Piracy, Torrenting, Copyright Laws, Kanye Wests Gold Plated Jet

[Sabby]

This is a topic I've been very curious about, but almost afraid to touch o.O sort of like incest, haha, but will save that one for another day...

I'll be honest, I have downloaded songs here and there, and gotten games that are hard to find in an actual physical copy nowadays, and sometimes I've gotten things that wouldn't be hard to get a legitimate way. Thing is, I've never been sure how wrong what I did really is or how much guilt I should be feeling, because the whole issue is so murky and loaded with fearmongering I have no idea where the truth of it lies and where the social myth is.

Wow, that sounded like my incest rant again xD

Anyway, the one arguement I hear a lot is "LOL! Kanye West is rich, stealing his music online won't hurt him" To which I scratch my head... didn't he get rich selling CD's, not, ya know, giving them away? :/ He may not feel it now, or ever, but musicians after him would probably be hurting at some point. Right? This is the thing, I don't really know if this is 'hurting the industry' or if it's 'growing pains'. All industries eventually change, and the elements that stay put will suffer as the system becomes something they can't operate with. Maybe there are better ways to cut down on piracy instead of hiring rabid lawyers to scare potential pirates with highly publicised and heavy handed lawsuits that secretly draw in an assload of cash as a bonus. Maybe these lawsuits are one of the stretch marks of the rise of digital distribution instead of music stores with plastic cases.

I remember once I read that piracy was an issue in Russia, but Valve started upping their localization efforts, which made the Russian versions of their games available around the same time as the American ones, which cut the piracy rate of their games down a good deal. I thought that was kind of a 'well duh!' line of thought, it felt simple and proactive, attacking the source of the problem rather then treating the symptoms.

Be honest, have you ever downloaded an album and felt slightly guilty? Did you try to learn what exactly it was you'd just done and been completely intimidated by how much the issue has exploded that you really can't read on for the legal clusterfuck that just tumbled from your Google?

[Anyalyss]

You really have a thing for incest, don't you? *tickles*

Not guilty at all, ever *giggles* maybe I'm a bitch but I see it as a "if I like it I buy it, but first I try it" thing. I do agree that sometiems I have downloaded something, a game, or a music cd thinking that I would really love it (hype and all) and... it sucked a lot, I know for certain that I would have felt horrible if I spent money on something that I would end up disliking so much.

Also yes, I agree that some of the piracy that goes on it's because the developers fail to support a community and then they're forced to play it in a language that it's not their native, which is always uncomfortable even if you're good at it... so.. why would you spend money on something that it's not even in your language? it's another reasoning. Some people are just happy to have subtitles/text in their language but oh well  ::)

[Calison]

I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, but I have done my fair share of illegal downloads in the past and it was mostly music. I buy most of my music now if I can (for some things like Japanese music or any sort of foreign music that's not popular state-side I resort to downloading from a site or two I frequent). My personal take on it is that if I like the music, I should support the artist so that they continue to do what they do if I can. Of course the reason I buy my music now is because I am able to pay for it. Up until a couple years ago I didn't have any sort of job, so the accessibility wasn't that great. Did I feel guilty with the downloads? I don't think I did. In all honesty I really didn't download that much >.>; I usually don't like all of the songs from an album that a band or artist releases so I'm really selective. I no longer download for the reason that I used less than safe programs (Limewire >.>;; ) to do my downloading and ended up messing up a couple of computers because of it. Just don't want to go through the hassle again.

With high profile artists like Kanye, yeah he's not hurting that bad, mainly because he is high profile. I honestly don't know how pirating has affected the profit margins of the music industry, but the logic of if you want someone to continue doing something, they have to be paid for it/ be showed as lucrative. The industry is an industry, it's a business. If something isn't making money for them, it's going to get the axe. Smaller artists may feel the hurt more than folks like Kanye, so their content flow might not continue. This is of course just my theory.

There should be definite better ways for artists and record labels to protect their intellectual property, but I honestly can't think of any. But scare tactics are obviously not working. It really doesn't stop people from not doing something. Sure a few are made an example of, but that doesn't mean they're going to catch everyone and I don't think that they can either.

Within places where the accessibly is more than fine and people can pay for it, it's kinda hard to justify shaving off a couple of bucks to get something. The high price tags of video games maybe, but still. In places like Russia and other places where there is no access to a localized copy, I get that more and that was simply a smart business move on Valve's part to have Russia localization versions of their games. The gamers get their games and Valve can reap the rewards there of. This helped the problem, but didn't eliminate it apparently. It would be interesting to see where the remaining pirating was done from, though such studies I imagine would be hard to do.

[Hemingway]

I occasionally pirated things in the past, though for me it always seemed like too much work. I don't know why, but I always seemed to have a hard time getting things to work. That's why I've basically stopped. Not because I feel it's morally wrong.

The main problem for me - the thing that makes pirating things most tempting - is that a lot of the music I listen to isn't available in my country. It's not available for legal download, it's not available in stores, it's not available on iTunes - it's not available. You can't really claim I'm stealing from them when they're not even offering me the thing I want. I don't download games because Steam offers me a very reliable platform through which I can pay for and download the games I want. If the same existed with music, I would be buying a lot more of it, and I wouldn't even think about illegally downloading anything.

And that's another thing I hate about this issue, the way they try to make you feel like you're actually depriving artists of something tangible. Whatever it is, it's not the same as stealing. No more than making a physical copy of a car would be stealing that car. If the record companies and their thugs were a little bit more honest, and a little bit more interested in finding actual solutions, they'd do a lot more to get rid of illegal downloading than with their current tactics, which is basically intimidation.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't download anymore. Not out of some altruistic sense of honor or desire to avoid being prosecute but the simple fact that most of the songs I want I own know. (With a few exceptions that I've never been able to find.. Like "New York, New York" by Queeen or lost, like the entire Riding Bean album, the old Heavy Metal cassette version and a few otehrs)

Personally I think the biggest thief in the music industry.. is the recording groups themselves. They look for ways to cook their books, use hinky accounting practices to avoid disclosure to the artists and do anything/everything to maximize their profits at the cost of everyone else. They've lied, defaulted on promises to older artists and so forth. The sheer amount of money they have put forth to cover their bottom line is amazing.

They have done what they could legally to control their Intellectual Properties, paid congress what they had to extend copyrights, pass laws to reduce the buying public's rights and did anything they could to ensure that they controlled the market models. If the record companies had gotten their way there would be no iPod, Zune or digital media at all. You'd not be able to buy anything in any format but what they okay. You wouldn't be able to run your CDs on a computer.

It's an old story, despite the latest twists on it. The industry has tried curtail any and all forms of recordable media each time it came up and will continue to do so.

I think, and this is an opinion, a lot of the hate and discontent between the pirates and the recording industry could have been avoided with a change in the way they run their market model but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I never liked the idea of pirating or piracy of another person's work product.  I'm an aspiring author and if I'm lucky enough to become published and successful I would like to received the benefit of my my time and labor.  That's fair and deserved. 

Take my book and copy it 100 times and pass it out for free and that is hundreds of dollars in royalties that I lose.  Sell that copy for even a fraction of the cost of the book from legitimate sources and you've stolen that money from me.

An author, musician or game designer that lives on the royalties of their blood, sweat and tears to support themselves and possibly a family deserves those royalties.

Piracy is theft.

[Callie Del Noire]

I never liked the idea of pirating or piracy of another person's work product.  I'm an aspiring author and if I'm lucky enough to become published and successful I would like to received the benefit of my my time and labor.  That's fair and deserved. 

Take my book and copy it 100 times and pass it out for free and that is hundreds of dollars in royalties that I lose.  Sell that copy for even a fraction of the cost of the book from legitimate sources and you've stolen that money from me.

An author, musician or game designer that lives on the royalties of their blood, sweat and tears to support themselves and possibly a family deserves those royalties.

Piracy is theft.

Which is why I don't do it anymore. I was there when Napster first appeared, I made a LOT of coin making 'work out' CDs for folks when it took time and money to burn CDs.. (mostly the guys would bring me like a bunch CDs of music and I'd 'cut and paste' the stuff into a single CD..)

I can't recall the last time I got somethign I didn't pay for.. and most of my napster days was lost in drive crashes years ago. So everything I got I paid for.

My problem with the market these days is.. the royalties aren't being paid to the artists in some cases.. or the books are being cooked to screw them. A quick google search of  'artist defrauded by record company' pulls a LOT of hits.

A few years ago, I recall a blues artist being basically being allowed to die painfully because it was easier for the company to scam him of his royalties and promised medical coverage (essentially it was cheaper to pay lawyers than do the right thing) and the attitude was 'he was old and why should we be held accountable to the contract' outlook was fairly clear in the article.

Wish I could remember who it was.. but I know the company was one of the BIG US producers.

The reason I was so pissed off was around the same time, some of the record companies were asserting that electronic purchases weren't. That is.. you weren't BUYING the music online but LEASING it. IE, you were allowed to get music for this computer or that iPod or such BUT you didn't have the right to burn CDs or copy the music to a back up media.

I have similar issues with the publishing industry and their insistence that e-books need to be 'priced fairly' against hardcovers. That is, you have to pay 'full hardcover' price for a new e-book, despite the fact that they have virtually NONE of the overhead of the hard cover book. They don't have to pay for transport, printing, binding, storage or such for an e-book, but insist that they HAVE to have the full cover price for it. I don't see them paying out the 'excess' to the author, warehouse facilities, truckers or anyone else that is cut out of the loop by e-books.

I don't mind paying for e-books, or purchasing my music on Amazon or iTunes. It does gall me that the publishers/recording industry does everything they can to ensure that they maximize their profits while screwing their clients (the artists/authors) in everyway they can and lie to them, the public and the authorities.

[Beguile's Mistress]

When it comes to money never trust the other party to look our for your interests and never think you can handle the deal yourself.  Get an attorney.  Then even after the attorney looks over everything never sign anything you haven't read.  Ask a dozen questions and then a dozen more if necessary.  It helps keep the attorney honest and if you find out he/she isn't FIRE THEM!

Trusting the wrong people has been the downfall of too many artists.

The sad thing is that there are pirates and their accomplices (customers) who use those inequities to justify what they do.

[Callie Del Noire]

The thing is.. thanks to the way congress has bent over to the accommodate the Recording and Publishing Industry makes it hard to prove fraud against them if you're an artist/author. They don't have the same burden of accountability that most companies do, they play fast and loose with their contracts and ignore them when they can. A LOT of artists get screwed of their overseas revenue, and the Writer's strike a few years ago was almost entirely over the royalties in one way or another. 

Residuals, like royalties, are something that the companies artists and authors deal with, are something they (the companies) would love to do without and minimize at every chance. Despite the run away success of 'on Demand', Streaming, Downloads and such both the Motion Picture association and Recording industry insist that they aren't. Part of the reason that it's hard to disprove is that the accounting methods they use are nearly criminal in their methods of concealment. 

[Beguile's Mistress]

*nods*  We do need better definitions of what is considered owned by the artist or creator and what companies need to reimburse for.  In my opinion any money received by anyone for use/sale/distribution of another person's work product should generate a royalty or residual.

[Callie Del Noire]

*nods*  We do need better definitions of what is considered owned by the artist or creator and what companies need to reimburse for.  In my opinion any money received by anyone for use/sale/distribution of another person's work product should generate a royalty or residual.

Among the various things is most US Recording companies expect the artist to pay a portion (if not all) of the production cost of music videos before they get royalties from them. Which, given the amount they get, seems a bit unfair. The Record Companies (and Publishing houses) nickel and dime their artists and yet it's always 'for their artists' that they seek this or that new law.

A LOT of the stuff they put through congress are scarey when you consider it. They would have no problem demanding  access to your home, credit and internet histories if they thought it could earn them a nickel. Privacy is inmaterial to them, unless it's to hide their frauds from the public and/or artists.

The latest moves, dealing with streaming video, show just how far they are willing to go. Blocking anything they don't get a piece of action for in someway. If you look at it in the strictest measure, they can ban any video posted if a song they own is playing in the background or that your 4 year old is singing to on youTube. Fair Use is dying in the US and the publishers/recording/movie companies are whittling it away step by step.

[Kuroneko]

I never liked the idea of pirating or piracy of another person's work product.  I'm an aspiring author and if I'm lucky enough to become published and successful I would like to received the benefit of my my time and labor.  That's fair and deserved. 

Take my book and copy it 100 times and pass it out for free and that is hundreds of dollars in royalties that I lose.  Sell that copy for even a fraction of the cost of the book from legitimate sources and you've stolen that money from me.

An author, musician or game designer that lives on the royalties of their blood, sweat and tears to support themselves and possibly a family deserves those royalties.

Piracy is theft.

This.  I have never downloaded anything illegally because I wouldn't want my own work taken. 

[Zakharra]

The main problem for me - the thing that makes pirating things most tempting - is that a lot of the music I listen to isn't available in my country. It's not available for legal download, it's not available in stores, it's not available on iTunes - it's not available. You can't really claim I'm stealing from them when they're not even offering me the thing I want. I don't download games because Steam offers me a very reliable platform through which I can pay for and download the games I want. If the same existed with music, I would be buying a lot more of it, and I wouldn't even think about illegally downloading anything.

That's still stealing if you're taking it without paying for it. If it's not available, it's not available

And that's another thing I hate about this issue, the way they try to make you feel like you're actually depriving artists of something tangible. Whatever it is, it's not the same as stealing. No more than making a physical copy of a car would be stealing that car. If the record companies and their thugs were a little bit more honest, and a little bit more interested in finding actual solutions, they'd do a lot more to get rid of illegal downloading than with their current tactics, which is basically intimidation.

This I agree with. The record and music companies have not been playing fair and need to straighten up their act a lot. Times and technology are changing fast and there's no way they can stop it.

[Kuroneko]

And that's another thing I hate about this issue, the way they try to make you feel like you're actually depriving artists of something tangible. Whatever it is, it's not the same as stealing. No more than making a physical copy of a car would be stealing that car. If the record companies and their thugs were a little bit more honest, and a little bit more interested in finding actual solutions, they'd do a lot more to get rid of illegal downloading than with their current tactics, which is basically intimidation.

But, a work of art is tangible. Just because a music recording isn't touchable the way a painting is, it is still a work of art and the intellectual rights to it belong to the artist(s) that created it.   By your reasoning, the costume designs that I produce for a performance could be reproduced by anyone that wanted to and it would be okay simply because they are not the actual, original costumes.  I assure you that my design union (United Scenic Artists 829) would disagree with you, lol, as one of their man purposes for existing is to protect the work of their members.  There are copyrights on my designs the same way there would be on the design of a car.  You might not be stealing that car, but you'd still be stealing the design of that car, and therefore violating copyrights.  And music has many layers of copyrights attached to each individual song and performance, from the lyricist(s) and composer(s) to the individual musicians and the producers.  You're stealing both the work and the monetary compensation they should be receiving in the form of royalties.

Personally, I think one of the reasons people (in a huge general sense, not an individual one) feel that since we can listen to music for free on the radio, or listen to it for free online, that means it should be free in all forms, without realizing that radio stations and internet sites buy licenses to be able to play those musical pieces or that artists live on the royalties generated by the sale of their work in these various forms. 

Now, once you buy your license and download your song, or you buy a CD, you've bought the right to make copies of it and put it on a number of computers for personal use, so if you choose to make a CD for a friend, that's your choice.   I personally don't make or accept CDs, because I want the artist to be compensated for their work the same way I want to be compensated for my work.

edited because I can't type :(

[DarklingAlice]

Take my book and copy it 100 times and pass it out for free and that is hundreds of dollars in royalties that I lose.  Sell that copy for even a fraction of the cost of the book from legitimate sources and you've stolen that money from me.

It's a bit of a non-sequitur, but in practice this isn't true. The assumption that the 100 people who would take and read your work at no cost to them are 100 people who would otherwise purchase your writing doesn't pan out. I would imagine that the numbers are more like losing 5-10 actual purchases for every 100 copies pirated, if that. Neil Gaiman has said that piracy of his work has increased global awareness of it and led to a greater profit for him. Peter Watts saved his writing career by distributing his complete works for free online and watched book sales increase.

Do note that neither of these examples justify piracy, but they show the fallacy of some of the assumptions the industry has made about traditional forms of media distribution. Piracy hurts publishers much more than it hurts those who initially create the media. I see large scale piracy as a problem, and don't use torrent sites or troll the net for free copies of things that I can easily pay for. But sharing copies between friends is no different than lending books, using libraries, or buying things second-hand; all practices that benefit the individual content creators but drive publishers crazy (and the shit publishers are trying to pull against resalers and libraries is just shameful).

EDIT: Here's the video reference I failed to find earlier: Gaiman on Copyright Piracy and the Web

[Kuroneko]

But sharing copies between friends is no different than lending books, using libraries, or buying things second-hand; all practices that benefit the individual content creators but drive publishers crazy (and the shit publishers are trying to pull against resalers and libraries is just shameful).

Agreed.  This is what I was trying to say in my last paragraph, but you did it much better than I did.

[Zakharra]

But sharing copies between friends is no different than lending books, using libraries, or buying things second-hand; all practices that benefit the individual content creators but drive publishers crazy (and the shit publishers are trying to pull against resalers and libraries is just shameful).

Sharing/lending a copy, means you still get it back. The other person does not keep it. Libraries require you to return what you take from them (books, music, video and what not). Buying it second hand, you're still paying for it even if it is at a reduced price.

[DarklingAlice]

Sharing/lending a copy, means you still get it back. The other person does not keep it. Libraries require you to return what you take from them (books, music, video and what not). Buying it second hand, you're still paying for it even if it is at a reduced price.

Your point? All of these give you full access to the content with no money going to the publisher or artist. Yet all three further the artists' career and are of value to them. The distinction is that the publisher does not benefit. Which is why they have been up in arms against all three of these systems since their advent (and lying their assess off to lawmakers and artists). We are just seeing the same thing play out on a digital, worldwide scale, and the industry is having seizures trying to adapt. At the end of the day, the artists will get out of this just fine, it is the old guard of publishing houses that are going to suffer.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am concerned about how copyright issues are going. One the one hand, creative talents are more than due to their royalties and residuals. The problem is the bigger content owners have been doing everything they can to squeeze every penny out of their IP.  Rupert Murdoch is one of the big ones. If he had his way fair use would be moot. He's sued the BBC for reporting on his news organization because they used material from the article.

His publishing company, Harper Collins, has pushed forward a program that limits a library to lending an ebook out only 26 times before they have to pay full price to rebuy it again.

I don't think the creators are the problem these days but Publishing entities who have gone crazy looking for ways to maximize their income in ways that aren't too wise.

[Zakharra]

Your point? All of these give you full access to the content with no money going to the publisher or artist. Yet all three further the artists' career and are of value to them. The distinction is that the publisher does not benefit. Which is why they have been up in arms against all three of these systems since their advent (and lying their assess off to lawmakers and artists). We are just seeing the same thing play out on a digital, worldwide scale, and the industry is having seizures trying to adapt. At the end of the day, the artists will get out of this just fine, it is the old guard of publishing houses that are going to suffer.

With the examples I replied to, you end up giving the book/music/movie back. You don't keep it. With pirating you do keep it.  Second hand sales of things is allowed or used stores wouldn't be in business. Just taking it without paying is stealing. Gifts do not count since they are either made or bought by someone else.

[Shjade]

With the examples I replied to, you end up giving the book/music/movie back. You don't keep it. With pirating you do keep it.

Irrelevant. Whether you keep it or not after you've consumed the product doesn't matter - you've still read/heard/watched it already. Trying to make a distinction between being lent a book or pirating a book by duration of ownership is pointless.

[Nadir]

Uuuurgh. I'm a published author, I know if pirates reign supreme I and many others who have not Neil Gaiman's prowess might have their careers snuffed out before we've had a chance to begin....

....but I'm not against piracy or torrenting. I find things on the internet that I would not buy if I saw them in a shop. I read or watch them - most of the time I stop a few minutes later because it's not to my taste. Then, sometimes, I find things that I adore. Because I honestly loathe reading books on a screen and hate how poor quality the vids tend towards - or I simply WANT to possess them physically - I buy them. Example - I found Sarah Monette's books online, read them and bought them a few months later. Now, two of the four books were out of print, so none of the money I paid to get them went to her. Which I really hate, she's a glorious author and I wanted to reward her for the books that I so enjoyed. So I looked for books that she had written after that series, and bought what was in print and will buy every single novel she creates from here on out.

I don't know how common my way of piracy is, but it's the way that I think should be encouraged. Everyone profits from it - from the customer getting what they want, the big companies getting a cut, and the author getting their reward for working.

[Brandon]

For me I use torrents as a way to gauge whether I want to spend $20-50 on a product. If I like the book Ill buy it when I have the disposable income to, if I dont like it it gets taken off my hard drive. In these cases its not like music, I cant just go to youtube and pull up a song to listen to and then make my decision. With books and pdf's there just isnt a good sampling ability out there right now. The same goes for movies and to a lesser extent video games (because so few games release demos).

A good example of this is Rogue trader. I probably would have never taken a look at it to begin with but one day I saw it on a torrent site and decided to give it a look. I found it to be awesome and bought the book later that week. If I hadnt looked at that torrent then there would have been one less sale. The other side of the argument is what if I had hated it? Well if that were the case and I had bought the book out of nowhere I would have wasted  $40 (60 if it hadnt been on sale).

I see no morale problem with this because torrents are a tool for me to do responsible shopping and the industry gets their money if I enjoy their product. Everybody wins.

Then theres other issues like DVDs where have to sit through unskippable trailers and FBI warning over and over and over again before you can watch the actual movie. Or how about video games where its a hassle to get all the content you paid for (like my disaster when I got Dragon age ultimate edition for christmas) or has restrictive DRM that forces you to use a service that you dont want? Assuming its a game I really really really like I would buy those games just to support the developer that made them but then Im going to go download a cracked version where I dont have to deal with the bullshit DRM or be connected to steam/origin to play it.

This is how I think people should use torrents and those of us who do use them in this way get a bad rap from people that will never pay for something when they use it all the time.

[Hemingway]

That's still stealing if you're taking it without paying for it. If it's not available, it's not available

If the meaning of words matters at all, that is not stealing. To steal something is to acquire something by depriving someone else of it, to take it away from them. If I'm copying something that isn't even available to me, I'm not even depriving the creator of potential revenue.

But, a work of art is tangible. Just because a music recording isn't touchable the way a painting is, it is still a work of art and the intellectual rights to it belong to the artist(s) that created it.   By your reasoning, the costume designs that I produce for a performance could be reproduced by anyone that wanted to and it would be okay simply because they are not the actual, original costumes.  I assure you that my design union (United Scenic Artists 829) would disagree with you, lol, as one of their man purposes for existing is to protect the work of their members.  There are copyrights on my designs the same way there would be on the design of a car.  You might not be stealing that car, but you'd still be stealing the design of that car, and therefore violating copyrights.  And music has many layers of copyrights attached to each individual song and performance, from the lyricist(s) and composer(s) to the individual musicians and the producers.  You're stealing both the work and the monetary compensation they should be receiving in the form of royalties.

You're missing my point entirely. My point was not that downloading music illegally is completely unproblematic. I'm saying that the solution is not to try to bash people over the head with the nonsensical notion that downloading music is somehow on the same level as stealing someone's purse or car. It just isn't, and it creates a situation that's quite difficult to take seriously.

Basically, you can't change the direction in which our technology is moving by declaring its use to be illegal. You have to compete and adapt. If you can't, then, I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think you deserve to be a commercial success. Making customers jump through endless hoops and putting endless restrictions on what they can do with the thing they've paid for, just isn't a good business strategy.

There's also a difference between music and costume designs. I mean, not to be down on costume designers, but I don't think there's quite the same interest in and market for the things that they do. It's not just a question of scale, though. Music in particular, but also movies and the likes, are, as pointed out, frequently played on the TV and the radio and so on. It exists in a place where it can't really be said to belong to the artist in the sense of it being something they physical own and control. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that once something is played on the radio it suddenly belongs to the public, but there is a distinct difference, and I think it needs to be taken into account in any serious discussion of the topic. You can't declare two things to be equal when they so obviously aren't.

[DarklingAlice]

Uuuurgh. I'm a published author, I know if pirates reign supreme I and many others who have not Neil Gaiman's prowess might have their careers snuffed out before we've had a chance to begin....

I completely agree that it would be a very bad thing if piracy reigned supreme. This is why I am against folks who run large torrent sites and communities that exist only to steal and distribute copies of intellectual property. And anyone who fiscally profits from their piracy should clearly be punished for that.

At the same time you make a great point about how small scale piracy, copying, and trading help an author. You can't lose sales to people who have no reason to purchase your product. I think what we are dealing with is a matter of scale and changing ideologies of distribution, and the law is a blunt instrument that is lacking in the finesse necessary to deal with that.

[Kuroneko]

You're missing my point entirely. My point was not that downloading music illegally is completely unproblematic. I'm saying that the solution is not to try to bash people over the head with the nonsensical notion that downloading music is somehow on the same level as stealing someone's purse or car. It just isn't, and it creates a situation that's quite difficult to take seriously.

Basically, you can't change the direction in which our technology is moving by declaring its use to be illegal. You have to compete and adapt. If you can't, then, I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think you deserve to be a commercial success. Making customers jump through endless hoops and putting endless restrictions on what they can do with the thing they've paid for, just isn't a good business strategy.

There's also a difference between music and costume designs. I mean, not to be down on costume designers, but I don't think there's quite the same interest in and market for the things that they do. It's not just a question of scale, though. Music in particular, but also movies and the likes, are, as pointed out, frequently played on the TV and the radio and so on. It exists in a place where it can't really be said to belong to the artist in the sense of it being something they physical own and control. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that once something is played on the radio it suddenly belongs to the public, but there is a distinct difference, and I think it needs to be taken into account in any serious discussion of the topic. You can't declare two things to be equal when they so obviously aren't.

Walk through a comic or anime convention, or attend a movie like Harry Potter where everyone dresses up likes specific characters from the comics, books, cartoons and films and then tell me that costume designs are not as desired as music.

I'm not saying that a customer who pays for a product can't do with it what they want.  I think I already made it clear that they can.  They bought it, they own it.  Give it away, resell it, make copies for friends if they want.  I only said I personally don't make or accept copied music for personal reasons.  However, someone that steals an item is not a customer, and they do not have the same ownership rights that purchasing an item gives them.  And yes, if if you are copying something that you have no legal access to, you are still stealing it and taking potential revenue away from the artist.  Is it unfotunate that you can't get it?  Of course.  But that doesn't provide a means to rationalizing away stealing it instead.   

I think you might be missing my points too, particulary the point I made about TV and radio stations purchasing a license to play the media they broadcast.  The very fact that they have to in order to broadcast these things in the first place proves that there is ownership of the product.  And a percentage of those licensing fees do get to the artists.  An actor friend of mine gets residual checks every time his films are broadcast on a television station, and sometimes, those checks are the difference between making rent or being homeless.  Musicians also get residuals when their work is played on a radio station, downloaded from a legitimate site, or purchased in store. So yes, illegal music downloading is as serious as stealing a car, at least in my eyes.  You're taking away their income.  Some people illegally download thousands of songs.  If we're comparing monetary value, eventually it adds up and could equal a car.

However, regardless of the differences in opinion over whether the car and the music are equal in value (because I don't think we'll agree, which is fine), my main point and contention is that the effort it takes to create artistic work is equal no matter the form.  That is what is truly equal here, what makes my point valid and reasonable, and what seems to have been misunderstood.  I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.  The end product itself is irrelevant - music, costumes, books, songs, paitings, what have you.  The time, effort, and skills used to create them are what matters, and the end result is a work of art that is inherently the property of the artist until they choose to sell some or all of the rights for publication, recording or other means of public exposure.  Changing distribution technology doesn't change this, in my opinion, it just, as you said, makes it necessary to adapt and change.  And to me, stealing artistic work is worse than stealing a car.  A car can be replaced.  Stealing artwork is like taking part of the artist themselves.  It doesn't matter to me than a song costs much less than a car. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work and effort the same way any other worker in any other profession does. or those of us who aren't Kanye West or Stephen King level successul, it hurts us financially and professionally.  That was my point.    My blood, sweat and tears are in my work.  It's more than theft to me if it's taken; it's a personal violation of sorts.

I think we're just going to hve to agree to disagree, and I freely admit that my opinion certainly stems from my position as an artist that depends on income from my work to survive.  I can't help but see myself, co-workers and friends on the losing end of the illegal downloading cycle.  I just can't sanction any activity that is clearly theft in my eyes, no matter how well it's argued that it isn't.   But, I do respect that others have a different opinion on this issue, even if I don't agree with it. 


edited once again, because I can't type *sigh*

[Noelle]

With the examples I replied to, you end up giving the book/music/movie back. You don't keep it. With pirating you do keep it.  Second hand sales of things is allowed or used stores wouldn't be in business. Just taking it without paying is stealing. Gifts do not count since they are either made or bought by someone else.

As it's been pointed out, the consumption of said media has already taken place. You can't un-read a book or un-see a movie. I've pirated movies that I then delete from my hard drive when I'm done because I have no use for it anymore, but by your definition, the long-term possession is what the real offense here is -- so is what I did simply 'borrowing' that movie from the Internet and then getting rid of it when I've consumed what I want of it?

Also, I don't understand how you can reconcile second-hand media resale if we're defending the rights of the artist/publisher/etc. to make a profit off of their work. Buying a used game is hardly supporting the game developers, so shouldn't they be under scrutiny, as well? They're profiting off of other people buying the game at full price and then effectively undercutting the original distributor.

On that note, I used to record songs from the radio on my cassette tapes to later play on my walkman, is that also worthy of prosecution?

[Zakharra]

As it's been pointed out, the consumption of said media has already taken place. You can't un-read a book or un-see a movie. I've pirated movies that I then delete from my hard drive when I'm done because I have no use for it anymore, but by your definition, the long-term possession is what the real offense here is -- so is what I did simply 'borrowing' that movie from the Internet and then getting rid of it when I've consumed what I want of it?

Also, I don't understand how you can reconcile second-hand media resale if we're defending the rights of the artist/publisher/etc. to make a profit off of their work. Buying a used game is hardly supporting the game developers, so shouldn't they be under scrutiny, as well? They're profiting off of other people buying the game at full price and then effectively undercutting the original distributor.

On that note, I used to record songs from the radio on my cassette tapes to later play on my walkman, is that also worthy of prosecution?

Using a library is legal and at the end you return the product you borrowed.  The knowledge you gained is still yours, but the item you used is not yours and is returned.  Buying things second hand is again, legal. It's something you buy, not make a bootleg copy of and don't pay for.  Resale of goods is an expected and completely legal thing.

I've pirated movies that I then delete from my hard drive when I'm done because I have no use for it anymore,

That doesn't make any difference. You pirated, stole it with the express purpose of -not- intending to pay for it.  The fact you deleted it later means nothing. You took it without paying in the first place.

  Recording songs from the radio I believe comes under the heading as illegal, but it's so hard to catch in the act and so minor, I don't know if anyone has been  charged on that.

If the meaning of words matters at all, that is not stealing. To steal something is to acquire something by depriving someone else of it, to take it away from them. If I'm copying something that isn't even available to me, I'm not even depriving the creator of potential revenue.

Oh yes you are. The product isn't even for sale in your country and you had to basically steal it from outside of your country to get it. You did not pay the artist, you didn't pay anyone. You went and downloaded it anyways. You said, I believe that you would have bought it if it was for sale in your country, but it wasn't. So you went around the laws to get it.

[Will]

Using a library is legal and at the end you return the product you borrowed.  The knowledge you gained is still yours, but the item you used is not yours and is returned.  Buying things second hand is again, legal. It's something you buy, not make a bootleg copy of and don't pay for.  Resale of goods is an expected and completely legal thing.

So it's just the legality that makes the difference?  If we all got together and passed legislation making piracy of all kinds legal, you'd be fine with it?

Does the principle behind the law not matter?  You borrow a book from a friend, you read it, and now you've enjoyed the author's hard work without paying them for it.  How is that not exactly the same as just stealing the book from the store?  Oh, it's legal.  Well, let's just legalize theft, then?  Problem solved.

[Noelle]

Using a library is legal and at the end you return the product you borrowed.  The knowledge you gained is still yours, but the item you used is not yours and is returned.

That doesn't make any difference. You pirated, stole it with the express purpose of -not- intending to pay for it.  The fact you deleted it later means nothing. You took it without paying in the first place.

How do you reconcile these two things? If I borrow it from a library, I'm obviously not intending to pay for it. If I borrow a book from a friend, I'm obviously not intending to pay for it. What about things like TiVo or when people used to tape their shows on a VCR? They weren't intending to pay for the series in DVD or VHS format to rewatch it later, they got it for free.

If someone buys a DVD and decides to lend it out to his friends by letting them download it? What if they delete it when they're done, then what's the difference? And if that person lends it to 100 friends? A million? You have not made any kind of consistent judgment here as to what is and isn't okay except to speak of intent, which doesn't exactly make a convincing case in court.

Recording songs from the radio I believe comes under the heading as illegal, but it's so hard to catch in the act and so minor, I don't know if anyone has been  charged on that.

You say it's minor -- so what, praytell, is the difference between me recording songs from the radio and downloading music online? If one is minor, why is the other a much more grave offense?

[Zakharra]

So it's just the legality that makes the difference?  If we all got together and passed legislation making piracy of all kinds legal, you'd be fine with it?

Does the principle behind the law not matter?  You borrow a book from a friend, you read it, and now you've enjoyed the author's hard work without paying them for it.  How is that not exactly the same as just stealing the book from the store?  Oh, it's legal.  Well, let's just legalize theft, then?  Problem solved.

/sigh   Yes, it is the legality that matters.  Right now, there are people using the excuse 'He can afford the loss' to justify -purposefully- pirating stuff. Those people have absolutely no intention of paying the artist/author. 

Right now China is doing copyright theft on a massive scale and the government (China's) does little to stop it. Despite the fact that it's violating many international copywrite laws.  I'm not seeing any difference between that and what people on this board have said they've done except on the scale of it.

  If you  borrow a book, you end up giving the book back. If you borrow a movie, you give it back.  If a friend gives you a book/movie/whatever, that person bought it for you.  As several people have admitted on this forum, they pirated stuff if they 1, could not find it in their area/nation/region or 2, didn't intend to pay for it anyways.  They intentionally went out and took that item digitally with the intent to keep it.

How do you reconcile these two things? If I borrow it from a library, I'm obviously not intending to pay for it. If I borrow a book from a friend, I'm obviously not intending to pay for it. What about things like TiVo or when people used to tape their shows on a VCR? They weren't intending to pay for the series in DVD or VHS format to rewatch it later, they got it for free.


You say it's minor -- so what, praytell, is the difference between me recording songs from the radio and downloading music online? If one is minor, why is the other a much more grave offense?

If you borrow it from a library, you are also intending to return the book. You do not keep it. That's the point I am trying to make. You do not keep it..  TiVo's, I believe were allowed under the law or they never would have been for sale. The company had no problem selling or marketing the device.

Recording stuff off the radio is very very hard to detect, hence why I said it was minor. Unless you caught someone in the act, it's very hard to catch someone doing it.

If someone buys a DVD and decides to lend it out to his friends by letting them download it? What if they delete it when they're done, then what's the difference? And if that person lends it to 100 friends? A million? You have not made any kind of consistent judgment here as to what is and isn't okay except to speak of intent, which doesn't exactly make a convincing case in court.

I'm not a lawyer. Far from it in fact.  I just find it disturbing that so many people nowadays apparently have no problem with stealing stuff online. Theft is theft. It makes no difference at all of it's an object or digital data (that has been proven in court. There does not need to be a physical item stolen for it to be considered theft).

If you have no problem with that, then you shouldn't have any issue if someone downloaded the contents of your computer to another machine without your knowledge, right? After all, it's just data and you were not hurt by it were you? If they do not use the bank or personal information, what harm was done to you?

[Hemingway]

I think we're just going to hve to agree to disagree, and I freely admit that my opinion certainly stems from my position as an artist that depends on income from my work to survive.  I can't help but see myself, co-workers and friends on the losing end of the illegal downloading cycle.  I just can't sanction any activity that is clearly theft in my eyes, no matter how well it's argued that it isn't.   But, I do respect that others have a different opinion on this issue, even if I don't agree with it.

If nothing can change your mind, why are we even debating this? If you freely admit you don't care what words actually mean, why are you trying to tell me I'm wrong? If facts don't matter to you, in this case that the act of "theft" implies, according to most if not all definitions of the word I've seen, a deprivation of something from someone, then how could we ever hope to reach any sort of consensus?

I happen to believe that, as part of the larger argument, it matters that piracy is not theft. Just as murder and manslaughter aren't the same thing, even if the result is the same for the victim, there's a difference, and it needs to be taken into account in any serious argument.

[Noelle]

  If you  borrow a book, you end up giving the book back. If you borrow a movie, you give it back.  If a friend gives you a book/movie/whatever, that person bought it for you.  As several people have admitted on this forum, they pirated stuff if they 1, could not find it in their area/nation/region or 2, didn't intend to pay for it anyways.  They intentionally went out and took that item digitally with the intent to keep it.

Except I haven't kept any of the movies I've downloaded. You keep running in circles on this, so here is the logic breakdown I'm getting from you:

1. It's okay to borrow from a library or a friend because you don't keep it
2. It's not okay to download from a friend even if you don't keep it

I get your point that you do not keep it, but that point has already demonstrated to be futile in the above example. The fact that I would delete my content when I'm done with it is me not keeping it. It's no longer on my hard drive, it's no longer in my possession. I've complied with your wishes of not keeping it, so now what?

The only thing you're nitpicking here is the source of the download. What's the difference if I borrow a DVD from a friend, watch it, and give it back, or if I download the DVD from a friend's computer, watch it, and delete it? That's the real question I'd like for you to address here.

If you have no problem with that, then you shouldn't have any issue if someone downloaded the contents of your computer to another machine without your knowledge, right? After all, it's just data and you were not hurt by it were you? If they do not use the bank or personal information, what harm was done to you?

I don't see how this is a relevant example, as you're invoking two totally different things here. Things I keep private on my home computer are just that, they're private. Things that you choose to share on the internet are public. Things you make public can be taken and in turn shared. Nobody is forcibly hacking into a musician's computer; presumably at least one person has bought the album and has in turn shared it. That's...kind of a big difference.

[Kuroneko]

If nothing can change your mind, why are we even debating this? If you freely admit you don't care what words actually mean, why are you trying to tell me I'm wrong? If facts don't matter to you, in this case that the act of "theft" implies, according to most if not all definitions of the word I've seen, a deprivation of something from someone, then how could we ever hope to reach any sort of consensus?

I happen to believe that, as part of the larger argument, it matters that piracy is not theft. Just as murder and manslaughter aren't the same thing, even if the result is the same for the victim, there's a difference, and it needs to be taken into account in any serious argument.

I'm sorry, but where did I ever say I don't care what words mean or that facts didn't matter to me?  I did not.  In fact, I was also clear to say that what I expressed was my opinion, not that you were wrong.  I also said that my opinion is biased because of my profession and that I respected your right to have your own opinion.  Please do not put words into my mouth. 


Definition of PIRACY
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals (emphasis mine)


Definition of THEFT

1a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

-Mirriam Webster Dictionary

That is the meaning of the word. Theft is theft, end of. It's already been proven in court cases that piracy of music is theft.  Our opinions differ, and that's fine.  But you're right, we can't really have a discussion because of those differences.  You're just as unwilling to consider that illegal downloading is theft as I am to consider that it isn't.   I'm not here to debate anything, just give my opinion, based on my personal situation as an artist who is directly affected by intellectual property theft and copyright infringement. 

This discussion is beginning to go beyond the range of politeness.  Accusations are beginning to fly, and I'm really not comfortable with that.  So, I'll bow out now and you all can continue to rationalize illegal activity without me. 

Thanks to everyone for an interesting discussion. 

[Jude]

Yes, my piracy makes me a thief of intellectual property -- I fully recognize this.  I also recognize that stealing intellectual property isn't the same thing as stealing something physical (the latter leaves the would-be seller at a disadvantage because they've lost the physical materials to create the product which must then be replaced).  Pretending they're the same thing is a bit silly; they're obviously not.  You can argue about lost sales until you're blue in the face (and I think piracy does result in some people not buying a product they can steal for free), but you still have to present somewhat of a subjective argument to pretend there's equivalence there.

Is piracy an immoral act?  Maybe.  I can see an argument put forth either way.  I do think you need to measure the harm done however.  Whether you are stealing from a starving artist, a working class game designer, Kanye West, or Activision makes a big difference.

[Oreo]

I'm curious about the application of replacing already purchased media? Lets say 2G was spent on a VHS video collection, now everything is coming out on DVDs. Should it be considered illegal to torrent movies that one has already paid the royalties on?

[Reno]

Copyright infringement isn't "theft." That's already a different crime with a completely different set of conditions, so referring to it as "theft" is just self-serving rhetoric. Perhaps it's a crime, and it might even be wrong (one does not imply the other), but until you (the generic 'you') can be intellectually honest about something, you cannot have a rational discussion about it.

As far as I'm concerned, downloading, cracking DRM, format shifting, etc are all justified and fair, whether or not they are legal. The laws in that specific domain are particularly one-sided against the interests of the general citizenry in favor of the content owners. The public domain, which is what is supposed to be our payment for obeying the temporary monopolies of copyright, has essentially ceased to exist as copyright duration is repeatedly extended to more and more abusive extremes in the interest of corporate content owners.

The rules of the game are fixed, and the referees are being bribed, so going outside of them isn't going to cost me any sleep.

[gaggedLouise]

Definition of THEFT

1a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

-Mirriam Webster Dictionary

That is the meaning of the word. Theft is theft, end of. It's already been proven in court cases that piracy of music is theft.

I don't think this can be boiled down just to what dictionaries say, even if the sense given is one that many people would agree with. Some people - a large number, actually - would argue, on the basis of their ideas, that taxation is theft, as a matter of course, unless the individual taxed has been in a position to freely determine exactly what his or her particular tax input shall be used for, and in what proportions. Like, "I agree to pay for military spending and for the new science center here in town, as long as the politicians and senators don't change the plans as they exist now, but I will not have my money going to primary education or medicare". Of course, that would make taxation, and most political decisions,  hopeless beyond the smallest communities. Everyone would say now and then "I ain't paying for that, this is robbery!"

I've done a fair bit of downloading and sharing myself, and I know a large part of it has been stuff I could never have found in the ordinary market (like, Ukrainian metal, WW2 radio speeches, live bootlegs and music recorded by Soviet/Russian rock bands in the 80s and 90s). Some of it has never been commercially released, or only on a minor scale or locally, some of it has been music and video that I would never have had a chance of knowing about if I had tried the ordinary commercial or magazine routes - and I'm actually interested in music and do get to read a bit about even little-known acts. I am still buying cd's and dvd's, my buying hasn't dropped since i began downloading for free, just moved into  new directions. And I agree it's very off the mark to assume that fifty free downloads of a certain record in mp3 format would equal fifty buys of the actual records or itunes files if the free option hadn't existed.

On the other hand, I don't think the argument where people are saying simply "Information wants to be free and the more people who will get a piece of music or a film for free, the better" and "if someone fights back to protect copyright then it is always oppression, no matter who is the target" is a solid one. Why not? Because if you offer an argument that wants to defend small-scale sharing but it seems to work every bit as fine for a pirate cd factory in China, then you're out on thin ice. With one-for-all arguments of that kind, it gets difficult to discern between the different levels of "sharing"/piracy.

It's like with a supposed medicine that's the only one able to cure a certain mortal disease, yet the inventor keeps it jealously in short supply (for whatever reason) and has set a very high sales price. Let's say there's a man whose wife is dying from that disease, so that she needs the drug to have a chance to survive, and the man asks the owner of the patent if he can buy a bottle of it for two-thirds of the set, very elevated (and not market-determined) price. The owner says no, no way unless you pay my set price in cash. The man becomes desperate and breaks into the shop or the storeroom, stealing the bottle of medicine he needs to save his wife. Now, I saw that example in a text book on ethics, a book which had appeared before the modern issues of piracy had become well known. The author of that book saw it as a textbook case of (the break-in man) setting himself above morals, he assumed that if you believed in any kind of firm moral rules there was no excuse or mitigating circumstances even in that situation. I think most people today would say the drug dealer/maker was behaving like a bastard and taking undue advantage of a situation that would not go on for a very long time  but long enough for many people to die unless they could pay full price for his drug (and I am assuming it wasn't a drug that was very hard or expensive to manufacture, but this man, for the time being, was the only one who could have it produced legally, just as it's not inordinately expensive in itself these days to make a recording and produce cd's). But the issue of breaking in and stealing the drug in that kind of situation is a bit different from actually setting up a parallel factory and putting the original drugmaker out of business. Just like, IMO, personal filesharing on a small scale, is a different thing than setting up a cd factory and should be argued in a different way.


his wife is breaks into that man's storeroomn and steals a bottle of that drug because his wife is dying and this medicine is the only oe that would help

[DudelRok]

I like how Noelle was at me in another thread all: "Artists want to be paid for their work." And now seems pretty pro-piracy.


Let's go this way: I see piracy as theft. Granted it is a lesser extent of theft than that of physically walking into a store and taking something, but theft is theft to me. I also don't have a problem with theft when who I'm stealing from is A) Not the artist directly (most if not all that money goes to the publisher in many cases) B) Is trying to swindle me (You want me to pay HOW MUCH for this?) or if I'm going to get it used anyway (which is the case of most everything I purchase) and no one but the resale company is getting money... and I might as well find it elsewhere if/when I can.


Oh, and did you know that the video game industry is currently trying to kill the used game market? Physically making a used copy of a game worthless in many aspects? Locking content upon disks, blocking downloadable content, all kinds of nonsense... and a whole bunch of other stuff that's really discouraging me to be a next gen gamer.

Video game wise... I'd rather the disk/cart/etc if my systems worked or if the things where easy to get or if the things didn't cost the same as (or more than) newer games. I'll wait to play cheap PS1 games on my PS2 for when I've the cash... and if my SNES was still around I'd use that.. and if the GBA was still viable for me to play on, I'd do that too. That and carts aren't reliable, especially used with disk only being a little less so. New stuff in that area just isn't practical, either... as we're talking collector value not play value. Certain systems I wont pirate, PS1 and PS2 being good examples. Simply because the disks are readily available and tend to usually work.

Also: Did you know that you are actually allowed to copy all media for yourself? The clench, here, is you aren't allowed to give out this copy to others... for monetary gain or at the loss of monetary gain of another. Now the question is "What's monetary gain?" If I buy something, don't like it, and return it... did someone lose out? Yes... but the only people who did was the actual store that sold it to me, not the publisher (who already got paid for the units the store bought with intent to sell) or the artist who was already (yes already) paid by the publisher for their work.

Yet the people who can file the lawsuit are the artists (who've already been paid) or the publisher (who have also already been paid) so, well screw them. You might argue that the artist/publisher get more if more units are sold... well this isn't always the case. The publisher can create more units and make more cash, but the artist's continued revenue is from elsewhere, like live shows and guest appearances etc. Same goes with game units... the publisher gets more money than anyone else and those people have already been paid before the units hit shelves (assuming they don't get sent back, anyway).

So, yeah...

* Dudel is pro piracy when who's being stolen from doesn't deserve it.

[Will]

The rules of the game are fixed, and the referees are being bribed, so going outside of them isn't going to cost me any sleep.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject, along with the caveat that Jude mentioned.  I'm certainly more apt to cough up the cash for an artist/author that isn't already filthy rich.

Most of the music I download is available for free outright, legitimately.  I happen to love live music, and lots of artists allow their shows to be recorded (or do it themselves), and encourage the sharing of those recordings.  It's a perfect example of the "piracy as advertising" phenomenon that can be overlooked in the rhetoric coming from publishers.  This kind of thing allows me to find smaller bands that I would have never heard of otherwise, and in those cases, I will try to buy an album or go to an actual concert.  The rules of the game are fixed against smaller/independent artists as much as consumers, so depriving them of profit actually does hit my conscience pretty hard.

[Noelle]

I like how Noelle was at me in another thread all: "Artists want to be paid for their work." And now seems pretty pro-piracy.

You can address me directly, you know :P No need for passive-aggressive commentary, as this is a subject I particularly like to talk about.

Yes, artists want to be paid for their work. There is no better way to support an artist that you enjoy than to pay them money, as they have bills to pay and supplies to buy to keep making art.

However, I don't charge people to look at my art and people certainly aren't paying me to see it. On sites like Tumblr, I distribute my art freely -- and if you know anything about Tumblr, it's that anyone can see an image and reblog it for others to see, effectively spreading it around much in the same way piracy works. This is good for me. It's free advertisement and generates interest in my work, which in turn, generates more potential customers who either might want custom work or would buy prints. So long as nobody is claiming that the work is theirs, I have no issues with it being used with credit linking back to me so other viewers can find the source. These people aren't paying me money either way, so it makes no sense for me to try to futilely retain a deathgrip on my artwork. I embrace the medium and use it to my advantage.

If I hear something, see something, or listen to something that I really like, I go out and pay for it or find some other way to show my support for the artist monetarily, either through concert tickets or merchandise. I may even send a song or two to a friend who I think will like it and thus give them another potential customer. It's called overhead, and many indie bands out there really rely on things like BitTorrent to get the word out. I can't afford not to do the same -- if I hug my artwork tightly to my chest and only rarely hand it out, nobody sees it at all.

So yes, it is possible to be pro-artist and pro-piracy.

[gaggedLouise]

I think it needs to be pointed out that the prices of cd's and dvd's, especially music and movies, at the point of buying, have long since stopped having any firm relation either to how hot the product was when it was released or how much work effort, or payments to people, went into it. Why am I saying this? Because

- movie dvd's are often much cheaper than music cd's, though the dvd may have three of four times as much playing time, has a multi-channel sound mix, both audio and video, and has had many more people involved.

-many mainstream record shops charge standard prices for some ranges of their on-shelf cd's. A record will cost eq. of 15$ whether it's by Jeff Beck, David Bowie or an obscure local act. No one would do it like that with books, at least not hardbound books.

-I can buy pretty much any rock/pop/soul record that sold big in its time (very many of them, anyway) for a very low price by using Amazon's "used or new" ('spot market') option. the same with many books. A scientific dissertation in chemistry or history, on the other hand, will never go beyond thirty dollars, sometimes far more. Why? because almost nobody is selling, except the actual university press.

So price has come to depend a lot on what amounts have been sold or stocked to shops, and how widely circulated a certain piece has been. Not really on how desirable the book, record or game is. This is completely at odds with the classic supply/demand pricing model which everyone gets to see most of the time.

[consortium11]

A couple of thoughts on a large topic and discussion.

• If we're going to talk in legal terms than piracy of the type we mean here is pretty much definitively not theft. While it obviously varies by jurisdiction almost all definitions of theft require an "intention to permanently deprive" the rightful owner of the "stolen" property. With regards to piracy that simply doesn't occur... and I'd be very interested to see the logic of any court that argued it had. Piracy is dealt with by intellectual property/copyright laws for a reason.


• I also think it's slightly missing the point to argue what is essentially an ethical question in terms of legality. The legality of the situation is basically black and white... does the jurisdiction in question have IP/Copyright laws and if it does do they make piracy of this type illegal? Unless we wish to turn this debate into one about whether we have a duty to follow the law then debating the legality seems to me to miss the heart of this question... which is whether the piracy of this sort of moral or ethical.
  Although if you allow me one brief interlude on the law it is worth noting that in the UK change of format is illegal under the same laws. While the law is being changed as of now anyone who's ripped a CD, transferred a VHS to DVD etc... and I'd say that's a huge number of people... is guilty of piracy and just as culpable as anyone who uses a torrent to get the same song. Likewise while the music industry generally allows backups it is illegal to make even a single copy of a DVD you own (at least in the US post-321 and RealDVD law suits).


• If we get away from the legal arguments then a lot of things we view as standard and acceptable actually end up on far shakier logical ground. The most frequently presented argument is that by downloading something for free the "consumer" and provider are taking money away from the creators. Even disregarding all arguments about whether someone getting something for free means they'd otherwise pay full price for it and whether it is the actual creators who make money from their products being sold in that way there are still issues.
  The widest and simplest one is this; if we're arguing that it is morally wrong to distribute something that even potentially may take money away from the creators then everything seems to be fair game. Ever give something to friends or family which they may have otherwise bought (an old TV, furniture, clothes)? Every given anything to a charity shop? Ever donated a good to charity? Ever had a yard sale? Every gone to a car-boot sale? All of those represent the receiver getting the benefit of something while the creator gets nothing. On that basis there is no difference between buying a CD from a charity shop or being given an old book by a good friend and downloading the self-same products.
  The normal counter to this relates to the nature of physical property. Because there is only "one" of the given book or CD and it is simply a case that possession/ownership has been transferred (and thus the original owner has lost the benefit) it is separate from piracy where millions of copies can be created with no loss to the original owner. It seems to me that this again misses the heart of the argument. When we talk about piracy of this nature we're not talking about the physical good... we're talking about the intellectual property contained within that good (which is why change of format laws were on the books). Intellectual property isn't consumable in the traditional way (in that listening to a CD/watching a movie/playing a game/reading a book means that either can't or won't do it again) but they lose their value each time their consumed... we all have examples of books/songs/films/movies that we read/watch/listen to once and then rarely if ever do so again. The very existence of donation driven charity shops selling such items shows that there is a point where people no longer wish to consume the IP. If we accept that then lending a book/film/CD to someone, even if they don't make a copy, is little different to downloading the same IP... it is being consumed by another at no benefit to the creator. Are we attempting to argue that both giving to charity and charity selling those goods are immoral acts?


• That's not to same I'm a hardliner against IP and copyright laws. There is no doubt that creators should be allowed to profit from their creations and that others shouldn't be able to exploit that for their own profit. We certainly should never be in a situation where an author writes and releases a novel only to find 4 dozen other people copy it word-for-word, stick their name on as the author and release it to make a profit for themselves. There may be a better balance to strike (for example in pharmaceutical companies high R&D costs against the high cost of patents leading to people dying as they can't afford the cost of such treatments) but there is an undoubted argument for the protection of creators.
  Moreover despite the points above about why many of the common anti-piracy arguements seem to me to be on shaky ground I don't think we should throw the book open and let anyone copy anything and distribute it. From streaming PPV sports broadcasts to downloading music/games/films etc I fully accept that they are in at least some way "wrong" and the issue they logically bring up with the less formal sector (which I doubt many oppose) may simply be a case where you have to disregard logic and say one is acceptable and one isn't.


• Just to finish with one question/point:
  Did Jesus steal (using the term colloquially in the "piracy is theft" rather than legal sense) from the bakers and fishmongers when he enabled a small amount of fish and bread to feed the multitude?

[Zakharra]

Yes, my piracy makes me a thief of intellectual property -- I fully recognize this.  I also recognize that stealing intellectual property isn't the same thing as stealing something physical (the latter leaves the would-be seller at a disadvantage because they've lost the physical materials to create the product which must then be replaced).  Pretending they're the same thing is a bit silly; they're obviously not.  You can argue about lost sales until you're blue in the face (and I think piracy does result in some people not buying a product they can steal for free), but you still have to present somewhat of a subjective argument to pretend there's equivalence there.

Is piracy an immoral act?  Maybe.  I can see an argument put forth either way.  I do think you need to measure the harm done however.  Whether you are stealing from a starving artist, a working class game designer, Kanye West, or Activision makes a big difference.

  I see no difference whether the person you are stealing from is a starving artist or a wealthy artist.  It disturbs me that you admit your stealing, but see nothing wrong with it.  But I'm not going to convince you otherwise and you are not going to convince me either.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Noelle]

I'd say my question still stands.

The only thing you're nitpicking here is the source of the download. What's the difference if I borrow a DVD from a friend, watch it, and give it back, or if I download the DVD from a friend's computer, watch it, and delete it? That's the real question I'd like for you to address here.

[Zakharra]

I'd say my question still stands.

Alright then. Borrowing a DVD, you have the intent to give it back. You do not keep it.  As I have come to understand, you can make a copy of a DVD, or a friend can, IF they own a copy of it and gift it to other friends.  What's pirated online is normally NOT done with the creator's consent or permission.   

That's my issue with pirating online stuff. The users do not intend to EVERY pay for it. Skate around the issue all you want, pirating is considered theft in the courts and by law. This is to protect the big artists, as well as the smaller ones.

[Noelle]

You haven't really addressed my point at all. :\

Alright then. Borrowing a DVD, you have the intent to give it back. You do not keep it.

I download a video. I delete it when I'm done. I do not keep it. How is this different?

As I have come to understand, you can make a copy of a DVD, or a friend can, IF they own a copy of it and gift it to other friends.

I own a CD. I make a copy of it. I let my friends download it from my computer. Repeat: How is this different?

What's pirated online is normally NOT done with the creator's consent or permission.

Neither is making a copy of a DVD for a friend. Again, this is why some people are trying to shut down second hand book/DVD/CD stores -- The creator does not profit when you sell your CD/DVD/etc. to a friend personally and those FBI warnings at the beginning of DVDs explicitly state that you can't redistribute.

That's my issue with pirating online stuff. The users do not intend to EVERY pay for it.

I will repeat myself yet again: You do not intend to pay for something when you borrow it -- be it from a library or a friend. How is this any different?

[rick957]

Below is a long thing I just wrote that relates to the topics discussed here.  I know it's not normal to add long posts like this to old discussions like this one, but since this discussion has slowed to a crawl anyway and may die out before long, I assume nobody will mind.  Also maybe one or two people will read this and have something to say in response.  :)

Here's what bugs me about torrenting and piracy and the demise of intellectual property copyrighting, which continues to look like an inevitability.  First, a logical argument, followed by discussion of its consequences.

Secure intellectual property copyrights assured giant businesses that they could earn massive profits off the creative works of certain individuals.

Those giant businesses invested huge amounts of money into finding and promoting the creative work of certain individuals so that the businesses could eventually recoup their investments and earn those massive profits.

As a result of those investments from those giant businesses, the attention of large numbers of people was drawn to the brilliant creative works of certain individuals.

Some of those brilliant creative works were mere fluff entertainment, but others of those works had enormous social and artistic value.  The artistic value arose from the authentic self-expression involved in the creation of those particular works.  The social value came as audience members formed personal connections to those works -- identified personally with the creative self-expression in those works -- and then in turn felt a kind of connection with each other, because large segments of the public shared a common interest in certain creative works.

Still with me?  Alright, so what I'm saying is, at the end of this sequence you have important and meaningful cultural phenomena; you have a society in which people come to understand their lives and each other and form connections with each other based on popular creative works, whether they're songs or movies or TV shows.  Actually, with extremely rare exceptions such as bestselling books or video games, the creative works that reached enough of the public to develop real cultural significance over the last several decades have been almost exclusively in those three areas of pop culture:  music, movies, and television.

What's happened in the last 15 years or so is that widespread, seemingly-unstoppable piracy has convinced those giant businesses that they can no longer be assured of recouping their investments and realizing massive profits from the creative works of individuals, so they've given up on making those investments, and in turn, society has been deprived of those important creative works and the artistic and social benefits that arose from those works.  For example, 20 years ago, people could have water-cooler chats about the latest dramatic development on E.R., or they could repeat jokes from last night's Simpsons episode, and those people could bond over their mutual enjoyment of those TV shows.  Same thing happened around blockbuster films like the Star Wars movies or Titanic, and around the work of hit musicians from Michael Jackson to Metallica.

All that bonding and shared cultural experience is now impossible.  We won't have any more TV shows or movies or songs that we all know and can bond over, and I'm not talking just about the giant ones like those mentioned in the previous paragraph; we won't have any of the smaller, more interesting, niche ones either.  There won't be another Nirvana or Pearl Jam or U2 or even another Cure or Marilyn Manson or Outkast; now we're stuck with tiny bands that relatively few people have heard and even fewer people really care about.  There won't be another Breakfast Club or Pulp Fiction, hell, there won't even be any more hot auteur directors like Coppola or Scorcese or Tarantino, nor will there be large numbers of new movie stars that everyone knows and can relate to; there is no crop of young stars with the cultural cachet to step into the vacuums left by the aging, declining stars of recent decades past.  Shia LeBeouf may have a successful career, but he'll never be one-tenth as well-known and as widely beloved as Harrison Ford or Sean Connery.  I'd cite an example among actresses, but I don't even know the names of this week's crop of five-minute starlets; I'm pretty sure none of them will measure up to their predecessors in terms of general popularity or career longevity, though.

Piracy and the death of copyright is the unacknowledged, widely-misunderstood boogieman responsible for enormous and permanent changes in industrialized Western societies, and these are changes that are leaving us all less connected to each other and less in touch with ourselves as human beings and as people with hopes and dreams and values and experiences in common.  Personally, I don't care too much about which star or CEO is pulling smaller paychecks now compared to twenty years ago, but it bugs the shit out of me that there isn't a new Guns N Roses whose latest album I can rant and rave about with total strangers and have them know what I'm talking about and agree or disagree with me.  Arts and entertainment are moving off the plane of shared cultural discourse, which leaves us with what to talk about with each other?  The weather, and sports.  Is that good enough?  Is it a coincidence that our politics have never been more fractured and divisive -- that divisions among ethnic and religious groups in our society seem to be growing and deepening rather than the reverse?  Okay, maybe I'm over-selling the point, taking it too far ... but I wish I was more certain of that.

Kids nowadays don't even know what they've missed by not having cultural touchstones in common with their peers; they can't really conceive of the cultural phenomena from just a couple decades ago that piracy has totally wiped out.  I want to believe that new phenomena, new cultural touchstones are on their way, and we're on the cusp of a great era of increased interconnectedness and greater cultural empathy and unity.  I just don't know where that's going to come from.

[Zakharra]

You haven't really addressed my point at all. :\

I download a video. I delete it when I'm done. I do not keep it. How is this different?
I own a CD. I make a copy of it. I let my friends download it from my computer. Repeat: How is this different?
Neither is making a copy of a DVD for a friend. Again, this is why some people are trying to shut down second hand book/DVD/CD stores -- The creator does not profit when you sell your CD/DVD/etc. to a friend personally and those FBI warnings at the beginning of DVDs explicitly state that you can't redistribute.
I will repeat myself yet again: You do not intend to pay for something when you borrow it -- be it from a library or a friend. How is this any different?

Noelle, I will explain this one last time. If you do not get it, you are purposefully ignoring my points.  If you borrow a DVD from a friend or the library, YOU GIVE IT BACK! I have said time and again, you do not keep the thing. You return it.

Libraries work under the intent that the objects borrowed from it are returned. I have said that time and again. A point you are ignoring.  Others have said here that you can make some copies, as long as you do not intend to distribute for the intent of making money.

Second hand sales are allowed, otherwise NO second hand store would ever be allowed to exist. Can you understand that?

As far as I know, people who run the pirating sites, never bought the thing either. They are illegally distributing copies and the theme seems to be, from what people in this thread have said, 'Fuck the man!'  'He's wealthy, he can afford it.'  or  'Why should I pay for it when I can get it for free?'

I'm getting a little heated under the collar at your thick headedness, (and yes I think you are intentionally being dense or stubborn) so this will be my last post in this thread for awhile. I need to cool down. You admit you -know- you are pirating and see nothing wrong with it.

From my point of view, if you are using torrent or pirating, without the creators permission, you are stealing. Plain and simple. Argue around that all you want with semantics , it is an upheld view of the court and court systems (you know, the laws that make society run....) that pirating is illegal. And it can hurt the small and poorer artists as well as the more successful ones.

I know some have no problem with it and are ok with it, but not everyone is and remember, it's not just music, video and arts that can be taken like that, but computer programs and other forms of intellectual property as well. Is there any limit that you would accept as being unacceptable? What shouldn't be allowed to be pirated?

As I said, this is my last post in this thread. I probably strained several rules and will not do that anymore in this thread, so we will have to agree to disagree on this subject and leave it at that.

[Jude]

Noelle, I will explain this one last time. If you do not get it, you are purposefully ignoring my points.  If you borrow a DVD from a friend or the library, YOU GIVE IT BACK! I have said time and again, you do not keep the thing. You return it.

Libraries work under the intent that the objects borrowed from it are returned. I have said that time and again. A point you are ignoring.  Others have said here that you can make some copies, as long as you do not intend to distribute for the intent of making money.

Second hand sales are allowed, otherwise NO second hand store would ever be allowed to exist. Can you understand that?

So what if you did the kind of thing I used to do when I was a kid?  Rent a VHS tape from the store, buy a blank VHS tape, tape what's on the VHS tape from one to the other, keep it, and return the other one.  If your logic is as simple as "bring it back" justifies everything else, what makes that special?  Why does returning it eventually even matter?  What if I bring back the bootleg VHS tape to the store and dump it in their trashcan after I keep it for another 10 days -- extending my rental.

Why is any of that any different?  I see no arguments to explain why, just a bunch of people saying it's different "because."

The answer is pretty simple, laws and laws only.  We've created a system of rules because it benefits the copyright holders.  Agree or disagree with that, but ultimately the idea of "stealing" intellectual property makes no sense in the real world because no one is being deprived of anything -- they still have their property, just other people have it too and they didn't pay you for it.  That's not theft, that's something else, and it's illegal because we've agreed its illegal.

A different culture, in a different time, and a different place?  May not reach the same conclusion we do.

[Noelle]

Noelle, I will explain this one last time. If you do not get it, you are purposefully ignoring my points.

Not exactly. If I don't get it, it means you're either not very clear or your points don't make sense. If you were making points that logically followed, I would be happy to concede, but I have pointed out where they are inconsistent, so maybe we could go from there. If you'd like to close up the gaps where they are inconsistent, this could be a very compelling and productive discussion, indeed.

If you borrow a DVD from a friend or the library, YOU GIVE IT BACK! I have said time and again, you do not keep the thing. You return it.

Yes, and I have said time and time again that this is a moot point. So let's please discuss that in particular because refuting my point by repeating the same point isn't really refuting at all. You're telling me I'm ignoring your points when, in fact, I've mimed them back to you already and will do so again in this very post. Consider them acknowledged.

I borrow a DVD from a friend online via downloading. I take the extra step to send it back to them when I'm done and then delete it from my HD -- it is no longer in my possession, I have not kept it, it is no longer accessible by me. This is, by definition, the direct result of giving something back.

You have not explained to me in any way, shape, or form, how these two things are different and I am genuinely curious to know why they are. The end result is the same -- the item is not in my possession any longer and the original owner retains their copy. Either there is a step here I'm missing, or your point is drumming up a double-standard with no good explanation as to why. Your choice.

Others have said here that you can make some copies, as long as you do not intend to distribute for the intent of making money.

Please do some research.
No, you can't distribute copied DVDs or CDs, even to friends, even for free.

Judges have said that consumers have a right to copy a DVD for their own use—say, for backing it up to another disk or perhaps watching it on another device, such as an iPod.

This is basically physical piracy and is a double standard for you to support. If it were okay to distribute copies of DVDs for free to anyone you wanted, then why not undercut the government and illegality of pirating something online by simply sending out a massive amount of copied DVDs to anyone who wants one?

Second hand sales are allowed, otherwise NO second hand store would ever be allowed to exist. Can you understand that?

Why yes I can, thank you. :) But sticking by this point means you would logically have zero moral qualms about online piracy if it were made legal tomorrow, which really just makes this debate more about "I only care because the government says I should" and less about "there is something inherently wrong about this".

As far as I know, people who run the pirating sites, never bought the thing either. They are illegally distributing copies and the theme seems to be, from what people in this thread have said, 'Fuck the man!'  'He's wealthy, he can afford it.'  or  'Why should I pay for it when I can get it for free?'

Except you don't know any of this for certain, so it's not really evidence for or against.

I'm getting a little heated under the collar at your thick headedness, (and yes I think you are intentionally being dense or stubborn) so this will be my last post in this thread for awhile. I need to cool down. You admit you -know- you are pirating and see nothing wrong with it.

Yes, I will be happy to also take a few days off from this thread if it means I am not wrongly accused of being "thick-headed". People disagreeing with you does not automatically equate you being in the absolute right and the other party not being as "enlightened" as you. It can mean you are not communicating effectively or there is an issue with your stance. I have done nothing to personally insult you, so I would be very appreciative if you could avoid being purposely disrespectful in return.

[Callie Del Noire]

@rick957

I don't think there is a 'death of copyright' anywhere. The big content providers are doing their best to extend 'copyright lifespan' beyond anything anyone has ever imagined. Corporate ownership of a copyright is now over a century and if some of the folks courting congress had there way it would NEVER end.

While not directly tied to the thread issue of piracy, some points of the 'fair use' have been slowly and gradually turned to 'piracy'. If the record companies had their way you wouldn't have very been allowed to copy a tape or copy a cd to your hard drive or iPod. Anything that changed your purchase to a new media would be piracy. This isn't a new practice. They tried to get tape recorders and vhs recorders banned (it went to federal court if I recall) and I know that if they thought they had a chance in hell with DVD/CD burners they'd try again.

Piracy is bad. Yes. One of the reasons I stop, the other being that I didn't buy into the 'stick it to the man' outlook of some pirates and I want to reward the artists/creators for their works (fyi.. most of the stuff I DID download wound up being bought anyway..but that is beside the point).

My problem with the 'anti-piracy' movement from the folks at RIAA and the Motion Pictures is their belief that we have no right to privacy, to 'fair use' and that we should simply shut up and let them decide how much they should screw us over for. I am a Star Trek fan.. I would LOVE to buy Enterprise and DS9 but I'm not paying $100 bucks a season or $50 bucks used.  So I grouse about it then go pay $25 bucks for a used/previewed DVD set of supernatural instead. That is how I 'stick it to the man' by buying used items when I can.

However, I do think that while these groups have some legitimate issues they are being unfair to the public at large and need to realize that their whole revamping/changing of copyright issues is stiffling innovation.

How long will it be before I have to pay 10 cents to cite a publication in my paper at school? I know if Rupert Murdoch had his way I would be doing it now.

[DarklingAlice]

Why yes I can, thank you. :) But sticking by this point means you would logically have zero moral qualms about online piracy if it were made legal tomorrow, which really just makes this debate more about "I only care because the government says I should" and less about "there is something inherently wrong about this".
Except you don't know any of this for certain, so it's not really evidence for or against.

Unless I am mistaken your miscommunication is stemming from this. The above seems to be the whole of Zakharra's point. Piracy is wrong because the government has defined it as wrong. There seems to be no further argument. There can't be a further argument because it is asserted as definitional.

*shrugs*

[Will]

In the interest of not beating a dead horse, here's a subject that's different, yet related!  Does widespread pirating really deter artistic creation?  How much of an effect does it have?

Personally, I can't imagine someone with an honest urge to express themselves deciding to give up the whole thing just because someone down the line might enjoy their work without paying for it.  That seems kind of far-fetched.  The accessibility of their work might take a hit, but there's plenty of amazing musicians and writers out there to be found, outside of the major publishing companies.  They aren't making that much money, and yet, they still create.  Musicians that are just starting out certainly don't make much money from studio recordings; playing gigs is what pays them, and it's not much.  Freely distributed recordings only helps them in that regard.  All this is out there to be found, if someone wants to go looking.  Piracy certainly isn't going to hurt all that.  If it ends up destroying the major publishing/recording companies (which is also far-fetched), maybe more people will start to care about all those other writers and musicians, instead of just supporting whomever is thrust into their face by the publicity machines.  Wouldn't that inspire more artistic expression, in the long run?

[DarklingAlice]

It's also worth noting that the Internet is brimming with creative works whose creators can't legally profit from them. Look at the vast amount of fan-anything (fiction, art, costuming, video, in my case I even made fan tabletop system, etc.) that floats around the web. The only way those artists are able to create and distribute that content is by not fiscally profiting from it. And yes, 90% of it is crap (as is everything: Sturgeon's Revelation), but it's all pretty much made out of a direct creative desire rather than any kind of for-profit desire.

Personally, I can't imagine someone with an honest urge to express themselves deciding to give up the whole thing just because someone down the line might enjoy their work without paying for it.  That seems kind of far-fetched.

Motivation can be a tricky thing. And of the top of my head I can think of three reasons why it comes about:
1) The knee jerk reaction that it is fundamentally wrong that someone gets to enjoy your effort without paying its 'full value'. This is notably often coupled with the naive notion that all artists are given a fair shake by their publisher and aren't already having the value of their work undermined on a larger and more personal scale.
2) The flawed (as I have already discussed) notion that every single copy pirated is a sale lost; that literally when an individual pirates a work there is now one less dollar in royalties in their pocket.
3) There is a prevalent notion among some artists that piracy will prevent them from making a living solely based on art, ignorant of the fact that they won't be able to anyway. One of my friends is a small time cartoonist. He even has a new premier next month which is going to be a great financial windfall. He still isn't quitting his day job in a bookstore. And I think there is a little hubristic part of every artist (I know I have it <_<) that says "Oh, but I won't be small time." without the realization that everyone starts small time (with the exception of a few rags to riches stories that publishers make sure to use as the lure to draw naive content producers in).

So yeah, the end result being that (primarily through the publishing industries half-truths and outright lies), many novice artists have a distorted view of the value of their work and piracy's impact on that value. I could easily see that as deterring someone from pursuing the creative process, and it saddens me.

[Callie Del Noire]

And for a moment of lightness.

"Weird Al" Yankovic - Don't Download This Song

Cause I see folks starting to fray a bit on this. :D

[Oniya]

Or this?

http://www.amazon.com/Steal-This-Book-Abbie-Hoffman/dp/156858217X

(Ironically, it does not make the list of 'top 10 books stolen' - although the Bible apparently does.)

[DarklingAlice]

In my experience selling books the most common type of books stolen are textbooks. I suppose it makes sense when you think about it, but it struck me as really odd when I was first shown the figures.

[didoanna]

An author, musician or game designer that lives on the royalties of their blood, sweat and tears to support themselves and possibly a family deserves those royalties.

Piracy is theft.

Umm..oddly enough I totally agree with that but the thing for me is that I know if I go and buy a brand new CD album it's quite expensive.  So I tend to wait until Amazon drops it's prices...unless it's like a special edition or something and then I might buy it straight away.

I do download bits of albums but that is only to see if I like them...for example..I D/L'd part of a Carrie Underwood album...loved it and went on to buy the rest of her stuff. The same was true of Ellie Goulding but there is no way I could afford to spend money on the off-chance I might like something new or unusual.

Maybe, perhaps, I don't wanna sound cheeky or disrespectful, perhaps if the record companies dropped their prices more people would buy the CDs legally. 

I personally love the Special Edition stuff that artists do like Shakira did recently by including a DVD with her CDs.  That's when it becomes worth it.

[rick957]

@Will

I don't think piracy deters artistic creation.  I do think piracy has had the indirect effect of destroying the businesses that have traditionally made it possible for artists to find an audience of any size.  The problem is exactly this -- if I may selectively quote you --

... there's plenty of amazing musicians and writers out there to be found .... if someone wants to go looking.  ... maybe more people will start to care about all those other writers and musicians, instead of just supporting whomever is thrust into their face by the publicity machines.

Sorry if I mangled your context, but my point is that this is precisely what is no longer happening:  artists are no longer able to find large audiences, and vice versa, because the publicity machines have been shut down.  The necessary function of those publicity machines has not been picked up by anything else, including all the innovative distribution mechanisms on the internet -- not even iTunes -- not yet at least, not in meaningful numbers.  There's far far far more music and art and writing and video available to the masses than at any previous time in human history, but people aren't finding the quality stuff from amidst the ocean of dreck, except in very small numbers that don't even add up to a living wage for the creators.  IMO.

@Callie

I'm somewhat aware of the abuses of the old copyright system, its over-extension, etc., and I'm no fan of big businesses raping their customers.  I sympathize and/or agree with most of what you said (and thanks for the reply btw!).  I was referring to the end of copyright in a broad, somewhat abstract sense, and in the only sense that matters much to me personally, which is that creative people can no longer control the distribution of their work to the public in a way that allows them to profit substantially from their work.  For all the wretched shortcomings of the old music business, the monopolistic record companies were able to put some high-quality music in front of huge numbers of people, and now that they've been decimated, the quality stuff that's out there is just languishing in profitless obscurity, benefiting neither artists nor audience.  IMO YMMV etc.

[Will]

rick, I suspect that the difference in our views is that I don't think the publicity machine serves any necessary function.  Especially with the advent of the internet, you as a consumer can find anything you want with a minimal effort.  And as an artist, promoting yourself and your work is really your own responsibility.  It takes commitment, responsibility, time, and money, but it can be done without the aid of major publishing or recording companies.

We also seem to disagree on whether or not the publicity machine is still active; I think it very much is.  Listen to any mainstream radio station, and you'll hear Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and a handful of other pop artists until your ears bleed (not that I have a problem with them, really... the repetition is just too much).  The same is true for authors, and even traditional artists (Thomas Kinkade, for serious).

As for the idea that there's too much junk out there, well, I have to disagree.  There's been tons of junk out there as long as people have been creating art, with a tiny handful of the good stuff managing to find an audience.  Piracy can help a lot of those struggling artists to reach that audience, but the publicity machine as it exists would love to stamp that out.  Why?  Moral qualms?  I doubt it.  Piracy undermines their very lucrative stranglehold on popular culture.  Get rid of that stranglehold, and what happens?  Is it the death of culture in our country?  I think it might actually allow culture to flourish in a lot of new ways.

[Callie Del Noire]

@rick957

I have to agree with Will, seems that the 'machine' is still working fine. Though the lovely folks at RIAA are claiming otherwise. (You can't claim that piracy and 'unrealistic' arts are killing the industry if things are shown to be going well). I feel for the artists that don't get discovered but the Record Makers aren't losing any cash for lack of new talent. They find new talent every day, and more often than not eat it alive.

[rick957]

Will (and Callie) -- Katy Perry and Lady Gaga are very literally the exceptions that prove the rule, that the old media publicity machines can no longer penetrate the public consciousness on behalf of new artists; those are the only two younger artists that most people can name off the top of their head ... the only two to emerge in the past five to ten years; and they succeeded only with the full financial backing of the same old monolithic record companies.  Take any period of five to ten years prior to the most recent, and you'll find far more debut artists that "made it," at least for a moment, into the main thoroughfare of pop culture ... Where are the dozens of previously-unknown, young bands making their living off fans reached through the internet?  So far they're just a pipe dream, a fiction created by the non-stop technology-hype sector of the media, an appealing promise that never materializes.

The new distribution mechanisms are in place and are easier and more democratic than ever before.  It's the publicity problem that's proven insurmountable thus far.  As someone smarter than me said somewhere, people's attention is the new commodity of the internet age.  We have more options and alternatives than ever, but we've lost the means to guide us all to the creative work ("content") worthy of our attention.  The only ones profiting thus far from new distribution means are artists whom people learned about from the old big-business publicity machines; they can now cut out the middlemen and reach their old fans directly, which is great.  But the unknown new artists are S.O.L. 

... Piracy can help a lot of those struggling artists to reach that audience, but the publicity machine as it exists would love to stamp that out.  Why?  Moral qualms?  I doubt it.  Piracy undermines their very lucrative stranglehold on popular culture.  Get rid of that stranglehold, and what happens?  Is it the death of culture in our country?  I think it might actually allow culture to flourish in a lot of new ways.

I hope you're right; I wish you were right.  And, I think you're going to be right in the long run, when and if internet content providers find ways to monopolize the public's attention as effectively as the old TV networks or major record companies did.  Or (far preferably) if unimagined new models for reaching sizable audiences emerge and get a foothold.  But that hasn't happened yet, IMO.

[Jude]

Sorry if I mangled your context, but my point is that this is precisely what is no longer happening:  artists are no longer able to find large audiences, and vice versa, because the publicity machines have been shut down.  The necessary function of those publicity machines has not been picked up by anything else, including all the innovative distribution mechanisms on the internet -- not even iTunes -- not yet at least, not in meaningful numbers.  There's far far far more music and art and writing and video available to the masses than at any previous time in human history, but people aren't finding the quality stuff from amidst the ocean of dreck, except in very small numbers that don't even add up to a living wage for the creators.

This isn't the fault of piracy, it's a phenomenon that is occurring because of changes in communication technology known as "media niching."  Thanks to the internet and other technological advances it is now easier than ever to produce and distribute media, but the population hasn't drastically risen, so there are more types of media competing for the same amount of viewers.  In terms of supply and demand, the demand has not risen but the supply has vastly.  Even superior quality media will be hurt by this as people with a taste for lower quality or niche media (stuff that appeals to them as a person in some unique way but would not be viable in the larger market) overtakes mainstream media.

This is largely good; I listen to a podcast every week that appeals to me more than any mainstream radio products do, for instance.  However, it has a negative impact on news, because now there are large segments of the population receiving news from disreputable sources that appeal to their extremist inclinations (such as Glenn Beck -- he's launch an internet channel called GBTV soon, for example).

And while it's true that not all artists are capable of making a living wage on what they do, the podcasters I listen to for instance don't make enough to support themselves while doing it, those who do appeal to a wide enough audience still can.  You're seeing fewer of them because people are getting more of what they want from more individualized sources.

This is why the TV, radio, music, and even gaming industries are hurting now:  NOT piracy.

[Callie Del Noire]

@rick957

I admit that I've not been into popular music (I like a certain Wincester in Supernatural like music before 1990) but I dont' think Piracy is hurting the music industry at all. Jude's comment about 'niching' fits more closely.

Despite the possible GOBS of cash lost to pirates (and I think its' inflated), Media producers are making record sales of CDs and Albums.

[Will]

Will (and Callie) -- Katy Perry and Lady Gaga are very literally the exceptions that prove the rule, that the old media publicity machines can no longer penetrate the public consciousness on behalf of new artists; those are the only two younger artists that most people can name off the top of their head ... the only two to emerge in the past five to ten years; and they succeeded only with the full financial backing of the same old monolithic record companies.  Take any period of five to ten years prior to the most recent, and you'll find far more debut artists that "made it," at least for a moment, into the main thoroughfare of pop culture ...

Do you have any evidence of the bolded portion?  Because I have to say, that is absolutely and completely false.  You think I stopped listing names because I ran out?

Where are the dozens of previously-unknown, young bands making their living off fans reached through the internet?  So far they're just a pipe dream, a fiction created by the non-stop technology-hype sector of the media, an appealing promise that never materializes.

Where are they?  On the margins of the public consciousness, thanks to the efforts of the very active publicity machine, that's where.  So far, it definitely is a pipe dream, because the whole industry is fighting the future in every way possible.

The new distribution mechanisms are in place and are easier and more democratic than ever before.  It's the publicity problem that's proven insurmountable thus far.  As someone smarter than me said somewhere, people's attention is the new commodity of the internet age.  We have more options and alternatives than ever, but we've lost the means to guide us all to the creative work ("content") worthy of our attention.  The only ones profiting thus far from new distribution means are artists whom people learned about from the old big-business publicity machines; they can now cut out the middlemen and reach their old fans directly, which is great.  But the unknown new artists are S.O.L.

Personally, I can guide myself to the content I consider worthy of my attention.  I have no problem doing that.  I'm quite sure I can find the stuff I want with more accuracy and regularity than big business has ever been able to, so I don't really lose anything with their future demise.

I hope you're right; I wish you were right.  And, I think you're going to be right in the long run, when and if internet content providers find ways to monopolize the public's attention as effectively as the old TV networks or major record companies did.  Or (far preferably) if unimagined new models for reaching sizable audiences emerge and get a foothold.  But that hasn't happened yet, IMO.

But why do the audiences have to be sizable?  Why is it bad that, instead of a few stagnant artists monopolizing the public's attention, we might have a huge, vibrant pool of artists cutting out little overlapping pieces of the market?  You keep pressing the idea of artists making a living from their art; I don't understand why that's so important.

[rick957]

@Jude

Very good points, ones that I don't disagree with, but you're actually identifying the same phenomena that I was talking about (and giving it an original name, hehe -- is that your own invention?).  The public's attention is a vast pie that has been split into tinier slices.  There's a potential upside to this, the one you mentioned:  each of us can have our own customized experience, and in the best instances, it's an experience that targets our individual cravings more successfully and specifically.  The downsides to the same phenomena (the splintering of the audience) are the ones I mentioned -- 1) If large numbers of people are no longer enjoying the same content (that was formerly fed to them by the old big-media monopolies), they've actually lost something that used to bind them together, whether that's knowledge of the same songs or movies or TV shows or whatever.  And, 2) as you and I both mentioned, the total money spent by the public on arts or entertainment is getting split into smaller chunks and distributed amongst a larger number of recipients, so that the payoff for each individual is smaller and less likely to add up to a living wage.

We're looking at the same thing from two different angles and drawing different conclusions about it, but those conclusions aren't at odds with each other, IMO.  Your points don't necessarily conflict with or contradict what I was saying, from what I can tell.  Maybe you see it differently though.

@Will

You think I stopped listing names because I ran out?

Uhhh ... yes?  :)  I believe you if you say that's not the case, though.  You would have to do some work to convince me that there are others whom lots of people have heard of; it's not something that's easy to quantify unless you want to go look up sales figures or something.  I'm not personally invested enough in this issue to go do research to support my opinions, I'm afraid, but you're also free to think my claims are horseshit.

But why do the audiences have to be sizable?  Why is it bad that, instead of a few stagnant artists monopolizing the public's attention, we might have a huge, vibrant pool of artists cutting out little overlapping pieces of the market?  You keep pressing the idea of artists making a living from their art; I don't understand why that's so important.

This is a very significant point to me.  You're right that I think the audiences ought to be sizable enough to somehow earn the artists a living wage. 

I recently read a quote from Francis Ford Coppola in which he lauded the virtues of artists making their living off something other than their art; he made the claim (perhaps rightly, I wouldn't know) that historically speaking, most major artists have had to earn their living off their day jobs and create their masterpieces on the side, and that arrangement accounts for most of the great art down through the ages.  And he said the notion of rock stars and the like living off their creative work was a 20th century-only development and basically an aberration which is now coming to an end, as fewer and fewer musicians live off their music alone, rock or otherwise.  So if you like the idea of artists needing day jobs and doing art in their free time, you're in pretty exalted company. 

I didn't hear his full rationale and may have misinterpreted the quotes, but I disagree with his position for the following reason:  I think art is important; not all, but at least some is extremely important, and far more important than all kinds of other things that everyone considers important enough to merit full-time effort, not just attention as a pastime or on the side.  I can list dozens of works of art made by full-time artists which I consider pricelessly valuable.  I also know of many artists -- some responsible for those priceless works I mentioned -- who were forced at other times in their careers to support themselves with non-creative day jobs that may or may not have limited their ability to produce further masterpieces.  Frankly, I mourn the loss of the work they might have done.  If artists have true gifts that have immense value to a society, what kind of society requires even its great artists to toil away doing other things when they would rather exercise those gifts for the obvious benefit of all?  That's my feeling at least.

[Jude]

I guess where we differ is that...

1)  I think it's more meaningful to relate to your niche than to have watercooler topics to relate to the society as a whole (we are humans after all, and have plenty of things to relate on -- finding a subculture where you belong is much more rewarding).

2)  Back in the 80s and 90s in the era of blockbuster media the proceeds were concentrated beyond the amount of a "living wage" in pop idols and celebrities.  So the question becomes:  what's better, Madonna making 3 million in 1 year or 3 people making 1 million in a year?  I personally think the latter; I don't think the absolute number of people making a living on their artistic dreams has gone down.

[DarklingAlice]

This is a very significant point to me.  You're right that I think the audiences ought to be sizable enough to somehow earn the artists a living wage. 

I recently read a quote from Francis Ford Coppola in which he lauded the virtues of artists making their living off something other than their art; he made the claim (perhaps rightly, I wouldn't know) that historically speaking, most major artists have had to earn their living off their day jobs and create their masterpieces on the side, and that arrangement accounts for most of the great art down through the ages.  And he said the notion of rock stars and the like living off their creative work was a 20th century-only development and basically an aberration which is now coming to an end, as fewer and fewer musicians live off their music alone, rock or otherwise.  So if you like the idea of artists needing day jobs and doing art in their free time, you're in pretty exalted company.

Historically, most major artists have been aristocracy or directly under aristocratic patrons. One of de Tocqueville's bigger criticisms of America was his fear that art and science would be forced to suffer in an egalitarian society because (horror of horrors!) artists would actually have to work. His fears turned out to be bullshit.

You seem to think that artists are untapped resources of infinite genius potential that must be discovered, nurtured, and supported, that any time an artist spends not popping out new art is a waste and tragedy. As an artist and scientist I can tell you that that is just not true. The idea of an artist as a 'gifted' person is fallacy. The idea that they have to be nurtured, supported, and patronized, is not only fallacy but actively condescending. It's an annoying old world idea that is being actively sold to artists by publishers because they want to be able to say: "You need us to give you money and foster your genius! You need us to let you reach your true potential!" It's plainly and simply a scam.

I'm also with Jude here, but I'll go even further than 3 people making a million and say that I would prefer 30 people making ~$100,000 yr. Since when did a 'living wage' turn into a million+? Again, bloated figures made by a publishing industry invested in luring naive content creators in with rags to riches stories.

[rick957]

Oh well, I suppose one should expect to be disagreed with whenever one expresses a view that goes against conventional wisdom or the prevailing sentiments in a particular venue.  Still, it's nice to be disagreed with in an intelligent and civil manner.  :)

@Jude: 

1)  I think it's more meaningful to relate to your niche than to have watercooler topics to relate to the society as a whole (we are humans after all, and have plenty of things to relate on -- finding a subculture where you belong is much more rewarding).

Can't disagree with you there.  Nonetheless, I don't find it so easy to forge meaningful connections with strangers that I don't mourn the loss of points of common interest such as those pop culture sometimes provides.  Discovering that an entire arena filled with complete strangers knows the lyrics to a song well enough to sing them along with you and the musician on stage is quite an exhilarating and astonishing experience, one I've shared with many others my age and older; I hope there are similar pleasant surprises in store for younger generations, whether or not the contexts change.

2)  Back in the 80s and 90s in the era of blockbuster media the proceeds were concentrated beyond the amount of a "living wage" in pop idols and celebrities.  So the question becomes:  what's better, Madonna making 3 million in 1 year or 3 people making 1 million in a year?  I personally think the latter; I don't think the absolute number of people making a living on their artistic dreams has gone down.

Again we agree, except that I have yet to see evidence that the money is getting spread out to a larger number of deserving artists.  So far, almost all the evidence I've heard of that happening has come in the form of wishful thinking from media sources who have a vested interest in promoting technological advancement as a panacea.  The hard numbers for the music industry at least all point to the opposite conclusion, that everyone is struggling and fewer artists are reaching even the modest levels of success made possible by the old methods that have fallen by the wayside.

@DarklingAlice:

You seem to think that artists are untapped resources of infinite genius potential that must be discovered, nurtured, and supported, that any time an artist spends not popping out new art is a waste and tragedy. As an artist and scientist I can tell you that that is just not true. The idea of an artist as a 'gifted' person is fallacy. The idea that they have to be nurtured, supported, and patronized, is not only fallacy but actively condescending. It's an annoying old world idea that is being actively sold to artists by publishers because they want to be able to say: "You need us to give you money and foster your genius! You need us to let you reach your true potential!" It's plainly and simply a scam.

It so happens that this isn't my personal view either, just to clarify.  I'm of the opinion that artists and non-artists alike have individual gifts in one or many areas, and those gifts ought to be nurtured and supported by others so that everyone can benefit from each other's talents.  I do think that not all artists have talent in the area of business or promotion, and some of those non-artists who do ought to exercise their talents on behalf of artists so that the artists can focus on what they do best instead.  I don't know if you and I agree on those points, but I hope you don't find my actual views to be quite so condescending or fallacious.

Thanks for the dialog.  :)

[DarklingAlice]

Can't disagree with you there.  Nonetheless, I don't find it so easy to forge meaningful connections with strangers that I don't mourn the loss of points of common interest such as those pop culture sometimes provides.  Discovering that an entire arena filled with complete strangers knows the lyrics to a song well enough to sing them along with you and the musician on stage is quite an exhilarating and astonishing experience, one I've shared with many others my age and older; I hope there are similar pleasant surprises in store for younger generations, whether or not the contexts change.

Having never been a stadium concert sort of person, I genuinely don't know the answer here: But is this really on the decline? I know stadium concerts are still happening but I really know little about the concert music scene at large.

It so happens that this isn't my personal view either, just to clarify.  I'm of the opinion that artists and non-artists alike have individual gifts in one or many areas, and those gifts ought to be nurtured and supported by others so that everyone can benefit from each other's talents.  I do think that not all artists have talent in the area of business or promotion, and some of those non-artists who do ought to exercise their talents on behalf of artists so that the artists can focus on what they do best instead.  I don't know if you and I agree on those points, but I hope you don't find my actual views to be quite so condescending or fallacious.

I definitely agree that a community of artists working with artists is a much better solution than artists working with businessmen.

The specious point here is your 'gift' argument. It's an overly simplistic way of looking at the artistic (or indeed any kind of) process. It makes artists seem like Marvel mutants. Not only does it give aspiring artists a skewed notion of the work involved (which is why publishers love to push this idea of natural talents who just have to be 'discovered' to strike it rich), it also keeps many people who would otherwise attempt art from doing so 'because they just don't have the gift'. It's a lie told to the artistic and non-artistic alike. And it smacks of those inane notions like 'Males/Jews/Asians/PickOne are naturally more talented at math and quantitative reasoning' that still stick around our societies. That's why I find it offensive. And I don't think you intend it that way at all, but it is frustrating to me to run into such misguided common notions. Although I suppose this discussion begins to range a little far afield, ne?

So I'll just leave this here and be done ^_^

[Alice Wonder]

I occasionally pirate, but not a lot.

Let me give some examples, and how I justify them to myself. Now, when I say justify them to myself, I know it is still a violation of US and International copyright law, and I am willing to suffer the consequences if I am ever taken to court.

1) A couple musicians from the 80s, they were not big label, most people never heard of them. One had a video make MTV but they only showed it twice. I had every tape of theirs, and played them until they wore out. One of the artists, her label did not feel it was worth the effort to digitally remaster her early work, and she basically went out of print. I found vinyl rips of her early stuff, and grabbed it. The other, his stuff was digitally remastered but also went out of print. When he wanted to get his band back together for a single concert, he asked his label if they could do a short run of his discography. They refused. He asked for a short run of just his greatest hits. They refused. He offered to finance the pressing himself (he had made money in cinematography since then), they refused. So on stage, he told his fans "My old label won't let us offer you our music anymore, so if you find rips of it on online, have at it, I don't care" - technically and legally, it is still piracy, but that was when I stopped looking for CDs of his work to replace my worn out tapes on eBay and just downloaded it.

2) I am member of a closed invitation only site that torrents television shows. I only use it for shows where I intend to purchase the season when released (IE Stargate, Sons of Anarchy, etc.) or for time shifting. With respect to time shifting, most of the shows I like can already be legally time shifted via my cable company, but their compression is so horrid - especially in dark low contrast scenes. The encoding done by the torrent scene is a hell of a lot better quality, and I can watch it on my PC.

3) I use Linux exclusively, and netflix on demand does not offer a Linux client. For some shows I could watch via netflix with my wii, I just torrent them and watch them on my PC.

-=-

I do understand the value of US/INTL copyright law, and I comprehend my self justifications are just that - it's still illegal, but I don't really care, not for the use cases where I do it.

[Bayushi]

3) I use Linux exclusively, and netflix on demand does not offer a Linux client. For some shows I could watch via netflix with my wii, I just torrent them and watch them on my PC.

Not to derail the thread, but this comment made me think of a single word.

PEBKAC.

/evilgrin

[Jude]

I can't speak of the music industry in particular Rick, I haven't done the research, but this is definitely true for Video Games.  The number of big budget blockbuster entries is shrinking slowly as the Apple Ap Store continues to redirect and even broaden the gaming audience in new ways.  PC Indie developers have found a way to spread their creations through digital distribution platforms like Desura and Stream.  However, the only people lamenting these changes in the gaming space are the big companies:  consumers are seeing more and more sales on what, 5 years ago, was a 60 dollar product that remained at 60 dollars for at least 6 month after its release.

You still have blockbusters too, Call of Duty and Skyrim will resonate with all audiences (except maybe the iPhone only crowd), there's just fewer of them.  It's lonelier at the top.

But in exchange there are a lot more people making a living -- or a respectable side revenue stream -- off of indie development.

[rick957]

@Jude

That's great to hear.  I'm totally uninformed about the world of video games, so it's especially interesting to learn about.  I'd love to learn about similar things happening in other arts/entertainment mediums as well, although I've come to distrust many media sources due to all the empty hype in most technology coverage.

[Bayushi]

But in exchange there are a lot more people making a living -- or a respectable side revenue stream -- off of indie development.

Most certainly.

The most profitable corporation in the United States for FY2010 is a small indie developer. Zynga, who made Farmville and Mafia Wars and some other lesser known Facebook games are making a killing with micro transactions for "<insert game here> Cash".

I was shocked to hear how profitable they've been. The games they make keep people playing, but are low-maintenance with low-overhead... so most of the money they receive is pure profit.

Brilliant, in my opinion. Angry Birds nothing...

[Alice Wonder]

I use to play frontierville and stopped at level 97 I think because it just started to get way too cutesy and I got sick and tired of spending an hour or so on the game only to then have an "Internet gone quiet" message and find EVERYTHING I had done rolled back.

Started happening more and more often, they lost this paying customer because of their sloppy code and complete lack of error recovery.

[Alice Wonder]

Not to derail the thread, but this comment made me think of a single word.

PEBKAC.

/evilgrin

Sorry, I refuse to pay money for inferior operating systems that are both far more problematic to use and prone to viruses.

When I tried using windows, it took me over half an hour to get my printer working because Windows is so fucking brain dead that the way to set up a network printer is to choose local printer in the stupid wizard, not network printer. What kind of bull shit is that? Yet Windows is full of it.

[Doomsday]

I don't feel guilty at all. I'm looking out for my bottom line, and the industry is looking out for theirs. I'll pirate all day until I hit a wall, and then, if the product is desirable enough, I'll cave in and purchase it (example is 2 years ago, my roommate had a modded xbox and we didn't need to pay for games. Now, we have a huge collection of paid-for games because his box got banned).

As far as music goes, I have no moral qualms about pirating albums or even discographies, because in the end, I will contribute so much more to the artist themselves by attending the concert and buying a bunch of overpriced swag. I don't have the numbers, but from what I've seen, the artist gets pennies from record sales compared to how much they rake in on tour. I'd rather support the artist any day than the bloodsucking labels that they work for.

[Legendary]

I don't feel guilty at all. I'm looking out for my bottom line, and the industry is looking out for theirs. I'll pirate all day until I hit a wall, and then, if the product is desirable enough, I'll cave in and purchase it (example is 2 years ago, my roommate had a modded xbox and we didn't need to pay for games. Now, we have a huge collection of paid-for games because his box got banned).

As far as music goes, I have no moral qualms about pirating albums or even discographies, because in the end, I will contribute so much more to the artist themselves by attending the concert and buying a bunch of overpriced swag. I don't have the numbers, but from what I've seen, the artist gets pennies from record sales compared to how much they rake in on tour. I'd rather support the artist any day than the bloodsucking labels that they work for.

I tend to go the same route when it comes to concerts and swag. It's a much more rewarding experience for me to be able to actually see a band I like live. That being said, I still do like purchasing CD's. I guess it's the collector in me that loves seeing shelf after shelf with CD's stacked to the rafters.

As far as new artists/bands, I usually look them up on youtube to get a feel for them and sometimes I'll even use a youtube to mp3 converter to get the music on my iPod so I can listen to it while I'm out until I actually get around to purchasing the CD.

[Serephino]

I don't pay for downloads because of what a pain the ass it is.  They charge too much, and then there's the write protection on it.  I bought a couple of songs from Rhapsody that I don't have anymore because I got a new computer, and couldn't transfer them over. 

My boyfriend will pirate games to try them out.  If he really likes them he'll buy it.  It saves him from wasting money we don't have on games he doesn't like.