They will always leave rather than show any proof of their claims.
Turn tail.
Run away.

Anyways, Freedom of information YES. Theft NO.

-It costs nothing, so I don’t need a credit card (I’m too young to be given one anyway) or worry about identity theft or scam artists stealing my shit with online transactions.
-It is fast – I can download what I want in a matter of minutes or hours (better than going to a store or ordering a CD through mail)
-It has an amazing selection and is incredibly convenient – I can get literally anything I can think of (even if it isn’t available for purchase) while sitting at my desk at home at any hour of the night.

If downloading is a big problem to big media, then it’s because the big media are shitty businessmen. It’s their own fault if their business isn’t as cost-effective, secure, fast, nor convenient as downloading. They had a monopoly and they blew it. Even if their business became competitive with downloading, their selection would still be far more limited (you couldn’t even get Beatles or Metallica on iTunes until recently – good job, guys!).

Sorry big media, but I get infinitely better service through unauthorized means than through your old “traditional” services. If you don’t like that, then improve your service or fuck off. It’s actually far easier to get free pirated shit than to buy your legitimate media, and that isn’t my fault.

And with any othe product, if you feel ripped off, you can get your money back … except from the movie and music industry.

Give us back our ability to return cd’s and dvd’s
Get rid of DRM
Bring digital download pricing into reality.

Then yes, you will be able to compete with free, as AllofMp3 does.

As for the Beatles I was not arguing that they were a success story but rather that they were so popular and the music industry had reaped their benefits for so long that their music should become public domain. Why continue charging for music in new formats, when a savvy consumer could simply upgrade their already legally purchased music to a digital format. It is unfair that music is the only thing that is policed in this manner. I am aloud to use my broom to sweep inside my house as well as my driveway, why can’t I listen to my music in my CD player and on my iPod?

As for iTunes being reasonable I respectfully disagree. To have music in a digital format has a a negligible maintenance cost so essentially 100% of the amount paid can be used to pay employees and artists. I have roughly 12000 songs and if I were to pay $1 for each one of those…..well I wouldn’t have been able too. Am I really expected to make the choice between eating and paying rent and being able to listen to the music I enjoy. Not to mention iTunes may have a reasonable library but it falls far short of being comprehensive when it comes down to Electronic music, only having the most popular icons. Where as torrent sites are done by the average user who will dig out these songs and artists and make them available for everyone to listen too.

A perfect example of this are the Prodigy who have countless hundreds of bootlegged concerts that are downloadable but unbuyable other then in sleazy record shops. The only person who benefits from these bootlegs are the fans AKA the consumer. Is downloading bootlegged concerts piracy? I don’t know but I’m interested in your opinion on that one.

Granted I haven’t listened to all of those songs but then I haven’t gained the “experience” of them either so I shouldn’t have to pay for them, unfortunately when I buy a CD I still don’t listen to all of the songs yet I have to pay for all of them (and yes I know you can download individual songs on iTunes but I’m referring specifically to CD’s). When you go and buy a album to support a band and there is only one or two good songs on there as a consumer you feel like your being ripped off, so downloading it seems almost to obvious a solution.

Riiiight I said exactly that. cool

Try reading the studies.

If you can read.

It’s most fascinating what you WON’T adress.

As for the translation,
It was a quick link to the google translation of the .pdf file.

I generally won’t link directly to large .PDF files, that’s sort of rude to the unsuspecting.

As for ‘evolving’ language .. the terms ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ have not evolved so much
that they are interchangeable in a court of law. To use them interchangeably with
copyright infringement is deliberately misleading and intellectually dishonest, very
close to propogandizing.

Google Oberholzer Strumpf for the link to the .pdf of their statistical study of the effects of
P2P .. the study my opponent won’t address.

” Alas, I’m leaving work for the day, and wont visit this site ever again. ”

buh bye.

” My only ONLY wish here is to make sure you have no illusions. ”

your .. concern .. is noted.

” Someone is losing out, and it wouldn’t appear to be you. ”
That might be if you assume that I am a downloader, and not a boycotter.
An incorrect assumption.
You make a lot of them about me, and other folks who come here.

” But the art of our culture deserves financial support and recognition. ”

on THAT we at least agree.
The labels are not the only way anymore, it’s time they deal
with that fairly instead of using the piracy smokescreen to close
off all of the doors the non-affiliated could potentially use to compete
with them … that’s really what this is about.

and no .. its not the end at all.

I can prove it! If I see a ripped-off movie on someone’s PC/TV than I DO NOT go see it a theater, rent it, or buy it!
But I don’t feel guilty because you have told us that theft through torrents is legal. COOL!

Don’t ever say “ever”.

Never cite Wikipedia if you ever wish to maintain the high ground in a debate requiring definitions. The english language evolves over time. Deal with the fact that definitions change. I could track down a bunch of outdated references as well if you really insist.

“Not really, in fact, not at all.
If RIAA sales are to be noted, it appears the RIAA labels are the ones that have earned the ire of citizens,
and their sales show it.”

Visit a site that doesn’t exclusively cater to people highly involved in p2p networks.

As I said before, music and movies are consumed immediately. You EXPERIENCE them. You can not return such a product. Why is it you’re willing to argue that it’s not theft because it’s not a physical item, and in your world theft can only involve physical objects, yet you want to be able to return said non-existent item something for a refund?

You hilariously say that the old definitions of theft are no longer relevant, yet then assume that the ability to return a product (which is directly related to your physical purchase) should still work.

Both of these needs can not be met and you’re selfishly arguing for change only on the side that benefits you.

I am not surprized.

You’ve only gained hours of enjoyment over the course of your life through digesting entertainment products people worked hard for. Why should you have to pay for that?

Next you’ll tell me that you have a ‘right’ to free information (read:music).

Alas, I’m leaving work for the day, and wont visit this site ever again. I’m glad that you’re civil. My only ONLY wish here is to make sure you have no illusions. You are consuming a good that is not paid for. Someone is losing out, and it wouldn’t appear to be you.
I agree, record execs are crooks. But the art of our culture deserves financial support and recognition.
End. Of. Story.

They certainly have students.
I am just as certain that they share files ( copyrighted and not ).

Why the RIAA avoids them is .. strange.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.15/09-filesharing.html

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:XNnTSaCFn4sJ:www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf+oberholzer+strumpf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en

A good start.

The lie oft repeated will never be true.

No matter how often this lie is repated it is still no true.

This is Piracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

It refers to theft of actual physical property, commoted on the ‘High Seas’
Piracy IS theft.

Downloading music under a creative Commons license is perfectly legal.
Downloading Copyrighted music without the owners permission ‘MAY’ be copyright infringement,
and copyright infringement is not Theft.
This is not sophistry.
If it was, the RIAA lawyers would be calling it theft directly .. IN A COURT OF LAW.
They are not.
They were specifically prohibited from calling if theft during the Grokster debacle.
Theft can only take place when someone is deprived of physical property.

Interestingly .. even in court .. the RIAA is still avoiding the issue of downloading as infringement,
going after students with shared folders and claiming that the mere existence of those files in
a shared folder is infringing, even though no downloading can be proven.
They had admitted, in court briefs that they CANNOT DEFINITIVELY PROVE downloading.
That is the manifest erro of law discussed right no in the Jammie Thomas trial.

Calling downloading ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ is merely your opinion, and so far, that opinion has NOT
been validated in any court of law.

” Claiming that by illegally downloading someone else’s work for free is somehow forcing the industry to change is delusional. ”

That’s why so many of us support boycotting.
Don’t download, don’t buy it.
If you must have it, buy it second hand.
If that someone WANTS it to be downloaded and licenses it as CC, that’s perfectly legal.
If the RIAA thinks that they will eliminate the copying of their stuff comepletely, it is
THEY that are delusional.
Even if they somehow manage to wipe P2P entirely off the face of the net, there will always
be a way to copy it.

Always.

Someone will ALWAYS find a way to get it passed around for free.

Always.

” And make no mistake, I’m not above downloading a track here or there. But to me the arguments of “make it cheap”, and “make it legal” is already being accomplished. ”

It certainly is.
AllofMP3 ( now under a different name ) is STILL making money, selling RIAA stuff for much cheaper than 1.00 a track,
competing EASILY with free, and STILL, as it always did, paying royalties to the russian versions of the label
collective society.
Why the RIAA hates them so ??

They are competition.
They won’t bow to an outdated 1 dollar or more per track model.
They won’t be ‘controlled’

The labels HATE competition that they can’t control.
So whether someone ‘ agrees with the cost or not ‘ is not ‘irrelevant’ .
It’s the only relevant thing here.

” Software, music, and movie pirates have only earned the ire of regular citizens. ”

Not really, in fact, not at all.
If RIAA sales are to be noted, it appears the RIAA labels are the ones that have earned the ire of citizens,
and their sales show it.

and NOT because of downloading, which , again, has been proven to have ZERO effect on sales.

Because ANY business that sues those that cannot fight back as an enforcement tool, or business model
can EXPECT dire consumer backlash.

No RIAA propoganda can whitewash that away without outright lying.

Promoting a criminal act on the high seas IS wrong.
Most of us here don’t ‘promote’ copyright infringement either.
We promote a boycott.

One more thing …

” That doesn’t mean you get to decide after consuming it if you should have to pay. ”

This is a proper expectation for ANYTHING ELSE on the consumre market that we buy.
If we don’t like it, we have a right to return ANYTHING ELSE for a full refund within a
certain reasonable period of time.
In most areas, this is NOT GRANTED when it comes to DVD’s and CD’s.
You can only return a CD or DVD due to physical defect, and not for a refund,
but an undamaged copy of the same thing.

So if you buy a CD , find it really only has one good song, and the rest are crap,
you’re stuck.
In this respect downloading has been a consumer equalizer.
It is no more right or wrong than taking away your right to return something
that did not live up to your expectations.

Want infringement to diminish ?
Charge what people want to pay ( allofmp3 )
Eliminate DRM
Give us BACK our right to return garbage.

That’s a start.

It’s working.

relying on the “it’s not a physical object” argument firmly places you in the “I don’t know what he hell I’m talking about” camp.

Clearly you have no concept about the creative process or the work that comes out of it. When purchasing music, or a ticket to the theatre you are not paying for a physical object. You are paying for the EXPERIENCE. So, there is no way to STEAL a physical experience from someone that is selling it to you. But you are suggesting it is fair that as a consumer you GAIN the EXPERIENCE without paying for it.

Do you also consider it acceptable to sneak into the opera without paying so long as there may be a seat available, even a crappy one way at the back?

“Using ‘Stealing from artists’ and kiddie porn scares enable them to create ways of
shutting down the last true place of totally free information flow.”

Did your pirated copy of Hackers just finish downloading? Do not attempt to say that your piracy of entertainment goods has any correlation to an idealistic desire for ‘information to be free’. Unless of course, you believe the aforementioned Indiana Jones film is a work of influential academic discourse.

Finally, I will again point out that am simply an informed individual with a combination of real world experience working with artists as well as an actual academic background in Intellectual Property and Copyright. I know you only made a cursory attempt at illustrating “statistics”, and I think the RIAA is certainly hardpressed to prove that piracy has led to the destruction of the industry, as the rise of Napster in the late 90’s corresponded to several great years for the Record Industry. That being said, you’re running around trying to find logical fallacies in my part time rantings like someone that just finished grade eleven english class. But I am curious as to whether you can point me in the direction of ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate how many lost sales occur due to piracy. I have a feeling you haven’t even read any such statistics, because the following statement demonstrates you don’t know what statistics are:

” The latest hollywood blockbuster .. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls … Broke box office records for
revenues.
Once again .. just what exactly did downloading do ?
Nothing.
An effect statistically equal to zero.”

The fact that it was able to do well at the box office does not mean that piracy had no detrimental effect. It simply means that the movie was successful in the face of any and all obstacles. YOUR statement, is the logical fallacy here.

ain’t it intereting how these ^^^ people never say who they are?
———-

Says the guy posting under the oh so specific “Reader” screen name.
How thick is the irony where you come from?

At the person actually responding to my comments, your example of the stuff on sale from Amazon by Scooter is well taken. I’ll point out now that I’m completely aware of stuff like that as a spent a lot of time working in the retail end of the music business while in school. Some stuff is disproportionately priced. But, the retail music industry has a weird sort of supply and demand issue. New stuff is cheap. Old stuff is expensive. Because new product is easy to order and there is a lot of it. Older stock, isn’t held in-store or even in warehouses in some cases, as such it costs much more.

Using bands like the Beatles as your example of how the music industry works is more than a little false. Yes, THEY have gotten rich. Most musicians, even extremely successful ones generally don’t. Many people who support piracy will argue that the artists get very little from record sales. This is definitely true. If you really want to support an artist, then go to their shows. See them live. That’s where they get the most return for their effort.

And make no mistake, I’m not above downloading a track here or there. But to me the arguments of “make it cheap”, and “make it legal” is already being accomplished. $1 per track on iTunes is extremely fair. If you download music, and get ANY sort of enjoyment out of it at all, yet still do not feel the need to reward the person that put effort into creating that piece of work, then you are stealing. Plain and simple.

Don’t give me that “Oh I didn’t really like it so it’s not worth it” crap. All art is a qualitative experience. That doesn’t mean you get to decide after consuming it if you should have to pay. Imagine if your boss got to decide whether to pay you after accepting the paperwork you’ve been doing all day and he got to keep the rewards of your effort whether he paid you or not.

Whether you agree with the cost or not, is largely irrelevant. Downloading music is piracy, and piracy is theft.
Claiming that by illegally downloading someone else’s work for free is somehow forcing the industry to change is delusional.
Software, music, and movie pirates have only earned the ire of regular citizens. They think you’re as self-serving and arrogant as the executives running the RIAA and MPAA. Have no illusions. The RIAA and MPAA are terrible organizations, but promoting piracy is wrong.

As pointed out,

The latest hollywood blockbuster .. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls … Broke box office records for
revenues.

Once again .. just what exactly did downloading do ?
Nothing.

An effect statistically equal to zero.

” So you’re saying that by denying you from freely downloading the latest pop song, the elites of society are attempting to make you a slave? ”

No,

But since the effect of downloading is actulally zero, and the industry knows this to be a fact, it is a
reasonable possibility that the constant screaming of ‘theft’ is being used as a smokescreen to
create what corporate america is really after.

Internet censorship and control.
Just look at how many times the internet has shined light on corporate and political
cockroaches this year alone.

Using ‘Stealing from artists’ and kiddie porn scares enable them to create ways of
shutting down the last true place of totally free information flow.
Guess what, it appears that you are part of it.

” And here, you’re trying to insinuate that everything that doesn’t require a physical package should simply be free?

Why stop there? I think all cars and oil should be free. Transportation should be a right as limiting an individuals ability to travel based solely upon their wealth will limit said individual from “becoming their full potential as human beings.”

Once again the same fallacy.
Taking an object from someone deprives the owner the use of that.
Comparing this to physical objects is, as usual baloney.

Once again, it has been repeatedly shown statistically that downloading has ZERO effect.
No one has lost anything, no one has stolen anything, and it can never bee proven
that a download equals a lost sale .. ever.
This is just a differently worded trip down that same tired old road, and is still meaningless.

” Make no mistake. I do NOT support the RIAA or the MPAA, ”

Stop lying.

” perhaps your bosses should simply not pay you for all the time you spend working away in your cubicles. They’re not taking anything from you. You probably only spent a whole 5 minutes on those TPS reports and you even forgot the cover-page. ”

Funny you should mention that.
With an RIAA contract, that 5 minutes of work that the artist spends on those lyrics ?
Well that belongs to the label.
The labels actually DO take ownership of your work.
Then, as you have seen, the artist simply can’t be found so they can be paid .. funny eh ?
I believe THAT is stealing .. actually.

Other than that, your argument once again does not really compare to the situation and is simply
more fallacy.

Someone IS blindly following someone allright.

I DON’T think it’s me.