Personally, I see nothing wrong with file sharing. It's the same as borrowing a cd from a friend, except on a wider scale. Of course, if you like the artist, pay them for what their works. What about y'all; what do you guys think?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Except that it not the same as borrowing a cd from a friend. If your friend borrows the cd you no longer have the cd and you cannot listen to the song.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You really don't want to get me started on music piracy. You really don't. So I'm going to do my best to avoid this thread, but first I must say this:
It's stupid. Piracy is really, really stupid. What's the point? You can't afford to pay $.99 a song or $9.99 an album? Then how can you claim that music is important to you? Seriously, if you're not willing to pay a fee that is really not that high, you don't deserve to listen to the music.
Oh, and $14.99 a month gets you unlimited transfers to an mp3 player nowadays in a completely legal manner.
Can't pay $14.99 a month? Your problem. Not mine. What did you do BEFORE teh intrawebs made piracy possible? Did you actually have to go (gasp!) pay for music?
The music industry is an INDUSTRY. It IS a business. If you don't like it, go download from artists that personally make their songs available for free, legal download.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Except that it not the same as borrowing a cd from a friend. If your friend borrows the cd you no longer have the cd and you cannot listen to the song.
I loaned a CD to a friend the other day and I was able to continue listening to the music, as I generally listen to the mp3s of it on my computer.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
yeah, what about that? you buy the cd:legal. you download the cd to you pc:legal. you give the cd to a friend:legal. but somewhere in there is piracy, right?
and if you want free music, got to archive.org. get all the free music you want and its completely legal.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
pH has it right. The people I know who are most into music have never downloaded, have huge collections, and regularly go to concerts. The only reason any intelligent (albeit selfish) person would want to download songs for free would be to get either their friends to like them without having to very hard or to make money, also without trying very hard.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:but somewhere in there is piracy, right?
Wrong.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
There's no piracy in what mr_porteiro_head did. All fair. May even encourage his friend to go buy the CD, which benefits the industry. And if his friend instead wants to download for free that's not his fault at all.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
for mr_porteiro_head and cheiros do ender... so if you sit down and work for hours and hours and hours and write the best PC game ever written, copyright it, market it, and then sell only one copy, you will not have any issues with that because the millions of people who play your game are only 'borrowing' that single purchased copy?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
ok cool. so ripping CDs and then passing them along to friends is not pirating. but buying a CD and ripping is for a friend is pirating. or am i wrong again?
and i don't think it is at all wrong to download music if it is provided legally and free.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are a couple ways copyright infringement could occur in mph's example:
If he gives it (permanently) or sells it to his friend but keeps the songs on his computer.
If his friend rips the songs off the cd.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The only reason any intelligent (albeit selfish) person would want to download songs for free would be to get either their friends to like them without having to very hard or to make money, also without trying very hard.
This is not true. There are many reasons an intelligent person might want to download music for free.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There are a couple ways copyright infringement could occur in mph's example:
If he gives it (permanently) or sells it to his friend but keeps the songs on his computer.
This is not what happened. I loaned the CD to a friend for a week. She gave it back and no longer has the music.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: The only reason any intelligent (albeit selfish) person would want to download songs for free would be to get either their friends to like them without having to very hard or to make money, also without trying very hard.
thats rather insulting. i download music for free all the time. i download live music concerts and don't feel like this is steeling from anyone, as none of these recordings are available for sale. so how about thinking of all of the possibilities before judging people you don't know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:yeah, what about that? you buy the cd:legal. you download the cd to you pc:legal. you give the cd to a friend:legal. but somewhere in there is piracy, right?
Listening to the song while the CD was on loan might quite possibly not qualify for fair use (which is what authorized you to copy it in the first place).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't think it was, just pointing out that the people taking your example to extremes might be crossing one of those lines .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Listening to the song while the CD was on loan might quite possibly not qualify for fair use (which is what authorized you to copy it in the first place).
I don't think I ever did. I just said that I could have. But I might have. And if I happened to, I wouldn't feel any guilt for it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: The only reason any intelligent (albeit selfish) person would want to download songs for free would be to get either their friends to like them without having to very hard or to make money, also without trying very hard.
thats rather insulting. i download music for free all the time. i download live music concerts and don't feel like this is steeling from anyone, as none of these recordings are available for sale. so how about thinking of all of the possibilities before judging people you don't know.
I find it rather insulting that people think that they "deserve" music for free.
Cue the random judgments about the music industry and how horrible it is.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:thats rather insulting. i download music for free all the time. i download live music concerts and don't feel like this is steeling from anyone, as none of these recordings are available for sale. so how about thinking of all of the possibilities before judging people you don't know.
If they are bootlegs, they're still copyright violations. Indeed, live music performances have special protection under copyright law - the authots do not have fix their live performances in a medium to gain protection.
Whether the author (copyright lingo for creator of a work) wants to sell the work or not isn't material as to whether you are violating the copyright, nor would it be worth much protection if sued about it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I find it rather insulting that people think that they "deserve" music for free.
Has anybody expressed that attitude in this thread?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
The music industry is horrible. If they didn't overprice their products (15 bucks for a disc that costs less than a dollar to press?) so ridiculously, there would be no need for piracy.
Piracy is the result of megalocorporategreed.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Are we voicing opinions on the legality of pirating? Because I think it's pretty clearly against the law, in most cases.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
they are not bootlegs. they are available, for free, completely legal, on www.archive.org. check it out. downloading these concerts is a way to experience live music that you will never ever get again. i also own most of the bands CDs or vinyls, but i absolutely love live music and enjoy listening to the concert recordings more than the CDs. this is not steeling, or copyright infringment. nor do i get the music because i "deserve" it. i get it because i like it and its there so i'm gonna listen to it.
all i'm saying is that there are more reasons to download free music than becuase you are cheap, lazy, selfish, or a theif.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Who pays 15 dollars for a cd anymore? You can generally get them for 10 most of the time.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that using the term "pirating" for copyright violations is a little silly.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I hope it isn't neccessary to point this out, but the cost of pressing the cd is in no way the full cost of the cd. There is also the cost of printing, the band's contract costs, the cost of shipping it out to stores, the profit for the music industry, and the profit for the store that sells it to you to consider.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I really thought that they could have used downloads as a way to get more listeners. I know when it used to be free I listened to more music. If I though an artist was interesting I might go and see some their other stuff. They needed to figure out how to make it work for them. Sort of like how radio is free or email is free. I guess I just see it as being an advantage for them to have more listens. I understand what they’re trying to do and say, but I think they could have dealt with it better. Somehow making it work for them through advertising or something. They way they’ve done it I think has made it so they have less when they could have had so much more.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: Who pays 15 dollars for a cd anymore? You can generally get them for 10 most of the time.
--ApostleRadio
Um, no you really don't.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I know I do. The most I've paid for a cd in the last 4 years was 12 dollars. If you are paying 15, you are a sucker.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Pirates, my bucko, have real ultimate power."
And that's all there is to it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: luckily, large numbers of musicians allow people to make, distribute, and listen to recordings of their concerts for free as official policy. I suggest people interested in finding such take a look at http://etree.org and the live music archive at http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php .
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
I don't see why it's wrong for somebody to download music when they weren't going to purchase it in the first place.
Before piracy, I wasn't into music at all. I couldn't afford to be, being a poor student priced out of the market. After the advent of napster and such, I was able to first develop, then widen my musical taste to the point that I skip meals in order to be able to fund my constant concert ticket purchase, and purchasing of band merch.
Not to mention all the CD's I buy.
I'm not sure how monetary value correlates to depth of meaning to a person pH. I'm sorry that you think that many of us poor teenagers don't "deserve" to listen to the music considering we can't afford to purchase it, but frankly speaking the piracy-obsessed music fans underpin the sales of alot of the best bands going around today.
After all, I would never have heard most of my favourite bands without filesharing. Is it so wrong to suggest that perhaps filesharing has enriched my life, and also allowed me to support (almost fanatically at times) the musicians that truly deserve it, as opposed to being limited to the few bands I would have been able to find if I had been forced to purchase every album that caught my eye on my search for the niche of music I now call my own?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mintieman: you're the one attributing depth of meaning to monetary value. You're saying there's nothing wrong because its not costing the other people anything, and even gaining them something. However, the reason its wrong has nothing directly to do with money, but with it violating the rights reserved to other people under the law. The people who own the copyright, having either created a work or purchased the rights from the creator (or previous rights holder), have the right to decide (absent certain "fair uses") how a work is, among other things, copied. When you copy it outside the limits they have set up under the law, you are illegitimately coopting that right.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that I have bought more CDs because of my "pirating" activities than I ever would have bought otherwise.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:The music industry is horrible. If they didn't overprice their products (15 bucks for a disc that costs less than a dollar to press?) so ridiculously, there would be no need for piracy.
Piracy is the result of megalocorporategreed.
I wanted this to fall directly under the "Cue the random judgments about the music industry and how horrible it is" post from pH...
The thread moves too fast for me.
It would have been mildly funny, there...
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mintieman: you're the one attributing depth of meaning to monetary value. You're saying there's nothing wrong because its not costing the other people anything, and even gaining them something. However, the reason its wrong has nothing directly to do with money, but with it violating the rights reserved to other people under the law. The people who own the copyright, having either created a work or purchased the rights from the creator (or previous rights holder), have the right to decide (absent certain "fair uses") how a work is, among other things, copied. When you copy it outside the limits they have set up under the law, you are illegitimately coopting that right.
Mm, if you're going to move the argument to one solely based on current laws, than alas, I have no legs to stand on. However, the terms "right" and "wrong" dont correlate in my mind with the terms "lawful" and "unlawful". My sense of morality tells me that empirically speaking, I am doing little to no harm to the artists whom I sample the works of, and I do a great deal of good for the ones I love.
But you are right. I'm disrespecting the rights of those I claim to respect at the moment, and if it wasn't for pesky needs like uni fees and food I'd probably respect them as much as possible.
Then again, without filesharing, I wouldn't have known enough about these artists to feel guilty about disrespecting them in the first place, nevermind feel an obligation to purchase their material.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Mintieman: You're too poor to afford to pay for a 99cent itunes song? I'm sorry if that's the case, that really does stink, but there are a lot of outlets for free music, and hopefully your friends can take pity on you and lend you cds. And a lot of musicians publically have stated it is okay to pirate their music.
I don't pirate any of my music. I agree with everyone who thinks it is wrong. I think all their reasons are valid.
I think it is unethical to exploit the public nature of music in the modern age: the fact that musicians rely on its widespread distribution to make a living and make a name for themselves (in most cases, touring just doesn't cut it anymore). Believe it or not, most musicians aren't multimillionaires and along with concert sales, they need those albums profits to make a living to continue to make their music as good as possible.
And shame on those who pirate classical music and other lesser known genres and new artists. The cds are usually $5 anyway! These people and orchestras need every cent they get from their record sales. Also, from a practical point of view, the more money they make, the cheaper your tickets are going to be.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
It is really a tragedy that online music stores usually only offer a 30 sec clip, which is usually never long enough. In the rare case where I am looking for a specific song or want to sample an artist a bit more before I buy it, I have [no] problem with "illegally" downloading the song first. Of course, I always purchase it if I do like it and intend to listen to it.
[ March 31, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: camus ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
We need more of it. So the Noodly One has decreed.
-Bok
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Kristen: I'm actually to poor to purchase music, because of... all the money I spend purchasing music. My wants are unlimited, and my resources finite. So I fill the gap by pirating music, knowing full well that it just contributes to me spending yet more money on music.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Mintieman,
As was mentioned earlier, there are legal channels that allow you to have access to a very large amount of music for a very low price.
Internet radio is free. In fact, there are even some programs that automatically record the music and divide them into songs for you.
Subscription music is becoming cheaper and cheaper. If you already buy one CD each month, then you're probably paying more than you would for a subsciption service.
Used CD stores are your friend.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i definitely recomend Winamp's Shoutcast Music. It's free radio and has an incredibly vast selection. introduced me to a lot of different music.
Edit to Add: there is also Shoutcast TV on Winamp. It has lots of free tv including the Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, Scrubs, the Sopranos, Seinfeld and pretty much any other tv show you could want to watch.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Subscription services tend to be US only. I'm in Australia.
Used CD stores are my friend, even if the money doesn't go to the artists. Concert tickets tend to be the main way I give them my money.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A few thoughts:
The problem with most of the current download-for-a-fee systems is that most of them want to install some kind of software on my system, leeching memory, eating bandwidth, and/or gleaning information from me. Some put tight controls on the music preventing me from playing it on my MP3 player, a different computer, or a burned disc. And despite these roadblocks, there's no guarantee that any of these services will actually offer music I want to hear, especially if I'm hoping to find a specific song.
While I have a lot of sympathy for the artists tring to make a living on their music, I don't have a whole lot for the industry. The record companies make fortunes off of contracts that put the artists themselves into debt. Their slowness in responding to the phenomenon of digital transfer is significantly a result of their fear of losing control and profit. Now that they've finally started to realize they have to do something in this arena or turn it over to the Napsters, Groksters, and Morphei, they frequently respond by treating customers like criminals, hindering those who want to make fair use of their music and barely putting a dent in the illegal P2P trade. Observe Sony's fiasco with covert software on music CDs.
A Seattle writer once suggested that, given the digital format of CDs, record companies ought to be sued for "bundling" nine mediocre songs with the one halfway decent song you ought to hear, much like Microsoft was under scrutiny for bundling potentially unwanted software with Windows. I think she was kidding, but it's an amusing idea.
I don't trade MP3s over P2P networks with distant strangers. I have on occasion been known to trade them with friends when there was particular music that the other might want to know about and perhaps not have access to. Which also raises the question of how one is to access music that fans have copies of but the copyright holders, in their infinite wisdom, have failed to keep on the shelves or rip to MP3 format and sell. With increasingly ludicrous intellectual property laws, a piece of music can dwindle out of existence long after its creator's death when with the help of its fans and more lenient laws it could have endured.
To say piracy is stealing is too simple. It *may* remove profits from those who would normally profit from the purchase, but only if the pirate would have bought the music if the pirate option was unavailable. Ignoring this point, speculations about "losses" from piracy tend to be accountants' pipe dreams. Unlike traditional theft, piracy does not remove the product from potential purchase by someone else.
Which is not to defend the pirates. Artists should be able to make a living from their work, and people with hard drives full of pirated swag certainly contribute to a "why *should* I pay" mentality. If more pirates were ethical, and used downloaded music only to preview music before purchase, we'd all be a lot better off. Given the unlikelihood of a sudden swell of ethics in the P2P community, and the hostile uselessness of the RIAA response, I think we need to find another option.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not selfish... I simply find file sharing to be a useful tool. Case in point, Dir en grey. Without Audiogalaxy I never would have discovered them. I pay about 10-15 bucks for singles of them and 30 bucks for Japanese import CDs. Not to mention how must I spent to see them last week and how much I'd pay to see them in Japan. Without file sharing I'd never have discovered the best band ever in the whole world...
But I do admit I tend to dl and have a lot of songs on my computer. This is mostly because I am impatient. Mostly I buy CDs from Half.com or these used CD places or from the library. I do not have a "why should I pay mentality." I like the instant gratification of finding the exact song I want. I like the listening to Country, metal and R and B on Launchcast (Which I started paying for). I need to buy more CDs. Like Pink Floyd's the Wall and Vulgar by Dir en grey.
Also, isn't bootlegging worse than "pirating"?
And what I like about magpie-ing music is how I get to listen to whatever I want and arrange it in the way I want in mixes that don't make any sense. Not a good reason, but metal with country then with some old skool jazz song, priceless.
[ March 31, 2006, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: The music industry is horrible. If they didn't overprice their products (15 bucks for a disc that costs less than a dollar to press?) so ridiculously, there would be no need for piracy.
Piracy is the result of megalocorporategreed.
Do you know how much it costs to record a cd? To get the artwork together? To PROMOTE the cd so that you've heard about it in the first place? What about the artists' living expenses?
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And as for people going on about how you can't listen to the music before you buy it:
I've said this about a million times. Napster. I use Napster. I've been using Napster for over two years.
Napster Lite is $0 a month, but you pay $.99 a song, just like iTunes. Napster is $9.95 a month, and you can play or download as much music as you want, but you can't take it off your computer without paying $.99 per track. I had Napster until a few weeks ago, and I listened to a TON of music on it. I found a lot of new bands on it, too. Napster to Go is $14.95 a month, and that's what I use now. I can download all the music I want AND transfer it to one of my mp3 players (I believe you can have two per account) without paying a per-song fee. If I want to burn the songs to an actual cd, it's $.99 a track.
Most albums on Napster are $9.95 apiece, too.
Oh, and you can put it on more than one computer and transfer all of your music to the second and third computers, as well.
-pH
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I read this book by Tori Amos where she talked about how musicians often end up owing a ton of money to their music companies for their tours, for pretty much everything. Maybe that's a more larger problem than file sharing. Companies taking chunks of money away from young musicians, them having to pay lawyers, management, everything.A lot of musicians seem to make only a small precentage off their record sales. It doesn't excuse it, but it's a serious problem. People are working their butts off so that managers and companies can make more money off of music than the musicians. File-sharing is a useful tool and shouldn't really be banned. Do you realize that Dir en grey sold out whole concert halls in Germany and America and France WITHOUT any radio exposure or exposure on MTV? Just by the power of the internet? Companies and individual musicians should find a way to harnass that instead of trying to destroy it... But dang, do debates stress me out... Having the physical CD (even if in the case of Dir en grey CDs or Tori Amos CDs even, I'll just take all the albums and put them on one disk in the form of MP3s and not even touch my original CD, especially with Diru, we're talking 30 bucks a pop for a CD here!) is a lot better than mp3s. Same with movies. It's better to buy the DVD or get it half price somewhere than to download some scronky little avi or mpg file. It's what the folks that are against this don't get. There's really nothing like the real thing, but you got to admit fitting 400 or 500 songs all on one CD is useful for people who cannot afford Ipods. And I tunes and places like that don't always have that obscure out of print stuff I love.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Not that I agree with TL, but the cost of recording is a lot less than it used to be. A home recording studio based around a computer can be put together for a few thousand dollars (software, computer, hardware, room acoustics...) The cost of the artwork will vary, depending on whether all rights are purchased outright or if the artist gets a royalty per album. Promotion... Sigh. That's a whole other ball of wax. Word of mouth can't be bought, radio stations aren't supposed to be but sometimes are, and other than that, I haven't seen a single music promotion that was much besides an annoyance (especially before movies.)
As far as living expenses, videos, tours, and so on, many artists end up paying for a substantial portion of same and going into debt, trying to break even from sales of albums and knicknacks on their tours.
There's a lot about the music industry that suggests many artists could do better on their own. Which is another reason the companies are moving glacially on digital distribution.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I read this book by Tori Amos where she talked about how musicians often end up owing a ton of money to their music companies for their tours, for pretty much everything. Maybe that's a more larger problem than file sharing. Companies taking chunks of money away from young musicians, them having to pay lawyers, management, everything.A lot of musicians seem to make only a small precentage off their record sales. It doesn't excuse it, but it's a serious problem. People are working their butts off so that managers and companies can make more money off of music than the musicians. File-sharing is a useful tool and shouldn't really be banned. Do you realize that Dir en grey sold out whole concert halls in Germany and America and France WITHOUT any radio exposure or exposure on MTV? Just by the power of the internet? Companies and individual musicians should find a way to harnass that instead of trying to destroy it...
All right, here we go. Traditional Recording Contracts 101:
An artist signs a contract with a label. The label gives the artist an advance of, say, $150,000. The label then pays for the artist's recording and gives tour support and promotion, as well as publicity.
The artist receives, typically, around 13% of the list price of album sales.
The thing is, the artist advance and recording costs generally have to be recouped. Sometimes, the artist also has to pay for part of promotion and tour support.
But when I say "the artist has to pay," what I mean is that the artist's 13% is kept by the label until the label earns back what it has already spent on the artist. Generally, records recoup after around 500,000 copies are sold.
The artist doesn't actually OWE the label any money in the sense of having to pay it back. But the artist won't see any royalties on record sales until he/she/they earns back what the company put out.
BUT, if the artist is the composer of the music on the album, he/she/they DOES receive mechanical royalties on every copy REGARDLESS off recoupment.
The ARTIST doesn't PAY the managers or promotions or ANYTHING out of his/her/their own pocket, if he/she/they has a recording contract.
-pH
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Read the book... a ton of musicians end up in the red, and it's not just the file sharing.....
But couldn't there be some sort of middle ground? Why must everything be either, let folks do what they want to and dl whole entire albums or stop file sharing, shut down all the sites and programs. None of which solves the problem or helps undiscovered talent get discovered instead of me having to be tortured by the same Avril songs on constant rotation... Middle ground. Moderation. Supporting awesome artist like Sia by buying her USA release and by buying Dir en grey's release of Withering to Death if it EVER comes out in America without them changing the dates. Or perhaps I am just tired of people being so rigid on both sides.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Syn, musicians end up "in the red" because of their own bad judgment, not because of the "evil" record companies. They don't make the artists pay them back except through record sales, and there are plenty of other revenue streams for recording artists, anyway. Concert ticket sales, endorsements, the mechanical royalties, merchandise...
I'm not saying it's "just" file sharing. But the fact is, it's not the big bad record companies, either. In fact, illegally downloading a band's music instead of purchasing the CD makes it more likely that the band will lose its contract and thus much of its label-supported touring and promotions.
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Syn, musicians end up "in the red" because of their own bad judgment, not because of the "evil" record companies.
Pearce, in all fairness, I think it's a "little from Column A, little from Column B" situation.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wouldn't call the companies evil...selfish, of course, to a point, but that is what they are in business for, to make money...but not evil.
Other than Sony. I am pretty sure Sony is funding the anti-christ somehow. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Other than Sony. I am pretty sure Sony is funding the anti-christ somehow.
I'd believe it.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I find it rather insulting that people think that they "deserve" music for free.
Cue the random judgments about the music industry and how horrible it is.
-pH
pH your not listening to what was said: The product being downloaded is not available for sale! How can you pay for something when the person providing it doesn't want your money, and hasn't offered to sell it to you? Alot of people record concerts and post them online, I can't see why bands wouldn't be in favor of this, as it should show what a good live gig they have.
Before you and Dag jump all over that point: I am pointing out the obvious, not endorsing the activity. This goes on, and you can't stop it, so you've got to work it to your advantage.
I understand your trying to defend your peice of the pie, but you need to keep your ears open (for lack of a better phrase). The music industry isn't "evil" per se, but it did encourage the file sharing culture before it adopted the internet as a marketing tool, and that isn't purely the fault of selfish downloaders.
You've just got to look at why people are downloading, and then adress the thing logically: how can we make it so that people don't want to do this, or won't because they don't feel it's right. Going on a tear about how its illegal, (not the case in all circumstances anyway) doesn't change anything, it just insulates people against listening to you at all. I agree with you on the points, but your approach needs to be calmer and more collected, with a reasonable idea of who your talking to and about.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Perception, Fair-Use, and Interoperability.
I. We the consumer perceive to get free music from the radio, which is paid by advertising. a. I change the station when ads come on.
II. Recording off air TV and radio for personal record and archival is ok a. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios III. If I the consumer purchases media or IP, I should be able to use it on any of my devices. I have purchased the right to view or use it.
Subtext: Battlestar Galactica TV (2003-2006) Pilot was pirated on the internet heavily, because: It was broadcast (see I, II), And it happened to reach more consumers via word of mouth (personal interaction between people) therefore raising the awareness and number of potential customers.
90% of the media I consume is free, be it TV or radio, or pirated material; because of that increased exposure I actually purchase things I really enjoy and wish to keep around.
I don't say this to condone piracy, I say it to expose why some people think it's okay, and to expose that it's more complicated than a cut and dry bad or good thing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That tone sort of makes me want to file share even more. I really think that in the future companies should try to use file sharing as a powerful tool and not try to supress it by SUING PEOPLE or illogical things like that. Bjork had interesting things to say on the subject. It's an effective way to spread music around I think and not a threat to the industry no more than recording off the radio is. (Which I used to do as a kid, don't even tell me music isn't important to me becaue it is, it's an addiction....)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dude, trust me, I unfortunately have spent far, far too much time discussing and examining why people download.
There are plenty of different reasons, and downloading itself isn't the sole reason the music industry is struggling. There are any number of reasons.
Unfortunately, however, it has created an attitude, especially amongst people who were teens during Napster's heyday, that they shouldn't have to pay for music.
And yes, I think suing customers may not have been the best way to go about it...but in all honesty, I don't think the RIAA had any clue how to handle such a situation. The major labels are freaking out, which is why they're being very slow on embracing digital downloads as a legitimate source of revenue (and right now, digital music services only make up a small percentage of the total market anyway). I'm not "cool" amongst fellow students because I don't despise the record industry for their reaction. They don't know what to do. Change is hard for any company, especially what will amount to a fairly sizable change in their focus. I mean, the movie industry thought home video would destroy them...and they were also having problems at the time home video was first introduced. Companies in the transportation industry have done the same thing. It's nothing new, and it's not a horrible thing. It's also no reason to "punish" the labels. It would make a lot more impact on the industry if people were to make themselves a part of the legal download market instead of running off to illegal filesharing programs.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the situation would improve vastly if labels' legal and customary exceptions to antitrust laws were dropped.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Personally, I think the first artist who gets a contract in which the packaging fee does not apply to legal download sales will be a huge sign of major label acceptance of the download market and their willingness to rethink their business model.
If it's already happened, I haven't heard about it.
I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!
-pH
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Unfortunately, however, it has created an attitude, especially amongst people who were teens during Napster's heyday, that they shouldn't have to pay for music.
And they shouldn't have to pay for music - unless there is some sign that not paying will prevent the music artists from being music artists. So far I have not seen a sign of that, with artists still profiting from shows, CD sales, etc. And consumers really shouldn't have to pay for music that is now very old and/or whose original authors have passed away - there's not all that much point to that.
Unfortunately, for many years music could not simply be shared in the way file sharing allows it to be. That created an attitude that the music itself could be owned, and that the owner deserves to be paid whenever someone listens to that music. And it allowed the industry to create copyright laws that were both far too long-lasting and far too restrictive. Look at other, more easily shared information and you can see the difference. If I have an idea and tell it to somebody, unless I made him agree to keep it secret, he can tell other people and those other people are under no obligation to pay me anything. If I write a short story and give it to someone, he can go read that story to other people - and they can in turn even memorize it and tell it to even more people, without giving me a cent. If I come up with a mathematical proof and show it to somebody, that person can tell it to other people, and those people wouldn't need to pay me. That's how the sharing of information usually works, and I think consumers would greatly benefit if the laws regarding music were switched in accordance to this. Music should be copyright protected to the extent that people cannot profit from or sell another person's ideas during a certain period of time, and so that other people can't take credit for a certain person's work. However, freely sharing should be allowed to the same degree (and accepted with the same enthusiasm) that people are allowed and encouraged to be check books out from libraries.
I have also seen no evidence yet that artists as a whole will be significantly hurt by this. I suspect big-time artists will get significantly less money (yet still enough to keep being artists), but I think small-time artists will get a boost from an environment where their works can be more easily heard and exchanged. Most of all, I suspect the free exchange of music will benefit good music over bad music, because it will favor the music than fans want to share and download, rather than favoring the music that the industry wants to sell.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: And they shouldn't have to pay for music - unless there is some sign that not paying will prevent the music artists from being music artists. So far I have not seen a sign of that, with artists still profiting from shows, *CD sales*, etc. And consumers really shouldn't have to pay for music that is now very old and/or whose original authors have passed away - there's not all that much point to that.
That'd be a neat trick, if people shouldn't be paying for music.
-pH Edit to fix emphasis.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Not so tricky as it sounds. People already pay to go to shows even though they have CDs. They clearly would still pay to go to performances.
I suspect many would also still buy the CDs - for the same reason that many people who check a book at a library and enjoy the book later decide to buy it in hardcover: just to be able to own it. Even if I'm wrong on that, given that musicians existed long before copies of music could ever be sold on CD or record, I think it's extremely unlikely that music would cease to be profitable if CDs stopped being sold.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Not so tricky as it sounds. People already pay to go to shows even though they have CDs. They clearly would still pay to go to performances.
I suspect many would also still buy the CDs - for the same reason that many people who check a book at a library and enjoy the book later decide to buy it in hardcover: just to be able to own it. Even if I'm wrong on that, given that musicians existed long before copies of music could ever be sold on CD or record, I think it's extremely unlikely that music would cease to be profitable if CDs stopped being sold.
I'm not following. People shouldn't pay for music.
But they should buy CDs.
Buying CDs = Paying for music.
-pH
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, buying CDs = paying for CDs.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if music was legally available for free, people would still buy CDs.
That would devastate music stores, which are already in serious trouble to begin with.
On top of that, the people who would buy CDs would be...music freaks. The general public wouldn't do it. CD sales would drop dramatically, and the artist would get much less in the way of mechanical royalties. And I sincerely doubt that that money would be made up in concert sales.
-pH
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The question is not whether the money would be made up in concert sales. The question is whether they'd still make enough from concert sales to and other sales to warrant being professional musicians for a living. Again, professional musicians have existed long before CDs ever did.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I write a short story and give it to someone, he can go read that story to other people - and they can in turn even memorize it and tell it to even more people, without giving me a cent.
This is not an unlimited right, and it applies to music as well, to the same extent.
quote:However, freely sharing should be allowed to the same degree (and accepted with the same enthusiasm) that people are allowed and encouraged to be check books out from libraries.
This is already the case - it is legal to check out CDs from libraries in the exact same way books are checked out.
When you check a book out from the library, you are using copy which was (presumably) paid for. No one else can read the book while you have it, and when you return, you no longer can read it.
This is not the case for file-sharing (as big a misnomer as "pirate" by the way - it's not sharing, it's copying).
If you really think music sharing "should be allowed to the same degree" as checking out books from a library, rejoice! you already have that.
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
Wow. I didn't expect this many replies when I started this topic.
Before I get started, I'd like to share with you something that talks a bit about pirating and how the response could get out of hand. <http://rr.beyondapoc.net/afternow/128kbps/afternow_128_01.mp3> The bit about piracy begins at 8:38, but I'd recommend listening to all of it.
Don't worry, it's a legal download posted by the author himself. The site for the rest of the show is <http://www.theafternow.com/listen.php>
Now, here's my questions for pH and all the rest of y'all. First, take legalities out of the picture. I'm talking from a strictly moral standpoint. 1)What if the artist is dead? 2)What if the pirate downloads only songs that were played on the radio, in the same format that the radio played them? 3)What if it were certain that the artist would recieve no money from the only cd's you could buy? 4)(this kinda follows up #3) What if there were NO other way to get their music? 5)What if they happen to be System of a Down? (Sorry, personal biases run deep. There are some bands I hope fail so that they'll stay off the radio.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jimbo the Clown: Now, here's my questions for pH and all the rest of y'all. First, take legalities out of the picture. I'm talking from a strictly moral standpoint. 1)What if the artist is dead? 2)What if the pirate downloads only songs that were played on the radio, in the same format that the radio played them? 3)What if it were certain that the artist would recieve no money from the only cd's you could buy? 4)(this kinda follows up #3) What if there were NO other way to get their music? 5)What if they happen to be System of a Down? (Sorry, personal biases run deep. There are some bands I hope fail so that they'll stay off the radio.)
1. If the artist is dead, even ignoring the legal issues, I'd still want to buy the music, I think. To me, purchasing music is a show of support.
2. I still wouldn't go for it. Besides, radio...is becoming increasingly bad. Actually, either Sirius or XM had an issue with that kind of thing...they wanted to make it possible for people to directly record their music or something, and someone threw a fit...I don't remember the exact case; I'll try to find it.
3. I can't think of an instance in which that would be the case. And even so, I think it's important to show whoever put out the CD that you value the artist and his/her music and are willing to support him/her in such a manner. Low CD sales are what get bands dropped.
4. Again, in what situation would there be no other way? If the artist puts his/her own music up for free download, knock yourself out. Otherwise, if the music really is only available in digital format, I'll buy it from my legal download service.
5. Hahahaha. I've got no issue with System. Hell, I paid for one of those atrocious Britney Spears albums. I figured somebody had to help pay her airbrusher.
-pH
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
1. I do like the instant gratification of downloading, but it's good to have that solid CD, even if I don't play it (like with my Dir en grey CDs) and just use the 350 bitrate mp3s. 2. I don't see a problem with it, especially if it's something that is not often played on the radio enough and you just want to have the song. I'm for less restrictions when it comes to things, not more. More just makes it worse. 3. It still would be nice to have the CD. I'd buy a used copy if I can't afford a new one. (I think lack of promotion doesn't help either. There are some bands and artists that are so good, but when do you hear them on the radio? When do they get played on MTV when it gets choked by people like all these dull pop musicians that are as boring as fast food. It's like weeds. What about stuff like Tori Amos that is just so good, but she's now 40 so her record company tried to limit her and basically put a visegrip on her songs until she got annoyed and went to another label.) 4. If it's something rare and the band doesn't mind, I say go for it. 5. I heard a couple of their songs. Dir en grey got compared to them but they are MILLIONS OF TIMES BETTER than S of a D and most of these cookie cutter bands. Long live DIRU!
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
quote: originally posted by pH 3. I can't think of an instance in which that would be the case. And even so, I think it's important to show whoever put out the CD that you value the artist and his/her music and are willing to support him/her in such a manner. Low CD sales are what get bands dropped.
Alrite, here's a ferinstance for you. I like the singer Captain Jack. He's dead now, but when he was still alive, I made a point to look for his cds. Everywhere I looked didn't offer them. Even HIS OWN SITE didn't sell the cds. Finally, I found a copy at a local shop. The cd was preowned, so there wasn't a chance that the money from the sale would go to the Captain. Are you saying I should have bought the cd just to support an artist, even though I knew he wouldn't get the money?
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
Another question. What if you had already bought the cd, but through no fault of your own, it was destroyed? Since you already showed support and gave them your money, would it be immoral to download the cd instead of paying for it again?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That happened to me with- NIN Their double album. I crushed one of the CDs under a chair! It's a major PAIN to buy a new copy of a double CD. It's enough to drive me nuts. One of these days I'll get a new copy of Kisou. I treated that CD with kid gloves. I could kill the person who scratched it up when I loaned it to them.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jimbo the Clown: Another question. What if you had already bought the cd, but through no fault of your own, it was destroyed? Since you already showed support and gave them your money, would it be immoral to download the cd instead of paying for it again?
I have, in the past, bought more than four copies of a CD of a band FOR WHOM I WAS WORKING, despite the fact that they would've gladly given me free copies. I ended up buying multiple copies because my brother stole one, my ex-boyfriend never returned one, I left one in a friend's car because he really liked it, and so on.
So I, personally, would find it immoral to download the CD for free instead of paying for it again.
-pH
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
It makes sense to invest in a place/person of employment. That's why my dad buys gas from Shell even when there's a cheaper place across the street.
I believe copyrights allow a person to make one copy of a cd for personal use. I do this with some of my older cds so should they finally become scratched to the point of uselessness, I have a back-up. I don't see too much difference in downloading a cd if one breaks before a legal personal copy can be made.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But their success had no bearing on my pay or my job. I was going to keep working for them no matter what, and the only reason I stopped is because I moved to Louisiana.
I've done the same for bands that I don't work for, too. I was pointing out that I worked for that particular band because I was in a position to be provided with free CDs, and I still decided to pay.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if music was legally available for free, people would still buy CDs.
That would devastate music stores, which are already in serious trouble to begin with. -pH
I agree with you pH, but your snatching up the wrong gauntlet here. These "institutions" of music were all created, they all evolved to make money off of something that already existed. Musicians have been around for millenia, and the recording industy for less than a century.
In that time they've convinced us that its somehow necessary to have all the agressive advertising, overhyping, transforming the artists into unrecognizable lumps of spent uranium so that the industry can glean a few more dollars from a career. I love the arguments that people make about how a new advancement will kill the jobs in an outmoded business model... well duh, if you can't evolve and take advantage of new technology, you deserve to lose your job and your business.
Likewise, and to their collective woe, the things that the recording industry originally did are so cheap and easy, that we don't need them to do those things anymore. The pioneering days of the Beetles in the studio are gone, it doesn't take a lifetime of knowledge to make a record anymore. They no longer control the means of production, so they want to control advertising and distribution. Woops! Advertising is cheap, but we can weight the process down with think tanks and testing. Distribution is virtually free now... well we've just got to stall, prevaricate, try and make the whole think especially difficult and expensive to justify the percentages we reap in this business.
Why do you defend a business that doesn't need to exist anymore? The idea that they are also responsible for exposing the public to new and great music is a false one, because the recording industry is also responsible to ruining or sabotaging the careers of countless artists. And what about the talents that went unnoticed or unnurtured because the industry couldn't see a bottom line?
This is the reason that today IMO most popular music is mindless ear candy- great music doesn't sell if it requires the listener to put a little effort into the experience. The machine that produces music catches onto that, and what do you do when cotton candy sells twice as fast as corn dogs? You sell only cotton candy, all the time. Frankly my stomach hurts from being force-fed this garbage since I was a little kid, so I'm ready to say toodles to the recording industry, for better or worse.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not talking about all popular music.
I've worked with major labels, artists signed to major labels, unsigned artists, local artists, and, most recently, a small indie label.
So no. I'm not "snatching up the wrong gauntlet," nor am I simply defending my "piece of the pie."
I become incredibly frustrated with people telling me that I don't know "how it works."
Yeah, music stores were created.
Drugstores were created, too. Grocery stores were created. Just about every business structure we have today was created, many of them very recently. What's your point?
-pH
Posted by opiejudy (Member # 9301) on :
I dont like getting msuic fromt he internet and this is not from a money point of view. My child wants an MP3 player for this player she wants to download (we would pay for it) only songs she already knows and likes onto it, meaning she is only downloading songs that are getting airplay. But what about all she is not getting. Where will she find songs that are B-sides or in the case of what are now cd's hidden tracks? How will she be exposed to all of the music available from a band. If she isnt reading the cover of a cd, album or tape how will she know who influenced the band? If she doesnt know who influenced the band how will she open herself up to new music? I am to depend on music I already know and a DJ with greased hands to dole out the music my daughter will ever experience? I am all for technology, but not at the expense of art and new experiences.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
opie, most music services will, with each band listing, give a biography that usually lists influences. They also give recommendations for similar artists, and a lot of times, they have some really cool, hard-to-find tracks.
-pH
Posted by opiejudy (Member # 9301) on :
thank you for that information, still not entirely convinced its the way to go, though.
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
Everyone seems to be stuck on music. Piracy, however, includes books, videogames, movies, and all manner of other things as well.
Personally, I pirate just about everything, but my guidlines vary from one media to another. I pay my fifteen a month for music, but the amount I can download with that fifteen makes it feel free. I will only download books if I have a paper copy, so that I can read them on my Palmpilot. I have no scruples about videogames, movies, or T.V. shows, however. (unless it's a video released by someone I know will get the money, like the video of past concerts bands sometimes sell) So, lets broaden the conversation. What's are your opinions, folks?
Also, while we're at it, how does everyone feel about Tivo and similar programs? Aren't those forms of piracy as well?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I have yet to see anything which disproves or argues the fact that people who are heavy downloaders are also the greatest purchasers of music.
There are alot of bands who would not be making money from me if it weren't for the fact that I discovered them via illegal downloads. If I'm even the slightest bit curious about a band, I'll download one of their cds, upload it to my ipod for easy listening. If they're any good, I become hooked and will atleast go back and buy a copy for my car. Some of my favorite bands were found this way and now they have the benefit of one more fan who is there to get their next cd the day it hits stores. And if I don't like the cd, well, I wouldn't have purchased it in the first place regardless. I'm not sad about them not making money off my disappointment.
As for other media, I'm actually a bigger pirate of movies and tv shows. The movie theatre here only has four screens and since this is a college town it acts to serve only local parents with kids and young adults with very little taste. So I download alot of movies. I have to say that I purchase copies of almost all of them because I'm a sucker for Special Edition dvds with extras. I also download alot of tv shows because its a higher quality than my vcr can handle. I have classes and extraciriculars which make it hard for me to catch my favorite shows. So I download when its convient, watch at my leisure, then purchase the sets of my favorite shows once they hit shelves. (for example, I have seasons 3 of scrubs and season 5 of Queer as Folk sitting on my hard-drive to watch until they're both released this May.) Since I don't have a dvd-burner and find blank dvds expensive anyway, I pay alittle extra for the pretty packaging and it doesn't bother me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So, Jimbo, what makes you think the people who make video games don't deserve to be paid for their work? Obviously, if everyone downloaded, they would stop making them, because it wouldn't be profitable. . . so why should the rest of us pay for you to play for free?
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
I was trying to be concise, so I didn't fully explain my philosophy on videogames. Old games (Snes, Nes, etc.) are only available preowned nowadays, so any money I pay for them will only go to the store. I don't download computer games, unless it's out of print, until after I've bought a copy. I don't download modern console games at all, however. Part of that, yes, is that the emulators don't exist and I don't want a mod chip, but I AM and avid gamer; I have over forty bought-and-paid-for PS2 games and many more Gamecube games.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay, that's way different from your original statement, and somewhat more understandable.
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
Sorry. Like I said, I was trying to be concise; that's why it's so different. Still, so that there aren't any more misunderstandings, I download only movies that have been released on DVD. That's more because camrips are horrible quality than morals, though. I don't really care about the income of Hollywood. (With a few exceptions- I bought my copy of Serenity, and I'll gladly pay for a movie with Morgan Freeman in it.) As for T.V., I'm indiscriminate.(Though I plan to buy Firefly as soon as I get the money together; I certainly hope the show gets reinstated!)
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I'm curious about how buying used plays into this. From a purely economic standpoint, and the artist/label point of view, does used = pirated?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Just today I spent $14 for a CD my wife -- the tracks of which I'd already "illegally" downloaded & given to her weeks ago.
I will start respecting copyright protection more when its proponents stop dishonestly treating information as property.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
Yeah, music stores were created.
Drugstores were created, too. Grocery stores were created. Just about every business structure we have today was created, many of them very recently. What's your point?
-pH
You probably know how it works better than I do, so I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from. My point is that unlike drugstores and groceries, record stores are nearing a point where what they do is no longer something that we want or need. If that happens, it will be a mix of good and bad results, the culture will be affected for sure. So the business structures that we created to distribute products are slowly replaced by other structures. You can't distribute groceries online, you can't perscribe drugs over the telephone (mostly). But you can foresee a future where media is delivered entirely digitally, and the record business can also see that their usefulness in that schema is going to be at issue.
Since I know you know how it works, I know you can see this happening too. Piracy shows us what is possible. It does tell us what people want, and what people will do. Its just like people who smoke pot, (not exactly the same thing granted), they want a product they aren't allowed to have, so we know that if we started supplying it they would surely buy it legally. The fact that they break the law to get it tells me that they REALLY do want it, so if we can be reasonable and provide music online, fairly and easily, with the artists recieving a reasonable share of the profit, then we should do that. I see the problem being that the record industry has no real interest, financially, in giving up that huge production model with big profits, for what would be a more streamlined business model with digital delivery.
Hey, maybe people will still want albums, but if not, what does the industry provide that we can't do better? Like the dinosaur...
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: I'm curious about how buying used plays into this. From a purely economic standpoint, and the artist/label point of view, does used = pirated?
I remember back in the early 90s (before CD burning or mp3 downloading was even an issue), Garth Brooks was seriously up in arms about sale of used CDs. How he thought this differed from, say, used book stores, is beyond me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I DO think that the business model is going to have to change; there are plenty of smaller labels that currently focus more on the digital market.
But stealing music isn't going to make the major labels alter their views on downloads as quickly as supporting legal download services will.
Also, "record industry" and "music industry" are two different terms.
-pH
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I'm not taking sides in this argument. But I would like to present a word (or several) from our host.
Okay, just one comment. As a musician, and a member of a family of numerous musicians, piracy sucks.
However, most artists don't hold the copyright to their work, the record label does and that means that they get what the record company agrees to give them. It also means that if they switch labels, they don't get to take their old recordings with them, and any profits from before they switched are going right into the corporation's pocket, not the artists.
Fair? Not really.
Buy from independant artists. They keep more of their money, and they probably own their own copyrights.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I suspect that free music sharing will eventually evolve naturally, from the bottom up, into the normal way in which music is distributed, even without any legal changes.
As young bands increasingly use the internet (from filesharing programs to myspace.com) to distribute their music, they will see the benefit of allowing free downloading of songs. Bands who give away music get greater exposure than those restricting their music - increasingly so as more and more music fans take advnatage of digital music. And more established bands won't want to look bad by withholding their music when their competitors are giving it away, so they will eventually be forced to accept free sharing of their music too. Eventually, I expect it will trickle up until even the most popular groups will feel pressure to accept free filesharing as the standard method of distribution - or risk alienating fans. It will certainly take time for attitudes to change, though.
Posted by opiejudy (Member # 9301) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by pH:
Yeah, music stores were created.
Drugstores were created, too. Grocery stores were created. Just about every business structure we have today was created, many of them very recently. What's your point?
-pH
You probably know how it works better than I do, so I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from. My point is that unlike drugstores and groceries, record stores are nearing a point where what they do is no longer something that we want or need. If that happens, it will be a mix of good and bad results, the culture will be affected for sure. So the business structures that we created to distribute products are slowly replaced by other structures. You can't distribute groceries online, you can't perscribe drugs over the telephone (mostly). But you can foresee a future where media is delivered entirely digitally, and the record business can also see that their usefulness in that schema is going to be at issue.
Since I know you know how it works, I know you can see this happening too. Piracy shows us what is possible. It does tell us what people want, and what people will do. Its just like people who smoke pot, (not exactly the same thing granted), they want a product they aren't allowed to have, so we know that if we started supplying it they would surely buy it legally. The fact that they break the law to get it tells me that they REALLY do want it, so if we can be reasonable and provide music online, fairly and easily, with the artists recieving a reasonable share of the profit, then we should do that. I see the problem being that the record industry has no real interest, financially, in giving up that huge production model with big profits, for what would be a more streamlined business model with digital delivery.
Hey, maybe people will still want albums, but if not, what does the industry provide that we can't do better? Like the dinosaur...
You can get both groceries and prescriptions over the internet. I was recently very much disabled due to an extremely high risk pregnancy and my family would ahve been up the creek without these services.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's why I said (mostly) Opiejudy. However your part of the market is small, and you still have to actually get your hands on a physical product, the mail will always be slower, thus less desirable to the consumer.
"But stealing music isn't going to make the major labels alter their views on downloads as quickly as supporting legal download services will."-pH
In this case I would like that to be true, but think about it. If there hadn't been millions of people on napster, we still wouldn't have any legal download services available to us. The threat posed by dowloaders prompted the industry to take action. How could we have supported these services before they ever existed? And since they exist because of the piracy problem, its obvious to me that piracy did serve to show the industry what was possible.
That being said, now IS a good opportunity for consumers to let the industry know that it is on to a good thing at last. The problem is that as soon as the industry as its hands back on the reigns, it surely won't be as reasonable as piracy forces it to be. Ie, companies will continue to become more agressive in their attempts to market and get people to pay more for less. It would be against common sense for them NOT to do that. This is why piracy will remain a check (no matter how distasteful) against that power becoming to concentrated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, here's my questions for pH and all the rest of y'all. First, take legalities out of the picture. I'm talking from a strictly moral standpoint.
First, it's impossible to separate legality from morality in this case. There are lots of different ways a society can choose to allocate rights to creative works, from no protection ever to total protection always. Each person gets the benefit of both sides of the bargain, although many choose not to exercise the monopoly rights over their own works.
But, if we atalk about what the law should be, not what it is, we can set legality aside for now.
quote:1)What if the artist is dead?
Doesn't matter. If we make an economic right, there's no particular reason to sever that right at death. Artists need to provide for their family, plus making the rights sellable gives artists the chance to gain economic reward in advance of the popular market for their works.
If those rights didn't survive death, no one would be able to sell a creative work. Plus, what about multi-author works?
quote:2)What if the pirate downloads only songs that were played on the radio, in the same format that the radio played them?
Doesn't matter one bit to the morality of it. First, composers/songwriters receive royalties for radio play of their works. Revoking that right now is not fair. Second, because someone publishes a work in a way that doesn't require money to view or listen to it does not mean that the work becomes public domain in that medium.
quote:3)What if it were certain that the artist would recieve no money from the only cd's you could buy?
Doesn't matter - the artist received some payment when s/he transferred the rights. copying the CD dilutes the worth of that transferred good, making it harder to receive compensation in the future for new works. Plus, there's nothing less moral about a royalty because it goes to a company.
quote:4)(this kinda follows up #3) What if there were NO other way to get their music?
Doesn't matter. They have chosen to limit distribution of their work - it's not your place to change that.
quote:5)What if they happen to be System of a Down? (Sorry, personal biases run deep. There are some bands I hope fail so that they'll stay off the radio.)
Then you shouldn't need to listen to their music.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: First, it's impossible to separate legality from morality in this case.
You have a habit of substituting legality for morality, and I believe there is no circumstances in which morality is defined by or guided by legality. Legality must always be defined by moral principles, and it must reflect them. Once you start getting into the legal principles defining morals: i.e. since its illegal, it is somewhat immoral, sorry but you have lost you way as a person and a lawyer.
I know you didn't do that, but this statement hints at that kind of reasoning, which is just plain scary. You can go into the fact that laws are based on morals, therefore we must try and uphold laws, lest we ignore morals etc. I get all that, but we also need to keep a clear understanding of the function of the law. You sometimes talk as if the function of the law is to be the law, not to benefit society, or ethics, or reasonable intercourse between civilized people. The law isn't the final word, history is the judge of all things.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It depends on what defines your morals. If your morals are defined, at least partly, by a specific religious code, then chances are that religious code (especially if it is a Christian code) dictates that one should follow the laws of the land insofar as such laws do not directly conflict with the laws of the Father.
I, personally, do not think that the law exists to enforce morality.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hmm. Yes pH you make a good point. I am thinking of it this way: Christianity's religious laws are all based upon a morality which is (supposedly) held in common by all christians. The purpose of the religious code is therefore to enforce the morals which are its foundation. For instance the morality says: respect life, so the the code says: don't kill things, don't hurt people, don't polute your body, etc. All the little codes are just smaller parts of one basic principle.
Isn't it the same with municipal laws? Yes its a different set of "morals," so maybe I should just say ethics, or goals. The laws exist to represent the deeper complete meaning of a set of common ethics. Of course if we were all telepathic and could live inside each other's memories and thoughts, we would need no laws because we would all have a common knowledge of the same ethical principles. Since we don't, I wonder how often the laws substitute themselves for ethics.
For instance the long battles over prohibition or marijuana use. The laws which exist against marijuana are largely in place for economic reasons, as well as political and societal inhibitions against Mexican encrouchment into Texas in the 1920s and 1930s. As a result of this marijuana remains illegal, and thus unstudied by modern medicine. As a result of the public awareness campaigns against cannibis, which were undertaken for these political reasons, the American consciousness has a skewed understanding of what it is. So it is illegal, and thus is becomes immoral.
Not to make you think that I have a particular agenda with marijuana, not so. This is all while it remains legal for a doctor to prescribe methamphetamines, cocaine, and opiates to their patients. Ecstacy is being studied for its effects on mood disturbances, as a low-dose anti-depressent. All of the drugs I've mentioned are the sources of terrible drug overdoses, addictions and deaths each year in the U.S. Opiate addiction is common among prescription drug users, however since it is legal, nothing is done about it, and people die.
I'm sure you can think of instances where this kind of dynamic arises: a small group or minority interest gets something made illegal, and that becomes part of the culture, to a point where we become convinced that the law has always represented our beliefs in full. So pH I think we do substitute laws for moral sometimes, even if we don't like it, or think we shouldn't. I think that for many people, laws do exist to reinforce their moral beliefs; they believe that laws are a way of extending their beliefs onto other people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You have a habit of substituting legality for morality,
No, I don't. I have a very clear understanding of the differences between the two and which is more relevant to a particular issue.
In fact, more than most people on this board, I have advocated the legalization of acts I distinctly think to be immoral. Further, I am also one of the strongest advocates of limiting government's power to restrict speech while at the same time advocating that certain things just shouldn't be said.
You don't know what you are talking about when you say this. I am very conscious of the distinction between morality and legality and use that distinction with a fair amount of precision.
quote:and I believe there is no circumstances in which morality is defined by or guided by legality.
Then you scare the hell out of me. We ride on the right side of the road because we need a convention to keep our roads safe. There's nothing moral about driving on the right side of the road, but there is something moral about obeying the law describing what side of the road one should drive on.
quote:Legality must always be defined by moral principles, and it must reflect them. Once you start getting into the legal principles defining morals: i.e. since its illegal, it is somewhat immoral, sorry but you have lost you way as a person and a lawyer.
I know you didn't do that,
Then what's the lecture for?
quote:but this statement hints at that kind of reasoning, which is just plain scary.
It only hints at that kind of reasoning if one lacks the ability to appreciate a highly nuanced issue. The distinction between law and morality is not one-way. It is a feedback loop, and recognizing that isn't scary, it's smart.
BTW, almost all ISP Terms Of Service prohibit use of the internet connection for copyright violations. Which means almost everyone hooked to the net has promised not to share files illegally - and breaking one's promise IS immoral.
quote:You can go into the fact that laws are based on morals, therefore we must try and uphold laws, lest we ignore morals etc. I get all that, but we also need to keep a clear understanding of the function of the law.
I have a very clear understanding. I'm beginning to think you don't.
quote:You sometimes talk as if the function of the law is to be the law, not to benefit society, or ethics, or reasonable intercourse between civilized people.
No, I don't. Just because I'm capable of making distinctions without (as you admitted I did not) erroneously confusing law and morality does not mean that I am unaware of the distinctions.
Next time you feel the need to make broad, inaccurate statements about me, do me the courtesy of at least trying to back them up first.
quote:The law isn't the final word, history is the judge of all things.
No, it's not. History is more manipulable than law. There is a final word, but it's not the interpretation of events by a particular branch of academia.
There are many moral reasons to disobey the law. Wanting a bigger music collection isn't one of them.
[ April 03, 2006, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:If there hadn't been millions of people on napster, we still wouldn't have any legal download services available to us.
Exactly. The entire record and music industries missed the boat on the Internet in a huge way. There are two lessons that the record and music industries need to learn from the successes of online music stores:
(1) People want digital distribution.
Slowly but surely, the record and music industries seem to be figuring this out. However, consumers also want DRM restriction that are as non-intrusive as possible, if they have to be in place at all. A nice-to-have here would be the ability to re-download tracks you purchase in the case of things like hard drive failures. Until that happens, those who purchase music online have to put up with not really owning anything.
(2) People want to buy singles, not albums.
This, I think, is what really concerns the record and music industries -- that consumers really do just want that one hit single they hear incessantly on the radio (because the labels paid off the DJs to play it incessantly), rather than the whole album. There's a lot of pressure on Apple to allow price variation on iTMS, presumably so that hit singles and obscure classics could be priced higher. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that the record industry engaged in price shenanigans.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'll be very surprised if anyone actually goes through with different pricing for singles.
And also, one of the reasons it's so hard for record labels to switch over to digital distribution: a lot of these guys just don't "get it." Most likely, it's because they were born too early to have really seen the evolution of digital distribution up close.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I'll be very surprised if anyone actually goes through with different pricing for singles.
On iTMS, it's already happening with albums. In some cases this is done under the guise of "bonus content," as with Coldplay's X&Y, where for $11.99 you get a video interview and a "digital booklet" of the album art along with your album download. For me, this was the lesser of two evils, since the CD was copy-protected and I don't buy copy-protected CDs anymore. In other cases, as with the recently-added Red Hot Chili Peppers catalogue, the albums are $11.99 for no apparent reason other than their popularity (Peppers albums are long, but you can get longer, less popular albums for the standard $9.99).
I wouldn't say I'm expecting to see variable single pricing, but if it doesn't happen it'll be in spite of the labels' desires, not because of them.
quote:And also, one of the reasons it's so hard for record labels to switch over to digital distribution: a lot of these guys just don't "get it." Most likely, it's because they were born too early to have really seen the evolution of digital distribution up close.
Yes, I agree -- like how Bill Gates misjudged the whole Internet thing in The Road Ahead (published December 1995), only much more so. That isn't a justification for their reaction to the expression of consumer desire for legal digital distribution, though, just an explanation for it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
twinky, the only differences in albums that I've seen are if you have to buy each separate track. Like, some albums are $11.95, and they have twelve tracks. That kind of thing. I don't think it's that big a deal. But I also don't have to pay for individual albums or tracks anymore, and when I did, I wouldn't buy the whole album unless I either was totally infatuated with the artist or knew for sure that I wanted to hear a significant portion of the songs.
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would really, really appreciate it if the "I can loan a friend a CD, why can't I put songs online" argument was dropped forever as being exceptionally stupid. It leaves out the element of scale, which makes a big difference in any argument.
If I drove by and tossed a cigarette butt in your driveway you probably wouldn't call the cops on me. Annoying, but no big deal, even though littering is against the law. It's just not worth the trouble enforcing the law right then. If I backed up a truck and started filling up your yard with cigarette butts, you would call the cops, even though I'm just doing what I did before when you let it go.
There are plenty of excellent arguments to be made in this topic. "It's OK sometimes, it should be OK all the time" is not one of them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
pH, I preferentially buy (and pirate, when I do that) by album. In that respect it seems I differ from most of the online music services' customers.
iTMS has by far the biggest piece of the pie -- last time I checked, its share of the legal download market was greater than 70%. And like I said, the labels want variable pricing. If they can pressure Apple into changing, they can almost certainly do the same to any of the smaller vendors (Napster, Puretracks, whoever).
Apple has already introduced variable single pricing in iTMS Japan (ranging from about US$1.35 to US$1.80 per song), and the Japanese store was one of the last ones to open. Apple's U.S. licensing deal with the labels is set for renegotiation this year, so we'll see what happens.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It'll be interesting to watch because one thing the record companies cannot seem to understand is that consumers aren't listening to them anymore. We no longer accept that their way is the only to get music. Every draconian DRM method that has been presented has resulted in bad press and lackluster sales, while download services with minimal or no DRM and reasonable prices have sold as fast as people could click.
We want our music our way, to be enjoyed as we see fit, and we know how easy it is to get. The companies that can provide that are taking over the marketplace. The companies that fear it will eventually go away. Even iTunes isn't immune, and I think they're smart enough to know that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Apple may be smart enough to know that, but even if they are, they may not be persuasive enough to overcome the labels' sense that Apple is just using iTMS as a vehicle for selling iPods (which is true).
So yeah, I agree, it'll be interesting.
The main reason I oppose variable album pricing is that so far it has gone only one way: up. Popular albums cost more and the only albums that cost less have fewer than 10 tracks (and so are sold on a per-track basis, as with EPs). There's a firm upper limit on what I'm willing to pay for lossy audio with DRM restrictions; the convenience of downloading doesn't outweigh the higher quality of CD audio when the prices are equivalent. If I can buy an album on iTMS for $12 and the CD for $14, I'm a lot more likely to go with the CD. If I can buy the album on iTMS for $10, it's a different story.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And you don't think that's why the labels want it? Price iTMS up and people will start buying CDs again, I'm guessing that's the reasoning.
Thing is, the choice isn't just between high priced downloads and CDs. People may also choose between higher priced downloads and free downloads. I think the music industry is misunderstanding the current boom in legal music downloads. It's not because everyone suddenly realized Stealing Is Wrong. It's because finally music is easy and convenient to buy at a reasonable price.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I agree completely. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Without condoning piracy....
I make a note that the concept of "owning" an infinitely duplicable idea is difficult to absorb. I buy a CD; it's mine; why shouldn't I share the music? I buy a PC; it's mine; why shouldn't I share the software?
If I steal someone's television, I take it for myself, but I also deprive them of it. If I steal someone's song, they still have it. It's hard to get your mind around the idea that the real use of a creative property is not to entertain (which can be shared by everyone) but to make money for the creator.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This is exactly why "piracy" is not "stealing" -- it's copyright infringement.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
If this was discussed earlier, MPH, and I thus missed it by not reading the whole thread, I am hereby abashed, humbled, and embarrassed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Here's an example of a record exec making his desire for variable single pricing quite clear.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't recall it being discussed before, Mabus. My statment wasn't an attack on you -- it was just a satement of my view.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Oh. So here I was being all embarrassed for nothing. Phooey on you.
Could you elaborate? If copyright infringement is something other than a form of theft, what makes it wrong, exactly?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Two quick reasons:
A) It's against the law. B) It can deprive artists ahd their industry from profits they would have had otherwise.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mabus: Could you elaborate? If copyright infringement is something other than a form of theft, what makes it wrong, exactly?
IMO, copyright infringement is *not* necessarily wrong. Taking credit for someone's work is wrong, because it's deceptive, but merely replicating and distributing someone else's original content is not; we do this every time we repeat a joke we've heard. Copyright is a somewhat imaginary right that, in the U.S. and other countries, people have chosen to codify in law. But I agree with MPH that it is not theft, or any other sort of property crime.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What is needed -- although not in the eyes of the RIAA -- is a system that acknowledges and even embraces the distributing power of the Internet while still providing a way for artists to receive compensation for, and retain some measure of control over, their work. Arguments in that direction would be useful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Property rights are the foundation of a modern economy. Absent well defined, protected property rights, an economy cannot function (edit: efficiently, just to be clear), because the principles of exchange break down. For the purposes of economics, it doesn't matter whether the property is or is not tangible; people will be more reluctant to found businesses involving such goods if property rights are not effectively protected. For instance, intellectual property businesses are markedly behind other businesses in those regimes that allow rampant pirating.
Copyright infringement most definitely is an infringement on property. In many ways it is more akin to trespass (another property violation) than theft. Generally it is not a "crime", being a matter of civil rather than criminal law.
Also, remember that the copyright law that protects musical artists is the same law that protects, say, graphic designers. Someone could spend many hours working on a website design, then see it taken by a dozen others absent effective protections that allow the designer to pursue action. Many seem to see their actions as not hurting the music industry, but its much harder to argue such copying doesn't hurt the graphic design industry.
As a side note, the (physical) property rights many of us consider so fundamental and obvious, aren't. There are many countries where most of the population has substantial illegal property, due to excessive regulations on establishing the presence of those rights. Being able to prove to another that you own something in a legal sense, a sense more than "I have physical control of this", is unusual, and is not a natural, obvious right. So when saying how intellectual property rights are artificial, be aware that so are many of the physical property rights we enjoy.
[ April 03, 2006, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Price increases could also just increase the number of "to go" subscribers.
[ April 03, 2006, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Chreese Sroup ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dag, I believe you have a very good understanding of the difference. I only wish you would choose not to snow every issue with the letter of the law interpretation. Your jumping in with the legal facts is nice, however it doesn't convince me of anything except your handle on those facts. I don't know them, and to a large extent I don't need to know them, since they often don't apply to the practical discussion at hand.
People are talking about right and wrong, and you jump in to let us all know what the law says. That's fine, but I don't feel its always as important to reinforce that aspect of the discussion. We all have a reasonable idea of the legality of downloading, and we're discussing it with the assumption that its illegal, so your saying something to the effect of:, "hey everybody, its illegal!," also keeps us from hearing your opinions. Since your very smart, I would like to hear you express yourself without heaping on the legal stuff sometimes. I don't control you plainly, this is just my opinion, as always I am not supported by a mountain of research, just my gut.
As for your point by point rebutal. You assume an incorrect interpretation of every sentence you quote from my post. There it is, you're either putting words in my mouth, or taking a critique of style as a critique of character. Its frankly very easy to pull sentences out of context and blow them up by assuming I mean this or that, or the other such nonsense. Its by degrees more difficult to read your opinions when you write this way.
I'm particularly suprised that you would dismiss me by saying I don't know what I'm talking about, as if my gut reaction to your style is somehow flawed (I can only feel what I feel). Also you say that history can be interpreted by a particular branch of academia. Are you only in favor of the branch in which you're included- the one that can tell me I'm not qualified to express my opinions?
This all being based on a false assumption: I said you subtitute legality for morality because that's what I see. I didn't say you do this out of ignorance, nor do I think you are confused by the two, so forgive me if I gave you that impression, its far from accurate. I simply meant that you do it here, you present your opinions on legality as if they were moral reasoning. Whether that is true or not, it is the impression I had, and still have. So on the whole I apologize if I misled you in my wording, but the sentiment still stands; more so on reading your reply. But I don't hold grudges, so I hope you won't if you feel I'm insensitive. (I am, ussually)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
BTW, almost all ISP Terms Of Service prohibit use of the internet connection for copyright violations. Which means almost everyone hooked to the net has promised not to share files illegally - and breaking one's promise IS immoral.
I forgot about this point at first. Yes good point, didn't know that, but its quite a different matter. In this case I think many people aren't aware of the restriction, like me, so you have to take that into account. But a valid point nonetheless, makes the whole thing more personall. I agree anyway, downloading is wrong, though it is an enigmatic issue.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also you say that history can be interpreted by a particular branch of academia.
I think he meant that history is a branch of academia.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In this case I think many people aren't aware of the restriction, like me, so you have to take that into account.
Not really. If you sign a document -- any document -- without reading and fully understanding the things you have just agreed to, I have little sympathy for you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Chris -- how carefully do you read the EULAs of all the software you use?
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
I made a strong proposal to the WGA, DGA and other guilds to resolve once and for all the pirate problem in Latin America. Did they listen? Nooooooo...
Next thing will be to suspend parley.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I believe you have a very good understanding of the difference. I only wish you would choose not to snow every issue with the letter of the law interpretation. Your jumping in with the legal facts is nice, however it doesn't convince me of anything except your handle on those facts. I don't know them, and to a large extent I don't need to know them, since they often don't apply to the practical discussion at hand.
I think you shoudl reread my post at the top of the page, specifically "But, if we atalk about what the law should be, not what it is, we can set legality aside for now."
The numbered response speak directly to the morality. At most, only one of them references the current legal regime, but via a moral premise: that changing the rules at this point would be unfair. Reliance has moral, economic (I'm sure fugu could fill you in extensively on why reliance is essential to economic efficiency), and legal aspects. I spoke to the moral side of the concept.
quote:People are talking about right and wrong, and you jump in to let us all know what the law says.
Again, that's not what I did. I have at other points in this thread made comments about the current state of the law, but only either in response to misstatements or questions about it, or where it's relevant to the moral aspect. Anyway, people were not merely talking about right and wrong, but also about the law, so your characterization of the thread is inaccurate.
quote:We all have a reasonable idea of the legality of downloading, and we're discussing it with the assumption that its illegal, so your saying something to the effect of:, "hey everybody, its illegal!," also keeps us from hearing your opinions.
Actually, there has been ongoing dispute as to what is illegal about downloading. Further, people have referenced other legal forms of sharing (see "books from the library"), drawing an analogy via the law to argue why file sharing isn't immoral. A legal explanation in response to such an argument is perfectly relevant.
quote:I'm particularly suprised that you would dismiss me by saying I don't know what I'm talking about, as if my gut reaction to your style is somehow flawed (I can only feel what I feel).
"You have a habit of substituting legality for morality" isn't an expression of a feeling. It's an inaccurate factual statement about me.
quote:Also you say that history can be interpreted by a particular branch of academia. Are you only in favor of the branch in which you're included- the one that can tell me I'm not qualified to express my opinions?
That's not what I said at all. Chris B. got it.
quote:This all being based on a false assumption: I said you subtitute legality for morality because that's what I see. I didn't say you do this out of ignorance
Well, yes, you actually did say it out of ignorance. Specifically, you were ignorant about what I was doing in the post at the top of this page and ignorant as a matter of fact about my "substituting" legality for morality. I don't do that, certainly not to the extent that it's a "habit."
quote:I simply meant that you do it here, you present your opinions on legality as if they were moral reasoning.
Again, I don't.
quote:Whether that is true or not, it is the impression I had, and still have.
Sure, you can have that impression. It's wrong, and when you state it publicly as a factual statement, I will correct you.
quote:In this case I think many people aren't aware of the restriction, like me, so you have to take that into account.
I doubt that (edit: to be specific, I doubt that it's "many" people that don't know that, not you specifically), but it doesn't change the morality of the situation one bit.
quote:Chris -- how carefully do you read the EULAs of all the software you use?
I'm not Chris, but I read them very carefully. Raise your hand if your shocked. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Chris -- how carefully do you read the EULAs of all the software you use?
Depends on the software. If it's something I suspect is going to bite me, I read it or at least skim through it to look for sneaky stuff.
BUT if I did sign without reading and then inadvertantly violate an agreement, I would not then try to explain away my culpability because hey, no one ever reads those things. Or are you arguing that I should be less responsible for my own actions?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was arguing nothing of the sort. I was trying to understand where you are coming from.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough. I don't like the "I didn't read what I signed" excuse. While there are few people who do read every line of everything they sign in their lives, the proper response upon finding out you've violated an agreement would be more like "Oh, I didn't realize, I'll accept the responsibility," instead of "it's not my fault, no one ever reads those things."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dag, I wished you'd paid my attention to my point about your argumentative style: I am not going to wade through an out of context analysis of every sentence I write. I don't do this to you because it would be tedious for both of us. Sorry, but if you refuse to form a coherent narrative of your own, I won't spend my time reading my words thrown back at me. That's childish.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I wished you'd paid my attention to my point about your argumentative style: I am not going to wade through an out of context analysis of every sentence I write. I don't do this to you because it would be tedious for both of us. Sorry, but if you refuse to form a coherent narrative of your own, I won't spend my time reading my words thrown back at me. That's childish.
You've now had two opportunities to either provide some backup for your "feeling" or withdraw your statement about how I substitute legality for morality. You've refused to do both, using as an excuse that you don't like my "style."
Fine. I'll just go on record as saying your style of making up stuff about me isn't any more pleasing to me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You know, I will be really happy when it is possible for me to purchase a ringtone version of any song I can legally download, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
And I would pay far, far out the ass for such a possibility. I mean, seeing as I pay $2.49 a ringtone plus $.01 a kilobite for these less-than-thirty-second clips now, I think it's pretty clear that I would have no problem paying for more of them.
Besides, I really want ringtones of songs that will never be popular enough to be sold for my phone.
In fact, someone should create a service that allows me to pay a fee to make an X-second clip of a song myself. Because seriously, I would pay good money to have my phone play a Zeromancer clip when it rings.
/random thought.
-pH
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:In fact, someone should create a service that allows me to pay a fee to make an X-second clip of a song myself.
A free and fairly simple option is to use iTunes. Just set the begin and end times of the song, convert to mp3, and a copy of the song will be made in iTunes. Assuming your phone can play mp3 files and has a fairly simple data transfer method (USB or Blue Tooth), putting it on your phone should be fairly simple.
Audacity is another free program that you can use to edit audio files.
Or do you view this as infringing on copyrights unless the owner can in some way get compensated?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My phone won't accept an audio clip as a ringtone unless it's sent to my phone from Cingular as a ringtone.
And I'd still like to pay for the ringtone.
And I don't use iTunes. Although from what I understand, Napster is actually selling ringtones now...maybe they have a better selection than Cingular.
I just realized that I COULD do the exact same thing with the songs I have now...but again, then there's the problem of getting them to my phone and having my phone recognize them as ringtones. Cingular has a function with which I can make custom wallpaper...*shakes fist*
-pH
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
There really is no moral defense for pirating as much as those who pirate try. All this issue proves is that the great majority of people will willingly steal if stealing is made convenient and reprucussions unlikely.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Or that people don't consider copyright violations as "stealing".
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
mr_porteiro_head, if I am acquiring a product when its owners don't want me to because I have not paid for it, then, nevermind how I rationalize the fact to myself, I am stealing.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Not really, most of the music and TV that is broadcast to the general public is actually technically Public Domain. I'm bombarded with it, and I can't refuse it. More Info
Technically, everything that has been recorded from the air and copied is ok, as long as it isnt for monetary gain. (friends, family)
Edit: It also isn't stealing. Stealing is depriving someone of a good. You'd be depriving them of the money they got from a service, I say service because it isn't a tangible good.
[ April 04, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: raventh1 ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It may be covered under Fair Use, but it is not Public Domain. That is a specific designation that covers items past a copyright date, or items purposely released into public domain by the copyright holders.
Fair Use covers instances when copyrighted material may still be copied and/or distributed under certain conditions such as for personal or scholastic use, journalistic review (and then only a small portion), etc.
It also isn't stealing. Stealing is depriving someone of a good. You'd be depriving them of the money they got from a service, I say service because it isn't a tangible good.
It is, however, illegal, whatever word you want to use for it. Please stop trying to make it sound somehow less illegal by muddying the language.
Argue against the draconian tactics of the RIAA, or the unfair profit markup, or the way artists are treated, or even argue towards the necessity of a new system if only because the old one is proving to be more and more unenforceable, and I'm right there with you.
But the "it isn't stealing" semantics are just lame.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: mr_porteiro_head, if I am acquiring a product when its owners don't want me to because I have not paid for it, then, nevermind how I rationalize the fact to myself, I am stealing.
If I acquire something without depriving anybody of anything, it's different enough from traditional physical theft that I think it is misleading to call them by by same word.
In other words, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I acquire something without depriving anybody of anything,
But you're begging the question with the conclusion that you aren't depriving them of anything. For example, there are mechanical royalties (an automatic right to make such a performance for a payment amount that is set by law or regulation) due for public performances of certain works. Are you depriving the authors of those royalties if you make a public performance without paying the mechanical royalty?
Similarly, if a company is selling a song in iTunes for .99, and they get half that amount, are they being deprived of that 49.9 cents if you download it from elsewhere?
I can see arguments going either way, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think mph was more interested in the passivity of the crime: your not "taking" 99 cents away, your really just not caughing up the 99 cents you might have payed. You ARE taking the song, but that isn't "real" in a physical way so it doesn't feel any different from looking at a free webpage. Also the whole thing occurs in a kind of effect vacuum, you could do it or not do it, the immediate effect on the world outside of you will be zero, no-one is going to notice their music missing from the shelf or anything, so it feels different.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: You know, I will be really happy when it is possible for me to purchase a ringtone version of any song I can legally download, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
And I would pay far, far out the ass for such a possibility. I mean, seeing as I pay $2.49 a ringtone plus $.01 a kilobite for these less-than-thirty-second clips now, I think it's pretty clear that I would have no problem paying for more of them.
-pH
Your service provider makes you pay per kilobyte to download? Even during unlimited NW minutes? That stinks! Who are you with? Verizon doesn't do that, it just uses minutes if you download during the day. There's no charge above the cost of the ringtone if you download during NW minutes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I use Cingular.
You guys are going to get a huge kick out of this.
A guy who was the head of a department at a particular label came to school today for a sort of question and answer. Someone asked what his thoughts were on the changing nature of the industry, downloads, and the like.
He said that he thought that the ability to make music more portable and the ability to buy individual songs legally off the Internet was making music more disposable and cheapening the art form. Oh, and eventually, people will be willing to pay higher prices because offering songs and albums for cheap also cheapens the art form. He said something about how it used to be that if someone listened to music, it was only in his home or his car, if he had a cassette player.
It seems to me that the ability to listen to music anywhere makes it even more intertwined in one's life. It makes music even MORE important. I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I am incapable of exercising or taking walks without listening to music. And one CD isn't going to cut it for me. I need hundreds of tracks to shuffle.
Awesome! I cheapen the musical art by making it an integral part of my life. Forgive me, O music gods, for I have worshipped you on the false altar of the jogging path at the park. I have failed to keep thine music sacred within the shrines of my dwelling and my automobile. I am a terrible sinner.
REPENT!
-pH
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I don't agree with piracy, but it is attitudes like that the propagates the problem.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I don't agree with piracy, but it is attitudes like that the propagates the problem.
His, or mine?
-pH
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
After all, if I pay .99/song from I tunes, and I burn myself a CD with 15 songs on it then I paid 14.85 for the CD. Almost what I paid at the store, for a CD when I still bought them. Only difference is that the CD I burned will be exclusively songs that I know I like, rather than some songs I like and some that I always skip over.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
His.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, he seemed like a pretty cool guy until that point. Then I was all... have you SPOKEN with anyone under thirty about this subject?
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If I acquire something without depriving anybody of anything,
But you're begging the question with the conclusion that you aren't depriving them of anything. For example, there are mechanical royalties (an automatic right to make such a performance for a payment amount that is set by law or regulation) due for public performances of certain works. Are you depriving the authors of those royalties if you make a public performance without paying the mechanical royalty?
Let's suppose that I like a song and wish to perform it in public.
If I want to perform it enough that I'm willing to pay for it, I have two choices. One, I perform and pay. Two, I perform but don't pay. In this case, I am depriving the copyright holder if I don't pay.
But let's suppose that it's not worth it for me to pay the royalty. In this case, I have two choices. One, I don't play and I don't pay. Two, I play but I still don't pay. In this case, I am not depriving the copyright holder of their fees by playing, since I wouldn't pay anyway.
The same thing applies to unauthorized downloaded music. If OSC talks about an album in his column that I'm interested in but not willing to pay for (yet), no artist is deprived of anything if I download the album and check it out. In fact, I'm more likely to pay for once I check it out than if I weren't able to do so. But if I download an album instead of paying for it, then the I am depriving the artists money they would otherwise get.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Yeah, he seemed like a pretty cool guy until that point. Then I was all... have you SPOKEN with anyone under thirty about this subject?
-pH
If I were to argue that the digital medium cheapens music, I wouldn't talk about availability as a factor. I think he was seeing volume as a diminishing attention to any one album, but people are listening more overall too, so the attention and time we take listening is higher.
I would instead argue that its things like the marketing culture and the record companies who will try to produce more music, and sell more, thus -possibly- diluting the product in the process. The digital media could certainly wreck the Beatles era "album" concept, thus cheapening or defeating one whole aspect of popular musical form. But one could argue that the day of the concept album was already passed, and most hip-hop and alot of other popular music is not very focused on the sound of an album anymore, since some artists only really invest their energy in a few tracks that will play on the radio.
Maybe that's too cynical, but he might be right about this for the wrong reasons. pH, your talking about music that has already been produced, thus can't be cheapened in a fundamental way. However the music that WILL be produced will be produced with a new market in mind, thus there will be changes. Some good, maybe some bad as well.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
have you SPOKEN with anyone under thirty about this subject?