posted
I think that a few points have been overlooked in this thread.
I read Ars Technica on a daily basis, and there has been plenty of coverage on the music piracy issue. A few minutes searching through their news archive turned up a number of links.
There is some evidence suggesting that people who use P2P file-sharing software to pirate music buy more legal music than people who don't.
There is also some evidence suggesting that music from legitimate sources is more common on portable music players than pirated music.
The five largest American distributors of albums on CD settled out of court when sued for price-fixing.
CD sales continue to decline, but overall music sales are growing very healthily.
There is a major, real piracy concern: bootleg CDs. In markets where legitimate copies of albums retail far out of the reach of the average consumer (e.g. China), bootlegs sell.
"CD prices have risen significantly faster than inflation in the past 15 years, even as CD production and distribution costs have fallen through the floor." Interesting.
These points are not conclusive when each is considered individually. Survey respondents could lie; the record labels settled and thus a verdict was never rendered; the RIAA considers ripping a CD that you bought in a store and then putting it on your MP3 player to be piracy (using their metric, most music on portable music players is still "pirated"). However, taken together, a complete and entirely plausible picture emerges: The industry increased the price of CDs at a rate greater than inflation during an economic slowdown in the U.S., while simultaneously not providing consumers with a suitable legal digital distribution mechanism. Now that such mechanisms exist, music sales are increasing (and online music sales are exploding).
Justification for piracy? No. But it's a reasonable explanation of why it took off when and how it did.
Also, judicious use of the "preview post" button just showed me MPH's 3:27 PM post, with which I fully agree.
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
I've heard of that policy but I had not experienced it first hand so I could not cite it. Thats interesting though, I imagine you could not advertise that policy as many people would probably ask for a refund even if they liked the movie. But then again I guess thats more trouble then its worth to go back to the box office and ask for your money back.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the big theaters in Toronto, you can walk out for any reason within 30 minutes, and get a refund. But I've never heard of the deal TL advertises.. It seems like having that kind of policy is just asking to be taken advantage of.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there a music service (maybe Real or something like that) that allows you to download ten or fifteen songs per month for free? It would be subscription music, so you couldn't keep it forever, but it would enable you to preview complete songs before purchasing them. I think this would be extremely useful as part of the pay-per-download services, where you could download songs for a month for free and if you want to continue listening to them, you have to pay a fee to keep them.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other possible solution: offer 64/96 kbps or mono full versions of songs as samples. The quality is clear enough that you can more or less tell whether you're going to like the song or not, but the quality is bad enough that it would be irritating to listen to.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take it from me. Bootlegged CD's and Mixtapes usually aren't licensed. That's the whole point of them being bootlegged. The distributor can just burn a couple thousand and sell them all, and he won't get in trouble with the record label, because technically the CD doesn't even exist. So the whole bootleg CD analogy is just trash, sorry.
Wow, trash. Harsh words.
Maybe you don't understand the word bootleg, or you are applying your own connotation to it. All "bootleg" means is a copy that was made illegally. What I was trying to say was that a CD existed, someone went and burned a thousand copies of it to sell at half price on the street, and you're buying pirated material at a lowered cost. (This happens with DVDs all the time).
quote:Most likely, I thought I was buying music.
No, you were buying a cassette. Just as earlier you would have bought an 8 track, or 4 track, or record. And when a better recording medium came out for the music, you would buy the better medium because you wanted more functionality and quality.
Like Tommy Lee Joes said in MIB - "I'm going to have to buy the White Album again." When it's offered in a different form, you buy it in its different form if that's the form you want. Just because I buy a poster of the Mona Lisa doesn't mean I'm entitled to a print, postcard, stamp, t-shirt, and original painting. I didn't buy the art I bought the art on a poster - and if I wanted the art on something else, I'd buy that too.
quote:I believe the answer is no, if you operate by standards like mine.
This is what I'm curious about. Your standards. Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
At least that's what you seem to be saying. Am I getting it wrong, or do you fashion yourself as living outside the law?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Recoup the losses from the studio? You don't seem to understand how movie theaters work.
I think that's a valid question. In other words, would the theater still have to report that as a ticket sale, thus taking the entire loss itself, or does it just subtract from the number of tickets sold and pass that loss on to the studio?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: This is what I'm curious about. Your standards. Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
At least that's what you seem to be saying. Am I getting it wrong, or do you fashion yourself as living outside the law?
In a situation where my moral standards clash with the standards that society has legally established, I will often take a position that is in accordance with my moral standards. Surely this is not a foreign concept to you?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, it's like this. Movie theaters only make a tiny percentage of the money from ticket sales. It's not profit -- probably wouldn't even cover the power bill. Movie theaters make their money from the snack bar, which is why drinks and popcorn are so expensive there. Movie theaters do not operate like most businesses. The money from the ticket sales goes directly to the movie studios.
However, because the movie theater is the exhibitor of the films, and is the point of contact place for customers/movie-goers, movie theaters have the freedom to deal with passes/refunds/etc however they please.
They're our customers. If they're unhappy with the experience, it's the theater that takes the hit, not, generally speaking, the movie studio.
Our policy to issue refunds to any customer at any time for any reason.. That's just common sense, and good ethics. Nobody takes advantage of us, because customers are usually honest. And if someone honestly comes out upset enough over the content of a film that they want their money back -- if we say no, who is he going to be angry at? Us or the studio? Us. He probably won't even remember which studio it was that released that film. Issuing a refund costs us nothing: it's the customer's money. We want to keep the customer happy.
And that happens so incredibly rarely, that if every once in a while if a customer does take advantage, and we lose the 75 cents we would have made on that ticket sale, and the studio loses it's eight bucks --
Oh well. If we're going to make an error, we're going to err on the side of the customer, rather than on the side of squeezing every possible dime having unhappy customers.
That's just the philosophy of the company I work for.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, would the theater still have to report that as a ticket sale, thus taking the entire loss itself, or does it just subtract from the number of tickets sold and pass that loss on to the studio?
Subtracts from the number of tickets sold. The loss is shared by the studio and the movie theater. The studio would take the largest hit, obviously, in terms of dollars. But technically when you issue a refund it's as if the ticket was never there.
Which I think is quite correct, because the movie theater, as the VENUE where people see the movies, has to have some flexibility in dealing with customers.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
It's trickier than that. Yesterday I read about a case where a masseuse could lose her state license as a massage therapist because she was having sex with her client, which is illegal here in MN. Oh, but that client is her husband. However, the law doesn't make an exception for that. So, clearly she's guilty for breaking the law, right?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which I think is quite correct, because the movie theater, as the VENUE where people see the movies, has to have some flexibility in dealing with customers.
I agree. Thanks for the info.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
It's trickier than that. Yesterday I read about a case where a masseuse could lose her state license as a massage therapist because she was having sex with her client, which is illegal here in MN. Oh, but that client is her husband. However, the law doesn't make an exception for that. So, clearly she's guilty for breaking the law, right?
my wife is a massage therapist!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take it from me. Bootlegged CD's and Mixtapes usually aren't licensed. That's the whole point of them being bootlegged. The distributor can just burn a couple thousand and sell them all, and he won't get in trouble with the record label, because technically the CD doesn't even exist. So the whole bootleg CD analogy is just trash, sorry.
Wow, trash. Harsh words.
Maybe you don't understand the word bootleg, or you are applying your own connotation to it. All "bootleg" means is a copy that was made illegally. What I was trying to say was that a CD existed, someone went and burned a thousand copies of it to sell at half price on the street, and you're buying pirated material at a lowered cost. (This happens with DVDs all the time).
I buy bootlegged CDs all the time. Your right on some parts of your explanation, but the problem is most CDs that are bootlegged are Mixtapes, not actual albums. Mixtapes belong to no labels and have no licenses, so its perfectly legal to make copies of a mixtape and sell them.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a situation where my moral standards clash with the standards that society has legally established, I will often take a position that is in accordance with my moral standards. Surely this is not a foreign concept to you?
No, it's not. Disregard for the law is not new, nor is it foreign. People do it all the time. When they get caught doing it, they pay fines, do community service, or end up in jail.
It's the way society works, by maintaining a certain set of rules everyone follows and punishing those that don't follow the rules.
I just wanted to be clear that you felt yourself above the law.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mixtapes belong to no labels and have no licenses, so its perfectly legal to make copies of a mixtape and sell them.
Now you're willfully deluding yourself.
If the mix tape is made with with even one song that came from a copyrighted album, then the mix tape itself is a violation of copyright.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a situation where my moral standards clash with the standards that society has legally established, I will often take a position that is in accordance with my moral standards. Surely this is not a foreign concept to you?
No, it's not. Disregard for the law is not new, nor is it foreign. People do it all the time. When they get caught doing it, they pay fines, do community service, or end up in jail.
It's the way society works, by maintaining a certain set of rules everyone follows and punishing those that don't follow the rules.
I just wanted to be clear that you felt yourself above the law.
In keeping with "being clear", I might point out that I don't think I'm above the law. In a situation like I described, where I chose my moral standards above legal ones, I would be perfectly willing to accept any legal consequences involved in that choice.
EDIT: If you read my posts with the idea in your head that I am some sort of immoral criminal miscreant, we are never going to be able to have a meaningful discussion.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mixtapes belong to no labels and have no licenses, so its perfectly legal to make copies of a mixtape and sell them.
Now you're willfully deluding yourself.
If the mix tape is made with with even one song that came from a copyrighted album, then the mix tape itself is a violation of copyright.
The songs that are on mixtapes are from albums that haven't even been made yet. Thats the whole point of a mixtape, to see if the audience likes the material.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I still haven't seen the following question answered by the anti-p2p folks (well, FlyingCow specifically):
Why is it wrong for me to download mp3's of cd's or cassettes I already own, when it would be perfectly legal for me to rip the same mp3's directly from the cd's or cassettes?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yesterday I read about a case where a masseuse could lose her state license as a massage therapist because she was having sex with her client, which is illegal here in MN. Oh, but that client is her husband. However, the law doesn't make an exception for that. So, clearly she's guilty for breaking the law, right?
You are misrepresenting the case. Although I agree that the law is unreasonably strict. Two years?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd second pH's endorsment of subscription based music. I use Yahoo Music ToGo and am pretty satisfied with it. On the other hand, I would never purchase a single track using DRM.
Two points about this service: 1) I don't believe the music companies would have ever given permission for this kind of system if it wasn't for the vast filesharing that took place and is taking place. 2) This subscription based music model is much like the filesharing model I've seen most people use: You get exposed to a lot of new music, find what you like, download it, and if you really like it then you purchase the CD, delete the other files. Repeat.
Please note: I'm not trying to morally support or condemn filesharing. Just noting some effects.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: my wife is a massage therapist!
Just make sure you don't pay her for massages. Or sex.
Would giving her a weekly allowance constitute paying for either massages or sex?
I'm totally kidding, all our funds are basically OUR money.
Though it might be unethical if I physically went to her massage office and solicited sex while she was giving me a massage. I can see why that would be grounds for revoking ones liscence, or at least suspending it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are misrepresenting the case. Although I agree that the law is unreasonably strict. Two years?
Ah yes. I scanned through the newspaper article yesterday, and apparently didn't quite recall it correctly. It was an old client that is now her husband, but either way, current laws say that it [was] still unlawful for her to have sex with her husband.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word mixtape. In my reckoning, it's an album made from an amalgam of songs from other albums. Such as car mixes people make for themselves or party mixes of various artists that DJs put together. To reproduce and distribute these would be illegal.
If it's unreleased material and the artist is releasing it to gauge interest, it's not bootleg at all.
A "bootleg" album is an album made illegally. That's the definition of the word. For example, copies of movies made with handheld cameras before the DVD is released. Things like that.
If you're talking about a promo tape of some kind released for free by an artist to gauge audience interest, that's entirely different.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mixtapes are made by one group or artist. Its just like an album except that usually the artist is experimenting (and its not licensed). They aren't really for parties or anything like that. Pharrell put out a mixtape recently to prelude his new album thats coming out. Lupe Fiasco is being hailed as one of the best new rappers, and he hasn't even put out an album, just mixtapes. Mixtapes aren't promo tapes because usually there isn't anything to promote, its just the rapper making money without even putting out an album. Thats why you never see ads for Mixtapes in store catalogues, they aren't licensed and therefore the record companies just turn blind eyes to them.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it wrong for me to download mp3's of cd's or cassettes I already own, when it would be perfectly legal for me to rip the same mp3's directly from the cd's or cassettes?
If you own the physical CD, there is no problem ripping the songs from that CD to some mix tape to use in your car, or to play on your computer. I believe there is a stipulation in copyright law for two or three copies allowable for personal use. This would include a cassette tape, for instance, if your car didn't have a CD player.
However:
- if you go and make 100 copies of your CD and distribute them to friends, you are infringing on copyright.
- if you upload the songs on your CD to a site where thousands of people can download them and make copies, you are infringing on copyright.
- if you make copies of your CD to sell, you are infringing on copyright.
- if you are downloading songs for a CD you *used* to own, but no longer own (through loss, destruction, theft, etc), you are stealing music.
Does that answer your question?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: I call it being a discerning customer. If I bought a vaccum cleaner that I used, and then didn't like, would it be theft to return it?
(I might mention that I tend to delete the songs I download and don't like)
Anglo, I once more point out that there are plenty of LEGAL services that let you listen to entire songs before purchasing them. You refuse to even acknowledge that I am telling you this, much less that they exist.
quote:- if you are downloading songs for a CD you *used* to own, but no longer own (through loss, destruction, theft, etc), you are stealing music
see, this is the one that blows my mind... I buy a tape, rip it to mp3 and CD. The next day my house burns down and I lose the mp3 and the tape but luckily my backup CD is in the car. Apparently I now an breaking the law? I can't backup my music in case of destruction? What if I keep the old burned-up tape... am I legal then since I still 'own' the tape even though I can't actually play it??
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is ridiculous. The difference is that an mp3 is not a physical product. It costs nothing to produce. It is information. The only LOSS, to the artist or to the company that produced the music, would be if you hadn't already paid for the music. I already paid for the music.
There are no damages to the record company. Your argument is that I should pay for the music twice? Why? What for?
Is it your opinion that it would be illegal for me to rip my CD's (or cassettes) to mp3 for my own personal use?
The thing here is, in my mind, you didn't pay for the music. You paid for a cassette. If that cassette is lost or destroyed, you aren't entitled to another one - you have to buy it. Same as if you lose or destroy anything else - you have to pay to replace it.
Also, physical product or not, it is still a commodity. Time is not a physical product, but people pay for that every day. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it has no value.
If you pay for an artist to paint a mural on your wall, then the wall gets destroyed - you pay for him to paint it again if you want the mural back. You didn't buy the art, you bought the medium it was on.
In the case of music, you aren't buying the music, per se, but the file it's recorded in. If that file became corrupted or deleted, the music would be lost. The file is something you pay for - just like you pay for software like MS Office or Adobe PhotoShop. It isn't tangible, but it has value and should not be freely replicated and distributed.
That is why we have copyright law.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:see, this is the one that blows my mind... I buy a tape, rip it to mp3 and CD. The next day my house burns down and I lose the mp3 and the tape but luckily my backup CD is in the car. Apparently I now an breaking the law? I can't backup my music in case of destruction? What if I keep the old burned-up tape... am I legal then since I still 'own' the tape even though I can't actually play it??
I'm not sure if you're intentionally misreading or not.
If you backup files and information you own, then you are not breaking the law. For instance, if you had Adobe Photoshop on your computer, and the install discs were in the car, you could install it on another machine should your computer break down. If you had your CDs in your car, you could once again put them on your new computer.
However, if the install discs were in the house, and all was destroyed, you are not justified in stealing a copy of PhotoShop to replace what you lost - just like you are not justified in stealing another house to replace what you lost. If your CDs were lost in the fire, you can't just go and steal the music back to replace what you lost.
That's why you have insurance, to reimburse you for loss. If your CD collection was valued at $3500 dollars, your insurance will cover that. If your mp3 collection was valued at $3500 (based on receipts from iTunes or whatnot) you could probably get reimbursed for that as well. I'm not sure if iTunes lets you download a song twice if you paid for it once - it's never come up in my usage of the software.
Granted, if you have no insurance to replace any of this, that was your decision.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FC, I know that with Napster, you can redownload music if your computer eats it. Or just if your computer is acting weird and you have to format. They re-issue your licenses.
posted
They also have really cool tech support people who love to talk about music. You don't sit on hold forever. So if I do have to call to get my licenses re-issued or whatever, I'm not like, "Auuuugh, I hate this, I have to call Napster..." and clearing my schedule for the afternoon so that I can sit around and wait to talk to someone who is clearly not located within this country.
posted
That's certainly nicer than MusicMatch - they have no phone tech support. None. They don't even have a phone number, and say as much on their site. You have to email them.
quote:If you read my posts with the idea in your head that I am some sort of immoral criminal miscreant, we are never going to be able to have a meaningful discussion.
Not at all. You're moral according to your own standards, just not law abiding. I get that.
You'll take whatever punishment is meted out for any delinquent behavior. I get that.
I hope you manage to stay clear of any legal authority.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the case of music, you aren't buying the music, per se, but the file it's recorded in. If that file became corrupted or deleted, the music would be lost. The file is something you pay for - just like you pay for software like MS Office or Adobe PhotoShop. It isn't tangible, but it has value and should not be freely replicated and distributed.
That is why we have copyright law.
I think from this quote we can safely surmise that FlyingCow has absolutely no understanding of copyright law, and we can go ahead and ignore the rest of his posts.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think from this quote we can safely surmise that FlyingCow has absolutely no understanding of copyright law, and we can go ahead and ignore the rest of his posts.
Is ignorance the only reason why we can ignore posts? Or can we do it when people are obnoxious as well?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
You could try explaining why copyright law doesn't work the way FC thinks it does. Or you could ignore his posts. But that, that doesn't serve any purpose than to be nasty.
I don't think we really don't need to get nasty over this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kindness did sort of fly out the window when he called someone a thieving lazy bastard. Maybe now's the time to bring it back in.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is ignorance the only reason why we can ignore posts? Or can we do it when people are obnoxious as well?
I take it you mean that I'm being obnoxious. Well, it's true that I'm a little bit touchy about being called a thief for owning digital copies of music that I already own. I think that is a stupidly rigid position to take, and every analogy which has been posted in favor of this position has been ridiculous.
Note: I am not calling anyone stupid.
Also, I am a little on edge from reading the rest of this thread in which people are being called immoral and thieving bastards, etc.
No offense was meant.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
my wife is a massage therapist!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You don't sit on hold forever. So if I do have to call to get my licenses re-issued or whatever, I'm not like, "Auuuugh, I hate this, I have to call Napster..." and clearing my schedule for the afternoon so that I can sit around and wait to talk to someone who is clearly not located within this country.
