Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Benny]

I agree with the bolded, I said as much in my last post. As far as the first sentence in your post, I wasn't referring to Lucas Oil hosting a live event. What if they invited everyone in to watch a pay-per-view fight on their big screens? They didn't get written permission from the UFC, and didn't pay them a dime. They just opened up the doors and said "Hey we're showing the fight tonight, come on in and buy some beer and food and watch it." Do you think it would be right for Lucas Oil to do that, and do you think the UFC would take issue with it?

I was saying live as in "watch it live on our big screens." They would have to pay per seat and there'd be no possible way of getting away with it, so it's sort of a moot point...Hole in the wall bars get busted for it.

Answer my last question, because I have another one for you.

 

[jsharmon7]

I was saying live as in "watch it live on our big screens." They would have to pay per seat and there'd be no possible way of getting away with it, so it's sort of a moot point...Hole in the wall bars get busted for it.

Answer my last question, because I have another one for you.

But that's the point I'm making. They obviously didn't intend for Lucas Oil or hole-in-the-wall bars to profit off their shows, so why do you think they would be okay with you profiting off their shows? Is it simply a question of scale? So to answer your question, I don't think it matters whether you charge $5 or $20 for your friends to watch it, you shouldn't profit off the UFC's work. It sounds to me like you're saying it's okay for you to do it because it's just a handful of friends, but wrong for a bigger entity to do it because of the higher volume. There, I answered your question, sort of.

EDIT: Let's continue this on a little further. Do you think it would be right for you to record those pay-per-view fights and then make a compilation DVD of the UFC's best fights to sell at a profit? You paid to watch the fights, and by your argument the UFC isn't out anything.

 

[Prometheus]

I want to bring up another counter point.One of the most succesful bands of the last 50 years, encourages people to record and trade their shows in any way they can. It use to be via tapes in mailing and has since moved on to the internet. Care to guess the name of the band?

I do not see how they have lost any money from letting people trade their music, heck 15 years after their lead singer and the heart of their band passed away people are still buying thier material.

Learn to adapt and embrace and you will flourish.

I'm not going to look it up, but a wild guess... Pink Floyd?

 

[level.eleven]

I want to bring up another counter point.One of the most succesful bands of the last 50 years, encourages people to record and trade their shows in any way they can. It use to be via tapes in mailing and has since moved on to the internet. Care to guess the name of the band?

I do not see how they have lost any money from letting people trade their music, heck 15 years after their lead singer and the heart of their band passed away people are still buying thier material.

Learn to adapt and embrace and you will flourish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiboT2pLVRk&feature=related

/Pigpen fan

http://www.archive.org/details/GratefulDead

Listen to any show you want. Including '69 at the Memorial Union at Purdue.

 

[Expat]

I think Dave Matthews and Bruce Springstein allow recordings at their concerts as well.

 

[Benny]

But that's the point I'm making. They obviously didn't intend for Lucas Oil or hole-in-the-wall bars to profit off their shows, so why do you think they would be okay with you profiting off their shows? Is it simply a question of scale? So to answer your question, I don't think it matters whether you charge $5 or $20 for your friends to watch it, you shouldn't profit off the UFC's work. It sounds to me like you're saying it's okay for you to do it because it's just a handful of friends, but wrong for a bigger entity to do it because of the higher volume. There, I answered your question, sort of.

Well, you still dodged it, but I'll ask anyway.

I personally don't see a difference in charging $5 or $20, because it doesn't affect the company in any way, shape or form.

Do you think they would rather me charge 10 people $20(and make $150 off of them) or would they rather me have 100 people over and charge $.50 a piece(no, my house isn't big enough to seat or even really fit 100 people.)? After all, it is MY house and Dana never specified how many people I should invite over to watch it.

(Disclosure: I have people over all of the time for PPVs and have never made a dime...I'm actually down quite a bit)

EDIT(for your edit):

EDIT: Let's continue this on a little further. Do you think it would be right for you to record those pay-per-view fights and then make a compilation DVD of the UFC's best fights to sell at a profit? You paid to watch the fights, and by your argument the UFC isn't out anything.

I think it is completely reasonable for me to record the fights and make a compilation DVD for myself, but if I sold it or even gave it away, the UFC IS out money, because they do that themselves and they are for sale. I also don't think it is wrong to show it to my friends when they come over. I paid those ass holes $50 per pay per view to be able to make the damn thing.

 

[jsharmon7]

Well, you still dodged it, but I'll ask anyway.

I personally don't see a difference in charging $5 or $20, because it doesn't affect the company in any way, shape or form.

Do you think they would rather me charge 10 people $20(and make $150 off of them) or would they rather me have 100 people over and charge $.50 a piece(no, my house isn't big enough to seat or even really fit 100 people.)? After all, it is MY house and Dana never specified how many people I should invite over to watch it.

(Disclosure: I have people over all of the time for PPVs and have never made a dime...I'm actually down quite a bit)

Aww come on man, I answered that part.

It doesn't matter how much you charge them. If you're making a profit off somebody else's work that you have no rights or privileges to, it's wrong. Also, I edited my last post and asked another question.

 

[Benny]

Aww come on man, I answered that part.

It doesn't matter how much you charge them. If you're making a profit off somebody else's work that you have no rights or privileges to, it's wrong. Also, I edited my last post and asked another question.

I edited for your edit.

So it would be much more ethical and they'd rather me have 100 people over @ $.50 a piece than to have 10 people over @ $20 a piece, correct?

I admit that I am guilty of not reading the disclaimer at the beginning of each PPV thoroughly, but I haven't seen anything in there about how much to charge someone at your house, nor how many people I'm allowed to have at my house. I'll be sure to check it out this Saturday for UFC 135 when I have a moderate amount of people over and end up losing money purchasing it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I bet the disclaimer has something about corporations and businesses that wish to show it at their place of business for profit.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Seriously, this isnt really that hard to figure out. 88GT has explained it pretty well probably 50 times. I guess others just cant comprehend something that is fairly straight forward.

But as far as bands allowing you to tape their shows, they are giving you the authority to do so, good for them. But that still doesnt mean you can take what doesnt belong to you without compensating those who made it. I seriously dont get how this is that difficult to get. But I always love the line where oen of the posters was saying those who opposed his views were liberalists lol. I guess when you cant argue with facts and common sense you have to resort to idiotic jabs.

 

[snowrs]

/Pigpen fan

Grateful Dead : Free Music : Free Audio : Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Listen to any show you want. Including '69 at the Memorial Union at Purdue.

BINGO, the Dead have made a ton of money (in the top 20 earners in a number of yers) yet have only had one song to make it into the top ten.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Seriously, this isnt really that hard to figure out. 88GT has explained it pretty well probably 50 times. I guess others just cant comprehend something that is fairly straight forward.

But as far as bands allowing you to tape their shows, they are giving you the authority to do so, good for them. But that still doesnt mean you can take what doesnt belong to you without compensating those who made it. I seriously dont get how this is that difficult to get. But I always love the line where oen of the posters was saying those who opposed his views were liberalists lol. I guess when you cant argue with facts and common sense you have to resort to idiotic jabs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The matter isn't straight forward. Large corporations buy lots of politicians...so yes, it is illegal. I don't think anyone is really arguing against that.

It is morally gray, however. If you drive past a house, decide you like the colors of the siding & shutters, then use the same on your house...are you a thief unless you go back to that house & give compensation of their choosing? That's essentially what some of you are arguing.

I've not yet read an adequate rebuttal (morally speaking) of my Game of Thrones HBO-exclusive example. If I were to hypothetically pirate the first episode to check it out, but I don't have cable/satellite & therefor no access to HBO, am I really depriving them of anything? Very few people would decide a single TV series is worth $100+/mo.

IMO, if someone decides to send their thoughts, ideas, pictures, videos, music, games into the world, but limit access to them by one or more of (High Prices|Convoluted Access|Intrusive DRM), it is not immoral to pirate them for private use.

Again, I'll add that I pay:

• $8/mo for Hulu Plus (which is also add supported...)
• $8/mo for Netflix Streaming
• $23/mo for Audible.com
• $15/mo for World of Warcraft

I also use these add-supported services:

• Slacker.com
• Spotify

Even with all of those services, there is still content I cannot read/view/hear without having to open my wallet wide, follow a process which is more convoluted than piracy, or deal with intrusive DRM. A lot of folks in the same situation choose to pirate, feeling slighted by the media owners.

 

[steveh_131]

Even with all of those services, there is still content I cannot read/view/hear without having to open my wallet wide, follow a process which is more convoluted than piracy, or deal with intrusive DRM. A lot of folks in the same situation choose to pirate, feeling slighted by the media owners.

I second this.

Scenario: I want a movie on my media server so that I can play it on my HTPC any time I want.

Currently I have to go to the store, purchase the movie. Bring it home. Use illegal software to crack the absurd copy protection on it. Spend 25 minutes copying it onto my server. Delete the stupid anti-piracy ads on a DVD that I have ALREADY PURCHASED. Delete the stupid trailers that lead up to the movie before I can even get to the menu. Spend at least 60 minutes encoding it into a format that doesn't take up an enormous amount of space on my hard drive. Is this even technically legal right now?

OR

One click and 15 minutes later I could have it downloaded in xvid format, encoded properly with subtitles and multiple audio tracks.

The difference is even more obscene with bluray. Don't even get me started on the DRM annoyances of PC games.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

What this thread has shown me is that old-minded people who think this discussion is still about music on CDs believe one thing, in general, while young-minded people who are personally effected by Blu-rays with 5+ minute of unskippable advertisements, home-theater PCs with the ability to digitally store thousands of movies, smart phones capable of watching theatrical releases, and computers capable of playing videogames believe another thing, in general.

 

[steveh_131]

What this thread has shown me is that old-minded people who think this discussion is still about music on CDs believe one thing, in general, while young-minded people who are personally effected by Blu-rays with 5+ minute of unskippable advertisements, home-theater PCs with the ability to digitally store thousands of movies, smart phones capable of watching theatrical releases, and computers capable of playing videogames believe another thing, in general.

Agreed. I'll pay for things that are of value to me, not because I feel its morally wrong to pirate but because I support their work and would like to see more of it. I've donated money to open source software writers. XBMC and Ubuntu Linux for example.

However, it pisses me off that paying for content is more tedious and irritating than pirating it. And I end up a criminal anyways for transferring the content to a medium more convenient for me.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Agreed. I'll pay for things that are of value to me, not because I feel its morally wrong to pirate but because I support their work and would like to see more of it. I've donated money to open source software writers. XBMC and Ubuntu Linux for example.

However, it pisses me off that paying for content is more tedious and irritating than pirating it. And I end up a criminal anyways for transferring the content to a medium more convenient for me.

Just because you find it morally acceptable to steal does not mean its legal to do so or even really right to do so.

Its great that you pay for what you find valuable, but dont steal what you dont.

But to your last point, most often doing the right thing is more tedious an irritating than doing the wrong thing. Why should this be any different.

Also to the point of moving things to your home theater PC, buy the blu rays that have the digital copy.

Really guys its not that hard to figure out. If you want a movie, song, video game, go buy it. If you don't want to buy it and you take it anyway you are doing something illegal. Whats so hard to understand?

BTW not old, I am 31, have a home theater that I can hook up my laptop to. Guess what I have a bunch of digital copies on it, ya know from movies I actually bought...

 

[Expat]

What this thread has shown me is that old-minded people who think this discussion is still about music on CDs believe one thing, in general, while young-minded people who are personally effected by Blu-rays with 5+ minute of unskippable advertisements, home-theater PCs with the ability to digitally store thousands of movies, smart phones capable of watching theatrical releases, and computers capable of playing videogames believe another thing, in general.

Who you calling old, skippy

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The matter isn't straight forward. Large corporations buy lots of politicians...so yes, it is illegal. I don't think anyone is really arguing against that.

It is morally gray, however. If you drive past a house, decide you like the colors of the siding & shutters, then use the same on your house...are you a thief unless you go back to that house & give compensation of their choosing? That's essentially what some of you are arguing.

I've not yet read an adequate rebuttal (morally speaking) of my Game of Thrones HBO-exclusive example. If I were to hypothetically pirate the first episode to check it out, but I don't have cable/satellite & therefor no access to HBO, am I really depriving them of anything? Very few people would decide a single TV series is worth $100+/mo.

IMO, if someone decides to send their thoughts, ideas, pictures, videos, music, games into the world, but limit access to them by one or more of (High Prices|Convoluted Access|Intrusive DRM), it is not immoral to pirate them for private use.

Your morality is irrelevant, if you are cool with stealing intellectual property then more power to you, but it doesn't make it right. Will you get caught, highly unlikely.

Now to your example underlined. You are depriving the cable companies, HBO, and the creators of the show $$ because you are getting for free what is to be paid for. So yeah you are depriving them a monthly bill. Pretty cut and dry to me.

You can't go to a car lot, take a used car after they close, drive it over the night, then return it before they open. The value of the car is not diminished because you put an extra 100 miles on it. They really weren't harmed because the car was never gone during business hours right?

You can give hypothetical scenarios until you are blue in the face, but what it all boils down to is if you want something you have to pay for it. At least legally you have to.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Your morality is irrelevant, if you are cool with stealing intellectual property then more power to you, but it doesn't make it right. Will you get caught, highly unlikely.

Now to your example underlined. You are depriving the cable companies, HBO, and the creators of the show $$ because you are getting for free what is to be paid for. So yeah you are depriving them a monthly bill. Pretty cut and dry to me.

You can't go to a car lot, take a used car after they close, drive it over the night, then return it before they open. The value of the car is not diminished because you put an extra 100 miles on it. They really weren't harmed because the car was never gone during business hours right?

Could you please address the following, oh greatly adamant black & white one? You seem to have skipped right over it.

If you drive past a house, decide you like the colors of the siding & shutters, then use the same on your house...are you a thief unless you go back to that house & give compensation of their choosing? That's essentially what some of you are arguing.

I'm interested to know whether you would ring the doorbell & ask them what they'd like in return for their exterior design ideas, or if they had licensed them from a designer & whether they have that designer's contact information.

What it all boils down to is if you want something you have to pay for it. At least legally you have to.

Again, I've not been discussing legal merits... The EU just extended The Beatles' copyrights for another 20 years. Disney's Fantasia has been locked up in their "vault" for 71 years. When should these things come into the public realm? Some copyright holders simply charge too much, make it too difficult to read/view/play their works, or insist upon intrusive DRM. I support those who are worthy of support & don't support those who are unworthy.

Whether a person chooses to not partake of a work or chooses to pirate that work is irrelevant. Either way, the copyright holder wasn't going to make any money from them. To think otherwise is foolish, IMO.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Selling hard copies of an item in order to distribute music is an outdated practice... the only reason it still exists is to artificially sustain an industry via government regulation that would otherwise have went the way of the dodo bird....

Technology has surpassed the age of a company being required for music distribution. Since they want to hang onto the ability to make money off of artist's talent, they spend a margin of their profits on lobbyists... and we see the copyright laws we have in place today.

Artists in general make most of their money off touring... most artists never even break even on their record deals... it is not until they sell enough records that they become popular, and people pay to see their shows or buy their other merchandise that they start to see profits.

Artists make money off of digital music, and even sharing digital music leads to fans, which leads to a wider consumer base.... ring tones for one is a section of industry that has exploded in recent times, and the idea that artists are now unable to make money is a myth.

Times have changed - middlemen gaining the bulk of the profit off of album sales will soon be a thing of the past.... that is capitalism...

You know all those "government regulations" that get in the way of the free market everyone always talks about? This is one of those...

Strict copyright regulations stifle the development of consumer service development, propping up an artificial power structure that rewards old practices and stands in the way of the better services being offered to consumers.

PS: copyright infringement is not technically "theft" - semantics really, but not theft in the eyes of the court...