You wouldn't steal a CD...

[phazzedout]

... so why would you download the CD. The MPAA and the RIAA have for years come up with silly slogans like this. Today's debate is whether internet piracy is stealing. I will state my opinion on it, state some of what they says and state something I say.

For starters I do not believe internet piracy is really stealing. Now whether it is good or bad is the real question. I see internet piracy as a form of exchanging knowledge, things like amateur documentaries, underground music, and of course getting information to countries with censorship. These are the positives I see and I run with these positives.

Many companies and labels seem to state that it is stealing at it's finest.

Is this stealing?



Now when the RIAA or record labels state that we steal their music and they lose money... are they really losing money.

Here is a story about what I did before I knew about piracy. ... Nothing. The only CD's I have ever bought were Rob Zombie: Past, Present and Future and Slayer: Skeleton Christ. I bought these two albums when they just came out. Now you tell me the gap of when I bought CD's. Pretty large gap. Apparently the imaginary dollars they lost by me or anyone downloading it instead is huge. It is not, every album I have downloaded I would never buy in my life.

I do go to concerts though.

Tell me your insight?

[joejv4]

Piracy is indeed stealing. What is being stolen? Intellectual Property.

Music, software, motion pictures etc are the intellectual property of the entitiy that created it. When an individual purchases that IP, they are essentially purchasing a license to use that IP. In the case of music, the license is to one copy of a given song - in whatever format they purchased it (CD, MP3, WMA, etc.), in software, they are purchasing a license to install and run that software per the terms of the license agreement. They do not purchase the right to redistribute that IP, nor do they purchase the right to copy that IP.

The question of losing money is where you have directed the thrust of your opening statement. The fact that you wouldn't purchase a CD, means nothing with regards to lost revenue to the owner of the material you download. The "LEGAL" music download sites require payment for the material that is downloaded - this allows users to obtain license to individual pieces of IP in a format they prefer rather than buying a license to a whole collection as with a CD. The download fees paid at legal download sites are the new revenue stream for the owners of the IP instead of retail sale of a physical disc.

When an individual uses "sharing sites" to acquire pirated copies of the IP, they are not paying for the license for the IP in question and bypassing the rightful revenue stream that the owner of the IP is entitled to - which is indeed stealing.

[silkje]

"you wouldnt steal that CD, so why download the CD" The answer is obvious, because they are at a better price

There are companies thriving online (games especially EVEN with piracy, eg steam & direct2drive). This also seems like a suitable time to bring up a singer called lily allen, i havent actually heard her (or if i have i didnt know it was her) who said shes against piracy because it hurts all the up and coming artists and she can say this now because she's made it. This really confused me because she made it during the internet era!

So basically i do not think piracy really does that much damage, no more than when say tape recorders or video recorders came out. The markets just changing. Also i heard how it actually helps develop the IT industries of some countries .

My own personal feelings is that if you enjoy an artist or whatever you should show your support and buy it.

So is stealing copying?

If a person was to obtain a copied file from a download site, would it still be bound to the (ORIGINAL files) agreement that it should not be copied?

Now lets say the copied file is still under some license agreement, how about instead of paying the company, just return their property.. i guess you cant though because its a copy.

So was it stolen? Kind of (lol) Joe explained it quite well and i understand what he is saying but "Intellectual property" is very abstract. Also region would play a part, for example the RIAA would hardly operate outside of America.

[miguelkp]

Intellectual Property itself is stealing.

[fractalfeline]

Just for info, to see what has transpired before, so we kinda know where we are all picking up from:

http://forums.x10hosting.com/off-top...-torrents.html
http://forums.x10hosting.com/gamers-...-industry.html
http://forums.x10hosting.com/crossfi...-download.html
http://forums.x10hosting.com/crossfi...-no-warez.html
http://forums.x10hosting.com/compute...y-verdict.html
http://forums.x10hosting.com/crossfi...-software.html
http://forums.x10hosting.com/compute...y-capital.html

The post I found most convincing though is this:
http://www.salon.com/technology/feat...ove/print.html

Just to state my position clearly, I'm pro-piracy, mostly because I'm anti-industry. It's not fair to the artists, and certainly not fair to the public, the policies that the industry uses to distribute music, theatre, games, and art in general. Allowing single-track downloads for cheap is a step in the right direction, I think... but I'd like to believe that even that one dollar I spend on iTunes is going mostly toward the artist, not the uncreative middle man who decides for me what I should want to hear.

I find some of the best music coming out of the smaller labels, and the artists that have a lot less promotion. I find that today, the quality of the "art" churned out is lacking, and I prefer to seek out old songs, old games, or turn to the more underground/Indie scene to find quality. If I can download directly from the artist, alls the better. If I can preview the product before I buy it, even better. I mean, for comparison purposes:

A song from a woman who bought her own instruments, recording equipment, and webcam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4qaYMekGXo
vs. an Industry Produced Song from (in my opinion) a crappy artist with a synthetic voice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I

I prefer the former, somehow.

[miguelkp]

Just to state my position clearly, I'm pro-piracy, mostly because I'm anti-industry. It's not fair to the artists, and certainly not fair to the public, the policies that the industry uses to distribute music, theatre, games, and art in general. Allowing single-track downloads for cheap is a step in the right direction, I think... but I'd like to believe that even that one dollar I spend on iTunes is going mostly toward the artist, not the uncreative middle man who decides for me what I should want to hear.

That's the problem... It probably won't go mostly toward the artist instead toward that 'middle man'.
The problem is that 'art industry' (it's really strange... a beautiful word like 'art' near a very ugly one like 'industry') is obsolete. Completely.
And they are trying to convince us that we're wrong instead of admit they are absolutely obsolete.
In other words: a whole society doen't need to adapt itself to industry. They are who must adapt themselves to society.

That's my opinion. As user and as 'almost-artist', since I've a music band, by the way. Amateur (for now, but who knows...)

[phazzedout]

Music, software, motion pictures etc are the intellectual property of the entitiy that created it. When an individual purchases that IP, they are essentially purchasing a license to use that IP. In the case of music, the license is to one copy of a given song - in whatever format they purchased it (CD, MP3, WMA, etc.), in software, they are purchasing a license to install and run that software per the terms of the license agreement. They do not purchase the right to redistribute that IP, nor do they purchase the right to copy that IP.

Not exactly correct, when you buy IP you have the right to protect your investment, whether that is transferring your CD to your computer, or making a copy of it, you still have the right to. Just because Sony says to not do it doesn't mean that the DMCA says you can not.

The question of losing money is where you have directed the thrust of your opening statement. The fact that you wouldn't purchase a CD, means nothing with regards to lost revenue to the owner of the material you download. The "LEGAL" music download sites require payment for the material that is downloaded - this allows users to obtain license to individual pieces of IP in a format they prefer rather than buying a license to a whole collection as with a CD. The download fees paid at legal download sites are the new revenue stream for the owners of the IP instead of retail sale of a physical disc.

So you are saying because I would never buy a CD in my life with or without piracy they lose money. That is like saying I own a shop, and a potential customer walks in and looks then leaves, while I say damn I just lost money. How does that even make any sense.

I see downloading music as a form of advertisement for the band. I never see buying CD as an option. When I love the band I advertise them by buying their merchandise and wearing it or of course going to their concerts. That is how I see downloading music.

When an individual uses "sharing sites" to acquire pirated copies of the IP, they are not paying for the license for the IP in question and bypassing the rightful revenue stream that the owner of the IP is entitled to - which is indeed stealing.

Perhaps but my real question is, what are they losing? If anything they have more to gain since their music is within the reach of people who can not spend 20 dollars per CD but are willing to spend 40 dollars on monthly concerts.

So basically i do not think piracy really does that much damage, no more than when say tape recorders or video recorders came out. The markets just changing. Also i heard how it actually helps develop the IT industries of some countries.

I remember when my father first saw me downloading music (This band was actually letting people download their music under Creative Commons 3.0). Then he said, "I bet those greedy companies are saying that the Internet is killing their sales." I laughed and asked why, he said, "Because those same bass tards said that too when the radio came out then when the cassette came out." And it is true, but then they used it to their advantage which is what they should do with the internet.

On another note, how many of you have ever bought an album that has been raved by MTV and other music media and found out that only one song is good. I never had that happen because before I downloaded music I would just listen to the radio and go to the concert of who has great to my ears.
Edit:

That's the problem... It probably won't go mostly toward the artist instead toward that 'middle man'.

Just because people download and share their CD's and DVD's online does not mean that they do not support their artist. Take for instance a close friend of mine, every Metal artist he likes he buys their album, merchandise and goes to their concert. Does he buy their music blindly, heck no. What he does is he first downloads the album online, then if he likes what he hears he buys their album. Why would he risk his hard earned money to buy an album that, to him, either "sold out" or other things. That is really my argument.

What are these artists really losing.

[descalzo]

For starters I do not believe internet piracy is really stealing. Now whether it is good or bad is the real question. I see internet piracy as a form of exchanging knowledge,

So you have no problem with warez or nulled scripts? Someone taking a web template off the net and using it without paying the creator's fee?

[phazzedout]

So you have no problem with warez or nulled scripts? Someone taking a web template off the net and using it without paying the creator's fee?

Not exactly. My argument is mostly directed towards the Music Industry. That is what is mostly downloaded and shared. 3mb per song on a 1.5mb internet connection. It wouldn't take much to upload and download. Now movies, software and games are downloaded less with warez, or p2p clients. That is more of a torrent area, which is actually used the least by regular users.

[descalzo]

Not exactly. My argument is mostly directed towards the Music Industry. That is what is mostly downloaded and shared. 3mb per song on a 1.5mb internet connection. It wouldn't take much to upload and download. Now movies, software and games are downloaded less with warez, or p2p clients. That is more of a torrent area, which is actually used the least by regular users.

So what, exactly?

Is it the manner of theft that makes it OK?

Or is it because you are stealing from the Evil Musik Empire who rips off artists and consumers alike? ie, stealing from a thief is OK.