Torrent Talk (2 Viewers)

[scoobygang]

Yes, he could sell the music but obviously can't sell the candy he's eaten. I'm not sure why that matters though. Why do you think it does? Isn't it stealing either way? Why does the ability to resell the stolen items make a difference? Or am I not following?J

In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).There are a couple of ways to conceptualize why we should protect property in the first place. Maurile would make the moral argument that when we mix our labor with the natural world, we have a moral right to the product of that labor. I would argue differently. I would argue that unless we protect personal property, individuals will devote a lot more effort to protecting stuff they've already produced rather than producing more. Under my conception of personal property, a property right only makes sense if it makes things more efficient. In the hypothetical, the IP right doesn't improve efficiency. It doesn't make the owner better off.

 

[Walton Goggins]

For those of you that don't see it this way, can you help me understand your view?J

I think they've tried but you won't understand their view because you feel they are wrong regardless of what they say or don't say. Just as they feel what you say is wrong.This is like watching a dog chase it's tail and never getting it. The dog keeps trying to get it even though it knows it won't.

Not at all. I do believe it's like Fred said with the candy. I haven't seen anyone try to show how it's not like that. edit to add I see Scooby has posted on it. Thanks.J

how do you feel about people stealing passwords on torrents to watch porn?isn't that 10x worse than stealing music?

I think stealing passwords is stealing and it's wrong. Doesn't matter whether it's for a porn site or for a fantasy football site.As for whether it's more wrong or not than stealing music, I don't know. It all seems wrong to me.Again, I'm not saying that this stuff might not become free. I'm saying it's the creator / business owner that decides that. Just like some of what we create at Footballguys is free. And some of it we charge for. If I make too much material pay, I may go out of business. If I make it all free, I may have lots of viewers and still go out of business. The primary point I'm trying to make I think is that as the site owner, it's my decision. People don't get to decide that it's overpriced and then steal the content. Or decide that brand x gives it away, and then steal the content.Does that make sense?J

Joe,Pretend you gave out your ranking for free off FBG podcasts. Would you consider it stealing if a paid customer printed it out then gave it away to his friends at the start of their fantasy draft?If you believe this is stealing then would John Grisham have the same complaint if your friend finished one of his novels then gave it to you so YOU wouldn't have to pay for it yourself?

 

[bostonfred]

Because there arent some candy shops that allow you to come in and enjoy as much candy as you want for free and then other candy shops that make you pay for the exact same candy.

OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?

Again, I'm with Fred on this. J

Did I go to far by saying "play" the soup instead of "eat" the soup? I thought it really made the metaphor come to life, but I was afraid I was being too subtle.

 

[belljr]

I think the line depends on the person to be honest. One could say someone using Pandora listening to free music is no different than someone going online and downloading for free the same music. Youtube and artist's websites allow one to listen to it for free so I don't see this as an issue personally. Other may disagree but honestly I don't care what others think.

But doesn't everything on pandora have the artist's consent to use the material? And can't artists have videos they don't want shown on youtube pulled down?

Now I agree if I'm a new band, I'd want as much free stuff on youtube as possible. But it would be my decision.

J

That's what I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised if the artist gets a tiny percentage when the song is played.Much like restaurants have to have the approval to play songs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Isn't it the same product though?You can get either a free tootsie roll or pay for it. Most choose getting it for free.

Right. But I'm saying it's the seller's decision on what to charge. I'm saying that because store A is giving them away, that doesn't mean you can take them for free at store B that is charging for them.Does that make sense?J

Right, but it's the same product. You can go to Pandora, for example, and listen to Dave Matthews for free. Apple on the other hand, charges you $1.29 to hear that same song. Pandora chose not to charge for it's product where as Apple has. Is listening to music on Pandora stealing?

I don't think listening to music on Pandora is stealing. They are paying for the music and broadcasting it. Pandora is the equivalent of a store giving away tootsie roll candy.Apple has the same tootsie roll and they charge .99 for it. Listening to pandora is not stealing. Hacking into itunes and getting it from them without paying is stealing.I see the defining point as the seller gets to decide whether it's free or not. If the seller says you have to pay, and you take it without paying, do you see that as stealing?J

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It is "stealing" in the sense that the producer of the product is selling it, but you are acquiring the product for free through a different channel. And not just borrowing it, like a book. And not just having access to it at uncontrollable times, like a song on the radio.

I'm not sure why people go to such lengths to legitimize it, except that they know it's wrong but are trying to feel better about it.

Now, the music industry is somewhat unique in that the songs are really just an advertisement for the real money-makers (concerts, merchandise, endorsements, etc.) Yes, artists sell their songs and try to make money doing so, but in reality the free and unfettered distribution of their music can actually end up making them more money in the long run. That doesn't mean it's not stealing, because it is, but it lets you feel somewhat better about it.

As far as movies, video games, software, etc. I think it's even worse. A lot of money goes into producing them, and there is not really any other reasonable way to recoup those costs other than through sales of the end-product. You just can't justify stealing these things through torrents.

 

[Jason Bourne]

Can someone point me towards the 2011 FBG rankings torrent?

Lets say this site had for FREE on Youtube or off their podcast their entire rankings w/o having to pay for it? Tough for JB and DD to cry about people "stealing" if they give out all that information for free.

Thats not entirely true.How did the content get on Youtube? What is the format of the content on Youtube?If Joe put it on there - then that content may still be protected by copyright. He may also put a teaser list - top 10 RBs. But then charge for 11-30, and the analysis that went into it.If a record company or band distributes free content - then it is free. When someone else distributes the content as "free" then it is stealing.

 

[kaa]

I've seen threads on this topic for 20 years now. Most of the things said here were being said in 1990. All I can say is society is moving away from selling things that can be transmitted on modern communication devices. We're not going back. I've never heard any argument against this change except "that's not how things were done in the past", which ultimately isn't proving to be a valid argument.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Because there arent some candy shops that allow you to come in and enjoy as much candy as you want for free and then other candy shops that make you pay for the exact same candy.

OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?

Again, I'm with Fred on this. J

Did I go to far by saying "play" the soup instead of "eat" the soup? I thought it really made the metaphor come to life, but I was afraid I was being too subtle.

I liked it.J

 

[SuperJohn96]

Joe,Pretend you gave out your ranking for free off FBG podcasts. Would you consider it stealing if a paid customer printed it out then gave it away to his friends at the start of their fantasy draft?If you believe this is stealing then would John Grisham have the same complaint if your friend finished one of his novels then gave it to you so YOU wouldn't have to pay for it yourself?

That doesn't make sense.Sharing free rankings /= sharing a book

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes, he could sell the music but obviously can't sell the candy he's eaten. I'm not sure why that matters though. Why do you think it does? Isn't it stealing either way? Why does the ability to resell the stolen items make a difference? Or am I not following?J

In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).There are a couple of ways to conceptualize why we should protect property in the first place. Maurile would make the moral argument that when we mix our labor with the natural world, we have a moral right to the product of that labor. I would argue differently. I would argue that unless we protect personal property, individuals will devote a lot more effort to protecting stuff they've already produced rather than producing more. Under my conception of personal property, a property right only makes sense if it makes things more efficient. In the hypothetical, the IP right doesn't improve efficiency. It doesn't make the owner better off.

But aren't you mixing in business models with whether something is stealing?I don't see how efficiency factors into whether it's right or wrong. J

 

[Jason Bourne]

It is "stealing" in the sense that the producer of the product is selling it, but you are acquiring the product for free through a different channel. And not just borrowing it, like a book. And not just having access to it at uncontrollable times, like a song on the radio.

I'm not sure why people go to such lengths to legitimize it, except that they know it's wrong but are trying to feel better about it.

Now, the music industry is somewhat unique in that the songs are really just an advertisement for the real money-makers (concerts, merchandise, endorsements, etc.) Yes, artists sell their songs and try to make money doing so, but in reality the free and unfettered distribution of their music can actually end up making them more money in the long run. That doesn't mean it's not stealing, because it is, but it lets you feel somewhat better about it.

As far as movies, video games, software, etc. I think it's even worse. A lot of money goes into producing them, and there is not really any other reasonable way to recoup those costs other than through sales of the end-product. You just can't justify stealing these things through torrents.

This is not my understanding. I think songwriters make far more money than performers.

The big bucks is in owning the rights to a song, and not simply performing. Sadly, I think I read about this during one of the Brittany Spears meltdowns - she needs to tour, because she does not have a royalty revenue stream. Once she stops touring, the money will dry up.

She may make a lot in the short-term - but long term it has been better to own the song. That may change if people steal your songs.

 

[beavers]

Isn't it the same product though?You can get either a free tootsie roll or pay for it. Most choose getting it for free.

Right. But I'm saying it's the seller's decision on what to charge. I'm saying that because store A is giving them away, that doesn't mean you can take them for free at store B that is charging for them.Does that make sense?J

Right, but it's the same product. You can go to Pandora, for example, and listen to Dave Matthews for free. Apple on the other hand, charges you $1.29 to hear that same song. Pandora chose not to charge for it's product where as Apple has. Is listening to music on Pandora stealing?

I don't think listening to music on Pandora is stealing. They are paying for the music and broadcasting it. Pandora is the equivalent of a store giving away tootsie roll candy.Apple has the same tootsie roll and they charge .99 for it. Listening to pandora is not stealing. Hacking into itunes and getting it from them without paying is stealing.I see the defining point as the seller gets to decide whether it's free or not. If the seller says you have to pay, and you take it without paying, do you see that as stealing?J

Hacking into iTunes is stealing. I will agree with that. Another question ... Who is defined as the seller? The artist or the record company?

 

[kaa]

Because there arent some candy shops that allow you to come in and enjoy as much candy as you want for free and then other candy shops that make you pay for the exact same candy.

OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?

Its not ok to steal. The point being made is that file sharing is no longer stealing. Society is changing.

 

[Zasada]

The other difference between "getting the music for free" from YouTube/Pandora, is that the former is usually a much lower quality (128kbps) audio track versus what you get on Amazon (256kpbs+). And even then, you have to go through some software tricks to "save" the music if you want to take it with you for your iPod or other device.

It would be like walking into Randall's and stealing a T-bone because Kroger had a "free" loss-leader on rump steak.

I'm with Joe on this. The consumer doesn't get to dictate the price. The consumer only gets to dictate his/her purchase decision. We don't tell stores what to charge, they do. If we don't like what the price is, it doesn't give us permission to take it from them or someone else.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe,Pretend you gave out your ranking for free off FBG podcasts. Would you consider it stealing if a paid customer printed it out then gave it away to his friends at the start of their fantasy draft?If you believe this is stealing then would John Grisham have the same complaint if your friend finished one of his novels then gave it to you so YOU wouldn't have to pay for it yourself?

Excellent point.If we give out our rankings for free on the podcast, then I have no problem with someone sharing them. Because as the creator of the content, I decided to give it out for free in that format.In my mind, it becomes different if someone wanted to take the content that I charge for, and give it away to everyone.Does that make sense?J

 

[Dr. No]

The big bucks is in owning the rights to a song, and not simply performing. Sadly, I think I read about this during one of the Brittany Spears meltdowns - she needs to tour, because she does not have a royalty revenue stream. Once she stops touring, the money will dry up.She may make a lot in the short-term - but long term it has been better to own the song. That may change if people steal your songs.

you are correct, but i'm pretty sure Brit has made enough money for several lifetimes if she didn't do another performance.

 

[Walton Goggins]

I think the line depends on the person to be honest. One could say someone using Pandora listening to free music is no different than someone going online and downloading for free the same music. Youtube and artist's websites allow one to listen to it for free so I don't see this as an issue personally. Other may disagree but honestly I don't care what others think.

But doesn't everything on pandora have the artist's consent to use the material? And can't artists have videos they don't want shown on youtube pulled down?Now I agree if I'm a new band, I'd want as much free stuff on youtube as possible. But it would be my decision.J

Tough for artist's to complain about stealing when they give their song away.If you gave away paid content on your site through a podcast or some other format then complain people are stealing from you, that sounds silly, doesn't it?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

An interesting article about this:

Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.

* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.

* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.

* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer. In fact, the group that makes up the music buyers category actually includes the buying file-sharers, so the difference between music sharers and non-sharing music buyers would be even more pronounced.

How can this be true and why was there no mention of this in the Digital Music Report? They must be spending less on digital music then, right? But again, this is not the case at all. On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that’s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.

The findings appear to be: People who consume a lot of music consume more of it.

Many people who consume a lot of music steal music.

Even though they steal music, they still buy more music than people who don't consume as much music.

Let's try this logic to defend stealing in another industry.

I eat more candy than you do

I steal candy

Even though I steal candy, I still buy more candy than you do

Therefore, I'm not stealing.

That's exactly how I see it.For those of you that don't see it this way, can you help me understand your view?

J

The candy is real property with about five centuries of well developed property rights created to protect societies interest from one person taking another's real property, or more precisely developed to lessen the impact on society about one person inefficiently allocating resources to protect that real property. The song is not real property and there are about five centuries of developed "necessary evil" concepts of granting creators of songs (and other similar intangible things) limited monopolies to distribute these songs to protect societies interest that these songs are created and shared among the public. There is only about one century internationally and about a quarter century in the US of associating intellectual property as having the same kind of property rights as real property. That is the very notion that this is "stealing" to begin with a very new concept and the antithesis of why these "necessary evils" were created to begin with.

It should not be about whether or not the "publisher's interest" are harmed by freely sharing music, movies, software, etc. but whether societies is maximizing the incentives necessary for creative people to create. Obviously these interests could be one and the same in some cases. As has been indirectly noted in this thread, each of these and anything else has a different answer based on the peculiarities of industry in question.

 

[scoobygang]

But aren't you mixing in business models with whether something is stealing?I don't see how efficiency factors into whether it's right or wrong. J

If you just want to argue from definitions, stealing entails taking something from someone. Copying takes nothing from the original owner.If you want to argue right and wrong, I don't think you can get away from the efficiency justification. There's no universal moral right to not have your work copied. No such right existed for the vast majority of human history. I think the first copyright law didn't come about until the 18th century in Britain. And that protected printers, not artists. If it's wrong, it's wrong because it harms efficiency.

 

[bostonfred]

In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).

You're imagining a store owner who has a constant flow of music coming into his store. Or an evil record company. What about Afroman, who was going to make a second song, but he got high? Is it OK for people to steal his song? He doesn't gain from driving music buyers to his store. Also, why do I, the music thief in your scenario, get to decide what would benefit the music store owner? What if the music store owner - for some crazy reason - thought that he would profit more from having me pay for all the music I consume? What if he thought I was the type of guy who would consume lots of music no matter what? What if he thought I only stole it because I like free things, not because I was sensitive to the price? Finally, would you have a problem with me stealing CDs from the store instead of downloading music illegally? What if I told you that it only cost $.14 to produce a CD and its case, and that people who come into the record store are more likely to buy stuff than people who don't? Should a rational store owner be OK with people walking into their store and stealing CDs just because the thieves sometimes buy things?

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

Because there arent some candy shops that allow you to come in and enjoy as much candy as you want for free and then other candy shops that make you pay for the exact same candy.

OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?

Again, I'm with Fred on this. J

Did I go to far by saying "play" the soup instead of "eat" the soup? I thought it really made the metaphor come to life, but I was afraid I was being too subtle.

I liked it.J

But all the same, there are soup kitchens that give the soup away. That doesn't stop Campbell's from selling it, but it doesn't make it stealing when you choose to get it from the soup kitchen, either. Your "metaphor come to life" is just another in a growing list of disingenuous word games that don't reflect reality.The reality is, record companies are saying that if you're eating at a soup kitchen, you're stealing soup. If you have dinner at your sister's house, you're stealing soup. Anywhere, anytime you consume soup without sending a check to Campbell's, you're stealing soup.The "pirate" argument is simply that unless it's in a can, and sitting on a shelf in a grocery store, it's not stealing soup.Obviously, there are differences, in that soup can be consumed only once (without being really gross), while music loses little if any quality in being redistributed to subsequent users. But then, that only goes to show how absurd your original apples to oranges candy/soup vs music analogy that you seem so fond of really is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the line depends on the person to be honest. One could say someone using Pandora listening to free music is no different than someone going online and downloading for free the same music. Youtube and artist's websites allow one to listen to it for free so I don't see this as an issue personally. Other may disagree but honestly I don't care what others think.

But doesn't everything on pandora have the artist's consent to use the material? And can't artists have videos they don't want shown on youtube pulled down?Now I agree if I'm a new band, I'd want as much free stuff on youtube as possible. But it would be my decision.J

Tough for artist's to complain about stealing when they give their song away.If you gave away paid content on your site through a podcast or some other format then complain people are stealing from you, that sounds silly, doesn't it?

Artists / record companies are compensated by Pandora, aren't they?J

 

[SuperJohn96]

Right now there are two factions.

A. People who say it is stealing.

B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.

Can there not just be a third option?

C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.

Put me down for Camp C...

 

[bostonfred]

The candy is real property with about five centuries of well developed property rights created to protect societies interest from one person taking another's real property, or more precisely developed to lessen the impact on society about one person inefficiently allocating resources to protect that real property. The song is not real property and there are about five centuries of developed "necessary evil" concepts of granting creators of songs (and other similar intangible things) limited monopolies to distribute these songs to protect societies interest that these songs are created and shared among the public. There is only about one century internationally and about a quarter century in the US of associating intellectual property as having the same kind of property rights as real property. That is the very notion that this is "stealing" to begin with a very new concept and the antithesis of why these "necessary evils" were created to begin with.It should not be about whether or not the "publisher's interest" are harmed by freely sharing music, movies, software, etc. but whether societies is maximizing the incentives necessary for creative people to create. Obviously these interests could be one and the same in some cases. As has been indirectly noted in this thread, each of these and anything else has a different answer based on the peculiarities of industry in question.

OK, I'll ask you the same question I asked scoob. Would you have a problem with me stealing CDs from the store instead of downloading music illegally? What if I told you that it only cost $.14 to produce a CD and its case, and that people who come into the record store are more likely to buy stuff than people who don't? Is it OK for people to steal CDs from the store?

 

[Walton Goggins]

Joe,Pretend you gave out your ranking for free off FBG podcasts. Would you consider it stealing if a paid customer printed it out then gave it away to his friends at the start of their fantasy draft?If you believe this is stealing then would John Grisham have the same complaint if your friend finished one of his novels then gave it to you so YOU wouldn't have to pay for it yourself?

Excellent point.If we give out our rankings for free on the podcast, then I have no problem with someone sharing them. Because as the creator of the content, I decided to give it out for free in that format.In my mind, it becomes different if someone wanted to take the content that I charge for, and give it away to everyone.Does that make sense?J

For the same content? I could pay for a song or I could copy it off a site where the artist is for free giving the song then put it on torrent and share it. How is that stealing? Same goes for say any paid content on your site that you give out for free in some formats.

 

[kaa]

Yes, he could sell the music but obviously can't sell the candy he's eaten. I'm not sure why that matters though. Why do you think it does? Isn't it stealing either way? Why does the ability to resell the stolen items make a difference? Or am I not following?J

In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).There are a couple of ways to conceptualize why we should protect property in the first place. Maurile would make the moral argument that when we mix our labor with the natural world, we have a moral right to the product of that labor. I would argue differently. I would argue that unless we protect personal property, individuals will devote a lot more effort to protecting stuff they've already produced rather than producing more. Under my conception of personal property, a property right only makes sense if it makes things more efficient. In the hypothetical, the IP right doesn't improve efficiency. It doesn't make the owner better off.

You could draw some comparison to professional boxing. There was a time where boxing was given away for free on network TV. And the effect was similar to how to describe Fred occasional copying of music. If Fred consumes boxing content for free on occasion via TV, he might also buy more tickets to see boxing live in his area. He might drive more people to see live boxing events. But boxing moved towards a pay-per-view model. It wasn't as accessible as in the past. When that happened, it dropped out of the public consciousness. And the industry ultimately killed its own market.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But all the same, there are soup kitchens that give the soup away. That doesn't stop Campbell's from selling it, but it doesn't make it stealing when you choose to get it from the soup kitchen, either. Your "metaphor come to life" is just another in a growing list of disingenuous word games that don't reflect reality.

The reality is, record companies are saying that if you're eating at a soup kitchen, you're stealing soup. If you have dinner at your sister's house, you're stealing soup. Anywhere, anytime you consume soup without sending a check to Campbell's, you're stealing soup.

I'm not following you here. How are they saying that?J

 

[Jason Bourne]

Because there arent some candy shops that allow you to come in and enjoy as much candy as you want for free and then other candy shops that make you pay for the exact same candy.

OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?

Its not ok to steal. The point being made is that file sharing is no longer stealing. Society is changing.

I don't think so. Simply because technology moved faster than the industry could handle, does not mean that society thinks file "sharing" is acceptable.

Taken to a logical conclusion - it would allow for a single purchase, and then unlimited sharing of that single purpose. I don't think anyone would argue that is fair.

 

[Walton Goggins]

I think the line depends on the person to be honest. One could say someone using Pandora listening to free music is no different than someone going online and downloading for free the same music. Youtube and artist's websites allow one to listen to it for free so I don't see this as an issue personally. Other may disagree but honestly I don't care what others think.

But doesn't everything on pandora have the artist's consent to use the material? And can't artists have videos they don't want shown on youtube pulled down?Now I agree if I'm a new band, I'd want as much free stuff on youtube as possible. But it would be my decision.J

Tough for artist's to complain about stealing when they give their song away.If you gave away paid content on your site through a podcast or some other format then complain people are stealing from you, that sounds silly, doesn't it?

Artists / record companies are compensated by Pandora, aren't they?J

Are they? I thought at least for radio they do a lot of underhanded things with radio stations to get their song played the most to get it ranked higher on billboard rankings.

 

[Walton Goggins]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

 

[Christo]

It is "stealing" in the sense that the producer of the product is selling it, but you are acquiring the product for free through a different channel. And not just borrowing it, like a book. And not just having access to it at uncontrollable times, like a song on the radio.

I'm not sure why people go to such lengths to legitimize it, except that they know it's wrong but are trying to feel better about it.

Now, the music industry is somewhat unique in that the songs are really just an advertisement for the real money-makers (concerts, merchandise, endorsements, etc.) Yes, artists sell their songs and try to make money doing so, but in reality the free and unfettered distribution of their music can actually end up making them more money in the long run. That doesn't mean it's not stealing, because it is, but it lets you feel somewhat better about it.

As far as movies, video games, software, etc. I think it's even worse. A lot of money goes into producing them, and there is not really any other reasonable way to recoup those costs other than through sales of the end-product. You just can't justify stealing these things through torrents.

The rationalizations are mind-numbing.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It is "stealing" in the sense that the producer of the product is selling it, but you are acquiring the product for free through a different channel. And not just borrowing it, like a book. And not just having access to it at uncontrollable times, like a song on the radio.

I'm not sure why people go to such lengths to legitimize it, except that they know it's wrong but are trying to feel better about it.

Now, the music industry is somewhat unique in that the songs are really just an advertisement for the real money-makers (concerts, merchandise, endorsements, etc.) Yes, artists sell their songs and try to make money doing so, but in reality the free and unfettered distribution of their music can actually end up making them more money in the long run. That doesn't mean it's not stealing, because it is, but it lets you feel somewhat better about it.

As far as movies, video games, software, etc. I think it's even worse. A lot of money goes into producing them, and there is not really any other reasonable way to recoup those costs other than through sales of the end-product. You just can't justify stealing these things through torrents.

This is not my understanding. I think songwriters make far more money than performers.

The big bucks is in owning the rights to a song, and not simply performing. Sadly, I think I read about this during one of the Brittany Spears meltdowns - she needs to tour, because she does not have a royalty revenue stream. Once she stops touring, the money will dry up.

She may make a lot in the short-term - but long term it has been better to own the song. That may change if people steal your songs.

Sorry, I'm always in the songwriter = performer mindset, since that's most of the music I listen to. It does complicate things a bit for the vast majority of pop music where the performer doesn't write their own songs. I'm sure as the business model for the music industry evolves, this will be a big consideration and some new balance of profit-sharing will develop.Either way, my argument is ultimately that it is stealing. I was just pointing out that musicians (sometimes) have ways of recouping the losses from that theft, and that in fact they may inadvertently benefit financially from having their music freely distributed. Still doesn't make it right - if the producer of a product decide to charge a price for it (even if it would be advantageous for them to give it away for free), then you are stealing if you acquire it for free on the internet.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes, he could sell the music but obviously can't sell the candy he's eaten. I'm not sure why that matters though. Why do you think it does? Isn't it stealing either way? Why does the ability to resell the stolen items make a difference? Or am I not following?J

In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).There are a couple of ways to conceptualize why we should protect property in the first place. Maurile would make the moral argument that when we mix our labor with the natural world, we have a moral right to the product of that labor. I would argue differently. I would argue that unless we protect personal property, individuals will devote a lot more effort to protecting stuff they've already produced rather than producing more. Under my conception of personal property, a property right only makes sense if it makes things more efficient. In the hypothetical, the IP right doesn't improve efficiency. It doesn't make the owner better off.

You could draw some comparison to professional boxing. There was a time where boxing was given away for free on network TV. And the effect was similar to how to describe Fred occasional copying of music. If Fred consumes boxing content for free on occasion via TV, he might also buy more tickets to see boxing live in his area. He might drive more people to see live boxing events. But boxing moved towards a pay-per-view model. It wasn't as accessible as in the past. When that happened, it dropped out of the public consciousness. And the industry ultimately killed its own market.

BUT it was boxing's decision.When they were free on TV, it wasn't really free - they were paid by TV. Just as the NFL is paid by TV today.Boxing thought they could get more money by Pay per view. So they tried. Whether it worked or not is entirely up to them.J

 

[Eulogys]

I don't see how someone would say it's ok to download a DVD via torrent but not a video game. Can you help me see what you're saying is the difference?J

Because there's no other way to play the game. The video game/software is not going to show up on Pay-per-view or HBO or cable TV etc... for your playing pleasure. If I want to see the movie that just got released, I could wait until it's shown on TV. If I want to use the new software, there's only one way to do it.

Wow. Just Wow.So you think there is no value in being able to see the movie now?

What I'm saying is that in order to play the game, there's no option to WAIT. It will not become available to you at a latter time on a different medium. Where a movie, you CAN WAIT for it to become available for free at a later time.

I get that - what I don't get is how you can justify taking something on the basis that I would have gotten it later anyways - so I might as well steal it now.Movies are never free - if they are on HBO - they pay a fee, and you pay a subscription; if it is on some OTA channel, they pay a fee and advertisers pay for you to watch. None of that is "free".When you take it for free - you are not spending the money or time in front of those other formats - reducing ratings, and depressing the revenue generated for that movie.This really should not be that difficult - when you take copyrighted material it is theft. period. Someone has used their talent to create value - pay for the value.

I don't buy DVD's/BR's unless I've already seen the movie/show or to complete a series I already own. I have a netflix account and use that to watch movies. I pay for HBO/Showtime because of their ORIGINAL programming and rarely watch movies on those channels because I've already seen them either in the theater or thru netflixs. I don't watch movies on OTA/cable channels because they edit the #### out of them. So how does me DL a movie or waiting for Netflix to ship it to me effect their sales? Either way, if I enjoy the film, I'll purchase the DVD. If I didn't like the movie, they weren't going to get any of my money for it anyways. What people like you lose track of is that when someone who DL's a torrent that wouldn't otherwise buy their product, it's not costing them a sale. If anything, it just might get them a sale.

 

[kaa]

Because there arent some candy shops that allow you to come in and enjoy as much candy as you want for free and then other candy shops that make you pay for the exact same candy.

OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?

Its not ok to steal. The point being made is that file sharing is no longer stealing. Society is changing.

I don't think so. Simply because technology moved faster than the industry could handle, does not mean that society thinks file "sharing" is acceptable.

Taken to a logical conclusion - it would allow for a single purchase, and then unlimited sharing of that single purpose. I don't think anyone would argue that is fair.

I think you're wrong. Technology is forcing a change on society.

 

[kaa]

Yes, he could sell the music but obviously can't sell the candy he's eaten. I'm not sure why that matters though. Why do you think it does? Isn't it stealing either way? Why does the ability to resell the stolen items make a difference? Or am I not following?J

In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).There are a couple of ways to conceptualize why we should protect property in the first place. Maurile would make the moral argument that when we mix our labor with the natural world, we have a moral right to the product of that labor. I would argue differently. I would argue that unless we protect personal property, individuals will devote a lot more effort to protecting stuff they've already produced rather than producing more. Under my conception of personal property, a property right only makes sense if it makes things more efficient. In the hypothetical, the IP right doesn't improve efficiency. It doesn't make the owner better off.

You could draw some comparison to professional boxing. There was a time where boxing was given away for free on network TV. And the effect was similar to how to describe Fred occasional copying of music. If Fred consumes boxing content for free on occasion via TV, he might also buy more tickets to see boxing live in his area. He might drive more people to see live boxing events. But boxing moved towards a pay-per-view model. It wasn't as accessible as in the past. When that happened, it dropped out of the public consciousness. And the industry ultimately killed its own market.

BUT it was boxing's decision.When they were free on TV, it wasn't really free - they were paid by TV. Just as the NFL is paid by TV today.Boxing thought they could get more money by Pay per view. So they tried. Whether it worked or not is entirely up to them.J

I'm just pointing out the benefits of people getting and sharing free content.

 

[Dr. No]

Joe,Pretend you gave out your ranking for free off FBG podcasts. Would you consider it stealing if a paid customer printed it out then gave it away to his friends at the start of their fantasy draft?If you believe this is stealing then would John Grisham have the same complaint if your friend finished one of his novels then gave it to you so YOU wouldn't have to pay for it yourself?

Excellent point.If we give out our rankings for free on the podcast, then I have no problem with someone sharing them. Because as the creator of the content, I decided to give it out for free in that format.In my mind, it becomes different if someone wanted to take the content that I charge for, and give it away to everyone.Does that make sense?J

Is it stealing if I print out the cheatsheet that I make off the VBD excel sheet (with updated stats - and i am a subscriber) and make copies of that cheatsheet for everyone in both of my leagues?That's just something I do as commish. I don't see it as stealing... I'm not charging anyone for the sheets. But feel compelled to give everyone the same information on draft day.But that single cheatsheet seems like a very small portion of my subscription... almost like giving away a 10 second fragment of a song.I think you're sensitive to this issue Joe, not because of friends who are artists, but because you yourself are in an industry where you can also lose dollars through digital sharing... maybe two roomates sharing an account, maybe 3 or 4 buddies sharing a login... maybe getting some of your content reposted in other blogs and internet sources.I suppose a subscriber could tweet or blog your rankings each week to a select group of people.I get it.. and it would be frustrating.... it's an issue you dont' have to deal with in the boat industry.

 

[[icon]]

Grunching here but I love the Radiohead model for In Rainbows.

Download the album from their website and pay whatever you think it's worth. Be that $0.01 or $20.

They made a LOT more per unit than they EVER did selling CDs via a Record Label.

 

[bostonfred]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Ever borrow a book? Ever lend a book? Ever xerox a page out of a book from the library? Ever borrow or lend a computer program disk to someone else? It's all stealing.

I disagree with the premise that it's OK to steal one thing if you may have stolen another. But there are substantial differences between torrents and these examples. First, borrowing and lending is not the same as copying and redistributing. Only one person can have the book at a time. There is utility to having a book that you have to pay for. The practice of creating an identical duplicate copy of a book is not common (although this may become a bigger issue with the risinng popularity of eBooks, Kindle, and the iPad). Second, when providing goods and services, the seller has the right to define the terms and conditions of the sale. Perhaps you've seen a DVD with a warning that this is licensed for authorized personal use? The terms and conditions for a book may also be spelled out. The seller has the prerogative to set conditions and the buyer can't just change their mind after purchasing it. So the people sharing the music are breaking that contract. Third, if a publisher chooses to make their media - book, CD, DVD, etc. - available over YouTube, in a library, etc., they should have the right to enter agreements with third parties to share their media for free, or for a price they agree to. If the library allows people to copy that media, and the publisher still chooses to share their information in this way, that's their call. The same thing goes if a publisher chooses to allow free downloads of their music. Fourth, I hope people here haven't pirated software as commonly as you suggest. You're right -- that is stealing, and it's worse than stealing music because there's no concert that these guys are performing where you can imagine they'll recoup their losses.

 

[Walton Goggins]

Same with magazines and newspapers

Many companies pay for the daily paper so taking it home at the end of the day is stealing in your eyes since while your employer paid for it, you didn't. Right? Your boss could be completely OK with it but to NYTimes they could find that stealing since one payment is made while many are reading it.

 

[scoobygang]

You're imagining a store owner who has a constant flow of music coming into his store. Or an evil record company. What about Afroman, who was going to make a second song, but he got high? Is it OK for people to steal his song? He doesn't gain from driving music buyers to his store. Also, why do I, the music thief in your scenario, get to decide what would benefit the music store owner? What if the music store owner - for some crazy reason - thought that he would profit more from having me pay for all the music I consume? What if he thought I was the type of guy who would consume lots of music no matter what? What if he thought I only stole it because I like free things, not because I was sensitive to the price? Finally, would you have a problem with me stealing CDs from the store instead of downloading music illegally? What if I told you that it only cost $.14 to produce a CD and its case, and that people who come into the record store are more likely to buy stuff than people who don't? Should a rational store owner be OK with people walking into their store and stealing CDs just because the thieves sometimes buy things?

What about Afroman? He's no better off if you just don't buy the song without copying. In fact, he's likely worse off, as fewer people now know who Afroman is.Your second point is kind of silly. The thief is isn't making the decision. Neither is the store owner. Society makes the decision by creating the law. If the store owner irrationally thinks that your copying is hurting him, he can irrationally expend more labor to protect his music from being copied. That doesn't mean society should do so for him.I don't know why you're asking me what "I would have a problem with." I'm just explaining why theft is a poor analogy. I believe that if copyright protection can reasonably be said to incentivize creation efficiently, then we should enforce copyright laws. If not, then we shouldn't. I'd say the same thing about real property. If CDs were bread, the point would be even easier to make. Our "best" result would be for everyone to have bread as cheaply as possible. If I could give 10 million people free bread without harming the people who created the bread, then I'd be crazy to view that as wrong.

 

[Foosball God]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

No. If they give me the book they are releasing property rights to me. It is a gift.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And I'd ask another question - is there a "line" for sharing? In other words, if I buy a CD I like, can I burn a copy for my son? Should I have to buy everyone in my household a copy that wants to listen? Hmmm.

Ever borrow a book? Ever lend a book? Ever xerox a page out of a book from the library? Ever borrow or lend a computer program disk to someone else? It's all stealing.

Awaiting the response to this one.

I've been known to speed. That doesn't mean I think it's not against the law.

But is called speeding and there are specific laws for this correct? It is not called attempted murder because those guys driving the speed limit in the left lane have been successful in changing the term used for the violation in order to shift the focus of the debate.

 

[Chaka]

If the music industry changes their pricing structure fewer people will steal the product. Why does an album still cost $12-20 when production & distribution costs have decreased significantly since the heydey of CDs?

Musicians need to embrace the Radiohead distribution model.

 

[Christo]

But aren't you mixing in business models with whether something is stealing?I don't see how efficiency factors into whether it's right or wrong. J

If you just want to argue from definitions, stealing entails taking something from someone. Copying takes nothing from the original owner.If you want to argue right and wrong, I don't think you can get away from the efficiency justification. There's no universal moral right to not have your work copied. No such right existed for the vast majority of human history. I think the first copyright law didn't come about until the 18th century in Britain. And that protected printers, not artists. If it's wrong, it's wrong because it harms efficiency.

I think you're using too restrictive a definition of "steal." You are stealing if you take possession of something you do not have the legal right to possess.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Grunching here but I love the Radiohead model for In Rainbows. Download the album from their website and pay whatever you think it's worth. Be that $0.01 or $20. They made a LOT more per unit than they EVER did selling CDs via a Record Label.

I agree for sure, icon. I love that marketing style. But my point is that its only ok when Radiohead decides that's what they want to do with their content. Does that make sense?J

 

[Walton Goggins]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Ever borrow a book? Ever lend a book? Ever xerox a page out of a book from the library? Ever borrow or lend a computer program disk to someone else? It's all stealing.

I disagree with the premise that it's OK to steal one thing if you may have stolen another. But there are substantial differences between torrents and these examples. First, borrowing and lending is not the same as copying and redistributing. Only one person can have the book at a time. There is utility to having a book that you have to pay for. The practice of creating an identical duplicate copy of a book is not common (although this may become a bigger issue with the risinng popularity of eBooks, Kindle, and the iPad). Second, when providing goods and services, the seller has the right to define the terms and conditions of the sale. Perhaps you've seen a DVD with a warning that this is licensed for authorized personal use? The terms and conditions for a book may also be spelled out. The seller has the prerogative to set conditions and the buyer can't just change their mind after purchasing it. So the people sharing the music are breaking that contract. Third, if a publisher chooses to make their media - book, CD, DVD, etc. - available over YouTube, in a library, etc., they should have the right to enter agreements with third parties to share their media for free, or for a price they agree to. If the library allows people to copy that media, and the publisher still chooses to share their information in this way, that's their call. The same thing goes if a publisher chooses to allow free downloads of their music. Fourth, I hope people here haven't pirated software as commonly as you suggest. You're right -- that is stealing, and it's worse than stealing music because there's no concert that these guys are performing where you can imagine they'll recoup their losses.

Fine the say your place of employment (professor at college, office worker, etc) you get the daily newspaper. Interesting article in it that pertains to your job, make copies and distribute. Stealing in your eyes, right? Could get it for free off internet, even from the newspaper's site but in your eyes, that's stealing. Correct?

 

[Christo]

Right now there are two factions.A. People who say it is stealing.B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.Can there not just be a third option?C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't buy DVD's/BR's unless I've already seen the movie/show or to complete a series I already own. I have a netflix account and use that to watch movies. I pay for HBO/Showtime because of their ORIGINAL programming and rarely watch movies on those channels because I've already seen them either in the theater or thru netflixs. I don't watch movies on OTA/cable channels because they edit the #### out of them. So how does me DL a movie or waiting for Netflix to ship it to me effect their sales? Either way, if I enjoy the film, I'll purchase the DVD. If I didn't like the movie, they weren't going to get any of my money for it anyways. What people like you lose track of is that when someone who DL's a torrent that wouldn't otherwise buy their product, it's not costing them a sale. If anything, it just might get them a sale.

You've made a compelling case for why a movie studio might want to give away torrents for free. But you haven't made a compelling case for why you or anyone else should be able to take that choice away from them.