Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Yoder]

The record labels are the ones that need to go extinct.

I agree and think it is inevitable, though I think the distribution role will be filled by someone other than the artists directly. Likely the current digital media stores or something very like them.

But that has to happen from the artists side of the equation as much as from the consumer. As the lack of need to sign with a traditional distributor becomes more apparent more artists will skip over them. At least with music.

 

[steveh_131]

So because it became easy that makes it ok?

I'm arguing that it was always ok.

They were only able to make money from it because it wasn't easy.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Indeed, many artists already offer downloads available at their website.

No longer a need for a middle man. Especially when a lot of artists already have their own recording studio.

Play, record, sell, all from your living room.

 

[Westside]

I hear a lot of talk about the record labels. Does anyone really know how a record contract works?

The record label is like a bank for musicians. The owner or the label listens to a band and decides that he will give the band X amount of dollars to produce a record/s and tour/perform the songs for a certain amount of time.

The band is then required to produce album sales while the record labels holds the rights to all the content they produce. The record takes a large portion of the gross revenue from CD sales, concert tickets, merchandise, ETC. to cover the initial cash outlay and ongoing expenses.

If the band is a hit and makes money great.

IF the band flops and doesn't turn a profit the band has to repay the record label all of the money they spent to try and make them a hit.

This is why bands start their own labels.

If you want to start a label more power to you I used to work for them and have friends that still do. It is a hard life and a lot of work most people never realize.

 

[Yoder]

Game of Thrones on HBO.

I think that is a good example of a content distributor being dumb and trying to resist the inevitable. Regardless, HBO possesses the exclusive right to decide how Game of Thrones is distributed and they've chosen some narrow few options. Short sighted, because they could probably make more money by offering mire options. But then I don't run HBO.

Your restaurant example is funny because I recently heard an NPR story about people who essentially clone successful restaurants, sometimes right down the street from the original, using the a photocopy of the menu with the name changed. The liberalists in this thread would have to be taken to the original restaurant to be assured it hadn't been stolen.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I think that is a good example of a content distributor being dumb and trying to resist the inevitable. Regardless, HBO possesses the exclusive right to decide how Game of Thrones is distributed and they've chosen some narrow few options. Short sighted, because they could probably make more money by offering mire options. But then I don't run HBO.

I distinguish between moral/sensible & legal. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to pirate Game of Thrones, I wouldn't be depriving HBO of any potential income, because there's no chance in !@#$ that I would pay for a cable subscription plus HBO on top of it. There's no initiation of force, no deprivation of property, & no damages. How such an act would be a crime is beyond me.

Your restaurant example is funny because I recently heard an NPR story about people who essentially clone successful restaurants, sometimes right down the street from the original, using the a photocopy of the menu with the name changed. The liberalists in this thread would have to be taken to the original restaurant to be assured it hadn't been stolen.

Sadly, there are those who say such a thing should be illegal. If everyone would just remember that profit comes from providing a desirable product in a desirable manner at a desirable price, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hulu, Netflix streaming, Audible, Pandora, etc. are all successful because they supply demand desirably.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm referring to the common law definition, what is usually considered "black letter law" that isn't encumbered by later legal fictions grafted to it. I'm not commenting on the Indiana statutory definition.

The black letter law definition of theft is: taking property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

It's a definition that cuts across jurisdictions and time. I think you're missing the mark by demanding it be called "theft." It doesn't need to be called "theft" in order to be illegal and wrong. Society has decided to support composers and inventors by guaranteeing to protect their opportunity to profit from their creations in order to promote creativity and the sharing of ideas. If there is no profit in it, people are less likely to try to create anything of value. It's not the same as taking physical property. It is an encroachment on another's means of making a living and denying everyone the benefit of new ideas. That's why it is wrong.

Understood. Was looking for the perspective.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I distinguish between moral/sensible & legal. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to pirate Game of Thrones, I wouldn't be depriving HBO of any potential income, because there's no chance in !@#$ that I would pay for a cable subscription plus HBO on top of it. There's no initiation of force, no deprivation of property, & no damages. How such an act would be a crime is beyond me.



Sadly, there are those who say such a thing should be illegal. If everyone would just remember that profit comes from providing a desirable product in a desirable manner at a desirable price, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hulu, Netflix streaming, Audible, Pandora, etc. are all successful because they supply demand desirably.

My response is unjust enrichment. Even though there's no chance in hell you will pay for a cable subscription and HBO (a claim that would be difficult to prove because as you would ask others to take a logical leap from a cliff), you have unjustly derived benefit (the use of the game) to the detrement of it's owner (HBO).

Everything else you said is irrelevent.

 

[steveh_131]

My response is unjust enrichment. Even though there's no chance in hell you will pay for a cable subscription and HBO (a claim that would be difficult to prove because as you would ask others to take a logical leap from a cliff), you have unjustly derived benefit (the use of the game) to the detrement of it's owner (HBO).

Everything else you said is irrelevent.

How can you claim a detriment occurred without being able to prove that he would have otherwise made the purchase?

All you really have left is the derived benefit part of the equation.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

My response is unjust enrichment. Even though there's no chance in hell you will pay for a cable subscription and HBO (a claim that would be difficult to prove because as you would ask others to take a logical leap from a cliff), you have unjustly derived benefit (the use of the game) to the detrement of it's owner (HBO).

That's a very liberal argument. Because I might benefit from something at no one's expense, an injustice has occurred?

You're a business owner in Huntertown & benefit from my Fort Wayne property taxes every time you come into the city, heck...even by your sheer proximity. You can claim that you'll never come into Fort Wayne & benefit from my property taxes, but it's difficult to prove...

Everything else you said is irrelevent.

You frequently indicate that you either have very small fingers or very large ear canals...

 

[Benny]

If you rebroadcast it for financial gain that wasn't authorized by the artist, that's wrong too.

What I throw a kegger and make more money than I spent on beer and food? I doubt I'd have that many people show up if I didn't have plenty of music playing.

Either way, if your good or service is of so little value that you can not find a way to profit from it in a free market then I say good riddance.

So lets say from now on, 1 single person goes out and buys a CD the day it comes out. They go home, put it online and anyone that wants that album just gets online and downloads it for free. Everyone involved makes a few cents for months and months of work. Since it's so easy to steal, should people just not bother making music anymore? Or should they just stick to concerts and not let people listen to their music at home?

 

[G_Stines]

I am going to pitch in on this once... and then leave. Just to say my bit. I believe that you should not have to pay money for the license for each device. If I pay for that song via iTunes/CD/ect, that particular copy is now my property to do with what I wish. Do I copy CDs for people? No. Will I let them borrow one so they can listen to it and decide if they like the entire thing or nit pick songs? Yeah. Do I realize that some of them probably copied it? Yeah, but that wasn't me, and I am not making or attempting to make a profit. Do I go online and pirate music for free? Nope. Do I see why people do it? Yes, I see a multitude of reasons. A. If its able to be stolen and worth something, someone will try. When they get away with it, they will attempt again. And thus the spiral starts, where they will not want to pay money for something they can get for free, and then they tell their friends, who do the same. Some people don't have the money. And for some people, free trumps all, no matter the repercussions. I personally believe it comes down to a respect issue.

That's it. If you want you can quote me, but I won't be back... Just wanted to throw my thoughts out there as well. Sorry for it being mildly rantish. I just think that pirated music shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is with so many other things that need fixed in my opinion. I can't say anymore without hopping into a different rant.

 

[jsharmon7]

What I throw a kegger and make more money than I spent on beer and food? I doubt I'd have that many people show up if I didn't have plenty of music playing.

You made the money on the beer/party though. Had a new CD/movie/etc. been released and you sold tickets for people to come to your house to listen/view then I'd say you crossed the line. Just my opinion...

 

[Benny]

You made the money on the beer/party though. Had a new CD/movie/etc. been released and you sold tickets for people to come to your house to listen/view then I'd say you crossed the line. Just my opinion...

What about a pay per view movie?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

What about a pay per view movie?

You have to have an Xbox 360 Kinect so that the content provider can collect money from each person in attendance. This is why facial-recognition technology is so important. Won't someone think of the copyright holders?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

How can you claim a detriment occurred without being able to prove that he would have otherwise made the purchase?

All you really have left is the derived benefit part of the equation.

You could have just said that you don't understand the concept of unjust enrichment.

You don't have to prove he would otherwide have made the purchase. Unjust enrichment exists when you have an unfair or unjust enrichment that comes at the expense of another for which there is no defense.

In the hypothetical, Paco was enriched because he could play the game. He did not pay for it, so it was at the expense of the owner. The owner did not allow him to take the game without compensation. He has no defense other than he wanted to play the game but didn't want to pay for it.

That's a very liberal argument. Because I might benefit from something at no one's expense, an injustice has occurred?

You're a business owner in Huntertown & benefit from my Fort Wayne property taxes every time you come into the city, heck...even by your sheer proximity. You can claim that you'll never come into Fort Wayne & benefit from my property taxes, but it's difficult to prove...

You frequently indicate that you either have very small fingers or very large ear canals...

No, it's just not the anarchist argument you want. Your pirating was at the expense of the game manufacturer. You failed to compensation them for the use of their game. You have no valid defense. The game manufacturerr has remedies available to him. Unjust enrichment.

Your scenerio about coming into Fort Wayne is bizarre. Of the five elements of unjust enrichment only two possibly could be argued - That I was enriched and it was at your expense. It is not unjust, I have a defense (freedom of travel, freedom of association) and there is no remedy available to you. Test fails.

Sorry, but just because you babble on about something doesn't make it germane or relevent.

 

[steveh_131]

So lets say from now on, 1 single person goes out and buys a CD the day it comes out. They go home, put it online and anyone that wants that album just gets online and downloads it for free. Everyone involved makes a few cents for months and months of work. Since it's so easy to steal, should people just not bother making music anymore? Or should they just stick to concerts and not let people listen to their music at home?

They could distribute their music for free and make their money on donations, endorsements, advertising, merchandise and concerts. Pretty much the same way the artists make their money right now (a small percentage from album sales).

Case Study 1: Radiohead

Case Study 2: Me. I am a tech nerd, I know ways to pirate pretty much any content out there with virtually zero chance of getting in trouble for it. Yet I recently purchased every CD made by my two favorite Christian bands. I put the music on my computer immediately and will never ever touch the CD's again. I bought them because I wanted to support their music and for collectible reasons. I went to 8 Audio Adrenaline concerts when I was a kid before they retired. I bought tshirts and other merchandise.

Money can be made without government interference beyond simple property rights.

 

[steveh_131]

You could have just said that you don't understand the concept of unjust enrichment.

You don't have to prove he would otherwide have made the purchase. Unjust enrichment exists when you have an unfair or unjust enrichment that comes at the expense of another for which there is no defense.

In the hypothetical, Paco was enriched because he could play the game. He did not pay for it, so it was at the expense of the owner. The owner did not allow him to take the game without compensation. He has no defense other than he wanted to play the game but didn't want to pay for it.

I understand the concept.

I don't understand how it qualifies as an "expense" to the creator. They already expended their time and money on it. There is no further expense to them whether Paco watches the show or not.

So, yes, there is enrichment. But it comes at no further expense to the creator.

 

[jsharmon7]

What about a pay per view movie?

If you're making money off of it without their consent then I disagree with doing that. Also, you're costing them money because all of those people you're charging to come and see it aren't going to rent it themselves. If you paid the movie company for the rights to do this, like a movie theater, then I wouldn't see an issue with that. This is a little different than the OP though. If you burned copies of that movie and sold them, would that be wrong?

Again, I think the reason so many people are "okay" with this is that it's fairly common and I'm sure people here have done it. We're always more concerned with questionable acts committed by others but when it comes to ourselves we just rationalize it away. If you wrote a computer software program and a guy bought it and made copies and started selling them to everyone and cut you out of it, wouldn't you be a little upset with him? Would it make you feel better if he just gave them away rather than charging anyone?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I understand the concept.

I don't understand how it qualifies as an "expense" to the creator. They already expended their time and money on it. There is no further expense to them whether Paco watches the show or not.

So, yes, there is enrichment. But it comes at no further expense to the creator.

Either you don't understand, you're just trolling, or both. I'll go with both.