Creativity is free

[Reginald Ret]

A thief can still intrude to take your physical property.  (i.e. knock the door down).  Just as there is an intrusion when music, movies, etc. are illegally procured and then distributed.   It's the same idea as someone breaking and entering, and then putting the loot in the black market.  I don't buy that because one is solid and one is not that means that which is not solid cannot be protected.  It can be, it may be harder, but sometimes the hard things are worth doing.  This is a case where I believe it is worth doing. 

i think you are forgetting that the artists sell the music.
imagine me buying (a copy of) a song, now i also own that song but i'm not allowed to share it with my friends, why is my ownership less of an ownership than the ownership of the artist?

You own the product, not the means to make and reproduce the product.  That is what the copyright is for.  The artist owns that which was used to make the product, the lyrics and the music.  They, or the Record Company, own the rights to reproduce that.  What you are proposing is like breaking into the Hershey plant, stealing their assembly line, and then taking it home to make Hershey bars that you will then hand out to all of your friends.  You've infringed on Hershey's earning power by procuring their production process and giving the product away.  You do the same thing when you take an artist's song and then distribute it to people through the internet or some other means.  

Let me put it in real world terms.  You've got an underground metal band.  In the metal world they might be somewhat of a name, but outside they are a blip on the radar.  They are lucky if they sell 10,000 copies of an album they produce.  Now, let's say you have procured a digital copy of that album, you put it on the internet, suddenly 2000-3000 of those people who would've bought the CD now have it for free.  Now this band is only going to sell 7,000 copies.  This is drastically going to impact their earning power, they will have less money to put into the next album, nevermind their livelihood.  Take it further, worse case scenario, say 5000 or 6000 get the album, illegally for free.  Now you're talking about an impact that can potentially put the band in a situation where they need to close up shop because they can't afford to continue.  So, not only has the band's earning power been impacted, but now you've got 4000-5000 fans, who've faithfully, legally purchased music from the band, without their favorite band.  

It's more like stealing the recipe for hershey bars and making them for my friends, or copying the plans for the assembly line. Physical property DOES NOT respond in the same way as intellectual property to theft, get it through your thick head.

PS. do i have to pay my mommy everytime i use her recipe for brownies?
PPS.  000 says these things better then i do.

[Triple Zero]

RWHN, surely you see the difference here?

indeed, if you buy an album, you don't own the rights to reproduce and/or share the music on it. (international) copyright laws see to that. but only copyright laws. which are just a sort of deal people made with eachother, about a century ago (i seem to recall it was 1908, at least). the fact that these laws were made up before anyone even had the notion to consider mass-distribution of information at the push of a button in the hands of the general public, kind of shows they might be out of date today and would require a serious re-thinking. as long as the big record companies hold all that power, that's of course never going to happen.

okay, but rights aside, you do own the means to reproduce this information. now owning a copy of the album, you have access to the music, the lyrics and whatever else you can make out from it, at the least you have the soundwaves, since that's the way a recording is generally represented.

the big difference here is that, contrary to your story with the hershey bars, you didn't need to break in or steal anything before you can commit this injustice.
with the hershey bars, you were already in trouble when you broke in and stole the assembly line, with the album, this is the same point as where you buy the album in the shop. Hershey probably doesn't want people breaking in their factory (no matter what they are going to do with the assembly line later on), while the artist actively wants people to buy that album (of course).

and that is IMO, why "illegal" copying is considered a problem, and is so widespread. it's not that it's a crime with a low threshold, it's not even got a "real" threshold at all. the act of copying, multiplying and sharing information comes so naturally with the medium, especially in this internet robot future, the only thing preventing people from doing it is a sort of social contract. whereas not stealing an assembly line in a factory carries with it a whole lot more consequences.

again, i'm still not trying to argue that one should screw over small underground bands, cause in the current environment, that is what you're doing when sharing music, although the severity of it i could argue about (no way that there's a 1:1 correspondence between people who would have bought the album and those who downloaded it).
i'm just trying to argue that current copyright laws are strictly artificial and nowhere near as natural as "thou shalt not steal" (referring to physical objects), which actually doesn't even need a law to prevent people from stealing, as individual property comes natural to humans, just as sharing of information does.

[AFK]

Ugh, I don't want to get bogged down in analogies and ratios.  It may be I came up with some stupid analogies, and no I don't think there is a 1:1 ratio of people buying and downloading.  However, I think the potential is there, as technologies become more advanced and accessible, for such technologies to be used to the detriment of artists, where it can have a very real impact on their ability to continue on as artists. 

I just think people work hard to make this art, and I think it's a real shame when supposed fans of these artists are too put out to shell out 10-13 bucks for that art.  It really isn't that much money in the grand scheme of things.  And as I've said we've been having this same debate on the My Dying Bride forums.  (their next album is due out sometime this year, I think)  And there are MDB fans blatantly saying they are going to download the album, illegally, if it becomes available.  And the bandmembers watch and read this forum.  If I were them I'd be fuckin pissed that some so-called fans have no problem just stealing their art.  It's a rotten shame it is. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's not "stealing". If I were to walk past a Hershey factory and magiquallie make a new hershey bar appear in my hand, out of thin air, then that wouldn't be stealing either.

Stealing is the act of taking something, without prior consent of the owner, and (implicit) leaving an empty space where said owner's property existed previously.

I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

If the recording industries histrionics are actually true and selling music isn't a viable business model anymore then maybe bands will have to actually get up off their asses and tour for their money like they used to do in the good old days. Perish the thought that the lazy fucks will have to actually work a couple of months of the year, rather than a couple of weeks to pay for their lear jets and cocaine.

also - http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/

[hunter s.durden]

I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1.

When I download an album, I go to the store and steal one, and just throw it in the trash.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Fuck you hunter! You always beat me to the best ideas 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that a lot of people stick their head in the sand when it comes to the ethics of copying other people's work. If they don't WANT you to copy it, it's dishonorable and unethical. On the other hand, some artists operate using a business model that makes copying favorable to them.

[P3nT4gR4m]

lol ethics 

lol honor 

[AFK]

I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

Well, it's not the point that you are stealing a "thing" and leaving an empty space.  It's that you have stolen the output of the artist.  But if you got this downloaded CD from one of those sites on the net that are spreading CDs in digital form, for free, that it illegally procured, then you are probably just one of hundreds, maybe thousands who are getting that album for free.  So no it doesn't steal physical CDs and take them from the shelves.  The point is that now those hundreds or thousands are not going to buy those CDs, so you've taken that revenue stream from the artists.  The revenue stream that the artist needs to be able to keep recording. 

Now I know many of these people probably would not have any real intention of buying these CDs, even if the illegal source were not available.  But if it becomes more and more available, easier to get, you probably do start to see fans who would buy the CD, just get the illegal copy.  This eats into the smaller, less popular bands ability to continue recording.  And I think that's a fuckin shame, because it is often the smaller-time artists, imo, who make the most interesting music. 

[Verbal Mike]

I think things are actually the other way around. You say those who download an album will not buy it. I say to a great degree, those who do not download an album will not buy it. Of all the albums I bought in the last five years (the approximate time in which I have had my own musical taste), I downloaded all of them and gave them a good hear before buying them (except for a couple bands I saw live.) Music piracy allows me to get acquainted with many artists before choosing to spend money on them. If it weren't for music piracy, I would probably still be hearing MTV pop (likely Israeli radio pop as well) and not even like any of the albums I've actually bought. The internet has allowed me to get to know well over 90% of the bands I like (and by the way, My Dying Bride is an excellent example of this in my personal listening history.)
But I will admit I feel guilty for buying so few albums and downloading so many. At least when I really love a band I dish out the money.

-Verb,
smiling at his legal Opeth discography with great affection.

[AFK]

Yeah but that argument is BS now because of MySpace.  Most bands have a MySpace page now where you can hear samples, or in many cases, full songs of a band.  So you can decide then whether the band is your cup of tea or not.  It isn't necessary to download illegally to hear what a band sounds like.  Oh, and I'm not disagreeing with you just because you're an Opeth fan.   

[P3nT4gR4m]

I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

Now I know many of these people probably would not have any real intention of buying these CDs, even if the illegal source were not available.  But if it becomes more and more available, easier to get, you probably do start to see fans who would buy the CD, just get the illegal copy.

:Citation Required:

(non RIAA source preferably)

[Verbal Mike]

Meh, I dislike MySpace and find sample tracks can be misleading as to the quality of a whole album. I consider most good albums to be whole works of art, and I know some of my favorite albums today (such as almost any Pain of Salvation album, but especially The Perfect Element, Part I) are simply pointless without hearing the whole album several times. I didn't understand what the whole fuss was about, regarding Pain of Salvation, until I had heard that album a good five times and I started noticing the things I now find so awesome about it.

[AFK]

I download an album, as far as I'm aware this does not reduce the number of CD's in stores by 1. Just like if I built a car out of spare metal I had lying around I wouldn't expect ford to sue me for grand theft auto.

Now I know many of these people probably would not have any real intention of buying these CDs, even if the illegal source were not available.  But if it becomes more and more available, easier to get, you probably do start to see fans who would buy the CD, just get the illegal copy.

:Citation Required:

(non RIAA source preferably)

I said "probably".  It's my theory, based on my knowledge and experience with human behavior.  That if they have a choice between getting the easy free thing and the easy not-free thing.  They will go for the easy free thing, even if it is illegal. 

[AFK]

Meh, I dislike MySpace and find sample tracks can be misleading as to the quality of a whole album. I consider most good albums to be whole works of art, and I know some of my favorite albums today (such as almost any Pain of Salvation album, but especially The Perfect Element, Part I) are simply pointless without hearing the whole album several times. I didn't understand what the whole fuss was about, regarding Pain of Salvation, until I had heard that album a good five times and I started noticing the things I now find so awesome about it.

WTF, before the internet, bands released singles on the radio.  If you liked the singles, you went to the record shop and picked up the album.  When the hell did music fans become so fucking lazy?