What’s Right is Rights: Piracy is Theft
by Mark McKinnonWord is getting around that the RIAA seems to be stepping away from lawsuits as a key strategy against piracy. Lawsuits were never going to be the solution, as other major rights-holders, like those working together through Arts+Labs, will attest.
That’s not to say that we’ve all stopped believing in creators’ rights or that we no longer think piracy is a real problem. On the contrary: the creative economy depends on creative rights.
We all understand the demand for easy access to inexpensive content, and the people who produce that content – artists, movie makers, journalists, musicians, songwriters and more – are eager to deliver it. But, as it turns out, they want their rights to be respected.
Unfortunately, some consumers get confused about the difference between demand and entitlement. A recent TechDirt screed illustrates this entitlement mentality. Writing about Joel Tenenbaum, who was sued for pirating and distributing songs online (a jury found that he had willfully infringed copyrights and awarded a judgment far larger than had been asked), Mike Masnick wrote:
“Tenenbaum’s actions robbed no one. No one has a “right to be paid for their work.” You have a right to try to convince people to buy, and the RIAA and its labels FAILED in convincing Tenenbaum to do that. But that’s the market at work. Today for lunch I may pick the deli rather than the pizza shop next door. Based on the RIAA’s logic here, I have just “robbed” the pizza place of its “right to be paid” for its work. There is no right to be paid. Only a right to try to convince people to buy.”
Of course, Tenenbaum did choose not to buy the music. But that didn’t seem to stop him from taking it anyway. He just chose to take it without paying for it. And then he let other people take it, too. To most of us, a marketplace gives the consumer the chance to buy a product or not. But, apparently, in the pirate’s world, the way the “market” works is that you get a choice between buying and stealing, as if the two are equally valid options.
Let’s cut the nonsense out of his analogy: Tenenbaum didn’t choose the “deli.” He wasn’t even interested in the free samples that the “pizza shop” offers. He wanted a bunch of full slices of pizza, and when he thought no one was looking, he took them. The way Masnick tells it, if you don’t create something that people want to buy more than they want to take for free, it’s your own fault:
“Deserving to be paid for your work and a nickel gets you five damn cents. You earn money by offering something in the marketplace that people want to buy. You didn’t do that.”
So, apparently, Joel Tenenbaum is simultaneously a “consumer” and somebody who rejected what the music industry offered. And yet…
“You made the conscious decision to declare war on your best customers.”
I’m not sure in what regard Tenenbaum could be considered one of their “best customers.” It was my understanding that customers paid for things. That puts a fat asterisk on statements like this:
“The idea that not giving money to the RIAA somehow means less music will be brought to the public is laughable. It’s not a fact, it’s pure propaganda. Thanks to these same new technologies that the RIAA has tried to kill off, it’s easier than ever for bands to create, promote and distribute music. And because of that, there’s more new music out there than ever before.”
It’s true, now that the technological barriers have dropped so far, musicians are giving away tons of songs for free! And yet, Joel Tenenbaum didn’t choose to download one of those songs. He wanted something that was more valuable to him… though, apparently, not so valuable that he would pay for it.
Musicians often give away their content for free, most of them with the expectation that they’ll be repaid in other ways. Some of those models – for instance, giving the music away for free and making it up with concerts or merchandise – do well for some artists (though, it’s hard to see how a songwriter makes money in that model). That’s their right, and creators should be free to choose their business model.
But for those creators who don’t want to give tracks away for free, it’s high time for pirates and their enablers to stop rationalizing theft by imagining that they’re somehow doing their victims a favor.
Creators have a right to be paid in exchange for their work, if they make it a condition of using their work, just as pizza makers can require you to pay them before they give you their pizza, and just as car rental agencies can require you to only use their cars in specific ways while in your care.
Lawsuits may not be the solution to getting broader respect for these intellectual property rights. That solution really is going to be found in new technologies and new business models.
But let’s be honest in the meantime: Piracy is not just another consumer choice. It is theft.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
120 Comments
Once upon a time I was a librarian. As such, I believed that libraries should have the 'right' to copy anything, because we were dedicated to 'free access to information.' But then at a copyright seminar, a question was posed: which of us, librarians, etc., would work for free, in order to facilitate 'freedom of access to information.' Hmmm. Not me!
One of the BeeGees noted that he was in favor of putting his music out on the 'net, but in his case, he said that the BeeGees had more people coming to their shows now. Ie, he saw his old songs as good advertising. That is legitimate.
I don't think you can make it a binary issue. For example, how can 'piracy' be 'theft' when listening to something on a radio for free is okay? Or borrowing a friend's CD and listening to it is okay? Heck, it's hard to make a case for borrowing a CD and making a copy being theft.
I agree that there is a point at which it becomes theft, but I think that's kind of like the drugs issue: it becomes a problem when it becomes an organized enterprise. Generally I don't think someone getting a 'free' copy of a song, be it from going to an on-demand free streaming service that survives through advertising or whatever or borrowing it from a friend or even downloading it, qualifies as theft. Which is what makes the RIAA's actions so odious – they pick on the little guy.
Great article, wonderful clarity, many thanks. Piracy and theft go hand in hand. There is nothing glorifying about it, unless you want to make up a story with Peter Pan and Captain Hook. Note: The story would suck if the premise was Pan suing Hook for kidnapping Wendy, John and Michael.
There are bad actors on both sides of this argument: Software and media pirates who just want something without paying for it, and media publishers/producers who have the most blatantly grasping and controlling attitude towards their would-be customers.
As far as I'm concerned, they deserve each other.
I think your pizza place analogy is flawed. If I go in and snatch a few slices of pizza and don't pay for them, then yes, that's theft. But internet piracy is more like if I walk into the pizza parlour, wave a magic wand, and magically produce an exactly identical copy of the pizza they're selling, then walk out with my copy of the pizza without paying for anything. Or, to put it another way, it's like sneaking into the pizza parlour, peeking at their pizza recipe, and then going home and making that pizza myself without having to pay them for it.
We can discuss the morality of making a copy of the pizza you didn't buy, but calling it "theft" clouds the issue. It's clearly not theft: theft involves the victim losing something, whereas in copyright violation does not involve the victim losing anything. The pizza parlour still has the same number of pizza slices as they did before.
The philosophy behind patent and copyright laws has always been to encourage innovation by giving an inventor or artist the opportunity to profit from their labor. The profit motive has proven to be the best way to create innovation. For example, Bill Gates' great innovation was not making Altair BASIC, it was demanding programmers to pay for Altair BASIC at a time when it was common for software to be freely distributed. Chances are, if Gates never introduced the concept of selling software then computers would probably still just be a tool of major industry and the toy of dedicated hobbyists.
We are at a time where it is possible a new album can be released, only a single copy be sold and in a few days millions have it on their iPods without paying a cent. If the people in the recording industry have even a speck of intelligence then they should be frantically trying to find a new recording medium that cannot be ripped and placed on computers for distribution. The profit motive in music is in danger of being destroyed and with it a lot of its innovation (though it can be argued music haven't been innovative for years).
Stealing is wrong, always has been, and always will be.
I absolutely agree although I am also for seeing companies such as Sony who secretly placed spyware and malware onto their commerical music compact discs should have been published more severely.
Here is another scenario of interest. A person purchases the 45 r.p. single of "Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones as well as the 33 r.p. l.p. album "Out of Out Heads." After they wear out, he purchases the cassette tape and c.d. The l.p. album never put any kind of warning on since there was no way to do so. The owner purchases software ahich enables him to "digitize" and clean-up" Satisfaction which he then puts on an "oldies" compilation disc and gives to a few friends. Has a law been broken?
Krig – "Theft involves the victim losing something."
That's one side of the coin. You could just as easily say "Theft involves taking something that does not belong to you, or to which you have no right." In that regard, the fact that the source is limitless is completely irrelevant. It was never yours to take.
I like your premise. I'm a little guy just like you. Well, maybe not you.
Can I have your address? I'd like to borrow your CDs, too. Oh, and your stereo (I may give it back when I get one I like better). I bet you have some DVDs and books and maybe some artwork and other collectibles I'd like. Can you just provide a list or do you just mind if I poke around your place while you're at work?
And I like your car. "Lend" it to me. What? You don't want to? It's yours? What gives you the right to keep that nice car when people like me can't afford one (well, I can, but yours is free, so why should I bother?)?
Let's make it easier. When you post your address, just post your bank info, too, so we can just cut to the chase. And thanks in advance XOXO.
No, even for "digital pizza," there's no free lunch.
There is, whether you like it or not, such a thing as intellectual property. It's a legal concept and there are laws on the books to protect the people who create things (though not, sadly, a pizza recipe, which is why people HIDE their cherished non-protected recipes from people like you and your prying pizza-covetous eyes).
If you make your own pizza, no it's not stealing. Magic wands, however, are the domain of fantasy and "clouds the issue." Let's stick to reality.
I've long been on the fence about this kind of issue.
On one hand, I used to tape songs, etc. off the radio as a kid, and yeah, we'd make tapes, etc. to hand to friends (and mix tapes for girlfriends…). The tapes helped get me into a lot of bands I never heard on the radio, and directly resulted in me becoming, among other things, a huuuuge oingo boingo fan.
If someone recommends a band but isn't in a position to play the music for me (say, they live across the country) I'll still sample a song or two to get a better idea of their sound than the 30 seconds typically available on iTunes. and similar services. Then I either buy it, or scrub it. I rarely do that anymore as Pandora let's you listen to entire songs from bloody near any band's catalog.
I also HIGHLY appreciate, on the SF publisher side, that Baen books not only puts the first 1/3rd or so of all their books freely available on line, but has a LARGE catalog of older books available online entirely for free. Additionally, their e-books are sold unencumbered knowing full well they'll be passed around – with the admonition to buy more if you like it. They even have put CD's into books with entire backcatalogues from teh series, and ENCOURAGED people to copy them and pass it along to friends.
OTOH, the original incarnation of napster, and the F/OSS software have grown into the widespread expectation that you spoke of, that just because SOME people are willing to provide SOME of the product of their blood sweat and tears for free, that you deserve anything you want, for free.
Bull. Crap.
There's also a huge difference between you making a copy or two foor a small group of friends (hey, you gotta hear this, you'll like it…), andsharing with the world at large.
I buy my music to keep (or listen to it streaming via radio or internet). I make use of available FOSS software (most of which isn't quite so free if time == money). I pay for my OS upgrades and office suites.
Apple has it right on this – charge a reasonable price for what you get, charge slightly more for a "family pack". Don't encumber it with all sorts of serial numebrs and activation schemes. And so I BUY it.
There's further excellent discussion on this at baen's older "free library" : http://www.baen.com/library/
It is technically theft. However, the fines imposed on the so-called "thieves" are EXTREMELY disproportionate. Do you honestly believe its fair to fine somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars for illegally downloading a few 4 minute songs? The laws are fair, but the punishment for breaking them is not.
Preventing people from copying their music or software doesn't entitle them to put rootkits on my computer.
I may be more sympathetic to the programmers and sellers than to the "pirates" – but only slightly, and crap like that drives people to other suppliers.
The real problem is that the whole notion of copywriting a performance. You can copywrite the medium the performance was recorded on but you cannot copywrite a perfromance. The courts have not weighed in on this basic precept. How is it copying if the copy does not resemble the original as when ripping a CD results inn a MP3 track which does not resemble the original? The perfromance is preserved but the copywrited material has not been copied but modified. Muscians perform for pay, that is thier motivation. If they are a studio band then they are paid for a recorded performance. You can copywrite the media but it is impossible to copywrite a perfromance. The ones that really lose is the industry that controls the media but they have shown little talent for providing quality. I hope the industry dies and a new system could rise in it's place which rewards the performance and not the recording.
It's a question of skewed priorities of the RIAA. The way they're going about prosecuting piracy is equivalent to fighting the drug war by arresting users while ignoring the dealers completely. I can name several websites that offer mp3s for free, and while they may not have the best selection of obscure stuff, old songs or country, pop hits are easy to find. And these sites have been operating for years. Why aren't they the ones paying six figure fines?
Clearly piracy is immoral and unethical, it IS a form of theft.
But I still can't abide the RIAA destroying someone's life and extracting huge, crushing fines for what amounts to a mild form of shoplifting.
Slap their hands, fine them $150 or so and move on.
I completely that this is theft and it's wrong, but I admit that I'm surprised to find so many in the music industry think so. After all, so many of their "artists" spew one anti-capitalism invective after another in their work and in interviews. Perhaps their customers are just taking these folks and their industry fellow-travelers at their word and helping them avoid all that evil profit?
Ok, here are a few scenarios I've experienced. Please weigh in on them.
Online music stores like Napster, iTunes, Amazon etc are only available in the US, as far as I know, and not at all in my country. Purchasing legal mp3s is a huge hassle and most of the stuff I want are simply not available for purchase. A few weeks ago, I spent a few days trawling the web in search of a D'oyly Carte recording of the Pirates of Penzance. Having finally found a site that sells to my country, I was overjoyed and paid around $20 for the album, even though I couldn't preview the tracks. To my utter dismay, upon playing those songs, I found them atrociously recorded and utterly unlistenable. Since there is no such thing as a return policy for mp3s, I was stuck with an album I paid for but did not want. And so, I resorted to downloading from a bittorrent site the ONLY copy of a D'oyly Carte Pirates of Penzance available and it turned out to be the superior recording. I know I've violated copyright but did I commit a theft? The way I justified it, an iota of my $20 still went towards the performers, right?
Second scenario: for music I'm unable to purchase online, I would buy the physical CD and, because I hate keeping stuff, rip the tracks I want and then chuck the CD into a Salvation Army bin. Is this also theft? Am I morally obliged to delete the mp3s after having disposed of the CD?
And one final example: Hulu, Youtube and TV studio sites offer free streaming movies and TV shows, but only for US residents. If this same material is made available for those outside the US, is this also theft?
"how can 'piracy' be 'theft' when listening to something on a radio for free is okay?"
Because that radio broadcast is not "free." The radio station pays royalties for every record it plays; and in turn it gets paid by the advertisers whose commercials you also (in theory) listen to.
Fear is the primary tool used to prevent people from breaking the law and the industry need to use fear to discourage the activity. They cannot use the fear of eventually being caught since everybody knows that millions have done it but only a handful is caught. So they must use the penalty as the source of fear and those who have been caught must be used as an example. In the immortal words of Stewie Griffin, "Nothing says 'obey me' like a bloody head on a pike."
Most online music stores – such as iTunes and Amazon – offer mp3 downloads for other countries besides the US. You just have to go to the site for your country.
Who is the RIAA or anyone else to tell me who or how I can share?
"you deserve anything you want, for free."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is liberalism distilled to its essence. Discuss.
Nope, both of them are highly unlikely to open their stores to Asia.
Formally allofmp3.com (before it was shut down), check out legalsounds.com. CDs for as buck and individual songs around 9 cents. They also use Paypal for transfers of money. Simple and cheap.
What is Mark McKinnon doing here?
McKinnon is a John McCain toady, a basher and insulter of Sarah Palin and an enemy of Conservatives in the Republican Party. If you like B. Hussein Obama, thank Mark McKinnon.
Shame on Big Hollywood for giving McKinnon a platform to peddle his loser nonsense.
The RIAA/record industry has be stealing from musicians for decades. Who are they to lecture?
I've spent lots of money on CDs over the years, and it REALLY REALLY REALLY bothers me that my money goes to "overhead" before the musicians even get a dime. Can anyone here imagine getting paid for their work ONLY AFTER the company begins to show a profit? This stinks of fraud!
And what about charging businesses/customers a fee for playing a "recorded perfomance" at retail stores and restaurants? I go to Ralph's to buy groceries, not to listen to music! As far as I'm concerned, that's advertising I'm listening to!
Ah, a Russian music site. I once used one of those til they closed shop. But aren't they of questionable legality though, which is why the RIAA goes after them?
Thieves and their excuses.
I think you're overreacting. I've around 20 legitimate games installed and never had any SecuRom problems or whatever. I know what goes on in my PC and I know what rootkits do. Saying that they disable drivers is just plain false.
You have explained the rationale behind the higher fines, but not the morality or legality of it, which is the original question. To answer that question I say "No, it is not fair to fine a single mother of a teenage pirate $2 million." However came up with the concept of "setting an example" should have their head placed on a bloody pike. Laws need to be enforced in a vacuum: What was the damage done in this case? Not only does the RIAA win almost everytime, they are sometimes given MORE than they ask for without proving the lossthey claimed!
Well said!
Hm… which is why the computer I had been using had virtually no problems until AFTER I put a video game on it that had SecuRom on it… to which it crashed a couple of weeks later and it would not read CDROM's on a brand new CDROM drive… Now this was my husbands PC and he is VERY computer savvy, it's not just some average computer users PC… and there have been hundreds of problems with it by other people… there is even a class action suit against EA games and Sony for this program in the USA. So if there isn't a problem with it then why is it that many people across the states have had problems with SecuROM installing (without peoples knowledge) a rootkit into the kernel and does indeed disable drivers… And BTW.. this is not a computer we play online games on either… or surf the 'net with… This is a computer primarily used as a work computer (with some game time as the laptop isn't big enough to support our games)…
Maybe you have luck with it… and good fortune to you.. but not everyone has…
Then you won't mind when your employer doesn't pay you because somebody "shared" your company's output for free.
Good point about the fees to restaurants and retail stores. How many of those people are paying attention? How many of them absolutely abhor the crap piped in on the speakers against their will? What basis is used to charge fees? Is it assumed all customers are "listening" or just 50% or 40% ….? How would we know?
[...] and is filed under Asterisk. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. What’s Right is Rights: Piracy is Theft – bighollywood.breitbart.com 09/08/2009 Word is getting around that the RIAA seems to be stepping [...]
I see. I had had such a problem after I installed a game but it involved my virtual drive software. So well, perhaps in your case, it was due to rootkit. But perhaps it could also be due to an interaction with some other app.
I have several vinyl albums of fairly obscure garage rock. I haven't had a turntable in 10 years, so it's been that long since I've heard them. Instead of buying a new turntable and the hardware/software to make digital copies, I found the albums online and downloaded them. So I bought the album years ago (and so did the person who ripped them, so the album was purchased twice) and now want digital files that I'm not going to redistribute, yet what I've done is illegal even though if I ripped them myself it wouldn't be. But if I ripped them, made a CD and gave it to someone else, it would be illegal. Huh?
And speaking of giving CDs to someone, what about used CD stores? A person comes in, sells a CD to the store for $4, the store owner turns around and sells it to someone else for $8 and makes 100% profit that the artist doesn't see a dime of. So not only has the seller "redistributed" the files, he's made money off of it. How is that legal, but burning a CD for someone isn't?
I'm not using these examples as a defense of piracy, but it seems to me that at least the existence of used CD stores undermines the issues of what they consider piracy. I can be fined for making a CD for a friend, A CD I purchased, but if I set up a store and sell it, it's OK?
The basic problem here is with the whole nonsensical notion of "intellectual property." I mean, granting for the sake of argument that it has led to Wonderful Thing X and Great Boon Y, which people who are unable to see and argue principle invariably tend to dwell on, the simple fact of the matter is that the only things that lend themselves to ownership by nature are tangible, material things. That's because a material object is a singular thing; it cannot be in the possession of more than one person at a time. If I own a car, no other person can take possession of it without removing it from my own possession. Intangibles like thoughts and works of the imagination, on the other hand, are not particular to individuals. You and I can both have the exact same thought completely independently of one another, without either of us causing any loss of thought in the other (which, incidentally, points up the injustice involved in the notion that a man should own the exclusive rights to an idea simply because he happens to have been born earlier than this other man who had the same idea independent of him).
Thus, a physical record album or CD is ownable by nature, whereas the intangible, copiable content–the work of imagination and reason–of the album is not. Now, it's very true that we have gone to great lengths in the law to *attempt* to make what is by its nature unownable ownable, and up until now it has largely worked due to the relative difficulty of reproducing the protected content. Making a copy of a book, for example, is no small matter. But in the digital age, that is no longer the case and we find ourselves all of a sudden smack up against the reality: the inherent futility of what we've been attempting. The copying and redistribution of intellectual content today is trivially simple…so simple in fact that the only realistic option for effectively preventing it is the imposition of a virtual police state, with Big Brother watching our every move for signs of illegal activity.
So we have basically two choices: either we soften protections for intellectual property, or we harden the oversight regime and thereby sacrifice much of what's left of our liberty and autonomy–which ain't much. You probably don't have to guess very hard to figure out where I come down on the question…
Big difference. Copying music does not deprive the owner of its use, unlike "borrowing" a stereo or a car. That's why the law does not define copyright infringement as theft. Because it's not.
That protection was always meant for a very limited time. That is now changing constantly by extension after extension, completely making a mockery of that time limited protection.
Yes, and copyright infringement is not stealing. It may in certain cases be both immoral and hindering innovation, but it's not theft as it does not deprive anyone of their property.
It's certainly not immoral. It may be unethical IF you intended to purchase the product and did not. If you had no such intention, it's not even unethical.
Actually, my employer (and previous employers) continuously use my software that I've been paid for only once. Most of society works that way, except in the entertainment industry, where people expect to get paid perpetually for work done once.
The term of copyright is MUCH too long. Patents last 20 years from the date they are filed. Inventors find ways to make fair profits within that limited period. Copyrights last for the life of the author plus 70 years. Why so long? Why isn't the music from the 1920's and 1930's in the public domain by now? I doubt that Cole Porter and Irving Berlin are being incentivized to write more music. The essential bargain is that we grant a temporary monopoly to reward the creation of art and invention. The other side of the bargain is that those things move to the public domain. That part of the bargain has been broken.
This is always a delicate subject. Piracy is wrong, no matter how you spin it.
But I think it's a line that will get crossed from time to time.
I for one won't cross that line with video games, I don't care if some people think that freely distributing a video game will increase awareness on said game, which can result in more sales than ever before, I think it's wrong.
If you don't want to pay to full price for a game, you can either get it second hand or wait for a mark down. Downloading the game through bittorent is not a legitimate customer option.
But that never stops collegue students from downloading their yearly update of Football Manager or Pro Evolution Soccer and play in their dorms or in the recreation areas. It's one of those facts of life.
I use roughly the same stance with movies and CDs, though I can be a little more flexible in those.
But can you blame, after months of going here, I'm getting this urge to see more and more pre-1970 movies, including Ronald Reagan's movies. Since no portuguese distribution company even bothers bringing to bring those movies across the Atlantic, I'm left with a very agonizing choice: the internet and p2p file-sharing.
I tried downloading It's a Wonderful Life once, but recently I've learned that that the movie was being released in Portugal, so I bought it instead. But for a great deal of them, it's getting harder and harder for me to track them down.
Same with distribuitors who decide that the movie should go direct-to-DVD, when they were originally scheduled to arrive in theaters. How can file sharing not be tempting?
I wanted to see Dragonball Evolution, 12 Rounds, Race to Witch Mountain, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, to name just a few. All of them were announced as DTV releases in Portugal. I was willing to pay money for them in a proper theater, but no instead I'm forced to wait nearly 6 months so I can rent it at the local movie rental shop. It's just not fair.
But anyway, as far as second-hand items, I have no objections for it. Once you buy a game/CD/Book it becomes your property and you choose what to with them as you please. Including your choice to sell Gamestop. It becomes their property and they choose what to do with it.
Though I have to say that game publishers are a bit hipocritical, Gamestop is seen as the bad guy, but this particular store accounts for 25% of game retail sales in America and most of the times game stores only profit from the sales of used titles. So what is their(the game publishers) problem?
The difference is that once you sell your CD you can no longer listen to it.
But you're of course right, it's a nasty gray area, involving ethics and incentives.
These performers support liberalism.
Liberalism supports welfare, medicare, medicade, socialized medicine, etc.
All social programs steal the efforts of one group of people and give it to another for free plus vote-support, and using the threat of violence and imprisonment to the tax payer for not paying.
Now they whine they are having people in their back pockets?
*hoists the pirate flag*
If you're a lib artist, don't complain.
But eventually patent runs out, and this encourages innovation by allowing other companies to use the created work. Copyright keeps being extended and is now practically unlimited. Original copyright was once 14 years with an option to extend for another 14 and then that's it. I feel no guilt for breaking an unjust law.
courts have also ruled that it is legal to record the songs on the radio. If you listen to the recording is that not the same as listening to the downloaded song?
To a extent I can understand why some music/movies are pirated by individuals. However, when its someone who just downloads something that you can easily get from itunes or amazon's mp3 download store, then it ceases to be understandable in any way.
I download a lot of music/movies, but from time to time, I'm found in a conundrum. I happen to be a large fan of Japanese music, specifically J-Rock and J-Pop, and some of their dramas. Neither entity I have named before cover these, and you can just forget about trying to import it a disc, you are looking at a price almost 5 times what you would pay for a CD in the United States, and nine times out of ten you just want a single song off of that. That's way too much of an investment for just one song. It leaves you in a compromising position, and the recording industry is without mercy for it.
The recording industry, specifically Sony, the de facto head of the RIAA, has proven time and again to be a gigantic thorn in the arse of a lot of people who try and download music legally….not to even mention illegally. I cannot for the life of me get any of the big name j-bands or j-drama on itunes, US or Japanese, simply because Sony refuses to deal with them, and then they refuse to have their own mp3 store, instead forcing you to purchase the entirety of the title, disc and all. It's intensely frustrating as a music fan.
The fact is, I would love to see all of the big companies setting up some kind of universal music store, not only would it actually benefit the companies I think as a whole, by posting up this music, but it might just drive some people away from piracy with ease of access that originally get.
At the same time, I think the record companies have a right to defend their music, but not to such draconian standards as Sony's bungle of a malware attempt, or committing overkill with lawsuits (which do nothing more than give them an even larger black eye with consumers) or try and get a ruling stating that you cannot even RIP a CD to create a backup in the event the disc is scratched beyond repair, because you didn't pay for it.
There is a lot of fixing to be done on both sides of the spectrum, but it doesn't need what we have as the current system, because all that will happen is what you see now, sales going down with almost all the record companies.
But then again, the music consumer is evolving, they would rather youtube (or some other iteration) the cd, pick and choose the music, then go and download it, and instead of spending 14 dollars, they spend like 4 dollars for the songs that they want.
But the Recording Industry is just a microcosm of the entire system. The Anime industry is taking a large hit because of the fact that they insist on making the consumer pay 20 dollars for 3 episodes of like 50 total episode series. But at the same time, they have no system in which you could pay less and cut down on the overall costs and download it, and it's hurting the Japanese animation companies.
The ball is in industry's court to adapt and evolve, not cling to the current status quo, because in the end they will eventually lose to some new smart company or techology.
Let's say a store, Wal•Mart (long may it reign) didn't have walls and just kept all of its merchandise out in the open in a parking lot. Without any security guards or dogs or fences. Yes, it would be still wrong to steal. But fer chissakes, the business needs to exercise some due diligence. Their complaints of missing items would be met with little sympathy.
The internet broke down a lot of walls. The entertainment industry will have to figure out ways to rebuild those walls. It also didn't help that mainstream entertainment has been glorifying situational ethics, gangsters, rebels, and "sticking it to the Man" for a couple of generations. Their audience learned well.
I have often wondered how the offenders would feel if their creative time and energy was taken by those who simply felt that they deserved it.
No doubt the recording industry is in a dilemma – the old model of selling CDs for a premium isn't working. Have to say that I wasn't impressed with Apple's attempt – didn't have an ipod and I would like to think anything I bought I could move from device to device – but once Amazon started selling music I haven't bought a CD in several years. No more paying $15-$20 to get one or 2 songs you want.
only steal music from the dead! since most new music isn't that appealing anyway; you win and nobody loses.
by the way International speak like a pirate day is September 19th.
Hanson why don't you look up the meaning of infringement. You are wrong.
It's not surprising that left-wing pirates would like to excuse their actions. Some likely don't even realize that they're flouting the Constitution itself, while others would pride themselves on that very fact.
Now, as anyone familiar with Constitutional history knows, The Federalist ensured the ratification of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay went into exacting detail in arguing on behalf of various clauses.
So what did they say about the law of copyright? In The Federalist #43, Madison said that "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copy-right of authors has been solemnly adjudged in Great Britain, to be a right at common law. The right to useful inventions, seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals…"
So my open question to the likes of Masnick and Tenenbaum is, do you need to be 'convinced' about the rest of the Constitution, or just the parts of which you're woefully ignorant?
Only if you're downloading really crappy versions of the song.
"in copyright violation does not involve the victim losing anything"
Except they do lose something. They lose the income that they would have received if you had paid for it like you were supposed to. No matter what handwaving you use at this point, it doesn't change the REAL monetary loss there.
Try being an artist, composer, songwriter, band, or poet sometime. Besides, it's not like there isn't "Fair Use" to counterbalance the extended Copyright.
First, define piracy. Until you do that, all your pretty arguments are just that.
If you are going to say that piracy occurs every time someone obtains a digital file of someone else's intellectual property, I say you go too far.
If an artist puts his music on the radio for dissemination on the public airwaves (which are owned by the public, you see?), is it piracy when I make a recording of it? (And you do understand that, after lengthy discussions with all parties involved, including the RIAA, 'radio' broadcasts are now available on the internet?)
If I borrow a friend's retail CD and make a copy of it on my hard drive/ CD burner / audio tape, is that piracy? (You do understand that a portion of the cost of every hard drive/CD/audio tape is to pay people like the RIAA for just this contingency?)
To me, that is the problem with this whole issue. People like the author and the RIAA spoil any chance for a reasonable accommodation with the public by coming down on grandma recording an Elvis tune off the radio just as hard as they go after a real pirate stealing thousands of songs and making a living off of them. And they do so, as I said above, even though they have bargained with all parties concerned and are already being paid for their intellectual property in a manner and in an amount they have agreed to be paid in the event that someone records it.
flawed thinking. This is a reverse appeal to authority: Since this person fails or offends in ways A,B,C, none of his opinions have merit. If Charles Manson tells me my shoe is untied, as despicable as he is, it still may well be untied.
The only thing that I have a problem with is when these companies use anti-piracy software to the point that it hinders the legitimate "owner"…. Now music doesn't bother me so much because I purchase it via itunes more often than not and CD's all the other times (and I listen to the Radio A LOT)… however, video games are a major peeve to me like SecuRom that takes over your computer, disables all drivers and imbeds itself into the kernal to the point you have to wipe everything from… and for what? Anti-piracy? That just made me not want to buy your product (thus losing money from a legitimate customer willing to buy the $50 main game and all 10 or so $20 expansion packs)…. the same anti-piracy tactics that are being used to discourage illegal activity is also hindering the legal activity…
"I had a big fear several years back when I was downloading from allofmp3 that my money was financing the Russian mob."
You were. My parents work in a former Soviet republic, and they're constantly faced with such ethical problems, although mainly with movies. They decided that any movies they buy there will stay in that country when they move back to the States.
BTW, it's often impossible to do the moral thing there. For instance, a bus driver might ask you to pay a lesser fare under the table for a ride, which you might be morally opposed to except that you know the mafia takes a percentage of his farebox. So which thief do you support?
That's weird. Where I work, we have to buy licenses for the same software every year….
Piracy?
There's no ships involved, no ocean, no boarding of merchant vessels, no walking of the plank, not even a yo-ho-ho. Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government), especially robbery or criminal violence on the sea.
The first thing the RIAA needs to do is pull their heads out of their subwoofers and call it what it is.
"it's not theft as it does not deprive anyone of their property"
Well, you'd sure flunk out of first-year law school.
" the simple fact of the matter is that the only things that lend themselves to ownership by nature are tangible, material things"
FAIL. There is in fact a universe of intangible property, which the common law recognized long before the first copyright acts.
No, you are wrong. Infringement is breaking the law. I didn't state it wasn't illegal. I stated it wasn't theft. That's why there's copyright law, because it doesn't fit laws against theft. Look it up, as you say.
The monetary loss is only REAL if you would otherwise have bought it. That is often not the case, and often it is, but it's certainly not a clear cut loss.
Please elaborate, lawyer man.
Tenenbaum comitted theft, and compounded the offence by offering the pilfered goods to others. At least he did not take payment for all this.
more -
Yet, I download some stuff. For example, an MP3 someone recorded of a player-piano working a roll of Maple Leaf Rag cut by Scott Jopiln himself! OK, the copyright probably has expired on it since Mr. Joplin died before the infinitely-expandable copyright, as practiced by the likes of Disney, was available. But would that be true if it had been his The Entertainer? Or would that be copyrighted via the soundtrack of The Sting? Or would that soundtrack copyright be only for that particular performance? And yes, it is relevant – some pre-1950 movies are being held off the market because the company that owns them has no record of orchestra members playing the background music and does not want to get into a royalty hassle…
I also feel for the earlier poster who went through contortions trying to get some music but cold not because of country restrictions. Yes, here in the US I do indeed download over-the-air {i.e. free] shows from Australia (Sea Patrol and New Zealand (Diplomatic Immunity) and some semi-free ("license fee" for radios and televisions to support BBC) shows (New Tricks) from the UK.
You have explained the rationale behind the higher fines, but not the morality or legality of it, which is the original question. To answer that question I say "No, it is not fair to fine a single mother of a teenage pirate $2 million." Whoever came up with the concept of "setting an example" should have their head placed on a bloody pike. Laws need to be enforced in a vacuum: What was the damage done in this case? Not only does the RIAA win almost every time, they are sometimes given MORE than they ask for without proving the loss they claimed!
Since I am an indie video producer and deliver product on the unsecurable DVD this is important to me and have watch the debate from all sides for years. It seems that all stakeholders have hit the chip. I, personally, segment the situation into two parts; legal rights and enforcement. The legal rights issue is dead simple for me, if I don't have the rights to a work I cannot incorporate it into one of my creations nor can I pass it along in any form to anyone else. To violate those rules for me would be stealing. Full stop. By the same token, I believe that I can make as many copies of a work as I want as long as it's *exclusively* for my own personal use. So if I want, I can keep my music on my computer, back it up to an external hard drive for safety, put it on my iPod and make CDs to have in my non-iPod enabled car. I'm all up on the chip when it comes to personal use. I may have the legalities wrong but I think that's "fair use". Others' views may vary, and that's OK.
I start going non-linear when those trying to enforce creator rights employ pernicious tactics to get their point of flesh out of the deal. Lawsuits to "set an example" are only a small part of this. Lobbiest are working campaigning in governments around the world to change the rules and tip the balance to their favor. Taxes on blank media because pirated content might be put on it. (It could also be termed welfare for the entertainment industry.) Fees placed on internet access for the same purpose. It's all a convoluted scheme to recover "lost revenue" for the injured parties. For me, no one… absolutely no one has be able to quantify the loss to the original producers, artists or distributors for me. I worked in marketing for over two decades. I can make figures lie as well as the best of them. I view media's injury claims with a jaundiced eye. What I do know is that stealing is always stealing.
One last thing. The unholy part of this righteous crusade has been eating away at my digestive system for years. When a piracy suit has been won, who gets the award? The writer, performer, producer? Possibly, but something tells me it's Sony, BMG, Paramount, etc. That doesn't pass the smell test for me. In this quest for justice, I think it ends up being "justice for me" not justice for all the victims of the theft.
Two sites currently doing business. Lavimus mp3 and mp3 sale. Allow me to relate why I use these sites, in addition to Amazon. I had well over 300 tracks purchased with DRM. I reached the point where I could no longer download and play these songs on my mp3 player. I was screwed. Just because I put them on my player the restricted number of times. I ended up repurchasing the tracks from the previously mentioned sites for roughly 15 cents a song. Can I sue for my losses?
Try being an inventor in other fields. You think that the creation of an artist is entitled to 7x the length of protection that the creation of a chemist or engineer is? If I work to create a new type of computer chip or a new drug, I get 20 years to capitalize on my invention. If I scribble a cartoon mouse on a cocktail napkin I get 'the life of the artist' plus 75 years worth of legal protection.
If patent got the same protection as copyright we would all be driving a Model T Ford and using rotary phones. Excessive copyright impedes inovation in arts, just as excessive patent lengths would impede inovation in science and technology.
Oops, I spelled innovation wrong.
Another decent site is lala.com, where most mp3s are 89 cents each, and some mp3 albums sell for around 50 cents a song (sometimes even less) if you download the whole album at once. Also, if you like a song a little but not enough to pay full freight, you can buy it as a "web track" for a mere dime and listen to it online as much as you want. You can also upload mp3s you already own (such as what you rip from CDs) so you can listen to your music collection anywhere you have a computer and speakers. For every song that lala actually has for sale, you get one free listen to decide if you like it. Since some songs are present on more than one mp3 album (such as on the original album and on a greatest hits compilation), often you can get more than one free listen to decide if you like the song or at least to see if there's a difference in sound quality between the album of original release and the greatest hits album.
I guess that depends on your definition of legal. I had a big fear several years back when I was downloading from allofmp3 that my money was financing the Russian mob. And maybe it did. I honestly don't know. But I do remember they were easier to work with compared to Apple or Sony.
The RIAA can't go after them since the RIAA is the Record Industry Association of "America"… meaning, they have no dealings in the affairs of what happens outside the borders of the USA. However, they do have clout and ran some serious threats by the owners of allofmp3. What finally brought allofmp3 down was pressure from the Russian government concerning trade issues. Those trade issues were made by the US and British governments at the behest of the RIAA.
Long and short is right now legalsounds is up and running so that is where I am.
Vincent, I'd say that if you paid for the CD, you've paid the artist and record company. If you don't keep the CD, I don't see that as different from having just paid for them as mp3s in the first place. Either way, you've paid. Donating to the Salvation Army helps raise money for a worthy cause, and all you are doing is transferring to someone else your right of possession of the physical CD (which most people prefer, all else being equal). The Salvation Army shopper may not pay full price and none of its money goes to the artist or record company, but then he or she gets a used, not a new CD, and all the risk that goes with a used CD. That's perfectly legal. I'd say you are okay
I haven't researched it but I've been told that if you've paid for the song in any form (such as vinyl) it is not illegal to acquire a digital copy without paying for it. I don't know if that's true, but it seems that at least in many instances it would be ethical unless there is some drastic difference in sound quality, such as through remastering.
Wow, great tips! Didn't know so many alternatives existed.
PS — another nice thing about lala.com – no DRM!
I am not justifying downloading and not paying, but here's a FYI for anyone thinking people are stealing the bread out of the mouths of the artists when you copy music. Unless you actually own the rights to publish your music (most artists do not), your take on the sale of one CD is pennies. The income most performers receive comes from touring, but even that can bleed you dry. I would also like to direct you here <a href="http://www.negativland.com/albini.html” target=”_blank”>http://www.negativland.com/albini.html for further reading on the ins and outs of the record industry and how they destroy and take advantage of the artists under their "care".
And screw the RIAA.
You are indeed right, sir. Take that darned Happy Birthday song, for instance.
Yep, Piracy is theft. But "Entertainment" doesn't much care when their Leftist Government "thieves" taxpayers' hard earned money in order to fund their pet projects, and "Entertainment" doesn't much care that the Lefty Government they helped elect is now about to "thieve" physicians education and livelihood by confiscating them into government "service" so frankly I don't give a rip if the Chinese steal every damn film, CD, book, tape or whatever. In fact, if I knew how to buy a pirated copy of anything, I'd do it preferentially just to keep the money out of the hands of the bozos who spend a dime out of every dollar destroying my country.
I have to weigh in. I worked many years in the music industry and before that, of course grew up a voracious fan. I can go online and find a song I should be paid for and, at the same time, find an obscure album I had as a kid but no longer have. I download the obscure and justify the theft because I see I'm not being paid for my tunes and the memory that I paid for the missing album once already.
I'm still a thief but if I were on the jury I could never convict me. I had thousands of titles spanning the 20th century. Most were stolen or lost over decades. If all I really paid for was performance and songwrighting why pay again? I love my own royalty checks but my own hypocracy just doesn't compute. There must be a better system that rewards innovation yet allows reasonable dissemination. Why did I pay for records, 8trk- tapes, cassettes, CDs and digital downloads of the same works from the 60s? Only because the technology wasn't available.
"Today for lunch I may pick the deli rather than the pizza shop next door. Based on the RIAA’s logic here, I have just “robbed” the pizza place of its 'right to be paid' for its work."
Wow, what a moron. That metaphor would only work if you stole a slice from the pizza joint instead of opting to pay for your lunch.
"Big difference. Copying music does not deprive the owner of its use"
It deprives him of the revenue he would have got had the person paid for it. There's an opportunity cost involved.
"It's clearly not theft: theft involves the victim losing something"
He lost the revenue he would have got had the pirate paid him. It's not rocket science.
Allow me. There is this thing called "intellectual property". That is the property of which people are being deprived.
"And what about charging businesses/customers a fee for playing a 'recorded perfomance' at retail stores and restaurants? I go to Ralph's to buy groceries, not to listen to music!"
If Ralph's didn't think it would profit somehow from piping in music, it wouldn't. If customers didn't want to pay for music along with their groceries, they wouldn't. All involved must be getting something in the exchange. If you don't like it, shop somewhere where they play public domain tunes.
"the simple fact of the matter is that the only things that lend themselves to ownership by nature are tangible, material things"
Absolute B.S. Unless you're actually holding it in your arms, all ownership has an aspect of abstraction to it. Take a shepherd, for instance. He has a flock of sheep, tends them, pulls from them whatever profit he can. now, these sheep are real, and tangible. But so long as the shepherd is not physically present, or physically holding them, his ownership of them is far from material. It involves theory: the theory that the sheep belongs to him even when he doesn't physically possess it.
(Continued…)
Under your tangible property system, how do you deal with sheep if they wander from the shepherd's land? Why is it still his? And how about that landed property of which I spoke? How is it that a man can own land that he does not physically occupy? You said, "If I own a car, no other person can take possession of it without removing it from my own possession," but they wouldn't have to remove it from your possession. They'd just have to remove it from wherever you left it, which could very easily be on property which is not your own.
Why does the car adhere to you? Not because of nature, or tangibility, or materialism. Because of the abstraction of ownership.
It only deprives him if the infringer would otherwise have paid. That is not always the case. In fact, I will postulate that it's often not the case.
Regardless, there is still a difference between depriving someone of their property and depriving someone of an entitlement.
"It only deprives him if the infringer would otherwise have paid. That is not always the case."
Well, no, the pirate may not have purchased the item if it wasn't free. If he had opted not to purchase, that would have been fine. Nothing lost there. But the point is, he got to enjoy the creation without paying the creator, and is thereby denying the creator his just compensation. That's the way intellectual property works.
"I download the obscure and justify the theft because I see I'm not being paid for my tunes and the memory that I paid for the missing album once already."
Wait, what? You didn't purchase memories and an infinite claim on some performance way back when you bought the obscure album. You paid for that particular hard copy. If you lost that copy before the technology existed to convert it into digits, tough luck.
"If all I really paid for was performance and songwrighting why pay again?"
You didn't pay for the performance and songwriting. The performers/songwriters were paid for their respective contributions. You paid for the performance and songwriting as encapsulated in a particular form–be it 8-track, reel-to-reel, cassette, etc.–and whatever form you could convert them into from that form for your private use. The idea that I could go to Wallmart and demand they give me Thriller on CD since the cassette I bought in '85 got stolen is crazy.
The license is for support and upgrades, different thing.
Should the door hinge manufacturer get paid every time you open and close a door?
"Intellectual property" is not real property. It's an ill-named term.
"just compensation" is in the eye of the beholder. Remember why we have IP laws. It's to incentivise creation which otherwise would not occur. No other reason. Not because it's "just". So having to pay the children of some creator of some work is, IMO, not just. It's merely rent seeking behavior.
We also see current IP laws actually inhibit creativity and creation of new derived works. Not to the public's benefit.
I'll use that excuse the next time I knock off a jewelry store. "But your honor, I never intended to buy it so it's not like the owner lost revenue."
He's losing an entitlement. An entitlement is NOT property. It's not rocket science, as you write.
He's losing an entitlement. An entitlement is NOT property. It's not really that hard to grasp the difference.
And your statement to the judge is plain wrong. The jewelry owner did lose revenue. He lost the revenue of someone else buying it. You deprived him of the ability to sell it to others. Unlike copyright infringement.
Which is what I figured you'd say. In which case I have to point out you've abandoned your original argument. Your original point was that it would not constitute loss of revenue because he was never going to buy it in the first place, but now you're switching it to "It's not property."
You also fail to take into account the vast expenses incurred by musicians who have to buy instruments and recording equipment, who have to take the time to learn how to use it all, and who then spend hours crafting something. Why shouldn't they be compensated for that? And what gives you the right to benefit from the fruits of their labor without paying them for it? If you want "free" music, make it yourself.
Further, your comments display an astonishing lack of understanding of the free market. If I write a song and you wish to listen to it, and I say, "You can have a copy of this song for $X" then that song IS A PRODUCT. It has value because you want to listen to it and I'm willing to sell you a copy of it.
Suppose I am a farmer who farms corn and I got my seeds from wild stock. This has cost me nothing, but the corn still has value because you pay to get it. I can always get more free corn seeds, but that doesn't give you the right to take the corn I'm selling without paying for it.
It doesn't matter what my manufacturing costs are, and it doesn't matter if it will harm me financially or not if you steal it. It is a product that has been assigned a value through the market. If you take it from me without paying for it, you are stealing regardless of whether I am directly harmed by it or not. The same thing is true of music, art, writing, etc.
I am certainly not abandoning any argument. Rather I am stating multiple arguments.
The primary argument is that intellectual "property" is not property in the normal sense, i.e. it can be used ad infinitum without depriving the original owner of the use. This is unlike real property, which can only be used by a single entity. In fact, the economic term for such a concept is "public good".
The secondary argument was a conditional one that postulates that the legal entitlement of revenue is only a loss if in fact the consumer would have chosen to pay for it, had it not otherwise been available.
These are somewhat unrelated arguments, yet fully coherent.
To address your claim that musicians have to spend money on equipment and as such should be compensated, is an ethical judgment, which I happen to agree with.
With that said, most musicians make more money on concerts than they do selling CDs or MP3s, and consumption of concerts are very much enforceable.
Actually, I don't make a living producing intellectual property. I used to be in a band, and when I was in my band we put our songs on our own website for free. But that was OUR decision to do so, and if someone else decides not to do so, it's not your right to take it from them anyway. That's the point.
This has nothing to do with "fairness." It has to do with you manufacturing a right to someone else's intellectual property. You don't have a right to do that. Consider this: if I make an mp3 of a song and I decide not to put it online but just use it for my own pleasure, then you have no right to take it at all. If you hack my computer and steal my mp3, you are STEALING.
If, instead of that, I burn it on a CD and tell people, "If you buy this CD then you can have the song I wrote" how does that alter the circumstances? You are still hacking something you don't own (i.e. illegally copying a CD) to take something that's not yours.
Again, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to do this. *I* do have the right to protect my property and to decide what to do with it. It is therefore encumbant upon you to prove why YOU are entitled to something you spent no capital on, put no work into, and had nothing to do with. Again, it's not like this is essential to your survival so you can't even make THAT argument.
You're the one manufacturing a "right" here. Or more accurately, an entitlement. An entitlement granted to you by the law. A monopoly.
But you didn't answer my questions. Why not?
And let me reiterate: If you don't lose use of the item, in this case an MP3 song, it's not STEALING. In your example, it would be breaking and entering, and maybe something else, but find me a prosecutor and a court that could produce a theft conviction in your example. Cannot be done. Because it's NOT stealing. For God's sake man, read the law.
If you don't release it in public, no one knows about it (unless through criminal means of course), and it's a non-issue. If you decide to expose it to the public and then feel you have some entitlement of control, well, then it's a different issue.
Many people tend to use the "I'm promoting da artists". Nope it doesn't work that way. Unless there is consent from the original creator, posting it in a public domain does not work.
But you know, I try to use legitimate MP3 file stores such as musicaonline.sapo.pt, there for a measly 1€ you can buy whatever you want. I bought some great MP3 from Alan Jackson and even a childhood favorite song of mine, Somebody's Watching Me from Rockwell.
There's just one catch. Most of it is not DRM-free.
The problem is the darn DRM security patch that actually hurts consumers more than some may think.
I mean if I want to buy MP3 legally but can't play it on my 3G cellphone or music player is just BS.
What's worse is that DRM is remarkably easy to get around, just burn your the files you bought into a CD, rip them and presto they DRM-free, but I wasted a damn CD for nothing. You can see how impractical this might become in the long run, unless your willing to spend loads of cash on recordable CDs that will end up being thrown into the garbage can.
People will find it much easier to go onto p2p networks and get that one song for free and none of the hassle of getting through the DRM systems.
Is that why it's called Intellectual Property Theft? What about Identity Theft?–I mean, someone obviously hasn't stolen me, they just have information about me that they've obtained illegally. "But your honor, I didn't deprive him of the use of his Social Security Number just by taking a copy of it!" Try that defense and see how far you get.
got to agree on what the man said about pizza producers and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.easycar.com/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; color: #000000;">car rental car rental dealers. Piracy is piracy whatever form it takes and creators have a right to protect themselves and make a profit.
got to agree on what the man said about pizza producers and car rental dealers. Piracy is piracy whatever form it takes and creators have a right to protect themselves and make a profit.
i download it and if i like i buy it. that is piracy? i don't care.
why should i? and why should anyone care?
if i buy without seeing and listening to it first, what happen if it turn out to be suck, or it doesn't look at good as the movie preview promise?
"they don't care too"
why should they?
and
why should i?
You must be logged in to post a comment.