Stop the RIAA

Darth Mandarb · Tue 12/12/2006 20:51:17

Now Matt ... you're just being REdiculous

Actually ... Darth can't reply anymore to this thread. He's been arrested and is spending life in prison because he downloaded an mp3.

Oh ... and he's going to hell too.

MrColossal · Tue 12/12/2006 21:11:08

I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.

I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.

What else costs too much? Is it ok to steal that? Can I walk into a shop and steal something because I feel it's too expensive? The people who make clothes in china aren't paid nearly enough for what they do, can I steal shirts off the racks because of this?

You want music but it's too expensive or you have a moral reason for not downloading the music. Outcome: You don't get to listen to or you take a moral stand against owning the CD. That's the way things work for 99.9% of every other good. Want to hear the music and support the artist? Go to a show and buy a cd directly off of them. If that performer doesn't tour around you or it'd be really expensive to see every show, too bad. That's the way it works. You either buy the cd or you don't.

Or admit you're stealing something without paying for it. I steal things off the internet all the time. Even if I have a moral reason against paying for something I admit I'm a thief.

Don't want to be a thief and don't want to give the record companies any money? Boycott the product.

Adamski · Tue 12/12/2006 21:16:31

QuoteNo, it's not. If it were outright theft to download mp3 there'd be millions of us in jail. And yet I am still walking the world free and downloading mp3 on a near daily basis with no intention of stopping.

It is outright theft, dude. You did not pay for it, you have stolen it. It's no different than walking into an unstaffed music shop and picking up anything you want - when there's no risk involved it suddenly doesn't seem like stealing!

QuoteJust because you think it's wrong doesn't make it so. I think paying rediculous prices is wrong. So I don't pay it.

Yet you will buy hundereds of DVDs, which are arguebly more overpriced than CDs, just because you can't get them from limewire! Just because you think it is right to not pay for music doesn't make it so. You're not trying to prove a point by not paying for stuff that costs over $10, you're stealing something because it is risk free and more convenient. That does not make it right, or justifiable.

Nikolas · Tue 12/12/2006 21:19:09

Stealing for me has a definition close to "taking something, thus depriving it from someone else". This is not happening here. It's definately not the same to walk into a shop and steal a t-shirt, or download mp3s.

Darth, You are very well causing harm to people and lots of them, from artists, to marketing directors, and finally to everyone, by forcing RIAA to act like shit! (<-what a nice argument! I don't actually believe that but since it does stand as an argument I'll leave it in

)

The thing is that, as I said, a CD, is a job for many people, and for many many more in the case of a film. Believe it or not, all things play a role, and should be rewarded.

Darth Mandarb · Tue 12/12/2006 21:45:03

Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 21:16:31It is outright theft, dude. You did not pay for it, you have stolen it.

Matter of opinion. The person I got the mp3 file from shared it willingly. That's not stealing. Nor did I pay him/her for it, thus no copyright law was broken. Symantics I know, but none-the-less true.

Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 21:16:31It's no different than walking into an unstaffed music shop and picking up anything you want - when there's no risk involved it suddenly doesn't seem like stealing!

Actually it's entirely different.

Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 21:16:31That does not make it right, or justifiable.

To you maybe. This might come as a shock, but I don't live my life by other's opinions!

If somebody can point me to the law that says, "The obtaining of music mp3 from p2p networks (or any other source) for free is illegal" I would greatly appreciate it. Until then, it's not stealing in my book. You can argue against my point all you want with your points. As far as I'm concerned neither point is more valid.

Now if they enact a law that says that ... I'll gladly and openly call myself a thief. I won't stop downloading mp3 for free, but I'd capitulate to being a thief.

DISCLAIMER: Note that Darth didn't actually respond here ... remember, he's in hell/prison.

Helm · Tue 12/12/2006 21:51:19

Yes, it's illegal, yes it's stealing. But is it WRONG? Up to one's morality. If it's a bad thing, it's not a huge bad thing as most of the time you're putting a small hurt on a company that is an enormous beast out for blood. Don't forget, it's the huge companies that are waging the war against consumer piracy. Those companies are not looking out for the best interest of art, nor artist, but for their monetary gain. Now, someone would come and post a sarcastic 'so, helm, a company wanting to make money is bad? lol you naive naive person' to which I reply: "fuck you." and also yes, there's such a thing as milking a consumer, and there's another in bleeding them dry.

I think art shouldn't be product. Artists should be supported by goverment, organisations and charitable individuals. It might not be superstar money, but fuck the superstars anyway. People that wanted to make a living out of art should expect to barely make it. It's conductive for good art to struggle, anyhow! Besides, consider how great it would be for art to not have to think wether what you're making is sellable or not. Of course some would abuse the system and make crap for art and get money for it, but hey, the same people abuse the welfare system, and it's not a huge bleeding sore for the economy, is it? I'm not talking for much more money than that. If you want more money, tour, do exhibitions, become good enough that some wealthy person takes you under their wing or your country aknowledges your skill and gives you more grant money. If you don't want more money, just go on creating with your bad self for the little you get and get by with. If you can't cut it get a real job.

Most artists that feel threatened by piracy are doing so because they think it'll mean they won't be making a living out of it, not because it will deny them the millions they feel they deserve.

I download a lot of music. From all that I download, I tend to love 10 cds a year or so. Most of them I buy. I think that's sensible, and I don't think all the other stuff I downloaded I should have had to buy at all since I didn't love them. I don't see how this is hurting anyone. I am sampling the music - and now that disk space is running out - if it's not satisfactory after a few listens, it gets deleted. If it is, it might linger about for a while until I either decide I love it enough to buy it for liner notes, art, whatever, or I decide it's not good enough and it goes. Darwinian method.

Lots of the music I buy is obscure, on some strange german mailorder (I prefer Hellion) or at a live show (where I also get t-shirts to support the band if they were good enough) and the good thing about the music I listen to is that I know that most artists I'm ripping off would rather have me listen to the music than not listen to it at all, even if it means downloading it. Heavy Metal people are like that (metallica notwithstanding). They only get annoyed if the downloaded music is of bad encoding, 'cause it makes their stuff sound worse, and that's understandable. I promise to steal only good quality mp3s!

EDIT: an interesting thing about 1 dollar per song on iTunes, if the concept is actually embraced, and people stop putting out cds... I think artists will just make one song at a time. Not book for 60-minute album recording sessions. That'd be interesting, for me. Then again, an artist that has made a 15-minute opus would feel ripped off! I guess that means most songs will be in the 3-4 minute range. Oh pop music, how much more will you become like disguised advertising.

Nikolas · Tue 12/12/2006 22:07:03

Helm, this is a really difficult area to enter, but I would like to comment a little...

(stealing, not stealing and so on, don't care really...)

The "art should not be a product" and the rest are far more interesting! The system idea, again is true, and I do think that in France there is a simmilar system already working! As long as you prove that you have done some work, then you can live by wellfare...

I'm not sure if artists, should expect to live poorly! Why exactly?

I mean, no artist should mind if his art is sellable, indeed very true, but what about, that his art is communicating with his audience? In the end art, is all about communication, where words always fail (at least I think so), so the art, while not commercially accpetable, if it's not the "art for the art" argument, then it should do...ok. No?

I just find this notion that artists, should basically starve (more or less), because they're artists, and shouldn't expect money appaling to me! I just can't see why! I mean it's not that an artist should be locked in a room and make his art and nothing else, and then bring it to he light, and not care what happens to it afterwards... is it?

(note the question marks! Striving for discussion here... even if I'm changing the subject almost completly!)

ManicMatt · Tue 12/12/2006 22:19:47

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 12/12/2006 21:45:03
Matter of opinion. The person I got the mp3 file from shared it willingly. That's not stealing. Nor did I pay him/her for it, thus no copyright law was broken. Symantics I know, but none-the-less true.

But did they have the RIGHT to share that file with you? Did they hold the copyright?

Links then, first one from RIAA!

http://www.riaa.com/News/newsletter/093003_2a.asp

Second link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3600464.stm

Third link:

http://tech.yahoo.com/gd/peering-into-peer-to-peer-file-sharing/153224

Remember Napster getting into trouble, yes?

Please understand, I am not telling you not to do it, I just want you to be aware. If I told you not to, I would be a hypocrite!

Vel · Tue 12/12/2006 22:32:53

As a side note, there's this ridiculous anti-piracy campaign going on in Sofia. Local artists are half-naked on huge posters around the touch and on their chests there is a red sign that says "Piracy Steals". It's indeed hilarious, for among the people whom piracy has done great wrong are a painter, and a sculptor.

I'd also like to say how much I respect a Bulgarian alternative rock band, called PIF. They make music and released two albums in 2001 and 2003(which are probably the best Bulgarian albums from the new millenium I own). Then they decided that the income from record sales isn't really that vast and released their third album for free on the Internet. To make a living, they constantly tour. Not huge venues, at least, not often, but clubs and such.

Darth Mandarb · Tue 12/12/2006 22:51:12

Quote from: ManicMatt on Tue 12/12/2006 22:19:47But did they have the RIGHT to share that file with you? Did they hold the copyright?

No, but they didn't sell me the mp3 either, so they didn't break copyright law (as far as I understand it). Though I do believe the RIAA is targetting the people that provide the mp3, not the ones doing the downloading.

If I go out any by a box of cookies, and I share them with all the people I work with, are they theives for eating them?

voh · Tue 12/12/2006 23:01:40

Theft is defined as being:

Quotethe act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it or an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

You're not TAKING anything away from anyone. What you're doing is illegally copying, not stealing. So I would like to ask that this nuance be applied, as it's very important. People use the term "stealing music" constantly, while it isn't stealing per say. You're definitely copying something illegally, but using the term stealing is only in order when you would've bought the CD if there'd been no way of downloading things for free.

The most you'd be stealing in that case would be profit. Income. But mind you, while you're 'stealing' about 15-20 USD from the record companies by not buying the album, you're only 'stealing' less than a dollar from the actual artists.

Doesn't make it right, I know, but perspective is important.

Also, while uploading is illegal in the Netherlands, I've uploaded a lot of CD's, specifically meant to share them for free with others, while I purchased them a few years back. Why? Because the CD's are out of print, the bands don't exist anymore, and google yields no results on any of their band names, album names or songs. Yet, this is still illegal, and will remain to be until the copyrights dissolve in what... 70 more years? This means that legally speaking, this music is condemned to be forgotten for at least that period, and after that, well, probably the same. While I'm doing something illegal, my feeling of justice says I'm doing the right thing - and that the copyright laws need to be altered to fit with the times.

What we see happening is the record companies (in the form of the RIAA) despreately trying to hold on to the old status quo. And they're failing, because everything's different from when those rules and guidelines were first drafted. Once more, it's time they stop fighting and start thinking of how to create a situation in which all of the important facets (the new technology, the new opinions on these things by the general public), and profit for both the companies and artists) are represented.

If there's a fair alternative, then by all means, I'll join in. I'm already doing that by purchasing music directly from the artists, and I'll keep doing that. For those artists who don't want to join that movement, that's fine. Just make sure your albums are reasonably priced (and that's possible to do, if you choose your label right. A local band's been keeping their album prices low for years, even though they're on Epitaph, whose CD's are generally all in the same price range).

It's a difficult situation we're discussing. On one hand no music fan wants to hurt the artists, and we definitely wouldn't want to be the artists getting hurt. On the other hand, how things are now is wrong, and both artists and consumers are being shanked by the record companies. Something needs to change, and so far, illegal downloading's got a lot changed. Napster started it off, by becoming a dedicated music download program, then all the spinoffs. It was only a matter of time before legal alternatives came, and thank god they did.

A lot of good things started out illegally. Bittorrent, now used in World of Warcraft, and soon in a service by Time Warner, is mostly used as a tool to download illegal things. This has caused its popularity, and subsequently its rapid development. In no time it turned into a viable platform for distributed data sharing, and let's be honest, it wouldn't have been anything without the illegality it obviously concerns itself with.

The music situation will stabilize, I hope, and things will be re-assessed, causing consumers who're currently disillusioned to start purchasing again, and the companies to feel more secure in their market.

Don't forget - it's basically the evolution of technology causing this. 8-tracks made easy, affordable copying of music possible, but it was quite a hassle. Cassettes made it easier, and even more affordable, still remaining a bit clumsy. Being able to copy CD's made it MUCH easier, and a lot handier. Downloading music makes it as easy as it can be.

The method's changed, 's all.

All of you who're saying you shouldn't download free music, how many cassettes do/did you have that you copied off of a friend's CD/record? How many copied CD's? That's 'stealing' too, you know, just more oldskool

ManicMatt · Tue 12/12/2006 23:04:09

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 12/12/2006 22:51:12
Though I do believe the RIAA is targetting the people that provide the mp3, not the ones doing the downloading.

Stop them, you stop the downloaders. Hit the problem at the source. It doesn't mean the downloaders are in their rights. You did read the links I gave you? :

QuoteIf I go out any by a box of cookies, and I share them with all the people I work with, are they theives for eating them?

Erm... Darth, you usually have intelligent and good points. This must be your off day!

If you got the recipe for the cookies and made them to replica standard, and started giving them out yourself, maaaaybe! But this is a silly comparison. And the cookies are eaten, not copied to your friends.

EDIT: Good grief, that's a long post by Voh! I think I'll post this and read straight after!

voh · Tue 12/12/2006 23:06:02

Sorry, I get carried away sometimes

Darth Mandarb · Tue 12/12/2006 23:20:20

Quote from: ManicMatt on Tue 12/12/2006 23:04:09Erm... Darth, you usually have intelligent and good points. This must be your off day!

I was trying to be a little silly (to lighten the mood in here) but I do think it's a similar point.

If some guy buys a CD (legally) and freely gives away the songs on the CD it is, in my opinion, no different than somebody buying a box of cookies and givin them away free. Those that eat the cookies are enjoying the product without paying for it.

voh · Tue 12/12/2006 23:27:58

The difference is that when you give out cookies, you paid for, say 10 cookies, give away 8, only have 2 left. So you paid for 10 cookies, 10 cookies get eaten. Also, cookies are done after you've eaten them.

If you buy a CD, and share your MP3's, you're not doing the same. It'd be the same if an album you bought as MP3's has 10 tracks, you give out 8 of them, and delete your own MP3 of the songs you gave out. Then it's a good comparison. Now, not so much

MrColossal · Tue 12/12/2006 23:28:28

I'd like some answers to my post, if anyone pleases.

EagerMind · Tue 12/12/2006 23:31:19

I can see both sides of the argument here.

The person hosting free downloads is definitely breaking the law. Remember the publishing rights I talked about earlier? At the very least, they should be paying a royalty everytime they provide a new physical copy of the music. I'm not sure how digital reproduction applies here, but I suspect the principle remains the same.

As for the person doing the downloading ... seems like more of a gray area. They're not the ones doing the reproduction and violating copyright. They're just taking advantage of a service (admittedly, one of questionable legality). I guess it's a little bit like buying scalped tickets, if you could make infinite, valid reproductions of the ticket.

But I think the x-factor here is that the people being harmed here aren't the artists, it's the record labels. You generally don't see musicians kicking down doors and ranting about copyright violations; they're just happy that people are listening to their music. But then again, the record labels have basically taken away most of the musicians' rights to their own music and given them a few pennies for their trouble. Now they're trying to use the same strong-arm tactics on the consumers, sueing individuals at the drop of a hat (while doing nothing to combat the massive, organized piracy rings in the Pacific rim). I think most people see the recording industry as getting their just desserts, hence the lack of guilt about getting free music. I think people are tired of paying $15-20 or more for CDs and when the musicians (who it seems are ultimately responsible for most of the costs of production) getting basically nothing.

The system definitely needs to be fixed.

LimpingFish · Tue 12/12/2006 23:41:06

Buying cookies and duplicating said cookies in a cookie-duplicating machine, and then sharing the duplicated cookies among friends and strangers while retained the original cookies for your own usage, having only purchased the rights to eat those original cookies...is a crime (of varying moral/legal degrees). Anyone who knowingly eats one or more of the counterfeit cookies is an accessory to that crime.

Baking your own cookies (using a recipe of your own design!), by investing in various cookie-making ingrediants and/or devices and sharing/selling the resulting cookies, is not.

LimpingFish opens a packet of Hob Nobs.

DGMacphee · Wed 13/12/2006 04:25:39

Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 12/12/2006 21:11:08
I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.

I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.

What else costs too much? Is it ok to steal that? Can I walk into a shop and steal something because I feel it's too expensive? The people who make clothes in china aren't paid nearly enough for what they do, can I steal shirts off the racks because of this?

You want music but it's too expensive or you have a moral reason for not downloading the music. Outcome: You don't get to listen to or you take a moral stand against owning the CD. That's the way things work for 99.9% of every other good. Want to hear the music and support the artist? Go to a show and buy a cd directly off of them. If that performer doesn't tour around you or it'd be really expensive to see every show, too bad. That's the way it works. You either buy the cd or you don't.

Fat Tony begs to differ...

Fat Tony: Is it it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No..
Fat Tony: Well suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Nuh-uh
Fat Tony: And what if your family don't like bread. They like.. cigarettes.
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away.. you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell no!

See, it's not wrong to steal a box of cookies to feed your starving family but if your family doesn't like cookies and prefers MP3s, that's okay too. Not only that, you can even sell them at a price that was practically giving them away, and it's still not a crime! So technically, free file sharing is less than not being a crime -- in other words, it's actually benefits society!

If Bart Simpson can see the light, why can't you, Eric?

evenwolf · Wed 13/12/2006 04:49:37

I'd say downloading music is stealing.

The music industry could cut back on middle men if you ask me. I'd like it if music went totally independent. There would be some really talented people that didn't get drowned out by the bubble gum packaging of other artists. Bob Dylan would have been found all the same in such a world.