Is copying a file still theft? Included propaganda

[Nigerius Rex]

That question does not adequately summarize the situation. It assumes that the artist is not seeing a return on their investment into their creative work due to file sharing piracy which is not the case. Artists are still making money.  

Really all that says is that there's more music being produced now. Says nothing about individual artists. When was the last time your heard of an artist going multi-platinum? Even rock bands used to be able to do it. Now it's pretty rare, and happens nowhere near the level that it used to in the 2000s when artists were selling 10 million records in the US alone.

So what? Album sales are not a measure of cultural or creative health. Digital filesharing is crushing album sales because physical discs are a pain in the damn ass to buy and maintain. Digital media requires no maintnence and can be transferred and stored cheaply and easily.

What this article points out is that you have a huge range of cultural diversity propagating through every type of culture and society where previously there was none. On top of that, we see all kinds of indie artists and developers becoming huge as a result.

[Adami]

So basically if enough people figure out a good way to rip off other people, it's ok. Because the meaning of life is making sure you do whatever you want.

[Nigerius Rex]

Sure, by the textbook legal government approved definition you are stealing someones intellectual property without their consent. Unless of course it is licensed in the free domain and/or they have given consent for it to be freely distributed. Does it make it right/wrong because it is legal/illegal? Hardly.

[ack44]

Selling information is probably one of the most blatant forms of ripping off, but that's what a capitalist society is all about anyways.

[Perpetual Change]

That question does not adequately summarize the situation. It assumes that the artist is not seeing a return on their investment into their creative work due to file sharing piracy which is not the case. Artists are still making money.  

Oh, so let me get that straight-- it's okay to steal part of someone's return, as long as they're still making money. Gotcha. Odd, coming from someone who's likened income tax to be robbery in the past.

So what? Album sales are not a measure of cultural or creative health. Digital filesharing is crushing album sales because physical discs are a pain in the damn ass to buy and maintain. Digital media requires no maintnence and can be transferred and stored cheaply and easily.

Digital filesharing is crushing album sales because it makes it easy for everyone to steal things they don't own.

What this article points out is that you have a huge range of cultural diversity propagating through every type of culture and society where previously there was none. On top of that, we see all kinds of indie artists and developers becoming huge as a result.

That has nothing to do with illegal filesharing. Even if stealing people's music were stopped, no-one's saying anything about stopping indie artists from putting their music out for free.

So basically if enough people figure out a good way to rip off other people, it's ok. Because the meaning of life is making sure you do whatever you want.

Seriously. This thread is just sad. I know not everyone is perfect, but the level of intellectual dishonesty people stoop to to justify wrongdoing is just a sad reflection on human nature I guess.

[ack44]

So basically if enough people figure out a good way to rip off other people, it's ok. Because the meaning of life is making sure you do whatever you want.

Seriously. This thread is just sad. I know not everyone is perfect, but the level of intellectual dishonesty people stoop to to justify wrongdoing is just a sad reflection on human nature I guess.

 But your solution is kind of sad too. Expand the crackdown? You really think that that will help musicians and record labels make money like they used to?

[Nigerius Rex]

Seriously. This thread is just sad. I know not everyone is perfect, but the level of intellectual dishonesty people stoop to to justify wrongdoing is just a sad reflection on human nature I guess.

I am rapidly losing interest in replying to you as you seem more interested in being a judgmental condescending dickhead rather than have an honest back and forth.

[Adami]

So basically if enough people figure out a good way to rip off other people, it's ok. Because the meaning of life is making sure you do whatever you want.

Seriously. This thread is just sad. I know not everyone is perfect, but the level of intellectual dishonesty people stoop to to justify wrongdoing is just a sad reflection on human nature I guess.

 But your solution is kind of sad too. Expand the crackdown? You really think that that will help musicians and record labels make money like they used to?

I never offered a solution.


EDIT: Sorry, thought that was aimed at me.

[Perpetual Change]

Seriously. This thread is just sad. I know not everyone is perfect, but the level of intellectual dishonesty people stoop to to justify wrongdoing is just a sad reflection on human nature I guess.

I am rapidly losing interest in replying to you as you seem more interested in being a judgmental condescending dickhead rather than have an honest back and forth.

Oh great, we're back to playing the victim instead of responding to people's posts.

You know, this reminds me of this one time where I posted a thread about the morality of plagiarism, and whether it was OK to write a paper for someone else for cash. Someone here (I think WW) came down on me pretty hard. And I didn't take it as a personal attack, but as a chance to reflect on how my own ideas about things suggest certain negative aspects about my personality which I need to work on.

Unfortunately, you already seem to assert any form of "suggestion" with oppression and "nannying," so I won't bother pointing out that I think your opinion is completely hypocritical and self-serving anymore if it bothers you that much. But remember: you're the one who's taking offense and can't seem to make a distinction between being called out and being personally attacked, not me.

Also, you know the real reason you've lost interest in replying, and it has nothing to do with me hurting your feelings. But go on. Get all into a huff, make some statements about how your being treated unfairly, and leave PR for a couple days, etc. I thought we were over that, though  

I never offered a solution.


EDIT: Sorry, thought that was aimed at me.

Yeah, I suggested that the government crack down on illegal file-sharing, but in a way that's not as harsh. Essentially, make file sharing equal to, say, a parking ticket. It was just that: a suggestion. I'm perfectly ok with people disagreeing. I promise I won't pull the victim card on anyone

[William Wallace]

It's interesting to see that the "but without a law, the world will end!" argument pervades the IP debate, too. People can't even fathom the possibility that musicians and writers can make money without copyrights in place.

[Adami]

It's interesting to see that the "but without a law, the world will end!" argument pervades the IP debate, too. People can't even fathom the possibility that musicians and writers can make money without copyrights in place.

No one suggested that without a law, the world will end. People suggested that if musicians weren't paid for their music, then they won't make money for their music.

[Perpetual Change]

It's interesting to see that the "but without a law, the world will end!" argument pervades the IP debate, too. People can't even fathom the possibility that musicians and writers can make money without copyrights in place.

Why bother jumping into the discussion just to make some general hyperbolic statement that's off topic and probably not even true?

[ack44]

If someone puts some money into the Stock Market, is it fair to steal their return? After all, no-one's taking money out of anyone's bank account. We're just stopping money from entering someone's bank-account, even though any sense of justice would be able to tell it deserves to be there.

This is a decent question so I'll go ahead and answer it.

A. Stock market ≠ internet. A tightly monitored and limited system is totally different from an anarchistic chaotic ocean of information that millions participate in every day.

B. Digitalized value ≠ audio information. Audio information cannot be traded for anything while money in the stock market can be traded with government issued currency, which the government guarantees.

C. Subtracting value ≠ duplicating information. File sharing is only duplication of information and has no effect whatsoever on the original. Credit in the stock market is either/or, you can't duplicate it. If you could, you'd be rich like the record labels in their hay day.

Hence I see little connection between the two cases.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm glad you've bothered trying to answer the question, but what about the consequences? What someone who plays the stock-market would experience from NOT getting a return they were supposed to seems to me to be about the same as what an artist or record company would experience from loosing sales because people decided to mass-copy the record. I don't see how the technical differences of both scenarios negate the consequences they have in common.

[Nigerius Rex]

Also, you know the real reason you've lost interest in replying, and it has nothing to do with me hurting your feelings. But go on. Get all into a huff, make some statements about how your being treated unfairly, and leave PR for a couple days, etc. I thought we were over that, though  

This is exactly why I said what I said. Its like you are analyzing me and then coming to a conclusion and drilling it into me like its fact. It makes me feel like you are being a condescending douche towards me and it has nothing to do with the mods or anyone else treating me unfairly. So if you can't not attach a condition or a judgement like calling me a child, thief, or intellectually dishonest or tell me how I am feeling or what the motivation for what I say is then I feel no reason to continue the discussion. Go through all of your and my posts in this thread and count how many times I placed you into a category or said something like "If you believe this then you are this and this is why you are saying this" and then compare.

Also, instead of debating any actual evidence, you keep bringing up arbitrary examples like your stock market question like if you find a hypocrisy in my argument it suddenly invalidates the entire idea like it is suppose to be some silver bullet.

And you also seem to be ignoring that although an artist who relies solely on record sales (which is slowly being phased out in favor of digital sales) is going to lose money, an artist who puts their media in a digital media store like Itunes and torrent websites sees sales and exposure to a wider audience which is indisputably a good thing.

[William Wallace]

It's interesting to see that the "but without a law, the world will end!" argument pervades the IP debate, too. People can't even fathom the possibility that musicians and writers can make money without copyrights in place.

Why bother jumping into the discussion just to make some general hyperbolic statement that's off topic and probably not even true?

It's hyperbolic, yes. But why is it not true? Creators make money absent copyrights all the time.

[Perpetual Change]

Also, instead of debating any actual evidence, you keep bringing up arbitrary examples like your stock market question like if you find a hypocrisy in my argument it suddenly invalidates the entire idea like it is suppose to be some silver bullet.

Uh, no. You brought up ONE source of "evidence" which had various problems which I and others pointed out, and then instead of responding other people's arguments, you whined about how you were being insulted. And now, instead actually responding to a page and a half of stuff people have posted since you starting whining, you're just dismissing it all at once because you feel like you're being mistreated. Congrats. You've managed to transform another topic into a discussion about whether people are being nice enough to you or not  

And you also seem to be ignoring that although an artist who relies solely on record sales (which is slowly being phased out in favor of digital sales) is going to lose money, an artist who puts their media in a digital media store like Itunes and torrent websites sees sales and exposure to a wider audience which is indisputably a good thing.

No one is saying anything about digital media stores like iTunes or amazon. No one is arguing that people can't put their own material on filesharing sites, either. We're talking about illegal file sharing, NR. Not file sharing. Illegal file sharing. The kind where you share something you were supposed to pay for with a bunch of people who also are supposed to be paying for it.

[Perpetual Change]

It's interesting to see that the "but without a law, the world will end!" argument pervades the IP debate, too. People can't even fathom the possibility that musicians and writers can make money without copyrights in place.

Why bother jumping into the discussion just to make some general hyperbolic statement that's off topic and probably not even true?

It's hyperbolic, yes. But why is it not true? Creators make money absent copyrights all the time.

The part that is not true is the part about people in this thread being too stupid to know that artists can't make money other ways.

[Nigerius Rex]

Uh, no. You brought up ONE source of "evidence" which had various problems which I and others pointed out

Go back a page and reread and then show me one other post made by anyone but you of someone who pointed out "various" problems with the source I linked to. You are the only one who replied to my post and all you did was dismiss it because it did not account for individual artists. It showed that physical album sales decreased but the amount of digital albums increased by triple the amount since 2000. I can find other sources if you need me to that show digital album sales have increased.

now, instead actually responding to a page and a half of stuff people have posted since you starting whining, you're just dismissing it all at once because you feel like you're being mistreated.

This disagreement of ours has only spanned about a half page with three replies related to me relaying how I feel about the thread, and that translates to a page and a half how? Stop exaggerating, my problem is with your attitude not anyone else or their posts and the discussion as a whole is hardly derailed.

[Perpetual Change]

I can find other sources if you need me to that show digital album sales have increased.

I'm still wondering where anyone has argued that digital album sales are a bad thing? Again, why is this relevant? As long as there's some sort of monetary transaction, it's not theft. No one ever said it was.

This disagreement of ours has only spanned about a half page with three replies related to me relaying how I feel about the thread, and that translates to a page and a half how? Stop exaggerating, my problem is with your attitude not anyone else or their posts.

Sorry, when someone responds to you point by point, and all you so is say "Oh you're just being a condescending immature dick I'm not gonna post anymore," I'd say your the one with the attitude problem. But whatever.

Plus, what evidence? You've, so far, posted a Youtube video and a working paper that basically says "Sales are down by 20 percent, but that's okay, because artists still have an incentive to create new work."

[Nigerius Rex]

Just because you respond to me point by point doesn't mean you get to throw demeaning insults around. Try having a discussion with someone at school or work and saying "I seriously hope you don't believe what you just relayed to me you believe because that would make you extremely intellectually dishonest and childlike" and see how long the conversation continues. I am not asking to be babied, just don't talk down to me like I am doing something wrong and my mere opinion is an insult to your existence.

Again, why is this relevant? As long as there's some sort of monetary transaction, it's not theft. No one ever said it was.

Because the sales are growing along with the rate of copying. I don't think we disagree with the idea that creators should earn profit on their creations. I support creative developers and own many albums, games, and have invested in many independent projects. The situation I find myself in quite often is if I purchase a game or album or document, I believe I should be allowed to copy and distribute that data among every computer I own or will use in the future for my enjoyment. Currently though, this is considered illegal and ethically wrong and I could be fined many thousands of dorra for doing so.

Another thing I have been trying to communicate is that people with no money and no interest in the product they are currently pirating are not negatively affecting the creator because those people would not have purchased the creative work anyways. This is why you see massive pirating, but stable sales. All it is, is exposure.

[hefdaddy42]

Seriously. This thread is just sad. I know not everyone is perfect, but the level of intellectual dishonesty people stoop to to justify wrongdoing is just a sad reflection on human nature I guess.

I am rapidly losing interest in replying to you as you seem more interested in being a judgmental condescending dickhead rather than have an honest back and forth.

NR, that was uncalled for.  A comment like "intellectual dishonesty" does not equal "being a judgemental condescending dickhead." 

[Perpetual Change]

Just because you respond to me point by point doesn't mean you get to throw demeaning insults around. Try having a discussion with someone at school or work and saying "I seriously hope you don't believe what you just relayed to me you believe because that would make you extremely intellectually dishonest and childlike" and see how long the conversation continues. I am not asking to be babied, just don't talk down to me like I am doing something wrong and my mere opinion is an insult to your existence.

I never directly said anything to you along those lines. I said people who download music and games illegally and then try to argue why it's morally permissible to do so are worse than people who just do it and realize that what they're doing probably isn't completely moral. If that's not you, then why are you so worried about it?

I believe I should be allowed to copy and distribute that data among every computer I own or will use in the future for my enjoyment. Currently though, this is considered illegal and ethically wrong and I could be fined many thousands of dorra for doing so.

I'd agree with you that that's bullshit, but why can't we permit something like that while still admitting that it's not O.K. to upload someone else's new album so it can be downloaded by thousands of anonymous people?

Another thing I have been trying to communicate is that people with no money and no interest in the product they are currently pirating are not negatively affecting the creator because those people would not have purchased the creative work anyways.

Why would people download a product they have no interest in?

[ack44]

I'm glad you've bothered trying to answer the question, but what about the consequences? What someone who plays the stock-market would experience from NOT getting a return they were supposed to seems to me to be about the same as what an artist or record company would experience from loosing sales because people decided to mass-copy the record. I don't see how the technical differences of both scenarios negate the consequences they have in common.

 There could be tons of examples where the said consequences are similar. I just don't see the stock market example making any sense because it's not something that's happening and it's hard to imagine how it would happen at all and if it were happening at all, people would stop investing in that stock market and move to a system of investment that wouldn't rip them off.

 I don't think the consequences are a result of file sharing. I'd say they are a result of change in technology. It's not even much of a moral question.

[XJDenton]

See I always viewed copyright as an extention of protections of property rights, which is why I'm quite confused why the libertarians seem to be against it. As the economy goes increasingly digital by not protecting copyright you are essentially condemning a large amount of products to be thrown out of a free market enviroment. Which I thought you guys like.

[ehra]

The argument seems to be that, because people are making money off of products despite plenty of other people downloading them for free, file sharing isn't actually detrimental to their business. I'd say the only reason they can even make money off of it in the first place is because so many feel morally obliged to pay for someone else's product if they want to have it. If times goes by and this "well it's not hurting anyone" idea becomes more and more common then why would anyone ever actually pay for anything that can be put on the internet? If this isn't actually a problem then what happens when/if everyone decides to do it? Part of the argument is that people who download these things then spread awareness about the product which gets other people to buy it, but what incentive is there for those people to just not download it for free themselves like you did?

And it's easy to say that an artist should just put out their work for the sake of their work and not money, but are software developers, people who make products that are absolutely vital to the way the world works, supposed to make things out of the kindness of their heart? Are all of these people only allowed to make money through what is, essentially, charity?

[Perpetual Change]

That's what I've saying XJ, but apparently we're construing that as an insult so we can't go there  

[Philawallafox]

It's Illegal, there are no if's, and's or but's and no back and forth about it. You are in the wrong. You are stealing from these artists. There is no greyscale. The only exception to this is in a family home between family.

[El Barto]

NR hit upon something a while back that got completely skipped over.  That is that the damage done by file sharing is overblown.  People seem to equate every downloaded song or album as a lost sale.  The majority of stuff that people download they probably didn't want badly enough to spend $15 on.  My computer is full of stuff that I wouldn't have spent $15 on at this stage in my life (and also plenty of stuff that I did spend $15 on 20 years ago, but that's a different story).  While you could certainly say that I don't have the right to listen to it, and you'd probably be right, I suspect the artists themselves would prefer that I did. 

Are they happy that I stole it?  Probably not.  Given that I won't pay $15 to Capitol under any circumstances, would they prefer that I never listen to their music?  Highly doubtful.  Listening to their music is what gains them exposure and allows them to make money via different means.  Means that I've been highly supportive of over the years. 

[ehra]

NR hit upon something a while back that got completely skipped over.  That is that the damage done by file sharing is overblown.

We're talking about if file sharing is ethically wrong. The damage currently done might be overblown because many people still feel wrong just taking things, but if file sharing is perfectly fine then why wouldn't everyone do it all the time? Why would anyone pay? And there's far more that's effected by this than just music or art in general.

[Perpetual Change]

NR hit upon something a while back that got completely skipped over.  That is that the damage done by file sharing is overblown.  People seem to equate every downloaded song or album as a lost sale....
Are they happy that I stole it?  Probably not.  Given that I won't pay $15 to Capitol under any circumstances, would they prefer that I never listen to their music?  Highly doubtful.

I don't think anyone skipped over that, but just because the loss to an artist may be being overblown does that justify it?　As per the 2nd statement, I'm not sure how to you can say either or. Some artists don't care. But others have been made very specific statements that they're against it. And these aren't spoiled brats like the guys from Metallica. I remember heaing post-Maiden Blaze Bayley say something about it too.

Also, I'd be pretty surprised if some people aren't overblowing how famous some of these artists actually are. I'd imagine a lot guys from bands people here on DTF listen to aren't that wealthy. I'd suspect the guys from Pain of Salvation and Symphony X have can't support themselves on their music alone, and I'd be willing to bet they all have other jobs. Stealing that music just seems extra wrong to me. It's not like stealing the new Hannah Montana album. These guys barely get by on their music, if at all. I mean, it really says a lot when you think that out of all the prog bands, Dream Theater are probably the wealthiest and most sucessful of the bunch (aside from Tool and all).

[Sigz]

Which brings us back to this:

But either way, you can't confuse an action having positive benefits with being ethical. If someone wishes you to pay for their property and you don't, that is wrong even if you've actually helped them in some way.

The problem there is the presupposition that because someone wants you to pay for something that you are obligated ethically do so. It applies in real life where you justify your investment by not giving your product away on the street and you actually consume or steal a resource by taking it against the creators will, but not on the internet where data is copied at no cost or harm to the creator.

If someone creates something and then asks money for it, taking it without paying is wrong. 'Copying data' may not physically harm the in the way that stealing a car from a dealership would, but the creator still has a right to charge for it, and I don't see how it being digital changes the underlying action. The effects of piracy may be different, hell they may even be positive, but you are still taking something without permission.

[AcidLameLTE]

I don't understand the whole "I'm stealing music but the artists are still making money so what's the problem?" argument.

Is it okay for shoplifters to steal merchandise just because the company is still making money?

[El Barto]

NR hit upon something a while back that got completely skipped over.  That is that the damage done by file sharing is overblown.  People seem to equate every downloaded song or album as a lost sale....
Are they happy that I stole it?  Probably not.  Given that I won't pay $15 to Capitol under any circumstances, would they prefer that I never listen to their music?  Highly doubtful.

I don't think anyone skipped over that, but just because the loss to an artist may be being overblown does that justify it?　As per the 2nd statement, I'm not sure how to you can say either or. Some artists don't care. But others have been made very specific statements that they're against it. And these aren't spoiled brats like the guys from Metallica. I remember heaing post-Maiden Blaze Bayley say something about it too.

Also, I'd be pretty surprised if some people aren't overblowing how famous some of these artists actually are. I'd imagine a lot guys from bands people here on DTF listen to aren't that wealthy. I'd suspect the guys from Pain of Salvation and Symphony X have can't support themselves on their music alone, and I'd be willing to bet they all have other jobs. Stealing that music just seems extra wrong to me. It's not like stealing the new Hannah Montana album. These guys barely get by on their music, if at all. I mean, it really says a lot when you think that out of all the prog bands, Dream Theater are probably the wealthiest and most sucessful of the bunch (aside from Tool and all).

Symphony X is a fine example.  I can assure you that spending $15 on one album to find out if there are a couple of songs on it that I like is never going to happen.  Ever.  The two songs I heard were alright.  Seems like something I might like.  Still, that's not something I can or would spend money on right now.  Do you think those guys would prefer that I shut myself off from their music?  If I were an Yngwie knock-off, I'd prefer that people exposed themselves to my music so they might support me somewhere else.  Finding 6 songs that I love across 4 of their albums is exactly the sort of thing that would compel me to blow $45 to see them at the HoB.  

Again, I've been pretty clear that filesharing is theft.  I'm just making the point that theft isn't always a bad thing.

Edit:  PT is a better example.  I can't think of one album that I like enough to spend money on.  However, I can think of 10 or so songs that I think are exceptional.  The fact that they were playing 2 of those songs on their last tour was enough for me to blow $45 to see them (and I was board shitless for the first set).  Frankly, I'd say they're much better off than had I just decided to buy their most recent album, said "awe, they suck!", and never given them another chance.

[ehra]

The obvious problem here is that there aren't better ways for artists to get people to hear their music without it being played on the radio or buying the album (or, to be more accurate, artists aren't taking advantage of the ways that exist).