<p>Just curious: Any 4-year-old knows what the word “stealing” means. How would you define it?</p>
<p>FOR THE TENTH TIME:</p>
<p>Arguing over the morality of filesharing is an utter waste of time. People will share files, whether or not you agree. Spend your time trying to solve the problem so that the artists get compensation while still accepting the reality that people will download. </p>
<p>Some musicians have already figured this out. Nine Inch Nails makes all of their music available online, and some of their albums are free. You can pay for higher quality tracks, and some of the physical CDs come with bonuses. Most musicians make more money off of concert tickets and merchandise anyway. NIN and other bands have realized this, and that’s why they’re at the forefront.</p>
<p>I don’t consider a discussion of right vs wrong to be a waste of time. </p>
<p>All I’m saying is this: It seems that many folks do not understand that taking something that doesn’t belong to them is wrong, no matter how many ways they rationalize it – or else they don’t care, which is worse. I really don’t care if you all illegally take music; go for it. I completely understand that when people can easily get something without paying for it, most will. Just don’t try to convince me that it’s OK.</p>
<p>there really is nothing to discuss further about ethics. people will continue to pirate. and others will continue to pay for the stuff. no one is going to change anyone’s mind. it’s a situation where you can just agree to disagree. at the end of the day the problem isn’t the morality of those piraters. the problem is that the riaa/mpaa haven’t adapted to the emerging technologies to create a sustainable business model.</p>
<p>sorry dude but i think that it is interesting to talk about</p>
<p>a lot of pirateers feel that they are entitled to free media. it is funny listening to them preach about probably the most minor injustice (if you could call it that) in the world. it is hilarious, i think.</p>
<p>if you know what’s going to be said, what makes it interesting? it’s like trying to convince a religious person there is no God/gods out there. or vice versa. you know what’s going to happen. no one is going to change their minds. 15 pages and not a single person has changed their mind about the ethics being pirating.</p>
<p>
The most minor injustice? Cultural suppression is not a minor injustice.</p>
<p>What you see is the strict business structure that ignores the culture of music and thus cannot understand the market of music. And you support it because despite its glaring faults, it is backed by the law.</p>
<p>Indeed, I think that arguing over piracy is an exercise in tedium on this forum. Clearly, we are all unwilling to budge our stances on the subject, and it’s easy to see why. I have developed a stance over years of being involved in the realm of underground music where pirates are aplenty and where these pirates are also the most dedicated music customers. I would wager that your stance is as a result of your exposure and your backlash towards the group of selfish pirates who direct their anger towards the RIAA in order to revert attention away from their own greediness and unwillingness to support their favorite artists.</p>
<p>I once faced cynicism towards this latter group of pirates until I myself became submerged in the world of the underground pirate. It truly is an unprecedented, cooperative experience shared with both artists and fellow listeners. </p>
<p>Before I stop posting in this thread, I would like to establish my final points:</p>
<p>1) There are at least two distinct demographics of pirates.
2) If the RIAA continues its efforts and against reasonable efforts it manages to succeed, they will not manage to salvage the former state of the music industry. The core of the music industry will, from now on, be based on singles from iTunes, Amazon, etc. Even the most naive customers are informed enough to recognize that mainstream music has little to offer besides singles and will not shell out $15 for albums like they used to. And I personally am indifferent to this fact; the RIAA has had it coming nearly since its inception.
3) The one effect I do care about is that the RIAA will take the underground music world down with itself. Consider that the bottom 75% of music artists in terms of profit benefit from piracy ([P2P</a>, Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry](<a href=“http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/p2p_summary.html]P2P”>http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/p2p_summary.html)). Without the benefits of exposure from some form of file-sharing, these bands will likely regress towards obscurity.
4) Piracy is not a solution either. It is an honors system that can and will be abused by plenty of dishonest pirates. The future could lie in Spotify; it also might not. But it is clear that neither the RIAA’s “solution” (destruction) or legalization of piracy are viable options.
5) Piracy is moral if pirates give back to artists. Plain and simple. Frankly, I’m not sure how this entitlement to free media is considered a bad thing as long as it isn’t abused (of course, it still will be abused by the wrong people). It is how music sells.
6) I stand defiantly by my stance not because I am a greedy listener trying to avoid paying for my music, nor is it because I truly believe piracy will someday serve as the music industry’s renaissance. I stand defiantly behind my stance because if the RIAA has its way, the underground music world, the one place where money doesn’t sway the dignity and the quality of art, will languish and suffer. And as someone who identifies himself closely to this culture, it is in some ways personal to me. And until a reasonable solution is reached, piracy is the only viable way for underground music to survive.</p>
<p>The RIAA’s solution hurts what the RIAA doesn’t care about: the underground culture that is so close to me and millions of music fans worldwide. And that is why I will continue to support piracy until a universal solution is reached.</p>
<p>I changed my mind- it seems alright tome to pirate for “demo” purposes.</p>
<p>Well, monstor, I think we can all agree on this: the traditional business model simply doesn’t work with the current state of technology. Yes, the industry needs to adapt so that artists get paid for their work AND music is abundantly available for fans.</p>
<p>I’m just curious as to how downloading a song off the internet is any different than borrowing a CD from a friend and burning it to your computer.</p>
<p>“I’m just curious as to how downloading a song off the internet is any different than borrowing a CD from a friend and burning it to your computer.”</p>
<p>That’s a fair point. I know I’ve borrowed and have let others borrow CDs.</p>
<p>I don’t see any problem with buring mix CD’s for friends. My friends and I do it all the time as gifts. Usually we try to exchange music that isn’t necessarily popular, and thus we expand our musical horizons by listening to artists that we would not normally listen to. Sometimes when I hear a song I really like on one of these burned CD’s I’ll look up the artist and buy more songs by them.</p>
<p>Regarding the case of this BU student, regardless of your morals when it comes to piracy I think we can all agree that $650K in damages is insane. The RIAA, in my opinion, relinquished any moral authority they had over pirates by basically ruining this young man’s life over 30 songs.</p>
<p>Just thought of something…
Anyone ever record a song off the radio?</p>
<p>
I did that years ago.</p>
<p>No matter what you think the morals of today’s youth is drastically corrupt. When you download a song you are reaching into many peoples pockets taking away their ability to do what they are working for. Whether it be having health care or feeding their families. If the Artist does not want you to have the music for free, then you are simply a thief. No different than somebody who steals a ladies purse and the outcome of your actions are no less harsh. </p>
<p>As for people comparing burning a mix cd vs borrowing a CD. The problem comes up when no friend has the actual CD to borrow. You can claim that you would have been able to just borrow the CD, but do you really know somebody with all legit CD’s. I doubt it. Also when you borrow a CS you can listen to it, but copying it is illegal. </p>
<p>No matter how you see it, if you steal a song online you are a theif. You are in the same class as everybody in jail who is a thief. As for peoples ethics, their is right and wrong. Stealing a song or a car has no real difference. You still felt you deserved something you didn’t buy.</p>
<p>Its not really stealing since the person you got it from still has a copy… The artist has already received enough compensation and are just being greedy. This is just the same as sharing CDs, but just a more efficient way. It’s not stealing, it’s just sharing. </p>
<p>So to the guy above, you are mean for hating against sharers. I am a nice person and will share stuff unlike you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Im pretty sure thats considered stealing, by law. Listening it on your friends car is not stealing the music, but making a copy of it and distributing it is considered theft. The law speaks for itself on what is considered theft.</p>
<p>
…
This isn’t true.</p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 10](<a href=“Chapter 10 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office”>Chapter 10 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office)</p>
<p>Those laws changed under the DMCA,</p>
<p>DMCA only matters if the medium is copy-protected (encryption). This is the case with DVD’s but not CD’s.</p>