The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

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

[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?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

You did that on purpose.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

"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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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?

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...

[Jan]

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:

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate
with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a
separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright:
"Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by
using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the
five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the
copyright."

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jan

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

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.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sean

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...

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?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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 that totally supports my points about how illegal file downloading being a victimless crime is a fundamentally flawed argument.

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.

[potatobroth]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

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.