By committing "Piracy," you are not stealing the CD from the owner. However, you are stealing copyrighted material from Gary Numan and his label. No matter how one looks at it, "Piracy" is a theft.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
$60000 song?
- Thread starter fractiouslowend
- Start date
By committing "Piracy," you are not stealing the CD from the owner. However, you are stealing copyrighted material from Gary Numan and his label. No matter how one looks at it, "Piracy" is a theft.
why isnt this like facebook where i can "like a post"???? i would totally like this one lol
>Doesn't know the difference between copying and stealing.
Try reading his entire post next time. His argument is air-tight; get off your soapbox and just admit you're wrong.
How about you read the rest of the post, where I go into detail about how that is quite correct, as well as explaining the grey areas surrounding such a statement.
I think that it's laughable to even think that defending the 'Music Industry' (big record label lawyer) side of this lawsuit is even worthwhile unless you're looking around where the sun ain't shining.
There are hundreds of thousands of artists that release their music to stream or to be downloaded for free. These artists are making more money selling merch and records and loads of tickets.
There are more artists than ever licensing their music for film, television, and new media (incl. video games).
Just because we can download it doesn't mean we were going to buy it in the first place.
Having a surplus of music at our fingertips allows us to spend our money on acts in ways we otherwise wouldn't, like in going out to a few more shows a year and buying more merch, or having a couple more at the bar during the show and being able to afford a cab ride home instead of drunk driving.
We also have more interest in new music and more access to it. Apply the 'old' model to music and we'd be listening to tired old chart-based FM radio.
When we can sit at home with a Paul Simon DVD and have a Dance Party with our friends on the weekend, then flip on youtube to hear a few tracks while a new tab is opened to get onto archive.org and catch the Railroad Earth show we missed last month cause times are generally tight all around - but still afford to eat, drink, and be merry otherwise, nobody needs the fun police banging on their door for an entirely needless copyright infringement lawsuit.
When we're talking about 'the Music Industry' - for the most part it IS adapting. Artists are using their own means to get recording gear, learn how to use it, and employ professionals as they can afford. Promoters still throw events and make money but not they're using media in new ways to promote gigs and get people offline and out of their apartments. Designers still get hired for posters and websites and album art.
The concept of centralized big media money is a thing of the past. Get over it. Aside from 'Clear Channel' and its umbrella, the remaining small acts are not being devastated by digital downloads. Thinking ABOUT CC et.al, there's far less money being spread around the industry and local economies BECAUSE of centralized big media. It's growing and deflating at the same time. Consolidated losses, folks.
It's always funny to me that people still feel the need to debate the issue, citing 'theft' as their argument while we're spending way more than ever before on media of all sorts AND the supplemental products that are never counted with record sales but remain as artist revenue.
Support the current movement or go against the flow and drown. Those are the only 2 options
In the shuffle the chumps get worked out of the equation and the real performers, artists, and businesspeople will remain. Granted, a lot of people get cheated and weaseled out of the equation but that's all part of capitalism and 'showbiz'.
Can't make ends meet as a performer cause the extra $30 a week is all the difference? Get a job or another gig. Can't get another gig? Sure you can. Wash windows...volunteer, pick tomatoes use your 'imagination'.
Maybe there's a bigger reason that you're not making ends meet while complaining about how the world is against you - chances are you're not just complaining about the interwebs.
If you're really made out to be a performer or artist or writer then it'll shine through. If you're not then try harder and stop trying to cut things down while they're clearly working for far more people than ever.
There's more music than ever, more artists than ever, and not as much money in circulation comparatively.
If you don't look at the bigger picture it's your own fault and all you could ever do is whine about it.
There are hundreds of thousands of artists that release their music to stream or to be downloaded for free. These artists are making more money selling merch and records and loads of tickets.
There are more artists than ever licensing their music for film, television, and new media (incl. video games).
Just because we can download it doesn't mean we were going to buy it in the first place.
Having a surplus of music at our fingertips allows us to spend our money on acts in ways we otherwise wouldn't, like in going out to a few more shows a year and buying more merch, or having a couple more at the bar during the show and being able to afford a cab ride home instead of drunk driving.
We also have more interest in new music and more access to it. Apply the 'old' model to music and we'd be listening to tired old chart-based FM radio.
When we can sit at home with a Paul Simon DVD and have a Dance Party with our friends on the weekend, then flip on youtube to hear a few tracks while a new tab is opened to get onto archive.org and catch the Railroad Earth show we missed last month cause times are generally tight all around - but still afford to eat, drink, and be merry otherwise, nobody needs the fun police banging on their door for an entirely needless copyright infringement lawsuit.
When we're talking about 'the Music Industry' - for the most part it IS adapting. Artists are using their own means to get recording gear, learn how to use it, and employ professionals as they can afford. Promoters still throw events and make money but not they're using media in new ways to promote gigs and get people offline and out of their apartments. Designers still get hired for posters and websites and album art.
The concept of centralized big media money is a thing of the past. Get over it. Aside from 'Clear Channel' and its umbrella, the remaining small acts are not being devastated by digital downloads. Thinking ABOUT CC et.al, there's far less money being spread around the industry and local economies BECAUSE of centralized big media. It's growing and deflating at the same time. Consolidated losses, folks.
It's always funny to me that people still feel the need to debate the issue, citing 'theft' as their argument while we're spending way more than ever before on media of all sorts AND the supplemental products that are never counted with record sales but remain as artist revenue.
Support the current movement or go against the flow and drown. Those are the only 2 options
In the shuffle the chumps get worked out of the equation and the real performers, artists, and businesspeople will remain. Granted, a lot of people get cheated and weaseled out of the equation but that's all part of capitalism and 'showbiz'.
Can't make ends meet as a performer cause the extra $30 a week is all the difference? Get a job or another gig. Can't get another gig? Sure you can. Wash windows...volunteer, pick tomatoes use your 'imagination'.
Maybe there's a bigger reason that you're not making ends meet while complaining about how the world is against you - chances are you're not just complaining about the interwebs.
If you're really made out to be a performer or artist or writer then it'll shine through. If you're not then try harder and stop trying to cut things down while they're clearly working for far more people than ever.
There's more music than ever, more artists than ever, and not as much money in circulation comparatively.
If you don't look at the bigger picture it's your own fault and all you could ever do is whine about it.
It is not technically stealing to share. It would be theft if you copied something and sold it. Copying material that you do not have a right to is a copyright violation. There are damages, but don't confuse it with theft. Intellectual property and copyrights are personal property rights. If I patent an idea and you want to use it, I charge you a royalty. You cannot transfer that royalty to a third party. Same with file "sharing". You copied something which is not your right to copy or distribute. You may not have stolen something, but you broke the law. There are consequences, whether you like it or not. From what I read it sounds like all the RIAA wants is for her to agree that she did something wrong and they'll walk away. She is an idiot - unless she actually did nothing and is getting framed. Who really cares? Buy your music or don't whine if you get caught.
Pretty spot on. A good percentage of the industry is actually adapting, or rather the musicians are, the "industry" part is remaining the same. With modern technology is not really difficult to record and produce a record in your own home. The most you will have to do is invest is a bit of gear, maybe hire a recording booth for a session.
Generally I will buy a record if I like it anyway, but like you said, with the disposable income I have from not buying CDs, I spend it on going to live shows, or merchandise, (Or bass gear
).I don't think the big main stream business side with its mass produced pre-packaged pop music will ever disappear entirely, at least not while commercial radio exists, however independent music is on the rise, and has been for years. I don't think I have liked a band backed by a major record label in years. The last album I bought came on a CD-R with a post it note and a hand written message.
That's a common legal myth. But copyright infringement =/= theft. According to the US Supreme Court.
Please read:
Invalid Link Removed
Take an economics course. Then, man up and admit to yourself that this is blatant B.S. in an effort to justify what you know is wrong.
A bunch of the songs were Richard Marx songs. She deserved it just for listening to Richard Marx....
Right, it's a violation of rights. You can't take pictures of me naked, or listen to my music without my permission. 
How dare you. I wish we could all 'fess up to our flaws honestly.
How dare you. I wish we could all 'fess up to our flaws honestly.Please, read the post.
Second time I have said that this thread. I don't mind if you skip it, but don't skip it and then call me out on something which I go into great detail on. I mean, you even stopped mid paragraph, the next sentence explains the further complications of file sharing.
Actually, I think I can. I can even sell them on the internet, or a street corner.
You just have to be naked in a public place when the pictures are taken.
Though im pretty sure that depends on a lot of different laws which would change from state to state if I know anything about it, and more than likely from country to country.
- Jun 25, 2006
- 3,226
- 341
- Disclosures
- Owner, Pike Amplification & 3Leaf Audio
No matter what your views on music piracy are, make no mistake - the only winners in this situation are the lawyers.
I read your whole post. I hate people who quote a wall of text and only need to comment when only a selection will be enough to know what they're talking about, since we've just read it anyway. That argument is pathetically weak. Apparently you don't understand that taking music for free is stealing profit. Yes, that means that the music distributor is worse off! Who is in the right? Not you. The fact that it is not a physical item means nothing. The fact that you wouldn't have bought it even if you couldn't get it for free is irrelevant, because what kept you from buying it was THE PRICE. There are no ETHICAL complications of filesharing.
You've got to call it what the judiciary does. Copyright infringement is the correct term. Theft is not. That's my only point here.
To be very honest, I can see exactly where this thread is going: to the TB archives with a 'closed' symbol underneath (though I sincerely hope that's not the case). I think this is one topic, almost at par with religious and political discussion, which should be prohibited on TB.
I provided my opinion on a previous such thread and a person came after me through PMs, drawing bizarre analogies to topics he, apparently, thought would be especially offensive/hurtful to me. Plus, I see no actual good coming off these discussions, which often turn vicious.
