This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
While I appreciate your assertion that I'm the smarter caveman in your examples, the simple truth is if I have fire I bought it (or stole it) somewhere along the line. Just like burning DVD from a downloaded torrent is too much trouble, so is creating fire from scratch.
No, you just misunderstood my statement. I didn't say anything about economic value. You brought that up. I was merely responding.
How much do you think a 45 costs or a 331/3 album before CDs displaced them from the shelves twenty five years ago? How much was a 3 song 3" CD or full CD for most of their run?
You're wrong though - music has actually gotten much cheaper to own. I don't ever remember it being so affordable. I remember paying a buck a single, and ten bucks an album 30 years ago. What has inflation done to everything else in that 30 years? Let's be honest - price isn't the issue. Entitlement is. We think it's our right to just take it. I mean really, you are saying "hey, I want it, but have other stuff I'd like to spend my money on, so I'll just take it".It is stealing from the artist but music has become so expensive these days that people are resorting to cheaper alternatives.I do download torrents, as I can not afford several CD's a month.
so sue me for putting it on my ipod.
At some point I might buy the cd on Amazon..
Price is an issue. You keep saying that $1.29 a song is cheap. Don't most albums have 10 or so songs? I guess I don't see $13 an album as being cheap (I only do whole albums).You're wrong though - music has actually gotten much cheaper to own. I don't ever remember it being so affordable. I remember paying a buck a single, and ten bucks an album 30 years ago. What has inflation done to everything else in that 30 years? Let's be honest - price isn't the issue. Entitlement is. We think it's our right to just take it. I mean really, you are saying "hey, I want it, but have other stuff I'd like to spend my money on, so I'll just take it".It is stealing from the artist but music has become so expensive these days that people are resorting to cheaper alternatives.I do download torrents, as I can not afford several CD's a month.
so sue me for putting it on my ipod.
At some point I might buy the cd on Amazon..
Would you say it was OK if I scanned the book in myself? What if I pay someone to scan it in for me? What if someone volunteers to do it for free and sends me a PDF?What if I take those MP3s and burn them as an audio cd? Stealing again?I believe that if I possess a copy it is my right to have it in any format I would like, within reason.
American car manufacturers have done a terrible job competing with foreign-made car manufacturers. Horrible business models. Will you be stealing a Corvette soon?The tacit approval by a large segment of the population doesn't address legality or morality. Common practice is a terrible argument. Large portions of the population have condoned countless immoral acts (slavery, denying women the right to vote, etc.). We all are equipped with an internal moral code, and group think is irrelevant in judgment of that code.
I'm not outraged as I am dismayed that people steal, and just_don't_care. How it's just "ok" to do it, simply because they can't afford to buy the music (which is cheaper than it's ever been - nobody can deny that.) They want the music, they can't afford all the music they want, so they just take the music. And it's not just music - it's all digital media. If a person steals music, they'll steal a digital book, and they'll steal a downloadable PDF the creator is charging $29.99 for. As someone who creates for a living, it bums me out.Price is an issue. You keep saying that $1.29 a song is cheap. Don't most albums have 10 or so songs? I guess I don't see $13 an album as being cheap (I only do whole albums).You're wrong though - music has actually gotten much cheaper to own. I don't ever remember it being so affordable. I remember paying a buck a single, and ten bucks an album 30 years ago. What has inflation done to everything else in that 30 years? Let's be honest - price isn't the issue. Entitlement is. We think it's our right to just take it. I mean really, you are saying "hey, I want it, but have other stuff I'd like to spend my money on, so I'll just take it".It is stealing from the artist but music has become so expensive these days that people are resorting to cheaper alternatives.I do download torrents, as I can not afford several CD's a month.
so sue me for putting it on my ipod.
At some point I might buy the cd on Amazon..
You seem outraged by this. Seems like when the whole Napster vs. Metallica thing was going on years ago that it was 50/50 at best as to what artists were up in arms about this going on. Stuff started leaking out about how little artists were making per CD and that the bulk of their income was from the concert and merchandise side. Thought I read that they were lucky to get $1 or two out of each CD sold and a lot stated they'd rather have people listening to their music and going to concerts. Metallica was all pissy b/c they had a sweet deal and were making about 5X that amount per album. I don't know the answer, but how much do they get from Itunes for things sold? I would assume that Apple would have to give them something, or just give them a lump sum up from to be allowed to have their music available.
The overall impression that I got was that 90% of the artists were making crap on the album sales end of things. Most couldn't come out and say they didn't care if we download something b/c they are still under contract with a record company. But more and more you either see a) big name artists not signing anymore contracts and doing their marketing themselves, cutting out the companies (ie Radiohead, NIN, etc.) or b) bands starting out and using youtube and sites like that to make a name for themselves and also cutting out the record companies.
You keep bringing up the artists, but I don't see many of them getting hurt in all this. The people who are taking the hit are the record companies. Maybe the best we could do is compile a list of artists who are OK with the idea of torrents, but not sure how many could actually admit that.
I think movies and books are going to get bad soon too, especially with all the Kindles, Nooks, etc. coming out. Too easy now to copy a DLd book and put it on one of those.
The problem with this isn't that the consumers of content have grown a sense of entitlement, it has been the producers. The belief that if it is there for the taking as far as this type of content has been the historical norm, not the new exception. Inhibiting the flow of content has historically generated the moral outrage, not losing the ability to micromanage it. What has evolved in the consumer of content's favor has been that technology has eliminated the need to trade cost for quality. It has eliminated the exclusive production and distribution channels that were once held by the producers. It hasn't created any new perceived rights of consumers as the ability to take this content and own their own personal copies to do with as they pleased is a classic property right. Limitations of these rights is the new concept here, the concept that needs to justify its very existence. Instead most in this thread (and the real world) just accept these limitation on our freedoms out of faith.jwb said:
50% doesn't think it's OK. 50% may do it because they won't get caught, but they don't think it's OK. This basically falls along the lines of finding something valuable that someone lost and whether or not someone is around when you find it. If we find money somewhere we should return it to the rightfull owner. Most aren't going to do that for a penny, some aren't going to do it for any amount. Some will come up with a story to justify keeping the $10,000 they find. Someone will return it only if they feel they're going to get caught.GoFishTN said:
You shouldn't have more stuff than me just because you got to go to college. Anyone that you can't justify that to should be entitled to come to your house and take your stuff.
They had one of these in the engineering department at my school. The first time I saw it I was likeThat's some crazy technologyBottomfeeder Sports said:
Ignoring those that just want to download the latest and greatest of whatever, I think that most of us from the "it is not stealing" (or equivalent to pirating on the high seas) crowd readily acknowledge that what we are trying to obtain is the correct balance between creating the incentives for the efforts your are articulating in exchange for having the expression of the idea shared with the public to inspire the next set of creators. What some are arguing, and I am hinting around at is that we have lost that balance and today because of such practices as locking items in a vault except for rare limited engagements and rather restrictive interpretations of what is considered a fair use derivative creation is thwarting the inspiration side. While I think the above two items in particular are out of balance, I'm not so sure about other items. Most importantly though, I think that the discussion is talking about the wrong things. In the very near future we are not talking about these intangible performances and creations but real things that can cheaply be shared as 3D renderings and printed on demand. Star Trek style replicators (Santa Clause machines) are still out in the future, but the basics are here today. Would owning, or inventing a replicator be immoral? I think that is a silly concept. The question is what benefits society more, not what protects today's buggy whip industry. And this is why the history of the concepts are important. Why these exists to begin with is not to protect the status quo, but to push us to the future.
It is pretty much the same as the fire example. You worked hard creating fire, I buy a copy of that fire and share it freely (or for my profit). Either way you lose out on your potential market size.
Why are you owed anything? Before you can make the claim that you are being robbed of the compensation you need to demonstrate why you are due the compensation. Your intent has nothing to do with it. And for your larger point you are looking at this entirely at the micro level of individual creators. Any time you use the legal system there will be individual winners and losers. The question is not about individual winners and losers, but instead the question is how does society benefit the most on a macro level. The markets for these products are changing, not disappearing. I think one purely economic philosophy perspective is that markets have lots of small players in them are better than markets that are dominated by a few big players. File sharing seems to have a demonstrated positive impact on the small players at the expense of the big players. The question is whether this is really a positive outcome, whether the philosophy of "lots of small players is better than a few bigs ones" should be applicable here (or even true at all). I lend to "yes" it should, but I'm far from being convinced.
So? What if you could reproduce a Corvette with the same quality by downloading something that another inexpensive piece of technology uses to recreate the physical product the same way you can reproduce the performance in the MP3? All of the Corvettes that GM manufactured that are still where they were before, you just have created a new one from scratch. Did you steal anything? Did you improve society by creating the Corvette more than you hurt it? Does it matter that everyone is doing it? Does it matter that you created a '57 Corvette and not a 2011 model?
No, price is the issue.jwb said:You're wrong though - music has actually gotten much cheaper to own. I don't ever remember it being so affordable. I remember paying a buck a single, and ten bucks an album 30 years ago. What has inflation done to everything else in that 30 years? Let's be honest - price isn't the issue. Entitlement is. We think it's our right to just take it. I mean really, you are saying "hey, I want it, but have other stuff I'd like to spend my money on, so I'll just take it".bosoxs45 said:It is stealing from the artist but music has become so expensive these days that people are resorting to cheaper alternatives.I do download torrents, as I can not afford several CD's a month.
so sue me for putting it on my ipod.
At some point I might buy the cd on Amazon..
What if I had a genie that could poof a million Corvette's out of the air?
I know you will counter by saying that it's just a justification for something that people want to do, but here's how I look at it. Yes it's illegal, but what people disagree on is if it's stealing and to what level. I do and have done things that are illegal - drank underage, smoke pot, sometimes forget my seatbelt, speed, etc.. I know I am doing something that I am not supposed, but I am accepting the consequences of my actions if I get caught. Smoking pot is illegal, but if I am doing it at my house and nobody is getting hurt what's the big deal? That's how people view this - I am taking the risk of getting caught downloading, but if nobody is getting hurt then what's the big deal? So the debate is whether the artists are hurt by this. You claim that the artists suffer because I am taking something that is their creation without compensating them for it. I say that in most cases they would not have gotten my money in the first place so they aren't being hurt. In fact I would argue they they benefit b/c I am now likely to catch a concert of theirs, tell somebody about them, or buy the album. The question becomes for people am I stealing from them if they wouldn't have benefitted from me in the first place. IF there was a list of artists who explicitly stated that they don't want anybody to have their work who didn't pay for it, I would look at it, respect it, and stop getting anything of theirs (probably b/c I would view them as saying "i'd rather have 2 people's $2 than have 100 people hear our stuff"). That is their decision to make. We won't see that list, but what you do see is artists embracing what is going on and using it to their advantage and cutting out the companies who were ripping them off all along.jwb said:I'm not outraged as I am dismayed that people steal, and just_don't_care. How it's just "ok" to do it, simply because they can't afford to buy the music (which is cheaper than it's ever been - nobody can deny that.) They want the music, they can't afford all the music they want, so they just take the music. And it's not just music - it's all digital media. If a person steals music, they'll steal a digital book, and they'll steal a downloadable PDF the creator is charging $29.99 for. As someone who creates for a living, it bums me out.KarmaPolice said:Price is an issue. You keep saying that $1.29 a song is cheap. Don't most albums have 10 or so songs? I guess I don't see $13 an album as being cheap (I only do whole albums).jwb said:You're wrong though - music has actually gotten much cheaper to own. I don't ever remember it being so affordable. I remember paying a buck a single, and ten bucks an album 30 years ago. What has inflation done to everything else in that 30 years? Let's be honest - price isn't the issue. Entitlement is. We think it's our right to just take it. I mean really, you are saying "hey, I want it, but have other stuff I'd like to spend my money on, so I'll just take it".bosoxs45 said:It is stealing from the artist but music has become so expensive these days that people are resorting to cheaper alternatives.I do download torrents, as I can not afford several CD's a month.
so sue me for putting it on my ipod.
At some point I might buy the cd on Amazon..
You seem outraged by this. Seems like when the whole Napster vs. Metallica thing was going on years ago that it was 50/50 at best as to what artists were up in arms about this going on. Stuff started leaking out about how little artists were making per CD and that the bulk of their income was from the concert and merchandise side. Thought I read that they were lucky to get $1 or two out of each CD sold and a lot stated they'd rather have people listening to their music and going to concerts. Metallica was all pissy b/c they had a sweet deal and were making about 5X that amount per album. I don't know the answer, but how much do they get from Itunes for things sold? I would assume that Apple would have to give them something, or just give them a lump sum up from to be allowed to have their music available.
The overall impression that I got was that 90% of the artists were making crap on the album sales end of things. Most couldn't come out and say they didn't care if we download something b/c they are still under contract with a record company. But more and more you either see a) big name artists not signing anymore contracts and doing their marketing themselves, cutting out the companies (ie Radiohead, NIN, etc.) or b) bands starting out and using youtube and sites like that to make a name for themselves and also cutting out the record companies.
You keep bringing up the artists, but I don't see many of them getting hurt in all this. The people who are taking the hit are the record companies. Maybe the best we could do is compile a list of artists who are OK with the idea of torrents, but not sure how many could actually admit that.
I think movies and books are going to get bad soon too, especially with all the Kindles, Nooks, etc. coming out. Too easy now to copy a DLd book and put it on one of those.
1. This is a right to publicity question and the law is pretty scattered. It depends heavily on the jurisdiction. I have real First Amendment concerns about RTP laws that overreach. I think it is reasonable to have laws against any implication of an endorsement. But a picture of Bill Buckner with the tagline, "Don't Drop the Ball, Refinance Your Mortgage Today?" I think that should be allowed (perhaps with a requirement that the ad contain copy making it clear that Buckner is not endorsing the service).2. I'm not a big fan of moral rights based explanations for copyright protection. Something like this scenario could possibly be better protected under something like trade secret. If the writer really keeps the manuscript private, he could have protection against someone acquiring it through nefarious means. If we really think that copyright should be used to protect any negative impact on the market, are we going to ban criticism?3. Again, I don't think the question is whether copyright should ensure that creators have absolute control to ensure the best market for their creations. It's whether it should adequately incentivize creation to take place. I'm not convinced that hypothetical would really destroy the market, but its probably true that we don't have a "better" system right now than the exclusive reproduction right (although the copyright term is way too long and the protections extend way too far into derivative works). This situation seems highly analagous, to me, to what we see in the fashion industry. The high end designers have their designs knocked off by the bargain chains. Which is a stauts reinforcing device that ensures the relevance of the next collection from the high end designers.
You're going to have to unpack the bolded a bit more, and specifically explain how indiscriminate, unlimited, free distribution of products to anyone with an internet connection is the solution.
The thing is, you are basically labelling our entire system of get-compensated-for-your-innovation a buggy whip industry. People don't sell buggy whips anymore because someone else invented a better mode of transportation, not because someone invented a way to create unlimited free copies of the buggy whip and distribute them all around the world instantaneously. Protections are necessary because without them there is no incentive to create. You seem to believe that the free sharing of all ideas/products is a net benefit to society as a whole but you are conveniently forgetting to subtract out the immense losses to society that will be sustained when it is no longer profitable to develop new ideas and products. So yes, I think if in the future everyone owned a "replicator" that could instantly make a free copy of anything, it would ruin us forever. I think it's silly to believe otherwise.
I am owed compensation because that is the economic model we as a society have successfully employed. It works, better than other failed economic systems. People are compensated for their creative efforts, and therefore there is incentive to continue to create. That benefits everyone, not just the creator. This isn't micro-loss vs macro-gain; the free distirbution of perfect copies of things hurts on the micro level and ulitimately on a macro level. Despite what you and others have claimed, society does NOT ultimately benefit from making file-sharing (or the more futuristic "object-sharing") an acceptable practice.
You definitely hurt society more than you helped it. If it were possible for anyone to replicate a Corvette using their household replicator, then no one would make Corvette's anymore. Think about that - not in terms of now (as you say, "all of the Corvettes that GM manufactured are still where they were before") but in terms of the future. 150 years from now, people will still be driving 2011 (or older) Corvettes, because GM stopped making them after that year and went out of business. Once society started "benefitting" from the ability to freely share Corvettes, GM stopped creating new Corvettes and shut their doors. Now, replace "Corvettes" with anything else. You think that's a net benefit to society?
Like I posted above, it's a little different b/c of what the artists are getting compensated with the album sales. Lets say that Joe had to run the site through a company and although it was his idea he might only get $1 out of that $25 subscription through his contract. He might say that some sharing wouldn't be bad since that person is more likely to tell somebody else after seeing the site, buy a FBG Tshirt, buy the magazine, or feel that it's really worth the price and get a subscription themselves - all of which benefit him more than just saying no and losing that person's initial $1. That's not the case, so it's not a great example. Your example is more like an author - it's basically their only stream of revenue to giving it free hurts them a lot more, and they wouldn't see much benefit at all.
The model that might be obsolete is not that creators be compensated. It's that creators be compensated by a the grant of a specific monopoly that is legally enforeceable in court. Nobody has it explicitly framed it this way yet, but plenty have alluded to it, so let me just address the idea that what we're talking about is what if EVERYBODY copied music or books or whatever. That's not what's happening now. Obviously, if everybody copied we'd have to find a new compensation model. As it happens now, some people copy. And it is almost certain that SOME amount of copying is economically advantageous to creators. And to consumers. I don't hate ITunes. I like ITunes (even if I use the Zune store). But I'm pretty sure that one reason why the ITunes store is as advanced as it is right now is because the record companies had to compete with free torrent sites.But whatever we feel about how likely it is that digital technology will actually threaten creative output (I don't see it happening now, but it might happen in the future), I don't see how copyright law is an efficient or effective remedy. The enforcement costs are through the roof.
Why is advertising for a product different than your "sing a person's likeness/image" to advertise your FFA presence?
We haven't had much discussion in this thread on Trademarks, but my answer depends on how much confusion is being created by the usage. If everyone thinks I'm using the product because I endorse the product than there would be a problem. If all that is implied from the picture is that I once upon a time touched your product than that is OK. Again, my position is that all of this is not moral absolutes one way or another but a societal balancing game that among other things needs to happen in the modern technological real world.
If you are talking about whether or not an artist can chose to never release something they feel is bad, then of course they have this right. But Disney should have no right to lock Song of the South in the vault.
What the artists wants is not what matters. Society has no business protecting the artists desires against those of the greater community. The question is if whether allowing him to "maintain the value of a painting" provides him (and others) enough of an incentive to create more works than it hampers the inspiration of others (and him) to create more works. With the purpose of society caring about the creation of new works because they benefit society. When what the artists wants serves the larger communities' interest than good for him, when they don't - oh well. And when society makes the wrong choice and creates benefits for the artist that harm society, it is societies responsibility to change that choice.
I think the better question for the utilitarians is whether they think people should be required to give up the keys to their car if they are not using it and their neighbor wants to borrow it to go to the grocery store? Heck, why not require everyone to leave the keys in their car with a timetable stating when you plan on using it next so their neighbor doesn't even have to ask?
But that's the logical extension of the entire debate, imo. See a few pages back when I summarized someone's justification for downloading files as, "It's ok for me to do it, because not everyone is doing it, so the content creators will still get paid." That's a horrible justification for anything, not just filesharing.To me the issue is this: should we, as a society, deem that filesharing is acceptable? Many people in here have argued that we should - that, in fact, we already have - and that the content creators need to "catch up with the times." What every single one of them has failed to address is the obvious consequence of such acceptance - that once everyone gets their music/movies/books/software/Corvettes for free via torrents, there will no longer be any incentive to create those things.
Ok, lets substitute food for "Corvettes". If a creative person isn't worrying about feeding himself any longer, or his family is more or less likely to take that "job" as a stock broker rather than pursing his creative interest? Of course in this world there is no need for "stock broker" and such professions and everyone is free to pursue their creative interests for everyone else's benefit. This world might be an unrealistic Utopian fantasy, but absolutely society is better off.
Sure, with infinite resources Communism would probably work. I'm not entirely convinced that such a society would actually be better off, but I think debating that woud probably be veering too far from the point of this thread.
I don't think it is. Or rather, I think that content distributors (not necessarily producers) have far more effective and efficient means for ensuring that this doesn't happen than resort to a property right. We all have a property right to eject tresspassers. A fence is still a much more effective solution.I liken the situation to the drug war. Let's concede that drugs are bad for us. So what? That doesn't mean that the War on Drugs is worth it. If everyone jaywalked constantly, traffic would be a mess. That doesn't mean we should wring our hands about jaywalkers. The best way to stop jaywalking is to make crosswalks work. The best way to prevent torrents is to create satisfying paid online media experiences. File downloaders know they face legal exposure. That won't change. I still don't see why we should treat them as social pariahs. Or why we should expend any more energy strengthening copyright protections that are ridiculously overbroad as it is.
But you see, that's the problem in my mind. It's not that people download music, it's that they knowingly steal media. They've proven no moral code exists in this respect. They'll steal movies / books / whatever. I just feel that an artist / copyright holder should be able to charge for their product. If you want it, pay what they ask.
This keeps being said, but it's not true. Not in the case of music anyway.The artists who are doing the creating have never really been protected. The copyright belongs to the label, not to the artist. The money goes to the label, not to the artist. (see note) The artists have continued creating music anyway, because that's what they enjoy and because albums are good promotion for their shows. There's no reason to think that won't continue.Note: In most cases. The majority of bands are never considered "recouped", so they see 0% of their album sales. Those who are fortunate enough to reach a huge number of sales will get about 10% of any royalties above the "recouped" value.
I think we're arguing two different points here. I agree that there is more than one way to solve the problem of filesharing; I'm no expert on copyright laws or anything, and if the producers can develop a better market-based solution then that's definitely the way to go. I said earlier in the thread that filesharing can't be stopped at the point - the best recourse is to make it irrelevant.I'm just making the point that it is a problem. It seems like some people have no qualms with downloading stuff via torrents. They're trying to justify their actions as if there's nothing wrong with it. I'm arguing that there is absolutely something wrong with it, and a solution (law-based or otherwise) needs to be found. I also believe that the differences between torrenting files and other forms of theft/copyright violation/whatever are significant enough that relying on existing thoughts and analogies is inadequate. New technology has created new problems, which require new solutions.
I agree about music - in fact I made this point in post #4 of the thread. Music is a different animal, because there are multiple revenue streams that all benefit by leaking songs onto torrents. The songs are really just advertisements for the other revenue generating sources (concerts, merchandise, etc.)Most other producers do not similarly benefit from their products being torrented, though. To make a simplified example, the guy who developed Photoshop only makes money if people buy Photoshop. He's not going on tour and selling t-shirts with his face on them. If we, as a society, decide it's acceptable for people to freely distribute copies of Photoshop on the internet, then the developer has no incentive to ever create another piece of software.
Agreed.In regards to music, I wonder how profitable this concert/merchandise model will be in 20 years? Because we're still seeing a lot of the "more established by the old way" acts do this. I'm not up on it, so maybe I'm ignorent, but have any purely "discovered / marketed on the internet" bands made it big - I mean big enough to fill an arena on their own and sell hundreds of thousands of T-shirts / etc?
Then we're probably on the same page. Music is the only file sharing I participate in. I've still never been motivated enough to try torrents, but it's easy enough to find most stuff on sites like megaupload.And like others have said, I now spend more money on music than I ever have. The number of concerts I attend has risen from 1 or 2 a year (stuff I'd been listening to forever like Buddy Guy, Pearl Jam or Bob Dylan) up to 15 a year (mostly bands I never would have heard of if not for file sharing).
A man's gotta have a code.
How does that fit with your simple social utility theory of property?
But that is not true either. In the software world there are plenty of major development (probably most) that are at least loss leaders if not out right given away and the profits are generated from other avenues such as supporting the software. When I load my consumer version of Photoshop Essentials there are many add on services that Adobe tries to upsell me within the usage of the product. More in line with the direction of computing, software is less and less being developed to reside on my hard drive and more and more to reside on an ASP server somewhere. Where once again in many existing cases the software is just there for free and the money is made elsewhere.Yeah, I know that the choice of which distribution model should reside with the creator and not the consumer, especially free loading consumers but that false also. The choice of model ultimately always resides with the interplay of the competing interest in the market along with the government intervention.
I think this Bieber kid was basically discovered on youtube.
So if it's 50/50 as to if artists care or not about what's going on do you have a problem with people downloading their stuff? Is this a full scale problem or do you also not agree with people downloading things from NIN, Radiohead, etc who have made their products available for free. My arguement is that while they'll say it's illegal the people who do it don't view it as stealing from the artists themselves for reasons that I have outlined. While the artists have the right to protest and make it known they don't want this to happen to them, overall it seems like you are defending the system that was ripping them off for years and claiming you are defending the artists' rights.
