Internet Piracy

[heavenlyboy34]

This is absolute bologna. There are tons of incredibly talented people making music. Just because they aren't promoted by the music industry and thus aren't on the radio doesn't mean they don't exist. Go out on your own and go see some shows, pay the artist real money to go see their show!! Instead you want to give them a lousy nickel for their CD and give a shitload of money to the music industry?? And you're complaining about piracy??

Why do you need to be spoonfed music by the industry? I personally know plenty of great musicians, why do I need Capitol Records to tell me who is talented??

Me, for example. (shameless, but true self promotion)

 

[FourTwenty666]

Me, for example. (shameless, but true self promotion)

OK, and how would you feel if you put about six months to a years worth of work into a CD, paid for a website, and released it yourself to the world, just to sell only one copy because everyone stole it after one person put it on the internet?

Cuz thats the way its going to be pretty soon at the rate this "stealing digital media" thing is going.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

LMAO that is not the point. Thats great that you have musicians you like and don't like capital records.

But if that is the case, why steal capital records music , hmm?

Just don't listen to it all if you don't like it, why steal it?

Listen to the bands you like, and leave capital records music alone, don't steal it then burn massive copies to give to other people so they lose money, ignore them. Way to assume what kind of music I like as well, none of the music I listen to is on the radio, mostly independent, and I purchase their damn cd's if I am going to listen to it. if I don't like something, I am not buying it OR stealing it OR going to see their shows, but I will support the artist's I like..

This represents the defective one-way cartel capitalism that is the main part of the problem. IS IT the record companies' music? IS distributing a digital copy (to oneself or others) apart from the corporate channel actually stealing the original music? No, it isn't, or there is at least disagreement on both these points adamantly assumed by the poster. The idea it is 'stealing' is the product of the government subsidy called 'copyright' music publishers use to perpetually monopolize not just distribution, but all ideas about ownership and marketing of the products.

Historically, piracy was understood to be kidnapping and murder on the high seas. If most of us don't construe sharing computing files as being the same thing as kidnapping and murder on the high seas, who really benefits from the negative spin term other than certain self-serving publishers? If the market has chosen to tolerate file sharing, how does it benefit from having its choices browbeaten?

In the one-way corporate copyright model, only the business seems to ever get to 'own' anything, and only their notions as to how a profit gets made matters. Even if a copy gets purchased, the buyer is deemed to have no rights to freely share what they purchased. The worth of free individuals creating buzz and branding for the item by burning copies for others is discounted by the traditional publisher, even though this word of mouth marketing is arguably much more valuable than the copies themselves.

In a real two-way market, there are no subsidies creating such artificial one way monopolies, and the rights of both producers and consumers to own, distribute and promote get respected. The music companies are trying to perpetuate their horse and buggy exclusive distribution business model upon a post-digital era, share-based landscape, and it isn't working. Neither will criminalizing consumer choices by calling them 'stealing' (or other self-serving corporate epithets) prevail. In the end, sharing is one form of owning, and we get to have property rights, too.

 

[Gaius1981]

I don't know -- should Rearden Steel belong to "the public"?

"Hell no", of course. Stand up for property rights!

 

[dannno]

LMAO that is not the point. Thats great that you have musicians you like and don't like capital records.

But if that is the case, why steal capital records music , hmm?

Just don't listen to it all if you don't like it, why steal it?

Listen to the bands you like, and leave capital records music alone, don't steal it then burn massive copies to give to other people so they lose money, ignore them. Way to assume what kind of music I like as well, none of the music I listen to is on the radio, mostly independent, and I purchase their damn cd's if I am going to listen to it. if I don't like something, I am not buying it OR stealing it OR going to see their shows, but I will support the artist's I like..

No, what I do is I listen to whatever the fuck I want, then if I like them I go see their show.

When you go see a show you give the band maybe $5-$15.. when you steal their CD the band is losing out on a nickel.. do you see the difference there?? Go to 2 shows and you have given the music makers 600 worth in CD sales!! I go to a lot more shows than that, so I have given bands THOUSANDS worth in CD sales without ever buying a CD, and the whole time I'm supporting the ARTIST rather than the PROMOTERS because I don't need to be spoonfed the same shitty bullshit Top 10 songs on the radio as everybody else!!

 

[dannno]

OK, and how would you feel if you put about six months to a years worth of work into a CD, paid for a website, and released it yourself to the world, just to sell only one copy because everyone stole it after one person put it on the internet?

Cuz thats the way its going to be pretty soon at the rate this "stealing digital media" thing is going.

Go on tour!! I've known lots of bands who went on tour and gave away their CD's for free!!

 

[Kludge]

I can't participate in this poll. I need an option that says "should there even be a law?"

Were it legalized, I imagine it would be through striking current laws.

 

[pcosmar]

I disagree with the term Internet Piracy both in concept and use.
A better question is should fair use be legal.

 

[FourTwenty666]

Go on tour!! I've known lots of bands who went on tour and gave away their CD's for free!!

And I know plenty of artists who pour their heart and soul into a cd and release it independently and hate the fact that their fans don't respect them enough to pay for a product that they use all the time..

 

[FourTwenty666]

This represents the defective one-way cartel capitalism that is the main part of the problem. IS IT the record companies' music? IS distributing a digital copy (to oneself or others) apart from the corporate channel actually stealing the original music? No, it isn't, or there is at least disagreement on both these points adamantly assumed by the poster. The idea it is 'stealing' is the product of the government subsidy called 'copyright' music publishers use to perpetually monopolize not just distribution, but all ideas about ownership and marketing of the products.

Historically, piracy was understood to be kidnapping and murder on the high seas. If most of us don't construe sharing computing files as being the same thing as kidnapping and murder on the high seas, who really benefits from the negative spin term other than certain self-serving publishers? If the market has chosen to tolerate file sharing, how does it benefit from having its choices browbeaten?

In the one-way corporate copyright model, only the business seems to ever get to 'own' anything, and only their notions as to how a profit gets made matters. Even if a copy gets purchased, the buyer is deemed to have no rights to freely share what they purchased. The worth of free individuals creating buzz and branding for the item by burning copies for others is discounted by the traditional publisher, even though this word of mouth marketing is arguably much more valuable than the copies themselves.

In a real two-way market, there are no subsidies creating such artificial one way monopolies, and the rights of both producers and consumers to own, distribute and promote get respected. The music companies are trying to perpetuate their horse and buggy exclusive distribution business model upon a post-digital era, share-based landscape, and it isn't working. Neither will criminalizing consumer choices by calling them 'stealing' (or other self-serving corporate epithets) prevail. In the end, sharing is one form of owning, and we get to have property rights, too.

So someone puts a ton of work into making a song, and copyrights it, you don't think that that song then belongs to them and only them? and that the OWNER of the copyright can choose if they want their music to be sold or given away for free? What is the point of copyrights then? Should we just nix copyrights altogether? I really don't understand your argument, music is music and people work hard on it just like people work hard to put together cars, or any other physical commodity. It's wrong to think that just because music can be transferred to a digital format it is OK to take something someone worked hard on to sell as a product for free.

If music cannot be copyrighted and the owner then choose if he wants to sell it or give it away for free, then the same should be for any product / idea. Get rid of copyrights and patents all together then? I mean why should you be able to come up with a great idea and patent it and always get paid for it but musicians cannot? Do you think Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, or any legendary musician would agree with this? I think we can at the very least give musicians the respect to choose if they would like their work to be freely handed around or if they wish to only sell it..

 

[dannno]

And I know plenty of artists who pour their heart and soul into a cd and release it independently and hate the fact that their fans don't respect them enough to pay for a product that they use all the time..

Small bands don't make money selling CD's, and I doubt people listened to their CD's "all the time".

I keep explaining that bands don't make money on CD's, promoters do. Bands make money touring. If you care about the band, go see their show, buying their CD does nothing but make money for their promoter.

And no, I don't think there should be copyrights on music. There would be a lot more innovation if there wasn't, which is ironic because a lot of people mistakenly say the opposite.

To be honest, I think there would be a lot more innovation if there were no patents either. If you want to make money off your invention, then don't tell anybody how to make it. Patents describe precisely how to make something.. so if you don't patent it, then people might not figure out how to make it..

The only way this can be taken advantage of is in a Federal Reserve world with a dishonest currency where corporations go around stealing people's ideas and investing in them rather than investing directly into the individual/business/creator who is likely the best at understanding their invention.


People will always make music. If bands stop making music, then I will. And so will HB. It is something people enjoy and are willing to pay for, but that doesn't mean I should be arrested for making a replica of something that I've already paid for (a cd) and giving it to somebody. If anything, my friend might go see there show and essentially give them the same as buying 100-300 CD's.

 

[FourTwenty666]

Small bands don't make money selling CD's, and I doubt people listened to their CD's "all the time".

I keep explaining that bands don't make money on CD's, promoters do. Bands make money touring. If you care about the band, go see their show, buying their CD does nothing but make money for their promoter.

And no, I don't think there should be copyrights on music. There would be a lot more innovation if there wasn't, which is ironic because a lot of people mistakenly say the opposite.

To be honest, I think there would be a lot more innovation if there were no patents either. If you want to make money off your invention, then don't tell anybody how to make it. Patents describe precisely how to make something.. so if you don't patent it, then people might not figure out how to make it..

The only way this can be taken advantage of is in a Federal Reserve world with a dishonest currency where corporations go around stealling people's ideas and investing in them rather than investing directly into the indidual/business/creator who is likely the best at understanding their invention.

Look I don't like the fed either but I think your tying it in too much. Once again, I wasn't talking about bands on major labels that time, if you wanna use that as an excuse to steal their music go for it, but I won't buy it or steal it if I don't agree with the company or don't like the music. That last post was referring to independent artists like "Buckethead" who actually probably make like 10 bucks a CD since it is released INDEPENDENTLY. Either way though, I don't agree with what your saying music should not be able to just be taken for free if the person who MADE it and OWNS it does not want it to be that way.

 

[LibForestPaul]

So... I'm interested in why so many people don't feel companies have a right to protect their intellectual property. Why doesn't theft still equate to aggression if it's done over the internet.

Why don't companies have the right to use protection software (or rootkits, if they note it somewhere)? Why can't companies band together and form an organization to find and locate pirates through legal means?


Since when did we become opportunistic and hypocritical looters?

1. Congress has became tools of big business.
99 year copyright law
DMCA

You believe it is theft. It is not. It is copyright infrigement. There is no theft because there is nothing tangible. i.e. There is no property.

2. Rootkits. They do have a right to use rootkits, as long as it is disclosed. Otherwise, it is malware.

When the laws are made equitable, piracy will fade away.
i.e. Many software game companies are including harsh DRM software within their products. There products are pirated days even before release. The "cracked" software actually has MORE functionality than software that is paid for legally. Why would any consumer pay for something with less functionality, that may cause his system to behave erratice, has no recourse if the program is faulty, when a free cracked copy that works flawless is available?

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. But I will NEVER purchase heavily laden DRM.


P.S.
Do you backup your music to your computer/ipod/CDR?
Do you make copies of your DVD's?
Do you photocopy pages of books, collections?


Examples of photocopy re-use that may require copyright permission:
Photocopying a trade magazine article to share with your colleagues.

Photocopying an analyst or research report to distribute to customers or prospects.

Photocopying competitive literature to distribute to your sales force.

Purchasing a single subscription to a publication or newsletter and photocopying it for distribution company-wide.

 

[dannno]

Either way though, I don't agree with what your saying music should not be able to just be taken for free if the person who MADE it and OWNS it does not want it to be that way.

They don't "own" it after they have sold it to me.

If I go out and buy a wooden spoon, go home and make a copy of it and give it away, I'm free to do so. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. This is the same thing.

 

[FourTwenty666]

They don't "own" it after they have sold it to me.

If I go out and buy a wooden spoon, go home and make a copy of it and give it away, I'm free to do so. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. This is the same thing.

Absolutely not, you are making a huge stretch there to justify actions that are wrong by law. You cannot copyright a damn spoon, it is not intellectual property, anyone can make a spoon. People will laugh at you if you try to copyright a spoon, people take music/ movies more seriously as it takes much more original thought to make. You can't go out and take someone's music and remake it and sell it the exact same way, intellectual property and copyright laws prevent this for a reason, because it is wrong... not all laws are right, but the right to come up with an idea and protect it is right. You don't seem to grasp that. Coming up with music is alot different than "coming up with a spoon", LMAO

That was a horrible comparison...

A much better one would be you cannot take someone's spoon that has pretty copyrighted artwork on it and then distribute it, but you can make your own spoon with a pretty design on it and then sell it to your hearts content. The former would just be copying someone else's work and if you wanna be known as a unoriginal fraud and hack, that is what you would do

 

[Kraig]

I don't know if you can say internet piracy is an act of aggression because the company isn't really losing anything. The most they can say they are losing is a potential sale, but if the person downloading whatever software isn't convinced he is willing to pay for it, was there ever a potential sale?

If you think about the music side of piracy, the record labels exist as a way to help the artist get the music out to the world. Even if your music is good, if you are only popular in the town you are from there is going to be a very limited amount of $ you can make from that one town. What record companies did is basically say "we are big enough to do what you can't, we can get your music around the country and around the world". Then music has suddenly become a million or billion dollar industry, with a large percentage going to the label rather than the artist.

Well now times have changed, the artist can now get his music to the world as an individual, and the record label is becoming obsolete. 420 was on to something when he said "anyone can make a spoon". Well guess what, anyone can make a copy of a CD, probably more people than those who would be able to make a decent spoon. People generally place value on things based on how easy they are to do and once something becomes so easy that anyone can do it, few will pay for it, it becomes a luxury item for a niche group. The artists role of taking instruments and creating music is not being replaced, the label's role of mass replication and distribution is being replaced because it is so easy to do people are not willing to pay for it.

In the future I think the artists will find better and better ways to market themselves without using a label, and labels are probably on the way out. It was only a job for dirty salesmen anyways.

 

[Pennsylvania]

Analogy:

1 - Person A genetically engineers a new mutation of tobacco plant which is better suited to arid environments, resulting in greater cost-effectiveness.
2 - Person A sells person B one such organic tobacco plant with the stipulation that he may not reproduce the plant
3 - Person B uses seeds from said tobacco plant to generate new tobacco plants for personal use.

Regardless of whether person B's actions represent a breach of contract, there is no justification for legal pursuit of the issue. In the future, person A would wisely not sell to person B, yes, but if the government does not exist to enforce morality, then it cannot mend "broken promises".

 

[FourTwenty666]

I don't know if you can say internet piracy is an act of aggression because the company isn't really losing anything. The most they can say they are losing is a potential sale, but if the person downloading whatever software isn't convinced he is willing to pay for it, was there ever a potential sale?

If you think about the music side of piracy, the record labels exist as a way to help the artist get the music out to the world. Even if your music is good, if you are only popular in the town you are from there is going to be a very limited amount of $ you can make from that one town. What record companies did is basically say "we are big enough to do what you can't, we can get your music around the country and around the world". Then music has suddenly become a million or billion dollar industry, with a large percentage going to the label rather than the artist.

Well now times have changed, the artist can now get his music to the world as an individual, and the record label is becoming obsolete. 420 was on to something when he said "anyone can make a spoon". Well guess what, anyone can make a copy of a CD, probably more people than those who would be able to make a decent spoon. People generally place value on things based on how easy they are to do and once something becomes so easy that anyone can do it, few will pay for it, it becomes a luxury item for a niche group. The artists role of taking instruments and creating music is not being replaced, the label's role of mass replication and distribution is being replaced because it is so easy to do people are not willing to pay for it.

In the future I think the artists will find better and better ways to market themselves without using a label, and labels are probably on the way out. It was only a job for dirty salesmen anyways.

Ok so would you agree with this then? Someone makes a spoon with art work that rivals mona lisa on it. Someone buys that beautiful spoon at the store. They rip off the artwork and put it onto their own spoons to give away. Do you think this is right or should that person just come up with their OWN artwork to put on the spoon then give away?

 

[DamianTV]

Sure they have a right to protect their product. But not at the price of my Privacy.

Corporations long ago were not recognized with having the same rights as individuals. But thru the efforts of those who would abuse such rights, they've had laws changed and got what they wanted. Corporations now have more rights than the people.

 

[Kludge]

Speaking of privacy, I was called yesterday to be told that an IRS agent will be coming into my house in a few hours to see if business write-offs are actually being used.



Needless to say, but I took down my Communist Henry Paulson "Patriotism is Paying Taxes" poster, and am considering removing the Gadsden flag, too.