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

a reply to: Caver78
You talking to me? or to Mazzroth?
Cant tell you seem all over the place, maybe just my rarefied experience.
BTW, Is that the American spelling of rarefied? May explain you missing the sarcasm.....And Im not sure what you are trying to say... Rarefied as in 1)Not dense; thin, or 2) Refined or esoteric, appealing to or exemplifying an exclusive group; select; of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style ??
Must be the latter..Thanks!

You originally used GOOGOO as the example of artiste... not me, that was naivety on your part, and now you don't think so?

Did you even read what I said re. MrPop? Shame you cant comprehend.

You are the one brandishing your support of 'independent muso's' , so let me hear your definition of 'Independent', you say its the same as everyone else's, here you go again talking for others, I'm part of 'everyone else', and I would doubt if our definitions would be alike, hence your point is moot (fyi.moot - having little or no practical relevance.)

Again I ask, are these just your perceptions gained from the internet and/or going to venues and listening, or from practical experience from within the industry? I dare say its the former given the depth of your arguments.

Not too sure about your final two other points, were they intended for me?

would you pay the full price for photo of the mona lisa?
no! you get it free on the internet. but people Still sell pics.
Thay have you Fooled.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Good post, I guess there is one thing the internet can provide you and that's exposure. Most people pay do for things but would bauk at buying a book online as they would feel its not a physical thing in their hand and thus has no real value. Most people like to have a physical asset for their purchases, however I am of the digital age where taking an mp3 file for free is normal.

I would go to a concert of a good artist to see them live no problem and thus the artist gets some value from their exposure, movies and books are a little different in that you watch/read and delete never to review again perhaps. A real good block buster movie has to bee seen in the cinema and I went to the opening of Deadpool and all other great movies to appreciate the big screen feel.

Books however are a medium I feel is better in a hard format so I wouldn't normally download one, but I guess in your case the value would come from someone who read your online version and would like a hard copy sometime to go onto their shelf and to share with whom they chose.

In all I feel I am unchanged in mu position like I stated in my OP, to download an album is not like stealing a car. No theft is reported and no one has lost anything physical, no dollar value is lost because if I could not download the album in the first place the artist didn't get their exposure to myself and so when they tour in my city they are unknown to me.

You're not stealing anything...

Sure they want you to pay for it but it's not like there's a limited number of copies or it costs them ANYTHING for another copy to be made.

They literally have a blank check - it's free money once a certain number of copies are sold.

Besides, there's no way that all the "pirates" making copies would actually buy the "real" copy if they had no way to get a free one.

Make them cheaper if you want less piracy.
It's ridiculous that a digital download which costs them literally nothing to sell to me costs the same as if I were to buy a physical DVD like we used to.

$14.99 on Amazon download my ass...should be more like $2.99...get over yourselves you greedy bastards

bruce dickinson (of iron Maiden) once told me,
'we know everyone copies music, were basically giving this away, the idea is they like it and pay to see us live.'
the problem the music industry has, they've opted for artistes that need 19 wardrobe changes per show, a good live show that does not make.

originally posted by: jackjoedoe
a reply to: mazzroth

Yeah...you are a thief. Stop trying to justify it.

Using/watching/listening to something that was meant to be sold for its "use", without paying for that thing, is stealing, which makes your a thief. It is a simple concept.

I always wondered who was more of a thief; the record companies who give the artist a dollar while they make $16.00 dollars more or less for an album OR the people downloading a song or album of their favorite artist who they bought buy merchandise from , go to concerts and or have bought their music in the past.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

While both actions are wrong according to the law (and morally objectionable to some extent), they are not directly comparable in the practical sense. The key difference lies in the physical difference of the acts and their after effects.

Steal a book and the bookshop:
a) has lost out on revenue
b) must order another physical book to replace the one that was stolen.

Download a book from the internet:
c) copyright owner has lost out on revenue.

Now, if this example involved hundreds of books, which do you think is far worse for the copyright owner than the other?

I gone through four formats in music,vinyl,cassette,cd and mp3.Take a led zeppelin album for instances you have it in an lp vinyl then vinyl goes out style then they don't make record players anymore. The same goes for cassettes and cassette players all fazed out. Then cds and so on until now we have mp3. How many times have they sold that album and how many times do I have to buying it to be able to play it. Now I just download from youtube for my music if I want to travel with it but mostly I just make a playlist on my computer and play it that way and as for movies I just stream them for free. It has gotten to the point that I dont want a hard copy of anything because it takes up space and gathers dust. Remember vcrs and laser discs players and then we have dvds which are on the way out. More collections ready for the garbage as soon as they stop making players for them. So cheers from a weary consumer.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As far as I'm concerned the word one uses is nothing but semantics.

Someone created something and asked you to pay for it. You didn't. That's stealing to me.

You have stolen their time and anyone who gets a cut of the sale profits money.

We all pirate things..i do to, but i really hate when people try to justify it or say they are not stealing. I know I'm stealing and doing something wrong and feel bad about it.

Oh and dallas buyers club was great. Really? Out of all the crap films out you could have chosen to make your point you chose that one...?

So if you see a cute hooker on the street and go home and masturbate...is that also theft? Damn...next thing you'll tell me is doing the same with a random woman is rape.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: 3danimator2014

While both actions are wrong according to the law (and morally objectionable to some extent), they are not directly comparable in the practical sense. The key difference lies in the physical difference of the acts and their after effects.

Steal a book and the bookshop:
a) has lost out on revenue
b) must order another physical book to replace the one that was stolen.

Download a book from the internet:
c) copyright owner has lost out on revenue.

Now, if this example involved hundreds of books, which do you think is far worse for the copyright owner than the other?

I disagree. If the "downloader" wouldn't have purchased the music anyway, then downloading it didn't cost the copyright owner anything. There was no revenue to be received, if the downloader wouldn't have purchased.

a reply to: mazzroth

Yes. It's like copying a music CD and giving the copy to a friend. I did this all the time as a kid and thought nothing of it. If they really liked it, and were able to, they would buy future albums of the artists they liked anyway. It would be wrong to sell it of course, but whether or not it's wrong to share it is a matter of perspective.

I am not a legal expert, but if someone fought it all the way to the supreme court I cannot see how it would not be overturned (if someone was charged with 'stealing' a copy which literally cost the distributors nothing.) If someone uploaded it online and distributed it for free however, a stronger case could be made.

To me, it is an issue of moral debate. I would do everything in my power (short of ruining readers' lives by pressing legal charges against them) to stop pirating of books, but I would not consider it to be stealing. My view on games and software is to pay them back when I am able. To me, this is reasonable. In regards to legality, I believe it is (or should be) legal, since no monetary value is stolen (a copy of the software is taken and I was not able to pay for it anyway.) They lose nothing. If I feel obligated to pay for it in the future they may actually make money from me they might not have otherwise.

It's the same thing as taking a digital picture of a painting for sale which you cannot afford, taking it home and making a print copy for yourself or a friend. Would the artist be happy about that? Probably not. But it would make no sense to actually press charges against someone for doing that. In fact, I think it would be laughable to most everyone if they did.