If you pirate music, you're downloading communism!

[Jonathan Smith]

The fact that we are getting tangled up in semantics like this shows how
unclear the whole issue is.

2009/3/27 Albert Bouchard <albert at cellsum.com>

> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>