Pirating of Music and other Digital Media

[Steampunk]

Ok ill just throw this out there.
what about media that was recorded off Tv or the radio? Obviously they put it out there to be heard/seen without it being paid for. So if I was to record a song off the radio then make copies of it and give it to my friends...what then? I mean they coupsd easily have heard the same song on the radio and then recorded it themselves. But circumstances came about that I was the one who recorded it, but it was made public for all to hear.
and then we can swap out music with movies/Tv shows that aired on Tv. Is it wrong to copy something that was made public?


Then you come to a bump, does it matter where the first copy came from as long as it was made public at one point in time?


Food for thought.

 

[ChedWick]

Reread. We actually didn't. I critquedyour post after you critiqued the first.
Reread.

Over your head. Try again.

 

[miles0624]

Over your head. Try again.

If you actually read your post states that not everything illegal can just easily be considered wrong.

I rebuttal and say that it is always considered wrong. Just because you can justify it you yourself doesn't make it right. Do I need to break it down further for you?

Ansem, that is actually a good thought. That was an argument used by facebook and employers who check facebook accounts. If something has been made public through facebook, they have the right to republish it to third party people in the form of advertisement, etc. It becomes their property when it is used. Where I would say it fails with us is the fact that since it was used on the radio/tv, it is atually the property of that station. Let me reread on that ruling and I'll tell you what I find out.

 

[Zazie]

Zazzel, are you saying that because somethingis done in mass we should ignore it? I don't fully understand the point you are making.

I am saying that IP law is kind of byzantine and isn't always based on morality or economic benefit. (Do you think SPPF using pokemon images without Nintendo's permission is hurting anyone for example) As such it probably isn't the best tool to use in the arguement against piracy. (stating what effects it actually has is a much more sound choice)

And should people ignore piracy? I don't think there is a proper answer to that question. If someone wants to go reporting piracy they can, but the average person in no way obligated to such a duty. It's legally up to the right's holders to deal with infringements on their IP.

Ok ill just throw this out there.
what about media that was recorded off Tv or the radio? Obviously they put it out there to be heard/seen without it being paid for. So if I was to record a song off the radio then make copies of it and give it to my friends...what then? I mean they coupsd easily have heard the same song on the radio and then recorded it themselves. But circumstances came about that I was the one who recorded it, but it was made public for all to hear.
and then we can swap out music with movies/Tv shows that aired on Tv. Is it wrong to copy something that was made public?

Whether your or not your friends could make their own recording for free is irrelevant in the eyes of copyright law. One would be infracted for distribution of the content without the right's holder's permission. So where the first copy came from does not matter.

Ansem, that is actually a good thought. That was an argument used by facebook and employers who check facebook accounts. If something has been made public through facebook, they have the right to republish it to third party people in the form of advertisement, etc. It becomes their property when it is used. Where I would say it fails with us is the fact that since it was used on the radio/tv, it is atually the property of that station. Let me reread on that ruling and I'll tell you what I find out.

Stuff on the radio/t.v. belongs to the IP holders, which is not necessarily the station that broadcasts it. Stuff you post on facebook is not your intellectual property as by using the site you are waiving ownership of the content you post.

 

[miles0624]

Stuff on the radio/t.v. belongs to the IP holders, which is not necessarily the station that broadcasts it. Stuff you post on facebook is not your intellectual property as by using the site you are waiving ownership of the content you post.

Looked it up, your correct.

 

[Jb]

Stuff on the radio/t.v. belongs to the IP holders, which is not necessarily the station that broadcasts it. Stuff you post on facebook is not your intellectual property as by using the site you are waiving ownership of the content you post.

Apparently this disclaimer negates that.

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I (Insert name here)hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).
For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!
(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws. By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook's direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.

 

[Zazie]

Apparently this disclaimer negates that.

I find it pretty ridiculous how many people actually believed that.

 

[Steampunk]

Whether your or not your friends could make their own recording for free is irrelevant in the eyes of copyright law. One would be infracted for distribution of the content without the right's holder's permission. So where the first copy came from does not matter.

im not 100% sure of what you are saying here but, if i recorded something, and my friend recorded the same thing, but a 3rd freind happened to be unable to record it for whatever reason, why isnt he entitled to have a recording?

also, i am not saying that pirating is good, im just pointing out what i see.

 

[Cosmical El Amarna]

I rebuttal and say that it is always considered wrong. Just because you can justify it you yourself doesn't make it right. Do I need to break it down further for you?

Its pretty much a fact that just because something is illegal does not mean that it is inherently bad, wrong, or immoral. Do you know how many things that are illegal that have nothing to do with morality or right/wrong? Do you know how many things that are immoral/wrong that are not illegal? There are even instances in which a new law gets created that has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with people of power/influence lobbying to get whatever it is that they want.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

Pirating music is best done in moderation. I'm certainly not against it per se, I've downloaded many a tune onto my ipod. Yet, I've always made sure that these are a maximum of 2 or 3 songs by a certain artist. If I like any more, I'll buy the CD. That's simply common courtesy. If you like the band enough to listen to the majority of their music, then have the decency to show them some real support (at least if they are a middling/small artist, I couldn't give a **** about you not paying for Justin Bieber/Kanye West/RHCP songs).

Piracy can also be a good thing to an extent, in that when you borrow and copy someone's cd for free, you're essentially committing something resembling piracy. Yet if you like the music, tell a friend about it etc, then the three of you buy tickets to that band's show, it's worked out very well for them financially.

Piracy is ok as long as you don't take the piss.

 

[miles0624]

Its pretty much a fact that just because something is illegal does not mean that it is inherently bad, wrong, or immoral. Do you know how many things that are illegal that have nothing to do with morality or right/wrong? Do you know how many things that are immoral/wrong that are not illegal? There are even instances in which a new law gets created that has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with people of power/influence lobbying to get whatever it is that they want.

Everything in this world has something to do with right and wrong. It is the powerful people who discern what is supposed to be defined as right or wrong. Otherwise we would not be having a debate over gay marriage. Again, I made a statement about the immoral, illegal thing, as well as the legal moral thing. Laws are created on the issue of that something is believed to be bad for society. Let's look at history. Marijuna was illegalized not because it is a drug, but paper companies lobbied against it. It was thought to hurt that section of the economy and put under the title of drugs. Inheretly it was still bad for society because it could hurt that section of the economy. When times change, people adapt to a different form of belief that will make such laws morally acceptable. Ever read the history of divorce? Just because there isn't any form associated with a law currently does not mean there wasn't on in the past. Every law that was created was in fact to stop something that was bad physically, economically or morally.

 

[ChedWick]

If you actually read your post states that not everything illegal can just easily be considered wrong.


I rebuttal and say that it is always considered wrong. Just because you can justify it you yourself doesn't make it right. Do I need to break it down further for you?

If you actually read your post, you never state that it(something illegal) is always considered wrong. You comment parallel to my point then give one example that neither contradicts nor reinforced my point.

Additionally, you open with

This statement is easily countered for it fails to realize that there are legal things that are considered immoral.

Which tries to rebuttal a statement I'm not making. I'm merely using the obvious flaw in that logic(which you clearly understand) to poke a hole in the circular logic that is, piracy is wrong because it is illegal. Piracy very well could be wrong, but not because it is illegal. It is wrong because [fill in the blank] and therefore it is illegal.

I hope that is spelled out enough for you.

Pirating music is best done in moderation. I'm certainly not against it per se, I've downloaded many a tune onto my ipod. Yet, I've always made sure that these are a maximum of 2 or 3 songs by a certain artist. If I like any more, I'll buy the CD. That's simply common courtesy. If you like the band enough to listen to the majority of their music, then have the decency to show them some real support (at least if they are a middling/small artist, I couldn't give a **** about you not paying for Justin Bieber/Kanye West/RHCP songs).


Piracy can also be a good thing to an extent, in that when you borrow and copy someone's cd for free, you're essentially committing something resembling piracy. Yet if you like the music, tell a friend about it etc, then the three of you buy tickets to that band's show, it's worked out very well for them financially.


Piracy is ok as long as you don't take the piss.

That's certainly something interesting to consider. There's a very fine line between sampling/previewing and stealing though. I've flirted with that line on occasion.

I don't listen to music all that much, streaming for the most part satisfied my needs. But for music, on the rare occasion I've downloaded something I didn't already own and I liked it, I went out and purchased it. For instance, being a fan of daft punk, when tron legacy came out and I found out they did the soundtrack, I went and pulled down the album. I enjoyed it more than I think I did when watching the movie. So when it came out on dvd/bluray, I spent the extra money to get the combo pack with the sound track despite already having it. The same has been the case with movies. A certain movie series which I thought I would never like, watch or own, plays quite regularly on TV, but I've never actually been able to watch the movie from start to finish when on TV. Curious enough I downloaded it and watched it all the way through. Entertained enough, I downloaded the second movie. Further entertained I actually went to the theaters for the last two. I now own them all. A series of events that would have not likely occurred if not for pirating.

It all boils down to the bottom line which depends on how effectively you can appeal to your audience. In this case, the big studios are doing a poor job. They are pouring money into lobbying for legislation that will never stop piracy.

 

[miles0624]

If you actually read your post, you never state that it(something illegal) is always considered wrong. You comment parallel to my point then give one example that neither contradicts nor reinforced my point.

Additionally, you open with




Which tries to rebuttal a statement I'm not making. I'm merely using the obvious flaw in that logic(which you clearly understand) to poke a hole in the circular logic that is, piracy is wrong because it is illegal. Piracy very well could be wrong, but not because it is illegal. It is wrong because [fill in the blank] and therefore it is illegal.

I hope that is spelled out enough for you.

Ok, now I see where your coming from. You know those moments where your saying something that makes complete sense in your head, but it takes a while to see that it doesn't. I just had that moment. =p Sorry. Finals have me working off of two hours of sleep, and I use this as my mental break.

Edit: Before I am flagged for not being on topic.

Agreeing with Ched, there is a difference between sampling and stealing. If you can't afford the song, then jus get on youtube when you feel like hearing. What makes you think they don't deserve the money they worked hard for. I support my musicians because I want them to keep making music. It the attitude that only pirating one is not bad that gets us into this mess. It then becomes who determines when too much is enough. One day, it will come to the point where being a musician won't be popular because they are losing more money than they make. For example, it an artist who advertises like Taylor Swift doesn't got platinum with her cd, she will actually begin to lose money. When companies lose money, they drop their singers.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

That's certainly something interesting to consider. There's a very fine line between sampling/previewing and stealing though. I've flirted with that line on occasion.

Undoubtedly. Worth pointing out though that it is through touring that bands make the majority of their money. They get c. 33% from the sale of a record.

 

[The Admiral]

View attachment 6996

However, by this chart, the music industry has only slightly shrunk from 1996 up to 2005. Are you sure that part of this isn't just an increasing lack of caring from consumers? Also, there are still a fair number of people getting rich in the music industry. Do you not have more up-to-date information? (Also, a source might help.)

Why are people are assuming stuff people pirate is always commercially available. Some stuff isn't for sale, so pirating it doesn't hurt anybody's finances.

Except people at used shops and eBay, whom the government also hates and would presumably have more cause to bust for profiting off of the same harms caused to the music industry, i.e. their not getting money from the exchange(s).

Also to the people saying it's illegal: yes it is copyright infringement and illegal. So is a very large portion of stuff on the internet. (hence the SOPA/PIPA fuss) You may want to use a different leg to stand on with your argument. (like and economic or moral one)

Piracy concerns aren't always about money, but they are always about ownership of rights.

Actually, this site could probably be considered in violation of copyright. If you complain about copyright infringement and enjoy fan works or, arguably, are in fandom at all, you have no legs to stand on. Do you like Homestuck fan art? That could be taken down. Sprite comics? Gone. Are you an Ace Attorney fan who likes fan cases? They could be gone, too. OC ReMix? Gone. Let's Plays? Gone. GIF sets? Gone. Tumblr would basically collapse. A large quantity of Etsy would be gone. In theory, it could get to a point where I could be arrested for posting this silly picture:

[img139]http://i48.*******.com/9hq5bm.gif[/img139]

also, i am not saying that pirating is good, im just pointing out what i see.

Piracy can increase distribution, and many pirates do buy the music they download at a later date. In some ways, it strikes me as no more harmful than a radio, which only costs the price of the unit and power supply, neither of which funds the artist or the music industry folks (the size of whose paychecks I'd argue against, but that's another matter). Under the assumption, of course, that they buy the albums or delete the files.

 

[Thomas Elliot]

I see my post fell on deaf ears.

As far as artists are concerned, they make almost no money off of their album sales, especially if you are a new artist. The contracts they sign are actually loans, in which the record company agrees to front X amount of dollars for all the necessary pieces to put the album together. Which is why you see so many artists nowadays, being signed to joint label ventures, because it defrays the amount of money the record label has to put up, and if the album does not live up to expectations they have not lose as much money as if they were the only label supporting this artist.
It is also for this reason that you see artists creating their own clothing/perfume/sneaker/etc. lines, signing endorsement deals, moving into TV/movies and tons of other business ventures, is because that is where the real money is made. They receive a much better payout engaging in these activities. It's the same reason movie stars will go overseas and film a commercial for some product, the money is better.

I believe the biggest hurdle that consumable media has encountered is the shift from physical ownership of an object to digital ownership of an object. Which is why you can sell your Jordans on eBay. But you cannot put a listing on eBay for a pair of Jordans which drop on Saturday when it is a Tuesday.
Our society has become more service focused than product focused, which is why companies like Facebook, Netflix and YouTube are so popular. When you sign up for all of these services, you are asked to agree to a user agreement, which basically says that we as the company are offering you these items for a certain price but we can use certain things as we please, we expect you to engage in a certain type of behavior etc. etc.

 

[Roaring Apathy]

I'll take a whack at this. I know I'm on sporadically but honestly this is the only good board to me and its slow as hell >_>

Every law that was created was in fact to stop something that was bad physically, economically or morally.

Oh you mean like:http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php

Nebraska
It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

New York
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.

New York City
Citizens may not greet each other by "putting one's thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers".

What makes you think they don't deserve the money they worked hard for.

The real question is what makes you so certain i owe to them to give them my money?

The issue here is that people don't really seem to know what the difference between piracy and stealing.

Stealing: Taking a physical object from some one that belongs to him or her with out her consent. There is only 1 object of its kind.
Piracy: Making a copy of the persons object. There are no two objects and both persons have 1.

Knowing this, morally it cant be wrong to pirate since neither person lost anything in the exchange.

If you want to make the argument that the person with the original object loses money, then how about people who share their own copy of a legally bought object? Is that not a lost sale on the person who owns the original objects part? What of people who simply wouldn't buy a copy of the object in the first place who didn't have any money? Is it really a lost sale if there would never have been a sale in the first place? Hell lets take this further, would a person who wants nothing to do with the object be morally responsible to support the person with the original with a sale because of the sheer fact that he or she is a potential sale? Why or why why not?

 

[Thomas Elliot]

Actually I would disagree, I am quite sure everyone knows the difference between the two verbs. Pirating is what the industry has adopted as the label for this "crime". Even when they show commercials asking people not to pirate they show a guy going on a site downloading an album and ripping it to a CD.

 

[Steampunk]

I'll take a whack at this. I know I'm on sporadically but honestly this is the only good board to me and its slow as hell >_>




Oh you mean like:http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php

Nebraska
It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

New York
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.

New York City
Citizens may not greet each other by "putting one's thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers".



The real question is what makes you so certain i owe to them to give them my money?

The issue here is that people don't really seem to know what the difference between piracy and stealing.

Stealing: Taking a physical object from some one that belongs to him or her with out her consent. There is only 1 object of its kind.
Piracy: Making a copy of the persons object. There are no two objects and both persons have 1.

Knowing this, morally it cant be wrong to pirate since neither person lost anything in the exchange.

If you want to make the argument that the person with the original object loses money, then how about people who share their own copy of a legally bought object? Is that not a lost sale on the person who owns the original objects part? What of people who simply wouldn't buy a copy of the object in the first place who didn't have any money? Is it really a lost sale if there would never have been a sale in the first place? Hell lets take this further, would a person who wants nothing to do with the object be morally responsible to support the person with the original with a sale because of the sheer fact that he or she is a potential sale? Why or why why not?

put yourself in the artists shoes, you worked hord on something and u wanted to get income for it. but then you see poeple taking it for free, and the income you could have had, goes down the drain.

 

[Armando Payne]

I agree with piracy, because without Piracy then my Itunes Library would be like 1 album and an A-ha song.