• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

It's not theft unless tangible goods were taken from the owner!

Is it theft if no tangible goods were taken from the owner!

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 64.5%
  • No

    Votes: 22 35.5%

  • Total voters
    62
*growls*

Fine.

Sorry, if it makes you feel better I used to use emulators to play games that were never brought over from japan, that's piracy. Although I don't know how many copies of FF2 were selling by the turn of the century.

Also I bought it when it was re-released for the game boy advanced :( .
 
Last edited:

Draco_2k

Rawr.
Sorry, if it makes you feel better I used to use emulators to play games that were never brought over from japan, that's piracy. Although I don't know how many copies of FF2 were selling by the turn of the century.

Also I bought it when it was re-released for the game boy advanced :( .
Well, I guess that sort of counts. Maybe.
 

mctanuki

Fursuiting Nerd
This couldn't be more wrong. Piracy undermines artistic innovation, you seem to be saying that pirates are the same as artists, that they're both capable of producing the same thing yes, so really its competition rather then theft. The problem is that pirates are not the same as artists, pirates can't make art, they can only steal and re-distribute it. If there were no artists there would be no art because the pirates would have nothing to steal. They aren't competitors, they're parasites, and if they make it impossible for artists to produce anything, then the industry doesn't thrive, it dies.

I never mentioned artistic innovation, or even the concept of art. I was talking about tradable commodities, such as mp3s, avis, cbrs, etc. These things are not art. They are a distribution format. The Free Market doesn't have anything to do with art, it deals in commodities. My point is that digital piracy will lead distributors, be they the creators of the original product or not, to find new and better ways to distribute these products, so as to ensure that the product is worth paying for. Take live concert performances, for example. You can have a recording of a concert, but it can never be equal in quality to being there. You can have a digital copy of a comic book, but it can never be of a quality equal to having a comic book to hold in your hands. You can have a jpeg of a painting on your hard drive, but it will never equal having that painting on your wall. And yes, despite what the MPAA tries to tell you, no amount of downloading screeners or camcorder bootlegs will ever make people stop going to the theater.

It's only in the past hundred years or so that people began thinking they could sell reproductions of art and make money off them. This was because the reproduction technologies were too expensive for the common person to use, and so a new indsutry was formed. You could own a copy of a song, but only if you paid the person with the machine to press a record. You could own a film, but only if you pay the people who record it onto magnetic tape for you. Now, because of advances in technology, this industry is obsolete. Anybody and everybody can make a reproduction of a piece of artwork. So, rather than wishing people would just ignore that technological capability, why not embrace it, and move on? Instead of trying to force people to pay for a copy of something they can just as easily, or even more easily, get for free, why not create a higher-quality product? A Blu-Ray DVD is higher-quality than an avi, or even a regular ~4gig DVD. Once the ability to copy those is readily available, then if the industry wishes to remain in the business of selling reproductions, they should find a way to increase the quality. Higher-definition, more information, faster technology, more cheaply made than its predecessors. That is the innovation I spoke of. The reproduction industry will be forced, by the Free Market, to innovate in their reproduction technologies.

Artists, meanwhile, will continue to make money the way they always have: from performance, from commission, from the sale of original works. But, since the last century or so, they also get that small bonus from the reproduction industry for the reproductions of previous performances, or reproductions of their artwork. But, only if that industry remains in existence. Which will only happen if that industry adapts. Which means innovation, not regulation.
 

Bambi

Joined 2008 - Returned 2022
I'm against the dime and dozen of people who would steal something.

I prefer to pay for products and services, because my money is also paying for further improvements in their software, etc.
 
It's only in the past hundred years or so that people began thinking they could sell reproductions of art and make money off them. This was because the reproduction technologies were too expensive for the common person to use, and so a new indsutry was formed. You could own a copy of a song, but only if you paid the person with the machine to press a record. You could own a film, but only if you pay the people who record it onto magnetic tape for you. Now, because of advances in technology, this industry is obsolete. Anybody and everybody can make a reproduction of a piece of artwork. So, rather than wishing people would just ignore that technological capability, why not embrace it, and move on? Instead of trying to force people to pay for a copy of something they can just as easily, or even more easily, get for free, why not create a higher-quality product? A Blu-Ray DVD is higher-quality than an avi, or even a regular ~4gig DVD. Once the ability to copy those is readily available, then if the industry wishes to remain in the business of selling reproductions, they should find a way to increase the quality. Higher-definition, more information, faster technology, more cheaply made than its predecessors. That is the innovation I spoke of. The reproduction industry will be forced, by the Free Market, to innovate in their reproduction technologies.

Artists, meanwhile, will continue to make money the way they always have: from performance, from commission, from the sale of original works. But, since the last century or so, they also get that small bonus from the reproduction industry for the reproductions of previous performances, or reproductions of their artwork. But, only if that industry remains in existence. Which will only happen if that industry adapts. Which means innovation, not regulation.

But quality is lost when converting to MP3s and from what I understand that's still the format most file sharing occurs in. At a certain point increases in quality are so minute people don't care anymore. Inventing new formats and forcing consumers to convert to them in order to try to outpace piracy is impractical. The music industry at least could not survive in that climate, and at the end of the day revenue from record sales is the main source of income for recording artists, touring and merch are not viable as exclusive sources of income, they are a means to promote the albums.

Most bands are lucky to break even on tour, if they didn't have record sales to back them the shows would suffer tremendously, if the artists could afford to put them on at all. Touring would also become impossible if all the musicians have to work full time in order to support themselves. Commission work in the music industry is basically dependant on other facets of the entertainment industry anyway, movies and video games are suffering from piracy as well, which means less money to commision musicians with. Also record sales help artists keep tickets cheap, the cost of the tickets would have to go up if the tour actually had to support it's self, and then no one would go. Also it would be hard for studios to stay open if no one could afford to use them, and the companies that produce the equipment would not be able to function if the studios went under. So the quality of recordings would take a nose dive. The quality of shows and recordings would diminish considerably if they continued to exist at all. Thusly the consumer has killed the industry. That's not even taking studio projects into account, these are the main source of innovation in the metal underground at least, because the artists can focus entirely on composition rather then performance.
 

mctanuki

Fursuiting Nerd
I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I have never known nor even heard of a musician who makes their money from record sales and not live shows. Though you did include merchandise on the side with record sales, and merch is the biggest source of income. But then, merch and live shows cannot be digitally copied, while albums can, so I think it's just your grouping that's off.
 

Mikael Grizzly

Creepy Stalker
I never mentioned artistic innovation, or even the concept of art.

You can't discuss it without taking innovation into account, because then you arrive at your false conclusions.

I was talking about tradable commodities, such as mp3s, avis, cbrs, etc. These things are not art. They are a distribution format.
What? They're a file format, not a distribution format.

The Free Market doesn't have anything to do with art, it deals in commodities. My point is that digital piracy will lead distributors, be they the creators of the original product or not, to find new and better ways to distribute these products, so as to ensure that the product is worth paying for.
...what?

Take live concert performances, for example. You can have a recording of a concert, but it can never be equal in quality to being there. You can have a digital copy of a comic book, but it can never be of a quality equal to having a comic book to hold in your hands. You can have a jpeg of a painting on your hard drive, but it will never equal having that painting on your wall. And yes, despite what the MPAA tries to tell you, no amount of downloading screeners or camcorder bootlegs will ever make people stop going to the theater.
I'm trying to find some sense in your posts, but your thinking is so horribly chaotic and illogical it's not even funny.

First you mention that you don't take artistic innovation and quality into account because you're discussing "free market" (or rather, your flawed impression of it), but then you start talking about artistic innovation in the quote above!

There isn't a single coherent statement you've made.


It's only in the past hundred years or so that people began thinking they could sell reproductions of art and make money off them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

People have been selling art for as long as it existed. Copies and forgeries too.

This was because the reproduction technologies were too expensive for the common person to use, and so a new indsutry was formed. You could own a copy of a song, but only if you paid the person with the machine to press a record. You could own a film, but only if you pay the people who record it onto magnetic tape for you. Now, because of advances in technology, this industry is obsolete. Anybody and everybody can make a reproduction of a piece of artwork.
You keep ignoring the fact that the original producer has to invest to create the original piece of artwork and "anybody reproducing" hurts his business. Lost sales, which were also mentioned as an existing legal term in the US which you can be sued for.

So, rather than wishing people would just ignore that technological capability, why not embrace it, and move on?
And kill the industry? Great thinking there, chap.

Instead of trying to force people to pay for a copy of something they can just as easily, or even more easily, get for free, why not create a higher-quality product? A Blu-Ray DVD is higher-quality than an avi, or even a regular ~4gig DVD. Once the ability to copy those is readily available, then if the industry wishes to remain in the business of selling reproductions, they should find a way to increase the quality. Higher-definition, more information, faster technology, more cheaply made than its predecessors. That is the innovation I spoke of. The reproduction industry will be forced, by the Free Market, to innovate in their reproduction technologies.
You don't really get it, do you? Stealing other people's finished work and redistributing it is not an expression of the free market.

You continue to completely ignore the fact that there is no reproduction industry. Publishing is part of the major companies lifelihood, JoWood, Electronic Arts, Warner Brothers... these companies shell out cash for productions and income from sales is their primary source of sustainment.

Artists, meanwhile, will continue to make money the way they always have: from performance, from commission, from the sale of original works. But, since the last century or so, they also get that small bonus from the reproduction industry for the reproductions of previous performances, or reproductions of their artwork. But, only if that industry remains in existence. Which will only happen if that industry adapts. Which means innovation, not regulation.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You don't have any idea how the industries work either, do you?

Here, some reference material for you.

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I have never known nor even heard of a musician who makes their money from record sales and not live shows. Though you did include merchandise on the side with record sales, and merch is the biggest source of income. But then, merch and live shows cannot be digitally copied, while albums can, so I think it's just your grouping that's off.

Of course you don't if you cover your ears and ignore factual evidence.

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Recorded-music-sales-2007.pdf

Live gigs don't come even close (unless you're a twat and don't deduct the costs of performances from ticket sales).
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I have never known nor even heard of a musician who makes their money from record sales and not live shows. Though you did include merchandise on the side with record sales, and merch is the biggest source of income. But then, merch and live shows cannot be digitally copied, while albums can, so I think it's just your grouping that's off.

Could be the genre gap but live shows and merch don't pay the bills on my end. Cost of travel, living, equipment, session musicians, and the cost of putting on the show it's self eat the bulk of the artist's percentage of ticket sales. You make less then you would working a low end full time job, and touring is much harder on you. I grouped merch in with touring because of the fact that while it can be counterfeited it's not as prevalent as piracy, and the fact that like touring, the profit margin on merch that isn't stupidly overpriced is much lower then records. For underground kinds of music that don't have the industry backing to become famous enough to fill stadiums touring just wont pay the bills.

Problem with art is that quality is hard to measure in a concrete way, tastes are very individualistic, so if art is going to be liked by a lot of people it has to be bland and homogonous. Niche artists can't make as much money touring because their fan base is limited and thinly spread. Records can reach all of their fans easily where as while the band's touring they'll be lucky to find a couple hundred fans in larger cities. If the infrastructure for distributing records dies neche bands and the large part of the industry they represent will die as well, leaving only homogonous mainstream music.
 
Last edited:

mctanuki

Fursuiting Nerd
Could be the genre gap but live shows and merch don't pay the bills on my end. Cost of travel, living, equipment, session musicians, and the cost of putting on the show it's self eat the bulk of the artist's percentage of ticket sales. You make less then you would working a low end full time job, and touring is much harder on you. I grouped merch in with touring because of the fact that while it can be counterfeited it's not as prevalent as piracy, and the fact that like touring, the profit margin on merch that isn't stupidly overpriced is much lower then records. For underground kinds of music that don't have the industry backing to become famous enough to fill stadiums touring just wont pay the bills.

Problem with art is that quality is hard to measure in a concrete way, tastes are very individualistic, so if art is going to be liked by a lot of people it has to be bland and homogonous. Niche artists can't make as much money touring because their fan base is limited and thinly spread. Records can reach all of their fans easily where as while the band's touring they'll be lucky to find a couple hundred fans in larger cities. If the infrastructure for distributing records dies neche bands and the large part of the industry they represent will die as well, leaving only homogonous mainstream music.

I was talking about quality of distribution methods, not quality of art. A live show is, I would say, the highest-quality you can get, and that can't be reproduced. As far as your experience with touring, I am tempted to agree that there is some genre gap (although I actually have no idea what genre you work in), except that the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes" not "data" (one of my favorite sayings, can you tell?;p), so really, it could just as easily be that I'm lucky, or that you're, as the kids say, doing it wrong.

Am I the only one who finds it humorous that I've gone from discussing the thread's topic to discussing something which actually excludes that topic from its basic premises?

...probably-_-
 

Mikael Grizzly

Creepy Stalker
Oh, I see what you did there. Troll is a troll.

So instead of trying to refute my statements and provide some factual evidence of your own, you prefer ad hominem arguments. How mature.

Oh, and the "twat" comment was about people who twist facts and words. If you took it personally, well, it's pretty telling.

And Draco, I just don't like thieves trying to justify their actions.
 

mctanuki

Fursuiting Nerd
troll-web.jpg


It's like giving a mouse a cookie.
 
I was talking about quality of distribution methods, not quality of art. A live show is, I would say, the highest-quality you can get, and that can't be reproduced. As far as your experience with touring, I am tempted to agree that there is some genre gap (although I actually have no idea what genre you work in), except that the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes" not "data" (one of my favorite sayings, can you tell?;p), so really, it could just as easily be that I'm lucky, or that you're, as the kids say, doing it wrong.

Am I the only one who finds it humorous that I've gone from discussing the thread's topic to discussing something which actually excludes that topic from its basic premises?

...probably-_-

Well part of this thread is discussing the impact of piracy on the industry, artists fall under this banner, so I wouldn't call this off topic.

Concerts as a method of distribution was what I was talking about in my second paragraph. They may be impossible to pirate but there are serious draw backs to that method of distribution. Primary one being only people in close proximity to the show can actually go to it, if you have a small potential fan base no amount of promotion is going generate a huge audience at a gig. I talked about art because I wanted to explain that even a band that is very good and puts on a great show will still have a hard time making any money touring if the style they play isn't as accessible as say, rock or rap.

For this kind of band albums are a far more viable means of distribution because an album can reach any member of their fan base with little overhead cost. As a result of the smaller fan base in order to sustain themselves these types of bands have to produce more original material and more innovative material. So the fans get more original music and high quality releases in lieu of live shows. I don't know if you encounter this in your circles but it's been pretty common on my side for the last two decades, and the bulk of the innovation has come from these types of bands. Crippling innovation on the artistic end renders any innovation on the distribution end moot, people get bored of listening to the same kind of music. That's what I mean when I talk about the industry suffering as a result of piracy. I don't think you can separate the artistic end from the distribution end in the entertainment industry.
 

Bambi

Joined 2008 - Returned 2022
/facepalms

This thread makes me cry.
 
Top