His point was that getting a copy of a piece of music doesn't deprive anyone along the supply chain of anything.

It's a semantic argument about what "steal" means. Namely, does it mean that you've taken something for free that someone wants you to pay for, or does it mean depriving someone of their property. If it's the former, illegal downloading of MP3s is stealing. If it's the latter, it's not. Then you can get into an argument about whether getting it for free is depriving the supplier of the cash they would normally have gotten for that service and if the consumer would have just not bothered if it wasn't free to him.

Of course, the publisher wants you to pay $1 for any given piece of music, whereas allofmp3 will sell it to you for much less than that. It seems to be legal (especially for Russian citizens), but it still might be considered stealing by the publisher, and by, my first definition above, is very close to it.

But that's all okay because people who want to download it for free are going to continue to do so regardless of any of these issues. And the publishers trying so hard to hang onto their status quo are going to try to prevent them, regardless of any of these definitions. On both sides, people are much more likely to speak in platitudes, gross generalizations, and inept metaphors than actually speak to the actual issues involved. And that makes those of us in the middle of the issue both irritated and, somehow, incapable of not using those same methods.

And the extreme stances both sides take tend to push moderates to one side or the other, like the repulsion of a strong magnet. While it's somewhat true that this is just a new argument for people who have always downloaded music without paying for it, every time the music industry goes on the offensive, it just pushes the moderates who would like more reasonable access to their music closer and closer to the freeloaders. Especially measures that they take to prevent people who have paid for the music to listen to it in the manner they desire, starting with the warning logos, to the copy protection, to the rootkits. All the while apparently ignoring the real issue of organized criminals making bootlegs to sell on the street corners.

It's really time someone sat down and had an honest discussion about the issues involved instead of just sniping at each other and trying to blur the issues.

Would you consider sleeping in a hotel room that you didn't pay for as stealing? What if the room was vacant, so you just slipped in there? How about sneaking into the movies without paying by using the back door?

None of those situations are exactly 'stealing', since possession was never taken from the owner. Of course, you are benefiting and enjoying from something (call it 'content' if you want, especially in the form of the movie or music) that normally requires compensation. Stealing might not be the right word, but the owner is being denied a source on income - on top of any moral or ethical issues (which people like the guy Rob referred to obviously don't have). It can be couched or justified any way people want, but that doesn't make it right.

- Tim

There is the problem, however, which Bitt mentioned, that the MPAA et al, through their heavy tactics of trying to liken breach of copyright to theft or piracy, are pushing the moderates to the freeloader side. What would appear (IMHO) to be the case, is that the MPAA have got their tactics sooo wrong. They can't successfully bring in any copy protection. Everything they do only annoys the user - the professionals (these days organised gangs) have minimal problems circumventing DRM, copy protection, watermarking etc.

MPAA/RIAA etc should get a grip and come to terms with the way the world is. The business model no longer holds true - which is good for artists and listeners. No middlemen needed, and listeners are more likely to pay for their CDs as it will be cheaper, and more goes to the artist.

a win all round in my book

It's really time someone sat down and had an honest discussion about the issues

Bitt, thank you for an excellent post.

FWIW, my attitude toward music piracy has changed dramatically in the past few years.

I used to be resolutely, nay, rabidly against downloading or otherwise acquiring music without payment (just do a search for my posts with key word piracy) but since the RIAA began their draconian and tyrannical persecutions, since Sony began installing rootkit viruses on my computer, since I am now being treated as a thief when I buy CDs and DVDs (with DRM and mandatory warnings)... I say FSCK them!

Probably by now 5-10% of the 2000 or so hours of audio in my empeg is not legitimately acquired.

I still sleep well at night.

tanstaafl.

Rob, that burned my eyes.

Many times the quality of downloaded music is garbage...

Many times? How about just about all the time!

I don't download my stolen audio, I get it from friends who do a good job of encoding.

tanstaafl.

Allofmp3.com - you define the quality. Yay!

And This helps restore my faith in humanity

The quality of the tracks on allofmp3 could potentially be quite bad. Quite a few are uploaded by users as 320kbps MP3s which is then transcoded to whatever you select. Nothing stopping a user from transcoding a crappy 128kbps album they find on a P2P network into a 320kbps MP3 to get more download credit either.

I breifly tried allofmp3 and half of what I got from them ended 5 seconds early.

Just noticed emusic.com seem to have got their hands on the Stiff records back catalogue

Hmmm - all of the tracks I have requested have had to be encoded by them at my specified rates - usually VBR. For some it means I have to wait up to a week, but the quality is uniformly excellent!

Every time.

What exact settings do you go for Rory?

hmmm - just run a test and downloaded two files I already have ripped myself, and they sound pretty much the same, both in the car and on my home setup....

And my friends typically reckon I am fussier about music quality than most.

YMMV

Here's a step in the right direction.

No, CDs with a slice out of the spine, or a hole though it, are the CD equivalent of cut-out records, which are effectively the same thing as remaindered books. That is, ones that have been returned to the publisher for a refund and are then sent back out to resellers at a discount.

Books that have had the cover removed are also books that have been returned to the publisher as unsold for a refund. Publishers aren't interested in having the whole book shipped back to them when the books are mass-market paperbacks (which are most of the smaller common paperbacks you see), so they just get the resellers to send back the cover and trust them to throw away the rest of the book. In practice, many of those stripped books go home with the bookseller employees. Magazines are often treated the same way. And this has been going on for at least 25 years, probably longer, so it's not a new thing. I know I've seen the notice in books for at least the last 15.

Thank heavens for Canada

At last someone with a clue in a record label