Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

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.

 

[kaa]

In World of Warcraft, people who steal from other players are actually called ninjas, not pirates. Its commonly referred to as ninjaing.

"He ninjaed those boots!"

Basically, old farts use the term "pirating". The cool kids use "ninjaing".

 

[videoguy505]

I was unaware that PS3's now had that capability. How are the data transfer rates? Do videos become choppy?Still taking 3-4 hours to DL a BR quality film (yes I know it can be faster) vs getting the same film instantly on streaming video for $10 will keep that usage in the minority.

PS3 quality is great. Serving a file over a LAN will have much better quality than trying to stream it through a VOD service you're sharing with others. I've never noticed it to be choppy over ethernet. I have a cheap linksys router and wirelessly stream to other rooms in the house and haven't noticed choppiness on those devices either.While it may be in the minority for the nation as a whole (stuff my grandparents wouldn't have the first clue about doing), I don't think it's in the minority for those who already torrent.

 

[QUEZILLA]

and the above article about music pirates being the best consumers is probably true.Everyone I know that does not pirate music really only uses FM radio, a free internet radio station like pandora, or listens to talk radio... and they probably haven't been to a concert in years because music just isn't something they take a lot of interest in.so they are effectively contributing NOTHING to the music artists

Odds are these people have friends who DL music illegally and are listening to new music first. The then tell their friends about the new music. The n00b music listeners probably just got an iPod and DL everything with iTunes. So essentially, the pirates are doing most of the promoting for the entertainment industry by word of mouth. Word of mouth has to be the most effective and efficient way of marketing.

 

[eoMMan]

http://img.moronail.net/img/6/9/1369.jpg

 

[E-Z Glider]

3. Not sure how old your son is but I have kids under 14 and everything we get is stored on a few NAS devices for easy playback throughout the house. I do believe once I buy it I should be able to transfer it to the devices I want to view/listen to it on. I don't however think you should be sending copies out to your entire family.

could you unpack this storage/easy playback setup?

I run a 6TB server on a home network and watch all my movies/TV using a Netgear EVA9150. Cheaper options like this Western Digital Live player exist as well. I haven't put a DVD into a player in over a year. Everything gets ripped to the server and played from there. Even the wife likes it (a very high hurdle when it comes to my gadgets).

How about music? Is there a way to stream this to the stereo, or does everything get sent to the TV?

 

[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.

 

[videoguy505]

I have reason to believe it is extremely easy to limit a torrent search to just HD-quality files, a movie in such a format can range from 1.5GB to 4.5GB, so it can download in 3-4 hours if they're from a good site. DVD quality is less than 1 GB and can be had in 30-90 minutes. I also have reason to believe such files need no further processing or preparation to view on a TV if a person is 1) capable of clicking the media sharing tab in the Windows media player, and 2) hitting the "search for media servers" icon on a PS3-type device.I don't think anyone capable of setting up torrent on their PC would be unable of following through with the rest. I doubt that puts me in the minority.

is that better than just plugging your TV into the video card via HDMI cables?

In my case, it's probably the same because all the video is coming off of a NAS so I'm limited to the speed of the LAN at one point or another in the chain. Never noticed anything weird, though.I do have my HDTV plugged into the video card as well and a media center remote for the PC, but I still find using the PS3 easier to navigate.

 

[LokiKx]

Also, can you help me understand the "overpriced" angle. I see people justifying downloading saying the product cost too much.So because the seller asks too much, that makes it ok to steal it?How is that ok?J

I think a lot of people find it easy to justify since it's not a physical product when they download it. The other part of the equation in my mind is that to many it is anonymous or so they think. People act a lot differently when they are being watched in a store versus sitting behind a screen and clicking a link.I'm pretty sure most would not walk into a store and take a CD. I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't decide that a gallon of milk, a truck, or iPad are to expensive and go in to the store and take one.

 

[Jason Bourne]

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?

 

[QUEZILLA]

I am a little more on the industries side when it comes to things like video games. Though they are expensive I don't have a problem buying a game that I will spend a good amount of time playing. If I download a trial game and like it, then I will purchase the game. However, I am starting to get a little peeved at the direction the game industry is heading in terms of online content. If $60 for a game wasn't enough, they are coming out with downloadable content a few months after that get you to cough up another $12.

 

[culdeus]

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.

Game pirating is very rare now that you need to have a good license to get online to play multiplayer.

 

[bostonfred]

and the above article about music pirates being the best consumers is probably true.Everyone I know that does not pirate music really only uses FM radio, a free internet radio station like pandora, or listens to talk radio... and they probably haven't been to a concert in years because music just isn't something they take a lot of interest in.so they are effectively contributing NOTHING to the music artists

Odds are these people have friends who DL music illegally and are listening to new music first. The then tell their friends about the new music. The n00b music listeners probably just got an iPod and DL everything with iTunes. So essentially, the pirates are doing most of the promoting for the entertainment industry by word of mouth. Word of mouth has to be the most effective and efficient way of marketing.

Let's assume that's true. Some artists or studios might choose to share their product to get that word of mouth. They might get that word of mouth by playing it on the radio, or post something to YouTube, or send an email link to loyal customers who signed up for the fan clulb, or any of a number of different options. Why should the thieves be able to take that choice away from the sellers?

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

But why does that matter?Isn't that like stealing from the guy that has a job saying, "he's got other ways to make money"?I guess what I'm saying is I don't see how the earning ability of the person your stealing from has anything to do with whether it's stealing or not. That make sense?J

 

[Jaysus]

3. Not sure how old your son is but I have kids under 14 and everything we get is stored on a few NAS devices for easy playback throughout the house. I do believe once I buy it I should be able to transfer it to the devices I want to view/listen to it on. I don't however think you should be sending copies out to your entire family.

could you unpack this storage/easy playback setup?

I run a 6TB server on a home network and watch all my movies/TV using a Netgear EVA9150. Cheaper options like this Western Digital Live player exist as well. I haven't put a DVD into a player in over a year. Everything gets ripped to the server and played from there. Even the wife likes it (a very high hurdle when it comes to my gadgets).

blackdot

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

 

[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.

 

[videoguy505]

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.

But why does that matter?Isn't that like stealing from the guy that has a job saying, "he's got other ways to make money"?I guess what I'm saying is I don't see how the earning ability of the person your stealing from has anything to do with whether it's stealing or not. That make sense?J

I think he's rationalizing that it's ok to grab a movie or TV show since those are (or will soon be) available for "free". Like "It's OK if I grab this torrent of 'Top Gun' because I could have just DVR'd it off TBS a month ago for free. So grabbing it now doesn't hurt anyone because I wasn't going to spend money on it anyway."

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

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 consume free candy

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

Therefore, I'm not stealing I do not consider my consumption of free candy to be stealing in this instance.

It may or may not change the way you morally evaluate the argument, but at least it makes the tiniest little effort to be intellectually honest about the comparison.

 

[Christo]

I don't see how it's a discussion. It's theft, pure and simple.

 

[The_Hunchback]

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.

 

[culdeus]

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.

But why does that matter?Isn't that like stealing from the guy that has a job saying, "he's got other ways to make money"?I guess what I'm saying is I don't see how the earning ability of the person your stealing from has anything to do with whether it's stealing or not. That make sense?J

I think he's rationalizing that it's ok to grab a movie or TV show since those are (or will soon be) available for "free". Like "It's OK if I grab this torrent of 'Top Gun' because I could have just DVR'd it off TBS a month ago for free. So grabbing it now doesn't hurt anyone because I wasn't going to spend money on it anyway."

That's my logic. And I don't have any trouble sleeping at night.

 

[beer 30]

I download pretty much every bit of music I listen to and most movies I watch, sorry J. I also download some TV shows I've missed or stuff like the Pacific that I don't care to wait for.

I'll quit talking about it here if it makes you feel better but it's not gonna stop me from downloading.

 

[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.

But why does that matter?Isn't that like stealing from the guy that has a job saying, "he's got other ways to make money"?I guess what I'm saying is I don't see how the earning ability of the person your stealing from has anything to do with whether it's stealing or not. That make sense?J

The point I was trying to make is that even without pirating, there are options available to you that you'll be able to see the movie without any out-of-pocket money where there's no other way for a person to play the game.In other words, when a DVD comes out, I don't have to buy it in order to see the movie, I can just wait until it becomes available to me in a format I'm already paying for (pay TV, Netflix etc..) where as the software/game will not be available to me other then purchasing it from the developer/producer.

 

[E-Z Glider]

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

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.

 

[Zasada]

3. Not sure how old your son is but I have kids under 14 and everything we get is stored on a few NAS devices for easy playback throughout the house. I do believe once I buy it I should be able to transfer it to the devices I want to view/listen to it on. I don't however think you should be sending copies out to your entire family.

could you unpack this storage/easy playback setup?

I run a 6TB server on a home network and watch all my movies/TV using a Netgear EVA9150. Cheaper options like this Western Digital Live player exist as well. I haven't put a DVD into a player in over a year. Everything gets ripped to the server and played from there. Even the wife likes it (a very high hurdle when it comes to my gadgets).

How about music? Is there a way to stream this to the stereo, or does everything get sent to the TV?

Actually, this gets streamed to my whole AV rack, so it does music too. I use it for that from time to time but the interface could use some improvement in that regard.I can even watch YouTube with the 9150, among other things. Not that I use it much, but I have been known to stream "I'm on a Boat" a few times just to annoy the wife.

 

[scoobygang]

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

Ask yourself two questions. Does fred's hypothetical music owner have the ablility to sell the music to another customer after it has been stolen? How about his hypothetical candy shop owner?The theft analogy breaks down when applied to non-rivalrous uses of property.

 

[kaa]

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.

Game pirating is very rare now that you need to have a good license to get online to play multiplayer.

Its very common in World of Warcraft. People try to steal accounts all the time. Then they sell all of your equipment, take the gold, and sell the gold on the internet for money. They have all kinds of tricks to steal account passwords. Including pretending to have the latest patch for download.Blizzard Entertainment (developers of WoW) have come up with an Authenticator system. An authenticator is a small device that can go on your keychain. It does not connect to a computer. It has a small screen and a button. You buy one for $7 and link it to your Wow account. Press the button, and a 6-digit number comes up. You enter that number along with your password. They match it up with some algorithm at Blizzard that matches the device. If its a match, you access the account.The system itself has already been hacked. Now hackers install keyloggers on people's computers and capture the 6 digit key as you enter it. Then they are fast enough to enter it along with your password FIRST before you hit enter. Then they have your account.Basically, hackers are far, far, ahead of ANY security system out there. If they want access, they can get it. Period. And that's why stopping people from sharing music or video files is impossible.

 

[Jason Bourne]

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

 

[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.

This does not exist in the music industry either.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

Ask yourself two questions. Does fred's hypothetical music owner have the ablility to sell the music to another customer after it has been stolen? How about his hypothetical candy shop owner?The theft analogy breaks down when applied to non-rivalrous uses of property.

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

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In World of Warcraft, people who steal from other players are actually called ninjas, not pirates. Its commonly referred to as ninjaing.

"He ninjaed those boots!"

Basically, old farts use the term "pirating". The cool kids use "ninjaing".

 

[E-Z Glider]

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.

This does not exist in the music industry either.

Youtube?

 

[Christo]

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

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.

EXACTLY.

That's what I'm saying. And I think where I'm differing with people.

Are you saying that because some stores give all the candy away, it's ok to take the candy without paying from the stores that charge for it?

If you are, that's where I don't understand how you say that.

The way I see it, when a business owner is offering something for sale, the customer can't just take it for for free because he's decided it's ok to. The price is set by the business owner.

Now he may go out of business because all his customers are going for the free candy. But that's his problem.

You see what I'm saying?

J

 

[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?

 

[beavers]

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

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.

Are you saying that because some stores give all the candy away, it's ok to take the candy without paying from the stores that charge for it?

Isn't it the same product though?You can get either a free tootsie roll from YouTube or pay for it from Apple.

 

[wazoo11]

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?

 

[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

 

[kaa]

EXACTLY.That's what I'm saying. And I think where I'm differing with people.Are you saying that because some stores give all the candy away, it's ok to take the candy without paying from the stores that charge for it?If you are, that's where I don't understand how you say that.The way I see it, when a business owner is offering something for sale, the customer can't just take it for for free because he's decided it's ok to. The price is set by the business owner.Now he may go out of business because all his customers are going for the free candy. But that's his problem. You see what I'm saying?J

It may sound strange, but that's exactly where society is heading. A lot of things are going to become a commodity with basically zero value. Production is only going to get more efficient. By the end of this century, were going to have robots doing a lot of the work for us. Working 24/7. Something like a candy factory just cranking out free candy 24/7 might sound bizarre, but its coming.We are probably going to develop computers that are not only smart but creative, that crank out music that is better than any human can reliably produce. And they will just release it for free.

 

[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

 

[eoMMan]

Can someone point me towards the 2011 FBG rankings torrent?

 

[Walton Goggins]

I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground

They should put all their stuff out on the web for free. That's the best way to get their music careers off the ground. If they're any good, they'll make the money they deserve playing concerts, selling merchandise, limited edition stuff, etc.

That's what some are doing. Do you think they "deserve" to make money for selling a CD they created?Do you think it's ok that people get the CD for free via torrents or other sites?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.J

If someone lets you borrow or gives you their book (could be cooking book or any type), do you tell them "NO" and buy it yourself?

Those are the questions I'm asking above. It seems like there is a line in a physical item that is shared. I borrow a book and you don't have it anymore.If you made a copy of the book and gave it to me, does that seem different?J

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.

 

[Walton Goggins]

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

 

[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?

 

[Walton Goggins]

I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground

They should put all their stuff out on the web for free. That's the best way to get their music careers off the ground. If they're any good, they'll make the money they deserve playing concerts, selling merchandise, limited edition stuff, etc.

That's what some are doing.

Do you think they "deserve" to make money for selling a CD they created?

Do you think it's ok that people get the CD for free via torrents or other sites?

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.

J

If someone lets you borrow or gives you their book (could be cooking book or any type), do you tell them "NO" and buy it yourself?

Those are the questions I'm asking above. It seems like there is a line in a physical item that is shared. I borrow a book and you don't have it anymore.

If you made a copy of the book and gave it to me, does that seem different?

J

What about author's gripes? John Grisham could argue that you should buy the same book and not steal it costing him $. Personally I don't find that stealing since I own that copy of the book and can do what I want with it. Same with music.

 

[bostonfred]

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

Ask yourself two questions. Does fred's hypothetical music owner have the ablility to sell the music to another customer after it has been stolen? How about his hypothetical candy shop owner?The theft analogy breaks down when applied to non-rivalrous uses of property.

That's an interesting distinction, because the music owner most likely won't be able to sell the music to the same person again. The pro-thief argument is that the thieves still buy more music, but what if the same artist doesn't produce any more? If I'm a one hit wonder, maybe people don't think I "deserve" to get rich, but I should be able to sell my one hit. If people steal it, then all the time and effort I put into that one hit is already spent. I can't rely on that thief coming back and buying more of my music. So the fact that they're stealing it and giving it to other people to steal is diminishing the size of the market for my product, instead of physically diminishing my inventory. And my music is only being stolen by people who like my song, so their thievery is a huge cost to me. I understand that I don't own or have the right to a market, but that doesn't mean that they have the right to consume my goods and services without paying for them.

 

[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