posted
Limewire is finally getting it. I'm using limewire right now, so I'm not too excited. If they use the Grokster case as defense then they have a good shot.
Edit: For poor grammar.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know how you feel about every subject. For I am your God.
What?
No. Not all of us know everything about each other. How about you tell us how you feel about this subject, friend fellow initial-person.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I am neutral on this subject, relatively. I think it's important for artists to be paid for their work but I also think it's wrong to paint the average, garden-variety file-sharer as a thief.
posted
For those who don't know, pH is very PRO-musician and very ANTI-piracy. I believe this stems from her close relationship to many musicians in her native Florida and (probably) in New Orleans as well.
That's all I have to contribute on the subject. I really don't care about intellectual property rights in the digial age anymore.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not sure I understand the legal logic for these suits. As far as I can tell, it's not the p2p services but rather the users of them that are breaking copyright. Could someone show me what the legal rationale is for it being their fault?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They aren't providing the files. And file sharing is not, in and of itself, illegal.
Dealing drugs is a crime. There's a law that says "You can't sell drugs to people."
The same is not true for providing a conduit through which people can exchange files. The idea is absurd. So I'm wondering what else is it that makes the legal argument that this is the fault of the people who design the service's fault.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, when they go after the users, they are automatically evil, unfeeling bad guys.
But it's totally not unfeeling at all to illegally download a record instead of spending money toward buying it, thus leading to many artists being dropped from their labels.
Especially considering how EASY it is to buy music in a legal digital format, there's no excuse.
posted
Are there examples of artists being dropped from their labels because of illegal downloads? This is a loaded question, I realize, but I'm actually just curious...I haven't heard of any, but I haven't gone looking for the information either.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no law that says stealing music you didn't pay for is wrong?
I can understand not how the file sharing network itself isn't stealing, but it's going along with it. Isn't there an accessory to theft law being broken?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question of whether or not to drop an artist comes from the album sales. If the album sales are insufficient, the artist will be dropped. It's not a matter of recoupment - artists make much more money off mechanicals and other things than they do on the after-recoupment royalties. It's a matter of making the artist a bad investment for labels. Now, illegal downloading is not the ONLY cause of lower album sales (music is a luxury good, after all), but it does contribute. And before anyone goes off on the majors being evil, I will point out that it's not uncommon for bands to get WORSE deals from indie labels than from the big boys.
quote:Now, illegal downloading is not the ONLY cause of lower album sales (music is a luxury good, after all), but it does contribute.
I'm not sure that this is true, for people whose record sales are lower enough to get them dropped from a label. But obviously you know more than I. Could you substantiate this?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure exactly what it is that you want me to substantiate. The point at which you've sold enough albums to have your second option picked up? The fact that illegal downloads often lead to people not buying the album?
It's illegal to sell drugs. It's not illegal to own a house. However, if you own a house that is being used by thousands of drug dealers and drug addicts every day, you're a part of the problem.
I'd imagine there is some legal avenue to prosecute the owner of a house knowingly being used for criminal activity, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know specifically.
The same principle applies.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, leaving aside that again this is not what I'm looking for, you're saying that a landlord should be prosecuted if people commit crimes in some of his property?
I rent a house out to someone. They sell drugs out of it. You think I should be thrown in jail for that?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: It's illegal to sell drugs. It's not illegal to own a house. However, if you own a house that is being used by thousands of drug dealers and drug addicts every day, you're a part of the problem.
I'd imagine there is some legal avenue to prosecute the owner of a house knowingly being used for criminal activity, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know specifically.
The same principle applies.
I'm not sure about that. With LimeWire, information is transfered from one computer to another, and nothing is stored at a LimeWire server. It is more analogous to a road that drug dealers use than to a house where the trafficking occurs. P2P sharing is basically vamped-up e-mail.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
If the drugs are stored on your property, you could be charged with posession. That's just the way it is.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not acutally true though. If I'm a landlord, I am generally not responsible for what my tenants do or keep on my property.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bands that make a big stink about file sharing lose my business, not the other way around. Metallica is the first example that comes to mind. I haven't bought an album of theirs since they made the big show of dumping boxes of file sharers' names in front of a court house. Before that I had bought every single album. They are also unwilling to offer their files on services such as Yahoo Music ToGo.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Bands that make a big stink about file sharing lose my business, not the other way around. Metallica is the first example that comes to mind. I haven't bought an album of theirs since they made the big show of dumping boxes of file sharers' names in front of a court house. Before that I had bought every single album. They are also unwilling to offer their files on services such as Yahoo Music ToGo.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Bands that make a big stink about file sharing lose my business, not the other way around. Metallica is the first example that comes to mind. I haven't bought an album of theirs since they made the big show of dumping boxes of file sharers' names in front of a court house. Before that I had bought every single album. They are also unwilling to offer their files on services such as Yahoo Music ToGo.
What do you want, a cookie?
-pH
That's a constructive, well-thought out response.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Metallica has recently reversed their position somewhat, and is now available on iTunes (and possibly others, I don't know).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel pretty much the same way BQT, although I pretty much stopped buying RIAA CDs through regular channgels ever since the RIAA went on their rampage.
Of course, I'm also the sort of person who boycotts going to professional sporting events.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beo, I find it very frustrating that people who say they won't buy music from bands that openly oppose filesharing seem to think they have some kind of moral high ground. What, you're entitled to a product for free....why? When did the possession of albums become an ENTITLEMENT?
Also, indie labels can be just as opposed to filesharing as the majors, so don't think that this is an evil corporate sellout issue.
quote:That's not acutally true though. If I'm a landlord, I am generally not responsible for what my tenants do or keep on my property.
You are if you know about it. If you are aware that your tenants are performing illegal activities and you do not report it, you can be held legally accountable.
Take into consideration that you are profiting from illegal activities that you have facilitated (by allowing them to use your property/website for illegal activity) and that compounds the problem.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't file share. I just thought I'd clear that up because I wasn't sure if the 'you' in your post was specific to me or just a general 'you.'
I just happen to think that suing your customers and potential customers is flat out stupid. The perception is the that of big corporate multi-billion dollar RIAA bringing its full resources to bear on a pimply 14 year old girl because she downloaded the latest Green Day song. Again, I'm not defending file sharing, or saying the girl is entitled to it- I'm just describing how its perceived. When Metallica starts ranting on how it's all about the money the situation is worsened as their fans start to feel betrayed, even 'legitimate' ones like me.
I said customers in the above paragraph because every single person I know that used to file share bought numerous CDs off the files they downloaded as well as attending concerts, etc. Harvard business school had an interesting article relating to this phenomenon a few years back, there was a different study done with Canadian artists that had similar findings.
The bottom line was that rather than hurting the industry, the explosion of digital file sharing has actually helped it.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dave Matthews Band has always confused me with their file sharing policy.
"Stand Up" is their most recent record. It came with some sort of built in programming so you can only burn it three times, that's it. There's a million ways around that, but it still pissed me off. I could just as easily RIP the burned copy and then burn to my heart's delight, so why the annoyance?
On top of that, Dave lets people tape any and all of his concerts, and those tapings can be shared for free with anyone who wants them and can get access to them. For a guy who allows nearly unlimited access to his music, I don't understand being so anal over the latest cd.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's entirely possible it wasn;t the band, but rather the label that set up the things on the CD.
---
Occasionally on Hatrack, you learn things. I learned that I really don't care enough arguing this weak analogy to research landlord/tenant law.
I agree that if you knew about the drug dealing, you might be liable in some way. I don't see how that's relevant here though.
Again, I'm looking for the specific legal justification. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I'd like to know what it is. Besides the regular reasons, I am myself working on a product that could make passing along certain types of copywrited material substantially easier, though it is not designed for this purpose at all.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious as well (about what MrSquicky is asking). I'm apathetic to the whole situation. I don't care if people file share (though it does smack of a certain disregard for the law) or if the RIAA sues people as a result of their file sharing (though it does smack of a certain disregard for the fans).
pH, do you have any specific stats about how file sharing has hurt the music industry? It makes sense that it would, but I don't know the context at all. What I mean is that if I heard of a 50 million dollar project that ended up being a waste, I'd think that it was a pretty big blow to whoever put out the money. But then if I heard that it was a government project, I'd think that it was unfortunate, and still a waste of money, but really just a drop in the bucket. See what I'm saying? Is it really that big of a deal?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there actually any data that says that people who file share buy fewer albums? I don't file share myself, but almost everyone I know who does actually buys more albums than they did before they started file sharing.
Edit: For the record, I operate under a philosophy of, "If I want a product to continue, I'm going to have to pay for it." So, for example, I got into Veronica Mars over Christmas break last year watching the Season 1 DVDs. When Season 2 started up again after the hiatus I was faced with a choice of not watching the second season until the DVDs came out, or downloading the episodes I'd missed, watching them as they aired, and then watching the second season again with my parents when the DVDs came out. I choose the second option, the main consideration being which option would provide the show with more of my consumer dollars. I understand that technically, that option was illegal. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me it was morally wrong, though.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the questions you are asking were addressed in the articles I linked to:
Harvard Business School:
quote: The researchers believe that most downloading is done over peer-to-peer networks by teens and college kids, groups that are "money-poor but time-rich," meaning they wouldn't have bought the songs they downloaded. In that sense, the music industry can't claim those downloads as lost record sales. In fact, illegal downloading may help the industry slightly with another major segment, which Oberholzer and Strumpf call "samplers"—an older crowd who downloads a song or two and then, if they like what they hear, go out and buy the music.
You can't count them as lost sales if they weren't going to buy them in the first place, or they end up buying what they downloaded.
quote:consisted of monitoring 1.75 million downloads over 17 weeks in 2002, scouring through server logs from OpenNap (an open source Napster server), and comparing the sales of almost 700 albums as reported by Nielsen SoundScan. Oberholzer and Strumpf concluded that there was almost no relationship between the two. ... Our study provides the first serious evidence that file sharing cannot explain the decline in music sales in the last couple of years. In addition, in the last two quarters, music sales increased while file sharing has become even more popular.
quote: Our research shows that people do not download entire CDs. They download a few songs, typically the hits that one would also hear on a Top 40 station. This suggests that P2P is much like the radio, a great tool to promote new music. The music industry has of course long recognized that giving away samples of music for free over the airwaves can stimulate sales. The same seems to hold for P2P.
From the Canadian article:
quote: Although the music industry seems loath to discuss the matter publicly, according to an October 2004 Economist article, an internal music label study found that between 2/3 and 3/4 of recent sales declines had nothing to do with Internet music downloads [8]. That finding was echoed in a Ministry of Canadian Heritage commissioned report which concluded that
"[t]he assumption by the recording industry that demand for CDs is fundamentally strong and that Internet piracy is to blame for falling sales is a simplistic reaction to a complex problem ... to place the burden wholly or partly on illegal downloads from the Internet is to ignore a host of other reasons."
quote:We know that record companies and music publishers are not our enemies. They are often run by people who love music and are passionate about the promotion of Canadian culture.
Much of their lobbying, however, is not about protecting artists or promoting Canadian culture. It is about propping up business models in the recording industry that are quickly becoming obsolete and unsustainable. It is about preserving foreign-based power structures and further entrenching the labels' role as industry gatekeepers. Their lobbying efforts are focused on passing laws that restrict artists' ability to take control of their own music, reach their fans in more direct ways and earn a decent living from music without sacrificing their autonomy.
We, as Canadian music creators, have identified three simple principles that should guide copyright reform and cultural policy. - First, we believe that suing our fans is destructive and hypocritical. We do not want to sue music fans, and we do not want to distort the law to coerce fans into conforming to a rigid digital market artificially constructed by the major labels.
- Second, we believe that the use of digital locks, frequently referred to as technological protection measures, are risky and counterproductive. We do not support using digital locks to increase the labels' control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music, nor do we support laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures, including Canadian accession to the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet Treaties.
These treaties are designed to give control to major labels and take choices away from artists and consumers. Laws should protect artists and consumers, not restrictive technologies.
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Is there actually any data that says that people who file share buy fewer albums? I don't file share myself, but almost everyone I know who does actually buys more albums than they did before they started file sharing.
Edit: For the record, I operate under a philosophy of, "If I want a product to continue, I'm going to have to pay for it." So, for example, I got into Veronica Mars over Christmas break last year watching the Season 1 DVDs. When Season 2 started up again after the hiatus I was faced with a choice of not watching the second season until the DVDs came out, or downloading the episodes I'd missed, watching them as they aired, and then watching the second season again with my parents when the DVDs came out. I choose the second option, the main consideration being which option would provide the show with more of my consumer dollars. I understand that technically, that option was illegal. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me it was morally wrong, though.
You and the people you know seem to be exceptions to the rule, then, 'cause while I definitely know my fair share of intelligent, artist-supporting listeners, NONE of them owns more physical copies of albums than the equivilant in mp3s.
Not even close.
Then again, my friends average over 40,000 mp3s, which, converted to albums at approx 11 tracks/album, is 3,636 albums...or (at average $14.99/album) $54,503.64.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love you MrSquicky. I was gonna post some stuff from the Ladies earlier but had to run off. So here's some now.
quote:Music sharing is not new. It's been happening for decades. The only thing that has changed is the technology. This is the crux of the issue - home taping (despite industry propaganda to the contrary) did not kill music.
quote:As Steven points out, P2P sharing is the most accessible method people have to music. "There's no reason to punish fans for what they've always been doing. Better technology is just a means for them to enjoy their music better and it should be a way for us to help our business rather than preserving a business model that is out of date," says Steven.
quote:Steven makes the case that record labels still need to learn that music is not a commodity, and marketing it in that way alienates fans who view it in an almost spiritual sense. Music is a touchstone in our lives - it's the soundtrack of our past, tied directly to our emotions and memories. The impression of fans is that the recording industry wants to control what most people consider to be something very personal.
Should we have banned the tape recorder or the VCR? That's what the TV industry wanted then. Looking back on it, it doesn't make any sense, does it? In fact, it sounds ridiculous, since VCRs created an entirely new channel to generate even more revenue, while giving video fans exactly what they wanted. P2P file sharing is today's VCR or
As a special note, I own all of their albums that I have been able to track down and will be buying two copies (a physical cd set and file-filled usb) of their new album. And with the band's grace, I also have unreleased fan-copied performances so that I can enjoy concerts too far for me to dream of attending.
I find the concept of "lost sales" interesting since I've noticed the same trend among my generation of "dry cheerios SO counts as dinner" college students. If I was told to delete all of my downloaded music, I can say its very unlikely that I'd be rushing to the store the next day to replace them. If anything the music I'm given by friends is either heard and discarded or enjoyed enough that I purchase further albums (better physical quality) and concert tickets.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't fileshare, but not for ethical reasons, I'm just a big fan of actually owning products. I'm the same way with books. I rarely go to the library because I like reading the book and then being able to put it on my shelf, even if I don't plan on rereading it. I don't know why. It's a weird thing.
But, in my experience, I think filesharing helps out the musicians. I have a friend that doesn't listen to much music outside of the mainstream. She only gets her music through listening to the radio and then downloading the songs. I like alot of indie bands, classic rock bands that don't get played on the radio anymore, and other stuff. I also love going to concerts and she often comes with me. The only way I can get her to come with me to concerts of bands she hasn't previously heard is by telling her good songs from the bands to download. I could loan her CDs, but most of the time when I'm inviting her it's a day before the concertm and over the phone or AIM or something. So I think bands have made money from their live shows from people who wouldn't go to a concert of a band they've never heard before if they didn't download their songs beforehand. At least in my experience of one Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my take on the file sharing issue: label's are out of date. Wave good bye the the labels. Cds for selling and buying and putting music out there are entirely unnecesary. Music was originally a performance art, it should be again a performance art. The way things are headed, and the way they should continue to head is this:
Ditch labels entirely. Band's should record their own music (good, high quality and easy to use recording equipment and software are becoming very easy to come by) and put it openly available for download online.
Bands should then tour and perform and make money from the shows they put on.
That's where downloading's taking us and that is a good place for music to go.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that'd be a big loss of money for musicians. They're already making what they are from tours, but if you minus CD salesm they'll be making alot less. And how will bands be discovered through downloading only? And where will bands get the funds to go on a national tour if they don't make money elsewhere? I don't think your plan would work.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lemme take out the metaphor then, MrSquicky, if that's too hard for you to grasp.
If you run a website that enables people to break the law, and you knowingly allow them to break the law without putting measures into place to prevent them from breaking the law and to punish them when they do, then you are an accessory to their criminal acts so far as I see it.
You can argue about the criminality of the act all you want, but the law (printed clearly on every CD you buy) clearly states that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed. If you host a website that encourages unauthorized reproduction and facilitates it, then you are an accessory to that crime.
Multiply that tiny crime by several thousand to several million instances, and you've got a problem.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're not running a website. (Actually that's not entirely true, because obviously limewire.com is a website. But surely that's not the nature of their putative offense.)
Also, that wasn't a metaphor and it wasn't too hard for me to grasp. It was, as I said, a weak analogy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: You and the people you know seem to be exceptions to the rule, then, 'cause while I definitely know my fair share of intelligent, artist-supporting listeners, NONE of them owns more physical copies of albums than the equivilant in mp3s.
You misunderstood me. They don't own more physical albums than they do on mp3s, many of them are like your friends and have easily 20 gigs of music on their harddrive, which seems completely pointless to me, because they never listen to all of it. But I'm not really a music person.
What I meant was that, all else being equal, before they starting downloading music they would buy one album a week, whereas now they buy three albums a week. Actually, even though I don't download music myself, I'm planning on buying two albums by artists I would never have heard of if my friends hadn't downloaded their music (and my average buying rate is about one cd a year).
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it true that the artists only get a small percentage of the sale of CDs and the record company gets the majority?
I would buy CDs if they weren't so expensive! The music industry keeps complaining that they are being ripped off by people downloading their songs instead of paying for them but they have never actually done anything to make buying the CD more attractive like by putting the price down just a tad?
I would RATHER buy the CD than download it but with a budget like mine it's just not feasible to own all the CDs I want.
So anyway I'm kinda on the fence about this, I empathize with the artist but I think the record companies are too greedy for thier own good.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: But it's totally not unfeeling at all to illegally download a record instead of spending money toward buying it, thus leading to many artists being dropped from their labels.
Especially considering how EASY it is to buy music in a legal digital format, there's no excuse. -pH
There is also no excuse for record companies continually seeking total control of the means of production in the recording industry. Though I agree with you on the downloading bit, I simply remind you for form's sake of something you already know- the record industry was a villanous thief long before the private downloader. Let's not kid ourselves.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
