The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

Originally Posted by Sean

They're different.

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

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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?"

"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??

Originally Posted by Sean

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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...

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?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

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....

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

"Of course you didn't respond"...are you trying to make a point or win an argument?

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Would any artist be seriously upset if someone who had never heard of the band downloaded two albums and bought one??

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!

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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?

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.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music.

un-fucking-believable.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Sean

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....

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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!

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?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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?

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)

[potatobroth]

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

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

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

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.

[Sean]

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:

Originally Posted by Sean

...both "copyright infringement" and "stealing" apply equally to the issue of illegal downloading

and here for "3...":

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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...

[Strangelet]

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

case in point

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.

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.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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...

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?