The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm saying that music's value is determined by the public and is nothing like contracted or commissioned work.

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.

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Being completely unwilling to recognize its stealing it blows my fucking mind.

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:

the act of stealing. specifically: "the felonious taking and removing of  personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

"with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" are the magic words here.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I need a cigarette.

[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.

[potatobroth]

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.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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?

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.