I snuck my VHS-C camcorder into a showing of Lord of the Rings and surreptitiously recorded the movie so I wouldn’t have to wait for the video. Was I stealing?
So many recording-industry sympathizers here! Wow, and that is one place where I hate big business.
I invite the RIAA to take 100% of the profits I’ve made through mp3 downloading and uploading. They can have every last one of the 0.00 dollars I’ve earned. That’s the crux of it: It’s not for profit.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Are you actually saying that major-label recording artists are “not rewarded at least minimally”?! I’d say Dr. Dre and Metallica are rewarded substantially more than “minimally”. It’s not about rewarding creativity, it’s about greed.
Anyway, the ones who are taking money out of the artists’ pockets are their labels, not file traders.
So if riots break out in your city, it’s OK to steal that one extra amplifier from the HiFi store? I mean, the real robbers are already off with 200 B&O TV’s. What’s the extra amp gonna hurt?
Sure, if all you’re doing is making a copy of the amp, and there’s no real loss to the store because the original amp is still there, untouched and functioning.
Don’t mix metaphors like that. It’s a dumb comparison.
Posted by Joe_Cool:
“I invite the RIAA to take 100% of the profits I’ve made through mp3 downloading and uploading. They can have every last one of the 0.00 dollars I’ve earned. That’s the crux of it: It’s not for profit”
OK, Joe, go figure up how much that free mp3 music would have cost you at your favorite music store, and mail them the check. You have certainly profited by not paying for the music.
Supreme irony dept: Over in MPSIMS we have the following thread, in which a number of dopers are complaining about another message board stealing the intellectual property belonging to the SDMB (in this case threads): "Stealing from the SDMB: Metatus.com "
You missed the point. You belittled the importance of profit loss to the artist because of file sharing, because according to you, the record companies are “stealing” a hell of a lot more from them. That was the metaphor: I realise that an amplifier is not completely likable to a piece of music, because it can’t be copied at zero cost. The point still stands.
Mind you, I might even agree with you as far as record labels are concerned: some of them do keep their artists on an absurdly tight leash. But the fact remains that the artist signed a contract entitling the record company to that money. The artist did not sign a contract saying you can duplicate and distribute their music free of charge.
That’s the difference.
Theoretical, potential profit. Just like Consumer Reports might deprive Chevrolet of potential profit by urging consumers to choose a different brand, or Norelco electric shavers deprive Bic of potential profits from selling disposable razors.
As a matter of fact, I’m employed as a computer programmer. Everything I do at work relates to creating intellectual property. I’ve also spent countless hours of my free time working on volunteer projects.
If someone pirates a software product that my company sells, I don’t consider it stealing. Before, we had X dollars and the pirate had no software; after, we still have X dollars and the pirate has a new piece of software. We haven’t been harmed in any way, nothing has been stolen from us. The only thing that’s happened is the pirate has gotten something for nothing. Naturally, as a business, we try to prevent that because we have the legal right to do so and we like making money - but piracy doesn’t harm us, it only fails to help us.
(And even failing to help us is only theoretical. There are enough situations where piracy has indirectly helped the producers–think AutoCAD, 3D Studio Max, and now file sharing–that you can’t even say for sure whether piracy will increase or decrease profit.)
The closest thing to theft of an idea that I can think of is plagiarism. If someone takes my software and puts his own name on it, he’s denying my ownership and harming my reputation. But mere piracy doesn’t affect the ownership or perceived ownership of an intellectual property; everyone knows the pirated copy of “Oops I Did It Again” was recorded by Britney Spears.
Consumer reports does not provide you with alternate transportation at no cost to themselves. null sum.
As for the rest, you are either an anarchist of some sort, which is barely an ethos and certainly futile to argue with or you are out ant out lying to justify the corner which you have painted yourself into or finally you are a completely uninformed noncompoop. I leave it up to you to assign yourself a category, as you have left it up to us to presume one for you.
Realize that I have from the beginning stated that I am pro-file sharing when it comes to broadcast media. But you, you are irrational to an extent which alienates any support you may have had. You disregard potential as if it were meaningless, but you fail to carry through the implication. You could die tomorrow, or your potential to live may be another hundred years. You do not posess these years, therefore following your logic I could kill you and I would be robbing you of nothing as those unclaimes years are not yours. They only represent potential.
bah, you can lead a fool to water but you can’t make him think.
Sure, there’s a profit. Just not a monetary one. You profit by getting something, for nothing, that you don’t deserve or own. You have taken something that isn’t yours.
Jeez, this debate has been going on for years now. Do people really need to assuage a guilty conscience so much that they go so far out of their way to justify their wrongdoings? Do you delve into an equally off-base tirade whenever you exceed the speed limit by 5 mph?
Presumably, he’d be OK with it if you clone him first. 
I have many records/CDs/cassettes in my collection going back for decades. I often wondered if any of my favorite artists made other recordings that never made the charts or dropped off before I spotted them. But there was no convenient way to check on this and no way to buy or listen to such songs short of haunting used record stores and hoping.
Notice I said no way to BUY them.
I also like to listen to the same song as recorded by different artists to see how interpretations differ. Again, no convenient way to collect these by purchase or whatever.
Then along came Napster. Suddenly I could type in an artist’s name or a song title and find the recordings I had been hoping for for years! And after a few minutes of downloading, I could actually HEAR them! And play them again! Wow!
Now most of these songs I found have been out of print for a long time, or UNAVAILABLE to the general public. Why? Up until recently, reissuing an obscure album or a single song was technologically impractical or cost ineffective.
Now it isn’t. But the record companies refuse to use simple, cheap, available technology to make their libraries available to music lovers. I believe they are mistaken in thinking this is maximizing their profits.
Now, I double-dare you to tell me that my past downloading is stealing and I shouldn’t do it. Who am I possibly hurting?
I agree 100% with Janis Ian’s suggestion:
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
(In this link, scroll down about half-way to “A modest proposal…”) She suggests a payment of a quarter-dollar per song; enough to make a whole pile of money, but small enough that no one (even me) would blink an eye paying it. Hell, I would gladly pay for this privilege; this dream site could even out-Napster Napster.
Doesn’t the current record industry policy sound a lot like a “dog in the manger” attitude? “WE have the songs you want. WE will not let you listen to them. WE will not use technology to make them available to the public for a reasonable, yet profitable fee. Get your grubby criminal hands off our stuff and don’t come back!”
But that’s only my opinion. I could be right.
I have records i.e. vinyl that’s scratched, I wouldn’t hesitate to download the songs that are on those records and I don’t consider that stealing, because I’ve already paid for the right to hear the music. Moreover, once I hear part of it, I can play it back in my head, sing the lyrics, the solo’s, even write the shit out in standard notation.
I have over 100 CDs, all bought in stores. It is sure nice to know that I am just a thief just because of a few downloads.
Your position is logically inconsistent. Then again, so are the laws on the subject. Hence all the debate.
Are threads about how to use radar detectors closed immediately? Then again, unlike in music copyright law, there’s no rabid organization sowing fear and lawsuits built on irrational speeding laws, so the rules of the SDMB are understandable.
AmbushBug
Are you saying that would be wrong? Suspend disbelief for a moment, and suppose Consumer Reports says “We’re so upset with the Chevy Metro that we’ll come to your house and take you to work for free if you don’t buy one.” Are they somehow stealing from Chevrolet?
The company has no guaranteed right to profit. Just because Chevrolet is selling cars doesn’t mean you’re obligated to buy one. Just because Britney Spears’s record label wants you to buy her CD doesn’t mean you’re obligated to buy it.
Or perhaps I just don’t think potential profit is important enough that it needs to be protected.
No matter what you’re selling, there’s always a chance that something new will come along that eliminates the demand for your product. If you’re selling a car, someone will come along with a safer or cheaper car. If you’re selling razor blades, someone will come along with an electric razor that never needs new blades. In each case, you are losing potential profit - you would be making more money if people still bought your product.
But what that really means is you would be making more money if people still wanted your product. Well, of course! If people don’t want your product, you have to make a better product.
Of course, the purpose of copyright and patent law (as stated in the Constitution) is to provide an incentive for progress and creation of art by granting exclusive rights for a limited time. But although file sharing violates those exclusive rights, it sure seems to provide the incentive to create, since P2P users end up buying CDs, band merchandise, and concert tickets, often from bands they never would have heard about.
Monty:
How am I ripping off the artists, considering that I have spent thousands of dollars and bought hundreds of cds since discovering file sharing, when I only had bought ten cds before? I would never have even heard these artists were it not for file sharing. File sharing is one of the best things to ever happen to artists, because it gives them a way to promote and distribute their songs without the record company. You may not be aware of this, but usually record companies actually charge artists for their promotion, to such an extent that the artist ends up owing the record company money. Also record companies use their monopoly of the music industry for leverage in making contracts with artists that are not only highly immoral but would actually be illegal in almost any other situation. I am simply baffled as to how anyone can defend the record companies. The only artists that could possibly be hurt are artists who are enslaved to the record company, and thus will be hurt by whatever hurts said company. For instance, Britney Spears currently benefits by the monopoly of record companies on promotion and distribution, because she is force-fed to America’s youth and potential competition is killed off. However, I fail to see why anyone would believe a monopoly on promotion and distribution is a right, or why profits based on that “right” are deserved. And in time, as artists realize that record companies are less necessary, record companies will lose their power and leverage, and more artist friendly labels will emerge. This is already happening, but I would love it if any of the record company sympathizers here would care to make yet another baseless and empty argument and try to refute it. As for file sharing being a protest… I suppose their could be an element of protest, but mainly, file sharing is file sharing. It is an great advance in technology, with intrinsic value of its own that makes it far superior to the the old system, and it is ridiculous to say that the only reason to prefer it over the old system is to protest. Are you protesting against your own legs by driving a car?
SPOOFE:
It seems as though you are the one with a guilty conscience about this issue. I’ll tell you what, you can keep your opinion that file sharing is evil, and when file sharing stops the record companies from their monopolistic tactics, and when it stops them from entrapping artists in immoral contracts that should be illegal, and when new, artist friendly labels emerge that treat artists fairly and accept new technology instead of blatantly trying to stop technology in its tracks, and the music industry is improved for everyone then I’ll let you jump on over to our side. See, we’ll shoulder the heavy moral burden for you!
Mr2001:
Haven’t you heard? You are in fact obligated to buy everything you see advertized, or you are stealing.
argh! Damn board ate my post. Thankfully I have come to expect this and backed it up.
If they swiped the trucks off the assembly line of Chevrolet and then gave them away it sure as hell would be wrong. Do you honestly think that the music that gets copied was free to make? Studio time is an investment in time and money. Since the 1970’s studio time has gotten radically more expensive and artists on the average have spent more and more time in the studio, usually at the cost of the record label.
Now GM spends millions to design a car (studio time), and more millions tooling up tp build the car (marketing I suppose) and as soon as they have it right you swipe the car and give it away. Their investment isn’t in the car itself (those are just hunks of a few thousand dollars worth of metal. The loss is in the investment of development and advertising and labour. You have spent no time developing, refining, or creating.
This is not the same thing as Consumer Reports designing a better car, or even an equal car. They are this is a matter of them piggybacking one someone elses’ expense and undercutting them afterward. If GM subsequently spends less on design or goes out of business who do you steal from next? What happens when you have undercut everyone and no one is investing in new concepts? You, meanwhile have spent no effort building any ability to create on your own or to even refine the ideas of others and you yourself are left to starve as your source of materials have been killed by youor own shortsightedness.
Foolish that I should have to explain this to an adult.
a) You aren’t obliged to own one either. Same goes for Britney. But then why own it if you don’t want it? If you liked it well enough to own and keep, theny why are you adverse to purchasing it? Having said this, I will repeat that if it is broadcast for free I have no problem with owning it for free. I’ll get to this in detail at the end.
What is new about a copy of something? While NSYNC and Backstreet Boys seem like clones to me, they are at least generating slightly differing pieces. Again copying isn’t making something new. Duh.
Covered above. You made the product people want otherwise no one would bother to copy it. Duh. The person making the copy didn’t make it, they transferred it’s image to something else at no cost. Your logic works like this “I like that Joe The Hacker’s music the best. His copies of Will Smith and Madonna are way excellent! I have all of his stuff, and I can’t wait to hear him in concert. I just wonder how he manages to sing in so many different styles and write so much music.” Duh.
Abmushbug: No my position is consistent withing the context of the entirety of my statements. I do feel that file sharing/trading is ok is it is media that is free by intent or by action of the creators/managers. This means that if they broadcast Missing In Action 3 on TV then you can tape it there, so I have no probme with trading it online. Same goes for music. When I was a kid I used to tape off the radio all the time, no one cared about it at the time and now I feel the impact is similar. If Britney does “I’m a Slave” on the Radio or TV I could tape it from there (with much better quality) and copy it to CD via my burner. So sharing it isn’t much of an issue. However beyond sharing CD’s among immidiate friends as was traditionally done with taped and records I do have a problem with unrestricted sharing of non-broadcast music or media.
Mostly however my problem is with the sharing and piracy of software. As this media is seldom freely given away and is not broadcast there is clearly a distinction between this and film or music. Also sinch most of the folks who do write the kind of software that suffers from piracy don’t have an alternate source of income as do most musicians (ie: touring) it is doubly important to protect these creators.
As I stated before CD sales seem to have gone up since the advent of widespread music sharing, so I think the RIAA is usually full of shit. But that does not mean that people should think that everything they get online is free or that recieving things for free can’t possibly have a cost to them in the long run. That kind of ignorance is simply beyond the pale.
Well, that’s not comparable because each car you steal from the factory is a car that GM can’t ship to a dealer. But you knew that.
Take this analogy: Someone develops a replicator that can download copyrighted blueprints for cars. Thanks to the replicator, potential car buyers can “test drive” any car ever produced, including cars that aren’t sold at local dealers.
Some potential car buyers test drive a car, and if they like it enough, they go to a dealer and buy one. Some like it so much that while they’re at the dealer, they buy a few other cars of the same brand. Some test drive cars that aren’t available locally, and they recommend the brand to their friends, who then import cars from a foreign dealer. On the other hand, some people test drive cars and never buy another car again, even replicating more cars than they’ll ever need.
Some brands see a drop in sales, but other brands see a rise in sales. A survey of replicator users reveals that they’re more likely to buy cars (and return to the dealer for service and accessories) than before they started replicating. When the blueprints for a car are leaked to the public before the car is available at dealers, the car sells in record numbers as soon as it can be purchased.
Clearly the auto industry is not about to die. They still have an incentive to research and develop new models, although they may need to focus on different models as customer preferences come to light.
Keeping in mind that the purpose of allowing copyrights on these blueprints is to provide an incentive for research and creation of new designs, is replication something that should be illegal?
Perhaps the terms of sale are unacceptable. CD singles are dying out; if you only like one Britney Spears song, you have to choose between buying the whole album for $18 and illegally downloading one song.
No. The product being sold in stores is a CD containing 13 songs, plus a plastic case and paper insert, for $18. The products many people want are individual tracks in a form that can easily be transferred or manipulated.
What can the industry do to improve the product they’re selling? Route one, become more like MP3s. Offer downloads of individual tracks, in a form that can be used with car stereos and portable players. If people don’t want physical media or liner notes, don’t offer them.
Route two, make CDs worth purchasing. Drop the prices. Don’t bother with copy protection schemes that make the discs unplayable where people want to use them. Include extras with the disc - put lyrics or interviews in the liner notes, include vouchers for tickets or merchandise. Remember when Infocom games came with coins, maps, and bits of fluff?
This is really a subject for another thread.