Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Duchifas wrote: prometeus wrote: Can anyone name an artist that has sufered and to what extent because of downloads.

They don't suffer. They just don't get proper compensation for their efforts. Take away their copyright protection, and artistry will be an unprofitable business, leading artists to seek other fields of work. Being that they, as people, are pretty useless to society in general, most would probably head into politics. Do you really want George Clooney running for office? And Michael Moore? There ARE enough idiots in some places in this country that would actually elect them somewhere.

Thus, for my part, I am happy to pay the rental fees at Blockbuster in order to keep George Clooney doing what he does best -- making idiotic movies -- and keeping him where he is rather harmless to me and to society in general.

:) :lol: Good point.

[cap'n queasy]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Except for the fact that you get to enjoy the fruits of their labor with out paying for their labor.

Just like as if you stole an apple from a fruit cart.
Again, absolutely not. If you steal an apple from a fruit cart, then that fruit cart no longer has that apple. This is NOT the case with what we are talking about here.

Unfortunately, any analogy from the real world won't fit because we are dealing with low cost perfect duplication, something that does not exist outside of the electronics world. That's precisely why this is such an issue, becasue it's only been very recent that perfect duplication was available on such a wide scale for so little cost.

Duchifas, I will repsond to your post tommorow, I gotta take off from work and am heading to Boston tonight. I'm not ignoring you though.

Well when you steal music the work that went into producing it is wasted because that person has the product for free and they are not going to buy it. And millions of people are not buying the music they listen to anymore. It's wrecking the industry. That is way more damage than stealing an apple. It's like millions of people deciding they don't have to pay for apples anymore and just taking any apple they see. Pretty soon no one will go into the apple farming business anymore because there is no longer any reason to.

They no longer have the profit they expected by investing in in recording, promoting, and distributing the product. And this is not low cost to them at all. It costs the filesharer nothing to share files but it costs the producers of that music a lot in recording fees, distribution fees and promotion fees. They don't does this for their health and your free enjoyment of their product. They expect people to buy it.

Not only are you depriving the artist but all of the technicians, resellers and the entire distribution chain to lose money.

That is a very obtuse statement.

[mcmlv]

Duchifas wrote: prometeus wrote: Can anyone name an artist that has sufered and to what extent because of downloads.

They don't suffer. They just don't get proper compensation for their efforts. Take away their copyright protection, and artistry will be an unprofitable business, leading artists to seek other fields of work. Being that they, as people, are pretty useless to society in general, most would probably head into politics. Do you really want George Clooney running for office? And Michael Moore? There ARE enough idiots in some places in this country that would actually elect them somewhere.

Thus, for my part, I am happy to pay the rental fees at Blockbuster in order to keep George Clooney doing what he does best -- making idiotic movies -- and keeping him where he is rather harmless to me and to society in general.

:)

Let me see if I can wade in on this too:
They do not suffer, oh but they should, like the REAL artist did, who created not because they wanted wealth but actually because they had talent. And they did it against adversity, misery, hunger, illness, etc. for the sole reason that true artists do: the absolute need to create. Real art has never been influenced by any other factor than the need to do it.

Which brings us to proper compensation. Yea theirs and the pro athletes and so on. As for them in politics? How much worse could we do than with this idiot?

Yea, I am happy to pay the rental fee too, and I do, the last resort in not paying the exorbitant movie ticket prices.
But you have to admit tho, going after kids who just want to listen to the crap these so called artists produce is still low.

[mcmlv]

cap'n,

I am not sure you are right. There is no conclusive data as to any actual losses by the industry because of the downloads. I mean how much more would have they sold if no one downloaded. The fact that that "artists" formerly known and unknown :lol: are doing quite well speaks to the contrary.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: There is no conclusive data as to any actual losses by the industry because of the downloads

There are millions of people who no longer buy CDs. The industry is in serious trouble because of this.

And that is irrelevent to the morality of the argument. It is still taking something that does not belong to you.

There is no getting around that.

[cap'n queasy]

mcmlv wrote: Duchifas wrote: prometeus wrote: Can anyone name an artist that has sufered and to what extent because of downloads.

They don't suffer. They just don't get proper compensation for their efforts. Take away their copyright protection, and artistry will be an unprofitable business, leading artists to seek other fields of work. Being that they, as people, are pretty useless to society in general, most would probably head into politics. Do you really want George Clooney running for office? And Michael Moore? There ARE enough idiots in some places in this country that would actually elect them somewhere.

Thus, for my part, I am happy to pay the rental fees at Blockbuster in order to keep George Clooney doing what he does best -- making idiotic movies -- and keeping him where he is rather harmless to me and to society in general.

:)

Let me see if I can wade in on this too:
They do not suffer, oh but they should, like the REAL artist did, who created not because they wanted wealth but actually because they had talent. And they did it against adversity, misery, hunger, illness, etc. for the sole reason that true artists do: the absolute need to create. Real art has never been influenced by any other factor than the need to do it.

Which brings us to proper compensation. Yea theirs and the pro athletes and so on. As for them in politics? How much worse could we do than with this idiot?

Yea, I am happy to pay the rental fee too, and I do, the last resort in not paying the exorbitant movie ticket prices.
But you have to admit tho, going after kids who just want to listen to the crap these so called artists produce is still low.
It's a product that people want. That's why they want to convince themselves that it is ok to take it without paying for it.

Saying it s*cks doesn't go very far when your sitting there downloading it.

[airo]

cap'n queasy wrote: If you download music the artist no longer can gain royalties from sales of his work.

You deprive him of his property. It's the same as stealing a car deprives someone of their car.

It is stealing.

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.

Not to mention there's the fact that many, many, MANY people who download music would simply live without it otherwise. There's plenty of people who download out of convenience, and if they had to be bothered by going to the store, picking up the CD, bringing it back, ripping it, and then have a copy occupy both physical AND digital space would simply not bother. Then there's the other end of the spectrum: people who download music because they can't afford to buy CDs.

In either of these cases, these people are not depriving the record label or artist of any property, because the sale does not exist, and would not exist if downloading was not there.

[cap'n queasy]

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.

[mcmlv]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: There is no conclusive data as to any actual losses by the industry because of the downloads

There are millions of people who no longer buy CDs. The industry is in serious trouble because of this.

And that is irrelevent to the morality of the argument. It is still taking something that does not belong to you.

There is no getting around that.

The morality of the issue was not part of my question/reply. That entirely depends on ones point of view. However you are arguing loses as they were the greatest ever, yet when asked for some data you reply with, how do you say that? "bobkes" And in just how serious trouble is the industry in? Facts figures please...

Nor have I advocated taking anything that was not mine, you must have used "you" in the general term.

As to the product that "people want" Yea, to a large extent, but like airo is pointing out, its also a product that many people would do without. Not that, that makes "stealing" it OK. My point is that going after kids, who are the largest CD buying group anyway, just underscores the greed of the recording companies.

[airo]

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?

[LetsGetReal]

They get more then mere cents maybe TLC did, but I can gurantee you todays artists don't... My friends Dad is the biggest promoter in the nation..

[mcmlv]

Quote: Where the money goes doesn't make you any less liable for your theft of intellectual property.
Or anything that is stolen, for that matter, yet you argued the morality of the issue also, and in as much that the morality is in the eye of the beholder, fact is that large amounts of money, from those large losses no doubt, went into lobbying, so that skewed laws could be passed.

[airo]

There are no large losses. In fact, nearly every independent study i've read has concluded that piracy doesn't effect music sales.

[mcmlv]

But, but, but cap's said millions stopped buying CDs... %* :gmo:

[cap'n queasy]

airo wrote: There are no large losses. In fact, nearly every independent study i've read has concluded that piracy doesn't effect music sales.

That's retarded.

[sLiPpY]

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.

This is something we agree upon. Granted I'm one of those "non-believers" but I refuse to play music without having purchased it. Use software unless it's in a trial period, unless I've purchased it.

It irritates me to no end, to have family members and friends...steal intellectual property without supporting it's future development through their own patronage. :evil:

[airo]

cap'n queasy wrote: airo wrote: There are no large losses. In fact, nearly every independent study i've read has concluded that piracy doesn't effect music sales.

That's retarded. Well... you're retarded! NYAH! **sticks his fingers in his ears**

Seriously cap, bring this up from the grade school level, will ya?

[cap'n queasy]

Ok.

That statement is a non-sequitur.

How's that?

[airo]

cap'n queasy wrote: Ok.

That statement is a non-sequitur.

How's that? By responding back to a post with nothing more than "That's retarded."

The majority of the posts i make are against arguments that i think are "retarded", but simply replying "that's retarded" is half-assed and juvenile.

[mcmlv]

But, but, but cap's said millions stopped buying CDs... %* :gmo:

BTW: How is that statement a 'logical' falacy' considering that you applied nothing but your conviction to the argument, but presented it as fact.