No need for quotes around stealing. You are, by its very basic definition and concept, stealing. Grow up and own it.
Yeah, it’s a shame that the entitled kiddies who steal stuff because “it doesn’t hurt anyone!” are hurting legitimate customers.
The companies still have a responsibility to their legitimate customers.
They do. That said, I can recognize that they’re not spending money on DRM schemes or inconveniencing customers just for giggles and have the presence of mind to lay blame at the root cause.
I’m not saying Sony BMG in this specific instance is innocent or blameless but speaking more generally of DRM in general.
Did you read the Wiki article I linked to?
Sony not only came up with a DRM that screwed up customers’ computers in a number of ways, it didn’t inform customers the DRM would be installed and they deliberately hid the installation.
Sony also engaged in some piracy of their own.
Not sure if you started that post before or after my edit. I acknowledge that the BMG thing was shitty behavior. Likewise, if some publisher (software, music, etc) fails to properly purchase/license their stuff then they should absolutely be called on it, plus whatever legal action is appropriate.
No that all makes good sense, thanks.
What makes it nonsense is that the concept of “stealing” already contains multiple levels of wrong. Shoplifting a candy bar from the corner store is an entirely different level of morality than robbing the national mint, but both are covered under the umbrella of “stealing.”
The only person denying new music to her fans is Stevie Nicks. Either she has enough dedicated fans who will buy a physical copy of her album to make a profit or she does not. Or she is free to enter the 21st century and embrace the fact that it may not be a lucrative as once it was. She ascribes that drop to pirates but I doubt it. Far more likely is the change in consumer preference from physical media (most lucrative but dropping in popularity) to digital.
It may be that the amount she makes from the new streaming and digital models is less than she finds acceptable and to that I say boo-hoo. The world doesn’t owe her a multi-million dollar lifestyle, just as we didn’t owe the monks stylish haircuts and copious mead. She may need to make do with business class rather than first class, four star not five, prosecco rather than Moet. The model has changed, The business has changed, albums and physical media are not necessarily going to make an artist as rich as they’d like to be. On the positive side the new model does mean anyone with talent and a laptop can make music and get it out to the world.
The paradigm shift since the late 90’s has been digital connectivity and delivery. As consumers we demand music instantly, cheaply and abundantly. I’m sure that 15th century monks were annoyed that the printing press meant they no longer could demand the same high prices for their manuscripts but you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Digital is here and music is the perfect product for that medium. Pirates will always copy, 'twas ever thus and ever will be. An temporary arms race develops between content provider and pirate which the content provider inevitably loses. The smart providers circumvent this by making the product more user friendly and practical than the illicit version at a price-point that people are willing to pay. If they fail to optimise those three criteria then yes, increased piracy will follow. Therefore, (coming back to the OP) they are stupid if they don’t realise this.
You seem to be accepting my point whereas Jophiel will not, that different levels of seriousness exist within the concept of “stealing”.
That being the case (and we all know it is) I don’t think it is helpful or sensible to lump them all in as the same thing and use the example of the worst case to argue against the more minor ones.
People at the top like Stevie Nicks are just the canaries in the coal mine. The vast majority of people who depended on the reliable stream of royalty income that was disrupted by online piracy are not making choices between first class and business class. They’re making choices between staying in the business or leaving.
The explosion of creativity in the 20th century was enabled by strong copyright protection and the ability of people to do creative work as a living. As a whole, when a profession becomes a hobby, quality will not be maintained.
Malcolm Gladwell estimated that it takes 10,000 hours to make a genius. Well, people aren’t going to get to that 10,000 hour mark if they have to have a day job.
Bottom line is that you get what you pay for. If you create a system in which fewer people can be creative for a living, you will get less quality creative work overall. That’s going to happen no matter whether you think they are “owed” a living.
Anyway, it won’t matter, because in a few years the robots will do everything.
I previously said:
I guess debates are easier when you just pretend that the other guy never responded and use that as a win. Maybe just stick to calling people hysterical.
Legitimately sold digital didn’t become a major factor until well into the 2000s, and streaming not until well into the decade after. She decided to stop after her 1994 album when music piracy exploded with Napster. I mean, maybe she’s a psychic and knew what would be the streaming scene fifteen years later or maybe her own word on her reasons makes more sense than your attempt at defending how your stealing doesn’t hurt anyone.
You accept then that pirating a game is not as serious as stealing a physical copy? yes or no will do.
disrupted by online piracy specifically or disrupted by digital media distribution in general?
Stealing a physical copy directly hurts more people (since you have the loss from the retailer, etc) but stealing a digital copy and stealing a physical copy both hurt people and are shitty behavior.
No. In fact, it may be far less impactfil. A stolen physical copy is used by one person; a stolen digital copy can be torrented by millions.
Good point. Also, if I’m selling music and Best Buy purchases some of my CDs and you steal one, I still got paid. That doesn’t help Best Buy any but the direct impact to me isn’t the same. If I’m selling digital music and you steal it instead, I get zero dollars. So stealing music physically hurts different people but not necessarily less people.
Really, I can’t say that one is worse than the other. Both are about equally bad.
I don’t steal music and had you bothered to read my previous comments you know that I have said on several occasions, clearly, that I consider it to be wrong…just not as much as you do.
I certainly do think that its effect on revenue is vastly overstated and overestimated by (mainly) the recording industry. Typically every illicit download is noted as a potential lost sale which is obvious nonsense. I have no doubt that many pirates download material they have no particular desire for and will never play anyway…more or less wrong? a lost sale?
Someone may well download a song to which they already have access via prime music or Spotify, is that more or less wrong? a lost sale? If they do it in order to have it in a format that can be more widely played by them I have a hard time leveling a huge amount of criticism at them.
When I bought a tape or CD or LP back in the day I would copy it across to another format, what did that make me? was that a lost sale? I had an LP of Purple Rain and my friend had a CD so I copied the CD to cassette for use in the car…dreadfully morally wrong? was that a lost sale? was it as bad as walking into the record shop and stealing a cassette copy?
I just don’t see these things in such absolute terms as you do.
Well, I could listen to the artist who talked about why she stopped recording in the mid 90s or I could listen to the opinion of the piracy apologist who insists that Spotify is really the reason she stopped recording in the mid 90s.
Tough call.
That makes no sense. What stops a stolen physical copy being torrented by millions?