your Opinion on Piracy

[MistaX]

Of course, all of us, atleast once (or in my case, many times) have downloaded MP3s, Games, Apps, and other forms of "Piractic" (if thats a word) things.
My take on it:
Microsoft charges $199 for Windows XP. Worth it? No.
If Microsoft loses 100Million to piracy, from there 10BILLION a year industry, Bill Gates won't even lift his head.

Whats with the RIAA trying to sue everyone that dls music? That makes no sense at all. If anyone supports this, they should be killed. Instantly. Why should everyone be penalized for liking something?
Besides, Artists loose NO friggin money from Mp3s anyway.
I even hate the way my favorite band (Metallica) acted on that issue. Its so stupid.

But what about low level piracy, the kind where someone makes a 3D Model, and it gets taken by someone else, and they take the credit.
Thats the only form of piracy that really bugs me, its so low for someone to do that. An average person just doing something for fun, no money involved, and some dumbass has to go and act like he did all the work. What the hell's the point.
Now I could understand that if the original modeler was a prick and didn't alow anyone to do ANYTHING to the model. But still, its his/her work.

But taking models from big companys (EA for example) is fine, they're payed to make that stuff, and you bought the game (or DLed it..) And anyone with any brains can point out an EA model. (Gotta hate the gray textures on a **** conversion)

Anyway, whats your take on any/all of this, and please keep this sane, no friggin flame wars.

 

[DGB454]

I guess I have never been into MP3s but if you are getting an artist music for free it's stealing. This is the way they earn their living. It's like taking money out of their pocket.
I don't understand how taking someones 3D model is worse. Either is bad but at least the person who makes the 3D model only looses his ability to claim it's his to a few people who believe the guy who took it. Then it's just a pride thing. The other 2(recording artist, game maker) are loosing their ability to earn more money.

 

[Duke]

Agreed with DGB. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter one bit how much the original owner has already - piracy is theft.

People complain all the time about how they "don't want to pay $18 for a CD with 3 good songs on it." Well, here's news - if you don't want to pay for it, then you don't deserve to own it. That's called a budget. Choose your CDs more wisely and make them fit within the money you have available.

I mean, I'd love to drive a BMW, but I don't feel like paying $40,000 for one. Does that entitle me to rip one off, just because I could? BMW makes an obscene amount of money every year; they wouldn't miss it.

Why on earth should music or software be any different?

 

[1X83Z]

I agree with all of you, except MistaX. I mean, since when does this make sense anyway:

Besides, Artists loose NO friggin money from Mp3s anyway.

 

[Duke]

It makes sense ever since post-rationalization became an acceptable alternative to living ethically.

 

[Ghost C]

If at least 1/3 the CD is good, I'll buy it, but if I only like one song, which is usually the case, I'll just download the song, since they probably distribute it freely over the TV and radio anyway. There's alot of CD's I'd like to buy but aren't for sale around here anymore, so I just download the songs I liked.

Is it illegal? Yes. Should people be sued for more than the price of a CD? No.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by Ghost C
Is it illegal? Yes. Should people be sued for more than the price of a CD? No.

Make that the price of a CD plus costs, and it makes more sense. Of course, that could lead to exploitation of pirates by the recording industry, but they kind of deserve it anyway.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Timmotheus
Make that the price of a CD plus costs

What costs?

 

[Max Powers]

I guess I'm not one to talk since I have around 2000 mp3s on my computer. I know what I'm doing is wrong, and I feel no need to try to justify it. I guess the way I look at it, it's easier for me to do it this way now, and until it's not...i'll probably keep doing it.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by milefile
What costs?

Legal costs. And labor costs that were required to track down the offenders, if the lawyer is good enough to push that through. I thought about clarifying in my original post. Then I didn't.

 

[milefile]

It would be just as effective if they got your address, sent you a bill for what you have stolen, and gave you thirty days to pay. If you don't then the collectors start calling you at home and work. The red envelopes won't stop. The harrrasment is unrelenting. Your credit is ruined. Cheap and effective.

 

[TaiLo]

Making money off of the things that you steal, now that's real piracy. Let's say you download songs to make a CD, or even rip the whole album, and have people buy from you. That's major piracy if there ever was one. Stealing music for your own enjoyment, that's just plain stealing, and it's still bad. I think the RIAA should first get the real pirates of the industry, like maybe the guy that owns the local music store, down the street from me. No subpeonas(sp?) to the downloaders yet. It seems like they're only doing this because they can. They can't exactly sue the people recording programs with their TiVo or their VCRs. People are given a choice to record the programs on the Discovery channel, which the channel sells for $20, like Blue Planet, but the recorders of the program aren't being sued. What about them?

What bothers me is that people like Jay-Z are always talking about the "hard-knock life" but aren't really helping those under-priveleged people. Then Eminem goes out saying that he's losing money, while he's wearing expensive jumpsuits. Don't get me wrong, I like Eminem's lyrics, but multimillionaires shouldn't be complaining about losing money when they know how poor people live.

I download music on a few occasions, too. I just don't make money off of it.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by TaiLo
They can't exactly sue the people recording programs with their TiVo or their VCRs. People are given a choice to record the programs on the Discovery channel, which the channel sells for $20, like Blue Planet, but the recorders of the program aren't being sued. What about them?

Here's where the legal issue separates the two: broadcast media.

If you tape a show off the air or cable, it has been broadcast and therefore open to reproduction without copyright infringement, provided it is for home, non-profit use.

In fact, you're free to record songs off the radio without incurring a penalty (as long as you don't sell them). The issue comes in with direct, non-broadcast file sharing.

 

[Ghost C]

But, if you download a song that has been broadcast on the radio, or download the video that has been on TV, wouldn't it basically be the same thing?

 

[KosmikFool]

Its all stupid. I mean, no one got mad when you would copy tapes, but now, CD's are soo much different. Its all crap, I think. I lost all respect for the RIAA when...well, nevermind. I hate the RIAA.

 

[Spock]

Originally posted by MistaX
Of course, all of us, atleast once (or in my case, many times) have downloaded MP3s, Games, Apps, and other forms of "Piractic" (if thats a word) things.
My take on it:
Microsoft charges $199 for Windows XP. Worth it? No.
If Microsoft loses 100Million to piracy, from there 10BILLION a year industry, Bill Gates won't even lift his head.

Whats with the RIAA trying to sue everyone that dls music? That makes no sense at all. If anyone supports this, they should be killed. Instantly. Why should everyone be penalized for liking something?
Besides, Artists loose NO friggin money from Mp3s anyway.
I even hate the way my favorite band (Metallica) acted on that issue. Its so stupid.

But what about low level piracy, the kind where someone makes a 3D Model, and it gets taken by someone else, and they take the credit.
Thats the only form of piracy that really bugs me, its so low for someone to do that. An average person just doing something for fun, no money involved, and some dumbass has to go and act like he did all the work. What the hell's the point.
Now I could understand that if the original modeler was a prick and didn't alow anyone to do ANYTHING to the model. But still, its his/her work.

But taking models from big companys (EA for example) is fine, they're payed to make that stuff, and you bought the game (or DLed it..) And anyone with any brains can point out an EA model. (Gotta hate the gray textures on a **** conversion)

Anyway, whats your take on any/all of this, and please keep this sane, no friggin flame wars.

i cant belive im going to say this, but i totaly agree with you

 

[Race Idiot]

I'm going to keep away from the software aspect, but I hate this crackdown on downloading music. Since p2p applications were introduced I have bought more music than I ever had before. In 2000 I had about 5 albums and now I have like 80 or so and my collection which is still growing.I like to download a few tracks from an artist, then if I like them i'll go and buy the CD and in most cases delete the files from my computer. If I don't like it I just delete the files, I find this better than reading music reviews and then buying a cd that I end up hating.

The only full albums I have downloaded are Japanese VGM albums. I've tried to buy them and have had no success whatsoever.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Race Idiot
I like to download a few tracks from an artist, then if I like them i'll go and buy the CD and in most cases delete the files from my computer. If I don't like it I just delete the files, I find this better than reading music reviews and then buying a cd that I end up hating.

You see, that's what I, and I presume others here, would like for people to use P2P technologies for - To test out software/music, and if you like it, to go out and buy it (and delete it if you don't). What you're doing is perfectly moral. Unfortunately, so many people use it to get their goodies for free... (stealing! 👎)

 

[KosmikFool]

Originally posted by Sage
You see, that's what I, and I presume others here, would like for people to use P2P technologies for - To test out software/music, and if you like it, to go out and buy it (and delete it if you don't). What you're doing is perfectly moral. Unfortunately, so many people use it to get their goodies for free... (stealing! 👎)

Thats what I've started doing. Like Audioslave, I "got" two of their songs and then bought the CD and ripped it to my harddrive. A lot of my playlist is made up of singles or songs that are from unacquirable CD's (Parental Advisory, Import, etc.) and ripped songs. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not doing much wrong.

 

[regulate]

personally i dont car much for the riaa or iraa, whaterver the orginaztion of billionare record execs are called.
if they were really concered about they would have made technology to make cds un-rippable or something of that nature.
oh wait, tape decks still come in some stero systems, whoops no gain!

anyways artists make money from touring rather that album sales, unless they are talentless and hire mege-super-duper-produces to make their album and they end up selling enough to cover the costs of makin that album, or in that rare cases theres really talent involved.

plus, if you rip a whole cd thats worth at most 21 dollars, why should you get sued for 1xx,xxx per song!, or some out rageous number, plus cort costs, legal deffense (your gonna need a good and expensive one to deal with those money bags) and even prison time.

the thought of getting a meat injection from lil mike in cell block c for rippin a cd is so damn rediculous.
instead of easting money to track and persecute ppl for dl'n music, they should concertrate on the artist development and put out good artist, instead sellout p***ies.

if they dont like it quite makin cds, or deal with it, it wont stop!

 

[emad]

make it affordable, and i'll willingly pay for it. i love trance, techno, and acid jazz...most of that music is absurdly hard to find in major music stores...even in the small ones. all u get is the same worn out generic tunes @ 30 bucks a disk because it's hard to find. the only way for me to get the good stuff is to download.

and as far as my love for rap goes...most of my favourite musicians have sooo many albums that it's impossible for a university student to afford buying every cd from any of your fave artists because 15 bucks a disk adds up VERY quickly...specially when tuition is $6000/year.

on top of all this, i listen to music almost only when i'm at my computer (most of the day)...so cds are absurdly inconvenient when you like to mix things up a bit

until the music is made affordable for ppl like me who go piss broke just trying to cover school fees because the pricks of the government refuse to give you a student loan for unspecified reasons...i'm going to continue downloading music...


so band with me my poor friends...and boycott the RIAA together...

1640 tracks in playlist, average track length: 5:12
Estimated playlist length: 142 hours 20 minutes 18 seconds

------------
one final thought....why hasnt riaa gone against mp3 player manufacturers? truly portable illegally obtained music...20 gig and higher capacities...my entire collection would fit right in my pocket and go anywhere i go...

 

[Danoff]

Yar. Piracy be good.

Just kidding, stealing is wrong. You'll just have to record your songs legally off the radio waves, then convert them to mp3, then burn the CD.

OR, you could download it legally off of napster from someone who legally recorded it off the radio and encoded it.

OR, you could assume that every song that you get from kazaa is recorded off the radio waves and converted to mp3.

Wait... that would be like buying a stolen watch and saying you didn't know it had been stolen.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by emad

one final thought....why hasnt riaa gone against mp3 player manufacturers? truly portable illegally obtained music...20 gig and higher capacities...my entire collection would fit right in my pocket and go anywhere i go...

Because the makers of MP3 players have no control over how they are used. It's perfectly legal to buy an iPod and 100 CDs of your favorite music, rip the CDs to the iPod, and enjoy it legally and guilt-free. You're allowed to make duplicate copies of music you obtained legally for your own, non-commercial use.

Are you the type of idiot who thinks that liquor manufacturers are responsible for drunk drivers?

 

[emad]

no, just curious...i remember the company that makes the irivers got threats from the riaa. they even went to court...but i think the riaa lost that one

 

[Klostrophobic]

In related news ... CD prices to be slashed.

I download a fair bit of music, but I make it a point to go out and buy the album if I can find it. If not from an ethical standpoint, then definitely from a quality standpoint.

 

[risingson77]

Very nice. Price cuts are always appreciated.

Then again, I won't see much of a difference since I buy my CDs from a company that doesn't grossly overcharge their customers. I would think that everyone has a similar store near them.

Yes, downloading commercial MP3s is stealing and therefore wrong. Most of the MP3s I have are either non-commercial or so long out of print that they can't be had for any price. I have used MP3s to preview albums. If I like what an artist offers, I buy the album.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Best Buy is awesome for CD purchases. I consistently pick up CDs for under 10 bucks from them. They aren't going to have anything obscure, but if I want something that is at least somewhat mainstream, no one beats them.

For instance, A Perfect Circle's new album (released tomorrow) will be priced at $9.99 according to bestbuy.com. What a deal!

 

[risingson77]

Yes, but every time you shop at Best Buy a little bit of your soul dies. I'll stick with Bull Møøse.

 

[Klostrophobic]

I've no soul. It's just dead weight anyway.

 

[ledhed]

ARGGG me hearty's !! Pass the rum and show me the wenche's !