I am not saying its illegal or legal (Diki can probably tell you that .

I am just talking about an issue of morality and what seems to be labeled as right or wrong and its impacts on the industry...

How can you applaud anyone small or large for stealing someone elses work ????????????? What in the world is going on here ????

Yes there are plenty of grey issues but lets not go to the nth degree to find them !! Literally taking someone elses sounds , replicating them in virtually every detail and then selling them as your own without permission is theft . Can anyone tell me if this is a grey area ????

If you dont think that piracy isnt damaging to the music industry or any industry please research for yourselves the impact upon the loss in company profits , loss of jobs within that company, loss of suppliers to that company and therefore their jobs, reduced product developement because of the risk of piracy, increased costs in product developement etc.

IP theft doesnt just affect the creator of the work. It affects everyone that the creator supplies and supports and every industry that relies upon their work.

The onlything innovative that i can tell that has been brought to the table is the technology used to steal someone elses work.

Sorry Chas. Most times i can get where you are coming from but i cant applaud this.

No problem. At least you're a gentleman in you dissent and present a reasonable argument.

I don't applaud piracy either. I just think the enormity of this issue might be just a teensy weensy bit overhyped (and mostly for the sake of argument rather than genuine outrage). There are thousands of similar offenses in the music industry that have equal or greater (negative) impact but I don't hear any hue and cry about those. Could it be because they serve our own individual interest?

This has been an interesting thread dealing with something that has probably already been done to death on countless other threads. In the end, everyone goes home with their own take on it anyway. But it does give those super intelligent, highly articulate, persons of impeccable character, among us, a platform...and I guess that's a good thing.

chas

Not one single comment about my analogy of the pirated performance of YOUR work (playing an arranger in front of a PAYING crowd)

Little harder to defend when it's either yourself, or a friend, who would ACTUALLY suffers from it....

Some of you spend FAR more time attacking my TONE, rather than the content of my posts. Maybe I should turn off my inline spell checker, forget about grammar, and write as if I were talking..?

Somehow, magically, you don't seem to have a problem when the law IS spelled out and beyond a doubt. A man breaks into YOUR house, and takes your arranger... it's theft, isn't it? A man breaks into your place of work, and steals the tools you work with, it's theft, isn't it? A man rips your hit CD, and posts those tunes for anyone to get for free, that's theft, isn't it? (copyright infringement is a form of theft of intellectual property - YOU wrote those songs, YOU payed tens of thousands to have them recorded, YOU spent millions pressing them, getting distribution, and promoting them).

This is no different. Somebody just broke into a T2, and stole Yamaha's intellectual property. And though the law may lag a little the technology to commit the crime, the INTENT of the law is already clear... You are not supposed to sample a keyboard's ROM sounds or presets (not just SUPPOSED, it IS illegal). You are supposed to make it unique and your OWN work (distinguishable from the factory sounds) before it is legitimate.

Saying that it is not a PERFECT copy of a T2 makes it OK is absurd. MP3's are not a PERFECT copy of a CD, yet publicly posting MP3's of a copyrighted work is still illegal.

This is all so childish. A kid you know just broke into the candy store, stole everything, and now he is handing out lollipops. And most of you don't see anything wrong with it...

I don't know, chas. I am right now reading the posts of those very people (that think this is OK). What part of 'getting it' have they got? (And I DID apologize for my no-one' comment. I should have said 'virtually no-one'. Happy now? Am I less arrogant?)

The folk that post that this is wrong 'get it'. And, IMO, the people that don't, DON'T.

There really isn't much grey area here. Either theft of intellectual property is wrong, or it isn't. The law seems firmly on the side of it being wrong, but slow, as always, to respond to rapid changes of technology.

And anyone here that DOES have any intellectual property, when faced with it's theft will tell you it's wrong. What kind of empathy are we showing to those?

'As long as I can get away with it (even for a short time) it's OK'??

A closer analogy would be "a kid broke into WALMART, stole some candy, and now the entire chain has gone belly-up".

Is it wrong for the kid to steal a few lollipops from Walmart? Of course. Is it going to bring Walmart to it's knees? Doubtful. Now if you want to know if the kid is gonna go to heaven after doing such a dastardly deed, it's hard to say.

chas

Extend the analogy Chas. That kid steals a lollipop and boast about the fact that he can get away with it to his friends.His petty theft is ignored by the store manager as it is negligble in relation to the stores weekly takings. Pretty soon more errant kids go to walmart and steal lollipops, candy and chocolate. They dont get punished either and realise that they can get away with other stuff too and are almost encouraged to get bigger and bigger ticket price goods by the lack of resistance by the store management.The store manager sees the stores takings going down when his bosses sales targets are going up. In order to stem the tide,he employs security and installs security cameras. The cost is covered by the increase in price of goods legitimately bought and sold. The theft stops because of the security measures but the costs of ongoing security continues to prevent the threat of more theft.

What was the price for ignoring a few stollen lolipops and who paid it and will continue to pay for it long after the kids move on to yet another store ........

[This message has been edited by Spalding1 (edited 07-05-2007).]

Diki, did you get permission from the copyright holders for posting the following songs (there may be more):

-Friend of the Devil (The Grateful Dead)
-I Can See Clearly Now

So haven't you done what you're now so vehemently condoning? You took someone else's work without permission and made it yours. And yet here you and others are on a witch hunt, a personal crusade against Dom (Lionstracs).

Just like Chas I'm getting tired of "GET IT?" It's demeaning. Maybe I should start posting in Chinese or a couple of other languages and see if you get it. Diki, I remember you having posted several times that we should use the kind of language we'd use with our mothers. Well, I'm sure glad I am not yours. But once again, you don't seem to follow your own advice. I just don't GET IT.

Taike

What part of this wasn't clear...? My posting of these tunes generated NO income, and barely damaged anything (other than my vocal chords!).

However, my duo DOES have a CD for sale of us playing live, we sell it on the gig. Each and every tune on that CD is cleared with the copyright holders, and we pay a fee to the rights societies for the use of those tunes....

That is the law.

Whether they generate income or not...it's not permissible. That's the law! Barely damaged anything...?

Taike
T