Alright, you choose a side and I'll argue the opposite. The thread is dead anyway, so nobody should care that it got hijacked.

Start with the easiest argument to think of, it's illegal.

Since I have a pretty strong tendency to pirate music, movies, etc I'll sit on the for side of it. This is going to be tough to argue since I do agree that is wrong in the general sense of it however it all depends on your position. I would never be the person perched in theatre projection booth with a camera and sound cables recording a movie for the sake of sharing it online. Nor would I be the one out buying a cd or what have you the day it came out with the intent of sharing it with the masses. I'm more the person that will sit back and scoop something once its been deemed "safe" from viruses, etc by the masses. While I would still call this stealing I can argue that I'm relatively small minnow in a pond full of dinner sized fish. I never share, never upload, and rarely seed torrents to protect myself. I did once get notice from the cable company telling me to stop but after a few months of being silent I haven't heard anything from them. I only get things that I can DL in an hour or two to minimize my risk but it does still exist. I wouldn't equate my actions to finding a $20 on the ground outside a bank and pocketing it. Is the best thing to do? No. But could things be worse? Yes. The fact is millions of people do this everyday and many of them are not malicious. Record, movie, software, etc companies need to realize that their products are ridiculously priced and do something about if they want to have a real shot at keeping business afloat. I love having original copies of things and owning them but every $10 I save on something I can get for free is better for me.

Is something immoral just because it's illegal? That would make a topic all itself.

back to my pedals being upside down!


j/k


i pirate all my music but if i find an album i particularly like, i may go out and buy it. or if the band is a small indie band, i'll go and buy the album. Other than that, i just support the band by going to their concerts.

Immoral and Illegal are separate things just like an ethical decision is usually a more sound one than a legal decision. That's not to say they aren't connected. I once read a quote that I reflect on from time to time. "If you don't want anybody to find out did something, don't do it." I think this a pretty good value to have and wish I could live my life so perfectly. It's something to strive for but a lot of times I find myself thinking that I should have approached things differently. As it applied to pirating things online. I don't know that I would be so afraid if people found out about. Assuming those people didn't work for the RIAA, a film company, etc.

There are many things I feel are overpriced. BMW cars, for example. Is it ok for me to just take one and not pay for it because I think they're charging too much? I wouldn't steal them off the delivery truck, but wait until the end of the model year after they've been test driven a bit.

You get to play both sides? ;)

I'm going to pass on the immoral/illegal argument, because it could become it's own topic.

But downloading music is different from stealing a car. If you steal a car no one else can use that car. If you dl a song it doesn't prevent anyone else from listening to that song.

Also, IBTM.

I'll occasionally stream unlicensed (or at least I assume) tv shows that I missed in their airing that I can't find a legitimate source to stream (e.g. I missed the season 4 finale of Mad Men and AMC doesn't put their full episodes online, so I streamed that from megavideo), but that's about it. I don't have a dvr or other means to record shows (other than an old vcr) so I watch most shows I miss via hulu. With all the movies available to stream via Netflix (even if they're not particularly good) I don't see the need to download pirated movies. There are few movies that I'm that anxious to see (if I am, I'll see them at the theaters - the rest I let percolate in my queue until their turn comes). There was a time when I didn't have a tv and was living 800 miles away from my wife and I was lonely that I routinely streamed tv shows I shouldn't have. I knew it was illegal, but did it anyway.

Music, well, there's a bit more complicated of a story. When Napster first came out when it didn't occurt to me that it was any different than taping off the radio or making a mix tape for a friend (which I suppose are both illegal as well), I downloaded quite a few songs (well quite a few being relative as my laptop at the time only had a 4 gig hard drive). Once I became convinced it was illegal I stopped. Now I've sort of swung to the opposite extreme in that I don't like downloading mp3's, but prefer to buy the full album so I can own something tangible - typically buy all my cd's used off half.com or amazon or something unless at a concert so the artists really aren't getting anything more than if I'd pirated it. I still have a bunch of those first napstered mp3's though - 2 laptops later - and haven't made an effort to get the full cd version for most of them - some I have.

So I guess I'm saying that while I know it's wrong, it doesn't feel that wrong to me and fear of viruses and lack of time/interest is keeping me from doing more of it more than the fact that it's wrong. (Holy crap, I'm not sure I like how that sounds reading it back - does that make me a sociopath?)

I see your point but I think we're at two extremes here. grand theft auto is quite a different thing that violating a copyright law. Downloading media on the web will more than likely result in being sued by the owner of the material and would likely never land you in jail (I won't eliminate the possibility because our court system leaves too much to interpretation). Grand theft auto is a felony and would more than likely result in some jail time.

You do make a valid point though but I ask you this. If I don't want a BMW I can go buy a different car with similar functions for half the price. In regards to media, where does option come in. A cd either costs X amount or you don't buy it. A movie either cost X amount or you don't buy it. I know I'm making it a tad extreme but where are the controls for pricing in the media field. Everybody is charging the BMW price because nobody will make or sell a product at the Kia price.

As to music--illegal or not--taking something without paying for it is theft---unless the owner (the record company/artist depending on their deal) states it is free.

There is no argument other than that. There is attempted justification--but it is theft.

Nobody here said anybody was right or wrong. We're just having a discussion about it.

As am I. But you can't say it isn't theft. Like I said, you can come up with justifications, but there is not a position that it isn't theft.

Fair enough. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I understand it is theft and am not attempting to call it otherwise.

I would disagree. If you don't want a top 100 band CD, you can go buy a different CD from an Indie band or other freelance musician for less, sometimes even free. You're just expecting the BMW at the Ford price.


Like I said, I'd wait until the end of the model year, so it was one nobody wanted anyway. Plus, the manufacturer will just make another. But just for another angle, if enough people stole that song, the artist would stop producing songs because they aren't getting paid enough, so you don't really know which songs would have existed if it were not for pirated music.

The argument is on whether or not it is moral. Theft is a legal term and does not necessarily solve this debate.

I've seen articles citing studies that indicate that there aren't lost earnings for artists from pirated music. I haven't read these studies, and I'm not sure how valid they are, but they exist. If the artist doesn't lose money (or earns more money from increased exposure, as I've also seen claimed) then it's an entirely different paradigm than a stolen car. I think we can agree stealing cars will never result in equal/increased profits.

For the sake of argument, what about things like Mickey Mouse, where the copyright would have expired a long time ago, but every time it gets close to expiring new laws are made that extend the protection. Copyright law exists to allow artists to profit from their intellectual property, but does that extend to their great...(insert number of greats here) grandchildren? In other words should one successful work of art insure comfortable living for generations?

I think we're getting into a pretty high degree of personal preference now. While some people may like to take a risk on indie or freelance music that same person would probably not take a risk on an indie or freelance car maker.

On a side note. What and who do you teach?

So we're all good with stealing yugos then?

Too bad the owner could catch you on foot. Then again. They'd probably offer you $50 and pat you on the back.

I don't bother with looking for pirated music. I've hardly even obtained very much music over the past decade, legally or not -- I just don't listen that much anymore.

I'll download the occasional TV show or movie, though, mainly when we can't get it in the US. Top Gear has its honored place on my external HD, and the last movie I got was the full-length international release of Red Cliff. Other than that, I don't bother.

Fair enough that the artist him/herself does not lose any profit in most cases, but someone out there has purchased the rights to sell the copyrighted material and is therefore losing money on every pirated copy. So in the end, there are still in fact lost profits. You're just forgetting the pee-on working for a lot less than the artist. In the same light, the car manufacturer does not lose the profits for the stolen car. The dealership does.


It's true that laws keep changing, giving copyright holders (and their heirs) more and more time to profit, but disagreeing with a new law does not give you the right to ignore it. If you don't like it, your only correct recourse is to boycott the product, just as Gladiator should before the statute is extended.

Either way, you're deciding what you're willing to pay for. Higher quality costs more, plain and simple. I also wouldn't call it taking a risk. Reliability is not the main determining factor in a car's price. Luxury features and speed are.

You failed at reading comprehension.

:lol:

I teach middle school music. As someone who writes arrangements and original compositions, I can appreciate copyright laws for their basic intent. I can also understand where it has gone way out of hand, and how difficult it is to make a law the properly protects the little person without overprotecting the big cheese.

Well I'd say this just got all garbled and lost. Oh well. It was reasonable while it lasted.

Well, to add to your side:

One could have mentioned the fact that most pirated music is not a lost sale in the first place: Although this kind of survey is probably not very accurate, the vast majority of people said that if they didn't pirate it, they still wouldn't have bought it anyway.

Another angle is the fact that most mainstream top 100 songs are played on public airwaves almost constantly, so downloaders are simply getting an otherwise free song from a different source, making it just a devil in the details.

You could also argue that you're downloading one song out of an entire album. However, this argument would be countered by me asking if you only want a portion of a product, is it ok to steal just that portion? Also, the point has lost its potency now that most songs on legal download sites are sold individually now anyway.

Finally, I'm surprised nobody brought up the production costs of a CD (less than 50 cents). Although that point can be countered by the fact that it is the intellectual property that is protected and not the physical property, it could be argued that the artists and all the middle men get their fair share long before a record goes platinum.

And that those who pirate the most music also purchase the most.

And that one can go to the library, borrow a cd, and copy it. And that you could do this with tapes before digital media.

I'm actually not in favor of pirating music, but I am pretty pissed off at the lobbying the RIAA and whatever the video equivalent did about personal back up copies in the DMCA. And the judicial system. A judge ruled with a straight face that it's legal for copy protection to be put on bluetooth because the ability to make a VHS covers the personal backup portion of the law. That's absurd.