[Eightball]

The pro-piracy arguments remain lunacy.

I'll start with Nuke, since he posted last.

Nuke, you are arguing that label companies deserve to suffer from piracy because they're obsolete.  That's rediculous.  Since when did something's obsolesence affect it's legal standing?  Even if the RIAA is destined to die, it doesn't mean you should try to hasten it through illegal measures.  It's up to the artists to decide they want to leave the RIAA.  Not you.
When you download an mp3 instead of purchasing it (ie from some online music store or as part of a CD) you have taken away money from someone.  You always are hurting the artist, be it Britney Spears or some obscure bagpipe/ska band.  They are supposed to get royalties, either from CD sales or from sales of individual songs.  When you download instead of paying, they have lost that royalty.  Individually, that tiny bit of money won't make or break the artist.  But if a million people do it, that maybe $.07 per song starts to add up.
And I think you can compare DLing mp3's to stealing physical merchandise.  It costs money to design CD covers and printed material.  It costs money to mint the CDs, then assemble the packaging.  I don't know any of the figures, but it's not free.  And when you make a million of them, it adds up.  When you DL an mp3, you get the product without paying for it.  That's one lost sale.  And probably more, since the site you got it from will in all likelyhood continue to let others DL it.
I also take issure with this statement.

if the legal system thought of piracy as a major crime, theyd be busting down file sharer's doors and arresting people. the fact is that the riaa is taking the law in its own hands and using scare tactics to enforce a grey area in the law. making unfair judgements agaisnt people and imposing great restrictions on everyone else in a vain attempt to stop piracy.

First of all, there was a point in time when the American legal system was not overly concerned about lynchings of African-Americans.  That didn't justify such terrible actions. I'm not saying file sharing is the same as lynching people.  I'm just saying that there can be a disconnect from what our legal system is enforcing and what should be enforced.
Secondly, how is the RIAA "imposing great restrictions on everyone else"?  And who do you mean by "everyone else?"  Are they people who do not pirate?


On to Mefustae.

It's a completely victimless crime, unless you consider the artist who is losing money to be the victim

Quote fixed!

How childish must you be to believe your desires ("makes me want to pirate even more") justify your actions.  That's not the way the world or our legal system works.  Just because you want something doesn't make it right.

And yes, there is a victim.  The artist loses money.  They can lose a lot of money if many people pirate their works.  How would you like to get mugged for a dime by ten thousand people?  Is that any different from having a thousand dollars stolen from you by one person?

The kid's future isn't necessarily ruined, and even if it is, he did the crime, now he'll do the time.  And since I don't pirate music, I don't have to worry about changing my tune. 

----------

aldo - the shoe analogy is flawed, yes.   

[aldo_14]

Note: the 'loses money' arguement implies that product would automatically be bought if not pirated (and is not once pirated).

[Eightball]

I think it is safe to assume that if a product is being pirated there is a desire for it, meaning it would be purchased by the pirates if not pirated by them.

(Sorry about the grammar.  )

[aldo_14]

I think it is safe to assume that if a product is being pirated there is a desire for it, meaning it would be purchased by the pirates if not pirated by them.

I don't.  What about the try-before-you-buy attitude of wanting to hear a new bands' track before you spend a tenner on the cd?  Or simple cost-effectiveness - I downloaded tracks off Weather Underground way before I bought it (2nd hand & cheap), simply because the CD was priced at a fairly extortionate £17.99 due to rarity.  Even then I needed to DL the last track because the disk was scratched.

[Eightball]

More and more bands are getting into the "try-before-you-buy" thing by having tracks on purevolume.com or their own myspace site.  More and more there are alternatives to pirating...

[karajorma]

But ONLY because the recording industry has been forced to come up with an alternative to illegal downloads. Remember that RIAA wanted to ban mp3 players and the like.

RIAA has continually attempted to strangle the market for downloading tracks whether legal or not. The fact that you can now buy them online is simply a response to the fact that people wanted mp3s and RIAA has now been forced to accept that option. Don't kid yourself into ever thinking RIAA would have done that without piracy of music over the internet.

[aldo_14]

More and more bands are getting into the "try-before-you-buy" thing by having tracks on purevolume.com or their own myspace site.  More and more there are alternatives to pirating...

Because they have to.  So piracy has driven up consumer choice, and as a result the downloaded music market is booming.  Despite the ineptitude of some of the main companies involved.......

[Stealth]

The only reason it's regarded as 'stealing' is because of the hubbub that the RIAA raises over the issue.
no. lol. your logic is so flawed it's going to be hard to reason with you.  here let me put it simply.  if the RIAA owns something, they can say what can and cannot be done with the said item.  if they want to say that it's stealing to take something that belongs to them, then they can.

lol, that's like saying "it's against hte law to steal only because the government says it is"... yeah... what's your point lol


Downloading music is not raping someone. Downloading music is not murdering someone.
read what i wrote. i didn't say it was raping someone. i didn't say it was murdering someone. i said it was like someone trying to justify their actions (and i used the EXAMPLE (<--keyword) of a rapist or murderer justifying their actions).

The "crime" of downloading music is more comparable to stealing $5 from a Billionaire.
which, of course, is perfectly fine, right?  no crime there, because the billionaire has money to burn...  it's only a crime when the person that's being stolen from actually suffers due to the loss. 

Sir, your way of thinking is extremely scary.  Thank God that you don't have a say in government, and with that reasoning, most likely never will

There is no victim when you pirate music, it's all RIAA hype, and i'm thinking that the benefits outlined by Maeg [among others] somewhat outweigh the complete lack of harm. Sure, i'll conceed that it is actually a crime, and - like any other crime - if you're dumb enough to get caught, you should get fined. But there is no ****ing victim for cryin' out loud! Why should this kid have his future ruined because he "stole" $100 from some faceless conglomerate that rakes in Billions a year?!!
why? because he broke the law.  he broke a law that he KNEW was being cracked down on.

and if there's no victim here, then it wouldn't be against the law... just wanted to point that out... don't think you're some prodigy that knows the real truth that everyone's oblivious to: that laws are pointless, because they are never to protect people from becoming victims... get real.

Anyway, i'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if the RIAA forced you to drop out of Uni because you'd downloaded $20 worth of Britney's latest hits...
no, because unlike some people, i'm not afaid to take responsibility for my actions.  i don't try to cower and point fingers like a damn coward, when i know i broke the law.

[Ulala]

I saw a few posts about the cost of producing CDs, they're little booklets or whatever.. which contributes to inflated CD prices.. it seems to me that if people are downloading music, legal or not, they don't care about the little booklets and the plastic case a CD comes in. So why is the record company still shelling out so much money to produce CDs in such a manner? Perhaps because it actually doesn't cost that much? Or they're stubborn? They could release it in .pdf format for download with CDs (legally, of course) but would people pay to download them? *shrugs* Just thought I'd point it out.

[WMCoolmon]

no. lol. your logic is so flawed it's going to be hard to reason with you.  here let me put it simply.  if the RIAA owns something, they can say what can and cannot be done with the said item.  if they want to say that it's stealing to take something that belongs to them, then they can.

lol, that's like saying "it's against hte law to steal only because the government says it is"... yeah... what's your point lol

No, they can't. Even if you own something, you can't simply make up whatever crimes you like because someone takes it. If someone takes and uses my shovel that I bought from the general store, I can't sue them for copyright infringement or rape.

The reason that 'piracy' and 'stealing' are used is because of the emotional responses that those terms entail.

The reason that stealing is a crime is because you are depriving the owner of property that they had in their possession. The reason that copyright infringement is a crime is to promote the creation of media whose value comes primarily from an abstract element.

[Ford Prefect]

(And, arguably, to ensure that credit is given where it's due when someone creates something.)

[Mefustae]

no. lol. your logic is so flawed it's going to be hard to reason with you.  here let me put it simply.  if the RIAA owns something, they can say what can and cannot be done with the said item.  if they want to say that it's stealing to take something that belongs to them, then they can.

lol, that's like saying "it's against hte law to steal only because the government says it is"... yeah... what's your point lol


What WMC said.

read what i wrote. i didn't say it was raping someone. i didn't say it was murdering someone. i said it was like someone trying to justify their actions (and i used the EXAMPLE (<--keyword) of a rapist or murderer justifying their actions).

I was simply highlighting the fact that this "crime" of downloading music is in no way comparable to actual crimes like Rape and Murder, and as such your use of these crimes - even as a mere example - has no place in this discussion.

which, of course, is perfectly fine, right?  no crime there, because the billionaire has money to burn...  it's only a crime when the person that's being stolen from actually suffers due to the loss. 

Sir, your way of thinking is extremely scary.  Thank God that you don't have a say in government, and with that reasoning, most likely never will

I'll agree, that analogy was indeed quite flawed, and I acknowledge that my whole line of arguement there was somewhat fallacious, and you're quite true that i'd never get into politics with this kind of reasoning, I mean, my reasoning makes sense half the time, and lord knows reasoning just doesn't belong in politics.

why? because he broke the law.  he broke a law that he KNEW was being cracked down on.

and if there's no victim here, then it wouldn't be against the law... just wanted to point that out... don't think you're some prodigy that knows the real truth that everyone's oblivious to: that laws are pointless, because they are never to protect people from becoming victims... get real.

See, now you're just getting snippy. This is not a clear-cut case of being in direct contravention with the law as - how many have already pointed out - most that download music weren't going to buy said music anyway, so they're not actually stealing anything, as the companies are not actually taking a loss. It's a difficult thing to get  your head around, but even you - o' great prodigy that can see past my fallacy - can understand that it is the packaging that costs money to produce, so the only way you can actually 'steal' this music is if you were dead-set going to buy it anyway, and chose to download it instead, as only then does the RIAA take a loss [and even then the logic is somewhat murky as to being against the law]. This then comes back around to RIAA overpricing which makes the chore of downloading music that much more barable an alternative to actually paying through your nose for a legit copy. Honestly, if you needed to just pay a fiver to get a legit, high-quality version of a CD, i'd expect far less people would bother with 'piracy', as it's a major pain in the arse to find a reliable, high-quality soundtrack on the net, as opposed to what the RIAA would have you believe.

You may not think it is 'right' to commit 'piracy', but the RIAA brought it on themselves, and does not the end always justify the means?

no, because unlike some people, i'm not afaid to take responsibility for my actions.  i don't try to cower and point fingers like a damn coward, when i know i broke the law.

That's a very noble sentiment, but you're all talk. If your future was ruined over Tupac's latest jingle [as you can see, I know nothing of popular music ], you'd be as pissed as this guy.

Edit: It's Christmas!!

[Nuke]

The pro-piracy arguments remain lunacy.

I'll start with Nuke, since he posted last.

Nuke, you are arguing that label companies deserve to suffer from piracy because they're obsolete. That's rediculous. Since when did something's obsolesence affect it's legal standing? Even if the RIAA is destined to die, it doesn't mean you should try to hasten it through illegal measures. It's up to the artists to decide they want to leave the RIAA. Not you.
When you download an mp3 instead of purchasing it (ie from some online music store or as part of a CD) you have taken away money from someone. You always are hurting the artist, be it Britney Spears or some obscure bagpipe/ska band. They are supposed to get royalties, either from CD sales or from sales of individual songs. When you download instead of paying, they have lost that royalty. Individually, that tiny bit of money won't make or break the artist. But if a million people do it, that maybe $.07 per song starts to add up.
And I think you can compare DLing mp3's to stealing physical merchandise. It costs money to design CD covers and printed material. It costs money to mint the CDs, then assemble the packaging. I don't know any of the figures, but it's not free. And when you make a million of them, it adds up. When you DL an mp3, you get the product without paying for it. That's one lost sale. And probably more, since the site you got it from will in all likelyhood continue to let others DL it.
I also take issure with this statement.

if the legal system thought of piracy as a major crime, theyd be busting down file sharer's doors and arresting people. the fact is that the riaa is taking the law in its own hands and using scare tactics to enforce a grey area in the law. making unfair judgements agaisnt people and imposing great restrictions on everyone else in a vain attempt to stop piracy.

First of all, there was a point in time when the American legal system was not overly concerned about lynchings of African-Americans. That didn't justify such terrible actions. I'm not saying file sharing is the same as lynching people. I'm just saying that there can be a disconnect from what our legal system is enforcing and what should be enforced.
Secondly, how is the RIAA "imposing great restrictions on everyone else"? And who do you mean by "everyone else?" Are they people who do not pirate?


On to Mefustae.

It's a completely victimless crime, unless you consider the artist who is losing money to be the victim

Quote fixed!

How childish must you be to believe your desires ("makes me want to pirate even more") justify your actions. That's not the way the world or our legal system works. Just because you want something doesn't make it right.

And yes, there is a victim. The artist loses money. They can lose a lot of money if many people pirate their works. How would you like to get mugged for a dime by ten thousand people? Is that any different from having a thousand dollars stolen from you by one person?

The kid's future isn't necessarily ruined, and even if it is, he did the crime, now he'll do the time. And since I don't pirate music, I don't have to worry about changing my tune.

----------

aldo - the shoe analogy is flawed, yes.

you assume i care one way or another weather piracy should be legal or not. sence im a fan of the underground and never listen to big label music, which is an entirely different ballpark imho.  the point i was trying to make is first of all that your anaolgy sucks. secondly, and more importantly that the predicament that the riaa is in right now, is because it didnt take the inititave to install a system of internet distribution before the rise and propagation of internet file sharing. then when they try to create such a system in the post napster world people are spoiled by pirate mp3s that they can use in anything as opposed to a "legal" format that is very restrictive and in many cases doesnt sound as good. seriously do any of the pay per download systems offer mp3 format? its the proprietary formats that make it very undesirable to use. had they put the system into effect earlyer it would have been considered more the norm. i look forward to the day where bands arise above the constraints of the record companies.

[Grey Wolf]

I buy what I consider worth listening to and don't listen to what I don't consider worth listening to. It works out for me.

[Ulala]

*is too lazy to read long posts, and has lost interest*