Stealing is Despicable

The copyright statement in British books includes the restriction that, without written permission from the publisher, the book "may not be ... circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published," which I think the publishers threatened to enforce against libraries over here in the UK if the government didn't introduce a Public Lending Rights scheme. Typography and cover artwork are subject to copyright as well, after all.

Alright, well...Richard Garriott said it best when he said not to worry about pirates, as most probably wouldn't have bought the product they downloaded illegally in the first place. Musicians, game creators, movie creators...they all still get tons of money. The ratio of those that purchase vs those that don't is decent enough that pirates shouldn't be a worry, considering that most of them again wouldn't be purchasers in the first place. Things also are too pricey for alot of people to continually spend money on, especially things like games and movies where you could drop $20-$50 or more and get something you're not happy with at all. So, honestly, while I hate that piracy is a way that most feel they have to go, I don't think it's something people should worry about to the level they do. There will always be the moral police that freak out over this, that will never change, but in the end life still goes on, the creators still make tons of money regardless, and there really isn't that much of an impact that it should be noticeable.

Now, where I draw the line and see it as wrong is when it's no longer for personal use and people sell the things they get illegally. That's crossing too many lines in my book, as that property is not yours to sell. I won't judge or knock someone that gets something for themselves, but selling is one of those lines that probably 99% of pirates know not to cross.

This includes ALL blank media, regardless of its intended use. In other words, my business pays this additional fee even though we use hundreds of blank media CDs and DVDs for storing DATA (not music). So I'd say it all evens out in the wash.

HOWEVER, what my fellow Canadians may not really know is that this money has yet to go to the artists. I believe it's still paying off the administrative bills for implementing this bogus cash grab.

In response to the original post, I agree almost 100%.

Where I don't is when (1) video media is orignally in a language I cannot understand, (2) not subtitled in a language I can understand (and I really want to view the story and understand it), and (3) I am not in a position (yet) to purchase a copy of the original video media. In other words, I will download and watch anime fansubs, eventually buying the licensed version if it ever is made (sometimes it is not), or eventually buying it from the source when I get the opportunity.

Do I feel bad about that? Sure, a little, and while I only do this for a couple of titles now and again (SL distractions have actually put a stop to this in the past two years LOL), I also have bought thousands of manga and doujinshi books in a language I cannot read (although have translations or summaries for some of them). So I do feed the industry -- just not 100%.

So it is ok for your artist to steal from me? Taxation is nothing more than theft.

Smuggling and evading taxes is what made America great.

They are working in the best interest of all those Big Labels..If they were working in the best interest of the artist or the industry itself they would not be going after something that has increased sales and exposure of those artists work..They are about copy right protection for the big labels rather than the best interest of artists that get a smidge of those sales..
They switched from protecting quality of product to making sure those big companies get every penny even if it hurts the industry..

CD sales increased during the napster period and continues to help increase sales with file sharing..You would think they would be all for it..Restrictions on sharing or free downloads are actually contrary to the RIAA goals of helping musical artists and recording studios..

RIAA is little more than a Mob business which rips off artists who get relatively little compensation for the sale of CDs while it fixes prices of CDs for high profits for recording labels..

The day they start to work more twards the artist best interests and the best interest of music and product quality is the day you will see a change in how people view them..

They are like a union alright..United big business..Do people really believe that most artists that speak out in favor of the RIAA are not doing it because their label said to get your ass out there and say this?

Most artists i hear in interviews that have broken away from labels and made their own have nothing good to say about the industry..Even a lot in it have nothing good to say..

It's more of the attitude that..Yup you have to deal with them if you want to make it..

Sure downloading music is wrong now..But it wasn't long ago that it wasn't wrong..The RIAA made it wrong..
They made it wrong because they didn't have control of an area that actually was good for artists and helped the artists..

Those "Big Labels" employ workers - recording technicians, acoustic engineers, sound mixers and editors, other artists (such as symphonic accompaniment) whose work is included uncredited aside from the Big Label's name, publicists, album cover artists, in some cases the people who actually write the songs, marketers, equipment repairers and installers, agents, and janitors. Those people do real work and they need to get paid too. It could be argued that pirated songs may benefit a performer in some ways (and I'll choose to remain dubious that the number of people who were prompted by their pirated music to go out and buy more of the artist's stuff is as high as some insist it is) but it shafts the rest of those people whose work went into making the ripped tracks, whose cardinal sin apparently was choosing to work for a "Big Label".

I understand how you feel, and agree in principle with what you are saying.

The only thing I take issue with is the incorrect application of the words "theft", "steal", etc to copyright infringement. They really are not the same thing, and misusing the words only serves to exacerbate the issue, especially when you're trying to debate it with someone else.

Please read this article, which is a much better treatment of the subject than I can do:

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/theft.html

This is incorrect. The Recording Industry Association of America is comprised of Recording Studios, NOT the artists themselves. That's why it is called that.

Don't for one second think that artists are actually represented by the RIAA, despite their claims. Many artists who are with one or more labels actually despise the RIAA, because they do nothing to help them when a label rips them off.

Exposure leads to sales so it's not shafting them at all..People are being exposed to music they would have never otherwise heard..
The last in that food chain is the artist so how is it hurting all those that are employed by those big labels if they get fed first? RIAA is hurting the whole industry not just the artists..

That's OK though..The net is becoming more and more famous with people around the world and artists wil have more options to not have to deal with RIAA or the middleman..

It's a lot easier than most think to get yourself recorded in high quality these days..Also make your own cover and produce your own works..The reason they needed those big labels was for exposure..Something the RIAA happens to be trying to Hamper..

Boston did it in a basement and ran their own label..their first album sold for more than ten years before they put out a second..

I don't have a problem with labels..Just greedy labels..The only reason those jobs for those labels are there..Is because there are people that create music..
There will be music no matter what with or without those labels or the RIAA..There would be no RIAA or those labels if there were no artists making the music..

give artists another channel freeing them from those two and watch what happens..

As i said before Linkin park did it and really it sped up their exposure..I bought linkin parks first cd because someone was playing it at work that had recorded it from the net where they had given the album away for free to promote themselves..and their Reanimation cd when it came out as well..

See music quality is not so great because the really great artists won't suck up to the industry..For every group we think is great there are 1,000 more out there that are better that we haven't heard because they didn't kiss the right asses..or they just said .nope the music is more important to me..
slowly we are getting exposed to more and more of those artists..with places like second life and other formats on the net..
give it time..
i look for the day when we just get our music on the net and people are doing it on thier own employing who they feel will protect their best interest of their music instead of the image of the label itself..

Question: who steals from who? (think about it)

The big commercial corporations are! They are stealing our freedom, they are stealing (with HUUUUUGE profits) our money, but do not innovate at all.

Freedom in the sense of vendor lockins, lawsuits over nothing, raising prices for no reason, DRM etc etc..


MSFT comes to mind.. but also the Entertainment industry.

And money in the sence of:

They complain nag etc, but instead of listening to it's legit customers and the cultural movements, and adjusting to it... no they keep insisting to systems that where acceptable in de 90ties early 2Kties..

The world has changed quite a bit, commercially.. it's time for innovation.
(and there is also the economical climate worldwide that needs to be addressed.)

I say, for the managers and ceo's etc.. of those firms, no more bonusses no more idiotic income (100K a year is quite normal in those sectors, which is very high for a lazy job)

So, therefor they are stealing, not the consumers barely can't keep it's head above water.

i mean: a dvd album costs approx 30 USD, from that 30USD goes 5 USD to the artist(s) (unless you're a very famous artist for them, then you get payed more, but most aren't) and the rest is for the record label exploiting it. (that the general avarage numbers on sales dividing) Because some lame managers needs to go on a 2 month cruise to a remote luxorious location each year, and be treated as a vip too!!

insane, but true...

The problem is, though, that "theft" only means anything if you have a legal system that defines it and enforces laws against it. Otherwise you have little protection against anyone whose definition of theft is "having something I want" and who is able to enforce his views through his superior firepower. Having seen such a state of affairs first-hand in a couple of parts of the world, I really don't recommend it. So unless you can persuade your government to share your view, I think you're onto a bit of a non-starter, there.

Funny . . . I always thought that PROPERTY was theft . . .