I would like to start a discussion about a hot topic in today’s world. Piracy--the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright. Today copyright seems to refer to art and art is entertainment such as books, movies, and music. I also think software is a form of art. As a programmer myself, I see software to the information age as painting was to Renaissance.
Piracy seems to be pretty wide spread today in a world flood with Napster type clones. Are the people who download music/movie/software criminals? Should they go to prison?
I am really split on this issue; on the one hand I think artists aka programmers should get paid for their work. But I am a poor college student and can see the temptation to become a pirate. I look at this wayâ€ââ,¬ÂI can go to the library and check any book I want (most library now have cd’s and movie too). Doing so doesn’t make me a criminal. I can get a TIVO and watch what I want when I want. What is the different between that and downloading the same stuff from the Internet?
I would like to get some more feedback on this issue. So post your replies
The difference is that you pay for the library and the TIVO.
Here's a question for all of you: Since I pay for the library (with my tax dollars), does that mean that if the library provides CDs, I can ethically/legally rip songs from those CDs, convert them to MP3s, and keep them on my hard drive for use whenever I want?
That's a good question. Most libraries have DVDs there too, so you could rip/copy them at will if that is legal. Interesting...
Of course, I haven't purchased a CD since Rob Zombie's "Hellbillie Delight" CD came out (I know, I know- leave me alone on the fact that I actually bought that). The only exception is that I've bought 2 CDs that didn't come from the "Big 5" recored companies. I've boycotted them because of the their treatment of the artists and they're lobbying for rediculous laws that only hurt consumers. (Search for "Fritz Hollins" on Google and I bet 5 of the top 10 articles found will be perfect examples of this.)
Anyway, enough of my ranting for now. I'm sure I can clarify myself if/when necessary. :-)
What are you talking about every mp3 I have on my computer I have the CD of :roll: ok so maybe not but yeah if I made the music I'd be alil *upset* Even before CD burning came out I use to record songs off the radio on tapes and no freaked out then. Maybe if the music company lowered the price to what a decent CD actually cost to make instead of $19.99 people whould actually buy them. I work in retal and I know the % markup on CDs and I can only tell you that it's above 5000% it's flippin insane so I figure as long as I'm gettin screwed over everytime I pay I might as well screw them right back. What goes around comes around. The music industry has been making too much money for selling CDs/tapes for that price.
Now as far as programs go yeah I think that is wrong, I can't say I'm not guilting of that either though... (I'm just plain guilty of alot of things aren't I?)But I try to refrain from that when possible.
Just curious- do you feel the same way about ripping off a small company like Cerulean Studios (makers of Trillian) as opposed to a larger company like Microsoft? I know I certainly do. I bought Trillian Pro because it's a damn good program, but ever since I paid $250 for Visual Studio 97 I haven't willingly paid for a Microsoft app. I even bought a Linux based PDA (Sharp Zaurus) as opposed to something like a Compaq iPAQ to avoid giving any cash to Microsoft. That's done mostly out of principal since I don't care for the evil company. :-D
Personally, my thoughts on the library question I posed earlier are that it is indeed illegal and unethical to rip songs from a library's CDs. Consider the following situation: Suppose I pay some kid $20 to mow my lawn. Then he goes out and buys a CD with this money. Does that give me the right to rip the songs off of his CD? Certainly not. While you could argue that, in a way my money bought that CD, in reality it was no longer my money because I gave it to the kid who mowed my lawn. Therefore, the money that bought the CDs in public libraries is not mine since I gave it to the government.
On a side note, I am soooo sick of hearing people justify the boycotting of record companies by saying they are unfair to the artists. No offense MEK2600, but you have to realize that those artists signed written contracts agreeing to get screwed! They knew they were getting a raw deal when they signed on! Certainly I would rather see my money go to the artists that wrote the music than some record company, but my sympathy for the artists extends only so far. For crying out loud, they gave written consent to make next to nothing for their work! If you choose to boycott the record companies, so be it. But justifying it by saying they are unfair to the artists is a rather weak argument.
Furthermore, corporations are not "evil"; they are just self-serving. Companies don't charge outragous prices because they're sadistic. They do it because they are greedy and because they can.
Hmm. Greedy companies overcharging because they have a monopoly (Microsoft, Record companies, which have a monopolly on that particular artist, etc). That seems kinda evil to me.:evil:
My point is that they don't overcharge in order to hurt people. Rather, they overcharge to help themselves.
I see your point and it is a valid one. However, they are helping themselves at the expense of others. I'm not speaking so much of the entertainment industry as I am speaking of Microsoft. Some of their business practices seem to border on racketeering. SIU has to pay Microsoft for every network line they have regardless of the OS running on that computer or if there is even a computer connected to it. :roll:
Of, of course I dont mind anyone disagreeing mith me at all. I enjoy arguements. :) But I can see some major flaws in your arguement as well. I believe that the best way to rip apart an arguement is to come up with a similar one that's extreme but reasonable. For example, according to your arguement, the people of Iraq deserved the ruler they got because they all voted for Saddam each election. Nevermind the fact that not doing so resulted in death, hence, they had no choice. It's the same with record companies- if you don't sign with a big company like Sony and get immediate recognition, you're screwed. Gravity Kills was an immensely talented band that enjoyed lots of success, but the fact that they decides to sign with TVT as opposed to say, BMG, etc killed their career. Why did they not sign with Sony, etc? Because doing so would have screwed themselves even further.
The record companies do force bands into signing bad contracts and the fact that they are probably guilty of collusion, etc generates no good feelings from me. My arguement for hitting Kazaa Lite everytime I hear a song on the radio might no satisfy some, but I think it's valid and it helps me sleep at night. :)
Well, I'll certainly agree that your analogy is extreme, but I do not agree that it is an appropriate one. MEK2600, you are grossly exaggerating. The record companies are not saying "Sign with us or die." In fact, no one said that the musicians had to play music for a living at all. If they can make a better salary working at McDonald's, then perhaps they should consider a carer path at the Golden Arches.
And if the deals major record companies offer are so terrible, then why are there so many people who accept them over a deal with an indie label? You claim that the indie labels' deals are better, so how then are the major labels able to attract new talent? Could it be that artists are not quite as oppressed as they would like us to believe? Could it be that, despite the fact that the major labels are giving artists a raw deal, they're still doing them a favor because it's a better deal than what the indie labels are offering?
Look, if a band is truly talented and/or marketable, they will make a good deal of money on a major label. Does it bug me that Britney Spears is richer than Gravity Kills? Certainly, I enjoyed listening to Gravity Kills. (Though I wouldn't consider them immensely talented. Their music sounded good, but they weren't that creative: they ripped off NIN's style quite a bit. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.) The fact is, it's the fault of consumers for making Ms. Spears wealthier than Gravity Kills, not just the record labels. The same is true when talking about Microsoft. People are too ignorant/lazy to learn to use Linux over Windows. It's just a sad fact of life that the world is full of idiots who are soon parted with their hard-earned dollars.
Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, it's not such a terrible crime for musicians to not be making millions of dollars. Look at what they actually do. They write and record music and give concerts for a living. How many years of college does that require? It's not like it takes a Ph.D. to be in a rock band. In fact, it's entirely possible/common for someone to be a "professional", wealthy musician on a major record label without having earned so much as a high school diploma. (Cough, cough, boy bands and teen divas!) That, to me, actually sounds like a pretty good deal. In fact, it makes me wonder why I'm pursuing a career in computer science when I could be practicing my choreographed dance moves. :-D
After reading this thread, I think we are all ALREADY criminals regardless of new Illinois legislation. They might as well lock us all up.:-D
Speaking of worthless software, I already tried to post this once, but while I was writing, Windows came to a grinding halt, exiting all of my programs and then locking up. :-? :-o :-x :evil:
Well, this whole thread was started as a discussion about piracy, not the music industry per se. Guess we were starting to get off topic a little bit, huh? :-)
Instead of copying CD's from the library, consider this example:
If the library had a $50 bill on display, would it be ethical/legal to stick it in a copying machine, and print as many copies as you like? As a taxpayer, you probably would own a tiny bit of it, and the actual cost to produce that $50 bill is relatively low for the government.
How much different is copying a CD from the library from copying a $50 from the library?
Well, there are a number of issues that must be considered in your example. Firstly, there's the issue of counterfeiting. I'm no legal expert by any means, so correct me if I'm wrong: For software/digial files, I believe it's legal to make copies if you own the rights to the original. However, with counterfeiting, I don't think it matters if you own the orignal $50 bill or not; it's still illegal to make a copy.
Secondly, to reiterate my earlier statement, it's not really accurate to say that you own a piece of the bill. Your money didn't buy it; the government's did. (Say you rent movies at Blockbuster. The money you spend on the rental then goes to buy a DVD. Did you pay for that DVD? Not really. The money is no longer yours once you give it to Blockbuster. Blockbuster's money went to pay for that DVD, not yours. Therefore since your tax dollars are no longer yours once you give them to the government, you do not own a piece of the bill.)
If, however, it were legal to counterfeit money, and you paid to have the copy made, then that would be legal and more arguably ethical. However, when you rip tracks from a library's CD, you are not paying for them, and you do not own them. Therefore, it is not OK to do so.
Well, from what I understand is that there are several different licensing options that SIU can choose. It's not exactly racketeering when you have a choice about it.
For example, some ISP's offer two internet access plans:
1) a per-minute internet access plan, where you're charged a certain amount for every minute you spend online, OR
2) an unlimited access plan, where you pay a fixed rate per month
So now, is the 2nd option racketeering? I mean, you're forced to pay, regardless of how much you use the internet, and even if you don't have a computer!
It'd be pretty dumb to say that option #2 is inherently worse than option #1, though. (Even if you're not online 24/7, option #2 still may be cheaper overall than option #1).
It all depends on your needs.
I don't think that situation is much different than MS's licensing plans. SIU might be charged for every network line (similar to the unlimited internet plan), but it could be much cheaper in the end than paying for just the systems with only MS stuff on them (similar to per-minute internet plan).
One other interesting aspect of piracy that hasn't been mentioned is how it can potentially help artists.
I have heard of many bands by reading about them & by word of mouth, and I've wanted to hear some of their material. So, admittedly, I got on Kazaa & downloaded some of their songs, which eventually led to me buying their album(s).
Piracy can function as a way of giving out free samples, however illegal it may be. That's why smart bands are starting to allow visitors of their website to stream most or even all of the songs off of their albums.
Pretty good marketing strategy for both the artists and the consumers if you ask me.
Here is my take on piracy...
I have no problems with piracy for the sheer fact that so few companies have complete control on entire industries. I dont know how many people saw that program on MTV about how the artists get thier money, but sales off of CD's wasnt where their money was earned. Majority of that money goes to the record labels. Artists make the most out of their money through the concerts and tours that they put on. It's a no brainer as to why its the labels that are lobbying so hard for anti-piracy laws. Only the bands that produce other artists are supporting the laws. So whose really losing out on the money, cause bands certainly dont lose publicity from online trading. As far as software is concerned, for me, its an ethical thing as to why I dont care about software piracy. If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at. Unfortunately propritary code is what keeps buisnesses making money. Ultimatly make me some money too :) (knock on wood) Its greedy people that make software piracy an issue. Overly its greedy company CEO's that truely see the cash. Need I mention names? Like most things in this country its corporations that are the big fish, who lobby the law makers to cause companies like napster to fall. But no matter the laws, there will always be some sort of FTP ring, or some channel on IRC where pirated software will be free for all that know how to find it, and there will always be people smart enough to to get around any anti-piracy code in software/hardware.
QuoteLike most things in this country its corporations that are the big fish, who lobby the law makers to cause companies like napster to fall.
Well, the laws Napster broke were already in place before Napster started up. Corporations didn't push to have laws created that would make Napster illegal. From what I've read, a judge recently ruled that companies like Morpheus which connect to Gnutella or things like it are not breaking the law because they merely connect users to a p2p network. From what I understand, Napster worked differently, and was therefore deemed illegal.
And it is indeed true that there will always be piracy. If people get desparate enough, they can always hold a microphone up to speakers and record directly from them. Crude, but it will probably always get the job done.
How I am able to sleep at night is this: If I had the money I would buy the stuff I pirate now. Or if I was charged a cheaper rate closer to actully cost.
I think if Peer to Peer network charged you per song or file...like maybe $0.50, I would be so broke right. Peer to Peer can really change the way the world works. Just think if you could hear an artist's song while he/she was still working on it in the studio.
QuoteIf all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at.
They would be nowhere, how many software developers do you think there would be if no one got paid to do it? I'm pretty sure most open source developers also have jobs where they get paid.
yeah I would never have money of my own again either. I find that piracy is wrong but just about everyone does or has done it in the past. I don;t promote it but I do it.
no one will ever be able to stop it as long as there is music there will be ways to steal it so the fact that it is on computers is highly irrelevant. My idea is this when it comes to stealing music. If you download music for your own personal enjoyment it is ok, if you turn around and sell it for money then you are a criminal.
-=[Fate]=-
yeah ok so i hit the post button twice somehow and I can't delete my post so I'm just going to say whatever I want to say
here it goes.
whatever I want to say
thanks
-=[Fate]=-
I know I'm a newbie and I'm sure there is some button I am not seeing for deleting a post.
QuoteSecondly, to reiterate my earlier statement, it's not really accurate to say that you own a piece of the bill. Your money didn't buy it; the government's did.
I don't buy that. I believe Abraham Lincoln may have said it best at the end of the Gettysburg Address "....that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." I do believe that as Americans it is our government, and what the government owns is owned by the people. Maybe if more people felt that way, government owned property would get more respect, and the whole country would be a nicer place.
While I do believe that shared ownership is implied, I don't think that gives a person the right to copy or rip materials obtained from the library. When two or more people own something together, usually only one can use it at one time. Sharing ownership of something doesn't always mean that each party involve gets possession concurrently.
Does anybody know what the law would say about downloading mp3's to replace worn out or damaged cassette tapes? I know that I have a few that were either left on the dash, had something spilled on them, or were put in an angry tape player that ate 'em up. Should a person be able to replace them without buying the cd?
QuoteJim wrote:
QuoteIf all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at.
They would be nowhere, how many software developers do you think there would be if no one got paid to do it? I'm pretty sure most open source developers also have jobs where they get paid.
You're making a couple of poor assumptions there, buddy. First of all, "open source" doesn't necessarily mean the software is free of charge. It means that the source of the code is disclosed freely. You can still charge a fee for the software, and you can still license it. Sure open source software is often GPL'd, and it would be easy to rip off software to which you could obtain the source code, but that's not the point.
Secondly, who says you can't get paid to develop open source software? Rather than pay a software company for some restricted license on a piece of closed source software, why not employ workers who can find/write/maintain/deploy open source software? This would give total control firm, and may better suit their specific requirements. Sounds to me like you could get paid to develop free software.
I think the comment "If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at." meant that collaborative efforts might have a synergistic effect.
Okay, I've got to say something here.
If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's relevant to the issue and not something that doesn't make any sense.
The earlier example of Iraq's people choosing their leader meaning they deserve him is not even closely related to a music artist choosing to get screwed over by their record companies. If you're going to make an analogy like that, then I could make one saying something like (assuming this was a bill that was introduced into the House): "If you're going to ban the use of termicides because it can cause death, then we need to ban automobiles too, because it can cause death."
On the surface, that analogy I made seems okay; they both cause death. However, looking closer, there are several more differences than similiarities.
I don't understand how a guy who kills his own people and "friends" and has plans to kill other people is even remotely close to someone who is ripping off people who live in a free country that can freely work in some other industry. Plus, I doubt that guy was "elected" in all the time; dictatorships only make it seem like they're elected into power.
I make the same argument about the $50 bill analogy. How is a cheap $50 bill the same as an mp3? If you can give me lots of similarities and differences for me all tabulated up, then maybe I'll believe your analogy.
Heh, heh.
My anology made sense after I hung out with Jack Daniels for a couple of hours the other night. Now it does't. I wish I hadn't posted it, to be honest. :-D
Actually, after more consideration, I have decided that making an mp3 out of a WAV on a library’s CD might be OK. Consider this: You are legally allowed to make copies of pages in a library’s book for educational purposes. So, you could argue that since you wanted to make a copy of a song for educational purposes (to hear what it sounds like :-P), it would be OK to make a copy.
Quotebill wrote:
QuoteJim wrote:
QuoteIf all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at.
They would be nowhere, how many software developers do you think there would be if no one got paid to do it? I'm pretty sure most open source developers also have jobs where they get paid.
You're making a couple of poor assumptions there, buddy. First of all, "open source" doesn't necessarily mean the software is free of charge. It means that the source of the code is disclosed freely. You can still charge a fee for the software, and you can still license it. Sure open source software is often GPL'd, and it would be easy to rip off software to which you could obtain the source code, but that's not the point.
Secondly, who says you can't get paid to develop open source software? Rather than pay a software company for some restricted license on a piece of closed source software, why not employ workers who can find/write/maintain/deploy open source software? This would give total control firm, and may better suit their specific requirements. Sounds to me like you could get paid to develop free software.
I think the comment "If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at." meant that collaborative efforts might have a synergistic effect.
I didn't make any assumptions, buddy. ;-)
I was talking about the real world, how many successful companies are there that sell open source software?
Anyway, this isn't even on topic...
QuoteI do believe that as Americans it is our government, and what the government owns is owned by the people.
Well, while I do subscribe to the belief that there is shared ownership within a
business, I'm not so sure I believe there is shared ownership within the
government. For example, if you own stock in a company, then you could justifiably say that you own a portion of the company and its resources. But no one owns stock in the government.
that's true and not at the same time I mean you can't "Buy" the government but everyone is part of the government therfore each person "owns a portion of the company and its resources" though It a VERY VERY VERY VERY small amount that isn't worth anything everyone still shares its "ownership"
(just to note we are getting off topic not like that has ever stopped that before :-D )
Heh, true, you can't buy stock in the government, but so what? That just means you don't "own" a piece of the government's resources, which was my point. You are allowed to use them, but I don't know that you own a piece of them. (But then who would even want to buy stock in an institution that's as in debt as the government? :-) Well, on second thought, maybe they should start selling stock so that they can begin to pay off the national debt. It's a pretty good business since all Americans are lawfully required to patronize the government. :-D)
Off the topic again, I know. Sorry.
yeah I was goin to say "why would anyone want to buy stock in a government that is not based on checks and balances but on lies and distrust?" but I figured that would make the tread go totally into another subject but it seems like everyone is tired of talking about piracy I know I am
Speaking of lies, it seems that the quotes that Fate is attributing to W., while they may sound like something that he would say, are originally Dan Quayle quotes. They were then attributed to Al Gore by someone who thought that would be a good idea. Then for the last election, they were attributed to George W. and distributed in a flier to get the word out to get more votes for Gore. Dislike of a person shouldn't result in saying that they said something that they really didn't. I'm sure that there are many stupid truly Bush quotes out there to use.
Lol I knew one of these days someone would say something about that ;) I actually like Bush so it's not like i found it because I'm against Bush or the war etc. etc... I just found it funny. I am actually glad we got Bush because I'm not sure that Gore would have been able to handle Sept 11 and the war. I am fearfull to think what would have happened had he been elected. I will update my signature but post it here so everyone knows what we are talking about. I needed to find a new one anyway that was just a temp one.
"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made."
...Governor George W. Bush
I got those quotes in an email that said that they were Gore quotes. I thought that was hilarious. When I started seeing them around as Quayle and Bush quotes, I knew something was up. When I read that they were being used as propaganda, I really started looking more critically at what was being spread around.
I know this is reeeeeaaaally off the topic, but can somebody please post the senior project final presentation schedule on this website? This should have been done many moons ago, actually. I'm only posting this here because it's likely that someone will read this and act on my request. (545 views and counting! :-)) Thanks in advance to whomever does.
Heh, maybe we should make this a generic, miscellaneous, random topic thread since everyone keeps bringing up irrelevent topics. We should rename it "Miscellaneous Topics Ahoy!" :-P
Speaking of things that don't get posted on this site, did anybody know that CAOS was at Springfest? I heard about it through the grapevine, but shouldn't an official announcement been made here?
Here's something closer to the topic:
"Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy"
New York Times (05/04/03) P. A1; Sorkin, Andrew Ross
The music industry is clandestinely developing a barrage of technical weapons to use against online music pirates, including programs that freeze users' computers, slow their Internet connections, and perform seek-and-destroy searches on their hard drives.
Full story is here (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html)
Quotea barrage of technical weapons
Ah, I was wondering when that new Britney Spears alblum was going to be released! :-P
Quoteincluding programs that freeze users' computers,
And the more they go out of the way to saddle their paying customers with restrictions and overall a crappier product, the more people will wind up downloading.
It's amazing that the RIAA spends so much effort on degrading the experience of existing customers just in case those customers *might* do something illicit with it.
Perhaps it's time they focused on *improving* the value of their product in order to get people to pay for it?