[Kosh]

I started seriously pirating 3 years ago when I got into university. Before that I was at home on my parents *gasp* 56K dial-up connection. University had a much better internet connection, so I took advantage of it.

Considering all of the money I have saved over the years from pirating, I can't really say no to it anymore. Because there is software/games/movies that I want to use, but I really don't have money to buy them. What do I do? I find a way to use them anyway.

[TheCaptain]

Sometimes there are bands/games/movies out there that are seriously hard to find. That might be a pretty lame excuse, but it's the only half-decent one I can think of at this time

Nah, I'm just a fkn leech, ask any of my friends

But I don't honestly intend to hurt anyone by my actions, and I know when folks like the RIAA and other organisations of the type say it's 'not' a victimless crime, a part of me sort of goes 'ya'know, they might just be right about that'. But then another, larger portion of my thought-process goes, 'are you REALLY going to buy that album/game/movie? Do you know how EASY and CHEAP it is to get, with just a miniscule amount of intelligence?' Very hard to resist something that's free, and with such a wider assortment of choces than most video stores, computer game retailers, or music outlets.

Still, most of the computer games and DVDs that I really like, I end up buying - copies are not truly substitutes for the originals.

To punish a person like the one in that article though, for a mistake that so many others of his generation are making, and then to ENCOURAGE him to drop out of his tertiary education to try and pay off the fine? That's just incredulous. And somehow, not so much... not in this day'n'age, sadly

[Grug]

Sometimes there are bands/games/movies out there that are seriously hard to find. That might be a pretty lame excuse, but it's the only half-decent one I can think of at this time

Nah, I'm just a fkn leech, ask any of my friends

But I don't honestly intend to hurt anyone by my actions, and I know when folks like the RIAA and other organisations of the type say it's 'not' a victimless crime, a part of me sort of goes 'ya'know, they might just be right about that'. But then another, larger portion of my thought-process goes, 'are you REALLY going to buy that album/game/movie? Do you know how EASY and CHEAP it is to get, with just a miniscule amount of intelligence?' Very hard to resist something that's free, and with such a wider assortment of choces than most video stores, computer game retailers, or music outlets.

To punish a person like the one in that article though, for a mistake that so many others of his generation are making, and then to ENCOURAGE him to drop out of his tertiary education to try and pay off the fine? That's just incredulous. And somehow, not so much... not in this day'n'age, sadly

BS dude, you download that crap without a second thought. You evil leech upon society.

[TheCaptain]

Sometimes there are bands/games/movies out there that are seriously hard to find. That might be a pretty lame excuse, but it's the only half-decent one I can think of at this time

Nah, I'm just a fkn leech, ask any of my friends

But I don't honestly intend to hurt anyone by my actions, and I know when folks like the RIAA and other organisations of the type say it's 'not' a victimless crime, a part of me sort of goes 'ya'know, they might just be right about that'. But then another, larger portion of my thought-process goes, 'are you REALLY going to buy that album/game/movie? Do you know how EASY and CHEAP it is to get, with just a miniscule amount of intelligence?' Very hard to resist something that's free, and with such a wider assortment of choces than most video stores, computer game retailers, or music outlets.

To punish a person like the one in that article though, for a mistake that so many others of his generation are making, and then to ENCOURAGE him to drop out of his tertiary education to try and pay off the fine? That's just incredulous. And somehow, not so much... not in this day'n'age, sadly

BS dude, you download that crap without a second thought. You evil leech upon society.

lol

well, yeh, but deeeeeeep down there's a part of me that questions..

I swearz!

[WMCoolmon]

If prices seriously dropped, I suspect people would continue to pirate, saying, "well, since the CD is only 3 dollars, they won't lose much if I DL this."

Doubt it. I'm so disgusted with the RIAA sueing anyone and everyone that they can that I buy used CDs only. The one time I did buy a new CD from a company that was part of the RIAA, I felt slightly sick for doing so.

If they were selling CDs for $3, though, that'd be cheaper than used CDs. And it would prolly mean that they'd done some serious fat-cutting. If they kept up the same business practices, I'd probably still go for used CDs (Which would experience a similar drop in price) but $3 is not a whole lot. If I felt like I were supporting the bands rather than corrupt businessmen, I could easily justify that.

[Nuke]

i think the riaa is a terrorist organization. they arent actually using the legal system to enforce theese fines. their monitoring people's shared file lists which are broadcast by share programs (least they better be and not using spyware or their breaking privacy laws).  then when they find a substantial number of their files being shared, they have theire little settlement department give them a call. then they use fear of being sued to get theese people to pay their outrageous fines, without the accused getting any legal support. this scare tactic is a form of terrorism that bypasses the legal system so that they can get more money from you. the legal system would probibly be more fair about it and youd have to pay a smaller amount. you would have to be stupid to accept theese settlements without having a lawyer on your side (which most people cant afford mind you, and the riaa knows this). you really arent legally bound to pay a corprately issued fine unless a judge orders you to. so if the riaa sends you a bill, send them a post card with a big **** off written on it. im just waiting for some disgrunteled geek to walk into riaa hq and start capping people with an uzi

[WMCoolmon]

It'd be interesting to see the outcome of a jury trial for one of these.

[Nuke]

It'd be interesting to see the outcome of a jury trial for one of these.

has there ever been one?

[Grug]

Doubt it, they probably push for settlements, as in this case. >..>

[NGTM-1R]

They're scared of jury trials, IIRC. They try to get summary judgement if it goes to court. I think they've succeeded so far.

[Eightball]

Nuke, your knowledge of the American legal system is inspiring. 

People like Kosh and TheCaptain are reasons why I have little sympathy for pirates.  They don't give a damn about the legality of their actions.  If it feels good (or cheap), do it.

Which in turn drives up prices for people like me who actually pay for things.  Yes, $15 dollars for a CD is inflated, but if all pirating stopped, I suspect it might drop.  Probably not as drastically as you would hope for, but perhaps a bit.

And I don't know this, but I speculate that a good part of the $15 dollars for a CD is not just for the RIAA.  It costs money to package CDs.  To advertise, perhaps.  And some money goes to the artists - significantly less would if CDs cost $3.

Does anyone have a breakdown of the money that comes from a purchase of a CD?  I think that would be very enlightening.

[StratComm]

I think the problem is not that most CDs cost $15+, it's that they are not worth $15+.  Would the recording industry actually put out music instead of an image, then at least some people (the ones who the RIAA is going to be able to stop from pirating, anyway) might buy more of it.  But as it stands, I'm not wasting $15 on the latest pop star's album not because I can get it for free but because it sucks.  It's an important factor in the "sales have dropped XX amount" nonsense that the RIAA and major labels themselves put out from time to time; it is based on only the factors they want to consider, not the ones that drive people like me to buy music (or not).  And for the record, I don't pirate music.  If I want to listen to the latest stuff, as someone else said, I'll turn on the radio.  But I still think the RIAA is only hurting actual musicians through their copyright scare tactics.

EDIT: I still blame MTV.

[Eightball]

This is what I don't get.

Several posters have said that they are angry with the RIAA because their music sucks.  But why do you pirate it then?  Are you admitting to liking poor-quality entertainment?

This isn't directed so much at you, StratComm, since you don't pirate.

[aldo_14]

This is what I don't get.

Several posters have said that they are angry with the RIAA because their music sucks.  But why do you pirate it then?  Are you admitting to liking poor-quality entertainment?

This isn't directed so much at you, StratComm, since you don't pirate.

I don't think you get it.

The RIAA is a vast conglomeration of labels publishing a vast amount of music.

A large amount of music published, is cheap generic ****e aimed at cashing in on the trends of the time, devoid of originality and musical value.  Any profits made are ploughed back into that.  So people don't want to finance it when they buy what little, ovepriced, music there is which is of actual artistic value.

[Eightball]

However, in any other, non-digital situation, you don't start stealing; you just leave the market.

IE, if a major shoe company owning conglomerate thingy overpriced all the shoes that it covered, you wouldn't start grabbing the few pairs that you do like.  You just don't buy from that conglomerate.

Just because it is easy to pirate music, games, and movies doesn't mean you should.

[Stealth]

So what your saying is that since all theft is equal all thieves deserve the same punishment surely? I can't really see it any other way than that. I should go to jail for the same duration as a person who stole cash from their workplace even though what I 'stole' is effectively of zero monetary value; if I could only have gotten it by paying for it in advance I would never have bought it in the first place.
i think a rule that's set out, with the consequences for breaking the rule CLEARLY known, should be taken seriously.  people knew they could and would get in trouble for downloading music. end of story.  they knew they'd get a fine, and that it wouldn't be $10.00.  if a culture condemns thieves to having a hand cut off, there'll be a lot less thieves.  is it fair to get your hand cut off for stealing an apple?  hell no. but it works, doesn't it. and it's based on the principle that stealing is wrong

Need I also point out that access to a wider array of musical styles and types has increased the uptake of more music? People who'd never have heard of international artists or musicians who don't get a top ten hit actually find out about their music and buy CD's that they'd never have heard were it not free for a taster in the first place.
no, you may not. because frankly, that's irrelevant.  that's like saying "i stole from him, but need i point out that my stealing his money is actually helping people".  lol. that's trying to justify breaking the law.  try doing that in court, with any law, whether it be as petty as stealing, or as serious as rape (i was actually HELPING her nationality, by giving her my American semen and allowing her to have pure blood in her offspring, and therefore help the entire race) or murder (killing him helped society, because not many people liked him).

[Mefustae]

i think a rule that's set out, with the consequences for breaking the rule CLEARLY known, should be taken seriously.  people knew they could and would get in trouble for downloading music. end of story.  they knew they'd get a fine, and that it wouldn't be $10.00.  if a culture condemns thieves to having a hand cut off, there'll be a lot less thieves.  is it fair to get your hand cut off for stealing an apple?  hell no. but it works, doesn't it. and it's based on the principle that stealing is wrong

The only reason it's regarded as 'stealing' is because of the hubbub that the RIAA raises over the issue. The fact of the matter is, we have no idea how much money they're losing, and i'm yet to hear of the downloading/pirating of music forcing a pop-star to go and actually work for a living like the rest of us [that poor, poor soul]. It's a completely victimless crime, unless you consider a faceless mega-conglomerate to be the victim, and seeing that same "victim" screw over people that don't even own computers just makes me want to pirate even more!

no, you may not. because frankly, that's irrelevant.  that's like saying "i stole from him, but need i point out that my stealing his money is actually helping people".  lol. that's trying to justify breaking the law.  try doing that in court, with any law, whether it be as petty as stealing, or as serious as rape (i was actually HELPING her nationality, by giving her my American semen and allowing her to have pure blood in her offspring, and therefore help the entire race) or murder (killing him helped society, because not many people liked him).

Downloading music is not raping someone. Downloading music is not murdering someone. The "crime" of downloading music is more comparable to stealing $5 from a Billionaire. 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?!!

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...

[WMCoolmon]

And I don't know this, but I speculate that a good part of the $15 dollars for a CD is not just for the RIAA.  It costs money to package CDs.  To advertise, perhaps.  And some money goes to the artists - significantly less would if CDs cost $3.

I did a research paper on this subject. Admittedly it wasn't that great, as it was for a summer class, and I spent a weekend house-sitting a friend's place, and he had an Xbox with MGS2 on it...

But anyway, what I came away from that was the very clear impression that music artists get paid very little by the RIAA, and are basically forced to sign over nearly all the rights to the songs that they produce, if they want the RIAA to distribute them. Not that the artists are any happier with people who pirate, since they get nothing from that, either.

Short of the extremely popular and well-known pop stars, I've never really seen anything to contradict that. It is something that seems to get a minimum of attention, though - that is, how much the people that actually make the music get.

[Nuke]

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.

However, in any other, non-digital situation, you don't start stealing; you just leave the market.

IE, if a major shoe company owning conglomerate thingy overpriced all the shoes that it covered, you wouldn't start grabbing the few pairs that you do like. You just don't buy from that conglomerate.

Just because it is easy to pirate music, games, and movies doesn't mean you should.

you cant really compair downloading mp3s to stealing physical merchandise. physical merchandise has a certain cost to manufacture, parts, materials, assembally, distribution and sales cost. now when you steal a physical item,you are robbing the store, they cannot make a profit on the item and they loose what it cost them to buy and display it. so people are loosing money because of you. all the effort that went into that item is wasted. now music isnt like that, no matter how much production cost is, once you got your master tape, you can make infinite copies of that tape for practically beans. the cost comes from presing and silkscreening cds, packaging them, printing those little booklets, and distributing them to the stores for sale. this is really all record labels do. so all youre really stealing when you download an mp3 is a customer, yourself. what the record labels dont want you to know is that theyre obsolete. the internet is a far more effietent way to distribute music. downloading music is like stealling shoes that somone magically replicated for free of of some stored design. the riia is pretending the digital revolution never happend and are trying to maintain a buisness model that is quite antiquated. if it refuses to evolve their buisness will fail. with the direction there going, it wont be lont till artists start questioning what there doing associated with those labels. of course the riaa is not going away untill they loose a long bloody battle.

[aldo_14]

However, in any other, non-digital situation, you don't start stealing; you just leave the market.

IE, if a major shoe company owning conglomerate thingy overpriced all the shoes that it covered, you wouldn't start grabbing the few pairs that you do like.  You just don't buy from that conglomerate.

Just because it is easy to pirate music, games, and movies doesn't mean you should.

Is listening to music on the radio theft?  Because, y'know, people don't give out shoes for a day free on the street, so it's not entirely an accurate analogy to make.