You worry too much. A guy your age should be working on his future and chasing women. Bye.

I prefer the personal stories .....

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/21/music-piracy-doesnt-hurt-sales

Also, if you watch it on the singer/songwriters channel, then it gets them revenue anyways, so no it doesn't hurt them

No, it's not. Especially not if the song is an official music video posted by the artist or their company. Occasionally a video of a song will be removed because it violates copyright laws and youtube is excellent about a quick removal of illegal videos.

@Goldfinger: Well of course. But the majority of music on youtube was not uploaded by the artist. So I guess with this question, also assume that the music was not uploaded by the artist, and was uploaded without the artist's permission.

@bosox: There are also studies that say the exact opposite. Also note that my original question didn't even mention music piracy, unless you count listening to music on youtube as piracy.

@jmo: 90% of music I've listened to on youtube was not uploaded by the artist or record company. Obviously if it was then there is a big difference.

If the music you were listening too was illegal it wouldn't be up on the site anymore. Youtube has been excellent about that since they got sued for leaving illegal copies of songs up.

@CM ... those studies aren't conducted by the EU. Music and movie piracy would generally follow the same pattern anyway.

@jmo: The songs are legal because of fair use guidelines that allow them to be there for purposed of criticism. Of course, legality doesn't have much to do with morality.

@bosox: And EU studies are more valid than others because....

@Conservative - If I recall, YouTube got the crap sued out of it. They now do not allow anything that is illegal on their site. Period. If it is there, it is legal.

Because the EU is one of the most credible organized groups in the world. Whether or not you agree on their current policies doesn't matter; it is still comprised of 27 prominent world governments.

Well think about it logically. YouTube is one massive advertisement. People, movies, songs, games, everything you can think of is advertised on YouTube. Official and unofficial songs are posted all the time, they generate thousands and thousands of likes from people, a significant number of which would probably never have discovered the song or movie on their own. The views and suggestions on YouTube generate income for the artists whether the song is official or not. People who see the song and like it are probably going to go buy it either on iTunes, the CD, or some other music purchasing site. Sure some people will simply copy a ton of links into a word document or bookmark the songs they like. The risk/reward idea behind allowing music to go on YouTube is that enough of the people who see the songs will purchase it in some form, allowing the artists to gain more money then they would otherwise. I absolutely guarantee that without YouTube "open gangnam style" would not have generated nearly as much revenue for Psy as it did. If you love a music video you might watch that one over and over on YouTube, but the inconvenience of having to search song by song makes it impractical for anyone to only listen to music on YouTube w/o purchasing or stealing the songs on it. Obviously if you steal the songs you find that is morally wrong, but just watching music videos is not, since it helps the artists in question. Hopefully I explained that clearly enough.

@jimgov: This discussion is supposed to be about morality, not legality. Two different things.

@bosox: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
While their study might very well be true, the fact that they are "one of the most credible organized groups in the world" isn't enough to make it true.

@jmo: I haven't bought any of the music I've found on youtube. Why would I? Its free on youtube. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.

Also, CM - if its older than 1900 or so (so any classical composers) then its fine no matter what, since they've long past their copyright end dates (if they were copyrighted at all).

Also, any covers of songs by other artists are no longer the property of the original songwriter, given that the new singer/performer adds artistic license.

@CM ... of course it's not to invalidate them. There is, though, a greater credibility in the EU than in some small-time polling agency. I'm just pointing out a source that backs up what the consensus here appears to be.

@bosox: "Consensus here". You're the only one who has been arguing whether piracy results in lost sales or not. How is there a consensus? Unless you're referring to another discussion on here where a consensus was established.

@CM, did you read my reply? It explains why artists take that chance anyways. Since the decision is made by the artists to allow other copies of their songs to be posed you are part of an opportunity cost they are taking. Does that make your choice morally correct, depends on your morals, but it doesn't make it the same morally as stealing songs or movies.

Do you have every other person who has responded to your thread muted? If that's the case, then yes, I am the only one that's sad piracy doesn't hurt the rights holders...

@jmo: The songs generally aren't on there with the artists permission. They're allowed to be on there because of copyright law that allows "fair use". As far as I know, it doesn't require the artist's approval to post a song on youtube under the fair use provision of copyright law. Is your point then that the artists would give the permission if it were required, because of the publicity?

@bosox: Everyone else had been talking about music on youtube. Not piracy.

I'm sorry you don't understand, but given our past interactions, I suspect you don't actually care and are just looking to waste my time. This conversation is considered resolved.

All I asked was for a clarification of your point. If you don't want to give me that, that's fine, but that's your problem, not mine.

This is a complete non-issue. YouTube is well-known for quickly removing content at the content owner's request. It is not your responsibility, morally or legally, to avoid watching something on YouTube because it *may* be there against the owner's wishes.

I am a firm believer in copyright and was completely against sharing sites that allowed you to download a song for keeps, but moat of the music on you tube has additional artistic value in the videos often put together by the channel owner. YouTube is good about removing content at the copyright holders request and you have no more obligation, moral or otherwise, for what someone else psosts. Youa re just listening to a publicly available stream. If the song violates copyright, you didn't violate it. The poster did. So don't worry about it and, if you like what you found and canfind it for sale, buy it if it makes you feel better. I'm sure the artist will appreciate the sale.

The problem with the file sharing sites was the massive libraries of music uploaded and downloaded by people who just wanted their musoc or movies for free. The casual listener/viewer had nothing to worry about anymore than if they borrowed a friend's copy.

Well, that's not technically true, Draug. If you torrent movies, you're technically distributing and companies can (and have) gone after people much harder than if they had just burned a friend's DVD.

Torrent = file sharing. I said the distributors on file sharing are guilty and that includes any one who redistributes by allowing their computer to be part of the distributed sharing system. I was only talking about you tube being benign on the viewers part.

In short, viewing or listening was Ok, but allowing your computer to share the content to someone else turns you into a distributor amd a pirate. And yes, I know consumers only were frowned upon which is why the whole sharing system is problematic when it comes to copy right violation.

Ok, I agree. I misunderstood what you hand originally said.

http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/three-myths.pdf

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/19/1217271/republican-study-committee-flip-flops-on-copyright-reform-in-24-hours/

What's your point Yebellz? Sure copyright is broken It should be called Disneyright. The original 14 + 14 years was good and covers all the new music the kids listen to today.

I just thought it was an interesting thing to add to the discussion, and that they made many points better than I could articulate.

I agree the copyright law has major problems and needs major reforms, since it seems to do more to serve the profits of large, exploitative corporations rather than promote the best interests on the content creators (the artists) and society at large (the audience and customers).

My position in counter to the original debate would be to challenge the "moral validity" of copyright law itself. I know that CM has pointed out that morality and legality are two separate things, but he seems to have gone in other direction, even going as far to imply that he thinks that "fair use" (which is legal under copyright law) should be considered immoral when done against the artists wishes.

I disagree with that view and think that, along with other reforms, fair use should be expanded and copyright terms should be shortened. The above linked article (the first link that I posted) seems to propose a number of concrete ideas that have been more thoroughly detailed and presented.

The second link that I posted was to explain the context of the first article. This was in fact the work of a member of the Republican Study Committee. Apparently, the production of this work, which went against the party's conservative stance, was met with great controversy and ultimately resulted in: 1) the article being being retracted with the views expressed being disavowed, 2) the removal of the author from said committee. Some interesting politics surrounding this piece...

The challenge here is that recorded and performed arts are very different from more concrete arts like painting, sculpture, and even literature. And the question comes up of just what should be protected. Obviously Disney wants the image of its characters protected, but this could be done using trademark I think. The actual manuscripts of songs, just like literature, need protection for a time to encourage the composer to continue composing just as literature is covered. But for how long should something as easily.copied as recorded ledia be protected. After all, if someone tries to create a copy of the Mona Lisa, they can unless they attempt tp sell it under false pretenses (pretending it os the original). So do we give a recording 10 years or 15 years? Music and movies are business as well as art and major labels and the artists will stop producing material without compensation. Do you thin Metallica would release an album for free? They are in it to make money. At the same.time, price fixing and 100+ year copyright and record execs who will sneakily cheat the new artists have caused a backlash amongst the music listening public.

@Conservative Man - "I haven't bought any of the music I've found on youtube. Why would I? Its free on youtube. I'm sure I'm not the only one either."
No one really answered that question from what I read, but I know I buy music I find on youtube so I can download it onto my Ipod and listen to it whenever I want, instead of being constricted to my PC.

As far as CM's not buying the music. It isn't illegal but is arguably immoral, especially if he listens to these songs repeatedly as he is stealing from the artists pocket unless the artist posted the song to begin with.

They're ethically equivalent in that neither one is wrong at all. Don't sweat it.

Don't listen to PE. What does a computer know of ethics? You know it is morally questionable to repeatedly listen to the same songs for free without ever buying them and paying the artists for his effort or you wpildn't have asked to begin with.

Wouldn't.

That is depressingly stupid logic. Then again, that's the only reason copyright exists as it does today, so par for the course, I guess.

It has nothing to do with logic but simple.insight into the human mind. The things we do and then ponder the morality of are because our mind finds them questionable. Whether it he society put that concept that it is immoral or we decided for ourselves it was. Of course, morality is purely a mental construct with some generally shared views (like committing murder) but it is clear even to an amateur armchair psychology minor in college that CM's concern with morality is because his conscience bothers him.

Or do you take offense at paying am artist for their effort? I've heard that argument before and always been amazed that "art should be free" isn't applied to any other laborious endeavor. Perhaps hand car washes should be free or the creative talents of the chef in the kitchen should.

I'm frustrated with (though don't take offense to) depressingly stupid logic. You're using the phrase "you know X is morally questionable" as though it is established that there are objective moral maxims to follow (there are), and then basically nuke the whole concept of objective morality in _your_very_next_comment_ with the phrase "Of course, morality is purely a mental construct." I already know you're going to reply to this with some obfuscating bullshit about how that "doesn't" invalidate aforesaid concept by saying the same thing, with the same logical inconsistency, with slightly different words that ever so slightly change the phrasing to invalidate the precise way I called out your logical error, so I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere constructive, but yeah, you goofed, dude.

As for the second part, I don't take offense to anything, but I do take exception to the other logical error present. Why is it that people are allowed to donate old items to a charity or church with no issue, parents are allowed to hand down items to their children in their wills, and I'm allowed to give my brother or friend a video game I bought as a birthday present for them, but a guy who purchases an audio recording isn't allowed to give it away online? If you really want to make an accurate comparison, it's not "art should be free" (which is a hideous misinterpretation of what is usually actually meant in the first place -- this is almost always used as a rallying cry *by artists* against inane First Amendment restrictions -- but I digress), but "after I purchase something, you have no right to tell me what I do with it, provided that I'm not using it to violate others' rights."

The artist whose music is being distributed either:
1. Was paid for the audio recording by people who then distributed it elsewhere (in which case, like articles of clothing bought to be given to a church/charity drive, such distribution ought not be restricted);
2. Put the audio recording on the Internet for free download in the first place (in which case, who's distributing isn't a relevant concern); or
3. Had a computer of theirs hacked to acquire the audio recording (in which case there has been a property rights violation -- the unauthorized tampering with the computer -- which ought be illegal).

So, no, I don't feel any sympathy for an artist that I don't also feel for a clothing manufacturer or a car manufacturer or... well, *anything* that one might acquire through a gift or inheritance or any other means. Anyone could theoretically reproduce any physical item and give it away (maybe my grandmother, back when she could still quilt incredibly well, might make a blanket like one you'd find in the store); punishing "pirates" is tantamount to punishing people for being able, with perfect reliability, to quilt or build a perfect replica of a given item nearly instantly. It's a stupid practice that can only stifle innovation, artistic creativity and technological progress.

First of all, jmo is of course wrong that any music on youtube is there legally. What is correct is that any illegal music on youtube hasn't been requested to be removed by the artist. There is a difference.

Anyway. I do think there is a difference. Here are some reasons why:

1) As noted, the copyright owner can request for their material to be removed from youtube if they wish. They probably can't request their movie to be removed from whatever shady p2p network you'd use for that.

2) People rewatch movies at a much lower rate than they re-listen to songs. If I see a movie and like it, then only if I *love* it does that make me more likely to buy it. If I just like it, it makes me *less* likely to buy (or rent) it again.

3) On the other hand, if I listen to a song a bunch at my computer, then as somebody else mentioned, I'm likely to want to start listening to it in my car, etc., so I'm going to buy it. Apparently, you're at a point where you only listen to music when you have youtube nearby. That is fairly likely to change, and when it does, you won't abruptly stop liking all the songs that you've listened to on youtube these years.

3) So, of course, none of this applies to actually *ripping* youtube songs. That is hard to differentiate from pirating movies.

So anyway, that is why I view the two as morally different. Now, whether the difference is big enough to make one OK and the other not, or just one bad and the other worse -- that you will have to decide. (Due largely to point 1, and because I actually do buy a lot of the music I listen to a lot on youtube, I don't sweat it anymore).

Eden - You are not grepping what I am saying. Morality isn't objective. Did you see anywhere I said it was? I said if he is questioning it then he must feel it is morally wrong. That makes it a subjective morality. Subjective as in he is the one thinks it is wrong. I happen to agree it is for me as well. There are subjective morals and the conscience tells us when we are violating them. That is the case here. Somewhere inside, he believes what he is doing is wrong so he questions it and feels guilty. That beijg the case, he should alter this habit and go buy tye albums or jistvtue songs he likes on iTunes.

Oh and your logic compairijg.giving.physical belongins away fails simply because thevpirated music or movie is not the original but a copy. If the distributor only had one to give away and no longer had the ability to give away or use the song.or movie themselves, then your logic would be fine. Let's think of it like a paperback. Giving the paperback.or trading.it in is fine, but photocopying it and giving away those photocopies is violating copyright.

Oh and, Eden, because I know youvwill bring it up... Read the license on your video game. On PC games it is usually non-tranferable so that you cannot install it then give it to someone else. For those that do allow it, the license requires uou to uninstall itbfrom your machine.