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.
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.
__________________
Is it better for a King to be feared or to be loved?
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.
What basis do you have for those assumptions?
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.
Why, though? What causes you to feel these things may happen?
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.
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People generally understand "ironic" to mean "coincidental".
Theft is theft, regardless. Information theft exists because theft isn't limited to tangibility.
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.
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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!
You have proof that "often" people who download illegally then buy what they've downloaded, then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
KMC Community Forums
Oct 18th, 2007 10:45 PM
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.
