"intellectual Property" - Piracy

[erufiku]

One of the main problems I have is that these corporations label their contractors' works as "art". It's not art, and I wish they would stop trying to make it about "compensating the artists" and admit that they are an entertainment industry that needs to line their pockets, as well as pay off their contractors. Hundreds of amazing movies disappear after they've aired at the film festivals because there is nobody interested in distributing them. At the same time, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on productions that don't even have a coherent plot. Yet when it comes to the legal battles, it's not about money anymore, it's about moral integrity and protecting the artists.

Given how the entertainment industry cripples creativity (and muscles new artists into impossible contracts), as well as the track record of illegal activities against individuals (spying on internet traffic, Sony's rootkit, etc), I think it's immoral to support any company/label that is taking part in perpetuating these activities.

[Rani]

One of the main problems I have is that these corporations label their contractors' works as "art". It's not art, and I wish they would stop trying to make it about "compensating the artists" and admit that they are an entertainment industry that needs to line their pockets, as well as pay off their contractors. Hundreds of amazing movies disappear after they've aired at the film festivals because there is nobody interested in distributing them. At the same time, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on productions that don't even have a coherent plot. Yet when it comes to the legal battles, it's not about money anymore, it's about moral integrity and protecting the artists.

Given how the entertainment industry cripples creativity (and muscles new artists into impossible contracts), as well as the track record of illegal activities against individuals (spying on internet traffic, Sony's rootkit, etc), I think it's immoral to support any company/label that is taking part in perpetuating these activities.

Whoa..... I've actually sat and reviewed a recording contract with a major power in the industry and in my hot little hand waiting for my signature. I thought about what it would mean and would I want to be a part of the industry forever with everthing that came with it both good and bad. And despite having "a voice" I walked away. Because I wasn't passionate about the industry and I'm the first to admit it's got a seriously bad side. I tell you that history so you're aware that I'm not a fan or supporter of the industry overall. However, you're laboring under some misconceptions.

If I'm the screenwriter, my script is my art. If I'm the director, my direction is my art. If I'm the actor it's certainly my art. They put everything they are into what they do and they deserve to be respected for the artist they are. There are many people paid a great deal of money (artist development agents) to develop creativity, not cripple it. What's more, I've never seen anyone "muscled" into a contract. Artists fight tooth and nail to compete for contracts because they are very rare if you compare to the number of artists competing for them. As a result sometimes they don't always hold out for the contract they might really deserve. Distribution is a very complicated business and needs to be a business in it's own right. It's really that complicated. If everyone can't reach agreement on percentages, etc., then you're right, a film might never be distributed. And the final product you see in the theater may differ a great deal from the original plot/conception thanks to an editor who translated it into his vision unchecked. There are a lot of steps from the moment a script is written to the moment it hits the screen and a lot of things can go wrong along the way many of which may not be the fault of the production house. Banks can pull financing, etc. To blame the production houses for everything that goes wrong isn't either fair or accurate.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things wrong with the industry, but it's not as bad as you're stating.

'Rani

[Sonthert]

Could it be said there's a Laffler curve for revenues from creative enterprises?

[evilded777]

sounds to me like its a money and control issue here. point being that if music was fairly priced, drm free and you could do what you want within fairuse i would be taking your side. instead we have a few people fucking over society so they can have a strangle hold on IP inorder to make a few more bucks. music is non exhaustable good. so whats the gain of me not buying and not downloading anything? because i sure cant afford to buy any music. do you really thing Joey Shithead the owner of Sudden Death records is going to care that i downloaded the new DOA album when i wasnt going to buy it? if anything hed be happy that i did and trying to spread the message against people like you

Y'know, odd as it may seem, I DO agree with you on some of your points. And I probably abuse fair use according to the law... and will continue to; I do not support DRM, I refuse to buy any CD or download that uses it (thank you Amazon, and eMusic); I prefer to support artists who are not on major labels; I am all for artists, labels, what have you that offer alternatives to the main stream recording industry. And if Joey Shithead takes the attitude that you suggest he would: good on him.

None of that changes the fact that it is still WRONG. Unless someone puts it out there for free, for all intents and purposes, it is wrong to take it without paying for it. This is pre-schooler stuff! Right, wrong.

It is no different from taking a 250g pouch of Tangiers that you didn't pay for. Somehow, with that lack of tangibility in this digital age, this simple concept has lost its meaning. If there were no way to download it, would you walk into a record store and pocket a CD? No. (at least I don't think so). HOW THE HELL IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?

//edit and music is not a non-exhaustible good. Good music can be a rare thing indeed. Take a look around, open your ears to the amount of crap that is out there, and that is continuously shoved into people's ear holes by the industry. Without support, the good stuff goes away and we are left with the crap.

[Bye bye now have fun]

just on a side note, i dont watch movies. the last movie i saw was free freshman year as a quazidate and the remake of the whole 9 yards sucks. as for music the only main stream music i hear are at parties and bars (cant wait for the music to stop) and friends linking me to youtubes of this "awesome" new song which is normally some people screaming and thrashing on the guitar and bass as fast as possible or some rap where i cant understand anything

[Dr. B]

Could it be said there's a Laffler curve for revenues from creative enterprises?

no, no, no!!! Eric I know what you're doing. but yes... potentially.

I would be willing to pay a fair price for music. That being said, and given that the cost of duplicating music by the proprietor in this digital age is mainly a measure of time (opportunity cost) there would be compensation similar to the replicator's opportunity cost on my part. I'll pay somebody what I feel is appropriate for them to <ctrl+a> -> <ctrl+c> -> <ctrl+v> within 1 or 2 directories and the price of a CD.

I'll gladly compensate an artist actively performing a set or album for the time and labor spent doing it. I'll pay for each show I go to, but I refuse to pay such a premium for digitally distributed music. Edited April 28, 2009 by Dr. B

[mustang_steve]

It's stealing in the way that a CD sale didn't happen...but it's actually more or less theft of service as opposed to physical theft.

untrue 99% of what i download id never buy if i didnt download it first. secondly about 75% of stuff i download i cant find in stores. and lastly 1 download != 1 lost sale

If your colleciton is 100% music you own, or will own soon...cool. However, that type of downloader is the exception to the rule...most of them will buy far less than they download, and will keep those music files, and sometimes even burn them onto CDs....that group I feel very safe to bet is larger than the group who buys what they download.

Music is a performance....much like a plumber fixing your pipes...he performs the job...so he should be paid.

well in almost all bands, he already got paid by the record label and will see nothing or close to it from the cd sale. they are nolonger the copyright holder. they make exponentially more money on tshirts and live shows.

Wrong....they don't get "paid" by the label...that's a loan, it has to get paid back by either album sales or tours....usually the touring gets what the sales figures don't. Of course they make more money at the shows...however they still have that debt to pay off. Why do you think most signed artists go bankrupt before they can make a second album? It's not that they spent their cash on crap...it's getting out from under that mountain of debt.

Now the RIAA...they can go to hell...but everyone below them, they deserve a chunk.

That said, all my MP3s are either from my own personally owned CDs, or are from albums no longer in production.

Every time you rip a cd that you paid for and "own" you are commiting a felony under the DMCA and the PROIP act.

we live in a hypocritical society. in a case of turnitin a servce where professors submit your entire paper and this service checks for plagerism, the courts ruled its fair use to use an entire paper they didnt have the copyrights to commercially to make a profit. conversely, the DMCA makes its a felony to make backups of stuff you bought. if i switch the word "paper" with "song" all of a sudden you are a felon. i personal see nothing wrong with not paying for personal use.

Of course I am aware of those laws, however I do not perform publicly iwth this music, and the music is delivered to my own ears only, or in case of guests in my car or apartment, in there only...thus are under the same usage as a normal CD. This is fair use of the product, and I respect NO legislation that tells me otherwise. They have a problem with it, they can go F themselves.


I was merely looking at this from a perspective of fair revenue for those that worked towards the finished product (the music, and the delivery method of it, whether CD, DVD, record, cassette, 8-track, download from an authorized source, etc). In the end, the single largest argument I hear is "the labels are greedy, support the artist"...without that label, you'd probably never heard of the artist due to lack of promotion, lack of radio airtime, lack of TV airtime, etc. They do a LOT of work for the artist that we don't see....they also provide the up-front cash for them to get their albums out (although the terms of such is pretty predatory).

In the end, it comes down to: If there is a current commercial interest in this music, it's best to pay for it....but if there is no commercial interest, it should be fair game. Also IMO, digital is digital...CDs, MP3s, WMAs, OGGs, etc should all be usable in the same wasy shapes and forms so long as the person in posession of them owns a legitimate source of the works. That's it.

[jaytoo3]

As a professional musician, I feel the need to chime in on this.

It is stealing. And the excuses i hear against it are often disgusting when you relate it to your life as a musician.

Now my only source of income is incurred from making recordings with several bands, being a music director for multiple artists, being a live and recording artist at a sub-major level and any other services i can provide like composition and arranging. just as my background.

Now before i even get into record sales, From these services alone it's hard to make a living because of the amount of independence that has been forced on the industry due to piracy. Because of this i have to maintain an active client list of 13 or so artists to pay rent. Because their music is being downloaded for free and not compensated monetarily, they don't have the funds to pay me to help compose the next EP or pay more that 25 dollars (Not a joke at all) for a 1 hour live performance when there are several rehearsals that i'm not being paid for that cost transportation money, time writing out sheet music, managing the other musicians and basically working above my pay grade.

Mind you, this is BEFORE record sales are in the picture.

Now when you think about the artist getting money, you also have to consider what level they are working on. Sub-indie = No record sales or soundscans, Indie = Moderate to low record sales or soundscans, Major = Ranging from ZERO record sales (If you get signed at the end of the year, that means that your album will sit on a shelf and the loss in revenue to the label will be written off as an expense to compensate them and not you, a dirty trick up their sleeve) to Mega sales and or soundscans. These matter because if you are downloading the new Tool album, they don't get hurt in a way that you think by they do, but when you talk about the new shoegaze band from your hometown, they are praying every time they swipe their debit card because they make no money. Because all the songs are being shared and exploited by consumers that aren't paying for the product.

The truth of the matter is that it does hurt the industry, not directly but indirectly. When revenue isn't being captured from CD's, the industry reverts to primitive methods of doing things. Such as COMPLETELY destroying the Artist & Relations department, only pouring money into their established artists and shunning anything new, using tried and true methods that do not work in this climate of the industry and MASSIVE layoffs. My connections at SonyBMG where i used to work were in the 100's, now after 2 years, down to the digits. Also they will try to hone in on what sells and 'mechanicalize' their operations. For instance: Amy Winehouse is a boozehound and was deported, so they got any loose interpretation of her 'duffy' to fill her void in that genre and keep that flow of money going.

Now those who say that they can afford the losses and bands just make money from touring have no idea how the money is truly exchanged. At the sub-indie level, the artists fund their own tour which operates at a loss 94% of the time, Indie makes a small profit, Which can be more directly streamed to the artist, and at the Major level, the artist's advances are recouped through those profits and through many BS clauses that are thrown into their contracts i.e. Cross-collateralization. They barely see a dime until a year or two after that tour. much less the same is done with the merchandise, public apperances, spins etc. etc.

If i even started talking about how rapidly the point system is changing in favor to the industry as opposed to the artist, it would blow your mind at what they are doing to keep their offices running.

Long story short, Your clicks take food out of my mouth. Harry fox agency and ASCAP cannot pay me from someone stealing songs downloaded off of p2p networks or shared. truth of the matter is that when a someone fixes your car and asks for money, you don't ever tell them "well, if i didn't pay you it doesn't effect your paycheck" or "i thought you love what you do, and that should be payment enough" or "this free job will be great exposure for future repair work." and the same is for me. I work because i love it but i cannot continue it without compensation. Piracy hurts my pocket. I do not in anyway support it.

Just shedding some light from my side and the side of many others.

[Bye bye now have fun]

Of course I am aware of those laws, however I do not perform publicly iwth this music, and the music is delivered to my own ears only, or in case of guests in my car or apartment, in there only...thus are under the same usage as a normal CD. This is fair use of the product, and I respect NO legislation that tells me otherwise. They have a problem with it, they can go F themselves.

the government doesnt care if you respect it or not its still a felony to rip a cd or make a backup copy of it. could you imagine a rapist saying they dont respect the rape law so its ok?

I was merely looking at this from a perspective of fair revenue for those that worked towards the finished product (the music, and the delivery method of it, whether CD, DVD, record, cassette, 8-track, download from an authorized source, etc). In the end, the single largest argument I hear is "the labels are greedy, support the artist"...without that label, you'd probably never heard of the artist due to lack of promotion, lack of radio airtime, lack of TV airtime, etc. They do a LOT of work for the artist that we don't see....they also provide the up-front cash for them to get their albums out (although the terms of such is pretty predatory).

i havent listened to the radio since about 2001 and only watch history channe, food network and sports on tv. all the bands i listen to i either found out from last.fm, from friends or from a site that shows similar artists on the download page. i guess people cant fathom how non major labels work.

as for jaytoo i guess you also defend actors that make millions on shitty movies too. you know it is possible to spend under 1000$ on an album and still have it kick ass. hell you can make one for under 100$.

[jaytoo3]

as for jaytoo i guess you also defend actors that make millions on shitty movies too. you know it is possible to spend under 1000$ on an album and still have it kick ass. hell you can make one for under 100$.

if that actor is scraping the barrel to feed their children, then i defend them. and if the movie is shitty, why did you download it? if you take no interest in the movie then there is no point to see/steal it. Point Blank, someone can't afford what a decent life should be because of piracy.

Of course i know how to make an "album" on an under $1000 budget. My home studio is under $1000 but i would never release an album with the equipment that i have because there is no possible way i can master or effectively track to a standard that consumers of music that was created in 5+ million dollar studios with full Digidesign and SSL capabilities are used to. If you care about the product, you wouldn't cut corners just to have a piece of crap that you consider an album. There's doing what you have to do to make a record, and then there's cutting corners.

Audio quality suffers when you shortchange your resources. People overlook the mastering process and the education gained by being an experienced replication company.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that because you don't see the immediate effects of your actions that it is just. If what you did at your job could be done for free, your job is out. i think you'd have a very different perspective then.

[Rani]

as for jaytoo i guess you also defend actors that make millions on shitty movies too. you know it is possible to spend under 1000$ on an album and still have it kick ass. hell you can make one for under 100$.

if that actor is scraping the barrel to feed their children, then i defend them. and if the movie is shitty, why did you download it? if you take no interest in the movie then there is no point to see/steal it. Point Blank, someone can't afford what a decent life should be because of piracy.

Of course i know how to make an "album" on an under $1000 budget. My home studio is under $1000 but i would never release an album with the equipment that i have because there is no possible way i can master or effectively track to a standard that consumers of music that was created in 5+ million dollar studios with full Digidesign and SSL capabilities are used to. If you care about the product, you wouldn't cut corners just to have a piece of crap that you consider an album. There's doing what you have to do to make a record, and then there's cutting corners.

Audio quality suffers when you shortchange your resources. People overlook the mastering process and the education gained by being an experienced replication company.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that because you don't see the immediate effects of your actions that it is just. If what you did at your job could be done for free, your job is out. i think you'd have a very different perspective then.

I'm being cynical here, but give it up jaytoo, some of them will never understand the concepts you're explaining (quite well) because they don't have an artistic bone in their bodies. They can't comprehend where artistic ability and production comes from so they honestly don't get it.

On a more universal note...... What ever happened to the concepts or right and wrong? If something isn't offered to you for free by the person who owns it, guess what? It's not free and you can't have it for free. How hard is that? Call it karma, or whatever, but there is a universal balance that is kept. Do bad shit and bad shit shows up in your life. Just the way it is. So how about behaving with a little morality, and have good stuff show up?

'Rani

[Vampy6997]

For some reason, I remember toward around 97-98, that the government was going to look into why the prices of cd's were so high. There was a huge markup in the cd/dvd stores........then the internet started maneuvering around that.

I don't agree with stealing intellectual property of any sort. There are plenty of really awesome up-and-coming bands that give locations to download free mp3's of theirs. I had one band who told me if I ever wanted a specific couple of songs to download, here was a link to it. The song itself was awesome. At the time they offered the free downloads, I didn't have a working ipod, thus no reason to download it.

I'd rather find new bands who have stuff out there for free on sites that legally offer free downloads...music sites, amazon, etc. There are plenty of sites out there with very awesome songs....ie- telekinetic "Coast of Carolina" is on my ipod right now, and wouldn't be if it hadn't been a free, legal download via a cable music channel's website.

If I have an old song I want to listen to, I search online (youtube, myspace, search engines) just to listen, not to download it.

I don't use a cd player other than in my car...if I was in my car a lot more, there'd be a need for cd's....as it is currently, there's no need for cd's. If I really need a specific song that's a blast from the past, itunes sells them.

It's almost like right now, illegal downloading should be becoming a bit obsolete for a great many people. Regardless of morals.......radio plays the popular songs. There are 20 copies of popular songs in youtube, typically....

There are also monthly download sites....with unlimited, or 100, or 200 downloads a month, etc....seems a bit sketchy to put your internet at risk just to download a song.

And if you must, using limewire and other typical p2p is too unprotected. There are many more protected ways to illegally download, where you won't be chancing going to prison or paying some hefty fine or losing your internet access.

.....and had a friend in the mud game I play said his ISP told him to stop illegally DL'ing stuff. After that, he had to look outside the box. He's still getting online, so i guess he figured something out.

btw-I don't mind if people download stuff they're not supposed to...just was sharing my thoughts as those questions were asked

[liquidglass]

i think thats its stealing. i used to do it alot when i was younger but now i realized that in order for the bands i love to stay around i need to support them money wise by buying their music

in order for it to be theft you have to unlawfully deprive someone of their property. last time i checked they arent at a loss

This is true. In Theft as the law defines it. You must deprive the owner of the enjoyment or use of something considered their property. So if I take your car, I'm stealing. But if somehow I can copy your car and we both can use it, I'm not stealing legally.

This should sound Orwellian, but is unethical, but moral.

Where would the world be if the telescope was patented and protected from infringement by individuals and companies?

Hell yes Eric. Sharing of information no matter what it is, is generally a great thing. But for some strange reason a certain % of people get pissed off when people who only have jobs because they created them and we accepted those jobs for a while get mad so they start saying how "wrong it is." Hey I get it, I understand they don't want to lose money because people are figuring out they don't need to pay that person a premium for a service they can get simply by using their existing internet connection. But many jobs have faded into the distance simply because they were no longer needed. These people created a position not to help, but to make money. That's it.

Let's take an example so you can see how retarded the whole idea is. Your parents are your parents because they chose to be (to either have you or keep you) They essentially made the position themsevles. So what if they charged you for the service of them feeding you? Then as you got older, you realized you could feed yourself, so you did. They got pissed, got the courts invovled or MASF (mothers against self feeders lol) and suddenly feeding yourself is illegal. Then someone starts a post on "is feeding yourself morally wrong?" Of course you're sitting there thinking, well that's stupid. But essentially it's the same idea. People think it's morally wrong becuase they're told it is. The people that tell them it's wrong are the people that are attempting to force them to pay for a service they don't really need to.

Wow huh?





As a side note, an economic theory professor and I had an interesting conversation once where we determined it was more beneficial for the economy to have illegal downloads. How? you might ask. Well consider back in the 20's and 30's when movies were starting to boom. Guess what, hundreds if not thousands of crappy movies were put out per year per company. Today only a fraction of that number are produced. Why? because people demanded quality.

Now if I download a movie or music and like it, what is the first thing I'm going to do? Buy the dvd or cd, no joke. If it's THAT good then I want to own a legit physical copy of it. Ever since illegal downloading has started in the late 90's and in the early 90's for computer games. Have you noticed a trend? Computer games have gotten better, movies have improved in quality and not quanitity, even music has improved (some people might argue) but my point is the producers are having to fight harder for the hard earned dollars and as a result we as consumers win. Which is how it is supposed to be.

as a recent example: how many people do you know saw the leaked wolverine: orgins movie but STILL went to theatres? I know tons honestly, they liked it that much from the rough draft they saw.




Oh to answer your question: there are no morals really involved in the situation, it's the just faux morals that people have thrown into it. By comparing it to stealing a purse or shoplifting. So if it HAD to be right or wrong, it would undoubtedly be right.

[judgeposer]

I've interpolated my reply.

in order for it to be theft you have to unlawfully deprive someone of their property. last time i checked they arent at a loss

I think you're half-correct - if that's possible. In the realm of property law, theft is the umbrella term for crimes involving an illegal taking. Theft is simply the illegal taking of someone's property without their consent. There's no necessary element that the person suffer a "loss," aside from, of course, their property. In other words, the person need not suffer necessarily an economic loss, they must suffer merely a loss of their property. Theft, again, is a property crime, dealing with personal/real property. Here, with music, what concerns us is a taking of what the law calls "intellectual property." An analogous taking for intellectual property, for our purposes, is termed copyright infringement to account for the reality that the infringer doesn't take the physical property, but instead infringes on the rights of control given to the rightful owner. The crimes of theft and infringement are legally distinct to the extent that each accounts for the type of property, one tangible, the other intangible.

Where would the world be if the telescope was patented and protected from infringement by individuals and companies?

I don't know anything of the history of the patent(s) associated with the telescope - but, perhaps it was never patented, or the patent, if there was one, expired and was not renewed or the government disallowed its renewal. Whatever the circumstances, how one chooses to share their "invention" is, in large part, up to that person, the inventor who birthed the thing. Other inventors or creators may choose to do otherwise, such as retain control through patenting or copyright protection. While the world might've been a different place were some inventors chose to retain their rights, that doesn't affect how we should allocate and respect the rights of future inventors and creators.

Let's take an example so you can see how retarded the whole idea is. Your parents are your parents because they chose to be (to either have you or keep you) They essentially made the position themsevles. So what if they charged you for the service of them feeding you? Then as you got older, you realized you could feed yourself, so you did. They got pissed, got the courts invovled or MASF (mothers against self feeders lol) and suddenly feeding yourself is illegal. Then someone starts a post on "is feeding yourself morally wrong?" Of course you're sitting there thinking, well that's stupid. But essentially it's the same idea. People think it's morally wrong becuase they're told it is. The people that tell them it's wrong are the people that are attempting to force them to pay for a service they don't really need to.

Wow huh?

I saw WOW too - but I suspect for a different reason. How is this translatable to our discussion? Are you suggesting that some of us are taught something is morally wrong, therefore we believe so, when it isn't truly the case? I suppose, yes, that's a possibility. Even still, you haven't refuted the moral argument, you merely attempt to shift the burden of proof to the one making the moral claim - something that those who raise a moral argument about the wrongness of some behavior usually acknowledge they already bear. No where here has anyone said they believe that pirating is morally wrong because they've been taught so, and ended the conversation there. In that sense, I think you've attacked a strawman. Those of us who have claimed that music piracy is morally wrong say so because we believe in a natural right to property, tangible or intellectual, specifically that the fruits of intellectual labor deserve protection (which the law actually recognizes) because those who created it deserve to profit from our enjoyment of it just as how owners of physical property retain the right of ownership and control over their property. A piece of tangible property be taken (depriving its owner of use and control) just an a piece of intellectual property can be taken (depriving its owner of control and associated profits).

As a side note, an economic theory professor and I had an interesting conversation once where we determined it was more beneficial for the economy to have illegal downloads. How? you might ask. Well consider back in the 20's and 30's when movies were starting to boom. Guess what, hundreds if not thousands of crappy movies were put out per year per company. Today only a fraction of that number are produced. Why? because people demanded quality.

Now if I download a movie or music and like it, what is the first thing I'm going to do? Buy the dvd or cd, no joke. If it's THAT good then I want to own a legit physical copy of it. Ever since illegal downloading has started in the late 90's and in the early 90's for computer games. Have you noticed a trend? Computer games have gotten better, movies have improved in quality and not quanitity, even music has improved (some people might argue) but my point is the producers are having to fight harder for the hard earned dollars and as a result we as consumers win. Which is how it is supposed to be.

That's an interesting take, though it doesn't address the moral dimension - not that it is less a response of having not done so. As an economic matter, perhaps a more discerning consumer has placed pressures on talent and production to produce higher quality goods, but are we to take that as a justification for piracy? Moving from an is to an ought is philosophically troublesome. For one, rampant copyright infringement might too produce a chilling effect on new, developing talent. In that way the consumer doesn't win. We can account the extent that consumers now enjoy affordable, quality music, but we cannot calculate at what cost? - Has even more promising talent chosen not to produce because they know they cannot receive adequate compensation for what they might produce?

If you already have an illegally downloaded song, and can download that artist's other tracks, why buy their CD? That you do doesn't change the moral rightness or wrongness of that first download. That's the download I think some of here, those against pirating are concerned about. I think it's great that you end up purchasing that music you enjoy, but it isn't as if you can't enjoy music without buying CD versions.

as a recent example: how many people do you know saw the leaked wolverine: orgins movie but STILL went to theatres? I know tons honestly, they liked it that much from the rough draft they saw.

Oh to answer your question: there are no morals really involved in the situation, it's the just faux morals that people have thrown into it. By comparing it to stealing a purse or shoplifting. So if it HAD to be right or wrong, it would undoubtedly be right.

I think you're movie analogy doesn't work because the difference between watching a movie free, on the internet, and watching it in a movie theater, is much larger than the difference between a pirated song and its CD version. The theater offers an environment and level of presentation most of us lack in our homes, e.g. sound quality and intensity, picture quality, etc. whereas an illegally downloaded version of a song can easily provide similar to the same level of enjoyment as that provided from the CD version, especially considering you can often download CD-quality music.

Saying that music piracy is wrong because we only "think" it's wrong doesn't do anything to answer the question really. It merely attempts to explain away the moral dimension by saying that it's not really there. That's no explanation really, that's just avoidance. If it is your argument that there is no moral wrongness associated with music piracy, you can argue towards that conclusion by saying, for one, that there is no natural right to property, or that there is no natural right to intellectual property, but without some such argument, you don't explain, but simply explain away the moral dimension.

[liquidglass]

I've interpolated my reply.

in order for it to be theft you have to unlawfully deprive someone of their property. last time i checked they arent at a loss

I think you're half-correct - if that's possible. In the realm of property law, theft is the umbrella term for crimes involving an illegal taking. Theft is simply the illegal taking of someone's property without their consent. There's no necessary element that the person suffer a "loss," aside from, of course, their property. In other words, the person need not suffer necessarily an economic loss, they must suffer merely a loss of their property. Theft, again, is a property crime, dealing with personal/real property. Here, with music, what concerns us is a taking of what the law calls "intellectual property." An analogous taking for intellectual property, for our purposes, is termed copyright infringement to account for the reality that the infringer doesn't take the physical property, but instead infringes on the rights of control given to the rightful owner. The crimes of theft and infringement are legally distinct to the extent that each accounts for the type of property, one tangible, the other intangible.

Where would the world be if the telescope was patented and protected from infringement by individuals and companies?

I don't know anything of the history of the patent(s) associated with the telescope - but, perhaps it was never patented, or the patent, if there was one, expired and was not renewed or the government disallowed its renewal. Whatever the circumstances, how one chooses to share their "invention" is, in large part, up to that person, the inventor who birthed the thing. Other inventors or creators may choose to do otherwise, such as retain control through patenting or copyright protection. While the world might've been a different place were some inventors chose to retain their rights, that doesn't affect how we should allocate and respect the rights of future inventors and creators.

Let's take an example so you can see how retarded the whole idea is. Your parents are your parents because they chose to be (to either have you or keep you) They essentially made the position themsevles. So what if they charged you for the service of them feeding you? Then as you got older, you realized you could feed yourself, so you did. They got pissed, got the courts invovled or MASF (mothers against self feeders lol) and suddenly feeding yourself is illegal. Then someone starts a post on "is feeding yourself morally wrong?" Of course you're sitting there thinking, well that's stupid. But essentially it's the same idea. People think it's morally wrong becuase they're told it is. The people that tell them it's wrong are the people that are attempting to force them to pay for a service they don't really need to.

Wow huh?

I saw WOW too - but I suspect for a different reason. How is this translatable to our discussion? Are you suggesting that some of us are taught something is morally wrong, therefore we believe so, when it isn't truly the case? I suppose, yes, that's a possibility. Even still, you haven't refuted the moral argument, you merely attempt to shift the burden of proof to the one making the moral claim - something that those who raise a moral argument about the wrongness of some behavior usually acknowledge they already bear. No where here has anyone said they believe that pirating is morally wrong because they've been taught so, and ended the conversation there. In that sense, I think you've attacked a strawman. Those of us who have claimed that music piracy is morally wrong say so because we believe in a natural right to property, tangible or intellectual, specifically that the fruits of intellectual labor deserve protection (which the law actually recognizes) because those who created it deserve to profit from our enjoyment of it just as how owners of physical property retain the right of ownership and control over their property. A piece of tangible property be taken (depriving its owner of use and control) just an a piece of intellectual property can be taken (depriving its owner of control and associated profits).

As a side note, an economic theory professor and I had an interesting conversation once where we determined it was more beneficial for the economy to have illegal downloads. How? you might ask. Well consider back in the 20's and 30's when movies were starting to boom. Guess what, hundreds if not thousands of crappy movies were put out per year per company. Today only a fraction of that number are produced. Why? because people demanded quality.

Now if I download a movie or music and like it, what is the first thing I'm going to do? Buy the dvd or cd, no joke. If it's THAT good then I want to own a legit physical copy of it. Ever since illegal downloading has started in the late 90's and in the early 90's for computer games. Have you noticed a trend? Computer games have gotten better, movies have improved in quality and not quanitity, even music has improved (some people might argue) but my point is the producers are having to fight harder for the hard earned dollars and as a result we as consumers win. Which is how it is supposed to be.

That's an interesting take, though it doesn't address the moral dimension - not that it is less a response of having not done so. As an economic matter, perhaps a more discerning consumer has placed pressures on talent and production to produce higher quality goods, but are we to take that as a justification for piracy? Moving from an is to an ought is philosophically troublesome. For one, rampant copyright infringement might too produce a chilling effect on new, developing talent. In that way the consumer doesn't win. We can account the extent that consumers now enjoy affordable, quality music, but we cannot calculate at what cost? - Has even more promising talent chosen not to produce because they know they cannot receive adequate compensation for what they might produce?

If you already have an illegally downloaded song, and can download that artist's other tracks, why buy their CD? That you do doesn't change the moral rightness or wrongness of that first download. That's the download I think some of here, those against pirating are concerned about. I think it's great that you end up purchasing that music you enjoy, but it isn't as if you can't enjoy music without buying CD versions.

as a recent example: how many people do you know saw the leaked wolverine: orgins movie but STILL went to theatres? I know tons honestly, they liked it that much from the rough draft they saw.

Oh to answer your question: there are no morals really involved in the situation, it's the just faux morals that people have thrown into it. By comparing it to stealing a purse or shoplifting. So if it HAD to be right or wrong, it would undoubtedly be right.

I think you're movie analogy doesn't work because the difference between watching a movie free, on the internet, and watching it in a movie theater, is much larger than the difference between a pirated song and its CD version. The theater offers an environment and level of presentation most of us lack in our homes, e.g. sound quality and intensity, picture quality, etc. whereas an illegally downloaded version of a song can easily provide similar to the same level of enjoyment as that provided from the CD version, especially considering you can often download CD-quality music.

Saying that music piracy is wrong because we only "think" it's wrong doesn't do anything to answer the question really. It merely attempts to explain away the moral dimension by saying that it's not really there. That's no explanation really, that's just avoidance. If it is your argument that there is no moral wrongness associated with music piracy, you can argue towards that conclusion by saying, for one, that there is no natural right to property, or that there is no natural right to intellectual property, but without some such argument, you don't explain, but simply explain away the moral dimension.

Firstly, the FIRST and SECOND quote you used are NOT mine.


Next. 1) you see that's the problem, there's nothing that's 'stolen' so new lawas are having to be created to define property simply so they can stop things like this.

Mainly because you're not stealing any property intellectual or otherwise. It's in the public domain, you're just taking advantage of your resources. Kind of like why bittorrent isnt' illegal.

It's only theft of intellectual property if you claim it as your own.


For example. If One of your friends has a great theory about dark matter. They share it, you over hear it. Now if you claim the idea as your own, distribute it as such and gain from it, then you are guilty of intellectual property theft. HOWEVER. If you go telling people "hey listen to this great theory Andrew had!" Then are you stealing? Or are you speading his theory through word of mouth?

Think about it.

2) not my quote take it up with Eric


3) Finally something that I actually said!


Possible? It happens all the time. Some of us are taught certain things are morally wrong while others are taught completely different morals (Polygamy for example) But the trick lies in which one is right.

That's the point, people don't realize they've been taught it's wrong, they just accept that it's wrong based on what they've learned through society.

Who's natural right do you believe in? The distributing label? The Band/singer? The Writer of the score? The writer of the lyrics?

My point was against labels who created positions for themselves.

lastly you're not depriving the actual owner of anything, they've gotten their dues. So are you sure you're stealing their intellectual property? Or are you theiving the "physical property" that the label now owns, phsyical in a sense that it is purely for profit. So you're not phsyically stealing anything and you're not taking any intellectual property that wasn't already distributed (through the radio, youtube, or other means)


3) You're right it doesn't address the moral issue and I didn't claim for it to, I just wanted to take another view point on it, as I think the morality of the situation is an illusion of projected perceptions.

The legality is real, the morality is not.

Tsk tsk my friend, you put words in my mouth. I said I was presenting an intresting point that the current priacy was beneficial to consumers in the long run, I never said it should be encouraged did I? You really need to stop misquoting me.

Actually it simply gives rise to competition, what our economy is supposed to be based on. Sort of like survival of the fittest. For example more people are grabbing graduate degrees than ever. Why? because information is so widely avaliable an undergraduate degree isn't as "specialized" as it once was. So people benefit, the economy benefits, and we grow as a society.

I never said it changed the morality, mainly becuase the morality varies from person to person.



4)I agree that a movie might have some advantages over a song, but I've seen plenty of audiophile friends buy a cd because they couldn't find an acceptable version of the song online.


Actually I answered the question at the very end if you bothered to read it. However, previous to that I brought up the question if the original question could even be validated. Or is it valid because you say so?

You're using a lot of words, but you have to define the words first.

"Natural Right to property (intellectual property)"

Ok that sounds all good and nice, but where are the clear definitions of this ideal? You have to define the words before you can draw the lines.

So it's morally correct for turnitin.com to use student papers to profit.....but it's wrong to download a song for free. Hmmm seems like there is some blurry lines here.

I didn't avoid anything, in fact, instead of accepting it at face value I delved further into it. Try it, you might like it.

[liquidglass]

*little psych. thrown in for fun, but basically making a point*

To address your view of morality somehow being static. Even though it has always changed and moved over time and cultures.


Answer this question for me. Just in your head you don't have to type it up.

How morally wrong do you think downloading music is? (no modifiers, you can't add anything, just DOWNLOADING music period)




now How morally wrong do you think downloading music illegally is?


From your post I'm sure you have a difference in moral view for the two questions. Probably because I inserted the word "illegally" in the second.

Now I'm not saying your level of morality should or shouldn't be different, that's up to you. But my point is. Someone else might answer these questions completely differently than you. They may not feel moral guilt for either one, for whatever reason. So who's morals are right? Yours? or Theirs?

I understand you still think I'm avoiding the moral issue by avoiding it. But I'm not. I'm calling into question if there is a moral issue. I personally don't think there is, simply because everyone's morals vary, either by choice, by their society,etc.

Now there is a legal issue (simply because of agencies pushing to make it so, but that's a separate topic) and morally right or not, by living in this country we've contractually agreed to abide by the laws and rules.

Now I'm hoping you can see the distinct difference between both the topics. Because as evidenced by your post you see Moral and Legal as related topics in this case. (Which they just aren't) Which while I addressed legal, moral, and economic issues, I attempted to do so in a way that would clearly put them as separate topics. I apologize if I wasn't successful.

[liquidglass]

* Now I realize this is late, but I can't edit my other posts: If it seems at all like I'm making personal attacks I apologize. I went back and read it and saw how it could be taken that way. I have a few 'reasons' that could be excuses, but I'll just say I didn't mean for it to come off like that. Just being impassioned about it. *

[Bye bye now have fun]

i find it really funny that someone in the music business says you cant make a good album with out them and spending a crap ton. with a really bad comparison, thats like apple saying you cant make a working computer with out them. the internet truly shows that you can. maybe its just my genera i listen to but you dont need expensive editing and other crap to make an album sound good, infact i think it sounds like crap from over editing. i refuse to listen to "remastered" albums because they sound like crap even ones that were originally recorded on "crap" in location like basements and store fronts. are you going to have a cher or tpain or new green day with out it? nope by why would you want that stuff?

[judgeposer]

* Now I realize this is late, but I can't edit my other posts: If it seems at all like I'm making personal attacks I apologize. I went back and read it and saw how it could be taken that way. I have a few 'reasons' that could be excuses, but I'll just say I didn't mean for it to come off like that. Just being impassioned about it. *

Not a problem, and no worries. I haven't checked where I might've wrongly attributed other's posts to you; and if I did, I apologize the same for that.

[judgeposer]

Again, I've interpolated.

Firstly, the FIRST and SECOND quote you used are NOT mine.

Yeah, again, sorry about that. I should've paid better attention.

Next. 1) you see that's the problem, there's nothing that's 'stolen' so new lawas are having to be created to define property simply so they can stop things like this.

Mainly because you're not stealing any property intellectual or otherwise. It's in the public domain, you're just taking advantage of your resources. Kind of like why bittorrent isnt' illegal.

It's only theft of intellectual property if you claim it as your own.

The US Code, 17 USC Secs. 501 and 506 spell out the elements of copyright infringement. Most forms of illegal downloading, including of music, fall within its ambit. Included as criminal is the reproduction or distribution of copyrighted material, which makes it illegal to download a song you didn't pay for. This is a simple legal fact. I do agree that these laws were created to deal with the uniqueness presented by intangible property, but would say further that terms likes "stealing" might not be coterminous with illegally downloading music, but is simply akin to it, accounting for the intangible nature of the property we're talking about.

For example. If One of your friends has a great theory about dark matter. They share it, you over hear it. Now if you claim the idea as your own, distribute it as such and gain from it, then you are guilty of intellectual property theft. HOWEVER. If you go telling people "hey listen to this great theory Andrew had!" Then are you stealing? Or are you speading his theory through word of mouth?

Think about it.

This example of yours isn't what's going on with illegal downloads or adequately informed about the law on the matter since to infringe on one's copyrights you need not receive a profit from doing so.

Possible? It happens all the time. Some of us are taught certain things are morally wrong while others are taught completely different morals (Polygamy for example) But the trick lies in which one is right.

That's the point, people don't realize they've been taught it's wrong, they just accept that it's wrong based on what they've learned through society.

Who's natural right do you believe in? The distributing label? The Band/singer? The Writer of the score? The writer of the lyrics?

To clarify, believing in a natural right to property and a natural right to intellectual property, as I have used, means to have a legitimate stake in owning and controlling that property. When property has an intangible form, like intellectual property, that natural right of control means that whoever the "owner" is, be it the artist or the record label, he has a say in how his property is distributed, which is to say he determines how he would like his property distributed - through what channels, and to whom.

lastly you're not depriving the actual owner of anything, they've gotten their dues. So are you sure you're stealing their intellectual property? Or are you theiving the "physical property" that the label now owns, phsyical in a sense that it is purely for profit. So you're not phsyically stealing anything and you're not taking any intellectual property that wasn't already distributed (through the radio, youtube, or other means)

Again, it doesn't matter about "dues" or necessarily paying for it - those are things determined by the owner. So, we can concieve of an band that provides their music free of charge in CD form in a store (not that this has ever happend or will ever happen), but who does not want their music shared in p2p networks - that's their right. They do not seek monetary compensation, obviously, just mere control over how their work is distributed, which is within their rights as the creator of that work.

3) You're right it doesn't address the moral issue and I didn't claim for it to, I just wanted to take another view point on it, as I think the morality of the situation is an illusion of projected perceptions.

Of course - as I said I didn't fault the economic argument for not addressing the moral claim, as it wasn't meant to. If I didn't adequately acknowledge that, then I do so now. Moreover, I didn't mean to imply that you thought the argument was a good one or offered behavior that you encouraged - but I don't think I did imply that. No matter.

You're using a lot of words, but you have to define the words first.

"Natural Right to property (intellectual property)"

Ok that sounds all good and nice, but where are the clear definitions of this ideal? You have to define the words before you can draw the lines.

So it's morally correct for turnitin.com to use student papers to profit.....but it's wrong to download a song for free. Hmmm seems like there is some blurry lines here.

I didn't avoid anything, in fact, instead of accepting it at face value I delved further into it. Try it, you might like it.

I don't know what turnitin is, and don't care to learn. It wasn't around, at least I don't think, when I was an undergraduate. So, I can't say anything about whether it's morally permissible.

For my part, I tried to address as seperately as possible the legal from moral concerns about this issue, but replying to posts that often conflate the two make it difficult for me to do so as seperately as perpaps is needed. Nonetheless, the legality of the issue is fairly well settled: music piracy = copyright infringement = illegal. Figuring the morality of this issue has proven a far thornier enterprise, one which I think I've develed into enough (citing my numerous previous posts outlining a moral argument against piracy).

[jaytoo3]

Intellectual Property Rights were put in place to give the creator of that property TANGIBLE rights as you would to a woodworker who makes something that you can hold. Because we can't see or hold the music doesn't mean that it's exempt from being someones property.

I'll say this again, when you download and tell your friends you have good intent, but you take money out of someone's pocket. Granted the flow of this money is intricate and not easy to understand off hand, it is taken out; You actually take money away from more than just the artist. The management, the producer, the musicians who played on the record, the distributors, the duplicators, the tour support, the retailers and the list goes on endlessly.

This not only hurts sales, but live music as well. Here is how.

I'll link you to a video which I honest to god watch at least 3 times a year to remind myself to demand my compensation for my work. It is geared more towards ametures that undercut professionals. For example, when a band that plays for fun goes to clubs and bar in NYC and accept pay to play situations, when I bring my group of talented people who have learned to play from dozens of famous and legendary musicians, paid to go to school, learned to read, write and improvise music flawlessly, they expect me to take 20% of the door and 0% of the bar and throw me 2 drink tickets. Free drinks don't keep me fed. Here's a mathmatical breakdown of what that looks like:

That revenue can be anywhere from 0 to the legal limit of the club (10 dollars a head for 50 people [which is an amazing draw for NYC] = 500 / 5 = $100) Now i'm expected to look these accomplished people in the eye and hand them $20 dollars to continue working for/with me. THAT WILL NOT FLY.

This is the reality for artists who do good honest work. Shawn Fanning single-handedly started the devaluation of music which as brought people to rationalize demonization of the music business. No matter how you cut it, you are stealing. Tell yourself whatever you want to sleep at night, your stealing.

Sorry if i'm harsh on the subject, but obviously i have more than a need to make a bunch of people on the internet think i'm smart when it comes to this topic.

[liquidglass]

The US Code, 17 USC Secs. 501 and 506 spell out the elements of copyright infringement. Most forms of illegal downloading, including of music, fall within its ambit. Included as criminal is the reproduction or distribution of copyrighted material, which makes it illegal to download a song you didn't pay for. This is a simple legal fact. I do agree that these laws were created to deal with the uniqueness presented by intangible property, but would say further that terms likes "stealing" might not be coterminous with illegally downloading music, but is simply akin to it, accounting for the intangible nature of the property we're talking about.

That's the problem I'm getting at with the legal issues. Laws can't adequately deal with downloading music or many problems of intellectual property currently. There are so many 'holes' in the current laws that they just can't stand against it, no matter how they try.

If I were to violate the copyright of a book, it would be easy to catch because the original

For example. If One of your friends has a great theory about dark matter. They share it, you over hear it. Now if you claim the idea as your own, distribute it as such and gain from it, then you are guilty of intellectual property theft. HOWEVER. If you go telling people "hey listen to this great theory Andrew had!" Then are you stealing? Or are you speading his theory through word of mouth?

Think about it.

This example of yours isn't what's going on with illegal downloads or adequately informed about the law on the matter since to infringe on one's copyrights you need not receive a profit from doing so.

Obviously you failed to grasp the fact that this example is an extremely simplified form of "intellectual property theft." I'll make sure my examples are stated in a way you can understand next time.

-basically what I was getting at with the example was this, (although I realize it was imperfect, I didn't expect it to be flawless) Someone has an idea/intellectual property (we'll assume it follows the proper parameters to give them legal ownership), they release it into the public domain by telling people, if you claim the idea as your own then you violated their rights. However, if you give them credit for releasing the idea then you're simply spreading knowledge or advertising for that individual.
Now I said all that to address the current laws dealing with infringement. If you download a song listen to it, and let others listen to it, giving the artist credit, then you are not guilty of copyright infringement. (you are guilty of impeding upon the ownership given to the distributing label, but you didn't address that point fully)

lastly you're not depriving the actual owner of anything, they've gotten their dues. So are you sure you're stealing their intellectual property? Or are you theiving the "physical property" that the label now owns, phsyical in a sense that it is purely for profit. So you're not phsyically stealing anything and you're not taking any intellectual property that wasn't already distributed (through the radio, youtube, or other means)

Again, it doesn't matter about "dues" or necessarily paying for it - those are things determined by the owner. So, we can concieve of an band that provides their music free of charge in CD form in a store (not that this has ever happend or will ever happen), but who does not want their music shared in p2p networks - that's their right. They do not seek monetary compensation, obviously, just mere control over how their work is distributed, which is within their rights as the creator of that work.

You are missing the point and substituting your own. Let's see if I can put this in a way you will better understand. Not to stay your intelligence is lacking, simply that we view things in different ways. The Band/writer are intellectual property holders. The distributing label is a secondary property holder who simply has a legal ability to profit from the distribution of said products. So after the song has been put on youtube, the radio, etc let's say that you as an individual decide to keep a digital copy of your own. You are NOT stealing intellectual property simply for the fact that the original owners of the intellectual property (band/writer) have already recieved what they agreed was adaquate compensation for such.
My whole point in that example was to say that intellectual property was not being stolen from the OWNER of it.


If a band/writer signs over the rights to a distributing label then they can specify the way it is distributed in the contract, but they have no control after that, and can only hold the distributing label liable for such.


Did you not get that my whole point from the get go is that labels are the ones that are so mad about music downloads? You have consistently ignored each point that has trumped your own and then taken other comments, misconstrewed them and then used them in your own interpretation.

Of course - as I said I didn't fault the economic argument for not addressing the moral claim, as it wasn't meant to. If I didn't adequately acknowledge that, then I do so now. Moreover, I didn't mean to imply that you thought the argument was a good one or offered behavior that you encouraged - but I don't think I did imply that. No matter.

Well I do contend that it was not clear from your previous post, however, it's nothing I hold against you. Especially for a fault I make myself of not being clear consistently.

I don't know what turnitin is, and don't care to learn. It wasn't around, at least I don't think, when I was an undergraduate. So, I can't say anything about whether it's morally permissible.

For my part, I tried to address as seperately as possible the legal from moral concerns about this issue, but replying to posts that often conflate the two make it difficult for me to do so as seperately as perpaps is needed. Nonetheless, the legality of the issue is fairly well settled: music piracy = copyright infringement = illegal. Figuring the morality of this issue has proven a far thornier enterprise, one which I think I've develed into enough (citing my numerous previous posts outlining a moral argument against piracy).

- I can assure you turnitin was around when you were an undergraduate. Not wanting to learn exmplifies someone who is closed off to any outside ideals. Which is sad, you seem to be legally knowledgable to an extent although you've only been dealing in regurgitating what you've heard about downloading music and apparently for you there is only black and white in the legal realm which unfortunately just isn't the case.

As far as the legal and moral issues, I agree they can get intertwined. However, it's evident you should go a little further in the world of law as it is well known things are never clear cut, and it's the job of the lawyers and the court to interpret the law based on each situation.

That's probably why out of the millions if not billions of "illegal" downloads there have been very few cases that have ever 1) developed 2) gone to trial 3) and resulted in a verdict that was detrimental to the defendant.

[Bye bye now have fun]

jaytoo i can link you to neo nazi hate speech too. its no difference. its just some guy saying mindless crap. just because its on the internet doesnt mean its true. and cool you picked a major where you cant sustain yourself. maybe you should go back to school and pick a real major or bite the bullet and do what you like. so what about all the people that didnt got so school, dont have expensive equipment and didnt learn from "legends"? thats right they do what they love and live in sqauts, stay over peoples hoses or live in dives. im sorry that for for every kiss and led zepplin and metallica there ate 1000 bands that can play "music perfect" what would have happened if jello biafra or the people of sst complained that they werent getting paid? wed be stuck with big record corps crap they call music

[jaytoo3]

and cool you picked a major where you cant sustain yourself. maybe you should go back to school and pick a real major or bite the bullet and do what you like.

i love the career i chose and know the pitfalls of it. Trying to prey on that fact by telling me my choices were wrong in this argument crosses a line... Because i love it does not mean that i'll go hungry for it. I'll have my cake and eat it too.

That mindless crap reminds me to maintain my relationships with the people i work with as business relationships and to keep it that way. To whatever religion you take i would not downtrot your bible, Don't you dare mine. I was sharing my world.

Let's try and keep this respectful. granted i'm very forceful with my view but not once attacked your upbringing into the person that you are today. Respect me and I'll do the same.. i'm simply revealing the reality of the musicians end in this situation. My major was music business if you do care so much to know, i've worked at Sony, BMG, and SonyBMG and have done work for various other music industry staples. I then went to the collective school of music and earned the Victor Wooten Scholarship upon entry and completed my tenure and I'm a successful NYC bassist.

Now, all the people who who don't have the equipment or connections or the music knowledge don't play with me. Their experiences are different from mine so i can't speak on there half.

Don't go and apologize for other peoples success. zep and Metallica are awesome bands that worked hard at their craft and their career and don't deserve to have their accomplishments diminished by some kid who doesn't want to work a job to be able to afford the level of artistry they've achieved.

Once more, for the deaf. When you don't pay for music, there is NO benefit to the artist or people behind it. Promotion doesn't put dinner on the table. Stealing is wrong. No one gets a paycheck or royalty statement for their Word of Mouth publicity.

There is nothing justafyable about downloading music short of if your physical copy was destroyed or if you are the owner of that intellectual property. If you care to hear/see more from that artist, you will put money in their pocket.

[jaytoo3]

i find it really funny that someone in the music business says you cant make a good album with out them and spending a crap ton. with a really bad comparison, thats like apple saying you cant make a working computer with out them. the internet truly shows that you can. maybe its just my genera i listen to but you dont need expensive editing and other crap to make an album sound good, infact i think it sounds like crap from over editing. i refuse to listen to "remastered" albums because they sound like crap even ones that were originally recorded on "crap" in location like basements and store fronts. are you going to have a cher or tpain or new green day with out it? nope by why would you want that stuff?

can you make a good album? yes, will it be to the standards of that made in a studio owned by a major label? not a chance. the fact that the quality gap actually is narrowing will probably phase out major labels and then people will realize what they've forgot.... no indie or regular artist has distribution, connections or the bankroll for advertising and support. Then the usefulness will be present, but the ability will be in the past. Everyone has their theories, that one is mine.

and if you check the psystar lawsuit that apple had, you'd see that that's exactly what they said


It's not editing that makes an album of quality. It is quality microphones and equipment with knowledgeable mastering teams and duplicators. remastering is basically someone trying to bring an album up-to-date with sound quality which i as you do disagree with. The time is captured in the primitive nature of the recording methods. the squeak of the bass drum pedal in James Brown's 'Sex Machine' is annoying as hell, but speaks volumes about the attitude in the music. Edited May 18, 2009 by jaytoo3