PIRACY - Should not be a crime... here is why:

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

OH SHOOT,....JUST REALISED YOU THINK IM SHOUTING ,,,,
SORRY THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT.....

I WRITE IN CAPS COURTECY OF A STRANGE SIDE EFFECT OF DYSLEXIA...
(NOT JOKING)

IM A DREAMER TOO...WHEN I DREAM I DREAM IN CAPS.....

HMMMM DONUTS X

(Second Line.)

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by apushforenlightment

 

2% lol. From my point of view I hope you love your work and would do it even if you weren't paid. If you don't then you should probably look for another job. Piracy is probably a thing you are were angry about and you are making a nice friendly view of your situation. But the producers getting 90% is really increadable for me. Does he spend 45 times more time working on the movie than you do?

You--LOL.

The producer puts forth the MONEY to produce it in its final format. Not chump change. If it fails, who is left with nothing? The producers. The artist is free to produce it him/herself, but probably can't afford to. The producer, therefore, fills the need.

With big risk comes big payoff.

Also, the artist is free to negotiate a better rate than 2%. It may not happen, but the negotiation process IS there.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is in the real world.

Why is the "real world" like that? And it seem that China don't care. You have one view of what is right and I have another. The question is who have the moral highground? I say "service to all by all" is the way religons teach and "service by all to one/few/ego" is the path that should not be walked but is walked frequently by the systems we have made. Namaste

This girl makes no sense at all and (service to all, by all) is a fairytale that never worked and never will and is not a concept by India...it's socialism. THE FINGER.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

(Second Line.)

LOL, you are such a criminal...you should be prosecuted for this peple everywhere have lost millions of dollars. Just ask "Georgia Girl" she will tell you, to your face of what an "immoral" thing you have just plagued mankid with. Where will we all go to eat now? god forbid you copy a Burger King sign, where will we all go to eat. This has to be considered terrorism....right "Georgia Girl", let's hear some of your Namaste wis-dum.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
In fact I have a suggestion for all the 'works should be free' folks.

Go MAKE something that takes a year or two, then release it for FREE online. A digital product specifically.

And then release all copyright to it, all distributions rights, all claim of ownership or authorship, and legal ties.

And then tell me if you would do it again.

Get busy.

edit on 17-11-2011 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)

If you don't like what you do in life and would not do it for free then you should probably do something else. The digital revolution will continue and maybe we will see a backlash in the collecting on money for the artists to more resonable limits even in the extreme cases. My answer to you is spotify or a similar product. Free for the user if he don't wanna pay but you are payed. The problem is that the industry is lagging behind and don't really wanna get into 21 century.

Is it realistic to expect that someone else should be willing to do what they want to do for FREE?

Nope, but there's that entitlement mentality of yours again.

"Didn't you have so much fun making it that you don't mind giving it to me???"

I've got some things you can come to my house to do for free. Let me know when you are available.

It's all money or ego for you aint it? Have fun with that. If you have the idee that you are entitled to more than the people around you then im glad I don't ever will meet you. Namaste

I'm not the one saying I'm entitled to ANYTHING.

I'm saying that YOU are the person who is saying that.

I would never pirate music or movies, and I have also never created music or movies. So it's not my problem either way. But I think that it is unfair for YOU to say that they should not expect to be paid. It IS their problem. I'm sticking up for the hard working people in the industry who are getting Screwed.

I can't believe your attitude. I really can't. I am not the one with the gigantic ego here.

Yeah, you obviously have no experience in the creative industry (or really, any industry).

I actually work in the live music industry. You are right, selling disks don't actually cost much money and pressing them requires no talent and artists (actually, songwriters - there is a huge distinction there) make money in other ways.

However, it does require graphics artists to work on it, marketing people to make sure it gets out there, management to book the shows at venues. The "big" companies need executives to make decisions on how to make more money because, as a publicly held company, they are REQUIRED BY LAW to try and make money. You need to have lawyers to protect IP as well as review any contracts which are made. You need to have your accounting team in order to make sure that money coming in and the money going out both make sense, more or less, to be a profitable business so you can keep paying salaries. All of these people need to have a department to help hire and manage the benefits so you get an HR department. If you want a technical presence you need to have a team of developers and QA as well as project managers to make sure that they get out there. Most will also have product people who are trying to figure out what people want next. Let's not forget the maintenance people who keep the offices nice and pretty for visitors. Oh and because you are dealing with celebrities you need to make sure and have good security at your location. And hey, because music is an image-driven industry you also need to make sure that you are in a "hip" location which has correspondingly higher property values and rent rates.

Oh yeah, and we actually want to record the music. Well, engineers and producers have to be compensated for their time. And what if the artist wants other musical instruments not in their band? Well, you have to bring in guest artists and pay for their time. Plus you need to pay to rent the studio where you are recording it.

So, you have awesome music right? And people are dying to see you live? Well, hopefully your management team has negotiated a good tour for you and the venues aren't taking too big a cut. Venues have to pay their people (they need many of the same as a bigger company, just on a smaller scale) as well plus rent, utilities, insurance, drinks if available. Also you are effectively "renting" the space for the night so there is often a fee for that. The band usually sells its own merchandise and venues don't typically get a cut of that. All that merchandise, btw, had to be designed and made by people who are relying on the money made to feed their families.

But... but... Marid, radio is free right so why shouldn't downloading be? Well, actually, the artist (and songwriter) gets money each time that song plays as paid and collected by usually either BMI or ASCAP (which companies have all of the aforementioned costs). Those companies are monitoring to make sure that stations pay for the songs that they are using which pulls in listeners which equates to an audience for advertising. Advertising is how radio stations make their money (btw, you might have guessed it by now, but the stations also have employees in different departments). The stations pull in advertisers by saying "hey, we have this market share because we are playing X songs/artists".

So, will the whole system collapse because of piracy? Probably not. But what will happen, is that all of those faceless corporate drones - most of which actually got into this field because they love music and are actual people - will have less job security because when you stop selling as much of a product as you forecast you will end up losing out on that revenue and so can't pay all of the above charges.

Originally posted by Phenomium
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Ever heard "two wrongs don't make a right?"

You ARE overly justifying your poor moral decisions. Hopefully someday you will realize you are wrong. Until then, you just sound like you are whining, like a toddler. "But I WANT ice cream, Mommy!"

One wrong and one right doesn't make a right either,...what's your point?

Clever "one-liners" might sound like wisdom, but they are really wis-DUM, because they don't apply to reality.
As for the rest of your statement, it wreaks of someone who doesn't have an intelligent retort. It is simply a child-like attempt to hit below the belt and it only shows ignorance. I hope you don't intellectually represent everyone from Georgia. If so, it's a testament as to why the rest of the world questions the intelligencia of America as a whole. Good job representing.

Wow, you are one classy guy. I already had my opinions, but you have just clarified them even more.

Just because you disagree with my position does not make my position intellectually flawed.

You gave a rant about how you are being stolen from by everyone and his brother through the "system", and justified it as WHY you were entitled to have whatever music or movies you'd like.

Based upon what you said, and nothing else, I believe you are morally wrong. I am not trying to "hit below the belt", I am telling you now, straight out.

Justifying what you are doing is WRONG.

I hope the rest of the world realizes that YOU don't represent the moral caliber of your country.

I, on the other hand, am proud to represent Georgia. If someone reads this and realizes that here in Georgia we respect the rights of artists and musicians, well then, I am proud of that.

reply to post by byteshertz


So you think everyone should have a "newer improved version" by the time people are able to just copy it? What if it is something YOU invented, put time into, money into, patience into? I don't care if it's a song or object or whatever. You would not feel the same way if it was yours. This is people's bread and butter and you can't honestly think it's okay to pirate things because you don't feel the need to pay.
EXAMPLE- lets say you invented something and started making great money. Eventually, you're not making any money because someone copied YOUR idea and sold it for much cheaper. Well I guess you wouldn't be mad because according to you people should have, "a newer improved version" by the time people are able to copy it.

Originally posted by Phenomium

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by apushforenlightment

 

2% lol. From my point of view I hope you love your work and would do it even if you weren't paid. If you don't then you should probably look for another job. Piracy is probably a thing you are were angry about and you are making a nice friendly view of your situation. But the producers getting 90% is really increadable for me. Does he spend 45 times more time working on the movie than you do?

You--LOL.

The producer puts forth the MONEY to produce it in its final format. Not chump change. If it fails, who is left with nothing? The producers. The artist is free to produce it him/herself, but probably can't afford to. The producer, therefore, fills the need.

With big risk comes big payoff.

Also, the artist is free to negotiate a better rate than 2%. It may not happen, but the negotiation process IS there.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is in the real world.

Why is the "real world" like that? And it seem that China don't care. You have one view of what is right and I have another. The question is who have the moral highground? I say "service to all by all" is the way religons teach and "service by all to one/few/ego" is the path that should not be walked but is walked frequently by the systems we have made. Namaste

This girl makes no sense at all and (service to all, by all) is a fairytale that never worked and never will and is not a concept by India...it's socialism. THE FINGER.

I am so not surprised that someone with your position would, instead of logically defending your position, be stooping to rude gestures.

reply to post by Marid Audran

will have less job security because when you stop selling as much of a product as you forecast you will end up losing out on that revenue and so can't pay all of the above charges.

Is society obligated to make sure they succeed as a business?


They are too big to fail, is that what you are saying?

I've decided most of the posters on this thread must be about 14 years old.

I really hope that is true, and that as they mature, they realize how they sound.

When did this attitude become acceptable? "I'll break the law because I don't agree with the law, not to mention I love free stuff, and you can't stop me...and if you want to stop me, it must be because YOU are greedy or don't love your job, and hey, man, you should just be glad to do your work for FREE, and if not, well, see, I was right, you are greedy."

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Marid Audran

 

will have less job security because when you stop selling as much of a product as you forecast you will end up losing out on that revenue and so can't pay all of the above charges.

Is society obligated to make sure they succeed as a business?


They are too big to fail, is that what you are saying?

Nope, I am saying that clearly your argument has no merit because you are falling back on weak strawman memes. You were the one who put forward a hypothesis that piracy should be okay because it doesn't hurt anyone. I listed a bunch of people who would be hurt by it and pointed out the fallacy of your line of thinking. If you are looking for an echo chamber of people to say "yeah, you are right, piracy should be legal" you should probably go to 4chan or piratebay or something.

I am glad to see so many people here DO get why artists are concerned. And why it does screw with us!

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

When did this attitude become acceptable? "I'll break the law because I don't agree with the law

In order to prosecute a criminal case, You must establish subject matter jurisdiction.

You see, Government's are created to Protect individual Rights.

Go check out the US constitution, it's all there in the preamble.

And seeing as how Governments are established to protect individual Rights, in order to bring a Case to Court, You must establish a Valid Cause of Action.

A Cause of action is a Legal justification to peruse a Legal Action.

It's the Logical REASON that justifies the authorization of Force.

And there are THREE ELEMENTS to a Cause of Action:

1. A Right that was violated (Harm to life, liberty, or property)

2. Evidence linking the Accused to this Violation of the defendants Rights.

3. A remedy (Punishment, Fine, Etc)


In order to establish a valid cause of action, the Plaintiff (Record Label) must PROVE that their property, Rights, Etc, were harmed by an action that the Defendant undertook.

Typically, they cite lost revenue as the "Harm" to their property.

And this is the problem.

IF I download music, I am not taking their money, because I never intended to give it to them in the first place.

I am not removing the song from their possession, they lost nothing.

I am not claiming the song as my own work, or attempting to profit off of it.


They talk a big game about "Potential Loss of Revenue", but Potentials are not actualities... and they cannot prove that their rights were violated, *UNLESS* I sell THEIR copyrighted material.

We try people for crimes they COMMIT, not the illusion of a crime.

and you can't stop me...and if you want to stop me, it must be because YOU are greedy or don't love your job, and hey, man, you should just be glad to do your work for FREE, and if not, well, see, I was right, you are greedy."

I love fair use...

reply to post by byteshertz


Not all of what you state is fact. There are circumstances of fair use and more that you gloss over or ignore entirely. Basically, what you are saying is that theft is fine if the item happens to be intellectual property and not actual physical property?
What you are advocating is the complete abrogation of property rights in intellectual property and nearly of business as it is conducted today. Your fool ideas would, in fact, cripple the entire world economy and destroy any innovation at all. Why would a pharmaceutical company invent a life-saving drug, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do it, if the digital file holding the recipe or the manufacturing process is not legally protected from theft? And, why is it a good thing to make a movie (regardless of content or quality) and not be able to earn any income from the film because the rights to the digital content become public the instant anyone else can get their hands on it?

why not let older software version be free. and newer updated versions, be for sell! i always use older versions, before i buy newer software. also i produce music, and i do it for free online. and play live for a price ! i also know a guy that own his own power and grow his own food so he does not really need that much money! only for bills with is cheap its only the people that are stuck on the grid that needs the most money to pay the government leaches! if you have your own energy you make the rules! and your also a threat to TPTB!

reply to post by MarksThoughts

what you are saying is that theft is fine if the item happens to be intellectual property and not actual physical property?

Copying something is not theft.

Theft(Noun): The action or crime of stealing.

Stealing(Verb): Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

(Google: Define)

These people that you are accusing Pirates of stealing from, Still have their Song.

They never DID NOT have it.

IT's not theft.

Period.

What you are advocating is the complete abrogation of property rights in intellectual property and nearly of business as it is conducted today.

Nope... that is actually quite fallacious.

The Copyright holder is granted the sole monopoly on any money that is made on the copyrighted material.

But copying the material does not make money off of it, and thus, it is not the same.

Business will continue as before.

Your fool ideas would, in fact, cripple the entire world economy and destroy any innovation at all.

And this is absolutely ludicrous.

If I recall correctly, There was music before the Record labels existed.

Why would a pharmaceutical company invent a life-saving drug, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do it, if the digital file holding the recipe or the manufacturing process is not legally protected from theft?

Because they are the only one who can legally SELL it.

reply to post by Hellhound604


If you think of the music industry, and it is an industry, you have to take into consideration all of the stakeholders within that industry. The reason so many big publishers of music, video, and books for that matter have such a strong hatred of the digital age is because of the simple fact that many of the stakeholders stand to lose their livelihood. Think about it. Up until recently everyone had to go to a store and buy a book, a cassette, a CD, or some other object. Not any more. You can download the content to your phone, an eReader, your computer and more. The entire publishing industry is fast sinking into obsolesence and they know it. Follow the money! The truth of it is revealed in the money.
I predict that in a scant decade nearly all of the major publishing houses will essentially be gone or so radically changed to fit the new reality that we would not recognize them as the publishers we see today or have known for decades and more.
We are close to the point when a couple of guys can sit in their basement with high-powered computers and software and create an entire movie, with the video game to match it, and an interactive set of novels complete with score from nothing more than their own imaginations and talent. No actors. No set. No orchestra. All of it done through computer graphics that are so good they are indistinguishable from film of any quality.
And, to make it even better, they can market, sell, and distribute the content completely on their own directly to the end consumers. And, keep all of the profit to themselves to boot. No truck drivers to deliver the DVDs. No editor to tell them it won't sell if it ends 'that way'. No producer to collect the necessary capital to fund the production. No director other than themselves. So long high-paid actors and actresses that do nothing except pretend to be somebody else - and good riddance to the Hollywood machine, too.

Actually, you are stealing the recording of the song by your own definition above, which is a physical thing (even if digital). However you choose to copy it (as in copyright, as in right or permission to copy) is irrelevant because it is still a thing.

Now, if you wanted to sing it on your own and not record and sell it, that would be fine. Which is what you are confusing with the actual end result of hundreds of hours of work.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


You both enrage me, and fascinate me. You preach these lofty views, yet you refuse to turn the coin over and look at the other side.

What you are basically saying is, what you are doing is not wrong, as YOU YOURSELF did not steal the work. You are merely watching it.

The crime was the THEFT of the art. It is 100% illegal to COPY work you don't own (before you argue it's not verse yourself on what the law actually states.) Judges have said that consumers have a right to copy a DVD for their own use - one they already OWN. The key phrase - something you OWN. And you may make a "fair use copy" for your OWN PERSONAL use. What we are talking about here, is taking something you DO NOT OWN, and putting it up in an environment that is not FAIR USE. You are putting it out for the world. So it is ILLEGAL.

The majority of these arguments falls back on "I wasn't the one who stole it, or uploaded it, etc.' But, you are still downloading it, and streaming it.

A man walks down the street, and is attacked by a gang of thugs, who beat the man down, and steal his wallet.

You and your friends are sitting across the street in a coffee shop, drinking your lattes, watching, and playing brick breaker on your blackberrys.

NO you weren't the one who did the robbing, BUT you were just as accountable for not calling the cops.

Later your friends and you are walking home, and the VERY thugs who robbed the man and stole his money take you out to dinner and buy you a meal with money from his wallet.

Did you have ANY PART in robbing the man, no, not really, but you did profit from his demise.

Every time you download work you haven't paid for, you are still enjoying a meal from a thief, from the hoods who beat the man down.

Dramatic enough? Why? A crime is a crime. The difference here is you are trying to justify yours. At least the thugs realize they are in fact 'thugs'.