Pirating - it's kind of like marijuana possession

If you legalize it and put on advertising you're not taking away anything. You're changing the source of the money, but you're usually making more.

If you guys had your way we'd all be watching 9inch screens in b&w and paying enough for the privilege that only the very rich could afford it, but it would still be so unprofitable that the only programming on would be government propaganda extolling the heroic exploits of the East Coast Network Company against the infamous Johnny Carson.

 

You completely misunderstood what I said.
The question generally was - why are we no longer prosecuting marijuana use, but still prosecuting pirate use.
I was suggesting that we are doing so because BIG BUSINESS is losing money with pirate use. Big business is NOT losing any money from marijuana use because they don't currently make money from it.

YES - money could be gained from marijuana, but that's not what my comment was referencing.

 

File sharing does have victims. Those victims may be rich and famous though. So it's up to you to decide if the rich and famous victims are the same as any other victim.

If someone was stealing parts of your paycheck from you, would you consider yourself a victim?

 

theft is theft. Whether it's done electronically or you walk into a store and take something, it's still theft.

 

You are using just music as an example. These places also pirate software has a commercial price tag of $8500 as well as other high priced software. Multiply that by numerous Torrent users and the industries see loses in the TRILLIONS if you include music industry as well. Yeah, that warrants government resources catching people.

BTW police are still called in for shoplifters when they steal a $0.50 worth of candy.

 

Theft is when you take away someone else's property. When you copy something, you aren't taking anyone's property. They still have it.

 

If I could get back all those parts and more by using a different form of checking I'd consider myself a damned fool if I campaigned for the government to make me and everybody else use my bank instead. The only thing changing is the marketing model and the only people losing out are those who make money off that model alone. Sucks to be them, I suppose, but a fundamental principle of patent law is that you can't patent a way of doing business, as it would stifle the very innovation that patent is meant to promote.

And that, I think, is the crux of the argument here. The new way of marketing intellectual property does help

 

it is their IP and they are entitled to be compensated for it. Yes, there are some silly rules with respect to copyright. For example, let's look at the long tail of older movies and TV shows. You can go to Walmart and pick up some of them on DVD for $5 per disk. What you are not allowed to do is to make a legal copy of it for your tablet so you can have it to watch on that device.If you want a digital version, if available, then you'll find it on other sites for substantially more money.

 

I don't see what gives them a right to say what others can/can't do with their own computers and filesystems. That's what seems like the violation of property rights.

 

I think that would be considered legal fair use in some places but even where it's technically illegal, nobody is going to arrest or fine you for that (even if they had a way to find out).

 

I guess you don't make any money off of copyrights, or know people who do. Copyright theft takes revenue away from people. It is not a victimless crime, like marijuana possession.

 

No, it isn't. If Joe pirates a song, the IP holder's account doesn't get smaller - it just doesn't grow. But purchasing marijuana funds organized crime. :/

 

It has victims if you assume that if not downloaded the song would have been purchased. Without that assumption, which is usually false, there is no harm done, the only harm is the assumed loss of profits. But the problem is that the actual damages, per song, are minuscule.

- - - Updated - - -

Because I'm talking about everyday consumers. I am not aware of any software worth $8500 that everyday consumers pirate, are you?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, it is as much a victimless crime as marijuana possession. If I pirate a song, does money disappear from the IP holder's account? Of course not, there is an indirect loss in an assumed loss of profit. Likewise, when I possess marijuana it has invariably been bought, and nearly all marijuana sales ultimately support organized crime. Neither has a direct victim, both have indirect victims.

 

There should be no other way to acquire a song or software as a file. It should always be purchased. It is an item made by an artist or company unless specified that it's being given away for free. So when someone illegally trades the music, the artist is being deprived of that profit. Therefore, I disagree with your notion.

 

I agree

CD's and DVD's/Blu-Rays get hacked up. Why can't we make a backup copy? Nope, you need to buy another. I wouldn't mind paying a replacement cost but a full-price option is the only offering. I guess they could claim that we must take better care of the media.

But, now with digital music you load onto your phone, via bluetooth you listen to it on your sound bar at home or in the car.

But what about those who buy CD's? Why can't we LEGALLY make a digital copy?

 

AutoCAD is the example I used and along with Adobe Photoshop, and many other engineering, accounting, and graphic design software suites are pirated everyday. Just because YOU limit yourself to maybe music doesn't mean it is any less of theft.

Tell me, does going into a store and stealing $0.25 piece of candy make it ok, even if it is candy that people don't buy often?

It seems piracy is ok to you because it is done anonymously and you don't physically see the people you affect.

 

The problem with the music industry is it clings to the pre-internet business model. The fact is, people will share digital music. The music industry needs to accept that reality, right or wrong, and figure out new ways to make their profits. No longer is it accepted that a consumer will spend $15 for 10 poor or mediocre songs to get the single one that he likes. No longer can a band spend three weeks in a studio making a mediocre album, tour for three months, and then sit back as the profits roll in. They must now go on long tours, make music videos, etc. to remain relevant.

The Grateful Dead was way ahead of its time by ENCOURAGING their fans to pirate their music. And it made them one of the most successful business organizations in history. A look at their model would be beneficial to record companies of today. The days of selling hard-copies are over, because technology has progressed beyond the hard-copy medium. The record companies must recognize this inconvenient truth and adapt, somehow.

 

I think I am one of the few libertarians that believe in copyright- it is no different than any other protection of life and property or any other fruits of one labor. All such fruits require both a mental and physical aspect to some varying degree, and I simply believe that the mental aspect should be protected as well as the physical.

 

The comparison is specious. In the latter instance, someone is taking money that is already your property. In the former case, it is speculative and the money is not taken from anyone.

 

Again, how much money do you make off of copyrights, or how many people do you know make money off of copyrights? The argument changes if you don't view it as a greedy consumer, but as a producer. I don't produce copyrighted material, but I do know people that do. File sharing of their material does harm them, regardless of how you justify it.

 

They weren't encouraging piracy. They were encouraging sharing. The two actions, while they resemble each other, are very different. The other side to that is, I bet the Dead would not like it if their taped shows were sold, rather than shared. The Dead's business model was based on making money primarily by touring, and it's a good model.

 

Well, most of the Blu-rays I've bought recently also gave me a copy in the Cloud.

You are allowed to make digital copies of CD's.

From Riaa's website:
https://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law

 

It depends on the amount of pirating being committed. Someone downloading songs and NOT sharing them isn't really on the same level as someone downloading GBs or movies and music per day, and sharing them with Millions of other people.

Going after Tommy who has 2 GB of songs gathered over his teen years, which he plays at home is one thing. Going after Rhonda8432 who's seeding the new Avengers movie with a few 1000 other people is a &$*#(@#(@ scumbag who in all likelyhood will be committing other fraud, like an entire library of pirated media, the cheap a$$ never paid for.

Its about principle and scale. Busting Tommy doesn't do squat and really is a waste of money. Rhonda is the bigger problem. If its about violence or harm, what harm is stealing a few $$$ from someone? Stealing a $100 bike from someone's garage. Will the world end? No. Can we just let all that slide? No WAY!!!!

All those cheap bastards who download Game of Thrones instead of paying for it...&#$*(*@( them.

 

Point taken re piracy vs sharing. Jerry Garcia knew that by allowing free taping and sharing of their shows that the band would become far more in demand than by following the 'conventional' model. I doubt, seriously, that he would have cared one whit if someone were selling copies of the bootlegs they made or collected. In fact, that was a really common practice. His plan was for their performances to spread as far and wide as possible by way of these bootlegs, and by doing so, increase awareness and demand for their live performances. It was ingenious, and completely counter-intuitive for record exec's of the time. They say that fortune comes to those who "Zig" when the others "Zag".

But the Dead were a WORKING band. They lived to tour, and did so year-round. Most musicians today do not have that work ethic. In fact, no musicians since have had that work ethic. But that model is exactly where the future is. Because people are going to bootleg, pirate, and copy the music. Only those adhering to the conventional model do not accept that reality. Those who do will use it to their advantage, just as the Dead did all those years ago. The others are "zagging"... what should *I* do?

 

where do you draw the line?