Illegal downloading

[Rockthatpiano06]

I think the download would have killed the record store either way. I mean, let's say for arguments sake that nobody illegally downloaded. It did not exist. But itunes and like services still exist... the record stores would still go out of business because a store selling a CD for 19.99 cannot compete with itunes selling the same thing for 9.99. Most people who buy the CDs just rip them onto their computer and put them on their mp3 player anyway. I also agree with Adrian, if people could not illegal download it does not mean they would buy the album. Most people download way more then they could ever afford.

[Samson]

Hell, if anything the Itunes and the record stores/company/corps etc etc. have Illegal downloading to thank for finally coming up with more ideas in making it cheaper and easier to buy their product...

They are still making record profits, regardless of the down loads....

Along with, there have been so many artist who have to thank Napster, Morpheus, Share Bear, Lime-Wire, etc. for having the technology to get their music further and faster than ever before.

I've bought many CD's in the past because of downloading one song from the artist and hearing samples else where...

I believe if the RIAA/MPAA would just leave it alone and quit wasting money on trying to stop it (Which will never happen) they would have higher profits and maybe come up with more ideas in spreading the music and arts to the people faster and better than what we have today....

[leo-rcc]

Now this is getting interesting.

Yesterday a advice committee for our government gave the advice to put an extra tax on every Internet connection in our country, and use that money to save the newspaper companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. This because the Internet gives the more up-to-date information for a much lower price.

Naturally everybody with half a brain saw what this meant and I have not heard a single comment even from people subscribed to newspapers that this was a good idea. It got rejected flat out by everyone including the vast majority of the government. If a company can't keep afloat in this information era, it is time to go. We did not put a charge on cell phones to keep the Telex business afloat. We do not charge mileage to bicycles to save the car industry.

The same is true for books and music. As long as there are people willing to buy paper books and buy music on CD's for a price the consumer can live with, these companies will not go out of business. This will last until the prices get so high just to make a small profit margin that it is no longer a viable option anymore and people start downloading pdf's for their ebook reader or multimedia from online vendors.

What I disagree with is the notion that no-one gets harmed by downloading illegally. A performer and recording studio only make money from the material that is actually sold by whatever means through legal channels, not the stuff that is gotten from somewhere else. Now you might say that your downloads are just a drop in the bucket, but with a million drops a day that bucket fills up quite fast.

[Samson]

Leo-rcc, that's funny you mention e-books on .pdf etc.

Even though I may get a few offline to read....I still actually go and get the Hardback if the book was worth it...

Harry Potter was a great example for that. I read all 7 on my system, but still went out and bought this exact Chest Hardback set for the family of the 1-7 Books...






As far as hurting someone, I don't disagree with you, but I will say that it depends on what you are getting.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Just out of curiosity, if someone left a whole bunch of paintings that they had stolen from an art gallery in a public place would you pick one up and walk off with it?

A digital copy of a recording of a song is not the same as an original painting, and you know that. Who's looking for the missing copy of 'Yakety Sax' I downloaded last week? I made several more copies on my PC, is that hurting some record store's inventory?

No I don't ... aside from multiple copies, I don't see the difference at all. Maybe you think it's OK to steal a little bit of the hypothetical painting then?

---

With respect,that argument is a rationalisation of dishonesty.You acknowledge the ownership ,but discount it because it's in your interest to do so or because your dishonesty is a matter of degree. The positions is disingenuous and immoral.

Agreed.

---

This is assuming Meatball would have purchased the album if he had not been able to download it.

That is a point I agree but it doesn't make it right and seems to assume he doesn't make it available by either passing on to people on some kind of physical media or participates by re-sharing it (which of course on peer-to-peer he will already have done even if he stopped it immediately after).

As I said earlier I'm no angel but at least I recognize the simple fact that downloading and uploading things that I have no license to is a crime (and should be because the author should have the right to decide what is done with his or her possession until he/she grants that right to others).

In essence if you download (or use) music, videos, text to which you have no legal right you are committing crime (you are a criminal) at least in the UK and most other westernised nations.

---

What I disagree with is the notion that no-one gets harmed by downloading illegally. A performer and recording studio only make money from the material that is actually sold by whatever means through legal channels, not the stuff that is gotten from somewhere else. Now you might say that your downloads are just a drop in the bucket, but with a million drops a day that bucket fills up quite fast.

Again agreed.

Kyu

[Meatball]

[quote=="Kyu"]A digital copy of a recording of a song is not the same as an original painting, and you know that.

No I don't ... aside from multiple copies, I don't see the difference at all. Maybe you think it's OK to steal a little bit of the hypothetical painting then?

Multiple copies is the important thing I was trying to say. Making 10 copies on my PC and sharing 10 copies with my friends over BitTorrent is the same thing. An MP3 is a series of bits arranged on my hard drive to make an audio file, which is a recording of a song. A painting is paint applied to canvas. I can reproduce an Mp3 in a fraction of a second. If you could do that to the painting, I'd grab one, provided it fits my decor.

Copying an MP3 is not the same as "stealing a little bit of a painting". It's a completely different ballgame. The simplest way I can think of explaining it is this: copying an MP3 creates no 'loss' for the owner like taking a painting does. The owner is not "short" by one mp3 because I copied it, but if I take his painting, he can't sell that painting anymore. You can argue that they have lost potential revenue because I didn't purchase a legit copy, but they have not lost any product, nor any money. Perhaps it's better to say they have not gained anything.

In summary, copyright laws are absolutely ridiculous.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Copying an MP3 is not the same as "stealing a little bit of a painting". It's a completely different ballgame. The simplest way I can think of explaining it is this: copying an MP3 creates no 'loss' for the owner like taking a painting does. The owner is not "short" by one mp3 because I copied it, but if I take his painting, he can't sell that painting anymore. You can argue that they have lost potential revenue because I didn't purchase a legit copy, but they have not lost any product, nor any money. Perhaps it's better to say they have not gained anything.

In summary, copyright laws are absolutely ridiculous.

You can try and argue all you like against the copyright laws but, in a rights based society, laws broadly reflect morality and (based on the fact that successive administrations have been voted in none of them with the mandate to repeal such laws indeed having strengthened them if anything) society appears to regard the copyright laws as justifiable (that there is no essential distinction between the theft of a painting and the download/theft of something someone does not own) and therefore, in downloading music that you have no legal license to, you are a criminal.

I have to say if you were find for doing so I wouldn't be anymore sympathetic than I was to my brother when he was done for driving too fast (which incidentally is also regarded as OK by many motorists).

Kyu

[Tiberius]

I'd disagree. Copyright law has nothing to do with stealing or ownership, it has to do with claiming something as your own when it is not. Abolishing copyright law is a very good thing, as it enables people to use other work in new ways (for instance I could buy a song, mix it up, and resell it). I could not however, buy a song and then give it away for free, or at a lower price than the original owner. That would be a breach of ownership. Same thing with stealing, a breach of ownership.

The point being, in a copyleft society, a person could work hard and produce a song. Another person could buy that song, work equally as hard to remix it, and resell it. People who like the original will buy the original, people who like the remix better will buy the remix. This was the point Lawrence Lessig was making when Steven Colbert made alterations to his book. He asked "If you were to put that on eBay, how much do you reckon you would get for it?". Colbert replied "A lot!", and Lessig agreed "That's precisely the point!".

[Kyuuketsuki]

Copyleft is a *NIX bollocks concept ... it is NOT law!

Illegal downloading (and the CLUE is in those words) is CRIME whether you or anyone likes it or not.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Copyleft is a *NIX bollocks concept ... it is NOT law!

Well, it's not a *NIX concept, it's a GNU / Creative Commons concept. I am fully aware it is not law, but in my opinion it should be. It enables creativity and when controlled does not infringe the rights of the owner. I don't see what is bollocks about it though. It's worked so far to produce some great software.

Illegal downloading (and the CLUE is in those words) is CRIME whether you or anyone likes it or not.

I'm fully in agreement with you. I never said it wasn't a crime. I'm saying there is a difference between copyright breach and a breach in ownership.