Thoughts on Media Piracy

[Rustin Cohle]

I refuse to wait weeks, sometimes months for TV shows to air here before I watch them. So, yes, I download episodes after they air in the US and I feel no guilt for doing it.

 

[jerry springer]

I said the exact same thing like 5 posts earlier yet you kept arguing with me haha

I guess Im giving mixed messages.As i said i dont disagree with your method of paying for music that you like.each to their own.fair point on the family guy issue

I just dont try and justify my own position on downloading .I just admit, Im in the wrong

 

[TradeDraft]

What about YouTube I would reckon at Least 90% on that is against the Copyright so That is no Difference

 

[TradeDraft]

I refuse to wait weeks, sometimes months for TV shows to air here before I watch them. So, yes, I download episodes after they air in the US and I feel no guilt for doing it.

Spot on they could be a Full Season ahead of us for Example you could Download Clevleand Shows for Season 1 and Season 21 of the Simpsons

 

[abs_of_STEELE]

Download everything.

Too cheap to actually buy stuff.

 

[mdc]

You're stealing stuff. Doesn't matter what your intent is, it's still theft of intellectual property and forcing artists to lose their hard-earned.

You like it, you buy it.

I guess I shouldn't have expected a Sherriff to support "piracy", but I'll have a crack at this anyway.

The idea that it's theft of intellectual property is nonsense, unless you subscribe to the theory that libraries have been stealing intellectual property for decades. You know, by letting people read/watch stuff for free.

I submit that the propaganda campaign against internet "piracy" is one of the most impressive since Cold War times. Everything from the name to the lame analogies with physical theft to the end-of-the-world theorizing. It's farcical.

The people hurt most by piracy are the middle men; namely big business. Which is why the push to eradicate it is so strong. If it were the artists suffering, on the other hand, you wouldn't have heard a whimper.

As an example Jerry, family guy was axed twice fir low ratings and according to the creator Seth mcfarlane it's because most if the fans downloaded, instead, Of watching fox

futurama and groening have a similar story. It was only when the films stewie griffin untold story and the futurama three were released direct to DVD, to huge sales were they re commisioned.

That's two very clear examples of downloading fans almost killing their fav show

Utter tripe. First of all, the only reason anyone would ever download instead of watching live are s**t timeslot or delayed (by weeks) telecasts. Who's to blame for either?

That aside, why would all these people who are downloading the show (which is what supposedly killed it) suddenly jump to the other side of the fence and buy the show on DVD in record numbers? It makes zero sense.

The reason for Family Guy's lack of success was s**t marketing, s**t timeslots etc...nothing to do with downloading. The reason for Futurama's lack of success was simply that it wasn't very funny bar a few eps.

One other thought;

Radiohead recently released a single on the biggest music torrent site in the world, what.cd. It's an example of an artist not buying into the bullshit and not submitting to pressure from their label to tow the company line. They're the first BIG act that have done it, but countless smaller artists have done similar things as well. Others will doubtless follow, because at the grass-roots level artists realise that easy access to music only encourages more listening, and ultimately sales.

What will happen, is that it will be harder for major labels to force-feed certain acts down our throats - if you only hear Nickelback, you're bound to buy (or not buy) Nickelback. If you have access to a whole range of s**t, you'll find something better to spend your money on. That's why you're seeing more and more independent labels popping up, and the major labels are cursing a blue streak about it. Progress, I call it.

 

[Pie eyed]

People make it sound like "piracy" particularly music is a new thing.

I was taping songs off the radio in the late 70's.
Sony, the very company who sold me the tapes to go in their very own cassette recorder, the company who developed the video tape and a suitably priced recorder, the cd, cd-rom and burning implement, the DVD and burner, the HDD recorder etc. etc. etc. is also the company which owns the largest catalogue of the very content they wish to protect.

Do any other people find this a little hypocritical?
I do and subsequently I put their hardware to damned fine use whenever possible given I paid through the nose for the right to do so.

My personal belief is that once something hits the public domain ie. the airwaves or the net, it's free.

That said I support artists I like by paying the exorbitant prices, much as I annually pay for full membership of a footy club when I'm likely to go to maybe 3-4 games a year.

 

[JOELY]

Well said mdc.

 

[Pie eyed]

MDC wins this thread solely on his "Nickleback" comment.
I would rather stick detonators in my ears and start searching radio frequencies than listen to that s**t voluntarily.

 

[skeetz]

I guess I shouldn't have expected a Sherriff to support "piracy", but I'll have a crack at this anyway.

The idea that it's theft of intellectual property is nonsense, unless you subscribe to the theory that libraries have been stealing intellectual property for decades. You know, by letting people read/watch stuff for free.

I submit that the propaganda campaign against internet "piracy" is one of the most impressive since Cold War times. Everything from the name to the lame analogies with physical theft to the end-of-the-world theorizing. It's farcical.

The people hurt most by piracy are the middle men; namely big business. Which is why the push to eradicate it is so strong. If it were the artists suffering, on the other hand, you wouldn't have heard a whimper.



Utter tripe. First of all, the only reason anyone would ever download instead of watching live are s**t timeslot or delayed (by weeks) telecasts. Who's to blame for either?

That aside, why would all these people who are downloading the show (which is what supposedly killed it) suddenly jump to the other side of the fence and buy the show on DVD in record numbers? It makes zero sense.

The reason for Family Guy's lack of success was s**t marketing, s**t timeslots etc...nothing to do with downloading. The reason for Futurama's lack of success was simply that it wasn't very funny bar a few eps.

One other thought;

Radiohead recently released a single on the biggest music torrent site in the world, what.cd. It's an example of an artist not buying into the bullshit and not submitting to pressure from their label to tow the company line. They're the first BIG act that have done it, but countless smaller artists have done similar things as well. Others will doubtless follow, because at the grass-roots level artists realise that easy access to music only encourages more listening, and ultimately sales.

What will happen, is that it will be harder for major labels to force-feed certain acts down our throats - if you only hear Nickelback, you're bound to buy (or not buy) Nickelback. If you have access to a whole range of s**t, you'll find something better to spend your money on. That's why you're seeing more and more independent labels popping up, and the major labels are cursing a blue streak about it. Progress, I call it.

Pfft progress
So progress is people producing things and you not paying for them? Do you think Radiohead would have released that track if they weren't already multi millionaires?
It's not "intellectual property". You aren't stealing the "idea" of a song or movie. You are stealing an actual product. Something that people pored blood, sweat and tears into making and producing. It's as much of a product as the toilet paper you wipe your ass with.

What will happen is that talented people not pour their soul and life's effort into producing something for you for free.

With the Family Guy issue, it wasn't so much to do with people killing it by downloading it, it was more to do with it being resurrected because people bought it.
Same with Futurama. The DVD sales for the season 1-4 box sets were phenomenal. On the back of 4+ years of strong sales, they released 4 DVD movies. On the back of those sales, Comedy Central has contracted the team for a 26 episode season starting mid 2010.
I like to think I'm a part of that. I downloaded the show, loved it, and then spent $40 on each season box set. Now I get more Futurama to watch.

One quick addition - What you most likely see, if people continue to pirate stuff, is ad support. Somebody has to pay for the s**t. I would rather pay for it than have a 10 second ad for the latest energy drink in between each track. Or have ads scrolling across the bottom of my tv shows.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Pfft progress
So progress is people producing things and you not paying for them? Do you think Radiohead would have released that track if they weren't already multi millionaires?

Yes. Think of the number of people who have released music on YouTube and subsequently gained a record deal because of the popularity of what they've produced.

 

[mdc]

Pfft progress
1.So progress is people producing things and you not paying for them? 2.Do you think Radiohead would have released that track if they weren't already multi millionaires?
3.It's not "intellectual property". You aren't stealing the "idea" of a song or movie. You are stealing an actual product. Something that people pored blood, sweat and tears into making and producing. It's as much of a product as the toilet paper you wipe your ass with

1. Again, feel free to differentiate between what "piracy" does and what a library does. I'm all ears.

2. Yes, hundreds of other, far less well-known artists have done the same with full albums.

3. No, to steal something requires you to deprive someone else of the stolen item. Even legally, theft requires "intention to permanently deprive" under Australian law. That's why governments have had to institute new laws to try to combat "piracy", on the back of pleas from labels/studios.

What will happen is that talented people not pour their soul and life's effort into producing something for you for free.

You're assuming that I, or others, who "pirate" don't buy. Another excellent bit of propaganda from the anti-"piracy" lobby. As an example, I owned a whopping 12 DVDs before joining a certain film tracker. 4 years on, I now have around 150. Largely thanks to that tracker for introducing me to hundreds of directors/films that I'd never could have dreamed of seeing in Australia otherwise.

One quick addition - What you most likely see, if people continue to pirate stuff, is ad support. Somebody has to pay for the s**t. I would rather pay for it than have a 10 second ad for the latest energy drink in between each track. Or have ads scrolling across the bottom of my tv shows.

Another total furfy. There's absolutely no incentive for those who are sharing content to chuck ads in. In fact, one of the great aspects of good trackers is their integrity and absolute commitment to a non-profit model. They won't even have banner ads, like BF does. It's sharing for sharing's sake.

 

[Pie eyed]

It's Furphy.......

 

[mdc]

True, Pie Eyed, but I didn't want to be accused of word piracy!

 

[skeetz]

I think we are both misunderstanding each others point a bit, but I'll reply to your comments first before I explain.

1. Again, feel free to differentiate between what "piracy" does and what a library does. I'm all ears.

The artist was paid for the original copy. Only 1 person can watch/read/listen to it at a time. It's a lot different to having millions of copies of an album freely available on the internet, of which you were only paid for the first one.

2. Yes, hundreds of other, far less well-known artists have done the same with full albums.

They are all in this so they can make a living off doing something they enjoy. It's not just a free-for-all of releasing all free content. People do it to gain some publicity, get more fans, etc. No one makes a living from releasing the odd free album here and there.

3. No, to steal something requires you to deprive someone else of the stolen item. Even legally, theft requires "intention to permanently deprive" under Australian law. That's why governments have had to institute new laws to try to combat "piracy", on the back of pleas from labels/studios.

That's just semantics. You are listening to/watching a product that is owned by somebody, and that somebody chooses to charge you for watching/listening to their product. Any extra laws made are to combat nuffies who will argue semantics rather than an actual point.

You're assuming that I, or others, who "pirate" don't buy. Another excellent bit of propaganda from the anti-"piracy" lobby. As an example, I owned a whopping 12 DVDs before joining a certain film tracker. 4 years on, I now have around 150. Largely thanks to that tracker for introducing me to hundreds of directors/films that I'd never could have dreamed of seeing in Australia otherwise.

This is why I said that you mustn't understand my point of view. I don't assume that 'pirates' don't buy, and you would know that if you had actually read my posts. I said in a post earlier that I own tons of music, I also own many DVD movies and TV series. I too subscribe to the 'try before you buy' model.

Another total furfy. There's absolutely no incentive for those who are sharing content to chuck ads in. In fact, one of the great aspects of good trackers is their integrity and absolute commitment to a non-profit model. They won't even have banner ads, like BF does. It's sharing for sharing's sake.

Once again, please read my posts, or just tell me if you don't understand my post and I will try to explain it better. When I said that artist's products will become ad-supported, I wasn't referring to 'sharers' putting ads in.
What I was saying, is that the money has to come from somewhere. If people continue to just pirate, and not actually buy anything (such as jerry springer does), then I don't think it's far fetched to suggest that content will be released onto the internet by the labels and movie studios, but with advertisement content built in. Sure, there will be people who take it out, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people just chose the easy option most of the time, of downloading the content through iTunes or the Dreamworks webpage, fast as hell, on the day of release, and with ads.
They will probably eventually figure out ways of making it harder and harder to remove the ad content, such as dedicated players, watermarks, etc.

 

[mdc]

The artist was paid for the original copy. Only 1 person can watch/read/listen to it at a time. It's a lot different to having millions of copies of an album freely available on the internet, of which you were only paid for the first one.

The artist was also paid for the copy that has been used to upload the file, so it's a wash on that front. And the fact that only 1 person can watch/read it at the same time simply speaks to convinience, not to any fundamental difference

They are all in this so they can make a living off doing something they enjoy. It's not just a free-for-all of releasing all free content. People do it to gain some publicity, get more fans, etc. No one makes a living from releasing the odd free album here and there.

Of course, but that's the whole point. "Piracy" increases exposure, and ultimately helps the artist, unless that artist happens to be a marketing-driven hack.

That's just semantics. You are listening to/watching a product that is owned by somebody, and that somebody chooses to charge you for watching/listening to their product. Any extra laws made are to combat nuffies who will argue semantics rather than an actual point.

It's not semantics, it's a fundamental distinction. Anti-"piracy" folk are the ones that are making the claim of THEFT and therefore they are the ones that are bound by its correct meaning. The correct English (/legal) description for "piracy" is sharing, but that obviously doesn't play nearly as well.

This is why I said that you mustn't understand my point of view. I don't assume that 'pirates' don't buy, and you would know that if you had actually read my posts. I said in a post earlier that I own tons of music, I also own many DVD movies and TV series. I too subscribe to the 'try before you buy' model.

I read your posts, I simply don't feel you're presenting a consistent POV (which is, no offense, typical of these sorts of arguments).

On one hand, you don't assume that "pirates" don't buy, but on the other you're saying it deprives artists of their livelihoods. On the one hand you're calling it 'stealing', on the other hand you 'try before you buy'. Which is it?

Once again, please read my posts, or just tell me if you don't understand my post and I will try to explain it better. When I said that artist's products will become ad-supported, I wasn't referring to 'sharers' putting ads in.
What I was saying, is that the money has to come from somewhere. If people continue to just pirate, and not actually buy anything (such as jerry springer does), then I don't think it's far fetched to suggest that content will be released onto the internet by the labels and movie studios, but with advertisement content built in. Sure, there will be people who take it out, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people just chose the easy option most of the time, of downloading the content through iTunes or the Dreamworks webpage, fast as hell, on the day of release, and with ads.
They will probably eventually figure out ways of making it harder and harder to remove the ad content, such as dedicated players, watermarks, etc.

I would argue that people like jerry springer are people who wouldn't have bought much anyway, so there's no great financial loss on that front. And the difference is made up by those like myself that end up buying more than normal as a result of "piracy".

I understand what you're saying re: hardcoded ads, but the reality is that major companies are still making very good coin, and if the people in charge have half a brain (they do) they will realise that hardcoding in ads will be the quickest way to lose business.

 

[skeetz]

The artist was also paid for the copy that has been used to upload the file, so it's a wash on that front. And the fact that only 1 person can watch/read it at the same time simply speaks to convinience, not to any fundamental difference

I really disagree with you trying to put libraries in the same basket as media piracy. When you borrow a book from a library, you don't get to keep a copy of it forever. Libraries don't have enough copies for the whole town to read a book on the day it is released. It's great that poorer people can have access to a wealth of knowledge and entertainment, just like they can choose to watch The Simpsons on FTA TV if they can't afford to buy the box sets.
But who knows? Maybe if libraries didn't exist, then writers would make more money? Maybe some TV writers would choose to instead write books if they could make a better living off it? Maybe we would have thousands more interesting books written if libraries didn't exist?

"Piracy" increases exposure, and ultimately helps the artist, unless that artist happens to be a marketing-driven hack.

Helps the artist what?
That's right, sell more cds. Which people won't buy if it's easy enough to download, and they have little moral code, which is what I am actually arguing against.

It's not semantics, it's a fundamental distinction. Anti-"piracy" folk are the ones that are making the claim of THEFT and therefore they are the ones that are bound by its correct meaning. The correct English (/legal) description for "piracy" is sharing, but that obviously doesn't play nearly as well.

You don't get something for nothing. Whichever way you look at it, you have a product in your hands/on your hard drive which people sell, that you did not pay for. You are intentionally depriving the artist of revenue. If you want the convenience of being able to re-watch every episode of South Park whenever you want, or listen to any Kyuss cd in your car whenever you choose, as often as you choose, then you should pay for it. They paid for the guitars that made that music, I should pay for the product that they produced.

I read your posts, I simply don't feel you're presenting a consistent POV (which is, no offense, typical of these sorts of arguments).

The reason I felt that you didn't read my posts was because you said this:

You're assuming that I, or others, who "pirate" don't buy. Another excellent bit of propaganda from the anti-"piracy" lobby. As an example, I owned a whopping 12 DVDs before joining a certain film tracker. 4 years on, I now have around 150. Largely thanks to that tracker for introducing me to hundreds of directors/films that I'd never could have dreamed of seeing in Australia otherwise.

when my first post, on pg1, was this:

I have over a terrabyte worth of tv shows and music. If I really like something, then I buy it. Those people are trying to make a living. If it weren't for people buying Family Guy on DVD after it got cancelled, then it would never have come back to tv. Ditto Futurama.

On one hand, you don't assume that "pirates" don't buy, but on the other you're saying it deprives artists of their livelihoods. On the one hand you're calling it 'stealing', on the other hand you 'try before you buy'. Which is it?

OK, I can see how you may think my argument is inconsistent. I have argued very strongly against piracy because I believe it is stealing, yet admit that I like piracy because it allows me to discover new artists and TV, and try this new stuff before I buy it.
What I am afraid of, is that people like jerry will ruin it for the rest of us. I (and you) use common sense, and pay an artist for a product if I like it. I don't have the money to just buy random s**t and see if I like it, so I use piracy in this way. But if enough people keep up this mindset that what they are doing is totally fine, then I believe they will indeed ruin it.

I would argue that people like jerry springer are people who wouldn't have bought much anyway, so there's no great financial loss on that front. And the difference is made up by those like myself that end up buying more than normal as a result of "piracy".

It is getting easier and easier to watch pirated stuff. Instead of my portable HDD enclosure with TV out controls and cables being an awesome little gadget that no one had ever seen before, you can now buy them in Dick Smith. People are now encoding content in a format and quality that looks fantastic on even a 50" plasma. The scales are tipping. If usenet wasn't so confusing to the general population, I believe the scales may have been already tipped.
People such as my dad and mum had mammoth record collections back in the day. Now people, such as my brother, have mammoth mp3 collections that they don't pay a cent for. I can guarantee you that if pirating were non-existent, my brother would have a huge cd collection.

I understand what you're saying re: hardcoded ads, but the reality is that major companies are still making very good coin, and if the people in charge have half a brain (they do) they will realise that hardcoding in ads will be the quickest way to lose business.

I'm not talking about hardcoded ads in actual DVD releases. But in relation to TV shows, it has already been around for ages now. Those stupid scrolling ads at the bottom. They are getting more and more invasive.
It wouldn't be the major source of income, just a way to buffet the loses from piracy.

Maybe I'm just being a devil's advocate here. Maybe I am trying to justify my own actions because I feel guilty? If I could, I would pay for everything. But I can't, and my major problem is with people who don't feel that way. That even if they could, they wouldn't pay because they don't think they should have to.
Am I being hypocritical? Perhaps I should just not download this stuff, and just 'try' it by watching it on TV?

My partner and I live together, and have been for the past 5 years. He has been at uni for 3 years and has just finished up. I have been working that entire time, making between 40 and 50k. The government won't give him any Austudy allowance, because they see us as basically married, and I apparently earn enough to support him through uni rolleyes. I don't think I should have been made to support my boyfriend of 2 years. We have struggled through debt this entire time. When I have told this to friends, their instant reaction is "why on earth did you tell Centrelink that you live together? No one does that!". Yes, I did consider taking that route. a) I think that Centrelink's stance that a 2 year relationship means I should basically take on the responsibility of having a child under my care (in financial terms) if I want my partner to be able to go to uni is ridiculous and has possibly, nay probably, ended many budding relationships and b) These f*ckwits that chose to start charging people for their uni education are the same people that had their uni paid for by Gough Witlam's government. I disagreed with the whole freaking situation, yet if more and more people choose to lie to Centrelink, and the burden becomes too heavy (which it eventually will), then there won't be any Centrelink for anyone anymore.
Maybe my conscience is just too heavy (but not heavy enough to actually _stop_ me from watching South Park about 2 hours after it's aired in the States , just heavy enough to make me feel guilty).

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Jeez, Dave, you sure got yer 'thoughts' on this topic! That was quick.

What disturbs me most is that there seems to be a pervading view of "consumer comes first". The arguments don't stray too far from reasons why consumers should be allowed to take something which isn't theirs and how in some perverse way that actually helps the system.

Don't tell me for a second that some artists or content providers deserve to have their product bought just because they're more popular/talented/credible/whatever. Screwing over the 'major labels' or studios conveniently overlooks the benefits they bring (e.g. for a music artist the videos, the ability to market themselves, the tours, etc.) that piracy can not.

The idea of piracy being called 'sharing' is in itself laughable, as it misses the point that the transaction is one way. If it was 'sharing' in its true sense, then the artist would be receiving something in return.

MDC, I have to pull you up on this comment:-

I would argue that people like jerry springer are people who wouldn't have bought much anyway, so there's no great financial loss on that front.

No great financial loss to who? To yourself, sure. But let's assume that 30,000 people felt the same way about a $19.99 CD. That's $600,000 dollars, of which a small portion (say 5% if they're lucky) is paid in royalties to the artist. There's $30,000 of their hard-earned that would most likely have been the result of months or perhaps even years of inspiration, practice, negotiation and heartache to get those songs public. By yourself you've only stolen $1. But the cumulative effect is huge.

What seems to be lost in this argument, too, is the idea of ownership. Pirates would argue about their right to see/experience this content - a totally different proposition than to own a non-expiring copy of it.

 

[Nardz]

You're stealing stuff. Doesn't matter what your intent is, it's still theft of intellectual property and forcing artists to lose their hard-earned.

You like it, you buy it.

lol do you actually believe the s**t you sprout?

 

[TradeDraft]

.

One quick addition - What you most likely see, if people continue to pirate stuff, is ad support. Somebody has to pay for the s**t. I would rather pay for it than have a 10 second ad for the latest energy drink in between each track. Or have ads scrolling across the bottom of my tv shows.

Pirates would just Edit it out Eventually just like TV Ads

 

[TradeDraft]

The Sheriff, I don't mind your stance on this as You think it's Totally Wrong.

It's think you are up against it on this Forum.

The Biggest loser is probably the People who sell the Content as they Buy the Content and Try and Sell it but They lose money because people download it and not Buy it.

If people like the Stuff they download then MOST people will support them but if it's Crap they are trying to Sell then no one will buy it.

What about Anime that never comes out to the West and only stays in Japan for Example I been watching the MAJOR Anime Series from Japan and I love it but I could not get a Dubbed version here in Australia

 

[mdc]

What disturbs me most is that there seems to be a pervading view of "consumer comes first". The arguments don't stray too far from reasons why consumers should be allowed to take something which isn't theirs and how in some perverse way that actually helps the system.

A misrepresentation of the arguments at best.

First off, if I was being thorough, I'd take umbrage with the term consumer there, but I'll let that slide.

In terms of your actual point, there's nothing "perverse" about it, and rather the fact that it does help the majority of the creative population (specifically non-major artists) is precisely what differentiates it from theft. More on this below.

Don't tell me for a second that some artists or content providers deserve to have their product bought just because they're more popular/talented/credible/whatever. Screwing over the 'major labels' or studios conveniently overlooks the benefits they bring (e.g. for a music artist the videos, the ability to market themselves, the tours, etc.) that piracy can not.

But that's precisely what I'm getting at. The traditional business model of many of these big corporations necessarily pushes the biggest acts/movies/writers at the peril of everyone else. Take a look at the "Your best films of 2009" on BigFooty for example; everyone lists the same 10 films, with only the order ever changing. And yet there's something like 4-5 thousand films being made each year.

My entire claim is that one artist doesn't deserve to make 100000x more than the next simply because he's marketed better by his studio/label/whatever. And "piracy" (or rather freedom of artistic content) helps both current struggling artists, and future prospective artists. There's nothing perverse about it, it's the economic reality. The only way for smaller artists to survive is to subvert the system.

In fact, it all ties in with another debate that's been going on for a while, and that's the copyright debate. As you may know, the copyright duration on books in the US, for example, is set at 100+ years - yet all the research indicates that the optimal duration for maximum artistic output is actually somewhere in the range of 7-11 years (source to come). But again, much like piracy, the continued pressure from the lobbyists has seen the copyright duration rise, and rise, and rise, to the point of today's ludicrous copyright laws.

Here is a quote from a study conducted by the Harvard Business School that puts the decentralization that follows ease-of-access to content in numerical terms:

Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers. While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008). Even if file sharing were the reason that sales have fallen, the new technology does not appear to have exacted a toll on the quantity of music produced. Obviously, it would be nice to adjust output for differences in quality, but we are not aware of any research that has tackled this question.

Similar trends can be seen in other creative industries. For example, the worldwide number of feature films produced each year has increased from 3,807 in 2003 to 4,989 in 2007 (Screen Digest, 2004 and 2008). Countries where film piracy is rampant have typically increased production. This is true in South Korea (80 to 124), India (877 to 1164), and China (140 to 402). During this period, U.S. feature film production has increased from 459 feature films in 2003 to 590 in 2007 (MPAA, 2007).

The idea of piracy being called 'sharing' is in itself laughable, as it misses the point that the transaction is one way. If it was 'sharing' in its true sense, then the artist would be receiving something in return.

It's sharing between the watchers/listeners/readers. I take it you've never exchanged books or CD's with anyone? Because that would be STEALING, right?

MDC, I have to pull you up on this comment:-

No great financial loss to who? To yourself, sure. But let's assume that 30,000 people felt the same way about a $19.99 CD. That's $600,000 dollars, of which a small portion (say 5% if they're lucky) is paid in royalties to the artist. There's $30,000 of their hard-earned that would most likely have been the result of months or perhaps even years of inspiration, practice, negotiation and heartache to get those songs public. By yourself you've only stolen $1. But the cumulative effect is huge.

First off, the artist's cut after you take into account having to repay the advance and other label costs, is significantly smaller than what you've suggested. But it's also highly irrelevant. If it were stealing, it wouldn't make a difference whether it were 3 cents or $3000, it's still stealing.

As for "feeling the same way" I'm not sure what you mean. I was suggesting jerry springer would never have bought the CD in the first place. It's a group I'd refer to as "new listeners" - people who may have earlier relied on the radio/whatever else but now use torrents.

What seems to be lost in this argument, too, is the idea of ownership. Pirates would argue about their right to see/experience this content - a totally different proposition than to own a non-expiring copy of it.

It's not lost at all. It's what your entire accusation of theft is predicated on. Actually, good time for a question. If I download the new Muse album, realise it's utter tripe, and delete it a week later, am I still a fairdinkum pirate? Am I still stealing? After all, I don't own the album.

 

[DThomas]

Wow, some good discussion going on in this thread.

What I do is listen or watch on YouTube, and if I like it, I buy it.

I don't see the point of buying something if you haven't heard or seen it. I don't consider it stealing because if I don't like it, I'm not going to buy it, so what's wrong with seeing or listening to it once to see if you like it or not? If I do like it I'm going to pay for it. I will support the bands or TV shows I like, not pay for something and only watch or listen to it once and never use it again.

The only times I download something and keep it without paying is if it is only available via torrents. AFL matches are a great example.

One of my favourite TV shows (Malcolm in the Middle) has never been released to DVD. Only season 1 was released, which I have bought. Since the other seasons aren't available to buy I have to download it. I'm not going to just stop watching it because they refuse to release DVDs.

And since the WWE won't release old episodes of Raw from the 90s I have been forced to download them. I also hate how they blur out the name WWF and censor it when they say WWF now on recent DVDs. I prefer the original broadcast in its entirety not some edited crap or a 5 minute clip. The WWE also pretend that it was always called WWE. I got a Bret Hart DVD for Christmas and they refer to it as the WWE when it used to be the WWF.

So I say pay for what you like, but still try before you buy.

 

[TradeDraft]

Wow, some good discussion going on in this thread.

What I do is listen or watch on YouTube, and if I like it, I buy it.

I don't see the point of buying something if you haven't heard or seen it. I don't consider it stealing because if I don't like it, I'm not going to buy it, so what's wrong with seeing or listening to it once to see if you like it or not? If I do like it I'm going to pay for it. I will support the bands or TV shows I like, not pay for something and only watch or listen to it once and never use it again.

The only times I download something and keep it without paying is if it is only available via torrents. AFL matches are a great example.

One of my favourite TV shows (Malcolm in the Middle) has never been released to DVD. Only season 1 was released, which I have bought. Since the other seasons aren't available to buy I have to download it. I'm not going to just stop watching it because they refuse to release DVDs.

And since the WWE won't release old episodes of Raw from the 90s I have been forced to download them. I also hate how they blur out the name WWF and censor it when they say WWF now on recent DVDs. I prefer the original broadcast in its entirety not some edited crap or a 5 minute clip. The WWE also pretend that it was always called WWE. I got a Bret Hart DVD for Christmas and they refer to it as the WWE when it used to be the WWF.

So I say pay for what you like, but still try before you buy.

Sounds Simmlar to me I do Download WWE and TNA because I got rid of Fox Sports though TNA on Channel 1 helps.

What about MARS11 and Faves Video you could say Techinally Piracy because they don't have Premisson by Collingwood and AFL for the Video's

 

[Nardz]

Sounds Simmlar to me I do Download WWE and TNA because I got rid of Fox Sports though TNA on Channel 1 helps.

What about MARS11 and Faves Video you could say Techinally Piracy because they don't have Premisson by Collingwood and AFL for the Video's

so has dave stolen WWE and TNA?

does that mean nobody else in the world can watch this now because dave has stolen it?