NationStates Jolt Archive

Reading about the recent raid on an Australian man who was the first to pirate and upload a copy of The Simpsons movie, I began thinking about my own piracy. Personally I saw the Simpsons Movie at the cinema on the day it opened (it sucked) but that didn't stop me from downloading it again.

Anyway, music collections. Of my current music collection I'd say literally 95% was downloaded from the internet or from my university's network. And the CDs I did buy were from years ago and I thus no longer even like the bands. Stupid teenage music taste.

100% and proud of it...:mp5:

100% and proud of it...:mp5:

Surely you have paid for at least one album at some point in your life?

The problem here is defining "music collection". I mean, of the music on my hard-drive right now (which is literally the only music I listen to) I downloaded all of it. I do have some albums at home that I purchased but I don't even know whether or not I should consider part of them as being in my collection.

Downloaded 5-10 maybe

Ripped CD's from friends closer to 50

*note my music collection just broke the 20k song mark

I'm actually okay with telling you that almost everything i got, i got legit.

I only turn to the net to get the stuff that the labels wouldn't release anyway.
Almost all of my favourite bands are really, really good live, so i can usually find some good stuff online if they haven't already released a live or remix album or singles, at least.

Of the 2500 or so songs I have, about 10% I downloaded illegally, 20% I have from cds I purchased, and the other 70% came from the library.

Downloaded 5-10 maybe

Ripped CD's from friends closer to 50

*note my music collection just broke the 20k song mark

50%? Hmm... Probably should have said illegal music full stop as opposed to illegally downloaded. Meh too late.

And 20k eh? Nice. How much of that do you actually listen to?

None. I listen to XM radio all the time when I'm online, so I don't really own all that much music.

50%? Hmm... Probably should have said illegal music full stop as opposed to illegally downloaded. Meh too late.

And 20k eh? Nice. How much of that do you actually listen to?

I would say on the order of 80 percent listen ratio

I have almost nothing but full albums so of course there are going to be some songs in there that I do not care for even if I like 5 or 6 other songs from the album

Not illegal in Canada.:D

Roughly 20% illegal.

Like 4 or 5 songs, out of about 2800.

I am a communist so I don't recognize property or copyright law as they are creations of the bourgeois in order to maximize profit. As a matter of fact I don't recognize any law.

Is a matter of fact I don't recognize any law.

You'll see that they don't depend on your recognition.

You'll see that they don't depend on your recognition.
o rly

Less than 1%.

The only songs I have illegally downloaded are "Yesterday" and "Sing, Sing, Sing". Oh, and there's very little classical music to illegally download online, so I wouldn't do much if I did.

Not illegal in Canada.:D

Cheers to that, cause roughly 2/3 of my collection is somewhat illgotten.

o rly

Tell it to the police when you bitch to them after a crime has been committed against you.

0%

Had one burned CD, but I went out and bought it cause it was the only CD by that band that I didn't already own.

Tell it to the police when you bitch to them after a crime has been committed against you.
You misunderstand me, I believe in law, but only social law, not bourgeois law, bourgeois is enshrined in conservative leaning constitutions most of the time in the form of property rights and the restriction of true democratic power, ie liberalism and minority special interests.

I have maybe up to 50 albums ripped (and I think that might actually be a rather large amount more than I actually did) but many, many, many more downloaded.

the restriction of true democratic power, ie liberalism and minority special interests.
What? Like union members?

Also, none of my music is downloaded illegally. Not that I'm particularly proud of the fact or anything. Just how it works out, sharing limited bandwidth with four other people, two of which are almost always playing some online game or other. Whenever I download anything, they lag and subsequently bitch at me.

You misunderstand me, I believe in law, but only social law, not bourgeois law, bourgeois is enshrined in conservative leaning constitutions most of the time in the form of property rights and the restriction of true democratic power, ie liberalism and minority special interests.

Just wait until someone takes your shit. Then you'll be crying.

What? Like union members?

Also, none of my music is downloaded illegally. Not that I'm particularly proud of the fact or anything. Just how it works out, sharing limited bandwidth with four other people, two of which are almost always playing some online game or other. Whenever I download anything, they lag and subsequently bitch at me.

You only have a modem? If you use p2p torrents it's usually quite fast on broadband.

0%

You only have a modem? If you use p2p torrents it's usually quite fast on broadband.

We're on a DSL router. Torrents slow it down more than anything else.

Whatever, I get free high-speed internet at the co-op in Austin I'll be moving into in a week.

You misunderstand me, I believe in law, but only social law, not bourgeois law, bourgeois is enshrined in conservative leaning constitutions most of the time in the form of property rights and the restriction of true democratic power, ie liberalism and minority special interests.

What a load of bull.

Probably somewhere around 80%, though there is a good amount of overlap. If you counted identical songs that I have bought and downloaded separately, I'd be closer to 60%

I downloaded most of my stuff while it still was legal... :cool:

All my downloaded music was legally done :cool: (in my opinion),

However for some anally retentive reason, it may be considered illegal by others. :upyours:

All my downloaded music was legally done :cool: (in my opinion),

However for some anally retentive reason, it may be considered illegal by others. :upyours:

Legal and illegal are subjective with respect to the country or state (or governing body) not the individual

You may think that something SHOULD not be illegal that does not make it legal though.

I downloaded most of my stuff while it still was legal... :cool:

I dont think it was ever "legal" they just were not being dicks about it at the time.

I got a pretty big "pirated" collection. However, many of the songs and albums are overlapping with my cd collection and as such I think they are considered backups by law, not really sure. I'm still illegal though as I share them with others so they can backup their collections aswell without having to rip every cd they own. I do hope RIAA doesn't hang in these forums.

Legal and illegal are subjective with respect to the country or state (or governing body) not the individual

You may think that something SHOULD not be illegal that does not make it legal though.

I agree with what you are saying here, as it is indicative of the problems with a global marketplace, particularly with respect to the internet and our ability to access information and products from around the world.

I'm able to download music legally in one country, however the country I'm initiating that process from it's illegal.

I agree with what you are saying here, as it is indicative of the problems with a global marketplace, particularly with respect to the internet and our ability to access information and products from around the world.

I'm able to download music legally in one country, however the country I'm initiating that process from it's illegal.

Thats true ... personally I like to see the global market causing the MPAA a tone of discomfort (places like The Pirate Bay) maybe they will learn to not be dicks suing poor mothers and old people that bairly know what the interweb is

I think Ice-T will have to do without giving his son an island in French Polynesia for his birthday, personally I am not so much concerned.

Less than 5%.

We have about 50,000 songs on our PC and external harddrives, and forty(ish) albums of that have been ripped on. I also own a large amount of records, and prefer those to anything on my PC.

I've downloaded most of my collection, but it was from iTunes (so it's all legal).

I got an album as a gift once. But everything else is either ripped, copied or downloaded. But the stuff I've been listening to recently doesn't get released commercially or doesn't get released in this country anyway.

I got an album as a gift once. But everything else is either ripped, copied or downloaded. But the stuff I've been listening to recently doesn't get released commercially or doesn't get released in this country anyway.

You could always order it. Not that I ever do lol. What music are you specifically talking about?

As much as I'd like to own original copies of the music I listen to, (1) they are not usually available here (all that's available here are overplayed tunes that suck) and (2) I'm not that rich to buy CDs all the time (okay, a typical music CD is relatively expensive here.). But if I do spot one of those albums that I like and if I have money, I usually go ahead and buy it.

i'm just one of those crazy people who buy music from Itunes

I'm actually okay with telling you that almost everything i got, i got legit.

I only turn to the net to get the stuff that the labels wouldn't release anyway.
Almost all of my favourite bands are really, really good live, so i can usually find some good stuff online if they haven't already released a live or remix album or singles, at least.

Same here. I have a few songs illegally downloaded because they aren't available for legal download. That's it. I'll happily buy songs legally as long as they're available legally and online. CDs are dead. *nod*

i'm just one of those crazy people who buy music from Itunes

You can download it just as easily from the elsewhere but, and spend the profit on sweet, sweet candy.

A lot of the music on my computer is downloaded and probably not legitimate either. Though an awful lot of it would be hard to get in North America, things like Japanese pop music and video game sound tracks aren't exactly the sort of things you see in the shops. It would also feel like a huge waste of money to buy a CD for just a small portion of what is on it.

All my CDs are classical or Weird Al.

Why bother downloading when there's Pandora (http://www.pandora.com/)?

Why bother downloading when there's Pandora (http://www.pandora.com/)?

For those random moments where you want a specific song, mebbe? Or you're having really bad luck with Tor and can't seem to show up in America. :p

I used to download more than I do nowadays. Problem with downloading is, often it's not great quality, and, for classical at least, it's hard to find all of a symphony being performed by the same orchestra. So, I've taken to ripping CDs :p but I do actually own quite a bit of my music.

I was going to say 100%, then I rememberd that downloading is legal in Holland, so I voted 0%.:p

I was going to say 100%, then I rememberd that downloading is legal in Holland, so I voted 0%.:p

I love Europe, I think I want to live there.

I'm probably hanging out around the 3% range.

I downloaded three complete albums (Steve Miller Band Greatest Hits 74-78, Metallica Black Album, Def Leppard On Through the Night), and about 70 individual songs, so, out of around 3,500 legal songs, that racks in at 3%.

Most of my downloading occurred in the period between 2000-2003. Only once or twice since, and then primarily for rare things that exist in a legally grey area.

100% of ~100,000 tracks (~300GB of music) is illegally obtained.

I'm not sure how many cds I have relative to mp3s, plus some of my mp3s weren't downloaded illegally, I have at least three songs that were given to me by acquaintances who made them/were a part of making them and one album that my friend's band had put online... though this doesn't even make up 1% of my mp3 collection... though in general I don't know if downloading is illegal here... I'm pretty sure I can't get sued for it in any case.

Why bother downloading when there's Pandora (http://www.pandora.com/)?

Quite. You'll not get hard-drive wiping viruses from Pandora, you will from downloading.

Trust me, personal experience back in the day.

I used to download more than I do nowadays. Problem with downloading is, often it's not great quality, and, for classical at least, it's hard to find all of a symphony being performed by the same orchestra. So, I've taken to ripping CDs :p but I do actually own quite a bit of my music.

Hell, I never got a full version of Nessun Dorma until I actually went off to the music store, and I swear, I downloaded like twelve different versions of it trying. And all of them were terrible quality, 24 kbps or something pathetic like that, I might add.

Hell, I never got a full version of Nessun Dorma until I actually went off to the music store, and I swear, I downloaded like twelve different versions of it trying. And all of them were terrible quality, 24 kbps or something pathetic like that, I might add.

Then you don't know the correct places to look. 90% of music out there is crap quality. The 10% is at least CD-quality. That 10% contains perhaps 95% of music ever released to CD, provided you seek it in the right places.

Then you don't know the correct places to look. 90% of music out there is crap quality. The 10% is at least CD-quality. That 10% contains perhaps 95% of music ever released to CD, provided you seek it in the right places.

I reiterate, I haven't pirated music substantially since 2003.

That was like, the days of KaZaa, and early Limewire.

Probably about 7 to 8 albums of bands I'm testing out. If I like it, I'll buy their next album. Gotta support the band or they won't be around any longer, right? ;)

I reiterate, I haven't pirated music substantially since 2003.

That was like, the days of KaZaa, and early Limewire.

Ah, I see. Well, yes, pretty much all music was low bitrate back then.

if you're counting ripping CDs from friends over 50%, downloads only about a third. I have about 400 CDs that i bought myself though.

none of it. I don't believe in stealing.

Quite. You'll not get hard-drive wiping viruses from Pandora, you will from downloading.

Trust me, personal experience back in the day.
Umm... don't download .exe files, just .mp3 files, imo.

Anyways, Pandora doesn't work for anyone outside the US anymore, which makes me a sad panda.

Umm... don't download .exe files, just .mp3 files, imo.

Anyways, Pandora doesn't work for anyone outside the US anymore, which makes me a sad panda.

Both times that the really bad stuff got downloaded they were actually embedded in video files.

Both times that the really bad stuff got downloaded they were actually embedded in video files.
*shrugs* I've never had a problem with anything I've downloaded.

Around 95% of my music is illegally downloaded.

The convenience far outways the risk and the imaginary suffering that occures because of it.

none of it. I don't believe in stealing.

Is it really stealing, though?

Seriously, think about it. When you illegally download a song, no one else is deprived of the song.

When you steal a CD, you are physically taking a CD from someone; they are down one CD.

But with downloads, you aren't reaching into their hard drive and removing the file from their computer.

Is it really stealing, though?

Seriously, think about it. When you illegally download a song, no one else is deprived of the song.

When you steal a CD, you are physically taking a CD from someone; they are down one CD.

But with downloads, you aren't reaching into their hard drive and removing the file from their computer.

I believe it's like stealing intellectual property. If someone were to type my novel up on the computer and email it around to everyone for free I would be pretty pissed. I would feel like they were stealing from me. They would probably go to jail.

Is it really stealing, though?

Seriously, think about it. When you illegally download a song, no one else is deprived of the song.

When you steal a CD, you are physically taking a CD from someone; they are down one CD.

But with downloads, you aren't reaching into their hard drive and removing the file from their computer.

well it's depriving people of a potential income, but then most of the people taking the income have no justifiable claim to it. the people that do get pittance anyway, so each song you download you're probably depriving the artist of a few pennies. no different from seeing someone drop some change on the floor and then pocketing anything they didn't retrieve, or fishing around in the change tray of a vending machine.

I believe it's like stealing intellectual property. If someone were to type my novel up on the computer and email it around to everyone for free I would be pretty pissed. I would feel like they were stealing from me. They would probably go to jail.

I'd be pretty flattered that people would be willing to break the law to get a hold of my stuff. As long as people attribute what I write to me, it's really up to them what they decide to do with what is now theirs.

well it's depriving people of a potential income, but then most of the people taking the income have no justifiable claim to it. the people that do get pittance anyway, so each song you download you're probably depriving the artist of a few pennies.

You solution to the fact that artists often get ripped off by record companies is to rip off artists to a greater extent?

How does that work again?

well it's depriving people of a potential income, but then most of the people taking the income have no justifiable claim to it. the people that do get pittance anyway, so each song you download you're probably depriving the artist of a few pennies. no different from seeing someone drop some change on the floor and then pocketing anything they didn't retrieve, or fishing around in the change tray of a vending machine.

Most of the people that rely on said income have already been paid, anyway; distribution of a song is the icing on the cake, really.

I'd be pretty flattered that people would be willing to break the law to get a hold of my stuff. As long as people attribute what I write to me, it's really up to them what they decide to do with what is now theirs.

you would like not earning money you worked for? if you for example worked at the Mc Donald's, would you be fine with not getting a paycheck as long as the manager told every customer "Tokyo Rain made that burger".

Quite. You'll not get hard-drive wiping viruses from Pandora, you will from downloading.

You also won't get it if you have a brain.

That came out a little too mean.

I believe it's like stealing intellectual property. If someone were to type my novel up on the computer and email it around to everyone for free I would be pretty pissed. I would feel like they were stealing from me. They would probably go to jail.
The authors here (http://www.baen.com/library/) disagree with you. They figure that since people reading their books from the library for free increases their sales it will also increase sales if people can download their books for free. So they put their own books online for download.

Why would you buy music (or a book for that matter) unless you like it and how could you like it without listening to it for free first?

Anyway, to answer the poll my music collection is about 50% ripped from friends or illegally downloaded, 20% legally free stuff (yes some artists really do give away their music and hope it will draw more people to their concerts) and 30% payed for. Downloading isn't the only way to discover new music though...

When at the computer I usually listen to free and commercial free web radio which is legal but just as bad as downloading since I listen to the music without paying and even without listening to countless ads like on normal radio. I've discovered a lot of music this way, for example it showed me that some jazz is actually really nice.

My favorite way to widen my horizons is to borrow CDs from friends (and rip them before returning them of course) or get mp3's from them through a chat program. But it's legal to share music with friends here and there is a copy tax on blank CDs etc to cover for that. I used to think all metal was noisy trash, that was until a friend borrowed me a couple Nightwish and Freedom Call CDs to prove otherwise, now I have a lot of power metal CDs.

well it's depriving people of a potential income, but then most of the people taking the income have no justifiable claim to it. the people that do get pittance anyway, so each song you download you're probably depriving the artist of a few pennies. no different from seeing someone drop some change on the floor and then pocketing anything they didn't retrieve, or fishing around in the change tray of a vending machine.

It's not potential income if I wouldn't buy it anyways. So nobody is losing any money off of me.

The authors here (http://www.baen.com/library/) disagree with you. They figure that since people reading their books from the library for free increases their sales it will also increase sales if people can download their books for free. So they put their own books online for download.
Lots of people disagree with me. Doesn't mean I am wrong.

You solution to the fact that artists often get ripped off by record companies is to rip off artists to a greater extent?

How does that work again?

When I download music from an artist, it benefits them as I grow to enjoy them more than if I never heard of them and I then go to their concerts which is how artist make most of their money.

A lot of music downloading involves downloading something you would not in a million years work for 3 hours to pay for. They don't lose potential money, since you would not have bought it in the first place. They only gain fans who pay to see them live.

There are no record companies strongarming people in Brazil and they have a thriving music industry so don't tell me that the industry would collapse. (Oh, and their artists make money too, then there are the artists in the world who make music because they like to do it.)

When I download music from an artist, it benefits them as I grow to enjoy them more than if I never heard of them and I then go to their concerts which is how artist make most of their money.

A lot of music downloading involves downloading something you would not in a million years work for 3 hours to pay for. They don't lose potential money, since you would not have bought it in the first place. They only gain fans who pay to see them live.

There are no record companies strongarming people in Brazil and they have a thriving music industry so don't tell me that the industry would collapse. (Oh, and their artists make money too, then there are the artists in the world who make music because they like to do it.)

That sounds like a load to me assuming I understand what you're saying. Considering 95% or so of my music is completely downloaded, I would have no alternative but to buy these albums had I not downloaded them.

Lots of people disagree with me. Doesn't mean I am wrong.

Not to mention that even more people disagree with the position provided in the article cited.

About 75%. I do feel terrible about it at times, however, I make a point of buying small band's merch at gigs, and buying their CD's when I can, however, approximately 7500 sings would kill my finances if all purchased.

You solution to the fact that artists often get ripped off by record companies is to rip off artists to a greater extent?

How does that work again?

Most of the people that rely on said income have already been paid, anyway; distribution of a song is the icing on the cake, really.

artists get an advance to produce the music, they get the money off ticket sales, they get money from royalties from radio and tv play, the money they lose from 'lost' record sales is negligeable. especially when you weigh that against the fact that the people who download a couple of songs to listen to are more likely to buy a full album than those who just hear them fleetingly on the radio.

i never bought singles anyway cuz they're a rip off, even before i heard of downloading, now i don't need to and my musical horizons are broadened so much that a far greater proportion of my income is going on music than it ever would have done. plus i don't have to waste my money buying a shit album that i only liked a couple of songs from anyway. i see downloading as quality control, i have plenty of music downloaded that i wouldn't buy the album of cuz frankly it's not worth the plastic it's lazered on. i have plenty more downloaded that i intend to get a hard copy of as soon as i have a decent stable income and a place of my own to fill up with the shelves and shelves of music that it is my ambition to own.

Click Stand;12976660']It's not potential income if I wouldn't buy it anyways. So nobody is losing any money off of me.

quite.

artists get an advance to produce the music, they get the money off ticket sales, they get money from royalties from radio and tv play, the money they lose from 'lost' record sales is negligeable. especially when you weigh that against the fact that the people who download a couple of songs to listen to are more likely to buy a full album than those who just hear them fleetingly on the radio.

i never bought singles anyway cuz they're a rip off, even before i heard of downloading, now i don't need to and my musical horizons are broadened so much that a far greater proportion of my income is going on music than it ever would have done. plus i don't have to waste my money buying a shit album that i only liked a couple of songs from anyway. i see downloading as quality control, i have plenty of music downloaded that i wouldn't buy the album of cuz frankly it's not worth the plastic it's lazered on. i have plenty more downloaded that i intend to get a hard copy of as soon as i have a decent stable income and a place of my own to fill up with the shelves and shelves of music that it is my amition to own.

stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without permission (or that's how I explain it to pre-schoolers)

you can rationalize all you want, but stealing is wrong.

Less than 10%, and I have over 100 cds...:)

Why would you buy music (or a book for that matter) unless you like it and how could you like it without listening to it for free first?
So you go to the bookstore, read the book, then buy it?

stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without permission (or that's how I explain it to pre-schoolers)

you can rationalize all you want, but stealing is wrong.

i'm satisfied with my rationalisations. i don't think stealing really has such a rigid definition as you do perhaps, to me some things have greater value freely distributed than they do hoarded, whatever the wishes of the producer or thier publisher. i also know that i don't have many moral qualms against stealing anyway so we are unlikely to ever be on the same page in a debate such as this.

stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without permission (or that's how I explain it to pre-schoolers)

you can rationalize all you want, but stealing is wrong.
Mmm. I don't know.

It's like the British anti-piracy ad that appears on legal DVDs (which is inane to the point of absurdity; why harass thase who have actually bought the DVD? Shome mishtake shurely? [/compulsory Bill Deeds reference]), which proudly proclaim that:

"You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a TV. You wouldn't steal a movie. Piracy is stealing"

One problem: I would 'steal' a TV if there millions upon millions of TVs available, at no cost, to pick up whenever I wanted, with no chance of prosecution whatsoever, and no apparent harm caused.

Same with a car.

I already 'steal' movies too.

Music (and film) producing companies have failed on a massive level to combat digital downloads. Instead of competing with them on the marketplace (as you'd expect any sensible capitalist venture to do) they have whined and moaned and dragged their heels, occasionally mumbling about artists' rights or something equally vacuous.

The price of 'legal' music is ridiculous; £14.99 ($30.00) for one album is just not worth it. I'd prefer to have all my music on hard format. I do like CDs, just not when they're vastly overpriced.

Lots of people disagree with me. Doesn't mean I am wrong.
I wouldn't own most of the cds I own if not for downloading a sample of songs (or the entire thing) first.

I really think that artists on smaller record labels do benefit from filesharing becuase they often don't get much (if any) airplay on mainstream radio stations, filesharing allows word of mouth to translate to new fans who look them up at no risk.

So you go to the bookstore, read the book, then buy it?
No, with works of fiction I borrow it from the library and read it then I don't buy it. If there was no library I wouldn't read fictional books at all. With useful books (that is everything except fiction) I borrow it from the library or a friend, then buy my own copy when I have to return the borrowed one if the book was actually useful because then I want to have it in the shelf next time I need it.

stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without permission (or that's how I explain it to pre-schoolers)

you can rationalize all you want, but stealing is wrong.
Stealing is to take something from someone without permission.

The difference:
Picking blueberries in the forest that don't belong to you without permission is not stealing.
Meeting another blueberry picker and robbing them of their bucket of berries is stealing.

Finding money on the ground that doesn't belong to you and picking it up without permission from whoever dropped it is not stealing.
Checking coats hanging in a cloakroom and taking anything you happen to find the pockets is stealing.

10% or so, what I like, I usually end up buying. What I haven't bought is usually out of print. :)

0%

all my MP3 are ripped from the CD's I've bought.

i would say probably 45%


i usually download songs, and if i really like what i hear, i'll go and buy the actual cds

i usually do this for like greatest hits cds and such

>>Everybody in this thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNcOlcTwnwg&mode=related&search=
I figured it'd be appropriate.
YOU ARE A PIRATE

I think I've paid for five CDs in my life, the rest of the vast collection was found online.

Stealing is to take something from someone without permission.

The difference:
Picking blueberries in the forest that don't belong to you without permission is not stealing.
Meeting another blueberry picker and robbing them of their bucket of berries is stealing.

Finding money on the ground that doesn't belong to you and picking it up without permission from whoever dropped it is not stealing.
Checking coats hanging in a cloakroom and taking anything you happen to find the pockets is stealing.

Picking blueberries on property that does not belong to you is both trespassing and stealing.

Picking blueberries on property that does not belong to you is both trespassing and stealing.

what if it's city property?


since this is a democracy, and the government is owned by the people, therefore, it wouldn't be stealing

Picking blueberries on property that does not belong to you is both trespassing and stealing.
since this is a democracy, and the government is owned by the people, therefore, it wouldn't be stealing
Extended analogies are bunk.

The blueberries represent Metallica, yeah? ;)

Extended analogies are bunk.

The blueberries represent Metallica, yeah? ;)

No, Dragonforce. The hardest blueberries known to man.

what if it's city property?


since this is a democracy, and the government is owned by the people, therefore, it wouldn't be stealing

why don't you just stroll onto a military base and see what happens.

I wouldn't own most of the cds I own if not for downloading a sample of songs (or the entire thing) first.

I really think that artists on smaller record labels do benefit from filesharing becuase they often don't get much (if any) airplay on mainstream radio stations, filesharing allows word of mouth to translate to new fans who look them up at no risk.

I wouldn't use the shampoo that I do if they hadn't sent me a free sample in the mail. What's your point? Should it be okay for me to steal a bottle of shampoo from the store if I promise to always buy that kind of shampoo forever if I like the sample I stole?

I am not debating whether or not an artist might benefit from your theft, because it doesn't make a difference. If you take something that's not yours without permission you are stealing. If the artist gives it to you, then you have permission.

Picking blueberries on property that does not belong to you is both trespassing and stealing.
Trespassing in a forest? It's out in the wilderness, there is nothing to trespass on out there. If you're picking apples in someone's garden thats trespassing. But you can't trespass on nature.

If you do count walking in a forest you don't own as trespassing which would be ridiculous then I, most of my relatives and many of my friends "trespass" in various forests they don't own pretty much every week and I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it unless they where damaging nature for example by hunting illegally. If someone ever did try to sue over it I'm pretty sure the judge would just laugh and throw out the case, at least here in Sweden.

PS. Blueberries where not an analogy for music. It was just an example of why Smunkeeville's definition of stealing was not entirely accurate. She still forgot the important part "from someone" in the post above this one. I tried to explain that it's not always stealing to take something without permission. It is when you take something away from someone else without permission that it's stealing.

why don't you just stroll onto a military base and see what happens.

how many blueberry bushes do you think grow in military bases?

If you take something that's not yours without permission you are stealing. If the artist gives it to you, then you have permission.
Many would agree that, in a legal definition, what they are doing is stealing (interestingly, IIRC, the European Union is considering defining something as 'piracy' only if someone makes a financial gain during said piracy). The question is whether that stealing/sharing is justified.

To me, 'stealing' music, unless that music was written, produced, released and sold directly by the artist, is as morally wrong as lending someone a book or videoing something of the telly.

That's why I support the Creative Commons licensing scheme(s); folks are legally able to download, share, rip distribute the music to their hearts content, as long as they aren't making any financial gain, and aren't claiming the work as their own.

Much more sensible.

None.

All 4000+ vinyls and 1200+ cds paid for.

Needless to say I feel pretty stupid now...

Trespassing in a forest? It's out in the wilderness, there is nothing to trespass on out there. If you're picking apples in someone's garden thats trespassing. But you can't trespass on nature.

If you do count walking in a forest you don't own as trespassing which would be ridiculous then I, most of my relatives and many of my friends "trespass" in various forests they don't own pretty much every week and I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it unless they where damaging nature for example by hunting illegally. If someone ever did try to sue over it I'm pretty sure the judge would just laugh and throw out the case, at least here in Sweden.

PS. Blueberries where not an analogy for music. It was just an example of why Smunkeeville's definition of stealing was not entirely accurate.

Maybe you have permission to be on the land, or maybe you just didn't get caught.

If you are on someone's land without permission it's trespassing. If you take things that do not belong to you without permission it's stealing. My kids understand this, I don't understand why you cannot.

Many would agree that, in a legal definition, what they are doing is stealing (interestingly, IIRC, the European Union is considering defining something as 'piracy' only if someone makes a financial gain during said piracy). The question is whether that stealing/sharing is justified.

To me, 'stealing' music, unless that music was written, produced, released and sold directly by the artist, is as morally wrong as lending someone a book or videoing something of the telly.

That's why I support the Creative Commons licensing scheme(s); folks are legally able to download, share, rip distribute the music to their hearts content, as long as they aren't making any financial gain, and aren't claiming the work as their own.

Much more sensible.

I can agree with you that the current situation is nonsensical, and that people should be able to share music like they share books, or loan DVD's or video tape television shows. However, that's not what is allowed right now, and just because I think things should be that way, does not mean they are. I can rationalize just about any bad behavior I want, but rationalization does not make it right, it's just as wrong, only now I have excuses. (excuses btw which do not excuse the behavior)

However, that's not what is allowed right now, and just because I think things should be that way, does not mean they are. I can rationalize just about any bad behavior I want, but rationalization does not make it right, it's just as wrong, only now I have excuses. (excuses btw which do not excuse the behavior)
Interesting that you equate, if indeed that's what you're doing, illegality with bad behaviour. Apologies if you're not.

I'd counter by saying that, obviously, behaviour that is illegal isn't necessarily bad; smoking pot, base jumping, filesharing, etc., aren't inherently bad behaviours, IMO.

Although I would agree that the rationalisation of many filesharers that what they are doing isn't illegal is misguided at best.

Slight hijack over.

There'll be no flying this thread to Tehran!

Interesting that you equate, if indeed that's what you're doing, illegality with bad behaviour. Apologies if you're not.

I'd counter by saying that, obviously, behaviour that is illegal isn't necessarily bad; smoking pot, base jumping, filesharing, etc., aren't inherently bad behaviours, IMO.

Although I would agree that the rationalisation of many filesharers that what they are doing isn't illegal is misguided at best.

Slight hijack over.

There'll be no flying this thread to Tehran!

I think that good behavior or neutral behavior can be construed as bad behavior because you are breaking the law. Want an unjust law changed? Work to get it changed. Breaking an unjust law is not the responsible or reasonable or even reliable way to get it changed. *waits for the onslaught of "you racist, you hate Rosa Parks" comments*

I think that good behavior or neutral behavior can be construed as bad behavior because you are breaking the law. Want an unjust law changed? Work to get it changed. Breaking an unjust law is not the responsible or reasonable or even reliable way to get it changed. *waits for the onslaught of "you racist, you hate Rosa Parks" comments*
You obviously hate Rosa Parks, Smunkee. :p

Seriously though, I agree that breaking a law may not be the easiest way to change a law, but in many situations peaceful civil disobedience is a powerful and effective method of non-violent struggle. My mind is brought to the Poll Tax fiasco that raged in the UK in the early 1990s; there was indeed violence involved, but it was the non-violent refusal of payment of the tax by millions of UK citizens that changed an incredibly unfair law.

We're obviously straying away from illegal filesharing and the odd joint, but my point was that the law of the land does not necessarily mean that the action(s) it prohibits are bad.

0% I used to download a lot when the '1000 friend principle' was still appliable but my tastes shifted, I no longer had steady 'net supply and when I had again, I already was a Linux/OpenSource/CreativeCommons nerd and thus most of my music is from jamendo and similar pages. the rest is encoded from CDs I own (you try to find good vietnamese Creative commons music).

about 79%

+1

Wait, you're not submitting these answers to the RIAA, are you?:eek:

Wait, you're not submitting these answers to the RIAA, are you?:eek:
We are the RIAA.

*sues Zilam unsuccessfully*

We are the RIAA.

*sues Zilam unsuccessfully*


Oh noes. My reputation is ruined! :mad:

Oh noes. My reputation is ruined! :mad:
And Lars Ulrich hates you...

You obviously hate Rosa Parks, Smunkee. :p

Seriously though, I agree that breaking a law may not be the easiest way to change a law, but in many situations peaceful civil disobedience is a powerful and effective method of non-violent struggle. My mind is brought to the Poll Tax fiasco that raged in the UK in the early 1990s; there was indeed violence involved, but it was the non-violent refusal of payment of the tax by millions of UK citizens that changed an incredibly unfair law.

We're obviously straying away from illegal filesharing and the odd joint, but my point was that the law of the land does not necessarily mean that the action(s) it prohibits are bad.

In my moral code.....it's bad to break a law, whether or not the law is unjust or not. If there were a law against eating chocolate, it would be wrong to break it even though there isn't anything wrong with eating chocolate. (if that makes sense) [/hijack]

No, sorry. Illegally downloading is NOT stealing, no matter how much you or the RIAA/MPAA shout, complain, whinge or cry about it. Stealing implies theft - it necessitates physical transfer of property, be it money, goods or otherwise.

Illegally downloading, on the other hand, does not transfer property of any kind. If I have absolutely no intention of buying music regardless of my ability to obtain it illegally, then the artist would never have made any money from me in the first place, so I'm not "stealing" their profits.

No, illegally downloading is an entirely different branch of law. It's call INFRINGEMENT. I am INFRINGING upon their copyrights, I am not stealing from them.

In my moral code.....it's bad to break a law, whether or not the law is unjust or not. If there were a law against eating chocolate, it would be wrong to break it even though there isn't anything wrong with eating chocolate. (if that makes sense) [/hijack]
It make sense, in a way. I just don't agree.

But anyhoo...

It make sense, in a way. I just don't agree.

But anyhoo...

meh, the people in my house don't even agree with me on it. I refuse to change my opinion mostly out of stubbornness.

Same here. I have a few songs illegally downloaded because they aren't available for legal download. That's it. I'll happily buy songs legally as long as they're available legally and online. CDs are dead. *nod*

Bull.

I have have over 100 cds, half of which I purchased within the last year. When you buy a CD, you are doing more than just getting music. You are supporting the band. You also get the Cd case, cover, and the insert with the lyrics and all that fun stuff. But the main thing is supporting bands you enjoy.

In my moral code.....it's bad to break a law, whether or not the law is unjust or not. If there were a law against eating chocolate, it would be wrong to break it even though there isn't anything wrong with eating chocolate. (if that makes sense) [/hijack]

Bad to break a law, unless it goes against God's, right?

Bad to break a law, unless it goes against God's, right?

probably. God is higher on the food chain than the government, my family is second. I would steal bananas to feed my kids, I wouldn't steal music to save $3.00.

probably. God is higher on the food chain than the government, my family is second. I would steal bananas to feed my kids, I wouldn't steal music to save $3.00.
I'm sure Paul says something about P2P filesharing in his letter to the Ephesians...



Or maybe not.

about 70-75%.

I'm sure Paul says something about P2P filesharing in his letter to the Ephesians...



Or maybe not.

Thou shalt not download Fergie?

Thou shalt not download Fergie?
Thou shall not freely distribute the Lord's sermon_on_the_mount.mp3

he says stuff about respecting government authority and avoiding even the appearance of evil.

Yeah, romans 13, I believe.

I'm sure Paul says something about P2P filesharing in his letter to the Ephesians...



Or maybe not.

he says stuff about respecting government authority and avoiding even the appearance of evil.

he says stuff about respecting government authority and avoiding even the appearance of evil.
Caught out again!

If it wasn't for you pesky theologians!

Thou shall not freely distribute the Lord's sermon_on_the_mount.mp3

That would be rather...humorous.

Modest Mouse, Regina Spektor--I'll buy their CDs.

I only buy CDs when I'm confident that I'll like the entire collection of music.

I'm certainly not going to buy a CD for someone's "one hit wonder".

Modest Mouse, Regina Spektor--I'll buy their CDs.

I only buy CDs when I'm confident that I'll like the entire collection of music.

I'm certainly not going to buy a CD for someone's "one hit wonder".

Good point.

In my moral code.....it's bad to break a law, whether or not the law is unjust or not. If there were a law against eating chocolate, it would be wrong to break it even though there isn't anything wrong with eating chocolate. (if that makes sense) [/hijack]

That's just stooooopid. A law is only worth following if it is reasonable.

In my moral code.....it's bad to break a law, whether or not the law is unjust or not. If there were a law against eating chocolate, it would be wrong to break it even though there isn't anything wrong with eating chocolate. (if that makes sense) [/hijack]

What happens if a terrestrial law conflicts with a Biblical one?

I would assume that the Biblical one would take precedence, meaning that the Bible would command you to do something 'bad' (your word)...

What happens if a terrestrial law conflicts with a Biblical one?

I would assume that the Biblical one would take precedence, meaning that the Bible would command you to do something 'bad' (your word)...

God is higher on the food chain than the government.

God is higher on the food chain than the government.

Ah, the old 'teleological suspension of the ethical' card.

Ah, the old 'teleological suspension of the ethical' card.

can't be that old, I haven't heard of it.

can't be that old, I haven't heard of it.

Have you heard of everything old then?

Have you heard of everything old then?

everything? no.

can't be that old, I haven't heard of it.

Go read some Kierkegaard then. I honestly think you'd like it. Try Fear and Trembling.

Here you go...

http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2068

i'm just one of those crazy people who buy music from Itunes

If buying from iTunes is crazy behavior, then I'm crazy too. Not that that's a bad thing. :D

I can agree with you that the current situation is nonsensical, and that people should be able to share music like they share books, or loan DVD's or video tape television shows. However, that's not what is allowed right now, and just because I think things should be that way, does not mean they are. I can rationalize just about any bad behavior I want, but rationalization does not make it right, it's just as wrong, only now I have excuses. (excuses btw which do not excuse the behavior)

IMO it's a bit different. You don't copy a book to share it with a friend - they read it, give it back, if they really like it they'll buy their own copy. A lot of people say "Oh, I download it to see if I like it, then I buy the CD." Yeah. Bullshit. Unless you enjoy reading the sleeve notes and owning the physical copy, who pays for something they already got for free?

I'm a little torn on the whole issue. On one hand, I'm skint and if I can get it for free then yay for me. On the other hand, I'm a musician, and if someone was distributing my music without my consent, I'd be pretty pissed off.

No, sorry. Illegally downloading is NOT stealing, no matter how much you or the RIAA/MPAA shout, complain, whinge or cry about it. Stealing implies theft - it necessitates physical transfer of property, be it money, goods or otherwise.

Illegally downloading, on the other hand, does not transfer property of any kind. If I have absolutely no intention of buying music regardless of my ability to obtain it illegally, then the artist would never have made any money from me in the first place, so I'm not "stealing" their profits.

No, illegally downloading is an entirely different branch of law. It's call INFRINGEMENT. I am INFRINGING upon their copyrights, I am not stealing from them.

Still sounds illegal to me. Besides for all of us who have downloaded nearly 100% of our music collections, of course we would have had to pay for music if the free alternative wasn't available. And you could make the argument it is theft as it involves the physical transfer of data between users.

If buying from iTunes is crazy behavior, then I'm crazy too. Not that that's a bad thing. :D

How much depth does ITunes have?

My great objection to buying CD's is that half of what I buy requires transatlantic shipping, hence rendering the whole process ruinously expensive.

IMO it's a bit different. You don't copy a book to share it with a friend - they read it, give it back, if they really like it they'll buy their own copy. A lot of people say "Oh, I download it to see if I like it, then I buy the CD." Yeah. Bullshit. Unless you enjoy reading the sleeve notes and owning the physical copy, who pays for something they already got for free?

I'm a little torn on the whole issue. On one hand, I'm skint and if I can get it for free then yay for me. On the other hand, I'm a musician, and if someone was distributing my music without my consent, I'd be pretty pissed off.

I would be pretty pissed if someone was distributing my writing without my consent. However, I was told earlier in the thread that this was a stupid opinion since I should just be happy it's credited to me, apparently I should not get paid for my work.

I would be pretty pissed if someone was distributing my writing without my consent. However, I was told earlier in the thread that this was a stupid opinion since I should just be happy it's credited to me, apparently I should not get paid for my work.

Writing is fundamentally different to music in regard to copyright. Musicians are able, and do so greatly, to make money from concerts, merchandising and the like. Authors, to my mind, recieve money more directly proportionate to the sales of their work.

Musicians are able, and do so greatly, to make money from concerts, merchandising and the like. Authors, to my mind, recieve money more directly proportionate to the sales of their work.

Even if were to accept that at face value, it doesn't work to explain why you believe that...

Writing is fundamentally different to music in regard to copyright.

Copyright and opportunities for profit are not the same thing.

Writing is fundamentally different to music in regard to copyright. Musicians are able, and do so greatly, to make money from concerts, merchandising and the like. Authors, to my mind, recieve money more directly proportionate to the sales of their work.
What about those who write but don't perform? I compose music. I rarely perform - I prefer to be behind the scenes than in the spotlight. So what about my money then, eh? :P

Go read some Kierkegaard then. I honestly think you'd like it. Try Fear and Trembling.

Here you go...

http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2068

*puts on her book list*

thanks!

What about those who write but don't perform? I compose music. I rarely perform - I prefer to be behind the scenes than in the spotlight. So what about my money then, eh? :P

Bah.... Morrissey and Johnny Marr would be proud of you!

Even if were to accept that at face value, it doesn't work to explain why you believe that...

Me no speako incorrect Englisho. Post in intelligible English and I'll do you the honour of responding;)

Copyright and opportunities for profit are not the same thing.

In the eyes of the law, perhaps not. However, arid legalism of this sort is not my concern; only those with no spine or ability to back their own reason and intelligence hide behind laws.

Me no speako incorrect Englisho. Post in intelligible English and I'll do you the honour of responding;)


The second and third sentences of your post are not an argument for the first sentence. They are irrelevant.

All you have done is to assert that copyright for the written word and music is different, but haven't explained how or why.

The second and third sentences of your post are not an argument for the first sentence. They are irrelevant.

All you have done is to assert that copyright for the written word and music is different, but haven't explained how or why.

No, they are not.

We can all make arbitrary, unjustified statements such as those you make above, if you would care to post even a measure of justification when responding, I will do the same.

IMO it's a bit different. You don't copy a book to share it with a friend - they read it, give it back, if they really like it they'll buy their own copy. A lot of people say "Oh, I download it to see if I like it, then I buy the CD." Yeah. Bullshit. Unless you enjoy reading the sleeve notes and owning the physical copy, who pays for something they already got for free?I do. The 15-20% of my collection that I've downloaded illegally and haven't since bought, is RIAA shit. And it's the sole reason I won't buy it.On the other hand, I'm a musician, and if someone was distributing my music without my consent, I'd be pretty pissed off.It's complicated, but I think the most basic problem is remuneration isn't awarded in a useful way right now. Not that I have any neat solutions, but if you're interested, Rufus Pollock's rants might be worth a look. I suggest Optimal Copyrights (http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf) and The Value of Public Domain (direct DL link). (http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/value_of_public_domain.pdf&a=skip)

100%...But my music collection only consists of like 50 songs...

I only ever buy music legally, its not like 79p is expensive for a good song.

0%. This is not because I believe that downloading music is particularly morally wrong, but rather because having the CD is better.

IMO it's a bit different. You don't copy a book to share it with a friend - they read it, give it back, if they really like it they'll buy their own copy. A lot of people say "Oh, I download it to see if I like it, then I buy the CD." Yeah. Bullshit. Unless you enjoy reading the sleeve notes and owning the physical copy, who pays for something they already got for free?

I'm a little torn on the whole issue. On one hand, I'm skint and if I can get it for free then yay for me. On the other hand, I'm a musician, and if someone was distributing my music without my consent, I'd be pretty pissed off.

I have probably bought 30-40 CD's that I would never have purchased if not for having got some mp3's from a friend and listened to them well in advance to a cD purchase

I have probably bought 30-40 CD's that I would never have purchased if not for having got some mp3's from a friend and listened to them well in advance to a cD purchase

That is fair enough. But I think the time of downloading a few mp3s, liking what you hear, then purchasing the album is over. More bandwidth and quota and faster downloads means people will be more and more often likely to just download the album. As I said before, people like me with 90-100% of our collections downloaded illegally, we obviously like music and if not for downloading we would have had to pay for the CDs.

I wouldn't use the shampoo that I do if they hadn't sent me a free sample in the mail. What's your point? Should it be okay for me to steal a bottle of shampoo from the store if I promise to always buy that kind of shampoo forever if I like the sample I stole?

I am not debating whether or not an artist might benefit from your theft, because it doesn't make a difference. If you take something that's not yours without permission you are stealing. If the artist gives it to you, then you have permission.
Meh, I feel more like I'm taking free samples that are just lying around the interwebs. It's not stealing, stealing would be hacking into someone else's computer and taking it off their hard drive. File sharing is like lending a book or a cd to a friend, except that they're not a friend, they're an anonymous stranger.

Yeah. Bullshit. Unless you enjoy reading the sleeve notes and owning the physical copy, who pays for something they already got for free?
*puts hand up*

I like cover art and notes. The best is when they include the correct lyrics in the inside.

Though I suppose I should try collecting vinyl since the cover art is bigger there....

Records back in the day were never the biggest seller for the artist, they were really just considered marketing for the real money-makers, which were the concerts. If I were in Sweden, I'd be voting for the Pirate Party.

Maybe 10%ish...although I can't really verify if it was illegal. ;)

to the very best of my knowledge, absolute zero. none of it came from file swapping sites. nearly all of it is the samples given away intentionally on their own websites by the musicians who created it. those are the ONLY places i download music mp3's from. i do have some anime themes on midi format from an anime archive site. and some odd interesting wav table sounds extracted from other software to my music playlists. but that's the entire more then 53 hours worth i've collected. not one file remotely likely to have been aquired unlawfully, and certainly none intentionally so.

of course the KINDS of music i like to listen to, you probably WONT hear on clear channel, nor is it by names the average joe sixpack in america is likely ever to have heard of. but it IS the kind of music i like to listen to.

mostly, though by no means entirely, tecno-ambient electronica.

more then 80% of it without vocals. and probably close to ten percent of it, not actually 'music' files as such. i also include in my random universal playlist, sounds from nature and science and even tecnology. i love the sound of electric motors. and trains. and running water, and the wind, and small furry creatures, and ambiences that combine these things, sometimes as backgrounds for native flutes. and the diversity goes on and on. i've even got railroad station announcements in languages i don't have the slightest idea what the're actually saying except the bilingual ones where they repeat in english, what i can only assume to be a reasonably close approximation to what they are saying in their own languages.

and likewise the lyrics i do have, of at least half the things i listen to that have lyrics, are also in languages other then the only one i fluently speak.

which is how i like it too. with words thus becoming also just curious and interesting shapes of sound.

i also believe my keeping and listening to these things, without redistributing them, let alone for any sort of consideration, to morally constitute 'fair use'.

but at any rate, to repeat, to the best of my honest knowledge, NONE of them are from nonlegitimate sources, or not intended to be enjoyed by those such as myself, for free, and by those who created them.

=^^=
.../\...

=^^=
.../\...

<snip>

Interesting... Ever listen to Boards of Canada?

I'd say about 100% of the music I listen to has been downloaded. There are classic albums of Willie Nelson, Shania Twain, and Michael Jackson and so on that my parents own but I didn't buy them nor do I listen to them. As far as making profit from downloaded music by distributing the material for financial purpose, I don’t do that. So anyways, I’m protected by Canadian laws.

Meh, I feel more like I'm taking free samples that are just lying around the interwebs. It's not stealing, stealing would be hacking into someone else's computer and taking it off their hard drive. File sharing is like lending a book or a cd to a friend, except that they're not a friend, they're an anonymous stranger.

It's been established that sharing music files is not like lending a friend a book. Sharing music files is more akin to typing a book up and sharing the text on the internet.

Stealing is stealing no matter how easy it is. Robbing a bank and getting away with it is hard, snatching a candy bar from the grocery store and getting away with it is easy, both are stealing.

Rationalize all you want, doesn't change what you are doing.

Rationalize all you want, doesn't change what you are doing.

Hmm. This whole "all excuses!" attitude is interesting. Could anything, conceivably, be rationalized?

Hmm. This whole "all excuses!" attitude is interesting. Could anything, conceivably, be rationalized?

Probably not.

Probably not.

Curious...

Just for clarity, what, exactly, is rationalization?

I do not download music, more due to the sucky connection than otherwise.

Curious...

Just for clarity, what, exactly, is rationalization?

rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a flawed decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29

I don't listen to much music but most of what i have if form the internet.

As much as I'd like to own original copies of the music I listen to, (1) they are not usually available here (all that's available here are overplayed tunes that suck) and (2) I'm not that rich to buy CDs all the time (okay, a typical music CD is relatively expensive here.). But if I do spot one of those albums that I like and if I have money, I usually go ahead and buy it.

Same here I guess. Although I usually only buy stuff I really like; I don't pay for mediocre albums that I like to play once in a few months. It has to be a brilliant/flawless/classic album for me in order to buy it. Besides, I'm spending way too much money on CD's already, and I still have some cathing up to do with all the albums that got onto my auto-buy list recently :p

And ordering them on the internet is out of the question I guess, I just like to visit the record store and scan through their sales until I find that gem I was looking for :D

It's been established that sharing music files is not like lending a friend a book. Sharing music files is more akin to typing a book up and sharing the text on the internet.

Stealing is stealing no matter how easy it is. Robbing a bank and getting away with it is hard, snatching a candy bar from the grocery store and getting away with it is easy, both are stealing.

Rationalize all you want, doesn't change what you are doing.

So what you're saying is:

Taking money away from a bank is stealing.

Taking a candy bar away from the grocery store is stealing.

Ergo, taking nothing away from a record company is stealing.

It does not follow

All of it!

*puts hand up*

I like cover art and notes. The best is when they include the correct lyrics in the inside.

Though I suppose I should try collecting vinyl since the cover art is bigger there....
You don't count! You were already included in "Unless you enjoy reading the sleeve notes and owning the physical copy" :P I know people who use that argument to justify illegal downloading, but then they don't bother to pay for a legal copy.

So what you're saying is:

Taking money away from a bank is stealing.

Taking a candy bar away from the grocery store is stealing.

Ergo, taking nothing away from a record company is stealing.

It does not follow
So then you're saying, if Smunkee typed up a book and posted it online without permission, thats fine? That's not stealing potential earnings for the author/publisher?

You don't count! You were already included in "Unless you enjoy reading the sleeve notes and owning the physical copy" :P I know people who use that argument to justify illegal downloading, but then they don't bother to pay for a legal copy.


So then you're saying, if Smunkee typed up a book and posted it online without permission, thats fine? That's not stealing potential earnings for the author/publisher?

Not stealing potential earnings, that would require you to take money away from them, in a potential sense.

Selling pirated copies of music would be 'stealing potential earnings' because you take potential earnings away, but if there is no profit made from the 'piracy,' then nothing has been taken away.

So what you're saying is:

Taking money away from a bank is stealing.

Taking a candy bar away from the grocery store is stealing.

Ergo, taking nothing away from a record company is stealing.

It does not follow

the music you are downloading is not yours, it's been taken without permission. When you buy a CD you buy the rights to listen to that music whenever you want, when you take the music without paying and without the artists/record company's permission you are stealing.

If you buy a candy bar you aren't stealing it, if you are given a candy bar you didn't steal it, if you take it without paying and without permission you stole it.

This really isn't so hard to understand is it?

the music you are downloading is not yours, it's been taken without permission. When you buy a CD you buy the rights to listen to that music whenever you want, when you take the music without paying and without the artists/record company's permission you are stealing.

If you buy a candy bar you aren't stealing it, if you are given a candy bar you didn't steal it, if you take it without paying and without permission you stole it.

This really isn't so hard to understand is it?

I think that the candybar analogy is false. If you download a song from someone else you aren't stealing it from anyone it is more like accepting a candybar that your friend stole from the store.

If only you could perform copyright infringement with candybars easily and logically then we would have an analogy.

the music you are downloading is not yours, it's been taken without permission. When you buy a CD you buy the rights to listen to that music whenever you want, when you take the music without paying and without the artists/record company's permission you are stealing.

If you buy a candy bar you aren't stealing it, if you are given a candy bar you didn't steal it, if you take it without paying and without permission you stole it.

This really isn't so hard to understand is it?

Who has the music been taken away from? Who no longer has the music?

From the top:

You asserted that "sometimes stealing is easy," and your example was taking a candy bar away from a store.

You next asserted that "sometimes stealing is hard," using the example of taking money away from a bank.

This then became "stealing is still stealing," with the implication that it didnt matter whether 'stealing' music was easy or hard.

I am not quite sure what it was you meant to reply to in pointing out that "it doesn't matter if stealing is easy, it is still stealing," since that point is trivial, and the discussion is about whether or not copying music is actually stealing, a question that certainly isn't solved by looking at how difficult or easy it is.

In any case, your first two propositions - that taking candy away from a store and money away from a bank were stealing - do not lead to your conclusion that not taking music away from a company or musician is stealing.

In the first two cases, something has been taken away without compensation, which is stealing, since the bank and store are left without the thing that was stolen, and without any compensation for it.

This is patently not the case when music or a book is copied.

Do you know of anyone who has been charged with theft, a criminal offense, for copying music and not selling it?

I am a communist so I don't recognize property or copyright law as they are creations of the bourgeois in order to maximize profit. As a matter of fact I don't recognize any law.

You seriously must be a troll. I mean, I rarely see anyone so willing to live up to the paranoid commie stereotype as much as you, especially with stupid rhetoric like "creations of the bourgeois".

Click Stand;12979462']I think that the candybar analogy is false. If you download a song from someone else you aren't stealing it from anyone it is more like accepting a candybar that your friend stole from the store.

If only you could perform copyright infringement with candybars easily and logically then we would have an analogy.
receiving stolen property is still stealing.

It isn't even stealing, it is breach of copyright which is only illegal due to a technicality and has absolutely nothing to do with any moral issues. It isn't taking something from someone, because the person never looses his own copy of the song. It doesn't say anything in the Bible about copyright infringement being wrong, especially when you are not making any prophet out of the copies, so I don't know why any religious people should give a shit.

A lot i guess, I also rip a lot of CD's from friends, sometimes I buy music, but rarely, I prefer to go to concerts if I like the band.

receiving stolen property is still stealing.

Not really ... receiving stolen property is a different crime then stealing
They are both crimes yes but they are separate crimes

About 95% downloaded illegaly, and I'm not bothered.

Reading about the recent raid on an Australian man who was the first to pirate and upload a copy of The Simpsons movie, I began thinking about my own piracy. Personally I saw the Simpsons Movie at the cinema on the day it opened (it sucked) but that didn't stop me from downloading it again.

Anyway, music collections. Of my current music collection I'd say literally 95% was downloaded from the internet or from my university's network. And the CDs I did buy were from years ago and I thus no longer even like the bands. Stupid teenage music taste.

I used to have a 97% downloaded collection, but I trashed the downloaded music because it didn't feel right. I'm getting a new album and a few of my old ones soon.

Not stealing potential earnings, that would require you to take money away from them, in a potential sense.

Selling pirated copies of music would be 'stealing potential earnings' because you take potential earnings away, but if there is no profit made from the 'piracy,' then nothing has been taken away.
So then yeah, you're saying theres nothing wrong with copying a book and posting it online? You're not personally making a profit, but you're depriving the author of theirs.

If music was unable to be downloaded illegally, and you wanted a song, you'd have to pay for a download or buy a physical copy. You're preventing the owners, publishers, record company etc etc from gaining a profit that is rightfully theirs.

So then yeah, you're saying theres nothing wrong with copying a book and posting it online? You're not personally making a profit, but you're depriving the author of theirs.

If music was unable to be downloaded illegally, and you wanted a song, you'd have to pay for a download or buy a physical copy. You're preventing the owners, publishers, record company etc etc from gaining a profit that is rightfully theirs.

Actually I'd probably have to make the extra trip to the library. You would be suprised how far I will go to not pay for music.

If the library doesn't have it then I wil borrow it from a friend and if that fails then i will listen to the radio. I will however never pay for music.