I started programming later than most, and it was because my music career was not going anywhere, and I was tired of being broke. The reason I chose programming is very much the same reason I chose music: because not a lot of people could do it.
That's right, it was an ego thing. And I think that a lot of people get into programming, or other sciences, because they are geeks and want to be able to do something "special". Vain, I know, but everyone wants their own skill that they are good at and to be able to impress people.
There is a downside to this, though. I suspect that many of the people who do it for ego purposes are the same to get into unethical hacking. "Because they can". The rush is addictive, and can lead to trouble. I was fortunate in that respect because I was older and wiser than many when they first start programming.
But with proper guidance, and if you've taught your kid the difference between right and wrong, stroking the ego goes a long way. And if he or she is an "outcast" it can really give them the boost they need in self esteem.
I would imagine it goes like this: You have some IP you want protected. You file for something to protect it (new something, copyright, whatever). You claim a value. You make up the value - whatever you want to say it is. You are then taxed on that value. The only caveat is that if someone wants it from you they can buy the whole damn thing from you for the price you claimed it was worth - UNLESS you immediately raise the value and pay a penalty for undervaluing it.
Isn't that what happens now? I make something, it's copyrighted, I set a price to sell it.
The other stuff you're talking about sounds like it goes against free enterprise. I don't want anyone forcing me to sell or do anything I don't want to do.
I, too, am a musician, for over 25 years. And I also own a small independent record label. So I understand full well about promotion, giving some away for free, etc. My point was, more or less, that one is not obligated to share their music for free. If you want to, great, go for it. But the fact that you share your music for free has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that others don't, and that just because you, in the 97%, have chosen to. I have uploaded some of the music from my label to the torrent sites for free. 2 people downloaded. Conversely, our music appears on iTunes and a wide array of other services, resulting in hundreds of (paid) downloads. Go figure.
It has a lot to do with your expectations. When we release a new album or take on a new artist, our primary goal is to cover our costs, which we usually do. We're not trying to make anyone rich, although it would be great. But covering costs is the primary goal. It's the same way with the upper 3%. Or with any business, for that matter. You look to cover your costs, then anything above and beyond that is wonderful. But you can't reach even the most modest of goals by giving everything away for free. The model simply doesn't exist to support that. Sure, you can go play live, and you can get a lot of people to come see you play live, but your live show has its own expenses, as you well know. So let the money you get playing live cover your live expenses, sell your other products to cover those expenses.
That's not to say that it always has to be equal like that. I strongly believe in the concept of "loss-leader". It's just that at some point, you have to look at it in terms of reality and determine whether or not you are satisfied doing this as a hobby, or if you want to make a living at it.
But I'm concerned that you misinterpreted my statements about talent as being some sort of statement of quality. I was referring to talent as your commodity. It's what you have to trade upon in your musical pursuits. If you choose to give away that commodity for free, that's your choice. But if you don't choose to do so, it's not for any free downloader, pirate, college kid, or whomever to make the determination that you are going to do so. It's your commodity, you worked very hard for it, and you should be able to use that commodity in the way you see fit. If nobody buys your product or services, well, that's capitalism for you. But you should always have the choice to use your commodity how you want to use it.
I think my other concern is that you and a few others have seen fit to speak for the entire 97%, and I assure you, after reading your statements you don't speak for me. And I know many, many, many, many musicians, and among those musicians, your views are definitely out of line with that sampling. Granted, I don't know *all*, or *most*, or even *a decent cross-section* of the musical community, but neither do you. You know the artists who are in your circle, as do I. I would never try to represent the entire 97%, as you call it, and it's fallacious to think that you have a finger on the pulse of that group as well.
For the record, yes, I've purchased many an album without hearing a single song. Back in the day, that was part of the fun.
I'd be interested in hearing your music. All the mechanisms for generating commerce aside, and this debate aside, I still like hearing new stuff.
Most musicians actually want people to hear their music because that tends to make it easier to get an audience at live performances, which is the only place we've ever made any money and probably always will be.
There are musicians who never play live. It happens on all levels. Many, many techno, trance, house artists never perform their art live. Led Zeppelin just performed live for the first time in many, many years, believe me, I've been waiting for it. Pink Floyd only play a few shows every time they tour. And yet, many of these artists (hopefully Zep, someday) still write and record and sell new and old releases.
You may well be in the minority these days. I know musicians want more people at their shows. But I also know that any musician would love to make a living playing music. And let's face it, there are many cities in this country without adequate places to play live for those musicians who can't leave their day jobs for a tour. Most medium sized cities have maybe one or two venues for any particular type of music.
Most musicians actually want people to hear their music because that tends to make it easier to get an audience at live performances, which is the only place we've ever made any money and probably always will be.
It's a fact that just a decade or two ago, playing live was a marketing mechanism geared towards selling albums. Most tours actually *lost* money, and the few tours that made money were the over-the-top tours, like the Stones or Pink Floyd. The vast majority of tours were losing money. And it wasn't limited to bar bands, these were arena and stadium shows losing money. There were many bands who signed a record deal, the record company fronted the money for them to go on tour, the tour lost money and wound up in the hole. In fact, many of the bands I listened to back in the 80s are now broke for precisely that reason. Tours were money-losers. Go back and check the numbers, it's a fact.
Nowadays, ticket prices are through the roof. There are many arguments as to why. It could be that tours cost more, gas costs more, labor costs more, venues charge more, taxes are greater, ticketmaster costs more, etc. It could be because artists are feeling the bite of music sales being compromised by free downloads. I don't think anyone has any solid numbers on that. I suspect it's a combination of all of the above. But it is true that the industry has flipped from being an album-based or single-based system to an event-based system.
Think about it this way. In the 80s, I could buy an album for about 10 or 12 bucks, on the high side. How much to see that same band live? 10 or 12 bucks. I have the ticket stubs to prove it.
Look where we are now. I recently paid $68 a ticket for the cheap seats. And that's very reasonable. I've seen shows advertised for $120 for the cheap seats.
And how much to buy a new release? That price has actually gone down. At its peak, CDs were being sold for about $18 on average. You can now download some full releases for 10-14 bucks. Just like one song by the band? It's not released as a single? Not a problem, just download that one song for $.99. That's something we always wanted in the 80s and 90s. Don't like CDs? Not a problem. Record old style to tapes from what you downloaded (but why?). Or put it on your mp3 player. The fact is, the fan has more options these days than ever before, and the quality is fantastic (no scratches, skips, warps, dust problems). And yet with all those options, many fans are complaining, more loudly than ever before. The fact is, although they were late to the party, the recording industry has done a great deal to at least try to accommodate listeners by providing more formats and options. It's in their best interest to do so. But read the comments for this article. Have listeners actually even considered the recording industry's side? Have they tried to meet them halfway? No, they want free downloads, period, r
In my view you can't steal something unless you're depriving the original owner of it's use. Copying is copyright infringement, and whether that's right or wrong is left an an exercise to the individual.
I read this argument time and again when debating this subject, and it's probably the most idiotic, ludicrous statement on the subject.
If you counterfeit money, you are not depriving anyone of their own money. It's still a crime. It's still wrong. And while not being "theft" in the self-serving, most narrow definition you choose to believe, it's still wrong, by any stretch of the imagination. Although, if you look deeper, you are depriving others of the *value* of the "real" money you have chosen to counterfeit.
But let's set analogy aside. The fact is, the partnership of the artist and the record company have made a product for your enjoyment. To obtain a copy of that product to enjoy, the makers of that product have required that you pay for that copy. That's simple free enterprise, and there is not a court in the country, in fact the world, who would say that the makers of that product are doing anything at all immoral, illegal, or unjust.
The fact that some people have successfully argued the "methodology" used to obtain their copy without payment has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the makers of the product set out terms and conditions (legal, mind you), and that you are breaking those terms and conditions by gaining free access to their product. Whether you agree with those terms and conditions also has no bearing on whether those terms and conditions are legal. Whether the enforcement of those terms and conditions are pursued criminally or civilly, well, that's a matter of debate, and it's actually set up by the jurisdiction in which you live, the laws therein, and the relative rights of the product producer in that jurisdiction. So you can argue all day about whether it's a criminal or legal case. But make no mistake: by obtaining that product without payment, you have infringed on the rights of the producer of that product to sell and control the product they have paid, in time energy and talent, to produce.
And you think it's not immoral to do so?
Pay for the music. It won't hurt you. Not paying for it hurts the artists who create it, and you like the artist enough to download their songs, why not pay them for their hard work so they can produce more, maybe even better, songs?
I still can't figure out why people care about RIAA music anyway. It's been years, more than a decade, since a good stream of worthwhile music came our way. Check out the indie scene. More artists. More songs. Better songs. Art. And the money you pay, more of it gets to the artist. People complain about the RIAA and their practices, yet they still let the RIAA dictate to them what is "cool", "fresh", "new", and "what they should be listening to". Open your mind a little.
I think this is interesting. You make the assumption that the analogies you provide are any more relevant the one you're responding to. I think the problem may be that this goes beyond analogy. I could think if 10 analogies that could describe the arguments for, and 10 equal analogies to support the argument against.
I see this issue as new territory, relatively speaking, in certain ways. In the face of changing methods for product deliver, there rises a need for *new* rules. It's happened over and over again for years and years. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I think the fact that the record companies are guilty of hanging on desperately to their old mode of operation is just as pointless as those who oppose that old mode trying to compare what their doing to other old ways they think this should work.
Aside from all that, Apple offers music on iTunes, and to use their service, you agree to abide by the rules they set forth. If you don't like those rules, then you need to find another vendor of the product you seek. If you can't find that product elsewhere, well, then, you have to abide by the rules or do without, right? That's nothing new, it's the basis of exclusivity agreements between companies and has been going on for years and years, and assures one a competitive advantage, and there is *absolutely nothing* wrong with that, and no, it is not anti-competitive, it's *competitive*. Anti-competitive practices are a different matter altogether. (think about it this way: if Apple had the only device that played digitally downloaded music, and did not allow other devices to be made and disallowed the use of their device with any other music, by force or by coercion, that's anti-competitive)
So Apple has songs or performances not available anywhere else? Oh well. Better get used to their rules. But I suspect that there are other places you can get equally good, albeit different, music.
Their site, their rules, their files, their devices. Don't buy their songs and crack them. Find other copies or versions that don't need cracking from the multitude of legal, DRM-free sites. You don't *need* iTunes.
First of all, one should never let the immoral acts of another affect their own morality. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right. Because you feel what has gone on with the purchasing of laws, etc., absolutely has no affect whatsoever on how moral *your* actions are.
The constitutional clause states "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.". You may interpret "limited time" as one thing, others (I suspect the artist) would interpret it differently. All in all, the length of time is set by law, not by the constitution. So your statement that it is not meant to be for a lifetime is no more correct or relevant than the recording industry's claim otherwise. It's simply two opposing views on the subject, and in the current state, the law is on their side.
Which brings me to the idea of "buying laws". First of all, the length of time a copyright is in effect has been in place for a lot longer than you may realize. It's not something that the current regime in the recording industry has all of a sudden put into effect.
Moreover, yes, laws are bought, so to speak. It happens. I agree that it's not moral or ethical, and I feel lobbying is doing more damage to America than most other activities. However, whether the law is bought or not is open to speculation. In my assessment, I don't find the idea of having a law in effect to protect one's right to profit for their lifetime, and to be able to pass that right to profit to one or two successive generations to be excessive. I myself am an artist, so I may be biased here. But I suspect if you had worked for two or three decades to produce a work and saw people essentially stealing that work, you may change your views on the subject.
Your feeling that the law is "wrong" or "right" has no bearing on whether it is in actuality right or wrong. It's your assessment, nothing more. You may disagree with a speed limit, but you're likely going to get a ticket if you violate it, and there's nothing at all you can do about it, unless you go to court and fight it. Then, you can work to change the city ordinance that set the speed limit in the first place. Until that time, you have no right whatsoever to stage a protest by breaking that speed limit. It's the same thing here. If you are going to do nothing at all to change the current copyright law, then you can complain all you want, but nobody with any ability to affect the change is going to hear you.
In other words, change it or shut the hell up. And if you get arrested or sued, awesome. You broke the law, you deserve it. Period.
One other thing you say is that "the longer one profits from a single creation, the less incentive there is to create more". I ask you, what incentive is there to create more, when every time you create something your profit from that item is undercut by high school and college aged punks, who feel they have some sort of constitutional right to obtain your hard work for free? You think what you're doing is helping the situation? I would nearly guarantee that people would be much more inclined to create new works if they knew those new works would also be protected. Take the protection away, take the profit away, and not only will artists no longer create the works for public consumption, but you will absolutely guarantee that the record companies will no longer take chances on anything other than "sure things". So enjoy the new Britney album.
Your judgment of your own immoral act is thin, at best. If it allows you to do what you do, whatever. But in my assessment, and I am not part of the RIAA or any *AA, if you download something that should be paid for and you don't pay for it, it should and may be a crime, and it is absolutely immoral. And once you're out in the business world a bit longer and realize how important your work is, you'll probably change your mind.
If you worked in an office doing some programming or whatever, and at the end
Ok, ok, so it's not theft, using the definition you cite. I can understand that you and others feel as though you have to be in possession of something tangible for something to be considered theft. And I also understand that you feel that for an action to be theft, then the victim then has to be without said tangible object.
It doesn't mean it's not a crime. And if it's not a crime, it's at the very least wrong, by any stretch of the imagination. And even if you don't feel it's wrong, it's a violation of the rights of the entities who sell the licenses to listen to that music.
What you're paying for when you buy music is the right to listen to that work. It matters little whether it's digitally downloaded, on cd, or whatever. You are paying for a license. That license gives you the right to do what you want with that music, so long as it's used for your own private purposes. You can play the song, you can even play it for your friends at a party. You cannot, however, transfer that license to anyone else. They have to buy their own license. Meaning you can't give them a copy, at least not legally. Unless you have the rights, given by the distributors of that license, to do so, which I suspect you don't.
When you listen to music on the radio, your license to listen to that music is paid for by advertisers, or in the case of XM, by your subscription fees. If you go see the band perform live, your ticket price gives you license to see and hear the performance of that music. That's why when you sneak in to a concert, you can at the very least be thrown out.
So when the RIAA or whomever wants to prosecute, ok, it may not be a criminal act, so they may not have legal rights to do so (although I'm thinking about the FBI notices at the first of my DVDs, so why is music different?). However, they have more than enough legal ground to sue you, and they should. They are bound by the agreements with their artists to protect the artists' interests, and although I know the argument can be made that their track record isn't great in that respect, the duty still exists. And the fact remains that the record companies paid good money to have the music recorded, hire producers, engineers, pay for studio time, packaging, promotion, and loads of other costs, and they have every right to see to it that they can recover those costs and make a profit on top of that. And you, by not buying a license, are infringing their rights to recoup those costs and make that profit. So they have been damaged, in a legal sense, and the court can and will "make them whole". Which means you can be sued.
And whether you want to cite existing laws, make analogies, convict the RIAA, stand on principle, it's stealing, in the truest sense of the word. Someone has created a work, released it, made it available for purchase, and if you circumvent the part where you pay for your enjoyment of what they created, you have stolen. And here's to your bread analogy: yeah, you didn't steal bread. But you've, in essence, stolen bread from the artists' mouths.
Think about this as well. The more people download music without paying for it, the more the RIAA perceives value in their product, and the more dogged they will be in stopping downloaders. If you don't like what the RIAA is putting out enough to pay for it, don't download it either. And if you don't like what the RIAA has to offer, explore independent music, and purchase from entities who guarantee that the lion's share goes to the artist.
What irritates me is that for some reason, there is a large group of people out there who think they have some right given to them by someone to share things that should be paid for.
Pay for the music. It won't hurt you. It will hurt the artists if you don't, and will ensure that fewer artists get to do their thing. It's a symbiotic relationship that music fans are hurting.
Don't have enough cash to pay for it? Then get a better job. I don't have enough cash to pay for a Ferrari, but I'm not about to go for a joy ride in someone else's. I just have to work harder so I can buy my own.
it can be used for many other things besides copyright infringement.
But isn't. Not really. Yeah a few Linux distros, a handful of programs, etc. But let's not ignore the fact that's it's generally used for a specific purpose. Ignoring that fact makes you as guilty of the same ignorance file-sharers blame the *AAs and politicians of.
I just wish one person, just one person, could make an argument that infringing copyright is ok. Every time a debate like this comes up, all I see is people spouting that it's their right to be able to download music without paying for it. That's stealing.
80-90%? Get out of geekdom once in a while. My entire family and all my friends use the Internet on a daily basis, and probably 5% share files. I think it's an extremely common misconception among/.ers that however this group goes, so goes the world. It's just not the case, and thinking it's so is simply short-sighted.
How about this - I love music so much that yes, I have a moral dilemma with file sharing, based on morality. First, it's the musician's blood, sweat and tears you're downloading without paying. Now, being a freelancer, I know how it feels to create a work and have the client skip out without paying. I can't even imagine how that feels when thousands of people do that over and over, downloading a song or album I spent long hours creating.
And the obvious question still remains - do you think downloading free music is actually going to *improve* the arts? Not even close. It's common knowledge that when profit margins go down in the music industry, fewer chances are taken on new artists and new ideas. So enjoy your rehashed emo, you better like it, cause that's all you're getting for now.
And the whole "pay what you want to, if you want to" experiment by Radiohead and others simply won't work. The numbers support that.
And it's a lot more like "don't steal pot" than "don't smoke pot".
Slashdot Mirror
I started programming later than most, and it was because my music career was not going anywhere, and I was tired of being broke. The reason I chose programming is very much the same reason I chose music: because not a lot of people could do it.
That's right, it was an ego thing. And I think that a lot of people get into programming, or other sciences, because they are geeks and want to be able to do something "special". Vain, I know, but everyone wants their own skill that they are good at and to be able to impress people.
There is a downside to this, though. I suspect that many of the people who do it for ego purposes are the same to get into unethical hacking. "Because they can". The rush is addictive, and can lead to trouble. I was fortunate in that respect because I was older and wiser than many when they first start programming.
But with proper guidance, and if you've taught your kid the difference between right and wrong, stroking the ego goes a long way. And if he or she is an "outcast" it can really give them the boost they need in self esteem.
I would imagine it goes like this: You have some IP you want protected. You file for something to protect it (new something, copyright, whatever). You claim a value. You make up the value - whatever you want to say it is. You are then taxed on that value. The only caveat is that if someone wants it from you they can buy the whole damn thing from you for the price you claimed it was worth - UNLESS you immediately raise the value and pay a penalty for undervaluing it.
Isn't that what happens now? I make something, it's copyrighted, I set a price to sell it.
The other stuff you're talking about sounds like it goes against free enterprise. I don't want anyone forcing me to sell or do anything I don't want to do.
I, too, am a musician, for over 25 years. And I also own a small independent record label. So I understand full well about promotion, giving some away for free, etc. My point was, more or less, that one is not obligated to share their music for free. If you want to, great, go for it. But the fact that you share your music for free has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that others don't, and that just because you, in the 97%, have chosen to. I have uploaded some of the music from my label to the torrent sites for free. 2 people downloaded. Conversely, our music appears on iTunes and a wide array of other services, resulting in hundreds of (paid) downloads. Go figure.
It has a lot to do with your expectations. When we release a new album or take on a new artist, our primary goal is to cover our costs, which we usually do. We're not trying to make anyone rich, although it would be great. But covering costs is the primary goal. It's the same way with the upper 3%. Or with any business, for that matter. You look to cover your costs, then anything above and beyond that is wonderful. But you can't reach even the most modest of goals by giving everything away for free. The model simply doesn't exist to support that. Sure, you can go play live, and you can get a lot of people to come see you play live, but your live show has its own expenses, as you well know. So let the money you get playing live cover your live expenses, sell your other products to cover those expenses.
That's not to say that it always has to be equal like that. I strongly believe in the concept of "loss-leader". It's just that at some point, you have to look at it in terms of reality and determine whether or not you are satisfied doing this as a hobby, or if you want to make a living at it.
But I'm concerned that you misinterpreted my statements about talent as being some sort of statement of quality. I was referring to talent as your commodity. It's what you have to trade upon in your musical pursuits. If you choose to give away that commodity for free, that's your choice. But if you don't choose to do so, it's not for any free downloader, pirate, college kid, or whomever to make the determination that you are going to do so. It's your commodity, you worked very hard for it, and you should be able to use that commodity in the way you see fit. If nobody buys your product or services, well, that's capitalism for you. But you should always have the choice to use your commodity how you want to use it.
I think my other concern is that you and a few others have seen fit to speak for the entire 97%, and I assure you, after reading your statements you don't speak for me. And I know many, many, many, many musicians, and among those musicians, your views are definitely out of line with that sampling. Granted, I don't know *all*, or *most*, or even *a decent cross-section* of the musical community, but neither do you. You know the artists who are in your circle, as do I. I would never try to represent the entire 97%, as you call it, and it's fallacious to think that you have a finger on the pulse of that group as well.
For the record, yes, I've purchased many an album without hearing a single song. Back in the day, that was part of the fun.
I'd be interested in hearing your music. All the mechanisms for generating commerce aside, and this debate aside, I still like hearing new stuff.
Most musicians actually want people to hear their music because that tends to make it easier to get an audience at live performances, which is the only place we've ever made any money and probably always will be.
There are musicians who never play live. It happens on all levels. Many, many techno, trance, house artists never perform their art live. Led Zeppelin just performed live for the first time in many, many years, believe me, I've been waiting for it. Pink Floyd only play a few shows every time they tour. And yet, many of these artists (hopefully Zep, someday) still write and record and sell new and old releases.
You may well be in the minority these days. I know musicians want more people at their shows. But I also know that any musician would love to make a living playing music. And let's face it, there are many cities in this country without adequate places to play live for those musicians who can't leave their day jobs for a tour. Most medium sized cities have maybe one or two venues for any particular type of music.
Most musicians actually want people to hear their music because that tends to make it easier to get an audience at live performances, which is the only place we've ever made any money and probably always will be.
It's a fact that just a decade or two ago, playing live was a marketing mechanism geared towards selling albums. Most tours actually *lost* money, and the few tours that made money were the over-the-top tours, like the Stones or Pink Floyd. The vast majority of tours were losing money. And it wasn't limited to bar bands, these were arena and stadium shows losing money. There were many bands who signed a record deal, the record company fronted the money for them to go on tour, the tour lost money and wound up in the hole. In fact, many of the bands I listened to back in the 80s are now broke for precisely that reason. Tours were money-losers. Go back and check the numbers, it's a fact.
Nowadays, ticket prices are through the roof. There are many arguments as to why. It could be that tours cost more, gas costs more, labor costs more, venues charge more, taxes are greater, ticketmaster costs more, etc. It could be because artists are feeling the bite of music sales being compromised by free downloads. I don't think anyone has any solid numbers on that. I suspect it's a combination of all of the above. But it is true that the industry has flipped from being an album-based or single-based system to an event-based system.
Think about it this way. In the 80s, I could buy an album for about 10 or 12 bucks, on the high side. How much to see that same band live? 10 or 12 bucks. I have the ticket stubs to prove it.
Look where we are now. I recently paid $68 a ticket for the cheap seats. And that's very reasonable. I've seen shows advertised for $120 for the cheap seats.
And how much to buy a new release? That price has actually gone down. At its peak, CDs were being sold for about $18 on average. You can now download some full releases for 10-14 bucks. Just like one song by the band? It's not released as a single? Not a problem, just download that one song for $.99. That's something we always wanted in the 80s and 90s. Don't like CDs? Not a problem. Record old style to tapes from what you downloaded (but why?). Or put it on your mp3 player. The fact is, the fan has more options these days than ever before, and the quality is fantastic (no scratches, skips, warps, dust problems). And yet with all those options, many fans are complaining, more loudly than ever before. The fact is, although they were late to the party, the recording industry has done a great deal to at least try to accommodate listeners by providing more formats and options. It's in their best interest to do so. But read the comments for this article. Have listeners actually even considered the recording industry's side? Have they tried to meet them halfway? No, they want free downloads, period, r
In my view you can't steal something unless you're depriving the original owner of it's use. Copying is copyright infringement, and whether that's right or wrong is left an an exercise to the individual.
I read this argument time and again when debating this subject, and it's probably the most idiotic, ludicrous statement on the subject.
If you counterfeit money, you are not depriving anyone of their own money. It's still a crime. It's still wrong. And while not being "theft" in the self-serving, most narrow definition you choose to believe, it's still wrong, by any stretch of the imagination. Although, if you look deeper, you are depriving others of the *value* of the "real" money you have chosen to counterfeit.
But let's set analogy aside. The fact is, the partnership of the artist and the record company have made a product for your enjoyment. To obtain a copy of that product to enjoy, the makers of that product have required that you pay for that copy. That's simple free enterprise, and there is not a court in the country, in fact the world, who would say that the makers of that product are doing anything at all immoral, illegal, or unjust.
The fact that some people have successfully argued the "methodology" used to obtain their copy without payment has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the makers of the product set out terms and conditions (legal, mind you), and that you are breaking those terms and conditions by gaining free access to their product. Whether you agree with those terms and conditions also has no bearing on whether those terms and conditions are legal. Whether the enforcement of those terms and conditions are pursued criminally or civilly, well, that's a matter of debate, and it's actually set up by the jurisdiction in which you live, the laws therein, and the relative rights of the product producer in that jurisdiction. So you can argue all day about whether it's a criminal or legal case. But make no mistake: by obtaining that product without payment, you have infringed on the rights of the producer of that product to sell and control the product they have paid, in time energy and talent, to produce.
And you think it's not immoral to do so?
Pay for the music. It won't hurt you. Not paying for it hurts the artists who create it, and you like the artist enough to download their songs, why not pay them for their hard work so they can produce more, maybe even better, songs?
I still can't figure out why people care about RIAA music anyway. It's been years, more than a decade, since a good stream of worthwhile music came our way. Check out the indie scene. More artists. More songs. Better songs. Art. And the money you pay, more of it gets to the artist. People complain about the RIAA and their practices, yet they still let the RIAA dictate to them what is "cool", "fresh", "new", and "what they should be listening to". Open your mind a little.
I think this is interesting. You make the assumption that the analogies you provide are any more relevant the one you're responding to. I think the problem may be that this goes beyond analogy. I could think if 10 analogies that could describe the arguments for, and 10 equal analogies to support the argument against.
I see this issue as new territory, relatively speaking, in certain ways. In the face of changing methods for product deliver, there rises a need for *new* rules. It's happened over and over again for years and years. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I think the fact that the record companies are guilty of hanging on desperately to their old mode of operation is just as pointless as those who oppose that old mode trying to compare what their doing to other old ways they think this should work.
Aside from all that, Apple offers music on iTunes, and to use their service, you agree to abide by the rules they set forth. If you don't like those rules, then you need to find another vendor of the product you seek. If you can't find that product elsewhere, well, then, you have to abide by the rules or do without, right? That's nothing new, it's the basis of exclusivity agreements between companies and has been going on for years and years, and assures one a competitive advantage, and there is *absolutely nothing* wrong with that, and no, it is not anti-competitive, it's *competitive*. Anti-competitive practices are a different matter altogether. (think about it this way: if Apple had the only device that played digitally downloaded music, and did not allow other devices to be made and disallowed the use of their device with any other music, by force or by coercion, that's anti-competitive)
So Apple has songs or performances not available anywhere else? Oh well. Better get used to their rules. But I suspect that there are other places you can get equally good, albeit different, music.
Their site, their rules, their files, their devices. Don't buy their songs and crack them. Find other copies or versions that don't need cracking from the multitude of legal, DRM-free sites. You don't *need* iTunes.
First of all, one should never let the immoral acts of another affect their own morality. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right. Because you feel what has gone on with the purchasing of laws, etc., absolutely has no affect whatsoever on how moral *your* actions are. The constitutional clause states "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.". You may interpret "limited time" as one thing, others (I suspect the artist) would interpret it differently. All in all, the length of time is set by law, not by the constitution. So your statement that it is not meant to be for a lifetime is no more correct or relevant than the recording industry's claim otherwise. It's simply two opposing views on the subject, and in the current state, the law is on their side. Which brings me to the idea of "buying laws". First of all, the length of time a copyright is in effect has been in place for a lot longer than you may realize. It's not something that the current regime in the recording industry has all of a sudden put into effect. Moreover, yes, laws are bought, so to speak. It happens. I agree that it's not moral or ethical, and I feel lobbying is doing more damage to America than most other activities. However, whether the law is bought or not is open to speculation. In my assessment, I don't find the idea of having a law in effect to protect one's right to profit for their lifetime, and to be able to pass that right to profit to one or two successive generations to be excessive. I myself am an artist, so I may be biased here. But I suspect if you had worked for two or three decades to produce a work and saw people essentially stealing that work, you may change your views on the subject. Your feeling that the law is "wrong" or "right" has no bearing on whether it is in actuality right or wrong. It's your assessment, nothing more. You may disagree with a speed limit, but you're likely going to get a ticket if you violate it, and there's nothing at all you can do about it, unless you go to court and fight it. Then, you can work to change the city ordinance that set the speed limit in the first place. Until that time, you have no right whatsoever to stage a protest by breaking that speed limit. It's the same thing here. If you are going to do nothing at all to change the current copyright law, then you can complain all you want, but nobody with any ability to affect the change is going to hear you. In other words, change it or shut the hell up. And if you get arrested or sued, awesome. You broke the law, you deserve it. Period. One other thing you say is that "the longer one profits from a single creation, the less incentive there is to create more". I ask you, what incentive is there to create more, when every time you create something your profit from that item is undercut by high school and college aged punks, who feel they have some sort of constitutional right to obtain your hard work for free? You think what you're doing is helping the situation? I would nearly guarantee that people would be much more inclined to create new works if they knew those new works would also be protected. Take the protection away, take the profit away, and not only will artists no longer create the works for public consumption, but you will absolutely guarantee that the record companies will no longer take chances on anything other than "sure things". So enjoy the new Britney album. Your judgment of your own immoral act is thin, at best. If it allows you to do what you do, whatever. But in my assessment, and I am not part of the RIAA or any *AA, if you download something that should be paid for and you don't pay for it, it should and may be a crime, and it is absolutely immoral. And once you're out in the business world a bit longer and realize how important your work is, you'll probably change your mind. If you worked in an office doing some programming or whatever, and at the end
Ok, ok, so it's not theft, using the definition you cite. I can understand that you and others feel as though you have to be in possession of something tangible for something to be considered theft. And I also understand that you feel that for an action to be theft, then the victim then has to be without said tangible object.
It doesn't mean it's not a crime. And if it's not a crime, it's at the very least wrong, by any stretch of the imagination. And even if you don't feel it's wrong, it's a violation of the rights of the entities who sell the licenses to listen to that music.
What you're paying for when you buy music is the right to listen to that work. It matters little whether it's digitally downloaded, on cd, or whatever. You are paying for a license. That license gives you the right to do what you want with that music, so long as it's used for your own private purposes. You can play the song, you can even play it for your friends at a party. You cannot, however, transfer that license to anyone else. They have to buy their own license. Meaning you can't give them a copy, at least not legally. Unless you have the rights, given by the distributors of that license, to do so, which I suspect you don't.
When you listen to music on the radio, your license to listen to that music is paid for by advertisers, or in the case of XM, by your subscription fees. If you go see the band perform live, your ticket price gives you license to see and hear the performance of that music. That's why when you sneak in to a concert, you can at the very least be thrown out.
So when the RIAA or whomever wants to prosecute, ok, it may not be a criminal act, so they may not have legal rights to do so (although I'm thinking about the FBI notices at the first of my DVDs, so why is music different?). However, they have more than enough legal ground to sue you, and they should. They are bound by the agreements with their artists to protect the artists' interests, and although I know the argument can be made that their track record isn't great in that respect, the duty still exists. And the fact remains that the record companies paid good money to have the music recorded, hire producers, engineers, pay for studio time, packaging, promotion, and loads of other costs, and they have every right to see to it that they can recover those costs and make a profit on top of that. And you, by not buying a license, are infringing their rights to recoup those costs and make that profit. So they have been damaged, in a legal sense, and the court can and will "make them whole". Which means you can be sued.
And whether you want to cite existing laws, make analogies, convict the RIAA, stand on principle, it's stealing, in the truest sense of the word. Someone has created a work, released it, made it available for purchase, and if you circumvent the part where you pay for your enjoyment of what they created, you have stolen. And here's to your bread analogy: yeah, you didn't steal bread. But you've, in essence, stolen bread from the artists' mouths.
Think about this as well. The more people download music without paying for it, the more the RIAA perceives value in their product, and the more dogged they will be in stopping downloaders. If you don't like what the RIAA is putting out enough to pay for it, don't download it either. And if you don't like what the RIAA has to offer, explore independent music, and purchase from entities who guarantee that the lion's share goes to the artist.
What irritates me is that for some reason, there is a large group of people out there who think they have some right given to them by someone to share things that should be paid for.
Pay for the music. It won't hurt you. It will hurt the artists if you don't, and will ensure that fewer artists get to do their thing. It's a symbiotic relationship that music fans are hurting.
Don't have enough cash to pay for it? Then get a better job. I don't have enough cash to pay for a Ferrari, but I'm not about to go for a joy ride in someone else's. I just have to work harder so I can buy my own.
it can be used for many other things besides copyright infringement.
But isn't. Not really. Yeah a few Linux distros, a handful of programs, etc. But let's not ignore the fact that's it's generally used for a specific purpose. Ignoring that fact makes you as guilty of the same ignorance file-sharers blame the *AAs and politicians of.
I just wish one person, just one person, could make an argument that infringing copyright is ok. Every time a debate like this comes up, all I see is people spouting that it's their right to be able to download music without paying for it. That's stealing.
80-90%? Get out of geekdom once in a while. My entire family and all my friends use the Internet on a daily basis, and probably 5% share files. I think it's an extremely common misconception among /.ers that however this group goes, so goes the world. It's just not the case, and thinking it's so is simply short-sighted.
How about this - I love music so much that yes, I have a moral dilemma with file sharing, based on morality. First, it's the musician's blood, sweat and tears you're downloading without paying. Now, being a freelancer, I know how it feels to create a work and have the client skip out without paying. I can't even imagine how that feels when thousands of people do that over and over, downloading a song or album I spent long hours creating.
And the obvious question still remains - do you think downloading free music is actually going to *improve* the arts? Not even close. It's common knowledge that when profit margins go down in the music industry, fewer chances are taken on new artists and new ideas. So enjoy your rehashed emo, you better like it, cause that's all you're getting for now.
And the whole "pay what you want to, if you want to" experiment by Radiohead and others simply won't work. The numbers support that.
And it's a lot more like "don't steal pot" than "don't smoke pot".