Pirate Copies

[Scheherazade]

What do you think of downloading free movies or songs on the internet?

Do you buy pirate copies or would you rather pay for the full price?

Any opinions on the copyright issues surrounding music and movies?

(The poll is anonymous.)

[Niamh]

I'm a goody two shoes... i pay. There are strict laws here regarding pirate downloading or copying and personally i wouldnt want to get caught, regardless of whether or not it was for my own personal use. :blush:

[DanielBenoit]

Ummm, well I usually always buy or rent a movie. . . .but if it is something that I must see right now, then I might go on youtube and search it.

As for music. . . .I have in the past gone to the library, checked out tons of CDs and ripped them onto my itunes. I know, I'm a terrible person. Just, don't tell my librarian :goof:

(besides, I can't be doing that big of a disservice, for most of the artists I listen to are now dead)

[rimbaud]

It would be good to buy them, I do appreciate the value of the original, but in my country there are hard to find originals, everyone just download it from the net

[Helga]

I download a bit, movies mainly but some movies are just to good and I want to buy them. shows, I watch a lot of tv shows online on stream websites...

[DanielBenoit]

It would be good to buy them, I do appreciate the value of the original, but in my country there are hard to find originals, everyone just download it from the net

That's really too bad. And I thought that it was unfortunate that I couldn't find anything of Bela Tarr's anywhere! :cold:

By the way, while we are on the topic concerning watching movies on the internet and such, pleeaaase don't be the kind of person to watch it on your iphone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0)

;) :lol:

[papayahed]

I usually pay for songs and movies, but I was an avid fan of napster and the other downloading websites when they were free and I do own several bootleg movies.

[Janine]

Guilty guilty guilty!...I take out the cds from my library and those are endless suppy because the have a rotating collection between the libraries in my county...and I rip them and take back and get 2 more - been doing this for about 4 yrs...I guess I could go to jail for life by now. I don't really see anything wrong with doing it. I am not selling the music and it's really the only way I can afford to have a good collection. Mostly the stuff is older anyway, but sometimes they get new releases.

Movies I buy; I also buy some CD's if I really long for them. I buy them mostly always from Amazon - best deal in town or get old VHS tapes onsale at my library.

Let me add, some old rare films you just can't get unless they are bootleg. I had the occasion of someone from the internet recently send me a copy of a early film of an actor I like and absolutely the film is nowhere available anymore; I have searched and searched. I don't see any harm in that...there was no other way I could get to see it.

[TheFifthElement]

It's theft just the same as if you walked into a store, lifted the CD or DVD off the shelf and walked out with it. Unless the artist is giving away their product via an official website (like Radiohead did with In Rainbows) then I wouldn't do it. Just because there's distance between the individual and the item being stolen doesn't make it any more legal or less of a theft. It just means there's less chance of being caught.

[DanielBenoit]

Guilty guilty guilty!...I take out the cds from my library and those are endless suppy because the have a rotating collection between the libraries in my county...and I rip them and take back and get 2 more - been doing this for about 4 yrs...I guess I could go to jail for life by now.

Oh don't worry Janine! Although after reading TheFifthElement's comment, I got the image of Janine walking into a movie store with a gun and saying "give me all your movies" in the style of Bonnie and Clyde. :lol:

Okay fine I admit it! It is theft to rip songs from the libraries CDs. But hey, there's no way in hell that you will get caught, unless a librarian somehow sneaks onto your computer while in the act of ripping :goof:

Besides the artist you are stealing from is long deceased, then you're not really hurting anyone, except some rich inheritor.

[TheFifthElement]

Ah! So it's okay to commit a crime so long as you don't get caught. I didn't realise, silly me.
Question, for debate if you will? Is there such a thing as a victimless crime? In the case of piracy is it more that the victim is so remote that it's easier to ignore their presence? So if the artist (or the artists progeny for whom, you might assume, they intended to provide by their efforts) were standing in front of you would it be so easy to rip off their work, or in that scenario would it feel more like stealing? Are you genuinely not hurting anyone or is it just not apparent who you're hurting?

I'm genuinely curious because it is very clear in my mind that there is little distinction between stealing from a shop and illegally downloading or copying, but I'm curious how others rationalise it as being okay.

[Mathor]

Ah! So it's okay to commit a crime so long as you don't get caught. I didn't realise, silly me.
Question, for debate if you will? Is there such a thing as a victimless crime? In the case of piracy is it more that the victim is so remote that it's easier to ignore their presence? So if the artist (or the artists progeny for whom, you might assume, they intended to provide by their efforts) were standing in front of you would it be so easy to rip off their work, or in that scenario would it feel more like stealing? Are you genuinely not hurting anyone or is it just not apparent who you're hurting?

I'm genuinely curious because it is very clear in my mind that there is little distinction between stealing from a shop and illegally downloading or copying, but I'm curious how others rationalise it as being okay.

as a musician, I don't see your point at all. I am a music industry major in university and I know that the only person it hurts by stealing a CD is the record companies. Even if a musician is given a considerably good contract, record sales make up an infinitely small amount of profit. That is why artists go on tour (as that makes up for the vast majority of their earnings, along with promotions or advertisements). It is stealing, I agree, and it is no more justified to steal from a huge record company than it is to steal from Walmart or Target, but to say that it is somehow undermining the work of the particular artist in question is not really true.

The only thing I think you have to worry about online is that the quality you might be downloading is far lower than the artist's master on CD or vinyl. In such a case, you would be downloading a poor quality version and not really know it, which really WOULD undermine the original artist's intentions. Therefore, I suggest if anyone truly likes a band they take the time to buy the album (or burn it from a friend who has the original) for artistic rather than moral purposes.

EDIT: and as far as my opinion on pirating, if I truly like an album enough to buy it then I already own it on vinyl :D

[Taliesin]

I would really make the distinction between stealing some kind of object and pirating some kind of film or piece of music - in one case, the owner loses the object, in the other case she doesn't. The common line is that in both cases the owner doesn't get paid, but there is a difference between pirating a song and stealing, say, a bike.
One might also consider that if one pirates a film, it isn't automatically a loss to the owner - maybe the person who pirated it wouldn't have bought it anyway, even if he hadn't pirated it. Also, maybe he will buy it if it is a good movie.

And yes, I am a horribly immoral and evil person with no regard for the children of the record company workers, who, no doubt thanks to me, suffer from hunger, cold and venereal diseases because their daddies and mummies earn so much less due to the cold-hearted pirating bastards in the world - in one word, yes, I pirate. I do it rarely, though, since there aren't really so many things I want.
Plus, it is difficult to get the stuff from shops.

I have got quite a lot of stuff from my friends, though. Is it immoral to give copies of stuff you bought to your family and friends? (and them to their friends etc) Is it really different from reading a book of fairy-tales to your child? (or should one buy a copy for the child too, since, after all, creating a copy in the mind of another person is pirating and therefore illegal?)

EDIT: By the way, the last two options of the poll seem to mean the same thing. Care to explain, Scher?

[Mathor]

I would really make the distinction between stealing some kind of object and pirating some kind of film or piece of music - in one case, the owner loses the object, in the other case she doesn't. The common line is that in both cases the owner doesn't get paid, but there is a difference between pirating a song and stealing, say, a bike.
One might also consider that if one pirates a film, it isn't automatically a loss to the owner - maybe the person who pirated it wouldn't have bought it anyway, even if he hadn't pirated it. Also, maybe he will buy it if it is a good movie.

And yes, I am a horribly immoral and evil person with no regard for the children of the record company workers, who, no doubt thanks to me, suffer from hunger, cold and venereal diseases because their daddies and mummies earn so much less due to the cold-hearted pirating bastards in the world - in one word, yes, I pirate. I do it rarely, though, since there aren't really so many things I want.
Plus, it is difficult to get the stuff from shops.

I have got quite a lot of stuff from my friends, though. Is it immoral to give copies of stuff you bought to your family and friends? (and them to their friends etc) Is it really different from reading a book of fairy-tales to your child? (or should one buy a copy for the child too, since, after all, creating a copy in the mind of another person is pirating and therefore illegal?)

EDIT: By the way, the last two options of the poll seem to mean the same thing. Care to explain, Scher?

well, burning music or ripping a movie is not illegal in any way. Many people get that part of copyright mixed up. You are allowed to produce a copy of a movie or music you purchased, but you are not allowed to give that copy away to another person. Where the law gets mixed up is that I can make the argument that I gave my copy of said album or movie to a friend to borrow (as it's not illegal to give someone your own physical copy of an album and let them borrow it). And that is where the idea of 'sharing' comes from. RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has made many attempts to try to change this law but as of yet has failed at doing so.

And obviously, burning a CD (like from a library) that you do not own is ILLEGAL. :p (Sorry, Daniel)

[papayahed]

And obviously, burning a CD (like from a library) that you do not own is ILLEGAL. :p (Sorry, Daniel)


Really? Isn't it just considered a "Long Term Borrow" if you burn a CD or movie from the library??:nod:

[DanielBenoit]

Really? Isn't it just considered a "Long Term Borrow" if you burn a CD or movie from the library??:nod:

Yeah, I promise to give it back http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes004.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

:p

[Niamh]

you may convince some people but the rest of us?... not so easily.

[Janine]

Really? Isn't it just considered a "Long Term Borrow" if you burn a CD or movie from the library??:nod:

That's how I see it.:nod: Yep, even the librarians know everyone copies the CD's. I don't believe I am doing anything evil at all...I often copy ones that are so beat up, it's amazing they still play...Also, you don't get the artwork or original packaging, so it is not quite the same anyway as buying brandnew. My local library participates in a site, where you can borrow or even download audiobooks free of cost....and get this, it says one can burn them to CD or put into a MP3 player...I don't see the difference here. Often I copy my own bought CD's to use in my car, since I don't have to risk theft or damage with the others. So if I am guilty and seriously, I don't feel I am, then I am living in a den of iniguity *looking around room now which with it's countless CD copies*.

Also, how would Youtube operate, if one could not copy movies or TV shows? I am confused on this one. I don't copy DVD's...I honestly don't know how and I tried to download some rare stuff you can't find on DVD's from Youtube and failed; haven't ironed that one out yet. If it is illegal, why are there so many conversion and download sites out there to do so? Why hasn't the government shut those down or the DVD/CD manufacturers or actual artists? I would imagine seeing the videos on the Youtube site only promotes the artist's work more and the sale of their albums. Also, why don't the manufacturers of the media put blockers on them, so they can't be copied? I have one album that seemed to have a blocker (would not rip in Windows Mediaplayer) and it was actaully one I bought; then later, I tried to download it and I did so successfully in Itunes...so why is that? Is Itunes not concerned with theft, as some of you would see it? How are people putting music into their devices if they are not bootlegging the CD's....even the movies/videos?

[Virgil]

It's theft just the same as if you walked into a store, lifted the CD or DVD off the shelf and walked out with it. Unless the artist is giving away their product via an official website (like Radiohead did with In Rainbows) then I wouldn't do it. Just because there's distance between the individual and the item being stolen doesn't make it any more legal or less of a theft. It just means there's less chance of being caught.

I completely agree. Those that allow people to download should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Those that downloaded should be made to pay the going rates. You are stealing someone's intellectual property. As it is, artists make pitifully little. Those major artists that make a good deal are actually subsidizing the industry. It's not right.

As to Janine copying CDs from the library, I don't know if that's a crime. I don't know how that works.

I pay for all the CDs I download. I have never downloaded a movie.

[Mathor]

If it is illegal, why are there so many conversion and download sites out there to do so? Why hasn't the government shut those down or the DVD/CD manufacturers or actual artists? I would imagine seeing the videos on the Youtube site only promotes the artist's work more and the sale of their albums. Also, why don't the manufacturers of the media put blockers on them, so they can't be copied? I have one album that seemed to have a blocker (would not rip in Windows Mediaplayer) and it was actaully one I bought; then later, I tried to download it and I did so successfully in Itunes...so why is that? Is Itunes not concerned with theft, as some of you would see it? How are people putting music into their devices if they are not bootlegging the CD's....even the movies/videos?

there is too much illegal content coming out and not enough people to police it. For every person (working for a record industry or motion picture company) that has a video or song taken off of a website, hundreds get put up in it's place. People generally get pretty ticked off about cd's or dvd's that are not copiable, as it is there property and feel like they should be allowed to copy them (as long as they are not distributing them illegally), and companies have stopped trying that as they are more expensive to make and people can usually find a way to copy them anyway. There are thousands of programs to burn or rip DVD's, and to get rid of said programs would be hard since those programs aren't really illegal anyway, would be impossible. Therefore you have a lot of illegal stuff out there and no way to police it. Usually what they do, like the RIAA did this recently, is arrest one person for a lot of money or one website known to carry illegal content, hoping that will scare the average uploader, since they cannot really get rid of ALL of it.



As to Janine copying CDs from the library, I don't know if that's a crime. I don't know how that works.



it is a crime, but there is almost no chance you will ever be prosecuted for burning CD's from a library.

[Janine]

there is too much illegal content coming out and not enough people to police it. For every person (working for a record industry or motion picture company) that has a video or song taken off of a website, hundreds get put up in it's place. People generally get pretty ticked off about cd's or dvd's that are not copiable, as it is there property and feel like they should be allowed to copy them (as long as they are not distributing them illegally), and companies have stopped trying that as they are more expensive to make and people can usually find a way to copy them anyway. There are thousands of programs to burn or rip DVD's, and to get rid of said programs would be hard since those programs aren't really illegal anyway, would be impossible. Therefore you have a lot of illegal stuff out there and no way to police it. Usually what they do, like the RIAA did this recently, is arrest one person for a lot of money or one website known to carry illegal content, hoping that will scare the average uploader, since they cannot really get rid of ALL of it.

hhaha, Mathor, are you including yourself in that 'ALL of it'? I am not really worried about the CD's I have copied so far. I am not expecting the CD police to come knocking at my door anytime soon. I am telling everyone, I am the most honest person in the world, but I have never felt a shred of guilt about uploading the cd's from my library or from my friend's collections. I am too poor to buy all that music and I love music. If they want to sue me, good luck to them, since I don't have two cents to rub together to my name...they would have to cart me off to jail...I am really not worried...


I completely agree. Those that allow people to download should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Those that downloaded should be made to pay the going rates. You are stealing someone's intellectual property. As it is, artists make pitifully little. Those major artists that make a good deal are actually subsidizing the industry. It's not right.

As to Janine copying CDs from the library, I don't know if that's a crime. I don't know how that works.

I pay for all the CDs I download. I have never downloaded a movie.

Virgil, the cops just arrived and now I am in handcuffs, thanks to all of you!!!...will you come to visit me in prison...?...*as she is being escorted out to the patrol car....*

Seriously, Virgil...I don't think I am doing anything wrong, in copying CD's from the library collection. I don't get the difference you point out here when you stated this: "artist's make pitifully little. Those major artists that make a good deal are actually subsidizing the industry"...can you explain what you mean by that? I have been an artist all my life and been highly underpaid. I don't see any major label musical artists suffering from loss of income, nor do I see the distributors or the makes or the CD's. I was the low end of the totem pole, I suppose, in artistic pay. And this brings up a good point...why are CD's so darn expensive? Come on now...after a time, these cost pennies to make. Anyway, I have sent you some things I copied over the years, so if you think we should be prosecuted, then you are an accesory to the crime and I will haul you off to prison with me! :lol:

[Virgil]

Virgil, the cops just arrived and now I am in handcuffs, thanks to all of you!!!...will you come to visit me in prison...?...*as she is being escorted out to the patrol car....*


If the district attorney needs a witness, I'm here to testify against you. :lol:


Seriously, Virgil...I don't think I am doing anything wrong, in copying CD's from the library collection. I don't get the difference you point out here when you stated this: "artist's make pitifully little. Those major artists that make a good deal are actually subsidizing the industry"...can you explain what you mean by that? I have been an artist all my life and been highly underpaid.
By major artists selling music, the industry is financed and covers their overhead for them to search for new talent. Without the major artists, there would be no industry for anyone else. It gives the opportunity for others to make a living. all the side musicians, the technicians, the equipment, the buildings, the road shows, and so on. It's a whole infra structure. It inspires young people to be creative.

I don't see any major label musical artists suffering from loss of income, nor do I see the distributors or the makes or the CD's. I was the low end of the totem pole, I suppose, in artistic pay. And this brings up a good point...why are CD's so darn expensive? Come on now...after a time, these cost pennies to make. Anyway, I have sent you some things I copied over the years, so if you think we should be prosecuted, then you are an accesory to the crime and I will haul you off to prison with me! :lol:
How am I an accesory? I didn't copy or down load anything that I didn't pay for. Frankly how would you like it if someone came over to your house and took things, little things, things that they figure don't cost much? You won't miss it. you realize the music industry has been losing money for years?

[Janine]

If the district attorney needs a witness, I'm here to testify against you. :lol: Thanks a lot, turn-coat!



By major artists selling music, the industry is financed and covers their overhead for them to search for new talent. Without the major artists, there would be no industry for anyone else. It gives the opportunity for others to make a living. all the side musicians, the technicians, the equipment, the buildings, the road shows, and so on. It's a whole infra structure. It inspires young people to be creative.

Well, who is getting robbed? Believe me I have bought enough records and CD's in my day; DVD's, too. I would hate to add up the prices to see just how much I have spent...eeekk..over time mind you. Unfortunately, I can't afford to buy many CD's nowdays, not at the elevated price they sell them; such as at Best Buy...I am always amazed to see some, even going for as high as 30 bucks.

Geez, I am being beat up here!:( I can't believe it. I guess from now on, I will be known as the Litnet vigilante and no one will like me or trust me anymore. They don't seem to hate me at the library. It's also not my fault that I did buy the records at one time, have a huge collection and now CD's and downloads are the thing - all digital. And what about this ridiculous Region coding on DVD's? What is with that? Isn't it a way they can make more money? Well of course, I don't know much about all this, not really, just that I thought I was fairly innocent uploading some cd's from my library....like I said before, most are old (you should see some of the conditions) or rare ones you can't even buy anymore. Why does Sony sell tons of recordable CD's for copying music if they are outragged at people copying music?


How am I an accesory? I didn't copy or down load anything that I didn't pay for. Frankly how would you like it if someone came over to your house and took things, little things, things that they figure don't cost much? You won't miss it. you realize the music industry has been losing money for years?

Sure, I wouldn't mind giving a few things away anyway. Why, would you like something? haahh....I have too much junk anyway. I hope this bashing of my character won't continue. I am really a very nice person, generally quite honest and if I have one sin and it's copying CD's, I am not too worried about my soul. "Everyman has to answer for his own soul" (Henry V) and in this case, I don't think arests will actually be made on a small scale; so it's just guilt or eternal damnation I must endure.

[papayahed]

isn't possession 9/10 of the law???? Sooo, Virgie if you have any of Janine's tainted goods in your possession you are guilty as well.

[Virgil]

Thanks a lot, turn-coat!
:D


Well, who is getting robbed? Believe me I have bought enough records and CD's in my day; DVD's, too. I would hate to add up the prices to see just how much I have spent...eeekk..over time mind you. Unfortunately, I can't afford to buy many CD's nowdays, not at the elevated price they sell them; such as at Best Buy...I am always amazed to see some, even going for as high as 30 bucks.

Geez, I am being beat up here!:( I can't believe it. I guess from now on, I will be known as the Litnet vigilante and no one will like me or trust me anymore. They don't seem to hate me at the library. It's also not my fault that I did buy the records at one time, have a huge collection and now CD's and downloads are the thing - all digital. And what about this ridiculous Region coding on DVD's? What is with that? Isn't it a way they can make more money? Well of course, I don't know much about all this, not really, just that I thought I was fairly innocent uploading some cd's from my library....like I said before, most are old (you should see some of the conditions) or rare ones you can't even buy anymore. Why does Sony sell tons of recordable CD's for copying music if they are outragged at people copying music?

Sure, I wouldn't mind giving a few things away anyway. Why, would you like something? haahh....I have too much junk anyway. I hope this bashing of my character won't continue. I am really a very nice person, generally quite honest and if I have one sin and it's copying CD's, I am not too worried about my soul. "Everyman has to answer for his own soul" (Henry V) and in this case, I don't think arests will actually be made on a small scale; so it's just guilt or eternal damnation I must endure.
Oh I'm not beating up on you. Plus a vigilante is one who takes crime stopping into his own hands. You must mean you're the criminal. lol: I said I didn't know how it worked with the library. Really downloading off the internet is a crime. Copying from a library is nebulous, though Mathor is probably right. Who is getting robbed? The artist and the music company.


isn't possession 9/10 of the law???? Sooo, Virgie if you have any of Janine's tainted goods in your possession you are guilty as well.
Janine has never given me any bootlegged work that I know of. :)

[papayahed]

Anyway, I have sent you some things I copied over the years, so if you think we should be prosecuted, then you are an accesory to the crime and I will haul you off to prison with me! :lol:


:D
Janine has never given me any bootlegged work that I know of. :)

Now you know.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iISyPz5XRyI

[Virgil]

:lol: :lol: What about bad girls? It's Janine that they will come for. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ_KbwEVBjU

[JBI]

I steal both, and I'll do it again. Lets be honest, I'm not stealing from poor people, I'm stealing from rich record companies and television/movie studios, and, with the prices they charge on things in the movie theatre, or in the music store, they have it coming.

[DanielBenoit]

^exaaaactly!
:nod:

[Mathor]

If the district attorney needs a witness, I'm here to testify against you. :lol:


By major artists selling music, the industry is financed and covers their overhead for them to search for new talent. Without the major artists, there would be no industry for anyone else. It gives the opportunity for others to make a living. all the side musicians, the technicians, the equipment, the buildings, the road shows, and so on. It's a whole infra structure. It inspires young people to be creative.

How am I an accesory? I didn't copy or down load anything that I didn't pay for. Frankly how would you like it if someone came over to your house and took things, little things, things that they figure don't cost much? You won't miss it. you realize the music industry has been losing money for years?

Who cares about the industry, it does little to help the success of artists. Most people are finding they can get themselves out there without the help of the industry anyway. Because of the monopolization of the major record corporations, all things must go through those 4 companies to succeed. If the industry fails, music will become more like a market economy, with individuals selling their music and promoting their music completely on their own. That way musicians would see all of their record sales, whereas companies kind of just rape the artist. I do not think these comapnies should recieve all of this money for music that is not their own! Just like has been seen with the movie industry, where independent movies can completely overthrow the need for large studio corporations, I think independent music will see a large rise in the next twenty years.

[Janine]

:lol: :lol: What about bad girls? It's Janine that they will come for. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ_KbwEVBjU

They said that if I am on good behavior this week, they will let me out on the weekend....also the other inmates said they will treat me royally if I can come back with some pirated music CD's for each of them. I'll burn those during the weekend; lots of request for Stones CD's and also Johnny Cash! :lol:

Hey Virgil, apparently you forgot about the Hamlet movie starring Derek Jacobi, which you had copied for me a few years back - what happened...did you reform since that theft? If I recall you got the guy that copied it into some hot water. Aren't you being a bit hypocritical; also accepting the CD's I burned for you of audiobooks from my library site.

:lol: I rest my case!

[TheFifthElement]

as a musician, I don't see your point at all. I am a music industry major in university and I know that the only person it hurts by stealing a CD is the record companies.
That's not entirely true, is it. The artist earns money from CD sales, it might not be much but they do earn from it. Every CD stolen is money out of the artists pocket. That being said, my point was to question this concept of there being 'no one hurt' and it being a 'victimless crime'. My question was, does the distance of the victim mean that they are not there, or are they just easier to forget about? Would you steal a CD in front of the artist's eyes? Does the presence of the 'victim' make it more apparent that it is a crime?


I steal both, and I'll do it again. Lets be honest, I'm not stealing from poor people, I'm stealing from rich record companies and television/movie studios, and, with the prices they charge on things in the movie theatre, or in the music store, they have it coming.

I've heard that argument before and I've always wondered whether it comes from naivity or a need to make yourself feel better. The old 'Robin Hood' argument. If only it were true. However, in the case of piracy there are a number of classes of very ordinary victims:

1. The artist. The link here is obvious.
2. The record company/TV movie studio employees. If profits go down it's not the shareholder or the company execs that pay the price. No, when profits go down it's the secretaries, the technicians and the like that lose their jobs.
3. The future artists - as Virgil mentioned, the less profits a company makes they less they have to invest in non-guaranteed returns which means that:
4. Everyone loses out. Because the record companies and movie companies no longer produce anything if it isn't 'guaranteed' a return. What we watch and listen to becomes increasingly formulaic and if you want to find something original and exciting, good luck finding it in the giant haystack that is the internet because that's the only place it's going to be. It's rare for an artist to do well anyway, but it's an even rarer artist that can make enough money from self-distribution (without the enormous infrastructure and promotional ability of a record company or TV network/movie studio behind them) that they can give up the day job and devote their lives to their art.

I think a common misconception is this:


And this brings up a good point...why are CD's so darn expensive? Come on now...after a time, these cost pennies to make.
It's a good question Janine but the answer is all the ancillary stuff that goes around making a CD. Employee wages, distribution costs, electricity, buildings, shipping, infrastructure. Everything that gives the record company the ability to distribute their artists across the world all has a cost. So in reality they don't cost pennies to make. All that cost, plus profits for the shareholders, have to go into the cost of CDs and DVDs. Plus there's the cut that the final distributer makes, your CD/DVD seller. Are they overpriced? I can get both CD's and DVD's for less than £5 in my local supermarket. I think the criticism of overpriced is an outdated one.


why don't the manufacturers of the media put blockers on them, so they can't be copied?

Why don't they only sell blunt knives, so you can't stab someone with them ;)


I am too poor to buy all that music and I love music.

I'm sorry Janine, I don't see how not being able to afford something means that it's okay to take it. You could say the same thing about anything. I'm too poor to buy a car so I'll just take one. It's still theft. I could understand if it was a case of need, for example if you were starving and you needed food then I could understand resorting to stealing in that scenario, but just because you want something? Where does it stop? This whole statement made me wonder:


but I have never felt a shred of guilt about uploading the cd's from my library or from my friend's collections. I am too poor to buy all that music and I love music.
especially around the 'shred of guilt'. I wonder, is that how the pickpocket feels, or the con-artist. Does not feeling guilty mean you haven't broken the law? I'm sure it seems that I'm pressing the point but I really, really don't understand it.

[Jozanny]

What do you think of downloading free movies or songs on the internet?

Do you buy pirate copies or would you rather pay for the full price?

Any opinions on the copyright issues surrounding music and movies?

(The poll is anonymous.)

I do not like becoming too conservative on this issue, but the economics of the creative arts is still in the intensive care unit in the face of the technology, and I am just an intermediate freelance writer at best, and my disability, ironically, now limits my options as to being anything else.

I had trouble earning a living before the mighty Amazon and its Kindle, and YouTube and Napster. Now? Trust me, even established figures in the entertainment business are scratching their heads, so I don't bootleg. A lot of jobs depend on those copyrights in music and film.

Not that I have new model answers either.

[Janine]

I think this is getting pretty ridiculous. I am being raked through the coals, because I admitted to copying some CD's in my life; the irony of this is, that I have sent or traded with friends and been quite generous in doing so. I have never, ever tried to sell them for profit and I would never do so. I don't replicate the item. I copy the music files. I have neither the artwork, labeling or anything orginial, so I don't see any harm and mostly it's for my own enjoyment. I also can't then, understand why computer programs feature programs to copy both commerical CD's and movies; nor do I understand why stores offer lightscribe disks or labeling; for that matter, my new computer has lightscribe technology, which would duplicate the labeling; I have never used it because the disks cost more and I don't intend to duplicate the CD perfectly. I came forth to be quite honest with all of you and ever since then I am being chastised; I guess now some of you won't like me at all or think I am a thief. I don't copy movies; I never have. I only tried to copy some videos from Youtube and those were things one could not buy; mostly old British stuff no longer available. I would have bought them, even from Amazon UK, if they were unavailable. I know many people with more sophisicated devices, such as the Ipod Touch who download both movies and TV shows; I can't afford a device like this presently, so I simply download some music and burn backup copies or for the car. Before CD's, tapes were available to do so. The tapes weren't as good as the records and of course, no one said a word about copying the music then; so I am a bit confused here. When I started copying CD's, I never gave it a second thought. The same music companies sell the stuff to copy them as they do the actual music. The same stores or distributors also, sell the same stuff. To me it all very confusing. I don't bootleg on the internet and I have no qualms about copying some of my music, especially for my car, so I can keep the orginal at home and in pristine condition. So all this is a federal offence? I would like to know where the other people admitting in their anoynomous vote that they do the same are now? Afraid to fess up. I should not have written guilty as my first word in my first post here because I don't feel one bit guilty. I know others on Litnet who do the same because we have traded. I would not mention any names. Enough said; I really don't feel like keeping this argument going.

[Janine]

I found this article on the internet:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/31/riaa_cds_copies_computer/
However be sure and read the last part - the Update

One line stood out to me:

"She (the perpetrator) was stung with a $222,000 fine after the jury returned the verdict that Thomas was liable for wilfully infringing the copyrights on 24 songs."

Here is the Update:

Update
"The RIAA has since rubbished the Washington Post story as 'wrong'.

In a statement, the organisation said:'As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an mp3 player is infringement.

This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

Therefore, I am not doing anything illegal. How else would people be able to fill their MP3 players or Apple devices? I said this in essense before. I have a library card, so it's legally acquired music for the residents of my town and I am only ripping it for my own use; I am NOT selling it on the net or distributing CD's for profit.

Again, I rest my case.

[Mathor]

It's a good question Janine but the answer is all the ancillary stuff that goes around making a CD. Employee wages, distribution costs, electricity, buildings, shipping, infrastructure. Everything that gives the record company the ability to distribute their artists across the world all has a cost. So in reality they don't cost pennies to make. All that cost, plus profits for the shareholders, have to go into the cost of CDs and DVDs. Plus there's the cut that the final distributer makes, your CD/DVD seller. Are they overpriced? I can get both CD's and DVD's for less than £5 in my local supermarket. I think the criticism of overpriced is an outdated one.



So I say it again, why not get rid of record companies entirely? Record companies do not further artistic creativity in any way. By purchasing records from huge monopolies like Capitol and Warner you are hurting artists, and forcing them to believe that their only means of survival is through these seedy companies. I refuse to give any money to them, and I will not. I give my money to bands directly when I go to a show or buy merch at a show. I also do not buy a record unless I buy it from the band at the show. The only people that make money from record sales are persons like Kanye West, Taylor Swift, Kelly Clarkson, etc etc. That is entirely why Radiohead made In Rainbows, they had finally broken free from their neverending contract with Capitol Records, and were able to finally sell the music themselves. They gave an album away for free (or you could give donations if you wanted). They made a FORTUNE off of it. What happens with musicians is they are having problems making it big, so they are offered very terrible contracts by record companies, ones that seem very good at the time. And often, the amount of records they are asked to make take away from their ability to make money from touring because of time constraints. And when you work out the math for the amount of money made from a typical 20 dollar CD, the band would have about a penny. That penny, would then be split between the members of the band, and a big percentage would go to that band's manager. You will find in the future a lot more bands are going to be going to self-producing and self-releasing. If you knew anything about the music industry you would know that the majority of musicians in the industry have to work second jobs to pay for their ability to play music and still pay their bills. If a band has an album that is really successful, this should not be the case. However, when you are not making any money from the albums you sell, that is the unfortunate reality. With or without pirating or record companies, people out there would still give money to the musicians they love. The problem is the money is going to the wrong place.

And i don't know about you, but I can buy a CD for about a dollar around here, record companies who buy in bulk Probably pay more like 5 cents (or less) per CD. So that's really not true at all. I did a 1,000 CD (Cd's plus artbook included) release for one of my old bands, we paid about 400 dollars from a CD printing company (which is like .40 cents per CD). Record companies, who do like 1,000,000 CD releases (or a lot more), you have to realize they spend almost nothing.

[Virgil]

I think this is getting pretty ridiculous. I am being raked through the coals, because I admitted to copying some CD's in my life;

Oh Janine, we are just picking on you for fun. :D Relax. :) You're an angel compared to most. :angel:

At least you have guilt. The ones with no guilt about stealing turn my stomach.


They said that if I am on good behavior this week, they will let me out on the weekend....also the other inmates said they will treat me royally if I can come back with some pirated music CD's for each of them. I'll burn those during the weekend; lots of request for Stones CD's and also Johnny Cash! :lol:

Hey Virgil, apparently you forgot about the Hamlet movie starring Derek Jacobi, which you had copied for me a few years back - what happened...did you reform since that theft? If I recall you got the guy that copied it into some hot water. Aren't you being a bit hypocritical; also accepting the CD's I burned for you of audiobooks from my library site.

:lol: I rest my case!

I think it's actually allowed to copy one or two for a friend or a family member from a persoanlly bought copy. :blush:

[Mathor]

And I am not condoning pirating or saying that is right to pirate or to steal. I am simply saying the argument that it hurts artists or art in general is completely unfounded.

I voted I buy movies and music, because the truth is I spent around 500-1000+ dollars on records last year :blush::blush::blush:

ok so i'm OBSESSED!

[Virgil]

And I am not condoning pirating or saying that is right to pirate or to steal. I am simply saying the argument that it hurts artists or art in general is completely unfounded.

I voted I buy movies and music, because the truth is I spent around 500-1000+ dollars on records last year :blush::blush::blush:

ok so i'm OBSESSED!

I understand. But whether it hurts the industry or artist or not this is the law and violations of the law is no different then someone sticking up a small store. Stealing is stealing. People don't get to personally choose what is moral stealing and what isn't. Change the laws if you object.

[Mathor]

I understand. But whether it hurts the industry or artist or not this is the law and violations of the law is no different then someone sticking up a small store. Stealing is stealing. People don't get to personally choose what is moral stealing and what isn't. Change the laws if you object.

Ok this is how I feel about it.

According to copyright law, something is copyrighted until 70 years after the artist dies, then it is put into the public domain. This website (Litnet) that provides the books to be read for free, is a direct example of that. The book industry works pretty perfectly, because the authors actually make the money from the books, so the copyright law allows the ARTIST to continue to make money off of it until they are long dead and can't make money off of it anymore, and then that art should be free for anyone to read or see or listen to.

In the case of the music industry, artists do not make any money from their music. Record companies do. So if that's the case, I say it might as well all be public domain. The purpose of copyright law is to protect artists.

What is happening in the music industry undermines the whole thing. So you see pirating something is no different than reading an e-book on this site. You didn't pay for either, and not a cent of your enjoyment went to the artist. So what's the difference, fundamentally?

[sadparadise]

I am in the habit of purchasing/ renting my movies and music. Though, I do not have a problem with people making a copy of a purchased cd . As long as people aren't profiting from it. I am old enough to remember copying albums/ tv shows onto a tape. There wasn't such a fuss about it then! If there is a serious problem with downloading/ uploading, don't you think the movie/ music industry should protect their product from people uploading their property onto the internet.

[Virgil]

Ok this is how I feel about it.

According to copyright law, something is copyrighted until 70 years after the artist dies, then it is put into the public domain. This website (Litnet) that provides the books to be read for free, is a direct example of that. The book industry works pretty perfectly, because the authors actually make the money from the books, so the copyright law allows the ARTIST to continue to make money off of it until they are long dead and can't make money off of it anymore, and then that art should be free for anyone to read or see or listen to.

In the case of the music industry, artists do not make any money from their music. Record companies do. So if that's the case, I say it might as well all be public domain. The purpose of copyright law is to protect artists.


Well that's not true. Artists make a percentage on their work. They get advances. Tours are set up for them by the record company. But if you object, then appeal to get the laws changed. We don't personally decide which laws to follow and which not. I bet the hardened criminal justifies his actions as well.


What is happening in the music industry undermines the whole thing. So you see pirating something is no different than reading an e-book on this site. You didn't pay for either, and not a cent of your enjoyment went to the artist. So what's the difference, fundamentally?
All the e-books on this site are in the public domain. Logos is very strict on making sure we follow the copywright laws, even when we copy a single poem from somewhere. Ask the moderators.

[Mathor]

Well that's not true. Artists make a percentage on their work. They get advances. Tours are set up for them by the record company. But if you object, then appeal to get the laws changed. We don't personally decide which laws to follow and which not. I bet the hardened criminal justifies his actions as well.


All the e-books on this site are in the public domain. Logos is very strict on making sure we follow the copywright laws, even when we copy a single poem from somewhere. Ask the moderators.

No I know they follow all copyright laws. I'm saying music acts like public domain, because artists recieve no money from music sold. I can't pay Jane Austen if I enjoyed her book, because she's dead. So that's why its in public domain. I can't pay Bob Dylan because I enjoyed his song, because of the music industry.

So you are saying you would follow any law, if it was a law, even if it went completely against your beliefs and morals?

[Janine]

First off...Hello out there! Has anyone read my article I posted (link) in my last entry here? It might shed some light on this whole matter. I also just found this other article on 'fair use' and this particular case with Sony; even though not directly mentioning CD copying it does deal with copying media.

laws...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_I nc.. You may be very surprised at this case which went before the Supreme Court:


Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[1], also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market as it created a legal safe haven for the technology, which also significantly benefited the entertainment industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies.

The broader legal consequence of the Court's decision was its establishment of a general test for determining whether a device with copying or recording capabilities ran afoul of copyright law. This test has created some interpretative challenges to courts in applying the case to more recent file sharing technologies available for use on home computers and over the Internet.

I don't see any difference between the devices used then and the new ones that we have now advanced to. The second paragraph does bring up the question of how the law 'could go afoul', but it does not say it is illegal at this time. First off, if they didn't want you to copy their CD's, they can make them so they are unable to be copied (encripted I believe the term is), and they may do so soon. I am not concerned, because most of what I copy is older stuff anyway. I invest usually, in a new CD, if I buy anything current. Microsoft Windows Media program goes and looks for the album information and therefore, it is designed to copy original CD's. Itunes is the same. And if you copy a copy you can no longer get the album information.


Oh Janine, we are just picking on you for fun. :D Relax. :) You're an angel compared to most. :angel: What, this major CD pirate! haha....I doubt it! Also, I told you that you are a hypocrite, because you had someone at your job burn me a DVD of Hamlet with Derek Jacobi, remember! Haha...now who is picking on who? I can B,M, and Dangerous to know, too! :rage:


At least you have guilt. The ones with no guilt about stealing turn my stomach. NO, wrong again! I DO NOT feel any GUILT about buying a CD or borrowing one from my library and copying them. I paid taxes; library bought the CD and one is allowed to copy them for home use; also isn't that time-shifting...:lol: I am listening to the CD in a different time period. I practically live at my library, so I interpret that as 'home use'. :lol:


I think it's actually allowed to copy one or two for a friend or a family member from a persoanlly bought copy. :blush:

Well, friend (hypocrite *winking cutely*) DON'T expect to get anymore handouts from me, as far as free CD's are concerned. *no siree Bob!*

This is an excerpt from this 'fair use' article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use:


Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.

You see, I am copying cd's for scholarship and definitely for my own review! hahaha:lol:

[Virgil]

So you are saying you would follow any law, if it was a law, even if it went completely against your beliefs and morals?

It would have to rise to a heck of a level of moral outrage for me to disregard a law. Hey I think the gov't confiscates way, way too much of our hard earned money through taxation. As much as I disagree with it and feel it is a moral outrage, I still pay my taxes. Purloining music and movies does not come anywhere close.


Well, friend (hypocrite *winking cutely*) DON'T expect to get anymore handouts from me, as far as free CD's are concerned. *no siree Bob!*


:lol: :lol: Ok. I'll live. :)



You see, I am copying cd's for scholarship and definitely for my own review! hahaha:lol:
Lord give me strength. :p

[Janine]

"Purloining music and movies does not come anywhere close"??? What the hay?...hahaha..:lol:

Now I am a major purloiner! :lol: I'm sorry, Virgie, but I can't stop laughing! *as she burns another hot cd*

Edit: wait a minute buster; what about this part? You skipped right over it and don't even acknowlege your own GUILT....!!!


What, this major CD pirate! haha....I doubt it! Also, I told you that you are a hypocrite, because you had someone at your job burn me a DVD of Hamlet with Derek Jacobi, remember! Haha...now who is picking on who? I can B,M, and Dangerous to know, too!


Also, You still did not read those articles!

[Virgil]

Janine in a few months:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/30xx/306x/3065_lockdown_women_behind_bars-1_04700300.jpg

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/site_images_upload/legacy/media/50/guestopinion.jpg

[Virgil]

I answered that already. I believe one is allowed to make a copy or two from a personally bought version to give to a friend or family member.

[QUOTE]Also, You still did not read those articles!
Have you followed the copywrite laws in posting them? :p

[Haunted]

You see, I am copying cd's for scholarship and definitely for my own review! hahaha:lol:

Janine, we're going to need to see some proof of scholarship :D

And mind you, perjury will also land you in jail, but you can enjoy the music over the PA :lol:

[Janine]

I answered that already. I believe one is allowed to make a copy or two from a personally bought version to give to a friend or family member.

Wow, you are really upset...you screwed up your quotes! :lol: Any newbie coming on Litnet, who didn't know us would think we were mortal enemies and not best of friends. hahah...yes I see though, that you have modified your position on that note. So does this mean that you don't think me a criminal anymore or are you kissing up to me, so that in the future should I get some rare copy of some literary piece or some poems or music, that you may be interested in, that I don't refuse you a copy? ....:lol: You are sooo cracking me up, Mr. Right(wing)!


Have you followed the copywrite laws in posting them? :p

You are right, I didn't read them all, but I did read quickly to get the gist of them...ok, ok, those articles may actually benefit your side; but still to burn a few CD's (say a thousand :lol:) now and then and strictly for ones own collection (use) or to give a friend (sharing), I do not think is breaking any copyright laws. If you could see the condition of the ones I burn usually, I think I am preserving the music and not stealing it from the library collection or the muscians/cd companies. I did check the laws and since I sited the source I am within the law posting those articles.:nod:.... :lol:

Ok, here's a new question; if you purchase a used CD on Amazon why doesn't the cd company get a royalty or something? So is that considered stealing - passing the music onto someone else for profit? Now conversely, if you pass it onto someone, via internet a music file and get a fee, then you are breaking the law. I am not sure I get it. It's music and even though it's on a physical object (hunk of cheap plastic) the vibrations are in the air waves. Someday we will just have technology to snatch them up out of those air waves and wala - there will be mass pirating. How will they stop that type of thing then? :lol: how do you like that wacky argument?


Janine, we're going to need to see some proof of scholarship :D

And mind you, perjury will also land you in jail, but you can enjoy the music over the PA :lol:

:lol: good laugh, good one! Will you come and visit me, Haunted, and will you bring me a knife baked in a nice cake? ..or smuggle me in some illegal CD's or DVD's.

And PS: you know I'm a brain! :lol:

[Haunted]

:lol: good laugh, good one! Will you come and visit me, Haunted, and will you bring me a knife baked in a nice cake? ..or smuggle me in some illegal CD's or DVD's.

And PS: you know I'm a brain! :lol:

not sure about the knife, I can't bake ;) but I'll bring you Kevin's new CD :p

[Janine]

not sure about the knife, I can't bake ;) but I'll bring you Kevin's new CD :p

Ok, we will have a prison 'hootenany' night! hahhahah....he can follow in the footsteps of Johnny Cash! :nod: :lol:

PS: after I wrote that I recalled that you could not bake. I should have suggested Stouffers!


Janine in a few months:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/30xx/306x/3065_lockdown_women_behind_bars-1_04700300.jpg

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/site_images_upload/legacy/media/50/guestopinion.jpg

OMG! I missed seeing this first time around, Virgil you are killing me with hysterics! I am laying on the floor laughing my self silly...*mind you, still clutching my illegal CD's!*..."no they are not contraband...you can't take them from me...possession is 9 tenths of the law! Help!!!...someone, anyone... help!!!"

PS: can Fifi come with me?

Edit: I would like to know where the other 6 people are who admitted in the above poll, to not paying for either movies or cds and some both? Am I the only one to fess up?:lol:...at least I am honest in confessing.

[Virgil]

yes I see though, that you have modified your position on that note. So does this mean that you don't think me a criminal anymore or are you kissing up to me, so that in the future should I get some rare copy of some literary piece or some poems or music, that you may be interested in, that I don't refuse you a copy? ....:lol: You are sooo cracking me up, Mr. Right(wing)!

Kissing up of course. :ladysman::ladysman:

Right wing?

http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/right-wingextremists1.jpg


Ok, here's a new question; if you purchase a used CD on Amazon why doesn't the cd company get a royalty or something? So is that considered stealing - passing the music onto someone else for profit? Now conversely, if you pass it onto someone, via internet a music file and get a fee, then you are breaking the law. I am not sure I get it. It's music and even though it's on a physical object (hunk of cheap plastic) the vibrations are in the air waves. Someday we will just have technology to snatch them up out of those air waves and wala - there will be mass pirating. How will they stop that type of thing then? :lol: how do you like that wacky argument?
No because the original sale provided the royalty. You are allowed to sell cds you have bought. Heck you can give them as gifts.



OMG! I missed seeing this first time around, Virgil you are killing me with hysterics! I am laying on the floor laughing my self silly...*mind you, still clutching my illegal CD's!*..."no they are not contraband...you can't take them from me...possession is 9 tenths of the law! Help!!!...someone, anyone... help!!!"

:lol::lol: The police will be knocking soon. I gave them a call and your address. :p

[Mathor]

No because the original sale provided the royalty. You are allowed to sell cds you have bought. Heck you can give them as gifts.


how is pirating any different than that. If I buy a CD, put it into my iTunes, and send it to you online, then haven't I paid the royalty like you said?

But that is considered illegal and pirating.

[Janine]

how is pirating any different than that. If I buy a CD, put it into my iTunes, and send it to you online, then haven't I paid the royalty like you said?

But that is considered illegal and pirating.

That was my point exactly! Well at least someone got my drift. Thanks Mathor. Now tell me countless individuals do not upload music to their Ipods or MP3 players. The new Ipod Touch is quite popular right now and there are a lot of devices coming out similiar to it including cell-phones. Now, the point is, they advertise it will hold so many GB's of music and video. Do you honestly think, Virgil, everyone with one of these devices, is getting all that music and video and paying for every single item they download? I can't believe you can be so naive. I also, can't imagine why it's any different to copy CD's, as it was to make tapes of records. No one made any big deal out of that, back in 'the day', before CD's became available. I feel I paid the royalties on these recordings; many I still own the records to and have replaced with the CD's. I have bought a great many, but many I have copied from the library; most of those are either classical or obsure now or from the hippie era. It's not like I am not going around to all my friends, asking them to let me copy their entire CD collection. That would be excessive and ludicrious. My measely little bit of copying could hardly compare to these people who do go and bootleg movies and such and sell it, trying to pass it off as the originals. That I do feel is a crime; for one thing because some people are naive and buy them believing they are the original thing; second because they are making big profits on it.

Virgil, why is it that when you play a movie, there is a warning frame that tells of the penalty for copying, but when you buy a CD they don't put a track on it warning people not to copy? On a film (DVD) you can't even skip this part. It won't fast forward. It's really bizzare anymore. No one seems to understand completely the law on these copyright issues, when it comes to music. I just read another article, where a woman made a home video of her baby son dancing to Prince music and posted it on Youtube; by court order, they took down the music. She is still in litigation and fighting her case claiming 'fair use' and the court is still debating the issue. I have noticed on Youtube this happening a lot lately; the taking down of the music track. I am not sure who is right in this case, but it seems quite innocent to me to use this music for a baby video. If it involved pornography, I could see the offense. I think now we are getting into a sort of control, that is obstructing 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of music.' I am not really sure what the answer to that is. It seems it will hurt Youtube in the long run and I am not sure what people are suppose to do to obtain sound tracks for their home videos.

Opps, gota go...I think the police are here now. I doubt they will take me in tonight...I will kiss up to them....:ladysman: I can play real cute. Besides, I have hidden all the evidence and also it's a 'federal' offense, so you should have called the FBI! haha...:lol:

[Haunted]

Janine, here's the lo-down:

iTunes does have a usage limit for downloaded music. It's allowed on 2 devices. About a year ago they added a "Plus" offer for unlimited device usage. Pay the same music for just an extra $.50 (or is it $1) and you can copy it to as many devices as you damn well please.

The reason you can copy music from music CDs is because back in the day when they made these CDs, the technology of CD-rom copying did not exist, so there's no computer script on the CDs to lock their music.

Prince's music was stripped out of the woman's baby video because it didn't satisfy the "transformative" requirement of Fair Use.

A tip for over zealous moms: don't mess with a mega star. You're just looking for trouble. Some music is just too hot to handle. If I were Prince I'd have problem too with someone cheapening my music to some dumb*ss home videos. If an artist objects to my using their music, I would respect it and not use it. I would save the court system a frivolous lawsuit. That kid may even appreciate it if his mom hold the legal expenses and used it toward his college fund.

I hope orange is your favorite color, because you're going to wear that for quite some time :D

For now, be sure to have some fresh donuts in your house, it's good for your kissing up to the cops. That won't stop them from hauling you in, because you confessed here to being a repeat offender. But they might skip the handcuff treatment. :lol:

[papayahed]

Remind you of anybody....


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sTl28qiTNJ0/SSljYD7-czI/AAAAAAAAAwc/4lApLfYDy9M/s400/pirate-dog4.jpg

[Virgil]

Now, the point is, they advertise it will hold so many GB's of music and video. Do you honestly think, Virgil, everyone with one of these devices, is getting all that music and video and paying for every single item they download? I can't believe you can be so naive.
Who says I'm naive? I know people are stealing. I'm saying it's wrong. And frankly I will have no sympathy for anyone that gets prosecuted.


Virgil, why is it that when you play a movie, there is a warning frame that tells of the penalty for copying, but when you buy a CD they don't put a track on it warning people not to copy? On a film (DVD) you can't even skip this part. It won't fast forward.
Perhaps because it would be too awkward to put an audio message on a music CD. But it's written on CD case. I'm looking at one right now. It says, "unauthorized reproduction is a violation of applicable laws." Not only does it say that on the CD cover, but it's written on the face of the CD disk itself.


It's really bizzare anymore. No one seems to understand completely the law on these copyright issues, when it comes to music. I just read another article, where a woman made a home video of her baby son dancing to Prince music and posted it on Youtube; by court order, they took down the music. She is still in litigation and fighting her case claiming 'fair use' and the court is still debating the issue. I have noticed on Youtube this happening a lot lately; the taking down of the music track. I am not sure who is right in this case, but it seems quite innocent to me to use this music for a baby video. If it involved pornography, I could see the offense. I think now we are getting into a sort of control, that is obstructing 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of music.' I am not really sure what the answer to that is. It seems it will hurt Youtube in the long run and I am not sure what people are suppose to do to obtain sound tracks for their home videos.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.


Opps, gota go...I think the police are here now. I doubt they will take me in tonight...I will kiss up to them....:ladysman: I can play real cute. Besides, I have hidden all the evidence and also it's a 'federal' offense, so you should have called the FBI! haha...:lol:
:lol: Too bad J. Edgar Hoover is not still alive. He would nail all you thieves. :D

http://einestages.spiegel.de/hund-images/2007/12/23/24/36aac2f1bfdd60897411a2f06954c240_image_document_la rge.jpg

[Lulim]

I consider pirate copies as theft and traffic in stolen goods. Musicians, actors and playwrights probably appriciate to be getting paid for their work as much as everyone else.

Moreover, I see the risk of declining variety in music- and movie-productions; niche-producers won't be able to afford their productions any longer, only mainstream survives.

[vheissu]

I feel as if I've been missing out, this whole thread has some really interesting views.

A couple of days ago I heard on the radio that the annual loss of money to record companies from people illegally downloading songs and films is about 1.3 million pounds (just in England). I though it would have been more, but anyway...one of the speakers brought forth an idea which is actually not bad: why not pay a couple of pounds every month (he said even one pound would be enough) along with whoever is providing your internet connection and have a set limit of downloading material.
It would make websites like pirate bay legal - that was the major discussion on the program - and people would be less tempted to download illegally.

It continued with saying that there are so many songs out there that will be forgotten in a month or two because basically there are equally so many new artists whose talent is questionable and whose rise to fame will be followed by a down spiral into being basically forgotten.

What I think they were trying to get to, without really saying it, is that people recognize talent and that it has a certain value. So a good song or film is worth to buy but perhaps a more ephemeral song/film, which is popular one week and not the next, is not worth it's money. And so downloading it makes it not exactly right but...less wrong.
Of course, almost everything is available to download nowadays and when you start it's a bit hard to stop and think, 'oh, this is actually good, I'll buy it'.

So yes, it is theft because you are not paying for the work that has gone behind producing a song/film but then again...I haven't heard any famous artists in either the film or music industry going bankrupt or any company shutting down because it wasn't selling enough records.

[Virgil]

I feel as if I've been missing out, this whole thread has some really interesting views.

Well, glad you joined. You brought up some interesting points.


A couple of days ago I heard on the radio that the annual loss of money to record companies from people illegally downloading songs and films is about 1.3 million pounds (just in England). I though it would have been more, but anyway...one of the speakers brought forth an idea which is actually not bad: why not pay a couple of pounds every month (he said even one pound would be enough) along with whoever is providing your internet connection and have a set limit of downloading material.
It would make websites like pirate bay legal - that was the major discussion on the program - and people would be less tempted to download illegally.
What this is alluding to is that the business model that existed when only hard copy purchase of items were possible is outdated for the digital age. I agree and some of the suggestions you present make sense. I know that the various industies are grappling with this. I'm not a busness major/expert to know what is best. One assumes the industry is evaluating and making the best judgement.

Still, no matter what the business model, it's not up to individuals to decide what laws they feel free to violate. You may not like the system, but it's stealing nonetheless.


So yes, it is theft because you are not paying for the work that has gone behind producing a song/film but then again...I haven't heard any famous artists in either the film or music industry going bankrupt or any company shutting down because it wasn't selling enough records.
It's not the big name artist that one is hurting by stealing. Stealing takes money out of the system, which makes less money available for newer, higher risk talent, less for the infrastucture of making the art, and makes the prices to the honest consumer even higher. Have you noticed what it costs to go to a movie these days?

[Haunted]

Now tell me countless individuals do not upload music to their Ipods or MP3 players. The new Ipod Touch is quite popular right now and there are a lot of devices coming out similiar to it including cell-phones. Now, the point is, they advertise it will hold so many GB's of music and video. Do you honestly think, Virgil, everyone with one of these devices, is getting all that music and video and paying for every single item they download?

iPods/iPhones have huge capacities because them can. But it's not an invitation for people to steal enough songs to fill it up. Also these days you do need a lot of GBs when it comes to videos. If you want Shakira's entire concert, that's over 1 GB; Michael Jackson's Thriller is 15 minutes long, that's almost 170 MB. So your iPod/iPhone can fill up really quickly if you download videos.

By the way, Michael's Jackson's music videos are just around $2 each. It's really affordable. Music is even cheaper. So why do people not buy their own music is beyond me. When I hear (or see) a song I like, I ask people for the name and then I get it from iTunes. I get the Plus version so when I change devices I can transfer them without breaking the law and the sacred agreement I made when buying the artists' work. Likewise, when people ask me for name of songs, I tell them where they can buy them — usually it's just iTunes. They carry an incredibly big pool of independent artists as well as the major labels.


So yes, it is theft because you are not paying for the work that has gone behind producing a song/film but then again...I haven't heard any famous artists in either the film or music industry going bankrupt or any company shutting down because it wasn't selling enough records.

I beg to differ. Are we supposed to keep stealing until we hear on the news that some music company went out of business? Wouldn't that be too late?

When you steal music you are taking money from the people who created it. Put yourself in their shoes: if the recording artists happened to be your husband or sister and royalties is their main source of income, you would feel very differently.

I also get the impression that "sharing" proprietary music is a form of bonding to some people, it's as though people trade music for friendship. Oh such and such copied me a CD! Or I just copied you a CD to show I'm such a nice person and a good friend. That sounds wrong to me.

[Janine]

Remind you of anybody....


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sTl28qiTNJ0/SSljYD7-czI/AAAAAAAAAwc/4lApLfYDy9M/s400/pirate-dog4.jpg

:lol: OMG! Another cute pooch....The CD Pirate...alias, The CD Bandit.....!!!! :lol: Can Fifi come with me to prison, do you think? Will her boyfriend come to visit?

Wait - is that ^ Fifi in disquise?

[vheissu]

Virgil, I agree with what you're saying but the whole piracy and illegally downloading song, films, series, programs, photographs and whatever else is out there has been going on for a few years.
Now, a few suggestions have been made in order to stop this but nothing has been actually put into effect.
Pirate Bay was almost closed down for file sharing, but apparently it still works. You can get parts of a film or series on Youtube if you really look and if you're satisfied with the quality

The only thing that (should) stop people from downloading is the law that states it is a punishable crime. Well, it's not stopping that many people obviously because many don't see it as fundamentally wrong - probably because they can't see the effect that the have on the business that is providing the material you illegally have. It's a bit like environmental pollution: cars have an effect on the environment but you, as an individual, don't actually see the damage you are causing when you drive for however many years. And let's face it, few people will give up their car, because on an individual scale the effect is limited. In an unrealistic world, if all cars stopped working the effect would be huge.


I know that it's the future artists that will be affected but in comparison, how many talented artists have you seen emerging? At least in the world of music, in the last few years I've seen very few new artists that are worth something and so many that just emerge just for the fun, have silly songs, are not talented and reflect a rather degrading image of what a musician should be and then, some years later, they disappear.
So they are entertainers rather than musicians. Doesn't that affect the emergence of new talents? It seems to me taht the music industry tends to promote entertainers more than musicians that may actually have a shred of talent.

And yes it's very expensive to go to the movies but that just adds to the vicious cycle of downloading. People can't actually afford to go so many times to the cinema because they simply have to prioritize where they will spend their money. So because the possibility of seeing any film even a few weeks after its release, is possible, people will prefer to do that.
That's why there should be a better system for limiting piracy that doesn't just say 'don't download'.


By the way, Michael's Jackson's music videos are just around $2 each. It's really affordable. Music is even cheaper. So why do people not buy their own music is beyond me. When I hear (or see) a song I like, I ask people for the name and then I get it from iTunes. I get the Plus version so when I change devices I can transfer them without breaking the law and the sacred agreement I made when buying the artists' work. Likewise, when people ask me for name of songs, I tell them where they can buy them — usually it's just iTunes. They carry an incredibly big pool of independent artists as well as the major labels.

True, but how many people already had Michael Jackson's music? It's not new, a lot of people already have it so how many copies are going to sell now that he died?
Probably a lot just because it's cheap. Imagine if it was at normal price or, even worse, more expensive because he died.



I beg to differ. Are we supposed to keep stealing until we hear on the news that some music company went out of business? Wouldn't that be too late?

When you steal music you are taking money from the people who created it. Put yourself in their shoes: if the recording artists happened to be your husband or sister and royalties is their main source of income, you would feel very differently.

I also get the impression that "sharing" proprietary music is a form of bonding to some people, it's as though people trade music for friendship. Oh such and such copied me a CD! Or I just copied you a CD to show I'm such a nice person and a good friend. That sounds wrong to me.


Unfortunately we do actually wait until things get worse. Look at how the economy went. Even if some saw it coming, it was too late anyway. Obviously it would be great if we could stop a lot of things before they become worse, but unfortunately that rarely happens.

But again, not all artists are the same. And that's why it's hitting only the lesser known artists, because of course they are making less money.
What I was trying to say is that famous people are unlikely to be affected and even if they are the damage will be small (being already so rich in the first place).
Likewise big companies will hardly be affected and it's probably why they are not really putting any effort to stop piracy. If they do see that their revenues will start dropping, they will do everything to stop it before it hits them too hard.

People make copies for friends all the time. Children do it when they learn how to record things. How are you going to stop that? To me it's not wrong, that has being going on since music could be recorded on tape/vinyl/CD and whatever else.
I used to do it when I was younger. I also recorded songs on tape from the radio and had tons of songs. The quality was bad of course and you'd get the person on the radio speaking, but I still had at least 95% of the song in most cases. Was that stealing? If it was, the manufacturers of speakers with radios should not have put that red little button that recorded stuff then.

[Annamariah]

I don't do any illegal downloading. Most of my music I've ripped from CD's that I've borrowed from library or my friends, but that's legal. Also I've later bought many of the CDs I've ripped, just because I wanted to own them for real.

Usually when I buy music it's from Finnish bands, though, because I'll rather support them than some international mega stars. Most of my foreign CD's are bought second hand.

Movies I don't rip. If there's some movie I want to see I'll borrow it from the library or buy the DVD or just wait until I can watch it on TV.

[Janine]

I don't do any illegal downloading. Most of my music I've ripped from CD's that I've borrowed from library or my friends, but that's legal. Also I've later bought many of the CDs I've ripped, just because I wanted to own them for real.

Right! I am glad you said this Annamariah; I thought it was legal to do so, too. I would never sell the CD's I burned.


Movies I don't rip. If there's some movie I want to see I'll borrow it from the library or buy the DVD or just wait until I can watch it on TV.

I don't either. I borrow like you do from my local library. I can't afford to buy all the films or rent the ones I want to see. I do buy some certain ones for my own collection but normally ones I can't get at the library.

Well, people are coming out of the woodwork and the poll is starting to lean my way...I guess we can ask for bus to cart all of us off to prison!

Tomorrow our home loan house inspector is coming; I went around like a paranoid person hiding my burned CD's. I doubt he has the authority to haul me into a cell though....still to be on the safe side. I am praying also he doesn't condemn our basement for all the junk down there. Yes, I am a bit of a pack-rat!

[Haunted]

True, but how many people already had Michael Jackson's music? It's not new, a lot of people already have it so how many copies are going to sell now that he died?
Probably a lot just because it's cheap. Imagine if it was at normal price or, even worse, more expensive because he died.

I don't follow... I think most people buy music because they like it, not because it's cheap. I wouldn't listen to music that I can't stand even if it's free.




Unfortunately we do actually wait until things get worse. Look at how the economy went. Even if some saw it coming, it was too late anyway. Obviously it would be great if we could stop a lot of things before they become worse, but unfortunately that rarely happens.

But again, not all artists are the same. And that's why it's hitting only the lesser known artists, because of course they are making less money.
What I was trying to say is that famous people are unlikely to be affected and even if they are the damage will be small (being already so rich in the first place).
Likewise big companies will hardly be affected and it's probably why they are not really putting any effort to stop piracy. If they do see that their revenues will start dropping, they will do everything to stop it before it hits them too hard.

People make copies for friends all the time. Children do it when they learn how to record things. How are you going to stop that? To me it's not wrong, that has being going on since music could be recorded on tape/vinyl/CD and whatever else.
I used to do it when I was younger. I also recorded songs on tape from the radio and had tons of songs. The quality was bad of course and you'd get the person on the radio speaking, but I still had at least 95% of the song in most cases. Was that stealing? If it was, the manufacturers of speakers with radios should not have put that red little button that recorded stuff then.

I think that's the problem right there. People think it's been going on for ages, so it must be ok. Well, it's not. The law is the law. And even if they don't enforce it, it's still the law, and it's stealing whether there's a red little button or not. That's like saying if you don't have a lock on your door and someone breaks into your house then they are not stealing from you.

And who are we to say famous artists make enough money so it's ok to rip them off? I don't get the rationale.

[Janine]

There are a lot of pros and cons on this subject. I found these first two articles on proposed reforms to the laws in the UK. I recall Niamh saying the laws there were strict.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c35_1199829475

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6095612.stm

This is another interesting article exploring the whole question of legality.

http://www.disemia.com/ie/myself/whycopy.html

Another article I found online...some excerpts:


Is Copying a Crime? Well…

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times


Even lawyers say the law is hard to understand. Distributing free copies of a purchased CD or DVD is only a federal copyright crime if the value of the copied discs exceeds $1,000, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Elena Duarte.

But giving away even one copied disc may be a civil violation or break a state law.

"A strict interpretation of the law says that if making a copy robs the marketplace of a sale, it is prohibited," said attorney Mark Radcliffe, a copyright expert at DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. "So anyone giving a copy to a friend could technically be sued. But there is some sentiment that as
long as people are only giving copies to families and a few friends, it's probably OK. But how many friends should one person have?"


However, free-speech advocates say the copyright laws were never intended to stop kids from giving mix-CDs to friends. In fact, some say, because music is as much about personal expression as listening pleasure, sharing is integral to why songs have value in the first place.

"At my wedding I handed out about 150 mix-CDs," said Siva Vaidhyanathan, an associate professor at New York University and author of "Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity."

"I was freeloading on songs by Louis Armstrong and others, but I think that's why they became musicians in the first place," Vaidhyanathan said. "Music has worth because it lets us communicate in ways we can't manage on our own. But to communicate, we have to be able to share."

[TheFifthElement]

I don't do any illegal downloading. Most of my music I've ripped from CD's that I've borrowed from library or my friends, but that's legal.

It may be legal in Finland Annamariah (I'll take your word for it!) but it isn't legal in UK and I don't believe it is legal in the USA either http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/09/28/COPY.ART_ART_09-28-09_B6_3AF76OG.html?sid=101

http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

This from the RIAA website:


Copying CDs

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.

It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.

Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own

The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

[Janine]

It may be legal in Finland Annamariah (I'll take your word for it!) but it isn't legal in UK and I don't believe it is legal in the USA either http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/09/28/COPY.ART_ART_09-28-09_B6_3AF76OG.html?sid=101

http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

This from the RIAA website:

Did you read that first article, Fifth? I am sorry, but I don't think copying CD's from your library falls into the same category as exposing oneself at the library. I can't believe they made that statement. I thought this article was rather ridiculous. First, it says to copy music to a CD-R is legal and then says it's not legal. I don't get that. Are they saying, because it's not crossing media type lines? If that be true, then you can download as much music as you like into an Ipod or similar device to play music files, but God forbid you don't have one and happen to copy them to a CD. Then it says it's ok to copy music, that you own. I am still a bit confused about the thin line between legality and crime here. My small library and it's staff would just laugh at this article. They have their hands full enough, without posting signs to warn customers, or policing them. I sometimes take out a few CD's a week. They have never said a thing to me about it. Most of what I take out, you can't even buy anymore - it's just plain too old! Some of it is actually so shabby (the cases and the cd's) its a wonder one can rip it; often I have to eliminate a few tracks, which are defective. I noticed there is also some part of the law says it's ok to copy part of it, but not all...so I guess if I elimate the bad tracks I am within the law. I don't think most people are aware of these laws or the little details of them, nor can there be a clearcut interpretation of them. I don't much like new artists, so those CD's are not what I am copying. I had better shut up or you will all have me traced and the FBI will be knocking at my door!:lol: There are thin lines here, within interpretation concerning this issue. No one is going to prosecute people in the privacy of their homes. First off, they would have to get a court order or search warrant. My gosh, they would have to get one for half my town!

[TheFifthElement]

I thought the RIAA statement was pretty clear. It's legal to copy a CD that you have bought for your own personal use only. It's not legal to copy CD's that you don't own (which will include those borrowed from a library, as they are hired or loaned but not owned) and it's not legal to copy CD's that you own for the purposes of giving that copy to another person. The RIAA website also details when it's legal and illegal to download too but as the debate here has been largely around CD's (as everyone seems to understand the concept of illegal downloading) I only quoted that part. You can read more here: http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law

As I understand it, if you take the whole of a song (one track on an album of many tracks) you have broken the law. This is why download sites allow you to listen to a sample of a track, usually around 30 seconds, and no more.

I did a bit of research on audio CD-R. It's the 'special' that indicates they are different. These are special discs which can only be used in certain types of audio writers (so not your PC writer) and cost more than a data CD-R because a levy for copyright has been built in. You can read about them here:
http://www.mscience.com/faq505.html
and here: http://www.osta.org/technology/cdqa8.htm

Lots of crime happens in 'the privacy of homes'. If the FBI want to prosecute, as I understand it, they'll just break down the door.

[Annamariah]

In Finland it's legal "to make a few copies for personal use" of a CD you own or have borrowed from a friend or from the library, unless the record is copy protected. You are not allowed to undo the copy protection of a CD.

Of course the law can be different in other places :) But I think that being able to rip CDs legally is a good thing - that way it's easy to "try" new kind of music and if it's good, you may probably want to buy the CD later, or at least I do. The CDs I've ripped but haven't later purchased myself are mostly those that I wouldn't have paid for anyway.

[Janine]

In Finland it's legal "to make a few copies for personal use" of a CD you own or have borrowed from a friend or from the library, unless the record is copy protected. You are not allowed to undo the copy protection of a CD.

Of course the law can be different in other places :) But I think that being able to rip CDs legally is a good thing - that way it's easy to "try" new kind of music and if its good, you may probably want to buy the CD later, or at least I do. The CDs I've ripped but haven't later purchased myself are mostly those that I wouldn't have paid for anyway.

I agree and I think it should be legalized here. I can't see how they can enforce this law to begin with, so it all seems to me to be quite ludicrious in the end. I believe that eventually, it will be legal to copy friend's and libary's cds. For now I am not scared one bit, that I will be hauled off to do time in a jail. The building inspector just came through my entire house and I don't think they will be reporting any illegal activity here.

[Virgil]

For now I am not scared one bit, that I will be hauled off to do time in a jail. The building inspector just came through my entire house and I don't think they will be reporting any illegal activity here.
Yeah, but I'm a snitch. :D And we have the pages of this thread to enter as evidence in court. You have clearly provided an admission here. :p

[TheFifthElement]

In Finland it's legal "to make a few copies for personal use" of a CD you own or have borrowed from a friend or from the library, unless the record is copy protected. You are not allowed to undo the copy protection of a CD.

Thanks for this Annamariah. I did a bit of research and it appears that in Finland a copyright levy is charged on all recordable media which is then distributed to the copyright owners. That sounds like a fair system to me. The money still gets to the artist and into the system, but the cost is hidden. There's a bit more information about it here: http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/finland.php?aid=517

[Janine]

Yeah, but I'm a snitch. :D And we have the pages of this thread to enter as evidence in court. You have clearly provided an admission here. :p

:lol: should I go back and delete all my former posts? :lol: I could not bother to be that paranoid. I have more important matters to worry about.