Stewie Griffin has been freed.

[Threash]

I always hear people say downloading music makes them buy more CDs, and im sure for them its true but i seriously doubt its anywhere near the norm.  I haven't bought one-single-CD since the day i found napster and im sure there are alot of mes than there are of the "i found this cool band on limewire so i bought their CD" types.  Also, i don't give a fuck.

On the other hand i WILL buy video games after downloading them if they are good.  I'd love to say its to support the creators but 90% of the time its because i can't be bothered to get multiplayer to work with warez.  Most of the time after downloading a game i feel like the game company owes ME money for the CD i wasted burning their POS though, so i also don't give a fuck about warezering games.

[HaemishM]

I always hear people say downloading music makes them buy more CDs, and im sure for them its true but i seriously doubt its anywhere near the norm.  I haven't bought one-single-CD since the day i found napster and im sure there are alot of mes than there are of the "i found this cool band on limewire so i bought their CD" types.  Also, i don't give a fuck.

The research linked earlier in the thread suggests you aren't the norm. But thanks for admitting you also don't give a shit.

[AOFanboi]

As for Samwise wanting a copy of my new hypothetical copyrighted cd, he can listen to a friend's purchased copy, hear a sample on the radio or a sanctioned website or he can buy it.  He doesn't have to download it in a manner that violates the copyright.  He may choose to, but he doesn't have to. This is where it becomes an ethical matter.

But the industry saying they lose money on illegal downloads isn't just unethical, it's a direct lie. They try and present loss of potential income as the same as loss. But they lose just as much if I enter a record store, browse a little and then say "naah" and leave without buying anything. The difference is that the downloader gets free access to a SERVICE (the music) without paying the FEE for the LICENSE. There is no product - the media is, as the industry repeatedly points out when they try and fight the second-hand market, irrelevant.

(If it was a loss, and the industry had, say $100, then after someone downloaded a song they would have $98 left or something like that. But that's not the case.)

Calling it theft, like they also are wont to do, is like comparing apples to the idea of oranges.

[Nebu]

Okay, now to repeat my question: what makes one method different from the other, apart from the current copyright law that we agree is basically fucked anyway? 

Currently there are people obtaining copies of music by download against the wishes of the copyright holder.  They are, in essence, taking the music without the permission of the creator.  Allowing your music to play on the radio is not the same as allowing someone to create a free cd by downloading the media directly.  Though I suppose that you could argue that you could make a copy of the same music played on the radio but then you'd have an issue of quality.  

If the copyright holder says "please download my music to preview it" that's one thing.  If the copyright holder says "please don't download my music from the internet" and you do, can you see that is another?

And yes... I agree that copyright laws and current standards are messed up.  I just feel that part of bothering to even get a copyright on something is to help ensure that you have at least a modicum of control over how it is distributed.  

At this point I think this is becoming like politics or religion.  Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

[Nebu]

Calling it theft, like they also are wont to do, is like comparing apples to the idea of oranges.

I called it theft because (to me) it is taking something without permission.  Their reasons for calling it theft are/may be different.

[HaemishM]

I just feel that part of bothering to even get a copyright on something is to help ensure that you have at least a modicum of control over how it is distributed...

for money. The intent of copyright is to make sure you got paid for something you created, instead of someone else taking something you created and making money off of it by claiming it was theirs to make money off of.

[Nebu]

for money. The intent of copyright is to make sure you got paid for something you created, instead of someone else taking something you created and making money off of it by claiming it was theirs to make money off of.

Yes, that is the largest "part".

[Samwise]

If the copyright holder says "please don't download my music from the internet" and you do, can you see that is another?

I'm fairly certain that nobody has ever said that to me - in fact, all of the conversations I've had with musicians regarding their work and the Internet have been them asking the exact opposite of me.  So I guess I'm safe.

[Nebu]

I'm fairly certain that nobody has ever said that to me - in fact, all of the conversations I've had with musicians regarding their work and the Internet have been them asking the exact opposite of me.  So I guess I'm safe.

Now that we've got that all cleared up I'll just go back to talking to this wall over here.

[Pococurante]

Okay, now to repeat my question: what makes one method different from the other, apart from the current copyright law that we agree is basically fucked anyway?  Is your ethical stance based solely on what the laws happen to say right now (and again, we all agree that what the laws say is fucked), or is there more to it than that?  Because if there's more I still haven't seen it.

What's interesting is that RIAA's stance seems to revolve around digital reproduction.

http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/preview/article.php?25&bus

At issue are the royalties webcasters have to pay for the right to stream songs. Royalties can be broken down into two categories: those paid for the song as it is written by the composer, and those paid for the song as it is interpreted by the recording artist. Terrestrial radio stations are mostly exempt from paying the latter, since they are considered promoters of new music. The Recording Industry Association of America, an organization representing several major record labels, contends that Net radio services are different - since there are ways for listeners to digitally reproduce the music - and should therefore pay the sound recording fees.

So now that radio is going digital it appears the terrestrial radio stations are about to be up for royalties.  In effect the disitrbutors are playing a game of Mutually Assured Destruction - if they can't keep an oar in the water no more consumer consumption.

Only Matthew Broderick can help us now!

[Samwise]

You could sort of see it coming when they put the kibosh on Internet radio.

Terrestrial radio stations don't pay sound recording copyright owners. Why should webcasters be treated any differently?

The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.

However, with the birth of digital transmission technology, Congress understood the importance of establishing a sound recording performance right for digital transmissions, and did so in 1995 with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act ("DPRA"). In doing so, Congress "grandfathered" the old world of terrestrial broadcasting, but required everyone (including broadcasters) operating in the new world of digital transmissions to pay their fair share for using copyrighted sound recordings in their business.

So for years, the ebil terrestrial radio stations have been draining the lifeblood of the recording industry... tragic!  Except the recording industry pays them to do it.


ERR-ROR!

Edit: Since the ideal model apparently involves the recording industry bribing the radio stations to play certain songs, and the radio stations simultaneously paying the recording industry for use of those songs, I can only imagine that the entire thing is some sort of giant tax loophole.

[AOFanboi]

I called it theft because (to me) it is taking something without permission.  Their reasons for calling it theft are/may be different.

See, that was where Wiliam Gibson was wrong: When you copy a file, the original remains in place. I can take a camera and snap a photo of a painting hanging on a wall. The painting remains. Unless it's an episode of X-Files or Charmed.

What "pirates" do is called leeching: They are enjoying something for free which others pay for. Sort of stepping on the subway without a valid ticket; the train runs anyway. But the people operating the train wants people to pay for enjoying the benefits of the service.

And if illegal downloads can be called "piracy", then the music industry's contracts can be called "slavery" (or "indentured servitude" which is the modern term, ref. Courtney Love in one of her few sober moments). Discuss.

[Strazos]

For the record, they don't want you taking pictures of paintings in museums for 2 main reasons:

1) They want to make money from selling books and reproductions.

2) Flash photography can damage paintings over time.

[Furiously]

OK - how about someone who buys a game from Gamestop, with 5 day shipping, then downloads it from the net and plays a no-cd cracked version?

[Pococurante]

OK - how about someone who buys a game from Gamestop, with 5 day shipping, then downloads it from the net and plays a no-cd cracked version?

[AOFanboi]

"You will go to hell" picture

Ironically, that was an example of a picture where the copyright has expired, so it was perfectly legal for you to post it.

Disney copyrights will start expiring in Europe, so if I post a Steamboat Willy picture, will you Americans go to jail for "downloading" it when you open the article?

[Pococurante]

The US legal concept of Fair Use is more lenient than the Commonwealth concept of Fair Dealing.  I suspect we'll be fine.  And hopefully Disney will stop suing mom & pop daycares because they have a poster of Mickey Mouse on the wall.

This is true across the board by the way.  For all the bitching about US law enforcement our laws are still much more lax than most others.  Though our current trend is worrisome.  But then a lot of our current trends are worrisome.

[NowhereMan]

I liked the public transport analogy, for me that really presents a more accurate picture of what goes on when someone copies song or CD. What people are doing is wrong but it certainly isn't stealing and if only a few people do it, it really doesn't hurt anyone. The difference between public transport and the recording industry though is that public transport needs considerable money in order to keep money and to be able to upgrade it's infrastructure. The recording industry however needs money to make money hats and refuses to change distribution methods that could save the consumer money and possibly make them more money. What you're doing is still wrong but you're doing a bad thing to a bad person, morally there's no difference but you don't get the guilt of doing something bad.

I think the piracy term dates back to pirate radio stations which didn't pay for copyright use in Britain, so that othe term fits but the RIAA obviously likes it because it makes the act seem that much more unethical

[Samwise]

The difference between public transport and the recording industry though is that public transport needs considerable money in order to keep money and to be able to upgrade it's infrastructure.

Another difference is that there's a finite amount of space on public transport, so every freeloader on public transportation makes the ride that much less comfortable for everyone else; in an extreme scenario, freeloaders could deny space to paying customers.  A music pirate doesn't use up anything but his own bandwidth and drive space; new purchases aren't made any more difficult regardless of the number of extra copies that are made.

[Nebu]

Ok.  All this stuff has me thinking.  So, what's the difference between music/media piracy and software piracy? By the arguments above is it ok to make a copy of some high priced piece of proprietary software? Is it ok to download copyrighted software for free?  We are allowed to make backup copies of the software that we own, so why not burn a copy for a friend?  If the answer is that they are different, what is the ethical difference (meaning let's keep the cost out of it and focus on the ethics of the matter) that you feel separates the two. 

I'm asking this out of purely academic interest.  I'd like to see how you guys see the matter since most of you are better versed on the software industry than I am.

[Yegolev]

Since I feel that property ownership is a societal convention anyway, one designed to help keep us from murdering each other in our repsective sleeps, imagining an extension of these rules to nontangible property is natural.  To that end, I do consider acquiring something without giving something in return to be stealing.  No matter if it is software or a dog, if one can imagine that I have exclusive rights to the item then it should not matter what the item is.

[Samwise]

I'd say the same logic applies - making a copy of proprietary software is not in and of itself wrong.  It's only wrong insofar as it takes bread from the mouths of software developers (e.g. me).   :-D  If you're a paying customer and you're making a copy for your own use (e.g. using a no-CD crack for a purchased game, which is illegal under the DMCA IIRC), or if you're not a paying customer but you weren't going to pay regardless, what do I care?  My paycheck is none the smaller for your actions, as long as my company doesn't do something asinine like spend a lot of time and money chasing you down.

[HaemishM]

Software as opposed to music? It's just about the same concept, in my opinion, except in the case of software, one can generally produce something totally new out of the pirated software. Software is a tool, used to produce something (while that something could be entertainment, it could also be a song, a picture, etc.)

Legally, it shoud be about the same. But again, when you start talking about some software, you are back to the price-gouging justification. Photoshop being worth $700? Maybe, but they won't sell many copies that way. I'd wager there are as many if not more illegal copies of Photoshop out there than there are legal copies. But the cost of the software completely prices out casual users, much more so than in the music biz.

And either way you look at it, from music or from software, you cannot directly correlate every pirated copy of a song or a piece of software into a lost sale, because you cannot say for sure that every download would be a sale if the download wasn't available. As I said, the only justification I can see that makes a software download different from a book download is the potential for the downloader to produce something new from the software package.

In the case of money, the "pirate" could use the pirated copy of Photoshop to make money for himself by producing something that is not just another copy of Photoshop. The music downloader could only make money off of it he burned it to CD and sold it to someone.

[Samwise]

In the case of money, the "pirate" could use the pirated copy of Photoshop to make money for himself by producing something that is not just another copy of Photoshop.

Of course, the more money you make using pirated tools, the more likely you are to be noticed.  Which is why big companies are absolutely religious about making sure they have valid licenses for everything - one audit and they're completely fucked, especially if they're using pirated tools to do their everyday work.

[Nebu]

And either way you look at it, from music or from software, you cannot directly correlate every pirated copy of a song or a piece of software into a lost sale, because you cannot say for sure that every download would be a sale if the download wasn't available. As I said, the only justification I can see that makes a software download different from a book download is the potential for the downloader to produce something new from the software package.

Proof of causation is hard in any area.  It's hard in my field of cancer research and it's a hell of a lot easier to obtain viable data. 

As for the software-tool concept, I think sampling produces some very similar issues in music (or even plagiarism in writing).  Sure there are subtle differences, but there are some profound similarities. 

The rest of it seems a bit like vigilanteism (sp?) i.e. "I think the company is asking too much for their wares so I'm just going to take it and pay them if I feel moved to do so."  I guess some people feel better about this approach than others. I don't sit with it very comfortably, but I can see how others would as noone really gets hurt.  The fact that we can't really prove that it hurts just helps to justify the behavior further.

Anyway, I appreciate your input.  I've been having some great discussions on this topic with colleagues in Law, Ethics/Philosophy, and business. You're actually providing me with some good viewpoints.

[schild]

There are a lot of software companies who make inordinately strong software that is ridiculously expensive. I'd talk about it here, but much of it is just esoteric software used by the digital art folk (and I don't mean the people who photoshop). Anyway, they know it's too expensive and offer incredibly cheap educational copies or stuff for free because the more people that use the software and learn it, the more people who will buy it when they have the money to - basically they're smart. You rarely, if ever, hear about single productivity software companies (excluding Microsoft) going after single downloader/campus types because they need people to educate themselves on the software.

One day, I'll buy photoshop. That is, when I use it professionally (something being resizing images and making avatars). And no one taught me how to use it, I probably downloaded it back in 96 or 97...and still can't afford it.

[Llava]

I actually have a legal copy of Photoshop.

And my girlfriend has a legal copy of Illustrator.

We... *cough* share.

But yes, a lot of companies like that turn a blind eye to people pirating the program to teach themselves because, like schild said, the more people who CAN use the program, the more people who will use it and pay for it.

[Polysorbate80]

You could sort of see it coming when they put the kibosh on Internet radio.

Terrestrial radio stations don't pay sound recording copyright owners. Why should webcasters be treated any differently?

The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.

However, with the birth of digital transmission technology, Congress understood the importance of establishing a sound recording performance right for digital transmissions, and did so in 1995 with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act ("DPRA"). In doing so, Congress "grandfathered" the old world of terrestrial broadcasting, but required everyone (including broadcasters) operating in the new world of digital transmissions to pay their fair share for using copyrighted sound recordings in their business.

So for years, the ebil terrestrial radio stations have been draining the lifeblood of the recording industry... tragic!  Except the recording industry pays them to do it.

I love the way they totally ignore ASCAP/BMI--the two biggest companies that already enforce and collect licensing fees for use of music by radio stations, TV stations, etc. in the United States.

They can't possibly be ignorant of this; therefore they are either a) blatantly lying or b) twisting it to mean "no performance right exists that is created by the gubmint and that WE control with an iron fist"

[Prospero]

I was chatting with a couple ex-Adobe developers last year who told me Adobe actually looks at what features casual folks who pirate their software might need, and attempts to keep that "market" happy. They figure that a good chunk of the folks who pirate eventually turn into legal liceneses, and that if nothing else it cockblocks their competition. I suspect that the high fee for Photoshop has a built-in "you've been pirating this for years" tax.

[Strazos]

They figure that a good chunk of the folks who pirate eventually turn into legal liceneses, and that if nothing else it cockblocks their competition. I suspect that the high fee for Photoshop has a built-in "you've been pirating this for years" tax.

/Chuckle

[schild]

Case in point:

Excerpt from a Reuters article:

Meanwhile, record industry officials said the Dave Matthews and Foo Fighters CDs are selling well. "I haven't noticed them selling off par with their past albums. In fact the Foo Fighters' first week was the best week they've ever had," said Geoff Mayfield, director of charts at Billboard.

Since its mid-June release, the Foo Fighters' "In Your Honor, has sold more than 736,000 units, including 23,000 digital copies, consistently ranking at the top of the charts, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Dave Matthews' "Stand Up" has sold 1.1 million units since its May release, including 56,000 digitally.

Also, a quick search shows that the Foo Fighters album tops the file sharing music files currently. In other words it's their best outing, it's selling incredibly well, and it's also one of the top warez pieces of software/whatever.

Well done. Once again the music industry makes themselves look like nothing but asstards.

[schild]

Just to back up my comments a bit:

Modern Rock
Ranking Artist Title Downloads
#1 Foo Fighters  Best Of You + #3 2,295,144
#2 My Chemical Romance  Helena + #4 2,186,028 
#3 Weezer  Beverly Hills - #1 2,176,316 

From here - a report on filesharing.

OH NOES, 2.3 MILLION LOST SALES. Or poor teenagers who wouldn't buy the album anyway.

An industry is at steak!!!11!

[Ironwood]

Are you fixing your post to be legible ?

[HaemishM]

Modern Rock
Ranking Artist Title Downloads
#1 Foo Fighters  Best Of You + #3 2,295,144
#2 My Chemical Romance  Helena + #4 2,186,028 
#3 Weezer  Beverly Hills - #1

That's probably what he meant to put in there, the list of the top 3 downloaded songs in the Modern Rock category.

On Billboard's Top 200 charts, Foo Fighters is #14 overall, My Chemical Romance is #46 overall, and Weezer is #48. Mariah Carey is #3 on the overall charts and #1 on the most downloaded P2P chart. The Ying Yang Twins are #2 most downloaded and #15 on the Top 200. Pretty Ricky is #3 most downloaded and #39 on the charts.

[Llava]

My Chemical Romance, The Ying Yang Twins, Pretty Ricky

I'm only 23.  Shouldn't I at least have some clue who the fuck these people are, or am I already that far out of the loop?

God I'm old.  (In spirit, don't bitch at me.)