|
Piracy: Are you for or against it? (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blue.
How is me downloading it before I buy/rent it any different than me going to a friends house and watching his legal copy? Either way they aren't getting my money for it.
|
when you download it, your actually making a copy, which is illegal. if your friend buys a movie, your friend is just actually buying a license to view the movie. within this license, includes the right to view the movie for private use which would includew the situation you're describing. the act of viewing it does not a copy make. it's irrevant whether they are getting money or not.
| quote: | Originally posted by Blue.
Regardless of what it's called, I try before I buy and like I said, me downloading a terrible album is no different then me going to my local CD store, listening to it, and then not buying it anyways. |
it's a store's perogative to establish it's own return policy. if this how you prefer to do business then shop only at those places that allow returns. i hardly think you can justify theft from legitimate businesses simply because they do not allow returns.
| quote: | Originally posted by Blue.
I don't keep the albums/CDs that I dislike and the ones that I do I go out and buy so lecture me some more about me rationalizing theft and how me wasting my money instead is a better idea. |
consuming music is much like consuming almost any other innovate products. (by innovative, i mean new, not necessarily groundbreaking) some people will take financial risks and purchase the music. in many cases, they may indeed be wasting their money, and sometimes not. others, more risk averse people, will stand on the sidelines waiting for word of mouth, by the risk takers. if you are the latter, then i suggest you shop at walmart or best buy where all the risk has been removed from the music purchasing decision. |
|
|
| Blue. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
when you download it, your actually making a copy, which is illegal. if your friend buys a movie, your friend is just actually buying a license to view the movie. within this license, includes the right to view the movie for private use which would includew the situation you're describing. the act of viewing it does not a copy make. it's irrevant whether they are getting money or not.
|
I was talking about the moral aspect of it, not the legal one.
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
it's a store's perogative to establish it's own return policy. if this how you prefer to do business then shop only at those places that allow returns. i hardly think you can justify theft from legitimate businesses simply because they do not allow returns.
|
I'm not sure what you've been smoking but the word return wasn't mentioned a single time in the quote you put. I was talking about try before I buy, not buying, listening and then returning. I don't consider downloading a CD, listening to it and then deleting it stealing.
By the way, the people who have been busted by the RIAA are people who shared their illegal music, not those who downloaded it. If I lived in the US and downloaded 1000 songs but never shared them, the RIAA wouldn't ever be knocking at my door. |
|
|
| richg101 |
piracy is great cos it harms the money grabbing music corps a lot. but is bad cos it hurts the less known artists aswell. i think overall the world now needs music piracy to keep the balance right.
as far as software is concerned i think it is a shame the companies cannot find a way of preventing piracy. its very hard to create a good piece of software and the inventors should be receiving more financial benefits from making the work they do.
overall i think the world is seriously on its way out. everything is and piracy is one of those things. |
|
|
| diggerz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blue.
One side says that the record and movie companies are losing money and that people are losing jobs and money because of piracy and the other side argues that the record/movie companies are just being too greedy and argue that file sharing actually helps certain bands become known.
As far as I see it, the movie industry isn't losing money if I wasn't going to go out and rent/buy the movie anyways. In fact they gain revenue from me as far as movies go because a lot of movies I buy after downloading it and watching it, movies I wouldn't bother paying money to see if I was unsure about it. The only way they lose money is by me downloading a ty movie and then they don't get their cut because I didn't rent or buy it. I still realize that it's morally wrong and technically stealing but I could care less.
As far as music goes, I don't feel bad downloading it. Most of the music I hear tends to suck and most albums aren't worth buying if there's only one or two good songs on it. A lot of artists I wouldn't have heard of and gone out to buy their albums if I hadn't downloaded it first.
What's your take on piracy regarding both the movie and the music industry? |
There's too much going on at the moment. In a perfect world, we would have labels pay us for making music, not selling it. On the other hand, the system works different, you need to sell records and sustain a decent income, to invest on production costs.
Money complicates things on many levels, it is important to understand filesharing is not a "habit" of the generation, but a product of it's subculture. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blue.
I was talking about the moral aspect of it, not the legal one. |
i'm against it in almost all cases. perhaps the only exception that i'm willing to make is when the music is out of print and the copies are pretty rare. i think in this circumstance, the artist or the record company, publishing company, doesn't lose any royalties. as some say, no harm no foul. |
|
|
| Blue. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
i'm against it in almost all cases. perhaps the only exception that i'm willing to make is when the music is out of print and the copies are pretty rare. i think in this circumstance, the artist or the record company, publishing company, doesn't lose any royalties. as some say, no harm no foul. |
To each their own. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Why not pirate tracks and then send a donation for the same amount (or more!) to the artists themselves? I've thought about that before.
--
Now some things I have written on this subject.
The idea of intellectual property is interesting to me. It doesn't seem to "work" like other forms of property; that is, if you copy someone's "intellectual property," they still have a copy of the thing that you were copying. If I copy a song that you make and listen to it, you still have the original song and can continue to sell copies of it to people or perform it for money, unlike a situation in which I, say, steal your car or your bicycle.
What if I see a name-brand computer at a store, find out what parts it uses, and then buy the parts separately and assemble an identical computer on my own time for half the cost of the one at the store? I would be depriving the maker of the name-brand package of "potential profits" as well as "copying" their idea of how to make a computer. Is this situation analogous to the situation of copying music?
--
How have I taken someone's right to distribute a song by giving it to other people for free? He can distribute it just the same as he always did, and sell it as well. And it could well be that I have given the song to people who would not have bought it anyway, so he is not even losing any "potential profits."
--
"Theft" is the forceful taking of a scarce commodity from its owner. Strings of bits are not "scarce" in any meaningful sense. They can be copied without any loss to their owners.
I do think there is something a bit unsavory about it, but I would not call it "theft."
This is where things get weird: What is basically going on is that the creators of a thing are trying to specify what other owners of that thing (customers who buy music) can do with the thing once they buy it. They are trying to say that when you buy a CD, you do not really "own" the CD in the sense that you can do whatever you want with it: you only own something like "listening rights" to it.
--
If I buy a chair, can I study how the chair is made, make another one exactly like it, and then give it to a friend as a gift? Why or why not? |
|
|
| Kaveh |
| quote: | | Originally posted by richg101 but is bad cos it hurts the less known artists aswell. |
Not really, and I'm talking from an artist's point of view.
I'm for piracy. First of all, there's no way to stop it now. And second, it's mostly just good promotion for "small artists", so no harm done there. |
|
|
| SMC |
| MrJiveBoJingles is one of the few here who's not slumbering. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Something I asked somebody on another forum:
"What about public "exhibitions" of songs by DJs at clubs and parties? In these cases the entertainers are even *profitting* monetarily from using other people's songs. Should they have to pay royalties for each song they play, each time they play it, since they draw in more profits with each one?" |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Why not pirate tracks and then send a donation for the same amount (or more!) to the artists themselves? I've thought about that before.
--
Now some things I have written on this subject.
The idea of intellectual property is interesting to me. It doesn't seem to "work" like other forms of property; that is, if you copy someone's "intellectual property," they still have a copy of the thing that you were copying. If I copy a song that you make and listen to it, you still have the original song and can continue to sell copies of it to people or perform it for money, unlike a situation in which I, say, steal your car or your bicycle.
What if I see a name-brand computer at a store, find out what parts it uses, and then buy the parts separately and assemble an identical computer on my own time for half the cost of the one at the store? I would be depriving the maker of the name-brand package of "potential profits" as well as "copying" their idea of how to make a computer. Is this situation analogous to the situation of copying music?
--
How have I taken someone's right to distribute a song by giving it to other people for free? He can distribute it just the same as he always did, and sell it as well. And it could well be that I have given the song to people who would not have bought it anyway, so he is not even losing any "potential profits."
--
"Theft" is the forceful taking of a scarce commodity from its owner. Strings of bits are not "scarce" in any meaningful sense. They can be copied without any loss to their owners.
I do think there is something a bit unsavory about it, but I would not call it "theft."
This is where things get weird: What is basically going on is that the creators of a thing are trying to specify what other owners of that thing (customers who buy music) can do with the thing once they buy it. They are trying to say that when you buy a CD, you do not really "own" the CD in the sense that you can do whatever you want with it: you only own something like "listening rights" to it.
--
If I buy a chair, can I study how the chair is made, make another one exactly like it, and then give it to a friend as a gift? Why or why not? |
This is really the crux of the whole debate. The debate is ultimately over whether "intellectual property" is a legitimate claim or not. Of course, if you decide it's not legitimate, you have to ask: to what extent? Can I write a score that is identical to a Phillip Glass composition and call it my own? If there's no such thing as intellectual property, then I've done nothing wrong. On the other hand, your chair argument makes the point that intellectual property can not be completely omnipotent.
Personally, I like the idea of viewing the providence of music as a payable service, rather than musical recordings as scalable commodities. In other words, MrJiveBoJingle's idea appeals to me. The music is free to be disseminated as it will, and people who appreciate the music are free to make donations in order to support the musician such that he can continue to entertain. Of course, this requres a large scale change in the way people perceive music (most see it as a commodity, represented by CDs or the litte picture that shows up next to it in iTunes) to something intangible and philosophical, and I don't know if the world, and certainly not the industry, is ready for that change.
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Something I asked somebody on another forum:
"What about public "exhibitions" of songs by DJs at clubs and parties? In these cases the entertainers are even *profitting* monetarily from using other people's songs. Should they have to pay royalties for each song they play, each time they play it, since they draw in more profits with each one?" |
Actually, this already happens in theory. It's the getting it to practice that makes it fail. Especially for big-name DJs, most of the time the played music is provided as promotion, and is therefore free of charge and license fees. Making a DJ pay to play your music is a good way to turn him or her off, unless by playing the music, he or she knows his paycheck will increase. Smaller DJs can even sometimes evade licensing fees by just flying below the radar, so the continued profit off of a song is not guarunteed. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by thoughtlessjex
This is really the crux of the whole debate. The debate is ultimately over whether "intellectual property" is a legitimate claim or not. Of course, if you decide it's not legitimate, you have to ask: to what extent? Can I write a score that is identical to a Phillip Glass composition and call it my own? If there's no such thing as intellectual property, then I've done nothing wrong. On the other hand, your chair argument makes the point that intellectual property can not be completely omnipotent.
Personally, I like the idea of viewing the providence of music as a payable service, rather than musical recordings as scalable commodities. In other words, MrJiveBoJingle's idea appeals to me. The music is free to be disseminated as it will, and people who appreciate the music are free to make donations in order to support the musician such that he can continue to entertain. Of course, this requres a large scale change in the way people perceive music (most see it as a commodity, represented by CDs or the litte picture that shows up next to it in iTunes) to something intangible and philosophical, and I don't know if the world, and certainly not the industry, is ready for that change.
Actually, this already happens in theory. It's the getting it to practice that makes it fail. Especially for big-name DJs, most of the time the played music is provided as promotion, and is therefore free of charge and license fees. Making a DJ pay to play your music is a good way to turn him or her off, unless by playing the music, he or she knows his paycheck will increase. Smaller DJs can even sometimes evade licensing fees by just flying below the radar, so the continued profit off of a song is not guarunteed. |
Wow. Thank you for the intelligent post. Are you in the intelligent posters guild? |
|
|
|
|
