Geofa - whilst I fully agree with your stance on piracy being illegal, abhorrent and plainly wrong i feel your reasoning/argument in using the Cessna 172 is flawed.Quite simply, as I am sure you're aware, a Cessna 172 cannot be copied a la software program and therefore cannot be used in an analogy regarding software theft/piracy.For example - to have 10 stolen (read pirated) Cessna's, then 10 Cessna's have to actually be produced. To have 10 pirated (read stolen) pieces of software only 1 copy of the software ever needs to be produced. The same analogy can be used for your music - you produce/write/compose one piece of music and make it available for sale and it only actually takes 1 sale, and that person to upload it to torrent sites to have it stolen by many, but you don't actually have to recreate the music/product.I would also add that it could be reckoned flawed to think that every pirated copy would have been a sale - many piraters download illegally just because they can, they would never have any intention of buying the product even if they could not illegally download.As stated, I do absolutely agree with you that piracy is theft/illegal/wrong, and my intention is not to insult you or anyone else for that matter in this thread, its just that whilst agreeing with you, i can also see great validity in what some of the other posters are alluding to.Best RegardsSteve

Sorry... taking software is like taking anything else you can come up with. If it's not yours to have, it's theft. Period. The damage is the same. If you were never in a position to afford purchasing an aircraft... so you steal one... someone is still out the value of said aircraft... even though you never, ever had the intent to purchase one. Same applies to software.

Geofa - whilst I fully agree with your stance on piracy being illegal, abhorrent and plainly wrong i feel your reasoning/argument in using the Cessna 172 is flawed.Quite simply, as I am sure you're aware, a Cessna 172 cannot be copied a la software program and therefore cannot be used in an analogy regarding software theft/piracy.For example - to have 10 stolen (read pirated) Cessna's, then 10 Cessna's have to actually be produced. To have 10 pirated (read stolen) pieces of software only 1 copy of the software ever needs to be produced. The same analogy can be used for your music - you produce/write/compose one piece of music and make it available for sale and it only actually takes 1 sale, and that person to upload it to torrent sites to have it stolen by many, but you don't actually have to recreate the music/product.I would also add that it could be reckoned flawed to think that every pirated copy would have been a sale - many piraters download illegally just because they can, they would never have any intention of buying the product even if they could not illegally download.As stated, I do absolutely agree with you that piracy is theft/illegal/wrong, and my intention is not to insult you or anyone else for that matter in this thread, its just that whilst agreeing with you, i can also see great validity in what some of the other posters are alluding to.Best RegardsSteve

Steve,My comment on stealing the airplane had to do with the comment that most people pirate software because they can't justify paying the "high" price the developer is asking.In that case I think the analogy is perfect. As I pointed out I can't quite justify the high price of Ga aviation costs either. Therefore, with this logic I should feel justified in stealing or even "borrowing" an aircraft rather than paying its high cost.As far as the other-it is quite a bit more complicated that what you say. If it was all about a 1 time sale your argument would possibly have merit. However,when a recording is sold-the recording company takes almost all the profit from the sale.However, for each copy sold the recording company pays to the musician/s a very small royalty and a very small contribution to a fund managed by the musicians union. Over a lifetime of making recordings a musician might hope to get a little money in their old age thru this method.So though you are right you don't have to recreate the media when you upload 10 copies to a torrent-you also don't contribute at all to my small royalty and my future retirement-and that is what I get out of the recording. Since this is part of how I make my living-it has dire consequences for a working musician. Most musicians go into music because they love it-but they also need to make a living too. As for composing the same is true-in most cases to perform a living composers music requires the performer to pay fee to the composer every time the work is played-this may come from the rental of the music or a set fee. There are even some composers that have been dead for 100 years whose family still holds the copyright and collect a fee every time it is performed. I suppose it would be nice if composers worked for free-but that is how they make their living.

Steve,My comment on stealing the airplane had to do with the comment that most people pirate software because they can't justify paying the "high" price the developer is asking.In that case I think the analogy is perfect. As I pointed out I can't quite justify the high price of Ga aviation costs either. Therefore, with this logic I should feel justified in stealing or even "borrowing" an aircraft rather than paying its high cost.As far as the other-it is quite a bit more complicated that what you say. If it was all about a 1 time sale your argument would possibly have merit. However,when a recording is sold-the recording company takes almost all the profit from the sale.However, for each copy sold the recording company pays to the musician/s a very small royalty and a very small contribution to a fund managed by the musicians union. Over a lifetime of making recordings a musician might hope to get a little money in their old age thru this method.So though you are right you don't have to recreate the media when you upload 10 copies to a torrent-you also don't contribute at all to my small royalty and my future retirement-and that is what I get out of the recording. Since this is part of how I make my living-it has dire consequences for a working musician. Most musicians go into music because they love it-but they also need to make a living too. As for composing the same is true-in most cases to perform a living composers music requires the performer to pay fee to the composer every time the work is played-this may come from the rental of the music or a set fee. There are even some composers that have been dead for 100 years whose family still holds the copyright and collect a fee every time it is performed. I suppose it would be nice if composers worked for free-but that is how they make their living.

Personally, I feel it this way, the musicians should be getting a LOT more royalties than they do now in the first place. Fact is that the record labels are ripping you off in this case and they pay the musicians next to nothing, while they rake in the profits. In that case it may be best to go to an indy label or do something similar to what NIN or Radiohead did.One thing you have to remember about piracy is this, it may initially result in a lost sale, however how many people have never heard your music before, pirate the song, and then ether:A. they go out and buy the albumorB. their friends hear it and buy the albumIn a way, you have a point, however you fail to take a few very important things into the equation...

Steve,My comment on stealing the airplane had to do with the comment that most people pirate software because they can't justify paying the "high" price the developer is asking.In that case I think the analogy is perfect. As I pointed out I can't quite justify the high price of Ga aviation costs either. Therefore, with this logic I should feel justified in stealing or even "borrowing" an aircraft rather than paying its high cost.As far as the other-it is quite a bit more complicated that what you say. If it was all about a 1 time sale your argument would possibly have merit. However,when a recording is sold-the recording company takes almost all the profit from the sale.However, for each copy sold the recording company pays to the musician/s a very small royalty and a very small contribution to a fund managed by the musicians union. Over a lifetime of making recordings a musician might hope to get a little money in their old age thru this method.So though you are right you don't have to recreate the media when you upload 10 copies to a torrent-you also don't contribute at all to my small royalty and my future retirement-and that is what I get out of the recording. Since this is part of how I make my living-it has dire consequences for a working musician. Most musicians go into music because they love it-but they also need to make a living too. As for composing the same is true-in most cases to perform a living composers music requires the performer to pay fee to the composer every time the work is played-this may come from the rental of the music or a set fee. There are even some composers that have been dead for 100 years whose family still holds the copyright and collect a fee every time it is performed. I suppose it would be nice if composers worked for free-but that is how they make their living.

GeofaPoint taken, and thanks for the insight. I think in a roundabout way you've kinda hit a nail on the head regarding piracy - its almost as though those that do download files illegally (whether it be music/software/dvd's etc) either justify it to themselves, or just plain don't realise the consequences, because its not a tangible product as such to them."hey its not like stealing a car/clothes/cd so it doesn't matter" sort of mentality if you get my meaning.Having said that, I do still agree with some of the other views in this thread, and perhaps the notion of we may all be better off accepting that piracy is not and will not be going away anytime soon, so lets find a more effective way of dealing with and/or approaching it - one that doesn't alienate the legitimate customers as some software devs (and not just in flight sim circles) appear hell bent on.Best RegardsSteve

One thing you have to remember about piracy is this, it may initially result in a lost sale, however how many people have never heard your music before, pirate the song, and then ether:A. they go out and buy the albumorB. their friends hear it and buy the albumIn a way, you have a point, however you fail to take a few very important things into the equation...

I wish I could believe this. I would need to see some figures. Maybe a few people may do this, but I'm having trouble believing the number is high enough to make any difference. If I was the type of person that went to the trouble to pirate (though it is no trouble) something, why would I ever pay for it? To add to what Geofa said. If a band is offered a recording contract, they are paid a large sum of money up front. Very cool. Guess what, the band has to pay the studio to make the recording. Studio time is very expensive. Many times there is little left after the recording is made. Bands don't make any money on tour because shows are so expensive to put on. We want to see the fancy lights, the rotating stage and big sound systems. Most tours, even big names lose money. The only steady money is from royallties paid from sales of downloads or CDs. And even that is a small fraction. Sometimes 5% or so.Seems to me that a pirated version of anything is a copy that exists that was not paid for. Doesn't make any difference who made the copy. Any one with a computer can make a perfect copy of just about anything. Not like the old days. Things are much different now, and we need different ways to market things.Bob

I wish I could believe this. I would need to see some figures. Maybe a few people may do this, but I'm having trouble believing the number is high enough to make any difference. If I was the type of person that went to the trouble to pirate (though it is no trouble) something, why would I ever pay for it? To add to what Geofa said. If a band is offered a recording contract, they are paid a large sum of money up front. Very cool. Guess what, the band has to pay the studio to make the recording. Studio time is very expensive. Many times there is little left after the recording is made. Bands don't make any money on tour because shows are so expensive to put on. We want to see the fancy lights, the rotating stage and big sound systems. Most tours, even big names lose money. The only steady money is from royallties paid from sales of downloads or CDs. And even that is a small fraction. Sometimes 5% or so.Seems to me that a pirated version of anything is a copy that exists that was not paid for. Doesn't make any difference who made the copy. Any one with a computer can make a perfect copy of just about anything. Not like the old days. Things are much different now, and we need different ways to market things.Bob

I would love it if you just looked at what NIN and Radiohead did... They do things to prevent piracy such as selling special editions that include the actual vinyl records as well as the CDs, and yet they will put their albums up for free and even sometimes lossless format up for free download on their sites. That is the kind of stuff that sells copies now, is having that extra something special in a legal edition that makes it worth it to buy it. Personally, I stream stuff off sites like pandora or grooveshark first, and then buy the individual songs off itunes or amazon if I like them. I don't buy CDs because to be up front, I feel that most CDs are this situation, 1 or 2 good songs, and the rest are filler.

What's even cooler about NIN is they put up multitrack versions of their songs absolutely free, so you can have fun with them remixing or playing alone. Talk about trying to get people into their music...

I would love it if you just looked at what NIN and Radiohead did... They do things to prevent piracy such as selling special editions that include the actual vinyl records as well as the CDs, and yet they will put their albums up for free and even sometimes lossless format up for free download on their sites. That is the kind of stuff that sells copies now, is having that extra something special in a legal edition that makes it worth it to buy it. Personally, I stream stuff off sites like pandora or grooveshark first, and then buy the individual songs off itunes or amazon if I like them. I don't buy CDs because to be up front, I feel that most CDs are this situation, 1 or 2 good songs, and the rest are filler.

While this may seem like a good idea, I doubt that record companies and the musicians union are going to embrace this model any time soon. While you and I may prefer wav. files, I think most listen to mp3s (or lower)on low quality systems, and quite often laptop speakers(e-gad). So I'm not sure file quality is a big concern to them. Stuff streamed fom web sites is still better quality than the 45s and transister radios I grew up with.Bob

Sorry... taking software is like taking anything else you can come up with. If it's not yours to have, it's theft. Period.

Yes, I and I think everyone here broadly agrees with that, but what are you going to do about it? Which part of the statement 'piracy will not go away' do you not quite comprehend. I suspect those in this thread that continue with this mantra believe that the Police and the Courts will somehow come to their rescue on this and prove that the rest of us who suggest we should learn to live with piracy, have somewhat dodgey morals. Well computer history is littered with spectacular failings of the Courts to address these issues, no matter how many are imprisoned. In fact those who do time for 'hacking the mainframe' or 'cracking software' are often revered as matyrs to the cause. That cause is complicated but primal in its need to avoid being subjugated by the establishment. There is any amount of really interesting literature on the history of computer crime that deals with this 'cause' issue. Needless to say, it is far from black and white. Nevertheless, even these underground groups (watch out, your own kid might belong to one of them) know what is really morally wrong. They have little time for those who use their skills to tap into peoples bank accounts or steal credit card details. The most recent spectacular failure of the Courts to address pircay was of course the TPB. I saw somewhere that there were about 300 known illegal sharing sites that existed prior to the 24 hour period that TPB went 'off air'. In the next 24 hours there were over 1400 sites that had sprung up to take over file sharing duties! That's phenomenal. The result? As we all know TPB carries on unaffected. Remember the Boat that Rocked in the UK? Or Radio Hauraki in New Zealand looking for all the world like an early version of TPB with its pirate boat and skull and crossbones flag? These boats sat outside the 12 nm territorial waters and broadcast their 'illicit' music to the populace. They became folklore. It was a revolution. We have to understand that the internet and the sharing of digital media is another form of revolution. Calling it theft relegates you to relying on the inadequacy of Police and Courts to stop these forms of popular revolution. Alcohol became legal in the US after years of prohibition. Marijuana has become legal in some places in the world as well. No matter how much I hate that, it refects the ongoing need for society to address its morals, to understand what the cost benefits are of criminalising actvities that a large number of the populace engage in and reflects the reality of limited Police resources to deal with these crimes. Digital file sharing is a revolution that will became legal one day because it is just too hard to stop.In the meantime, developers and artists need to find ways of making money from the current situation. A few posters like FengZ and others on this thread have shown us that if you can't beat them, then join them (not for their benefit, but for yours). Make the file sharing capabilites of the internet a powerful tool in your advertising arsenal. With all the rubbish we are inundated with everyday, we are more and more looking for that quality product that stands out as something a little different. So as I said at the begining what are we going to do about it? It is manifestly insufficient to argue it is theft and then not provide an adequate solution beyond the inadequate resources of the Police and the demonstrated ineffectiveness of the Courts.In New Zealand they are in the final throws of making ISP's responsible for policing piracy. If you download from 'illegal' sites you will have your internet access removed for good. Those who loose their access will simply start stealing other peoples bandwith by hacking Joe Citizen's poorly secured wireless access point. Joe Citizen will in turn loose his access. I can't see this being a perfect solution or even a good solution for a well developed country but it certainly aids the establishment of a Police state where private ISP's are legislated to be judge and jury in these matters. I suspect that 'primal need to avoid being subjugated by the establishment' will raise it's head somewhere else. Instead I offer this which is credited to Geoff Palmer, a consumer watch jounalist who contributes to a well know PC magazine in my country. By way of background, he doesn't deny that piracy costs artists in royalties but he disputes the figures which he feels are often manipulated for effect. He also points out that in the 1960's the industry demanded protection from new technology that threatened to destroy their businesses..the tape cassette. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) went to the US Court of Appeal in an attempt to ban one of the first MP3 players. Since then they have banned websites, put webcasters off the air, added rootkits to CD's, intimidated educational institutions who dare to play a song or video in class and issued thousands of subpoenas invariably targeting the young and vulnerable. In 2003 they forced a 12 year old to pay them $US2000 for downloading songs that she thought were free. When asking where has all the money from those prosecutions gone, Geoff Palmer doubts that a single penny of it went to the artists or composers that the RIAA supposedly represent. It's a stance that has earned them little sympathy and they still seem reluictant to establish viable download businesses of their own.Palmer goes on to point out that the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry ( IFPI) claims that 95 percent of music tracks are downloaded without payment. 35,000 Americans have been threated with law suits in the last five years for alledgely sharing files but it hasn't stemmed the tide. Incongruously, this same organisation produced the 'Digital Music Report 2009' document which lauded France for seeing strong growth in digital sales in 2008, up by 49%. This is where Palmer has a problem with the figures being touted by the RIAA and others. Finally, Palmer offers a staggering simple solution: a small monthly surcharge to every internet account and let people download what they want. He says that according to the latest IFPI report, piracy cost the UK 180 million pounds in 2007. Statistics showed that 16.5 million households had internet access in 2008. If each of them paid just one pound per month for a 'download licence' that would make 198 million pounds a year. Problem solved with an extra 10 percent for admin costs!I say again. It is not sufficent to say it is theft. Digital sharing is a revolution which needs to be addressed with new and intelligent thinking. Terry

I think it would be fun to see an IFPI breakdown of what countries have the most illegal downloading. If they have figures, they must have it by countries. I'm not sure that if I did not download music(I don't much) that I would be interested in paying for someone else to be able to. That may sound like nit-picking, but there it is. And ISPs are going to make sure that money goes where it needs to. They can't even keep me connected. Much less let me talk to some one who speakes English, when I have trouble. The didgital dispersal systems we have now are terrible, but no one has come up with a better plan,yet. I hope they do.Bob

I like my solution better... which appears to be working at this point.Want my product? Pay.

I like my solution better... which appears to be working at this point.Want my product? Pay.

Ed-always academically interesting and semantic fun for many to discuss-until you are the one who is losing quite a bit of money for your hard work...but then since most are not losing money for their hard work-academic and semantic fun abound! :(

Thats it, unless someone addresses me, my stance on this thread is silence... I'm not dealing with this anymore, from now on I'm just gonna go Gordon Freeman on this thread...I've tried to give constructive ideas on how to fix the current situation, however it's met with situations where I can't stand to see some people not even considering ideas alternative to their own as plausible or possible.

It's always easier blaming someone else than yourself.. I know what your saying. And for the record piracy is copyright infringement.... not theft. Stealing an aircraft would be grand theft, and is a serious felony. You go to jail no matter what. there's a world of difference there. And to do date people have only been prosecuted for uploading, not downloading anything.And really about the music business? Can you name one artist signed since 90s that actually got royalties instead of a big fat check for the album, plus maybe some backend if it goes past 1,000,000 in sales. I say this because you NEVER see any artist or even label complaining about piracy. It's always the distributors that don't like being one-up'd.