Why can't they make trial MP3's? They make trial software that turns itself off after 30 days or whatever. Why not do the same with MP3's? I know that doesn't even come close to addressing all of the issues, but it would help with one issue--people who like "trying out" music before deciding to buy it. I wish there was some way to block all illegal activity, but that can't be done without blocking some legal activity. I, for one, have no desire to be penalized for the activities of other people. As I said before, I have no intention of stealing music (or helping other people do so), but I do expect to be able to at least play (and record) the CD's I buy on my computer and download them to MP3 players.
Jeff, Gosh how will musicians ever survive? I guess the same way that we game developers have survived. You just make a quality product that the MAJORITY of people will purchase. There is no way to stop theft, it is rampant in both music and entertainment. DaDakota
Only if there's a lot of office shenanigans going around. Illegally downloading music and software is not theft. It's copywrite infringement. Not saying that's ok, but it's not theft...
Dylan, It most certainly IS theft if you have not purchased the stuff you are downloading. I guess people can rationalize stealing to make themselves feel better, but it is still stealing. DaDakota
I agree totally here, Jeff. Although that attitude DOES exist within many on the 'net (hell, shouldn't EVERYTHING I want be free ?), I don't really think that is the prevailing attitude of the average person. The majority of us still shell out the hard-earned dough for our discs, just as we do for so many other things... x34
No, it is not theft. If I download something that I wasn't going to buy anyway, then nothing is lost. There is no loss. I will say that over and over again because it is true. There can no theft if there is no loss. Now I agree that downloading something instead of purchasing is unethical and costs the producers money. I do not advocate doing that. I don't advocate downloading something if you're not going to buy it either. But calling copywrite infringement "theft" is untrue and untrue arguments usally don't win many debates.
Hey Dylan, That's some pretty flawed logic you are using there. Downloading music (or movies/warez for that matter) without any intentions of ever purchasing it is indeed theft, plain and simple. The problem is many people can only associate theft with physical objects. If it's not theft, as you claim, then what is it about taking things you didn't pay for so "unethical"? DaDakota already said it best... x34
No, the problem is the word theft is rooted in the use of physical objects. If I take something from a store, that is theft. They have phyiscally lost that item and cannot sell it. That is wrong and unethical. If I download something instead of purchasing it, that is not theft. That item is still there. I have not taken it. Now it is unethical in my opinion, and it is definitely copywrite infringement. If I download something that I would not buy even if I didn't download it, then nothing is lost. There is no phyiscal item is lost, and no sale is lost. There is nothing changed from if I hadn't downloaded it at all. I don't think this is good and I don't encourage it. I just don't think it's bad either and I don't discourage it. So I'm not sure what you meant exactly in your quote about "what is it about taking things you didn't pay for so 'unethical' " (in other words, I'm not sure whether you're talking about physical or intellectual property) but I hope I've clarified it for you. If not, please explain to me why downloading something that I wouldn't buy either way is bad.
There is a key difference with game development. The primary motive of a game developer is to make money. The primary motive of most musicians is to make music. The monitary thing is secondary, however, without it, you can't keep making music at a professional level. There is a point where the balance between art and commerce has to be handled gently. Great art isn't made for money, but money is what keeps great artists fed so they can keep making great art. It is a delicate balance. dylan: If you take something even though I tell you not to because it belongs to me and you must pay for it to have it, you are stealing, period. It doesn't matter whether you weren't going to buy it or not. All that matters is that you chose to take something that didn't belong to you in the first place despite the fact that... a. it is against the law b. the person who made it doesn't want you to take it It is illegal and unethical. Now, if an artist gives you permission, by all means. The thing is that I don't disagree that the music industry has ****ed itself and I am no proponent of the industry as a whole. I just think that there has to be a balance somewhere. What I find crazy is the lengths people will go to justify taking something without permission. You can couch it in whatever terms you want, if someone says "You don't have permission to take that because it belongs to me" and you take it anyway, you stole it from them. The irony is that music is the only artform (so far) that has the ability to be manipulated in such a way. Eventually, video will be in the same boat but movies have an advantage because they can control the release of the DVD's or videos after the film comes out. You can't really do that in music. Once the CD is out, it's OUT.
Ok, Dylan, I'll bite... Steal v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals v. tr. The unlawful taking of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner. What's the real difference between anyone's physical and intellectual property? There is none. There is a difference between stealing a CD and stealing...er...downloading a song you don't want to pay for that you didn't mention. If you steal a CD, you really run the risk of getting caught. The (relative) anonymity of the 'net allows people to do things they wouldn't do outside of cyberspace. If you had to sign up with P2P services with your real name, credit card, mailing address, etc. instead of a "handle", would you still feel so carelfree about theft...I mean...copyright infringement? x34
If I buy a book, and loan it, over the course of a few months, to ten of my friends, am I doing something wrong? What if my friends could not afford the book themselves? I believe ultimately the free market should crush these people making their music less accessable. I won't buy a CD that says 'will only play in one type of machine.' I suggest you don't either. Then I guarantee they'll stop doing it.
No but if you buy a book take it to kinkos make 10 copies of it and give them to your friends you are doing something wrong. That is the difference. If I buy a CD listen to it, then loan it to you for a week and then you give it back there is noting wrong with that either.
Gosh Jeff, thanks for telling me what a game developer does, I guess we can't be in it for the ART of creating something that has never been done before. The PUBLISHERS are generally in the game biz to make money, most developers are in it because, they, JUST LIKE MUSICIANS, love to make something for others to enjoy, and just for the pure joy of creating something. Art is art, just because some people make money on it does not delude the artists themselves. DaDakota
Gosh, all you had to say was, "Golly gee there, Jeffro, most game geeks make games because, gee whiz, they sure do enjoy it. They do it because it's so darn fun and makes them slap happy, not for the money you silly goose." Gosh, you sure are a smart ass don't ya' know.
I don't think the "if they couldn't afford it" argument is a very good one, though. Capitalism isn't about who can and who can't afford it. I can't afford a second home in the country but that doesn't mean someone should give me theirs. However, I agree with you on your other points. I don't think there is anything wrong with loaning a book out to your friends. I, personally, don't think there is anything wrong with making copies for your friends either because, let's face it, it is still a very limited thing. What I don't like is the concept of trading online because you are no longer just offering copies to your friends. Now, you are offering copies to millions of strangers as well. In essence, you have become a distributor. If that happened in any other business with any other product, it would get squashed immediately. Because music isn't tanglible (like a book for example), it isn't a big deal. A better example would be to say, if you typed in the entire book and put it up online so anyone could read it. How long do you think that website would last before the publisher shut you down? My guess is not very long.
What's the difference. The chances of those friends then BUYING the book are almost nil. Which is a lost opportunity for the author to get paid for it. And I can copy music on a cassette and give it to friends (numberless) which is what the fair use doctrine was originally developed around. I can tape the Rockets game and give that away. I can't sell it. The key is whether or not I'm taking a profit that should go to the artist/author. In the meantime the recipient of the book or the CD is more likely to spend money on another product from the same artist/author they may not have been sufficiently exposed to for them to buy absent the exposure.
Ummm, no offense man, but did you ever read your own definition? If so it perfectly answers your own question. Theft of physical property is "taking another's personal property" and "permanently depriving the owner." Copying/downloading software/music is not "taking another's personal property", it is creating an additional copy. It certainly does not deprive the owner of his/her work either temporarily or permanently... Btw your arguments about anonymity have nothing to do with the morality of using P2P services. If they required that information I probably wouldn't use those services (although I use them very little now) due to privacy reasons in general; there aren't too many online services I trust with a credit card number. That doesn't make the act any more or less moral or ethical...
A question for Jeff, x34, DaDakota, et al... What do you think about abandonware sites. In case you're not familiar with the term abandonware, it refers to old software which is no longer available for purchase. For example, Star Flight is a game which came out in the mid 80's and is not available for purchase by the publisher. The game is still under copywrite, however, and technically it is illegal to download it. Do you consider it wrong to download that from an abandonware site?
Dylan, I don't understand what is so hard for you to understand about theft of non-abstract objects. Downloading songs/warez that are readily available for purchase elsewhere without the intention of payment IS stealing. In other words you are taking something that you didn't pay for. By not having any intentions of paying for it, you are "permanantly denying" the owner of rightful payment. Just because a physical disc is not lost (which are copies too, Dylan, not the original work), it doesn't mean it's not theft. By your logic, I guess stealing cable and satellite service isn't theft either, since "the cable company/satellite provider is going to beam the programming anyway". I have a few honest questions for you (or anyone else with this mentality). Why do you feel you are entitled to free software/games/movies when the majority of people pay for them? a. Are they not good enough to deserve payment in your opinion (if so, why are you downloading it?) b. Can you not afford them? c. Do you feel that these should be free anyway? No slight intended on the questions above, I genuinely would like to know your take. There are plenty of songs, proggies, and movies available for free download on the web. But just because some are free doesn't mean all are free. You can call it whatever you like, but I suspect we both know what it is. On this, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. x34
Jeff, I am only trying to point out that we game developers have been dealing with this problem a LOT longer then the music industry, and you seem to hold the music industry or rather musicians as some mythical group of people who only want to create art. I know you are a musician, and I understand this is how you feel, and I totally respect you for it. I just don't like it when people tell me that we game developers are just in it for the dough. I mean, come on, there certainly are some game developers in it for the cash, just as there are some musicians in it to score the long dollar too. My piont is that we are all rowing the same boat. Bottom line: Stealing is stealing, and the more people steal from the creative types the more it causes fewer creations to be available. Copy protection is there for a reason, and this JETHRO thinks it is good. DaDakota
