You wouldn't steal a CD...

[The Real Rebel]

TBH, No not really it isn't ok it creates a loss of profits but..... I duno to be honest, but as Linux once quoted....

Software is like s*x its better when its free

xD

 

[masterteam]

I say that if Artist get all together and sell on internet their musics in a low price, i believe most of music lovers wouldnt mind to pay that price, and artist will earn more cash from the sells, infortunately when someone buy a cd at stores pays a lot of persons (manager+producer+factories+stores). i know that we need to create jobs or else... but in some countries cd's are very very expensive, and thats why there's piracy. Those who should pay high are those who earn cash from or using those cd's/musics (discoteques, bars, restaurants, stores, gyms, hotels, etc etc)

 

[phazzedout]

TBH, No not really it isn't ok it creates a loss of profits but..... I duno to be honest, but as Linux once quoted....

xD

Wasn't his name Linus? IDK. Well Software is different, you should pay for the software. I bought the Adobe Suite, along with some of the Autodesk software. They are different from music, I mean what is it you can really do with software as an alternative. You can do what Canonical Ltd. and Sun Microsystems does and work off their stocks. Releasing a new free software that is really good and get their stocks up. Does it work for smaller companies, probably not.

 

[The Real Rebel]

haha yeah it was, I couldn't remember it xD

 

[phazzedout]

I say that if Artist get all together and sell on internet their musics in a low price, i believe most of music lovers wouldnt mind to pay that price, and artist will earn more cash from the sells, infortunately when someone buy a cd at stores pays a lot of persons (manager+producer+factories+stores). i know that we need to create jobs or else... but in some countries cd's are very very expensive, and thats why there's piracy. Those who should pay high are those who earn cash from or using those cd's/musics (discoteques, bars, restaurants, stores, gyms, hotels, etc etc)

Well if you consider the fact that artists probably make like ten percent per album, if you get rid of the middle man as many independent artists have, you will see that the price goes down. Take a look at an average CD cost, 15.00$ ; 10% per album would be 1.50$ for the artist per sale. Now let's say they hit platinum they would get 1.5m$. I doubt that rappers like 50 Cent get that much. Where does most of the money come from, publicity, concerts, commercials, others? Well you can see that CD cost is not a lot (considering how much they make from others) As for concerts, the record companies made them sign a contract making the record companies own the rights to the song. If you get rid of this greedy institution the artists would really make more money, also artists can not take credit for what others have done for it would cost some money for the non-sponsored artist. (e.g. Ashlee Simpson was just a cute face, I am sure someone else sung the songs while she lip-synched).

Now if artists sell their album for let's say 5 dollars, who wouldn't buy it, hell I always have 5 dollars in my pocket. If it sounds good, I buy it. How much profit do they make? Depends on how efficient they work, if they sell 1mil albums they make 5mil$, of course they would have to pay for the production price (e.g. studio, cd's, etc) They would probably make more money in any case. My cousin could record good quality albums in a trailer my parents bought, how much is that, the laptop (500 dollars) the good mic (100 dollars) the price doesn't really go up that much.
Edit:

haha yeah it was, I couldn't remember it xD

Lol I do love that quote though, it is true to an extent. It is good for us, not really for companies. I couldn't imagine running a company like Adobe on high wages, while giving the software away. It would be a bit hard to run that way.

 

[Twinkie]

Yes and no. It is stealing if it were not for pirating a product, you would have bought it. It is not, however, if you do not have money to buy it and would not have used it otherwise.

My complete thoughts were posting in a similar thread I created, here.

 

[phazzedout]

Yes and no. It is stealing if it were not for pirating a product, you would have bought it. It is not, however, if you do not have money to buy it and would not have used it otherwise.

My complete thoughts were posting in a similar thread I created, here.

I agree with you, when it comes to movies I first see reviews and go to the theaters, if I want to see it again I get a DVD. If I do not like it, but someone wants to watch it, why would I buy it. We should give the lower economic class a chance to be entertained.

 

[David]

That is not the same, I would direct you to my picture on the OP, that is what I see as stealing and what I see as piracy. You see how the original is gone, that is stealing, so running away from paying my lunch would be stealing.

It is not really the reality you only point out one side of piracy, which is the record companies and artist losing theoretical dollars, but not the side of the hard workers who buy the albums and get ripped off for having not so good music.

Also you have to take into consideration that some bands have been caught not being the original artist. (e.g. lip syncing someone elses written and sung music under the bands name.) This has happened.

OHhhhhhh! I totally get your point now! I should have seen it before. So, next time I take my family out to dinner, and say, oh I don't know, the lettuce on my salad just wasn't quite as green as I'd hoped for, I should just complain to the manager until he or she comps my meal, and if they don't well, I'll just walk out. That's dense.

Artists rarely sit down and say "Hmmmm.....I wonder what my fans will enjoy listening to." Their labels do however tell the artists what kind of sound they want for this particular album. Most of the artists that I listen to, write what they write for a reason, most of it has some personal meaning to it. Evanescence has spent 3 albums (if you count Origin) singing about a traumatic and abusive relationship. She doesn't give a damn if you enjoy what she writes, she writes to vent, and maybe on some level to warn others to be weary. Amy Harzler (formerly Lee) has already said she's "Not doing this forever."

Further, one of my favourite artists, AFI (A Fire Inside), are a self-owned label. Which means they don't use a giant label with thousands of employees. They own their copyrights, they own their music, they own their sound, they own their name. But their albums are just as pricey as any other album.

You are rarely going to find a album where every single song "moves" you or inspires you or where you just plain like every song. Now we have things like iTunes where you can listen to a preview before you purchase a song. If you can't get a good idea as whether you like a song in 30 seconds, well you're probably tone deaf, or dense.

There is no argument that could even begin to justify stealing music. You said yourself stealing software is different, but how? The same number of people work on a piece of software as it takes to put together a standard album. It generally take about a year, maybe two to write an album, which is about the same amount of time to write the average piece of proprietary software. So how is music different from proprietary software? I'm sure you'll manage to twist something out though.

Now back to the whole concert thing, I remember back in 1999 I could go to Mr. Smalls out in Pittsburgh and see AFI or MSI playing for less than $50. Now, neither ban will even play there because the venue is far too small for them to even make enough money to make it worth their time. Now they only play at the Melon Arena which seats thousands, if not hundred-thousands, and the worst seats in the arena are over $200! Granted inflation has contributed some to this increase, but take a closer look and you will see that illegal music downloads are hurting the music industry badly enough to where I can't even afford to go see my favourite bands live anymore because tours proceeds are now going to help cover the cost of production.

This debate will go on for ages and years and years to come. Eventually though, a solution will at long last come to stop ignorant people people from stealing from the people who inspire us through music and sound. How shallow does someone have to be to actually say "Oh, I should have just stole this album since track 4, 9, and 11 completely sucked."

 

[joejv4]

David,

The folks that pirate music, movies, software, etc. will use any excuse they can think of in an attempt to justify their actions - to themselves as well as others.

To say, "I pay to go to concerts, so I don't need to pay for an artist's recordings" is my favorite. I'm sure that these guys have paid to hear every one of their downloaded songs live at least once (yeah, right).

These guys who feel that there is nothing wrong with piracy, are simply unable to grasp a very simple concept: Taking something that does not belong to you, without the owner's permission, is called "STEALING".

I'm done with this thread. There is nothing you or I can say that will help these guys learn to discriminate right and wrong. The inane justifications, repeated over and over, tell me that we're just wasting our time here, talking to a wall.

 

[Twinkie]

People have got to cool off, this is a discussion. However, I do not agree with how phazzedout twisted my words. I said I justify piracy as long as it does not hurt the developers in any way; as long as if I could buy it I would. It is completely irrelevant whether or not you like the product. If they put a price to use it, then it should be respected.

If you are hurting the developers in anyway, taking any potential profit that they might have and have the right to have, then don't try to justify it.

 

[CWeb Creative]

In a sense it is and isn't. I agree that in the music industry it souldn't be. If you want to make money go somewhere else. Music is an art not a moneymaking industry. Yes you should pay to go to shows and buy their merchandise because they are tangable items. You shouldn't be able to copyright sound like you shouldn't be able to copyright the human genome. You didn't design them or make them you just put then togeather or found them. But you should pay for what it cost to make the cd or host the download. The software business is different. You did make it, you should be able to copyright it but you shouldn't sell it for much more than the cd costs to make. There is no reason to charge 100, 200 or even 30 dollars for software. You dont need to make a lot of money from each copy just enough to cover the cost of making the software medium and have a little bit extra. There are clearly some things that you should be able to copyright but not others so the real thing here is what can you patient or copyright and what should you not.

 

[dharshan]

ok, Piracy is stealing intellectual property! you could say that you just take a copy of it! but thats a property of some ones....and when it comes to software it's still equal to stealing something that is physical...
but then again, if you had to purchase all the movies you loved and games and software......it would be a hoax to imagine a perfect computer user!

 

[Twinkie]

In a sense it is and isn't. I agree that in the music industry it souldn't be. If you want to make money go somewhere else. Music is an art not a moneymaking industry. Yes you should pay to go to shows and buy their merchandise because they are tangable items. You shouldn't be able to copyright sound like you shouldn't be able to copyright the human genome. You didn't design them or make them you just put then togeather or found them. But you should pay for what it cost to make the cd or host the download. The software business is different. You did make it, you should be able to copyright it but you shouldn't sell it for much more than the cd costs to make. There is no reason to charge 100, 200 or even 30 dollars for software. You dont need to make a lot of money from each copy just enough to cover the cost of making the software medium and have a little bit extra. There are clearly some things that you should be able to copyright but not others so the real thing here is what can you patient or copyright and what should you not.

Your disagreeing with capitolism :eek4:

 

[phazzedout]

David,

The folks that pirate music, movies, software, etc. will use any excuse they can think of in an attempt to justify their actions - to themselves as well as others.

To say, "I pay to go to concerts, so I don't need to pay for an artist's recordings" is my favorite. I'm sure that these guys have paid to hear every one of their downloaded songs live at least once (yeah, right).

These guys who feel that there is nothing wrong with piracy, are simply unable to grasp a very simple concept: Taking something that does not belong to you, without the owner's permission, is called "STEALING".

I'm done with this thread. There is nothing you or I can say that will help these guys learn to discriminate right and wrong. The inane justifications, repeated over and over, tell me that we're just wasting our time here, talking to a wall.

LOL relax all of you. I actually do not agree with what I am saying but I love playing my arguer so I can argue better. See how I simply twisted everything you guys said to me and used it in my favor. I am trying to see how I could defend my self from it but yet all you guys do is get mad. Hmm. Depressing. Back to arguing though. I dislike your ad hominem joejv4, so basically just because I can argue about it that makes me a "wall". Seriously, from one ad hominem to another, grow up. I enjoy arguing whether the subject is important or not I enjoy arguing, especially intelligently. So when you say things like "talking to a wall." it makes me think that you can not take argument that is not on your side, so if anyone defends the argument it is invalid. So just food for thought, I am not trying to flame you but this is a forum thread for deep discussion, which means you can argue your whole like and not make any accomplishment. You get what I mean. So that is to your argument.

OHhhhhhh! I totally get your point now! I should have seen it before. So, next time I take my family out to dinner, and say, oh I don't know, the lettuce on my salad just wasn't quite as green as I'd hoped for, I should just complain to the manager until he or she comps my meal, and if they don't well, I'll just walk out. That's dense.

Salad, yeah.. I don't eat that. It is rather gross. No, I don't see how you can find the similarities in that, I mean if their food is bad, eventually people will not go. Did they lose theoretical dollars, by people not enjoying their food so much that they would go to their place, no they didn't make any money from that person. This would be the time to rethink how they play this "business" game. A restaurant owner would probably fire the chef and get a new one. How much a record company do this, if the understand the problem;

We are losing money because people found a free alternative, what should we do?

1. Make music worth buying (Get a better artist)
2. Make the albums or songs more affordable and much more accessible.
3. ???
4. Profit!

People wouldn't feel bad walking into virgin megastore and seeing an album for 5 bucks and buying it. I know I wouldn't. I would of probably of had a larger album collection.

Artists rarely sit down and say "Hmmmm.....I wonder what my fans will enjoy listening to." Their labels do however tell the artists what kind of sound they want for this particular album. Most of the artists that I listen to, write what they write for a reason, most of it has some personal meaning to it. Evanescence has spent 3 albums (if you count Origin) singing about a traumatic and abusive relationship. She doesn't give a damn if you enjoy what she writes, she writes to vent, and maybe on some level to warn others to be weary. Amy Harzler (formerly Lee) has already said she's "Not doing this forever."

I love her, real musician. Take notes on that Kanye West. I respect that hands down.

Further, one of my favourite artists, AFI (A Fire Inside), are a self-owned label. Which means they don't use a giant label with thousands of employees. They own their copyrights, they own their music, they own their sound, they own their name. But their albums are just as pricey as any other album.

Tell me why that would be. If you see every album on the racks being 15$ or 20$ why would they go down to 10$ when they can tag the same price. I could be wrong but I would use that as my first hypothesis.

You are rarely going to find a album where every single song "moves" you or inspires you or where you just plain like every song. Now we have things like iTunes where you can listen to a preview before you purchase a song. If you can't get a good idea as whether you like a song in 30 seconds, well you're probably tone deaf, or dense.

Lol I have heard songs that are 6 minutes long and the best part is during the the last 4 minutes. Well not every song could move you but it seems as if they just use the rest of the songs as "fill-ins" Doesn't it seem that way?

There is no argument that could even begin to justify stealing music. You said yourself stealing software is different, but how? The same number of people work on a piece of software as it takes to put together a standard album. It generally take about a year, maybe two to write an album, which is about the same amount of time to write the average piece of proprietary software. So how is music different from proprietary software? I'm sure you'll manage to twist something out though.

Think about audience. How many of you can walk into a high school, which to these teens music distinguishes them from one another, and ask ten students would you buy Autodesk Maya for 3.5k$. They wouldn't know that this program is used by professional to make games, this program is mostly for professional companies to buy. That is really the line that differs them. Do you see how I see it differently. One of them is being bought by less amount of people, and also that one of them is used to make money and essentially create IP.

Now back to the whole concert thing, I remember back in 1999 I could go to Mr. Smalls out in Pittsburgh and see AFI or MSI playing for less than $50. Now, neither ban will even play there because the venue is far too small for them to even make enough money to make it worth their time. Now they only play at the Melon Arena which seats thousands, if not hundred-thousands, and the worst seats in the arena are over $200! Granted inflation has contributed some to this increase, but take a closer look and you will see that illegal music downloads are hurting the music industry badly enough to where I can't even afford to go see my favourite bands live anymore because tours proceeds are now going to help cover the cost of production.

Do you honestly think that is the reason. If more people want to see you, and seats are being sold out, why not go one step further, make the seats more expensive and the concert larger. I would do the same thing. If you could make more money, wouldn't you go for it as well? Think about it, do you really think it is the illegal download. Before downloading people would use a cassette recorder to get their music, the industry also thought back then that the music industry would collapse. It didn't really.

This debate will go on for ages and years and years to come. Eventually though, a solution will at long last come to stop ignorant people people from stealing from the people who inspire us through music and sound. How shallow does someone have to be to actually say "Oh, I should have just stole this album since track 4, 9, and 11 completely sucked."

If that is how I come off as, then I apologize, but the point of the matter is, if I am not completely satisfied why even waste my hard earned cash on something that doesn't even satisfy my musical hunger. :biggrin:

People have got to cool off, this is a discussion. However, I do not agree with how phazzedout twisted my words. I said I justify piracy as long as it does not hurt the developers in any way; as long as if I could buy it I would. It is completely irrelevant whether or not you like the product. If they put a price to use it, then it should be respected.

If you are hurting the developers in anyway, taking any potential profit that they might have and have the right to have, then don't try to justify it.

Sorry that I have misinterpreted you. I should of read real closely.

 

[galaxyAbstractor]

Depends what you need it for.

Say look at my situation. I go at a media school, where we work with Autodesk Maya and Adobe Design preimum CS4. The licenses we get is prohibiting us from working at home and doing homework. The school could only afford 30 licenses, that was put up on a licensing server. 1 license of CS4 is $4000. 1 license of Maya is $4000. That's $8000 per student.

Now thing is, as the school only can afford 30 licenses of each ($240 000 total), only 30 students can use the program at the same time. If you get me you'll see that Adobe and Autodesk is making our grades bad if we don't pay $8000 for it. But what student can afford that? As a student you only get $140/month for going to school...

If you don't get me, here is how it is: We get a large project to do in 3D. Build an harbour, 3000 triangles, textured, bumpmapped, specularmapped, rendered. You got 2 weeks on you. 2 weeks would be enough, BUT! You only got 2 80 min lessons per week. So you need to be done in 4 lessons. Stuck? Enjoy your F. We can't work at home, as the licensing server can't be accessed remotely, as that is as illegal as of using a keygen. Work on other lessons? Nope, some other class got 3D then and all licenses is already in use. Work in school after school? Can't, they close the school when the lessons ends because the teachers wants to go home.

Now, there is Swedish laws and regulations that says that school should always be free, no matter what. The school obviously can't buy licenses for $8000/student to 600 students ($4 800 000), where should that money come? They already bought us laptops ($3000/each) with workstation GPU's etc (nVidia quadro)

tl;dr, Enjoy your F or download the software. What sounds most tempting? I, I would never enjoy an F.

Live free, be a pirate

 

[psycrosis]

There are different levels of stealing... One cannot say that stealing is stealing. There is a difference between someone swiping someones heirloom necklace that is irreplaceable and will cause heartache for the loss then someone swiping some jewelry from a store where it is written off their taxes as shrinkage.
Now i'm not saying stealing is ok. It is illegal. Piracy on the other hand I don't believe is stealing. Stealing is a word industries like to use since it is ugly. Piracy is the unlawful copying and or distribution without a licence. Calling piracy stealing is like calling driving a car without a licence, or practicing law without a licence, or fishing without a licence. All cases are illegal but not stealing. In order to steal an ip you would have to take something and claim it as your own. If a friend of mine wrote a song and I heard it and made the exact same song and released it as my own that would be stealing. If I broke into the coca cola vault and took their recipe and called it psyrcocola and claimed I made the recipe.. That would be stealing. Plagiarism is stealing... Piracy is not.....

 

[phazzedout]

@vigge_sWe Some people here would still call that stealing even out of necessity. I completely agree with you. In my old High school they bought the adobe suite for 12 computers. This high school is a school of only 500 students so they don't really get a huge budget. They bought each suite for 549$. If you see, that will sum it up to about 6,500. Now imagine the students get homework, they can't afford another 6.5k$. So this is where I first learned about torrents. My teacher told us, "Take notes on this, Go to (website), Download, yada yada yada." Out of necessity in order so we could learn and become more skilled. Software companies like Adobe still make enough money. I mean do you think a company with 50 staff graphic designers can just get a keygen and install pirated software on their computers. Oh gosh no. This is who developers try to find and to squeeze as much money out of them as possible.

@psycrosis Yeah I do see that as stealing. Plagarism is true stealing. I recall of a friend of mine to took a wikipedia article and called it his own. This guy would be full of himself, saying that he is going to be a Physicist and other things, then when he wanted to sumbit his "deep thoughts" to the school paper my girlfriend was the one who had to revise the article and realized that this article sounds familiar. She looked up existantialism and she got him expelled. Now he works with his dad beating himself up over it. LOL. He deserved it.

 

[fractalfeline]

I have noticed an idea that keeps coming up in this thread, and threads like it, that people dance around but don't actually mention explicitly: the idea that piracy itself is a form of social protest (as Machiavellian as it is).

As an American, I remember learning about the founding of my country, how it involved a few upper-middle class types who were upset about new taxation laws. They took it upon themselves to disguise themselves and, dare I say, steal some tea, and then proceed to throw it into a bay. Many others who sympathized decided to switch from drinking tea to drinking coffee instead. The former example cannot be spun in any other way: it is theft and vandalism. But the meaning of both examples is "We are sick of your price gauging and refuse to pay."

Similarly, today we have the entertainment and software industry believing they have a monopoly on the sale and distribution of these items. Some people react by simply not buying, trying to be content with their own collection thus far, going to review sites to "preview" the movie, game, music, or software in question before they buy, to attempt to assure quality if they are willing to pay for something. Others take a more aggressive stance, by attempting to force these companies to listen in the only language they comprehend: money. You will not sell us good quality items at a reasonable price? We'll just find ways of getting it for free then. They lose money, and if they lose enough money, they might react. Unfortunately, the primary reaction is to put copy protections and attempt to get laws passed to prohibit downloading copied software. Yet pirates will continue to pursue even more vigorous ways of bypassing copy protection and continue distributing software illegally.

If it was a simple matter of getting something for nothing, stealing for the sake of selfish gains, the battle would have ended long ago. No one wants to get caught, and no one wants to pay a $250 dollar fine and possibly jail time for the sake of a $10 CD. It is far easier to just download legally from legitimate sites, or go to Wal-Mart and buy it from the bin. So the people who remain in the piracy scene are either: people confident they won't get caught, people who think "I might get caught once but I've downloaded way more than the cost of getting caught once," or people who know it's NOT ABOUT the personal costs. It's about the revolution. Why spend such countless hours developing new keygen generators and cracking software, if it is easier to just buy a legal copy?

Then again, you could develop cracks and keygens for the sake of making a profit too. Buy one copy, crack it, sell many copies at half-price on a street corner, and your investment returns many times over the price spent. But still, the idea remains: the street corner vendor is telling the big companies "You no longer have the monopoly on distribution." The Big Companies either adapt or suffer.

I'd prefer adaptation. Again, I think its great that they are catching up to the new era, with cheap singles downloads, preview before you buy, and whatnot. The Internet has great potential for becoming a great common market for anyone who wants to participate. The Information Age has already begun, people will read reviews before seeing a movie and potentially wasting $10 and two hours. People will go to car review sites to find the honest car dealers with good quality cars to avoid buying a lemon, or getting cheated (Just to note: I think Chevy ought to be burning right now; why on earth did we bail them out? They've been selling junk for years.). People will go to the Better Business Bureau to find which apartments have the most amount of complaints, and to apartment rating sites to find which ones have the best reviews before signing a legal contract for a year. Banks? Which ones have the best interest rates, the best terms, the most stable? Eventually, the market will change, so that if you don't sell quality, and you don't sell for a reasonable price, you will have to answer for it on the Internet.

Another good example: Vista. People bought it, found it to be crap, told all of their friends, posted about how crappy it is on all major computer needs forums, and their sales went into the toilet. Utter failure. But it forced them to change tactics. Windows 7 was released in Beta, and people could (essentially) preview before it was released. People could talk about how nice it was, post their enthusiasm everywhere. Upon release, how many threads were generated about "Is Windows 7 worth the money? Is it good? Does it run well?" I'm convinced from what I've read everywhere about how nice it is, and when I upgrade my computer, I will buy it with my student discount. You won't see me pirating it, because... I'm reasonable certain it will be a good investment, and I support the new tactics.

TL;DR Give me quality and I'll happily pay for it. Otherwise? Burn burn burn.

 

[joejv4]

LOL relax all of you. I actually do not agree with what I am saying but I love playing my arguer so I can argue better. See how I simply twisted everything you guys said to me and used it in my favor. I am trying to see how I could defend my self from it but yet all you guys do is get mad. Hmm. Depressing. Back to arguing though. I dislike your ad hominem joejv4, so basically just because I can argue about it that makes me a "wall". Seriously, from one ad hominem to another, grow up. I enjoy arguing whether the subject is important or not I enjoy arguing, especially intelligently. So when you say things like "talking to a wall." it makes me think that you can not take argument that is not on your side, so if anyone defends the argument it is invalid. So just food for thought, I am not trying to flame you but this is a forum thread for deep discussion, which means you can argue your whole like and not make any accomplishment. You get what I mean. So that is to your argument.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean for that to come across as ad hominem. Rather was simply stating that regardless of what we say, there will be some inane justification put forth for illegally pirating movies.

You took right to the "talking to a wall" remark, while completely overlooking the meat of the post: Taking another persons property, without permission is STEALING.

Stealing is stealing, regardless of how one attempts to justify it.

The best argument in this thread so far was the comparison to the Boston Tea Party, where an illegal activity is committed in protest. That one, I could almost morally agree with.

 

[CWeb Creative]

Your disagreeing with capitolism :eek4:

Ok how am i disagreeing with capitalism? By what your saying capitalism is copyrighting the human genome, turning an art into a complete ripoff, heck you can't make anything with music anymore. Just look at youtube its got more crap on it than ever. Also look at schools they have to pay buku bucks to have music for band and orchestra students. Again look at what vigge_sWe is saying $8,000 for a bunch of 1's and 0's thats just greedy and crazy. If this is capitalism then yes I am disagreeing with it.