If you pirate music, you're downloading communism!

[Albert Bouchard]

sanction is the crucial word there.

On Mar 26, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Jonathan Smith wrote:

> So we are are all equally 'morally bankrupt'? :)
>
> 2009/3/27 Albert Bouchard <albert at cellsum.com>
>
>> I wonder where you get that 90% figure. In my experience most  
>> people who
>> download music download songs that are already popular. Otherwise  
>> the RIAA
>> wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They do not use downloading as a  
>> way to
>> "discover" new acts. They have internet radio to do that and much  
>> of it is
>> quite good IMHO. I think that most people who download obscure acts  
>> do it
>> because said acts, while being quite excellent in musical and other  
>> ways,
>> have gotten discouraged and broken up by the time the true music  
>> enthusiast
>> has actually discovered them. An ironic shame really.
>>
>> Am I upset because people download my mixes of Imaginos? No,  
>> because they
>> would not be available otherwise. Maybe the folks at Sony would  
>> because they
>> own the masters but it's already been paid for by me and the other  
>> guys in
>> BOC so it should really be no skin off their noses. But the RIAA is  
>> standing
>> up for people who've invested a lot of time and money into their  
>> craft and
>> don't feel it's right for their work to be distributed for free.  
>> That's the
>> bottom line, if you created it then you should have a say in what  
>> people
>> should have to do to get it. Lots of artists give their music away  
>> for free
>> and even more don't mind if people download it. There's plenty of  
>> music that
>> is available for free. Why should people need to steal it? Isn't this
>> obvious?
>>
>> I am sorry but much of the many arguments presented here just sound  
>> like
>> rationalization. Is it really stealing? We're just getting our  
>> share from
>> greedy people. It's a technology issue. Apple stole the iPod from  
>> Creative
>> (who stole their drawing pad from wacom). Everybody lies, everybody  
>> steals.
>> But it still comes down to that same bottom line. If we sanction  
>> stealing
>> are we not becoming morally bankrupt?
>> Al
>>
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Alex S. Garcia wrote:
>>
>> Interesting thread and good timing, as there is a lot of talk about  
>> a new
>>> law here in France to fight against "illegal downloading" (the  
>>> Hadopi
>>> law).
>>>
>>> Ian wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't have any answers, but i do disagree in general with  
>>> freeloading
>>>>
>>> from professional musicians, it is
>>>
>>>> fundamentally theft, and should be dealt with appropriately.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is an aspect that most people seem not to realize (or  
>>> purposefully
>>> ignore) which is that 90% of the people who download DO still buy  
>>> CD's
>>> (and go to movies, buy video games, watch TV, etc). These people  
>>> simply
>>> use downloading as a means to discover music they wouldn't be able  
>>> to know
>>> otherwise. It's a selection tool. Just like borrowing a CD from a  
>>> friend
>>> and deciding you like it enough to buy it. So why is the RIAA  
>>> pissed?
>>> Because this of course does not fit their plans of selling just  
>>> any crap
>>> to the public at large. People are becoming more picky and  
>>> selective.
>>>
>>> Of course there are also people who just can't afford to buy  
>>> music. For
>>> them downloading is the only way they can listen to the music they  
>>> like.
>>> The artists they listen to thus gain listeners who will most  
>>> likely buy
>>> some of their music in the future (provided their financial  
>>> situation
>>> improves... and that they don't first get sued & bankrupted by their
>>> favorite artist or the artist's label!)
>>>
>>> However there are some real flaws here, out of print, discontinued,
>>>>
>>> simply unavailable, and rare records, plus live
>>>
>>>> boots all need to be available, and under strict laws they are  
>>>> illegal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. That is another important issue. Laws as they currently stand  
>>> tend to
>>> place everything in the same bag.
>>>
>>> Whilst i'm against people getting fined.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Hadopi law mentioned earlier proposes to give downloaders 3  
>>> warnings,
>>> after which (if they do not stop) their internet connection would  
>>> be shut
>>> down by their ISP (though they would still have to pay for it!)  
>>> This is
>>> wrong in so many ways... I doubt it will hold though, as many  
>>> people are
>>> stating this would go against human rights (as it would block  
>>> access to an
>>> important source of cultural information). Besides, some folks on  
>>> the
>>> internet have already come up with a way to make the law obsolete  
>>> (by
>>> mixing in fake IP's to the ones of real downloaders, meaning that
>>> innocents could just as easily end up getting sued for something  
>>> they
>>> never did!)
>>>
>>> I am also against musicians
>>>> getting ripped off, they already get that enough
>>>> from the record company.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Heh, I think the artists are getting more ripped off by the labels  
>>> then
>>> they are by downloading. And if anyone is really getting hurt by the
>>> downloading (which I seriously doubt) it would be more the labels
>>> themselves for that matter.
>>>
>>> By the way, one of the many reasons why I doubt that downloading  
>>> is having
>>> such a terrible effect on the industry is because of the comic  
>>> book scene.
>>> All the comic book stores that have been questioned on this matter  
>>> have
>>> stated that sales have actually *increased* since the downloading  
>>> of comic
>>> books started. So I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of  
>>> why the
>>> music & movie industries are supposedly going the other way... I  
>>> think the
>>> comic book stores are just being much more honest about the whole  
>>> thing
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> And remember folks, when the VCR first appeared everyone got  
>>> scared and
>>> started worrying about copyright infringements as well. I just  
>>> hope things
>>> get resolved as smoothly...
>>>
>>> I play in a band and released the music via our own record label,  
>>> its
>>>>
>>> not expensive, and we can have it on amazon etc
>>>
>>>> if we want. I've not gone to see if the music is available on  
>>>> line for
>>>>
>>> download, I don't really care, we are a 2 bit band
>>>
>>>> that charges £5 for a CD. We all have fulltime jobs, so we are not
>>>>
>>> dependant on the money collected through sales.
>>>
>>>> However If I was in a serious band, trying to get up the ladder,  
>>>> or even
>>>>
>>> already up the ladder and each CD sale is
>>>
>>>> part of my actual salary, I'd be pretty p*ss*d off if any of my=2
>>>>
>>> 0CURRENT IN PRINT albums appeared online for people do
>>>
>>>> download..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not me. I'm working on a number of albums myself and really  
>>> wouldn't care
>>> either way. I guess as a writer I just want people to have access  
>>> to what
>>> I do. It is a form of expression after all. Sure, earning a living  
>>> from it
>>> would be pretty cool (and yes, it is the ultimate goal) but I'm  
>>> pretty
>>> sure that can be achieved regardless of downloads (I really doubt  
>>> U2 or
>>> Metallica will ever be poor because of people downloading their  
>>> music!) I
>>> really am not worried about this.
>>>
>>> Hey Al, have you heard of the approach that the UK is taking (or  
>>> maybe
>>>>> has taken?) to make music downloading llegal, and pay for though  
>>>>> some
>>>>> kind of network tax or surcharge, which is then to be divided  
>>>>> among the
>>>>> music industry?  Sort of like what they did in the US with  
>>>>> cassette
>>>>> tapes?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They did that in the Netherlands, too, and they're still doing  
>>>> that with
>>>> CD-Rs, and undoubtably DVD-Rs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In France too! And that's another thing that pisses me off. If we  
>>> are
>>> paying a tax for blank CD's & DVD's then why the heck are the  
>>> authorities
>>> bugging us about downloads?!? That's what those taxes are supposed  
>>> to be
>>> for! Of course, they're not being too vocal about it... they'd  
>>> rather we
>>> forgot about the tax, heh!
>>>
>>> M. Holmes:
>>>
>>> There's an interesting debate all in itself. If you record a TV  
>>> show to
>>>> watch later, it's "timeshift recording" and is quite legal. If  
>>>> you forget
>>>> to delete it after having watched it though, it now becomes  
>>>> illegal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now this is very interesting. It seems to imply though that you  
>>> can keep
>>> it as long as you want so long as you haven't watched it yet... In  
>>> which
>>> case, how do you prove whether you've watched something on your  
>>> computer
>>> yet or not? :-o
>>>
>>> It was technology which gifted the entertainment industries with  
>>> vast
>>>> riches through mass-production and now technology is taking it  
>>>> all away.
>>>> Crying "Unfair!" and trying to prosecute the buyers into  
>>>> bankruptcy isn't
>>>> going to change the end result one iota. In fact it's more likely  
>>>> to
>>>> speed up the endgame through people becoming sickened at such  
>>>> antics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh definitely. And it's already started. I've heard of several  
>>> cases of
>>> folks who were sued by labels and vowed to never again buy  
>>> anything from
>>> those specific labels. Great customer service! Heh.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex.
>>>
>>>
>