Because some people don't respect something called "copyright infringement". But as soon as you call it something people understand is wrong, they understand it as well.
Edit: Also, did you read the article?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's New Music Royalty Proposal Would Make Streaming Costlier for Free Services Like Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because some people don't respect something called "copyright infringement". But as soon as you call it something people understand is wrong, they understand it as well.
Edit: Also, did you read the article?
Daring to offer 3 month free trial Apple Music without paying artists for example.
Take look at this picture and this link:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...s-decreasing-you-havent-looked-at-the-data-2/
Even though the picture was from 2011. I doubt any significant has changed.
Apparently 70% users thinking piracy is no issue.
Attachments
So 3 month trail without paying artist is OK, but not just use Spodify without pay.
Heck, even Apple tried to not pay artist during free trail period. But it is totally good for Apple. Because business there to make money right?
No, it isn't right. I'm simply stating that what they did is the industry normal. So unless you're saying the entire streaming industry is messed up? Heck, Pandora doesn't even pay the slim amount Spotify does. I'm simply saying we shouldn't act so surprised.
I did read the article. Other than in the title and conclusion, it made no argument what so ever that explained why piracy should be considered theft. It made lots of arguments saying piracy is wrong, with which I agree. But I disagree that it should be categorized as theft.
I also read the book called Thirteen Ways to Steal a Bike, (https://www.amazon.com/Thirteen-Ways-Steal-Bicycle-Information/dp/0674047311) which I think makes a very good case that it is actually counter-productive to categorize some things as "theft," particularly things that are really more like illegal copying.
One example from the book that I really like is the theoretical infinite theater. We can agree that sneaking into a theater is wrong. If a theater has 60 seats, but sold only 50 for a particular showing a movie, and someone sneaks in and take one of those seats, it's wrong. A theft has occurred because a scarce resource (seat) has been converted. If 10 more paying customers walk in, either one of them wouldn't be able to sit (is deprived) or would need to enforce the rules to kick the intruder out. What if the theater is infinite in size, with unlimited seats. In that scenario, sneaking is not really converting anything because nobody is being deprived. The theater can continue to sell seats to paying customers, and enforcement is never strictly speaking required for an honest patron to get what they paid for. Of course sneaking in that scenario is still wrong, but it's something else, something different.
The article you linked, and many others, argue about the earning deprivation. Piracy deprives the rightful content owner of an earning. First, this is not theft either. Stealing a CD from a CD store is theft because the store-owner paid for that CD, and the store owner loses the amount he/she paid for it. Depriving the store-owner of his/her mark-up on that CD is not what makes it theft. Second, the earning deprivation argument is premised on the idea that but for the piracy, that download would have been a sale. Actual data on the subject suggests the opposite - people who download illegally typically wouldn't have bought whatever it is they downloaded. This is less true with games, and most true with movies. In most cases, people pirate as a way to time-shift their entertainment. For example, before HBO-GO, even legit HBO subscribers would pirate HBO content so they can watch it whenever they want, rather than on HBO's schedule. HBO solved this by allowing them to do it legally with HBO-GO.
In terms of respect, as you said, I think everyone at this point knows that downloading illegal copies is wrong. People know the difference between Spotify's free tier and some cd-ripping website. Yet some still choose to use the latter. Calling it theft isn't going to change that one bit. Calling it theft only confuses the issue. Theft is bad. Illegal downloading is also bad. The way you deal with theft is security systems, locks, safes, cameras, etc. The way you deal with illegal downloading is entire different - security systems, locks, safes, and cameras will not help.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I point you to LovingTeddy who I have been arguing with this entire time.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Which I don't believe I justify at anywhere. If you think so then sorry. Other than that, let us just go separTe ways.
I guess we are talking about different.
I go use Spodify, Google Music free. I also use QQ Music and streaming videos from online site for free.
I don't see how I am responsible for what Spodify or Google pay artist. I just use their free tire.
If something is legal and free, I don't see why not use free one.
I also gonna say that if all legal means of free streaming is gone, I will restore to pirating. If there is a legal way, I will do so.
Yeah.
I didn't read the book, but this is a good analysis, I can see it.
Recall one statement: "the best way to suppress piracy is to provide enough value or even better value on genuine product than on pirated product to attract customers buying them". Not the same but similar idea. I sort of appreciate how Japanese companies selling their BD-BOXes. Through including some serial numbers, customers who buys them can use those numbers to redeem exclusive items in, say, a game, which for pirate users, is obviously not the case whatsoever. Such are added values, and those values can attract more potential customers to buy product, rather than just downloading.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Yeah.
I didn't read the book, but this is a good analysis, I can see it.
Recall one statement: "the best way to suppress piracy is to provide enough value or even better value on genuine product than on pirated product to attract customers buying them". Not the same but similar idea. I sort of appreciate how Japanese companies selling their BD-BOXes. Through including some serial numbers, customers who buys them can use those numbers to redeem exclusive items in, say, a game, which for pirate users, is obviously not the case whatsoever. Such are added values, and those values can attract more potential customers to buy product, rather than just downloading.
Yes, I agree. Games have done this pretty well. I think some content-owners such as Netflix and HBO have done a pretty good job of this too. Of course neither has eliminated piracy, but they've done a good job of converting former illegal downloaders. Some artists have seen success selling music that comes with something special with is physical, such as a vynil record, a photo book, etc.
I think one obvious thing that hasn't been taken advantage of much yet is tickets. Imagine if a CD or legal music downloads came with a code that let you pre-order concert tickets at a fair price, before that concert went on general sale and even before the fan-club or any other special citicard or amex pre-orders? It would have the double-effect of also reducing scalpers.
Look, when two people both want to play the same saxophone, who are you to stand in the way of their happiness?
[doublepost=1468872442][/doublepost]
And if a lot of people commit murder, that makes murder reasonable, moral, and okay, right?
Then Mr/Ms Petsounds - you obviously don't understand the mathematical implications of your statement. It will harm you as a musician, it might help you as a stockholder of Apple. I already posted what the proposal would mean mathematically speaking - its on Page 13 of this thread.
Very thoughtful and well-reasoned post, thanks. A few points:
1) You point to the argument that "people who download illegally typically wouldn't have bought whatever it is they downloaded". This, on an individual basis, was one of the main rallying cries in the heyday of Napster, "well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway" (how convenient that it fell in that window between, "I'm not at all interested" and "I want it enough to pay"). The problem is, looking at it from a statistical level, if it was available to illegally download, 100 Napster-afficianados would download it, but if, on the other hand, it wasn't available to illegally download, 95 Napster-afficianados would have gone off to find something else to plunder and done without the album in question, while the remaining 5 actually would have bought the album (whether it's 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 is debatable, but isn't really important at the moment), despite their protestations to the contrary. Aside from all 100 of those folks committing an immoral/unethical/illegal act (take your pick) in the former case, the availability of the "free" illegal download has cost the company 5 (or 2 or 10) actual real sales. Multiplied by millions, it adds up.
2) Agreed, the word "theft" is not a great fit in the traditional sense. But works quite well in the sense of "taking something which is not yours against the wishes of the person who owns it". The word "piracy" is also a poor choice (not only are the bad folks not taking over physical ships on the high seas, but it gives them a whole enticing lore to draw from in trying to paint themselves as underdogs, somehow fighting against "the man"). The problem is, if you say "copyright infringement", the vast majority of people will either look confused, or wave it off as "not a real crime". And, again, it very much is theft in the sense of taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission.
3) Re "I think everyone at this point knows that downloading illegal copies is wrong". Do they? Teddy has spent many pages arguing strenuously that it isn't wrong. I'm not sure I believe his stance (is he upholding something he truly believes, or trying to assuage his guilt?). But it's entirely possible than there are many other folks out there who truly do not feel that they are engaging in an immoral/unethical/illegal act when they download "free stuff". Calling it theft, in that case, may get their attention.
As an aside, one of the other common arguments put forth in the heyday of Napster was that these folks considered themselves underdogs, fighting "the man". It always sounded to me a lot like that tipping point where "protest" turns into "looting": "Hey! Fight the power! Fight the man! CD prices are too high! I'm so enraged I'm gonna throw a rock through a store window! Oh, and while I'm at it, I could use a free microwave oven, and some free Britney Spears CD's." Thus, I've always thought of such people as looters. "Protesting" while availing themselves of the music produced by the companies they were "fighting" against - a real protester would loudly and publicly refuse to buy or listen to any music from the big bad Music Industry.
[doublepost=1468875252][/doublepost]
So you only follow laws or any sort of moral code when it is convenient to you to do so. The slightest bit of inconvenience and you resort to illegal activities.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I love this response. Thank you as well.
1) Certainly the existence of illegal file-sharing removes some number of sales on a macro level. On a micro level, looking at individual people, I don't think it can be said that it does. So when someone says, ThePirateBay costs legitimate stores X sales per million downloads, I agree. When someone says, someone who illegally downloads cost a legitimate store one sale, I disagree. I actually think this is the crux of the problem. What policy, that would dissuade a million downloads from ThePirateBay, be worth it to save X legitimate sales? The cost of the policy, (implementation, etc), in theory should be less than the value of those sales, right?
2) If we are arguing semantics, which this debate is, I take issue with your definition of taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission. First, as I said earlier, I think the semantics are important as they frame the problem, and thus guide the solution. Second, until I hear something better, I prefer to call it "illegal downloading." I think that is the most honest thing to call it. I agree that "copyright infringement" is too complex of a phrase that encompasses a whole lot more than the illegal downloads, and that most people don't understand. Finally, it's not "taking." It's copying. I think it's important we call the act what it actually is. So illegal downloading is copying without permission a file that doesn't belong to you.
3) Maybe that's right. As I said in (1) above, the issue is how do we convert as many as possible of these folks over the legal ways at a cost that is proportional the benefit. You have to recognize, you won't be able to convert 100% of these folks. Some Neo-Matrix-Wannabes will continue to download stuff illegally. Likewise, some are easy to convert over by just providing with an product that is easier - like Spotify. There is no doubt that Spotify is way easier than torrenting.
4) Responding to your final point, I think there is value to this grey/black market on the internet. Some policies are objectively unfair, and sometimes it takes illegal action to point this out and break it up. Napster certainly aided in exposing and breaking down the CD price collusion problem. That was also illegal by the way. Some countries censor content and thus their citizens don't have access to music with political messages or affiliations (China, formally Cuba, etc). Some international treaties consider this a violation of human rights. Some are just patently anti-consumer behavior, like region blocking or releasing only neutered versions (ahem, star wars). So while I agree that some kid sitting on his $3000 Alienware laptop shouldn't whine about having to pay for Call of Duty, there is some value in having these networks.
It's funny, because the "old media" companies (Comcast, Sony, Viacom, etc) are the ones that sort of caused all of this mess, and they're the ones that tried to litigate their way out of it. But it's the "new media" companies (Netflix, Spotify, Apple, etc) that have done more to stop piracy than any of the old media's litigation or lobbying.
These are the winning arguments:
- Why bother torrenting when you can Netflix and chill?
- Why bother with sketchy .rar downloads when Spotify gives you access to nearly all music?
- Are you really going to explain to your mother how to use PopcornTime?
- Your girlfriend wants to watch The Bachelor now, and isn't going to wait for you to find someone seeding S06E08. Get Hulu.
Those are the arguments that work. Note that none of them categorize illegal downloading as theft. Instead they categorize it as competition, and they ask, how many people are willing to pay $X per month for the convenience of it, for not having to struggle? They find a middle ground to find the X value, where they get sufficient numbers of people paying, and that is one of the ways to find the cost I talked about above in (1) above.
These are absolutely something informative and valuable. I am educated and thanks a lot for that.
Recall again: "the best way to combat illegal downloading is to provide more value than illegal downloading can provide to convince customers paying for product". As long as some of those companies don't understand such, illegal downloading would still be strong.
Plus, geoblocking or political restrictions, especially China, will ONLY support illegal downloading rather than stop it. When those labels continue whining about people downloading their works illegally, first think if your work is released in only selected areas? If yes, then stop whining because this is absolutely YOUR fault to imply people downloading your stuff illegally. Geoblocking and political restrictions definitely do nothing to justify illegal downloading. Rather, this is customers way to fight against such nonsense marketing strategy, even though it is illegal. Don't forget, customers are always the weakest ones in business world, and this will NEVER change.
Yeah I have that too. Its called the Music I own.
Music ownership has been around for over a century too.
With all the drawbacks that came with owning your music. Including needing to manage them and finding a place to store them on my device.
With streaming music, I just play what I want, even if I don't own the music.
There are pros and cons for each, but prior to music streaming, I never owned any music simply because I found it too much of a hassle.
With all the drawbacks that came with streaming your music. Including needing a reliable and fast enough internet connection, as well as praying streaming platform not pull the plug and leave user stranded.
With owning music, I just play what I love, what I want, even if there is no network available.
There are pros and cons for each, but prior to music streaming, I realise owning stuff means you are free to use them whatever ways you like, and don't need to worry about favourite songs being pulled and gone forever.
Someone may argue "I can listen to over 1 million songs in just the price of single album", but even though currently no music label removes their songs from Apple Music, or Spotify, or other platforms, look at those YouTube videos being removed for whatever reason. Can anyone tell me how to watch those removed videos?
Well, that's just me. I am the sort of person who rented books because I didn't want to find space to keep them after I was done with them.
I haven't really found many songs that are worthy of keeping around. Many movies, books and songs I consume these days are the throwaway kind. You listen for a while, then get sick of it afterwards and never want to listen to again.
To your question, I probably won't bother trying to locate those deleted video content.