The end of File Sharing ?!

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by livi

To many people, far more than you would expect, I am afraid the level of morality is proportional to the risk of getting caught.

It's kinda like interwebs rudeness. How many people who, for instance, downloaded "Joshua Tree" for free would walk up to Bono and say, "hey man, just got your album off a sharing site for free, cool, eh?"

Anonymity increases boldness.

[john70t]

Isn't it true that the artist only makes about 1.5-3% of CD sales?
The only money the artists get is through touring(after Ticketmaster gets through with the ticket sales).
How come we don't hear in the media bout the artists who work their butt off, and end up with nothing?


The decisions of monolithic/monopolistic CEO's to spend millions trying to promote 50cent's "smack that azz" during Wimbledon has nothing to do with the multitude of downloading teenagers(who couldn't afford to buy it anyway).

The fact is their bonus pay by itself just layed off another 5,000 workers.

[speedracing944]

I like Netflix model of a monthly fee to have movies mailed to you or have instant downloads on your PC or Mac. I think it is like $10 a month and I can watch many movies right now. Theater releases, now that is a different story.

Speedy

[imcarthur]

Bear in mind that Netflix is a US company. ROW results may vary . . .

I only d/l Top Gear via torrents. So I guess that means I am a thief. I might be able to get TG here via a sat or some $$s cable package that I don't need or want. I never steal movies or music. We rent physical DVDs at the rate of 2 per week for our projector movie nights.

I pay for my music. And mp3s suck anyway. And yes, you can hear the difference . . .

Ian

[emcon5]

Originally Posted by nostatic

That's what radio is for

You are kidding, right? It must be better around you, but up here broadcast radio is a wasteland.

This area used to have two good rock stations (KSJO, KOME), one excellent alternative station (KITS) and 2 or 3 classic rock stations.

In 1994, one of the rock stations (KOME owned by Infinity Broadcasting) switched formats to semi-alternative, playing a mix of the songs it used to play, and some of what the good alternative (KITS) station played. Still, between the 3 stations, there was always something on worth listening to.

In 97, Infinity Broadcasting (since absorbed by CBS Radio) purchased the company that owned the good alt station, and the quality of the programming dropped. A year later, Infinity purchased another family of stations, and part of that deal, they were required to sell one of the other stations they owned in the area. The alt-rock station KOME got sold to the company that owned the other good rock station, KSJO, and one of the classic rock stations. KOME was killed off, and the frequency used by the classic rock station.

The parent company has since been absorbed by Clear Channel, which decided a few years later to kill off the last remaining Rock station in the area when they turned KSJO into a Mexican Oldies station.

Thankfully, one of the classic rock stations (KSAN) shifted their format a bit and play sort of a mixture of classic and current rock music, and for some unbelievably stupid reason, Pro football games. The other classic rock station broadcasts Hockey games.

The two that play current music have pretty short playlists with heavy rotation. Frankly, neither of them are much worth listening to any more. Radio sucks.

I do find it amusing that the music industry loudly proclaims that the reason they are losing money is because people are downloading music instead of buying it, but they overlook the possibility that people are not buying music simply because there is so much of what being put out is crap. I can't remember the last time I had any interest in buying a new CD.

[nostatic]

My tongue was somewhat in cheek. I pay for Sat radio and end up buying stuff I hear there. Broadcast radio does suck, but you get what you pay for.

There are plenty of screwed up reasons for why music sucks now (Clear Channel is a good place to start). But if people don't like what is being made, then don't buy it and/or make your own. What does offend me is people saying "music sucks" but then downloading a bunch of stuff for free. I guess it is good enough to steal but not good enough to pay for...

[emcon5]

Originally Posted by nostatic

But if people don't like what is being made, then don't buy it

I suspect this is a much larger part of the issue than downloading.

The RIAA cannot even consider the possibility that their lower profits may be simply because their product sucks.

I pay for Sat radio as well, and of the recent stuff I still really haven't heard anything recently I liked enough to buy. The last music I purchased I got directly from the artist.

Tom

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by nostatic

What things in life do you get to "try before you buy"? T.

Are you married? I certainly wouldn't buy before I tried.

[slakjaw]

I sometimes download TV shows that I have missed and I don't really consider that to be stealing. I am kind of old school when it comes to music. I have a huge CD collection. If I download a tune that I like I put it on a list and eventually buy the CD. For me, a digital itune is just not the same as having the CD. if that makes any sense.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by livi

To many people, far more than you would expect, I am afraid the level of morality is proportional to the risk of getting caught.

Exactly. And it's always amazing to me the justifications this kind use for their behavior. They are essentially saying "if they don't offer it at a price I like (i.e. damn near free) I'm just gonna steal it". Or "if I'm the only one stealing it, it doesn't really hurt them". Or "they are getting so filthy rich, that that is immoral in itself, so my stealing is less immoral". And on and on. I would posit that they are, in reality, trying to appease their own guilty consciences to some degree - until it becomes clear they have no qualms about doing this anyway. They think it is somehow their "right" to obtain materials produced by another without compensation. Spoiled brats, one and all. That belong in jail.

[NICKG]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

Bear in mind that Netflix is a US company. ROW results may vary . . .

I only d/l Top Gear via torrents. So I guess that means I am a thief. I might be able to get TG here via a sat or some $$s cable package that I don't need or want. I never steal movies or music. We rent physical DVDs at the rate of 2 per week for our projector movie nights.

I pay for my music. And mp3s suck anyway. And yes, you can hear the difference . . .

Ian

me too. I dl topgear and fifth gear. They are NOT shown here at all (no the bbc america version is not the same) while I dl, i don't make it available for dl from me.

I buy my music from amazon or whoever(itunes etc) after hear it on the radio(which btw is NO longer really free...ever here of the performance tax?)

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by gr8fl4porsche

I doubt file sharing is hurting the film/TV industry as much as they like to say it is.

Of the hundred or so folks in my social circle, only 1 or 2 have any clue about torrents, much less have the inclination to download and watch tv on their computer. Without a multi media device to view the .avi's on a real tv, torrents are almost useless, unless you have a very comfortable computer chair and a huge screen.

Searching out a reliable source, downloading the show for an hour or two, transferring it to a multi media device (or streaming it for those in the know) and then ultimately watching it takes dedication and a strong desire not to pay for premium tv. A vast minority of tv watchers will put up with that much effort. Actually goes against what most people watch tv for - relaxation.

Most of the network shows are available for free on sites owned by the networks.

If the industry is struggling. I am betting that it is because of the crappy content causing viewers to find other things to occupy their free time. I, for one, rarely watch network TV since every show is the same crap. Its either cops, docs, sports or fake reality shows.

The premium tv shows are much better. 95-99% of the folks I know all pay for premium tv.

Agreed. I'm not that old (28) and most of my friends haven't even heard of a torrent. Those that are into music and mp3s are iTunes users. In regards to TV, if it weren't for sports on ESPN and the occasional non-NASCAR race on Speed, I would have no qualms about shutting off my cable service. Nearly everything on is crap. For movies, there's simply not much that will motivate me to spend $10 and two hours of my time.

My only torrent use is for Top Gear. I don't have any qualms about downloading a program that isn't shown in the USA. If that makes me a criminal, so be it. In my younger days I was a Napster user, but today agree that it isn't right to steal music.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

It is not 'stealing'.

It is not 'theft'.

It is 'copyright infringement'.

All of you jokers claiming the moral high ground better look at your speedometer once in a while.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

It is not 'stealing'.

It is not 'theft'.

It is 'copyright infringement'.

All of you jokers claiming the moral high ground better look at your speedometer once in a while.

Another exceedingly weak justification. Speeding, while illegal, does not pull income out of someone else's pocket. Someone who has earned that income by producing wht you just stole. And yes, it is "stealing" - taking that for which you have not paid. Apply whatever specific terms to further describe the activity that you would like, it is still stealing. Armed robbery, burglary, embezzlement, etc. are all under the broad description of "stealing". We simply ascribe more finite, descriptive terms to better describe the nature of the crime.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Another exceedingly weak justification. Speeding, while illegal, does not pull income out of someone else's pocket.

Nobody ever died because someone else downloaded an MP3!

Some things that are grossly neglected in a lot of the arguments against filesharing:

1) Is it "lost revenue" if the "perpetrator" would have never purchased the music in the first place? The RIAA, MPAA, et al seem to think so, but they have a vested interest in equating every download of one of their products as a lost sale. I call BS.
2) Actual "theft" can be turned to a benefit for the perpetrator by fencing the stolen goods. Please show me examples of filesharers who have turned a financial profit out of their downloaded music/video/whatever
3) Some studies have shown that downloading actually leads to INCREASED purchasing of music. I know for a fact that this is true in some cases, though I do not have the numbers available to prove it on a large scale one way or the other.

[svandamme]

if i steal somebody's 911, he no longer has his 911. He owns everything he owned before, minus one 911.

if i copy mp3 from the Beatles, not one Beatle will own anything less compared to the moment right before the copy was made. (Unless Macca just happens to be divorcing again).

Hence, it's not stealing, that's just the propaganda machine trying to demonize the act of making a copy.

[gr8fl4porsche]

It all depends on motive.

If one intended on purchasing a copy of Beyonce's latest album but instead downloaded it, thus pulling income out of her and the record company's pocket - then it is stealing.

If your buddy burns you a copy of Guns and Roses latest album, you listen to it, decide it is garbage and proceed to toss it into the trash (having never intended on purchasing it in the first place), then it is not stealing. No loss to any party involved except the word of mouth advertising that Axle is washed up. Now if one loved the album and decided to keep the burned copy in lieu of purchasing the original, then it reverts back to the theft argument.

This argument is not black and white. It depends on why you are sharing files.

TV Show sharing is another argument. If I forget to set my DVR to record this weeks 2.5 men, which I would have watched while forwarding through the commercials - is it wrong to download the torrent from Pirate Bay and give it a watch? I don't see how any party is harmed or robbed.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Nobody ever died because someone else downloaded an MP3!

That actually has nothing to do with the legality/morality of stealing copywritten material. I guess it may serve as a diversion, if you are successful in derailing this discussion in that direction. You tried once, and it was immaterial to the discussion. Now let's throw some death in the mix, from a totaly unrelated activity, in a further effort to distract from the fact that "filesharing" is stealing. Period.

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Some things that are grossly neglected in a lot of the arguments against filesharing:

1) Is it "lost revenue" if the "perpetrator" would have never purchased the music in the first place? The RIAA, MPAA, et al seem to think so, but they have a vested interest in equating every download of one of their products as a lost sale. I call BS.

Well, um, yes - they have a vested interest in you stealing their stuff. And, dang it, they just might be upset about that. So you argue the details as to just how damaging your theft may be to them, claiming they have blown it out of proportion. So, effectively your argument is thus: my theft of their material does not hurt them as badly as they claim, so my theft is really o.k.

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

2) Actual "theft" can be turned to a benefit for the perpetrator by fencing the stolen goods. Please show me examples of filesharers who have turned a financial profit out of their downloaded music/video/whatever

You demand examples of the above, yet cannot provide examples of what you say below.

Many thieves keep what they steal. The mere fact that they do not turn all of it for profit does not lessen the crime. It should not take much imagination to come up with a few example all by yourself.

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

3) Some studies have shown that downloading actually leads to INCREASED purchasing of music. I know for a fact that this is true in some cases, though I do not have the numbers available to prove it on a large scale one way or the other.

Some artists realize this and allow it, or even encourage it. That is their prerogative. It is not a decision you can make for them, however, to justify stealing their material.

Originally Posted by svandamme

if i steal somebody's 911, he no longer has his 911. He owns everything he owned before, minus one 911.

if i copy mp3 from the Beatles, not one Beatle will own anything less compared to the moment right before the copy was made. (Unless Macca just happens to be divorcing again).

Hence, it's not stealing, that's just the propaganda machine trying to demonize the act of making a copy.

So, if your employer decides not to pay you for your work, that would not be "stealing" by your logic. After all, you have nothing less than you did beforehand. If you are a landlord, and a tenant does not pay, that is not stealing, either - again, you have nothing less than you had before - he took nothing from you.

We could go on all day with these easily refuted justifications for this kind of theft. Fact of the matter is, this material is produced for profit unless the artist says otherwise. Taking it from them, without paying them for it, is stealing. It's really pretty simple. No matter how many obtuse courses of justification you embark upon, you are taking someone's product for which you have not paid.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

That actually has nothing to do with the legality/morality of stealing copywritten material. I guess it may serve as a diversion, if you are successful in derailing this discussion in that direction. You tried once, and it was immaterial to the discussion. Now let's throw some death in the mix, from a totaly unrelated activity, in a further effort to distract from the fact that "filesharing" is stealing. Period.

Not at all. It is entirely germane to the discussion, as you persist in referring to "copyright infringement" as "stealing" and "theft". The latter two terms serve only to fan the emotional flames of the discussion--and are technically and legally incorrect as well.

From now on I shall refer to "exceeding the posted speed limit" (a.k.a. "speeding") as either "vehicular homocide" or "murder".

If artists want complete control over the consumption of their product, they should go to a concert hall, arena, bar, or street corner and perform. Remember, it's their choice to rely on on a stone-age Gestapo organization that sues grandmothers into bankruptcy for fictitious losses of revenue.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by gr8fl4porsche

TV Show sharing is another argument. If I forget to set my DVR to record this weeks 2.5 men, which I would have watched while forwarding through the commercials - is it wrong to download the torrent from Pirate Bay and give it a watch? I don't see how any party is harmed or robbed.

Take it even further...
I torrent several TV shows now. some are off the air, some are ones that are in their 5th or 6th season that I've never watched before. I can watch the early shows from torrent, get interested, catch up, then watch the current ones live...therefore, I have become a NEW customer, where I would not have been before. Allowing me to "steal" the old shows puts me in front of advertising...seems that it would be a good thing, right?

Now, I have started to watch some shows that are on cable (I do not have cable). I can see that being "stealing" like downloading music is "stealing", in that, I will watch old shows, catch up, and not watch new shows, shows which require everyone else to pay to watch. Eh...my moral compass isn't really spinning too hard with that one. Again, I'm mostly starting at the beginning of series that are now a few years in, watching episodes that I could not watch otherwise.