Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Music's just the type of the iceberg dear boy.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Yep. I see stolen photos and even illustrations all the time. The internet has made that super easy.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Try thinking a little bit bigger.

I see 401K's 404'd.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

that definition of theft is at least partly based on the assumption that there's a scarcity of the good in question. If you steal someone's car, that person loses his car. If you download an album, the artist doesn't lose that music, nor does the retailer lose a physical product (cd/lp).
The artist and retailer might have lost a sale if the downloader would have bought the physical product if the free download was not available. This is not certain though.
Just saying that with the current state of technology there is a definite grey area in the whole downloading=stealing debate IMO.
I can't claim to be completely on one side or the other myself. I've definitely downloaded music and software for free that otherwise I might have bought, but I do also buy a lot of music and software that I might not have bought if I hadn't downloaded it "illegally" first (I put that in quotes cause over here downloading music is actually still legal, but uploading isn't).

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

See?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

pototobroth: are you telling me you've never downloaded any music you've not paid for? (assuming it wasnt given away).

I'm not trying to justify _my_ downloads. I've downloaded lots, but it has led me to buy lots of music that I wouldnt have otherwise which I think is the general argument here. Theres no way that if the only way I could listen to music was to buy it or listen to 30 second clips that I would have bought so much music. Thats just the state of play right now. Its not theft, but its definitely copyright infringement. There is no justification, just a listening path which leads to investment.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Have you considered that maybe people keep saying it because it's true? If you illegally download and keep a product that's only been made available by it's copyright owners for purchase, then you have stolen it.

I absolutely agree, and have said as much earlier in this thread.

On this, I disagree. It's fair to assume that a certain portion of the illegally downloaded files in most people's collections are indeed representative of lost sales.

Let's focus on the actual problem I have here, which is that there are tons of people out there who download albums for free simply because they can do it rather than having to pay. I listen to music in my office a lot, and I've had many people pop in to say "that sounds really cool - can you burn me a copy?" And when I tell them that I have kind of a rule about not doing that, they look at me confused, like they have no idea why someone wouldn't just make free copies of an album for all their friends. So my impression is that a huge percentage of people do this with far less consideration of the consequences than most people in these forums seem to have.

That being said, your questions above aren't really that hard to answer. One, there are many ways to be exposed to hearing music we would have otherwise never purchased, but none of them justify theft. Back when I used to frequent more record stores, I was constantly hearing them play something I had never heard of, and would find and buy it right there and then. That's how I came across some of my favorite groups as a matter of fact, like One Dove, Voices of Kwahn, and many others. But there's a crucial difference now with illegal downloads, which is that instead of hearing it being played in a store and then buying their own copy, people download something they've never heard of, like it, and then simply never pay for it. You mentioned earlier that you downloaded some Primal Scream albums which led you to attend one of their concerts. I assume that means you enjoyed the albums, yes? So then did you ever buy official copies of them?

Not sure how you can assert this as fact.

What does that mean, "*actual* theft"? The act of stealing is taking "another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it". Illegally downloading music is taking another person's intellectual property without permission or legal right, and many people do it without any intent to pay for it. What's not "*actual* theft" about that? And seriously, the fact that a digital file is non-physical and therefore as a format has no inherent value, does not in any way discount the fact that there is inherent value to the music itself, and that said music is legally owned by it's creator or whoever happens to possess the copyrights. So saying you've taken nothing of any value is false.

In these instances, yes. They are behaving in immoral, selfish, and illegal ways.

I disagree. In your first point, once again, you're only weighing the cost of the physical medium itself. You're ignoring the fact that the creation, distribution, and marketing of the music indeed constitutes a "cost" for the artist who's being ripped off, not just the medium it's released on.

In your second point, your hypothetical person has denied the artist return on their investment in booking the venue, paying the band members, lighting set-ups, roadies, transportation, live performance equipment, etc, etc. Buying a t-shirt helps defray the cost of designing and manufacturing merchandise, but not the concert.

Your third point about illegally downloading software was already addressed as well. When you buy software, you're helping pay for all the costs that have gone into developing and marketing that software. When you subsequently purchase upgrades, you're helping pay for all the additional research and development that's gone into improving the program.

So ultimately, in all three scenarios, you're bizarrely trying to justify stealing one thing by paying for another. That just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You're not the one who decides what you should pay for and what you should take for free - the people who own and provide the goods and services in question are. What in the world would make you feel like you're entitled to steal something from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on down the road?

But it's happening enough that it's hurting artists - smaller independent artists in particular. And the attitudes towards illegal downloading seem to be getting more and more flippant, which doesn't bode well for future artists.

I can't be certain exactly how much it cost them, but I do know that one of the singles in question actually charted in the UK, so it's popularity certainly wasn't reflected in it's sales (or lack thereof).

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Of course I have. I just can't side with the fact that some don't think its stealing or even condone it.

I'll be honest though, aside from live gigs I haven't illegally downloaded in a LONG time. I iTunes everything now. Same goes for software; I buy all of it now. I'm not saying this to be preachy or whatever, I just never understood the argument in favor of downloading music for free.

Heck, I have a good friend, who is a BIG Underworld fan, who didn't even purchase OWB. How fucked up is that? He got hold of a copy a few weeks before release, burned that to a disc to tide him over til the proper launch, but never actually went out to get the album. Now, that friend has put tons of money in UWs pockets thru live gigs, merch, you name it. But still to this day I still find it strange that he never purchased the actual CD of the band he loves -- no, it wasnt me. :)

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

There are indeed differences, but both "copyright infringement" and "stealing" apply equally to the issue of illegal downloading. Please try your best to understand that as you read on.

I absolutely beg to differ. When I create and copyright a piece of art, be it music, paintings, photographs, or whatever else, I do legally own it. And if I create a remix for hire, I sign a contract that states in no uncertain terms that the original artist legally owns said remix when it's done. It doesn't matter that we're discussing intellectual property versus physical property, ownership is very clearly outlined in any legal agreement regarding artwork.

The philosophical argument can be made about ownership of less tangible forms of artwork, but ultimately, people need to respect the fact that an artist creating a piece of art and selling it is no different than any manufacturer out there making any other product that they sell.

Who said they didn't want their music to be heard? I think virtually all musicians want their music heard - they just don't want to be ripped off. Like I said before, I've made plenty of my own music available for free through my sig below, but some tracks I've done are only available for purchase. I want those to be heard too, but since they're only available for sale rather than free download, I do expect that people pay for them. And how do I want to stop people from illegally obtaining my work? That would be through copyright laws.

Oh dear lord.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

I see a lot of small independent labels releasing new exciting music. :confused:

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

So what are you saying...that this somehow means other small independent labels aren't going under after losing sales to illegal file-sharing?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

The means at which you are acquiring music that has not been paid for shouldn't discussed differently with regards to technology. Just because its easy to download an Underworld song for free doesn't make it right in just the same way that taking an Underworld CD doesn't make it right.

Why do people feel entitled to free music/software/art? Is the defense really so hinged on availibility? Make me understand because right now, I can't help but hear, "since I can, I do."

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Well, you're one of the only ones I've ever heard claim it who didn't work for the RIAA, so I kind of take it with a grain of salt...


So would you also agree that home taping kills music too? They seem like the same concept to me. And then would you agree that deleting the MP3 files after you listen to them would be 'returning' the file? The reason why I can't equate it with shoplifting is because it's totally different. Unless you were planning to buy that CD, nobody gets deprived of anything. If there was such an inherent value in the music itself, why can I sell my CDs but not my MP3s? Or are used CD stores killing music too? After all, the artists don't recieve any compensation from that.



I know that the physical medium is not the ONLY cost. I'm not sure why you keep pressing this point as it's pretty obvious. Are you arguing that the 'theft' here is directly hurting this artist? Is 0 CD sales and 0 ticket sales somehow better than 0 CD sales and 1 ticket?

Second point: pretty sure artists profit from their merchandise.

Third point: I still think you're kind of missing the point here. I AM AWARE that software has a cost. I'm a software developer for crying out loud. When you say these arguments don't hold up to any scrutiny, I suppose you mean in a legal debate, or maybe a moral debate, but if you're talking real world, I think this argument holds up very well. You're acting as though each piece of software/album release is some kind of tangible object where the vendor has less of every time someone makes a copy. I pointed out three examples where the artist DIRECTLY PROFITS from this kind of behavior, and I don't think any of them were really far out...this sort of thing happens all the time. When Napster was at its peak, so were CD sales. Look it up. Illegal downloading is a convienient scapegoat for people to explain why their releases failed because it puts the blame on other people. The RIAA complained about how downloading is killing music because CD sales went down 10% in a year. They failed to mention that new releases were down 15%. You have to take the good with the bad and remember that some new releases bombed in the pre-internet age, too. If illegal downloading is killing everything, what do you suggest we do about it? Outlaw the internet? Ban CD-Rs? Ban iPods? Sue poor college students for millions of dollars? Is there a solution?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

I'm not the only one who asserts this definition of theft. The dictionary does too.

They're different.

Essentially, yes. If you downloaded music just to check it out and subsequently decided you didn't like it, then just delete the file. You don't share it on a P2P/torrent site, or keep it because you "would never have bought it anyway" - it's not yours to do these things with. On the other hand, if you ended up liking it and wanting to add it to your collection permanently, then go buy an official copy to keep.

Are you for real? Why do I keep pressing the point that the cost involved in creating music goes far beyond the medium it's presented in? Because you keep insisting that digital music files have "zero" value! Whether you're being charged for a CD or a digital file, your payment goes towards defraying the costs of production, marketing, distribution, and possibly even turning a profit. So once you've taken possession of copyrighted music that's being sold by it's creator/owner, you owe them money. If you don't pay them, then you have taken that money from them. It is no longer your money - it's theirs, and keeping it is theft.

Yes.

That's not the question. Of course the one ticket is a legitimate purchase that helps the artist out. But the stolen CD still doesn't. Why should artists be satisfied with only being paid a fraction of what's legally owed them? Because it's better than nothing? Bull ca-ca. Who else in the world would ever be expected to settle for that? Would you? If your employer only paid you for 2 days out of a 5 day work week and tried to justify it by saying "it's better than not getting paid at all", would you just respond with, "well that's true" and walk away, satisfied with the situation? After all, they haven't taken anything physical from you - only lines of code, or whatever you develop at the software company where you work. All they did was take your digital work without paying, so no one gets hurt, right? I doubt you would feel this argument was justified. Artists shouldn't be on the receiving end of such nonsense either.

Yeah....if you take a second look, you'll see that I totally agreed the t-shirt sale gives the artist money. But that's a separate issue from the fact that they've been robbed of money for the concert. It's still denying the artist compensation that they're owed despite the t-shirt sale.

Of course you didn't respond at all to the fundamental problem I raised that runs through all three of your hypothetical examples, which is what I said earlier: "...ultimately, in all three scenarios, you're bizarrely trying to justify stealing one thing by paying for another. That just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You're not the one who decides what you should pay for and what you should take for free - the people who own and provide the goods and services in question are. What in the world would make you feel like you're entitled to steal something from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on down the road?"

Wait a second - you agree that it's legally wrong, and you agree that it's morally wrong? So then what are you fighting me on?

The real world is dependent on a society that adheres to legal and moral standards to function effectively, so I fail to see how the legal and moral justifications for my arguments are somehow irrelevant.

"Killing everything"? Where exactly did I say that? Please quote me on it if you're going to assert it.

As for what we should do about it, how about reasonably enforcing copyright laws? How about exercising personal responsibility in the ways we obtain our music? How about showing some common respect for the artists who's work we enjoy? You know, crazy stuff like that...

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

The dictionary says that downloading an MP3 is the equivilent of shoplifting a CD? Whoa

How much different? If I tape songs off the radio I'm getting intellectual property that I didn't pay for, right?

Okay, in that case, buying a used album is also immoral and selfish, because I didn't pay the creator/owner. It's not as cut and dry as 'they do have value' or 'they don't'. The reason why I use the example of downloading some obscene amount of music is to show the way in which they DON'T have value. Say I make a song and decide to sell it for 99 cents. What is that file worth? 99 cents multiplied by what? The amount of people who want to buy it? Say I make 10,000 copies of that file, what's it worth now? We're not talking about commissioned works or anything like that. Downloading music doesn't take it away from them.

That analogy doesn't work at all. I'm on a salary. Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music. Again, your argument seems to be more geared towards commissioned works. They're not paying me to sit around coding whatever I want. As for the other argument - you're insisting that a guy who is given a copy of a disc and then goes on to buy a ticket IS directly hurting the artist. Lets say the disc and the ticket are $10 each. Scenario 1: before filesharing, guy does not get burned disc and does not go to the show. Artist is owed $0. Artist gets $0. Scenario 2: after filesharing, guy gets disc and goes. Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $10. Artist did the same amount of work both times. Yes, he was owed more, but he's getting something, and if not for this activity he would get nothing. Multiply this by a thousand and you can see how filesharing could be keeping artists alive.


"Of course you didn't respond"...are you trying to make a point or win an argument? Again my answer is that I don't really feel like I'm 'entitled' to it, but I don't feel it's stealing either. It does justify it in my mind to know that the artists directly profit from what I'm doing and would not profit at all if I had not. Would any artist be seriously upset if someone who had never heard of the band downloaded two albums and bought one??

Well, it is copyright infringment. Whether it's morally wrong...I said maybe because I don't really know. You can argue it either way. Again you're arguing against something that could either hurt them or help them.

Of course, look I know I do MY part, but the thing is it's not going away. The public at large is gonna download because they're sick of being ripped off by the record companies, and of course the fact that many albums simply aren't available anymore. I remember asking for some obscure UW B-side on this very site a few years back, something way out of print, and instead what I got was an eBay link. Look, I understand not wanting to participate in filesharing on a forum like this, but the song isn't being sold, and probably won't in the future. Of course, you could argue that the song WILL be sold in the future and that's why I need to wait...fine, but why then direct me to a method that costs me money, lets someone else profit, and doesn't benefit the band at all?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Well, you're clearly not willing to accept that there is an inherent debt owed to someone's who's work you have illegally obtained despite it's legal availability. The fact that we're discussing a digital file versus a physical product is fundamentally irrelevant, and I've given numerous reasons why. Repeating myself is getting extremely boring, so that's that.

What a cop-out. The analogy is appropriate enough to illustrate a valid point. Your contract (assuming you have one) stipulates that you get compensated with a certain amount of money in return for each week's work. It's not within your employer's rights to arbitrarily decide that they're only going to pay you for the work you did on Monday and Friday. Musicians have copyrights instead of contracts to guarantee that they get compensated for their work. Neither you or anyone else has the right to arbitrarily decide that you're only going to pay for two of the five files you're downloading from them.

And no, "they aren't entitled to money just because they made some music", but they are legally entitled to money if you've taken possession of that music once they've made it available for purchase.

You left out the final element of scenario 2: "Artist has been robbed of other $10", as well as "Scenario 3: Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $20." Imagine that. Interesting that scenario 3 didn't even make your list....

I see. So then to paraphrase, "Hey music-man - you did 'x' amount of work, for which you are charging $20. Well, screw that - I've determined that $10 is sufficient, so take it and be thankful you got anything at all." Nice. On behalf of myself and all the other professional artists out there, I'd like to not thank you. :rolleyes:

Just wanted a response to the central point I was making, because it appeared that you were dodging it.

Okay, so then you believe it's okay to steal one thing from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on. I'm not, and neither are those who are being hurt by having their work stolen from them. Thanks to folks with similar beliefs to yours that this is somehow "not stealing", artists will continue to be hurt by this behavior whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Holy crap - that's what I've been saying has happened to musicians I personally know, not to mention to me directly! If it meant being robbed of the money they needed to keep their label running, or of being able to continue having a career in music, then abso-freakin'-lutely they (and I) would be (and are) upset! That you can actually sit there in the face of a professional musician who's telling you it specifically happened to them and to other professional musicians they know, and yet you still insist that there's no problem, is simply stunning!

Out of print stuff is another issue entirely. You're not hurting the artist if you're getting a free copy of something that's not even available to purchase. All I've been talking about is music that people choose to download for free despite it being readily available to legally purchase.

Think I'm done with this thread for a while. Not sure what more can be said than already has been. If people aren't getting it at this point, then it's probably not gonna be got.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Like I said... the patience of job. I'm just completely floored the kind of logic being employed by some people here. And how patiently you trashed their shit. I just can't do it....

If you want to download that's one thing. Being completely unwilling to recognize its stealing it blows my fucking mind.

un-fucking-believable.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

I've given up reading this thread. It's increased my smoking habit.

Other than the posts that are short and/or funny.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

It's not a cop-out; the analogy simply does not work. At all. Does a musician have a contract saying that they are owed X amount of dollars for simply making a copyrighted work? Musicians get paid based on what the fanbase decides they are worth! I get paid regardless of whether or not my work makes the company lose money or make money. That's because I am being commissioned to do it. Musicians are not. What is the set value of a piece of music? A buck for each person who downloads it? So if someone writes a bad song but markets it well, is his music more valuable than the guy who writes good music but can't get the word out?

How is that interesting? I'm not saying I'm in favor of everyone downloading albums and not paying for them. I'm just saying; this is a real world scenario. In reality, this person is not going to pay for a disc a friend made for him. In scenario 1, he makes no money. In scenario 2, he does. Scenario 3 is not an option because it's dealing with a person who isn't going to buy the disc anyway. If you were chief of police and you needed to come up with something to curb speeders would your solution be, "people should just not speed!" I'm just saying, copyright infrigement is going to happen. There is not going to be a way to stop it. However the effects of it are debateable. This scenario is one in which the artist is clearly benefitting from it.

I actually think most musicans would be thankful. You're acting as though they're being commissioned and then short changed. We're not talking dedicated fans who normally buy the new discs but now don't. Clearly that is hurting the artist. We're talking a scenario where an artist makes money where previously he would make none. The fact that you don't even recognize this is curious.

You see, it doesn't mean being robbed of anything. Okay, so I d/l 2 of your CDs, and pay for one. You are not making the money you're entitled to. Fine. But if I didn't download any of them, you make nothing. You didn't do more or less work because of it. You go broke and can't continue to make music, but at least you're not being robbed of anything. You can sleep well knowing your intellectual property is safe.

The thing is that smaller musicians don't really have any sort of guarantee for an amount of copies they will sell. Say you sell an album for $10. 50 people buy it and 450 download it. You will say, see, I only made $500, if not for downloading I would have made $5000! That is what we call a logical fallacy. Any non-RIAA commissioned study into the effects of file sharing on the sales of music say, if anything, it either benefits the artists or has no real discernable effect. You will argue that without downloading, you would have sold 500 copies. I will argue that you will have sold 20. How do you prove your point?

And I find it interesting that you're ducking the issue of selling used CDs and records - how is this okay while filesharing is not?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Call it what you want. Then I will call you a dirty thief for all those used CDs you bought that ripped money directly out of the artists pockets. Because apparently you can steal without actually taking anything away from anyone. I'm not saying we shouldn't support the artists. I'm not even saying that downloading isn't on morally shaky ground. I'm just arguing that downloading some artist's music is not like going into their house and stealing their TV. I'm saying that music's value is determined by the public and is nothing like contracted or commissioned work.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

I already know how you're going to respond to this and it's going to miss the point, so let me make myself clear. The artist can determine how much it's going to sell for, but the public decides how many are going to be sold. Multiply those numbers and that's the value.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Please, "stealing" is the wrong word here. You are infringing on copyright not stealing.

To make it perfectly clear: According to Marriam-Webster, theft is:
"with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" are the magic words here.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

I need a cigarette.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

I couldn't help but notice this is where your argument starts to break down. You are saying you'd be okay with me downloading an album if I bought a copy a week later, right? If downloading really did = stealing, shoplifting, whatever, then would it be okay to shoplift anything I wanted as long as I bought it a week later? Obviously not, so why is this idea much better for downloading? (for the record I did end up with the Primal Scream albums)

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

349...
Would you download Underworld music rather than purchase it? If so, why? If not, why not?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Yes and no? Anything that's readily available I buy, because I like the band and want to support them, plus I am still a collector, even if I never use the CDs. I thing I've bought everything on the uwlive website. I've d/led a few of their EPs and stuff (like the D&L EP with "Thing in a Book") and some other rare things like the Live in Tokyo set.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

No point in replying to the silliness that has ensued in this thread from "3...." and Jan since I left it, but what I will say is that if you look back in this thread, you'll see that the answers to every one of your points since I stopped replying are contained in my previous posts. Like here for Jan: and here for "3...": That's why I stopped - there's really nothing more to say without repeating myself over and over and over and over and over and over......

That being said, why I'm really posting in this thread again is that I just got back from an interesting lunch a couple hours ago where this subject was brought up in the context of the film industry. First off, everyone there was a professional artist - an art director, a storyboard artist/voice actor, a feature film writer, and me. It was unanimous among the others that illegal downloading has done damage to the entertainment industry, from music to film. When I mentioned that I had been debating that very subject here, and that there were some people who literally didn't consider illegal downloading to be "stealing", the initial reaction was a chuckle and a flippant "well of course they realize it's 'stealing' - they're just saying they don't to justify doing it". I said that no, I had spent like a week or so trying to explain how it qualifies as stealing, and that when all was said and done, those who started out saying it wasn't had clung inexplicably to their beliefs. The others had a very hard time believing that anyone could actually fail to grasp the clear theft aspect of it. In fact, by the end of lunch, they still didn't really believe that anyone actually thinks it's not stealing. It was just too bizarre for them to think that anyone could fail to get it.

So that's it really. I thought it was interesting that the concept of illegal downloading somehow not qualifying as "stealing" is viewed as so unbelievable as to be laughable, and by a bunch of artists no less! Although once they started to even entertain the thought that people may actually believe this, the laughing was replaced by much more serious, concerned expressions...

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Its just soooo transparent that people will say anything to assauge their conflict of moral footing when file sharing media art.

case in point

Which I'm sure buying a used cd is the same thing as buying a bootleg cdr off a blanket on a brooklyn street corner, right? We just conveniently forget that copying more and buying from a constant numbered pool of resources are two vastly different things from the artist's financial perspective?

Its transparent because the arguments are so bad. Its not that the people aren't logical. THey are just bound to arguments are just a few steps away from being "I'm a self-entitled consumer who feels like if the technology exists to circumvent all established forms of exchange then I'm morally justified in doing so."

That entitlement is bolstered by the evilness of the RIAA and by a complex karmic calculus by the downloader to make sure that they go to the concert and buy the shirt as compensation.

But its all just entitlement that is overwhelmingly self-originated. Like all theft.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

either you steal all music and feel that its not worth your money, or you pay for all music that you listen to. There is no grey area with "I wouldn't have purchased it."

Its no moral conundrum.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

There's really no shortage of used CDs. I think it's pretty delusional to think that the sale of used discs actually helps the artist.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Do YOU pay for every single thing you listen to? Maybe in a perfect world where everyone has loads of money and respected copyrights there is no gray area, but this is the real world.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

My god, will it ever end? I'm out of smokes.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Not surprised the movie industry would say that. You know, the same guys whose piracy concerns nearly killed off the very device that saved their asses (Betamax). I don't think they're the smartest group of guys when it comes to these matters.

I appriciate all the downtalking in that post though. The last sentence was my favorite. "So we sat around talking about how stupid and ignorant you were, until we realized that you are going to put us all out of work"...nice. Could have done with a few more instances of the word "illogical" and a couple more italicized phrases...otherwise, bravo.

Again, I do agree it's stealing if you twist the definition of stealing to fit copyright infringement as well. As Webster defines, they do NOT apply equally to the idea of downloading. And even if you believe they do, it's kind of silly to say it's hurting artists when I'm providing scenarios where they are profitting where otherwise they would not? What other kind of theft can you say that for? Mike Doughty claims that illegal file sharing saved his life. How can you say there's no gray area there?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

You did that on purpose.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

"The movie industry"? Four artists working in the film industry constitute what you refer to as "the movie industry"? I think you're confusing artists with executives.

What's most impressive to me is that you have the confidence to insist that most artists "would be thankful" to have people steal their work and only maybe pay for part of it, despite the fact that I, a professional artist, and virtually all of my professional artist friends can tell you with no hesitation that we are in fact not thankful for having our work stolen. And the vast majority of my friends, co-workers and aquaintances are professional artists, so I'm not just talking about a couple of people.

Honestly, it wasn't meant as downtalking - it was simply relaying an actual event that happened as a direct result of me communicating your belief that illegal downloading isn't stealing. And I honestly didn't distort what you've said either. I told them that a big part of the reason you viewed it as not stealing is because mp3s are digital files that can be duplicated for free as opposed to physical CDs and such. I can't help it if they laughed at that.

And the last sentence in particular is not a slam, it's a fact. They were chuckling and being dismissive because they really thought it was just a line you and others were pushing to justify stealing, but when they realized I had really come to believe you were being serious, they got more serious too. They were concerned that people would actually have this attitude in regards to intellectual property. Our entire livelihood is based on compensation for the intellectual property we create and sell/get paid for, so when people are suddenly so flippant, we aren't super-jazzed about it.

As I've said all along, there's no evidence that it hurts everyone and I've never claimed as much, but I think it's important for people who illegally download files to consider that it is undeniably hurting many smaller artists. I don't think most people who steal music realize that. And hell, car theft helps some people when their car is a clunker and the insurance payment allows them to buy a better new one, but that doesn't change the fact that car theft is illegal, unethical, and wrong.

Aside from that, your scenarios are, quite frankly, insulting to artists. It doesn't seem you'll ever accept that but again, I'm a professional artist as are most of my friends, and I'm telling you straight up that they are. No one in any industry should ever be "thankful" for having half their work paid for and the other half stolen. And it is stealing, despite any of your claims otherwise. Whether it's a digital file, or a tape, or a record, or a CD, you're legally and ethically supposed to pay for the intellectual property ("property" being the operative word here) you intend to take possession of - not the medium it's distributed on - otherwise you've stolen it.

And incidentally, what's ironic is that your line of argument is actually more in line with the big movie and television studios right now than it is with any artists. The recent writer's and actor's union strikes were instigated by the big companies refusing to treat legal, digital distribution of films and TV shows as things they needed to pay residuals to actors and writers for simply because they aren't being distributed on a physical medium.

Now I know the reality of the situation is that this behavior will continue, as will all other crime - car thefts, assaults, breaking and entering, insider trading, etc - but that doesn't in any way justify taking part in these acts, or change the fact that they're all crimes that carry consequences, most notably the consequence that they all create victims. And victims are seldom "thankful" for being on the receiving end of a crime...

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Please, would you stop using the word "stealing" in this context? It makes your arguments much less powerful.

Take this blog post from Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert): http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_d...yright_vi.html
While I disagree with some of his points, he at least agrees to some extent that there is a difference between "stealing" and "copyright infringement".

You might also find this interesting: http://philip.greenspun.com/dldf/dismiss-order.html
esp. this part:

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

No, I won't, because the word "stealing" is appropriate and applicable from my perspective as a professional artist who has had his work taken and not paid for (ie "stolen"). But thanks for offering up the link to the Scott Adam's page. It totally supports my points about how illegal file downloading being a victimless crime is a fundamentally flawed argument. And frankly, his dismissing of the words "theft" or "steal" seem to come from a place where he's simply setting that semantic debate aside in favor of focusing on how illegal downloading actually hurts artists. But I wouldn't be surprised if he does personally define illegal downloading as "stealing". I would think most artists view the intellectual property they create as a clear product that, if taken from them, constitutes theft. I know that I and the artists I know do.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

And why not? If indeed the choices are 5,000 sold or 10,000 sold and 10,000 taken for free, you'd honestly choose the 5,000? If you say no, then there IS some justification for filesharing. As illegal and immoral as you want to see it, it's not an obvious netgative.

I'm not even arguing that it doesn't have its consequences. Obviously it does. But it not as though I'm going to just download everything because I can. I realize that if I really do want some movie or album I should pay for it. At the same time I'm not feeling guilty if I d/l something that I never would have bought anyways as a means of gauging interest, as though I went into the guy's house and took some of his property.

Yes, but the notion of property is entirely granted by the government. It looks like you're arguing on a legal standpoint as you never said anything about used CDs, which AFAIK 'hurt' the artist just as much as downloading. As that blog points out (in one of the comments) - what if I send a book to the publisher, get it rejected (and therefore get no copyright), then see them publish it under a different name, for which I recieve no credit or compensation? It seems to me like that's the type of theft that applies more to intellectual property. I buy tons of vinyl used; should I feel guilty for that? After all, the record store buys them, I buy from the record store, and the artist doesn't get any 'cut' of the profit. I don't think the car example applies there. The insurance company still gets hurt by it.

I do think file sharing can hurt smaller artists. I really do. PROVING it is another obsticle altogether. Were the artists hurt because they didn't sell enough or did they feel bad because their copyrights were stomped on? If it's the former, how do you prove that filesharing caused the album to not sell as projected as opposed to poor marketing/general disinterest/lousy quality? Albums and movies flopped long before filesharing ever took place. I don't disagree that filesharing could be the reason. I am arguing that it may not be, or in fact could have led to bigger sales than you expected.

Doesn't this just show the RIAA/MPAA's willingness to bend their definitions to fit their goals more than anything?

Well, jaywalking is a crime too. Should I stop trying to justify my jaywalking? Seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's the only way to walk. You're right, victims are not thankful for being on the receiving end of a crime. But when it comes to filesharing, some people are. Maybe this is an indication that there is some gray area?

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

Yes, and if you go 1 mph over the speed limit, you have broken the law and are a criminal. I guess you can bend it anyway you want. Equating copyright infringment with shoplifting is like equating speeding with assault; technically they're both crimes.

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 

I pay for all music/movies/tv/books that im suppossed to, and freely enjoy the others and by others i mean radio, internet articles, etc.

I download live shows, which Underworld has been okay with forever so long as we keep it seprate, and singles that are out of print or not released here.

There are some people that don't feel right wholesale downloading music like you are referring to.

As for your comments on "loads of money", its bullshit. If you can't afford it, then you can't own it. 20 years ago, if you didn't have the money to buy 1000 albums then guess what, you didn't buy 1000 albums. Technology doesn't give you the right to just do whatever you want. Its always been the real world and just because you can get away with something doesn't mean its the right thing to do.