Political Crossfire Forums

[mattwa33193]

toddytodd wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Then why are people downloading it? That's a contradiction in terms.
b/c it's not worth a $14.99 CD or whatever they're currently charging.

But it might be worth listening to for free..

Who wants to pay $14.99 for crap when you can get it free?

Quote: And saying something s*cks still doesn't give anyone a right to steal it.
The corporations have stolen quite enough from the American people over the years.

I think they can stand the shaving. They're long overdue for it anyway.

Quote: b/c it's not worth a $14.99 CD or whatever they're currently charging.
Agreed. Out of all the CDs I own (probably 70-ish) only 2 or 3 have been worth the price, meaning the entire CD is good. Normally, for me, it is 3 & at best 4 songs, that are any good. The rest I never really listen to more than one or twice. There may be an online market for music companies to sell individual songs for 50¢ or $1 or something like that, & offer a free sample of each song to decide what you want to purchase, instead of selling a whole CD (if this doesn't exist already). But some people just want everything for free so downloading will still happen, not matter the price I suppose.

It does exist - MSN Music, i-Tunes, etc... 99 cents per song with free previews. Problem is that not every copyright scheme is compatible with every MP3 player and not every song is available on esch service (record companies make deals with the online distributors, or not). So you wind up having to have an iPod and another MP3 player and joining several online music services to get what you want. And none of them allow a song to exist in more than 5 places at once, so you could run into problems if you have a lot of places you like to listen to your music.

[toddytodd]

mattwa33193 wrote: toddytodd wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Then why are people downloading it? That's a contradiction in terms.
b/c it's not worth a $14.99 CD or whatever they're currently charging.

But it might be worth listening to for free..

Who wants to pay $14.99 for crap when you can get it free?

Quote: And saying something s*cks still doesn't give anyone a right to steal it.
The corporations have stolen quite enough from the American people over the years.

I think they can stand the shaving. They're long overdue for it anyway.

Quote: b/c it's not worth a $14.99 CD or whatever they're currently charging.
Agreed. Out of all the CDs I own (probably 70-ish) only 2 or 3 have been worth the price, meaning the entire CD is good. Normally, for me, it is 3 & at best 4 songs, that are any good. The rest I never really listen to more than one or twice. There may be an online market for music companies to sell individual songs for 50¢ or $1 or something like that, & offer a free sample of each song to decide what you want to purchase, instead of selling a whole CD (if this doesn't exist already). But some people just want everything for free so downloading will still happen, not matter the price I suppose.

It does exist - MSN Music, i-Tunes, etc... 99 cents per song with free previews. Problem is that not every copyright scheme is compatible with every MP3 player and not every song is available on esch service (record companies make deals with the online distributors, or not). So you wind up having to have an iPod and another MP3 player and joining several online music services to get what you want. And none of them allow a song to exist in more than 5 places at once, so you could run into problems if you have a lot of places you like to listen to your music.
Quote: It does exist
Guess I am not the tech junkie like I used to be :lol:
I don't think everything will ever be perfect, but that may be a place to start.

[airo]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Researchers at two leading universities have issued a study countering the music industry's central theme in its war on digital piracy, saying file sharing has little impact on CD sales.

"We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales," Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard Business School and Koleman Strumpf of University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill said in their report. "The economic effect is also small. Even in the most pessimistic specification, five thousand downloads are needed to displace a single album sale."

The Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the music industry, was quick to denounce the report's conclusions.

"Countless, well-respected groups and analysts, including Edison Research, Forrester, the University of Texas, among others, have all determined that illegal file sharing has adversely impacted the sales of CDs," RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss said in a statement.


http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62871,00.html

Perhaps if you were in the music industry instead of someone who wants to illegally download people's work without paying for it you would see things differently. Obviously it takes no more than one download to displace a CD sale because who is going to buy a CD they have downloaded for free.
Quote: A study from University of Texas at Dallas professor Stan Liebowitz released last summer found some negative impact but said it was hard to quantify.

"My conclusions, in a nutshell, are that MP3 downloading does appear to be causing harm. No other explanations that have been put forward seem to be able to explain the decline in sales that have occurred since 1999," Liebowitz said, referring to songs downloaded to digital music players.


The 33% decline in CD sales speaks for itself. That is a massive drop in sales.
Quote: The RIAA's own research found a 33 percent drop in music purchases by young adults who download music over a year earlier.

I don't care who you trust more. If you haven't noticed, EVERY major entertainment industry is going through a loss in sales. Again, every major study i've read conducted by independent, RELIABLE sources (Read: Note RIAA), finds the same conclusion: CD sales are dropping independent of illegal downloads.

Now, legal downloads might have something to do with it. (Don't you find it funny that as CD sales dwindle, on line sales are booming?)

BTW, your RIAA statistics, which are quoted as being "well-respected" have been debunked by an equally countless number of researches and economists. Google it. I find it funny that the article you posted yourself actually served to further prove my point. Wired now agrees with me, also ^_^

The major consensus is that entertainment industries, lead by groups like the MPAA and the RIAA, have lost touch with customers, would would like to continue to monopolize the market, controlling it with restrictive and nonprofitable contracts, and high CD prices that don't actually benefit the artist so much as the label. People are tired of it. They're tired of spending as much as 20 dollars on a CD, or sometimes up to 30 for a DVD (Or 7-8 bucks on a movie ticket.), and IF THEY DO DOWNLOAD, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT THE ORIGINAL PRODUCT ANYWAYS. It really is a new type of economic product that, if not consumed illegally, is generally not consumed as all.

Save, if alternatives are offered.

As i mentioned, services like iTunes, and Netflix, TiVo, and On Demand Cable, which are new ways of reselling an old product, ARE in touch with what the consumer wants: on demand media that's AFFORDABLE. What good is a CD collection when you dislike most of the songs on each CD? Or a DVD you're going to watch once in maybe 5 months? These are questions people are asking, and that the MPAA and RIAA don't want to answer. That's why they're losing business to competitors, not piracy. (Because, i already told you, the piracy economy is nonexistent.)

Your arguments are moot, cap'n.

"Perhaps if you were in the music industry instead of someone who wants to illegally download people's work without paying for it you would see things differently."

That's... really just a hilarious argument.

If you were Islam, instead of Christian, you might see things differently. If you were a Nazi... If you were a black panther... if you were a... You see where i'm going with this. Seriously, THINK before you type next time.

The RIAA is hardly a goodly organization. If they had it their way, they'd enslave every music artist they could, lock them in a basement, and force them to produce hits every week for just enough food and water to live off of. That's not to say anything on their attempts to sabotage P2P networks by spamming them with fake files of every nature, and their legal strong arm tactics that make Scientologists look like they belong on People's Court. (Suing adolescents and grandmothers who don't even own computers. GG.) Oh, and as a LIBERTARIAN you should care about the fact that they basically gutted people's rights to privacy by forcing ISPs to give up information on people, often times by sheer intimidation as opposed to going through the courts.

The RIAA is populated by thugs. I don't give a s**t if they're record producers, they're also thugs. Plain and simple. By supporting them, you're supporting everything wrong in exploitative capitalism, no matter how you look at it.

[perdidochas]

airo wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Artists that sign on with major record labels hardly make any royalties from their sales as is. The great majority of each sale goes straight into the pocket of record company CEOs.


Who do you think invested the time, money and effort to produce, promote and distribute the product?

And it doesn't go straight into the pocket of the CEO.

First it goes to pay a massive overhead that this industry has, then the production and marketing labor has to be paid, and there is materials to pay for, then there is taxes, then the investors get their cut, then the artist, and then the CEO's bonuses are determined by how successful he is at running the business. That is how a business is run. Any business. The music industry is no different.

All you are trying to do is provide a simplistic justification for taking something that does not belong to you.

Where the money goes doesn't make you any less liable for your theft of intellectual property. So, you're saying there's no problem that the actual artist gets mere cents from each CD sale?

Why should it be a problem? If they agreed to the deal, so be it. Unless they are workign for Death Row records (it's a joke), it's not as if they are being forced to sign contracts at gunpoint........

[perdidochas]

toddytodd wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Hi,

I'm writing this in the christian forum because it is to Christians but should be acknowledged by non-believers as well. Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing. I see so many christian kids listening to burned Cd's like it isn't wrong. I believe this is a big problem and should be addressed more in the church. I try my best not to take advantage of things that seem so easy and innocent, but I've still done it. So I'm guilty of this too but I will work on it even more, because in the end it is wrong. Please try to do your bests to do the smallest things to avoid sin. Remember lying is a sin, stealing is a sin, and taking the lords name in vane is a sin. If you need help look at my sig, it has a beatiful verse that may help you.

Thanks,

LGR

P.S. Every sin we commit is more of a burden that Jesus Christ has to carry.
It's only stealing it you take it against the will of the person who owns it. If someone bought a CD/DVD & wants to give you a copy of it, that is fine.
If you break into someone's house/computer & take it w/o asking & w/o the owner giving you permission, that is wrong

But in the case of the CD/DVD and the copy, you own the physical CD/DVD, you don't own the right to distribute the content. I have no problem if you give or lend your CD/DVD to a friend. Just don't copy it and give it to him.

BTW, Todd, are you, or do you plan to be, in an industry that relies on selling either software or copyrighted material? If you aren't, put yourselves in their shoes when you think about this issue. If you were a movie producer, and put $10 million into your indie film, would you want copies of your movie given away?

[perdidochas]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Then why are people downloading it? That's a contradiction in terms.
b/c it's not worth a $14.99 CD or whatever they're currently charging.

But it might be worth listening to for free..

Who wants to pay $14.99 for crap when you can get it free?

That's teh same argument that the guy who bought the stereo that was stolen out of my truck used. Why pay $200 for a stereo, when I can buy it for $20 from a crack addict?

[Todd D.]

So, this is basically just going in circles for the past 4 pages, and I still have yet to see someone qualify the statement that it is "stealing". All I've seen is dogmatically repeating "it's stealing, plain and simple" and then offer some hackneyed analogy about stealing apples or stealing car stereos. Neither are comparable because in the analogies it's an involuntary transaction (Person A forcibly removes Object A from Person B), not a consentual duplication (Person A makes a copy of Object A and CONSENTUALLY gives Object A2 to Person B). Big difference there.

Want to think that it's wrong? That's fine. That's a simple disagreement over whether intellectual property rights are valid or not. You can make good cases either way. Want to think that it's "stealing"? Then you're just going to prove you lack a functional grasp over the english language. If it was stealing, then the person you downloaded it from would no longer have their copy, which is clearly not the way that file sharing works. At best it's dumping, but even that term doesn't really work since the consequent "dump" does not deprive you of the material either.

It's low cost duplication. Nothing more. Those that are for it believe that if you own a CD, then it is YOUR property and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Those that are against it beleive that if you own a CD, the artist can still tell you how you can use your property, and you need to get a permission slip in order to do certain things with it. That's fine, but don't call it stealing.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: So, this is basically just going in circles for the past 4 pages, and I still have yet to see someone qualify the statement that it is "stealing". All I've seen is dogmatically repeating "it's stealing, plain and simple" and then offer some hackneyed analogy about stealing apples or stealing car stereos. Neither are comparable because in the analogies it's an involuntary transaction (Person A forcibly removes Object A from Person B), not a consentual duplication (Person A makes a copy of Object A and CONSENTUALLY gives Object A2 to Person B). Big difference there.

Want to think that it's wrong? That's fine. That's a simple disagreement over whether intellectual property rights are valid or not. You can make good cases either way. Want to think that it's "stealing"? Then you're just going to prove you lack a functional grasp over the english language. If it was stealing, then the person you downloaded it from would no longer have their copy, which is clearly not the way that file sharing works. At best it's dumping, but even that term doesn't really work since the consequent "dump" does not deprive you of the material either.

It's low cost duplication. Nothing more. Those that are for it believe that if you own a CD, then it is YOUR property and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Those that are against it beleive that if you own a CD, the artist can still tell you how you can use your property, and you need to get a permission slip in order to do certain things with it. That's fine, but don't call it stealing.

If you view it from the eyes of a producer of content--i.e. a computer programmer or musician, it can be nothing but stealing.

Regardless, a Christian shouldn't be doing it, as it is against the laws of the land.

[mattwa33193]

Todd D. wrote: So, this is basically just going in circles for the past 4 pages, and I still have yet to see someone qualify the statement that it is "stealing". All I've seen is dogmatically repeating "it's stealing, plain and simple" and then offer some hackneyed analogy about stealing apples or stealing car stereos. Neither are comparable because in the analogies it's an involuntary transaction (Person A forcibly removes Object A from Person B), not a consentual duplication (Person A makes a copy of Object A and CONSENTUALLY gives Object A2 to Person B). Big difference there.

Want to think that it's wrong? That's fine. That's a simple disagreement over whether intellectual property rights are valid or not. You can make good cases either way. Want to think that it's "stealing"? Then you're just going to prove you lack a functional grasp over the english language. If it was stealing, then the person you downloaded it from would no longer have their copy, which is clearly not the way that file sharing works. At best it's dumping, but even that term doesn't really work since the consequent "dump" does not deprive you of the material either.

It's low cost duplication. Nothing more. Those that are for it believe that if you own a CD, then it is YOUR property and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Those that are against it beleive that if you own a CD, the artist can still tell you how you can use your property, and you need to get a permission slip in order to do certain things with it. That's fine, but don't call it stealing.

Let's ask the questin this way -

You have an idea. A great idea. You come up with an idea for a perpetual motion machine that actually works. You, using your brain and your imagination figure out how to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. And you write it down.

I find your idea lying on your desk, photocopy it and replace the original document on your desk, run off to the patent office and proceed to make billions of dollars from it. You still have your idea and the original document.

Have I stolen from you?

[Todd D.]

Quote: If you view it from the eyes of a producer of content--i.e. a computer programmer or musician, it can be nothing but stealing.
Again, no. At some point the music was purchased from somwhere. That musician received whatever benefit from that sale. That ends the artists involvement in any subsequent transactions. Again, it's difficult to come up with a true real world analogy because perfect duplication does not exist outside of the computer world, but imagine if I bought a Honda Civic from a dealer, took it home, copied it (in theory), and then gave the copy to my brother as a birthday present. Could the dealer of the original car come in and say that I can't give the second car away, since he sold me the first car and thus has a right to tell me how to use that car? Of course not! His involvement in the transaction ended when I drove off the lot. Any other definition does not follow the concept of ownership and relies on the assumption that instead of "owning" a CD, you are really just leasing it, and that the artist should be able to tell you how you must use HIS property.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Let's ask the questin this way -

You have an idea. A great idea. You come up with an idea for a perpetual motion machine that actually works. You, using your brain and your imagination figure out how to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. And you write it down.

I find your idea lying on your desk, photocopy it and replace the original document on your desk, run off to the patent office and proceed to make billions of dollars from it. You still have your idea and the original document.

Have I stolen from you?
No, and here's why.

Under the ideas that I am suggesting, the likelyhood of you making "Billions" of dollars before I am able to take my idea to market are next to nil. The subsequent competition (assuming demand, which in this case I think is fairly safe) would drive the price of consumption down far quicker than a system of state-sponsored monopolies of distribution could. The result? You are clearly better, because you made some level of return. I am clearly better, because I made some level of return, and the consuming public is clearly better, because a good that they demanded is now readily available at a price far lower than it would have previously been offered at.

Under your scenario, I was deprived of no property, only "an idea". As such, you didn't steal from me.

[mattwa33193]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Let's ask the questin this way -

You have an idea. A great idea. You come up with an idea for a perpetual motion machine that actually works. You, using your brain and your imagination figure out how to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. And you write it down.

I find your idea lying on your desk, photocopy it and replace the original document on your desk, run off to the patent office and proceed to make billions of dollars from it. You still have your idea and the original document.

Have I stolen from you?
No, and here's why.

Under the ideas that I am suggesting, the likelyhood of you making "Billions" of dollars before I am able to take my idea to market are next to nil. The subsequent competition (assuming demand, which in this case I think is fairly safe) would drive the price of consumption down far quicker than a system of state-sponsored monopolies of distribution could. The result? You are clearly better, because you made some level of return. I am clearly better, because I made some level of return, and the consuming public is clearly better, because a good that they demanded is now readily available at a price far lower than it would have previously been offered at.

Under your scenario, I was deprived of no property, only "an idea". As such, you didn't steal from me.

Philo T. Farnsworth would heartily disagree with you.

You would be unable to take your product to market because I would charge you punitive fees for use of my patent. You would not benefit from your idea at all. You would more likely be ruined be the costs of trying to fight for it.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Philo T. Farnsworth would heartily disagree with you.
Good for him.

Quote: You would be unable to take your product to market because I would charge you punitive fees for use of my patent. You would not benefit from your idea at all. You would more likely be ruined be the costs of trying to fight for it.
If I am saying that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist, what makes you think that under the system that I am discussing there would even be a patent office to begin with?

[mattwa33193]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Philo T. Farnsworth would heartily disagree with you.
Good for him.

Quote: You would be unable to take your product to market because I would charge you punitive fees for use of my patent. You would not benefit from your idea at all. You would more likely be ruined be the costs of trying to fight for it.
If I am saying that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist, what makes you think that under the system that I am discussing there would even be a patent office to begin with?

Because we were discussing whether or not downloading music for free is theft now?

[cap'n queasy]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: If you view it from the eyes of a producer of content--i.e. a computer programmer or musician, it can be nothing but stealing.
Again, no. At some point the music was purchased from somwhere. That musician received whatever benefit from that sale. That ends the artists involvement in any subsequent transactions. Again, it's difficult to come up with a true real world analogy because perfect duplication does not exist outside of the computer world, but imagine if I bought a Honda Civic from a dealer, took it home, copied it (in theory), and then gave the copy to my brother as a birthday present. Could the dealer of the original car come in and say that I can't give the second car away, since he sold me the first car and thus has a right to tell me how to use that car? Of course not! His involvement in the transaction ended when I drove off the lot. Any other definition does not follow the concept of ownership and relies on the assumption that instead of "owning" a CD, you are really just leasing it, and that the artist should be able to tell you how you must use HIS property.

You can't build exact duplicates of Honda vehicles (or any product) and sell them. If you think Honda can't and won't do something about it you are wrong.

Owning the plastic impliment that the music is recorded on doesn't mean you own the music and can do whatever you like with it. You didn't buy a license to copy it and give it away. You bought a licensed copy for your personal use and it states just that right there on the box when you buy it.

You are essentially trying to convince yourself that because modern equipment makes creating electronic copies of copyrighted material so easy it is no longer theft.

Your logic is misplaced. It is not the difficulty of infringing on a copyright that makes it theft. It is taking something that does not belong to you. Because it is easy to take does not make it any less theft.

That music does not belong to you, whether it is a copy or the original master is irrelevant.

[Todd D.]

mattwa33193 wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: Philo T. Farnsworth would heartily disagree with you.
Good for him.

Quote: You would be unable to take your product to market because I would charge you punitive fees for use of my patent. You would not benefit from your idea at all. You would more likely be ruined be the costs of trying to fight for it.
If I am saying that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist, what makes you think that under the system that I am discussing there would even be a patent office to begin with?

Because we were discussing whether or not downloading music for free is theft now?
And? The fact that I would potentially be worse off NOW does not make it theft.

[Todd D.]

Quote: You can't build exact duplicates of Honda vehicles (or any product) and sell them. If you think Honda can't and won't do something about it you are wrong.
The only reason such issues are not readily talked about is because it is impossible for individual consumers to make such duplicates on the individual level. Were that possible, you'd see much the same discussion occurring today.

Quote: Owning the plastic impliment that the music is recorded on doesn't mean you own the music and can do whatever you like with it. You didn't buy a license to copy it and give it away. You bought a licensed copy for your personal use and it states just that right there on the box when you buy it.
OOOOH! It says it on the box!

So again, you believe that when you buy a CD, you are really just leasing it from the artist, and they can tell you how to use it and how not to use it? I mean shoot, let's not stop at duplication, GNR should only be played loud. Play their CD's softly, and Axl will come to your house and sue you for not fulfilling your license!

Quote: You are essentially trying to convince yourself that because modern equipment makes creating electronic copies of copyrighted material so easy it is no longer theft.
No, what I am saying is that it was never theft, it's just that modern equipment allows the creation of those duplicates for a price less than the original purchase price, something that wasn't available until quite recently. All you are doing is creating a Mix Tape and giving it to a friend, something that Universal vs. Sony Corp said was most definitely NOT theft almost 25 years ago so longas they are not sold for profit under Fair Use guidelines.

Quote: Your logic is misplaced. It is not the difficulty of infringing on a copyright that makes it theft. It is taking something that does not belong to you. Because it is easy to take does not make it any less theft.
Ah, but that's where you are wrong. It DOES belong to me the moment that the owner of that data (the TRUE owner, the person that is sharing the file) consents to send that file to me. The fact that he or she does not ask for monetary consideration for that transaction does not change the situation in any way.

Quote: That music does not belong to you, whether it is a copy or the original master is irrelevant.
I believe in property rights. Apparently, you do not.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: If you view it from the eyes of a producer of content--i.e. a computer programmer or musician, it can be nothing but stealing.
Again, no. At some point the music was purchased from somwhere. That musician received whatever benefit from that sale. That ends the artists involvement in any subsequent transactions. Again, it's difficult to come up with a true real world analogy because perfect duplication does not exist outside of the computer world, but imagine if I bought a Honda Civic from a dealer, took it home, copied it (in theory), and then gave the copy to my brother as a birthday present. Could the dealer of the original car come in and say that I can't give the second car away, since he sold me the first car and thus has a right to tell me how to use that car? Of course not! His involvement in the transaction ended when I drove off the lot. Any other definition does not follow the concept of ownership and relies on the assumption that instead of "owning" a CD, you are really just leasing it, and that the artist should be able to tell you how you must use HIS property.

Yes. Honda, if they chose, could sue you for violating their patents. If you kept it for yourself, no problem. It's when you give it away that it becomes an infringement.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: Philo T. Farnsworth would heartily disagree with you.
Good for him.

Quote: You would be unable to take your product to market because I would charge you punitive fees for use of my patent. You would not benefit from your idea at all. You would more likely be ruined be the costs of trying to fight for it.
If I am saying that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist, what makes you think that under the system that I am discussing there would even be a patent office to begin with?

Because we were discussing whether or not downloading music for free is theft now?
And? The fact that I would potentially be worse off NOW does not make it theft.

Regardless of the fine point of whether filesharing it is "theft" or not, it is immoral, illegal and unethical regardless.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Regardless of the fine point of whether filesharing it is "theft" or not, it is immoral
If it violates moral law, then it is immoral. If it is not theft, then it must be violating some other moral law. What other moral law is it violating assuming that it is not theft?

Quote: illegal
There is a great amount of controversy over whether it truly is illegal. The case is far from closed on that.

Quote: and unethical regardless.
Isn't that really just another way of saying immoral?

I have NO problem with someone saying that they are against file sharing. That's fine. I don't agree, but I can see the point that is made. I just have a problem with people trying to change the definition of words in order to illicit emotional appeals. Stealing removes a piece of property from someone against their will. Fileshaing is consentual distribution of duplicated property. That's where the difference lies.