Omar

I'm inclined to think the person who produced In Utero can paint a very accurate picture of the music industry, actually. I'm still not sure you read the article, considering a lawyer is mentioned several times. Music is less reliant on labels. They won't disappear, but the major labels will lose much of their market share, as big artists sign to independent labels (Adele, pun unintended). Whatever they do to adapt, they didn't act quickly enough at this point save this oligopoly. Finally, you talk about making it a lot. What do you call "making it"? Many of the aspiring artists I know want to make music and connect with people that love it, not necessarily become famous and rich. And many labels won't sign them (Rock in Opposition and all types of music that aren't meant to make money).

Have you read the Steve Albini article I'm talking about? I have nothing against successful businesses, but I do hate the unethical practices highlighted by Albini. I never said labels are obsolete; I said labels are becoming obsolete, especially big ones, and that their golden goose is on the loose, to quote Iron Maiden (out of context). I won't speak for software and movies, because I know too little about them. I chose that MPAA quote because it's particularly striking, but radios and tape cassettes were once a huge deal.

You'd think so, but the RIAA and the MPAA have a history of [bleep]ing and moaning about technological change: Jack Valenti was President of the MPAA at the time. He was trying to get the House of Representatives to realize the VCR is a huge threat to the film industry. He's only right if you consider the percentage of Boston women the Boston strangler killed. Fact is they are quickly becoming obsolete. They could have innovated and used the Internet, but they stuck to their old, embarrassingly profitable model, and now there's no room for another Internet-based business. Netflix, Bandcamp, iTunes, et al took over. Production means are being democratised: think of the dozens of amateur dubstep producers you know who didn't hire anyone to help them create their product. What used to require an amp can be done on an iPad. Distribution on the internet is now almost easy, free and instantaneous--no need for labels. Artists can now profit when their music sells, which is a big plus if you consider the Steve Albini article I posted earlier. They're losing out, whether there is piracy or not. And it's about time they do.

Are you not essentially agreeing with him in that Marx considers this removal of the right to control to be a problem?

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed. That argument works when the product is fairly unknown... Unfortunately, it would seem that the vast majority of pirated content isn't the unknown, it's the known. My stance isn't that there is no "black area", so to speak. I might formulate it as such: considering the multitude of other factors (generalized economic crisis, cannibalization of sales by legitimate internet businesses [iTunes], etc) which nuance the "awful" crisis content providers blame on "piracy" as well as the positive impacts it has on the music industry, outlawing it is a counterproductive measure and will only result in unhappiness on both sides. I would also like to know if the known is many times more pirated than it is bought when compared to the unknown, because that would seem like a fairer (though impractical) indicator of the effect of "piracy". Go on, I think you might have caught me.

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed.

I don't consider this to be wrong. Still being honest. As far as utilitarianism sees, this is a win-neutral situation. Person A got music/movie/content; B received no product, was deprived of no product, received no money, and was deprived of no money (before you say that's false, saying it's true implies the seller has the money before the transaction takes place, which is obviously untrue).

I'm not a big fan of harm based morals, no. Even so, we live in a capitalist society where people deserve to be paid for their work. When their work is taken or otherwise used without their permission or payment, that constitutes theft. The word itself may not be "adequate" as you put it, but the idea behind it is quite clear. What kind of morals are you into then?

No, we don't. "Stealing", "theft", and "piracy" are all inadequate words, and no adequate words exist in my opinion. Am I right in thinking you don't believe in harm-based morals? If my memory serves me well, we can't agree.

Alright, alright, you've intimidated me into changing my opinion.

My bad, I thought you were talking about artists that compromise their music for it to sell better.

@jr: Wouldn't have paid for it if I hadn't "stolen" it. I just wouldn't have used it. So yeah, technically I stole it, but in many cases that makes no difference to the seller, because I didn't deprive him of cash nor product. So yeah, honestly, piracy, in many cases, isn't theft. For example, would you consider pirating something you've paid for and lost to be theft? I'm not saying piracy never is theft, just that a gray zone exists and that it's actually pretty vast. Also, I'm not saying it's legal, I'm saying it's legitimate.

@Danq: Even if the film and music industry could be doing better without piracy, even if you factor in the recapturing, point is they're not doing worse, which means those 19 million jobs are actually not threatened. Even if the Oberholz-Apfelstrudel study is narrow-minded, it does prove that the music industry, at least as a whole, isn't doing worse. I would argue that music that is made with the sole purpose of making money, although by many standards not true art, remains work, and pirating instead of buying from its creators is wrong. On the other hand, pirating music which is an end in and of itself is "less wrong", if at all (there's a reason why it's free to begin with). There are all types of gray areas ("I make music for the music but I still need money to sustain myself"), but in extreme cases, that's the way I see it. Just because something isn't art, doesn't mean it's bad/unethical/worthless.

and theft is theft whichever way you look to legitimise it. Theft: a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property So, what say you of what isn't theft? Property can't be digital? You're clutching at straws here. So long as you don't remove and deprive its rightful owner of it, you're not stealing. This makes a huge difference in "no harm, no foul" morals.

Except that stealing a digital copy still results in less income for the creator of the product since people are gaining utility from it without having to pay anything. The primary problem isn't in the people who pirate something where they had no plans on buying it. Rather, the main problem is people who pirate instead of buying it. From this Wired article: In other words, the money people used to spend on CDs is actually going to the people who make the music nowadays. Crazy.

and theft is theft whichever way you look to legitimise it. Theft: a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property So, what say you of what isn't theft?

And that's not that big a deal, actually. Yeah, so it's no different except it's different. [Edit] Stealing a physical object you think is too expensive actually results in higher prices to cover for the loss of the products, if anything. Copying a digital object you wouldn't have bought in the first place is equivalent to not buying it, as far as the seller's concerned.

I don't think admitting you're a pirate requires much honesty.

11/1/2009: People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly. So at least when it comes to music, piracy doesn't seem to cause a devaluation, since downloaders are still willing to pay for it. It would have been interesting to have gauged every surveyed person's interest for music, though, since the ones saying they don't download illegally might just be the ones that don't care about music to begin with.

Makes sense. I'm sure they'll be duly compensated if they're not proven guilty anyway.

They could have warned them, though. I also don't see how it's fair that their assets were seized before they were proven guilty, but I'm no law expert.

Okay, thanks for the heads up, re-downloading my music collection (which I lost a few weeks ago) before the apocalypse.

I know this is no argument, but who names something "funny chat-log"? The whole thing felt dubious to me.

I'm not going to discuss freedom of expression because I too think it's a little far-fetched. Bad business sense, on the other hand, is a little more complicated. I think the big record labels are smart enough to know what they're doing isn't particularly effective in combating piracy, but if bills like SOPA are ever passed, they would dramatically reduce the power of smaller record companies and artists. The unfettered pursuit of private self-interest, through lobbying and the creation and maintenance of an oligopoly (the Internet is great for smaller record companies, but the big ones did better without it, and a hit to FB, Google, etc. is a hit to the competition) by entertainment giants is actually great business sense, and its consequence is cultural destruction and stagnation. Ideally, an artist would publish their work without having to bow to the will of an executive who thinks art is a commodity and cut out the parts that won't sell, yet manage to make enough to sustain this as his livelihood, and the Internet brings us closer to that than ever. Even if I can buy it, on the rare occasion an album I'm interested in is released on a major label, I'll pirate it. If not, I just won't get it. Also, how trustworthy is that indictment? Can the evidence they found be forged?