Now I REALLY get the anti-mp3/file sharing argument

[Spinaroonie]

Alright, Bad Religion has a new album coming out Next Tuesday. One little AIM session and 40 or so megs later I have the whole flippin' thing. Granted, odds are I'll probably buy it just cos it's got Mr. Brett and back on Epitat, etc. But, it's just wrong.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Before, during, after - an artist's property is an artist's property, and there is no moral argument for stealing their property, whether it be images, word, or sound.

Having the album come out on the 'net before it is even in the stores illustrates just how wrong it is.

 

[Phoenyx]

One thing I find fascinating is the bit about Metalica complaining that their version of the Mission Impossible theme songs was on Napster while they were stillworking on it in studio...They said

Look at how evil napster is.. they can get out songs while we are still working on them


Uhmmm doesnt someone inside have to leak the early shit to file programs first?

 

[Topher]

But how does Bad Religion feel about it?

 

[Angel]

As an artist, and as a person who works with bands I still can't understand why a true artist would not want to get their creations out there free or not. I always give away my art for free. Someday if I get paid to do it, I'll still give the shit away for free, thats just how I am. Shit I sell some of it NOW - and I do give things away left and right. But I want people who enjoy it to see it and have it, and if some people are willing to pay for it, cool.

As for the musician's side, I've always used Napster, MP3.com and more recently Audiogalaxy to freely distribute music files for the bands I work with, and we still sell assloads of CD's at shows. It's fucking awesome publicity for new talent - and it would be pretty damn shitty to get exposure using Napster or another free mp3 site and then to yank it later if the bands someday became "Stars".

If someone would rather not have their music distributed freely, thats their feelings - I just don't think that way myself.

Ah damn, my point was that I don't understand that PoV.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

As an artist, and as a person who works with bands I still can't understand why a true artist would not want to get their creations out there free or not.

You obviously don't make your living from your art, and even if you did, it is your decision how you wish to distribute. When people take your art without your permission, whether you give it away for free, charge one penny or ten dollars, it is your property. When you take someone else's property without their permission that is stealing, plain and simple, whether you would give that same property away or not.

I will and do help people alongside the road without asking or accepting any recompense, I will give people spare parts, gas, rides, whatever, for free, but if someone takes my property or time without my permission, and they have, then I resent that - it is theft.

It is not about whether you would give it away for free or not, it is about whether you would give permission, and these people have not given permission to those who are stealing their work.

Is an artist's work and time worth nothing? Why is their work any different from anybody else's work? Because it is art?

 

[Angel]

I think I made it quite clear I don't make a living off of my art. And I understand that it is stealing because they don't give permission.


I just don't agree with that outlook on my art and I never will.


..

Is an artist's work and time worth nothing? Why is their work any different from anybody else's work? Because it is art?

I am an artist. My work and time are worth everything to me... And it is different. I'm not flipping burgers for consumption, I'm making something I think is beautiful and I hope that others think that it is as well, and I want to share it. I completely understand that other people don't look at it the way I do. I just don't agree with it.

That doesn't mean I run around snatching cute paintings or downloading every mp3 that turns my head.

 

[Texan]

Earlier this evening, I gave my 17 year-old son a $50. bill when he asked for gas money. He only asked for $10. so I told him to bring me $40. change. Tonight when he got home, I asked for my change. He gave me $25. and said he needed the extra money to buy dinner for himself and a friend.

Very gently, I told him I felt he had stolen $15. from me. He said he knew that if he had asked me, I would have given him the extra money. I replied, "That wasn't the point." He didn't ask first.

He got a little defensive and said, "Well, then just consider it a loan and I'll pay you back."

I said, "It can't be a loan, because you didn't ask to borrow the money."

Obviously, I didn't care about the $15. I cared that my son would learn the definition of "theft." I know he's already 17, but I keep hoping that someday he'll understand.

I have the same hope for people who "steal" music, software or property of any kind. If it doesn't belong to you, and you take it without asking and receiving permission FIRST, ...... it's stealing.

 

[Marxist]

STG is right in principle but wrong in RL practice.

Angel hits it right on the head. Why wouldn't an artist want his work to be heard?

The artist receives very little to nothing of your purchase of an overpriced album at Sam Goody. Of that $17.99, the artist gets somewhere in the neighborhood of $.08 or less.

In the old days, what the artist was charging you for on vinyl was essentially a preview of a live performance. But something happened with the birth of rock and roll and that's a story of sheer greed by corporations. Records became more important than the private performance. Things are returning to the old ways with internet coming into play. Where the artist has a chance nowadays to make real money and get the bling-bling is once again in the concert arena.

Take for instance my love affair with Jill Sobule. I listened to her in college 9 years ago but I totally forgot about her when she fell into one-hit wonderdom. One day last year someone mentioned "whatever happened to" and I downloaded a bunch of songs from her website. Long story short, I went to a show when she came to town and paid $40 for tickets for me and my girlfriend and $15 for a T-shirt. She probably also got a slice of concession seeing as how it was a small venue.

So to sum up: STG is 100% right. But in the Real World, it's fucking stupid to try and sell something that should be virtually free anyway. Pay for the performance, not the preview.

 

[Texan]

If the artist only makes .08..... or even if it's only .01..... and the artist has not given his/her permission to have their property without paying for the commercial product, .... it's still stealing.

Let me put it another way. If the artist has made a deal with a label to produce and distribute their work. EVEN if the artist doesn't make a red cent, the label then owns the product. Whether the artist cares or not, anyone who steals the product is stealing from the label.

It doesn't make a difference WHO you steal from, it's still stealing.

 

[Azwed]

Earlier this evening, I gave my 17 year-old son a $50. bill when he asked for gas money. He only asked for $10. so I told him to bring me $40. change. Tonight when he got home, I asked for my change. He gave me $25. and said he needed the extra money to buy dinner for himself and a friend.

Very gently, I told him I felt he had stolen $15. from me. He said he knew that if he had asked me, I would have given him the extra money. I replied, "That wasn't the point." He didn't ask first.

He got a little defensive and said, "Well, then just consider it a loan and I'll pay you back."

I said, "It can't be a loan, because you didn't ask to borrow the money."

Obviously, I didn't care about the $15. I cared that my son would learn the definition of "theft." I know he's already 17, but I keep hoping that someday he'll understand.

I have the same hope for people who "steal" music, software or property of any kind. If it doesn't belong to you, and you take it without asking and receiving permission FIRST, ...... it's stealing.

Damn good way to teach a lesson. You seem to be a good father Texan and you kids should turn out great. Just make sure they don't go to A&M.

 

[Draco]

Ok..my slant on it:

Who took Napster to court? It wasn't a comglomeration of Artists concerned witht the theft of their works, was it. NO, it was a big mighty powerful corporation worried about a few Users sharing a file or two. They were losing a few dollars. Big deal. The artist put their hearts and souls and probably a few dollars as well to write, compose, and record that album. What do they get in return? FUCK ALL. The Record Companies take the major cut.
Sure they may pay for the advertising and the production costs, but the trade off is, the artist has to hand control of the work to the Record Company. They have to basically sell their soul to these companies to get the work out there to where you and I can get to listen to it. Thats wrong!!

The artist should be able to control from day one what he wants to do with it. Not what a record exec says. Did the record exec pour blood, sweat & tears into its creation. NO WAY. He probably picked up the phone.

These poor struggling artists have got a huge distrubition point at their finger-tips. THE INTERNET. An artist who cant even get an appointment to see a record exec can suddenly with one upload have millions of potential customers, all the while maintaining control (COMPLETE CONTROL) of the work. Several NZ bands formed a small internet company and debutted a compliation album on the web. They then posted links to where their full albums could be purchased on-line. The result, they sold thousands of albums. And made thousands of dollars while doing it. All the while the major record companies slammed them for this. WHY? Only one reason, they didn't get their "larger than anyone else" slice of the pie. POOR BASTARDS.

I cannot remember the quote verbatim from Bono and The Edge (U2). But it was something like, "If the people download our music from the net, thats fine, at least they are listening to Us!"

Napster is dead and buried and 10 other sprung up to take its place. This will go on and on. If the record companies take down one service, 100 more will start-up. The record companies cannot beat them. They have to find a way to join them. They dont want to do this, coz it means they have to share the wealth.

SD was right. his simple quote. "I will buy the album."
I have found many new artists on Napster and Morpheus. AND BOUGHT THEIR ALBUMS. If it wasn't for Napster or Morph, I would never heard of them. The artist made his living coz someone had the fore-thought to post a song or two.

Just my $14.95 worth.

 

[Draco]

Another thought here.

I look at the file sharing applications like this.

You found a movie tralier on the web. You downloaded it and watched it. You saw what you liked. So you went and stood in the line, payed your cash over and saw the movie.

Would you have gone and seen it if there was no trailer, no billboard on the highway, no adverts on the telly? PROBABLY NOT.

I agree it is theft. But I think the artist would over-look you downloading one of his songs if you purchased his album.

I will continue to use Morpheus to find new music, I will continue to support that artist by then buying his/her album.

People that post full albums are wrong, but to preview then purchase is a win/win situation.

 

[Marxist]

If the artist only makes .08..... or even if it's only .01..... and the artist has not given his/her permission to have their property without paying for the commercial product, .... it's still stealing.

Let me put it another way. If the artist has made a deal with a label to produce and distribute their work. EVEN if the artist doesn't make a red cent, the label then owns the product. Whether the artist cares or not, anyone who steals the product is stealing from the label.

It doesn't make a difference WHO you steal from, it's still stealing.

Other than media and sound quality, what's the difference between taping a song off the radio and downloading it from a file source?

Not much. I have no intent to distribute my radio copy for profit either. And the record companies never had a problem with this. Never. To paint this with the blind stroke of "theft" is shortsighted and smacks of corp. lackey.

 

[Texan]

If the owner of the property decides to post the product for free distrubution...... great.... download the hell out of it.

If a new artist decides to gain an audience with his own music and therefore uploads his own music for free distrubution.... great... I hope it works for him.

If something is taken without permission, it is theft.

Some people want to rationalize or "justify" their theft. Others choose to redefine theft based upon WHO they are stealing from. Some might even say it's ok to steal from the big record company because the record company "stole" the product from the artist. Some people think that if the "amount" being stolen is small compared to the "wealth" of who they stole from, then it's ok. Some people think that if they are not going to "profit" from the theft, then it's ok.

Where do you draw the line between what is right and what is wrong? Does the line change depending upon how much you WANT something, or depending upon what the odds are you won't get caught?

I am not naive, I realize morality changes over time. I know that some things once thought to be morally wrong by "most" people, are now rightfully acceptable. I also recognize that each person establishes for themself a moral code of right and wrong. I also understand that under EXTREME circumstances; like war, survival and self-defense, morality may need to be set aside. I am not the "goody twoshoes" that tattles when anyone else breaks a rule. Nor, am I a right-wing moralist who tries to impose my moral code on everyone else.

It may be possible that someday society will decide that theft is not morally wrong. Maybe, people will also decide that lying is no longer morally wrong when it serves self-interest. From this and several threads lately, it appears we are already not far from that day. What a sad day....

one man's opinion

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Other than media and sound quality, what's the difference between taping a song off the radio and downloading it from a file source?

The diff Marxist is that the radio station is authorized (has permission) to replay that audio, whereas the file source not only doesn't have that permission, but they knowingly are providing stolen property, either for profit or fun.

Moreover, radios rarely play whole albums, and they never play whole albums without permission before the album has been released.

Try to justify it all you want by saying that you are only stealing from some evil big corporation and not the artist, but who do you think paid the artist (the corporation), and who do you think owns the corporation (small shareholders like you and me)?

Such rationalizations smack of what shoplifters say when they get caught, what people say when they defraud insurance companies, what people say when they cheat on their taxes.

However, somewhere inside, they know, deep down, that this is bullshit and they are stealing nonetheless.

 

[modest mouse]

The future:

They have no label, book their own shows, produce their own discs, and do all accompanying business activity.

It helps that they have skill uncommon in music today. Similar to later day Radiohead but not nearly as pretentious and far more funky.

Check 'em out in Mass. or at....

www.themobiusband.com

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I agree it is theft. But I think the artist would over-look you downloading one of his songs if you purchased his album.

I don't have a problem with someone previewing a song by downloading an MP3 of a song or two to see if they would like the album. There the intent is not theft but to get a preview and I have done that myself (that is why I have several Cranberries CDs). A lot of online music selling sources have little snippets of MP3s so people can preview the album they are buying. I also preview a group by listening to them on my Sat. RX and my stereo.

But a lot of people download MP3s in lieu of buying the music, and they listen to the music with no intent of buying the CD, or worse, they buy the CD then convert it to MP3 and upload/share in hopes of also being able to download other music. That is theft.

 

[Marxist]

I guess you guys are right. It is theft if you wanna get technical. It's theft like leaving your friend's $5 bicycle unchained in the Bronx.

 

[Spinaroonie]

SD was right. his simple quote. "I will buy the album."

However, the odds are that I would've bought the album anyways.

I never said it wasn't stealing, I pretty much said it was wrong. However this does allow me to know that it isn't utter crap.

As for what BR say about file sharing was that Napster got greedy. Then F Napster. Kinda ambiguous.

 

[Topher]

I think the question to answer is whether or not intellectual "property" is truly property or not.

I think that if you use someone else's artitistic structure, intellectual arrangement, literary composition (I think you are getting the point that a "Bye, Bye, Bye" is not a physical object in the real world) for profit then you are guilty of theft.

Obtaining a copy of data for personal enjoyment is not theft. The artist had no property that was absconded. "Oops, where did my 'Enter, Sandman' go? Did I misplace it? No, I bet someone STOLE it!" Ludicrous!

The distinction above is a fine one, but it's a valid one I think.

I think it's interesting that the only self-proclaimed artist to speak on the issue here was poo-pooed. As a programmer anything I create from scratch as a utility or diversion I will share freely (granted that it's worthy of being shared - which I highly doubt!

Information wants to be free.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I think the question to answer is whether or not intellectual "property" is truly property or not.

Most legal systems and scholars recognize that intellectual property is indeed property. Also, intellectual property is not just music or conventional art, it can include things like the formula for a drug, your marketing plans, anything that not necessarily physical, but that is proprietary, necessary for your business enterprise, would/could harm you and your enterprise if it is given away to someone else without your permission, and finally, something you sell such as a service or performance.

The fact that music is easily copied does not make it any less valuable.

Obtaining a copy of data for personal enjoyment is not theft.

It is still theft if it is without the permission of the owner of the property, regardless of what you use it for; personal enjoyment or turning around and selling it. If I steal your car, it is still theft if I just take it for a joy ride or if I strip it for parts. That is your property, I took and used it without your permission - that is theft.

I think it's interesting that the only self-proclaimed artist to speak on the issue here was poo-pooed.

I am an artist; I write and create art. I write software, I write prose, I create technical documentation that includes words, diagrams and photos. I also am a photographer, not a very good one yet, but I consider that art.

Much of the art I create as a livelihood; in short I get paid for it. I have a lot of friends and acquaintences who do the same things for their living. When people take our art without our permission they are taking food from the mouths of our families - that is theft.

It doesn't matter whether others give away their art. That is their decision and their right. It is my right to decide when I want to sell my art and when I want to give away my art, and to who - it is not your right or anybody else's right - my right and mine alone.

Nobody is forcing you to use my art, you can always create your own art if you don't want mine. If my art has no value no-one will want it or buy it, if it has value then someone will want it, and then it is property, and taking it without my permission is theft.

 

[Draco]

Napsters biggest mistake was they kept a lot of "illegal" MP3's on a central server which was Napsters property. They got busted with hundreds of thousands of tracks. This made for easier downloading but eventually it tripped them up.

Most File Sharing services user Peer To Peer Sharing, where the files are on their clients HDD and you connect thru a central server to them (the file share server) and then thru to the client on the other side.

No-one can stop it...hell, i can start one now in five minutes with ICQ, Yahoo, MSN etc, you message me, I tell you what i have and then file transfer it to you. I WILL NOT so dont PM Me looking for music.

And the web being what it is, everytime you close one down, ten more replace it. Whether it be Porn, Warez, Keygens, Crackz, MP3's or whatever. The web has given people the power to communicate globally in real-time and cheaply. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

 

[Draco]

Double Up..OOOPs

 

[Topher]

STG>Most legal systems and scholars recognize that intellectual property is indeed property.

It's disingenuous to intimate that the question of intellectual property is a done deal. Decisions are made about it everyday in the courts. Cybersquatting comes to mind. Also, the DMCA and the DeCSS controversy comes to mind. Unfortunately, judgements continually come down against freedom.

Should it illegal to use equipment and software (your own "intellectual property") that you own outright to descramble satellite television encryption?

STG>Also, intellectual property is not just music or conventional art, it can include things like the formula for a drug, your marketing plans, anything that not necessarily physical, but that is proprietary, necessary for your business enterprise, would/could harm you and your enterprise if it is given away to someone else without your permission, and finally, something you sell such as a service or performance

and also things like the series of characters "http://www.microsoftsucksdonkeydicks.com",
and gene sequences. Just about anything someone could put a price on yeah?