Interview with DIEGO MILESI - 31. December 2008

January 31st, 2009 - 00:12

#32

dano

Newcomer

Offline

Joined:

December, 2006

Posts:

Really? Cause i think you're the naive one

But, like i've said, i understand what you're saying. But there's still a price on those bytes you download to your hardware & yada yada, that you have to pay! I know music isn't a physical object, duh, but that doesn't make it priceless! It's still a product with a price, that you have to pay. So it's still wrong, & it kind of is stealing.
Like i've written earlier, the artists don't get the money they should have when we download. I mean, making music is their job, they get their money for their music! That's why it's stealing, i know you're not taking anything from them, but you're screwing in paying them, which kind of is stealing. (not STEALING LIKE BEATING UP OLD LADY & TAKING HER CAR KEYS, but stealing in screwing to pay for something you should have payed for.)

Do you at least get my point in the whole thing? (a)

February 1st, 2009 - 16:39

#33

Würden

Administrator

Offline

Joined:

September, 2006

Posts:

Luc and Waust.. if you don't have anything interesting for the discussion to contribute with, please shut up.

And dano I understand you perfectly, I just don't think you understand me or the actual definition of the word "stealing". Let me quote your points:

dano wrote:

But, like i've said, i understand what you're saying. But there's still a price on those bytes you download to your hardware & yada yada, that you have to pay! I know music isn't a physical object, duh, but that doesn't make it priceless! It's still a product with a price, that you have to pay. So it's still wrong,

Yes! there is a price on those bytes, you do have to pay, it is a product with a price and it definetely is wrong! - and illegal for that matter.

Quote:

& it kind of is stealing.

No! You are right about everything except this part. Stealing is to commit theft and by downloading you do not commit theft.

Quote:

Like i've written earlier, the artists don't get the money they should have when we download. I mean, making music is their job, they get their money for their music! That's why it's stealing, i know you're not taking anything from them, but you're screwing in paying them, which kind of is stealing. (not STEALING LIKE BEATING UP OLD LADY & TAKING HER CAR KEYS, but stealing in screwing to pay for something you should have payed for.)

Basically it all started with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) claiming that downloading an album would be the same as stealing it in a store. But Unlike what happens off-line, the fact that I have an album in digital format doesn't keep you (and everyone else) from being able to listen to it but on the other hand if I took an album on a CD in a store everyone else would not be able to listen that album. That is why equating copyright violations to theft, as the RIAA and you do, is absurd and intellectually dishonest.

The essential aspect of theft is that something is taken from the owner without his or her permission - you wouldn't call it car theft if your next-door neighbors had a magic device which, by pointing it at your car, would instantaneously create for them a fully functional, identical copy while leaving your car unharmed.

The Supreme Court has even stated in a case from as early as 1985:

Quote:

"(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."

__________________

Vanni G original CD/Vinyl collection count: 114

Interested in writing reviews at IDP and get free music?
Then look here!

February 1st, 2009 - 20:32

#34

dano

Newcomer

Offline

Joined:

December, 2006

Posts:

CFE wrote:

No! You are right about everything except this part. Stealing is to commit theft and by downloading you do not commit theft.

Like i've writted, KIND OF stealing. I know you're not taking a physical object & committing theft, but, as i've written earlier, you screw in paying for something you should have! hmmm... It's like you offer the bunny next door a carrot for it's cute little toy you've always wanted. Then you wave the carrot in the bunny's face a little while, wait until the bunny agrees & gives you the toy, & then run off with the toy, & the carrot. & by that i mean; you take something you should pay for, & then.. don't pay for it. (but you don't fool the artists as in the bunny example.)

CFE wrote:

That is why equating copyright violations to theft, as the RIAA and you do, is absurd and intellectually dishonest.

I dont think it's theft, but it's still some kind of stealing, you have to admit that! When you download illegally you, as in my bad example above, screw in paying the price the song's really worth. The artist then never gets the money that you should have payed. That € you should have payed belongs to the artist, you downloaded his/her song! But you still have it in your wallet.. or pocket or whatever... (;

CFE wrote:

The essential aspect of theft is that something is taken from the owner without his or her permission - you wouldn't call it car theft if your next-door neighbors had a magic device which, by pointing it at your car, would instantaneously create for them a fully functional, identical copy while leaving your car unharmed.

Well, yes it kind of would

the company that made the car would loose money @ it, since you would screw in paying for the car & use the magic thingy.

Heeeey, we should write a book about this!

February 3rd, 2009 - 11:03

#35

Würden

Administrator

Offline

Joined:

September, 2006

Posts:

You are describing lost income as stealing dano. That is the same as the RIAA are saying. Because people are downloading music they lose income due to people downloading rather than buying. But that's another discussion!!

You can argue that taking someone's income (not literally but figuratively) is stealing it, but I don't agree.
I hope we can agree that downloading itself is not stealing, it is copying the bytes on another computer.

The other matter of discussion starts when what you download needs to be paid for (I'm sure we can agree that downloading free software is not stealing!).
RIAA argues that because of downloading their sales numbers are going down so they are losing income. It's the same with the car. With my magic device I copy the car of my neighboor and therefore the car company loses income - that's pretty obvious.

Or is it?
What if I didn't have the money to buy the car in the first place? - Then I would never have spent any money on any car and the car company wouldn't be able to say they lost income.

What if I didn't really needed a car I just copied it to try it a few times? - Then I would never buy it if I couldn't copy it and they didn't lose income either.

and thirdly what if I after I copied the car bought 3 other cars from the same company because I really liked the car? - Then the car company lost income for the first car but they gained income for 3 cars only because I was able to copy the first!
This would not happen if I couldn't copy it.

You can see dano, on one hand you can argue that the RIAA (and other associations) loses income due to downloading but on the other you have to consider the 3 points above.
So you can argue that you figuratively steal income by downloadig software which should be paid for, not literally because no one loses anything literally. I still think it is very wrong to call this stealing, even talking figuratively. And I must add that in a court of law - still - they don't care about figurative language, only literal language.

And by the way.. saying "kind of stealing" is too lose for argumentation.. either you steal or you don't.. there is no kind-of-stealing.

__________________

Vanni G original CD/Vinyl collection count: 114

Interested in writing reviews at IDP and get free music?
Then look here!

February 3rd, 2009 - 19:37

#36

dano

Newcomer

Offline

Joined:

December, 2006

Posts:

You've clearly pointed out that downloading isn't stealing, i get that.
Like i've written, you're not beating up someone & stealing their car keys & then driving off, but you're still taking something that should have been given to it's rightful owner.
So it isn't kind of stealing... it's a new messed up 2000-way of stealing, made up by the pirates.
So if it isn't stealing, as you're saying, there should be a new name for it. I suggest IllegalDownloadByteCopying-Stealing... : )

But yeah, sure - you're copying down the same bytes, as some pirate uploaded, to your computer, i agree on that. But what does the artist win on that?
If we say... 1000 people download the file the pirate uploaded, & the price of the song would be 1,2€. That would mean the artist would only get 1,2€, that the pirate payed for the song & then decided to share, when he/she should have gotten 1200€.
Yes, he/she looses income, but don't you think it's some sort of stealing? They've earned the money from you, for downloading the song, but they'll never get the money.

& if you didn't have the money in the first place, you wouldn't have been able to buy it! Let's say there were no computers or digital downloads, you couldn't have gone to the store & magically copy the CD at home, you would just have to buy it!
So yes, artists ALWAYS loose income when you're downloading illegally, even if you wouldn't have any money to offer in the first place.

&!!!!
like you mentioned, if you "liked the car alot & then bought 3 more.."
Then you would have to buy the one you "copied" & throw the copy away. Ok, thats sounds pretty impossible when you're talking about cars, but with music - thats kind of what i'm doing at the time!
If i find a song i REALLY like, i buy the album or single or whatever & throw the illegal copies away, which kind of makes up for it. Since i'm buying it & giving the arists the money they didn't get when i illegally downloaded it.

February 3rd, 2009 - 23:30

#37

Würden

Administrator

Offline

Joined:

September, 2006

Posts:

dano wrote:

So it isn't kind of stealing... it's a new messed up 2000-way of stealing, made up by the pirates. So if it isn't stealing, as you're saying, there should be a new name for it. I suggest IllegalDownloadByteCopying-Stealing... : )

I'm glad you finally agree that it isn't stealing, and you don't have to come up with a new name cause it already has one: copyright violation.

Regarding the lost income discussion - it was not something I intended to discuss here cause that's another discussion and another matter. You can argue that it is stealing figuratively as I mentioned. I just don't think it's stealing, because you don't steal anything from anyone literally you only violate copyright.

I do have one interesting question for you dano, say you are right downloading is stealing - what is the difference between stealing and violating copyright then?
Because there is a clear difference!

__________________

Vanni G original CD/Vinyl collection count: 114

Interested in writing reviews at IDP and get free music?
Then look here!

February 4th, 2009 - 18:49

#38

dano

Newcomer

Offline

Joined:

December, 2006

Posts:

I didn't say it wasn't stealing, i said it's a new form of stealing.

& i'm afraid i can't answer your question (cause i don't know... the meaning of copyright violation.. >:)
But if copyright violation is the same as screwing in paying for something you should have payed for, that has a copyright thingy protection on it, & keep the money belonging to somebody else.. then there's no difference between stealing & violating copyright.
Like i've said, not actually stealing like taking something belonging to someone else, in this kind you're just keeping the money you should have given to the artist.

February 22nd, 2009 - 15:08

#39

OrangeJuice

Newcomer

Offline

Joined:

February, 2007

Posts:

On the matter of how much the artist gets...
An artist on a major label gets about 4 cents on every 99 cents-song sold on iTunes... the really big artists get more maybe, but you're better off on an independent label as an artist I'm sure but you don't get the promotion...
The artists are kinda getting ripped off because the industry wants to keep their margins even if times have changed...
But well there are enough people that want to pay for legal files; last week Flo Rida - Right Round set a new record in the US, selling over 600.000 downloads in just one week

February 22nd, 2009 - 15:12

#40

Wausti

Moderator

Offline

Joined:

June, 2006

Posts:

OrangeJuice wrote:

On the matter of how much the artist gets... An artist on a major label gets about 4 cents on every 99 cents-song sold on iTunes... the really big artists get more maybe, but you're better off on an independent label as an artist I'm sure

but you don't get the promotion... The artists are kinda getting ripped off because the industry wants to keep their margins even if times have changed... But well there are enough people that want to pay for legal files; last week Flo Rida - Right Round set a new record in the US, selling over 600.000 downloads in just one week

They just got 600.000$ richer nice!

Main menu

Interview with DIEGO MILESI - 31. December 2008