looking for an entire Metallica album

I was referring to his equating theft with murder.

Except he doesn't equate theft with murder.

The way I read it, he implies through his question that some people seem to think it's okay to create their own sense of "scale" in deciding which laws they'll decide to obey. Only it's not okay. Scale doesn't work in a productive, civilized society. Individuals don't decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If that were the case, to those who think "honor killing" is acceptable, he would be "the Annoying Advocate Against Murder".

So to get this back on topic, let's apply "scale" to the laws regarding theft of a creator's product and see how that works, since it appears to be what people are doing. The obvious question then is: How much is profit is acceptable before people independently choose not to follow the law?

Just back off for a moment here. I am not saying it's good, or legal. Note that I am arguing that it simply is not theft, but a different kind of crime. Try reading what I post, before you go trying to insult me, dammit!

If I steal something (theft) then I have it and they don't. If I illegally copy something, I have it, but they still have it, as well. Hence it is NOT theft, but a different kind of crime.

Let me illustrate with another example:
If I take your Mercedes and drive off in it, I have stolen it. With me so far? Good.
If I, using whatever means I have at my disposal, build an EXACT copy of your Mercedes, whilst leaving your automobile in place, then I have NOT stolen. I have violated numerous copyright/patent/intellectual property/tradmark/"whatever else applies here" laws with regards to the Mercedes-Benz company, but I have not stolen anything - everyone else still has their cars. Still with me after that? Simple and logical, isn't it?

It is theft. If you steal their music then you have the money they would have made from that song. Therefore, it is even more insidious. You are, in essense, just stealing the car earlier. You are stealing the money they would have used to purchase the car in the first place.

Why, then, do crimes like copyright infringement etc. even exist? Why make things more complicated, when it's really all just simple theft?

Perhaps because it's not theft, but a different type of crime?

To refute your argument above, I have not stolen money, because none has changed hands (illegally or not).

*Grins* Just to make sure you know we're arguing over whether something is crimson or vermillion here... we both agree that it sure ain't green!

No. But something is taken. If "nothing" was taken, there would be no way to define it (e.g. an mp3).


IP laws which make infringement a crime exist because they address the immaterial nature of the thing in question. They ensure that someone who makes the effort to come up with an immaterial thing benefits from investing in the development of that thing.


The concept behind IP laws is that they are good for society because they act as an incentive. That's why they were created. Without an incentive to invest in new ideas, stagnation sets in and progress grinds to a halt.

I've not seen anyone say theft is simple in scope. Only simple in concept.

Okay, here's the dealio:

1. The record industry has been busy pushing music, 10 or so artists at a time, crap music on us for decades. They songs play over and over and over on the radio until you are so used to their songs that you wind up knowing the brand name and buy the CDs thinking there is no other good music out there.

2. Fans decide to accelerate this process - by downloading these same songs that they've freely heard on the radio over and over and over again. What's the difference? They control when they are played, not the DJs.

3. Radio stations, which have been the ultimate suck, payola, and wholly 1/3 advertisements, are losing money, and looking for scapegoats. Not being the sole source of promotion of the music industry, they whine to the record companies, who traditionally have fed them money for songs and all the goddam good seats at concerts.

4. Record labels, despite earning increasing, record profits, complain that they are "losing money to mp3 downloads", when it's clear the exact opposite is happening: Fans are buying more music, and the bands' music is getting to people much faster, and to whole new audiences around the world that they never had access to before because they could only control one media - radio - in a limited amount of countries.

5. People all over the world are listening to the music, creating an enormous demand for the artists. Artists have an all-time high potential to market concerts at higher and higher prices, memorobelia, and yes, albums that people are willing to pay for.

6. The only loser? Record companies, whose job is to promote artists. But HOLY EFFING SHIT! THE ARTISTS DON'T NEED THEM ANYMORE TO PROMOTE THEIR MUSIC! There is now no need for the record companies to advertise what is being advertised for free.

7. Record companies launched an enormous "OMG THIS IS STEALING !!!111" campaign, which is utter bullcrap compared to what is really happening. With money in the pockets of politicians, they are able to do get legislation passed, continuing a great tradition of corruption in politics and an attack against the very fans who are supposed to be their customers.

What Hiro wrote above is actually happening. You can have knee jerk OMG its stealing1111! Arguments all you want.

The main problem people have with Metalica is that they were active supporters of the "Tape Trade" network prior to getting big, tape trading was basically a huge bootlegging thing in the 80's, I remember getting in good with a few groups. Now that they are "Marketable" and have made their millions and want more they no longer support it.

Nevermind it was the early version of Napster AKA Tape Trading that made them their success.

At best they are hypocritical pricks, at worse they are actively trying to stifle the new music scene.

Remember kids, MONEY GOOD! NAPSTER BAD!

[edit] After viewing the above (fond memories)... I thought I might just post the others too!

Metallicops!
MP3 Music: Good or Goblin
Sue All The World

-Ghoti

The "dealio" is much much larger than the music industry. But let's limit ourselves to that for now.

1. No one can "push" anything onto people if they can turn off the radio or whatever plays the offending music.

2. That's right. People have decided to take control... which is why I pointed to Lessig's opinion that creator's decide. I suppose all the "free everything" people are trying to reconcile that issue; Lessig was their hero but now...?

3. Who cares?

4 & 5. No one is saying that giving away content can't be a profitable tactic. Lessig frequently cites examples and I agree with the business practice of doing this. But I don't agree that just anyone has the right to tell a creator how to conduct their business. If a band doesn't want to give away free song samples, then the People can ignore them. Simple. It's not my nor anyone else's Right to tell them what to do and then to do it for them if they choose not to do what I want them to do.

6. As above, it's not anyone's place but the musicians' to decide how to distribute their music. Whether I agree or not how they choose to do it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that I respect their choice. And if I don't agree, I simply ignore their product. I won't starve if I don't listen to their song. I won't die if I ignore every artist on the label. I am not entitled to the results of their efforts.

7. I won't defend the efforts of large corporations to screw up our laws. It goes further than music and movies (which are not necessities but luxuries). But the answer is not to independently decide which laws we'll obey, it's to regain control of the government that puts the laws on the books.

If people want the laws changed, then instead of wasting time searching, downloading and enjoying someone else's music, take a few minutes to write your representative. Instead of giving the offending labels your attention (which can be turned into dollars in ways most people don't consider), IGNORE THEIR PRODUCT. Only in that way can the People really affect a corporation's financial health and impact the influence they have over corrupt representatives. Simply taking what we want is not the answer. It's mindless. And it plays into their hands in other ways.

As far as I'm concerned, Metallica has every right to change their mind. I don't call it hyporcricy. I don't call it anything. It's their property. Complaining about it would be like me complaining that a neighbor planted a fir instead of a cherry tree. I am not entitled to getting everything I want.

yup.. the music industry is thriving and no matter how much free distribution there is it wont die.. tiz the record industry thats days are numbered... which isnt fair because we all owe them a living right?
the days of being able to sell an album with two catchy songs on it and the rest complete SHITE are going.. the fans are educated and not buying such rubbish anymore..

Musicians must roll with the punches.. if their music is Crap.. noone will even pirate it ..

The real problem is Metallica hasn't written a decent song since ...And Justice For All came out. And that makes me sad, they were my heroes, growing up in the Bay Area, they were legendary, being the poster-boys for rebellion, outsiderness, and kill 'em all attitude. Then they got huge and got managers and lawyers and salesmen and other bottom-feeding-suction-eels to join their team, and as such they got soft and fat and lame. When Lars went after Napster, I just started downloading their songs, out of spite, even though I owned their 1st four albums.
I hope it is stealing, cuz that'll piss off Lars more.
Cliff Burton is rollin' in his grave.

I believe South Park did an episode that illustrated this very point.

From Digg.com



Music Communities Form Themselves

-Ghoti

And while you're busy being spiteful, some indy band is begging for the attention {edit: like Ghoti's example above} you're giving to someone else you claim to no longer even like. Brilliant solution... for the record labels.

It's obvious most haven't thought this through to the endgame. Congratulations for being exactly what the greedy corporations believe you to be and giving them the only thing left to keep them in business.

just thought I would quote this again

Awww, can't we be friends, I want you to like me.

I'm not into age play.

I firmly agree that downloading music is theft and it's illegal and wrong! Why should the famous music artists today have to put up with toilets made of mere gold when they could have them made out of platinum and jewels!

End this theft NOW!!

For every 3 cents you steal from a multimillionaire, god kills a puppy.

Well maybe I'm just to simple then. When you take somethin that ain't yours, it's stealin'.

Lots of people in the third world think the same thing about Americans and Westerners in general. Why should we have running water when most of the world bathes in raw sewage? Why should Americans get liposuction when so many starve? Do you have a toilet? In many parts of the world that makes you a very wealthy and privileged person.

The entitlement argument against those who succeed in our already wealthy system doesn't go very far when you step back and take a look.

Crying over not getting free music versus Crying from not getting enough food and water to live

Let's all feel sorry for the people who *need* to have free music.

Oh, so you steal music to ultimately protect the consumer and target an entire industry that you disagree with? That seems rather humanitarian and malicious at the same time.


That and there is no fee paid by the users. No revenue generated from ad sales. No one will listen to the Mom and Pop pharmacy commercial. Radio provides a lower cost outlet for many small companies to advertise. So is the point of this to destroy radio stations and small businesses now?


So because you don't like them making money, you choose to steal from them? Can I go steal some gas tonight because I disagree with the profits Exxon is making?


If they don't need them then they shouldn't use them. If you don't want artists distributing through record companies then tell them so and refuse to buy their product. There are legal ways to make your point.


Actually, it is stealing. You are takng something you don't own.

You've done a thorough job of exaplaining why you steal, but that doesn't change what it is. I could spend 2 hours describing a donkey from my perspective. At the end of the day it is still an ass.

Welcome to the Internet. Tape Trading is not even close to being on the same order of magnitude as Napster.

The same could be said for you or anyone else. Do you expect a paycheck when you work or do you shun material wealth and work for free?

So why not invest in that business model instead of attempting to sabotage the existing model through theft?