Wow! We downloaders are going to learn a new meaning of ‘Bullettime’!
Hah, he got caught too!
If anybody has the ability, the money and actually a good reason to implement these bullets, it woul be Bill Gates. Windows is more pirated than about half the CDs together, money-wise. If Bill Gates isn’t (at least we think he doesn’t), why should the record companies be allowed?
Orrin Hatch’s solution is, well, barbaric. Next it’ll be cutting off hands for theft and castration for rape.
That said, and seeing the vast number of people on the Internet who think that it’s legal to make as many duplicates of music as one likes, and also legal to distribute them to anybody and anyone who happens along – even to total strangers – even when one is ignorant the transaction has even taken place – this doesn’t hurt anyone, they say?
Okay, maybe it’s not “theft” or “stealing” as we commonly know it, as might be found in a layman’s dictionary. Call it “fronking,” if you want. Or “glorping.” Or “kerfibbling.” To say it isn’t wrong because it isn’t “stealing” is just a semantic argument, and I think you all know it.
You will never hear any songs I’ve written until this problem is solved. Not one. I will never record my songs digitally and subsequently give them to anyone. I’ll keep my songs on analog tape, thanks, because I can’t trust more than half of you.
Is the world a better place because you’re forcing musicians not to play? Is the world a better place because you’re making artists afraid to display their work? Is the world a better place because you’re making writers paranoid of committing their words to a word processor? I can’t afford to play music for free, so instead, I have a regular job. The minute an illegal copy gets out of my hands, it’s over, and I go back to work, and the Creative Teat runs dry for the listeners. Nothing in the public domain by 2020? Ha! There won’t be much creativity at all in the public eye if musicians and artists and writers are working for nothing.
Look – I’m a hobbyist musician. I’m not the biggest fan of the huge monopolistic labels. The labels routinely harvest the sweat of the artists; of the $20 you spend on a CD, the artist gets maybe 3%, and he still has to pay for his own studio costs, distribution and music videos out of his royalties. The rest goes to the label. The big distributors have failed for years to recognize the digital music revolution; they have tried to pretend it doesn’t exist. Something has to show them a way to acknowledge that this is a valid method of distribution. Sure, they’re scared that their present business model will collapse, and they’re trying to keep a stranglehold on this, their gravy train. If the RIAA had its druthers, I’d bet that any copyright technology would be in the six-figure range so independent musicians can’t afford to copyright their stuff themselves. They’d have to go to the labels, right? --Which is pretty much the way it’s been for 80 years.
The way it looks now, the record labels are going to rot. Good riddance. They don’t offer much, anyway. Obsolete business model. But I don’t let my feelings cloud my thinking of who should receive the benefit and the reward of artistic creation.
I’m all in favor of re-inventing copyrightable music and copying technology if it puts the control back into the hands of the artist. And I firmly believe the artist is the creative force, so he or she should benefit from that creation.
Before the Internet came long, before home-CD-burning was possible, the RIAA was just a big, expensive middleman. A necessary evil – nobody had the ability, then, to make perfect copies. Now? The RIAA isn’t necessary. The market forces are putting pressure on the RIAA to get out of the way. What does everyone think of the concept of copyright when the middleman gets taken out? Would you still pay the piper?
FISH
I hear this one a lot from my buddies who have pirated video games–the old “I only do it for stuff I like well enough to use, but not well enough to pay for it” rationale. No harm no foul. You may actually even believe this, that there is not a single CD you would have purchased if illegal downloading were not an option.
But, semantical squirming notwithstanding, it’s illegal and it harms any copyright holder who wishes you not to violate his right. Call it stealing or whatever you want. It’s you getting something for free that the owner would not grant you without compensation. “But I’m really not inclined to pay the owner for this one” ain’t a defense.
It’s always amusing to see the rationalization going on in these threads. Teenagers ain’t rebelling against monster corporations and evil laws as someone suggested earlier (IMO); they’re getting lots of free stuff. So is everyone else who downloads free music.
Who has said it’s legal? I think you’ll find that most file sharers know it’s illegal, they just don’t care… just like speeders, jaywalkers, and underage drinkers.
You don’t need a new phrase at all. “Copyright infringement” works perfectly.
Who has said copyright infringement isn’t wrong just because it isn’t stealing? Murder isn’t stealing either, but that doesn’t make it right. The arguments that copyright infringement isn’t immoral have nothing to do with the choice of words you use to describe it.
That won’t help, it’s trivial to convert analog media to digital with a PC and a $5 cable from Radio Shack. If you don’t want strangers to hear your music, you better not give it to anyone.
Forcing them not to play, huh? I don’t think concert attendance has gone down due to file sharing. Feel free to provide a cite, though.
Harms the copyright holder? Not likely. It goes against his wishes, sure, but if I illegally download a Britney Spears song instead of buying the single, Britney and her label aren’t “harmed” any more than if I chose to A) listen to her song on the radio instead of buying it, B) listen to a friend’s single instead of buying my own, or C) buy the single used instead of new.
I guess no one saw that Hatchs website used illegal software, so he would have been blown up. Sorry, deleted those links already and am too lazy to search
For the scientific-minded among us, could anyone show some evidence that filesharing technologies have been a wrecking ball to the music industry? I made a request earlier and no one stepped up to the plate. We can argue for 5 more pages on definitions of stealing, but in my opinion, the bottom line in this particular situation is money, not principles.
Question: Why hasn’t the cost of CDs gone down since mp3s became so accessible? You’d think the powers-that-be would try to give the Napster Generation more of an incentive to “do the right thing”. Supply and demand theories teach that if the demand of a product decreases, cost falls. If the demand of CDs has dropped because everyone is downloading, why isn’t this reflected at the cash register? (Or maybe they have dropped and I haven’t noticed?)
by Fish:
I appreciate your perspective, really I do, but I think your bitterness will do more to hurt your creativity than mp3-philes. It may also cause you to miss the boat on the next wave of evolution for the music industry. Technology is at a place where it will be next to impossible to stop filesharing. Instead of fighting the tsunami, try to think of some ways to harness all the possibilities and make them work for you. Holding your breath until this problem is cured is just going to make you turn blue eventually.
Maybe this is the idealist in me but I think it goes against the artistic spirit to place so much importance on dollar signs that you’re willing to keep your talent all to yourself. But that’s just me.
you with the face:
Good question. The reason is simple: almost everything the RIAA says about file sharing is a blatant lie.
The fact is, cd sales have dropped LESS than cd releases have dropped. Mathematically, that means that the average cd sells MORE now than before file sharing.
Unfortunately, information like this is unlikely to get though to the anti-file-sharing crowd, as their opinions are based on knee-jerk reactions rather than logic.
Bob Cos:
If you could make brand name food appear magically, and you had no money and were starving, wouldn’t you do it? If you could make medicine appear, and you had no money and were sick, wouldn’t you do it? So if you could make a copy of a song appear, and you had no money and needed inspiration, why wouldn’t you do that?
In any of the instances, you are getting something for free that would not have been granted without compensation.
It’s always amusing to see what it really comes down to for the anti-file-sharing people. They don’t care that the recording industry treats artists as nothing more than hired help, when the artist is the true creative force. They don’t care about the unfair contracts. They don’t care about the price fixing. They don’t care that the recording industry lies about the effects of file sharing. They don’t care about unfair business models in which people are forced to buy something without hearing it, then are not allowed to return it. They don’t care about the “evil laws.”
No, what it comes down to for you is that people are “getting lots of free stuff.”
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Where did you come up with the depressing but luckily false notion that it is inherently bad to get free stuff?
It absolutely harms the copyright holder, and all these mental gymastics won’t change that a whit. The copyright holder would not permit you to do this specific act, which is his right to withhold, unless you compensated him according to his terms. Period.
The copyright holder does not have the right to keep you from listening to the radio; that’s not what this is about, and I believe everyone damn well knows this. He does have this right, which you (and others) have stepped on because it’s not convenient for you. He has been harmed, it’s indisuptable.
**Whether or not I would take medicine if I were poor and desperate would not change the fact that it would still be stealing if the right to the medicine were owned by a pharmaceutical company. And you “need” inspiration in the manner someone desperate might need medicine to live, eh? Gotcha. Nothing trivial about your theft of music.
You are really torturing logic with your hypotheticals. I can’t make a loaf of Wonder Bread appear magically, and, by the way, neither is Wonder Bread subject to copyright law. Eating it might violate some other intellectual property right, and if it did, it would be wrong to violate this right.
But nothing you have said changes the fact that the copyright holder has the legal right to expect compensation on his legal terms for his property. You have decided you won’t provide said compensation. You have violated his right. Period. It’s really that simple. If your character is such that you’re okay with trampling upon this right, fine. Just don’t kid yourself.
**This is a strawman. You have no idea if I care about these things; you only know that I won’t use these issues as justification for being dishonest. Can I ask you, though, if you shoplifted CDs/albums prior to filesharing, using the same rationale?
Can you debate without using strawmen, please? I love to get free stuff, and I never indicated otherwise. I just won’t take things that don’t belong to me.
and if you would not have bought it anyway or the copy right holder refuses to sell copies, his/her livelihood was damaged how?
If the copyright holder is not compensated for your use of his copyright, the one for which he demands compensation, you want me to explain how he was damaged? OK, it’s because you used his copyright without compensating him according to any legal terms he might demand. If the copyright holder refuses to sell copies, whatever reason he has for doing so is violated by your illegal use of said copyright. Glad I could be of assistance.
I am just not seeing it. What damage have i caused? Assualt, Vandelism, Fruad, all things I see damage had i done them to the copyright holder. I don’t see how violating his/her copyright in ether of the examples I mentioned has caused them harm.
Then you just can’t see how copyright laws work. The holder has the right to demand compensation or refuse use if you won’t pay. That is his right. There is no dusty little codicil in copyright law that grants an exception to you if you are really, really, pretty darn sure you wouldn’t buy this product. The old “I like it well enough to use it, but not well enough to pay for it” exception does not exist. Doesn’t matter how much you want it to. The holder of the copyright, through license or his own effort, has the right to be compensated if you use his product. If you use it without compensating him, you have damaged him.
Bob Cos - you are just repeating why it is illegal. But we have already agreed that it is illegal. You still haven’t told us how it damages the copyright holder. But by its absence, we can conclude how we are not damaging them.
I think we can safely assume that the copyright holder is not losing money, because surely if that were true you would just say that rather than having such a hard time trying to put into words just what the damage is.
And it is equally clear no physical property is lost.
So, the copyright holder is not losing money, and they are not losing physical property.
The only thing left is the RIAA’s satisfaction of knowing that nobody can hear the music that they copyrighted, even to test it before buying, without paying exorbitant sums of money.
Well… I think I can live with myself if all I am “stealing” is the RIAA’s satisfaction of a bad deed well done.
Fish, I too am a part-time musician, but I see things exactly opposite to you. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no way I’d even try making music if it wasn’t for the distribution opportunities offered by MP3s and the internet. My number one goal is to be heard, not to not heard. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde (and 50 Cent), the only thing worse than having everyone downloading your music is to have no one downloading it. After all, if you “never record [your] songs digitally and subsequently give them to anyone,” how will, I, and thousands like me, ever hear them? I can guarantee you, I will never ever buy any of your music if I haven’t heard it, nor will I ever buy a ticket to any of your shows. Surely it’s better to have people listening to your music with the possibility that you won’t be compensated than to have people not listening to your music, with the certainty that you will never be compensated? If, however, you do choose the latter, for your sake, I hope that you have an uncle working high up in Clear Channel, because otherwise, you’ve got little chance of getting anywhere.
Then again, it is your choice to do what you please with your music, just as it should be for any creator of music. But, for the most part, the creators aren’t the ones in control, they aren’t the ones benifiting from and dictating how their music will be used. as such, I’m not going to be in any rush to give up my downloading ways. If I knew that artists had control over the copyright that the RIAA is so busy defending, I would be less inclined to ignore the wishes of the copyright controller. But when the copyright controller is someone divorced from the creative process, who only controls that copyright because have the infrastructure and funds to dominate the means of distribution to the extent that if you don’t go through them, nine times out of ten, you won’t get heard, then I will not be desperately trying to conform to their desires.
And hey, I know what I’m doing is illegal. I don’t think it’s wrong though, and that’s what matters to me.
And I’d just like to point out that I downloaded Radiohead’s latest album, Hail to the Thief. Then I found out that what I had downloaded was an unmixed version of the album, that Radiohead were not keen on people hearing. Fair enough, that’s reasonably their call, and if they don’t want people hearing it, it’s very unfortuante that those tracks were stolen from them.
Later, I downloaded the fully mixed version of the album. Then, the very day it came into stores, I bought the limited edition fold out map version of Hail to the Thief. As did many others like me. In fact, Hail to the Thief was Radiohead’s biggest first week of sales in the history of the band. But, surely the spate of downloading should have meant that people like me (who downloaded the album twice) would not bother buying it, right? Surely, I could have even escaped buying it by rationalising “I wouldn’t have bought it anyway”.
But I did buy it. Why, oh, file-sharing haters, did I buy this album? Please tell me. Because under your theories of the record market, I should not have bought this album.
Forgive my intrusion, but I linked to a site earlier in this thread containing evidence that the RIAA wasn’t hurting. It was ignored by the anti-FS crowd here, just like every other logical rebuttal of the money argument.
I stand by my statement. It’s true that you could say it’s petty and childish, that I’m holding my breath until the situation changes, but in truth I don’t have any control over the situation to begin with. The only thing I can control is who I give free copies to. At the moment, free copies are the only thing I can provide, and appreciation is my only reward. I’m not losing a thing by giving them away, but neither am I getting anything in return. Since I can’t trust anybody to respect my work more than I do, I’ll continue to do with it what I think is right, which includes performing it live.
This is what I mean when I say you’re forcing musicians not to play: because I can’t trust the market, I won’t provide music.
This battle is going to be fought not only in million-dollar lawsuits, but in the hearts of the listeners. So far, plenty of people have said that it’s illegal but it’s not wrong, that it’s not illegal, that it’s not stealing, whatever. But I think it’s wrong that someone is making copies of my stuff on my behalf, even if you don’t, so who wins? Nobody.
I guess I’m only bitter about this because I have had other art stolen before – not music, but drawn art. I was foolish enough to give one person a digital copy of it, and it was promptly given away, where some other bastard put his name on it and posted it on the Internet. More the fool I, I feel.
So no, I’m not going to change my attitude, because I don’t feel as if I’m the one who is doing the wrong thing. I create because I enjoy it, and I share stuff because I like to be appreciated. But I get very angry and frustrated when someone takes credit for my stuff, or re-distributes it without my name on it, so I can avoid that frustration by controlling how I share it. It’s the only thing I can see that’s within my grasp.
As I said before, I would be happy to begin to share songs – even for free! – if I knew that they couldn’t be taken and redistributed. The money isn’t important; the proper credit is. I’ve never been paid yet for my work, bar the occasional tip in a piano bar, and I’m not optimistic that it’ll ever happen. I’m not holding out for a pot of gold. I just want to be appreciated for what I’ve done.
Having already been ripped off once due to inadequate control and human indifference, I won’t let it happen again. Because I can’t make anyone care, control is what’s left.
FISH
Bob Cos, you keep repeating the same argument. “Filesharing hurts the copyright holder”. When we ask how, you basically say “because it allows people to use something for free.”
I, and others like me, want to see some digits, some cites, some stats. I want to be convinced that I’m a no-good music thief simply because I’ve got a good stock of MP3s on my hard drive. I want to see some proof that copyright holders are feeling pinched by the downloading revolution, and that creativity is truly being stifled.
Not in theory (which is what you are talking about), but in reality.
Question: If a study showed that there was no significant difference in music sales before and after the advent of file sharing, would the RIAA still have a legitimate gripe?
I dunno, face, but that argument smacks of stealing ten dollars from a millionaire. Will the millionaire notice? Probably not. Will it hurt him? Probably not. Is it still stealing? Yes. Is it still wrong? Yes.
My question is: if you’re not going to pay for the music you download, who is? The answer I fully expect to hear: some other sap can pay for it, as long as I get the freebie.
FISH