Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How is the artist not losing money? Just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean the artist isn't losing money. Every copy out there that hasn't been paid for is money the artist didn't make.The artist isn't losing money, because for the most part I wasn't a target for the product in the first place thanks to money issues.
Wow. Just wow.its not really theft, because if the product is only being copied and not physically stolen.
Cory said:For me -- for pretty much every writer -- the big problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity (thanks to Tim O'Reilly for this great aphorism). Of all the people who failed to buy this book today, the majority did so because they never heard of it, not because someone gave them a free copy. Mega-hit best-sellers in science fiction sell half a million copies -- in a world where 175,000 attend the San Diego Comic Con alone, you've got to figure that most of the people who "like science fiction" (and related geeky stuff like comics, games, Linux, and so on) just don't really buy books. I'm more interested in getting more of that wider audience into the tent than making sure that everyone who's in the tent bought a ticket to be there.
...
So ebooks sell print books. Every writer I've heard of who's tried giving away ebooks to promote paper books has come back to do it again. That's the commercial case for doing free ebooks.
Now, onto the artistic case. It's the twenty-first century. Copying stuff is never, ever going to get any harder than it is today (or if it does, it'll be because civilization has collapsed, at which point we'll have other problems). Hard drives aren't going to get bulkier, more expensive, or less capacious. Networks won't get slower or harder to access. If you're not making art with the intention of having it copied, you're not really making art for the twenty-first century. There's something charming about making work you don't want to be copied, in the same way that it's nice to go to a Pioneer Village and see the olde-timey blacksmith shoeing a horse at his traditional forge. But it's hardly, you know, contemporary. I'm a science fiction writer. It's my job to write about the future (on a good day) or at least the present. Art that's not supposed to be copied is from the past.
Finally, let's look at the moral case. Copying stuff is natural. It's how we learn (copying our parents and the people around us). My first story, written when I was six, was an excited re-telling of Star Wars, which I'd just seen in the theater. Now that the Internet -- the world's most efficient copying machine -- is pretty much everywhere, our copying instinct is just going to play out more and more. There's no way I can stop my readers, and if I tried, I'd be a hypocrite: when I was 17, I was making mix-tapes, photocopying stories, and generally copying in every way I could imagine. If the Internet had been around then, I'd have been using it to copy as much as I possibly could.
There's no way to stop it, and the people who try end up doing more harm than piracy ever did. The record industry's ridiculous holy war against file-sharers (more than 20,000 music fans sued and counting!) exemplifies the absurdity of trying to get the food-coloring out of the swimming pool. If the choice is between allowing copying or being a frothing bully lashing out at anything he can reach, I choose the former.
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that if I steal a car from a lot and then decide to buy one because I liked the way it drove that's fine because it's advertising? What rubbish. Theft is theft.
Again, what are you talking about? How is the owner not losing? You just stole something! No matter what or how you steal something somebody still loses money. Theft is theft. If I steal a television that I can't afford (and therefore wouldn't buy) that's OK because I wouldn't have bought it under normal circumstances? What rubbish! Who wouldn't take a television if it were being offered free?
In both cases it is stealing. Look it up in the dictionary.
How is the artist not losing money? Just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean the artist isn't losing money. Every copy out there that hasn't been paid for is money the artist didn't make.
Wow. Just wow.
Let's live the dream here for a moment. Imagine this:
Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. Every copy sells and makes you money. Millions of copies are sold. Awesome_Frog becomes a multi-millionnaire. Life is sweet
Reality in Awesome_Frog's world: Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. A few copies are sold but people don't buy it because they can copy it. It's not theft. Awesome_Frog is left flipping burgers. Life sucks.
Back when I did downlaod, I did it because I couldn't afford it. The artist never lost money from me, because I never had the money to give them. Potential money dosen't exist. The artist either sold copies or not.How is the artist not losing money? Just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean the artist isn't losing money. Every copy out there that hasn't been paid for is money the artist didn't make.
Actually, I would barely see any of the money from the millions sold. After my recording costs, there are advertising costs, equipment costs, the record company would then take their cut, and on it goes.Let's live the dream here for a moment. Imagine this:
Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. Every copy sells and makes you money. Millions of copies are sold. Awesome_Frog becomes a multi-millionnaire. Life is sweet
That's the reality of art. Though, if I made a hit, I would be touring and making money back that way.Reality in Awesome_Frog's world: Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. A few copies are sold but people don't buy it because they can copy it. It's not theft. Awesome_Frog is left flipping burgers. Life sucks.
That's called competition and my song sold more copies. In my scenario somebody else publishes Awesome_Frog's song and no sales are made. Not the same thingAwesome_Frog writes a massive hit. Bungle_Bear writes an even better one. People don't buy Awesome_Frog's because they all bought Bungle_Bear's instead. If causing sells to not occur is a form of theft, then Bungle_Bear is in trouble.
In the end, causing sells to not occur is not a form of theft. There is a different crime, copyright infringement, but it is not theft.
Substitute a CD from a shop and a boxed software application above. Now we have a physical object in the mix. And that's what we're really talking about, isn't it? Is it acceptable to steal (or do you prefer burglarize?) a physical copy of the song or code?Wow. Way to completely, utterly miss the point.
A song is not a car. A car is a physical object that has value in and of itself, and when a car is stolen the owner actually loses that value and is deprived of the use of the car. A song is composed of information with no intrinsic value. When a song is downloaded, nobody loses anything. And my post specifically addressed the flaws of the argument that the owner loses income- no, the owner does NOT always lose income. That was the whole point of my post.
Again, you completely and utterly missed the point of my post. A television is not a song. A television is a physical object that has value in and of itself, and when a television is stolen the owner actually loses that value and is deprived of the use of the television. When a song is downloaded, nobody loses anything. Any my post specifically addressed the flaws of the argument that the owner loses income- no, the owner does NOT always lose income. That was the whole point of my post.
No, YOU should look it up in the dictionary. First of all there is no such crime as "stealing". Instead there is larceny, burglary and robbery. Downloading music is none of the above.
Substitute a CD from a shop and a boxed software application above. Now we have a physical object in the mix. And that's what we're really talking about, isn't it? Is it acceptable to steal (or do you prefer burglarize?) a physical copy of the song or code?
No, because that would be denying someone of their object in favour of your fun. Grabbing a file from the internet is the literal equivalent of cloning an item in reality. It is understandable to not agree with file sharing, but please, don't misrepresent people by calling it theft when it is not.Substitute a CD from a shop and a boxed software application above. Now we have a physical object in the mix. And that's what we're really talking about, isn't it? Is it acceptable to steal (or do you prefer burglarize?) a physical copy of the song or code?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?