Boston U student may owe $4.5 million for 30 downloads

College Life
181

<p>

Perhaps you’ve been ignoring the existing solutions I’ve already mentioned, and perhaps you’ve ignored the limitations of radio, MTV, and yes, even internet radio. And perhaps you’ve even been ignoring my points that outright legalizing piracy is not a reasonable solution. But from what I can tell, you’ve been implying throughout the course of this thread that all forms of illegal downloading are unjust, and that the RIAA has the right to arbitrarily charge people for piracy. Furthermore, you seem to be sympathizing with the RIAA’s efforts to resist the last 20 years of technology and its belief that the music industry can be restored to its pre-internet stage.</p>

<p>Let’s look at the RIAA’s rights over charging its own pricing. Consider this analogy: I record a sound of myself farting into a microphone, upload the file to my computer, and offer the audio clip for sale, for 99 cents. Someone purchases the audio clip, and I catch him trying to spread the audio clip without my permission.</p>

<p>Do I have the right to go to court and sue that man for $150 million dollars because theoretically he could have given away that audio clip 150 million times?</p>

<p>I’ve been elaborating on my other two points throughout the course of this thread. Can the music industry thrive despite the prominence of illegal downloading? No. But are there honest uses of illegal downloading? Yes. And these instances of moral (yes, moral) illegal downloading should be used and is currently being used as the first steps towards a functioning music industry where music can be reasonably evaluated before its purchase, as I’ve said before, through software like Spotify. And yet you, along with the RIAA, seem indignant towards this idea that the music industry should evolve towards this idea.</p>

<p>And here, let me say this outright: if pirates do not receive a viable, effective, and flexible alternative, they will continue to pirate. Stridently enforcing weak laws will only serve to further the gap between the solution and the current state of music.</p>

182

<p>

</p>

<p>And if this happened reliably and consistently, banks would be idiotic to be angry when it happens. They make more money. I agree, the idea is unsupported except by anecdotes, but a study could be done. I personally know that without CD’s from the library, and a lont of music pulled from my friend’s music collections, I wouldn’t have spent anywhere near the amount of money I have on music.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps you misunderstood me. I said that the Pirates think that they are the new civil disobedients, not that they deserve to be. It may be disrespectful to Drs. Gandhi and King, but I personally know people who pay for music that they can easily download for free and pirate music with tons of DRM on pure principle. They view it as a great social cause.</p>

183

<p>Other points that I think must be made: </p>

<ul>
<li><p>It really does take years for music tastes to involve. It’s not like you wake up one day and say to yourself, “I want to listen to avant-garde metal,” and a few days later your favorite bands are Sigh and Sleepytime Gorilla Museum. Perhaps I am using my personal insight here, but I’m sure this is true for anyone with a serious taste in music.</p></li>
<li><p>Another reason why the RIAA is being illogical: they are making a-holes of themselves. I think the biggest obstacle I face when purchasing music is knowing that I’m directly supporting the music industry, and despite the fact that they deserve monetary compensation in principle, they’re doing a lot of things that I’d awfully hate to fund. They really are shooting themselves in the foot in every way imaginable except, perhaps, in the literal sense. :)</p></li>
<li><p>I’m not even arguing because I’m worried about being caught. I am not at the point where I’m downloading Guns and Roses, Smashing Pumpkins, and other groups the RIAA actually cares about. And the software that I use is pretty obscure to the RIAA anyways. I’m arguing because I worry that with a nation unwilling to explore beyond the accessible scope of music, the strength of underground music will stagnate.</p></li>
</ul>

184

<p>I’m just using Pandora for now, lots of crackdowns on piracy ATM.</p>

185

<p>Many unsigned or self producing bands post plenty of free music you are free to legally download. That’s fine and a good use of the internet.<br>
The problem with posting and downloading music from an illegal site is that it is not the fair use of making one copy for personal use or even one friend. It’s a process that allows for unlimited copies to be made by unlimited numbers of people those stealing income that is due the artist and his record company. Record companies never had a beef when you made a tape or CD from your or a friend’s CD or record or whatever form. They get cranky when thousands download thosands of copywrited songs.</p>

186

<p>

And herein lies another huge problem with intellectual property: it’s near impossible to hold such black and white values on what is priced and what is free. You cannot limit a song to one threshold or the other because it is not a physical product; most artists even recognize this. Even relatively big-name artists signed on major labels will share songs from their upcoming album on MySpace for free listen. And despite essentially offering their music available for free on the internet, these artists are still able to achieve career-high record sales.</p>

<p>And how can you determine stolen income? The RIAA seems happy deeming every download a lost sale, which is of course ridiculous because 1) Many pirates download music they would never even explore legally otherwise, and 2) Many pirates go on to purchase the same material that they downloaded.</p>

187

<p>Before I go through the responses, I’d like to say this:</p>

<p>1) I am not arguing in support for the RIAA’s current model. For practical reasons, they should change it. This is very obvious. Cool it down anti-RIAA crusaders.</p>

<p>2) Does anyone in this thread think that pirating is a moral action? I’d like to see someone defend this. Every time I ask this no one answers it directly. This notion is really what I am arguing against.</p>

<p>edit: Here’s the first.

</p>

<p>This just sounds like someone spoiled by the convenience of piracy. Why are you entitled to this? If you have a case, please explain it.</p>

<p>3) Could someone explain to me why piracy is necessary for lesser-known artists to receive recognition for their work? You can always go to shows and buy music from smaller record labels . . . it may be less convenient than downloading copyrighted music for free, but at least it isn’t questionably ethical.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But they aren’t doing that. If you are an artist, you are able to write, perform, and distribute your music for free. The RIAA doesn’t ban creative expression. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well a news article referencing a study was posted in this thread, but I can’t find the original text. Does someone know where it is? I’d like to read it. I find its results hard to believe. </p>

<p>One way you could interpret the conclusion is that music fans flock to piracy because it is cheap and convenient, but that’s not the interpretation I think you’d all like.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah I did.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah this is hard to do, but I think that both sides use the extreme estimates to support their cases.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Uhh I’m no financial whiz, but things like bonds aren’t exactly physical products and they manage to be priced, financial crash notwithstanding.</p>

188

<p>I have yet to read your entire post, but I will gladly argue your main point.

Pirating is a moral action when used with the right intentions. If the intention is to develop a taste in music and later on show appreciation through purchases, then it is moral. I’ve mentioned multiple times that pirates spend much more (10x more) on music than non-pirates; I’d be glad to support that claim through studies.</p>

<p>And I’ll reiterate that piracy without the intention of compensation is immoral and unlawful if 1) That artist expects compensation for the work, and 2) The pirated works are deemed worthy of purchase. The second circumstance is obviously the flaw with the whole piracy system because it is completely based on integrity, which is why I, once again, do not believe piracy is the solution. But there are legitimate, moral uses of piracy.</p>

189

<p>

I hate to get a little personal, but what are your tastes in music? I myself find it obvious why file-sharing at the moment is essential for a development of music taste. I’ll quote myself from a former post:

</p>

<p>You aren’t exposed to underground music, and so there are no immediate reasons why one would blindly purchase an album that they might end up despising or attend a concert (especially since concerts can be quite expensive) for a group they might end up disliking. The trial and error refinement of music taste cannot practically occur through this process; it is too expensive and it goes against yet another principle, this time just of trade itself: a consumer should want a product before paying for it.</p>

<p>Music isn’t intended to be a privilege for the wealthy. If that was the case, underground forms of music would be restricted to the upper class in the way food products such as caviar are.</p>

190

<p>

Creative expression derives from influence. If the RIAA was able to restrict music itself to mainstream, accessible genres, there would be no way for true creative expression to develop.</p>

<p>I suggest you take a look at this article:
[Less</a> popular artists profit from filesharing | TorrentFreak](<a href=“http://torrentfreak.com/less-popular-artists-profit-from-filesharing/]Less”>Less popular artists profit from filesharing * TorrentFreak)
To get an idea of the RIAA’s tacit campaign to restrict music variety.</p>

191

<p>[Study:</a> pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right - Ars Technica](<a href=“Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right | Ars Technica”>Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right | Ars Technica)</p>

<p>This article corroborates two points: 1) The RIAA is futilely trying to revert back to its pre-internet standards, and 2) Many pirates are passionate about music and aren’t simply looking to avoid paying for music.</p>

192

<p>

</p>

<p>I get the feeling that if I don’t say the right thing, I’ll get laughed out of the thread.</p>

<p>I’m not the hugest music fan and don’t really follow current artists that much. I mostly like rock music. I feel a little stupid name-dropping bands but I have music by Talking Heads, Pavement, Wilco, Cardiacs, the National and King Crimson.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I can’t find too much to object to with that, but it could be said that the 10x figure in that study is just evidence of music fans flocking to piracy. It may not be the case that piracy itself creates that 10x multiplier.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This isn’t much of a rebuttal. You don’t have to consume their media! </p>

<p>Making your product accessible is something you have to do if you want to make a lot of money!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is just complaining about an inconvenience. There is no right to free and convenient listening to any song you’d like.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The linked essay looks like it could be good. The article is a lot of speculation.</p>

193

<p>

On the contrary, I highly respect your taste in music (King Crimson is up there amongst my favorite bands) and find it interesting to see the point of view of one with a developed music taste who does not support piracy, although the artists you listen to are sort of in that niche of accessible but great, if you know what I mean.</p>

<p>

But music fans often become music fans because of piracy. I know your own situation may be viewed as somewhat of an exception, but the vast majority of the time, without using resources beyond what’s easily available (MTV and the radio), people will tend to explore little, if at all, beyond what’s popular.</p>

194

<p>

</p>

<p>I was waiting for someone to bring up this ridiculous idea.</p>

<p>For those of you who didn’t pay attention in history, the whole POINT of civil disobedience is TO GET ARRESTED – as publicly as possible – to call attention to unjust laws. King and Gandhi had the courage of their convictions, and were willing to pay a heavy personal price to bring about needed change. How many of the Pirates have the guts to do the same? So far, zero.</p>

<p>Trying to make a moral equivalence between the struggle for justice and rights on the one hand, and ripping off music on the other, would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. But then, I doubt that anyone here really believes it. So just admit it – you’re indulging a selfish impulse; you’ve found a low-risk way to get music without paying for it. But please, don’t insult the memory of martyrs by invoking the noble tradition of REAL civil disobedience to justify petty thievery.</p>

195

<p>

I agreed with the rest of your post for the most part (this isn’t an issue that warrants civil disobedience) but this line got to me mostly because I’ve been arguing over the last 2-3 pages how there are many honest music pirates who end up becoming the music industry’s most dedicated consumers. Not everyone who is for illegal downloading is simply looking for a way to avoid paying for music.</p>

196

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not the one that you need to get mad at. I largely don’t pirate my music.</p>

<p>However, there is a large section of the country, especially the youth that, while they may have a somewhat flawed idea of what civil disobedience is, view it as a moral cause. Anyone who reads XKCD should be very familiar with this concept. See [This</a> Series](<a href=“http://xkcd.com/341/]This”>xkcd: 1337: Part 1) as well as the comics [url=<a href=“http://xkcd.com/546/]here[/url”>xkcd: Music DRM]here[/url</a>] [url=<a href=“http://xkcd.com/511/]here[/url”>xkcd: Sleet]here[/url</a>] [url=<a href=“http://xkcd.com/488/]here[/url”>xkcd: Steal This Comic]here[/url</a>] and [url=<a href=“http://xkcd.com/129/]here[/url”>xkcd: Content Protection]here[/url</a>].</p>

<p>I’m not making the argument that this is an absolutely moral act, nor am I defending the pirates, except in the broadest terms. The fact is though, that people view it as a moral act, and this can only serve to spur them on to doing it more, and for this group, the only thing that could make them stop is if the RIAA stop appearing to them as the ‘bad guys’.</p>

197

<p>

Indeed, it seems the RIAA is intent on appearing as malicious as possible, something which I fail to understand. By intimidating the consumers themselves, how can they expect these same consumers to continue to fund them?</p>

198

<p>lordofnarf, I’m not mad at you. :)</p>

199

<p>Forgive me if I’m starting up something that might be completely dead now, but I read the entire thread (because I’m lame and can’t sleep) and I’m just curious: do you guys who support music piracy also support downloading programs/software/applicatons (things like Antivirus software, Windows XP, Photoshop etc.) through the same means, or is it a different ball game?</p>

200

<p>To me, that’s the same thing. Copyright infringement.</p>

<p>If anything, it’s better. There’s no way in hell 50% of the users of Photoshop would ever pay for it, but they do use it. I consider it a necessary install on all of my computers, and I always download it. Same with Office 2007. How can you not have Office! It’s just necessary.</p>

<p>(And nobody better reply telling me to use free alternatives like Gimp or OpenOffice. It’s a matter of true 100% compatibility and featuresets that I need. It’s called an alternative for a reason, which means it tries to live up to the real thing, but always fails.)</p>