Wow. Woman fined 1.9 million dollars for downloading 24 songs.

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]Anyone else sense a sort of ridiculous discrepancy here as far as punishment fitting the crime?htekemerald

This makes me fondly remember that Weird Al Yankovic Song...

Don't Download This Song
by Al Yankovic

.................

viewtiful26

I've never heard that, but the lyrics are funny.

[QUOTE="viewtiful26"]

This makes me fondly remember that Weird Al Yankovic Song...

Don't Download This Song
by Al Yankovic

.................

SpaceMoose

I've never heard that, but they lyrics are funny.

Here's the song.

odds are good she will win the appeal and the judge will be fined/tried for bias and wrongful prosecution, as well as whoever sued her.

You cant charge someone that kind of fee for something that only cost a buck. She did not violate the copyright in my opinion,technically anyway, she didnt use it or change or, nor did she sell the content. It is no different than taping someone off the radio or going ot the libarby and ripping cds you got there. Sorry, but you cant stop that and that kind of fee is a phoney. I bet you it was a set up to scare us. 1.9 MILLION for 24 songs? Umm....no.

if she tried to sell the mp3s then yes, sue her for all she is worth. However, the people who sued her usually have kids or teens that do the same. Artists today make way too much money and you should be happy people like your music enough to STEAL IT. As if Lars from metallica really needs a few more million ...

if she tried to sell the mp3s then yes, sue her for all she is worth. However, the people who sued her usually have kids or teens that do the same. Artists today make way too much money and you should be happy people like your music enough to STEAL IT. As if Lars from metallica really needs a few more million ...

kryptonianpride

The thing that I always get uncomfortable about with the whole "downloading music = stealing" thing stems from an obvious question one might ask: what has been stolen? If I go into a store and steal a chocolate bar, then that chocolate bar has been unwillingly taken from the store owner; in other words, you have violated that store owner's property rights. That's pretty clear-cut.

If I download a song, however, what have I stolen? The song is still there, available to anyone who wants it. The only real thing that I have taken is the possibility that I might give someone money for that song. In other words, for this to count as theft, it must be implicitly asserted that the record companies have a right to my intention to buy their albums. And that seems a wee bit... well, disturbing.

Yeah, like this is going to stop people downloading. Newsflash: being ridiculously ruthless and ruining people's lives isn't going to make people want to give you their money.

The thing that I always get uncomfortable about with the whole "downloading music = stealing" thing stems from an obvious question one might ask: what has been stolen? If I go into a store and steal a chocolate bar, then that chocolate bar has been unwillingly taken from the store owner; in other words, you have violated that store owner's property rights. That's pretty clear-cut.

If I download a song, however, what have I stolen? The song is still there, available to anyone who wants it. The only real thing that I have taken is the possibility that I might give someone money for that song. In other words, for this to count as theft, it must be implicitly asserted that the record companies have a right to my intention to buy their albums. And that seems a wee bit... well, disturbing.

GabuEx

The fine is absurd in this case, but there can be no denying that downloading content for free that was not intended to be free is immoral. You're not taking a 'thing,' but you are using a service without permission. Creation of entertainment media costs a great deal of time and money. Far more than most people could afford, which is why you don't have Joe down the street hiring a famous musician to create an album just for him (the way most services are provided). Instead, the cost of creating the media is distributed amongst everyone who consumes it. You can think of it like purchasing shares in a company instead of purchasing the entire company.

Like it or not, people have to realize that entertainment IS a service, and if this service was not intended to be provided for free, you should not consume it for free. You can rationalize all you like - the bottom line is you are consuming a service without permission from the providers, which is unfair not only to them, but also to the people who do pay for it, which ensures that more will be produced. If you can't afford so much entertainment media, then you need to start earning more money (all that time you spend consuming media illegally could be used instead to do something productive for society - i.e. work), or be more selective in what you choose to consume.

People argue that certain entertainers make too much money. These people need to be reminded of two things. Firstly, what the owner of creative material earns is irrelevant to the morality of you consuming it for free as opposed to paying for it. Certain artists make a great deal of money because they offer a service that many people want. If a doctor offers especially good services, is it OK to walk out after your appointment without paying? The strangest thing about this piracy craze is that a vast number of these people are staunch capitalists who argue that a person should be entitled to earn as much as possible with no ceiling limit. And they'd be awfully ticked off if someone took THEIR services without paying for them. And secondly, most creaters of media aren't rich. In fact, they often can't even break even and are forced to supplement their income with menial jobs that compromise their artistic productivity. And this doesn't necessarily mean they're hacks who can't hold a tune. Ever since music became a primarily commercial endeavor, we've seen some remarkably talented musicians being paid next to nothing for their masterpieces, only to be recognized as geniuses decades after they die.

So the bottom line is that the greed of the RIAA irritates me, but so does rampant piracy, and so I have difficulty sympathizing with either side in this case. And I would encourage those who pirate without even thinking about it anymore to take a step back and evaluate your conscience. Would you be willing to work for free? Are you content to take advantage of paying customers who allow the entertainment you enjoy to exist?

[QUOTE="kryptonianpride"]

if she tried to sell the mp3s then yes, sue her for all she is worth. However, the people who sued her usually have kids or teens that do the same. Artists today make way too much money and you should be happy people like your music enough to STEAL IT. As if Lars from metallica really needs a few more million ...

GabuEx

The thing that I always get uncomfortable about with the whole "downloading music = stealing" thing stems from an obvious question one might ask: what has been stolen? If I go into a store and steal a chocolate bar, then that chocolate bar has been unwillingly taken from the store owner; in other words, you have violated that store owner's property rights. That's pretty clear-cut.

If I download a song, however, what have I stolen? The song is still there, available to anyone who wants it. The only real thing that I have taken is the possibility that I might give someone money for that song. In other words, for this to count as theft, it must be implicitly asserted that the record companies have a right to my intention to buy their albums. And that seems a wee bit... well, disturbing.

[QUOTE="MrLions"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

If she was just downloading them, sure, that's insanely stupid. But if she was uploading them, or was actively spreading them around, then no, she gets what she deserves. Downloading is not something they should be going after... its the people ripping and/or uploading everything.

MistressMinako

Artists today make way too much money and you should be happy people like your music enough to STEAL IT. As if Lars from metallica really needs a few more million ...

kryptonianpride

Some artists make a lot of money. And to be blunt, who are you to tell people how they should or should not feel when their work is distributed without their consent? As a composer, I can tell you that a great deal of my time an energy is commited to each and every work I create, and it is NOT very enjoyable. The result is fulfilling, but the work is very often tedious or frustrating. And so if I wish to be compensated for this work, I would most certainly NOT be happy that people like it enough to consume it without providing me the means to write more. I would be happy if they like it and acknowledge that what I did is worthy of a few measly dollars to them.

Somebody pays a price in either time, money, or both for the music you pirate or it wouldn't exist. Just bear that in mind.

But seriously comon uploading,downloading, it's all fine as long as you're not charging for it thats when it's a problem. :PMrLions

No. Whether you charge for it or not is irrelevant. You didn't create the work and thus have no right to control its distribution, unless of course the artist grants such permission.

I'd be interested to know how many people who feel there's nothing wrong with piracy have ever created anything artistic that more than a handful of close friends and family would be interested in consuming. It's easier to download with a clear conscience when you live in a fluffy dream world where creating exceptional art is an easy and enjoyable thing to do, and where artists are totally funded by a magical source of money that does not involve the consumer at all.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]What kind of stupidity is that? If they were consistent with this punishment almost everyone would be poor.cell_dweller

I 2nd that.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"] So like I said, apparently (nearly) everyone who used the original version of Napster should owe the RIAA millions of dollars, which is probably the majority of Americans within a certain age bracket.foxhound_fox

That doesn't make any sense, foxhound. If you awknowledge that uploading content is immoral, then those who willingly and knowingly download the content are also commiting an immoral act. They are consuming media for free that they know is not being offered for free by the creators. It's easy enough to say "I wouldn't consume it if it weren't free." Very well, then - only consume what you pay for. Then you'll find out in a hurry how 'easy' it is to avoid paying for media you REALLY want to consume but haven't purchased.

You're an advocate of honest work, capitalism, and ownership, right? Well, it would be great if artists were somehow immune to capitalist society and could create to their heart's content without needing money to pay their bills. But that isn't how it works. We're all part of a capitalist society and we need to pay our bills. So if we create something that someone else enjoys, we need to be compensated for that. When you pirate, you forcefully impose your desire to consume someone else's work by your criteria (which usually means enjoying it without compensating the creator) on said creator. That just can't happen if you truly believe in capitalism.

The fine is absurd in this case, but there can be no denying that downloading content for free that was not intended to be free is immoral. You're not taking a 'thing,' but you are using a service without permission. Creation of entertainment media costs a great deal of time and money. Far more than most people could afford, which is why you don't have Joe down the street hiring a famous musician to create an album just for him (the way most services are provided). Instead, the cost of creating the media is distributed amongst everyone who consumes it. You can think of it like purchasing shares in a company instead of purchasing the entire company.

Like it or not, people have to realize that entertainment IS a service, and if this service was not intended to be provided for free, you should not consume it for free. You can rationalize all you like - the bottom line is you are consuming a service without permission from the providers, which is unfair not only to them, but also to the people who do pay for it, which ensures that more will be produced. If you can't afford so much entertainment media, then you need to start earning more money (all that time you spend consuming media illegally could be used instead to do something productive for society - i.e. work), or be more selective in what you choose to consume.

People argue that certain entertainers make too much money. These people need to be reminded of two things. Firstly, what the owner of creative material earns is irrelevant to the morality of you consuming it for free as opposed to paying for it. Certain artists make a great deal of money because they offer a service that many people want. If a doctor offers especially good services, is it OK to walk out after your appointment without paying? The strangest thing about this piracy craze is that a vast number of these people are staunch capitalists who argue that a person should be entitled to earn as much as possible with no ceiling limit. And they'd be awfully ticked off if someone took THEIR services without paying for them. And secondly, most creaters of media aren't rich. In fact, they often can't even break even and are forced to supplement their income with menial jobs that compromise their artistic productivity. And this doesn't necessarily mean they're hacks who can't hold a tune. Ever since music became a primarily commercial endeavor, we've seen some remarkably talented musicians being paid next to nothing for their masterpieces, only to be recognized as geniuses decades after they die.

So the bottom line is that the greed of the RIAA irritates me, but so does rampant piracy, and so I have difficulty sympathizing with either side in this case. And I would encourage those who pirate without even thinking about it anymore to take a step back and evaluate your conscience. Would you be willing to work for free? Are you content to take advantage of paying customers who allow the entertainment you enjoy to exist?

pianist

Everything you have said is relevant to the topic of distributing music for free against the will of the record companies. And, indeed, I think the argument against that is easy: owning intellectual property implies that you own the exclusive rights to its distribution, rights that are infringed by those who make music available to others for free. However, I do not believe that this is an adequate argument against the downloading of music purely for one's own personal enjoyment, without the intention to then give it to others.

If I do not pay a doctor for his services, then I have wasted his time and deprived him of money that he could have received from a paying customer. In essence, for him, time is money, and I have stolen his time. This is not the case with downloading music - the only thing that I have taken away from the record company is the money that I would have paid had I bought the music from them. To call this theft is to say that they own that money, not me, and that it is rightfully theirs, despite the fact that I have earned it and that it belongs to me. Such an implicit assertion does not exactly sit well with me.

....So the bottom line is that the greed of the RIAA irritates me, but so does rampant piracy, and so I have difficulty sympathizing with either side in this case. And I would encourage those who pirate without even thinking about it anymore to take a step back and evaluate your conscience. Would you be willing to work for free? Are you content to take advantage of paying customers who allow the entertainment you enjoy to exist?

pianist

People pirate music in spite of their consciences because buying legitimately is so expensive (we need only glance at worldwide piracy statistics to note that poorer countries have far higher piracy rates) when compared to the relative ease of downloading illegally. As digital distribution grows, if we see the music industry trimming off unnecessary packaging, distribution and retailing fees to offer a leaner price to the customer, then no doubt piracy rates will drop.

Everything you have said is relevant to the topic of distributing music for free against the will of the record companies. And, indeed, I think the argument against that is easy: owning intellectual property implies that you own the exclusive rights to its distribution, rights that are infringed by those who make music available to others for free. However, I do not believe that this is an adequate argument against the downloading of music purely for one's own personal enjoyment, without the intention to then give it to others.

If I do not pay a doctor for his services, then I have wasted his time and deprived him of money that he could have received from a paying customer. This is not the case with downloading music - the only thing that I have taken away from the record company is the money that I would have paid had I bought the music from them. To call this theft is to say that they own that money, not me, and that it is rightfully theirs, despite the fact that I have earned it and that it belongs to me. Such an implicit assertion does not exactly sit well with me.

GabuEx

As I mentioned in my other post, art is not created for free, nor do artists expect to work for free. What you say in your first paragraph is extremely shocking. Are you suggesting that creators should NOT have the right to control how THEIR work is distributed? If I create something that has value to you, you should pay me whatever I ask if you wish to consume it. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. That's how it works for everybody who produces something which can't be replicated in this capitalist society of ours.

You own your money, Gabu, which you earned by creating something or doing something of value to someone else. Musicians are no different. We create entertainment which is of value to someone else, and we should be compensated for it if we so desire.

For the record, the creation of art is extremely expensive and time-consuming. If you alone were asked to pay for the entire process of creating a single album, you would probably not be able to afford it. So by consuming art without compensating the creators with your SHARE of that cost, you are doing exactly the same thing as in your doctor scenario. Someone else worked to create a service you consumed and you didn't pay for it... not even a tiny fraction of what the cost of creating that service was. And that's exactly the point I was making when I brought that example up.

As I mentioned in my other post, art is not created for free, nor do artists expect to work for free. What you say in your first paragraph is extremely shocking. Are you suggesting that creators should NOT have the right to control how THEIR work is distributed? If I create something that has value to you, you should pay me whatever I ask if you wish to consume it. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. That's how it works for everybody who produces something which can't be replicated in this capitalist society of ours.

You own your money, Gabu, which you earned by creating something or doing something of value to someone else. Musicians are no different. We create entertainment which is of value to someone else, and we should be compensated for it if we so desire.

For the record, the creation of art is extremely expensive and time-consuming. If you alone were asked to pay for the entire process of creating a single album, you would probably not be able to afford it. So by consuming art without compensating the creators with your SHARE of that cost, you are doing exactly the same thing as in your doctor scenario. Someone else worked to create a service you consumed and you didn't pay for it... not even a tiny fraction of what the cost of creating that service was. And that's exactly the point I was making when I brought that example up.

pianist

What? I said in my first paragraph that everything you said is a good argument in favor of artists having the right to control how their work is distributed. Hence, I think it is therefore a good argument in favor of punishing those who distribute music against the will of the record companies. For that reason I have no problem at all with punishing those who do so.

However, I do not believe that that is an adequate argument in favor of the idea that downloading music, with no intention of distributing it, is theft. If there is theft, there must be something that has been stolen. Yet, in such a situation, I am at a total loss to identify what has been stolen. If someone distributes music, then they are stealing the record company's right to distribute the music that they own, but that is not the case here. If someone downloads a song for free, they have not deprived anyone of anything; rather, they have simply not provided someone with something. It seems to me that saying that downloading music without paying is theft is no different than saying that not giving money to a homeless man is theft - in neither case have I taken something from someone that they then no longer have access to; I have merely not provided something that they would like me to give them.

And, for the record, no, I don't participate in illegal downloading. :P I've paid for every song I own. This is purely a theoretical question.

I think this is something that weighs on the consciences of a lot of people who are downloading music illegally - they're downloading the music that they enjoy, so obviously they want to support the artist to go on producing music. But at the same time, they might be justified in feeling a little miffed that of all the money they spend on an album, only a small portion actually ends up going to the artist.

People pirate music in spite of their consciences because buying legitimately is so expensive (we need only glance at worldwide piracy statistics to note that poorer countries have far higher piracy rates) when compared to the relative ease of downloading illegally. As digital distribution grows, if we see the music industry trimming off unnecessary packaging, distribution and retailing fees to offer a leaner price to the customer, then no doubt piracy rates will drop.

jimmyjammer69

Taking something for free just because you can, or because you can't afford it, does not change the morality of the scenario, unless entertainment has suddenly become akin to food - a genuine need. It isn't. It is a luxury, and if you can't afford it, you shouldn't consume it. Yes, the recording companies take most of the proceeds of the sales, but they also absorb most of the monetary costs. Recording and especially marketing does not come cheap. And bear in mind that artists willingly submit their work to these companies, which is their rightful choice, because they know this is the best way to ensure they maximize their profit on the venture.

And of course, it goes without saying that paying the artists SOMETHING for their efforts is better than paying them nothing. Even if it's not much, recording would be a much more viable income alternative for artists if piracy was impossible. Not everybody who pirates does it because they truly can't afford it. Most people who pirate could certainly afford to buy at least a portion of the music they download, but they choose instead to spend that money on other non-essentials simply because they can.

Leaner prices to the consumer occurs when demand drops. But when it comes to piracy, unless that cost is $0, you probably won't affect piracy much. The mentality these people have is "why pay 99 cents for a song when I can have it for free?" How can ANY price compete with no price at all?

What? I said in my first paragraph that everything you said is a good argument in favor of artists having the right to control how their work is distributed. Hence, I think it is therefore a good argument in favor of punishing those who distribute music against the will of the record companies. For that reason I have no problem at all with punishing those who do so.

However, I do not believe that that is an adequate argument in favor of the idea that downloading music, with no intention of distributing it, is theft. If there is theft, there must be something that has been stolen. Yet, in such a situation, I am at a total loss to identify what has been stolen. If someone downloads a song for free, they have not deprived anyone of anything; rather, they have simply not provided someone with something. It seems to me that saying that downloading music without paying is theft is no different than saying that not giving money to a homeless man is theft - in neither case have I taken something from someone that they then no longer have access to; I have merely not provided something that they would like me to give them.

And, for the record, no, I don't participate in illegal downloading. :P I've paid for every song I own. This is purely a theoretical question.

GabuEx

I think that's the signal that I'm too tired to be up. Reading comprehension fail on my part. :lol:

No downloading is not theft. I disagree with pirates on just about everything, but not on that. It is, however, immoral, and shows clear disrespect to the creators of the work who wish to be compensated for their efforts. As for the homeless man... did he provide a service you enjoyed? If so, then failing to pay him his requested fee would indeed be immoral. Failing to pay someone for providing you with nothing obviously isn't a problem. But if you enjoy the music you listen to, you're obviously being provided with something by someone who spent time and money to create the music.

Glad to hear you don't participate in piracy. One of the few!

good thing I don't illegally download anything

I think that's the signal that I'm too tired to be up. Reading comprehension fail on my part. :lol:

No downloading is not theft. I disagree with pirates on just about everything, but not on that. It is, however, immoral, and shows clear disrespect to the creators of the work who wish to be compensated for their efforts. As for the homeless man... did he provide a service you enjoyed? If so, then failing to pay him his requested fee would indeed be immoral. Failing to pay someone for providing you with nothing obviously isn't a problem. But if you enjoy the music you listen to, you're obviously being provided with something by someone who spent time and money to create the music.

Glad to hear you don't participate in piracy. One of the few!

pianist

Oh, I certainly think an argument could be made that one has a moral responsibility to pay people for that of theirs which you enjoy. I'm just musing about the standard "downloading = theft" line that people tend to recite, as I don't really think people have adequately contemplated what it implies.

If i did anything artistic I would do it cause its fun not for the money. :p

MrLions

It's a nice thought... but try doing it and you'll very quickly find that's an impossible goal to achieve. If you want to become really good at something, it isn't going to be much fun. You can be an amateur and enjoy art, but if you're going to bring your work to a professional standard and turn it into your career, it really will be a job for you. And we all know what jobs are like. Right? I mean... if it's really fun to create artistic works, why aren't you doing it now? :P

In truth, being a professional artist is a full-time job. You can't just do it "for fun" on the side and expect to become very good at what you do. I'm saying this from experience, as I am a professional artist. I'm not going to tell you that I don't enjoy my work - but you'd be gravely mistaken to believe that composing and performing piano to modern day professional standards can be achieved without it often feeling like a stressful and unrelenting chore (especially given that you get NO relief from practicing, or three days later you sound horrible). And you'd only come to appreciate that if you do it yourself. The stereotype of the totally care-free hippie guy sitting around playing his guitar surrounded by half-naked women stroking his luxurious hippie hair is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

I hope nimatoad gets fined...

tzar3

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

I think this is something that weighs on the consciences of a lot of people who are downloading music illegally - they're downloading the music that they enjoy, so obviously they want to support the artist to go on producing music. But at the same time, they might be justified in feeling a little miffed that of all the money they spend on an album, only a small portion actually ends up going to the artist.

People pirate music in spite of their consciences because buying legitimately is so expensive (we need only glance at worldwide piracy statistics to note that poorer countries have far higher piracy rates) when compared to the relative ease of downloading illegally. As digital distribution grows, if we see the music industry trimming off unnecessary packaging, distribution and retailing fees to offer a leaner price to the customer, then no doubt piracy rates will drop.

pianist

Taking something for free just because you can, or because you can't afford it, does not change the morality of the scenario, unless entertainment has suddenly become akin to food - a genuine need. It isn't. It is a luxury, and if you can't afford it, you shouldn't consume it. Yes, the recording companies take most of the proceeds of the sales, but they also absorb most of the monetary costs. Recording and especially marketing does not come cheap. And bear in mind that artists willingly submit their work to these companies, which is their rightful choice, because they know this is the best way to ensure they maximize their profit on the venture.

I'm absolutely with you on the morality of the situation, and you're quite right that it's a luxury item and can't exactly be compared to the 'loaf of bread' scenario, but I think there's something more to marketing - in that it's an attempt to drastically inflate the perceived value of an item or service. iPods can be sold at extortionate prices thanks to campaigns which have made them highly desirable items. Once you've got your iPod, what are you supposed to do with it if you can't afford to chuck more than 100 songs on it? Probably most of us have seen the advert for Zune subscription download service, where they quote the cost of filling an iPod as $30,000 or whatever.

And of course, it goes without saying that paying the artists SOMETHING for their efforts is better than paying them nothing. Even if it's not much, recording would be a much more viable income alternative for artists if piracy was impossible. Not everybody who pirates does it because they truly can't afford it. Most people who pirate could certainly afford to buy at least a portion of the music they download, but they choose instead to spend that money on other non-essentials simply because they can.

Personally, I'd be much happier to see an industry which doesn't so much reward the mass-marketers and their pop-icon products by allowing all the unnecessary fat to be burned off. If what we're left with is dedicated musicians who pursue the art, not the wealth, I don't see that as any kind of tragedy. I'm quite sure talented musicians are still getting a good deal of money for their performances and even their recordings, as if you can't keep the talent happy, you've no product to sell.

Leaner prices to the consumer occurs when demand drops. But when it comes to piracy, unless that cost is $0, you probably won't affect piracy much. The mentality these people have is "why pay 99 cents for a song when I can have it for free?" How can ANY price compete with no price at all?

The problem is that people are still taking a risk in spite of the potential legal consequences. I think there's a price where the low cost to the consumer negates the risk of breaking the law. If a chocolate bar had a perceived value of £100, and the chances of being caught and prosecuted for taking it without paying were 1000:1, I imagine chocolate bar theft would be rampant. As chocolate bars are priced around 50p, not many people are foolish enough to gamble against the much riskier odds for a product they can easily afford. Of course there should be scare tactics like this article, but I genuinely hope they're accompanied by corresponding price cuts.

In all honesty, I'm not trying to say it's ok to download music illegally, I just think that once the tools are there and it's made so easy, in a world of overpriced media, it shouldn't really come as an affront to our moral sensibilities that people choose to take the easy route.

Downloading porn is still ok, right? :o

Rheinmetal

[QUOTE="Rheinmetal"]

Downloading porn is still ok, right? :o

DrSponge

:lol:

Doubly so if the authorities happen to burst in at the wrong time...

Limewire has no encrpytion, you can just see what people are downloading with a sniffer. Torrents you can enable encryption, but it's pretty weak, and it's disabled by default with almost every client. Only usenet has real encryption.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

I think this is something that weighs on the consciences of a lot of people who are downloading music illegally - they're downloading the music that they enjoy, so obviously they want to support the artist to go on producing music. But at the same time, they might be justified in feeling a little miffed that of all the money they spend on an album, only a small portion actually ends up going to the artist.

People pirate music in spite of their consciences because buying legitimately is so expensive (we need only glance at worldwide piracy statistics to note that poorer countries have far higher piracy rates) when compared to the relative ease of downloading illegally. As digital distribution grows, if we see the music industry trimming off unnecessary packaging, distribution and retailing fees to offer a leaner price to the customer, then no doubt piracy rates will drop.

jimmyjammer69

Taking something for free just because you can, or because you can't afford it, does not change the morality of the scenario, unless entertainment has suddenly become akin to food - a genuine need. It isn't. It is a luxury, and if you can't afford it, you shouldn't consume it. Yes, the recording companies take most of the proceeds of the sales, but they also absorb most of the monetary costs. Recording and especially marketing does not come cheap. And bear in mind that artists willingly submit their work to these companies, which is their rightful choice, because they know this is the best way to ensure they maximize their profit on the venture.

I'm absolutely with you on the morality of the situation, and you're quite right that it's a luxury item and can't exactly be compared to the 'loaf of bread' scenario, but I think there's something more to marketing - in that it's an attempt to drastically inflate the perceived value of an item or service. iPods can be sold at extortionate prices thanks to campaigns which have made them highly desirable items. Once you've got your iPod, what are you supposed to do with it if you can't afford to chuck more than 100 songs on it? Probably most of us have seen the advert for Zune subscription download service, where they quote the cost of filling an iPod as $30,000 or whatever.

And of course, it goes without saying that paying the artists SOMETHING for their efforts is better than paying them nothing. Even if it's not much, recording would be a much more viable income alternative for artists if piracy was impossible. Not everybody who pirates does it because they truly can't afford it. Most people who pirate could certainly afford to buy at least a portion of the music they download, but they choose instead to spend that money on other non-essentials simply because they can.

Personally, I'd be much happier to see an industry which doesn't so much reward the mass-marketers and their pop-icon products by allowing all the unnecessary fat to be burned off. If what we're left with is dedicated musicians who pursue the art, not the wealth, I don't see that as any kind of tragedy. I'm quite sure talented musicians are still getting a good deal of money for their performances and even their recordings, as if you can't keep the talent happy, you've no product to sell.

Leaner prices to the consumer occurs when demand drops. But when it comes to piracy, unless that cost is $0, you probably won't affect piracy much. The mentality these people have is "why pay 99 cents for a song when I can have it for free?" How can ANY price compete with no price at all?

The problem is that people are still taking a risk in spite of the potential legal consequences. I think there's a price where the low cost to the consumer negates the risk of breaking the law. If a chocolate bar had a perceived value of £100, and the chances of being caught and prosecuted for taking it without paying were 1000:1, I imagine chocolate bar theft would be rampant. As chocolate bars are priced around 50p, not many people are foolish enough to gamble against the much riskier odds for a product they can easily afford. Of course there should be scare tactics like this article, but I genuinely hope they're accompanied by corresponding price cuts.

In all honesty, I'm not trying to say it's ok to download music illegally, I just think that once the tools are there and it's made so easy, in a world of overpriced media, it shouldn't really come as an affront to our moral sensibilities that people choose to take the easy route.

I don't have much to debate here, which is good because I'm tired and should get some sleep. It's a fine post, and there is certainly a good argument to be made for the bloated state of the music industry being a serious problem. Just one note, though - I'm not at all surprised that people take the easy route. In fact, that's what I expect. But that isn't what the problem is for me. Rather, it's the using of a service that someone else paid for without permission, which can be easily obtained via purchase even with the music industry being in the bloated state it is. When you get right down to it, paying $20 for, say, 40-50 minutes of good music really shouldn't be as much as an issue as it is for most people. It's about 50 cents a minute. If your music isn't even worth that... why acquire it in the first place by ANY means?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Im_single"]

Leave it to corporate America

SpaceMoose

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]What kind of stupidity is that? If they were consistent with this punishment almost everyone would be poor.cell_dweller

I know, right? Bravo U.S. you're really socking it to 'em this time!

oh wow....it wont stop people from downloading though, especially sicne it costs so much money to keep up with CD's nowadays.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You know stealing is just that. She took music that wasn't hers and passed it on.

LJS9502_basic

What if someone lends something to someone else? Say, a book someone's already read or a video game someone's already played? Would you classify that as "Stealing"?Famiking

Piracy is piracy and stealing is stealing. Don't try to spin one into the other as they are clearly not the same thing. If someone breaks into a car and takes the radio, they don't call that piracy. Don't call piracy "stealing" just to make it sound like a greater crime. Stealing necessarily involves a loss, whereas copying something is interfering with a theoretical gain that may or may not have happened otherwise. This is probably a terrible analogy, but that's kind of like taking "reckless endangerment" and calling it "asault."SpaceMoose

[QUOTE="Famiking"]What if someone lends something to someone else? Say, a book someone's already read or a video game someone's already played? Would you classify that as "Stealing"?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Famiking"]What if someone lends something to someone else? Say, a book someone's already read or a video game someone's already played? Would you classify that as "Stealing"?Famiking

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Famiking"]What if someone lends something to someone else? Say, a book someone's already read or a video game someone's already played? Would you classify that as "Stealing"?Famiking

[QUOTE="Famiking"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Were they stolen or pirated?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Famiking"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Were they stolen or pirated?

teh_619

No - But it's pretty much the same thing. Let's say someone has this PC game that doesn't require the CD to run - and he installs it on his friend's computer. Would you call that piracy?Famiking

[QUOTE="Famiking"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Were they stolen or pirated?

LJS9502_basic