It’s dusk. A man walks to a locked car. He furtively looks around; coast is clear. He takes a rod, slips it into the car door; within seconds he is into the car. Two minutes later the car starts – he glances around again, he puts the car into gear and quickly drives away – in a car that does not belong to him.
At about the same time, a different man, sitting in a comfortable house,sips a scotch and decides he’d like to listen to some music. Although he makes a comfortable living, he’d generally not pay for things if he doesn’t have to. He goes to a site on the Internet and downloads some music. He saves the music to his hard drive, so he can listen to it again later. Neither the group that created the music nor the publishers who paid the musicians ever consented to have the music available from this particular Internet site.
What is the difference between these two men? Both are taking something that doesn’t belong to them. Both of them are stealing the labor of others, without compensating the producers. But there is a difference – the man in the first case, while a criminal, has a certain sort of bravery; there is some chance he will be caught and go to jail. The man in the first case realizes he is a thief, while the man who steals the music thinks of himself as a law-abiding citizen. Demographically, there are also some differences. The car thief is more likely to be young and uneducated. The music thief is more likely to be computer literate and formally educated. The second man is more likely to be you.
But ultimately, there is no difference. Both men are thieves.
The people who make the car are not likely to suffer much. It will ultimately be recovered, and, if not, demand will be spurred by the fact that the original driver will have to replace the car that was stolen.But the musicians who spent years developing their talents, and the publishers who took a great risk to market their music, will never recoup the loss they suffer from having their product ripped off. (Did you know that the great majority of intellectual products – books,movies, music videos – lose money?)
Nope. Stealing a car or downloading music you didn’t pay for are both stealing. Most people won’t walk into a music store and swipe a CD, but that is exactly what they are doing with someone elses MP3’s.
While I agree fundamentally that IP (intellectual property) theft is a serious problem. This essay is a sophomoric analogy at best. For one, stealing a car is not stealing someone’s labor, as your essay proposes. Secondly the real problem with IP theft is not so much the collective individuals, but the publishers and media conglomerates. These firms rape photographers, writers, musicians, and film makers on a daily bases by crying wolf about the cost of doing business, yet their advertising profits continue to soar beyond historic levels. This is the real crime, which your essay naively overlooks.
Hey friend,
So,
They make lots of money, so it is OK to steal from them.
Hmmm. Still sounds like stealing to me.
It is no longer a matter of what is stealing and what isn’t. It’s a matter of our whole society abandoning ethics and principles. Ethics are no longer clear-cut, but are entirely situational. It’s OK for the fast-food employee to bag up a supply of sandwiches without paying for them – because he’s underpaid and wants something to snack on while watching TV. It doesn’t matter that he AGREED to work for low wages, or that he’s already given a meal without cost. It’s OK for the office worker to tuck away a couple dozen lead pencils, some ballpoint pens and several scratch pads before going home at night. The reasoning is that the kids need these materials for school and the job doesn’t pay enough to buy them – comfortably. Eat a free peach at the supermarket produce counter, take a double handful of condiment packets and napkins at the local McD’s restaurant. It’s all stealing, just as pirating music via computer, or copying software “for friends.” I tape movies from my premium TV channels for viewing at a later time – but I’ve paid for them in my subscription. If, however, I give or sell them to friends, I am then stealing from the premium channel, the studio, and from any video rental stores in the area. I was raised by a Grandfather who was born in a covered wagon. His views on life were simple. 1. All work is honorable, regardless of how little it pays or how dirty it is. 2. Always tell the truth and you never have to worry about forgetting what you said and being caught in a lie. 3. Don’t steal from others. If it doesn’t belong to you and you can’t afford to buy it, you can live without it. 4. If you have to make excuses for what you are doing, it’s wrong. 5. Always accept responsibility for your actions. If you can’t pay the piper you shouldn’t dance. 6. The world doesn’t owe you a living. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). I’ve ordered my life by these principles, and don’t regret a single minute of my 71 years!
I agree with your analysis. A lot of my friends and relative don’t. Why is it so hard to see?
I download only FREE MIDIS…If the musicians don’t want you to steal their music why don’t they advertize their music on a secured Pay first website. If it is on a free page then it is NOT stealing..right??
MOST interfering pop up website are invasions anyway..Clearly stated music sites generally cannot be stolen anyway..Why not pick on these damn porno sites that you get regularly…Oh well…
I believe that you were comparing apples and oranges.
1: The apple is the thief KNOWS the car isn’t his and KNOWS he is STEALING it.
2: The orange finds a song or whatever POSTED PUBLICALLY on the Internet and downloads it to listen to.
Does he know it is stolen?
Does he know it wasn’t put there for his taking?
Does he know that the fees were not previousl paid?
IF, he were listening to the radio and hears a song coming up he likes and when it is played by the radio, he decides to record it for later listening, IS that stealing?
What about taping a regular tv show? Is that stealing?
What about taping a HBO movie when you are subscribed to HBO? Is that stealing?
He went to a Pay-Per-View movie and watched it and taped it or taped it to watch later? Is that stealing?
You were confusing apples and oranges and so does the public.
This is the same argument made many years ago regarding software copying. The big difference is that when someone steals your car, you have no more car. When someone copys your mp3, exe, or whatever, you still have the original with which you can do whatever you wish. All the arguments for and against copying software hold for mp3s, so anyone can look up the volumes of debate on that subject and apply it to mp3s.
What about software programs??
Take Microsoft for instance.
Windows 95 is sold to the public, numberous problems and bugs are found, incompatibility with other programs, ect.
The customer is then sold Windows 98, again, it fixed the old problems, but is cluttered with new ones.
The customer is sold Windows 98 SE UPGRADE to fix the bugs he got in the first version.
Who is the thief?
Robin Hood stole from CRIMINALS (Like for instance rich record execs.) to give back to common folk (Like musicians)… and we all like him.
Most intelligent musicians know that a few free songs will only gain you more listeners.
We always had the ability to record music freely from the radio….but ‘Big Music Business’ is only angry because now we have the ability to record in DIGITAL …ie: PERFECT! So NOW they are screaming foul…right. (Like for instance Prince John)
If you do not pay for copyrighted material, you are a thief, plain and simple. To respond to the “apples and oranges” example that Mr. Brandt brought up–If you download a music file from a site that specializes in making copyrighted music available without paying the copyright fees, you can be pretty sure that it is stolen. I believe that the responsibility lies with the site for keeping track of the downloads and paying the appropriate fees. How they wish to collect from their customers is their business, provided it is legal.
I think that there is a huge difference. These “artists” are making more than enough money for that to be a concern. But every argument I have heard on the news or read in the paper seems to revolve around them saying that they are losing money because of people sharing mp3’s and/or internet radio. Most of the songs on the internet have been bought by someone and then that person is sharing a song(s) that they like with others to hear. The “artists” should be looking at this as free publicity. Sure they may lose a few album sales, but they will probably make up for that in concert sales. What’s the use in buying a CD that has maybe one or two good songs on it. Most of the “artists” anymore are putting out CD’s where one song makes it on the radio and is good but the rest of that album is complete crap! Then you have these bands that make a song specifically for the radio then the rest of that album is pretty much a different “type” of music. Anyway, they need to quit wining about how much money they will supposedly “lose” and worry about managing all of the money they are making.
I’m sorry but I cannot agree with you; the music industry rips us off with their monopolies – if I enjoy listening to a group and buy their early music, a cd costs me maybe a couple of bucks max. As soon as they get recognised by the “music industry” – it’s still the same group, mind – the price of their CD is hiked to around 5 to 8 times the previous price.
This is a rip off. Consider this: a CD cost exactly the same to buy in 1986 (my first CD was ZZ Top – Eliminator) as they do now; however, the quantities made and the technologies involved means making them are simpler. But no. the profits of these monopolists – after all, there is only ONE Madonna, are kept artificially high by price agreements.
How about the following: The music industry can release music from other labels on their own label. Compeititon would soon bring the music to a reasonable price and stop this ripoff.
Your CD copier is not stealing. He is swapping music with someone else. The copies have been paid for and what the owners do with it is their business. This isn’t software. The music files are no different than cassettes.(remember them?)
The notion that people, other than artists and the publishers can hang onto music and continue to resell it over and over again is wrong, although legal.
Kids are mostly the culprits in CD file swapping. If they weren’t being ripped off by the retail system, they might buy the CDs outright.
The stuff I get off the internet is old stuff at least forty years old. Nobody is being deprived of any profit because I wouldn’t buy the stuff even if I could find it. Old beer joint music doesn’t get played on the radio anymore, and the new country performers take up all the space at the CD counter.
“For one, stealing a car is not stealing someone’s labor”
Excuse me, but I’ve exchanged my labor for $$’s and used those $$’s to buy the car. When you steal my car, you’ve stolen the fruits of my labor.
On one hand I can agree with you that there is a theft occurring in both cases, however, you basic analogy is very weak. If you had compared someone stealing a cd from a record store to someone stealing a car – that would work. As would a comparision between someone downloading music and another person using an advance technology to make an unauthorized COPY of someone elses car for their own use.
Downloading music from the internet, while not a truely victimless crime, is NOT comparable to a car theft. A car theft is a personal invasion of a persons “space”, not just a property theft.
You might retry the theft comparison using electronic “identity theft” instead.
Now, on a completely different take. A couple of years ago, Ted Nugent wrote a provocative piece on the topic of “free music” and it’s harm to artists. Well, I’ve always wanted to respond to old Ted – so I’ll use this forum.
Years ago (’70’s) I bought several of Ted’s ablums. I still own these records, but I’ll probably never listen to them again. I don’t want to risk the physical damage to either the vinyl or the turntable (since I probably can’t get parts nor even a new turntable anymore). But, I paid for those records, pretty good money for a teenager at the time. I’ve already done my part to make Ted rich.
But, hear’s the rub – I’m not willing to pay to buy copies of these albums on CD. I don’t care enough to even want to. So, in my case, there’s no “demand” for any CD which Ted might “supply.”
I’ll confess to having downloaded 3 of my favorite Nugent songs from the internet. But, again, I wasn’t going to buy them anyway. Had I not been able to download them, I just wouldn’t listen to them. So, while Ted believes he’s suffered a loss at my hands, I’d counter that the profit he believes he’s lost NEVER existed.
While I’m at it, I’ll also confess that I made cassette tapes of Ted’s song’s (for those of you over 30, you’ll recall when there were no CD players for cars). I never sold any copies I made. I never profited from Ted’s work. I had previously purchased the same work. I merely converted it from form to form so that It would be more useful to me. Having a MP3 of a song I purchased is (to me) no different than having a copy on cassette.
Now, I as you, is downloading 3 of Ted’s songs really eqivalent to stealing 3 of his cars?
If you don’t mind, I have two other gripes about your mailing:
You wrote, “Did you know that the great majority of intellectual products – books, movies, music videos – lose money?”
Well, I would ask, who’s fault is that. Given the outrageous budgets, lavish productions, and expensive promotional campaigns; is it really any wonder that they can’t turn a profit? Was movie-star “X’s” performance really worth the $10M it took to get them, when some lesserknown would have done it for >$1M? If music videos are losing money, why don’t they just stop making them?
And, finally, how the hell can you use the terms “intellectual” and “music videos” in the same sentence?
Stephen Werner
(a usually agreeable reader of The Outrage)
Why do these artists put their music on the internet? Personally, I think they are tempting people by doing it and should bare some of the guilt. It’s like leaving your front door open and not expecting someone to come into your house.
Jim – et. all – While your analysis sounds plausible, it is unfortunately incorrect. Ignorance of the law does does not legitimatize anything. When you buy an audio CD, software CD, DVD, Book or any other type of information, you are not buying transferable property or media, but the rights to use it for your personal consumption. This has been upheld by the courts time and time again and no amount of raging against the man without changing the law will have any effect. Copying the media for personal use has been ruled acceptable in several high profile court cases. I would normally provide links to support this claim, but don’t have the energy at the moment to do the work.
Also, kids or anyone else are NOT being ‘ripped off’ by anyone – retailers, distributors, producers or artists. The price of any CD is at market price and anyone is free to buy or not to buy as they see fit. No one has any inherent rights to anyone else’s work just because they feel it should be cheaper. These feelings are the seeds of socialism and not some b.s. justification to steal something that doesn’t belong to them. Any professional artist knows full well that they’re work has to be sold to millions of people in order for them to earn a return on the work and creativity they produce. They also know that distribution costs take the lion share of revenue from a CD when they sign the contracts.
The people here that are in denial that IP theft is not theft sound a lot like the dotcom investors in 1999 who believed that valuations would increase without revenue gains. Deny, Deny, Deny!
Yes, theft of intellectual property is different from theft of
tangible property, in two fundamental ways:
1) When tangible property is stolen, the owner’s loss is
at least as great as the thief’s gain; when intellectual property
is stolen, the original owner still has whatever he actually had
before the theft.
2) The right to tangible property is natural; the right to
intellectual property is societally-created (with the stated
goal of increasing creative production.)
I’m finding it hard to be sympathetic to these guys. So poor, poor Metallica doesn’t get my 10.99 for a CD? Big deal. Most of the artists complaining aren’t exactly hit up for money.
Is it theft simply to change format? Is it format theft then? I have music that is on 8track, which, once the advent of LP’s and 45 singles became commonplace, I had to purchase this same music, same song, same arist, nothing NEW in it, again. Then cassette was what became readily available. So again, the FORMAT changed. I then bought the same music on cassette, restoring my collection. Then CD came out. Again, the FORMAT changed. I needed ,once it became commonplace and STANDARD, to get this music on CD. Yet purchasing this same song more than 4 times created no stirrings in the RIAA, or musicians. Why do I need to PAY more than 4 times for the same song which according to law, I already purchased a liscence to listen to, for my own private use, again and again? But if I were to download a copy of maybe better quality than my previously purchased cassette or LP FORMAT, than I am a thief? What of those blatantly taking my money again and again for the same thing? Is that not pure robbery? It is the medium, and the FORMAT, which they decry, for how can they make us pay a fifth time? Lost revenue? I disagree! I paid the liscense to listen long ago…
to Mr. Chesler – I have issue with your definition of natural rights. Not to split philosophical hairs, but I don’t believe there are any ‘god given’ or other pre-existing rights to property – ip or physical – assumed in this country. I know Locke wrote volumes on property rights, but it seems Jefferson took out ‘property’ from ‘Life and liberty…’ in the Declaration of Independence. Anyway, aren’t mutual agreements such as ‘I won’t steal from you if you don’t steal from me’ considered social contracts? I believe natural rights are defined as ‘rights to own oneself’ and liberty, etc.
Anyway, just because a piece of property is not physical and can be copied does not mean it won’t cause harm to the producer if stolen. Every copy made available diminishes the value of every other existing copy, eventually approaching zero value. At that point, the producer can not afford to eat.
I don’t think it’s stealing.
I think what is happening now,
as opposed to Napster of the
past, is that the media
industry (music, software, etc)
recognizes the value of giving
away free samples. It happens
all the time, all day, every
day. When you go to the
supermarket, there are people
there who are giving away free
food samples.
It’s just good business.
Why digitize your own music in
an mp3 and then make it
available in the public domain?
I do it myself to get business
– I give away an e-book once
a week in my e-zine, if the
e-book’s license allows me to
do so.
If there’s a band I discover
that I’ve never heard of
before, I’d want a free sample
of their music first before I
go to my local retail store to
buy a CD. If I don’t like the
sample, I’ll delete it. If I
like it, I’ll consider buying
the CD. Same thing with
software.
Now, if you buy someone else’s
media and then make it
available in the public domain,
that’s different, especially if
you charge for it on a website.
You would then be charging
for something that isn’t yours.
THAT is stealing.
Those of you who think that downloading music for free is not stealing, think of it this way:
Many a person dreams of being a big-name star, recording CDs and making videos and enjoying the good life.
How does such a person get to enjoy the good life? By selling the fruits of his/her labors in the studio and on the stage.
Ignore the record companies for a moment — if this person made great music and NO ONE paid for it, what is the incentive to keep making great music?
The fact that YOU like it means they should do it for nothing?
Get a clue.
In my part of the country you are forced to listen to the same small rotation of songs on any of the radio stations until you are absolutely puking sick of them. My awareness of the total music scene has increased 100 times over since I’ve discovered file swapping, which has made me a better consumer. I’ve bought MORE cds since finding mp3s, just not of the artists that are being force fed to me. It’s about who controls what I listen to. Of course the major, overplayed, overhyped artists and their financial backers hate this, I don’t blame them. I also don’t care.
And why is it I can walk into my local library and check out any book for free and that’s ok? Granted, I can’t keep it, but I’ve used that author’s work at no charge, as have thousands of others. Why is one form of sharing acceptable and another thievery?
I know plenty of local musicians that make music because they love music and have fun being in a band, not because they plan to be millionaires and #1 groups. The Metallicas, Eminems, Dr. Dres, etc in the world are the minority of musicians. The incentive for most musicians is the love of music, not fat wads of cash.
I know plenty of guys that put their music on the internet because they want to reach as many people as possible. The more people you reach, the larger audience you have and the more popular you are. Some of the best selling cds (Radiohead’s Kid A comes to mind) were found on fileswapping networks months before the cd’s release. The RIAA screamed that it would destroy sales, whereas it had the opposite effect.
If you download a cd that you don’t own and don’t have permission to download, yes you’re stealing and breaking the law. I don’t believe it’s the same as grand theft auto since the musician didn’t *lose* anything, but it is still stealing.
tell it like it is, man. during my entire college career i met one (count him, one) other person who understood this and didn’t dub tapes either. you know the excuses: “dude, like it’s stealing, but it’s not REALLY stealing, or if it is, so what”. the human capacity for rationalization of pure self-interest is the blind spot that generates the chernobyls and enrons and miseries of the world.
After re-reading the comments in this article, I have found that most of the advocates of free recordings point to the good business of free samples. These people just don’t get the fact that there’s a difference between something that is freely given by the owner and something that is taken from the owner WITHOUT permission. One is a gift, the other is stealing.
Is copying software, or music or other intellectual property,really any different from stealing a car?
YES, there is a difference, when a car is created it is NOT for public enjoyment or use, it will not be used by many, it will not be loaned out to many for its use or enjoyment, on the other hand music is never created for only one person’s use but is created to have masses of people enjoy it and have the benefit of the music or software enhance their lives, When something is created that has the potential for everyone to use and enjoy, the profit motive behind selling it will never win over the sharing of these things whether they be ideas, music, or software.
This should be extremely obvious to anyone who takes a look at it, but–when you download music you are failing to pay for something, but you are not depriving someone else of it either. Stealing a CD takes a tangible object from a person and they can no longer have access to that object. Downloading music is obviously very different.
Now, whether it is wrong or not, that’s a different debate. But you weaken your own position by making the ludicrous argument that stealing an object is the same as not paying for a copy of something.
Yes, although I agree with your basic premise, additional crimes do not sprout from the downloading of music. Example: When a car theft goes wrong it can lead to assualt, murder, dangerous high speed chaces, etc. As I work in a correctional institution I know exactly what can happen during a car theft.
However, yes, downloading ‘free’ music is stealing.
A more provocative question which I ask is “If a starving man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is he stealing?” Yes again, the question is cut and dry, all arguments are excuses and justifications. None of which dismiss the fact that stealing is stealing.
Yes it is a little different. I have purchased music over and over again only to have the formats fail. The lp wore out, the tapes jammed, the cd’s get scratched. How many times must I pay for the right to play the same music?
“I suppose,” he says (tongue-in-cheek), “that each of you holier-than-thous send in the appropriate royalty payment each time you sing the copyrighted song ‘Happy Birthday’. Correct? I know that you would not want to use the owner’s verbiage and note arrangement without his specific and written approval.”
You compared the relative impact of the thefts on both the producer of the car and the producer of the music. However, the producer is not the person primarily affected in a theft. The owner is. In the case of the car, the owner suffers a severe impact immediately. He or she is deprived of the use of their own car, and even if they eventually receive it back, there is always some damage and so on associated with it. The owner of the music, on the other hand, may not even realize a copy has been made.
Another difference is that a car is considered by most people a necessity, while a CD is not. So the ratio of cars to people is going to remain *relatively* static. Some people own one, some people own two, and some people don’t own any. As a percentage of car owners, the number of people who own more than one (as opposed to families who own more than one, I’m talking people here) is something like .0001%. The reason this is significant is that, as you mentioned, a stolen car will result in a replacement car. On the other hand, when I was in an accident and my CD changer was crushed, along with the 20 discs inside it, I replaced only three of them. That is, the value placed on an individual CD is less than a car. I own over 700 CDs, others own more or less than I do. And individual CD could disappear off of my shelves, and assuming it wasn’t one of my top 100 or so, I might not even notice for months or years.
That’s not the same as a car, now, is it?
To John Galt @ 5/29-8:10: My cars keep wearing out over time, too. Heck, I just bought a truck, so that for the first time in my life I don’t have to share a vehicle with my wife. It’s the sixth vehicle I’ve paid for. What a ripoff, eh?
To Jean @ 5/29-1:18: Excellent point. Cars are not freely given to anyone with a radio. The right to record cars from the public airwaves for the purposes of time-shifting or space-shifting has not been established by the courts. As 20/20 pointed out, the RIAA member companies pay many thousands of dollars to have their songs given away for free as often as possible, despite the idea that someone listening to them for free might then not want to buy an album. Of course, this is voluntary on the part of the producers, but it does tend to undermine the theory that listening to music for free results in a lost sale. Especially when Napster’s best year was the most profitable year in history for RIAA member companies.
To Dave @ 5/28-19:33: Try reading http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=964 for an account of Jefferson’s beliefs. The idea that leaving the word “property” out of the Declaration makes Jefferson disillusioned with Locke is pure bunk. A CD is not subject to the economics of scarcity due to it’s non-unique non-exclusive nature.
All of that said, based on current laws, yes, downloading the music is theft, no question. The moral question of right and wrong goes deeper than that, especially when you consider the raging debate between Jefferson and Madison on the subject, but it is theft.
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/bplist/archive/1999-02-11$2.html
I agree that music file sharing is stealing. I agree that it robs an artist and record companies of the royalties they lawfully deserve. But… the only ones crying foul are the handful musicians selling multi-millions of albums and the record companies that own them. The lesser know musicians love the internet. WHY? The average radio station only has a rotation of about 25 songs. Usually, these are the same artists that the radio station is tied to in concert promotion. (ClearChannel) Sounds a bit like payola to me… but that is another story. The fact is that we have to listen to the same recycled garbage, over and aver again. One of the few places one can find a variety of music to sample, is the internet. When I find an artist or song I like, I usually buy it. I buy more CD’s since I started downloading mp3’s than I ever did. I AM THE AVERAGE CONSUMER. What those who campaign against this fail to realize is that it actually increases sales and general interest in music. I have seen studies that support this logic. What these people are angry about is that I am not buying the over promoted retread artist’s CD and I am buying someone else. The popular artists are thieves in their own right. We listen to their one hit song, buy the album and realize that the rest of the CD is trash. It is recycled from the last album or all sounds the same. We listed to the CD once or twice and file it away with the rest of the trash we have bought. The problem is that these idiots spend more time and money on their promotion and music videos than they do their music. Then the record companies have to stick it to us and other artists to make up for the losses. If these people were better business people they wouldn’t lose money. It is not the fault of file sharing services. Nevertheless… it is theft, but I will keep stealing. If I buy more music as a result, I won’t feel guilty about it. One of these days, record companies will wise up to this and maximize the internet’s potential. Until then, we will see more of Britney Spears and record companies will continue to lose money.
I think that if the muscians dont want their music getting stolen off the internet, they shouldn’t let people but it on the internet in the first place. Now for the guy that stole the car that person is really stupid because sooner or later they will get caught up. It sounds like something that my stupid ass brother would do and then turn his-self in if he didn;t get caught while he was in the act of doing it, because he has a guilty conchence. He is back in prison for getting caught up by trying to still a car. So he is going to miss the first 2 to 7 years of his daughters life and she isn’t even born yet. Now aint that STUPID!!! Sorry for the bad spelling.
yeah yeah, I’m the guy downloading music off audiogalaxy, (a surprising amount of which is ALLOWED to be there) I would be perfectly happy to dowload from a more ‘legitimate’ site and pay a per-megabite, or per-track fee. Providing of course I was allowed access to the astonomicaly large selection and the ease of use currently afforded to me for FREE. I am not one to avoid paying for what I use, but I also tend to champion free choice and competition, and to that end Audiogalaxy wins hands down. Instead of solidifying their image of backward, greedy egotists by suing everybody who is sick of waiting for the record companies to harness the internet, the RIAA should activly work with those who have developed working business models and established brand images regardless of legalities and motives of the purveyors
of ‘illegitimate’ .mp3 services. If its free, they will come, but if you charge for better service with a smile you’ll be suprised at how many will stay.
now that i have read a whole bunch of comments i would like to present a scenario:
i walk into a store to buy a mattress. the cost is $200. i laugh and walk out.
i go next door and leave with the same mattress for free (i guess he supports his business model by selling add space on the side of his building or something) but i dont care about that, i got my free mattress.
now, did the guy tring to sell me a mattress lose something? sure, he lost a sale, and that may suck for him, but he is an idiot for tring to sell what someone else is giving away free!
now, do i feel bad for him? sure, but is it my fault?? no way!
This endless, mindless debate rages on, fueled by the real thieves and brigands, the MPAA and the RIAA, who want to remake our very digital universe. They want to see a day when we see and hear only what they want us to see and hear, and when. They want a few p for every play of every song. They want to charge nearly $20 for a CD on the strength of a single song when the rest of the disk is awful.
Since MP3 came around I have actually been buying MORE cds because I can hear them first to decide if I actually want to own it. And the best part is now I can buy directly from the artist and pass up those bandits at the record companies.
This is not news, folks.
The white race moves onto a
land already occupied by another people. The white race enslaves the indigenous,
spreads disease, slaughters thier food source, takes away thier children, and buries thier culture.
Is this thievery?
Is this murder?
Is this hitlerish?
All of us do wrong, are there any of us that can only do right? There are so many opinions of what’s right and who’s in the wrong.
Let everybody live by thier own law, and watch everyone of us die by somebody elses.
Live to own nothing, live to love everyone.
Dave (a lurker) responds to me:
> Anyway, just because a piece of property is not physical
> and can be copied does not mean it won’t cause harm to
> the producer if stolen.
No argument, but that wasn’t the question. The question
was whether there was any difference between theft of
intellectual property and theft of tangible property.
As the poster with the advertising-supported-mattresses
points out, “Does harm” is not the same as “theft” either.
Henry Ford did plenty of harm to the manufacturers of
buggy whips.
same old story, if I need it I rationalize that it is alright to take it. Unfortunately , stealing is stealing, no matter the circumstance.
As an artist, if I sell my painting to someone – I could not possibly expect to get a percentage of every resale of my painting till forever! Back in the PRE-DIGITAL days we could freely make copies of music or movies – FOR PERSONAL USE, as long as I did not try to SELL them to anyone, but if I wanted to SHARE it with my cousin – that was perfectly OK! Now explain to me again how SHARING files is so wrong????
If you wish to get music for free, get it from a whole antour country. It is legal to do so, since there is no copyright laws.
I agree with the Outrage’s point of view, but face the truth, you can’t stop them. There are all over the place on the internet. And besides, the laws from other countries protects ‘thevies’, since there is no copyright laws to protect the music.
I’m sorry, but morals are outsmarted because of legal issuses. You lost.
Absolutely right.
A person on his way to work, was stopped by a robber and rob at gunpoint. This goes on a couple ot times.
However, another time the fella is on his way to work, this time he is met by a gang of theives whom are associates of the original robber.
They are about to rob him again but they stop and tell the fella that before they rob him they are going to vote on it.
They vote. The majority says to rob him.
Ain’t Democracy great?
Another quip, why does the United States have only one more political party the Communist China?
A person goes out and, after many years, builds up a large collection of albums from the 60’s, 70’s, and early 80’s. Of course, remembering back to those days, many of the albums had to be replaced due to wear and tear or breakage, so there there are many instances where a single album may have been purchased several times over, again and again, usually because it was a favorite.
Now fast-forward to our current digital age. The phonographs used to play these old album collections are now very hard to find, excessivly expensive, and difficult to maintain. (Needles are HELL to come by!) Yet, right here on the internet is a vast resource that contains nearly every single song recorded onto those old albums, most of which are in better shape (no scratches or pops) than the album tracks.
Is it wrong to download those songs that have already been paid for by purchasing the album that contained them years ago, in some cases several times over?
My wife and I have a collection of nearly 1000 albums combined. Before we married, we repurchased many of these albums due to the reasons listed above. When cassete tapes came out, we “repurchased” many of these albums again to have the convenience of being able to listen to them while driving.
In my opinion, my wife and I have already paid for this music, several times over in some cases, and I do not have a moral problem with downloading these songs from the internet. It would be different if we were downloading music that we had never “owned”; that I would definately classify as stealing. However, in our case, we feel that we’ve already paid for the songs we now download.
One of the easiest arguments in this issue for some people to agree with is the “I bought it once, I should never have to buy it again” idea. On closer inspection however, even this one does not hold water.
If you buy a car (cassette tape), and the maker comes out with a model with better features (CD), you wouldn’t expect to be able to get the new, improved version at no cost. You might be able to “upgrade” to the new stuff, but you would still not expect to get it for free. Just because the format improves, doesn’t mean you are entitled to the upgrade at no charge. You also would not expect the maker to replace your old car once you wore it out or damaged it. Why should intellectual property be any different?
Every thing we purchase eventually wears out, or becomes obsolete. Even the great works of art we enjoy today are not eternal. The same holds true for the music and software we buy.
As for the software fix nonsense, If you have a problem with the maker of the software you are using, buy another brand. This “My operating system is no longer the newest version with all the extra bells and whistles” excuse is bogus. The system you paid for still does the same thing it did when you purchased it. If you want a newer, better version, put up or shut up. You are not entitled to the bigger, faster engine in you car just because you have already paid for last years model.
If you believe the maker of the car you want charges too much for it, does that entitle you to have if for free? If you think the CD you want to by is too expensive, then don’t buy it.
Every time you download software without the direct or indirect permission of the copyright owner, you are realizing a benefit while depriving someone of profit. That is stealing. Just because that someone makes a lot more money than you, does not change this fact. Only those with no morals and integrity find this acceptable.
A very wise man once told me “If you are looking for an excuse to do something wrong, any one will do”.
If you want to take something you haven’t paid for, one excuse is a good as another. None of them actually justify anything.
WHO CARES!!!
CRY ME A RIVER.
I HAVE ABOUT 1500 LEGALY PURCHASED CD’S IN MY COLLECTION. EACH CD COST ME APPROX. 20 CANADIAN DOLLARS. IF THE RECORD COMPANIES ARE HURTING, IT’S BECAUSE OF THE UNWILLINGNESS TO FIND LESS EXPENSIVE WAYS OF MARKETING MUSIC TO LISTENERS. IF MUSICIANS DON’T LIKE IT… TOUGH. GET OUT OF THE RECORDING STUDIO AND BACK INTO THE BARS WHERE WE CAN PAY YOU DIRECTLY FOR YOUR PERFORMANCE. I LOVE TO SEE LIVE MUSIC BUT MOST OF THE BARS IN MY TOWN PLAY PRE-RECORDED MUSIC THAT THEY HAVE BOUGHT FROM THE RECORD COMPANIES. THE SAME COMPANIES THAT STARVE ALL BUT THE MOST SUCCESSFUL RECORDING ARTISTS.
Did
you know that the great majority of intellectual products – books,
movies, music videos – lose money?)
Did you also know that an even vaster majority of “intellectual products” are not even noticed by the publishers, producers, etc., that pick and chose what popular culture will produce?
Pardon me if I DON’T shead a tear over people who are making mondo biggie mega bucks already off of talents that are quite often more suited to street corner performances for “hat money” anyway.
Somehow, I don’t think that the gargantuan record, TV, publishing companies that produce these “intellectual products” are going to suffer that much pain in the end. Perhaps the artists are losing, sure, but hey, “intellectual products” are slippery little verities anyway, always have been. Let the “seller” beware, eh?
What is the difference in downloading the music and recording it off the radio? Sure it may be of better quality, but you still have the music. Is recording off the radio illegal? NO!!!!! And it’s free. So why complain about people downloading it for free when the compaines put it out to the public to record anyway
Downloading free music is unethical and for the most part illegal. Smoking in public (which I do whenever possible) is unethical and in some cases legal. The point I’m making is that legal and ethical rarely add up, so when in doubt, go with what’s legal. Its better to be a free jerk than an incarcerated aulurist.
I am going to continue downloading as many MP3’s as I can until the MPAA and RIAA get their heads out of their asses. They spend millions on LITIGATION when they could be spending that same amount on MARKET RESEARCH and INTERNET COMMERCE. They just have never heard of the phrase, “If you can’t beat them, join them”. Is it not obvious to these boneheads that they cannot sue Billions of people all over the world? Are they so stupid as to believe that they can curb the laws of supply and demand? If one guy offers a product at a discount, and another offers it at twice the price, which is going to get more customers. WalMart vs Kmart. Duh. They could be saving millions by joining the scene and find ways of selling per song, in MP3 format a high quality track. Have a web site, sell the tracks and make money. Customers have convenience and value. Record companies make money, lawyers eat crow. It is so simple that a seven year olf could figure it out. Why can’t these morons figure it out! It must be true that the more power and money you have, the lower your IQ becomes…..
The underlying theme and the real source of this controversey is the subject, and perhaps definition, given “intellectual property” (IP). Let me start with an analogy of the concept of IP using real property instead.
A man buys a car (the manufacturer is paid his money) and he uses his car as a taxi. He charges others to ride in his car. Since this taxi is available, there will be many people who decide not to buy their own cars because they can use the taxi instead. This deprives the automobile manufacturer of potential income. Was this a theft of the potential purchase price for an automobile? The taxi owner is under no obligation to give a percentage of his fares back to the manfacturer. Would it be any different if the man did not charge for his rides? Apparently with IP, the current law requires compensation for loss of potential income.
If you read someone else’s newspaper at the airport or magazine at the doctor’s office, are you obligated to send the purchase price of that publication to the publisher or author? Who pays royalties to them for all the books and magazines, tapes, CDs, and DVDs read, heard, or viewed from public libraries?
If I purchase software from a company, I will install it on every computer that I own if I so desire. (And it is a few!) And that should be well within my rights regardless of what the current law may read. Can you imagine a warning label stating that you have purchased a reading license for your new Tom Clancy novel authorizing you to read it only once! And any refresher reading done after 30 days requires you to purchase an additional reading license?! Or a group license may be purchased for a family of four for 4 times the single license price? Well it’s law on your intellectual property called software!
Why can you “copyright” some intellectual property for the life of the author, yet other intellectual property is “patented” for only 17 years? Does it sound to you like “the people” have a good handle on the concept of “intellectual property”? I don’t, and until we do, we will have this seemingly ludicrous and outrageous debate accomplishing nothing. Let’s go back to the beginning and properly define intellectual property so it can be protected fairly. It should be obvious that there was a large software and recording company “interest” influencing definitions and lawmaking!
Jefferson omitted “property rights” from inclusion in the D.O.I., because there IS NO unalienable right to property!
An Open Letter to Music Exectives :
Dear Music Executives,
What I can’t seem to understand is – why did you make C.D. burners if you didn’t want us to use them at our convenience? I guess you just figured that since you have had complete control over the music industry since it’s beginning, that we didn’t want that much music, and now you’re surprised by millions downloading tons of music ?!! It wasn’t that we didn’t want music …it’s that you were strangling most new talent by purposing they follow a “copy-cat formula” (which BORED the hell out of us!!) for creating music and overcharging for their 20 dollar C.D.’s since we know it costs you barely over 1 dollar to make each C.D. — your bogus claim that most goes to promotion, is only because you want to lazily promote crummy music – it’s just that it costs alot to sell something we don’t want or like. What would solve all your problems is if you got up off your fat rich asses and actually find and promote lots of talented musicians (everyone knows there are plenty around!) and make music cheaper for us like C.D.’s selling for 5 dollars. (Others have sold them at this price for a profit – why can’t you ?) So this would give us lots of diverse entertainment for a price we could afford to spend plenty on ….see how we would all be happier – customers, artists, and even you – if you could just get past the “I’m not a multi-billionare … I’m just rich” and stop using artists and keeping to your little rule “if it worked last year lets see if we can do it the same way again this year”. Just give us LOTS of music for CHEAP and all your problems would be over !!! (We’ll still share (you can’t outlaw that) – you just won’t feel it!)
So NSync and Brittney Spears publishers are taking a huge risk and losing tons of money? The real crime here is the record producers selling one freakin CD, with one good song and 15 crappy songs for $20! Who’s the thief here?
Your listening to the radio, a song comes on you really love, you slip in a tape and record the song to listen to later. The artest has publicity for their music because the radio played it, the listner loves the song so much that he wonders what else the artest has done so he orders an album.
A writer writes a best seller, many buy the book, they make a lot of money, the book ends up in a yard sale and someone buys it for fifty cents. The buyer loves the writer so much they go on line and find another book by the same author. The author makes money again . No one can hang on to all the profits from their contrabution to mankind for ever. We all need to realise part of what we create belongs to the world.
to compare a a person that downloads music without permission to a car theif is ridiculous. I would bet that if tried to stop the car theif there would be a good chance that he would put a gun in your face. I dont think the person downloading music should be compaired to a violent criminal.
Here’s my opinion on this. Both are ultimatly wrong but it’s the victim’s fault of letting it happen. If the people didn’t want his car stolen, he should of obviousley put it somewhere safe or put an alarm on it or SOMETHING. And if the fools that put the full version of their music on the internet should of expected that it would be stolen. They should only put little demos of a couple tracks. And to prevent it from being recorded and distributed for free on the internet, the producers or the artists should do there job and keep it off the internet. All and all, the victim can keep their posessions safe if they really want to.
Quote: ” Common sense isn’t to common these days. “
The analogy to actual theft crumbles if any real thought is applied.
When a car is stolen someone is out the use of their car. When a song is “stolen” who has lost property? Only possible future imagined profits are lost. The comparison is juvenile.
Grand theft audio?
Just about all the CDs I own (and that’s a couple hundred by now) I own because I downloaded MP3s and liked them. I don’t own any cars at the moment, but I doubt that stealing a Mercedes would encourage me to buy a Mercedes in the near future.
Yeah, I know I’m late replying.
Give me a break! You are comparing that? Why don’t you compare pouring ant killer on a hill of ants and killing millions of ants to what Hitler did to the Jewish back in the 40’s. You are pathetic to even think that those are close. If you still think they are then think of this – Pretend it was your car that was being stolen and you walked up behind the person and tried to get them away and instead they pulled out a gun and shot you. Car thieves can be linked to violent criminals. When you come up with a story on someone being hurt/shot or whatever for downloading music then maybe you will have a point. Until then get a life and realize that it’s the computer age and it’s really just the beginning. By the way, make sure that you never recorded any movies off of HBO or what ever becuase I know you have before and you probably even recorded the FBI warning in the beginning.
Can you copyright ***IDEAS**** ….??
I THINK NOT!
So sorry — Have a Twinkie and go to the back of the class!
There can be a difference. In most cases what the record labels call theft is only people exercising their fair use rights. Perhaps they are at some other location and don’t have the physical media that they have already paid for, and want to listen to the songs on it. If they download it it is completely legal. If you don’t believe me you can as the EFF.
Hey, when the record companies stop ripping off artists, I’ll stop downloading MP3s.
Peggy Lee and Disney is a REAL good example.
Do as they do, not as they say.
This argument is disingenuous. The artist gets virtually nothing for a CD sale — his or her profit comes from the live concerts, for which the issuing of a CD is simply an advertisement. You are defending the greed of the music producers, who have taken the art of music and substituted commodity. Music is free. Access to it can come from CD purchase, or from the purchase of computer equipment. When you listen to the radio, you are hearing music whose source has been compensated through various complex ASCAP contractual arrangements and the like. Those same arrangements could easily be made for broadcast (note the etymology) of music via the Internet. Only when a person downloads and then sells the product, or otherwise profits from having done so, has a theft occurred. Why not place an ASCAP-style surcharge on CD blank, the returns to be distributed among all participating musicians. And when was the last time you dropped a buck into a busker’s open guitar case on the square?
Most musicians get paid bugger all, even the “successful” ones. If you, “steal” their music, you’re essentially taking what they don’t get anyway. And at least the “stolen” music brings pleasure to that the thief (or music-lover, if you will). And to give pleasure to others is why most musicians make music.
Someday I’ll probably be served with a warrant just because I answered this message. But here I go: When you participate by TRADING YOUR music with that of your PEERS on a PEER network it is not unlawful and for you to suggest anything else is ridiculous. We are merely trading music at no charge; the artist is not missing a buck. What’s the difference if the music that I purchased sets on a shelf or Is traded freely to fellow music enthusiasts? If the government were to intervene and prevent us from trading music only further erosion of our rights would be the result. The artists have already made their money; Does Ford Motor Co. get part of the sale everytime a used Ford sells? of Course not! Leave us alone!
Putting the ‘poor struggling’ artisit at the middle of this debate is disingenuous. This real issue is about the fat cat lawyers of the media companies. They are, as always, using the front of the artists image to help them make more money. What about all the artists ripped off by agents and record companies – where’s the sympathy then?
ok… the point of this arguement seems to me to be about whether or not MP3 downloads hurt the record companies and artists… I definately think so… I know I haven’t boght a CD in ages because of my MP3 CD Walkman… Yet, I think that is there has to be a way to use the data gathered about the number of downloads an artist gets and show how popular they are and use that data to promote the artist.
Copying media for one’s personal use constitutes ‘fair use’. Reselling copied material is where the ethical line is drawn. The approach the major labels have taken is, quite frankly, insane.
If the major labels had shown the foresight in the mid-1990’s to partner with one another and offer a distribution system along the lines of Napster, they could have charged even a semi-reasonable fee and gotten away with it.
They didn’t, however, and when Napster came along with a superior distribution system, along with the ability to obtain copies of songs for free, the industry’s short-sightedness cost them.
Attacking the already legally precedented concept of ‘fair use’ by bribing politicians such as Ernest ‘Fritz’ Hollings to pass anti-consumer legislation, the major labels began their campaign against file-sharing in the gutter.
The next move for these coke-addled, violence pimps was to declare war on their biggest consumers. Calling people who have legally purchased hundreds of CDs at criminally marked up prices, “thieves”, is a counter-productive move to say the least. I now only purchase used CDs or CDs released on fully independent labels.
To the person who wrote this ‘outrage’, I’d suggest that you go bitch & moan to your local blacksmith.
i r joadrn me smart toughtful and smart useful
If CD’s were sold at the same price as blank CD’s, then maybe I would rethink.
But then, sharing MP3s of crap like Britney Spears and NSYNC is criminal…they should be sued for noise pollution.
Stealing is what’s made America great! Without it we wouldn’t have all this land, all this oil, all this money. Do you really think we worked for it.
I don’t see it as stealing at all. An individual that sits down at his computer and downloads music off the internet is not breaking any laws (this may change). This goes back to the same debate of whats worst alcohol or marijauna. It doesn’t matter which is worst one is illegal one is not. It may not be morally right, but there is no law against it, therefore I see nothing wrong with it. Second, I don’t feel sorry at all for the artists, producers, etc.. they all make more money than I ever will. They said in the early 80’s when cd’s first came out that it was a new technology and the price would recede over time. Twenty years later we are not paying any less for cd’s than we were back then. Point is, they still make more than enough money off cd’s to stay in business for many years to come. Untill our great government decides to pass legislature against it, I don’t see it as wrong at all.
i think that it’s ok to download music if you wouldn’t have gone and bought it otherwise. this way you get to hear the music, and the artist gets another listener without losing any money.
shane-are you seriously saying that you agree with every law just because it’s a law? and everything that’s legal is ok just because it’s legal???? can you honestly not make your own mind up for yourself?
I’m a musician. I am not a rich & famous musician. I offer free MP3s of my copyrighted music on my site and I am honored to see people offering it elsewhere, legally or otherwise. Why? Because I am not making big bucks from my CD, nobody knows about me. I am at the beginning stages. I need people to get an earful of my stuff. I don’t have a huge record company pushing me stuff in your face with their millions of dollars.
Things might change if ever I were to hit it big. I don’t know. I’d like to be able to say that I’m still Revvy from the block and try to remember when I thought MP3 sharing was cool. I hope I don’t become all about the money.
Nah! I still think people want the cover art. Most people would rather go out and get the CD with all the neat little things that come with it, like the lyric sheets or special inserts, etc. MP3s that you burn are OK. It’s nice to get a taste of the music or to make a compilation of your fav’s. It’s like the listening stations at your favorite music store, but I think most people would still rather have a recording in their collection that they would be proud to have their favorite artist autograph. I would anyway.
PS. Go buy my CD at http://www.rocknrev.com or download the tunes individually from all over the web. I don’t care.
Ok,to be honest,yes both of these guys here are criminals in a certain aspect but I just had my car broken into last week and i was devastated by this,however I’m also a lyricist and I have had my materials used by other people and I have to say that having my car broken into was a criminal act,but having my materials stolen was more envy than anything.Besides how many of us out there have a favorite artist,who haves a slamming debut album but flops on us for his 2nd,do we still trust him with our 12-18 bucks?
No we MP3 his ass!
Sure, they are both stealing. I have had my car stolen. I have also had several pieces of intellectual property stolen. Having my car stolen and wrecked and crapped in by some Mexican teenagers not even from this county sucked way worse than the other. Trust. My husband and I moved halfway across the country from Cali about a week and a half after that. We felt so violated we couldn’t live there anymore. We never got any money out of it, the insurance just paid the balance off, he lost his job, we had to spend $4k to move…
I am sorry that people aren’t paying for music, but it is nothing new. Cassette players nearly all have a ‘record’ feature to record your fave songs from the radio or a friend’s CD. It is common knowledge now, and musicians are aware of that. As if they don’t remember the 80’s. Let the singer beware. If you are really good, you will have some of your songs ripped- you will still be a freaking millionaire. If you suck, you won’t have that problem- but you won’t make any money either.
Shae
I’m so sick of people comparing downloading mp3’s to going into your local music store and grabbing a cd and not paying for it. When “shoplifters” do such a thing, the store NO long has the product in inventory. When you download a COPY of an mp3, NOTHING has changed besides some bandwith. END OF STORY. DON’T EVER BRING IT UP AGAIN
Free yayo
does it matter look at all the albums that go platinum in their first week cd burners are just as big of a problem if one person in a group of friends get a cd then the cd circlulates around the group and now everyone has it but olny one person has paid for it. let it alone as long as the technology is out there to do it there will be poeple doing it
FREE YAYO
I listen to music on the radio. If I like what I hear, I buy the cd. I listen to music obtained online. If I like what I hear, I buy the cd. Believe me, between my 2 teenage children and myself, the music industry has no cause to gripe.
There is an obvious flaw in your article. While taking off with someone’s car is always a crime, the same can’t be said of downloading music. Many new groups use the internet to reach new and hopefully approving listeners.
There are some established artists (Janis Ian comes to mind) who see this as an opportunity of increasing sales.
personaly i feel that the people in the record industry are in no need of money. they are all very wealthy and it does not hurt them to lose a few dollars here and there. answer me this.who are the real victims? the people making a killing off of the hard earned money of the consumer who just wants to be entertained or the people paying the price? I say the record industry should suffer this loss for the years and years of raiping the public with a price tag.
this same outrage comentory has been up for probably a good 5 months. mind changin it?
1 more thing, a car being stolen is wrong, the music company is stupid for letting their music be put in a major public place, and the world is stupid for even inventing a cd burner so music companies wouldn’t have this problem in the first place!
i’m gonna see if they even get rid of some commentary. hope ya dont mind me goin on and on.
yo yo
yo yo, play with a yo yo and get burned… or is that fire…
How about a mental exercise.
Let’s replace that evil, evil CD burner in the story with a VCR.
The accusation sounds a lot stupider now, doesn’t it?
And comparing the theft of an automobile— a tangible object that represents several years’ pay at least– to the replication and exchange of an intangible widget of music which cost the RIAA a nickel a track to produce– is doubly ludicrous.
And seeing as file exchanges *boost the sales of the original CDs,* it constitutes word-of-mouth advertising.
The RIAA could be making a fortune with downloadable files, just as the movie industry now makes billions off of video tapes and DVDs. But rather than innovate and evolve with the new technology, they’d rather spend billions on a campaign to attack music fans and call them thieves.
The price of music too high. The firms that produce music hold a monopoly through copyright laws causing the consumer to pay prices far above the cost to produce. My argument is this: if the price of music was lower there would be a far less demand to steal. As you said earlier, the people commiting these crimes tend to be well educated people. Most of them know they are breaking the law but the price is too high to purchase something that you might not like, or are paying for just a few songs they want – causing the price per song to rise. The people I have the deepest simpathies for are the musicians. If they truly wanted to spread their joy around, and make more profits, they would stop the producers from gouging their audience. The true criminals are the firms making economic profit, and if you study economics you would learn about the negative affects resulting from it. As long as the prices are where they are there will be a plethera of thieves.
boring. about as outrageous as stealing something someone already threw out, which is also illegal.
Get a god-damn life honestly. I wonder did the music inductry buy you to say that. You have a go at the man downloading the music – why not the people responsible for that site which the man CAN download from, should they not be responsible. Jesus if you have to find something to bite peoples ass’s about do it the right god-damn way
Bum deal! For decades we bought vinal records, then eight-tracks, cassettes and now CDs & DVDs. About the time you get a nice collection the media changes. That’s not a crime. They call it IMPROVEMENT or PROGRESSION. But now you are supposed to throw your useless albums away and start shelling out more money. In many cases we already bought their damn music so how many times are we supposed to have to pay for it? One good theft deserves another & the music industry has finally had to pay. If you bought it and made a copy to play in your car that isn’t a crime. If my friend makes a copy and gives it to me that isn’t a crime. If he sells it to me and the industry doesn’t get their cut, then a crime has been committed! Now lets talk about the price of their damn CDs & DVDs, that ought to be a crime!
as a musican i belive that downloading music is wrong.but i do it my self.i do not think its wrong for the person downlodeing the tunes but the people puting the songs on the internet and the companys that make devices like mps.If people continue to downloade in mas amounts there will be a large hole in the music industry.in my mind it is stealing!
I agree, downloading music from the Internet is unethical. However, how ethical is to have a CD priced at $20? OK, 40 cents for the CD, $4 for the artist, $4 for the music company. What happens with the rest? No wonder musicians are one of the richest people in the world together with their gigantic, monopolistic and consumer exploiting music companies like Vivendi. They are pressuring the government to do something about Internet dowloading so they can continue to live their filthy lives for which we consumer pay not seeing how unethical they are when they rip us off with their products. I understand that nobody pressures us to buy something against our will, but $20 for a CD when its real price should be around $6-$7? I don’t thinks so, especially knowing that these music companies use all the power they have to own a monopoly.
Just something to think about.
Sorry you music downloaders but stealing is stealing. Tough luck if you think music is so expensive these days. But as they say life isn’t fair. So suck it up and take it like a man.
This is my first time on this forum, and it is the saddest thing I have come across in a long time. NOT THE SUBJECT!! THE SAD SACKS THAT HAVEN’T THE BACK BONE TO LOOK AT THEMSELVES SQUARELY IN THE MIRROR!!!! I have just looked over the comments on this subject, and I can not believe what these lame, immature, and totaly gutless excusses for human beings have come up with for a rationalization for stealing. Stealing is stealing. If you haven’t the guts to look honestly at who and what you are,[ a thief ] then don’t ever get upset the next time it happens to you. My neffew had down loaded hundreds of these songs, and has this same gutless attitude. “They are rich, so it’s not stealing!!” But when someone stole many of those same songs out of his car, he was outraged!!!?! I am a studio musician, and have layed down tracks on many “Classic Rock” songs over almost thirty years. Only one in a MILLION makes it!! And when he finally does, it is usually only after many years of work, practice, and commitment. And while this is going on, you are every bit a starving artist. Also, every time you steal something, you make it a little more expensive for those of us who do understand what it is to work, make money, and BUY what we need or want. Try it, you may feel a little better about your sorry selves, and once again be able to look at your self in the mirror. It feels good to know that you have strength to support your self with out stealing everything you need or want. We are tired of paying higher prices on everything from car insurance to CD’s because of spineless thieves!! GET SOME BACKBONE AND GUTS YOU LEECHES!!
STEALING IS STEALING,,,,I SAY THIS YET I STILL DOWNLOAD AND BURN CDS AND MOVIES,,NOT JUST FOR ME, BUT FOR MY FRIENDS ALSO,,,THE REASON??—>WELL IT’S HARD TO FEEL BAD FOR IT WHEN YOU KNOW THE MONEY YOU SPEND ON THESE ARTIST WILL BE INVESTED IN THEIR OVERPRICES MANSIONS, AND ON THEIR SIXTH CAR,,MABIE IF THESE OVERPRICED PEOPLE USED EVEN A FRACTION OF THEIR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HELP THOSE IN NEED, SUCH AS HUNGRY PEOPLE OVERSEAS, OR ANIMAL CRUELITY, THEN MABIE THE PUBLIC WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO BUY THEIR MATERIAL,,,INSTEAD OF BUYING THAT 500 DOLLAR PRADA HANDBAG THAT ALL THE LADIES ARE CARRYING AROUND NOW,,,!!
Um yeah i think it is just as bad
The question “Is it unlawful to copy/download music posted on the internet?” No, I don’t believe it is unlawful as long as the music is for one’s own listening entertainment. Once something is posted over the internet for all to see, it is considered public knowledge and should be available to anyone. If they want paid, then don’t make it so freely available.
The bottom line is yes, stealing is stealing. There is no ‘grey’ area here. However, that said, it would not be fair to empathize with the other side of the coin. What is stolen is a copy, not an original. The ‘intellectual’ property is had, but the physical argument doesn’t stand. On that level, Musicians and to a fair extent, their avenue’s for promotion, should make money on the work. But to say copied music represents a physical sale lost is an over statement. The new trend towards 99c songs is outstanding. It’s a fair price considering the selectivity and volume it should generate. The bottom line is simple, if you like the tune enough to pilfer it, you have a MORAL obligation to feed the artist….not to make more music, but to atone for that which you already appreciate. If that act funds more work you appreciate, the cycle can continue. Feed the music, and it will set you free.
Come on, as has already been stated, STEALING IS STEALING. I understand that certain industries artifically raise prices so that they can maintain profits. However, we as citizens are responssible to obey the law, as long as we are part of this political society or state, we are obliged to follow the laws set forth by legislators we are allowed to elect, and if don’t agree with said laws, we must consul with our representative, and try to change that outsettling law. If we feel that nothing can be done about it or that we just can’t take it anymore, we have the option of leaving said society or state, so please realize that no matter what someone does. We have to overcome our feelings of grief, fight the power then, buycott them, but don’t steal. No matter how you rationalize the action, if it’s not legal, then it’s not legal.
The only thiefs are those Niggers. White power!!!
If you aint white you aint right!!!
True, both stealing the car and copying the music are legally wrong. However, has anyone heard of a little phrase called ‘civil disobedience’? In my opinion, the music companies overcharge excessively on CD’s. The prices are artificially raised through the roof so that record executives can have huge bonuses and so that the ‘singers’ can have a third or fourth mansion. And most of the money goes to the executives–musicians still make most of their profit from tours.
If the record companies wish to reduce theft, they should drop the price to a reasonable level.
Music copying, therefore, may be legally wrong, but I beleive that to many people it is morally right, a necessary redistribution of income. People have the ability to disobey laws which they believe are morally wrong. They must suffer the consequences if they are caught, but that doesn’t make the law morally right. Take, for example, the anti-sodomy laws in many states, or the various civil-rights laws that have been overturned through civil disobedience.
If cars and CD’s weren’t so overpriced we wouldn’t have to steal either one! However, I’ve never been able to drum up much sympathy for the people in the music industry and their downloading woes. They say they’re losing a lot of money and the industry is going down the tubes, but you sure can’t tell from their lifestyles. And I agree that the downloader and the car thief are equally guilty of stealing. I mean, theft is theft. There is no sliding scale; if you steal $5 or $5,000, it doesn’t matter. You’re a thief. And breaking the law, any law, is breaking the law, period. So if I drive 55 mph in a 35 mph zone, then I have broken the law just as sure as Mr. Grand Theft Auto did. However, my car was stolen 2 years ago, and I’d much rather the guy had come over to my house and downloaded all my expensive software instead. And are that many people really downloading music? I think there’s a rampant group of them, but all my friends have PC’s and none of them download music. Is there all that much out there WORTH downloading? Anyway, people have been copying albums onto cassettes forever, and now you can easily burn copies of CD’s for all your friends. And what if these downloaders couldn’t get their music over the net anymore? That doesn’t mean they’d be snatching up $15 CD’s like hotcakes–they’re way too cheap. And unlike the car thief, who has to go out of his way to steal, the music comes right to their desktop through no effort on their part. It’s illegal, but only because we make it so. I mean, it’s illegal to spit on the sidewalk in Virginia, but no in Georgia. So, it’s not really WRONG, just illegal. FOr example, you can record all day long off your radio or your TV. Why isn’t that illegal? What’s the difference if I just listen to something or if I record it? Once again, it’s all about the money! Radio and TV are financially sponsored, so they don’t care what you do with their air time. The music industry’s just hacked off because they haven’t found a way to regulate and CHARGE for air time on a PC.
The other difference, not to be ignored, is that when your car is stolen you don’t have it any more; when your IP is stolen you still have everything you actually had before.
I beleive that the downloading of music is not legal and is indeed a crime. On the other hand please don’t claim that the music industry is losing tons of money. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of people who download music illegally would not be buying the music they’re downloading, they would just do without it.