Serious thread about copyrights

[Denyer]

Originally posted by Lucifer
Also, as a pro musician, i cannot stand the sound quality of mp3's, no matter the hardware. They sound worse than cassette tapes ever did. No low end warmth at all.

...as long as they're better than 160kbps and you have decent speakers, whilst you can usually tell the difference, it's decent enough for day-to-day listening. Try encoding with a higher bitrate and not using Joint Stereo. Or try the Ogg format, which generally achieves much better results than MP3, but isn't as widespread.

I think it's a great preview mechanism, but I vastly prefer having hard media lying around. Loathe vinyl, though...nothing other formats can't achieve provided people don't botch the conversion (sadly, too many companies seem incapable of good transfers.)

[RID Scourge]

Overall, the bands don't make too much off their records. The real money is in the concerts. I have no problem with downloading because I don't see it as stealing. Why? Because I'm not physically taking anything, and they still have it when all is said and done. When I think of stealing, it usually involves the victimised party at a loss of sorts. I'm not going to buy a whole CD for one song, and I'm not going to buy an over-priced single. Therefore, I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so they're not at a loss. If anything, they may gain from it because I may realize that I like it, and decide to buy it.

I'm sick of these people whining about losing money on downloads. Their basic argument is this: All you damn kids are crimals, who steal our music, and our movies. We hate you, and you should all be locked up.

Finally, I don't like the Hollywood type. If you approach them to say hi, they'd probably tell you to f*ck off. That's not the way it should be. If anything, they should be kissing our a$$es because without us, they couldn't be stars. If we weren't around, who would listen to them and watch them. Thing is, they owe us, and many of them take and don't give, but when we take, they whine about it. They make enough money anyway. They need to be taught a lesson in humility.

As far as striving artists, and newbies, I don't download from them until they become big (most of the time because I don't hear about the indies 'till they make it to the big time).

[S]

Originally posted by PaladinPrime
Overall, the bands don't make too much off their records. The real money is in the concerts. I have no problem with downloading because I don't see it as stealing. Why? Because I'm not physically taking anything, and they still have it when all is said and done. When I think of stealing, it usually involves the victimised party at a loss of sorts.

If someone created a work of art in hopes of getting paid for his troubles, then he does lose if nobody decides to pay him. It is analogous to you hiring a carpenter to fix your house, and when he's done and comes to you to get paid you'd say "gee, but now that you've already done the work, you wouldn't really lose anything if I don't pay you, right? So bugger off!".

I'm not going to buy a whole CD for one song, and I'm not going to buy an over-priced single. Therefore, I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so they're not at a loss. If anything, they may gain from it because I may realize that I like it, and decide to buy it.

There is a large number of people who are not going to pay for anything they can get for free, even if they like it, but would be willing to pay if there was no other alternative. I don't know how much money corporations actually lose (nobody does, it's really an impossible thing to determine), but I feel that people will much rather rationalize stealing than uphold impeccable morals. And I don't think any producer of intellectual property wants kids to go to jail for not paying for movies... they'd like them to just pay for the freaking movies, obviously!

They make enough money anyway. They need to be taught a lesson in humility.

You have always had the means to do that by not buying their products.

As far as striving artists, and newbies, I don't download from them until they become big (most of the time because I don't hear about the indies 'till they make it to the big time).

Uh, so let me get this straight: you don't buy from the established artists because they need to be "taught a lesson", and you don't buy from the striving artists because until they make it to the top, in which case they also need to be taught a lesson? How convenient for you, not having to pay for anything at all!

[RID Scourge]

Originally posted by S
You have always had the means to do that by not buying their products.

Exactly. That's just what I'm doing. I'm not buying, I'm downloading.

Uh, so let me get this straight: you don't buy from the established artists because they need to be "taught a lesson", and you don't buy from the striving artists because until they make it to the top, in which case they also need to be taught a lesson? How convenient for you, not having to pay for anything at all!

Yeah, it is kind of convenient. When they make it to the top, they've become one of those "don't download our stuff" guys, and they've done stuff along the way to justify my actions. Just call me Karma.

If I heard about them before they became big, then I'd buy their stuff.

Not saying that I don't buy stuff. I bought "Hybrid Theory," which was something I probably wouldn't have bought if I hadn't downloaded the songs and heard them first. I usually buy DVDs that I thought were outstandingly good.

[S]

Originally posted by PaladinPrime
Exactly. That's just what I'm doing. I'm not buying, I'm downloading.

Point is, you don't need to download their products in order to not buy them. It's not as if you'll die a horrible death or anything if you missed Lord of the Rings (or whatever). When you've decided not to support an artist for whatever reasons you deem fit, you have already done all you can do to hurt them... when you download their products regardless, you're doing it just for your own convenience, I think it's hypocritical to think that it's some sort of noble activism.

Not that I don't agree with your reasoning to some extent... I for one have woved never to pay a dime for pornography (I've done it only once, but it was for my girlfriend...:rolleyes: ). And damn if I'm going to buy those Transformers comics either. On the other hand, I am in the process of collecting all the Sandman TPBs even though I can read them anytime I want anyway. What I am against is hypocracy that piracy is somehow morally justifiable, because it's not. We're all just greedy bastards who want stuff for free.

[Lucifer]

Some of the moral rationalization of theft in some of the responses in this thread is nauseating. Theft is theft and you know it.

[Denyer]

Originally posted by S
It is analogous to you hiring a carpenter to fix your house, and when he's done and comes to you to get paid you'd say "gee, but now that you've already done the work, you wouldn't really lose anything if I don't pay you, right? So bugger off!".

When we can download a Queen Anne cabinet with hand-carved knobs, then I'll accept that that line of argument isn't total rubbish.

Theft is not theft when exact digital backups enter the equation, since nothing is lost (not even sales, because in most cases they wouldn't have been made.)

It's quite simple; if I don't get to hear/read/see it first, I won't fork over cash for it. As I'm a student, it may take me a while...but I'll get there with anything I really like.

If I put something on the net, for instance, I'm expecting it to be copied. I'd prefer credit, but I'd also like to see it reach a wider audience. Were I dependent upon that income, it would be a similar situation; make efforts to prevent anyone else making cash from it, and use simple techniques to remind people that they're copying something I should be rewarded for contributing. Most people would still prefer a hard-copy, be it a book, DVD or CD.

[S]

Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
When we can download a Queen Anne cabinet with hand-carved knobs, then I'll accept that that line of argument isn't total rubbish.

Theft is not theft when exact digital backups enter the equation, since nothing is lost (not even sales, because in most cases they wouldn't have been made.)

The work that the artist did to produce something is "lost", if he doesn't get paid for it. The analogy to a carpenter doing something for you, and not getting paid either is valid, just replace "carpenter" with "musician" and "your house" with "a song". Then think about if the musician was also selling the song to 5 other people besides you, wouldn't he be justified to ask that you do not copy the song to those other five guys, if he charges you less than he would have if you were the only customer? Music industry is a bit bigger than that, but the principle is the same.

It's quite simple; if I don't get to hear/read/see it first, I won't fork over cash for it. As I'm a student, it may take me a while...but I'll get there with anything I really like.

I agree with this, and that's what I do myself. But the trick is, there is no way to achieve this noble goal through legislation, it's up to individual ethics. Okay, I suppose it could be encouraged by providing easy ways to buy stuff legally, and by a lot of advertising, but would that necessarily compensate for the money lost in not trying to enforce IP right?

If I put something on the net, for instance, I'm expecting it to be copied. I'd prefer credit, but I'd also like to see it reach a wider audience. Were I dependent upon that income, it would be a similar situation; make efforts to prevent anyone else making cash from it, and use simple techniques to remind people that they're copying something I should be rewarded for contributing. Most people would still prefer a hard-copy, be it a book, DVD or CD.

When a movie is put in a DVD with area codes and some propriatary encryption scheme, you can be pretty sure that the producer did not want it to be ripped to DivX and uploaded to the web. That itself is already a subtle hint to buy the DVD instead of pirating. Maybe some folks will try your way, but it will hurt the sales, hence the profits and subsequently the investments. I don't see a good way out of this situation, so I guess big corporations will continue fighting for their legal rights to the death (which I think is not a problem, it's their material and pirates don't have to get everything on a silver platter), people will keep making excuses and in the end the little guy gets screwed. Business as usual.

[Denyer]

Originally posted by S
The analogy to a carpenter doing something for you, and not getting paid either is valid, just replace "carpenter" with "musician" and "your house" with "a song".

No...It...Isn't. Unless you've been reading a lot of Scott Adams. How can you lay claim to reproductions of physical actions? I can hum a song. I can sing a song. I can, given a guitar and some friends, record that song. I am stealing precisely nothing; ideas are not tangible. Copyright is a bodge, which is why most people reject it. Any obligation is moral, and morality is personal...I want more stuff, I buy what's there. If the artist goes bankrupt before I do so...well, I wouldn't have bought it any sooner since I didn't have the cash. However, it is certain that had I not heard it, I would not have bought a copy.

Very simply: Intellectual property is a ridiculous concept, because everything simply re-arranges the work of others.

Originally posted by S
there is no way to achieve this noble goal through legislation

Correct. And I do not object to copy protection where it does not infringe upon existing fair use laws or create a monopoly.

Originally posted by S
you can be pretty sure that the producer did not want it to be ripped to DivX

I couldn't care less what they want. If I have purchased a film, I'll watch it in whatever format and on whatever hardware I choose. I will not sell it for profit. I may lend it to others, thus encouraging them to also purchase it.

[S]

Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
No...It...Isn't. Unless you've been reading a lot of Scott Adams. How can you lay claim to reproductions of physical actions? I can hum a song. I can sing a song. I can, given a guitar and some friends, record that song. I am stealing precisely nothing; ideas are not tangible.

Nonsense. If you pay a person to compose a song for you, or write a book for you, or direct a movie for you, it's no different from hiring a carpenter to renovate your house. It degrades artists' work to say that what they are doing is somehow "intangible" because it just "rearranges the work of others".

I couldn't care less what they want. If I have purchased a film, I'll watch it in whatever format and on whatever hardware I choose. I will not sell it for profit. I may lend it to others, thus encouraging them to also purchase it.

If you prefer to rip a movie to a DivX format so you can play it from your hard disk, that's all fine. But then when you copy this ripped movie to a friend, in hopes of "encouraging" him to buy it, that's an infringement of the artists' rights. How do you know whether this is encouragement, or taking away a customer? What if you share your file with 400 million potential users of the internet, can you vouch for all of them that they will have your level of morality and they will too pay for the movie if it's good? I think not.

In fact, I am highly suspicious that anyone can even tell where their own limits are... I don't think neither you or I can be abslutely sure how we would behave if there was no chance of downloading stuff of the internet. Maybe we would buy more stuff, maybe we'd buy less. But what about society as a whole? Just if I would be willing to pay for good movies, does that mean everyone else would? Also, wouldn't the fact that you cannot afford to buy some things you want encourage you to work harder in life? There are millions of little details that affect the equation, it's really impossible to tell whether pirating really does reduce the artists' profits or not. That's why the only way I can see this issue to be solved is that both sides just keep fighting until an equilibirium is reached.

[Denyer]

Originally posted by S
If you pay a person to compose a song for you, or write a book for you, or direct a movie for you

I'm not. The media exists. It is readily reproducible. I'm not contracting anyone to do anything -- artists produce in the expectation of a possible market, not one which is guaranteed.

Originally posted by S
It degrades artists' work to say that what they are doing is somehow "intangible" because it just "rearranges the work of others".

Well, gosh darn. I've written things (fiction, essays, songs, informational materials). There was nothing original in them; it all stemmed from prior experiences of other media and life. People are not original, however much they would wish to believe in their unique and precious snowflake natures. If you feel degraded...get a better psychiatrist.

Originally posted by S
artists' rights. How do you know whether this is encouragement, or taking away a customer?

Well, I know they wouldn't buy it without having seen it first...my friends are typically not stupid people.

Originally posted by S
What if you share your file with 400 million potential users of the internet, can you vouch for all of them that they will have your level of morality and they will too pay for the movie if it's good? I think not.

So? Sales are still not being lost if people wouldn't buy the film anyway.

Originally posted by S
both sides just keep fighting until an equilibirium is reached.

There is no equilibrium. Life is conflict. (See, Blaster; this is Tao-mongering!)

Fact: CD sales are up since file-sharing appeared. Artists are reaching new markets. Oddly, it's the "pop stars of the moment" who are losing out to quality artists...something record companies don't like. They don't like the fact that they no longer dictate record sales to the extent they would wish. Well, ya-boo-sucks.

[Starscreamsghost]

I'd rather not comment on other forms of downloadable media, but as for music....

The music industry will continue to suffer until it adapts to deal with what has become a rapidly changing market. If record companies convince themselves that they can survive within the current marketing system, they're diluting themselves. The more people are able to download music, the less they'll be willing to purchase it, period. Until the music industry "gets online" and begins using the internet to its advantage rather than shunning it, the labels (and the artists) will continue to suffer.

[S]

Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
I'm not. The media exists. It is readily reproducible. I'm not contracting anyone to do anything -- artists produce in the expectation of a possible market, not one which is guaranteed.

Ever looked at the legalese mumbo jumbo attached to DVDs, computer software or whatever? That looks very much like a contract to me. Just because a work of art already exists doesn't magically nullify the artist's rights to have some say how his work is used... just like the carpenter's right to get paid doesn't vanish when the work is done. Suppose a musician works for a month to compose a song which he thinks at least 10 people want to buy from him, and he adjusts the price of the song to one tenth of what he considers he should be paid. He then sells the song to one person, but when he goes to the other 9 they all say "gee, it's all very nice that you worked your ass off making this song, but you see I already downloaded it from a friend so bugger off. But I like your stuff, keep making more!".

The detail that the market is not guaranteed is a detail... illegal copying stuff reduces the chances of the artist getting any return for his investment.

Well, gosh darn. I've written things (fiction, essays, songs, informational materials). There was nothing original in them; it all stemmed from prior experiences of other media and life. People are not original, however much they would wish to believe in their unique and precious snowflake natures. If you feel degraded...get a better psychiatrist.

Surely you are not saying that whatever you have written did not take any effort at all? If somebody paid you to work for a year or two writing a book, would you not be entitled to be paid? Sure, if an artist produces stuff just for his own pleasure that's all fine, but a majority of people in the entertainment industry are doing it for money.

Well, I know they wouldn't buy it without having seen it first...my friends are typically not stupid people.

So? Sales are still not being lost if people wouldn't buy the film anyway.

Says you. If you are sharing a file with the whoel internet, you cannot know whether everybody who can download it would not have bought it. It's just something you assume to make yourself feel better (okay, I realize that now I am talking more about the general profile of a consumer that about Denyer in particular, knowing that he does have higher-than-average morals). It's very easy to rationalize that you wouldn't have seen a movie or listened to a song anyway, because you're not really facing that decision when you can download everything for free.

There is no equilibrium. Life is conflict. (See, Blaster; this is Tao-mongering!)

I take that as a compliment. Anyway, the struggle doesn't really end, it just reduces into a stalemate when the entertainment industry doesn't have anything to gain by enforcing their rights, and when the copy protection schemes (both actual and legal) become so byzantine that hackers don't have continued interesting in cracking them. Or something... I don't claim to know what exaclty happens, but I just don't believe in neverending war.

Fact: CD sales are up since file-sharing appeared. Artists are reaching new markets. Oddly, it's the "pop stars of the moment" who are losing out to quality artists...something record companies don't like. They don't like the fact that they no longer dictate record sales to the extent they would wish. Well, ya-boo-sucks.

"Quality stars" is your personal opinion. I don't know jack shit about music industry, but the movie produces are soon going to face the same problems... I guess we'll have to forget about big epic stories like Lord of The Rings and give way to "quality" indie films with shoestring budgets.

[Denyer]

Originally posted by S
Ever looked at the legalese mumbo jumbo attached to DVDs, computer software or whatever?

I've seen one or two (heck, I've written one or two), therefore I don't bother getting out a magnifying glass for the rest. Nor does anyone else, especially as EULAs become increasingly unlawful or monopolistic in the software field. Just assume that the company is out to screw you over, therefore feel free to take reasonable liberties, is the conclusion I and so many others have reached.

Originally posted by S
Suppose a musician works for a month to compose a song which he thinks at least 10 people want to buy from him, and he adjusts the price of the song to one tenth of what he considers he should be paid. He then sells the song to one person, but when he goes to the other 9 they all say "gee, it's all very nice that you worked your ass off making this song, but you see I already downloaded it from a friend so bugger off. But I like your stuff, keep making more!".

Firstly, it's economic guesswork. Secondly, s/he will either get money back from others or give up. Those nine people are just as likely to turn around and say, "I'm glad I didn't buy it because I listened to it once and it was crap." It all relies on guesswork; no renumeration is guaranteed.

Originally posted by S
The detail that the market is not guaranteed is a detail...

Yes. A very big one.

Originally posted by S
illegal copying stuff reduces the chances of the artist getting any return for his investment.

No, it guarantees a potential audience. I sense we could bat this question back and forth for a considerable amount of time.

Originally posted by S
If somebody paid you to work for a year or two writing a book, would you not be entitled to be paid?

Firstly, they'd be quite daft, as I write for myself. Anyone who wants to renumerate me for that is welcome to. People pay for nice editions of things rather than the chance to read them; that's why libraries are so popular. I like owning books. Some people can cope with reading them on-screen. If they're going to rip me off, they'll do so...more likely, they'd like a hard copy and/or to support me.

Originally posted by S
a majority of people in the entertainment industry are doing it for money.

...and at the expense of quality, I'd add. Albums and albums full of filler and two good tracks. Make the quality material available separately for a reasonable price and vastly more units would be sold.

Originally posted by S
It's very easy to rationalize that you wouldn't have seen a movie or listened to a song anyway, because you're not really facing that decision when you can download everything for free.

Trust me, the vistas in my head more than compare with most media output. The only reason I look outside of that is for other opinions. Copying has always been a fact. "Free" is also somewhat of a misnomer, as it involves time and effort. The vast majority of stuff I wouldn't care if it were deposited in my lap (which it still isn't)...I don't have the time to waste on it.

Originally posted by S
I don't claim to know what exaclty happens, but I just don't believe in neverending war.

Well, it'll take the extinction of the species, is my guess.

Originally posted by S
"Quality stars" is your personal opinion. I don't know jack shit about music industry, but the movie produces are soon going to face the same problems...

Indeed. Most people would rather buy back catalogues as they slither toward DVD release than bother with the dross of recent years. Because of rips, and because of many more channels which show classic films, less current output is sold. It hurts current sales of crap films. Gosh darn.

Originally posted by S
I guess we'll have to forget about big epic stories like Lord of The Rings and give way to "quality" indie films with shoestring budgets.

Yay! I hate LotR, from the writing to the trailers. I'd much rather watch "Clerks"...

[S]

I guess it's time for us to agree to disagree... my sentiment is that most people are greedy morons who'll do anything to save a few bucks, whereas you seem to have more faith in humanity than I do. I am fully in favour of "try before you buy" kind of philosophy, but I also think that people will abuse any system that allows it. Just because some people won't is not a very good reason to change laws.

Then again, I could be wrong. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[Sixswitch]

From personnal experience, my buying of music has increased by loads since the mp3 format and downloading became widespread on the internet. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is certainly the case for me.

And as I'm in to dance music, a lot of that music comes from artists who'd release just one or two good tracks - certainly not enough to justify buying an album, and since I see singles as the biggest rip-off ever, I simply download the songs.

If an artist is good, then I'll buy their albums, as I like owning them, and I also buy compilation albums with good songs on them, I normally hear these songs for the first time either in a club, or as recommendations to download 'em.

So basically, saying that my mp3 downloading is harming the industry is complete and utter bull.

-Ss

[Denyer]

Originally posted by S
I also think that people will abuse any system that allows it. Just because some people won't is not a very good reason to change laws.

It's always good to have laws to point to if deemed necessary. They should not be written in stone, should always examine context, and should not conflict with provisions already made for educational and personal use, as the DMCA does by making action against a copying mechanism a federal offense.

That's what I'm fighting for, on the whole. But, as SS says, file-sharing has a lot to offer artists, especially smaller ones.

[Chromia]

Bumping an old thread with a new(er) question.

With the recent craze over the new, ah....Sci-Fi movie out there, I admit I was going to d/l a copy, as I have alread seen it three times now, and the theaters are so damn expensive.

And worth every penny , btw.

However, I recently came into a copy of said, "sci-fi" movie, (great copy, too) so my question is this:


1) I did not d/l it. It was a gift.

2) I did not pay for it, so Luc...uh, the moviemaker did not lose money over me.

3) I haven't been giving out copies willy nilly. I have given out one copy.

So, is it illegal for me to simply own this copy?

Or not?

[Denyer]

It's the act of unauthorised copying that's the basis of breaking copyright. Possession is a question of whether the copyright owner can be bothered to bring civil action—for instance, being given a copy of a commercial office suite doesn't confer legitimacy on its use.

[Chromia]

Ah, I see.


So the answer is yes.