Electronic Piracy

[Llama]

I think whether you accept it or not, almost everyone has done it atleast once.
Hell, you can transfer files on MSN without attracting attention. Any file you share with someone over MSN you do not directly create is theft / Piracy.

 

[kirovman]

I might just drown in my brandy yet, Dave!

-Angry Lawyer

Way ahead of you!

I wish I could afford Brandy Carlsberg for me.

I think whether you accept it or not, almost everyone has done it atleast once.
Hell, you can transfer files on MSN without attracting attention. Any file you share with someone over MSN you do not directly create is theft / Piracy.

If someone has the intellectual property rights to it, then yes.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think whether you accept it or not, almost everyone has done it atleast once.
Hell, you can transfer files on MSN without attracting attention. Any file you share with someone over MSN you do not directly create is theft / Piracy.

True, but I can be rendered, at least moral through a variety of factors.
All of which involve (self-)imposing limitations to create a form of fair use.

When someone sends me a song, I accept it, listen to it, and then delete it.
It is legal, after all, to let a friend listen to a record you own, at your house.
So long as you delete the song afterwards, this is less a form of ownership than it is a private showing.
If you keep the songs for longer, however, then you have attained illegal ownership of the song.

Another aspect is how complete the media is. This isn't very relevant to individual songs or individual television episodes, but downloading an entire TV series or feature film is problematic, because - unlike music - the focus is on single screenings. With film there is much less impetus on repeat viewings, so all the value is gained through one download.
Thus, in every case: the smaller the clip, (and/or the more edited from the original source with lower sound/image quality, fadeouts, etc.) the more moral the download is.

Also, there is the question of the exhibitor's consent. Most/all file-sharing services assume the share-er has a broad, tacit consent to all share-ees. So when you download a song, you don't need to ask the person you are sharing it with. The problem is that this turns the download process into an unauthorized public showing instead of an example of private fair use.

Having to specifically ask the sharer creates a filter which renders the process far more private.

So, in the end, the solution is neither to allow or prohibit piracy, but to replace it with a more moral system.

I propose the creation of a file-sharing service which allows one to ask for single-use samples of other people's media (with, say fadeouts after a certain mark in the longest media), with longer, repeatable and/or full tracks avaliable if the artist does consent to the service.

It's really as simple as that, but folks like frendzy think that what is essentially anarchist system is a grand idea, without realizing that, like all anarchy, it sets a precedent that destroys the safeguards on some basic human privacy rights.
(Hence why, if frendzy were actually intelligent and sincere, he would gladly give up all his personal information .)
On the other end of the spectrum, meanwhile, banning filesharing altogether gives government a consent-ignoring power - which also oversteps the citizen's right to privacy!

Ultimately, frendzy's goal is to remove power from "the man" by becoming the man himself.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

If music is analagous to sex, then it stands to reason that, as a pirate, you are rapist.

The neglect of simple consent is the fundamental flaw in your convoluted reasoning.

Consent's a bitch, isn't it?
Too bad it's illegal to just forcibly extract the pleasure from those tyrannous prostitutes!

Unfortuneatly, because of your attempts to condescend me with your dry sarcasm, I dont seem to fully understand what your trying to say here.

Isn't a prostitute consenting to sex because they want the money for it?

If thats the case then I dont see how im neglecting consent. The point I am trying to make is that there is consenting to sex for sex, and consenting to sex for money. Consenting for sex for sex is more meaningful and valuable sex, because this sex is what the consentee wants. Consent to have sex for money is not as valuable because what the consentee really wants is money, not the sex.

Just how convoluted is your reasoning? Let's check what you actually wrote:

1) No "true" artist is concerned with money (which allows for survival in capitalist society) more than reaching a maximum audience.

Incorrect, I don't think I ever said that a "true" artit's goal was concerned with reaching a maximum audience, I think I merely touched on the idea that an artist who's primary goal out of his music was to make music instead of make money, then using the internet as a way of reaching more people wouldnt negatively affect him.

Given 1 and 2, all "true" artists with internet access should be already giving their music away for free.
In this case, piracy is essentially useless.
You can't steal something that is free.

If a "true" artist didnt want his or her music to be heard, then that artist would not have his or her music available for others to hear. An artists choice to give their music away for free for others to hear should be about a matter of trust, not a matter of making more money. If this is the case, then the reason they chose to keep their music private is because of the sentimental value a song has for them, not the potential income it can produce for them. Hence the reason they choose to withhold information becomes the ethical reason of the sentimental value that that song holds to them, as opposed to the unethical reason of them being greedy (and please be mature enough to distinguish between greed and ecconomical survival, obviously the few dollars a busker plays his guitar for is very different from millions made by record corporations and their artists).

3) Artists who care about getting money are artistically bankrupt.* The songs are genericized and over-promoted, to attract a maximum audience.

Yet again you are incorrect. Either you misunderstood me, or twisted what I said in my original post to satisfy your insecure ego. The songs are not genericized and over-promoted to attract a maximum audience, they are genericized and over-promoted to attract a maximum profit.

Hence, because you either misunderstood me or intentionally manipulated what I said on points 1 & 3, this:

And wait a second...

Compare points 1 and 3.

Point 1: The goal of the "true" artist is to reach the maximum audience.
Point 3: "False" artists are illegitimate because they attempt to reach the maximum audience.

Those are the same thing!

is negated.

4) You really, really want to be able to steal their shitty generic music.

So, you want an unlimited supply of stolen generic shit because...?
Isn't the huge number of free songs by "true" artists enough?
Or are you just saying that you have absolutely no taste in music (which conflicts with your claims that music that costs money is awful)?

I really congradulate you here, becuase I find your ability to cunningly use your knowledge of arguing logically to make me look like an absoulute moron amusing. Unfortuneatly, you would have to be a moron if you read my original post and couldnt understand that the last thing I wanted clearly wasnt shitty generic music.

What I want, which seems to be eluding you either becuase of your mental incapacity to understand me, or because of your sternous attempts to condescend me, is to steal the profits of people who make shitty generic music, because this will ultimately eliminate them, and their shitty generic music.

*(And they also use drugs! No "true" artist has ever used drugs!)

Correct me if Im wrong, but thats a straw man argument is it not?


Now that we've gotten past you momental attempt to make a fool of me, or alternatively your momentous stupidity, we can adress the actual point you made:

Effectively, all information is private, and is only legally given up if the owner allows it to be.

If you hear something on the radio, or on TV, that is there because the creator let it be broadcast. If you buy a CD, that is because the owner let you pay for it.
And if a track is availiable for free on a bend website, it is because they let you have access to their private information.
It's called consent.

The same principle of consent protects you from having your computer hacked and your home invaded.
Only you get to decide who gets to read your diary or your mail or your art.

Information can never be "free" in the bullshit way that you guys wish it were, unless you're willing to give up all your secrets too.

And what we are debating here, is the reasons for the consent to reveal information.

The reason I dont want to show you my credit card number is security. The reason I dont want people hacking my computer or reading my diary is because of the damage they might do to my information or the sentimental value that may be eroded from them reading my diary.

Why does britney spears's record company want to with hold her music from people who want to hear it? greed.


Now because I don't have to time to satisfy the deeply embedded insecruties I have about how inferior I am, by proving how well I can condescend people i barely know over the internet with my logical argueing skills, I want you to adress this very clear and simple question....in hope that it will save us both a great deal of time.

Is it or is it not wrong, for someone to withold information from someone else, for a selfish reason such as greed. If not then why?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Unfortuneatly, because of your attempts to condescend me with your dry sarcasm, I dont seem to fully understand what your trying to say here.

Isn't a prostitute consenting to sex because they want the money for it?

If thats the case then I dont see how im neglecting consent. The point I am trying to make is that there is consenting to sex for sex, and consenting to sex for money. Consenting for sex for sex is more meaningful and valuable sex, because this sex is what the consentee wants. Consent to have sex for money is not as valuable because what the consentee really wants is money, not the sex.

Forgive me for my misunderstandings, but, in essence, aren't you saying that it's better to rape prostitutes than pay them because sex without paying for it is better?

People who enter the music industry are doing it to make a living. If they wanted you to have their music for free, they'd have released it for free.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Absinthe]

Bingo. Frenzy's argument is summed up in a nice analogy.

Artists don't deserve money, so I steal their music.
|
v
Prostitutes don't deserve money, so I rape them.

If you're in the music industry, you're also in it for a profit, regardless of wether or not that's secondary to expressing your artistic vision. Record companies are not witholding information from you, as you can easily obtain it for a fee (and we're not talking about price tags that rip holes in your wallet). You retardedly call it greed. And while I agree that many labels are money-grubbing cesspits, your alternative would be downright destructive on the artists themselves. They need to earn a living like everybody else, and they're not going to get that by passing out their work for free. Your reliance on trust is simply absurd because there are plenty of people in the human population that are outright thieves and would never pony up the cash for the music they're acquiring.

But even then, the bottom line is this:
People can be greedy if they want to be. As much as you wish this to be the case, there is absolutely nothing unethical about that. You have the luxurious position of being able to decide wether or not you want to pay them money. Don't like it? Eat it, because that's equitable exchange. That's commerce - the cornerstone of any functional society with integrity.

Besides, why the **** would you want music you don't care for, free or not? If you like an artist, you pony up the dough. If you don't, then why bother coming up with some half-assed argument for obtaining their music in the first place?

 

[Solaris]

You know, the problem with the Piracy is the same as Raping, Stealing ect. analgy is that if your not going to buy the music anyway, then no-body gets hurt. It makes no difference to the artist if you download the music, if you wern't going to buy it anyway.

So if you've got a massive MP3 collection and have never bought music, yet own an ipod ect. and listen to your pirated music regually and don't go to gigs ect. Then that is immoral. But, if you buy a fair share of music or otherwise support artists, as well as download your music then wheres the harm? I download about 3 albums worth of music per month, and buy an album every two months on average. I don't have the money to buy as much as I download, so I have a nice inbetween that doesn't hurt anybody.

If the music industry crashes, its not myfault.

 

[Absinthe]

And for every person that eventually purchases what he downloads, there are plenty more that never spend a dime. That is a cut into profits no matter how you paint it. You're not removing the songs from their possession, but you are not making an equitable exchange.

 

[Solaris]

People who download music buy more music than thoose who don't.
Fact
Source

 

[Steve]

Stealing is stealing. Hells yeah it should be illegal.

 

[Solaris]

Stealing is stealing. Hells yeah it should be illegal.

Would it be okay to steal, say guns from the Nazis and sell them to the US?

 

[kirovman]

People who download music buy more music than thoose who don't.
Fact
Source

That doesn't make it right.

Would it be okay to steal, say guns from the Nazis and sell them to the US?

Apples and oranges.

 

[Steve]

Would it be okay to steal, say guns from the Nazis and sell them to the US?

Are you insinuating that I participate in Nazi weapon trafficking, sir?

 

[Solaris]

Are you insinuating that I participate in Nazi weapon trafficking, sir?

Kind sir, I was merely trying to bring to your attention that stealing, by default, is not always wrong.

 

[Steve]

Kind sir, I was merely trying to bring to your attention that stealing, by default, is not always wrong.

Granted. However, stealing IS, by default, stealing. Which is what I said. And stealing from the Nazis was probably illegal under Nazi law. I'm not sure what I'm getting at.

Anyway, in my humble opinion, stealing is wrong in this case.

 

[Baal]

I didn't read this entire thread, so my views may be shared by others, but I'd like to voice my opinion.

The thing is with me, I have never, once in my life, paid for music for myself. I didn't even really start listening to music until Napster was introduced. Now, there are many reasons why I do not buy music. Partly is the money, of course. But even if I were to spend the money, I wouldn't be as happy with the product as when I download it.

Why? Simply put, it's more work to buy it than to download it. I am very picky, I don't enjoy full albums from ANY artists. The fact that I can download one single song (I could use iTunes, yes....but no, that's still more work involved for me tbh) and put it in my Winamp playist, and listen to it from there / burn it to a CD.

Next is movies. The movies I download, I would never pay for in the first place. I simply wouldn't watch movies at home if I couldn't download them. The ones I do buy are worth it. Star Wars Episode III and The Matrix are examples of movies I have paid for.

If I weren't introduced to Napster would I listen to music? Probably. Would I buy it if I could not download it? You bet, but that doesn't change my mind about downloading when the option is there, because it's easier for me. I'm not going to shell out money when it makes MORE work for myself. On many purchases people make in their lives (random making up of facts FTW) I'd guess 80% is based on conveinence (see: cars, fast food).

 

[Angry Lawyer]

If the music industry crashes, its not myfault.

If I call the depressant a dick, and he kills himself, it's not my fault because everyone else did it too

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

Oh, Solaris. How could you stoop so low :|

 

[Solaris]

I'm saying its not my fault if the industry crashes becuase I put 80ishquid into it per year in cd purchases alone.

 

[kirovman]

80 quid! I would have just downloaded the songs.

 

[Solaris]

Can't find em.

And downloading music probably is immoral but I #care.
I'm sooo bad.

 

[kirovman]

Doing immoral things isn't necessarily bad.

How would you like to poison a guy for a bit of money? Meet me on the grassy knoll...

 

[ríomhaire]

Would it be okay to steal, say guns from the Nazis and sell them to the US?

Let me see if I get this analogy right:
Musicians=Nazis
You=Gun Runners & USA

Would it be okay to steal, say guns from the Nazis and sell them to the US?

Let me see if I get this analogy right:
Musicians=Nazis
You=Gun Runners & USA
DOES NOT COMPUTE!

 

[Steve]

He wasn't drawing an analogy, he was just saying that stealing isn't inherently immoral.

 

[ríomhaire]

And how is stealling something put alot of effort into, and makes their living off of immoral?

 

[Solaris]

And how is stealling something put alot of effort into, and makes their living off of immoral?

Makes no sense. Please try again.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

To put it another way - if someone puts a lot of work into something, and tries to make money off of it, you're moral for benefitting from their work for free?

Consider another analogy. If I were to make custom mods for people, on demand, for cash. Would it be fair if someone suddenly said "Sorry, I'm not paying you"? After all, it's just information?

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Ome_Vince]

What do you guys think of Laws against Electronic piracy? I think its wrong, especially with music. Electronic entertainment is a non excludable good, and you haveing it doesnt mean I cant have it, so I dont see why everyone can share it. Dont get me wrong, I am against copy right laws, but information should be free to use by anyone.

Some of you may ask well how will muscians get the money to make music, or programs etc, I think that there are many methods of raising money to make your program or song, etc, even though it make take longer to get that money. Atleast your wish to make that program/song/etc will be much more genuwine instead of some of the music/programs/etc that are made today which are purely to make more money (must I remind you of EA?).

Anyway whats your position on Pirating and why?

imo no matter what you think about the "creator", being it "evil" EA or whatever => its stealing, and ppl build that with alot of effort to make a living.
You cant morally justify it by "those ppl have shitloads of money", "they wont miss this" or "they're unfair" or whatever excuse alot of ppl i know use (ps, i'm not aiming specifically at you with this ).
Money doesnt grow on trees for any of these ppl , jobs are at stake depending on the succes/failure of a product.
Just as a painter goes out and paints a painting for a living, so does a musician go out and write + sings songs for a living.
Who are we to judge who can be "Robin Hood'd" out of their wealth because in our opinion they "have enough" or "dont deserve it".

Dont get me wrong, i did loads of illegal software , atm i buy everything, simply cause i dont have the time to dick around with illegal crap, and i enjoy having everything nicely in a casing.

The more i get involved in producing products, the more i see the shitload of work that goes into it, and how we strangle these ppl if piracy isnt at least contained. I think there's nothing wrong with anti-piracy laws, though i also think an occasional teen who cracks a game shouldnt be hunted down like the Gestapo.

ps, which "alternative" methods of money-making are you refering too? And, if music, games, software = "information" that should be freely available, does that apply to all art (paintings, movies, etc)?
We'd see a significant decline in art i think.
imo, art is a form of communication on a "higher level" translated into a product (this be a painting, movie, music or even some games). Apart from the thinking, making it takes a shitload of money and time, which rightfully is rewarded by selling the product.
Some artwork is more respectable than others, but i see a big differance in regular "information" and "art/entertainment" products.
If there isnt any relevant one in your opinion, where to the line drawn? Games? Programs? Music? Comedians? Actors? Broadway shows?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The point I am trying to make is that there is consenting to sex for sex, and consenting to sex for money. Consenting for sex for sex is more meaningful and valuable sex, because this sex is what the consentee wants. Consent to have sex for money is not as valuable because what the consentee really wants is money, not the sex.

Again, If music is analagous to sex then you're a particularily impotent rapist in this case.
You aren't trading music for music. You are taking music and offering nothing in return.
You aren't trading sex for sex. You are masturbating over an unconscious woman.
It's "meaningful and valuable" only to you. The poor soul you're extracting your fumbling pleasure from receives nothing.

Your claim that you care about the artist is thus obviously a lie, as much as your claim to implicit consent is.
The artist is telling you to stop, while you're saying that she deserved it for looking so pretty in that little dress.

NO MEANS NO, RAPEY.

I merely touched on the idea that an artist who's [sic] primary goal out of his music was to make music instead of make money, then using the internet as a way of reaching more people wouldnt negatively affect him.

That's bullshit because you're creating a false dichotomy (and still acting rapey). A false dichotomy is when you say "yes" or "no" when the real answer is maybe.

In this case, you say all artists are either
A) concerned mostly with money or
B) don't mind being stolen from.

You're ignoring that the vast majority - and maybe all - musicians care about art but also sell things.

NOBODY LIKES BEING STOLEN FROM.
IF THEY DID LIKE IT, THEY WOULD GIVE FREE SAMPLES.
STOP RATIONALIZING RAPE.

If a "true" artist didnt want his or her music to be heard, then that artist would not have his or her music available for others to hear.

It's not avaliable for you to hear. It's in a CD in a case in a plastic wrapper that you pay to access.
You pay to open the wrapper. You pay to use the CD.
It is avaliable for others to hear, but not for you, because the others actually managed to exchange goods for services without resorting to rape.

An artists [sic] choice to give their music away for free for others to hear should be about a matter of trust, not a matter of making more money. If this is the case, then the reason they chose to keep their music private is because of the sentimental value a song has for them, not the potential income it can produce for them. Hence the reason they choose to withhold information becomes the ethical reason of the sentimental value that that song holds to them, as opposed to the unethical reason of them being greedy (and please be mature enough to distinguish between greed and ecconomical [sic] survival, obviously the few dollars a busker plays his guitar for is very different from millions made by record corporations and their artists).

Oh, I'm sorry.
I didn't know you lived in a fantasy world where security is based on the honour system, and theft isn't theft if you aren't emotionally attached to the object.

In other words, "the slut deserved it because she wasn't a virgin."

Notice the word choice there?
You redefined choice to mean the opposite of choice.
Apparently, anything that requires money instantly removes your human rights?
It doesn't matter if your are rich or poor. You are not supposed to be raped by Frendzy's disgusting penis!

So, anything you consent share with a friend becomes public property instantly?
So when I give your mom a card thanking her for the sex, you gain the right to steal my mail?
Because my mail isn't private anymore once I send it?

It's called consent! Do you understand?
The name and address on the envelope means only your mom is allowed to read that card.
She is the only person I granted permission to do so!
The package on a CD means only the person who pays is allowed to buy it!
They are the only people who are allowed to do so!

Not you!
You are excluded because you're a rapist!
You are not allowed to read your mother's erotic poetry!

Give me your credit card. Give me your credit card or you are a liar. You shared that information with your credit card company, so now it is public domain.

Notice how I have the common courtesy to ask?

The songs are not genericized and over-promoted to attract a maximum audience, they are genericized and over-promoted to attract a maximum profit.

Yeah and profit has absolutely nothing to do with people, in capitalism.
I mean, it's not like people actually pay to be a part of an audience.
All that money just falls from the sky!
So the more "generic" the song, the less people listen and the more money gets crapped into n*sync's coffers by a magic cloud?

I like this fantasy world!
Maybe a unicorn will arrive next to tell us about how people wouldn't build cars unless they wanted them to be driven, so stealing a ferrari is moral!

Remember, however, that you should only steal cars that are sincere cars. If the car is not sincere, then it was only made for a profit and is crap!

Fig. 1: Sincere Car

Fig. 2: Insincere Car

Hence, [the fact that all artists want an audience] is negated.

All artists want an audience.
-They get a paying audience by having them buy tickets/CDs.
-They get a public audience by giving out free samples.

They set out the rules. Follow the rules and you get the music. That's called consent.

-They do NOT want to get raped by your disgusting penis.

I really congradulate [sic] you here, becuase I find your ability to cunningly use your knowledge of arguing logically to make me look like an absoulute [sic] moron amusing. Unfortuneatly [sic], you would have to be a moron if you read my original post and couldnt [sic] understand that the last thing I wanted clearly wasnt [sic] shitty generic music.

If you don't want music that's about making money, then you don't need to steal anymore!
Unless you admit that there are good artists who still sell things just like every other normal non-rapist in society.

What I want, which seems to be eluding you either becuase [sic] of your mental incapacity to understand me, or because of your sternous [sic] attempts to condescend me, is to steal the profits of people who make shitty generic music, because this will ultimately eliminate them, and their shitty generic music.

So you do want shitty music?
Your entire plan is this:

1) Create a massive demand for shitty music. Make it extremely popular and the artists famous.
2) People everywhere will love shitty music so much that they will do anything to get it, including steal.
3) Shitty music goes bankrupt because there is a massive demand for their product.

Man, I am a real idiot to have not anticipated this brilliant plan!

If only I wasnt [sic] unfortuneatly [sic] so self-congradulatory [sic] and sternous [sic] in my logic!

Correct me if Im [sic] wrong, but [making fun of how frendzy called drug use a sign of "selling out" in the art world -] thats [sic] a straw man argument is it not?

No, obviously not.
Here's a quick tip: if you attempt to correct my logic, you are very probably wrong.

It's a straw man argument if I argue a point that is even stupider than the one you made.

You said that drug use (along with bullimia and "being rich") is clear evidence of a lack of artistic integrity.
I made fun of that utterly ridiculous notion.

Now that we've gotten past you momental attempt to make a fool of me, or alternatively your momentous stupidity, we can adress [sic] the actual point you made.

So which is more momentous?
My sternous [sic] attempts to make a fool of you, or my unfortuneat [sic] stupidity?
I think I know the answer!
But my actual point was way up at the top of this thread.
Here it is again, since you missed it:

"You're a self-declared and unapologetic rapist."

And what we are debating here, is [sic] the reasons for the consent to reveal information.

The reason I dont want to show you my credit card number is security. The reason I dont want people hacking my computer or reading my diary is because of the damage they might do to my information or the sentimental value that may be eroded from them reading my diary.

Why does britney spears's record company want to with hold [sic] her music from people who want to hear it? greed.

Oh, I see now.

Britney defends her profit = greed.
Feendzy defends his profit = security.

Britney refuses to share information with everyone = greed.
Feendzy refuses to share information with everyone = sentimental.

Britney wears schoolgirl outfit = greed.
Feendzy wears schoolgirl outfit = every second tuesday.

Now because I don't have to time to satisfy the deeply embedded insecruties [sic] I have about how inferior I am, by proving how well I can condescend people i [sic] barely know over the internet with my logical argueing [sic] skills, I want you to adress [sic] this very clear and simple question....in hope that it will save us both a great deal of time.

Why didn't you say so! Obviously the previous, stupid points were only made to keep me on my toes, in preparation for the real event: the final, Omega Question that stumps me once and for all!

Will I survive this onslaught and adress [sic] my insecruties [sic] long enough for me to stop argueing [sic] logically like some sort of goddamn rational smart guy?

Time for the ultimate question!!! Hold on to your hats!!!

Is it or is it not wrong, for someone to withold information from someone else, for a selfish reason such as greed. If not then why?

It is extremely wrong! Here is why:

There is this guy on the internet named FreNDzY, who believes that it's immoral to withhold information for personal reasons.
But he withheld his credit card number for his own selfish money reasons!
Then he withheld his diary for selfish emotional reasons!

So obviously it is wrong to withhold information because withholding information has turned FreNDzY into a hypocritical douchebag.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Okay, I understand the rape analogy, and your right that it's wrong to rape, no matter who the person (or artist) is. Because I am getting something out of someone else for nothing.

The idea that I want to force artist to make art purely for the philanthropy of others is wrong, Just like the idea of me forcing a woman to give me and others sex purely for the philanthropy of others is wrong. However the idea that an artist or a woman giving art or sex purely out of benevolance or virtue is not.

My flaw is that I expect that all artists whould be offering their art out of benevolance or virture.

thank you for clarifying that, although it was a bit difficult to decipher it out of all your wise cracks.

however i have the following to say,

When I said this "what I want, is to steal the profits of people who make shitty generic music, because this will ultimately eliminate them, and their shitty generic music."

your replied with this:

So you do want shitty music?
Your entire plan is this:

1) Create a massive demand for shitty music. Make it extremely popular and the artists famous.
2) People everywhere will love shitty music so much that they will do anything to get it, including steal.
3) Shitty music goes bankrupt because there is a massive demand for their product.

after you emphasized that I said that I wanted was to steal the profits of people who make shitty generic music.

I dont see how you go from me wanting to steal the profits of people who make shitty generic music to those 3 steps. Can you please clarify?


the definition of greed goes along the lines of "excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions."

Now is my withholding information of my credit card for personal reasons because of my “excessive or rapcious desire to attain wealth or possesions?”

Alternatively, when comparing my intent to that of a records corpation's, is their personal reasons to 'protect' their possesion of an artist's song the same as my personal reasons to protect my details of my credit card to secure my possessions?

As I said in my earlier post, there is a clear distinction between a busker who makes money playing his guitar, and britney spear's record corporation. Both are making music for personal reasons, but the difference is greed.

This is the point I wanted to make. I hate aritist that make millions out of prostituting their art. I hate them because their art is (usually) shit. The internet (althought as you pointed out, stealing, from who ever it is, is wrong) will gradually cause these artists not to make such a killing out of their heavily mediasized and propaganderised music. Eventually, Brintney spears wont have millions from her record company to advertise her music, and the music that most people will get to hear are music from much better artists, from artists who arent out to do art to make millions, but out to make music. Just like on You Tube, we are seeing a wide range of artists with their pokemon clips or break dancing moves or what ever they have to show, and they're doing it purely because they want to show the world their art, not exploit people's desire for their art.

So what does downloading music illegally over the internet do? I would argue that it essentially stops artists from making millions, and it gives other artists (who are unable to reach larger audiences because of how much the richer artists dominate the audience) an opportunity to be heard.

Whats wrong with that? stealing yes, but it results in more artists being heard, more people hearing the kind of artists they really want to hear, and more artists making art for art.

 

[kirovman]

Whats wrong with that?

You answered your own question with the next two words.

stealing yes,

 

[Absinthe]

Frenzy, you are in no position to dictate what artists make their music for. Get off your retarded high horse and stop violating others for the sake of your ill-concieved ethical benevolence.

Jesus Christ, I pirate plenty of things. But I don't try to justify myself or - even worse - make it seem like a good thing.

Basically, you want to disrupt supply and demand. Britney Spears makes millions, yes. Did it ever occur to you that she does so because people are entirely willing to throw their cash at her? Prostitute or not, her audience does not care. So you'll have to forgive me if I think you're a self-righteous bastard for wanting to intervene and decide what's really best for everyone involved. If people wanted to listen to other artists, they would. If they wanted to listen to some indie, non-profit, alt-rock college slop, they could. But wait, I would think that such "true" artists would make their music for music's sake. Not with audience or profit in mind. See, now you're just confusing the shit out of me because you can't seem to coherently define the difference between a good artist and a bad one except... uhh... one's on a record label making money?
We do not punish greed by itself. If I churn out an album and decide to sell it for sixty bucks and people still want to buy it, there's nothing you can do. Why? Because it doesn't matter if I'm greedy or not, as I still rely on the support of my audience. An audience, I will remind you, that wants to pay money for my shit. They don't want some new Pokemon clip, break dance move, or whatever sad crap on Youtube you think constitutes "art". If I'm a mega-millionaire whore, it's because my audience has allowed it and they don't care.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

My flaw is that I expect that all artists whould be offering their art out of benevolance or virture.

Then you want free music that is intentionally free, and should stop stealing it.
Because in your model, basically all professional artists aren't "real" artists anyways.
You should ONLY listen to free music.

When I said this "what I want, is to steal the profits of people who make shitty generic music, because this will ultimately eliminate them, and their shitty generic music.

I dont see how you go from me wanting to steal the profits of people who make shitty generic music to those 3 steps. Can you please clarify?

Right, I forgot that you don't understand how capitalism works.

There's this concept called Supply and Demand.
How it works is that if people demand something, and you supply it, you will attract customers.
I want an apple, I'll try and get an apple.
The amount of demand determines the value of the product.
If it's the last apple on Earth, then it will be worth millions.

So, your plan is to have millions of software pirates steal all the music from record companies.
Rational people will NOT steal unless there is a demand for what they are stealing. Only crazy people steal for no reason at all.

You already have an unlimited supply of stolen music. Any idiot can download limewire. Yet, somehow, the record companies are still there.
Remember, no-one steals unless the demand for the product exceeds the cost.
So, in order to get more people stealing, your plan needs you to create an even more massive demand for the music.

So, the only way you plan will work is to make the demand for record companies so powerful that they can't keep up to supply that demand.

In reality, the only way to reduce the demand for a product is to replace it with something better. But you have no musical ability.

Now is my withholding information of my credit card for personal reasons because of my “excessive or rapcious [sic] desire to attain wealth or possesions?”

Yes, it is excessive. By your own standards.
You said:
"[It is] wrong, for someone to withold information from someone else, for a selfish reason."

Do you understand what selfish means?

Anything that you do for yourself and not for me is excessive and wrong.

Therefore, you cannot withhold your credit card number!
It is wrong to withhold information that someone else wants!

Alternatively, when comparing my intent to that of a records corpation's, is their personal reasons [sic] to 'protect' their possesion of an artist's song the same as my personal reasons to protect my details of my credit card to secure my possessions?

Yes, they are identical. You defend your earnings. So do they.
The only difference is that they are popular and successful and you are not.

As I said in my earlier post, there is a clear distinction between a busker who makes money playing his guitar, and britney spear's [sic] record corporation. Both are making music for personal reasons, but the difference is greed.

Everyone is greedy. You are greedy because you refuse to give me your credit card number. The busker is greedy because he wants money.

NO-ONE WANTS TO LOSE MONEY FOR NO REASON.
The only difference between you and Britney Spears is that she is popular and you are not, she is successful and you are not and she is rich and you are not.
You are both equally greedy, because you both refuse to be stolen from.

This is the point I wanted to make. I hate aritist [sic] that make millions out of prostituting their art. I hate them because their art is (usually) shit. The internet (althought as you pointed out, stealing, from who ever it is, is wrong) will gradually cause these artists not to make such a killing out of their heavily mediasized [sic] and propaganderised [sic] music.

So your message is that it's okay to steal if you hate someone enough?

Well guess what? I legitimately hate you. I think that you're a deeply flawed person with a sub-preschool grasp of basic human morality.

So give me your credit card immediately!
I hate you, so give me your money!
You have more money than you deserve!

Eventually, Brintney [sic] spears wont have millions from her record company to advertise her music, and the music that most people will get to hear are music from much better artists, from artists who arent [sic] out to do art to make millions, but out to make music. Just like on You Tube [sic], we are seeing a wide range of artists with their pokemon clips or break dancing [sic] moves or what ever [sic] they have to show, and they're doing it purely because they want to show the world their art, not exploit people's desire for their art.

I like how you define legitimate art as "breakdancing with pokemon on Youtube". The art of the distopian Feendzy future is certainly majestic!

Britney Spears isn't famous because of advertisements. She is famous because some people *gasp* actually like her music. So many people like her that she became famous, which furthermore increases the demand for her.
Lots of people love Britney Spears. If they didn't, she would end up like Milli Vanilli: no-one would buy their record.
Just because you hate her doesn't mean you get to rape her. Do you understand?
Saying "I hate her" is not an excuse to rape. Do you understand?

So what does downloading music illegally over the internet do? I would argue that it essentially stops artists from making millions, and it gives other artists (who are unable to reach larger audiences because of how much the richer artists dominate the audience) an opportunity to be heard.

Whats wrong with that? stealing yes, but it results in more artists being heard, more people hearing the kind of artists they really want to hear, and more artists making art for art.

How does Britney Spears being famous stop you from watching your breakdancing pokemon on Youtube?
This is another false dichotomy.
Do you know why breakdancing pokemon aren't extremely famous, despite having an infinite supply on Youtube?
Because there is no demand for them!

No-one likes low-quality Youtube shit. The reason it's on Youtube and not on DVD is that no-one in their right mind would pay for a home video of a toddler falling down.
It's worthless.

Your final goal is to say "this is what people should be allowed to see: the lame crap that only I like. Also, the crap that I like should be free for me to steal. Artists will thank me for stealing their crap because I'm not greedy or selfish."

End result: you're retarded.
You hate Britney Spears for being "a prostitute" (misogyny?) while you encourage prostitution when it benefits you in the form of prostitute-rape (misogyny!).



By the way, "Pokemon Breakdancing" has 150 clips on youtube.
"Britney Spears" has 8500.

 

[kirovman]

I love your arguements Mecha

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I would sincerely buy (not pirate) a montly Mechagodzilla magazine, full of vitriol-fuelled political HATEHATEHATE.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I first want to clarify something, sometimes you place [sic] in my quotes. What's that for?

So, your plan is to have millions of software pirates steal all the music from record companies.

No, my plan is to steal the profits, not the music from record corporations. This can be achieved by not buying their cd's.

You already have an unlimited supply of stolen music. Any idiot can download limewire. Yet, somehow, the record companies are still there.
Remember, no-one steals unless the demand for the product exceeds the cost.
So, in order to get more people stealing, your plan needs you to create an even more massive demand for the music.

So, the only way you plan will work is to make the demand for record companies so powerful that they can't keep up to supply that demand.

In reality, the only way to reduce the demand for a product is to replace it with something better. But you have no musical ability.

As I made the point before, my plan is to steal profits not music, hence I don't need to create massive demand for the music of record companies, I need to create massive demand for the profits of record corporations. How do record corporations recieve profits for their records? By creating demand for their music. Hence, the goal of my plan would be to do the opposite of what you said, it would be to decrease demand for their music, and I hold that the internet is an effective way of doing this, because it allows a larger amount of artists to be heard, hence the total audience gets to hear more muscians dispersing their demand (and thus the profits made for music) amoung many more muscisians.

In the short term, stealing music from record corporations may reduce their profits, but in the long term, as you pointed out, this will not work because the desire to steal ultimately comes when demand exceeds how willing you are to pay for for the product, hence the root of my plan would be reducing demand, not reducing the profits mades by stealing.

Britney Spears isn't famous because of advertisements. She is famous because some people *gasp* actually like her music. So many people like her that she became famous, which furthermore increases the demand for her.
Lots of people love Britney Spears.

So what your saying (or atleast insinuating) is, that the record corporations that spent millions of dollars trying to promote and advertise Britney had no role in getting people to like her. The people must have *gasp* magically found her music from the depths of nowhere and they must have came together and decided that they should collectively give their money to elevate her to her rightfully earned superstar status.

let me extract a bit of britney's biography to enlighten you on how so many people discovered this brilliantly 'talented' young woman.

She began to audition for pop bands in the New York area, her demo tapes eventually landing on the desk of Jive Records' Jeff Fenster. ''Her vocal ability and commercial appeal caught me right away,'' he recalls. She was expensively groomed by Jive, who put her in the studio with Eric Foster White (producer and writer for Boyzone, Whitney Houston and others). They employed top R&B writer Max Martin (of Backstreet Boys fame) to produce her debut single, ''... Baby, One More Time'', and an album of the same title.

Jeff Fenster from Jive Records basically invested in what he thought would make money. Brintney was pushed on to people, not offered, and it was done primarily through advertising and promotional campaigns. Yes some people may like her songs, hell, I liked 'baby one more time' when it came out, but a person's choice to like britney and Max martins music, has been grossly manipulated by the amount of money invested in her by record corporations in order to make her famous.

By the way, "Pokemon Breakdancing" has 150 clips on youtube.
"Britney Spears" has 8500.

I think that pokemon breakdancing to have 150 clips is shockingly amazing, considering that pokemon breakdancing does not recieve thousands of hours of media coverage, gossip, and millions of dollars in advertising to promote themselves.

How does Britney Spears being famous stop you from watching your breakdancing pokemon on Youtube?
This is another false dichotomy.

it doesn't stop me from watching break dancing pokemon on youtube, because were not talking about me. We are talking about the audience. When the audience is exposed, continously to britney spears, every where they go, they are unable to pay attention to break dancing pokemon. Breakdancing pokemon have the modest courtesy of not screaming in the faces of their audiences with a million dollar megaphone.

No-one likes low-quality Youtube shit.

Oh god your making me laugh, No one likes low quality you tube shit because
the ideo views have reached 1.73 billion and the total time people spent watching YouTube since it started last year is 9,305 years. I guess everyone is grudgingly spending all their time watching low-quality Youtube shit that No-one likes.

The reason it's on Youtube and not on DVD is that no-one in their right mind would pay for a home video of a toddler falling down.
It's worthless.

The reason Youtube is not on DVD is because 45 terabytes dont fit on a DVD, and Youtube wouldnt be Youtube if it was on DVD.

Youtube is worthless? Is that why google is offering 1.6 billion for home videos of toddlers falling down is it?

Your final goal is to say "this is what people should be allowed to see: the lame crap that only I like. Also, the crap that I like should be free for me to steal. Artists will thank me for stealing their crap because I'm not greedy or selfish."

No my final goal is to say, people should be allowed to see what they want to see, not the artistic prostitues that are pushed into their faces by huge record Pimps. Youtube and music sharing on the internet is a means by which an audience can really choose what they want to listen to or watch, instead of them being limited to the top forty songs that are selected for them to watch by record corporations on MTV.

So your message is that it's okay to steal if you hate someone enough?

No that's not my message, But if I said something to make you think that then I apologize for not clarifying it.

Yes, it is excessive. By your own standards.
You said:
"[It is] wrong, for someone to withold information from someone else, for a selfish reason."

Sorry, by selfish reason I meant greed, didn't make it very clear there for you.

Anything that you do for yourself and not for me is excessive and wrong.

Therefore, you cannot withhold your credit card number!
It is wrong to withhold information that someone else wants!

Yes, they are identical. You defend your earnings. So do they.
The only difference is that they are popular and successful and you are not.

Everyone is greedy. You are greedy because you refuse to give me your credit card number. The busker is greedy because he wants money.

NO-ONE WANTS TO LOSE MONEY FOR NO REASON.
The only difference between you and Britney Spears is that she is popular and you are not, she is successful and you are not and she is rich and you are not.
You are both equally greedy, because you both refuse to be stolen from.

You can't be serious. You honestly consider a busker to be as equally greedy as a record corporation because they both refuse to be stolen from? Either you don't understand what greed means or you are deluded.

let me try and make this simple for you.
Greed is BAD. By definition.
Self-Interest is not always neccesarily bad, it can be bad for others...sometimes.

Hence, busker making a few bucks at the street corner, not bad, but merely self interested, doing what he can to look after himself. Record Corporations Investing in stupid and generic music by appealing to the sexual insecurities of little girls in order to reap the maximum amount of profits? a little self interested? or would you say mostly Greedy?

If we are to continue this discussion, you have to clearly deliniate what your idea of greed is, so that we can come to an agreement, otherwise we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

[kirovman]

Are you an advocate of Socialism, Frenzy?

 

[Tagaziel]

I'm strongly against piracy, because it is, for all intents and purposes, thefth of intellectual property and as such, it's no different from stealing a brand new car from a vahicle dealer, when it comes down to principles.

However, sharing single music files was actually proved more profitable for music companies, as users could review the music first and figure to buy the full record later (just like with shareware). I did that with, for example, Heart's compilation CD.

Frenzy, you are using the famed doublethink to justify your means. When one person earns money, it's "self-interest", when a company earns money, because, guess it, people working for it need to get paid and artists get royalties, it's "greed".

Get your act straight.

Last, if a human is intelligent, he will know where to look for good music. If not, he's already a lost cause.

 

[Solaris]

Here's a nice loophole for us socialists.

A working class person works in a factory and makes products that are used by hundreds of people, during his life he has made his share of tens of thousands of these products. However, he does not own the product, because it's not his design and the tools he made it with are not his. As soon as he makes the product (lets call it a CD), it is taken from him and sold for $15 for ever CD this worker makes he earns $0.2.

Now the music artist, in few months of relaxed work earns Millions from these Cd's. The person who works years making them, earns enough for a small house and food for his children. He made the CD, not the content.

The point I'm trying to make is, society and the law deems it okay to steal the labour of the proletariat, yet we feel it is immoral and thus illegal to steal the labour of musicians, who buy the products of the working class, thus stealing the labour of others.

 

[kirovman]

Uhh, but CDs aren't made painstakingly by a hammer and an anvil.

Some guy presses a button which says "Copy 10000 CD batch from Master Disk" and then the machine makes the CDs.

I mean, I make software for my company and they claim the IP rights. In exchange they pay me a salary and give me a promotion. I don't think it's unfair that I'm not allowed to sell that software on the sly.