quote:Mr. Attaway responds: Wendy, you have brought up what should be the key word in this discussion: balance. You are absolutely right -- copyright is a balance. And DRM is essential to achieving that balance.
Consumers should have a choice to either own a copy of a movie for multiple viewing, or to just view it one time for a much lower price. And movie companies want to provide that choice, and many more. But without DRM, every transaction would have to be priced as a sale, not just of one copy but of many copies, in order to account for unrestrained copying. Why would anyone purchase a higher-priced sale copy of a movie if he could simply rent, rip and return -- that is, rent, make a copy and return the original?
To repeat my refrain, if there is a problem, it is that DRM technology is not sophisticated enough to provide the optimum balance. The content industry is working hard with the technology industry to improve DRM and the options available to consumers. Good public policy will encourage that process by promoting the development and implementation of DRM.
With regard to your comment that many DRM technologies can be circumvented by commercial pirates, you are correct, but DRM is not intended to prevent commercial piracy. It is intended to insure that most consumers will keep the deal they make with movie distributors. Like the lock on your door, they are not a guarantee against theft, but they "keep honest people honest."
You know, filthy pirate that I am, the MPAA has a pretty good point. It's hard to argue against anything this guy's said. This admission will earn me the hate of many an Internet nerd, I know -- but people have a right to sell (or license) their creations as they see fit.
But I still pirate. Why? I can't afford the crazy prices of media. And in truth, this approach has led me to spend thousands, where before I wouldn't have bothered -- exposure to new and better artists that I never would have found through ClearChannel has led me to buy an unbelievable amount of CDs, all of which I promptly burned to mp3s and put away.
Three hard drives later, I'm glad I have the ability to re-rip these CDs.
This is very much a fence issue with me, as is illegal immigration (fence, get it, ha ha) and probably a couple other points. I hate the RIAA -- and I can't see them lasting out the century. They're simply not needed anymore -- musicians don't need to whore themselves for pennies to an album to these grasping publishers for publicity (and if they want it, they can hire... a publicist), and with the Internet, there's no limit to how much exposure they can win without spending a dime.
All those creative works that have been bought and paid for by publishers, they have their right to their control. But when they price me out of the market, well... I'm going to pirate. There's no reason for me not to -- insofar as pirating isn't costing Damien Rice anything, since I can't afford to buy his music legally. And the exposure he gets from me playing his music wins affection with me and possible new fans from the many people that cycle through my dorm room -- he simply doesn't lose, here, at least relative to the alternative which is me never buying OR listening to him. Many an artist have I downloaded, appreciated, gone to concerts, and purchased the next album (though sometimes that gets you burned, damn you post-Hybrid Theory Linkin Park).
Not that there haven't been efforts to make music affordable. I'm particularly fond of Napster and Rhapsody, with all-you-can-download music at high bitrates for $15 a month -- at those rates, I'll play. Netflix, the same deal -- I'm definitely playing there. I can't wait to watch a new movie every night.
But... the guy makes a point. None of his arguments lack for soundness, though they might for vision -- grasping control of creative works does (or should, in theory) protect them from rampant piracy and ultimate poverty, since nobody will pay for the original after already downloading the property. But for a man representing a company that promises little more than bondage in exchange for publicity, he seems astoundingly unappreciative of the exposure piracy grants artists -- perhaps unnecessary for household names like Eminem or Madonna, but I know Linkin Park won a great deal of their fame through P2P popularity. Speaking personally, I can't list the number of bands I adore (and purchase!) thanks to file-sharing, though the Afghan Whigs deserve more than an honorable mention.
What's at stake for the publishers is not merely revenues, though no doubt those are significant -- perhaps less so than they believe, since most people wouldn't buy a fraction of the the amount of music they download -- but their very model of business. Within a decade, the Internet's rendered them irrelevant, their deals bondage; at least, compared to the far more fruitful rewards artists can (or will be able to, very soon) reap by publishing themselves, through the Internet. This is their fear, and it's a legitimate one.
So I'll keep downloading, and I'll keep buying artists I discover and love (Sage Francis is next up), and within the decade I hope I can afford the near $200/year Rhapsody costs. Netflix is on the menu, and soon, poverty be damned. And though I don't think Pearce'll rejoice to hear it, I don't regret my downloading, and I think I've made many an artist -- far more than I would have otherwise -- richer because of it.
Uh, rant over. I meant for this to be, like, a paragraph.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| 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).
You're right, I definitely misread that. My bad! To address your actual point:
On the one hand, it's undeniable that file sharing brings an unusually diverse amount of music to a lot of people who would not otherwise have heard it, and that leads to sales of albums that would not have occured otherwise. I can't count the number of artists I've discovered and ultimately purchased because I stumbled across their music on a P2P network or because a friend said "hey, check this out" and AIM'd me a track.
On the other hand, I can think of several instances where I personally would have bought an album but didn't, for any number of reasons, once I'd downloaded it. These reasons include: I disliked what I heard, I liked it enough to listen to periodically but not enough to buy the album, I was short on money at the time and neglected to buy the album once I did have money.
I have no statistics on the matter, but I feel like a lot of the money lost by the industry is in CD singles. I personally bought singles when I didn't think I was going to like the entire album or when I wanted a specific mix of a song (e.g. instrumental, club mix, or an obscure remix for DJ use). I know I stopped buying singles almost entirely when filesharing became popular.
I don't fileshare anymore, outside of periodically sending songs to friends for recommendation purposes. I don't think there was one reason why I stopped; partly because several people I know got in legal trouble for it, partly because I've always wanted to be a recording artist and the part of me that still does would not appreciate people taking what I've worked hard to create for free, partly because many artists (even on major labels) make barely any money on their CD sales anymore because of the enormous amount of promotion and dwindling CD revenues, partly because I don't want to continue to contribute to the problem that results in ever-rising CD costs, etc., etc.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stacey: [QB] Is it true that the artists only get a small percentage of the sale of CDs and the record company gets the majority?
In short: yes.
quote: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?
This is a circular problem: the record companies will continually cite piracy as the reason behind rising CD costs, and piraters will continually cite rising CD costs as the primary reason they continue their illegal activity.
quote: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.
See, here's where I think the root of the matter is: is this valid justification? I hear responses like yours all the time and have to ask, again, as has been asked previously in this thread: are we ENTITLED to this music?
Insofar as it's a copyrighted product created at least partially with intent to sell, I think the answer is inarguably no.
This doesn't begin to address the moral issue. Lalo's response is pertinent, so I'm going to requote it here:
quote:All those creative works that have been bought and paid for by publishers, they have their right to their control. But when they price me out of the market, well... I'm going to pirate. There's no reason for me not to -- insofar as pirating isn't costing Damien Rice anything, since I can't afford to buy his music legally.
If this is true, then I can wholeheartedly agree; I think the problem is that everyone has a gray area, and that area becomes very morally ambiguous. For example, you have $50 in do-whatever-you-want money this month. You go out to dinner one night, $15. You go to a movie another night, $10. You go to a club another night, $10 cover. That leaves you $15, enough to buy an album, but you want three albums. So you buy one, and download the other two, and you're basically a moral person, so you tell yourself you'll buy the others later.
Repeat the situation the next month, only this time there are three more albums you want, and you still only have money for one. Repeat for 12 months. Repeat for 120.
What can you really afford here? It always comes back to entitlement.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
The way I understand it, I can be sued for downloading digital copies of music I already own.
So what am I paying for? Am I paying for the music, or the product?
For example, would it be unethical for me to download, via p2p applications, digital copies of albums which I already own on cassette? Or on records? Or on CD's? How about a digital copy of a cassette I owned, and paid for, but lost somehow, over the years?
How many times do I have to pay the same record companies and the same artists for the music?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did that, by the way. I downloaded digital copies of every single album I own (whether it be on cassette, compact disc -- whatever), so I could have mp3's of the music I've already paid for over the course of my life.
quote:For example, would it be unethical for me to download, via p2p applications, digital copies of albums which I already own on cassette? Or on records? Or on CD's? How about a digital copy of a cassette I owned, and paid for, but lost somehow, over the years?
Would it be unethical for you to steal CD copies of albums you already own on cassette, or on record, or on CDs you once owned but lost?
Would it be unethical to buy bootleg ripped CDs from a guy on the street who bought one copy and made 1000 copies for those same reasons?
Is it the nature of the act that makes your attitude different - that you can click to get your music instead of actually buying from a guy selling illegal copies on the street or actually taking a physical product?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel perfectly justified in having done so
This is interesting to me.
Do you feel there a difference in quality between a record and a CD, or between a casette and an mp3? Further, do you feel that increasing quality warrants increased pricing?
If you have a cassette that you bought in 1986, there is only so much functionality you bought. At the time, you understood what you were purchasing and what its capabilities were. Now, though, in 2006, the cassette is lacking the quality and functionality that you want. So, instead of paying for a product that has increased quality and functionality beyond what you originally paid for, you feel justified in taking a product with increased quality and functionality at no personal cost. In essence, getting something for nothing.
This would be like taking a paperback copy of a book you have in hardcover without paying for it, or copying a friend's purchased ebook of a newly published book you already own so you can have searchable text and the convenience of storage.
You want greater quality and versatility in your product, but you don't want to pay anything more for it. And this is somehow justified to you.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If filesharing copyrighted materials were legal, why would anyone actually pay for it? Sure, there are those of us that like to own the actual copy, actively support the artists or creators, or like to have the physical CD, artwork, or lyrics. But are there enough of us to support an entire industry? I know plenty of people that would never buy another CD again if they knew they could legally get it all for free.
-----
Unless Limewire is encouraging illegal filesharing, I don't see how they can be held responsible. Facilitating it means nothing or else your local Internet Service Provider would also be guilty.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Used CDs are dirt cheap. In fact, they're often much, much cheaper than getting the music from an online downloading service. If you're looking for the latest releases, you'll have a harder time, but you can always find CDs on half.com and Amazon's used service on the cheap. I also regularly scour the local used CD stores and bookstores for older music that has been substantially reduced in price. I regularly get good music for $1-3 per CD.
If music industry greed is your problem, then don't be part of the machine. Don't consume new products or buy directly from musicians.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Buying directly from musicians (at concerts, especially) does still give the label money, but it's money that the band has already spent purchasing their own CDs at a very discounted price.
Like, a really simple example, a lot of bands will sell their CDs on tour. If they're signed, maybe they paid $5 per CD, and they'll sell the albums for let's say $15. Thing is, although those CD sale don't count towards recoupment on their advance, that's ten bucks cash the band gets to hold onto.
Legal forms of digital downloading are so readily available that I think it's absolute selfishness not to do it legitimately. I pay fifteen bucks a month, and I get unlimited transfers to my mp3 players. I have a 20 gig and a 2 gig player right now. That means I can download 22 gigs of music, if I want, and have it on my mp3 player and take it wherever I want.
Sorry guys, I'm trying to stay out of this one. These threads invariably piss me off to no end, especially when it turn into this "major labels are evil" nonsense. I work for an indie label and an artist management company. Neither of them are all that big on people illegally downloading their albums, either.
quote:Sorry guys, I'm trying to stay out of this one. These threads invariably piss me off to no end, especially when it turn into this "major labels are evil" nonsense. I work for an indie label and an artist management company. Neither of them are all that big on people illegally downloading their albums, either.
The difference is that your indie label isn't writing laws to prevent piracy that have a side effect of making a lot of legitimate and necessary computer activity illegal.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps if you were not using this legitimate computer activity to do illegal things, you wouldn't be having this problem.
That doesn't translate directly into suing LimeWire. By that argument, you could make the manufacturers of guns, knives, alcohol, most garden tools, anything capable of producing fire, and bottled water distributors illegal.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also not stepping into the ring to argue points about whether or not P2P, bittorrent and other file sharing applications are illegal in and of themselves.
What I'm talking about is people who justify their illegal activities with some sort of Robin Hood mentality. Whether or not it is justified, in the end Robin Hood still had to be exonerated of his crimes by King Richard. He was still doing things that were illegal.
Downloading an albumn you have not paid for (or paid some kind of service like Napster [that's a weird sentence- not something I would have typed about 6 years ago]) is theft. You are a theif. You are stealing. You are lying. You are being an underhanded bastard. Get that into your head. Don't try and justify your actions in any other way.
If you're still okay with that at the end of the day, then fine, but don't pretend to be some kind of crusader on a quest to take down the big record companies. The reason you downloaded that albumn or movie or whatever is because you liked it but couldn't afford to purchase it.
Therefore, you stole it. Deal with that fact and shut up about the industry. Find legitimate ways to combat them.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:manufacturers of guns, knives, alcohol, most garden tools, anything capable of producing fire, and bottled water distributors illegal.
This has nothing to do with the argument, and you know it. Limewire isn't the manufacturer of anything, so your comparison falls apart.
Limewire set itself up as a website that facilitates sharing of files. When people then shared files illegally, they didn't do anything to identify or stop those acts. If you really want to use an analogy, it would be like a restaurant that allowed alcohol to be brought in from outside that didn't card its patrons and is then surprised when it's held responsible for illegal drinking.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Limewire set itself up as a website that facilitates sharing of files. When people then shared files illegally, they didn't do anything to identify or stop those acts.
Again, my point is that using a legal means to do something illegal does not make the process itself illegal. I'm not condoning illegal file-sharing, but if people were sending packages through the mail we wouldn't be suing the U.S. Post Office...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm also not stepping into the ring to argue points about whether or not P2P, bittorrent and other file sharing applications are illegal in and of themselves.
What I'm talking about is people who justify their illegal activities with some sort of Robin Hood mentality. Whether or not it is justified, in the end Robin Hood still had to be exonerated of his crimes by King Richard. He was still doing things that were illegal.
Downloading an albumn you have not paid for (or paid some kind of service like Napster [that's a weird sentence- not something I would have typed about 6 years ago]) is theft. You are a theif. You are stealing. You are lying. You are being an underhanded bastard. Get that into your head. Don't try and justify your actions in any other way.
If you're still okay with that at the end of the day, then fine, but don't pretend to be some kind of crusader on a quest to take down the big record companies. The reason you downloaded that albumn or movie or whatever is because you liked it but couldn't afford to purchase it.
Therefore, you stole it. Deal with that fact and shut up about the industry. Find legitimate ways to combat them.
What if you listen to Radiohead and they verbally requested people to steal the album? Is it the artists right to make that call, or should the record company have the final say?
Most of the music I listened to was not available where I grew up. They did not have the cd's for sale at the stores I went to. Eventually I found ONE store in the middle of an alley that sold SOME of the music I liked and I bought a bunch of CD's from them. But I continued to experiement with new bands through p2p networks and if I found a band that was consistantly good I bought their cd while I was in the states during the summer. If they had one song I liked, well I didnt buy their cd, sorry, I didnt want to pay $15-20 for one good song.
Now I live in the US and I have itunes. If a band I like comes out with an album, I buy the individual tracks I like, but I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song. TONS of songs are awesome because of the natural progression. Would you buy a book because somebody read 2 chapters from the middle? Well, maybe, but just as likely not.
Since when was stealing and smuggling illegitimate? American's didn't want to buy tea from the evil East India Company, so they smuggled Dutch tea in. Even when British tea prices dropped below Dutch tea and what the smugglers were asking, people did not drink the British tea as it symbolized complacency with a government they were upset with.
Personally I find that most of my bands offer better previews of their music than itunes do. Jimmy Eat World lets you listen to their whole album on their site, and you can go to itunes afterwards and get it if you want.
But bands that are anti P2P networks, thats fine, just expect that most people will not understand why that is. Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album. If you are metalica you need to explain why you were so reluctant to work with itunes.
Somebody asked a question about Dave Matthews Band and their CD only being able to be burned 3 times. That was in actuality a record company decision. I remember reading and article about it where the band apologized that that had happened and they had no idea when it was implemented. They even posted instructions on how to bypass it, but I think those were subsequentially removed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, my point is that using a legal means to do something illegal does not make the process itself illegal.
This is confusing, but I think you mean that Limewire's providing a way for people to commit criminal acts is not, in itself, criminal.
If Limewire put into place measures to prevent illegal file sharing, to identify those who broke the law, and to adequate punish (ban) any they found to be sharing files illegally, this would be a different story. So far as I'm aware, they have not cracked down on their own users regarding their criminal acts.
quote:if people were sending packages through the mail we wouldn't be suing the U.S. Post Office...
The Post Office has an entire branch dedicated to investigating and stopping criminal acts using the mail. They can open any non-first-class mail they feel may be sending something illegal, and can detain any first class mail they feel is sending illegal materials after obtaining a search warrant. They take criminal use of the mail very seriously (it's a federal offense) and police it very strictly.
Do you really want to compare their dedication to preventing criminal misuse of their services to Limewire?
quote:I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song.
Which is why God invented subscription download services.
And illegal downloads are not the same as checking out books from a library. But you go ahead and keep justifying your actions. Do remember though, that illegal downloads hurt small bands more than big ones. So you go and make your statement.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What if you listen to Radiohead and they verbally requested people to steal the album? Is it the artists right to make that call, or should the record company have the final say?
Most of the music I listened to was not available where I grew up. They did not have the cd's for sale at the stores I went to. Eventually I found ONE store in the middle of an alley that sold SOME of the music I liked and I bought a bunch of CD's from them. But I continued to experiement with new bands through p2p networks and if I found a band that was consistantly good I bought their cd while I was in the states during the summer. If they had one song I liked, well I didnt buy their cd, sorry, I didnt want to pay $15-20 for one good song.
Now I live in the US and I have itunes. If a band I like comes out with an album, I buy the individual tracks I like, but I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song. TONS of songs are awesome because of the natural progression. Would you buy a book because somebody read 2 chapters from the middle? Well, maybe, but just as likely not.
Since when was stealing and smuggling illegitimate? American's didn't want to buy tea from the evil East India Company, so they smuggled Dutch tea in. Even when British tea prices dropped below Dutch tea and what the smugglers were asking, people did not drink the British tea as it symbolized complacency with a government they were upset with.
Personally I find that most of my bands offer better previews of their music than itunes do. Jimmy Eat World lets you listen to their whole album on their site, and you can go to itunes afterwards and get it if you want.
But bands that are anti P2P networks, thats fine, just expect that most people will not understand why that is. Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album. If you are metalica you need to explain why you were so reluctant to work with itunes.
Somebody asked a question about Dave Matthews Band and their CD only being able to be burned 3 times. That was in actuality a record company decision. I remember reading and article about it where the band apologized that that had happened and they had no idea when it was implemented. They even posted instructions on how to bypass it, but I think those were subsequentially removed.
Blah blah blah. "I like to steal but can't admit it to myself so I couch my view in long-winded essays that dance around that very basic fact."
I'm not taking the high-road on this one. I download crap all the time. I don't care. I'm okay with stealing, but I, at least, have the balls to admit it to myself.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Primal Curve, I think you are too easilly dismissing the difference between technicality and morality.
If a poor man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, yes, he is technically stealing, and yes, he can be prosecuted and would have to accept that his actions had legal consequences, but I think you would be hard pressed to apply such black and white reasoning as to whether his actions were moral (I would be inclined to say they are).
Now I know downloading music is nothing like stealing food for your starving family, and I do think that most, if not all, people who download illegal music are aware that they are doing something technically illegal, but I think the issue of morality is a much more difficult one to deal with, and you are being too simplistic if you say "you are [automatically] being an underhanded bastard" if you download music illegally. If you do not agree with the state of the music industry, with the fact that many CDs have only 1 good song on them and 14 useless tracks, and that many talented artsists get completely overlooked because they aren't as "marketable" as britney spears, then downloading the 1 good song and not buying the album (whose profits go mostly to the record label) is a great form of protest.
Or here's another example. I had never heard of Damien Rice until a few weeks ago when a friend of mine suggested I go see a show with him. Before I accepted, I downloaded "O", and since I liked it, I went and paid for a concert, and then ended up buying his CD afterwards. Without illegal downloading, none of that would have happened.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album.
A couple things here.
You can go to the library and borrow books, as long as you give them back. You also can't make copies of the books you borrow without illegally violating copyright.
You can go to the library and borrow CDs, too, and that's totally legal.
Of course, you can't legally borrow the CD, rip it to your computer, then give it back... without violating copyright.
Your library justification only works if you are okay with illegally copying library materials, too... which means you're justifying an illegal activity with another illegal activity.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:then downloading the 1 good song and not buying the album (whose profits go mostly to the record label) is a great form of protest.
Great. Do it at iTunes or MusicMatch or WalMart (shudder) and pay your buck for that song.
Don't steal it.
You have avenues to get a single song without buying the whole album that don't force you to resort to theft.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song.
Which is why God invented subscription download services.
And illegal downloads are not the same as checking out books from a library. But you go ahead and keep justifying your actions. Do remember though, that illegal downloads hurt small bands more than big ones. So you go and make your statement.
-pH
Can you back this statement up with any evidence? Because I would argue that illegal downloading has done more good for small bands than anything else in the history of music. I for one have bought and now support a myriad of small independent bands only because I originally illegaly downloaded their stuff after hearing about them from friends on on the internet. And furthermore, I think that illegal downloading has made the issue of quality and content much more important. If a band wants to sell CDs, they now have to made a album that is all good, not just 1/15th of that quality. We are also seeing much more interesting cover art and extra features, like music videos and other thigns.
Take Econ 101, the only time illegal markets arise *AND thrive* is when consumers and not satisfied with the legal ones. I care much more about myself and the consumer than I do about the major label music industry, and if they want my money, they are going to have to earn it, otherwise I will get my stuff for free, and support the smaller bands that actually make good musis by going to their shows and spreading their name around.
EDIT: case and point, the new RHCP CD, which was spectacular, and I bought. Or the new Gnarls Barkley CD, which was not spectacular apart from 3 songs, and I didn't buy.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What if you listen to Radiohead and they verbally requested people to steal the album? Is it the artists right to make that call, or should the record company have the final say?
Most of the music I listened to was not available where I grew up. They did not have the cd's for sale at the stores I went to. Eventually I found ONE store in the middle of an alley that sold SOME of the music I liked and I bought a bunch of CD's from them. But I continued to experiement with new bands through p2p networks and if I found a band that was consistantly good I bought their cd while I was in the states during the summer. If they had one song I liked, well I didnt buy their cd, sorry, I didnt want to pay $15-20 for one good song.
Now I live in the US and I have itunes. If a band I like comes out with an album, I buy the individual tracks I like, but I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song. TONS of songs are awesome because of the natural progression. Would you buy a book because somebody read 2 chapters from the middle? Well, maybe, but just as likely not.
Since when was stealing and smuggling illegitimate? American's didn't want to buy tea from the evil East India Company, so they smuggled Dutch tea in. Even when British tea prices dropped below Dutch tea and what the smugglers were asking, people did not drink the British tea as it symbolized complacency with a government they were upset with.
Personally I find that most of my bands offer better previews of their music than itunes do. Jimmy Eat World lets you listen to their whole album on their site, and you can go to itunes afterwards and get it if you want.
But bands that are anti P2P networks, thats fine, just expect that most people will not understand why that is. Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album. If you are metalica you need to explain why you were so reluctant to work with itunes.
Somebody asked a question about Dave Matthews Band and their CD only being able to be burned 3 times. That was in actuality a record company decision. I remember reading and article about it where the band apologized that that had happened and they had no idea when it was implemented. They even posted instructions on how to bypass it, but I think those were subsequentially removed.
Blah blah blah. "I like to steal but can't admit it to myself so I couch my view in long-winded essays that dance around that very basic fact."
I'm not taking the high-road on this one. I download crap all the time. I don't care. I'm okay with stealing, but I, at least, have the balls to admit it to myself.
Interesting definition of an essay you have there, was your response your definition of a, "Rebuttal?" Oh yes I love to steal, I download music for the sheer thrill of sticking it to the man. I have no desire to listen to the music, its all about the stealing for me.
You are confusing having balls with having the intelectual prowess to see the difference between doing something immoral and doing something because the alternative is worse.
But I suppose your answer to that is, "Don't listen to music then, its not a need."
Sorry, that is not an option I find acceptable.
Edit: FC I do use itunes now that its an option. Growing up itunes did not exist. If my band is not found on itunes more then likely the band is so underground they offer their music free as a download.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Newsflash: I have a business degree with a concentration in music industry studies. I've been working with music for five years. Big names, small names. Major labels, indie labels. Individual bands. The fact remains that while downloads can help spread the news about a VERY small band initially, there's a gap that said band has to jump between being local and starting to be news in the Big Picture, and that won't happen if you keep stealing their songs.
Fact is, they ARE putting out a product that you want. You're using it, after all. You just don't think you're hurting anyone because you probably don't personally know of anyone who's affected. So if you don't see it, it must not exist.
Newsflash: I have a business degree with a concentration in music industry studies. I've been working with music for five years. Big names, small names. Major labels, indie labels. Individual bands. The fact remains that while downloads can help spread the news about a VERY small band initially, there's a gap that said band has to jump between being local and starting to be news in the Big Picture, and that won't happen if you keep stealing their songs.
Fact is, they ARE putting out a product that you want. You're using it, after all. You just don't think you're hurting anyone because you probably don't personally know of anyone who's affected. So if you don't see it, it must not exist.
-pH
I have not seen anyone argue that they can download all the want without buying any cd's. Pretty much everyone here has argued in favor of downloading mp3's to get a feeling for the bands sound, and then buying cd's if they want more of the bands material in the future.
quote:If a poor man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, yes, he is technically stealing, and yes, he can be prosecuted and would have to accept that his actions had legal consequences, but I think you would be hard pressed to apply such black and white reasoning as to whether his actions were moral (I would be inclined to say they are).
I would argue that his actions are still not moral when there are many provisions that enable him to feed his starving family while not resorting to theft. Likewise with the music industry, there are many provisions that enable people to listen to music without requiring theft to do so. Some of these provisions have already been mentioned several times here.
quote:Or here's another example. I had never heard of Damien Rice until a few weeks ago when a friend of mine suggested I go see a show with him. Before I accepted, I downloaded "O", and since I liked it, I went and paid for a concert, and then ended up buying his CD afterwards. Without illegal downloading, none of that would have happened.
I disagree with the last sentence. There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I suppose your answer to that is, "Don't listen to music then, its not a need."
Sorry, that is not an option I find acceptable.
This boggles my mind. You really, honestly believe that you have the right to listen to whatever music you want on demand?
quote:Edit: FC I do use itunes now that its an option. Growing up itunes did not exist. If my band is not found on itunes more then likely the band is so underground they offer their music free as a download.
Filesharing on a modern scale didn't exist then, either.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But people. Don't. Do that. They don't. I don't care if you say YOU do, the fact remains, people don't. And if you want to learn about new bands, if you want to check out new bands, you can get a subscription service and check them out legally.
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: But people. Don't. Do that. They don't. I don't care if you say YOU do, the fact remains, people don't. And if you want to learn about new bands, if you want to check out new bands, you can get a subscription service and check them out legally.
Edit: That was to BlackBlade.
-pH
I am well aware that there are people who download with no intention of buying cd's. I guess it remains to be seen if punishing those people is economically productive even if those who do eventually buy cd's are also turned off.
Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Tower Records & most good music stores have many listenable albums, where you can sit there and listen to the entire CD, on repeat, if you desire.
quote:Originally posted by pH: But people. Don't. Do that. They don't. I don't care if you say YOU do, the fact remains, people don't. And if you want to learn about new bands, if you want to check out new bands, you can get a subscription service and check them out legally.
Edit: That was to BlackBlade.
-pH
In terms of these suscription services, you said (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that for 15$/month, you can download all the music you want? I'd like to know how much money goes to the artist in this case, it just seems like so little money for so much product, just a step up really from getting it for free.
As for your assertion that people don't primarily act like I do, I would like some form of evidence if you're going to make such a wide sweeping claim. I am simply speaking from my own perspective and from my experience with friends around me, and a large majority of them dowload music illegally, but also buy a good deal of CDs and take pride in supporting bands they think are talented (regardless of whether or not they are indie).
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Once more: SUBSCRIPTION DOWNLOAD SERVICE. You can listen to the song by paying a monthly subscription without paying for each individual song. Then you can go listen to it for free online whenever you want in a legal fashion.
quote:but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
The fact that you have to be online and also go to their website to listen to it is a major difference. There's also a major difference to the millions of people that do NOT later buy the CDs or go to concerts or support the artists in some other way.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Tower Records & most good music stores have many listenable albums, where you can sit there and listen to the entire CD, on repeat, if you desire.
The radio.
Indie music mags.
Sampler CDs.
Live performances.
TV performances.
MTV/2/VH1/CMT/BET.
Clubs.
Bars.
Getting the picture yet?
Those are all either completely inconvenient, or no better than a 30 second sample. If they want MY money, they are going to have to work for it, just like in any other industry. I will not go out of my way to spend money on something that might be crap unless I am sure that it is not going to be. The absolute best way to do that right now is to download illegaly. Period.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Download services that offer subscriptions have different fees depending on the package you get. The most expensive is $15 a month, which I like because I enjoy listening to massive amounts of music in my car, and it allows me to put the songs on my mp3 player without paying for each individual one. You can pay $10 a month just to listen/download unlimited music without the ability to burn/transfer until you pay the usual 99 cents a song. See also: http://www.napster.com
As to how the artist is paid, why do you give a crap if you're already listening in a way that gives the artist no credit? But it's my understanding that it's a performance royalty.
By the way, I have the subscription service and STILL buy physical albums, despite the fact that I am generally very capable of getting CDs for free legally, as a perk. If I can do it, and I have many, many more options and reasons not to pay than you do, then so can you.
quote:Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
There was never a time in which napster/kazaa were popular/accessible on the scale file sharing programs are today, but iTunes and other legal download sources were not available.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Tower Records & most good music stores have many listenable albums, where you can sit there and listen to the entire CD, on repeat, if you desire.
The radio.
Indie music mags.
Sampler CDs.
Live performances.
TV performances.
MTV/2/VH1/CMT/BET.
Clubs.
Bars.
Getting the picture yet?
Those are all either completely inconvenient, or no better than a 30 second sample. If they want MY money, they are going to have to work for it, just like in any other industry. I will not go out of my way to spend money on something that might be crap unless I am sure that it is not going to be. The absolute best way to do that right now is to download illegaly. Period.
We come back to convenience.
Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Download services that offer subscriptions have different fees depending on the package you get. The most expensive is $15 a month, which I like because I enjoy listening to massive amounts of music in my car, and it allows me to put the songs on my mp3 player without paying for each individual one. You can pay $10 a month just to listen/download unlimited music without the ability to burn/transfer until you pay the usual 99 cents a song. See also: http://www.napster.com
As to how the artist is paid, why do you give a crap if you're already listening in a way that give sthe artist no credit? But it's my understanding that it's a performance royalty.
-pH
The way that I like to predominatly listen to my music is live, and when I pay for a show, I am giving the artists a much higher proportion of the money I spend than if I buy a CD.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment.
Then download one song at a time. Or listen to the radio and make requests of local stations, specifically college indie stations if the band you're interested in isn't major yet. Or find someone who already knows about the band and listen to whatever music they have (without making copies for yourself).
quote:Napters/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
And the great thing was, the downfall of Napster and Kazaa led to the creation of sites like iTunes and MusicMatch. People complained that they didn't want to buy the whole album for one song, so they gave them the option of buying one song.
And still they stole music.
If Limewire and all the other sites that profit off a culture of selfishness and theft were to go away, then more legitimate, *legal* avenues will arise to fill the desires of the consuming public.
And still people will find ways to steal, because they want something for nothing. The trick is to make it as difficult as possible to break the law - it will never be impossible.
As one of the articles quoted above said, locks keep honest people honest. If you really want free music, you can rip copies of all your friends' CDs, all the CDs in the library, and whatever other CDs you can get your hands on, violating all their copyrights and getting the music (illegally) for free.
No one can stop you from breaking the law - but they can make it as inconvenient as possible.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
There was never a time in which napster/kazaa were popular/accessible on the scale file sharing programs are today, but iTunes and other legal download sources were not available.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I was using Napster and Kazaa back in 1999-2001 and they had plenty of userbase. Certainly P2P networks are larger then they were then but there was no such thing as itunes back in 2001. I started using Kazaa because Naptser went under.
Edit: FC: Right, thats why I use itunes now. But occasionally the previews offered by itunes suck, and there are even artists that do not offer their music through itunes. For example I can't get Rage Against The Machine's cover album (the last one) on itunes. I bought the cd quite a few years ago but have since lost it. I have not yet decided whether to repurchase it if it is released on itunes, or to simply redownload the 2-3 songs on the album that I did like.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Then this is where we disagree. And just for reference, there has always been some forum where people shared music illegally, and there will always be one. Just like the Barenaked Ladies said, the only difference now is the technology, pirating music has always been around.
And as long as you are comfortable with being taken advantage of by a huge industry, and wasting your hard earned money, then I have no problem with you buying all your music legally.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
There was never a time in which napster/kazaa were popular/accessible on the scale file sharing programs are today, but iTunes and other legal download sources were not available.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I was using Napster and Kazaa back in 1999-2001 and they had plenty of userbase. Certainly P2P networks are larger then they were then but there was no such thing as itunes back in 2001. I started using Kazaa because Naptser went under.
You're forgetting several things:
1) Napster/Kazaa were not nearly as widespread as the technologically savvy like to believe. Most people did not use them. Most people had no clue what they were.
2) Most people did not have high speed internet connections; the advent of widespread broadband has been shown to be a direct contributor to the proliferation of filesharing.
3) Most people did not own computers.
Basically, you're under the mistaken impression that your high school was a representative sample; it wasn't.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well good, Anglo. Now that we've established that I, the person who both works for the industry AND only listens to music in an aboveboard manner, am the immoral one, this discussion will be so much more productive.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Interesting definition of an essay you have there, was your response your definition of a, "Rebuttal?"
You're showing the weakness of your argument here. You cannot truely justify your actions so you resort to semantics. Good job.
quote:Oh yes I love to steal, I download music for the sheer thrill of sticking it to the man. I have no desire to listen to the music, its all about the stealing for me.
Now you're just misinterpreting what I said (probably purposefully). I in no way implied that you were stealing for the sake of stealing. My point is that you are stealing. Period. Your other justifications are moot. The methods you use to "sample" music are illegal according to the laws of the US government. It's really that simple. You may feel justified in doing that, but you need to realize that you are stealing first and foremost.
quote:You are confusing having balls with having the intelectual prowess to see the difference between doing something immoral and doing something because the alternative is worse.
You seem to believe that theft somehow makes you a pillar of morality. You seem to think that your justifications make you immune to rule of law.
You're not and you aren't.
quote:But I suppose your answer to that is, "Don't listen to music then, its not a need."
Sorry, that is not an option I find acceptable.
This is going to sound hypothetical to your ears, but now you're engaging in simple hyperbole. I love music. I make music myself. I can't see living life without music.
However, not downloading music does not prevent you from listening to it. You can turn on a radio and listen to music. You can browse all kinds of websites that clutter the internet and listen to music for free. Bands regularly post complete songs on their own websites, on MySpace and on their label's sites.
File sharing is not your only option. You could borrow the CD (without ripping it) and listen to it at home and then give the CD back to your friend who recommended that band and then go out and buy your own copy (or, on iTunes, the two or three songs you like).
You can go to concerts and pay for the band you want to see and get introduced to new ones by listening to the opening acts. You can go to music festivals and wander around finding all sorts of new songs. You can go to a bar and listen to all kinds of shitty underground bands that you'd never have heard of.
There are plenty of options out there. You're just taking the easiest one.
That makes you a lazy thieving bastard.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
