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

reply to post by Justaguy1976

It was never my money to begin with? That would be like your boss telling you "yeah, I know you worked 40 hours this week, and we owe you a couple grand, but the bank decided not to pay you. And since the bank never wrote your check, the money isn't owed to you. EVEN THOUGH you did the work, I am just choosing not to pay you."

Nope, nothing like it.

When I work for someone, they are contractually and legally bound to pay me for my labors.

I have no such contract with record labels.

reply to post by AlertInMi

That is such a mental midget argument.

On the Contrary, I am talking about legal theory.

The owner invented or produced a product.. They charge for the product.

Yes, this is true.

Your a new age "waaaa everything should be free, and all rich people should give me their stuff, so I can have that stuff" I want stuff........sniffle - mouth breathe

IS that my position? Really?

I want you to go back and find where I said anything remotely like that, and then quote me.


JUST DO IT Mr Strawman.

Sometimes people are lucky that this is not a face to face forum......

Why, Are you threatening me with violence?

I am so sick of our entitled youth... Or, our highly ignorant elders....

Or our paid RIAA bloggers.

Earn it, then buy it, you'll feel like you are contributing to society, because as a pirate, you are going against the principles of "love thy neighbor"

Maybe... Maybe... But that still doesn't change the fact that there is no cause of action for copying material when you don't make any money off of it.

This is a LEGAL argument.... not a Moral argument.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Touche!

We will have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Waaaaaaa I want things for free is the general stance of most piracy advocates.. Sorry if I molded you into that category, but if the shoe.................

Are you assuming I threatened you with violence????... Reading it word for word... I don't see how anyone.... oh wait that's right... I'm now speaking in the overly sensitive world of waaaa I want something for nothing..

If the law doesn't cover it right now, it sure as hell should, and I would SIGN any petition to make it a law.


Can you tell me why people all over this country have been sued out the arse, to the tune of millions, for dling songs?

The standard settlement is a payment to the RIAA and an agreement not to engage in file-sharing of music and is usually on par with statutory damages of $750 per work, with the RIAA choosing the number of works it deems "reasonable". For cases that do not settle at this amount, the RIAA has gone to trial, seeking statutory damages from the jury, written into The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 as between $750 and $30,000 per work or $750 and $150,000 per work if "willful." In the case RIAA v. Tenenbaum, the jury awarded the RIAA $22,500 per song shared by Joel Tenenbaum resulting in a judgment of $675,000 for the shared 30 tracks (this was later reduced to $67,500 by the judge) and in the case RIAA v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the jury awarded $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million for 24 tracks[22][23] (this award was later reduced by the judge to $54,000,[24] though the final amount of damages has yet to be determined).

Source

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Last question for you ErtaiNaGai,

Would love your take on this one.

I was in Vancouver a year ago. I walked into a Mom and Pop book store, and there in their rotating Kiosk was one of my movies. It was a cheap PHOTOCOPIED sleeve, with a computer burned disc on the inside.

Do you have the same feeling that this is okay and justified?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


OK, now I understand...I thought we were discussing if it should be legal/illegal to download... the thread is titled "PIRACY - Should not be a crime... here is why"

YEAH GO PIRACY!
BY 2015 A MILLION POPLE WILL HAVE LOST THEIR JOB BECAUSE OF IT......
YOU WIN FREETARDS!

reply to post by AlertInMi

Waaaaaaa I want things for free is the general stance of most piracy advocates.. Sorry if I molded you into that category, but if the shoe.................

Nope.

Are you assuming I threatened you with violence????

You seemed to be implying it.

I'm now speaking in the overly sensitive world of waaaa I want something for nothing..

Like how you try to justify selling what is essentially One Gig's worth of effort, a billion times?

How can you call that amount of effort Proportional to the money that the industry rakes in?

Seriously.

Can you tell me why people all over this country have been sued out the arse, to the tune of millions, for dling songs?

Because they don't Teach Law in Primary Education.

Please read this Post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Justaguy1976

Would love your take on this one.

I was in Vancouver a year ago. I walked into a Mom and Pop book store, and there in their rotating Kiosk was one of my movies. It was a cheap PHOTOCOPIED sleeve, with a computer burned disc on the inside.

Do you have the same feeling that this is okay and justified?

Copyright provides an exclusive right to make MONEY off of a work.

So, if they are SELLING your movie, then that is legally actionable, as their profits should have gone to you, and thus, you have a real case for "Loss of revenue"

reply to post by luke moody

YEAH GO PIRACY!
BY 2015 A MILLION POPLE WILL HAVE LOST THEIR JOB BECAUSE OF IT......
YOU WIN FREETARDS!

Have you ever been to a concert?

Have you ever been to a concert, despite the fact that you already owned or possessed copies of the music that was played there?

If you already HAD the music, why would you go to the live performance?

By your logic, there should have never been a single Live Concert past the invention of the Vinyl Record.

Originally posted by byteshertz
Hi Stevendye,

Great argument mate, and I see your point, however how is it any different than it is currently - Books are very easy to get a hold of through online sharing networks, yet nobody seems to download them much compared to music and movies.
There is something about a book that is special that an electronic copy just does not amount to - people will still buy the books because they enjoy like owning the physical item, there is nothing like a freshly new hard cover book with beautiful pages and in some cases illistrations.
People can easily lend books to their friends right now under the current system, they can run off photocopies - and nobody would be the wiser.. but people don't** because they enjoy the physical possesion of a quality book as much as they enjoy the text contained within it.
As with the software upgradeability issue, I have to disagree. Software can always be improoved in some way, even if it is just a small component of a larger system, the complexity of our current programming level languages means it will always have ways it can be re-written and improved upon. Also in the system I am proposing if you knew your code could be used for years to come and would not profit you further you would simply charge a higher price that both you and the company agree on if you are a contractor - or in the case you are employed full time what you wrote is no longer your property under the current system anyway as the company would have an intellectual property clause in your employment contract stipulating whatever you create while working for them would be their property.

** Educational books are the exception to this rule but they are also heavily copied under the current system and nobody is punished for it any more as Movies and Music are more profitable to chase.

edit on 16-11-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

True, I have to admit books may have not been the best choice because they do have a certain physical connection that CD/DVD/Blu-ray blah blah doesn't have. Although with things like the kindle they are becoming more popular in electronic format. And of course generally whilst people may have a few thousand songs in their playlist they don't even have a few hundred books in their house...so the far less common expenditure isn't seen as something you need to get around.

However for media held on discs, the problem I presented in my last post is still valid. It would be very hard and quite possibly not commerically viable to constantly update protection methods to stop someone ripping the data off to send it to other people. And of course with music you can't do this anyway or we couldn't put songs on our computer without making that copy protection useless.

This is where that sort of difficulty comes into it. Unless all machines could be connected to the net in some form to download the 'pass to the new protection system' it will need to be physically replaced.

For the software issue, I'll admit I can sort of see where you are coming from. It would be possible to spend more time in the protection of such software, instead of how it is now where a crack is probably available within 24 hours. However that could well raise the price of such products so that they can still make money before someone DOES crack it and lowers their income considerably. Not entirely because some people will still rather buy it of course.

If economies across the world were in a better state this might not matter too much, but currently money is tight and people might find it hard to pay the higher prices, instead waiting until a cracked version is available thus lowering the companies income even more.

Going back to my idea of a weather widget, lets say I want to sell it at £1 per customer for easy numbers. I expect to sell 10,000 of these widgets over 10 days so £10,000 is my target. Now it does everything it needs to and is completely up to date on the newest operating system. Because there is no copyright protection I know that once it is cracked very few people will buy this software from me, and I estimate it will take 5 days to crack, and I have protected it as much as I know how.

Now I have to sell each widget for £2 to make the same amount of income. Now I'm charging people £2 for software that is only worth £1 so I wont even make the right amount of sales in those first days as people just wait until a crack is released to avoid being overcharged. Once we also take into account that not many people will buy it on the first day because it's built into our heads to avoid new technology until we've seen reviews I need to raise the price even more to make my £10,000 pounds.


It's a hard issue I'll admit, and one of those things that works in theory, but I don't feel things would really pan out that way. I would like to see it work your way, but I feel it wouldn't. At least not now.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Justaguy1976

 

Would love your take on this one.

I was in Vancouver a year ago. I walked into a Mom and Pop book store, and there in their rotating Kiosk was one of my movies. It was a cheap PHOTOCOPIED sleeve, with a computer burned disc on the inside.

Do you have the same feeling that this is okay and justified?

Copyright provides an exclusive right to make MONEY off of a work.

So, if they are SELLING your movie, then that is legally actionable, as their profits should have gone to you, and thus, you have a real case for "Loss of revenue"

So if they are giving it away and he gets no money it is better?

Basically, most piracy advocates sum up as "well, I want it and don't want to spend money on it so I should be able to have it because I want it"

A lot of work goes into any good creative endeavor. Yes, some authors, musicians, etc are just happy to have someone enjoy their work and aren't looking to get paid. Those people also have day jobs and are really just hobbyists. Also, 99% of them dream of hitting it big with what they have created.

So basically, when you pirate anything creative you are stealing someone's dreams.

I have to agree with what you have written. People have been wanting to talk about "entitlement" lately, and I find it ridiculous that these artists, as well as athletes, almost "demand" to be paid millions of dollars. It is the industries fault for overpricing their merchandise to some extent.

I also believe that it isn't piracy, considering that if I download something, I never intended to buy it in the first place. The only reason this is an issue is because of corporations pressuring the government to create anti-piracy laws. They are cutthroat, and I do not feel the least bit sorry for them.

BOYCOTT THE RIAA!!!

When talking about "piracy" you have to discuss things like distribution, sales, ownership, copyright.

And then wonder if all things were FREE on a massive immediate scale, what would the incentive be to create a 'work' and not get paid for it.

We all can't just have expensive hobbies.

And I say this as one of those 'creators'.

reply to post by Marid Audran

So if they are giving it away and he gets no money it is better?

It's not legally actionable.

Basically, most piracy advocates sum up as "well, I want it and don't want to spend money on it so I should be able to have it because I want it"

Are you sure about that?

A lot of work goes into any good creative endeavor.

By the artists, yes... and before the recording industry, they would....

*GASP*

Still make money, by playing live performances.

All of their effort was rewarded, because they actually had to PRODUCE the effort at every gig.

Every live show, had Real live Talent on the stage, and people paid for the EXPERIENCE.

Yes, some authors, musicians, etc are just happy to have someone enjoy their work and aren't looking to get paid.

Stop assuming that Selling songs on CD, or whatever is the only way for artists to get paid.

They do live shows, and besides, the Industry screws them out of the MAJORITY of the money anyways...

IT's not like there is any real EFFORT in spitting out a few million plastic discs with data that was pressed into them from a master copy.

The ARTIST puts effort into the music, the Industry just makes money off of the EASE with which they can copy the results of that effort.

IF the Industry COLLAPSED, the artists would still play to crowds of eagerly ticket buying fans.

Your point is irrelevant.

So basically, when you pirate anything creative you are stealing someone's dreams.

No, you are copying the result of their dream.

Theft is when someone takes something from you, and you no longer have it.

You are not STEALING from the musicians, because they still have their songs, they still have their talent, they still have their skills and experience, and they can still sell that as a service to people in the form of live shows.

If you copy and SELL it, yes, that is wrong...

But just copying it doesn't actually TAKE anything from the artist.

SORRY BUD...I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR SAYING...
ITS SIMPLE...IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR SOMETHING IT WONT EXIST...

BANDS THAT TOUR THESE DAYS ARE EITHER JUST BRAKING EVEN
OR MAKING A LOSS...ITS ONLY THE BIG DINOSAURS (U2/BRUCE/EAGLES ECT..)
THAT ARE MAKING TRUE PROFITS....EVERYONE ELSE IS SCREWED

I ADMIRE YOUR TENACITY REGARDING YOUR VIEW ON PIRACY
THERE'S A FLOTILLA LEAVING SOMILA WITH A MASSIVE OIL TANKER IN THEIR
SIGHTS...

JUMP ON BOARD ; )

reply to post by PaxVeritas

And then wonder if all things were FREE on a massive immediate scale, what would the incentive be to create a 'work' and not get paid for it.

And then you would have to imagine what would happen, if you could go into YOUR job one day, Record what you did, and then sell copies of your labor to your boss for the rest of your life, without ever having to DO THE ACTUAL JOB ever again...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


How arrogant of you. I'm a musician and I take offense and your INSULTING thought that musicians should recoup money from LIVE SHOWS?

So you think studio albums should be an advertising tool? To get them to come see artists live?

Then why release anything online or in digital format if it's just a marketing tool? Slave away in a studio with mic and mixdown levels, getting it all 'right', having never ending dreams where the song you're recording is stuck in a loop in your head and you get SICK of hearing the same bassline....all because it's a marketing gimic?

Or maybe someone should slave away to write a book for two years, just to release it on Amazon for......free?
And go back to their shack in the woods because they did the 'moral' thing?

WORKS of art are called such or a reason. They're not natural resources.

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.

reply to post by luke moody

SORRY BUD...I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR SAYING...
ITS SIMPLE...IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR SOMETHING IT WONT EXIST...

You ever heard of Linux?

Yeah... Free.... Open source... Exists.

You ever heard of MC. Frontalot

Yeah...

That's his website, you can download his songs from there.

Because.. you know... they Exist and all.

BANDS THAT TOUR THESE DAYS ARE EITHER JUST BRAKING EVEN
OR MAKING A LOSS...ITS ONLY THE BIG DINOSAURS (U2/BRUCE/EAGLES ECT..)
THAT ARE MAKING TRUE PROFITS....EVERYONE ELSE IS SCREWED

Yeah.. It's hard for people to become ultra rich by basically playing with instruments, isn't it?

I guess it actually requires talent....

I ADMIRE YOUR TENACITY REGARDING YOUR VIEW ON PIRACY
THERE'S A FLOTILLA LEAVING SOMILA WITH A MASSIVE OIL TANKER IN THEIR
SIGHTS...

JUMP ON BOARD ; )

After You....

Isn't Piracy basically taking Money from people that you don't Earn?

Like... the RIAA does?