Pirates Ahoy!

[Josh]

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,¬ÂI 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

[William Grim]

The difference is that you pay for the library and the TIVO.

[Aaron Drake]

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?

[Michael Kennedy]

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.    :-)

[Ryan DonCarlos]

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.

[Michael Kennedy]

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

[Aaron Drake]

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.

[DaleDoe]

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.

[Aaron Drake]

My point is that they don't overcharge in order to hurt people.  Rather, they overcharge to help themselves.

[DaleDoe]

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:

[Michael Kennedy]

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.  :)

[Aaron Drake]

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

[DaleDoe]

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  

[Aaron Drake]

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?  :-)

[Travis]

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?