BEL: The record industry Gets Theirs 08-04-2003
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
What money? Can you quantify that? If you were a judge in a copyright infringement case, what would be the amount you would require the defendant to restore to the copyright holder?
And here is some research for you. When was the music industry doing better - when massive sharing was going on with Napster and Scour, or when the much less used P2P networks are used?
And here is some research for you. When was the music industry doing better - when massive sharing was going on with Napster and Scour, or when the much less used P2P networks are used?
By the way... Yorzhik came to visit!
What a great guy, and what a great family!!!
Although I disagree with you on this issue.
What a great guy, and what a great family!!!
Although I disagree with you on this issue.
Yes, we did come to visit, and it was really great to meet everyone and fellowship. You are all the best people, eldest to youngest, front to back, top to bottom, left to right, and all around. We are all looking forward to another chance to get out to Colorado again, God willing.
IF.... I have to buy the CD of my favorite artist at the record store my $17.99 goes to the record store, record producer and artist (in various sized portions).
IF... someone else copies that CD digitally and gives me a digital copy for free, then my $17.99 stays in my pocket.
Therefore the copy-er has just stole $17.99 from the record store, record producer and artist.
Yorzhik?
shilohproject
New member
Someone's income.
I really admire the folks that can answer quickly. But if it's more than a one-liner, I have to cut out serious time in my day to post. My apologies to everyone that deserves a snappy discussion.
So you are saying that everyone who copies the CD has stolen $17.99.
I'm not being a wise-guy here, but the next question is to establish your position and to see if you understand the issues: if 1 million illegal copies are made, is the publisher's bank account now $17,990,000 in the red?
So you are saying that everyone who copies the CD has stolen $17.99.
I'm not being a wise-guy here, but the next question is to establish your position and to see if you understand the issues: if 1 million illegal copies are made, is the publisher's bank account now $17,990,000 in the red?
You are correct that not all those that have taken a home-fabricated copy of a CD would have purchased one from the store. It is also true that it is possible that an individual who received a plagiarized copy of an artist will then go out and purchase a different album of theirs because of appreciation of the music. It is also possible that that same individual would copy the purchased album to share with those who shared with them. The possibilities are endless. However, just because the exact amount of loss is not quantifiable on a grand scale, by no means negates that the loss occurs. I would ask you, if you had the choice of receiving a free copy of an album from a friend and going out and purchasing it through legal channels, which would you do? What would you expect others to do? I think you would agree that unless plagued with an attitude of ethics, concern for an artist's financial welfare or fear of legal repercussions, the draw would be the most inexpensive route. If this is the case, then it is presumed that a loss has occurred through normal marketing channels. Even if there was no intention of purchasing an album ever, and the music is being downloaded from the web, usage is being realized without payment for said usage. In this scenario the few are paying for the enjoyment of many. Why should some pay and others get a free ride? It is difficult to morally justify copying CDs unless the implications are ignored.
Palto
Palto
No. Only those that copy it and then give it away to a potential buyer.
How could it be otherwise?
Lets say there are 10 people that are your potential customers and you have a music CD to sell them for $15 a piece.
Your potential profit is $150 assuming all your potential customers only buy one copy of the CD (it could be more assuming your customers buy more CD's as gifts or talk others into buying your CD).
Now lets say the first customer that buys your CD makes copies and gives them out to the remaining 9 potential customers.
That pirate has just stole $135 dollars from you.
Let me ask you.....
Do you think it should be illegal for a person to buy from WalMart a 18x24 inch poster.... say of Michael Jordan dunking a basketball.... scan it a very high resolution and then make prints and give them away or even sell them to other people who might have bought the poster at WalMart?
Okay, I thought we were talking about Napster style copying and that the "giving" meant "making available on the internet", but it comes out the same either way. Copy a CD that was purchased and give it away or copy a CD from Napster makes no difference to my argument.
So are you saying that everyone who gives a copy of a ripped CD has stolen $17.99 because everyone they give it to *would have* purchased the CD had it not been given to them?
Now, I realize your answer will be 'no' to that question so my next question is - then how do you quantify what is stolen if you cannot predict who would have bought the CD if it had not been ripped and given to them?
BTW, there are other good arguments why copyright is bad law, so I'd like to know if you would like me to add some? Or should we just stay with this discussion until it is done before we go to the next?
Oops, I forgot to answer your question to me:
If we had good laws, no. Now if Walmart has a process where they have every person sign a contract in order to buy the poster that states they promise not to copy the poster or have the poster somehow out of their control wherein someone else my copy it (in perpituity), and that no one can buy the poster who is under 18, then, yes.
BTW... if some can actually pull off undercutting Walmart on a poster with short run production equipment, then they deserve to have the poster copied and successfully sold by a competitor because they are overcharging for it. With short run production equipment... that would be a cool trick. I wonder why we don't see that happening much? I mean with posters. Music, there is a lot of that is being copied and ripped and given away, but you don't hear much about posters.
If we had good laws, no. Now if Walmart has a process where they have every person sign a contract in order to buy the poster that states they promise not to copy the poster or have the poster somehow out of their control wherein someone else my copy it (in perpituity), and that no one can buy the poster who is under 18, then, yes.
BTW... if some can actually pull off undercutting Walmart on a poster with short run production equipment, then they deserve to have the poster copied and successfully sold by a competitor because they are overcharging for it. With short run production equipment... that would be a cool trick. I wonder why we don't see that happening much? I mean with posters. Music, there is a lot of that is being copied and ripped and given away, but you don't hear much about posters.
Actually the Napster style is far worse right? After all.... making CD's has overhead. Yet giving away digital copies via the internet has far less overhead and in some cases NO overhead. Furthermore... it is difficult to distribute CD's yet easy to distribute digital copies therefore the crime can be committed faster and more often.
You continue...
Its pretty self evident isn't it?
If the person took the copy from the pirate, then to some extent that person desired the product..... and had the pirate not been available they would have most likely bought the product. We can't be positive they would have bought the product but we can be certain that they were a potential customer. Therefore at very least there is a quantified loss of a potential customer.
You continue...
Well first I would like you to agree that a quantified loss has occurred.
You continue...
OK... maybe posters are a bad example due to their relative low cost.
How about books? Or better yet manuscripts?
Lets say a good friend of ours is making a decent living selling his manuscript. Lets assume further that the manuscript is his life's work! Now do you think it would "OK" for another individual to copy that manuscript word for word make a pdf file of the document and start distributing it for free via their website. Would you agree that this person is stealing sales from the author?
First, there is no such thing as NO overhead. It always has to be taken into account.
Second, I'll take the "far worse" scenario. It works for me.
Quantified loss of a potential? You call that quantifying?
Justice cannot survive false accusations. You have to restore money actually lost; you cannot have the convicted paying back money that wasn't actually stolen!
Convicted - "Your honor, I only stole a VCR worth $100, isn't $10,000 restitution a bit beyond the crime?"
Judge - "That VCR had the potential of being a Museum piece in the future worth thousands. My judgement is totally just."
Potential doesn't mean anything.
And what do you mean - "most likely"? How do you know? Just because someone is willing to spend time and equipment (maybe pennies) to hear the CD does not mean they will "most likely" buy the CD if they were required to spend $17.99 on it! That's pure speculation you are relying on as the foundation of your case. "We can't be positive" is an understatement.
I can agree that the loss is not quantified. Can you agree that you are relying on unsubstantiated claims to make your argument?
Huh? I think the principle is valid. Can you admit that if a person where to try and copy a poster from Walmart they would merely be competition, not a piracy threat?
This is one of the reasons I like you Knight - this is a good argument.
Anyway. I guess this would be similar to a person who was expecting to make money off a translation of a manuscript.
Now to answer your question: no, if we had good laws the manuscript would make good money for the author whether that money was made directly or indirectly by the book itself. This assumes the manuscript is a good book (and we know that applies to the manuscript in question *thumbs up*).
Consider something else - if the manuscript were available online as a PDF everywhere (and it was a popular download), then would you spend any money to make your own copies to sell it? No, you wouldn't - but you would be getting great advertising with almost no effort. So your advertising costs would be very low, and your printing costs would be 0 as well. So is there a potential to make a net profit from that tiny investment? Perhaps you can figure out an answer to that question. Be creative.
- Status