Music Downloading

tristanrobin · 01-25-2007, 08:25 PM

I know that you're not being an ass. LOL I'm just trying to make you understand.

First, how do you know how long it takes an artist to paint? Some paintings do, indeed, take a year to paint. But, if the medical care for a year is a bad analogy - how about doing my heart bypass surgery gratis (certainly a painting takes 5-6 hours to complete).

Second, it IS property.

I have a friend who just settled a HUGE settlement with a hotel in Houston that had taken her designs from a piece of work and used them in a carpet (Caristan carpet - Paula Nadelstern artist). They didn't actually steal ANYTHING material from her. But they stole her work - her ideas - her right to make money from what she does for a living.

The ONLY way a songwriter makes money is to get royalties on what he has written. Everytime you download his song without paying for it, it's the same as going into his home and taking something that belongs to him.

The Mona Lisa is not a good example - it's past the copyright time limit - just as anybody can record Beethoven or Bach or Wagner. But you CAN'T record Stevie Wonder without permission and/or paying a royalty.

I know that you don't see the harm - and I've read enough of your posts to know that you're fair and that you're not being a jerk about it! But why is it that the things people in this country prize highly - music, films, books and art - are the things they feel most legitimate about copying or pirating or downloading without paying the artists who have enriched their lives?

Antithesis · 01-25-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

I know that you're not being an ass. LOL I'm just trying to make you understand.

First, how do you know how long it takes an artist to paint? Some paintings do, indeed, take a year to paint. But, if the medical care for a year is a bad analogy - how about doing my heart bypass surgery gratis (certainly a painting takes 5-6 hours to complete).

Second, it IS property.

I have a friend who just settled a HUGE settlement with a hotel in Houston that had taken her designs from a piece of work and used them in a carpet (Caristan carpet - Paula Nadelstern artist). They didn't actually steal ANYTHING material from her. But they stole her work - her ideas - her right to make money from what she does for a living.

The ONLY way a songwriter makes money is to get royalties on what he has written. Everytime you download his song without paying for it, it's the same as going into his home and taking something that belongs to him.

The Mona Lisa is not a good example - it's past the copyright time limit - just as anybody can record Beethoven or Bach or Wagner. But you CAN'T record Stevie Wonder without permission and/or paying a royalty.

I know that you don't see the harm - and I've read enough of your posts to know that you're fair and that you're not being a jerk about it! But why is it that the things people in this country prize highly - music, films, books and art - are the things they feel most legitimate about copying or pirating or downloading without paying the artists who have enriched their lives?

That's different, though. It's your idea, but they took it to personally profit. If somebody downloads a song, it's not to profit. It's because they appreciate the artist's work, and don't want to go through channels like iTunes, which often doesn't have music from lesser known or protective artists (*cough* TOOL *cough*). The damage to artists may seem significant, but in reality it's only the difference between buying 99 luxury cars and 100 luxury cars.

They have regular record sales, concert tickets, endorsements, merchandise, and investments. They're rich anyway, they can handle a little less self-indulgence.

Jefferson · 01-25-2007, 09:32 PM

I have a lot of family members - immediate and extended - who are in the music industry.

People who pirate music are thieves, plain and simple. This is how musicians make their livings.

The fact that some teenager doesn't feel like paying for the music he listens to and shares with his friends, does not make it NOT illegal.

Antithesis · 01-25-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

I have a lot of family members - immediate and extended - who are in the music industry.

People who pirate music are thieves, plain and simple. This is how musicians make their livings.

The fact that some teenager doesn't feel like paying for the music he listens to and shares with his friends, does not make it NOT illegal.

Okay then, answer me this: hundreds upon millions of people download illegally all over the world. Do we have the resources to investigate and prosecute each person? In addition, do we even have the technological capability of finding everyone, or even shutting down most of the file sharing services?

Jefferson · 01-25-2007, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Okay then, answer me this: hundreds upon millions of people download illegally all over the world. Do we have the resources to investigate and prosecute each person? In addition, do we even have the technological capability of finding everyone, or even shutting down most of the file sharing services?

A good share of it, yes. Absolutely. No question.

However, there is no law against listening to the music. There ARE laws against recording and/or reproducing it.

It's a no-brainer. This is NO DIFFERENT then if you sold fruit at a corner market, and people regularly came up, took it, and walked off without paying. Of course, people with no honesty or integrity don't care, do they?

Antithesis · 01-25-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

A good share of it, yes. Absolutely. No question.

However, there is no law against listening to the music. There ARE laws against recording and/or reproducing it.

It's a no-brainer. This is NO DIFFERENT then if you sold fruit at a corner market, and people regularly came up, took it, and walked off without paying. Of course, people with no honesty or integrity don't care, do they?

If there's one thing the internet brings to the world, it's fast methods of transferring, sharing, concealing, and creating ways to do things. There must be thousands of file sharing sites, and it's impossible to stop it all, even with legislation. This is prohibition, and prohibition occurs when a socially accepted practice is completely eliminated. Experience shows that even if it was outlawed, there is no way to enforce the law.

Jefferson · 01-25-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

If there's one thing the internet brings to the world, it's fast methods of transferring, sharing, concealing, and creating ways to do things. There must be thousands of file sharing sites, and it's impossible to stop it all, even with legislation. This is prohibition, and prohibition occurs when a socially accepted practice is completely eliminated. Experience shows that even if it was outlawed, there is no way to enforce the law.

You could say the same about burglaries. There's no way the police can stop EVERY ONE. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.

And honestly, I think you'd be very very surprised by how much information that can be tracked on the internet. I bet there's somebody who could prove EVERY song you've every downloaded.

Antithesis · 01-25-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

You could say the same about burglaries. There's no way the police can stop EVERY ONE. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.

And honestly, I think you'd be very very surprised by how much information that can be tracked on the internet. I bet there's somebody who could prove EVERY song you've every downloaded.

1. Burgularies are not accepted by society. They're not practiced on a scale that suggests that a large percentage of the public engages in the activity.

2. So then what? Punish millions of people? Further overcrowd our already strained prison system? Or if fines are pursued, would you want that kind of fine imposed on such a huge number of people? I can't imagine the economic implications. Copyright infringement is a serious crime in the eyes of the RIAA, and if they had their way everybody would be paying $10,000.

3. It's not the ability to track down music pirates (Avast ye, mateys! I wear that title with pride! ARRRR!!!

), but the idea of shutting down a practice that's as widespread and accepted as file sharing. As soon as you close one browser, another will spring up to take its place, and don't even make me go into the legal loopholes that countless people find and exploit. Peope will be just as eager to download, if not more so, and will continue to do so. Even as we speak, new programs spring up around old concepts and find more complicated ways to evade detection.

Jefferson · 01-25-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

1. Burgularies are not accepted by society. They're not practiced on a scale that suggests that a large percentage of the public engages in the activity.

2. So then what? Punish millions of people? Further overcrowd our already strained prison system? Or if fines are pursued, would you want that kind of fine imposed on such a huge number of people? I can't imagine the economic implications. Copyright infringement is a serious crime in the eyes of the RIAA, and if they had their way everybody would be paying $10,000.

3. It's not the ability to track down music pirates (Avast ye, mateys! I wear that title with pride! ARRRR!!!

), but the idea of shutting down a practice that's as widespread and accepted as file sharing. As soon as you close one browser, another will spring up to take its place, and don't even make me go into the legal loopholes that countless people find and exploit. Peope will be just as eager to download, if not more so, and will continue to do so. Even as we speak, new programs spring up around old concepts and find more complicated ways to evade detection.

I know we're standing on opposites sides of the divide: My family gets royalty checks, and you're a thieving, music-stealing little rat!

Actually, the music industry is evolving. They're beginning to charge small fees for down-loads. Yes, it IS possible, and it IS happening.

...and by the way, you might want to be aware that SOME (perhaps a LOT) of those "freebie" music downloads are actually put there by the music industry - and they contain very serious viruses. It's their way of saying, "Well... screw you, you theives!"

Antithesis · 01-25-2007, 11:19 PM

I know we're standing on opposites sides of the divide: My family gets royalty checks, and you're a thieving, music-stealing little rat!
No wonder you guys hate communism so much! You grow richer from the royalty checks while we have to pay for what we hear on the radio for free! Capitalism, huh?
FYI: "Thieving, music stealing rat" is a badge of honor for me, so thank you very much. I prefer the title "Prince of Thieves," but I'll take what infamy I can get.

Actually, the music industry is evolving. They're beginning to charge small fees for down-loads. Yes, it IS possible, and it IS happening.
So...they charge you for what is advertised as free...sounds a lot like fraud. Misstatement of a fact with the intent to deceive...yep, that's fraud. Now we're into criminal offenses.

...and by the way, you might want to be aware that SOME (perhaps a LOT) of those "freebie" music downloads are actually put there by the music industry - and they contain very serious viruses. It's their way of saying, "Well... screw you, you theives!"
That's actually malicious and an invasion of privacy, not to mention 100% ILLEGAL. Anybody who knowingly infects computers with a virus is subject to penalties.