502 replies to this topic

[couch]

I think CDs are just a bad medium anyways.  But it's better than tapes and vhs so we've kept with them.

You gotta baby them so they don't get all scratched.  I mean yea I take care of my possessions.  But it feels like CDs and video game discs and movie discs need all this special attention to keep them functioning for years.  I copy every music album I get when I get it.  Then store the original.  I know that come 6 months from now if I really like an album and listen to it daily that CD is going to get scratched up so bad.

[missingsense]

piracy is such a shit term for making digital copies, if I copy something I'm not making money off it. there's no hidden treasure. I'm not stealing their money.. the fact that they are making less money because the old way of doing things, that is bleeding their artists dry, are not working that well anymore is really not my problem at all. this technology is here and it changes things. live with it.. just fuck off and let me copy that shit and listen.



I like the idea of supporting an artist or a label though, so I give them my money, cause that's the least I can do..

[oscillik]

couch, on 19 January 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I think CDs are just a bad medium anyways.  But it's better than tapes and vhs so we've kept with them.

You gotta baby them so they don't get all scratched.  I mean yea I take care of my possessions.  But it feels like CDs and video game discs and movie discs need all this special attention to keep them functioning for years.  I copy every music album I get when I get it.  Then store the original.  I know that come 6 months from now if I really like an album and listen to it daily that CD is going to get scratched up so bad.

Even if you take care of them, the discs can get fucked up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

missingsense, on 19 January 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

piracy is such a shit term for making digital copies

totally agree. There are a lot of people who mistakenly think that it is theft, when it actually isn't.

[patternoverlap]

jules, on 19 January 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

in this age of piracy, artists who put their stuff out on their own make more money than if they put it out on a label. doesn't that say all there is to know about this?

not to belabor the point or poke holes in your statement, but could you point me to some concrete examples of this?

[Joyrex]

oscillik, on 19 January 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

couch, on 19 January 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I think CDs are just a bad medium anyways.  But it's better than tapes and vhs so we've kept with them.

You gotta baby them so they don't get all scratched.  I mean yea I take care of my possessions.  But it feels like CDs and video game discs and movie discs need all this special attention to keep them functioning for years.  I copy every music album I get when I get it.  Then store the original.  I know that come 6 months from now if I really like an album and listen to it daily that CD is going to get scratched up so bad.

Even if you take care of them, the discs can get fucked up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

missingsense, on 19 January 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

piracy is such a shit term for making digital copies

totally agree. There are a lot of people who mistakenly think that it is theft, when it actually isn't.

You were onto something about it being called piracy is wrong - but it is theft, no matter how you slice it. You are taking something (digital copy or not) that you did not pay for, and weren't given rights to have it - that's theft. Aside from the loss of a sale, you're depriving the artist of a royalty from that sale, so everyone thinking they're hurting only the distributor or manufacturer or record label by illegally downloading something, is also wrong. Low sales of a release can result in an artist being dropped from a label for being 'unmarketable' or 'unprofitable'. In the case of self-released works, you are directly cutting into an artist's bottom line, and in some cases preventing them from fully recouping their investment (it costs money to make CDs and packaging, y'know).

I dare you to explain to me how all the above is anything else BUT theft.

[keltoi]

i tend not to pirate... i mean i have done occasionally but i prefer not to. seems that's pretty rare.

[oscillik]

Joyrex, on 19 January 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

oscillik, on 19 January 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

couch, on 19 January 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I think CDs are just a bad medium anyways.  But it's better than tapes and vhs so we've kept with them.

You gotta baby them so they don't get all scratched.  I mean yea I take care of my possessions.  But it feels like CDs and video game discs and movie discs need all this special attention to keep them functioning for years.  I copy every music album I get when I get it.  Then store the original.  I know that come 6 months from now if I really like an album and listen to it daily that CD is going to get scratched up so bad.

Even if you take care of them, the discs can get fucked up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

missingsense, on 19 January 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

piracy is such a shit term for making digital copies

totally agree. There are a lot of people who mistakenly think that it is theft, when it actually isn't.

You were onto something about it being called piracy is wrong - but it is theft, no matter how you slice it. You are taking something (digital copy or not) that you did not pay for, and weren't given rights to have it - that's theft. Aside from the loss of a sale, you're depriving the artist of a royalty from that sale, so everyone thinking they're hurting only the distributor or manufacturer or record label by illegally downloading something, is also wrong. Low sales of a release can result in an artist being dropped from a label for being 'unmarketable' or 'unprofitable'. In the case of self-released works, you are directly cutting into an artist's bottom line, and in some cases preventing them from fully recouping their investment (it costs money to make CDs and packaging, y'know).

I dare you to explain to me how all the above is anything else BUT theft.

Sorry joyrex but you are wrong.

Joyrex, on 19 January 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

You are taking something (digital copy or not) that you did not pay for, and weren't given rights to have it - that's theft.

nope, that's copyright infringement.

Taking something implies that the original doesn't exist anymore.

[Smettingham Rutherford IV]

Even if it is theft, its a sure-tell sign that your business model deserves to fail if stealing not only results in a quicker and cheaper product, but a product of better overall quality. Again, I think this might be the first time in market history where something like this has happened.


Its like this,


Say back in the day some alchemist sold a potion that treated dysentery. It worked fairly well, and there was a huge demand for it. Now imagine a few years later, after this alchemist had set up an incredibly lucrative business, a bootlegger who gained hold of the alchemists recipe by illegal means started to sell the same potion, but instead of treating dysentery, it cured it. Not only that, but it was also substantially cheaper and attracted members of the opposite sex.

Now tell me in that situation what the buying market is going to do? Either the alchemist needs to adjust to his (albeit illegal) competition, or his business dies out.

[oscillik]

But it isn't theft. That's my point. It's not theft from a technical or legal standpoint.

[theSun]

theft does assume that one party is deprived of an item

i don't think there's really a legal precedent because you can't copy things like cars, food, women and other things that people have historically stolen.

[Joyrex]

oscillik, on 19 January 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Joyrex, on 19 January 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

oscillik, on 19 January 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

couch, on 19 January 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I think CDs are just a bad medium anyways.  But it's better than tapes and vhs so we've kept with them.

You gotta baby them so they don't get all scratched.  I mean yea I take care of my possessions.  But it feels like CDs and video game discs and movie discs need all this special attention to keep them functioning for years.  I copy every music album I get when I get it.  Then store the original.  I know that come 6 months from now if I really like an album and listen to it daily that CD is going to get scratched up so bad.

Even if you take care of them, the discs can get fucked up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

missingsense, on 19 January 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

piracy is such a shit term for making digital copies

totally agree. There are a lot of people who mistakenly think that it is theft, when it actually isn't.

You were onto something about it being called piracy is wrong - but it is theft, no matter how you slice it. You are taking something (digital copy or not) that you did not pay for, and weren't given rights to have it - that's theft. Aside from the loss of a sale, you're depriving the artist of a royalty from that sale, so everyone thinking they're hurting only the distributor or manufacturer or record label by illegally downloading something, is also wrong. Low sales of a release can result in an artist being dropped from a label for being 'unmarketable' or 'unprofitable'. In the case of self-released works, you are directly cutting into an artist's bottom line, and in some cases preventing them from fully recouping their investment (it costs money to make CDs and packaging, y'know).

I dare you to explain to me how all the above is anything else BUT theft.

Sorry joyrex but you are wrong.

Joyrex, on 19 January 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

You are taking something (digital copy or not) that you did not pay for, and weren't given rights to have it - that's theft.

nope, that's copyright infringement.

Taking something implies that the original doesn't exist anymore.

No, copyright infringement would be if you decided to release this yourself and claim it's your work - thus, infringing on the original owner's rights to their work.

And making a copy of something is theft - for instance, stealing someone's personal information is identity theft, not identity copyright infringement (lol) - their identity is still there, they still have their personal information, you've just decided to steal it and use it illegally, which is exactly what you're doing when you're downloading a digital copy of a physical work, or a copy of a digital work. You're using it without the permission of the owner, either by being granted that permission or paying for the right to use their work.

Smettingham Rutherford IV, on 19 January 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Even if it is theft, its a sure-tell sign that your business model deserves to fail if stealing not only results in a quicker and cheaper product, but a product of better overall quality. Again, I think this might be the first time in market history where something like this has happened.


Its like this,


Say back in the day some alchemist sold a potion that treated dysentery. It worked fairly well, and there was a huge demand for it. Now imagine a few years later, after this alchemist had set up an incredibly lucrative business, a bootlegger who gained hold of the alchemists recipe by illegal means started to sell the same potion, but instead of treating dysentery, it cured it. Not only that, but it was also substantially cheaper and attracted members of the opposite sex.

Now tell me in that situation what the buying market is going to do? Either the alchemist needs to adjust to his (albeit illegal) competition, or his business dies out.

No, in that situation the Alchemist takes the competitor to court, and sues for damages to his business, not to mention the competition being held accountable for illegally acquiring the recipe to begin with. What the competitor did with his ill-gotten information is immaterial.

I'd also argue that your original statement that stealing something so it's "quicker and cheaper" is a sign of a flawed business model - using that logic, I should stop working and just illegally acquire the funds I need to survive - if I can rob people or bilk others out of their money and that's quicker and easier than slaving away at a job 8 hours a day, then obviously the whole idea of working for money must be flawed...

[marf]

maybe if we continue sharing we'll get more Minstrel shows

[Joyrex]

theSun, on 19 January 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

theft does assume that one party is deprived of an item

i don't think there's really a legal precedent because you can't copy things like cars, food, women and other things that people have historically stolen.

Identities or ideas can be stolen, and while the original owner still possesses them, you are depriving them of the fair usage of their information or credentials, and using them illegally.

I define theft as "taking something without permission or agreed upon reimbursement" You can take something by copying it and still leave the original - you're depriving them of a potential sale (thus loss), since you copied it you obviously won't be buying it.

[missingsense]

sure you can say it's theft, but only according to a law that simply doesn't work for digital goods. just look at how they are struggling with all these dumb schemes to sort of make digital goods unique. dongles, DRM, serial codes.. it's ridiculous. nothing works.

it's in the nature of intelectual property to want to replicate, at least if it's good.... and prohibiting this by means of a law that was meant for protecting people from losing their property just doesn't work, period.. nothing will change that fact.. people will break the law because it's too obvious they are being conned.

supporting an artist or label is very different. and I'm not expecting them to all of a sudden change over and make everything free and only start accepting hand outs or whatever - because it still works well enough.. but there just this huge grey area that is not going away, and only getting bigger I think.. maybe there's a different way of doing things but we haven't explored it yet? existing laws aren't going to make exploring that area any easier though.

ok

/TED talk

[Joyrex]

missingsense, on 19 January 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

sure you can say it's theft, but only according to a law that simply doesn't work for digital goods. just look at how they are struggling with all these dumb schemes to sort of make digital goods unique. dongles, DRM, serial codes.. it's ridiculous. nothing works.

it's in the nature of intelectual property to want to replicate, at least if it's good.... and prohibiting this by means of a law that was meant for protecting people from losing their property just doesn't work, period.. nothing will change that fact.. people will break the law because it's too obvious they are being conned.

supporting an artist or label is very different. and I'm not expecting them to all of a sudden change over and make everything free and only start accepting hand outs or whatever - because it still works well enough.. but there just this huge grey area that is not going away, and only getting bigger I think.. maybe there's a different way of doing things but we haven't explored it yet? existing laws aren't going to make exploring that area any easier though.

ok

/TED talk

I think the more accurate assessment is they are trying to prevent digital goods from being acquired without payment - all those schemes you mentioned are there to prevent theft, not make anything 'unique' as it were.

[oscillik]

joyrex, I'm sorry to say but you are wrong.

I dare you to find me one legal case that has actually gone to court in the western world where someone 'stealing' music via what we regard as 'music piracy' is legally defined as theft.

You will not find it.

[missingsense]

Joyrex, on 19 January 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

I think the more accurate assessment is they are trying to prevent digital goods from being acquired without payment - all those schemes you mentioned are there to prevent theft, not make anything 'unique' as it were.

no they want to make it impossible to copy. if you can make a copy it isn't unique anymore.. they want a law made to prevent the loss of solid goods to apply to the duplication of digital goods.. for that to happen their goods need to be unique.

I have no problem supporting someone for the effort they make in producing something I like. using an old system like the laws we live with today is not a problem for me, as I will gladly follow that route to pay artists I like. all I'm saying is that there are better ways of doing things..

[Adam Beker]

Joyrex, on 19 January 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

theSun, on 19 January 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

theft does assume that one party is deprived of an item

i don't think there's really a legal precedent because you can't copy things like cars, food, women and other things that people have historically stolen.

Identities or ideas can be stolen, and while the original owner still possesses them, you are depriving them of the fair usage of their information or credentials, and using them illegally.

I define theft as "taking something without permission or agreed upon reimbursement" You can take something by copying it and still leave the original - you're depriving them of a potential sale (thus loss), since you copied it you obviously won't be buying it.

Copying is not taking.

[Freak of the week]

So maybe most of the recordlabel owners/directors whatever nowadays are a greedy assholes who only care about their own wallets. Fine. But that still doesn't justify piracy, because artists have themselves chosen to release their works via labels. Nobody forces them to do so. They can always try setting up a label of their own if they want so much to make a living out of their music, like RDJ did with Rephlex, or think of some other music distribution system, such as a free download system with donation acceptions. I am not saying setting up your own label or trying to come up with another system of your own is simple and/or easy, but still, people need to know what is right and what is wrong.

No system is truly ideal because humans aren't ideal, but there are nowadays so many folks that simply try to justify their own piracy with this philosophy shit. System isn't fair, fine, but still you're robbing the artist, because he'll get a percent of money you gave for his album, no matter how small it is. My personal philosophy is - download something, and if you really like it, buy it if you can. If you don't like it (at all), delete it from your computer, or at least don't listen to it. That's how I mostly do it, except with really rare releases that are nowadays sold for incredibly huge amounts of money only because of greed.

Edited by Freak of the week, 19 January 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[oscillik]

Freak of the week, on 19 January 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

My personal philosophy is - download something, and if you really like it, buy it if you can. If you don't like it (at all), delete it from your computer, or at least don't listen to it. That's how I mostly do it, except with really rare releases that are nowadays sold for incredibly huge amounts of money only because of greed.

So in a nutshell, you condone 'piracy'?

oh but what's this?

Freak of the week, on 19 January 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

so many folks that simply try to justify their own piracy with this philosophy shit.

[Freak of the week]

I am just saying people need to think about the fact that some people are making music for their living, and no matter how unfair system is,
the money you give for their stuff will go to them, no matter how small amount of it. We're living in a capitalistic world which is generally unfair and all,
but still, people always need to think about artists and the fact that some of them make a living out of their music. Maybe some people
don't have so much money they can just buy albums all the time, but what is important is the intentions. I simply think that everybody should (at least try to) support artist in any way, if he/she really cares about his music. Music business may be cruel and unfair, but the artists have themselves chosen to play the game.

And maybe I don't have all the albums I like, but I am looking forward owning them in the future, the ones I really like, because when I really enjoy the music, I want to show the artist with my support that I care, because I do.

Edited by Freak of the week, 19 January 2012 - 11:10 AM.

[oscillik]

you can spin it however you like mate, doesn't change the fact that you've just shown yourself to be a hypocrite.

[Freak of the week]

What I meant by piracy is not buying artists's releases because most of the money goes to labels, and declaration of it being unfair. It is unfair, but when an artist plays this game, it's his choice, so you should support him even though it may not seem fair to you. I obviously extended the meaning of word "piracy". I don't care how you call it, I am simply criticizing this intention. I myself download some stuff and I if like it, I buy it, or look forward buying it, not to mention I download only stuff I might buy. Sometimes, instead of downloading, I simply preview track clips from various sites. If I like the artist, I will eventually buy his music, no matter how unfair the system could be, because, as I said, it's artist choice to be on a label. I am sorry if you misunderstood me.

My criticism was toward the essay in the first post of this thread. Although I agree that labels are greedy etc etc, artist still loses
if you don't buy his album published via label that could be unfair. Again, it's his choice that he's on that label.

Edited by Freak of the week, 19 January 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[jules]

patternoverlap, on 19 January 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

jules, on 19 January 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

in this age of piracy, artists who put their stuff out on their own make more money than if they put it out on a label. doesn't that say all there is to know about this?

not to belabor the point or poke holes in your statement, but could you point me to some concrete examples of this?

i could try to find actual articles if you like but i know for sure that radiohead, maynard james keenan and trent reznor have said so.

[oscillik]

Freak of the week, on 19 January 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

My criticism was toward the essay in the first post of this thread.

but the essay just outlines his reasons, much the same way you outlined your reasons.