Is "file-sharing" basically a nice way to say "stealing"?

I agree with you. It's stealing.
I do it from time to time. But I try to be ethical about what I'm stealing.

I avoid new Hollywood movies because it's not the millionaire corporate executives that it hurst. Its guys like Bob the set builder and his wife and children. Whereas films from 40 or more years ago and foriegn films not available in my nation are ok to download and share.

I also go after software giants. Like Microsoft that is determined to make me pay for a new operating system every 6 months. Or companies that demand over 600 for their software. If they kept it down around 30 dollars, or even 100 dollars for highly specialized programmes, I'll gladly buy it in a store.

 

Well I beg to differ on that one but whatever

and what does my age have to do with anything? I've been going to, promoting, and throwing raves for 7 years. Just because I'm 20 doesn't mean I haven't been anywhere or seen anything

 

Legally its not stealing or theft to make unauthorized copies of files that are copyrighted, it is copyright infringement. There is a difference. There is no theft that occurs, no property is taken. Its like xeroxing a book in the library, the original book is still there, you just copied it. The MPAA and the RIAA, etc would like to make you believe that it is stealing but it is not.

I'm not trying to say its ok to do that, just trying to clarify it a bit.

 

you just wasted 1 minute of your life trying to clarify something the illiterates here will never understand.

 

If it was just a matter of the music (or other type) of companies losing some profit... I would say 'never' buy anything that you can download...

On the other hand, if all the money went to the actual artist (or even a majority of it), and they were charging a reasonable amount, then I would say, 'always buy the things you enjoy to support the artist...

Seems neither of those are true though, none of that really applies. The artists (of whatever genre) get screwed by their managers, the production companies, the advertising, the retail etc etc... They are lucky to see 10% of what is made off of their work.

I've seen many lives bands over the years, many of whom had homestudio-made albums, that they sold, in which they got 100% of the money from... I bought their albums with no hesitation directly from them. I will still do that whenever I see a live band I enjoy and they sell their own albums. If they are professional studio albums, I won't pay them a penny for them.

As for the stealing/not stealing thing...

If you use torrents (or other p2p software) and download stuff that you would have bought without the torrents.. Then it is stealing. The people who put that out, are losing the money that you would pay otherwise...

However, if you are downloading stuff that you wouldn't pay for (for example, you use your money to feed yourself instead) then it isn't stealing, seems even without the p2p, the companies and people involved wouldn't get anything anyway.

Stealing is when you TAKE SOMETHING AWAY from someone else without returning fiar value. Downloading stuff off the net, pirate satellites, torrents and all such things, doesn't take anything away from anyone unless that person would pay for them if there was no alternative.

And ZW... there are people who make music because they enjoy making music... and there are those who make it because they want to get rich... One of them shares their music with people who enjoy it... the other keeps their music only for those with money.

That first group will never have a hard time finding people to buy albums they make (without the label companies and bullshit) in order to make a living (assuming they are a good artist... lol).

The second group... well, they are no different then walmart execs or any other type of job someone does for money alone...

 

[Edit] fuck it :smoking:

 

Interesting....

Tell me something ZW...

What does your sig line mean to you?

 

Honestly, I'll disagree. The problem with stealing is that you are depriving other people of their property.

Downloading something doesn't deprive anybody of anything. The idea of it being wrong is based on the false assumption that if I didn't download it I would have bought it - which is not true by a longshot.

 

It deprives the original artist of the royalties.

I can't honestly get on a high horse about it as I do participate in it. I still buy a lot of music and films but I also download a lot of files.

 

See... I don't get this... Smaller artists don't get labels... They struggle and they scrape to get by while doing something the love... If these were the artists being hurt by downloading or copying music, then I would 100% agree...

But they aren't... They are the ones who are selling cd's they copied themselves and selling directly to their fans and claiming cover charges... Which will continue to happen, no matter what happens on the internet.

It is the ones who end up on labels and sell millions of copies that get the most people downloading their music and bypassing the companies...

Last time I checked, the only Labelled artist that was struggling are the ones who are no longer popular and didn't invest their millions while they had it...

Show me a site where I can pay an artist the royalties they would get directly, with no middle men, and I'll GLADLY do so in exchange for downloading their music...

 

I agree with you in that I would like to be able to then know that the "fee" I pay goes directly to them, especially as you stated those who are off labels.

I think independent artists really have a hard time and yet at the same time they may only be heard by a large audience by downloads......rather a quandary. You are more likely to download a song or two of someone you do not know than buy a CD of an unknown artist.

When I go to a club or venue that is featuring a new artist I often buy from them as it is the only way they can do their craft. Sadly.

I think the business is really difficult for those who are not signed to a label. Part of the problem as a label only signs what they feel is a marketing success. Not necessarily an artist who is talented and yet does not fit the market in a nice easy word.

As far as established artists or has beens (lol) I still feel they are entitled to their royalties, if they can get them from their labels. Another whole issue.

 

Actually, I think it is the same issue, or at least for me it is...

The labels don't differentiate between new music and old music... If they think they can make money off of music that was made 100 years ago, they will, and they don't pay anyone for the music... yet the albums cost the same as a new artist's album...

The labels aren't there to protect the artist or to make sure the artist gets their 'fair share'... supporting them is not supporting artists... it is supporting the commercial enterprise of the music industry.

Someone mentioned movies and how downloading them hurts the set builders and such... 100% wrong... Set builders and those types that you mentioned do not get royalties on movies... They get paid a wage while working on the set, and then nothing else... Whether I download a movie, buy it, or watch it online, doesn't change their lives in the slightest.

 

"file sharing" as a concept or technology is obviously not "stealing", IMO.

However, what you "share" may not be legal to share and may qualify as a "yes" answer to that question.

 

I see your point and agree that those you gave as example in the film industry are paid no matter what.

We all complain about the commercial aspect of the music industry but the other side of the coin is that if not for them independent artists would never be able to afford to release and market music. Only those who had a large amount of money could afford to produce their own music and have it marketed.

 

i don't think of it as stealing...but i suppose it is getting something for free that you are supposed to pay for...

i've learned about a few bands i really enjoy from pandora radio (free to me, but they have ads to pay for it). i've then got their songs by file sharing, to put on my mp3 player. after listening to them for awhile, i decided i REALLY liked them and went to their concerts and bought their CDs (which i now realize is supporting the record company).

but i may not have went to their concets, bought their music, and maybe a T-shirt at the show, if i hadn't got the file by sharing

 

I product shared with a couple stores when I was a teenager.

 

It obviously depends.

If you share copyright stuff, well yeah, kinda, though in a very different sense from walking into the store and jacking a snickers.

If you share copyleft stuff, more power to ya, and hell no it's not stealing!

 

whatever people feel about it, and how morally object it is or not does not change the fact that if you are meant to pay for something, by not doing so and utilizing whatever it is, you are stealing.

It's really is as black and white as that. People can talk about record companies, or whether its contemporary, or even the guy paid to stroke Brad Pitt's goatee- the point is it's theft.

I do and will continue to pay. I enjoy seeing a new film in the cinema- and I have a wonderful, tangible CD collection I enjoy contribution to. It's not only the artists legacy, it's sort of mine- like my father did with me with his Black Sabbath and Rush records, I hope to share memories and music with my children someday.

 

That is premised on the fact that if I didn't download it, I would have bought it. The reality is I just never would have paid them any attention.

 

...don't mean shit...'s a mutha fuckin koan.