Piracy is being sold to us as Stealing but is it ?

a reply to: mazzroth

I like music.

Some of the music I like the best, was written before I was born, and some of the best of that music, was written and performed by the band, Metallica.

When the Internet became an influential and important place for sharing everything from nose picking methods, to banking details, people soon cottoned on to the idea that one could share music across a wide breadth of persons at once, meaning more people could be exposed to more music at once than ever before.

Now, Metallica are band who would NEVER have become as popular as they were, without the efforts of legions of bootleggers and fans, mailing tapes of their music across state lines and via air mail to all and sundry, and spreading their music further and wider through their love of it, than any record label ever could have. They owe their careers not only to the technical prowess they had with their instruments, but also to the fact that their fanbase was grown by pirates, spread by bootleggers and fans, independent of the commercial process.

That was pre-Internet social networking. PO boxes, slot numbers. And it WORKED.

Lars Ulrich, on behalf of the band, made a statement against Napster, where he talked an awful lot of crap about the band, bootleggers, and the sort of people who ripped and shared their music. Luckily enough, he did this during the Internet age, when Metallica had not been making good music for about fifteen to twenty years, and so it was really only a big deal to metalheads, and to Napster of course. But it set some precedents which mean that there will likely as not be a fan grown metal band again, which grows indpendent of the corporate world surrounding all music, where demand for the band travels faster than the bands agent does.

Even now, with everything so fast compared with how it was back in the day, no one is ever going to top the speed at which Metallica rose to fame, certainly no metal band, not these days. Metal thrived on piracy, because it was the music for the guy who only ever spent money on music he had already tried out, because he had little money spare. Metallica killed that fan centric theory of metaldom, and frankly, that's a criminal act if you ask me. It's taken a long time for the community to recover, and for the fires to get burning again in new hearts, after being frozen solid by what happened with the Napster thing.

Basically, rich, aging blow hards have problems with people whose spiritual predecessors made them famous. Hypocritical much?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yes and when you pirated things you were technically stealing intellectual property.

You're not some hero, and just because it was common doesn't mean it's OK. Shoplifting is common, insurance fraud is common, it costs all of us a little bit every time it happens.

I used to pirate stuff too. I think anyone that remembers owning a walkman was probably complicit. Just because "everybody does it" doesn't make it OK to do. I used to say I wouldn't pirate it if it was good enough to buy, or I could afford it, but that wasn't true. It also shouldn't matter. If I couldn't afford it and pirated it, sure, maybe the artist didn't technically lose money, but that's not the entire point. People should be compensated for their contributions.

I think this is even more true in the digital age. If you have the attitude that you shouldn't have to pay for things, and everyone actually knows HOW to get free music/tv shows/movies, you're blocking the flow of creativity eventually. If everyone pirated, one guy would buy an album that took a ton of money to produce, and the artist would soon realize they were going into debt to share whatever kind of entertainment. Just because there are enough people still buying, doesn't mean you shouldn't, or that you're somehow special and exempt from paying for something you enjoy.

Say you wrote a book. You sold it to a publisher. How would you feel about people that bought the book and shared it to millions without giving you any compensation? This doesn't just happen to the super rich celebrities. It happens to everyone. If you have any sort of ethics you realize that just because someone has x amount of money doesn't mean they deserve no compensation. is it cool to steal from a company that's just starting out? No? Then why is it OK to steal from a big one? You're still stealing. You're the guy that commits insurance fraud thinking it doesn't trickle down to the rest of us, or that it's somehow fair because someone = x amount of dollars. Where's your cut off? When is it OK? Would you applaud a record company that stole a song from a starving musician? If it's OK to steal intellectual property, you fully support a record company stealing the lyrics of a street musician.

I'm a bit perplexed to see a few people here thinking it's not stealing :-/

It's theft pure and simple

The digital age and the net have made it so easy to do so and lots do with out batting an eyelid at the thought of what they are doing

Software producers,film makers and musicians deserve to be paid for the work they put into their projects

How would you guys defending it here feel about not being paid for work you do?

a reply to: Whereismypassword

So you watch Star Wars on tv at home, is that stealing. Once material has done its run through the cinemas, dvd and netflix when does it become ok to watch it on tv for nothing ? you can't just say now watching it on tv isn't stealing because if you did it would be hypocritical. Or your over a mates place and your watching a dvd HE rented ?

I'm saying that even though you download something off the internet a crime has not been committed, you have copied material and not stolen it. The theft of digital material is when someone copies it and then on-sells it, that is when it becomes the crime.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Not defending it just giving the subject perspective....

I don't care, I would rather it be heard than exploited for $$ by management.

Here enjoy or hate.... for free... no strings attached...seee

www.youtube.com...
myspace.com...

Noone harmed, and im not starving, the world hasn't ended

I wonder if I'm a pirate for listening to every song I want without paying for it. On Youtube. With Adblock.

Am I somehow less piratey because I don't keep a solid copy on my drive of whatever I'm viewing for free?

a reply to: mazzroth

Rather than using your very poor example between downloading and stealing a car, let us assume that someone downloaded everything that there is to know about you that you didn't want others to know? Get the picture? You didn't actually lose anything physical, but yet you did suffer a perhaps immense personal loss if not also a loss of intellectual property.


"Downloading is not stealing" are words invariable used by those that are doing exactly that.

Sorta like, "Honest, I didn't do it, officer!"

a reply to: mazzroth

So you watch Star Wars on tv at home, is that stealing. Once material has done its run through the cinemas, dvd and netflix when does it become ok to watch it on tv for nothing ? you can't just say now watching it on tv isn't stealing because if you did it would be hypocritical.

Depends..If the film is being showcased on a network, the networks are making a profit through advertisement and the content owner's are making a profit through a contract deal with the network. So there is no theft going on by the viewers unless their recording it.Which is still, stealing an IP.

I'm saying that even though you download something off the internet a crime has not been committed, you have copied material and not stolen it.

A crime has been committed whether you like or not. The moment you download/copy an IP with out the permission of the content owner/creator your infringing copyright laws. I think what you mean to say is that the crime is petty and in most cases a harmless one.

Whenever I really liked something, I always buy it eventually, because I want to own it forever. Sometimes however the satisfaction should go both ways.

When I was younger, I had only a little bit of pocket money. I went out almost every week, to buy a record. Because unless you had friends who owned it, you often didn't know what the other songs were like.
It resulted in me paying the full price but only listening to 2 songs, sometimes only the first half but never all of them.

Remember I paid full price?

It's like going to a famous restaurant, paying a lot of money but only one meal tastes good, the others you leave behind.

There is a part of me that asks for justice and to fulfill my wasted money. I did this by taping some of my friend's records, leaving the offending songs out.
Yet I still own tons of records.

Nowadays I am more careful. I can listen to an album on Youtube and if it is any good I download it from somewhere, leaving the bad songs out.

That doesn't mean I am not promoting the bands in an even more helpful way that just giving them 10p [or less] for every album.
If they are good, I spread the word. I play it to friends, I tel others who have the same musical taste about it, I say it on some websites, spreading the word. Which will result in more purchases [has happened] and the net win is for the band, even though I personally may not have paid in money.

In music it isn't even as bad as in photography, where people copy your work and sell it as their own, using it for free.
My husbands never minds when people use his stuff, as long as they mention it's his work, because it brings us more exposure and hence more customers and it means we are good enough to BE copied in the first place.

In music and film, it's literally greed. The actors are still recognised, the bands are still recognised, they still get paid, they will maybe get more famous and get even more roles and gigs for which they are paid. No copying will lead to a good artist's demise.

In fact, even if bands and actors would do albums for free, they would still be able to get money for a variety of different reasons. TV appearances, live gigs, theatre, advertising... So no, copying films and music is not evil, nor is it wrong. It shouldn't be such a multi million farce in the first place. Art should be performed from the heart and not to earn shed loads of money.

I feel no guilt. I have never stolen anything else in my life [oh yes, a carrot when I was 6] and I consider my way of spreading good artists work, a very effective payment indeed.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: 3danimator2014
So someone leaves a newspaper, with a copy of PerthNow, at the local coffeeshoppe, I pick it up and read it....

Your analogy would deem me a thief, someone created it, I didn't pay for it, I'm stealing the intellectual property of someone else?, I'm a thief?

And NO we don't ALL pirate things, not knowingly ( example- I bought DVD's from a 'reputable' store but later had suspicions of them being unlicensed copies) , so don't class myself with the likes of yourself please.

Now let's have someone pipe in with the old 'it takes the money away from the artists' hyperbole.... that's traditionally been the scope of management.

A TRUE artiste is more concerned about having their art/wares, heard/seen/used/enjoyed, than any financial benefit derived from it.

Horse-hockey
I listen to independent musicians mostly and they are pretty much hoping you like their stuff enough they CAN make a living off the fruits of their labors.
Most self produce and mortgage their homes to fund their CD's, tours etc.....most still have their day-jobs as well.

For the most part big record labels aren't the machine they used to be.


I'm calling bunkum on the "true Artiste" crap. Seriously if you think music whores like Gaga would still preform her crap on a street corner for free, for the love of it, you are pretty naive.

Sublime craft brings up an interesting idea tho....
if you tape a song off the radio, or off a musicians vimeo since it is already made public, like an internet article does not Fair Use come into play? Now I'm not talking about reselling but merely listening for your own personal use, not sharing. Once it's provided freely into the public domain do not the original owners give up to a certain extent their right to cry theft?

Better yet....
a lecture given by Iggy Pop at the John Peel 2014 thingy " Free Music in a Capitalist Society"

www.youtube.com...

He covers piracy, loss of control by big corporations, yadda-yadda
( I'll be surprised if as many as two of you listen to it)

originally posted by: mazzroth
a reply to: Whereismypassword

So you watch Star Wars on tv at home, is that stealing. Once material has done its run through the cinemas, dvd and netflix when does it become ok to watch it on tv for nothing ? you can't just say now watching it on tv isn't stealing because if you did it would be hypocritical. Or your over a mates place and your watching a dvd HE rented ?

I'm saying that even though you download something off the internet a crime has not been committed, you have copied material and not stolen it. The theft of digital material is when someone copies it and then on-sells it, that is when it becomes the crime.

You do know that tv stations pay to broadcast films right?

originally posted by: mazzroth
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I never watched it, I download a bit of stuff and after reading imdb about that one I passed on it. Its semantics about what movie but I chose that one specifically because they were the ones trying to make it law here in Australia that people get fined 100k for downloading it. Not for selling it or even watching it but on metadata, even if you get caught downloading content where does it become the crime ? when you unrar it ? when you finish dl it or as soon as you start to leech it ?

Unless you get caught in the act of watching the movie/tv show or music you have done no crime imo, say I download a file I think is a game demo ( legal one ) I run it and find out its the real game...have I committed a crime there ? or should I hand my self in to the Reptile Police and give them money ? no harm no foul is my motto and the rich film execs don't need any more money to fill their greed lust's.

And therein lies the problem. You all think it's just filthy rich film execs making money.

It's not. It's smaller studios too, tea boys, audio engineers, 3d animators, dop's, directors, producers, model makers, screenwriters etc. ..

There are millions if people who depend on you paying for your game/music/film.

And yes...you are stealing. Because don't try to pretend to me that you are only downloading it as a demo and if you liked it you would pay for it. Bullsh*t.

a reply to: mazzroth

In the rock n roll '60's...we never anticipated tech would become what it has. You are correct in your assumptions that the difference is definable between copying and selling those copies without permission or royalties paid to copyright holder ( like me).

MS
Copyrighted Songwriter
Published Copyrighted Author

At the end of the day you are acquiring something that should cost money, but you're paying no money.
I understand the "but nothing is lost/taken" argument and that nothing is literally stolen but it's artistic and intellectual theft, different from simply taking an object.

That said... I couldn't give a hoot if people DL or record or stream stuff, up to them.
It's happened since the tech allowed it to and will always happen until they make it impossible to do so, which I doubt will happen.

I was merely pointing out that this kind of theft is different from shoplifting or purse theft etc.... to compare them is a bit crazy but both are ultimately theft.

a reply to: Caver78

horse-hockey... that's polo isn't it?

I see you say 'listen' rather than 'buy' independent music, and you make big claims on behalf of them don't you?
Blah blah blah been there done that learn t the lessons and moved on....the dream is just that... a dream.
Words like 'pretty much', and 'most' only really show that these statements are just your perceptions rather than experience.
Whats your definition/examples of 'independent' anyways?
Yes the big record labels aren't the machine they used to be, another monster has taken its place, hence this discussion.
Have you had any personal dealings with any labels, big or small, doesn't sound like it.

If you think Gaga is a 'true artiste' then i'm afraid that you are pretty deluded and have missed my point altogether.

As for Iggy, full respect to him as a performer, one of my faves for the last 40 years, but he isn't a Greg Graffin, or Henry Rollins now is he? Lyrics like 'now i wanna be your dog', or 'Candy, candy, candy I can't let you go', etc... as for his talk (lecture? really?) not really saying anything new there is he? He is only saying the same things I alluded to like 'masters at the record industry complained i wasn't making them enough money', or 'played half my life for free', whats the point you are trying to make by posting the vid? One down but what a waste of 59 minutes.

Muso's and other artistes will always be at the bottom of the food chain, regardless of whether its a record company, a manager, a venue, or a million down-loaders,which are exploiting them.

Even a connected douche like KANTYE WEEST(!!) is in debt, and doesn't WHITLEY HOOSTON(!!)'s kids have to pay off her debt?

Go back and read what I wrote, slowly if you must, and see if any of it makes sense to you now.

You can't "steal" something that can be duplicated to infinity without ever diminishing the quality of the original. As for what the law says, we all know that laws are made by and for the dominant power of the time. Copyright laws should be drastically changed if we want to socially progress as a species. What we are witnessing in this era that we live is the struggle for survival of an old system that sees its destruction coming through new technologies and new possibilities.

Is it written in the stone that someone who creates music should earn millions upon millions ? Same for an actor ? No, it is written nowhere, it is not a god given commandment. We are witnessing something similar to the steam engine industry fighting the electricity (r)evolution.

originally posted by: gosseyn
Is it written in the stone that someone who creates music should earn millions upon millions ?

Strawman. The vast majority of musicians do not make 'millions upon millions' and people stealing their work damages their earning potential.

originally posted by: mazzroth
Just been reading an article here ( www.perthnow.com.au... ) were it compares downloading to stealing a car.

Well I will argue technically its not stealing, its copying. Its nothing like stealing a car like its being portrayed in the video clip because the owner now has no car, they are making it out its like taking something physical away from the rightful owner. In the case of downloading a tv show like GoT you simply copy the copy and watch it at your leisure with the owner unaware and unhurt by the action. You can argue financially they are hurt but when a decent movie comes out it makes 100's of millions so are we to accept the greedy Hollywood Bankers argument they should get more ?

The only real argument base you would have is if your movie flopped and made nothing at the box office and you wanted to writhe every cent you could from dvd sales and netflix ect. If your movie flops however I think its safe to say you don't deserve to deliver up garbage and be paid, If I go to work and serve up crap I get sacked but you Hollywood Reptiles think you can still keep pumping out garbage like Dallas Buyers Club and like filthy greedy whores sue people who mistakingly downloaded the crap !

Granted if you sell a copy then you are a pirate and the law should apply to you as then you are physically stealing revenue from the Reptiles running Hollywood. Until then though let the poor tv owners watch at their leisure what ever they want when ever they want.

Horse-Hockey is a nice way of saying horse s#$T
Apologies that in your rarified experience you are unfamiliar.

You're right, by listen I should have expounded. I go to the venue, listen to the musicians and purchase the CD directly from the source, and by venue I don't mean a stadium or arena.

I don't think Gaga is an artiste, however she and some critics do.
Hahahahahaha

Obviously you didn't pay any attention to IG's lecture, besides covering some of the more obvious facts of big record labels and the first internet providers of music he dropped some new ideas into the arguments about bootlegging and piracy. Shame they went over your head.

My definition of an Indy Musician or group or record label is the same as everyone else's.

Stealing is stealing whether it's an idea, a song or yes, a car.
You made a poor argument for copying a movie, or music and expected everyone apparently to agree with you. No one did so go back and make a case for your point of view.

Very nice you never addressed the fact because something is in the public domain other laws "may" possibly come into play to allow a personal copy, heck I made your point for you but that also went over your head!
WOW...just WOW.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: gosseyn
Is it written in the stone that someone who creates music should earn millions upon millions ?

Strawman. The vast majority of musicians do not make 'millions upon millions' and people stealing their work damages their earning potential.

You use words that seem to exist only in your mind : "stealing", "damages", those words are out of place and I don't recognize their relevance here.