KEVIN HILL wrote:
now i beleive that if its given 2 you its not a crime now if you buy it of the back of a UPS truck now it is...... dont we all buy DVD on Broadway n 34th street

Your belief would be wrong.  And no, we all don't.

MM Jen wrote:
It's disgusting that programs should cost so much. $999? Come on.

"It's disgusting that commercial photographs should cost so much. $9999? Come on."

"It's disgusting that portraits should cost so much. $99? For a piece of paper? Come on."

"It's disgusting that music CDs should cost so much. $9.99? For a disc that costs less than 10 cents? Come on."

Lamar Scott wrote:
Is it illegal for 5 people to use the same photoshop on 1 cpu? If so, Whats the difference between a copy of photoshop being on 1 cpu that 5 people use  or 5 copies of the same photoshop being on 5 different cpus. The fact is that 1 copy was bought and 5 people use it. So why would 1 be legal and the other not?

Because that's the way the laws were written in order for the consumer to  spend more $$.

Lamar Scott wrote:
Whats the difference between a copy of photoshop being on 1 cpu that 5 people use?

How different is that from buying one movie ticket and sneaking in five friends with you?

Lamar Scott wrote:
Is it illegal for 5 people to use the same photoshop on 1 cpu?

How different is that from buying one movie ticket and seeing five different movies?


Sidenote:
I feel what you're saying, and I agree with you.

KEVIN HILL wrote:
now i beleive that if its given 2 you its not a crime

If I steal a car & give it to you, is your ownership of the car legal?  No!  Does it matter if you know that the car is stolen?  No!  I understand you want it to be legal, but wanting it doesn't make it so. 

KEVIN HILL wrote:
Now y do we have about  over 11 millions of illegal immigrants in the US and they are not being sent back!!! well i tell you its for the same reason   one will buy a software at $800 and i will get it  for $20 n nothing will be done about it... ITS A PART OF THE ECONOMY

I don't understand your reference to illegal immigrants.

But the difference between paying full legal price & "paying" for a black market copy is this:  when you buy it legally, the folks who created & developed & support it are compensated, but when you obtain a illegal copy, they are not.  Thus, we here have intellectual property laws (like copyright & patent law) to protect & reward the people who created the intellectual property.

Lamar Scott wrote:
Is it illegal for 5 people to use the same photoshop on 1 cpu? If so, Whats the difference between a copy of photoshop being on 1 cpu that 5 people use  or 5 copies of the same photoshop being on 5 different cpus. The fact is that 1 copy was bought and 5 people use it. So why would 1 be legal and the other not?

It's marginal, but it is probably not illegal for 5 people to use one copy on one CPU, because your installation created only one copy.  Presumedly, your 5 people aren't using your software simultaneously.  However, if you install the software on 5 CPUs, you are creating 5 copies, and those copies can be used simultaneously -- it is as if the original software purchase is in competition with itself.

Look at it another way -- suppose you have a music CD, which you loan to a friend, who listens to it on their CD player.  That's legal -- while your friend has your CD, you don't have it, and only one copy is floating around your circle of friends.  But suppose you copy the CD onto your MP3 player, give the CD to the same friend, who copies it onto his/her MP3 player, and who then forwards it on to another friend.  That's illegal, because you are copying the CD in lieu of purchasing it.

Folks, it's called a copyright for a reason -- the copyright law clarifies who has a legal right to make a copy of the intellectual property.  Pretty much in all cases (music CDs, movie DVDs, software), you have a license to install it on your hard drive and perhaps on one or two more devices, but you typically don't have the right to make copies available to other users.

William Coleman wrote:
A model copied her PS 7 onto a CD for me, and I installed it.  I didn't ask her for it - she was just being nice - but I use it.  I'm a bad person.

She wasn't being nice -- she was involving you in a criminal act.

Karma says that it's okay for me to make a copy of the images on your portfolio & sell them for a profit.  Do you feel the same way when it's your copyright that's being violated?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

It's marginal, but it is probably not illegal for 5 people to use one copy on one CPU, because your installation created only one copy.  Presumedly, your 5 people aren't using your software simultaneously.  However, if you install the software on 5 CPUs, you are creating 5 copies, and those copies can be used simultaneously -- it is as if the original software purchase is in competition with itself.

Look at it another way -- suppose you have a music CD, which you loan to a friend, who listens to it on their CD player.  That's legal -- while your friend has your CD, you don't have it, and only one copy is floating around your circle of friends.  But suppose you copy the CD onto your MP3 player, give the CD to the same friend, who copies it onto his/her MP3 player, and who then forwards it on to another friend.  That's illegal, because you are copying the CD in lieu of purchasing it.

So, companies that create commercials depicting people making party mixes and burning them to cd's are in effect encouraging criminal behavior.  Shouldn't they be liable somehow?
How about if you burn the cd to your computer and listen to it there while your wife is listening to the original cd in the car?  How come no one worried too much about this in the 70's when you could make a cassette of an LP to listen to in your car... or when you made a "mix" tape for your girlfriend/boyfriend for valentine's day?
How come it was the RIAA who lobbied for music copyright protections and not BMI or ASCAP??  RIAA represents the recording industry, not artists.

ReallyRandy wrote:
Actually, there is an organisation called the Business Software Alliance (BSA) that tracks and tries to enforce pirating laws. Pirating mp3s and functional software are 2 different things.

The music business brought it upon themselves by being dishonest and greedy. As a 20 year veteran of the music industry I can tell you that you're not getting the full story. So don't feel sorry for them for 1 second.

Most people believe that if you make money from a software product, you should buy it.
At least they believe that in theory, maybe not in practice. As far as registration, activation, etc. and all the stuff to keep you from stealing well, that just keeps the good guys out. Lots of folks can crack anything in no time flat.

The price of software is NOT driven by piracy. 90% of the people who pirate would NOT buy the software if it was un-crackable. Therefore piracy doesn't really affect the bottom line even though both the music and software industry would like their bosses to believe that. What does drive the price is what people will pay, just like real estate. If no one buys, prices will drop.

Some random responses:  Please note that I, too, am in the music industry -- I'm a publisher, who is typically stuck between money grubbing music labels & ego-centric performers; I see all sides.

It is a fallacy to assume that just because a music label is allegedly "dishonest" or "greedy", that doesn't justify stealing from them.

I do feel sorry for music labels -- they have all but disappeared because they've either been absorbed by the Big 3 or they've been unable to stay afloat.  It is a tough, tough way to earn a living.

I believe that you should pay for the software products you use, regardless of whether you earn money from its use.  For example, I have a couple of games on my computer, and I've paid for them all.  I don't earn money from playing those games; that doesn't mean that they should be free.

Software protection doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be sufficient to discourage piracy in most of the cases.  Believe me, software companies don't care if someone doesn't obtain their software because it's difficult to copy illegally.

Software definitely is more difficult to crack than, say, a music CD.  So, you are right, illegal music copying is a much more difficult problem than illegal software copying.  One possible solution -- if music continues to be copying illegally, how long will it be before we see copy protections on music CDs?

Ian Weintraub wrote:
So, companies that create commercials depicting people making party mixes and burning them to cd's are in effect encouraging criminal behavior.  Shouldn't they be liable somehow?
How about if you burn the cd to your computer and listen to it there while your wife is listening to the original cd in the car?  How come no one worried too much about this in the 70's when you could make a cassette of an LP to listen to in your car... or when you made a "mix" tape for your girlfriend/boyfriend for valentine's day?
How come it was the RIAA who lobbied for music copyright protections and not BMI or ASCAP??  RIAA represents the recording industry, not artists.

Excellent questions -- these are addressed by the "Fair Use" clause in the copyright law, which gives you some flexibility on how to enjoy the intellectual property yourself (which can be extended to your immediate family). 

The issue about illegal music sharing (say, via P2P) is that by sharing music files, you are making thousands or millions of copies available to strangers.

Did you know that the RIAA receives money for each blank tape sold?  That's in compensation for those mix tapes that are floating around.

Do you want me to discuss "Fair Use" more?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Excellent questions -- these are addressed by the "Fair Use" clause in the copyright law, which gives you some flexibility on how to enjoy the intellectual property yourself (which can be extended to your immediate family). 

The issue about illegal music sharing (say, via P2P) is that by sharing music files, you are making thousands or millions of copies available to strangers.

Did you know that the RIAA receives money for each blank tape sold?  That's in compensation for those mix tapes that are floating around.

Do you want me to discuss "Fair Use" more?

Yes... say, in terms of the artist.  Do artists receive money for blank tapes sold?  Why not? 
And, as for RIAA receiving money for blank tapes sold... isn't that like turning a blind eye for a little cash under the table? Isn't that also a bit like extortion?? Isn't the artist who only uses blank tapes to duplicate their own works paying out a little extra for the blank tape to compensate for all of those who are going to violate the "fair use" clause?  And, isn't that the RIAA effectively penalizing the artist further for the "fair use" abuses of others?  I thought someone out there cared about the rights of artists?

[edit] Actually, don't waste your time replying.  I think this is a fundamental disagreement about the ethics of these laws.   Just because a law is in place, doesn't make it a good law. My belief is that laws like the anti-piracy are in place to protect corporations that distribute the works of others.  What really amazes me are all the artists that get up in arms about piracy issues after they've signed contracts with production or distribution companies that are doing the major fleecing in the first place. I don't have the desire or legal expertise to discuss this further.  It's just a feeling or instinct I have that it's not the college kid who shares songs via a P2P netowrk that's the problem.. it's the record companies (the pirates protected by the laws which they lobbied to have put in place) or the real pirates who bootleg works and sell them for profit.

If there is a legitimate reason for software to be so expensive in order to offset piracy, it's not the guy who shares (for free) the application with his buddy that's the problem.  It's the guy who "sells" the pirated software via mass distribution networks that is really digging into the software mfgr's profits.
The laws should make greater distinctions between the two.

Ian Weintraub wrote:
Yes... say, in terms of the artist.  Do artists receive money for blank tapes sold?  Why not? 
And, as for RIAA receiving money for blank tapes sold... isn't that like turning a blind eye for a little cash under the table? Isn't that also a bit like extortion?? Isn't the artist who only uses blank tapes to duplicate their own works paying out a little extra for the blank tape to compensate for all of those who are going to violate the "fair use" clause?  And, isn't that the RIAA effectively penalizing the artist further for the "fair use" abuses of others?  I thought someone out there cared about the rights of artists?

[edit] Actually, don't waste your time replying.  I think this is a fundamental disagreement about the ethics of these laws.   Just because a law is in place, doesn't make it a good law. My belief is that laws like the anti-piracy are in place to protect corporations that distribute the works of others.  What really amazes me are all the artists that get up in arms about piracy issues after they've signed contracts with production or distribution companies that are doing the major fleecing in the first place. I don't have the desire or legal expertise to discuss this further.  It's just a feeling or instinct I have that it's not the college kid who shares songs via a P2P netowrk that's the problem.. it's the record companies (the pirates protected by the laws which they lobbied to have put in place) or the real pirates who bootleg works and sell them for profit.

If there is a legitimate reason for software to be so expensive in order to offset piracy, it's not the guy who shares (for free) the application with his buddy that's the problem.  It's the guy who "sells" the pirated software via mass distribution networks that is really digging into the software mfgr's profits.
The laws should make greater distinctions between the two.

I apologize -- by talking about blank tapes & "fair use", I've confused the issue -- these two concepts are not overly related.

The underlying concept of "fair use" is that when you purchase, say, a music CD, you are free to enjoy it but not to distribute copies to others.  So, putting a purchased CD onto an MP3 player, or creating a mix tape for a party, or copying the music onto your home & office computer all would be covered under fair use.  Creating a mix tape & giving it away is a bit of a gray area, but is generally overlooked if/when done in moderation. 

In theory, the blank tape "surcharge" is distributed to the artists, writers, and publishers in the mechanical royalty rates -- it's not perfect, but it is as good an approximation as any.

I disagree -- intellectual property laws are in place to protect the owners of intellectual property, and that's not always a big corporation.  For example, your photographs are copyrighted, so someone can't steal your images & license them for use in an adult diaper ads without your approval.  As a photographer, I would expect you to appreciate copyright laws & their protections.

With regard to music, things are a lot more complicated.  When you say "artist", I would guess that you typically mean the song's performer, but more times than not, the performer is not the song's writer(s).  It is the writers who own the song's copyright (shared with the music publisher), and the writers/publishers get to decide where the song is placed (and for how much).  The record label owns the copyright of the master recording, and they can decide how to license the usage of the master recording.  When the master recording is placed somewhere, or when the master recording is sold on a CD, or when a master recording is played on the radio, the music label compensates the performer -- that's how the performers get paid. 

I'm trying to simplify this -- it really is much more complex.  Sorry if I'm confusing things.

I don't think anyone is arguing that software is so expensive because they have to offset the costs of piracy.  I think software piracy is less of an issue than music piracy, because there are reasonably effective digital rights management techniques being used for software.  I think software is more expensive because it takes a much larger group of people to produce the software package.  You are right that a fellow who mass produces & sells illegal software copies is a bigger issue than a buddy who makes a small number of copies for friends, but both are illegal.  That's why typical penalties are fines based on a "per copy" basis.  If you make a thousand illegal copies, your fine is likely to be a thousand times higher than if you made a single illegal copy.

Finally, I agree that we should limit discussion about the music industry on this forum.  Suffice to say that, in my opinion, there are lots of different people in the music industry, fulfilling lots of different roles, and practically each one of them feels that someone somewhere has cheated them out of money.

But I do believe that understanding copyright law is important to photographers, who create intellectual property copyrights when they create images.  Photographers should understand how they are protected.  And, I would think that people who create intellectual property should be more likely to respect other people's copyrights, regardless of whether those copyrights are held by a corporation or a single individual.

Ian Weintraub wrote:
Actually, don't waste your time replying.  I think this is a fundamental disagreement about the ethics of these laws.   Just because a law is in place, doesn't make it a good law. My belief is that laws like the anti-piracy are in place to protect corporations that distribute the works of others.  What really amazes me are all the artists that get up in arms about piracy issues after they've signed contracts with production or distribution companies that are doing the major fleecing in the first place. I don't have the desire or legal expertise to discuss this further.

One simple thing to consider, which doesn't require any loegal expertise (but does, alas, require some awareness of authored works').

The same laws that protect software (created from nothing) also protect music, books, photographs, artwork of other forms, films, and so-on.

They're based on the concept that compensating people for what they create is A Good Thing for society. Distributors and such change how it behaves in the Real World, but that's the idea behind the laws.

Ian Weintraub wrote:
If there is a legitimate reason for software to be so expensive in order to offset piracy, it's not the guy who shares (for free) the application with his buddy that's the problem.  It's the guy who "sells" the pirated software via mass distribution networks that is really digging into the software mfgr's profits.
The laws should make greater distinctions between the two.

Depends on the software and market.

I've worked at software companies where a single license for the software we sold cost over $50,000. One single copy "given to a buddy" could mean one less sale (usually did, in fact, as it was specialized software, and the only people who used it really needed it--all the other alternatives cost 5-10+ times as much)--which related to a $50K "loss". One buddy.

How many "buddies" are there for Photoshop, Illustrator, Maya, LightWave, MS Office, etc.? While most of these have real alternatives, each freebie at least potentially costs a sale.

Trying to fine-tune an intelligent and effective law to separate these would be beyond the abilities shown by any of our legislative bodies.

Lamar Scott wrote:
well fortunately I borrowed my copy from limewire(filesharing program). I planned on giving it back but it was impossible for me to give it back so I kept it. I didnt know sharing was illegal. The bible says we should all share.lmao

"Sharing", in this case, is a euphemism for violating a copyright, which is akin to stealing.  The person doing the so-called "sharing" had no rights to share the product in the first place, and your acceptance of the "shared" product doesn't not benefit the people who created the product.  I don't care what term you use to sanitize your action, it is still wrong for you to cheat the creators of the program out of their justly due revenue.

>>>  Why is it impossible to "give it back", or to delete it.

>>>  Where does the bible say it's okay to steal?  I seem to remember that one
        of those pesky Ten Commandments speaks to stealing.

>>>  Now you know it is illegal.  What are you going to do?

Going back to the premise of the original post, it is surprising that some of us involved in the creation of photographs are so willing to ignore copyright protections so easily.

Chris Ambler wrote:
Also, most large software companies have company stores for employees. Make friends with one. I'm ex-Microsoft, myself, and am constantly hit-up by friends and family to pick up Windows for them at the company store (NB: No, I can't do this for you, as there's a dollar limit we get to spend, and I hit it every year).

Not to mention student versions.  Walk into your local university or community college...and pick up a full version of photoshop for a fraction of the price.

Devana wrote:
Quite honestly, when it comes to music, I've downloaded illegally before. Do I feel bad? NO. Will I do it again? Probably. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to pay $15 for some crappy-ass CD with 2 good songs on it, just so I can say I'm an honest consumer with "good karma".

Honesty isn't particularly valuable to you?

Devana wrote:
Put out something that's worth paying for, and put it out at a fair price and then we'll see how things turn around.

In other words, if you want something that costs more than you want to pay, you feel justified in stealing it. Did I understand you correctly?

Lamar Scott wrote:
Is it illegal for 5 people to use the same photoshop on 1 cpu? If so, Whats the difference between a copy of photoshop being on 1 cpu that 5 people use  or 5 copies of the same photoshop being on 5 different cpus. The fact is that 1 copy was bought and 5 people use it. So why would 1 be legal and the other not?

Folks, the license that comes with your software is not a law it's a contract. In some cases the contract may bind you more closely than mere copyright law, and it behooves you to understand what you're agreeing to by installing the software. Virtually every software license includes a shrink-wrap clause that basically says "by installing this software you agree to be bound by the terms of this license." Some software licenses contain penalty clauses in the license, so if you're violating the license you're agreeing to pay additional damages. Some licenses say things like "if you install this on a file server and access it from 3 machines simultaneously you owe us for 3 copies."  I know this because I worked with a company back in the 80's that put DbaseIII on a file server "so everyone could use it." They wound up owing a license for every employee in the company that had access to the file server - even secretaries. If you look at the licenses for some products like Oracle it's not by the CPU it's based on the number of people accessing the database, etc.

There are organizations like SPA (Software Publishers Alliance) and BSA (Business Software Alliance) that file lawsuits on behalf of vendors that have had their software licenses violated. SPA and BSA get to keep a percentage of whatever they win as their "fee" - usually they aren't going to go after a small timer or a home user but there have been cases of companies that have wound up paying hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, when they're caught violating licenses.

For most small time software thieves it doesn't matter (unless you believe in god, in which case you'll go to hell for being a thief) because they're below the radar screen, but you really need to know what you're doing when it comes to software licenses!!!

mjr.

Intensity wrote:
I know I might get alot of people  going to yelled at me for this. But you are just jealous that you had to pay and they didn't. admit it! lol

Nope.  I create intellectual property when I create a photograph.  I want to be protected against people stealing that photograph & using it for their gain & not mine. 

It's not about the money -- it's about what's right & what's wrong.  It's about treating people the same way I want to be treated.

s. jenx wrote:
Not to mention student versions.  Walk into your local university or community college...and pick up a full version of photoshop for a fraction of the price.

Now, if you aren't a college student, wouldn't that be fraud?  Geez, folks -- stop looking for a free ride.  Some of these ideas are simply not the right thing to do.

jac3950 wrote:
There is something ironic in this discussion of copyright as it applies to software et al, that no one has mention photography. I mean, if 1 photographer on MM took a really great photo, could 5 of us copy it and put it up on our portfolios and clain that it belonged to us? hmmmm...

You know, that's a great point!!!

Extend it further: if you were a photographer, and you spent $30,000 to hire models and MUAs and design sets and do printing so you could make a calendar - and someone scanned it and posted it on the web because you "wanted to charge more than it was worth" you'd be pretty freakin' mad!!!

I ran a software start-up for 4 years; I founded it in 1997 by borrowing $1.5million from a group of investors. Getting the money took 4 months of phone calls and hard work and a trip to the hospital for stress-related collapse. Then, a year of hard work for me and 6 guys and we had our product ready to sell! Our product sold for $2000 a copy, and - sure - there were folks who complained that "$2000 is a lot!" but they didn't understand that that $2000 was repaying our investors, paying the rent on our office space, paying the salaries to 12 people, paying taxes, health insurance, yadda yadda yadda yadda.

When I see some lame-ass punk trying to make excuses for stealing software it makes me want to puke. You think software's too expensive? Try WRITING YOUR OWN if you want it "cheap" and you'll get an idea how much hard work goes into creating something like photoshop. I can't even IMAGINE how many hours of hard thinking and coding went into photoshop -- it must have cost Adobe literally hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, maintain, and enhance. I know people who think, for example, that playstation games are overpriced -- but they don't realize that something like Metal Gear Solid employs 32 programmers and 120 artists for a full year. Add computers and office space and so on and so forth and you're talking a budget that's about $100 million to produce a game like that. And some lame-ass punk thinks it's too much to shell out $40 for, and rips it off instead of flipping a few more burgers or whatever and earning what they're taking.

mjr.

Devana wrote:
Quite honestly, when it comes to music, I've downloaded illegally before. Do I feel bad? NO. Will I do it again? Probably. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to pay $15 for some crappy-ass CD with 2 good songs on it, just so I can say I'm an honest consumer with "good karma".

You know what?? You look like you're a $3/hr model to me - not whatever you think you're worth. Maybe you think you're worth $100/hr but I'm not gonna pay $100/hr just so I can say I'm an honest photographer with "good" karma.

mjr.

Devana wrote:
Quite honestly, when it comes to music, I've downloaded illegally before. Do I feel bad? NO.

Well, I don't find anything honest or morally appropriate about that.

Devana wrote:
Will I do it again? Probably. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to pay $15 for some crappy-ass CD with 2 good songs on it, just so I can say I'm an honest consumer with "good karma".

Well, why not simply download the songs you like legally from a legal download site?

Devana wrote:
Especially, when I'm just making someone who could buy everything I own, 50 times over, richer. That includes the label executives, artists, producers, and song-writers.

Well, I hope that comforts you, but perhaps it would interest you to know that 90% of the albums that are released fail to break even?  Perhaps you don't want to know that most record labels have gone belly-up because they can't remain profitable, and the 3 record labels left don't take chances?

Or perhaps you are just saying that it makes the most sense to steal from people who have money?  Hey, you have money -- you paid for all that expensive equipment.  Can we steal your photographs?

Devana wrote:
I pay for certain songs individually and that's it.

Just a little while ago, you admitted that you'll probably steal those songs, not pay for them individually.

Devana wrote:
Record labels don't operate on good karma, and in my opinion they're getting what they deserve for screwing people over for so long.

Saying that record labels screw people over for so long is like saying photographers rape their models.  Some do; most don't.  And like that photographer analogy, those that do screw around don't stay in business for long.

Devana wrote:
Put out something that's worth paying for, and put it out at a fair price and then we'll see how things turn around.

That's funny.  Because of rampant copyright violation, the marginal / experimental / advant garde record labels have gone out of business, and the corner music stores have also all but disappeared.  The 2-3 record labels that are left are aware the 90% of the albums being released fail to break even, so they release "safe", "sure-fire" albums that sound like the ones that were successful in the past.  Don't blame the record labels -- blame yourself.

Devana wrote:
Maybe I should feel worse about this. I don't go around stealing candy bars from newsstands. But somehow, I just don't feel verysypmathetic to their plight. Sorry.

Not feeling sympathetic is not the same thing as actively participating in the problem by obtaining music illegally.

I'm sorry -- I don't have much sympathy for you.  I'm not at all upset by the RIAA lawsuits against grandparents & 11 year old children who get caught with illegally downloaded music.  Look, if you can't afford something, learn to do without.  Thinking that the price is too high is not justification for stealing it.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

You know what?? You look like you're a $3/hr model to me - not whatever you think you're worth. Maybe you think you're worth $100/hr but I'm not gonna pay $100/hr just so I can say I'm an honest photographer with "good" karma.

mjr.

I thought personal attacks were prohibited?

Maybe you think I'm a $3/hr model. I don't know if you're being literal, but I'll assume you are. I don't quote any prices in my port so I don't know what you're talking about. If I were to quote you a price like that, then you have every right to refuse, and move on to someone you deem worthy of your money. But a person isn't the same thing as a song, so the analogy (if you were in fact trying to make a valid one) doesn't hold up.

Like I said before, call me dishonest, call me whatever you want. Does it make a difference? Nope. People to tend to get really high and mighty when they're just words on a screen.

Devana wrote:
[Maybe you think I'm a $3/hr model. I don't know if you're being literal, but I'll assume you are. I don't quote any prices in my port so I don't know what you're talking about. If I were to quote you a price like that, then you have every right to refuse, and move on to someone you deem worthy of your money. But a person isn't the same thing as a song, so the analogy (if you were in fact trying to make a valid one) doesn't hold up.

It seems Marcus was too subtle.

Using the reasoning you stated earlier, if he wanted to work with you, but felt your rates were too high, he would be justified in shooting you for free, giving you no choice in the matter--simply because he wanted to.

Your choice to steal music you like because it's too expensive by your standards is the same thing. You're taking someone else's work, not paying for it, and giving them no choice in the matter, simply because you want to.

If they could refuse, as you said you would, it might be different. Since they can't--you just take it--it's comparable to your being required to work for free, without the option of refusal.

Does that help?

Devana wrote:
I thought personal attacks were prohibited?

I was trying to illustrate your own logic applied against you. And, hey, you thought it was a personal attack.

Devana wrote:
Maybe you think I'm a $3/hr model. I don't know if you're being literal, but I'll assume you are. I don't quote any prices in my port so I don't know what you're talking about. If I were to quote you a price like that, then you have every right to refuse, and move on to someone you deem worthy of your money.

No, you didn't get the point at all. I was trying to illustrate how, if you feel that music isn't priced properly and isn't worth it - you steal it. The music company doesn't have the choice you're describing above, of choosing to sell to a different customer. What you're doing to the music companies is the equivalent of if someone didn't think you were worth whatever you think you're worth and decided to just cut your prices for you and you couldn't do anything about it.


If you don't like the price of the music, then don't listen to it. If you like it enough to listen to it, then buy it. Same applies if you're buying/selling software, the services of a model, or whatever. Same applies whether it's you doing the stealing or the stealing's being done to you.

My guess is you'd get upset if I wanted your car and didn't like what you wanted to charge for it, so I just took it.

mjr.

Intensity wrote:
I know I might get alot of people  going to yelled at me for this. But you are just jealous that you had to pay and they didn't. admit it! lol

and just wait til you do the same thing and see how you feel.

Devana wrote:
People to tend to get really high and mighty when they're just words on a screen.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think protecting the concept and application of copyright is very important, and I'm just as "high and mighty" face to face, and have had several heated discussions about it.  Stealing isn't cool.  Period. 

"Character is manifested in the way you behave when you are alone in someone else's house." - my Mama

Think about it.

Devana wrote:
Quite honestly, when it comes to music, I've downloaded illegally before. Do I feel bad? NO. Will I do it again? Probably. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to pay $15 for some crappy-ass CD with 2 good songs on it, just so I can say I'm an honest consumer with "good karma". Especially, when I'm just making someone who could buy everything I own, 50 times over, richer. That includes the label executives, artists, producers, and song-writers. I pay for certain songs individually and that's it. Record labels don't operate on good karma, and in my opinion they're getting what they deserve for screwing people over for so long. 

Put out something that's worth paying for, and put it out at a fair price and then we'll see how things turn around. Maybe I should feel worse about this. I don't go around stealing candy bars from newsstands. But somehow, I just don't feel verysypmathetic to their plight. Sorry.

Like it or not, this is a capsule version of what most consumers feel about digital copyright issues.  Until manufacturers are willing to address this perception in a constructive manner [no, threats and fines and rockstars whining isn't constructive], people will continue to have an "us v. them" construct.

In a lot of ways, this mirrors the mistrust that's built up between photographers adn models, but that's something for another thread.