Explain how this is stealing

Most of the bands I was in had a hard time GIVING away our music.

logdog wrote: Most of the bands I was in had a hard time GIVING away our music.

Which is where I think that digital music has actually been good for the industry. Now, rather than us being force fed/spooned what the record companies think we should buy, ANYONE can make and distribute their own music (or movies or books). Take Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis's "Thrift Shop", for example. He did it all himself and didn't use a record label to produce and distribute it. That's awesome.

Books are the same way. There are LOTS of writers who are finding audiences for their work that they wouldn't have been able to do (or do easily) because publishers had a lock on distribution.

Of course, the con of it is, there is sooo much out there that finding entertainment can quickly lead to information overload. But, that's one of the downfalls of the digital age in general.

-Rob

HiTempguy wrote: I see no moral ambiguity in my thought processes. If something can be reproduced with zero cost, it has zero inherent value.

Wow. Just, WOW. I think I'm done here. I simply can't relate to that thought process in any way. So much for art, design, engineering, well, everything that makes humans human. Good luck with that.

Duke wrote:

HiTempguy wrote: I see no moral ambiguity in my thought processes. If something can be reproduced with zero cost, it has zero inherent value.

Wow. Just, *WOW*. I think I'm done here. I simply can't relate to that thought process in any way. So much for art, design, engineering, well, *everything* that makes humans human. Good luck with that.

Maybe you've misinterpreted me. "Value" as in "worth in terms of money". All of the things you described have "value" to us as humans, as a society, but many of those things have no "inherent" value. I can take some poop and smear it on a wall and call it art. Doesn't mean its inherently valuable.

That's fine as well. I can't relate to the thought process that thinks something made from essentially "nothing" has any more value then what someone assigns to it. To do so via government regulation is to create nothing more than a monopoly on the cost of "thought" by force of people with guns.

Oh, and China disagrees with you too. The fact is, this is how society is becoming. It will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century, how do you charge money for nothing? Robots and AI will further demonstrate this by taking away labour jobs.

Edit- Think of the replicator in Star Trek. Could you imagine such a device? The digital age is halfway there.

HiTempguy wrote: Maybe you've misinterpreted me. "Value" as in "worth in terms of money".

I won't speak for you, but my thoughts, talent, skill, effort, and time all have monetary value. That value may vary according to the task at hand, but there is actual, real, measurable value there.

If I design a house for a client, I am paid by that client. According to your model, it costs me nothing for a different client to build another copy of the same house, or for 5,000 people to build 5,000 copies of that house. So they should legally and morally be allowed to do that.

How is that in any way fair to me, or to the client who paid me for their house design?

I simply do not get the idea that physical labor to produce an object is "real" but the thought and knowledge required to direct that physical labor somehow isn't "real".

Duke wrote: I simply do not get the idea that physical labor to produce an object is "real" but the thought and knowledge required to direct that physical labor somehow isn't "real".

I never said you shouldn't be paid for that. But, maybe the pricing structure is wrong (in your example)? If I can get song A for $1, and song B for free, and I like both of them, which do I choose?

The pricing structure currently dictates that you turn those thoughts into something physical. In the case of music, artists tour (for instance). Ideas such as Intellectual Property and Copyright inherently slow-down the pace of advancement of society, usually to the detriment of the many and favour of the few. Which, as America has demonstrated, is a value they hold but few other countries hold as dearly.

In your case, you better have enough "value" in whatever way is deemed necessary to earn enough money from the first production of your design. After that, its anybodies game. Maybe don't provide digital copies of prints as an example.

I'm not saying that people can't try to protect their value either. I just have a strong opinion against getting the government to force people to do it. Also, again, what you consider "value" may not be considered "value" by others. I think Lady Gaga has no inherent value, but others would argue otherwise.

Beer Baron wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I'm pretty sure that it falls into the "illegal but not immoral" file.

Seconded. The income model for digital media is different from physical media. As stated earlier, you don't actually own rights to the media, you own rights to use the media. Same thing with buying an OS for a computer. The disk comes with a license that is good on usually 1 machine. You don't own the right to take that disk and install Windows on every desktop computer you come across. You buy the right to run Windows on a machine, using a disk provided. Or you're a business and pay a couple thousand for a special license that gives you unlimited installs on every machine on your network. The big difference with digital music versus physical media is how easy it is to copy. Prior to the Napster days, if you bought a record, cassette, or even CD, you could take it from machine to machine. You could bring it over to a friend's house and loan it to them, and you could sell it if you got bored of it. But it was prohibitively difficult to copy that album. For every copy of an album purchased, there was only one out in the market. Digital music is stupid easy to copy. You can buy an mp3 and share it with 100 friends and still have your mp3. So, you get the DRM model to make it so that everyone who wants a song/album has to buy it themselves rather than 1 person buying it and giving it to 20 people. Sure, you can get around DRM and still share music, but now it's closer to the "making a mix tape" level of hassle.

it has never been "prohibitively difficult" to copy an album in my lifetime... yeah, a cassette copy of a cassette tape might sound kind of E36 M3ty: but a cassette copy of a cd sounds as good as a cassette you could buy in the store if you used a good blank cassette and had a good tape deck.. i will neither confirm or deny having in my possession cassettes with copies of Iron Maiden or Metallica albums purchased by friends of mine back in the day..

where the new digital media changes things is in how perfect the copy is compared to the original: it is identical, and a copy of that copy will be identical to the original. back when cassettes were the only easy way to pirate music, you had to eventually go buy your own copy if you wanted a good quality version of a song or album: now you can just download it or copy it from a friend so there is less motivation to go out and actually buy it.

Here is why it is stealing: copyrights. Don't like it? Fine, I'll listen to that argument. But it doesn't matter if I do or not, it matters if a court of law does or not. It is like marijuana. It is illegal. Probably a bad law, but if I smoke it, I'm breaking the law. If I get caught, I'm in trouble, and it doesn't matter the rights or wrongs about it--it is illegal, and I went against the law. I wish it were legal, but until it is, I don't smoke it.

EDIT: Note all the legal ways to get music for free these days though. Not really necessary to copy.

I thought this would be about leaving your car doors unlocked at night and wondered why ya got pilfered.

HiTempguy wrote:

Duke wrote: I simply do not get the idea that physical labor to produce an object is "real" but the thought and knowledge required to direct that physical labor somehow isn't "real".

I never said you shouldn't be paid for that. But, maybe the pricing structure is wrong (in your example)? If I can get song A for $1, and song B for free, and I like both of them, which do I choose? The pricing structure currently dictates that you turn those thoughts into something physical. In the case of music, artists tour (for instance). Ideas such as Intellectual Property and Copyright inherently slow-down the pace of advancement of society, usually to the detriment of the many and favour of the few. Which, as America has demonstrated, is a value they hold but few other countries hold as dearly. In your case, you better have enough "value" in whatever way is deemed necessary to earn enough money from the first production of your design. After that, its anybodies game. Maybe don't provide digital copies of prints as an example. I'm not saying that people can't try to protect their value either. I just have a strong opinion against getting the government to force people to do it. Also, again, what you consider "value" may not be considered "value" by others. I think Lady Gaga has no inherent value, but others would argue otherwise.

I'm clearly not understanding something here. Probably many things.

1) If my client is a builder and I know damn well he's going to make 5,000 copies of my house, I price my services accordingly. He's going to make profit on my design 5,000 times, so why shouldn't I? But if my client is a private citizen, part of what he's paying me for is getting a house that is tailored exactly to him, and that will be unique. Would it be fair to my client if somebody did a knockoff of the design HE paid for?

2) What you're saying sounds like the first person to buy a song should bear the entire production cost of the musicians, the instruments, the studio time, etc. and then everybody else gets it for free, because, hey, it's paid for already, or something. WHO is going to pay the entire cost for production of something first, knowing that whoever comes second can have it for free? How is that model NOT going to stifle advancement of new ideas? Where is the reward for taking that investment risk?

3) You are free to choose the value of something to you. If you like Song A ($1) more than you like Song B (free), then buy it. If you don't think it's worth a buck, then download Song B for free instead. But the point is, YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE THAT SONG A SHOULD BE FREE. You just get to decide if you're willing to pay the price or not.

4) How is the government "forcing people to protect their value"...? Nothing requires an artist to charge for their music or an architect to charge for their designs. Any creator is welcome to give away their creation for free if they wish - that's not illegal and there's no "government forcing" involved. But if I choose to keep my creator's rights, then hell yes, the government should serve to protect those rights on my behalf. Protecting people's rights is the main thing the government should do. And no one has a right to my property - real or intellectual - except those I choose to share it with.

5) Lady Gaga has no inherent value to you - see point 3 above. I wager she has inherent value to herself, her record company, and her fans. Again, you don't get to decide what Lady Gaga charges for her music - you just get to decide if you like it enough to pay for the right to listen to it on demand.

Duke wrote: 5) Lady Gaga has no inherent value *to you* - see point 3 above. I wager she has inherent value to herself, her record company, and her fans. Again, *you* don't get to decide what Lady Gaga charges for her music - you just get to decide if you like it enough to pay for the right to listen to it on demand.

I see you have no interest in a debate but only in proving you are right. However, you are completely incorrect on the 5th point. By supply and demand, I actually do get to decide how much she does.

I was really wondering how it was different than buying used CDs, books, and the like. I get it now.

HiTempguy wrote:

Duke wrote: 5) Lady Gaga has no inherent value *to you* - see point 3 above. I wager she has inherent value to herself, her record company, and her fans. Again, *you* don't get to decide what Lady Gaga charges for her music - you just get to decide if you like it enough to pay for the right to listen to it on demand.

I see you have no interest in a debate but only in proving you are right. However, you are completely incorrect on the 5th point. By supply and demand, I actually do get to decide how much she does.

I am interested in debate. I just truly, deeply, think you're logically and morally wrong on this issue.

You do in some way get to decide what Lady Gaga is worth, but only by your individual contribution to demand (or lack thereof). You don't arbitrarily get to decide that Lady Gaga's music should be free. Only she, and by extension her record company, get to do that. Yes, you contribute to the law of supply and demand, and thereby influence the price of her music. But that's entirely different from what you were proposing above.

You get to decide that you're not going to listen to Band X's music if you have to pay for it. That's absolutely fair and entirely your decision. But that's a very different proposition from "Band X's music should be free, so I'm going to pirate it, because evil corporations and government."

DrBoost wrote: I was really wondering how it was different than buying used CDs, books, and the like. I get it now.

Cool!

Datsun1500 wrote:

DrBoost wrote: I was really wondering how it was different than buying used CDs, books, and the like. I get it now.

You say that like it will kill the thread, see you on page 7...

Have to agree with Duke on this one. Sorry you healthcare having Canuck.

This is why Adrian Thompson left.

HiTempguy wrote:

Duke wrote: 5) Lady Gaga has no inherent value *to you* - see point 3 above. I wager she has inherent value to herself, her record company, and her fans. Again, *you* don't get to decide what Lady Gaga charges for her music - you just get to decide if you like it enough to pay for the right to listen to it on demand.

I see you have no interest in a debate but only in proving you are right. However, you are completely incorrect on the 5th point. By supply and demand, I actually do get to decide how much she does.

Duke and I have been through this before, several times. I don't believe in copyright laws (not in the same way I don't believe in Santa Claus), and he thinks it's the only possible way that it should be. It's nothing more than greed and protectionism, and I'm not a fan of either.

I understand the issue but I don't always agree with it. It isn't the same to equate digital piracy to stealing a car, or something from a shop, because in those instances there has been a material loss of goods. Digital piracy involves no reduction in the original. But it does represent a loss of potential revenue, I say potential because I think a lot of people who pirate things would not pay for them if it wasn't available for free.

It is interesting how the digital age has made people want/expect things for free,for better or worse. And it isn't even young 'self entitled' hooligans. Companies routinely use photographers' pictures without credit or compensation.

One thing I do know is that digital piracy and online streaming (this is arguably a bigger detriment to artists' revenue) means that bands need to rely on concerts a lot more than CD sales and I berkeleying hate stadium concerts and festivals.

Zomby Woof wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

Duke wrote: 5) Lady Gaga has no inherent value *to you* - see point 3 above. I wager she has inherent value to herself, her record company, and her fans. Again, *you* don't get to decide what Lady Gaga charges for her music - you just get to decide if you like it enough to pay for the right to listen to it on demand.

I see you have no interest in a debate but only in proving you are right. However, you are completely incorrect on the 5th point. By supply and demand, I actually do get to decide how much she does.

Duke and I have been through this before, several times. I don't believe in copyright laws (not in the same way I don't believe in Santa Claus), and he thinks it's the only possible way that it should be. It's nothing more than greed and protectionism, and I'm not a fan of either.

I'm honestly curious (not being a shiny happy person) why you think it's "greed."

So if you developed some awesome new machining process that would put you ahead in the game and make you money, you see nothing wrong with me taking it, marketing it, and taking the credit and making money while you go out of business?

z31maniac wrote: I'm honestly curious (not being a shiny happy person) why you think it's "greed." So if you developed some awesome new machining process that would put you ahead in the game and make you money, you see nothing wrong with me taking it, marketing it, and taking the credit and making money while you go out of business?

Sounds like capitalism at its finest!

HiTempguy wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I'm honestly curious (not being a shiny happy person) why you think it's "greed." So if you developed some awesome new machining process that would put you ahead in the game and make you money, you see nothing wrong with me taking it, marketing it, and taking the credit and making money while you go out of business?

Sounds like capitalism at its finest!

Dodging the question, intellectual cowardice at it's finest.

z31maniac wrote: Dodging the question, intellectual cowardice at it's finest.

Well, I'll play along, I'm bored today

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

So, if you have a monopoly on an idea, I think that fits the definition of greed fairly well if you do not feel the desire to share it. Copyright is so bogus, software companies are even copyrighting shapes because #LOLUSAcopyrightlaw.

I don't actually have a problem with people being greedy. I do have a problem with people FORCING their greed onto others.

Completely off topic but I pulled out my record collection (Ya I never upgraded to cassettes and then to cd and then to digital) and showed my son what a record is and and how a record player works. He was just amassed by it. And you know they sounded DAM good!!!!!

Zeplin just sounds better in the old turn table.

There is a way to do it. One of my students loaded everyone's songs off their Ipods onto my class computer. I don't know how he did it.