Piracy

stonebeard wrote:   All I'm going to say is that if I could make an identical copy of a Ferrari and leave the original in the lot and drive away with the new copy, I would.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 25 2010 at 23:08

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: And at the end, I don't care what people think about sales, the musician and producer own the copyright of an album just as the car dealer owns a Ferrari, but I don't see people claiming that Ferrari should be for free because hey can't pay for one, but I see people saying they download for free because they don't have money.

All I'm going to say is that if I could make an identical copy of a Ferrari and leave the original in the lot and drive away with the new copy, I would.

 

Nathaniel607 wrote: Ivan_Melgar_ wrote: Is exactly the same, it's property of a third person that you are taking for free and using it....This is stealing just as if you took a Ferrari. Right, look. I'm NOT saying it isn't stealing. I'm NOT saying it isn't wrong. I'm just saying that analogy is flawed. When you steal music, you don't stop that person for selling his CD to someone else. When you steal a Ferarri, it's gone.

Also, anybody who thinks the nature of music has *anything* to do with the downloading problem is deluded. People would quite cheerfully also acquire clothing and food or any other goods whatsoever for free though it injured other parties if they could do so without risking prosecution. (In many places where the law is not quite what it could be, this is indeed what happens if you doubt me.) If you think they wouldn't you're just silly.

Edited by Textbook - October 25 2010 at 21:06

Ivan_Melgar_ wrote: Is exactly the same, it's property of a third person that you are taking for free and using it....This is stealing just as if you took a Ferrari.

Right, look. I'm NOT saying it isn't stealing. I'm NOT saying it isn't wrong. I'm just saying that analogy is flawed. When you steal music, you don't stop that person for selling his CD to someone else. When you steal a Ferarri, it's gone.

Dean wrote: We're done here. Thanks for your input, no need for you to say any more.

Why'd you have to be like that? I'm not saying it isn't bad; it's talking someone's creative creation that they deserve money for and getting it for free. I just don't like it when people use that anallogy; they aren't really comprable.

Meh. It seems this thread's just starting to garner me hate from some people... I'm not on the side of "download everything and it'll be okay". Obviously this is stupid. If you take everything, no one will make it any more. It's silly. You've got to pay for creative goods like books, cds, movies - or else civilization would collapse. Albums and books are funded by those who buy them. Artist can't afford to make no return on them.

But like this article I've linked to before definitely shows - http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet_p1.html - (it's humourus, but cracked use sources) this is not a new thing. People have always been stealing intellectual property, the owners of said intellectually property have always been complaining about losing funds regarding said intellectual property. There's just a new medium doing now. Sure, it's probably on a bigger scale than home taping, but record companies we reporting lost billions then as well.

The only thing I'm against is people labelling downloaders all as heartless, labelling them as single-handedly destroying the industry when it is probably the downloaders keeping it afloat. The downloading could go, and it would make things better.

See, the thing is - and I've said this about a million times - downloading is bad. There's no question to this. But this kind of thing has always been happening in one form or another. Anyways... I'm not sure I want to stay on this thread. I think my position is fairly clear.

EDIT;

Textbook wrote: Yeah and big loss for the notion of "infinite music" Nathaniel.

What the hell's this about? There is infinite music! Just like there is infinite of anything convertible into a digital format. Books, movies, CDs. Can all be copied as many times - they won't ever run out. They are a post-scarcity product. (They aren't literally infinite as no one would be able to past it for and infinite amount of time, but they are never-ending.) That's the whole reason copyright laws exist, pretty much. All products used to be scarce - you payed for them because there wasn't a lot of them (ie, you bought a book because a guy had some and you wanted it. As opposed to there are loads of them, you are just paying for the experience). But as soon copying technology came along (the printing press), laws had to be drawn up, because, as a resource, they were worth nothing. They need to be giving artificial value, or creative value, as they could no longer be valued by the fact there wasn't much of them. There was a big argument about this when the eBook was invented. Since eBooks are just a digital file, libraries could just buy one book from the author (effectively removing the need for publishers) then just copy it for everybody. They needed to enforce arbitrary limits on copying the book, and the books lifespan (the files delete themselves after x amount of time or x amount of reads).





Edited by Nathaniel607 - October 25 2010 at 18:21

Nathaniel607 wrote:   Orford has the right to be angry, but still; other artist manage. And he says "I have better things to do with my life than to waste the next three or four years making free music for a bunch of people I don’t like.". That's a bit silly. A lot of people still buy albums. Loads of people don't ever download. He's generalizing just a little bit. But still... death threats? A lot of people are complete arseholes.

Nathaniel607 wrote: Also, there's quite a big difference between getting a free ferarri and free music. When you take a Ferarri, another one doesn't automatically appear; it's an actual thing - there's not infinite of it, like there is with music. Not that that means you SHOULD be able to get it for free; it just illustrates the difference.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time.  But Martin Orford said here in Prog Archives:  think it was probably the third or fourth death threat that did it. I get pretty angry when I see people with blog sites not only reviewing my work but also giving it away free via a Rapidshare link as well. Naturally I do my best to report those sites and close them down, and I have received quite a lot of abuse and threats for doing so. I conclude from this that musicians like me and the new breed of Internet music fans are now bitter enemies, and I have better things to do with my life than to waste the next three or four years making free music for a bunch of people I don’t like.  Plus Steve Wilson isn't the only one with right to allow his music to be downloaded for free, remember that the producers invest money in the band, take the risks and they are affected. And at the end, I don't care what people think about sales, the musician and producer own the copyright of an album just as the car dealer owns a Ferrari, but I don't see people claiming that Ferrari should be for free because hey can't pay for one, but I see people saying they download for free because they don't have money. Iván

Orford has the right to be angry, but still; other artist manage. And he says "I have better things to do with my life than to waste the next three or four years making free music for a bunch of people I don’t like.". That's a bit silly. A lot of people still buy albums. Loads of people don't ever download. He's generalizing just a little bit. But still... death threats? A lot of people are complete arseholes.

Also, there's quite a big difference between getting a free ferarri and free music. When you take a Ferarri, another one doesn't automatically appear; it's an actual thing - there's not infinite of it, like there is with music. Not that that means you SHOULD be able to get it for free; it just illustrates the difference. Plus there's loads of music I want to listen to - I couldn't possibly it all, but I don't even want a Ferarri lol (other than to sell then buy more music). But yeah, in the end, it's right. The final, undeniable point is that people shouldn't illegally downlod music.

harmonium.ro wrote: You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time.

Dean wrote:   and in many respects that hasn’t changed—sharing the music is still the only thing that really matters to me.   Now he moves to the present tense - he's still talking about sharing his music with the world and finding an audience - there is no indication that he is talking about giving the music away.

One of the respects in which that hasn't, indeed, changed, is the fact that he does offer free music (via his Soundcloud) account

And for Dean's hermeneutical approach to text are in order!