My $.02
Published on December 15, 2005 By Arquonzo In Personal Computing
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:

I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.

My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.

I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.

Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.

Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?

Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!

Comments (Page 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Dec 27, 2005

Regarding the issue of downloading music automatically equalling loss revenue, there are just so many variables that really can't be proven scientifically that it makes it near impossible to figure out.

Just what I said....

The difference with online music 'distribution' vs Joe Shmuck copying his LP to a Cassette....the latter is pretty much one on one....the former is one on thousands/maybe millions.

The latter is more 'duplication' than distribution.

The former is more world-wide distribution than 'helping out a friend'.

Last I checked...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft.

But the usual bunch of [predominantly young] moralists will argue they myopically cannot SEE harm therefore there IS none.....and will continue the practise.....irrespective of opinion or consequence.

Never before, in the field of human debate has so much been said by so many for so little result...

on Dec 27, 2005
Fuck SOny Corp.
It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands.
on Dec 27, 2005

Fuck SOny Corp.
It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands.

No...if the bands are contracted to Sony then you are actually 'fucking' the bands.  Sony can weather the storm, but the bands just might not......if profitability [for Sony] is lost because one particular band is being pirated they can always drop the uneconomical and go with the ones who still pull an income.

Then the bands lose their existing distribution/publicity and end up another pathetic garage band touting for airplay in some RSL/Scout hall.

....or becoming 'hip and trendy' by embracing the online distribution, only to be warez'd by people who think $1 per song is still too damn much...when you can just 'fuck the bands' directly and take it ALL.

on Dec 27, 2005

There is ONLY two sides to this 'debate'.

Those who admit is is wrong, but 'possibly' do it a bit, or not at all.

and

Those who claim it is NOT wrong, so they have no reservations about 'doing it'.

One 'may' be hypocritical, but the other is definitely fancifully delusional.

on Dec 27, 2005
As I broke down quite clearly, in my situation, downloading music causes absolutely no loss of revenue for the artists, and from referals has actually sold CDs that otherwise wouldn't have been bought.
Do you have anything to back that statement up with?
on Dec 27, 2005

bites tongue,

Good choice.....

on Dec 27, 2005
However, everyone (regardless of who admits) is illegal of making a copy of a CD or accepting one at one time or another. EVERYONE.


I actually never shared a music cd or whatever in my whole life. I don't care about music at all and don't listen to them. After all, I'm deaf and cannot hear and enjoy the music. Never make an absolute statement. It's likely that it will bite you.
on Dec 28, 2005
Fuck SOny Corp.
It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands


Okay, so you come home with your paycheck and hand it to your wife, she puts it in her purse to pay bills and buy your groceries, then I come along and take her purse, paycheck 'n all. Have I stolen from her, or you, or both?

When enough purses have been stolen from Sony, because there's a multitude of morons who think it's okay to rob the rich, their contracted musicians/artists slice of the pie becomes even smaller...if there's any left for the smaller guys.
on Dec 28, 2005
I actually never shared a music cd or whatever in my whole life. I don't care about music at all and don't listen to them. After all, I'm deaf and cannot hear and enjoy the music. Never make an absolute statement. It's likely that it will bite you.


That was a statement for those (obviously) who can listen to music.

I'm not bitten, I'm jealous. At least you don't have to listen to my wife all of the time Your situation also has advantages. I loved being deaf in my right ear for a few months.
on Dec 28, 2005

Your situation also has advantages. I loved being deaf in my right ear for a few months.

I'm pretty sure Rolf would rather NOT have those 'advantages'. 

My wife gets free public transport .....but I'm also certain she'd rather be able to drive a car, and not be classified as 'vision impaired'...

on Dec 28, 2005
Okay, so you come home with your paycheck and hand it to your wife, she puts it in her purse to pay bills and buy your groceries, then I come along and take her purse, paycheck 'n all. Have I stolen from her, or you, or both?

When enough purses have been stolen from Sony, because there's a multitude of morons who think it's okay to rob the rich, their contracted musicians/artists slice of the pie becomes even smaller...if there's any left for the smaller guys.


More like there is an evil landlord squeezing the cents out of his tenants and making for a miserable life especially for the lowest of the tenants.

Stealing from him nevers filters down to the tenants since they have been squeezed to death already.
on Dec 28, 2005
I'm impressed at how good some people are at rationalizing theft.
on Dec 28, 2005
I'll be honest.

I did until they started coming after people, now I use iTunes and pay a buck a pop which I still think is too high but what the hey.
on Dec 28, 2005

Stealing from him nevers filters down to the tenants since they have been squeezed to death already.

Once the landlord cannot afford to maintain the building...he dumps it on someone else...who promptly evicts the tenants and turns it into a multi-storey carpark.

Nah....the tenants aren't being robbed blind anymore...they're now homeless....

Beautiful analogy....couldn't have thought up a better one myself....

on Dec 28, 2005
Except whoever heard of multi-millionaire landlords not being able to afford to maintain their buildings? And what if these landlords were blatantly stealing from their tenants as well and when these tenants tried to move someplace else they found all the landlords were the same? And there was nothing that could be done because it was in their contract which was even worse because it made the landlord's theft absolutely legal. Stealing is stealing, and while the community may be taking the pennies out of the tenant's jars the landlord has got the combination to each and every tenant's safe. Which is the bigger problem?
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9