Piracy...your take?

[Meatball]

I don't equate downloading movies or music with theft, but with software I would say is a different story.

[Eilonnwy]

Stealing is stealing is stealing.

Just because you don't like the price, can steal without getting caught, can rationalize to yourself that the artist doesn't need your $20 for an album does not make it not stealing. We have property laws in place to protect people, and yes those laws need to equally be applied to the rich and poor otherwise they are entirely useless.

Does that mean I have never pirated stuff? No. I have stolen music, movies, and software. I don't pretend what I did was not wrong or justified. I stole.

I have made a conscious choice not to steal music anymore. I now use iTunes for all my music. What I can't afford for software I find a free option. For movies I rent from Netflix. The only thing I download is TV shows and only if they're TV rips and not DVD rips. I'm fairly certain (though I could be wrong) there is nothing illegal about sharing something shown on TV for no profit.

As an artist, I understand how stealing intellectual property can cause harm and I've looked into copyright law at length. (I've even done a panel on art theft at a convention) I knew a person who lost work because someone took their art and claimed it as their own. (She sued and rightfully got compensated.)

As an artist who values copyright law and actively tries to advise other artists how to protect their artwork from being stolen, I cannot pretend to myself that it's different because the artist sings and is rich. That is why I have changed my ways and do my best to follow the law.

---

I don't equate downloading movies or music with theft, but with software I would say is a different story.

Well, it's still theft even if you chose not to equate it that way.

---

I usually only use free open-source programs since they have the right idea about building up a good and secure software community (i.e. people who want to learn how to do certain things in programming can simply look at the code of another program and learn). If open-source isn't available, I'll go with free proprietary (Adobe Flash for instance, is much better that Gnash).

Rarely do I ever use software that I have to pay for.

I think it's great to use open-source programs, I'm a big fan of open office myself. I doubt I'll ever pay for Microsoft word because in my mind, open office is just as good.

However I have one niggling problem with open-source programs and it doesn't come from the programs itself but the insistence of it's users that it's always better than software you pay for. I'm sick to death of people telling me I need to get Linux, toting it as the best thing since sliced bread. I'm personally am not a fan. I'm very happy with Microsoft and don't see the need to change. Every time I go to record a podcast and I start up my laptop my friend goes "Ugh, Vista sound" It gets really annoying after a while, especially since I have to record the podcast on my machine because for some reason his linux machine won't record properly.

Providing the open-source programing is awesome. Because it's free doesn't make it better.

[Meatball]

One could argue that by downloading TV shows you are bypassing network or web advertisements, which is how companies derive profit from TV shows.

I don't equate downloading music or music with stealing because nobody is losing anything. It's not like Warner music will suddenly notice a missing copy of Appetite For Destruction after I complete a download.

Potential revenue is bullshit in my eyes. I download albums because it's not feasible for me to pay for them. I wouldn't buy 3 albums a week if downloading weren't possible. I wouldn't hear it at all.

The bottom line for me is that music has been commercialized to the point where the average person sees it as a product, not an artpiece. That means the million-dollar executives are winning. They aren't interested in fostering great art, they are interested in selling plastic discs, or better yet, bytes on a hard drive that they can tightly control.

[Eilonnwy]

One could argue that by downloading TV shows you are bypassing network or web advertisements, which is how companies derive profit from TV shows.

True, but legally it's acceptable, and I'm arguing within the legal purview.

I don't equate downloading music or music with stealing because nobody is losing anything. It's not like Warner music will suddenly notice a missing copy of Appetite For Destruction after I complete a download.

You said software is a different story, yet if I download a free version of photoshop, Adobe is not technically "missing" a copy. It's still intellectual property. Under your reasoning, if you wrote a paper and I copied it and claimed it as my own, I'm not plagiarizing because you still have the physical copy. That's a fallacious argument to make.

Also, if you're arguing about sales, that me downloading a song is not a big deal because they won't miss the $.99 on iTunes, that's also fallacious. If I took a dollar out of my mother's wallet, is it no less stealing just because she never noticed? It's not, and you know it.

Potential revenue is bullshit in my eyes. I download albums because it's not feasible for me to pay for them. I wouldn't buy 3 albums a week if downloading weren't possible. I wouldn't hear it at all.

Doesn't make it bullshit in the eyes of the law. I also don't think it's bullshit. If I create a piece of artwork and someone copies it and sells it, not only can my credibility can be ruined, I can lose potential customers because of lost credibility or people buying from the art thief instead of me. Now I can't pay for rent. This is a legal argument and a fair one and being rich doesn't make it invalid, just most people feel less sympathetic.

The bottom line for me is that music has been commercialized to the point where the average person sees it as a product, not an artpiece. That means the million-dollar executives are winning. They aren't interested in fostering great art, they are interested in selling plastic discs, or better yet, bytes on a hard drive that they can tightly control.

Your objection to what commercial music has become does not justify stealing it. You can not buy it and support musicians who give away their music or go the non-commercialized route. Just because you disagree with an industries methods doesn't mean that taking from it is not stealing.

Art is a product. If I draw something and sell it, under the eyes of the law it is a product. It doesn't matter if my attitude about selling my artwork is commercialized or not. If I'm a starving artist on the street who cares deeply about art or a highly commercialized graphic designer making millions, my rights are still the same.

You can justify stealing to make yourself feel better about it, but don't pretend it's not stealing.

[Minimalist]

I tend to agree, Meatball, but the problem shifts depending on what is being downloaded. If I find a shareware program that actually does what I need it to do, I will register it and pay the fee.

People who download movies from a P2P network are "guilty" but people who record movies from HBO/Showtime on their DVRs are not? That seems like a bizarre distinction. If the rationale for downloading/copying is simply to watch it at your own convenience OR fast forward through the commercials that seems like a"fair use" under the copyright law. Re-selling those copies of course is strictly out but lending it to a friend becomes more of a question. "Intent" should matter.

As for music....when I was a kid I had a reel-to-reel tape recorder and recorded whatever I wanted off the radio. I would rather have root canal than listen to today's "music" so don't go by me on that one.

[Eilonnwy]

I won't deny that fair use and theft of downloaded material is not a fuzzy area of law. In general, things you can legally record for personal use that is available publicly, such as stuff recorded on TV and radio, is not considered stealing. Stealing comes in when you try to sell those recordings, or you take something that has been purchased, such as a DVD and CD, you rip it and give it away or sell it. This constitutes as stealing, because instead of purchasing the material people buy it from someone else or do not buy it at all leading to loss of profits. People can argue that these distinctions shouldn't exist one way or another, but legally that's where it is and as I said, I'm arguing from a legal standpoint.

[fr0d0]

Every time I go to record a podcast and I start up my laptop my friend goes "Ugh, Vista sound" It gets really annoying after a while, especially since I have to record the podcast on my machine because for some reason his linux machine won't record properly.

Providing the open-source programing is awesome. Because it's free doesn't make it better.

Easy solution - turn off system sounds!

Linux is nearly there. Compared to only a few years ago it's unrecognizable. I now have non techie friends running it. Still, you either have to have the right distro hardware combination or have the technical know how. There are musician distro's so it is completely possible.

M$ still does the job, which is why they and we're where we are. They're evil like all big corporations (look at their refusal to comply with the open document format), and they have the advantage of being familiar.

[theVOID]

Windows 7 is great, and this is coming from a long time linux user.

Biggest complaint is the gui feels flimsy and bleak.

[fr0d0]

the gui feels flimsy and bleak.

LOL Interesting way of putting it

[Meatball]

If my friend plays a CD for me to show me a hot new song, is that stealing?

If my friend just clues me into that song and I download it, is that stealing?

If I buy a used CD with that song on it, is that stealing?

As far as the record company and the artist are concerned, those three actions are the same. The laws are fucked up, the copyright supporters' motives are fucked up, and if it were up to them you'd pay every time you listen to a song.