FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Muisc/ Video PIRACY, is it right?





We r the SYC
Everyone these days seems to be swaping and downloading music or videos without "paying" for them

personaly I dont see a Issue with it...... the bands still do what they love to do....., its just the record and production coimpanys that go nuts coz theyr loosing all theyr precious MONEY$$$$!!!!!!!!


on another level.... as a christian.... it is against the law and we are told to follow the laws of our "nation" ........




I belive music is a wonderful and powerful thing, it should not have a Price lable. who cares if the Super rich guys loose money......, it might be a new experience for them.., what are your thoughts.

*note: Plz display NO links to free music or vid/ software downloads here
ColdFire
Piracy - The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material.

I guess this makes it wrong, wouldn't you say?
Soulfire
Wrong as in against the law, yes. But wrong as in a moral or personal thing, that's for you to decide (and not me to say).
sharp
Pirtate everything.

how much has the industry taken from us? LOADS!
We pay an arm and a leg for a film and most are complete crap and low budgeted films... music industry rapes us.
Microsoft and other major software giants rape us twice.
Pirate and teach a lesson to the corp giants.
sure it maybe stealing but who has done anything to prevent microsoft from charginf us so much for a disc of software?
or music industry for charging so much for a CD
movie industry for a DVD? not a damn thing!!!!!!

anyone hear about piratebay ? a torrent website that got busted for giving out pirated copys of software even though the website itself DOES not in any way host pirated software, it simply allows you to d/l the torrent to share with other USERS...in other words, P2P, all we are doing is sharing with our mates!!!!! my mom has always told me to share, and no company will tell me that my mom is wrong!!!!!!
achowles
Even organisations such the RIAA recognise and acknowledge that pirates buy far more music than people who don't pirate.

Therefore if it's done in a 'try before you buy' capacity, then nobody looses. If on the other hand you're simply trying to get out of paying for music that you listen to then it is wrong.

The real problem is when people try and profit from piracy as that becomes a criminal matter of theft rather than a civil matter of infringement which it would be otherwise.

I'm not sure if the same is true of DVDs or not.
Bondings
First of all, this isn't really harming the record and production companies, it is rather harming the artists. For your information, the companies are making more profit nowadays because they are investing much less in new artists, because of all this.

Quote:
music industry rapes us

Quote:
Microsoft and other major software giants rape us twice.

Some people/companies are making music/software. That's their job. They charge you for using it. If you do not want to pay for it, then that's perfectly fine, simply don't use it. They are not forcing you to buy it.

Quote:
my mom has always told me to share, and no company will tell me that my mom is wrong!

The music is still the property of the artist/company. You are talking about sharing other peoples property. I don't think your mom meant that.
zuk4u
Sure i'm downloading games,movies,music from internet but i know that it's bad and that i'm stealing. The problem is that i don't have milions of dollars on my account to buy all the things i want to have, and the internet is making it very easy - 'if everybody around me are downloading all the stuff they want then why shouldn't I?'
Sure downloading windows, photoshop, won't ruin microsoft or adobe but dl'ing albums/programs of small bands/companies could make them to decide to stop playing music (no money to pay for rehearsal place, new instruments...), making programs etc.
So if you are downloading pirate stuff from internet don't say: 'it's ok because those damn bastards are rich enough'.
You are a thief, face it, most of people on this forum are, including me.
And it's definitely not right.
Timothysm
Here is my philosophy.

Downloading software/music is not theft. Its merely replicating/copying. There are copyright laws that get infringed when you do this for you are duplicating without permission. This is where it gets illegal.

However, downloading music without paying for it won't necessarily bankrupt an artist if they keep up appearances and go on tours and such. They can make quite a bit that way and actually sell CDs as they move from place to place. So I don't see them necessarily having major money issues, more like they will have to wait longer to get their mansion of choice.

As far as dowloading software without paying for it, there are ways the company can create revenue such as offering good technical support. Also, if a company has good software, they usually get a fanbase that will support them through purchasing the software or perhaps through donations. Also the software companies can get supported by other legit businesses that find their software useful. Usually for businesses, the software is that much more money so the software company scores big.

Just my thoughts. Lets just say I do NOT feel bad when I download. Also, I don't redistribute what I download, so I stay pretty low on the radar.
Indi
Bondings wrote:
The music is still the property of the artist/company. You are talking about sharing other peoples property.

It's... not that simple.

Imagery and story are a part of our collective social consciousness. They're a mechanism for communication of ideas. Words (sounds), gestures and pictures are only containers for ideas. To transmit an idea, you need to combine those words to tell a story, to combine those sounds to create a melody, and to use those pictures to create an image.

Let me give you a deceptively simple case. Two of my friends were arguring with each other over something trivial. I turned to a third friend and nodded at the first two, and started humming the wedding march ("Here comes the bride").

Such a simple gesture conveyed mountains of information using collective symbology spanning millenia. First off, the song itself is a symbol of marriage. Merely humming it passed on an idea that associated that the two people arguing with a wedding or a married couple. That idea is buried in and intertwined with that tune. The tune itself is a medium for the message.

But that's just the beginning! Because included in the joke was a reference to combative married couples, an idea that has been conveyed through the ages via media, and span generations of performances and characters ranging from Punch and Judy to Ralph and Alice Kramden to Al and Peg Bundy.

You see? Just one bar of that melody was all it took to exchange a complex series of ideas that told a whole story... and allowed us all to share a laugh.

Or, let's consider more specific and modern examples. Imagine you were my student and you had come to me with a problem that you just could not get around. I take a look at your work, and realize that you have mistakenly assumed the existence of some item that is not really there, and since that item doesn't really exist, the problem caused by it doesn't really exist, and you have created it all in your mind. I look at you and say, "There is no spoon."

Immediately you recognize the reference, and realize that the spoon in question was only a simulation designed to fool the mind, and that by altering your mindset, you alter the nature of the spoon. So you try to think a little. Instead of attempting to bend the spoon, you realize the truth. There is no spoon. And you see past the problem.

Even very simple expressions transmit a wealth of pictures, but it's more than just transmitting ideas. Think of the extensive imagery that gets passed when I shout, "D'OH!" With just that simple expression, I have told you that I have realized some error and that I feel like a buffoon. But that's not all. In addition to the transmission of the ideas, I have also established a means of sharing our mutual identification within our culture. I have, in essence, reached out to you and said, "Hey, we're both members of the same community," by using the Homer reference in the same way that a secret society might use a secret handshake.

Would you say that anyone should have the right to own the English language? I say no. The language belongs to us all. It evolves as our culture evolves. It allows us to communicate and share ideas.

Symbology is a language, too. And images, stories and songs are the words that make up that language. Should someone have the right to own that language? Who owns Homer? Is it Matt Groenig, or is it all of us who have incorporated Homer into our consciousness - the culture as a whole?

Here's a real world example to illustrate the problem. Are you familiar with Star Wars? Do you remember the scene in the Mos Eisley cantina on Tatooine, where Han Solo was confronted by Greedo, the bounty hunter? In the original 1977 version, Greedo had his blaster trained on Han, and was threatening to take Han back to Jabba the Hutt, where he would presumably be tortured and killed. Han says something to the tune of "Over my dead body", Greedo answers something like "I'd like that very much", to which Han replies, "Yeah, I bet you would" and fires his blaster which was hidden under the table, killing Greedo.

So it remained until 1997, when Lucas infamously digitally changed the scene so that it appeared as if Greedo actually managed to fire a shot - without any obvious provocation - and missed Han, a stationary target that he had had his blaster trained on for several minutes, from about a meter away. Lucas' justification for the change was that he thought the original cut made Han look less than heroic, and, as he put it, it was his movie, and he is free to change it as he sees fit.

Or is he? Fans reacted with an outcry so fierce that he eventually - recently - recanted. What right did they have to demand that Lucas change "his" film? The answer is that Han no longer belongs to Lucas. Han is an icon of roguish charm for three generations of moviegoers. And it wasn't just that Lucas altered the movie, it's that he altered the movie without making the original version available. That is akin to theft. The movie as it was is a building block of our culture. Lucas doesn't own that. By taking it away from us, he was robbing us of part of the basis for our culture, denying us our childhood memories. Has he that right? In that context, is that movie really "his"?

These songs and movies, they're not just consumer products like toasters. They are part of our cultural language - what we use to share ideas and create a sense of identity and unity. I don't know who you are or where you live, and most certainly we don't have the same backgrounds, but I can say to you, "Hasta la vista, baby," and we can share a wealth of ideas.

I don't know if intellectual "piracy" is right or wrong. I don't have all the answers. But I do know that the situation is more complex than simply a matter of saying that the art is the property of the artist. And of course... all of that completely ignores the question of whether or not it's right for something like that to be owned by a corporation. Walt Disney has been dead for 40 years. Yet Steamboat Willie will be the property of the corporation for another 12 years (at least), and Snow White for about the same. What good is this doing anyone? Disney made Snow White from a public domain fairy tale. The public domain promotes creativity. Why shouldn't its version fall into public domain too, to spark an entire new generation of imaginings and recreations?

You see? The concept of "property" here... it's not that simple at all.
haak_heu
Piracy is bad if it prevents maker to get money but others to earn money
illegaly...but see microsoft ...bill gate richest person on earth ...see other
corporations they earn not only money but give things on high cost
people in devloping country only can dream for these things here piracy is good indeed it is Best ...

See a medical book or a Cd is very expansive in third world countries
because they are poor ..and there currency is not stable
so they cant buy origional copy so they pirated one ...

even in devloped countries people cant use softwares freely because of there cost ...

think you buy a thing than few months latter it is out ...not new thing come and you have to buy that ......

If you have money buy them ...if dont get them pirated
but people who sell on reasonable prices it must and must be bought to give maker or owner a uplift so he make things again but not such high uplift that they sell on price they want
tidruG
Indi, you make some very valid points. However the key problem is that we need money to buy articles and basic nessecities such as food.

If musicians were not able to sell their music, they wouldn't make money. If they don't make money, they wouldn't have incentive enough to stay musicians. We are thus going to be robbed of music, aren't we?
Indi
tidruG wrote:
Indi, you make some very valid points. However the key problem is that we need money to buy articles and basic nessecities such as food.

If musicians were not able to sell their music, they wouldn't make money. If they don't make money, they wouldn't have incentive enough to stay musicians. We are thus going to be robbed of music, aren't we?

No.

First of all, like I said, I don't have all the answers. But I certainly do have the answer to that one.

You see, there are lots of ways to make money as an artist/musician by actually doing work. Sitting back and collecting royalties on DVD or CD sales is just the easy way to make cash. It's hardly the only way.

I was a professional musician for three years, and I didn't live off of intellectual property royalties, so I know this. You can play shows and stuff. Let the pirates copy music CDs at will. That doesn't affect you getting paid for live performances.

Furthermore, even if you don't want to actually work as a performance artist, there are still dozens and dozens of ways to get royalties that are not affected by piracy. There are performance royalties, print royalties, sync royalties. Even if you never sell a single DVD or CD, you can still collect all of those.

So, no, even if intellectual property piracy was 100% you still won't starve. You'd just have to work like the rest of us.

Besides, even if it were not possible to make a living as an artist alone (which would not be true, even with 100% IP piracy), you can still write music while doing other work. It doesn't take much time or resources to write a song. So no, we would not be "robbed" of music. (As technology advances, this is even becoming true of movies. In time, movie-making may be as easy for a part-time hobbyist as making a music CD is.)
Bondings
Indi, it's not because there are other ways to earn money that it should be legal/allowed.

You are talking about artists. But what about people composing the songs and the music? They aren't able to perform on stage and get money. Using your logic, everyone should be able to use/sing their songs without any permission nor fee.

Now let's say you're a software engineer and you spent 3 years programming on some fantastic program. After those 3 years, when it's finally finished you want to sell the program. But instead of buying the program, people just download it from the internet. Ok, you say, but I can offer technical support? Sure, by competing against the kid who's offering it for 2 candies an hour. (your software is so easy to use that there is no real need for technical support)

Of course a solution might be to make buggy code or a very difficult to understand program and try to make people pay for support or patches. Or just stop writing global software and make 'specific' software, I mean a program for one company.

The thing I want to say is that if someone makes something, he should have the rights on it. I'm not saying that all current copyright laws are fine, they aren't. But at least some intellectual property laws should be there.

Lucas has the right to change his movie, his fans have the right to complain.
make_life_better
As always, Indi makes some tremendous points - yet again my understanding grows... My heart and soul are with Indi on this, but my head still sides with Bondings...

My argument with Indi's view is about the separation of creativity, performance, implementation and so on; and where does the value lie.

There are cases where the original thought and thinking or discovering something new is the most important thing - it's like a medical discovery or a patentable invention.

In other cases, it's the actual implementation of something that is the most important - it doesn't have to be a new idea or story or tune, but it might be agreed by many to be the best or "definitive" version. And so there is value in that, just because it is a good version or implementation. For example, people will pay lots of money for a posh car like a big Mercedes, Bentley, Rolls Royce etc even though it is just another car from a purely functional point of view. Examples like "Snow White" fall into this category - they are beautiful in their own right which gives them value, even though they beg, borrow or steal from other sources.

In other cases, of course, people attach value to things because of who did them. Highbrow examples include the collectors and galleries who pay huge amounts for a painting or sculpture (or whatever) by a big name artist even if it isn't actually a great piece of art. At the other extreme are the collectors who will pay stupid amounts for Elvis' underwear.

Into this mix we now add the digital age of easy copying of some things that are felt to have value. Clearly you can't easily copy physical items such as paintings, sculpure or underwear digitally without losing something important. But you can copy music, images, films etc frighteningly easily and distribute them far and wide at almost no cost to the copier.

What happens when somebody creates the software equivalent of a Rolls Royce or Cadillac or Ferrari - a piece of software that is beautifully designed and engineered to be supremely capable, reliable and comfortable to use. That takes a lot of effort and costs a lot of time and money to create. I know about open source and Linux et al - they too are amazing and well engineered and still free. But not every great piece of software can be done that way - I would not be able to do my stuff that way for example because I would have nowhere to live and nothing to eat apart from charitable donations!

Digital music, film, etc is somewhere in between in some sense - there is creativity and originality in some of it, and some of it is carefully and lovingly crafted. I really want artists and musicians and the rest to get their just rewards for their efforts; but I just don't feel happy that the lucky few can do just a few good things and then sit back and take the royalties for the rest of their lives while they do nothing except appear on chat shows or make "celebrity" appearances.

The argument that piracy robs artists so they will disappear is clearly faulty - there have always been musicians and artists from the start of civilisation and probably before. There have always been a few rich and famous musicians. All that recording and playing of music has done is make some musicians richer and more famous quicker. Arguably, there are now more bad musicians and more bad music than ever before. But I am confident that even when there is a huge amount of free music around, those with real originality and quality will still rise to the top of the heap and will still become rich and famous.

For fun I take pictures, I used to paint, I try to play music (I'm appallingly bad at it, but I'll keep trying because I get someting I value from the trying). For my living I write software and it is very important to me to make it easy to use when and where I can. I am lucky in that "my" market is very highly specialised, so I am not likely to be hit by piracy, but it is something that I am accutely aware of.

I admit that I have downloaded some music from the internet on a "try before I buy" basis. In many cases I have later gone out and bought music CDs as a result (the collection is now 1000+ CDs). In others, I didn't really get into the music I downloaded and it gets forgotten - so some of this is still cluttering up my hard drive and never gets listened to, which is s shame but that's just how life is.

Sorry that this is a bit rambling - I can't compete today with these other Frihosters... my brain is just not working well enough.
CyanEyed
ok... if u download a song off limewire or sumthin like that - u dont pay for it but u are still listening to it.

But if u record a track off the radio and keep listening to that is it still piracy.
Indi
Bondings wrote:
You are talking about artists. But what about people composing the songs and the music? They aren't able to perform on stage and get money. Using your logic, everyone should be able to use/sing their songs without any permission nor fee.

Not quite. As I said:
Indi wrote:
Furthermore, even if you don't want to actually work as a performance artist, there are still dozens and dozens of ways to get royalties that are not affected by piracy. There are performance royalties, print royalties, sync royalties. Even if you never sell a single DVD or CD, you can still collect all of those.

Not ony do you get all those royalties for your music or movie even if you don't make a DVD or CD, you can still collect those royalties even if you don't play or sing a note, and can't act your way out of a wet paper bag.

There are already artists that make a living this way today. There are tens of thousands of people who compose music for movies, television, ads - hell even elevator music - that will never even touch a stage or possibly even a recording studio, and will never make a dime from CD sales (do you know anyone who has bought an elevator music CD anytime recently?).

Certainly if someone wants to use your art to make money, you deserve a bit of the cut. That's only fair. And that's what performance royalties, print royalties and sync royalties are for. Even if piracy amongst people who enjoy your art is absolute, that doesn't rule out people who use your art to make money paying you for that.

Basically, my position is that any time a piece of art is used to earn money, a portion of that should be paid to the artist... but only if the art is used to make money. If a song is being performed live at a bar, it is being done to bring more patrons to the bar, thus earning the bar more money... thus the performer shoud be paid... and thus the person who wrote the music should be paid a cut as well. If an image is used on the cover of a book, then the person who made the image should get a cut... and so should the person who wrote the content for the book. On the other hand, if the book content is not used to earn money and there's no cost in sharing that content, why should the author be paid? That would be creating money from nothing - payment for producing nothing.

Would that mean there would be less people working in the industries that do nothing but produce entertainment content? Yes, probably. Frankly, I don't weep for them. Let them find jobs building roads, finding cures for diseases, teaching, working as garbage men (certainly many of them produce enough garbage that such a job would be karmically sound) and so on. Let them earn their paycheques doing things that actually produce things that save lives and advance the species.

But would it mean that there would be less artists? Not necessarily. In fact, there may even be more. Certainly, the diversity of art available would increase enormously, because now fringe artists will be able to compete with "pop" artists without having to compete with an entire, established, million dollar, corporate, entertainment industry.

Now, I haven't really put that much thought into any of this. But I certainly think it bears a closer look. I don't see enough social value in the status quo to validate dismissing other options outright.

Bondings wrote:
Now let's say you're a software engineer and you spent 3 years programming on some fantastic program.

Ah, see, now you're in an entirely different domain. You're not talking about music and video anymore, you're talking about software.

Now, yes, some software does fall into the same category as music and movies - namely games and other entertainment software. But other software is in an entirely different category - namely application software, like StarOffice and Pro/E.

Those applications are not art, they are tools. Usually, they are tools used to create things used for commercial purposes. For example, an engineer would use Pro/E to develop a product that will later be manufactured and sold. In such a case, the software is a tool, not art, and it is used (indirectly) to make money for the engineer. It is only logical and fair that the engineer remit some of his earnings to the person that made the tool he used.

Essentially, the IP laws for things used to make money, directly or reasonably indirectly, should require payment of the creator. But is it logical to pay someone for something that costs nothing to create and copy, does nothing functional and produces nothing measurable for the benefit of the society?

So yeah, your software engineer should be paid... if he's producing something tangible indirectly. If he's just making something that produces nothing tangible, then no, why should he be paid?

Bondings wrote:
The thing I want to say is that if someone makes something, he should have the rights on it. I'm not saying that all current copyright laws are fine, they aren't. But at least some intellectual property laws should be there.

Lucas has the right to change his movie, his fans have the right to complain.

Certainly. Several of the IP laws are very necessary. But there are, of course, limitations. If the person who invented the cure for cancer were a racist, and decreed that his cure can never be used on blacks, should we honour that request? Of course not. If George Lucas said that only non-Jews could watch Star Wars, does he have the right to make that demand? Yes, under current copyright laws. Is that right?

Or, what about Lucas' right to change? If Hawking wrote a paper about the mechanics of black holes and published it, then while the science world is debating the revelations made in that paper he simply changed it and told everyone to forget about the original version and only discuss the new one - which makes altogether different revelations - does Hawking have that right? Of course not. So if Lucas creates a work of art that inspires three generations and becomes part of the shared cultural consciousness, does he have the right to simply rewrite that work of art at whim and deny us access to it in its original form? I say no. Yes, I agree with you that he is free to change it anyway that he wants, but he is not free to deny us the original work. It belongs to us all now.

Yes, Lucas should get a cut of the change every time a DVD of Star Wars is sold, or everytime it is shown at a theater, or everytime someone else creating a commercial work uses a part of it. He should not be paid a nickel everytime someone says, "do or do not, there is no try."

make_life_better wrote:
My argument with Indi's view is about the separation of creativity, performance, implementation and so on; and where does the value lie.

Well, value is a nebulous and relative thing, and varies from person to person. If a person wants to attach value to something, then by all means, let them. If you want to pay a million bucks for Elvis' soiled underwear, by all means, do so.

However, is it right for the law to establish value? Is it right for the law to say that you must pay for something that you don't want to pay for, will not earn you any extra value and that costs the originator nothing?

If I download and watch Star Wars, how does this cost anyone? I'm paying for the bandwidth, so that's taken care of. Is the download using up any other resources? No.

Will watching Star Wars increase anyone's value in any way? Can I earn money from watching Star Wars? No.

So what am I not paying for? Nothing, except permission from George to enjoy the fruits of his imagination. What if I don't think it's worth the $25 for the DVD or $12 for the theatre ticket? Is it right for the law to say "tough", and dictate that the value should be set by the artist, and not me?

If I think a toaster is worth $20 to me, then I should look for a toaster that costs $20. If it is impossible to make a toaster for less than $20 (with a reasonable markup), then the value I set was not feasible, and I have to smarten up. But if it is possible, then someone will probably be selling a toaster for $20. If it only costs $5 to make a toaster and I'm willing to spend $20, then good on the people I'm buying it from. I was overvaluing it, but no one really lost anything except me, and I'm happy. This system works because any number of people can produce toasters, so they can all compete and offer a range of prices, and I can select the one that best matches my idea of what the value of a toaster is.

But art can't compete. You can't have different companies producing different Star Wars. IP laws prevent that. So Lucas sets the price for Star Wars. If his price is higher than the value I think it's worth, we have a problem. If his price has to be that high because there is no other way to recoup his costs, then my expectation of the price was not feasable, and I have to smarten up. But if his price is just arbitrarily high, is that right? Remember, I can't go elsewhere. Isn't that... by definition... price gouging? And... isn't it... wrong... for the law to support Lucas' price gouging? Yet that is how things stand today.

Clearly, if people are willing to download the movie it's because they think the price of the DVD is too high. If people are willing to download pirated copies rather than "official" downloads, then they think that even the price of the official download is too high! Remember, they're risking fines and imprisonment here.

So basically, the public is making a statement, sending a message to Lucas that they don't think Star Wars is worth what he wants to charge for it. And the law is siding with Lucas, not the public, allowing him to arbitrarily set the price as he pleases.

Is that right?

make_life_better wrote:
Sorry that this is a bit rambling - I can't compete today with these other Frihosters... my brain is just not working well enough.

^_^ Nonsense. I say, and I imagine Bondings would agree, that your post was awesome. You made a couple of really neat points that made me think a bit more - particularly about the question of where the value in a work of art lies.

Now, as I've said before, I don't have all the answers. Yes, I paid my way through school as a musician, but I'm an engineer at heart, not an artist. To me, nothing has value unless it has a tangible use. That doesn't necessarily mean that a think has to be physical to have value. Some ideas produce very tangible results, and as such - by my standards - have value.

I have a problem with putting a price tag on culture. I have no problem with charging for a book or DVD because those do cost to produce, and those costs must be offset. Given that the content is used to give the book value, then certainly a percentage of the book sales should go to the author - it would just be paper, cardboard and glue without his/her contribution. But if the idea in that book can be transmitted without cost, and is used to produce nothing, then why does it have monetary value? That just seems arbitrary to me, and a bit of a waste.
make_life_better
Thanks, Indi

You have taken my arguments, sorted them out a bit and restated them better than I could. I definitely have problems with the idea that "the establishment" can decide the value of something and enforce it by law, especially for cultural artifacts.

I agree that people should have to pay to use things in a way that will make them money - so using recordings etc in bars should definitely result in the artist (writer, performer, photographer etc) getting some cut. But pushing this a bit further, what happens if it is being used for a charitable event, where the organisers are not getting any money for themselves? What about the background music etc at a school fayre or fete? What if it is being used on "public service" broadcast where nobody is making any money?

You point about Hawking re-working a paper is brilliant - it resolved the Lucas/Star Wars issue for me in one fell swoop. I'm with you all the way.

Cheers!
Maxtoid
You can read Indi's post and that should tell ya right there.

But if you really sit down and think about it... Let's say you go into a store and see a music CD you really like. You just decide to walk behind a desk, pop the case open, and take the disk out. You leave the store. Now legally, that was wrong.

You can justify it any way you want to, but it's stealing. Now, you can go online, see a CD for $15. You decide to go behind the scenes to another site, (going behind the desk) you decide to search for the file (popping open the case) and you download it to your computer (sticking the CD in your pocket and leaving the store)

It all depends on if you would steal a CD in real life and think it's OK, then you shouldn't have a problem stealing online. They're both stealing in the exact same form. Don't try to separate them. Because if you steal online, it's just like stealing from a store. Whether you think that is right is your moral decision.
make_life_better
I agree that stealing is wrong - I was rather discussing (or trying to discuss) the philosphical point of what could and should be charged for and why. That is separate from the morality or otherwise of stealing.

For better or worse, the current legal system says that downloading music etc and bypassing the "normal" charging systems is illegal. That's just life until the law/system changes.
hive
If I am allowed to do something without going to jail so it is pretty legal. Simple, clear.
Anarchy is the key to internet nowadays.
Indi
Maxtoid wrote:
It all depends on if you would steal a CD in real life and think it's OK, then you shouldn't have a problem stealing online. They're both stealing in the exact same form.

Are they? Not everything can be stolen, you know. And it's not theft every time you take something.

If you are a painter, and you make a painting and hang it in a gallery, and I happen to see it and the idea inspires me to write a song - have I robbed you? Do you own my song? Do you have any right to charge me a percentage?

Theft only makes sense when the thing being stolen is property, and the argument is that art is no one's property. Art cannot be possessed, it cannot be traded and it cannot be measured and given a value. Objects of art can, but the art itself - the idea - cannot.

If art is no one's property, then it cannot be stolen. A CD can be property; it can be posessed, traded and valued. If you take a CD out of the store, you are taking the store's property. That is theft.

If I look at your painting and walk out of the gallery with the image in my mind, I have robbed you? Nonsense.
bluedragon
My coworker reminded me yesterday: "Imitation is a form of flattery."

I download a lot of European/Australian music because I can't find it here in the states (I had Natasha Bedingfield's album downloaded when she came out in Australia .. I found it ironic when she made it big in the states) ... in turn I play it for others and in this way I feel I am doing the music justice by spreading it as much as I'm downloading it.

The industries are just jealous because they failed to cash in on the digital media phenomenon as soon as they would have liked. Now they are, and the internet is falling victim to capitalism. Yay.
tidruG
Indi wrote:
Now, yes, some software does fall into the same category as music and movies - namely games and other entertainment software.

Then what about game developers?
I can understand big game companies making profits off royalty and collectible items related to the game which cannot be copied and shared (like caps, T-shirts, coffee mugs, dolls, etc.). But if a bunch of recently graduated animation artists teamed up with a few software coders and designed a game in their garages, spending time (and money) on it? The game itself does nothing except entertain. I really doubt if profit can be made by playing the game. In fact, playing games is a waste of time in that it actually produces nothing productive from your time.
Anyway... coming back to the point. What if the game developed by this small crew starts getting copied and shared for free instead of being legally acquired by financial payment, then they would be at a loss, wouldn't they?

Indi wrote:
If I download and watch Star Wars, how does this cost anyone? I'm paying for the bandwidth, so that's taken care of. Is the download using up any other resources? No.

Well, Star Wars was a huge commercial success. Lucas can probably live off the royalty... but what if you refused to pay 25$ or 12$ for a movie made for the first time by a small-shop producer/director. It does cost money (a considerable amount, probably) to make a movie. If the movie is shared on the internet and downloaded for free, the makers of the movie get no income, do they? (Assume the movie never became popular enough for any portions of it to be used in other works... i.e. no action figures based on movie characters, etc.)

Indi wrote:
Clearly, if people are willing to download the movie it's because they think the price of the DVD is too high. If people are willing to download pirated copies rather than "official" downloads, then they think that even the price of the official download is too high! Remember, they're risking fines and imprisonment here.

What if I felt that paying 25$ for a movie is fine, but getting it for free is even better? Wink
The point I'm trying to make is that most of us may think that paying a certain amount to watch a movie at a cinema hall is reasonable, but then, the movie is freely available for download on the internet, and I can spend the 25$ on something else or just save it... I suppose this would make one unethical, but people are unethical a lot of times, aren't they?

Indi wrote:
Theft only makes sense when the thing being stolen is property, and the argument is that art is no one's property. Art cannot be possessed, it cannot be traded and it cannot be measured and given a value. Objects of art can, but the art itself - the idea - cannot.

You're absolutely right.
The point about the painting was well made and deserves due credit, of course.
However, let's compare with music. (I keep coming back to music because I've never written software, and never quite given enough thought to selling/buying software... most of what I use is freeware anyway)
The painting itself (canvas) is an object of art and can be classified as a property. Making posters of the painting in question and distributing them does not depreciate the "value" of the painting itself. (These posters can be sold for a certain small amount of money which can go towards the maintenance of the painting and the building - museum/art gallery? - which houses the canvas in question)
However, music CDs are multiple. By downloading the songs onto your hard disk (and subsequently not paying for it), the money that can be generally accepted as the CD's financial value is not going to the artistes in question. However, it is likely that the artistes (or their record company) spend some amount of money on producing these CDs, and also, certain amount of prfit should be made by the artistes/company.

*I got interrupted while writing this post, and by the time I finished, it became around 10.50pm... Being physically/mentally exhausted after a long day in class, I may not have been able to express myself properly.
Indi
tidruG wrote:
Indi wrote:
Now, yes, some software does fall into the same category as music and movies - namely games and other entertainment software.

Then what about game developers?
I can understand big game companies making profits off royalty and collectible items related to the game which cannot be copied and shared (like caps, T-shirts, coffee mugs, dolls, etc.). But if a bunch of recently graduated animation artists teamed up with a few software coders and designed a game in their garages, spending time (and money) on it? The game itself does nothing except entertain. I really doubt if profit can be made by playing the game. In fact, playing games is a waste of time in that it actually produces nothing productive from your time.
Anyway... coming back to the point. What if the game developed by this small crew starts getting copied and shared for free instead of being legally acquired by financial payment, then they would be at a loss, wouldn't they?

What if I were to go out and spend a couple hundred dollars on paints, and pay a building owner a couple thousand for the use of a side of his building, then spend weeks - weeks without pay when I could be working at a paying job - painting a mural on the side of a building.

Then when it's done, I set up a booth by the side of the building and try to charge everyone that walks by $5 for looking at it.

Just because you want to get paid for doing something doesn't mean you should be.

If those software developers want money, then they should be concentrating their programming skills on something that is functional and useful for society. A game is just static, just background noise. A simulator to train young drivers to be safe, defensive drivers would be functional and useful.

Your software developers chose to make the functional equivalent of a white elephant. That was their choice. Just because they want to get paid for doing something ultimately useless doesn't mean they should be.

tidruG wrote:
Indi wrote:
If I download and watch Star Wars, how does this cost anyone? I'm paying for the bandwidth, so that's taken care of. Is the download using up any other resources? No.

Well, Star Wars was a huge commercial success. Lucas can probably live off the royalty... but what if you refused to pay 25$ or 12$ for a movie made for the first time by a small-shop producer/director. It does cost money (a considerable amount, probably) to make a movie. If the movie is shared on the internet and downloaded for free, the makers of the movie get no income, do they? (Assume the movie never became popular enough for any portions of it to be used in other works... i.e. no action figures based on movie characters, etc.)

As I've said repeatedly, I don't have all the answers. However, I'd have to point out that it doesn't necessarily need to cost money to make a movie these days. You can certainly spend your spare time for a few months to make an animated version. If you want it to be live action with big, expensive explosions and Tom Cruise in the lead, that's your choice.

Just because someone wants to make money off of something - even if it costs them to produce it - doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically entitled to. I could spend a thousand bucks on a big chunk of marble, then another few thousand in tips for my Dremel, and carve a six foot high effigy of my phallus, then want to actually turn a profit in the sale. Does that mean I'm entitled to? Of course not.

If your small shop producer spends a lot of resources making a movie, that doesn't necessarily imply that he is entitled to recover those resources. He should have been smarter. If the movie was not guaranteed to make the returns he expected, he shouldn't have made the investment. You wouldn't feel sorry for me if I invested thousands of dollars in something useless that just didn't pan out and lost my money. Why do you feel sorry for the movie producer?

tidruG wrote:
Indi wrote:
Clearly, if people are willing to download the movie it's because they think the price of the DVD is too high. If people are willing to download pirated copies rather than "official" downloads, then they think that even the price of the official download is too high! Remember, they're risking fines and imprisonment here.

What if I felt that paying 25$ for a movie is fine, but getting it for free is even better? Wink
The point I'm trying to make is that most of us may think that paying a certain amount to watch a movie at a cinema hall is reasonable, but then, the movie is freely available for download on the internet, and I can spend the 25$ on something else or just save it... I suppose this would make one unethical, but people are unethical a lot of times, aren't they?

None of what you have said is ethical or not. It's simply economics. If you have something better to spend your $25 bucks on, then you didn't think the movie was worth that $25. End of story.

If, on the other hand, you think the theatre experience is worth the $25, then it is. That's all there is to it.

tidruG wrote:
Indi wrote:
Theft only makes sense when the thing being stolen is property, and the argument is that art is no one's property. Art cannot be possessed, it cannot be traded and it cannot be measured and given a value. Objects of art can, but the art itself - the idea - cannot.

You're absolutely right.
The point about the painting was well made and deserves due credit, of course.
However, let's compare with music. (I keep coming back to music because I've never written software, and never quite given enough thought to selling/buying software... most of what I use is freeware anyway)
The painting itself (canvas) is an object of art and can be classified as a property. Making posters of the painting in question and distributing them does not depreciate the "value" of the painting itself. (These posters can be sold for a certain small amount of money which can go towards the maintenance of the painting and the building - museum/art gallery? - which houses the canvas in question)
However, music CDs are multiple. By downloading the songs onto your hard disk (and subsequently not paying for it), the money that can be generally accepted as the CD's financial value is not going to the artistes in question. However, it is likely that the artistes (or their record company) spend some amount of money on producing these CDs, and also, certain amount of prfit should be made by the artistes/company.

There are several flaws with your argument. First, making posters and passing them around could be argued to devalue the original image. Because if I see an image I must have, and I spend $10 on a poster print of it instead of $1,000,000 on the original or another artist-produced copy, I have deprived the artist of $999,990. There is no difference between a work of visual art and music. The painter also spent money to make the painting - he had to buy paint, brushes and the canvas. The same logic applies when I download an image as when I download a music file.

The second major flaw is here: "the money that can be generally accepted as the CD's financial value" Generally accepted? If you don't think it's worth paying then you don't accept it. You don't mean "generally accepted", you mean "set by the record company and enforced by law". And that's the problem.

And again, the investment failure problem. If the artist invested money to make a "product" and that product is not considered worth the price he set (because people are downloading rather than copying), then he has made a poor investment.

Why should only artists be saved when they make stupid investment decisions? Will you argue that I should be bailed out financially if I play the stock market and lose? Or bet on a poor horse at the track?
make_life_better
Indi wrote:

...
Why should only artists be saved when they make stupid investment decisions? Will you argue that I should be bailed out financially if I play the stock market and lose? Or bet on a poor horse at the track?


I just love that argument to bits. I feel that I could hug you just for that insight alone.

Thanks.
ralphbefree
Until the technology arises that allows for artists music to be shared with parity to all involved in developing the music; I think that downloading of music is a great way to explore other music that you would rather not be exposed to.
At the end of the day on the bottom line MUSIC wants to PLAY! it will pick a band and drive that band to play with such a will that can cause anyone to do anything. including selling out to large record executives who promise them the ability to play, but then only stifles their creativity.
the guilt of downloading is brought on by the record executives.
Don't buy into the guilt Smile
Sappho
make_life_better wrote:
Indi wrote:

...
Why should only artists be saved when they make stupid investment decisions? Will you argue that I should be bailed out financially if I play the stock market and lose? Or bet on a poor horse at the track?


I just love that argument to bits. I feel that I could hug you just for that insight alone.

Thanks.


Its weak argument, i can just point out that even now most movies don't even produce enough income to cover their costs, this can be applied to music as well, simply if something just isnt good enough its not goin to be a hit and therefore not enough income. I dont see where in this is your "Why should only artists be saved". By downloading it you can just reduce its income even more, but your are not the main reason for its failure.

Anyway, if your argumentation got applied and used out there it would prolly ruin the whole entertainment industry, no one would make movies, no one would make games (useless software as you pointed out) and so on. So basically all you are saying that even StarWars is just useless and wasn't necesarry for anyone to actually create, but you did enjoy it didn't you? All i see are contradictions. :/ Just ignore the entertainment industry then, you are saying that making games, movies or any piece of art in that matter is useless and not worth the effort not to mention to expect income from it BUT at the same time you say that IF its already out there than go and download it. Where is the logic. Smile
Indi
Sappho wrote:
make_life_better wrote:
Indi wrote:

...
Why should only artists be saved when they make stupid investment decisions? Will you argue that I should be bailed out financially if I play the stock market and lose? Or bet on a poor horse at the track?


I just love that argument to bits. I feel that I could hug you just for that insight alone.

Thanks.


Its weak argument, i can just point out that even now most movies don't even produce enough income to cover their costs, this can be applied to music as well, simply if something just isnt good enough its not goin to be a hit and therefore not enough income. I dont see where in this is your "Why should only artists be saved". By downloading it you can just reduce its income even more, but your are not the main reason for its failure.

Imagine a man who invested millions of dollars to develop fuzzy pink shoes that fart stinkily with every step you take. He spends money to develop the technology, pays to have the look of the shoes styled professionally, invests in a factory to produce these shoes, and makes a million of them.

Then, only a handful of people think these shoes are worth the cash he wants to sell them for and buy them, and he is unable to earn back the money he spent. He goes broke. Would you feel sorry for him?

Now imagine a man who invested millions of dollars to make a movie. He spends money to pay for equipment, film and permission fees, pays brand name stars, invests in a factory to produce the DVDs, and makes a million of them.

Then, only a handful of people think his movie's DVD is worth the cash he wants to sell it for and buy them, and he is unable to earn back the money he spent. He goes broke.

What is the difference between the two cases?

Or, let's try putting it another way. I can go to the store and buy premade frozen thin pizza crusts, which I can then put my own toppings on to make pizza just the way I like it. Or, I can buy the flour, the yeast and so on and make the dough for the crust myself.

Now, the person who made that ready-made thin crust had to have used the same ingredients as me. Say there are $3 worth of ingredients in the crust. But he has invested money in a factory to produce these crusts. Say that the amount he has spent to produce the product - including making the dough, forming the crust and making the packaging - is $2. So he has to sell his frozen crusts for $5 to break even. He decides to sell it for $6, so he can make $1 profit.

So, basically, he has invested $5 of his money per crust, in the hopes that it is worth $6 per crust to me. If he's right, then I will consider his frozen crust worth my money, buy it, and he makes his profit. If he's wrong, then he loses his shirt.

Now, I go into the store and see his frozen thin crusts and decide that thin crust pizza sounds like a good idea. But I don't think it's worth paying him $6 for his product. I do think the idea is worth something, just not $6. So I buy my own ingredients and make my own thin crust. I have, in effect, stolen his idea, but not his product.

So the frozen thin crust pizza maker goes broke, because no one thinks his frozen thin pizza crusts are worth the value he put on them. In other words, he made a stupid investment, putting his money into something that did not make the expected returns. However, the idea is immensely popular. I ask you - should I have to pay the frozen crust maker for using his idea, even though I don't use his product, and I don't think it's worth the value he set it at? Should I bail him out of his stupid investment?

Now take your favourite artist or movie-maker. They spend large amounts of money to make an album or movie "professionally", and produce DVD's or CD's for sale. To cover their costs they have to sell the disc at $30 (the analogy extends for movie tickets). I see the disc and decide I like the idea - the content - but it is not worth the price it's being offered it. So I don't buy the disc, and just watch the movie or listen to the album for free somehow.

The movie-maker or artist made a stupid investment. They invested to make a product with the expectation that I would think it was worth the value they want to sell it to me at. They were wrong. Sure, I like the idea - the content - but it is not worth the money to me. So the same questions apply. Should I bail the artist out of their stupid investment?

If the artist invested money making the piece of art and expected to make it back, they should have planned for a way to make it back that did not depend on me accepting the arbitrary value they stack on the product - or they should have been sure that I would accept their asking price. They spent the money to make the piece of art assuming I'd be happy to pay their asking price, and they were wrong. They were stupid. Why should they be bailed out?

Sappho wrote:
Anyway, if your argumentation got applied and used out there it would prolly ruin the whole entertainment industry, no one would make movies, no one would make games (useless software as you pointed out) and so on. So basically all you are saying that even StarWars is just useless and wasn't necesarry for anyone to actually create, but you did enjoy it didn't you? All i see are contradictions. :/ Just ignore the entertainment industry then, you are saying that making games, movies or any piece of art in that matter is useless and not worth the effort not to mention to expect income from it BUT at the same time you say that IF its already out there than go and download it. Where is the logic. Smile

The contradiction you think you see is one you put there yourself. Where did I say that if something is already out there you can or should go and download it? I have said nothing of the sort. You are warping my words.

First of all: "if your argumentation got applied and used out there it would prolly ruin the whole entertainment industry". Now, why should I care about that? Why am I obligated to keep the entertainment industry running? If the entertainment industry can't keep itself running, then why should it be saved by me?

They are a business, just like any other industry. If they can't find a way to manage their business better, then they don't deserve to have it. End of story.

Next: "no one would make movies, no one would make games (useless software as you pointed out) and so on". Absolute balderdash. Complete nonsense. I tutor C++ programmers. There are droves of people out there making games for free, for fun. Yes, it's useless, but it's fun to make (I've made a few myself), and fun to play.

Frankly, independent developers would probably make much more games if they didn't have to compete with multi-million-dollar budgets that add very little to the games. Independent filmmakers do wonders on small budgets.

Next: "So basically all you are saying that even StarWars is just useless and wasn't necesarry for anyone to actually create, but you did enjoy it didn't you? All i see are contradictions. :/" There is no contradiction there. I also enjoy having sex while using protection, which is a rather useless endeavour. I enjoy lots of useless things. Don't you?

What I've been saying is that if movie making really is a business, then Lucas would have been an idiot to invest money that he wasn't going to make back. In his case, he was right. The money he invested was returned with considerable interest. The toy sales alone more than made up for the costs. I own several different versions of Star Wars because to me they were worth the cost. Lucas made a good product that I thought was worth paying for. Lucas was smart.

But movie-makers that lose money are not. Either they should have made a better product so that more people would consider it worth the investment, or they should have spent less making it. Whining about the fact that people don't think their product is worth the price they want is nonsensical. One of two things happened in that case. Either:
    - They thought we would think that we would think their product was worth the price they wanted to sell it for... and were wrong (in which case they were stupid).
    - They didn't think about making their money back beforehand (in which case they were stupid).
It's that simple.

And finallly: "Just ignore the entertainment industry then, you are saying that making games, movies or any piece of art in that matter is useless and not worth the effort not to mention to expect income from it BUT at the same time you say that IF its already out there than go and download it. Where is the logic. Smile" As I've already pointed out, that's not what I am saying. If you have heard me say to go and download something, I'd like to see where.

All I have been saying is that if a piece of art is a commercial, then treat it like a commercial product - a movie is no different than a can opener. If a piece of art is art, then treat it like art. If there is any contradiction, it's probably in the way the "entertainment industry" likes to treat works as art when its convenient, and product otherwise. All I have done so far is demand consistency. Is it a business or an art?
mtoni
as long as the videogames are too expensive I will download them...
It dont happen that often though.. I don't have time to play other games than WoW (and a bit of titan quest when my internet is down)
tidruG
Indi wrote:
Your software developers chose to make the functional equivalent of a white elephant. That was their choice. Just because they want to get paid for doing something ultimately useless doesn't mean they should be.

Yes, but games aren't completely useless. They provide good entertainment. They're good for when you need a break from studying, etc.
Also, theater artistes aren't really doing something for society except entertain. Why should we then pay tickets to watch plays?

Quote:
As I've said repeatedly, I don't have all the answers.

Of course not, neither do I. I don't have all the questions either. But it's amaxing how thinking of how to ask the questions or what questions to ask can sometimes help you think of some of the answers to loads of other questions. It's fun to ask you things anyway... you make me think, and that's awesome.

Quote:
If your small shop producer spends a lot of resources making a movie, that doesn't necessarily imply that he is entitled to recover those resources. He should have been smarter. If the movie was not guaranteed to make the returns he expected, he shouldn't have made the investment. You wouldn't feel sorry for me if I invested thousands of dollars in something useless that just didn't pan out and lost my money. Why do you feel sorry for the movie producer?

What if the movie was critically quite well acclaimed, but something that er... the masses (for lack of a better word) didn't appreciate. Assume also that this movie was the childhood dream of its director/producer, and something they have perfected in their heads over the years. Assume the movie is good, but it just hasn't attracted people to the theaters because... maybe they didn't understand why the protagonist died, etc.

Quote:
None of what you have said is ethical or not. It's simply economics. If you have something better to spend your $25 bucks on, then you didn't think the movie was worth that $25. End of story.

Actually, my point was that there's almost always something better you can do with your 25$ especially if you're able to get the movie for free.
And well, yes, maybe the issue isn't about ethics, but most consider it to be. If 'ethical' people thought that it wasn't unethical to download movies (or if they weren't afraid of getting arrested), they'd download just about every movie that came out. Most movies would release at a loss. Yes, there will always be patrons of cinema who will spend 25$ to go to the cinema hall, but I consider those to be a rather small minority.

Quote:
The second major flaw is here: "the money that can be generally accepted as the CD's financial value" Generally accepted?

I wrote generally accepted, because I don't like how much record companies decide to charge us. I do think CDs should be sold at a lower price.

Quote:
First, making posters and passing them around could be argued to devalue the original image.

Yes, that argument is valid. However, one can say that a particular painting's popularity can be, vaguely maybe, measured by how many people want to have it. If a particular painting is really famous, it's "value" is bound to increase. An art collector would want it even more, maybe just to show off.
Alternately, a true art lover would want to have the original painting because posters can never replace an original painting (except perhaps in Mr. Bean, the movie Razz). So, for the (quite a few) art lovers who want this painting, the value of the painting for them would depend on how much they like the painting and would like to keep it in their house/wherever. They'd still pay as much as they would have irrespective of whether there are posters of it freely available or not.
Whereas music CDs... all music CDs are more or less the equivalents to an original painting (the difference is that they're manufactured and many copies are made).

Quote:
Why should only artists be saved when they make stupid investment decisions? Will you argue that I should be bailed out financially if I play the stock market and lose? Or bet on a poor horse at the track?

Well, it's not quite as simple as that in my mind. Even if the CD is good, most people would rather download it for free rather than pay for it. Compare : get something for free (legally) -or- pay 13$ for the CD. I choose free.... all the time. The only thing extra I get on the CD is the album cover art and CD art.
It's not just about bailing an artist out. It's about paying what the album monetarily deserves.

Quote:
The movie-maker or artist made a stupid investment. They invested to make a product with the expectation that I would think it was worth the value they want to sell it to me at. They were wrong. Sure, I like the idea - the content - but it is not worth the money to me. So the same questions apply. Should I bail the artist out of their stupid investment?

If the artist invested money making the piece of art and expected to make it back, they should have planned for a way to make it back that did not depend on me accepting the arbitrary value they stack on the product - or they should have been sure that I would accept their asking price. They spent the money to make the piece of art assuming I'd be happy to pay their asking price, and they were wrong. They were stupid. Why should they be bailed out?

OK, in that case... imagine CD prices were reduced from 13$ to 6$. Now most people think it's reasonable enough. THe problem is that 6$ is not lesser than 0$ Wink
And also, now that CD prices have been reduced to a reasonable amount (6$ is arbitrary), do artists then have the right to their music?

Quote:
What I've been saying is that if movie making really is a business, then Lucas would have been an idiot to invest money that he wasn't going to make back. In his case, he was right. The money he invested was returned with considerable interest. The toy sales alone more than made up for the costs. I own several different versions of Star Wars because to me they were worth the cost. Lucas made a good product that I thought was worth paying for. Lucas was smart.

Now see the problem here is that you consider the product good enough to buy. The problem is that some people (if not most) may think that it's reasonable to charge a particular amount for a particular item, but still avoid paying for it by downloading it or getting it for free by other means. I mean... what beats getting something you really want for free?
the1991
If we're talking Christianity, I tend to think that Jesus was not a lawbreaker. He often advocated upholding governmental law as long as it did not directly conflict with your moral obligations. "give unto caesar what is caesar's"

A lot of people feel justified in downloading music on the ground that the record companies have over-inflated the price of cd's, but by picking and choosing who to steal from, you don't solve the problem. Pirating music will not lower the industry's prices. You have to bite the bullet and work within the system of capitalism. The solution is to stop buying music. Sure this means you won't get music to listen to, but if it's really THAT over-priced, the demand on the market needs to go down. The record companies aren't concerned with distributing the most amount of music possible. They are businesses trying to make money.
Indi
tidruG wrote:
Yes, but games aren't completely useless. They provide good entertainment. They're good for when you need a break from studying, etc.
Also, theater artistes aren't really doing something for society except entertain. Why should we then pay tickets to watch plays?

Why should you pay? *shrugs* You tell me.

Or are you asking why do you pay? Answer: because you think it's worth it.

tidruG wrote:
Quote:
If your small shop producer spends a lot of resources making a movie, that doesn't necessarily imply that he is entitled to recover those resources. He should have been smarter. If the movie was not guaranteed to make the returns he expected, he shouldn't have made the investment. You wouldn't feel sorry for me if I invested thousands of dollars in something useless that just didn't pan out and lost my money. Why do you feel sorry for the movie producer?

What if the movie was critically quite well acclaimed, but something that er... the masses (for lack of a better word) didn't appreciate. Assume also that this movie was the childhood dream of its director/producer, and something they have perfected in their heads over the years. Assume the movie is good, but it just hasn't attracted people to the theaters because... maybe they didn't understand why the protagonist died, etc.

Then the movie maker was stupid. To wit:

"What if the movie was critically quite well acclaimed, but something that er... the masses (for lack of a better word) didn't appreciate." Then the movie maker didn't do their research properly before making it.

"Assume also that this movie was the childhood dream of its director/producer, and something they have perfected in their heads over the years." Why should I pay for someone to fulfill their dream. Shouldn't they be paying me?

"Assume the movie is good, but it just hasn't attracted people to the theaters...." Then they didn't market it properly (or see the the first response above).

You're crossing wires in your head regarding what we're talking about. Are we talking about art or commercial product? If it's art then why would anyone be concerned if it wasn't a commercial success? If it's a commercial product, why should anyone be obligated to support a shitty or poorly researched product?

Do you remember pet rocks? It was a box that you bought that had a rock in it. A pet rock. It also came with a booklet on how to properly take care of your pet rock and a certificate of authenticity.

Now, that was certainly a functionally useless product (I think we can all agree on that). It was also trivial to reproduce - just go outside, pick up a rock, make yourself a certificate in WordPerfect, and you have the same thing.

So why did the inventors make millions selling pet rocks?

The answer is that they added some value to their pet rock package over and above what you would get if you made your own pet rock. Something about that package made it worth the money to buy something to useless and silly. What was it exactly? Could be several things. But the point is that the inventors did their research and created a commercial product that, although functionally useless, provided enough value to warrant enough people buying it that they became millionaires.

tidruG wrote:
Actually, my point was that there's almost always something better you can do with your 25$ especially if you're able to get the movie for free.
And well, yes, maybe the issue isn't about ethics, but most consider it to be. If 'ethical' people thought that it wasn't unethical to download movies (or if they weren't afraid of getting arrested), they'd download just about every movie that came out. Most movies would release at a loss. Yes, there will always be patrons of cinema who will spend 25$ to go to the cinema hall, but I consider those to be a rather small minority.

No, you're not getting what I'm saying... (and you repeat the same misunderstanding in a couple of quotes, so I'm going to gather them up and reply to all at once)

tidruG wrote:
Quote:
The second major flaw is here: "the money that can be generally accepted as the CD's financial value" Generally accepted?

I wrote generally accepted, because I don't like how much record companies decide to charge us. I do think CDs should be sold at a lower price.

... no you missed the point of what I was questioning... (I'll just respond to the next couple of bits then explain what you're not getting)

tidruG wrote:
Quote:
First, making posters and passing them around could be argued to devalue the original image.

Yes, that argument is valid. However, one can say that a particular painting's popularity can be, vaguely maybe, measured by how many people want to have it. If a particular painting is really famous, it's "value" is bound to increase. An art collector would want it even more, maybe just to show off.
Alternately, a true art lover would want to have the original painting because posters can never replace an original painting (except perhaps in Mr. Bean, the movie Razz). So, for the (quite a few) art lovers who want this painting, the value of the painting for them would depend on how much they like the painting and would like to keep it in their house/wherever. They'd still pay as much as they would have irrespective of whether there are posters of it freely available or not.
Whereas music CDs... all music CDs are more or less the equivalents to an original painting (the difference is that they're manufactured and many copies are made).

Your argument shoots itself down. The CD - mass produced or no - is the original work of art. I would want to own a (legitimate) copy of Nirvana's Nevermind because it is an original disc. Unless it just wasn't worth it to me, in which case I'd find a cheaper alternative I thought was worth it.

Take your art for example. If you thought the original painting was worth it, you'd pay a million for it. If you thought that was too much, but an official print was worth it, you'd pay for the print. If you thought that both the original and an official print were not worth the money, you'd just get an unofficial print, or download and print it.

If you thought the CD was good enough that it was worth paying for an original copy, then you'd pay for it. If not, you wouldn't. You'd get it some other way, possibly downloading.

You see? The idea itself - the image, the music, whatever - cannot be bought and sold. Only products can - products that may or may not use that idea to increase their value. The products can be paintings, prints, CDs, DVDs, tickets, etc. etc. etc.

tidruG wrote:
Well, it's not quite as simple as that in my mind. Even if the CD is good, most people would rather download it for free rather than pay for it. Compare : get something for free (legally) -or- pay 13$ for the CD. I choose free.... all the time. The only thing extra I get on the CD is the album cover art and CD art.
It's not just about bailing an artist out. It's about paying what the album monetarily deserves.

Which is how much, exactly? And... who decides that value?

What does a box of Rice Krispies "monetarily deserve"? What does a book on the history of Japan "monetarily deserve"?

Or how about this - if I make Rice Krispies squares instead of buying a ready made one in a package, have I deprived the person who made that package of what they monetarily deserve?

If I listen to an Aerosmith song without buying the CD, have I deprived the maker of the CD what he monetarily deserved? Of course not. He doesn't monetarily deserve anything unless I buy the CD. Then all he monetarily deserves is the asking price of the CD. Of course, if I think his asking price is too high and don't buy it, then he monetarily deserves squat.

tidruG wrote:
OK, in that case... imagine CD prices were reduced from 13$ to 6$. Now most people think it's reasonable enough. THe problem is that 6$ is not lesser than 0$ Wink
And also, now that CD prices have been reduced to a reasonable amount (6$ is arbitrary), do artists then have the right to their music?

... and here's where the problem is.

It doesn't matter whether or not you say that you think $6 (or whatever amount you choose) is reasonable. The simple fact is that if you thought it was reasonable, you would pay for it. End of story. There's no complexity here. If you thought the CD or DVD was worth the money, you'd buy it. If you would rather just have the music and forget about the CD or DVD, then you didn't think the CD or DVD is worth the money. You see?

The problem is that you're comparing apples to oranges. A download is not the same as the legitimate CD, now is it? So if the CD is selling for $6, what does it provide that the download does not that adds $6 of value?

Why do people buy brand name clothes instead of no-name clothes? Why do people buy brand name canned tomato sauce instead of no-name canned tomato sauce? Why do people buy X instead of Y even though Y is cheaper?

The answer is simple. Because X has some added value that makes it worth the difference in price over Y. That's all there is to it.

The legitimate CD has some value over the download, doesn't it? You get the actual CD you can display. You usually get artwork, photos and lyrics. You get pristine sound quality. And maybe in a few decades that CD will be rare and worth something. Plus, hello, you don't have to worry about the law coming down on you!

So the legitimate CD has value that the download does not. The only question is... how much value? That will vary from person to person. The job of the person who wants to make money selling CDs, then, is to figure out what value they have to set it at in order to maximize their profits. Same as for any other industry.

Basically my thesis is this. Either you want to be a businessman or you want to be an artist.

If you want to be a businessman, it is your responsibility to run your business profitably, not mine or anyone else's. You invested your money to make a product that you can sell to get a profitable return on your investment. If you can't figure out how to profit from your CD sales, then your business will fail. Sad, perhaps, but no-one's fault but your own. You can't blame downloading, either. Your product is CDs, not "music". You can't sell "music".

If you want to be an artist, then you can't whine about losing your investment. You invested your money to make a work of art. Mission accomplished. Any other money you make is bonus.

Now, what does any of this have to do with whether or not artists have a right to their music. What do you mean by "right"? Do you mean the right to have the artwork attributed to them? Do you mean the right to receive royalties when the artwork is used to increase the value of a commercial product?

tidruG wrote:
Now see the problem here is that you consider the product good enough to buy. The problem is that some people (if not most) may think that it's reasonable to charge a particular amount for a particular item, but still avoid paying for it by downloading it or getting it for free by other means. I mean... what beats getting something you really want for free?

Here it is again. If it's not worth paying for then it's not worth paying for. It can't be worth paying for and not worth paying for.

The product isn't the music. You can't sell music. The product is the CDs, DVDs, movie tickets and whatnot. The music is just being used to add value to those products, whether the music is original or public domain (like traditional music, classical etc.). The question is how to make those products worth the asking price.

What would convince you to buy the CD or DVD (or tickets or whatever)? Nothing? Then I guess you wouldn't be the target market for the product.

The job of anyone attempting to produce a commercial product is to balance the production costs and the expected sale price of the product to maximize their profit. Anyone who loses money on a commercial venture has failed to do that job. I don't feel sorry for them; they simply did their job incompetently. I feel no obligation to bail them out of their incompetence. That be the long and short of it.

Of course, that's all assuming that the goal was to make a commercial product. If it was simply to make art, then art is not judged by commercial success, and profitability is hardly the goal.

And before anyone says, "why can't it be both art and a commercial product?" the answer is that no one said it can't, but they are two different goals with two different metrics for success. From the standpoint of artistic success, it doesn't really matter whether or not or how often a piece of art is stolen, now does it? (In fact, you can argue that the more often its stolen, the better an artistic success it is.)

Honestly, moral and ethical issues aside, I think we have to put this piracy thing in perspective. The North American movie industry is not losing money. In fact, profits are up, although movie theatre ticket sales are down. These people aren't starving, despite their whining.

Take a movie like War of the Worlds. They spent $132 million to make that movie... $100 million of which was to pay for Tom Cruise. Let me restate that again. The cost of making War of the Worlds was really only $32 million and change - the other $100 paid for Tommy. Why in the name of all that's holy would you budget your movie like that... unless you thought that Tommy added so much value to the product that it would offset the extra $100 million cost and then some?

Ok, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That movie made $65 million in the first weekend in theatres. That means that - not counting Cruise's paycheque - the movie made double its costs... in theatres alone. It went on to make almost $600 million in theatres alone. That doesn't count DVD sales, or other revenue. They ain't starving.

Ok, but not all movies can make $600 million, right? But then again... not all movies cost $132 million to make. Ever seen Night Watch? That was made for roughly $5 million. Compare the two and tell me which looks more expensive. Bear in mind that War of the Worlds cost over 25 times as much to make as Night Watch. $100 million to Tommy alone - and even without Tommy, 6 times as much.

You see what I mean? Those people aren't running their business properly, and they're blaming the fact that things aren't going the way they like on piracy. Nonsense. Let them get their house in order, then I will take the "threat" of piracy seriously.

In the meantime, I can't fathom an ethical or moral reason for why it's wrong to share knowledge and art. The complaint about piracy doesn't make sense when you put it that way.

So you have to consider piracy not as sharing art, but as not buying products (CDs, tickets, etc.). It also makes no sense to tell me that it's wrong to not buy a product that I don't think is worth the money and performs no necessary function.

So how about someone explain to me exactly what gets stolen when someone pirates a movie or song - without sad stories of starving artists or other emotionally manipulative language. Tell me in dollars and sense exactly what pirating a song takes away, and who does it take it away from, and why is it my responsibility to see that that doesn't get taken away?

the1991 wrote:
A lot of people feel justified in downloading music on the ground that the record companies have over-inflated the price of cd's, but by picking and choosing who to steal from, you don't solve the problem. Pirating music will not lower the industry's prices.

Oh? Why not?

the1991 wrote:
The solution is to stop buying music.

Isn't that what people downloading are doing?

the1991 wrote:
Sure this means you won't get music to listen to, but if it's really THAT over-priced, the demand on the market needs to go down.

One minute you say that pirating music won't lower the price of CDs, the next you say that not buying CDs will. Explain.
sharp
Charles W. Moore's essay on copyright law (see Copyright Bullies May Win Some Battles but Must Lose Their War) raised a lot of good points about the way vested interests (such as the RIAA and MPAA) have changed the nature of copyright from something that serves the public interest into something that only serves publishers.

It's a tough call, and we have a vested interest in the topic ourselves. We publish original content on Low End Mac and make it freely available for anyone to read. Our business model is advertiser based, similar to TV and radio stations. We earn a fraction of a penny every time someone views one of our pages.

Our model fails when people violate copyright and reproduce one of our articles online without permission - and usually without links. It's one thing to discuss a column on LEM, quote bits from it, and include a link for those who wish to read the whole article. It's a whole different thing to quote the article in its entirety. It's both a violation of copyright and something that undermines our business model.

In some ways, we're in the same boat as the RIAA and MPAA. Piracy of our content has a financial impact, and we're grateful that it's been quite rare.

There's not a lot we can do to prevent unauthorized use of our content. It's freely available to all, and it's easy to cut-and-paste our articles or view the source code of any page on the site. There's no copy protection, and we hope that visitors will abide by our terms of service and that people quoting from our articles will do so judiciously and include a link to the original article.

Audio and video piracy is on a whole different scale. Individual tracks, entire albums, and whole DVDs are available online for illegal download, and legal prohibitions (i.e., copyright law) can't prevent this widespread piracy.
OldmanJ
Quote:
I belive music is a wonderful and powerful thing, it should not have a Price lable. who cares if the Super rich guys loose money......, it might be a new experience for them.., what are your thoughts.


What a load...

I get so tired of people trying to justify to themselves that music and movies should be free. While I certainly have a few songs/movies downloaded, I'm not going to try to argue that it's right.

In the lovely free market that we live in, when someone provides a service we consume, they deserve compensation. This drives increased quality among those services. If music had to be free, we would never get the quality that we currently get. Simple as that.

Either way, this is a relatively short term "problem" for the music industry which is being remedied. Look how popular the legit download services are! Better yet, look how popular MUSIC is now! I would say that this "problem" was a huge boost for the industry... I listen to more and varied music than I ever would have without ol' Morpheus/Napster/Torrent/whatever. I never would have discovered bands like Stone Sour, Evanescence, or Godsmack without this "revolution".

Well, maybe Godsmack Wink They're just too wicked.

Point is, don't give us that junk about music supposed to be free, and the same goes for movies. If that were the case, we wouldn't be seeing too many Jurassic Park's... Just a bunch of Blair Witch Project's. Imagine the horror.
zenkirevolutions
All you need is love, that's not what the RIAA is saying though.

In the name of freedom,
as thou asketh, they recieveth,
for free, for freedom!

So shall it be.
Forevereth and ever,

never accept otherwise
Even! When you the thief
gets his hand chopped off
in the name of "justice" economics.

The real evil one is the one who just chopped your hand off.

"That's just the way it is,
let's make some changes"

Let's change this world, I don't like the current set outcome.

Why is marijuana illeagle? Why are there shadow governments? Why does a roomfull of elitist control the world? Why are these horrible issues that top minded scholars are lecturing and warm hearted people debating, and we still are pushed, under federal law,

for what? so we can argue amongst ourselves.

Order through chaos? Divide and conquer?
****** that!
****** THAT!

GET LOUD, FREAK OUT, BOOTLEG CULTURE, YOU DONT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO AFFORD IT, APPLY YOUR MIND AND HEART TO TRANSPIRE HUMANITY TO RISE UP AGAINST ITS GREATEST THREAT!

we art everything, including the worlds destiny, with our hands, with our dreams, with our minds, and vibrations.

hail buddah, jumping to religion forum.

I wasn't always like this. Napster use to be underground.
Where is it now!

My only bibliography is
Apologies for eccentricities if I fell out of topic, I will not edit what I wrote, because even though it's gross to some, its pure to one. 3am, and redemption song indulges me, goodnight.
Whong
Piracy is not right! It is a shame, but so it is, BUT now a days every is so so expensive so I don't wonder a bit the attraction to do that! Idea
handles
I believe it is okay to pirate something if it is for a short period of time. I can go to a library and rent a copy of a movie to watch, and the movie company doesn't make any money from that, so I feel it is fine to download a movie and watch it once. If I download an album that is available in my country and I like the music, then I will buy a copy from the store. But if it is not available in my country, I see nothing wrong in keeping that "pirated" copy on my computer until such time as it becomes available here.

Take anime, for instance. Oftentimes it is licensed in Japan but nowhere else. People will collaborate to translate the anime into other languages (by means of subtitles), and suddenly one can have his pick of watching this show with German, Chinese, English, etc subtitles. But as the show gains popularity in this way, companies in Germany, China, America, etc will become interested in licensing the show. Soon it will become available on television and later on disc. At this point, is it still right to keep a copy of the files on my computer? No, because they are already available in my country. And the legal discs are of a much higher quality, besides! Certainly worth the money.
siddhant123
I am pointing out technologies if someone really wants to prevent download of videos from his site. There are DRM solutions for enterprises which does not allow any downloader or technology to download videos. Akamai DRM is the leader in this but it is mainly for big enterprises and costly. For small and medium businesses , you can try vdocipher.com They use encryption technology to prevent video download. No downloader is able to catch them.
Bikerman
DRM 'solutions' are no answer.
Remember when 'the consortium' (Disney, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Warner Bros., IBM, Toshiba and Sony) proudly unveiled their AACS encryption/protection system for post-DVD era - designed for Blue-Ray and the like? This was back in 2005. They spent a shitload of money on it, and made glib statements about 'copyproof'. The first detailed copies of the standards began circulating on the web in mid 2006. By Christmas there was an open-source clone utility widely available that completely defeated the protection and, as a result, the AACS was stillborn - it has still not been officially 'launched'.

You mention Akami - cracked ages ago. Any system of DRM will be got around - the pirates work for free and are compulsive. Developing complex and costly copy-protection is, IMHO (I was one of the first generation of pirates, in the days of cassette tapes & 5.25 floppy disks) a waste of money.
Adobe has admitted this tacitly by shifting their product range into the cloud where it is possible to control the use of their apps. Others will follow, mark my words.
catscratches
I have a boxset of Kubrick films that I bought online and took a week to ship. I can't use those DVDs in my DVD player because of region coding. I can download any Kubrick film in about 25 minutes, with no region coding or limitations whatsoever. DRM is no solution. It only leads to more piracy. The reason someone would buy your product rather than download it is because they see some additional value in it. DRM does not add value, it removes value.

(Now yes, region coding isn't meant to combat piracy, it's due to distribution rights in different territories, but it's still a form of DRM that removes value from purchased products.)

In gaming, we're seeing companies desperate to try out more DRM features and plenty of unscrupulus publishers release games with always online DRM demanding constant connection to a server, which means not only that anyone with an unreliable Internet connection will be unable to play a primarily singleplayer game, but the launches of these games have always proved to be complete disasters. Severs have been flooded with users and paying customers have found themselves unable to play the games at all. Meanwhile, did the DRM work? Nope. These games were quickly cracked, and the cracked versions work better than the official versions. Why would you buy an inferior copy of a game that may not even work when you can get a better, guaranteed-to-work copy for free?

Perhaps the most famous recent example is SimCity (2013). Legitime customers found themselves unable to play the game whereas pirates got to enjoy a working copy with always-online-DRM turned off.
spinout
As for music and video the piracy is all over the place - the only thing that sells are collector editions or the supercheap bargains at the supermarket. Hm, yesterday the internetspeed was a bottleneck but today not so this will be the scenario for evermore.
The only digital media surviving is the console market - there is a threshold in turning the console in for a chipping and buy the software from china (too much effort is doing it yourself ) - so you use the ebay domestically buying cheap instead.
That said - there are just these 2 scenarios for producers to adapt too. Ok, VOD and spotify and similar well most the free versions are used so I excluded them. Even I got a cd on spotify/itunes but just for commersial purpose... THere are no philosopy to adapt to, no laws can in the long run stop it - the market has adopted after the consumers.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.