Piracy

[Nasor]

So if I want something that's for sale, if I decide that the owner doesn't deserve to be paid, I'm justified in just taking that item without paying the owner anything at all? ...because I've decided that he doesn't deserve it?

The difference between making a copy and taking real property has already been discussed at length, you stupid troll.

But what if the owners of that product don't want you to "evaluate" the product without payment?

Too bad. Intellectual property is not a fundamental right, it exists only for utilitarian purposes. Since evaluating something to determine its quality is not at odds with the purpose of copyrights, there's no ethical reason why people shouldn't do it.

Nasor, I know that you know that you're scratching hard to find some justification for copyright infringement, but you know that it's illegal. If you think that everything should be free, then say so.

I never said this.

Or if you think all music and software should be free, just say so, and work to get the laws changed. You've said yourself that you're quite happy giving away your music, that people shouldn't pay you a penny for it. So, if you're like that, then every artist and musician must be like that, right? ;=)

I think you're having trouble keeping up with the conversation.

 

[parmalee]

Obviously the companies are riled up by piracy, or they wouldn't be making such a big deal. ...

quadrophonics addressed this post more than adequately, so why bother wasting my time again.

but this amuses me:

Y'all's justifications are pathetic. Though like I said, I would never expect criminals to give a damn about the damage they cause, anyway. That's what makes you guys pathetic.

it's funny how you seem so concerned about this piracy issue, yet you've made no mention of the fact that musicians--the sort that deal with shitty major labels, that is; not anyone i know or care to know as i have little interest in pop and mainstream music, BUT i still acknowledge their real plight--are consistently fucked over by their "companies." so why is it that piracy concerns you more? perhaps it is because musicians are being fucked over by their "companies," but the activities of these companies are legal nonetheless. and you only care about what is illlegal right?

you know, i went through my ayn rand phase when i was 13. by the age of 14, perhaps 15, i was thoroughly embarrassed by myself. how about you, norse? how old are you exactly? i recall having read that you are 21, but i honestly cannot believe that, as you think very much like a developing adolescent--you know, "i read the republic last week, now i'm all about meritocracies." pffftttt. grow up!

seriously, if you're like 13 or 14, i admire you for exploring new ideas and such. if you're 21, well... you're kinda pathetic.

 

[parmalee]

i guess i'll add something more substantive than ad hom, though frankly i simply do not have the patience of saint quad and others here...

Norsefire:

your argument essentially amounts to "piracy is bad 'cuz it's illegal." you have not shown how piracy adversely impacts the creators of music or software, and quadrophonics, Randwolf, and others have shown how piracy may very well work to the benefit of the creators of such.

a lot of musicians are also software engineers; in fact, the creators of those immensely popular games in which one plays along with a song on some sort of guitar and drum hand modules--guitar hero? and that other one? fuck, i don't know; i don't play video games unless they're all text (zork, hitchhiker's guide...)--are all musicians. and they all have piles of copied cds and pirated software lying about their homes, which they've been kind enough to share with me. of course, one can't very well pirate that game, as such would involve fabricating the hand controllers as well, but that's irrelevant.

the point is: an awful lot of these "pirates" are musicians, software engineers, etc.--they've created the stuff which is being pirated, and they, in turn, do their share of pirating. they (we, rather) are well aware that much of the piracy takes place well outside of the "industry," IOW most pirates have not contributed or created "product" to be pirated, but they are not phased by this--because even those pirates outside of the "industry" seem to be contributing something to the cause of the musicians, engineers, etc., specifically: promotion.

what about the stuff that does not suffer for lack of promotion? Randwolf's thesis--in post #71--would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove; yet your contention--that the creators are suffering due to piracy--is every bit as difficult to prove. and you have provided NO evidence which establishes that the creators are suffering. rather, you have provided some dubious claims from, what, someone from the dixie chicks?! and has she provided evidence to support her claim?

consider sly1's contention:

You are focusing on an insignificant theft crime when more severe theft cases that truely hurt people are off your radar because you are trying to make all theft cases equal and make the whole issue black and white when really....piracy really isnt putting people in the poor house....just back on stage.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2458645&postcount=84

so why is it that these more severe cases, which truly hurt people, are off your radar? for instance, you do not seem concerned over the matter of musicians (who deal with unscrupulous major labels) who are being cheated by their labels--why is this? if something is not considered theft by legal definition, does it completely fly under your radar? is everything really this black-and-white for you? is the man who steals a loaf of bread for his starving family a "pathetic, unjust, immoral, enemy of the state and a virus upon society"? am i, when i "steal" a dog from the person who is neglecting and abusing the animal?

 

[parmalee]

Obviously the companies are riled up by piracy, or they wouldn't be making such a big deal. And people completely ignore the demands of the owners of the property and taking it anyway. That is stealing and illegitimate.

and who are the "owners of the property"? a few years ago, i covered a robert wyatt song. i had to shell out several hundred bucks--a certain amount for every single copy of the cd which was pressed--for licensing fees. and to whom did this money go? well, not robert wyatt; rather, the money went to the harry fox agency--robert wyatt did not see one penny. oh, but that's all good to you, right? because it was all legal, and that's all that matters. nevermind the fact that the actual creators of the music were fucked over by the likes of richard bransen (virgin records) and his ilk.

Here's the thing: get some standards of decency, and start following the damn rules.

i recall having read a post in which you confessed to having used an "illicit drug" on a particular occasion--am i correct? so clearly, you cannot abide the rules either; hence, you are every bit as much a lowly and pathetic criminal as the rest of us, right? or are you only concerned about certain rules, the one which you deem "just"?

And musicians don't care? Right...

http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html


""As an artist who has dedicated his life to music and the music business, I have seen what illegal music copying has done and continues to do to new and established musicians. I understand why people download music, but for me and my fellow artists, this is our livelihood. When you make an illegal copy, you're stealing from the artist. It’s that simple. Every single day we're out here pouring our hearts and souls into making music for everyone to enjoy. What if you didn’t get paid for your job? Put yourself in our shoes!" Sean (P. Diddy) Combs"

""Making an album is a team effort, so when somebody pirates a record that not only affects the artist, but also the people who worked on it like co-producers, co-writers and musicians.” Shakira"

"If you create something and then someone takes it without your permission, that is stealing. It may sound harsh, but it is true." Mary J. Blige

"My producer, my co-writers, my musicians have a big part in my albums. When you download music illegally, those folks don’t get paid." Brad Paisley

"It may seem innocent enough, but every time you illegally download music a songwriter doesn’t get paid. And, every time you swap that music with your friends a new artist doesn’t get a chance. Respect the artists you love by not stealing their music. You’re in control. Support music, don’t steal it." Dixie Chicks

heh. that's quite an impressive list of "musicians." p. diddy, shakira, dixie chicks. pffftt. but you forgot that guy from metallica, and a few other multi-millionaires, i believe. oh, and you also forgot the evidence--a person can claim all they like, but if they can't establish their claims, they really don't amount to a hill of beans.

it seems i did the "right thing" when i paid licensing fees for that robert wyatt song, eh? yet the songwriter still didn't get paid. hmmm, funny that. but, like i said, you don't care about that--'cuz that was legal theft.

Quit trying to rationalize yourselves. What you are doing is wrong. Musicians and companies don't like it, it is hurtful to the economy, it is unjust and unfair on people who do follow the rules, and it's sad and pathetic.

again, can you show me how exactly it is "hurtful to the economy"?

Honestly, it's as if a student in a school goes through the trouble of studying to earn his A where another one just gets it handed to him. That's a slap in the face.

uh, i thought you lived in the united states? yet you seem unfamiliar with our educational system.

i went to a prestigious, private university on full scholarship--everything was paid for: tuition, fees, all of my living expenses. without this, there was no way in hell that i could have attended this university--the tuition alone was more than my (single) mother made in a year. yet i quickly discovered than quite a few students at this university seemed more than a trifle dull--why certainly they couldn't have been getting such compensation, could they? of course not: mommy and daddy paid their tuition and living expenses in full, and this is how many universities in the u.s. sustain themselves. there simply aren't enough smart kids who are also rich, so they take what they can get. do you honestly believe that g.w. earned his degrees?

There are people that pay for their music; so why don't you?

i pay for plenty of music.

there are people who are concerned with real issues, i.e. those for which people are actually getting hurt; so why aren't you?

 

[Gustav]

*Chet Baker was a leading jazz musician in the 1950s, playing trumpet and providing vocals. Baker died in 1988, yet he is about to add a new claim to fame as the lead plaintiff in possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history. His estate, which still owns the copyright in more than 50 of his works, is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that has been underway for the past year.

As my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes, the infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don’t shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.(link)


*None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed. Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA. (link)


*"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'" (link)​

parmalee
please add "satan" and "baby-killer" to the thread tags

 

[Gustav]

​

 

[parmalee]

i like this part:

*"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'" (link)[/INDENT][/FONT]

i've performed in countless venues which adamantly refuse to pay ascap/bmi fees; IOW any music which is licensed through ascap or bmi can NOT be played over a sound system, and neither can musicians perform covers of any such material.

typically, i play only original material (90 percent of which is improv anyways), but i always have a bizarre cover--robert wyatt, nico, john cale--prepared for such occasions. of course, in the event that the right person happens to be in attendance and chooses to pursue legal action against the "offender," the venue is customarily held accountable; in fact, i (or we) must sign a document beforehand stating that i (we) will not be performing any such material. and so i make a point of making it perfectly clear after i have performed the cover, that the venue had no such knowledge of my actions--and no one affiliated with the venue even recognized such as a cover--and i am to be held solely responsible for this egregious violation. to date, i've not been called on it.

'tis a pity that there are still people duped into believing that these entities--ascap, bmi, riaa, etc.--actually act on behalf of the creators and producers of music; of for that matter, that "major" labels act on behalf of the actual creators, engineers, etc. i had thought that steve albini--"the problem with music"--had put a rest to these silly myths long ago. obviously not.

meh. proper pirates are also being unfairly maligned here--see pirate code--but that's another matter altogether.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Thought Norse might enjoy this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8337887.stm

 

[Gustav]

*The Commissioner-designate for the Internal Market, Michel Barnier, has admitted that ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is on his agenda. This would appear to be the first time that the EU has officially admitted to negotiating on the ACTA, which will have serious implications for the Internet. And Barnier has set a new EU priority policy goal: the 'eradication of online piracy'. (ACTA)


*The leaked document includes a provision to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant. (ACTA)

*Negotiations on the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start in a few hours in Seoul, South Korea. This week's closed negotiations will focus on "enforcement in the digital environment." Negotiators will be discussing the Internet provisions drafted by the US government. No text has been officially released but as Professor Michael Geist and IDG are reporting, leaks have surfaced. The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws. (ACTA)​

 

[Pinwheel]

ISPs love pirates. Why else have high speed large bandwidth internet connection if not to download loads of shit? If piracy really was truly defeated a lot of people would just downgrade to basic broadband service instead of unlimited high speed stuff.

 

[parmalee]

Thought Norse might enjoy this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8337887.stm

here's the especially pertinent bits:

People who download music illegally also spend an average of £77 a year buying it legitimately, a survey has found.

Those who claimed not to use peer-to-peer filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay spent a yearly average of just £44.

what the article does not cover is how much money those who download music illegally spend annually to see artist perform--which, as has been noted, is how most musicians make the bulk of their income.

for those pretending to speak in defense of the creators, i.e. writers/performers, engineers, etc., of music: what percentage of sales go to the creators of the music?

as i deal with independent labels, i know exactly how much i will receive from sales; but if anyone is complaining about piracy, it's certainly not those on or running independent labels*--rather, it is a handful of those who deal with major labels.

so tell me: what percentage of sales goes to the artists on major labels? rhetorical question really, as i know you haven't bothered to research the matter--my point is: stop pretending that you are speaking on behalf of the plight of artists, when you are really speaking in defense of sleazy businessman who con these (typically not very bright) artists out of the fruits of their labors.


* ok, i said i know one person (who is a schmuck); actually, i know two--and the other one is not a schmuck:

chris cutler (henry cow, art bears, slapp happy, cassiber, news from babel) released a 9 cd/1 dvd boxed set of archival henry cow recordings last year (40th anniversary henry cow box set). he got pissed off when, within days of it's release, torrent files for the entire package appeared on a number of blogs. he, and a few former bandmates, wrote to those blogs, politely requesting that they remove the files. and most (but not all) obliged.

chris was well aware that most anyone who would be downloading such had very likely paid for the entire previous henry cow catalogue, and such individuals likely could not afford to shell out two hundred bucks for the set--though they would if they could. but this box set was a pricey venture for which he would hardly break even were all copies available to sell (he released it on his own label, recommended records).

while no one can really definitively establish this either way, i believe that this was one of the rare instances for which proper sales might have been greater, were free copies unavailable.

 

[Anti-Flag]

ISPs love pirates. Why else have high speed large bandwidth internet connection if not to download loads of shit? If piracy really was truly defeated a lot of people would just downgrade to basic broadband service instead of unlimited high speed stuff.

psst *whispers* video games and movie streaming.

 

[Anti-Flag]

so tell me: what percentage of sales goes to the artists on major labels?

If I may attempt an answer, isn't it between 2% and 7% on average?

 

[quadraphonics]

your argument essentially amounts to "piracy is bad 'cuz it's illegal."

By this point, it should be pretty clear that Norsefire exhibits what you might call an authoritarian personality. Obedience to the law is, to him, an overriding consideration, regardless of whether the law in question is justified/rational/good/whatever. And while there is certainly something to be said for respect for the rule of law, there's no point in arguing with him over the value of a particular law, or the impact of violating it, or civil disobedience, or whatever. That you are defying authority is the entirety of the issue for him; he's made it clear that he could care less about music piracy in the hypothetical scenario that The Man wasn't opposed to it, and also appears to have ceased attempting to argue that the laws in question are justified.

Rather, the only really cogent response to his position is "Fuck The Man." Which would work out to an analysis of how this is all about greedy, lazy record execs using their lawyer budget to screw things up for everyone (including the producers of the content in question), as we've seen here. But bear in mind that such an argument isn't going to change Norsefire's mind. You're still going to be a criminal to him, so the point should be to own this status and present good reasons for embracing it. That isn't going to convince Norsefire of anything, but it will result in a fairly compelling refutation of the authoritarian position for any third parties that happen to read this.

 

[Anti-Flag]

By this point, it should be pretty clear that Norsefire exhibits what you might call an authoritarian personality. Obedience to the law is, to him, an overriding consideration, regardless of whether the law in question is justified/rational/good/whatever. And while there is certainly something to be said for respect for the rule of law, there's no point in arguing with him over the value of a particular law, or the impact of violating it, or civil disobedience, or whatever. That you are defying authority is the entirety of the issue for him; he's made it clear that he could care less about music piracy in the hypothetical scenario that The Man wasn't opposed to it, and also appears to have ceased attempting to argue that the laws in question are justified.

Isn't he exactly what most people in power want though? He's the perfect drone for the government and big companies to mould and manipulate into following them blindly.
Ya know, despite his reservations, I think he'd really like it in China, or Zimbabwe.

Rather, the only really cogent response to his position is "Fuck The Man." Which would work out to an analysis of how this is all about greedy, lazy record execs using their lawyer budget to screw things up for everyone (including the producers of the content in question), as we've seen here. But bear in mind that such an argument isn't going to change Norsefire's mind. You're still going to be a criminal to him, so the point should be to own this status and present good reasons for embracing it. That isn't going to convince Norsefire of anything, but it will result in a fairly compelling refutation of the authoritarian position for any third parties that happen to read this.

You sound so cynical.

 

[Nasor]

By this point, it should be pretty clear that Norsefire exhibits what you might call an authoritarian personality. Obedience to the law is, to him, an overriding consideration, regardless of whether the law in question is justified/rational/good/whatever.

Well, that plus "upholding standards of nobility and purity." Heh.

And while there is certainly something to be said for respect for the rule of law, there's no point in arguing with him over the value of a particular law, or the impact of violating it, or civil disobedience, or whatever. That you are defying authority is the entirety of the issue for him; he's made it clear that he could care less about music piracy in the hypothetical scenario that The Man wasn't opposed to it, and also appears to have ceased attempting to argue that the laws in question are justified.

Yeah, he's made that abundantly clear. When asked to explain why he thought it was wrong to copy music, he basically just repeated "it's illegal!" over and over again, rather than trying to construct any sort of coherent ethical argument.

 

[Norsefire]

Again, you can't justify theft no matter how much it 'benefits' anybody, and it doesn't benefit anybody, anyway.

That's a [bad] attempt at rationalization. The point is, you are using someone else's intellectual property, and enjoying their creation without paying for it; you are also breaking the law.

I don't need to explain this a thousand times: if you want music, pay for it. What is so damn hard to understand about that?

 

[Nasor]

Again, you can't justify theft no matter how much it 'benefits' anybody

Yeah, there's that whole "all that matters in the law, there's no point in actually thinking about it" thing we were just talking about. And I'm disappointed to see that you've already gone back to calling it "theft," when in fact it isn't.

..and it doesn't benefit anybody, anyway.

Not true. It benefits the users who aren't tricked into buying shitty products that don't meet their needs. This is also good for the industry in general, because it makes it harder for them to foist crap off on unsuspecting purchasers who don't have any way to try things before the buy.

That's a [bad] attempt at rationalization. The point is, you are using someone else's intellectual property, and enjoying their creation without paying for it

So why is that a bad thing? Other than repeating "it's the law!" over and over, can you explain why I always have a moral obligation to pay someone for using their "intellectual property"?

I don't need to explain this a thousand times: if you want music, pay for it. What is so damn hard to understand about that?

But you haven't explained anything even once, let alone a thousand times. You just keep repeating the claim that it's wrong without providing any explanation.

 

[Norsefire]

Yeah, there's that whole "all that matters in the law, there's no point in actually thinking about it" thing we were just talking about. And I'm disappointed to see that you've already gone back to calling it "theft," when in fact it isn't.

You're still not paying someone for what you owe them; might as well be theft.

Not true. It benefits the users who aren't tricked into buying shitty products that don't meet their needs. This is also good for the industry in general, because it makes it harder for them to foist crap off on unsuspecting purchasers who don't have any way to try things before the buy.

'Kay, so I should go into Wal-Mart and just pick up a TV off the shelf to "try it" at home, without the permission of Wal-Mart.

So why is that a bad thing? Other than repeating "it's the law!" over and over, can you explain why I always have a moral obligation to pay someone for using their "intellectual property"?

You don't have a moral obligation to do anything, but from the standard morality, it's the same as the obligation you have to pay anyone for any service or good rendered to you: because that's the transaction. They let you enjoy their music, you pay them for it.

But you haven't explained anything even once, let alone a thousand times. You just keep repeating the claim that it's wrong without providing any explanation.

I have provided ample explanation. The companies and artists make the music; the companies and artists clearly state that they will charge you for using their music. The companies and artists own the music and therefore have the right to do this. You are completely ignoring their wishes and 'taking' the music without paying for it; that is wrong.

If you think people should 'sample' stuff, write a letter to the companies. Otherwise, we can organize everyone and have everybody, everybody!, always pirate music. I wonder how healthy the industry will be then.

 

[Nasor]

You're still not paying someone for what you owe them; might as well be theft.

Yeah, some strange sort of theft where the "victim" isn't missing anything after they've been robbed.

'Kay, so I should go into Wal-Mart and just pick up a TV off the shelf to "try it" at home, without the permission of Wal-Mart.

No, you shouldn't do that because taking the TV will harm Wal-Mart; before they had a valuable TV, and now they don't. If there was some way for you to make a TV magically appear in your home without depriving Wal-Mart of their inventory, then yeah, I would see no ethical problem with it.

You don't have a moral obligation to do anything, but from the standard morality, it's the same as the obligation you have to pay anyone for any service or good rendered to you: because that's the transaction. They let you enjoy their music, you pay them for it.

But why is it customary to pay someone for a good or service? Well, it's customary to pay for goods because if you take a good without paying you are harming the other party by taking away something of value to them. As was already discussed above with the TV analogy, that reasoning doesn't apply here. So what about services? It seems reasonable to me to describe writing software or making music as a "service" that is being provided to me - which is why I do indeed pay for music or software if I like it enough to want to use it. But in my opinion the musicians and software companies only provide me with a "service" when they give me something that I can actually use, which is why I don't feel a bit bad about evaluating their services before I decide whether or not I want to pay, especially since doing so doesn't harm anyone in any perceivable way.

Consider a painter who wants me to pay him for providing the service of painting my house, and he wants me to pay in advance. If I had some magic crystal ball that would allow me to see what the results of his painting would look like before paying him, I don't think that I would be "stealing" from him in any way if I used it to evaluate the quality of his work and help me decide whether or not I wanted to hire him. Morally, that seems exactly the same as evaluating music or movies before deciding whether or not I want to purchase them.

I have provided ample explanation. The companies and artists make the music; the companies and artists clearly state that they will charge you for using their music. The companies and artists own the music and therefore have the right to do this. You are completely ignoring their wishes and 'taking' the music without paying for it; that is wrong.

Well, of course they want me to pay them. Any business would love to have everyone pay them for everything. But you haven't explained why I have any sort of ethical obligation to obey their wish to be paid. Other than the fact that it's illegal, can you explain why you think it's immoral for a person to say "Hey, I don't harm you in any way when I make a copy of your music, so I'm going to do it." After all, in a free society it's generally accepted that you should be free to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm anyone.