What are your thoughts on downloading copyrighted stuff?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So why ask? You said it was an honest question, why? What purpose did you have for asking if you already knew?

So then this all brings us back to what I just asked:

Why did you ask if musicians want to be heard, and then go to say it was an honest question, if you knew that they did?

Because you were trying to suggest that they should be grateful, despite being stolen from, as evidenced here:

Why would it remove sympathy? It wouldn't be because "Oh, you're being enjoyed, why are you complaining?" would it?

I have permission to use that artwork, actually.

-AC

Okay, so this one case, but I know for a fact it's not always the case.

I don't generally bother with trying to push that point because most people simply don't understand and have this wrong perception that the internet is public domain, but you are kinda going on about something being bad when you've done it as well, just in a different form.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Animal.

There's no reason for weed being illegal. It's a plant that grows naturally upon our planet, doesn't kill or harm anyone (Even if it did, it'd be the person using). Stealing is theft, taking someone else's property without permission.

Though I'm not sure he even meant that.

-AC

Well, it does grow naturally but that doesn't alleviate it as something that could be potentially hazardous. Apparently, it can cause severe mental illness. Not to mention, it damages the lungs and the type of euphoria it induces can be dangerous for drivers and such due to slower reaction time. It can inadvertently harm people or directly harm people, depending on usage.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You say you it is stealing it- I don't think you've established that, to be honest, and I think there is a good argument against the term. You say you are depriving them of something. I don't think you've established that either, and that point is very often manifestly not true. Often artists lose nothing from piracy, nothing at all.

That's just uneducated talk.

Unless you are The Rolling Stones, minute or major, you do experience losses. Bands like Metallica etc, they have money in the bank sure, and the point you may be trying to make is that they make enough profit to cover whatever they aren't making on album sales, but they still aren't making as much as they would or should be.

So they are being deprived, regardless of how large or small it is.

Nowadays a band has to sell well over half a million records to even come close to making profit from record sales, because a big part of illegal downloading is file SHARING, which also has a dramatic impact.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You say copyrighting is a necessity. But only in the musc industry as we currently understand it. That whole system may well fall apart- aside from anything else, because it might become entirely irrelevant.

What basis do you have for those assumptions?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Music kicked off being paid for at live attendances only. It may return to that again.

Based on what? What are you using to create these ideas? Like, what reason do you have to believe that this could happen? Genuinely curious.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm pretty neutral in this debate but I acknowledge the possibility.

Why, though? What causes you to feel these things may happen?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So why ask? You said it was an honest question, why? What purpose did you have for asking if you already knew?

To get to the bottom of it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why did you ask if musicians want to be heard, and then go to say it was an honest question, if you knew that they did?

Because you were trying to suggest that they should be grateful, despite being stolen from, as evidenced here:

Why would it remove sympathy? It wouldn't be because "Oh, you're being enjoyed, why are you complaining?" would it?

It removes sympathy because, not only do they want to be heard, but it just doesn't compare or is equal to robbing a gas station or stealing something that would actually affect how someone goes about their life, like a car, a laptop, a briefcase, or a cellphone.

I never once suggested, and I don't believe they should be grateful.

Originally posted by Critic
Well, it does grow naturally but that doesn't alleviate it as something that could be potentially hazardous. Apparently, it can cause severe mental illness. Not to mention, it damages the lungs and the type of euphoria it induces can be dangerous for drivers and such due to slower reaction time. It can inadvertently harm people or directly harm people, depending on usage.

Like Devil King said, it's illegal because its a threat to the economy.

Nope, that's not my point about deprivation. You will note from my earlier posts my point is that piracy does not always- in fact often does not- equal deprivation.

I will re-state my point as you missed it. As no physical product is being stolen, the possiiblity for sale is not reduced. And as, very often, the pirate would not have brought the product if he had not pirated, no money is lost either.

No sales lost, no money taken- no deprivation. Like I said, the argument, therefore, is about your right to own something,. Which is a very valid argument and justification for illegality, but it sure as heck is not what we understand by 'theft'.

My observations are based entirely on my own instincts and what I have read about the situation in newspapers and the like. I am absolutely not an expert opinion in any way or form; as I say, I'm entirely neutral here. I am open to being convinced, I just see little that is convincing so my mind stays open.

Originally posted by Lana
I don't generally bother with trying to push that point because most people simply don't understand and have this wrong perception that the internet is public domain, but you are kinda going on about something being bad when you've done it as well, just in a different form.

I don't believe the net is public domain, and if I ever use art from a website, I email the webmaster, as they usually have a contact address, for permission. I've had millions of sig ideas that I haven't used because of such reasons.

Other things like sigs made from album artwork are different, since they copyright it so you can't use it to make money off, not to paste on your site free of making a profit, to review it or something.

-AC

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It removes sympathy because, not only do they want to be heard, but it just doesn't compare or is equal to robbing a gas station or stealing something that would actually affect how someone goes about their life, like a car, a laptop, a briefcase, or a cellphone.

That makes absolutely no sense.

You're suggesting that people lose sympathy for musicians being stolen from because it's just not as "bad" as other stealing? That does not coincide with the context in which you made your original comment, but you're never going to admit it, so whatever.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I never once suggested, and I don't believe they should be grateful.

You did suggest it, whether you intended to or not, but I have no choice but to take your word for it, so I shall.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Other things like sigs made from album artwork are different, since they copyright it so you can't use it to make money off, not to paste on your site free of making a profit, to review it or something.

-AC

That's not actually true. Using anything that's copyrighted without permission of the owner is a violation. Making profit doesn't need to enter into it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I will re-state my point as you missed it. As no physical product is being stolen, the possiiblity for sale is not reduced. And as, very often, the pirate would not have brought the product if he had not pirated, no money is lost either.

Someone has a copyrighted and illegally downloaded copy of an album, you're suggesting this doesn't reduce the possibility of sale?

How many people here have you seen utter the line, over the course of...however many times you've seen it discussed, "Why pay for what you can get for free?"? It definitely does reduce chance of sale.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No sales lost, no money taken- no deprivation.

Considering there are millions and millions of people who participate in the act, and countless people who own hundreds of albums that they've never paid a penny for, I can't say I see any sense in your claim there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I said, the argument, therefore, is about your right to own something,. Which is a very valid argument and justification for illegality, but it sure as heck is not what we understand by 'theft'.

People generally understand "ironic" to mean "coincidental".

Theft is theft, regardless. Information theft exists because theft isn't limited to tangibility.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
My observations are based entirely on my own instincts and what I have read about the situation in newspapers and the like. I am absolutely not an expert opinion in any way or form; as I say, I'm entirely neutral here. I am open to being convinced, I just see little that is convincing so my mind stays open.

Fair enough.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again... no it isn't.

You are very talented at stating things that are not so.

Violation is violation, as theft is theft.

Originally posted by Lana
That's not actually true. Using anything that's copyrighted without permission of the owner is a violation. Making profit doesn't need to enter into it.

It doesn't need to, but it often does in cases such as album artwork, because there are a billion and one sites on the net that review albums all the time, or something similar.

A lot of people who work on album art don't necessarily include it in the clause unless it is being replicated in a new piece or used for monetary gain that doesn't go to them.

Frank Frazetta for example didn't copyright the artwork to Leviathan by Mastodon to get money every time it's used. Whereas if it's printed in a publication, he would more than likely receive a cut of it, however minute.

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just saying it's not always the case.

Besides, if I don't have permission to use artwork that isn't necessarily meant to be used elsewhere, my sigs (Whether they've ones you've made or ones I've made) usually come from freely downloadable wallpapers or images at the artists permission.

-AC

Nope, in this sense... theft really is not theft. It's conceptually different with SOME places (not all, this is a global issue) using a similar label, inapprorpiately and not reflected by the content of the law which is the only relevant issue.

It CAN reduce possiblity of sale, but often it doesn't. And in fact there is absolutely no evidence present at all as to whether this is a problem of any scale. The only research done attempts to put a dollar value on pirated goods and say that this amount is the amount stolen- which is nonsense.

When companies say "We lose x billion dollars a year to piracy" what they actually mean is "if everyone who pirated our product bought it instead we'd make x billion dollars more."

But these people don't, and I am fairly sure a huge proportion would not no matter what, whether they had it or not.

In the total absence of any decent information about whether piracy actually does any significant hurt at all- and any assumptions you want to make that it does are countered by equal assumptions by saying that it actually enhances sales and profiles by spreading the music more- I am very much reserving judgment.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope, in this sense... theft really is not theft.

It's defined as theft by most countries who are not either to poor to be considered an issue (sad but true) or actually make a large trade in counterfeit goods. That's what Berne is about.

Of course theft is theft.... They are the same word!

Originally posted by Alt. Account
Violation is violation, as theft is theft.

*insert word* is *insert same word*

thanks. you have won me over with your persuasion.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
It's defined as theft by most countries who are not either to poor to be considered an issue (sad but true) or actually make a large trade in counterfeit goods. That's what Berne is about.

Of course theft is theft.... They are the same word!

Words can look the same and not mean the same thing; this ia actually very common indeed and certainly so in this case.

Again. if you are saying 'thef't is like the idea of theft raised at first in this thread and as this thread has discussed... then nope. Not at all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It CAN reduce possiblity of sale, but often it doesn't.

You have proof that "often" people who download illegally then buy what they've downloaded, then?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And in fact there is absolutely no evidence present at all as to whether this is a problem of any scale. The only research done attempts to put a dollar value on pirated goods and say that this amount is the amoutn stolen- which is nonsense.

What do you mean there's no evidence? Of course there is.

If you aren't paying for something, then they aren't getting it, which they deserve to be.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
When companies say "We lose x billion dollars a year to piracy" wehat they actually mean is "if evberyone who pirated our software bought it instead we'd make x billion dollars more."

That's a different kind of "loss". Artists are losing out on money they should be getting, whether or not this causes loss in their overall profit that could be considered damaging is up for debate, but damaging or not it really shouldn't be happening.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But these people don't, and I am fairly sure a huge proportion would not no matter what, whether they had it or not.

Be fairly sure all you want. I am fairly sure that your argument of "They're not losing anything." is silly. If 100 people possess the album, but only 10 bought it, they are losing out on the money of 90 CDs. Money that should be theirs, that's the point. We can go back and forth all day about how much does it really bother them, do they lose or just miss out, but ultimately, you owe them money, and you should give it to them.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
In the total absence of any decent information about whether piracy actually does any significant hurt at all- and any assumptions you want to make that it does are countered by equal assumptions by syaing that it actually enhances sales and profiles by spreading the music more- I am very much reserving judgment.

Significance of hurt was never my argument, I don't think significance matters, as I said. The fact is, it's happening, and either way the artists are losing out on money that should be theirs.

You once argued that people shouldn't moan about paying for the Monarchy, dislike it or not, because it costs "peanuts". So what? I don't even want to pay peanuts, how little isn't of any concern, just like it doesn't matter if bands are losing a pound or a million, they're not gaining something they should be. Just like the Monarchy are gaining money they shouldn't be. I have the right to keep however much goes to the Monarchy, little or not, as the artist has the right to keep whatever he, she or they are not gaining.

-AC

Originally posted by Schecter
*insert word* is *insert same word*

thanks. you have won me over with your persuasion.

👆 It is a simplistic argument i'll grant you. That though is the law, most of the time!!!! As a law student I know this.

Your first line- that people pay for what they downloaed- is irrelevant- read what I said again. Has nothing to do with whether they pay for it or not. Again- they only lose money if, otherwise, the person WOULD have paid for it. Evidence for that does not exist.

Seriously- there's no decent evidence to analyse that issue at all.

The word 'should' is very vague, really. If you are talking about material loss, the only important word is 'would'. Are the artists losing out on any money that they otherwise would have got? Answer may very well be 'no', in which case there is no actual loss.

Now, if we are talking about people having music they have no entitlement to... then that's fine, and I mentioned it earlier- but that's not theft, and the artists lost no money. People just own something unfairly. Very different.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
👆 It is a simplistic argument i'll grant you. That though is the law, most of the time!!!! As a law student I know this.

hahaha indeed starhawk was pathetic. not as pathetic as whirly, but still...

not that i think you're a sock. you're much more intelligent than those retards

🙂