I love friend Alereon’s claim that not only is his theft not theft, but that
his theft MAKES THE ARTISTS MORE MONEY!
That through some magic .com hocus-pocus new-age economy trick, the people who own the songs get more money because he chooses to enjoy it without paying. Wow! Bottle that one, baby; we’ll make a fortune.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, sometimes YOU crack me up more then I do! HAHAHAHA
Not comparable, Sterra.
Now, if you were to take a picture specifically of a painting, and just that painting, for the purpose of enjoying that painting without having to buy a print, then I’d say you’re probably infringing on the copyright, if the piece is copyrighted. Which is stealing. But a pick of five of your friends in the Louvre and oh, theres a painting, that’s quite different. Totally different intent, and intent matters.
And as for playing music being the creation of a copy, that’s just dumb.
You want to justify theft in the form of copyright infringement, then I’m sure you’ll be able to come up with some nonsense justification that you think trumps the legitimate rights of the owners of the music you’re stealing. That’s pathetic. But there ya go.
If you like a piece of music so much, why are you fucking over the people who created that work by refusing to do the RIGHT thing and purchase a copy of it?
I actually don’t really like music so I don’t download many mp3s online. While I have downloaded a few mp3s most of them are because the creators wanted them to be downloadable to the public because they wanted to sell that music and make a profit on it. What I do do is watch anime online and one thing you will find is that the majority of sites where you find anime will stop the downloading if the creators ask. They don’t because they know that the large majority of anime watchers in America will never buy an anime before watching it.
As far as intent goes I don’t think it matters. Sure you think it is justifiable, but I think you are just trying to justify your thieving ways. If you really respected the artist you would ask him before taking that picture and illegally copying his work.
spectrum: I believe we’ve cleared up the difference between copyright infringement and theft. If you fail to see the distinction, then I suggest you re-read the thread.
Bill H.: Read what I said to spectrum. I will now summarize my arguments against your second point: Ready access to music online makes people buy more CDs. The vast majority of people who download music but do NOT buy the CDs are the same people who wouldn’t care enough to buy the CDs in the first place. Net effect on the artist? More sales.
You think they’re playing musicguy’s tunes on the radio? I don’t know who he is IRL, but I’d doubt it. Also, yes, the stations pay a licensing fee, but how much is that fee compared to the value of all the free CDs, merchandise, and other goodies the record companies throw at them? I used to be a DJ at a high school station. We paid CMJ ~$300 a year and, in return, got thousands of dollars in free CDs and other junk.
When I buy a CD from a major-label band that gets no airplay, I often wonder how much of my purchase price went towards sending every radio station in the country 20 extra copies of the newest dreck from Britney Spears. Obviously every band doesn’t get promoted equally, but the major label CDs all cost the same amount. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know the ins and outs of the recording industry, so if someone can offer me a better explanation for this practice, I’m all ears.
I use MP3 as a sampling medium. I want to sample a wide variety of new music and radio just doesn’t cut it. Not even close. What other choice do I have? Buy thousands of dollars worth of CDs and throw away the ones I don’t like?
Basically this thread (and every other one like it) boils down to several posters stating that most of their friends download music just to sample, then buy. Other posters claim that everyone they know is an uberLeech, snagging gigs and gigs of MP3s, with every CD they own having been burned in a computer rather than stamped in a factory. Obviously, both types of people exist, but we don’t know the ratio of leeches to samplers, and all the personal anecdotes in the world won’t give us the real numbers.
I’ve always had a strong conscience. If I walk into a convenience store without security cameras and the clerk is in the back room not paying attention, I have ample opportunity to steal something without any chance of getting caught. I don’t do it. I also work unsupervised around thousands of dollars worth of goods. I’m fairly certain that I could snag some very nice stuff and never get caught. I’d never do it. I have a friend who tried to persuade me to help him shrink down and burn the video from rented DVDs onto DVD-Rs to sell. My technical knowledge would earn me a cut of the profits. I refused because it struck me as incredibly wrong. (In case you’re wondering, the friend eventually gave up on the idea without selling a single disc.)
I don’t get those pangs of guilt when I download MP3s, though. Does that mean I have a semi-defective conscience? If I do, so do the 4.5 million other people connected to Kazaa on any given afternoon. Not to mention the countless others on the other P2P services. And then there’s the thousands of people on the old standbys - IRC and Usenet, both of which probably aren’t too high on the RIAA’s target list, due to perceived difficulties in using those technologies among the semi-computer-literate.
I think the only people who come out smelling like roses in this ordeal are the artists who generously release their material in MP3 format, then politely ask you to buy the CD if you like it. A great band that does this is Something Corporate. They’ve embraced this wonderful technology and made their songs available on MP3.com. Their official site even has a couple of streaming videos of live performances. Thanks to their electronic self-promotion and the sheer kick-assness of the band, I promptly bought their only full length CD. I even managed to track down a copy of their relatively-hard-to-find debut EP.
People like this are the artists of the future. Lars Ulrich and the RIAA are nothing more than dinosaurs trying to sue the impending comet that’s about render them extinct.
I do purchase music. A better question might be why the people who distribute this music are constantly fucking over BOTH the artists and the consumers.
Actually, yes they are. I am also a member of ASCAP and receive royalties when my work is purchased. I’m by no means a well-known composer, just a humble writer who has had a few nice opportunities come my way. An album that contained material written by myself was even nominated for a grammy award. But as a writer, I don’t have touring and merchandise sales to fall back on. My income from music is solely dependent on royalties, and if my music is illegally downloaded, I’m shit out of luck. So if I come off strongly on this topic, it is because file-sharing hits very close to home.
I do apologize for my rude tone in some of my earlier posts to this thread though. It is hard not to get emotional when I see people who really couldn’t care less about the artists who are just trying to make a living from their craft. Don’ t know if you would like my music or not and you certainly are under no obligation to purchase it. But if you do like it, at least have the decency to support me by purchasing my product, rather than taking something for free that you have no legal right to own.
First of all, how can you be so sure that you have never heard any of my music? I’m not about to give up my real identity on a message board but that is a rather presumptuous statement.
So I should look at my profession as a hobby, rather than be upset that people are breaking the law by obtaining my music illegally? Interesting logic but I think I would rather see the current laws enforced.
The extreme logic-stretching and mealy-mouthed excuses that some people are exhibiting in this thread are staggering.
IT’S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
What is this fucking sense of entitlement that people think they have to own illegal copies of music that they didn’t even pay for?
And the justifications as to why an artist shouldn’t earn royalties on his work? Or even get paid at all for it?
And copyright-infringment downloading can be justified by the fact that the RIAA fucks over artists? So, you want to fuck over a artist as well? That’s terrific!
And the claims that people who engage in copyright infringement are actually responsible for a RISE in CD sales? That’s bullshit. Every person I know who downloads music does it for one reason. They don’t want to pay for it.
Well then you just don’t know very many people, Keith Berry.
Ok, so if in your selective vocabulary the “Electronic Theft Act” doesn’t relate to theft, try this one on for size: That Theft Act calls what you do a “criminal offense”. Does your non-theft logic tell you that though it’s a criminal offense, it’s certainly not a crime?
And how about this word: “imprisonment”? Have you heard that one?
Go on and play word games while your criminal buddies pay up. And perhaps worry that maybe that 5 year price for a first time offense may come knocking at your door some day.
Or not. I’m sure your “what exactly does ‘thief’ mean in the existential scope of things” logic will impress a judge.
Hmmm…most of the money I don’t spend on CDs gets spent on going to their shows- a situation where the artist gets nearly all of the money. Usually I end up buying a tee-shirt or at least a button. That is just about pure profit for the artist. Heck, I’ve been known to mail twenty dollar bills to artists just because I like them that much.
The other day my friend asked me if I’d ever heard of a band. I downloaded some stuff, and decided I liked it. A week later I was at one of their concerts. If it wern’t for filesharing, I would have neither bought their album (who has eighteen bucks to spend on a whim? I barely have eighteen bucks to pay my gas bill) nor have gone to their concert. They would have ended up with nothing and I would have ended up with nothing. Who would win in that situation? Nobody.
So yeah. I’m a thief. And you know what? I’ll continue being a theif, because I consider the real criminal act to be the way that our good faith laws have been literally outpurchased by a dieing bohemoth of an industry that has absolutely no investment in America’s cultural heritage and absolutly no respect for the huge effects that the completly overboad laws they buy affect technology and culture as a whole.
If I get around to it, I’ll put up and link to some papers I’ve written on copyright law. I’m not pulling this stuff out of my ass to justify my actions. I’m a digital media major and have done a lot of courswork (and a lot of writing) on copyright and society. It’s a complicated issue, but one that is pretty near to the few people left that still hope that technology can make the world a better place, not just a richer one
I am the only person I know IRL that likes to “preview” music before I buy. And I sure like to buy CDs, as my credit card bills will testify. But, there are people I’ve encountered online who also claim they download before they buy. So I know I’m not alone. But I don’t know what the percentage of people who “preview” (like me) and people who just won’t pay. I’m guessing 50/50? I certainly can’t believe that the vast majority buy music after downloading, that’s for sure.
I really sympathize with musicguy. It’s hard to try to make some money with creative work, only to see it thwarted by people who have a feeling of entitlement, and an attitude that only chumps pay. (And trust me, I’ve met these kind people. I’ve been scolded and looked at as if I am from Mars because I pay. Bizarre.)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that I don’t really have a problem with low-key music swapping—you know, loaning a CD to a friend, listening to an MP3 to decide if you want to buy it, that sort of thing. Also, speaking for myself, I don’t mind “sharing” my own work, if it’s in a very controlled, low-key way. I have a website with lots of scenic photography. I give permission on my site for people to download my pictures (just low-res jpg files) and print out a copy on their inkjet printer. Or even to use on an iron-on t-shirt. Just low-key, homegrown stuff that stays in their home and doesn’t stray anywhere. I’m OK with that. I’m glad to share, actually.
What I’m not OK with is people stealing my bandwidth, putting my images on their websites without asking me first (usually they don’t give me credit), trying to publish and/or profit from my images. It’s not the small stuff, the little copy here, the little “borrowing” there that bothers me so much, it’s the widespread and wanton “I won’t pay for it, no matter what” that is troubling. Or the, “I got a copy of it, so it’s MINE” (even though they didn’t pay for it, and never were given permission to copy it). And I see some of that attitude here. There is NO reason why someone should have hundreds of MBs of music, none of which they’ve paid for.
See, now that’s just obnoxious. That’s like telling the shopkeeper to consider his shop a “hobby”, because he can’t seem to effectively stop shoplifting. Because people will do what they will do. Oh, I’m fully aware that shoplifting isn’t the same as copyright infringement, but they are both illegal, can we not agree? So, why should the person who is trying to make an honest buck have to concede defeat and make something that should have been a business into a “hobby”? Something for which they worked for very hard, and obviously have been doing pretty well with (since their work is good enough to “steal”, so to speak)? Simply because some people can’t seem to restrain themselves from breaking the law? No, that doesn’t seem right at all.
(And I want to ask, why aren’t some of you on the several GD copyright threads? This subject is hot right now, I must say!)
Well, the simple truth is you are only entitled to make a living in legal ways that the market supports. And if a growing number of people would rather break the law than to support your industry the legal way, its a good sign that the market is turning against you.
And people are going to keep breaking the law. Just look at pot smokers for examples of this. They, like mp3 sharers, feel that they aren’t hurting anyone or breaking any “real” law and that they are anonymous enough to get away with it. So they continue to smoke pot, despite the fact that it has been illegal for like 80 years. And I might add that the penalties for smoking pot are considerably more harsh than for copywrite violations.
Best the music industry can hope for right now is that the number of mp3 sharers peaks soon and that enough people can be convinced that sharing is morally reprehensible enough to stay illegal. However, I don’t think this is going to happen. People are used to getting music for free via the radio. Convincing them that it’s somehow much, much worse to download it is an uphill battle. A battle which is ultimately doomed to fail when the millions of college kids with gigs of music on their hard drives get into power.
Right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immortal, sharing will eventually be the status quo.
I could not find the survey cited in the above links, however here is the home page of the company that conducted the research…
Greenfield Online homepage:
…so the organization that conducted the survey offers the chance of cash prizes and giveaways to those that participate in the survey. Also the surveys conducted by Greenfield are completely online-samples aren’t random, in fact, from what we can gather from the website-it doesn’t seem to matter at all if their is any bias in the collection of data…
…feel free to try one of their survey’s! You could win money! However, whether or not we can trust the results of the survey is another story…
http://www.greenfieldonline.com/surveycenter/default.htm
(beware, you have to submit an email address)
…wouldn’t a survey on P2P use in relation to CD purchases, be more accurately conducted anonymously, at the Point of Sale?
Yes, you should look at it as a hobby. Artists throughout history have created art because they had an inner urge and were not dependent on financial remuneration. The feeling of making a contribution, or even a chance at immortality is sufficient payment for most artists.
Though not an artist as such, I do software development in the free software world. The time I spend on this activity is equivalent to a full time job, but I don’t demand any payment because I believe the right of the human race to enjoy innovation and creativity trumps my right to be paid at all costs.
And by the way, musicguy, copyright is a very recent invention. For most of its history human civilisation has had no concept of “protecting artists”. But that didn’t mean there were no artists.
Stop being so fucking egotistical about payment for your precious songs, which must suck, because you said the album was nominated for a Grammy, and nowadays only shitty commerical music gets nominated for a Grammy.
UnuMondo
Fair enough, but I don’t really expect that I have heard your stuff. If however you are Fred Durst, then you are going to get such a pitting.
Shall we assume then that you are a hypothetical artist, whose stuff I haven’t heard? Why would I buy your work, oh hypothetical artist, if I’ve never heard of it?
So I take it that you are unable to back this up with a cite? I’m asking for the relevent legislation, not your blathering.
Why would I pay for it if I haven’t heard it? What if the radio doesn’t play it?
Your government can’t imprison me.
BTW, right now I’m downloading a song from Cursive’s latest album because none of the music stores in town stock it. Turns out that having downloaded four songs from it already, I love it and need to own it. I’m going to Sydney to find it on Friday and if I can’t get it there, I’ll order it.
Am I evil?
Well, I am sure that society is forever in your debt for your selfless contributions to the software world. Let me guess…File sharing software?
Bach was paid for his work, Michelangelo was paid for his work, Mozart was paid for his work. Not through royalties but through financial backers. See, even then, society realized that it was important that artists get paid for their work. Why? Because that was the only way they were going to be able to afford to take the time to create more music (Silly artists, we like to eat and pay our rent). It’s a pretty simple concept.
And as far as your personal insults, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said my music was “precious” or that I had a right to financially prosper from it. But it is my music and as such, the law states that I have a right to have control in regards to the distribution of that music. Illegal file sharing removes that control.
Thanks for the laugh! 
No, I’m not Fred, although I’m not so sure I would admit it if I was.
Fair question. I shouldn’t and don’t expect you to buy music from artists you have never heard of. But there are other avenues for hearing music, rather than just the illegal one. For example, maybe you heard a song in a movie that you liked. Maybe you saw a band open up for an artist you went to see and you determine that you want to hear more from them. Maybe, I decide as an artist that I want to have free material available so that you can get an idea of what my music sounds like. That doesn’t mean that I should be expected to make my entire catalog available for free. I should have the right to determine which material I want to give away and which material I would rather not. The law would seem to be on my side in this regard.
Not at all. I would happily contribute patches to file-sharing software, but much of it is written by groups of friends who don’t seek much outside involvement, although they open the source. My projects are utilities to take advantage of Unicode on *nix platforms. I’ve also written software to make the transition to Linux easier for classicists.
Patronage is just fine (although be aware that Mozart lived in poverty but still created art). In fact, I’ve argued for it on the SDMB before. Since upper classes have better taste in art, it would be a good idea to allow just them to decide which artists survive and which don’t. The current problem consists in using the government to decide that, which results in a lot of crap music and makes things very inconvenient for listeners.
Oh, and knock it off with the “the law is on my side” rhetoric. We all know about copyright laws, it’s just that some of us don’t care, so you are only wasting time endlessly typing your legal spiel.
UnuMondo