]

You'll never get everyone to start using the legally correct terms.

Actually, I'm supplying the legally correct terms. He keeps arguing that theft is stealing while piracy is not. Both different FORMS of stealing, legally, that involve very different aspects of law, punishments, etc...

Pointing out that piracy is not theft, to some, seems to be an attempt to say that piracy is a-ok while theft is not. Not true. They're both illegal. Both immoral. Both STEALING. Both have VICTIMS.

Now, let's agree on that, and go back to discussing the effect of piracy in regards to the LEGAL purchase and distribution of music, which was what the first 15 wonderful pages of this thread were about. We don't need to turn this into another theft vs. piracy debate. I'm sure there's a law/lawyer forum where people can argue that til the cows come home. Unless you're actively thieving or pirating, it really doesn't matter here. It's just useless word trivia some people are putting way too much importance on.

 

[knuckle_head]

Damn the industry for trying to profit from the product they have been in the business of selling

Well, you know, they are middlemen. They don't make anything, they're just the guys with the money trying to make more money. I'm not talking about indie labels here, of course, I'm talking about the big ones.

Retailers are middle men. Do you steal guitars from retailers because they are middle men? I mean, they didn't make the guitars . . . .

Copying is not stealing. Regardless of your views on morality of copying, it is simply not the same thing as stealing.

Music, books, and photographs are copies. If they are legally and legitimately published they are property with assignable rights. Just because it is easy to make and acquire additional copies does not legitimize it. If selling copies is what a band or a label does and you come by your copy of a copy from someone that does not hold the rights to that piece of work you have taken property - you have stolen. You can slice it any way you like in order to make yourself feel better about it, but it doesn't change it. This isn't a morality thing . . . this is an actuality thing.

Owning it comes from having paid for it

Really? You've never heard of DRM then? You've never heard of the EULA and all the copyright shenanigans? Here's a neat little glimpse of the future for you:

Microsoft Patents Kinect DRM That Detects Number Of Viewers

If these people have their way, you'd have to pay for each person watching a movie that you bought. Next you wouldn't be able to lend a book to your friend because he wouldn't be able to open it unless he pays the damn publisher.

We have been living the future for more than the last century - what you cite is what has been law for a very long time. The same arguments were made when cassette, VHS, BETA tapes and CDR/W drives hit the market as well. You should take the time to see what copyright and patent protections do for the people that take the time to create the things these laws protect - these things that are worth your while to find and make copies of but not feel compelled to compensate the creators for.

We the artists are in the same driver's seat that the industry enjoyed

No you're not. In 20 or so years - yeah, maybe, but right now the good ol' labels are still alive and kicking.

You know what? I am - and so are you. If you aren't then you are lazy or a bad business person or both. International publishing and copyrights are little more than filing the correct paper work. There is nothing from recording, duplication, distribution, to promotion that can't be done as easily or well/appropriately/legally from the same computer you are sitting in front of as it can from a label.

If you need a label to be successful you should probably quit now. If you undermine a label's business model even in part you undermine your own.

 

[nickgray]

what you cite is what has been law for a very long time

Of course, but a law is worthless without the means to enforce it. Nobody takes these laws seriously because the police doesn't raid your house when you have too many people watching a DVD. The future I'm talking about is where these things can be enforced. And believe me, they'll milk it 'til the last drop.

If you aren't then you are lazy or a bad business person or both. International publishing and copyrights are little more than filing the correct paper work. There is nothing from recording, duplication, distribution, to promotion that can't be done as easily or well/appropriately/legally from the same computer you are sitting in front of as it can from a label.

I very much agree with you. But we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps) where you'd be able to say that the artists are truly in the same driver's seat. The technology is already here, but not enough people are using it.

 

[tedtan]

let's... go back to discussing the effect of piracy in regards to the LEGAL purchase and distribution of music, which was what the first 15 wonderful pages of this thread were about.

I didn't mean to single you out if I did, ArrowHead, I just meant that it was a waste of time for nickgray to argue that point.

I agree with you, let's drop this and go back to the original topic.

 

[ArrowHead]

But we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps)

This "new age" is nearly 20 years old now. That's longer than most musical era's we've experienced in the last 200 years. I was booking DIY shows, pressing zines, recording demos, building my first home studio, etc... back in the early 90's.

Don't confuse "new" with "new to you".

Even the mass online piracy I was talking about witnessing a few pages ago was nearly 10 years ago now. Napster was 13 or more.

Waiting 10-20 years is a little crazy. Things really move a lot faster than that, which is why the slow reaction of the industry left them so far behind so quickly.

Meanwhile the whole "driver seat" issue comes down, quite simply, to money. Can you afford to fund tours, recording, duplication, promotion, distribution, merch, and still feed yourselves? Then you're in the driver seat. Can't do all that? A label might still be your best bet, then.

 

[knuckle_head]

. . . . we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps) where you'd be able to say that the artists are truly in the same driver's seat. The technology is already here, but not enough people are using it.

I have been in this driver's seat since 1986 - back when CDs weren't even made yet and PCs were barely able to word process. This is the biggest reason I am so adamant I suspect. If I could do it then ANYONE can do it now.

Edit;

what you cite is what has been law for a very long time

Of course, but a law is worthless without the means to enforce it. Nobody takes these laws seriously because the police doesn't raid your house when you have too many people watching a DVD. The future I'm talking about is where these things can be enforced. And believe me, they'll milk it 'til the last drop.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...s-stiff-fines-jail-time-for-illegal-downloads

It's happening - and it's a good thing if you see music as a business at all as opposed to just a hobby.

 

[flint757]

Japan Introduces Stiff Fines, Jail Time For Illegal Downloads : The Two-Way : NPR

Not sure how I feel about that. Seems kind of harsh, but if you can't do the time don't do the crime I guess. In terms of punishment it only seems scary because you are not necessarily you online (spoofed addresses, wifi hacking, wifi hot spots, other users accessing PC, VPN, etc.). Hopefully they will address these things appropriately and much like the FBI warning on a DVD will require a certain amount of evidence and damage for them to seek those harsher penalties. I'd have to agree with the article that I'd prefer they kept it a civil matter though.

The one thing I will add from the other side is that if they manage to eliminate piracy (in general) that I hope bands will stop offering different products for different countries. It is irritating when an artist doesn't release something in your country.

 

[nickgray]

This "new age" is nearly 20 years old now. That's longer than most musical era's we've experienced in the last 200 years. I was booking DIY shows, pressing zines, recording demos, building my first home studio, etc... back in the early 90's.

Congratulations. As far as I'm concerned though, I've never heard any worthwhile non-electronic DIY music until fairly recently. Not to mention that today's technology is vastly better than the 90s tech and then there's the internet.

Can you afford to fund tours, recording, duplication, promotion, distribution, merch, and still feed yourselves?

Why bother? You can just record at home alone and release it via the internet.

If I could do it then ANYONE can do it now.

Yes, and it's slowly starting to shift towards that. We're definitely not there yet though, plenty of people are still using the labels.

and it's a good thing if you see music as a business at all as opposed to just a hobby

They're not doing it for you. They're doing it for the big labels, I highly doubt that any indie artist would be able to put anyone in jail.

 

[nickgray]

Not sure how I feel about that. Seems kind of harsh, but if you can't do the time don't do the crime I guess.

It's fucking absurd, that's what it is.

 

[flint757]

It's fucking absurd, that's what it is.

Yes, but assuming that only those legitimately pirating material after the law is initiated pirate then they are doing so fully knowing the risk. Is it harsh? Yes, but if violators are the only one's being punished then it isn't 'unfair' either. They knew the risks involved. People pirate based on statistical evidence that it is unlikely they will get caught. Can't get upset when you do though (well you can, but you get my point). My reason for being concerned has more to do with how unreliable it is to find violators and how easy it would be for someone to be blamed unjustly. I'd expect absolute certainty before they pursued such action. In the States it is the copyright holder who looks for violators, I hope, given the law, someone with less bias is doing the searching.

That being said, I don't think it was the right course of action.

 

[nickgray]

My reason for being concerned has more to do with how unreliable it is to find violators and how easy it would be for someone to be blamed unjustly.

Precisely. Not to mention the outrageous punishment. 10 years for uploading? Have they gone stark raving mad? You could get less for killing a person. This is the worst kind of scare tactic and it truly shows that the governments don't give a rat's ass about common people, they take order from big business, the people with the money.

 

[ArrowHead]

Congratulations. As far as I'm concerned though, I've never heard any worthwhile non-electronic DIY music until fairly recently.

The old "I didn't know it, so it doesn't exist" argument?

My band recorded our Unique Leader debut in a bedroom studio on our own budget and time nearly 10 years ago.

I was studying pro-tools, digital performer, digital recording, etc... in school from 1994-1997.

I was downloading music illegally (STEALING IT) in the 90's. Napster was 12 years ago!

Again - this isn't new. I'm not sure how arguing what you do and don't like for music proves otherwise.


PS - you're making me feel wicked old.