RIAA Suing people downloading music [Archive]

geistwerks

09-09-2003, 08:47 PM

> People are being sued for breaking the law.
> People are being punished for stealing music which they haven't paid for >and for infringing copyright, at the expense of those who created it.

>I fail to see what's so controversial.

jacko, i've agreed with you almost 99% of the time, and found your comments witty, amusing, and well thought out.

respectfully, i disagree with you.

this is not a situation that is a cut and dry as you've so succinctly put it.

this is a very long-winded post, and i do apologize, but i've had spent a lot of time thinking about file sharing, and this rant has been bottled up enough.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF FILE SHARING

man is created/man evolves. man is bored hanging around the cave. man bangs on log with rock. man thinks it's pretty cool. man shares rock and log with fellow man. SHARING IS BORN.

man goes on to create a hollowed out log with animal skin covering and finds animal horns and bones and shells and anything else that can possibly create sound and begins to make instruments. man goes from tribe to tribe SHARING his creations.

man begins to create real instruments and songs, and begins to share songs with fellow man. folk music is born and SHARED with everyone.

man creates a lot more instruments and needs a way to create better songs. man figures out how to write musical notation. man has now created the very first FILE SHARING system, as sheet music spreads across the world.

FFWD>>

man creates a way to record sound. man promptly thinks about how to make a lot of money.

FFWD>>

man creates music and recording industries to distribute music and make as much money possible.

FFWD>>

man creates computers.

in the meantime, other men have learned how to dominate the music and recording industries to their benefit, at the expense of anyone and anything. since there are no readily available recording devices for people, the industry controls almost everything.

FFWD>>

man invents personal tape recorders. people across the world start copying their music, radio performances, etc. and FILE SHARE them with anyone who wants a copy.

FFWD>>

remember that man who invented the computer? he now has internet access, and the radio and the local record store play almost the same thing, day in, and day out, thanks to the industry's total control of the airwaves. man can't stand to hear the same song every hour, so he starts downloading music.

FFWD>>

the industry begins to notice everyone is seeking alternatives to their complete dominance of radio and television and the local music store. the industry learns about the internet.

FFWD>>

the industry is in a panic. people are seeking out new things. the industry, in what will become the biggest example of mismanagement in history, decides to NOT participate in the most popular product since the creation of the compact disc, decides to figure out how to STOP it.

FFWD>>

present day...

i've legitimately owned over 10,000 cd's/album's in my life. i've spent years going to the local store, spending hours thumbing through endless amounts of albums. when i was a teen, however, i began to find all the music around me to be the same old thing. i started turning the radio dial to anything i could find...i found a college station the far end of the dial. they played songs i never heard before. i listened. i went to the record store. i spent a lot of money that day.

time passed, i began to notice a trend in the college stations. i found the internet. i didn't find any mp3's at that time (they weren't around yet) but i read reviews. i went to the record store. i didn't find a lot of what i read about, but i spent a lot of money that day.

i kept reading reviews on the 'net, and kept going to the store. the selections got less and less. i tried listening to the radio, but by now the college stations, all of them, were playing the exact same thing. i special ordered, but got burned...a lot. by now, the local stores absolutely sucked.

then came mp3.

suddenly i had access to THOUSANDS of songs i didn't have previous access to. i went crazy. i've been through more than a few computers that just plain wore out because they were on all the time, downloading. fast internet access only fueled the demise of my computers.

i've stopped going to record stores. it's too much wasted time and gas to find NOTHING i'm interested in.

i stopped listening to radio, can you guess why?

i've stopped watching television. i have no desire to be bombarded with 20 minutes of advertisements to view 10 minutes of actual content.

i've stopped going to movies. when i go to see a movie that's rated R, i don't want to hear some five year old screaming at the top of his lungs. not to mention, i don't enjoy sitting in a theater with a bunch of people who won't turn off their cellphones, won't be quiet, etc. when i can sit in my living room with my friends and family and watch seabiscuit with tasty popcorn and not that nasty movie theater stuff that makes your lips shrivel. plus, we can have a nice pint whenever we want, and a bathroom break doesn't make you miss a single minute.

i now have TOTAL CHOICE in what i consume. this is something that REAL FILE SHARERS' (not just kids who don't know any better) CRAVE. it's something the industries' REFUSE to give us. don't you think i'd pay for everything i'd downloaded if i'd been given the chance? for a fast download? for an accurate download? for a QUALITY download? most FILE SHARERS are NOT thieves because we're insidiously trying to steal from someone. it's a convenience thing. something steve jobs nailed RIGHT ON THE HEAD. steve's big mistake though, is not getting enough out there for those of us who are more interested in variety.

it's time for the entire world to wise up and face facts.

the RIAA is nothing more than another type of MAFIA. they've been convicted of price fixing, whined a whole lot years earlier when people were buying USED cd's, and started a failed campaign spearheaded by garth brooks to levy a tax of sorts on used cd stores although what they really wanted was used cd sales banned. NOW HOW MANY OF US ARE CRIMINALS IN THEIR EYES?

they are the same people who help MTV and the major labels PUSH what is essentially morally devoid garbage that advocates violence, sexism, drug abuse, rape, murder, and bigotry; and that's just eminem. do you know how many kids know the lyrics to his songs and try to act like him? what are they going to grow up to become? and don't give me that crap that it doesn't effect them. i worked in a music store for 5 years. i witnessed the decline, firsthand. wake up and realize what major labels are trying to turn our youth into!

the RIAA and their major label cohorts are the same people who are trying to kill internet radio, and trying to limit what we can hear on normal radio so we have NO CHOICE but to buy their products. i can't even buy "indie" music anymore because it barely exists. these groups have gone so far as to even monopolize the distribution of most "independent" record labels and artists. every time i buy a cd, they're going to get a cut.

it's time we all said, "NO MORE. THIS IS NOT RIGHT."

the RIAA isn't protecting artists, they're protecting their monopoly. this is why we the people created ANTI-TRUST laws once upon a time in this country. have we all become so blinded?

i REFUSE to pay ANYTHING to the RIAA. i have not bought a cd in over a year. i will never buy one again, even if the internet was completely gone tomorrow. apple itunes store? worthless to me. there's no independent music there! the majors have stripped almost every music store both virtual and real down to a minimum of selections. there's no variety, that's the way they want it!

you want music? go buy a used cd! it's $8.00 or so a pop and the RIAA NEVER SEES A CUT.

oh, and by the way, i can't count how many times i've seen a REPRESENTATIVE of a major label come in with 30 count box lots of PROMOTIONAL cd's to sell to a used cd store for their own greedy profit! it's like a street corner pusher skimming from the big dealer! this is their industry, and it sickens me! what about YOU?

you want to support artists you like? DOWNLOAD THEIR ALBUM AND THEN SEND THEM A CHECK IN THE MAIL! no cut for the RIAA!

best yet? go search for artists who want their music to be heard so badly, they offer it for free over the internet! there's a ton of 'em out there!

a great rapper once said, "PLAIN AND SIMP' THE SYSTEM'S A PIMP, BUT I REFUSE TO BE A 'HO!" never a better rallying cry, thanks, chuck d!

when 12 year old little girls start getting sued, it's clear something has gone horribly wrong. join the BOYCOTT THE RIAA movement.

and to the RIAA i say this:

your time will come. you've tried to line your coffers for far too long, exploiting everyone you could, along with all your record label executive criminals. you've ripped off artists, groups, and now the fans.

yeah, you've brought your tommy guns out of your trenchcoats, you've flashed steel and fired the first few shots...

but you're REALLY aiming at your own throats...

BOYCOTT THE RIAA AND THE MAJOR LABEL RECORD INDUSTRY NOW!!!

geistwerks

09-09-2003, 09:06 PM

i apologize for the length of that (and the fact i won't shut up). it was fueled by too much sleep deprivation and too much caffeine. but i meant every single word of it. it was not directed as an attack on any user of this fine site, or meant to condone file sharing. i pulled all my files offline when the first threats of lawsuits went out and i'm staying well away from any p2p network, although i have never shared or downloaded the "mainstream" music the RIAA is so concerned about. most of what i file shared has never even seen a CD release, only some obscure vinyl copy pressed up in germany or something. i have enough music to last the rest of my life, and if i need anything new, i just go to a site that offers free music downloads, and get my fill there. will i ever file share again? i don't know. my greatest hope is that i won't have to, because one day some online music service will have music i like, not just a bunch of MTV garbage.

to those who file share, continue if you want. it's a risk, because the RIAA's "system" for finding file sharers is VERY flawed, and violates all our civil rights for privacy. see the EFF web site for more info.

"change the way to perceive and change all memory."

"nothing is true. everything is permitted."

Jackonicko

09-09-2003, 09:51 PM

geistwerks

09-09-2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Jackonicko
But cavemen aside, the artist needs to make a living, and paying money for their music seems the best way.

So how does the artist get the money they're legitimately entitled to?

And how does the music industry get a return on its investment?

I'm not pretending that the RIAA is snow white (far from it) but there must be payment for artists and copyright owners.

i don't have all the answers. i don't even know all the questions. mostly, i'm ranting and venting over something that's gotten me really fed up.

here's some ideas i've read or thought about:

reduce the price of cd's. the RIAA's price fixing has the average U.S. customer paying $18.99 for a cd. some music labels are fixing their prices at $12.99 (universal, i think) but that's still outrageously high. $2.00 a cd is a lot more realistic, given what it costs to manufacture cd's nowadays, but of course the RIAA would never go for that. they all want to be billionaires and won't just settle for being millionaires.

watch the obnoxious show mtv cribs sometime. does anyone in the world really NEED to live like that? do these artists really give anything to the world? i don't pity the major labels. i hate them. file sharing hasn't really hurt them as much as they would have you believe.

who's really getting hurt? the independent record labels and artists. people are downloading their music and they are losing money. most artists really make their money in live shows at this level, but some have to keep their day jobs. (many of my favorite artists are software engineers or something.) most of these folks can't even get their products in stores, because let's face it...who's going to stock ONE cd of 30 artists when they can stock 30 cd's of ONE artist who's going to sell out? why is the ONE artist going to sell out? because they're the ONE being played on MTV, or in rotation on a radio station (label sent lots of promotional "goodies" to the music director). so, who, in the heck, is ever going to hear those 30 artists and buy their albums? it used to be people like me. but i'm older now, and i don't have the time to spend entire weekends in record stores (or the desire).

best attempt at a solution we've seen so far is the itunes music store. at least someone's thinking. the selection, however, is EXTREMELY limited, and a lot of people are left out. i scan the store every tuesday. i've only downloaded ONE album, and i didn't even want it. i just wanted to try the service.

but i still think the itunes store is too expensive. i can buy used cd's and save a lot of money. and i can still get the new stuff at a used cd store too.

and, yes, there are people who just want to file share because it's free. some are anarchists who want to bring down the establishment. some kids don't understand it's illegal, but i also know some adults who don't understand it.

(although, i understood property laws when i was 10 years old. i knew copying a tape from a friend was "illegal," although it was alright to borrow the tape from him (if that doesn't count as a "public performance") or accept it as a gift, and it was "illegal" to sell copies as well. maybe it was just me.)

the RIAA has made too many mistakes. they've blown it. i know a lot of people who will never buy a cd again, even from their favorite band, simply because they know the RIAA will get a cut. we may be a minority, but the group is only going to grow. and as much as the RIAA tries to stop it, file sharing is only going to get bigger and bigger. someone will come up with a new method to transfer files securely. someone will start a new, more secret p2p program. people will burn discs. or copy them to tape. or maybe they will be inspired to start making their own music, and share it with people because they want to.

if someone wants to read your book, jacko, they are going to. sitting for an hour or more photocopying every page, or scanning it in to a pc is not worth the hassle of going out and buying it.

and, correct me if i am wrong, book pricing isn't "fixed."

and most book stores i've been in carry a lot more variety than cd stores currently do.

even the ones in the mall...

SunByrne

09-10-2003, 01:33 AM

OK, so while I agree with many of the points geistwerks has made--the RIAA are mostly the bad guys here--that doesn't change the fact that file sharing copyrighted material is clearly a violation of the laws of the land. (The good news is that in a democracy, we have the right to try to get laws we don't like changed.)

But until those laws are changed, people who illegally trade copyrighted music are breaking the law, most of them knowingly so. If you're going to knowingly break the law, you'd better be prepared to take your punishment, too.

What bugs me is is when people use all the stuff geistwerks mentioned as being the basis for some kind of exception to the law, that the law somehow now shouldn't apply. Friggin' crybabys. if you break the law, you pay the price if you get caught. Do you have the right to try to get those laws changed? You bet. Does that exempt you from paying the price when you violate the law? NO. If you're going to engage in file sharing as some kind of civil disobedience, then you have to be enough of an adult to deal with the consequences.

How many people out there doing massive file-sharing are also actively working legal routes to get the RIAA to change (such as organizing and publicizing boycotts and then really boycotting the RIAA products), or actively lobbying to get the copyright laws changed? Probably a pretty small percentage. I think most of the beefs people have with the RIAA are legit, but this does NOT mean everyone should get a free pass to fileshare with complete impunity.

Yes, CDs are way overpriced. Yes, the selection sucks. Yes, the RIAA has missed the technology boat and done a lot to alienate their customer base. The same thing could be said to be true about lots of other industries as well, but I have yet to see massive campaigns saying it should be OK to, say, steal cars off automobile dealer's lots because you don't like the way the auto industry does business. The ends do not justify the means.

That said, I do think the RIAA are idiots in the way they're handling this, and they're only going to alienate people. I think, despite the fact that they have the legal right to do so, that they really shouldn't pursue these suits, but should instead devote their money and energy to fixing some serious problems, many of which geistwerks described. But the do have the legal right to do so, and if you've been illegally sharing files and they come after you, I don't think you have a leg to stand on about it.

Texipod

09-10-2003, 03:13 AM

I buy my cd's at pawn shops for $2-5 and Goodwill for $1.
Occasionally I'll go to Wherehouse Music and spend $6-10. The day I spend $18 is nowhere in my future.
Besides, there usually isn't more than 3 songs on a cd that are worth listening too. Of course there are exceptions but they are few and far between.
The entire music industry is solely motivated by greed. I imagine someday we'll see giant class-action lawsuits against RIAA rivaling those resently seen against the tobacco industry.

SunByrne

09-10-2003, 04:10 AM

Did I miss something? Is there any large corporate enterprise that isn't driven primarily by greed? Still, I don't understand how that's equivalent to the tobacco suits--are people being killed by diseases they're contracting as a result of using CDs? What damages would people be suing for?

Texipod

09-10-2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by SunByrne
Did I miss something? Is there any large corporate enterprise that isn't driven primarily by greed? Still, I don't understand how that's equivalent to the tobacco suits--are people being killed by diseases they're contracting as a result of using CDs? What damages would people be suing for?

I'm talking about a conspiracy to rip off the public. That's where I see the similarity.
However you want to look at it, the RIAA is fixing prices and God knows what else.

SunByrne

09-11-2003, 12:01 AM

OK, that makes sense. Yeah, sign me up as a member of that class...

dcx693

09-16-2003, 12:06 PM

Downloading copyrighted material is illegal. You may hate the record companies, but it doesn't justify stealing their material. No arguments can justify stealing their material for your listening pleasure.

I'm no fan of these companies. Yes, all business are driven by profit, but some of them operate the same way that the big music companies do - exploiting the public using their virtual monopoly. Examples: McDonald's exploits low-paid workers and the public who eat their "food". Auto manufacturers feed the public craving for more SUVs because it nets them outrageous profits at the expense of the environment and safety.

I'm old enough to remember when CDs replaced vinyl. The record companies had been itching to raise prices on vinyl, but they didn't because they didn't think the public wouldn't stand for it. So they instead charged $14 for CDs, claiming that prices would eventually come down to vinyl prices when the initial costs of production were recouped. Well, I never saw that price decrease. True, CD prices probably haven't kept pace with inflation and the CPI, but really....$18 for a CD? Are these companies really looking to make a fair profit? Maybe $18 is right where CD prices should be, but then why did the big record companies engage in price fixing?

Audioboxer

09-16-2003, 11:01 PM

There's too many sides to argue.... and I don't feel like getting into everything but I do think the RIAA is taking things a bit too far... I mean, come on... suing a 12 year old girl for downloading nursery rhymes? That's just ridiculous.

dcx693

09-17-2003, 12:29 PM

Audioboxer, there are many sides to this, but getting the facts straight is paramount. The girl was not sued for downloading, but for making available over 1,000 songs using Kazaa. I doubt these were 1,000 nursury rhymes, but the story does not specify: http://www3.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/.

The terms of the settlement are probably confidential, but in a statement quoted in the story, the girl says: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love." Sounds to me like the girl understood that she was doing something illegal.

Audioboxer

09-17-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by dcx693

The terms of the settlement are probably confidential, but in a statement quoted in the story, the girl says: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love." Sounds to me like the girl understood that she was doing something illegal.

Or just saying what she was told to say.

stonersmurf22

09-18-2003, 12:20 AM

The RIAA are using _unconstitutional_ methods to obtain the names of the file sharers. Now, ive only been in Civics class for about a month, but doesnt _unconstitutional_=bad? maybe even illegal? File sharing may not be right, and even illegal, but if it wasn't for the fact that the US was run by nothing but rich people who bought a seat in congress, there might be a rational way of doing this, rather than "$%#$ the poor people, special interest groups are what REALLY matter"
/'end rant/'

dcx693

09-19-2003, 03:46 PM

Audioboxer, perhaps that was part of the settlement. As I stated at the beginning of the paragraph...."The terms of the settlement are probably confidential..."

In fact, I read in another news story (sorry don't have a link), she (or her side) professed that they thought the music downloading was legal given that they'd paid a monthly fee to Kazaa. If that's true, it really sounds like the girl didn't know any better. After all, if you were knowingly stealing music, why would you then pay money to use Kazaa? Perhaps they thought Kazaa licensed all those songs? In any case, her statements "jibe" with each other.

SunByrne

09-19-2003, 08:07 PM

stonesmurf22, what's your basis for the claim that what the RIAA is doing is unconstitutional? The DMCA says they can do it, Verizon challenged this law on constitutional grounds--and lost. So the courts have ruled that it's constitutional.

I'd like to know because I think the DMCA is a complete load of crap, but as far as I can tell, the courts aren't likely to throw it out. So what's the basis for your claim?

Jackonicko

09-19-2003, 08:32 PM

Moreover, breaching the privacy of criminals is surely small beer, compared to what the file sharers are doing - cynically stealing music (and therefore earnings) from the artists.

andym172

09-19-2003, 09:03 PM

Suing a 12 year old is bloody impressive - they must be proud of themselves! :rolleyes:

I am in total agreement that downloading/sharing music is wrong, but at the end of the day it's about time the music manufacturers had a rocket shoved up their ar$e - the prices they charge are nothing but extortionate IMHO.

An album should be the equivalent of $10 IMO - I see that as a fair price and if put into action would most likely see me buying a couple of CD's a week.

stonersmurf22

09-19-2003, 09:15 PM

Yeah, the courts ruled it constitutional, but if we take a look back in history, courts ruled slavery constitutional. I know that these are totally different things, but I still stand by the fact that I seriously doubt that the judge in the court was an "just another citizen". Just like Congress. But oh well, I generally buy my music anyways. NEW Nickelback. WOOT!

Jackonicko

09-19-2003, 10:17 PM

$10? That's ?6.66. That's not enough for record companies and retailers to make a reasonable profit. Perhaps for a downloaded album, but not for a CD.

I hate to say it, but I think that CD prices do seem to be falling towards a pretty realistic level. If you can't get a chart CD for ?9.87 now you're not trying - the problem comes with recent back catalogue stuff, which can still be ?14 or ?16 or more.

I bought the new Cooper Temple Clause the other day. ?9.87 including a second enhanced CD of videos and stuff. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, though not all artists have caught on to the idea of enhancing the perceived value of the product in this way.

SunByrne

09-20-2003, 03:42 AM

stonesmurf22, I don't follow your argument at all. WHAT'S THE BASIS for claiming it's not constitutional? I understand that the courts do change their minds from time to time, but I don't see what a judge being "just another citizen" or not has to do with it. A judge even at the level of the circuit courts *never* been "just another citizen." Nor have members of Congress, but I don't understand how that's relevant to a legal argument about constitutionality. Please help me understand your point.

geistwerks

09-20-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by SunByrne

What bugs me is is when people use all the stuff geistwerks mentioned as being the basis for some kind of exception to the law, that the law somehow now shouldn't apply. Friggin' crybabys. if you break the law, you pay the price if you get caught. Do you have the right to try to get those laws changed? You bet. Does that exempt you from paying the price when you violate the law? NO. If you're going to engage in file sharing as some kind of civil disobedience, then you have to be enough of an adult to deal with the consequences.

How many people out there doing massive file-sharing are also actively working legal routes to get the RIAA to change (such as organizing and publicizing boycotts and then really boycotting the RIAA products), or actively lobbying to get the copyright laws changed? Probably a pretty small percentage. I think most of the beefs people have with the RIAA are legit, but this does NOT mean everyone should get a free pass to fileshare with complete impunity.

Yes, CDs are way overpriced. Yes, the selection sucks. Yes, the RIAA has missed the technology boat and done a lot to alienate their customer base. The same thing could be said to be true about lots of other industries as well, but I have yet to see massive campaigns saying it should be OK to, say, steal cars off automobile dealer's lots because you don't like the way the auto industry does business. The ends do not justify the means.

piracy has, and always will be a part of culture. it doesn't matter what it is. as long as there is something illicit, it will be desired and wanted.

i'm not sure who's a crybaby, but i'm not supporting the RIAA and EVERY bit of new music i've obtained in the last 2 months has been from sites that offer their music LEGALLY for FREE in mp3 format. i have NO DESIRE to support anyone else. if they ask for a paypal donation, i'll send one.

i'm hoping the downtime on the itunes music store is NOT the expected windows update, but the much rumoured addition of independent music to the store.

my opinion is that people are file sharing, not on the basis of wanting to steal, but seeking an option to consume a product in the easiest way possible.

geistwerks

09-20-2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Jackonicko
$10? That's ?6.66. That's not enough for record companies and retailers to make a reasonable profit. Perhaps for a downloaded album, but not for a CD.

I hate to say it, but I think that CD prices do seem to be falling towards a pretty realistic level. If you can't get a chart CD for ?9.87 now you're not trying - the problem comes with recent back catalogue stuff, which can still be ?14 or ?16 or more.

I bought the new Cooper Temple Clause the other day. ?9.87 including a second enhanced CD of videos and stuff. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, though not all artists have caught on to the idea of enhancing the perceived value of the product in this way.

jacko, there's been numerous models worked out were cd's could be sold for $2-3 a pop and the record companies would still make loads of money. maybe not the billions they want, but still millions.

most people walk into a music store with a set budget, let's say $50... if cd's are cheaper, they're just going to buy more! with a broader selection in stores, there's more opportunity. listening stations loaded up with mp3's could let listeners sample everything before they buy.

retailers aren't making any real profits on cd's anyway. they make money on the accessories you buy, which is why some places push their employees so hard to rattle off a list of things you "may need" such as a cd storage folder, etc. a lot of big US retailers actually sell albums at a loss, such as best buy.

and what is reasonable profit? so they can all live like kings and have gucci and prada shopping sprees everyday? i'm not supporting that when everyone around me struggles to make ends meet.

geistwerks

09-20-2003, 12:54 PM

and i'd like to bring this up, because everyone seems to be missing it...

THE RIAA WAS SUED FOR PRICE FIXING, AND THEY LOST!

they're the ones who have been ducking it in litigation and appeals.

class action lawsuits? BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, AND LIKE WORLDCOM THEY JUST SLIPPED AWAY...

you guys support what you want to. you want to buy cd's? go ahead. i'm not saying you shouldn't. it's your choice.

however, i have mine.

anyone watch the TECH TV special on MUSIC WARS? the RIAA got a royal roasting.

by the way, chuck d, you are, and will always be.... THE MAN! thanks for giving your voice to the file sharers of the world!

SunByrne

09-21-2003, 01:49 AM

Look, I said before, I agree that the RIAA are bad guys--I'm totally with you on that. Greedy, vindictive, all-around nasty, etc. I cheer whenever they lose in court, too. I have never said that I support the RIAA.

However, just because the RIAA are bad guys doesn't mean that people therefore have the right to act as if copyright law doesn't apply to them. And so what if piracy is "part of the culture"? That doesn't mean it's moral, ethical, or legal. You know, the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" thing? Ring any bells?

geistwerks

09-21-2003, 07:49 PM

it's not moral, ethical, or legal. so what? it's not going to stop me, or anyone else. i read a recent pole where 70% of americans do not care about copyright laws. i think it was on tech tv's website. of course, that could be very biased information, i don't think 70% of americans even have a clue on copyright laws anyway.

someone needs to come up with a way to make the whole system work, to make it legal, to make it so artists can get paid.

CarveGybe

09-21-2003, 08:12 PM

geistwerks, the answer is very simple - and it starts with iTunes. The industry could easily make it possible for me to choose between

a) illegally downloading crappy quality from Kazaa - when the fileowner is online

or

b) downloading premium quality from a proper site for say $1, plus a voucher for some off-line goods (for example, every 10 downloads you get a free jewel case insert/poster/t-shirt...).

If this was a genuine choice then the number of people going route (a) would shrink dramatically.

History proves that if you overprice a product you just can't stop people copying. There a zillions of examples.

SunByrne

09-22-2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
it's not moral, ethical, or legal. so what? it's not going to stop me, or anyone else.

I give up. It's impossible to "discuss" social policy with someone who doesn't believe any of those things matter. Do you rape small children and butcher little old ladies, too--or just condone it when it happens? I mean, the only thing wrong with actions like those is that they're immoral and illegal...

(Note: I am not equating file sharing with pedophilia or murder. I'm just pointing out that if we decide that morality, ethics, and the law don't matter a whit, civil society is done for. I sincerely hope geistworks doesn't now or at any point in the future have children...)

dcx693

09-22-2003, 11:58 AM

I agree SynBryne. You cannot reason with someone who agrees that his actions are illegal, then says it does not matter.

If you call the RIAA a bunch of crooks, then what are you, geistwerks?

Jackonicko

09-22-2003, 02:25 PM

This is why the RIAA has no choice but to pursue a heavy handed approach, to punish those who will not abide by civilised norms, and to deter others. It's also why record companies will be forced to incorporate copy protection which will hit those who copy music legitimately, as well as the large scale thieves.

Bob

09-22-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Jackonicko
$10? That's ?6.66. That's not enough for record companies and retailers to make a reasonable profit. Perhaps for a downloaded album, but not for a CD.

A friend of mine works for a very large record company and when CD's first came out the prices were high due to the cost of the technology to manufacture them, but he has told me CD's now only cost about ?3 to make. So priced at ?6 thats 100% profit - now bear in mind that most CD's are on sale for an average of ?14. Do your own sums...........

I hate to say it, but I think that CD prices do seem to be falling towards a pretty realistic level. If you can't get a chart CD for ?9.87 now you're not trying - the problem comes with recent back catalogue stuff, which can still be ?14 or ?16 or more.

For a good cheap way of getting back catalogue CD's try FOPP Records. They always have racks of CD's at ?5 & ?7. I posted a while back about Peter Gabriel CD's. For years they have never dipped below ?14, but I walked into my local FOPP and picked up PG 1,2,3,4, & So at half price. Now they are back up to their full price.

Bargains can be found - but really all CD's should be bargain priced..................

Jackonicko

09-22-2003, 07:21 PM

?1 for a CD (to manufacture) - cheaper than the box and printing the inlays.

But there are a lot of layers on top. Recording itself, marketing, touring (few bands make money on tour), the record company's overhead, something for the shareholder, something for the wholesaler, something for the retailer, VAT, etc. etc. etc.

And not many of the layers are making extraordinary profits......

dcx693

09-23-2003, 12:34 PM

Jackonicko, your response sounds reasonable, but what about this: One day while in a store, it just stuck me as weird that a movie soundtrack cost more than the same movie on DVD.

I started thinking about why this was the case.

1 - It's harder to pirate movies, but it's done. So even if CDs were priced more to make up the difference, it wouldn't be a huge factor. 2 - True, movies have much more of an afterlife (they run first in theaters, then go to pay-per-view, then to DVD, then to the rental market), but the production costs for DVDs are a bit higher. I would also imagine that movies cost so much more to produce, and that the marketing costs are also much more.

So why is it that DVD movies are cheaper than their accompanying soundtracks? I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Anyone have thoughts on this?

SunByrne

09-23-2003, 05:47 PM

This is commonly used as an argument against the RIAA. The only factors I've ever seen cited that sound reasonable are:

[1] Volume. A hit movie will move a lot more copies than a record, because of the huge rental market (i.e., ever Blockbuster and Hollywood video store will buy multiple copies). I've not seen numbers to back this up, though.

[2] RIAA gouging, plain and simple.

However, there may be others--I just can't figure out what they might be. It can't be shipping cost, because DVD movies ship in larger and heavier cases than CDs...

geistwerks

09-23-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by SunByrne
I give up. It's impossible to "discuss" social policy with someone who doesn't believe any of those things matter. Do you rape small children and butcher little old ladies, too--or just condone it when it happens? I mean, the only thing wrong with actions like those is that they're immoral and illegal...

(Note: I am not equating file sharing with pedophilia or murder. I'm just pointing out that if we decide that morality, ethics, and the law don't matter a whit, civil society is done for. I sincerely hope geistworks doesn't now or at any point in the future have children...)

that's really uncalled for. just point blank uncalled for.

you are essentially calling me a rapist and saying i'm unfit to bear and raise children. i haven't insulted you in such a fashion, and wouldn't, and you act this way towards me, because i share files and you don't believe it's right? we have a different opinion on ONE INSTANCE of LAW, so i'm some sort of bloke who commits evil?

so, during the american prohibition, anyone who drank alcohol was a rapist?

anyone who currently smokes weed is a pedophile?

you ARE equating file sharing with those things, and you are EQUATING ME with being some sort of pervert.

i've posted WHY i file share. it's because i can't obtain the music i want any other realistic way.

i asked a friend just the other day about file sharing. he has at least 2 terrabytes between himself and other people in his household. i asked him if he would pay for the music he has downloaded, or will downloaded.

his answer? "absolutely. i hate file sharing."

whoa! not the answer i expected. i asked him to explain.

"man, i'm sick of downloading something, then spending an hour trying to tag it properly, or finding out the tracks i've downloaded have glitches and imperfections in them."

we talked for another 30 minutes or so on the subject, and i found out most of his friends felt the same way as he does, and the same way i do.

we WANT to pay for music.

WE DON'T LISTEN TO ANY MUSIC "PROTECTED" BY THE RIAA.

we just want to be able to get our "avant garde" music thru channels easier than driving 2 hours to a cd store, spending 1 hour finding the cd or waiting 3 weeks for it to arrive in the mail.

who the heck wouldn't log onto a file sharing service when it takes 3 hours to download an album?

WAKE UP.

geistwerks

09-23-2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Jackonicko
This is why the RIAA has no choice but to pursue a heavy handed approach, to punish those who will not abide by civilised norms, and to deter others. It's also why record companies will be forced to incorporate copy protection which will hit those who copy music legitimately, as well as the large scale thieves.

i'm stating facts. people are always going to file share. the only reason the RIAA is going after USERS is because they can't afford a lawyer. if the RIAA stopped all file sharing services, people would just set up FTP sites. they would just copy cd's. they would have LAN parties and set up private networks.

not including you in this comment, jacko, but civilised norms? is calling someone a sexual deviant a civilised norm?

some people in this forum should practice what they preach.

ashawley

09-23-2003, 08:45 PM

All:

For the most part this thread has remained civil, until the raping/beating of old ladies bit was introduced.

Yes, SunByrne, you did say you're not equating it with raping/beating old ladies; but, well, you really were in your first paragraph.

So, let's bring it back and talk about the pros/cons and leave personal attacks out of it OK?

Adam

Jackonicko

09-23-2003, 08:49 PM

dcx

It's partly about volume of sales. Very often a movie soundtrack CD will never get into the 'mid range' price band because they are of limited appeal and enjoy only very modest sales. A popular movie, by contrast, may sell in huge volumes and the manufacturer can therefore sell at a reduced margin.

DVDs will also more commonly be sold in outlets where the manufacturer sells direct to the retailer, whereas there are many record stores where CDs go from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer, bumping up the overall market price.

Or at least that's the excuse I'm hearing!

SunByrne

09-24-2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
that's really uncalled for. just point blank uncalled for.

you are essentially calling me a rapist and saying i'm unfit to bear and raise children. i haven't insulted you in such a fashion, and wouldn't, and you act this way towards me, because i share files and you don't believe it's right?

I did NOT say that you were actually a rapist or that you beat old ladies. I did, however, say something pretty radical to make a point, and that point is:

Morality, ethics, and legality ARE important. Really, really important.

Your level of outrage indicates that you, too, also consider some at least some subset of those things important.

we have a different opinion on ONE INSTANCE of LAW, so i'm some sort of bloke who commits evil?

I never said you were someone who committed evil (though I admit I did ask if you did). But we differ on more than just one instance of law. I think laws, morals, and ethics ought to help guide our behavior, and you said, and I'm quoting here: "It's not moral, ethical, or legal. so what? it's not going to stop me..." That's a very, very strong thing to say. THAT'S what I was reacting to, not file sharing itself.

My point is that anyone who actually has a completely flagrant disregard for morals, ethics, and the law certainly seems to me like they have the capacity for great evil. Morals, ethics, and the laws are generally the reasons that people are outraged by suggestions of things like rape and beating old ladies--which is why I suggested them.

However, my point is no more or less outrageous than saying "so what?" to the idea of moral/ethical/legal guidance for behavior. If we had no morals, laws, or ethics, then actions like rape and murder would indeed be perfectly acceptable. I don't think they are or should be, and that's on moral and ethical grounds. What your response to my post demonstrates is that morals, ethics, and laws do, in fact, matter, despite the fact that you said they won't stop anyone--I think they should.

And, yes, I would be *very* frightened of someone with the attitude that "morals/ethics/laws don't matter" raising children. "Hey, kids, it's OK to brain Tommy with a baseball bat--it's just morality, after all, and don't let morality stop you." I think it's patenly NOT outrageous to suggest that someone who reasons this way is unfit to raise children. (And you DID say that issues of morality wouldn't stop you, don't dodge me on this one--I quoted you directly.)

Now, if you actually do believe that morals, laws, and ethics DO matter, I retract any statement along those lines. I apologize for offending you, but I didn't think it would be possible to offend someone devoid of morals or ethics.

so, during the american prohibition, anyone who drank alcohol was a rapist?

anyone who currently smokes weed is a pedophile?

Of course not, and to reiterate, I never said that it was. I think most people who drank during prohibition or who smoke weed now would indeed say that morals, laws, and ethics do matter. I did NOT say "anyone who breaks any law might as well be breaking all laws," which as you point out, is ludicrous.

you ARE equating file sharing with those things, and you are EQUATING ME with being some sort of pervert.

No, I did NOT equate file sharing with those things, not directly OR BY IMPLICATION, either. I am, however, saying that if a person does not care about laws/ethics/morals, there's no reason that it should matter to to that person what they do or what people suggest they do.

Furthermore, I am NOT claiming that file sharing is as heinous as rape or any other serious crime. Those two actions differ legally, morally, and ethically. But you completely dismissed those things as a factors in deciding what behaviors are appropriate. If morality/law/ethics are NOT guides to what is appropriate behavior, then there really is not a difference between file sharing and rape.

But that's outrageous, you say? Of course that's outrageous--I wllingly acknowledge that equating them is indeed outrageous. THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT. The logical conclusion of a statement like "morals? so what" is that rape and file sharing are, in fact, not really different. So don't be outraged at ME, you're the one who said morality, law, and ethics don't matter.

Your heated response suggests that you DO think they matter. So, what's the story now? They matter, but somehow you're excused from them in the case of file sharing? Fine, that's a different argument--but it's not the one you made.

i've posted WHY i file share. it's because i can't obtain the music i want any other realistic way.

And I don't believe that's a well-justified reason for breaking the law. Going to the store and paying for it (or doing so online) is both realistic... and legal! Yes, it's inconvenient and expensive, but it's NOT "unrealistic". In essence, what your argument is saying is that your own personal inconvenience and expense is more important that the laws of the land or the moral/ethical position that forces you into. I think it's a Bad Thing for people to believe that their own convenience and frugality justifies committing crimes.

I mean, quite seriously, if I want a yacht, well, I can't afford one and it'd be dang inconvenient for me to procure one legally. Does that now justify my going and stealing one? Your argument above says yes, and I would say no. (I made this arguments with cars but you never responded to this point--I believe it's because you have no argument, but I'd be happy to be wrong here.)

The reality of the world is that pretty much all of us have limited resources and have to do without things we want to have. The desire to *not* do without is powerful, but I don't think it justifies crime. From your posts, it appears that you believe that it does. I think such an attitude ultimately leads to a completely uncivil society.

i asked a friend just the other day about file sharing. he has at least 2 terrabytes between himself and other people in his household.

And if the RIAA came in and sued him for this, would they be legally justified in doing so? I believe so. If faced with this, would your friend get up and say, "yes, I willingly and knowingly broke the law, I will be an adult and accept the consequences of my own actions"? I don't know your friend, so I don't know.

But your argument so far has been that you and other people people should NOT be held responsible or accountable, because the RIAA is a bunch of bad guys and the current system in place isn't very good. I agree on both those counts--they are a bunch of bad guys and current delivery methods really need a lot of work. However, that doesn't justify file sharing on legal, ethical, or moral grounds. Your response was not to reply with a legal/moral/ethical justification (you know, something like "file sharing isn't really immoral or unethical because..."), but rather to say 'who cares about morals, laws, and ethics?'

I think that's a really, REALLY dangerous response. Why? Because it logically forces you into a position where you have to then accept some other pretty nasty conclusions, like rape being acceptable. I think it's basically impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who actually believes things like that, and that we as a society are ultimately doomed if people really believe that and use it as a justification for breaking laws. I'm sorry if that came off as a personal attack--I was just trying to show you the frightening entailments of your stated position. What you said was literally the scariest thing I've ever seen on the Internet--bar none--and I wanted to try to get you to see why. I pushed the envelope a little too far, perhaps, and for that I apologize to you and the forum, but I think now my point is pretty clear: simply brushing off morals, laws, and ethics is bad, really bad, 11-on-scale-from-1-to-10 kind of bad.

I submit that everyone ought to care about morals, laws, and ethics, and furthermore that YOU care about such things.

geistwerks

09-24-2003, 08:49 AM

>I did NOT say that you were actually a rapist or that you beat old ladies. I >did, however, say something pretty radical to make a point, and that point >is:

>Morality, ethics, and legality ARE important. Really, really important.

you pretty much labeled me as such, and the statement regarding my abilities to raise children were inflamatory and derogatory.

>Your level of outrage indicates that you, too, also consider some at least >some subset of those things important. "

no, if i was outraged, i would have flamed you back. "irritated" best sums up my response.

the rest of your post consists of you explaining your use of semantics and saying how you are justified and i am not, yadda yadda. i'm going to skip to the REAL MEAT of my official stance, which you must not have read, remembers, or yet seen.

oh wait, let me address this one comment:

>And, yes, I would be *very* frightened of someone with the attitude that >"morals/ethics/laws don't matter" raising children. "Hey, kids, it's OK to >brain Tommy with a baseball bat--it's just morality, after all, and don't let >morality stop you." I think it's patenly NOT outrageous to suggest that >someone who reasons this way is unfit to raise children. (And you DID say >that issues of morality wouldn't stop you, don't dodge me on this one--I >quoted you directly.)"

that is a ridiculous assumption, and you know it. you don't know me, don't judge me.

>Now, if you actually do believe that morals, laws, and ethics DO matter, I >retract any statement along those lines. I apologize for offending you, but >I didn't think it would be possible to offend someone devoid of morals or >ethics.

you've missed my points...you're explaining your point, fine, you don't understand mine, i don't think you ever will. you don't understand. i'm going to cut straight to the chase:

>And I don't believe that's a well-justified reason for breaking the law. >Going to the store and paying for it (or doing so online) is both realistic... >and legal! Yes, it's inconvenient and expensive, but it's NOT "unrealistic".

ok, sunbyrne, my friend. please read this carefully.

1. i do not listen to mainstream music.
2. the artists i listen to are not connected with the RIAA in anyway.
3. the music i listen to is on TRUE independent labels.
4. the cd's that are produced by these labels are usually less than 1,000 copies per album for world wide distribution.
5. a sizable chunk of this music is never released on cd. it's vinyl only.
6. the albums are deleted promptly after release, and generally do not see re-release until years later.
7. no major retailer i know of stocks these albums.
8. mom & pop type stores have limited quanities (that really means they have ONE and ONLY ONE copy) that usually sell within a day of arrival.
9. these stores are hours away.
10. online ordering does not work well with these releases. most of the time they are not in stock, and i find my order canceled.
11. the sites that do carry this music can sometimes be shady.
12. shipping records via the post office is and always will be a bad idea.

>In essence, what your argument is saying is that your own personal >inconvenience and expense is more important that the laws of the land or >the moral/ethical position that forces you into. I think it's a Bad Thing for >people to believe that their own convenience and frugality justifies >committing crimes.

we're not talking about minor inconveniences here. we're talking about jumping thru flaming hoops to get the music i want to listen to. you think i'm a bad person for doing it. well, here's how i can skip those 12 steps.

1. log on to a file sharing service (there's a specific one, i'm not going to mention it). do a search. find album. download it.
2. ...oh wait, there is NO step 2.

>I mean, quite seriously, if I want a yacht, well, I can't afford one and it'd be >dang inconvenient for me to procure one legally. Does that now justify my >going and stealing one? Your argument above says yes, and I would say >no. (I made this arguments with cars but you never responded to this >point--I believe it's because you have no argument, but I'd be happy to be >wrong here.)

go to your local chain store and shop to your hearts content. have fun. listen to the music you want to.

let's say i can afford a yacht. i want to buy a yacht. unfortunately, all the yacht dealers are in antartica.

>And if the RIAA came in and sued him for this, would they be legally >justified in doing so? I believe so. If faced with this, would your friend get >up and say, "yes, I willingly and knowingly broke the law, I will be an adult >and accept the consequences of my own actions"? I don't know your >friend, so I don't know.

neither my friend or myself have any mp3's protected by the RIAA that we don't legally own. PERIOD. if you browsed his collection or mine, i can say with 100% certainty you would have NEVER heard ANYTHING we listened to. radiohead? we bought the album. some german guy who released an album that only had 250 copies? nope, couldn't find it to buy it. downloaded it.

>But your argument so far has been that you and other people people >should NOT be held responsible or accountable, because the RIAA is a >bunch of bad guys and the current system in place isn't very good. I agree >on both those counts--they are a bunch of bad guys and current delivery >methods really need a lot of work. However, that doesn't justify file sharing >on legal, ethical, or moral grounds. Your response was not to reply with a >legal/moral/ethical justification (you know, something like "file sharing isn't >really immoral or unethical because..."), but rather to say 'who cares about >morals, laws, and ethics?'

perhaps i present too callous a face here, BUT I DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER FILE SHARERS. I CARE ABOUT ME AND MY FILES, AND NOTHING ELSE. i want my music, i want it now. if i could pay for it, I WOULD.

and i have been file sharing since i was a kid, with tapes, and i'll continue to do it. i've been turned on to a lot of music because someone said, "hey, check out these mp3's of so and so." and i've done the same for others.

>I submit that everyone ought to care about morals, laws, and ethics, and >furthermore that YOU care about such things.

one last little tidbit. i am not a young kid. i've owned around 10,000 albums and cd's in my life all of which i legitimately paid for.

my belief is this: build a better system. build a way for people to legitimately pay for music, and they will come. and those who don't and continue to share? sue 'em, i don't care. it's not the answer, and will inevitably destroy the music industry.

people are NOT going to stop.

when we live in a perfect and happy world, sunbyrne, maybe i will care about this ONE little ethical and moral dilemma we differ on.

i'm out.

SunByrne

09-24-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by geistwerks
the rest of your post consists of you explaining your use of semantics and saying how you are justified and i am not, yadda yadda.

"yadda yadda" is not a counterargument, it's the refuge of someone who has no good argument. The fact that my argument requires thoughtful application of logic to the semantics of what you said does not make it invalid.

oh wait, let me address this one comment:

>And, yes, I would be *very* frightened of someone with the attitude that >"morals/ethics/laws don't matter" raising children. "Hey, kids, it's OK to >brain Tommy with a baseball bat--it's just morality, after all, and don't let >morality stop you." I think it's patenly NOT outrageous to suggest that >someone who reasons this way is unfit to raise children. (And you DID say >that issues of morality wouldn't stop you, don't dodge me on this one--I >quoted you directly.)"

that is a ridiculous assumption, and you know it.

I'm sorry, what am I assuming? That you don't use a set of morals or ethics or a respect for the law to guide your behavior? No, YOU said that originally, not me. It appears that you agree that it might be bad to raise kids that way. Good, I'm glad to hear that.

If you want to tighten the scope of your "laws/ethics/morals won't stop me" such that it applies in some cases and not others, fine. Just out of curiousity, how do you decide when you can ignore them and when you can't? Whenever it's inconvenient to do so?

let's say i can afford a yacht. i want to buy a yacht. unfortunately, all the yacht dealers are in antartica.

Yep, that would indeed be inconvenient--so I guess that makes it OK to steal a yacht now, right? You imply that it would be, so you are indeed saying that your own convenience justifies your behavior, regardless of the legality or morality of it.

Despite what you said, I do, in fact, understand that argument. I just don't think it's very good.

my belief is this: build a better system. build a way for people to legitimately pay for music, and they will come. and those who don't and continue to share? sue 'em, i don't care. it's not the answer, and will inevitably destroy the music industry.

See, now here's something we do agree on. I completely concur that the current distribution system (and pricing) stinks, and a large proportion of the current problem would go away if it were better. Further, I agree that the RIAA would be much better off if they spent their time and energy solving this problem rather than trying to nail 12-year-old file sharers in court.

I just don't think that means that people who do engage in large-scale file sharing are justified in doing so. That's a completely separate argument.

jstn4102

09-25-2003, 02:01 AM

"I agree that the RIAA would be much better off if they spent their time and energy solving this problem rather than trying to nail 12-year-old file sharers in court. " - sunbyrne

While this may be true, that the RIAA would get more profit from sueing the 40 year old buisiness man over the 12 year old(can't go to a pg-13 movie by herself) teenager, these legal actions are not at all to compensate for the potential money stolen from these artists, but to set their foot down showing that while they cannot stop file sharing, there will be consequences none the less. They target these young kids not for their money, but for an example. By sueing these young kids, their parents watch on the news realizing how serious the situation is, discouraging these kids to continue. I know, for my mother, who is always telling me that she will not bail me out when i am sent to prison, is afraid that i will be sued. As the heat rises and we finally start seeing the flames produced by the filesharing fever, record labels have started to compensate, which I think is a good thing. The other day I was at Best Buy and i bought two brand new cds for under $18. I remember a time when one cd was $17.99. This is greatly due to the fact that the music is now so widely available free of charge.

Also, just wanted to say "hey" to jackonicko, i'm back in school and some of my classes are killing me. This is like my first post in a month due to excessive "busy work" given to me by me teachers. ahh!! anyway, back to the arguement!

geistwerks

09-25-2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by SunByrne
"yadda yadda" is not a counterargument, it's the refuge of someone who has no good argument. The fact that my argument requires thoughtful application of logic to the semantics of what you said does not make it invalid.

no, it's a method of someone who is not going to bother with debating what was a terribly insulting and inappropriate comment. period. then you try to justify yourself as being such. i'm not going to respond to it. but you think it makes you're argument somewhat more valid.

if you had read some of my previous posts, you'd already read many of my arguments, many of which counter your points. that last post was a big summary of them. i'm not going to repeat what i've already typed anymore.

there is one fact in both our arguments. we each have a different side of the issue and will never agree. since my posts are typed after i've worked 12 hour graveyard shifts, and can barely spell, i'm not continuing.

why don't you go watch the tech tv music wars special?

Jackonicko

09-25-2003, 06:35 AM

jstn

Hey back at you! Sorry that school's a drag. It's kind of meant to be, and while it seems interminable now, in ten years it will seem like it went by in a flash.

Geisty and Feisty (oh OK, SunByrne)

Let's remain calm and civil. I must say that I don't see morality as being entirely black and white - it's about effect and extent. Copying a CD for a mate is plainly illegal, and is wrong (you're still potentially stealing revenue from the artist) but I don't get worked up about it, and have even done it myself. I justify myself because perhaps I wouldn't have bought the CD if I couldn't copy it, or perhaps because I paid over the odds, or perhaps because I buy a lot of music and therefore contribute a lot to profits, but I'm wrong to do so.

It's like someone breaking into a record store after hours and stealing 100 $15 CDs, and then jemmying open the till to leave 149 crisp new $10 bills behind. It's a lesser crime than stealing 100 CDs, but you've still broken the law, and you've still stolen $10.

Similarly, Geisty, you are wrong to download your copy of this hand-made limited edition CD of some German whistling the Horst Wesel. The fact that the only copy sold out in two minutes is not really an excuse, morally or legally.

But it's not a flogging offence, it doesn't bother me that much, and I suspect that you're safe from the RIAA.

But I don't view people who download commercially available music on an industrial scale in quite the same light, and the defence you have been mounting is one which defends them in just the same way.

File sharing is theft, and while there can be extenuating circumstances, it is always morally and legally wrong.

But let's keep the debate polite and friendly, eh?

geistwerks

09-25-2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Jackonicko
jstn

Let's remain calm and civil.

Similarly, Geisty, you are wrong to download your copy of this hand-made limited edition CD of some German whistling the Horst Wesel. The fact that the only copy sold out in two minutes is not really an excuse, morally or legally.

But it's not a flogging offence, it doesn't bother me that much, and I suspect that you're safe from the RIAA.

But I don't view people who download commercially available music on an industrial scale in quite the same light, and the defence you have been mounting is one which defends them in just the same way.

File sharing is theft, and while there can be extenuating circumstances, it is always morally and legally wrong.

But let's keep the debate polite and friendly, eh?

now this is the jackonicko i know and appreciate. thanks for some levity in what was becoming a very depressing discussion. :) you've cheered me up a bit, and i needed that. i've had a worse than hell few weeks at the old job, and was getting in a rut, and probably being a lot more negative than i needed to be.

first, the flogging. well, i may need it by now, but i think the artists i love would pardon me. i've spent thousands on them by now. file sharing doesn't have to be theft. there just needs to be a better system!

commercially available music? well, i'm just not into it. i've said it in other posts, but if you like chart music, there is the itunes store. i'm sure anyone can browse that store and gather the latest singles at .99 cents and be done with it. perfect sound quality, no tricks, no gimmicks, no lawsuits.

windows users prolly have some options, but i haven't explored them.

one of the biggest things i worried about when i actually bought cd's and albums was the time factor. if i didn't make it to "so and so" store in time the album would be gone in a heartbeat. have you ever tried to grab a record from a dozen fiending dj's? it's like going after that steak you dropped in a piranha-infested stream. and then that's it....it's gone. FOREVER. i have records that no one has even bothered to rip yet. i have cd's that no one has uploaded as mp3's. and this stinks!

we need more options like the itunes store. period. i think "illegal" file sharing will go way down if better options are released. i keep browsing indie sites, i wish they would get a clue, but most of them are locked in the "BUY A CD/RECORD" phase.

well, then again, so is everyone else...

SunByrne

09-25-2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by geistwerks
if you had read some of my previous posts, you'd already read many of my arguments, many of which counter your points. that last post was a big summary of them.

I've read all your previous posts, thank you. Your big summary amounted to a sob story about how hard it is for you to acquire the music you want, and how that therefore justifies your file sharing.

My point, which you have yet to refute or even address, is that regardless of how much of a hassle it is for you to acquire the music legally (and how easy it is to acquire it illegally), that still doesn't justify the effective theft. Your counterpoint that "what if all the yacht dealers were in antarctica" doesn't cut it. Even if they were, you still wouldn't be justified in stealing a yacht. Even if the yacht dealers were bad guys. (I mean, the yacht dealers are obvious idiots for making their wares prohibitively difficutlt to obtain--interesting parallel there, though--but just because people are stupid doesn't mean it's OK to steal from them.)

In this imperfect world we live in, we all have limited resources in terms of time, money, etc. The idea that people have the right to steal something whenever they feel it exceeds their reach in terms of those resources is, I believe, not only wrong, but a dangerous idea in terms of maintaining a civil society.

jacko, I don't see morality as black and white either. geistworks is the one who made the blanket claim that morality (and law, etc.) is a non-issue in determining his behavior. I simply pointed out where such an argument leads.

I don't really see file-sharing as a black-and-white issue, either, but what bothers me is that so many of the arguments marshalled in favor of file sharing are really just fundamentally bad rationalizations. gesitwerks's arguments have, so far, entirely fallen into that category and I'm devil's advocating a bit in order to point that out.

What I find most ironic so far in the argument is that the people who lose out most when folks like geistwerks file share are the people he's no longer patronizing because it's too much hassle: mom & pop record shops, indie labels, and artists on indie labels. Surely one would want to go to additional lengths to make sure these folks get paid so they can afford to keep up production and distribution of such music, right? I dunno, maybe that's just me... not a central point in any case.

SunByrne

09-25-2003, 07:22 PM

Oh, and in the spirit of a kinder, gentler thread, I think there are some salient points of common ground that geistwerks and I have:

[1] Current music distribution mechanisms are outdated, inefficient, annoying, etc.

[2] The RIAA are bad guys who have systematically ripped off their customers for years, and are doing tremendous PR damage to themselves (at least in some circles) with their current tactics.

[3] Improved distribution and pricing setups will likely be a much better way to combat the problem (in the long run, if not in the short run) of file sharing than what the RIAA is engaged in right now.

We just disagree about whether or not those things justify file sharing. I say no, he says yes. Overall, though, we probably actually agree on more than we disagree on, so that's something.

geistwerks

09-25-2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by SunByrne
I've read all your previous posts, thank you. Your big summary amounted to a sob story about how hard it is for you to acquire the music you want, and how that therefore justifies your file sharing.

My point, which you have yet to refute or even address, is that regardless of how much of a hassle it is for you to acquire the music legally (and how easy it is to acquire it illegally), that still doesn't justify the effective theft. Your counterpoint that "what if all the yacht dealers were in antarctica" doesn't cut it. Even if they were, you still wouldn't be justified in stealing a yacht. Even if the yacht dealers were bad guys. (I mean, the yacht dealers are obvious idiots for making their wares prohibitively difficutlt to obtain--interesting parallel there, though--but just because people are stupid doesn't mean it's OK to steal from them.)

In this imperfect world we live in, we all have limited resources in terms of time, money, etc. The idea that people have the right to steal something whenever they feel it exceeds their reach in terms of those resources is, I believe, not only wrong, but a dangerous idea in terms of maintaining a civil society.

jacko, I don't see morality as black and white either. geistworks is the one who made the blanket claim that morality (and law, etc.) is a non-issue in determining his behavior. I simply pointed out where such an argument leads.

I don't really see file-sharing as a black-and-white issue, either, but what bothers me is that so many of the arguments marshalled in favor of file sharing are really just fundamentally bad rationalizations. gesitwerks's arguments have, so far, entirely fallen into that category and I'm devil's advocating a bit in order to point that out.

What I find most ironic so far in the argument is that the people who lose out most when folks like geistwerks file share are the people he's no longer patronizing because it's too much hassle: mom & pop record shops, indie labels, and artists on indie labels. Surely one would want to go to additional lengths to make sure these folks get paid so they can afford to keep up production and distribution of such music, right? I dunno, maybe that's just me... not a central point in any case.

thanks to jacko's humour, i'm feeling quite high (or is it the vodka?)

sob story? yeah, it kinda is. i hate downloading stuff for free. my favorite artist is lustmord, and he's stated he's been hurt by file sharing. i got an enail from him a few years ago. actually 2! one was solicited. one was totally not! i was drunk and sent him a "you are a total audio master" email. well, lustmord, man, he's the man. he is the coolest dude there is. he responded to my drunken nonsense and answered all my questions. i was totally chuffed! and then later, like one year after the fact, he sent me an email! i buy EVERYTHING that has his name on it, and this sometimes includes some really bad hollywood scores (it's ok, his music is really good).

he CARES about his listeners. he really does! if you are a fan, send him an email!

so cue up an offspring "wah wah wah" here, sunbyrne! i am no longer going to justify my file sharing. in fact, i don't think i've justified it that much, but i have tried to justify other people's file sharing. ok, i will quit it. i don't care about other file sharers, except my buddies, and they buy cd's like there's no tomorrow.

"wah wah wah wah!" (guitar rift) listen to some offspring, son. i really like those lads. they are mainstream and all, but they crack me up. sunbyrne, we must live on 2 very different planes of existance. i say give the kids their file sharing. educate them. they WILL support the artists they LOVE.

britney and justin and eddie vedder? well, there's always mcdonald's isn't there?

geistwerks

09-25-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by SunByrne
Oh, and in the spirit of a kinder, gentler thread, I think there are some salient points of common ground that geistwerks and I have:

[1] Current music distribution mechanisms are outdated, inefficient, annoying, etc.

[2] The RIAA are bad guys who have systematically ripped off their customers for years, and are doing tremendous PR damage to themselves (at least in some circles) with their current tactics.

[3] Improved distribution and pricing setups will likely be a much better way to combat the problem (in the long run, if not in the short run) of file sharing than what the RIAA is engaged in right now.

We just disagree about whether or not those things justify file sharing. I say no, he says yes. Overall, though, we probably actually agree on more than we disagree on, so that's something.

i totally support the kinder, gentler thread idea.

1. YES.

2. YES.

3. YES.

well, we only disagree on the personal methods people NOW GAIN THEIR MUSIC FROM. i guess we are not so different. but we're not yet about to hold hands and sing "cumbaya my lord"

geistwerks

09-25-2003, 08:00 PM

oh, sunbyrne, um that moral debate thing you were hinting at? uh. let's see. I DON'T CARE. i would like to be able to buy albums in mp3 format that i can download to my ipod.

nothing else.

i don't care about those chart seekin' wanna be's. go drink a bottle of nelly's "pimp juice" (that's a joke, son.)

right, wrong. i leave it up to the interpreter. i downloaded my man lustmord's albums before they were released. i went and bought them. i BUY. GIVE ME A REASON. (he did)

jstn4102

09-25-2003, 10:01 PM

"(that's a joke, son.) "

LOL you guys kill me. (LOL= acronym for laugh out loud)

My prediction for the next 2 years:

-RIAA sues up to 1,000 kids and adolescents thus causing a mass hysteria of fear and insecurity among these file sharers.

-Arnold wins the election because people in california want to see him "clean up the sunshine state" like he did with mars in "total recall". He then goes to the RIAA with a bazooka saying "sue this sissy man" and blows them away.

-Meanwhile in washington: George W. Bush realizes that he is the president of the United States saying "you mean we are at war?" and #### Chaney kills him with a letter opener.

My AP Psychology teacher realizes that her students are human beings with brains and a soul and apologizes for treating us like crap.

I realize that spending 3 hours writing a reply to someone i've never met in a forum and going as far as to use a thesaurus to make me perceived as an intelligent beings isnt very intelligent and that i need to get a life. (ahem geistwerks)

jstn4102

09-25-2003, 10:16 PM

Do you know that the #1 fear is of human beings is?
I do, its public speaking.

jstn4102

09-25-2003, 10:17 PM

death is #8

SunByrne

09-26-2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
i would like to be able to buy albums in mp3 format that i can download to my ipod.

Hey, I think we have point of agreement #4 here! Yay! :D

I don't think it's likely that we'll get MP3s necessarily, though, as they lack the digital rights management features (DRM) of the AAC format. I think the iTunes Music Store (henceforth ITMS) is a step in the right direction. Yes, it's not MP3 in that there's DRM, but I think the DRM allowances of the ITMS are pretty reasonable. I think there are current three real serious drawbacks to the ITMS:

[1] Selection is poor. Not only are they missing cool indie music, they're missing a lot of big-catalog music.

[2] Audio quality is not comparable to CD. 128 kbps AAC is certainly better than 128 kbps MP3, but it's not good enough. I know some people prefer the smaller files, but I'd like higher quality. 192 kbps seems more reasonable to me, though what I'd really like to see is FLAC (or some other non-lossy format which supports DRM).

[3] Small quibble with price. I think 79 cents per track is a better target price than 99 cents per track, but I think that will come as this market opens up.

But even with those issues, it's the first serious step I've seen in the direction of making distribution reasonable.

shottagyal

09-26-2003, 05:27 PM

I think that until the RIAA ensures that the artists it represents produce albums that are worth the arm and leg they want to pay for it they should ease off. I've bought a ton of CDs, some are worth it and some don't have more than one or two songs and are consequently a waste of money. I'm also not going to shell out 6 bucks for a single just to have to rip it.

If they had evolved with digital music then I think they'd have a more valid complaint but the apple music store is less than a year old so I don't think it was realistic of them to expect people to deal w/ their increasing prices for diminished quality.

Suing fans is not a smart way to win anybody over either but hey, if I hear summn I really like I I can dwld it for a good price why not? Until then, they need to chill.

My badd if I've echoed any sentiments already posted here but that's my 2 cents.

stonersmurf22

09-26-2003, 10:47 PM

Ok I think I just got a great idea on how to stop this RIAA nonsense. First, everyone against the RIAA should get into one big group in front of the RIAA's main building. Then, they should jump up-and-down shouting "Rubble Rubble Rubble Rubble" It is absolutely impossible for this not too work.

jstn4102

09-26-2003, 11:38 PM

i agree, the people in the RIAA would get so intimidated that they would not only stop sueing, but would rename themselves to "i love kazaa". I mean, shouting rubble would scare anyone, i know it would sure scare me.

geistwerks

09-27-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by SunByrne
Hey, I think we have point of agreement #4 here! Yay! :D

I don't think it's likely that we'll get MP3s necessarily, though, as they lack the digital rights management features (DRM) of the AAC format. I think the iTunes Music Store (henceforth ITMS) is a step in the right direction. Yes, it's not MP3 in that there's DRM, but I think the DRM allowances of the ITMS are pretty reasonable. I think there are current three real serious drawbacks to the ITMS:

[1] Selection is poor. Not only are they missing cool indie music, they're missing a lot of big-catalog music.

[2] Audio quality is not comparable to CD. 128 kbps AAC is certainly better than 128 kbps MP3, but it's not good enough. I know some people prefer the smaller files, but I'd like higher quality. 192 kbps seems more reasonable to me, though what I'd really like to see is FLAC (or some other non-lossy format which supports DRM).

[3] Small quibble with price. I think 79 cents per track is a better target price than 99 cents per track, but I think that will come as this market opens up.

But even with those issues, it's the first serious step I've seen in the direction of making distribution reasonable.

ok, i think sunbyrne will officially have my goat in a few seconds, 'cause i've been doing some drunken research with google and a few other sites and posts i've stumbled across.

now, i have to cross reference a site www.magnatune.com, which i have posted about in the music explorations forum, and i would hope people just go check that site out, read my post in that forum and take a look.

next, let me address sunbyrne's points.

1) hopefully, this will change and grow in time, but what we really need to see is perhaps not the itunes store adapt to the complete market. apple could really have a lock on it if they did, but it may not be economical to waste the storage space on some german dude playing whatever the heck jackonicko said. apple should (for a reasonable cost) LICENSE out the itunes store system for smaller, independent companies to use as a business model for their own mp3 or AAC offerings. or maybe just "rent" space on their servers within the itunes store. again, it would have to be at a reasonable cost.

one such site i have found is the above mentioned magnatune. i am probably going to buy something, just to test it out, see the bit rate, etc. (forgive me, i only found it an hour ago). i have looked at other sites, but most of them feature crappy selection, and lots of restrictions (...and NO SIR, you can keep those windows media files. you couldn't pay me to take them).

i do forsee the indies getting the clue, like this dude who runs magnatune, and hopefully we'll see some development...SOON.

2) i am never one to quibble with quality. i think 128 AAC sounds pretty darn good, and i am someone who never rips an mp3 at less than 192. i have pretty much gotten over the loss in sound quality, although it does mean some of my favorite songs sound like garbage (brian eno "an ending (ascent)" on the apollo soundtrack album, for one. the angelic synth just distorts). it's always a personal opinion, it's your ears, and no one should debate that point.

3) i tend to agree, the price is a bit too high. there's no real savings between the itunes store and running out and buying the cd. you can buy just ONE song, but i prefer the entire album. i did just buy the rancid album from the itunes store (eh, sue me, i still love my punk) and i could have just gone to the store and bought it for the same price (11.99). hey, guys? there's NO physical product here. it's just VIRTUAL. it's data. fugazi should get into this business. i imagine they'd sell their albums for $4. in fact, we should probably get ian mccaye to handle all of this. i think he'd sort it out better.

and although he doesn't number it...

4) yeah, it's the only REAL step in my opinion. that's why i'm hoping it takes off.

ok, now here's where sunbyrne gets my goat. and if he runs around saying "i told you so" i want jacko to hit him with something.

from all the research i've done, i've found that independent music artists are getting screwed heavily, but i had no idea about all of the BS that was going on. (i mean i knew some of it, but...) there is basically NO profit in album sales whatsoever, if you can even get your album on the shelf. most record stores demand a fee to stock the album. only indies with credibility can avoid this. there is only profit in touring, but not much, and most musicians can't find time to tour because they have to keep their day job. most labels barely stay afloat and music artists record only because they love what they are doing.

(i guess i knew all this all along, but was in some sort of denial? maybe i just didn't know how bad it was.)

i've read some horror stories from artists out there. i can honestly say...

sunbyrne is right on this one. it doesn't matter if it's illegal or immoral or whatever (imo) but if your favorite artist doesn't even make $100 after a release, there's something wrong here. $100 can't even buy your next protools plug in (which prolly explains why all the artists i know use warez). SO... if you truly want to support the music you love, then file sharing is a bad way to do it. the ease of use of file sharing has given support to many bad habits, and people (as myself) wrongly assumed that someone was buying the cd's. this is becoming less and less the case nowadays.

so, sunbyrne, i apologize. i think you're right. it isn't right to hurt artists (ALTHOUGH PEOPLE CAN DOWNLOAD MAINSTREAM RECORD LABEL NONSENSE ALL THEY WANT, I HATE THOSE FARKERS AND WANT THEM TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS...uh, oops, sorry, got carried away) but downloading indie music is going to kill the scene. unless you go see them live and buy a dozen t-shirts. which i would do if those artists could tour...which they can't 'cos we all downloaded their album and they can't take a break from their job... (OH THE TERRIBLE CIRCLE....!!!).

seriously though. i don't feel like file sharing anymore. someone needs to feel that void with a respectable PAY SERVICE. do i have any takers?

jstn4102

09-27-2003, 08:11 PM

i really wanted to read that post, but it just looks so long...

geistwerks

09-27-2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by jstn4102
i really wanted to read that post, but it just looks so long...

uh, so why are you posting that it's so long and you can't be arsed to read it? isn't that creating more reading for everyone else? i know it's a painful trifle to even begin bothering to read a few words of my ill-conceived, meaningless clap trap and rattle, and god knows, i spout loads of meaningless nonsense at the drop of a hat, but do you really feel the need to point that out? you've banged on me a bit before and i ignored that. now, i'm sussing it out.

go to another post if you wish to find some succinct meaning to life. maybe even another forum. that post was not meant specifically for you, but for sunbyrne (mostly). if my ignorant nonsense annoys you, than please, skip it and go read something much more informative. like www.fark.com. that's a really swell site, and they even feature boobies!

the single worst thing you can do to highlight genuine ignorance like mine, is to respond to it.

sorry if the post was too long, but as i never saw a "word limit" like they had in your old grade school class. any post on the internet is easily ignored and removed.

and i am drunk as a monk and rambling as i see fit. so there. nyaah nyaah.

or something to the effect of that. i think.

jstn4102

09-27-2003, 08:58 PM

once again, i really wanted to read to see if you responded back to me with humor, anger or stupidity, but like before, it's jsut too d@mn long and i just got back from work so i'll just assume that hopefully what i decided not to read will not cost me in the future.

geistwerks

09-27-2003, 09:51 PM

i did all #1 and #3. prolly a lot of #3. in fact, serve me a #3 dinner. with cheese. extra cheese! heck, i work more than you, and i know it for a fact. i'm feisty, you're sleepy. our exchange is over. i'm going to bang the business til the cops come! goodnight!

jstn4102

09-27-2003, 11:08 PM

#1, #3...I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. But, few here seem to either. Now you certainly seem feisty and sleepy and have obviously gone to making assumptions about me and the hours i work. How do you know how much i work? And yes, i have a part time job, but i have hard classes in school and community service as well. And if you can work for 8 hours and spend another hour writing in these forums then i say, good for you.

geistwerks

09-27-2003, 11:19 PM

i'm going back to my odd facination of mixing vince guaraldi trio with nurse with wound. see ya later.

SunByrne

09-28-2003, 03:41 AM

geistwerks, we've been around the block FAR too many times for me to say "I told you so." It would be just way too rude.

I will comment on a couple other points you made, mostly in agreement.

I think it will be hard for Apple (or anyone else) to really get all the indie labels on board, because there are too many of them. I think you've really nailed it, though, in terms of how it *could* happen, which is some kind of licensing.

Actually, I'm stort of surprised that a whole bunch of indie labels didn't get together and try to do something like the ITMS years ago. I suspect it's a lack of tech savvy and resources, but who knows? I'd be cool if it'd happen, though. I mean, the setup cost has to be huge, but once you get it set up , the distribution price per album has to be smaller, so in the long run, a win for the indie labels, right? Maybe there are details I don't know about that make this not true.

And on the audio quality thing: I consider 128 kbps AAC very roughly equal to 192 kbps MP3, and this is just marginally acceptable to me. I know most people don't care that much, but some of us do, and it'd be nice to have those of us who do care have at least the option. I'd pay like a nickel extra per track for it, if it was really a storage issue.

jstn4102

09-29-2003, 07:32 PM

http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3484600,00.html

http://www.techtv.com/news/politicsandlaw/story/0,24195,3444548,00.html

Found these two articles interesting.

Bob

09-29-2003, 08:35 PM

Everyone, please lets not get into personal slanging matches. Just try and stay on topic.
Thanks

geistwerks

10-12-2003, 04:53 AM

sunbyrne. we see eye to eye. and we agree. i guess we have to sing folk songs now. or maybe not. i do a good jello biafra impression. anyway, someone's got to get the music out there. payable and playable. napster ain't gonna do it. i guess we'll have to see what comes up.

kyussmondo

10-13-2003, 05:30 AM

I read in the paper the other day that the RIAA just went to a record company and got a random selection of people using Kazaa. They caught an 8 year old girl who was innocently downloading a few songs. That is just wrong...the RIAA should search for the main users who share thousands of files, not users who just use it occasionally.

All in all, for proper talented artists who perform live and who don't rely purely on album sales e.g. Metallica. Most artists from albums make about 10-20% in royalties, then out of this they have to pay for the expenses of making the album, promotion etc. so at the end of the day they don't make that much. The main profit comes from touring where the record company sees none of the money. Whereas, none talented artists aka Britney Spears and co. would lose out because they can't tour they rely on album sales, MTV, commercials, and changes in image to make themselves a profit.

But the RIAA don't care about you downloading songs from smaller artists, they only care about protecting those artists which can bring them big amounts of money, such as your Britneys, Aguileras, Timberlakes...

Also no thought has been put into copy-protection CDs. There is usually no warnings on the CD, which could mean it doesn't work on a particular CD player or CD ROM drive, some are even mean't to cause the computer to crash or mess up hardware or software. And innocent people aren't being able to put music on their portable music players.

The overall approach the RIAA has been highly unproffesional, and if they would have taken measures to get services up for legal downloading sooner. Although the high CD prices and limited selection is mainly the record stores fault, they mark-up the prices and decide what to selection to buy in to be their most profit.

geistwerks

10-14-2003, 02:57 AM

most file sharers are about the pop factor. teen sheen download queen. it's all pop music. and no one really gives a sh*ite.

the real download fiends are going after the soulseek files. this stuff is not protected by the RIAA.

RIAA will sue the bunnies off the little teens. the hardcore will DL the blokes who see $5 in profit per album.

this is why we must stop DL'ing. our boys and girls ain't seeing sh** for our downloads.

we must change everything.

Jackonicko

10-14-2003, 06:50 AM

Slash,

Few bands make any profit from touring. Mostly it's undertaken to keep the fan base loyal and interested and to promote the CD sales which bring in the money. Some big name bands are able to make a profit from touring through sponsorship and merchandising (eg the Stones) but they are a rarity.

Few artists make more than 10% in Royalties, and have significant fees and expenses to find. Despite that, royalties from record sales, TV appearances etc. forms the bulk of income.

loGan

10-14-2003, 08:20 AM

I think it is also worth pointing out that musicians tour because they love it. They tour because playing live is their raison d'etre.

There is a difference between "musicians" and "cynical acts" whose raison d'etre is to make a quick buck for their managers and record companies and who accordingly are marketed until their commercial death when up pops another to fill our saturday morning children's programs.

I find it very sad to see people whith such blocked views on file sharing, still refusing to accept that the world has changed and we can't go back now. Whatever the legal rights or wrongs it isn't going to go away so better to embrace the technology than fight it.

Jackonicko

10-14-2003, 10:23 AM

loGan, with respect that's like saying that shop-lifting, drink-driving, rape or child abuse isn't going to go away so we should just recognise that the "world has changed". Using your twisted logic we should accept and embrace crime and anti-social behaviour simply because it's rife.

New technology can be used legitimately, as with the iTunes Music Store, or it can be used illegally - to distribute child pornography or steal other people's intellectual property. That's not an expression of "blocked views on file sharing", that's knowing the difference between right and wrong. If you won't condemn illegal file sharing, you're part of the problem, and if I were Dennis I'd ban you. There isn't room for disagreement on this issue I'm afraid, mate. It's illegal - Full Stop, end of story, and it's immoral - Full Stop, end of story.

kyussmondo

10-14-2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Jackonicko
Slash,

Few bands make any profit from touring. Mostly it's undertaken to keep the fan base loyal and interested and to promote the CD sales which bring in the money. Some big name bands are able to make a profit from touring through sponsorship and merchandising (eg the Stones) but they are a rarity.

Few artists make more than 10% in Royalties, and have significant fees and expenses to find. Despite that, royalties from record sales, TV appearances etc. forms the bulk of income.

Ahhh...

That is where you are wrong. I read a book "All You Need to Know about the Music biz" and they said artists make most their profit from touring. The record company get nothing for touring, unless the band decides not to go touring or hasn't got enough cash from the albums to go touring. But after they pay off all the road crew, managers, equipment, clothing companies etc. then they take the remaining profit, which is usually much more than album sales. All you need is a good tour manager and a good following to start making large wads of dough. :)

loGan

10-14-2003, 11:08 AM

I disagree and am entitled to my view, if it gets me banned from this site for expressing a view then so be it. I would suggest that if my ideas worry you so much that you need to encourage the moderators to ban me when all I have done is express an opinion then you obviously don't have much confidence in your views. It rather reminds me of the spin so favoured by our current government. Bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away.

I certainly won't sit here and be preached to by anyone with such tunnel vision. I won't even dignify your comparsions with rape with a reply.

Why do you think Apple created ITunes? Where did they get that idea? Why did Steve Jobs say "It won't be very hard to do something better than Kazaa"? Why do you think that a plethora of online music distribution centres are cropping up on the net now? Why do you think that artists around the world are beginning to distribute their music online?

Is it not down to file sharing? Do you think that if those ten million songs hadn't been available for download on ITunes that the retail outlets would have sold the equivalent of an extra 10million singles? I don't think so.

File sharing is forcing the changes in the industry and this can only be good for the artists and the consumers, whatever the precise legal arguments as to copyright infringement, not theft as you continue to shout, or morality which really has absolutely no place in this arguement at all.

If you can't see that file sharing doesn't harm the industry but is a good thing in forcing the changes then you are blind.

I don't dispute that copyrights are being infringed when people fileshare but the same copyrights are being infringed a hundred time more when kids burn copies of CD for all their mates but I don't hear complaints from the likes of Sony on this issue. Why? They sell the burners.

I have never burnt a copy of a CD because if I wanted music on CD I would go and buy it but I have downloaded music from Kazaa because I can't buy it on CD and I want it in digital form.

The music industry is a huge monopoly which has been exploiting artists and consumers for years. They are scared because file sharing has given the world the technology, the means and the inclination to access music on tap. Whatever they want, whenever they want it. It is a fantastic achievement and the phenomenon of filesharing and what it has achieved should be applauded and not condemned with tales of immorality.

Without file sharing mp3 would never have taken off as fast as it did if at all. Why compress music if you aren't going to send it somewhere? Without mp3 there wouldn't be an Ipod and this site certainly wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation full stop, end of story to coin a phrase.

m.r.m.

10-14-2003, 11:21 AM

nobody is getting banned because of their views (as long as these don?t breach the forum guidelines).

this is not directed at any one person. end of story!

edit: jackoniko and logan, please refrain from any further personal attacks. failure to do so, will have this thread discussing an entirely interesting matter locked!

loGan

10-14-2003, 11:25 AM

Jackonicko

10-14-2003, 03:58 PM

MRM,

I saw no personal attacks in either LoGan's posts nor in mine. We hold strong views and I violently disagree with his amoral attitude, and while I condemn much of what he has said, I cannot, in conscience, condemnt the waay in which he has said it.

There has to be a place for civilised debate, even when it gets heated.

I do think, however, that it is incumbent upon moderators to express a somewhat stronger line on file-sharing, which is illegal, because any iPod site could so easily be presented as validating and approving the practise, and could quite easily become the next target for RIAA. Many of us use our iPods legally, and do not deserve that.

File sharing is copyright theft, and as such represents criminal behaviour. You either know the difference between right and wrong or you don't. If you won't condemn illegal file sharing, then you're part of the problem.

New technology can be used legitimately, as with the iTunes Music Store, or it can be used illegally - to distribute child pornography or to steal other people's intellectual property. The key difference between Kazaa and ITMS is that Kazaa is a means of distributing stolen property, while ITMS is a legitimate channel for the legal sale of music. If you aren't paying for music, you are stealing income from the artists and copyright owners, and that's why it's theft. You'd have to have real 'tunnel vision' to miss that difference.

m.r.m.

10-14-2003, 05:22 PM

that?s all fine jack, but your recommendation of banning logan and his subsequent answer (which he edited after my warning) can be very much considered personal attacks. i?m not going to argue this here and now any further. i made the call and i stand by it. logan contacted me via pm and agreed to let it be. i hope you do the same. now enough said off-topic, let?s get this thread back on track.

EnderWiggin

10-14-2003, 05:27 PM

First off, moderators...I thank you for not locking this thread yet. It's been very interesting to read the arguments from both sides.

Next, this is from way back in the thread, SunByrne wrote:

"I'm just pointing out that if we decide that morality, ethics, and the law don't matter a whit, civil society is done for."

You know...some days it seems like society is going more and more down the crapper and it is definitely due to the the erosion of morality and ethics.

Lastly, geistwerks, I've appreciated everything you've said. You've put into words many of the thoughts and beliefs on this issue that I myself have had.

Jackonicko

10-14-2003, 05:54 PM

The problem with a multi national board and with communicating in a language which isn't the mother tongue for all of us is that misunderstandings occur. I'd like to apologise for causing one.

Observing that: "if I were Dennis I'd ban you." is in no sense a call for anyone to be banned. I'm not Dennis, and have no power. I was just making an observation relating to my position on the subject.

loGan

10-14-2003, 06:44 PM

New technology can be used legitimately, as with the iTunes Music Store, or it can be used illegally - to distribute child pornography or to steal other people's intellectual property. The key difference between Kazaa and ITMS is that Kazaa is a means of distributing stolen property, while ITMS is a legitimate channel for the legal sale of music. If you aren't paying for music, you are stealing income from the artists and copyright owners, and that's why it's theft. You'd have to have real 'tunnel vision' to miss that difference.

You didn't address any of my points above so I'll just say again without Napster, Morpheus and Kazaa there would be no ITunes. Think about it.

You say that Kazaa is a means to distribute child pornography? Not that I have ever noticed but I will take your word for it though as you don't use Kazaa I am curious as to how you have come by that information.

You say theft, I disagree and so does the law. Copyright infringement is not considered theft in the eyes of the law. Downloading a song is the equivalent of taping a song off the radio and I challenge any of you older than 30 to deny doing that. Noone is getting richer in economic terms and no-one poorer. What is debatable is whether the artist has lost a future sale but what is also debatable is whether that artist has gained a future sale.

What perhaps has been misunderstood is not that I advocate never buying music again and downloading it all for free. Not at all, as I sit here in my playroom surrounded by 500 cds, 150 records, a stack of minidiscs, 200 DVDs, 5 guitars and a Marshall stack I would be contradicting myself slightly if I did.

I am simply trying to point out that file sharing is not the force for evil that the RIAA makes out, it has been an incredible force for good in a stagnant business. It has forced change long overdue, opened new markets and opportunities for artists and introduced a whole new medium and marketplace that would not exist if it wasn't for the pioneer geeks trying to improve on the old "taping the radio" and "tape to tape players" that we all had when we were kids and couldn't afford to buy real albums.

You know a really exciting thing happened to me this week, I heard a snippet of music on TV that really caught my ear by a band that I had never heard of (Muse). I went to my computer and downloaded a bunch of their tracks to check them out. A couple of days of listening to it on my Ipod and I was blown away. Reminds me of the impact The Bends had on me when I first heard it. I hit the shops today and picked up Absolution and Origin of Symmetry, can't recomend them enough. Absolution is an awesome album which I would never have heard if it wasn't for Kazaa. That was a good day.

Anyway I've said my piece and I'm not going to keep repeating myself ad nauseam. Some people get it and others don't. Each to their own but remember kids every time you look at your Ipod and smile. It wouldn't exist if it wasn't for napster.

Jackonicko

10-14-2003, 08:22 PM

Chubb locks wouldn't exist without burglars. iTunes wouldn't exist without Napster. Rape alarms wouldn't exist without rapists. So what? Burglary is wrong, so is illegal file sharing. So is rape. And copyright violation is regarded as a form of theft in most legal jurisdictions, incidentally.

It's important because it's quantatively different to taping from the radio, tape-to-tape copying or even burning illegal CDs. One kid copying one CD for a few mates takes him hours, costs him money, and is self limiting. The loss to the record industry is limited. One album uploaded to Kazaa could cost hundreds or even thousands of sales. This isn't doing the industry good, it's doing great harm.

There are now legal alternatives to Kazaa, Napster, Morpheus and all the rest. Why are you not using them? Because you want something for nothing and are prepared to exploit stolen property in order to do so.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make you a pioneer or a crusader, it makes you a thief.

I'm happy that you discovered Muse, by the way, but you do not have to break the law to do so. They are a mainstream UK band, and are widely covered in the music (and general press). Any number of magazines and websites could point you in their direction, and you could hear their music on the BBC's digital radio services. If interested you could sample their stuff on iTMS before buying tracks. All without ripping them off by using Kazaa.

loGan

10-15-2003, 06:29 AM

I am afraid your sensationalists analogies comparing ITunes with a rape alarm are as coherent as your arguements about child porn distribution on Kazaa which you know for a fact, though you abhore the system and never use it.

Out of Napster has grown ITunes, a legitimate and profit making enterprise that is of benefit to the consumers and the artists. A new legal business has arisen to fill the gaping chasm of demand and you just can't see that.

You keep reiterating the great harm being done to the industry on a day when Dido's new album becomes the fastest selling for 6 years in this country on the back of a record year for album sales. Gee I'd say the business is doing pretty well and you know what I would say a lot of that renewed interest is down to file sharing and the ability for people to try out and find music that would otherwise not be accessible to them due to the dire radio stations, pap released on singles and lack of choice in shops.

Not to mention the enormous increase in competing mediums these days fighting for kids money. Back in my school days we only had singles and a zx81. Not much mroe to spend money on, conkers were free. These days the music biz is competing with a plethora of other industries.

Your arguement that the industry is suffering seems to revolve exclusively around Michael Jackson's record sales. Poor fellow, I'll let you into a secret. The reason people aren't buying his records is because he is a freak.

Where did I say I am not using ITunes and the alternates? You aren't reading or understanding a thing are you? I'm not using ITunes because it doesn't exist in Europe but I have used MSN music downloads which unfortunately isn't great but a start.

The answer to you last paragraph is yes, except I didn't break the law. I have never heard Muse on the radio as radio stations play only manufactured pop and I am not a big fan of Kerrang or Smash Hits so I missed my chances there. I don't have digital radio so no joy there but you know what? I do have is the single biggest depositary of music in the world which enabled me to check them out.

I didn't rape the band as you would like the world to think, I didn't break into their houses and steal their guitars, I didn't burn their CD s and sell them off the back of a van. What I did in fact was listen to their music and because of that I bought two of their LPs. May I burn in hell forever for that most immoral of sins, enriching their banks accounts.

kyussmondo

10-15-2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by loGan
I am afraid your sensationalists analogies comparing ITunes with a rape alarm are as coherent as your arguements about child porn distribution on Kazaa which you know for a fact, though you abhore the system and never use it.

Out of Napster has grown ITunes, a legitimate and profit making enterprise that is of benefit to the consumers and the artists. A new legal business has arisen to fill the gaping chasm of demand and you just can't see that.

You keep reiterating the great harm being done to the industry on a day when Dido's new album becomes the fastest selling for 6 years in this country on the back of a record year for album sales. Gee I'd say the business is doing pretty well and you know what I would say a lot of that renewed interest is down to file sharing and the ability for people to try out and find music that would otherwise not be accessible to them due to the dire radio stations, pap released on singles and lack of choice in shops.

Not to mention the enormous increase in competing mediums these days fighting for kids money. Back in my school days we only had singles and a zx81. Not much mroe to spend money on, conkers were free. These days the music biz is competing with a plethora of other industries.

Your arguement that the industry is suffering seems to revolve exclusively around Michael Jackson's record sales. Poor fellow, I'll let you into a secret. The reason people aren't buying his records is because he is a freak.

Where did I say I am not using ITunes and the alternates? You aren't reading or understanding a thing are you? I'm not using ITunes because it doesn't exist in Europe but I have used MSN music downloads which unfortunately isn't great but a start.

The answer to you last paragraph is yes, except I didn't break the law. I have never heard Muse on the radio as radio stations play only manufactured pop and I am not a big fan of Kerrang or Smash Hits so I missed my chances there. I don't have digital radio so no joy there but you know what? I do have is the single biggest depositary of music in the world which enabled me to check them out.

I didn't rape the band as you would like the world to think, I didn't break into their houses and steal their guitars, I didn't burn their CD s and sell them off the back of a van. What I did in fact was listen to their music and because of that I bought two of their LPs. May I burn in hell forever for that most immoral of sins, enriching their banks accounts.

Why, couldn't you go to http://www.muse.mu and go to the media section, or go to your HMV or Virgin megastores and asked to try the CD out on a listening post.

And you could have went HERE (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000C7GG2/qid=1066218710/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/026-5545619-3992435) to read customer reviews of the album.

With the bands official website and Amazon there really is no need to download off Kazaa...but I'll be quiet because I use Kazaa:rolleyes:

Jackonicko

10-15-2003, 09:35 AM

The arguments are entirely coherent. It?s just that you choose not to recognise the illegality of what you espouse. Using the internet to steal is no different, morally, than using it to break any other law.

?Out of Napster has grown ITunes, a legitimate and profit making enterprise that is of benefit to the consumers and the artists. A new legal business has arisen to fill the gaping chasm of demand and you just can't see that.? The ?fact? that a legal business has grown to fill a marketplace originally exploited by an illegal one is open to question, and is, in any case, irrelevant. It certainly doesn?t excuse anyone?s continuing use of the illegal business. Legal alcohol distribution did not ?excuse? or justify the ?bootleggers?.

There is plenty of choice in record shops if you go to the right ones. You can legally access and sample most music without resorting to Kazaa, and if you can?t then tough. You?re breaking the law by illegally downloading music, and yours is no excuse.

My argument does not ?revolve exclusively around Michael Jackson's record sales.? I doubt that his sales are affected as much by Kazaa as they have been by changing tastes and fashion, and by widespread revulsion.

?I have never heard Muse on the radio as radio stations play only manufactured pop?..... Muse are regularly played on Radio 2 and on some Radio 1 programmes. I?ve heard them on Radio 4 arts programmes. They?ve had heavy exposure on TV, too, on mass market shows like CD Hotshots and on ?Later? with Jools Holland. I?ve even seen them on MTV.

?and I am not a big fan of Kerrang or Smash Hits so I missed my chances there.? But you could have read about them and their new album in the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Mirror, the Express, Q, NME, Loaded, etc.... Or on the net.

?I don't have digital radio so no joy there.? But you have a computer, so you could listen to most UK digital stations, or you could listen on Sky TV.

The fact that you did go and buy the Muse CDs after downloading their music is irrelevant. Most downloaders do not. Thousands of kids download all their music and don?t buy any CDs. Thousands are stealing music and stealing the revenue and income which the artists and record companies have earned, and should be entitled to.

loGan

10-15-2003, 01:58 PM

Why, couldn't you go to http://www.muse.mu and go to the media section, or go to your HMV or Virgin megastores and asked to try the CD out on a listening post.

And you could have went HERE to read customer reviews of the album.

With the bands official website and Amazon there really is no need to download off Kazaa...but I'll be quiet because I use Kazaa

You are quite right I could have but customer reviews are irrelevant, I want to hear it myself. I could have gone to Virgin or HMV to browse through the albums and stand in a queue with a bunch of spotty teenagers to then look like a tit listening to a couple of tracks once, on a busy saturday afternoon having travelled quite some way to do so.

I could have heard 10 seconds of a few songs on amazon or MSN if I knew the album name, not great. I could have spent the next few days scanning the radio channels (difficult at work) in a vain attempt to hear the one single that perhaps is on release. Perhaps not. I could have spent the next few weeks scanning all the music press and general press to hear the opinion of a journalist but really life is too short and I'm not really interested in someone else's opinion.

I could have dropped 45 quid on all 3 of their albums just to get the right album and make up my mind if I liked it at all.

Really if I followed your advice I would have forgotten the name of the band before I even heard a song and I certainly wouldn't have bought the music.

Instead from the comfort of my home I had found what I wanted in a minute, on my pod in 30 seconds. Mind made up over a few days of Tube rides to work. Purchase made in 5 minute visit to store. Easy.

loGan

10-15-2003, 02:19 PM

The ?fact? that a legal business has grown to fill a marketplace originally exploited by an illegal one is open to question, and is, in any case, irrelevant. It certainly doesn?t excuse anyone?s continuing use of the illegal business. Legal alcohol distribution did not ?excuse? or justify the ?bootleggers?.

By your reasoning the music biz would be better off as it was back 5 years ago, declining sales, abominable artists thrust on the public, music stores closing (because of online retailers and not file sharing) , disinterested customers and kids investing their pocket money in Playstations and games instead.

?I have never heard Muse on the radio as radio stations play only manufactured pop?..... Muse are regularly played on Radio 2 and on some Radio 1 programmes. I?ve heard them on Radio 4 arts programmes. They?ve had heavy exposure on TV, too, on mass market shows like CD Hotshots and on ?Later? with Jools Holland. I?ve even seen them on MTV.

Unfortuntately people with jobs don't have much time to surf the radiowaves/satellite channels to find music by an unfamiliar artist. Even if I got lucky enough to turn on the radio when their "releases single of the day" was playing I wouldn't know who it was. The only time I get to listen to the radio is saturday mornings i f I happen to be in the car.

Tough luck Muse, if I follow Jacko's rules you lose.

Are you in the music business Jackinoko? Just out of interest. It might help me understand better your position.

Edited above for reason below as comment was not meant as a jibe, apologies if it came out that way.

Bob

10-15-2003, 04:04 PM

loGan,
Up until your last sentence this debate has been pretty civil and on topic, but as I read "Unfortuntately those of us in gainful employment...", I feared the thread would start a downward spiral.
Mild flamebait in my opinion - it would get a response from many people, probably starting a heated debate about what constitutes "gainful employment".

The remark aimed at Jackonicko is not necessary - his stance on copyright theft is because he is a writer/author.

Please let this thread remain on topic and no casting aspersions about members otherwise it will be closed.

loGan

10-15-2003, 04:37 PM

Sorry those last replies were a little hurried due to lack of time and I didn't get a chance to change the tone slightly.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether the world is black and white or shades of grey but let us just analyse the two views from a business sense for a second.

We are ultimately talking about a business where the artist is looking to sell his product to the consumer. A symbiotic relationship.

Let us say for a second that I accept the view of Jacko that file sharing is wrong, it is immoral and destroying the music business leaving artists out of pocket unable to feed their chimps. The artists are being ripped off, losing money hand over fist with no end in sight.

So on the one side we have the poor old artists scrapping around for a few quid, (Dido excepting)

Their fans have deserted them in droves, they haven't sold any music in months. What is the best strategy for turning this terrible tale around?

Lets look at the enemy, the sinners, the immoral or amoral hoards of fiendish thieves. The artists used to call these guys fans and consumers but now they are filth.

75 million ex consumer in the US, what another 75 million across Europe, for good measure lets say another 75million across Asia and the far East. I am guessing at these numbers but bare with me.

At a guess then we have 225 million ex record buyers who used to be fans and consumers but who are now thieves without morality. Now thats quite a few people isn't it. If all those people have stopped buying records then I am astonished that a CD left the shelves last year but anyway I digress.

Now if we follow Jacko's reasoning all these people should be gaoled for theft. They are thieves and the last time I checked thieves go to gaol. Hmm tricky and given that one or two of them may still buy the odd CD that isn't really going to help the artists. It might just alienate the record industry slightly as well, I doubt those 200 million people will be rushing back to buy more records after their stint inside.

Ok so thats not great for business, Bubbles is still starving. Hey lets sue them all! $1000 bucks a time. Hmm hang on why are we sueing thieves? Don't we send thieves to gaol? Oh well lets forget the legal fine print and just get sueing!

$225,000,000,000 dollars well spent except wouldn't that money have been better off going to the artists? Oh well too late now. That's a few more potential consumers alienated and even after all that can you believe it people are still sharing files! Surely not after we spent all that money?!? Are people crazy, won't they just do what they are told?

Doh now we are right back where we started except now we have no consumers at all and no money and people are still using that darstedly internet to share music.

Hmm back to the drawing board.

While I'm wracking my brains trying to think of where that great business strategy went wrong let us consider the other view where file sharers are not considered criminals. Where the technology that the created is applauded and adopted by commerce and used to the advantage of both the consumer and artist. Where we might possibly accept the possibility that all this sharing might actually be good for business, good for artists and good for the consumer.

So now we have 225million potential customers who we know like music, perish the thought they might even buy some every once in a while (only the Dido fans though obviously).

Why don't we try and make some money out of these guys by giving them what they want? ITunes is a start, the various clone services are up next. Artist's own point of sale on the web are another.

This is a good start but it is still too expensive for those pesky kids and those elusive tunes. How do we make it easier, what is the next step? I really don't know but the possibilities are endless. If cash per song doesn't work then maybe a yearly fee like a TV license to access a conduit of all the music in the world, a subscription like satellite TV for access to all the music and all the videos ever made? A P2P program with built in advertising going to the artists and not to the software house. If people want access to cheap/free disposable music then give it to them. If they want a permenant record then they will buy the CD just as they always have but hey, lets drop the price so we aren't tearing their eyes out anymore.

OK so there is a fair amount of artistic license there but you get the point. Whatever the rights or wrongs nothing good will come out of Jacko's views for artist or consumer. It is a bleak outlook all round. I'm depressed already.

However if you look to the positive then there is a future, better than the past for both artist and consumer. It is exciting you know what it just might work. I am looking forward to it not burying my head in the sand and wishing the internet would just go away.

It may just be a coincidence but this past year has been a breath of fresh air in music in my opinion. New musical acts breaking through, real talent. Musicians and songwriters breaking through whilst some of the more sordid examples of record company manipulated excess have dropped from sight and mind. Long may it continue.

P.S. For those of you without the capacity to read a post this long don't worry you didn't miss anything.

Jackonicko

10-15-2003, 04:55 PM

The majority of downloaders are the 'spotty teenagers' you deride. Most of them download instead of buying, not as a precursor to buying. You are an exception, and your buying habits are unrepresentative. The avenue to download illegally, without proper payment, now needs to be stamped on.

If you only have time to listen to the radio on Saturday morning, then I'd recommend Jonathan Ross on radio 2. He's played Muse. Often.

Or tune into XFM.

The fact that you can't make time to discover music legally, and are too arrogant or superior to pay heed to mere journos does not make using Kazaa right.

There need to be massive penalties for uploaders, who illegally make music available on the net, and a tiny handful of downloaders need to be made an example of. Every effort should be made to shut down the P2P sites and to go after the owners and software producers for punitive damages.

Simply making pay sites like iTMS available is not enough, because there are too many evil little gits who would prefer to pay nothing, and who care not one iota about stealing other people's property.

loGan

10-15-2003, 06:03 PM

So your solution is ....... no solution?

loGan

10-15-2003, 07:00 PM

And thanks for the advice on radio stations, J Ross's show is one of the few on the radio worth listening too and and I do when I have the time.

As for my opinion of music journalists well that it my own and has nothing to do with arrogance as you so politely point out but experience. Sound doesn't translate well into words in my opinion, as a musician, and I prefer to make my own mind up.

As for your strategy:
The fact that you can't make time to discover music legally, and are too arrogant or superior to pay heed to mere journos does not make using Kazaa right.

There need to be massive penalties for uploaders, who illegally make music available on the net, and a tiny handful of downloaders need to be made an example of. Every effort should be made to shut down the P2P sites and to go after the owners and software producers for punitive damages.

Simply making pay sites like iTMS available is not enough, because there are too many evil little gits who would prefer to pay nothing, and who care not one iota about stealing other people's property.

Well to use your own analogy. We all know what happened to bootlegging....

ginalee

10-15-2003, 09:14 PM

Would have jumped into the fray earlier but I didn't want to disturb the passionate debate :D

I apologize now if I'm being repetitive...

The way I see it - LoGan sees the issue in a realistic way whereas Jackonicko is idealistic. I choose these words purposefully, and do not attach any right and wrong labels to them.

In my view the realistic attitude can be considered valid since there is no way that the scare tactics of the RIAA are going to change the behaviour of millions of teenies (and older ones) around the world. I recently visited a family and went into their teenage daughter's room. She was happily simultaneously chatting with 3 or 4 friends on icq while downloading several albums from kazaa and playing solitaire. This scene repeats itself, I'm sure, in I-dunno-how-many households globally.

I also think it's a pity the recording industry has not exploited this to their advantage rather than fighting it. After all, they spend billions compiling charts and best seller lists based on record sales and airplay and ignore completely the fact that a lot of underground bands, no names, a few big artists, whoever are extremely popular among the freeloader download community. Their popularity is increased through word of mouth - their music is being heard by millions they don't officially know about cos to my knowledge no charts exist to reflect download trends (even though it may be technically challenge I'm sure it could be done)

On the other hand seeing the issue idealistically is also valid because it is anchored in current laws, albeit a noble notion to expect millions of people to be honest and choose legal means to gain their music. People should obey laws and get punished/pay fines for not doing so. No one who has bought a CD has acquired permanent and all-encompassing rights to do whatever he/she wants with this copy. The rights of use are limited.

It'd be great to have people not cheat others from their earnings in royalities. But it is human nature to relish in the idea that you can get something for nothing. And then there's even the tickle of doing something "forbidden" (think fruit)

E.g. when you buy a lottery ticket - you are more or less hoping to make money off others' heads. You are getting something for little effort (when you win). Or the fact that most private persons do not purchase computer software but get bootleg copies from friends or associates. It's one of the (sad) facts of modern society. This is the direction in which the world is evolving.

Some people "sin" in using illegal downloading sites like kazaa and others, like me, "sin" when driving over the speed limit most of the time, even though I know I'm endangering my life as well as others. It's the I-can't-believe-I-won't-get-caught-doing-this that moves us, unfortunately.

If you've read between the lines you'd have realized that I understand and respect both viewpoints. I'm curious to see how the issue is resolved for everyone's benefit in the hopefully not too distant future.

I hope I was able to put my thoughts down coherently gentlemen.

jstn4102

10-16-2003, 12:07 AM

is it true that color contacts can do long term damage to the eyes by damaging the retnina or fobea by filtering out some color wavelengths? I ahve was wondering because I am about to get contacts and my optomitrist said that color contacts are good for first-time users because they are easier to find if they fall out. Also, should i get soft or hard contacts?

Jackonicko

10-16-2003, 10:58 AM

Ginalee.

Words fail me. Almost.

The fact that huge numbers of people are breaking the law and ripping off the musicians whose work they profess to liking does not make it right. Even if it's what you call 'human nature'. Nor should the response be: "Ah well, battle lost, that's just the way is going." Laws exist to restrain and prevent people from exercising those greedy and selfish bits of 'human nature', which, left unchecked would harm the interests of others.

You "think it's a pity the recording industry has not exploited this to their advantage rather than fighting it". Very profound. How exactly can the recording industry make any profit from people stealing their product and disseminating it while making no payment for doing so?

In the end, the only response must be to provide a legal alternative which does guarantee them a payment, while simultaneously fighting to:

1) close down the illegal sites and deter the criminals
2) persuade people not to engage in anti-social, illegal and criminal behaviour.

When supposedly mature and responsible adults start 'seeing both sides' of what is, at root a basic and clear right/wrong, black/white moral issue, it merely shows that those adults are amoral or immoral, and that their parents, schools or societies have done a poor job in educating them.

It's like seeing both sides in a debate about racism, sexism, or paedophile behaviour. We all want to cheat the taxman, but that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't come down hard to prevent us from doing so.

loGan

10-16-2003, 11:39 AM

Ginalee I welcome your input and i think you sum things up very well.

Jacko you unfortunately while holding a very strict interpretation of the law have still to offer one realistic and effective means of combating what you consider to be criminal activity without totally alienating the very people who are core customers.

Your comparisons with rape and extreme criminality are pointless and as I have continued to point out not comparable in law. You see black and white criminality whereas the supreme court of America disagrees with you. I am afraid I will listen to their views on the law over yours.

Just because people do something which skirts around the edges of a very grey area of law is not a reason to accept it, very true but when you are talking about the absolutely immense number of people with absolutely no chance of ever stopping what has become a global phenomenon then you have to accept that thoughtlessly banging your head against a brick wall is going to get you nothing more than bruises.

You have already lost, because the only way to stop file sharing would be to destroy the internet and I can't see that happening.

You may have lost the battle but why lose the war?

Instead of sitting there like a dinosaur waiting to die why not do something about it. Create enough legal, easy and accessible means for data distribution that people are more inclined to use them than the slightly hooky spyware infested products out there. Provide better guaranteed bandwidth. Allow customers to listen to music on their computers as much as they want for free, but if they want to download it then they have to pay. Use the very technology which you claim is robbing artists of financial gain to make them more money than they have every made. That is the only way to win this war.

I would have more respect for your position if you had anything positive to say but your comments are always negative and bitter, simply it is wrong full stop, you are all as evil as paedophiles. Your strength of your argument lost in the ludicrous comparisons to sex crime and extreme criminality and your inability to proffer any realistic solution.

I am sorry to say that you are a dinosaur. A dinosaur with impeccable standards and the right to feel smug in your beliefs but it won't save you any more than it saved prohibition.

dmt1

10-16-2003, 12:06 PM

Be careful, he may be a dinsosaur, but he's a T Rex....Remember, Jacko is coming from a different perspective than all of us--this impacts directly on his livelihood--and he's arguing from the standpoint of what is legal, and ethical. He's essentially arguing from the standpoint of the way things SHOULD be. It's a tough argument to contradict.

But (and I'm cowering in the corner, anticipating the wrath of Jacko) Ginalee's points are well taken. The reality of it is your not going to be able to change the behavior of millions of people. It's like enforcing speed limits (I'm not saying speeding is the moral equivalent of stealing music, just an example of enforcement)--you shouldn't do it, periodically the police will set up speed traps to get people to slow down, but in the long run it doesn't change people's behavior.

IMHO, people are still going to steal music--prosecute the heck out of whomever you catch, but it's still going to happen, and probably on a large scale. And with darknet filesharing now gaining popularity, it may be next to impossible to catch them. I'm not condoning it--it's just the way it is. I'm not against aggressively trying to prevent it--it's just my opinion that it's not going to be effective.

I think a HUGE number of folks are willing to pay for legitimate downloads (I know I am, and have), who don't necessarily want to download illegaly, and the record companies are VERY late getting onto this band wagon. The major labels recently significantly dropped prices of new CD's to $10.00--but unfortunately it's too little too late with regard to this having a significant effect on file sharing. And (unfortunately) it has reenforced the argument that record companies have been gouging us from day one (they have; it's cheaper to mass produce a CD than a cassette, but CD's are or were perceived as more expensive, and have always cost more in the U.S., but if you're willing to pay for it, they're going to charge it), so it's ok to fileshare (a morally bankrupt argument).

So for me Ginalee's position is the one I lean toward; Jacko's is the way it really should be, but I just don't see it happening. Theft is so ubiquitous, you can't get rid of it, you can stiffen the punishments as much as you want--it may cut into it--but the most realistic way to fight it is to give people reasonable alternatives--if you do so, there will be fewer people doing the p2p thing, which may make it more meaningful when you go after the hardcore left behind with stiff penalties..

Jackonicko

10-16-2003, 06:39 PM

It's not analogous with maintaining prohibition, it's analagous with breaking Al Capone and the bootleggers...... And that war was eventually won.....

The thought that behaviour cannot be changed is interesting, and has a superficially compelling logic to it. But one must realise that the massive number of illegal downloaders are acting against the interests of some massively powerful and wealthy interest groups, so the struggle is by no means as unequal as you suggest. (This is a big difference between this and trying to change people's behaviour re speeding. By speeding, no-one is threatening General Motors' or Ford's corporate existence....)

And this war can be fought on multiple fronts.

If sufficient numbers of uploaders are prosecuted, things will become more uncomfortable and difficult for the rest.

If sufficient numbers of downloaders are sued, then others will be deterred and parents may monitor behaviour better.

Even more spurious, corrupted and even virus infected files may be uploaded by the record companies to make downloading a less rewarding experience.

We iPodders will suffer, because Copy Protection systems will become more effective and harder to bypass.

Increasing numbers of artists will start to campaign against illegal downloading and copying (read the cover copy on the Thrills new CD....).

I can even foresee issues like this (combined with 'security' and anti-terrorist concerns) leading to some regulation of the net in certain jurisdictions.

On the positive side, the pay download sites will become increasingly easy to use, and more trouble free, and may perhaps even become more fashionable than the sad geek paradise that is Kazaa.

Napster was forced out of business. Kazaa and the rest should follow.

It would be nice if responsible adults would help in the effort by standing up for what is right, and condemn this illegality for what it is.

loGan,

You can label me a smug dinosaur all you want. Actually I just feel pity for you. Some people know what's right, most people know what's wrong. You clearly don't know the difference. And I don't equate file sharing with paedophile crime, I just point out that both behaviours are morally and legally wrong. Never heard of arguing from extremes?

cordevax

10-16-2003, 10:24 PM

let me try a jump-in...

i've been following this post for since it started and though i do hv an opinion on the subject, i don't think there's any use in posting it, as it seems to me that the opposing parties are arguing on completely different levels.

the thing i've been wondering tho, is what you guys think of the two following points:

1. do artists own their creation?

2. do artists deserve payment?

lemme detail a bit...

concerning the first point:
in my opinion, creation is 99.9% copy and .1% innovation. i mean even the most innovative musician creates a song by using instruments he didn't design, words he didn't invent and musical elements he didn't create. he mashes all of that up, adds a touch of emotion or some sort of message, and creates a song.
so if all of the ingredients of his creation stem from the public domain what gives an artist the right to proclaim ownership of his creation?

concerning the second point:
everyone seems to be taking for a fact that artists deserve to get paid... why? the idea that an artist can make millions of dollar if his creation just hits the spot popularity-wise, seems very strange to me...
now don't get me wrong. i don't advocate letting musicians starve, or forcing them to get a day-job; i just find the current payment structure quite insane.

if you think the above is strange, consider this:
it seems to me that art is exactly the same process as scientific research. both of them are based on 99.9% existing data; both of them require a certain skill or talent.
yet a scientist doesn't own his research, and nobody thinks that he should get paid a royalty every time someone takes a look at his work. a scientist can't really make millions of his research -- note that i'm talking about scientific research, not technological processes.
plus, both science and art are basically useless, the point of the first being a better understanding of the world around us; the point of the second... i don't really know... fun, maybe?

anyway... wouldn't it be a good idea to build a payment structure for artists that is equivalent as the one used for scientists? that is: artists are paid by the state, and all art is free.

(well maybe not free for art-types where the distribution costs aren't null; but art could be 'distributed' by non-profit organisations)

now, of course there may be quite some logistical problems with my proposed setup. but isn't it an idea worth exploring?

Jackonicko

10-17-2003, 06:16 AM

1) If it's so easy then go and write, play, perform and record a No.1 best-selling song. Just the one. Bear in mind too that even a cover version can have enormous artistic worth, and can take great effort and time to create. Artists thus deserve to be paid for the 'work' they do and for the work they produce.

2) Tell it to all those companies patenting new drugs, human genes, etc. Even if art was "exactly the same process as scientific research" and even if it was "based on 99.9% existing data" there's nothing extraordinary about Royalty payments and copyright. My own work is highly technical and, by definition, not terribly creative, but it still needs and warrants copyright protection. You say that "nobody thinks that he (a scientist) should get paid a royalty every time someone takes a look at his work." We're not talking about 'taking a look' we're talking about using the fruits of that work. And, every time someone takes a Viagra (or a licensed version of it), for example, Pfizer gets a payment.

The only difference is that the record companies have a good record of passing on a proportion of the royalties they receive to the creative artists, while pharmaceutical companies directly employ their scientists on a salaried basis, and do not generally pass on such payments.

ToddW

10-17-2003, 10:52 AM

Well I'm going to be honest. When the downloading phase was booming with Napster, I was the big downloader like the rest. We things started to get going about whether it was breaking the law or not, that is when I decided to research the topic.

What I have learned is that it was wrong morally and also illegal to do that. I have since then stopped my indeavor in downloading music. Intellectual copyright law, is the only thing that protects writers/musicians/artists from making a living doing what they love. I'm lucking in the since that I get compensated with a salary based on the what I do for my company. Granted, I will not receive anything on the backend of the products I have designed, but I would be very upset if some other individual copied my design and sold and no compensation be awarded to the owner of the intellectual property.

My opinion is that the way the RIAA is treating people is wrong. I think sueing Grandma Mable, because here grandson is downloading and sharing limpbizkit tunes on her computer that she uses to play online bridge on is rediculous. Education would be the key.

The more people download music/movies/etc is just going to lead to more extreme DRM. It will only hurt those people who use their mp3 players and such to carry music with them.

Just my two cents!

geistwerks

10-17-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Jackonicko

It's important because it's quantatively different to taping from the radio, tape-to-tape copying or even burning illegal CDs. One kid copying one CD for a few mates takes him hours, costs him money, and is self limiting. The loss to the record industry is limited. One album uploaded to Kazaa could cost hundreds or even thousands of sales. This isn't doing the industry good, it's doing great harm.

There are now legal alternatives to Kazaa, Napster, Morpheus and all the rest. Why are you not using them? Because you want something for nothing and are prepared to exploit stolen property in order to do so.

with cd burners being as fast as they are now, it takes maybe a minute per copy. one hour alone would generate 40 or so copies (including the time to change the disc) and cd-r's in the states are sold as low as $2.99 per pack of 50 when they are on sale.

and these are perfect copies.

and there may be legal alternatives to illegal file sharing, but not yet for people like me. while i have refrained from downloading, i'm at least satiated by the large amount of people offering their music for free... www.thinnerism.com for example.

geistwerks

10-17-2003, 02:15 PM

file sharing is becoming ridiculously easy to do, and there are more and more people with the mindset that they're not going to pay anything for music or movies or games anymore. go to any bit torrent site and you will find the latest movies, games, television episodes, etc. sometimes they have stuff weeks or even months before release!

now, quality can sometimes be an issue, but a lot of people are getting hold of "not for retail" dvd's and uploading them to the internet. so quality is becoming dangerously close to DVD.

as for games, i doubt the people who made the games are happy to see when their product is leaked before release, and software piracy is HUGE.

in the end, this is going to cost all of us. the major labels will be able to produce their "mass media" pop crap, though at perhaps less profit, and will be able to still collect money from touring, or theatre sales, etc. the independents are going to fold, and go out of business. they usually don't make money by touring (unlike pop stars who charge $80 a ticket) and rely on album sales.

so we're going to be left with one flavour. vanilla. all the others are gone and we're going to have one bland choice for our entertainment.

and copyright protection methods will be 1984's nightmare likes microsoft's rumoured "palladium" OS, with copyright protection methods that verify EVERYTHING on your computer with microsoft servers (yes, even your mp3's) .

the future is file sharing? i don't think it's such a bright future anymore.

Jackonicko

10-17-2003, 05:15 PM

Todd W and Geistwerks.

We appear to be singing from a similar hymn sheet. If only you guys were over here I'd buy you a beer.

(Then we could go round and plant a burning CD-shaped object on Logan's front lawn.....)

geistwerks

10-17-2003, 11:40 PM

well, i wasn't in line with you earlier, but after i did some research and emailed a few artists, i've gone to the light side.

filesharing has it's place. for example, when the matrix trailer was released, the site was flooded, and went down. however, every bit torrent site had the trailer, and you could get it faster than if you tried to download it directly from the legit site. i'm sure no one had a problem with that instance of file sharing. the popular site www.redvsblue.com, which hosts their funny HALO movies, uses bit torrent to distribute their work, which is free.

i know music artists who file share. i know of professional recording studios with cracked protools plugins. all the software i would love to own is too expensive. i'm a working retail stiff. i can't drop $500 on a software program.
it'd be real easy to download it, but maybe that's why the price is so high on the program to begin with? because so many people are downloading it? well, i can't be like so many rap artists and sell drugs to buy all my studio gear, but i'm pretty tech savvy so what are my choices?

i think the real catch 22 is that everything is so expensive to begin with. i think if companies lowered prices (from music to software), a lot of piracy would go away, and a lot more people would buy.

there is, however, a mindset that thinks "i will NEVER pay for anything. PERIOD." i just watched my manager open up packages of adobe photoshop, MS publisher, etc. and install them on a store computer, rip images of the the discs to the store server's HD, with notepad entries of the serial #'s, and he sent all the product back to the manufacturer for a refund. piracy is EVERYWHERE.

everyone in the human race loves the word "free." how many people go out and shoplift? not many, because if they are caught they will go to jail. file sharing makes it easy to steal, and perhaps that's why we do it. i won't lie. i am a file sharer. i'm trying to reform, but i might not hold out.

everyone here is debating the morality of it. well, file sharing is just plain wrong. we all know it, but does that stop us? no. why is that? it's probably because up until now, we knew we could get away with it. i'm not scared of the RIAA in any form, because nothing i ever file shared (music, anyway) was even associated with them (i did download metallica's entire catalogue out of spite though).

the youth is the biggest problem. they just take for granted that they aren't hurting anyone by file sharing. the tech types always knew they were stealing. these kids were taught by us how to steal, and that it was ok, and that there was no one watching. jackonicko and others have taken a strong stance, perhaps been a little harsh at times (although i have been harsh too) but they are trying to get us all back to the simple fact we all know is true.

file sharing is stealing. it is wrong. it will hurt us all in the end.

a friend of mine just gave my a cd from telefon tel aviv. it was a copy. i just learned that the album won't be out til january 27th. how the heck did he get it so fast? it came from a friend of his. and some internal source. even people in the music industries can't stop from file sharing. some sound engineer probably stole it, uploaded, etc. i do know that these are NOT mp3's. this is full on cd audio (and by the way, the album is absolutely majestic and i will be purchasing it, it's one of the finest albums i've ever heard).

either things are going to be getting worse, or we'll have a revolution. i think the itunes music store could be that revolution. we just need cheaper prices and a broader selection.

we need to rethink file sharing. seriously.

bracken

10-17-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by geistwerks
file sharing is stealing. it is wrong. it will hurt us all in the end.

File sharing is copyright violation. *IF* I stole a car, you wouldn't have it. *IF* I stole software, you'd still have it. There's a valid and real moral and legal difference between the two.

Just wanted to add a little perspective. ;)

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 12:23 AM

theft is theft. don't kid yourself. if you copied an expensive software program, then the company who made it "doesn't have it," i.e. their profits. that's as real as stealing some car on your block. the only difference is, you've stolen from some "faceless" company and some poor joe on the street.

the real lie is that we tell ourselves that these companies are a bunch of BS faceless morons that we have every right to rip off. we don't.

it's wrong, and there is no justification for it. if you call it "copyright infringement" you're just trying to justify your theft by somehow demeaning it. no. copyright infringement is theft. it's is just like stealing a car on your block.

get some perspective.

bracken

10-18-2003, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
theft is theft. don't kid yourself. if you copied an expensive software program, then the company who made it "doesn't have it," i.e. their profits. that's as real as stealing some car on your block. the only difference is, you've stolen from some "faceless" company and some poor joe on the street.

the real lie is that we tell ourselves that these companies are a bunch of BS faceless morons that we have every right to rip off. we don't.

it's wrong, and there is no justification for it. if you call it "copyright infringement" you're just trying to justify your theft by somehow demeaning it. no. copyright infringement is theft. it's is just like stealing a car on your block.

get some perspective.

By your definition stealing a loaf of bread (http://www.lesmis.com/) is the same, morally and legally, as robbing a bank.

"Theft is theft."

dmt1

10-18-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by bracken
File sharing is copyright violation. When I steal a car, you don't have it. When I steal software, you still have it. There's a valid and real moral and legal difference between the two.

Just wanted to add a little perspective. ;)

"When I steal software"....

Hmm...I thought stealing was stealing; legally there is no distinction between stealing a physical piece of property or an idea. It's still against the law. Ethically is there a difference in your example? I don't think so....

And if you want to throw "Les Misrables" in there, I will give you that stealing the loaf of bread was illegal, but not necessarily everything illegal is unethical or immoral. It's a different argument, on a totally different level. And if you want to argue that stealing the bread was immoral using the "Les Miserables" analogy (which you can certainly do), and using that to extrapolate, it doesn't work--the underlying foundation of the book is more along the lines that the punishment did not fit the crime, not that a crime wasn't committed.

By your previous line of reasoning, we should just get rid of all copyright protection, and while we're at it, patent protection as well. We need to make sure we get rid of all impetus for folks to create something new and useful, and prevent them from reaping the benefits of their work, so we can stagnate.

To some, something as abstract as a thought, idea, song, or invention is not worth a dime--to others (including myself) it is literally priceless. By not protecting intellectual property--that is in fact what it is--you are stealing money from the creator's pocket. It would be like me going to your paycheck, and for no reason other than the fact that you have a paycheck, taking 50% of it. Perhaps what you do for a living isn't worthwhile to a musician, or author, does that give them a right to take YOUR hard earned money at random?

I agree that file sharing is wrong, and should be prosecuted; I disagree with Jacko w/r to how effective I think this will be--too many folks involved worldwide, and many in places that are literally untouchable barring some type of international policing. And I also agree with one of the previous posters that things like the Itune music store, Rhapsody, etc. are a step in the right direction, and will hopefully convert the majority of folks to legal downloading. One of the things about people that are major proponents of p2p is that it seems like they are trying to justify it to themselves in their arguments as much as they are trying to justify it to others. Just my take....

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by bracken
By your definition stealing a loaf of bread (http://www.lesmis.com/) is the same, morally and legally, as robbing a bank.

"Theft is theft."

it's the same. are you somehow saying the impoverished have a right to steal? NO. (and i am impoverished to some degree). it's stealing. point blank. we're not talking about bread here, we're talking about digital rights.

bracken

10-18-2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by dmt1
"When I steal software"....

Hmm...I thought stealing was stealing; legally there is no distinction between stealing a physical piece of property or an idea. It's still against the law. Ethically is there a difference? I don't think so....

(I don't steal cars either but I said, "when I steal a car." Matterafact, I'm going to edit that before I'm accused of stealing MP3s and therefore get the same prison sentence that a bank robber gets.)

Stealing is stealing, that's right. And copyright violation is copyright violation, or do you pretend that this phrase doesn't exist?

Morally there is a distinction in all societies, in all religions, between different forms of assault/theft/add_your_criminal_behavior_here. If there isn't where you live tell me to avoid that place, please!

Legally this is a distinction between different forms of assault/theft/add_your_criminal_behavior_here. Why is the RIAA (and not state prosecutors) suing in CIVIL court then? I don't think you understand the law, bro.

I said (here's the 3rd time) there's a moral and legal difference between these things. You say there isn't. That's ok!

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
it's the same. are you somehow saying the impoverished have a right to steal? NO. (and i am impoverished to some degree). it's stealing. point blank. we're not talking about bread here, we're talking about digital rights.

Wow, the comprehensive skills!!!! Stealing an MP3 is NOT the same as walking up to your grandma, shoving a sawed-off shot-gun in her face and taking her rent money, then "stealing" her house by burning it down. Either in the eyes of the judge, the jury, and in society as we now live in it--god help us not yet anyways.

You said it yourself, "digital rights." "Digital rights" is used because it's referring to the right of usage of copyrighted material.

Good grief!!!

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 01:09 AM

if you simply read the pages in this thread, you'll see i was once on your side. i'm not anymore. if someone stole a loaf of bread from me, i'd forgive them. we all need to eat. if a man stoops so low as to steal a loaf of bread, i would have given it to him in the first place. stealing an album of music is not the same. it's just downright theft. you don't need it to survive! if you refer to the christian bible, all sins are the same. stealing is stealing. there is no difference. period. i find it most amusing i'm on this side of the thread now when jackonicko and sunbyrne were strapping me to the wall! hahah!

dmt1

10-18-2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by bracken
Wow, the comprehensive skills!!!! Stealing an MP3 is NOT the same as walking up to your grandma, shoving a sawed-off shot-gun in her face and taking her rent money, then "stealing" her house by burning it down. Either in the eyes of the judge, the jury, and in society as we now live in it--god help us not yet anyways.

You said it yourself, "digital rights." "Digital rights" is used because it's referring to the right of usage of copyrighted material.

Good grief!!!

I never said that legality and morality were the same thing. Quite the opposite in fact...

And you are confusing the issue by bringing in crimes of various severity--they are still crimes, and are punished according to their severity. So because someone attacks grandma with a shotgun does NOT make it ok to steal mp3's, simply because it's not as heinous a crime....Bad analogy with poor grandma there..

And I do understand the law. Just because the RIAA chose to prosecute in a CIVIL court, doesn't mean they couldn't have sued in a CRIMINAL court--it was their choice. There are differences in how punishment is meted out in each court--criminal court leans more toward imprisonement, civil more towards monetary fines/retribution, which is what the RIAA is after for a number of reasons. A case can be prosecuted in one court, the other, or, on occasion, both. So what you're saying is that since the RIAA chose to prosecute in a Civil court, file sharing isn't illegal. The law doesn't work that way my friend...Theft, heck, even murder can be tried in a civil court rather than a criminal court...Ask OJ, who had the opportunity to see both first hand....

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by dmt1
I never said that legality and morality were the same thing. Quite the opposite in fact...

And you are confusing the issue by bringing in crimes of various severity--they are still crimes, and are punished according to their severity. So because someone attacks grandma with a shotgun does NOT make it ok to steal mp3's, simply because it's not as heinous a crime....Bad analogy with poor grandma there..

You're obviously not reading the entire thread.

:rolleyes:

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
if you refer to the christian bible, all sins are the same.

Wow, no wonder Christians get such a bad rap.

Now it's "all sins are the same"?

So now you'll start arguing that stealing music is the same as taking innocent blood.

Amazing.

dmt1

10-18-2003, 01:31 AM

I read the ENTIRE thread when I respond to it.

Look, I'm done arguing with you. Your arguments simply don't back up your contentions. And if I keep arguing in this thread anymore, I'm going to come dangerously close to agreeing TOTALLY with Jacko, and my ego just can't handle that.

Peace everyone!

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by dmt1
IAnd I do understand the law. Just because the RIAA chose to prosecute in a CIVIL court, doesn't mean they couldn't have sued in a CRIMINAL court--it was their choice. There are differences in how punishment is meted out in each court--criminal court leans more toward imprisonement, civil more towards monetary fines/retribution, which is what the RIAA is after for a number of reasons. A case can be prosecuted in one court, the other, or, on occasion, both. So what you're saying is that since the RIAA chose to prosecute in a Civil court, file sharing isn't illegal. The law doesn't work that way my friend...

You added this after I responded.

What do you mean the law doesn't work that way? I said the law does not see ALL STEALING AS THE SAME. Stealing ONE song will not get the same sentence as stealing ONE car.

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by dmt1
I read the ENTIRE thread when I respond to it.

Look, I'm done arguing with you. Your arguments simply don't back up your contentions.

Peace everyone!

Look, I'm not arguing with a troll that doesn't read the entire thread before posting.

Your arguments simply don't back up anything that you were saying.

"Peace!"

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 01:36 AM

what we are debating a "slap on the hand" with a life sentence? your crime of stealing music somehow means you are o.k.? if you want to steal britney spear's mp3's, go ahead. i don't care.

i am calling for all the people who are stealing (yes, it IS stealing) the mp3's of independent music artist to FESS UP. we ARE SERIOUSLY HURTING THE ARTISTS WE LOVE. i don't give a s**te about major label music. i LOVE INDIE MUSIC (mostly because it's just so much better). we MUST SUPPORT THEM. THEY WILL DIE WITHOUT US. we have to buy their music. they may not see a dime without it. SOULSEEK USERS? CAN YOU HEAR ME?

the fans HAVE GOT TO MAKE THEIR MESSAGE! WE MUST MAKE OUR DECLARATION KNOWN. otherwise we'll be surrounded by really bad pop music by bad boy bands, for years to come.

dmt1

10-18-2003, 01:37 AM

Bracken: So what's the point? No one's arguing with you (at least I'm not) that different crimes should be punished according to their severity. We're not trying to determine what the penalities for file sharing should be, but simply that it is illegal and immoral.

And I'm truly done with this thread, as at this point rather than making a cogent argument, all you can reply with is name calling....

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
your crime of stealing music somehow means you are o.k.? if you want to steal britney spear's mp3's, go ahead. i don't care.

I never said you stole, now you're saying I stole.

You need some anger management.

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by dmt1
Bracken: So what's the point? No one's arguing with you (at least I'm not) that different crimes should be punished according to their severity. We're not trying to determine what the penalities for file sharing should be, but simply that it is illegal and immoral.

And I'm truly done with this thread, as at this point rather than making a cogent argument, all you can reply with is name calling....

You're 2nd "done" post?

Here's my point.

I made a three sentence post (the first post I made in this thread) with a wink at the end and I get attacked by I-can't-count how many people, half of which disagree with eachother.

That's my point.

I didn't call anyone a name, L I A R.

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by bracken
Wow, no wonder Christians get such a bad rap.

Now it's "all sins are the same"?

So now you'll start arguing that stealing music is the same as taking innocent blood.

Amazing.

look, mate, it's stealing. am i going to pick up a red hot poker and go for your eyes? no. you aren't reading me. not one bit at all. all >I< am saying is we need to support indie artists, and file sharing is not the way to do it. are you even reading my posts, man?

you want to bring down time warner, go for it. i could care less. it's your arse if you get caught. i want major labels to die. then jello biafra would prolly be the monopoly. i could cope with that.

it is stealing, and if you consult the christian bible, a sin is a sin. as in murder is no different than theft. and i am NOT a religious man, i'm just pointing some things out. you want to talk about another religion? fine by me. but most "morality" that we live by is defined by religion. you want a free slate to download your britney spears? here's my clean slate: DOWNLOAD ALL MAJOR LABEL CRAP YOU WANT. PLEASE, BY THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, HELP IT GO AWAY! real music fans want real music, and it's not found on the majors.

god bless when i turn on a radio and hear derrick may and not n*sync.

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by bracken
I never said you stole, now you're saying I stole.

You need some anger management.

wow, you don't read. this topic is, what 8 pages long? go do some reading. please, man.

bracken

10-18-2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by geistwerks
look, mate, it's stealing. am i going to pick up a red hot poker and go for your eyes?

This is getting weirder by the minute!

I never said it wasn't stealing.

I said it's called copyright violation. ("And copyright violation is copyright violation, or do you pretend that this phrase doesn't exist?")

Next I'm going to say something is burglary or robbery and you're going to say, "look, mate, it's stealing."

:confused:

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 02:21 AM

maybe we should just get a red hot poker and play some personal games? ooh, naughty.

i've think you missed the point.

Jackonicko

10-18-2003, 06:29 AM

GW,

Good on you mate! Me next with the red hot poker!!!!

And you have come up with a great slogan:

"Real music fans don't download."

Bracken. The Law makes a distinction between crimes of theft based on what has been stolen, and the circumstances surrounding the crime, and that's quite right. Armed robbery gets a stiffer sentance than petty pilfering. But there is no MORAL difference in so far as the theft element of each crime is concerned. (The armed robber's behaviour is morally reprehensible in other additional ways, but theft is theft is theft).

And morally, if I make my living from selling copies of my work (whether those copies are books, magazine articles, songs, CDs, paintings or even obscure scientific processes) then you must pay for those copies before you use them, otherwise you are stealing from me just as surely as though you came round to my house and stole my video recorder or laptop.

Don't call it 'copyright infringement' or 'copyright violation', that makes it sound like something accidental, or like a 'merely technical offence'.

I hope you won't call it 'property infringement' when someone comes round and steals your TV, or 'children's party infringement' when they come round and spray your child's birthday party with machine gun bullets.

It's theft, pure and simple and if you illegally download you are a thief.

Bob

10-18-2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by bracken

I didn't call anyone a name...

Bracken,
You accused 'dmt1' of being a troll -

Originally posted by bracken
Look, I'm not arguing with a troll that doesn't read the entire thread before posting.

- that is name calling in my book.

No need for it - back to the subject. Or has every angle been exhausted and time to put this baby to bed?

loGan

10-18-2003, 09:01 AM

Maybe someone can tell me why the music industry has never been investigated for monopolistic price fixing and over charging?

The last time I checked that was a crime.

Good to see this fruitless argument still continuing.

I've just returned from a short international trip so I thought I would do an experiment whilst bored in Heathrow airport and read some magazines and pick up some cds in the good old fashioned "Real Music Fan" mold.

Unfortunately the mag I picked up didn't have a mention of Muse though it did recomend that I don't go and see Kill Bill and gave it 1 out of 5. #### that journalist is stealing from Tarantino, lucky I went to the movie before reading his valuable words. No luck there but no worries I'll just pop into the Virgin store and pick up the one Muse LP I haven't got yet.

"Hi there, I'm looking for Showbiz by Muse, you don't seem to have anything by them on the shelves, where would it be?"

Blank looks.....Muse ?

"Operatic rock like Radiohead? Begins with a M?"

Errrrr don't think we have it mate, do you like Justin? We've got his new single....

Doh....

Do I have to like Justin to join the "Real music fan club"?

As Jacko seems to think his position as an author lends his argument more credence perhaps I should point out that I am a software designer and now part time musician with 15 years of recording and distributing of my stuff behind me so I suppose I should have some perspective too. Perhaps too much blo.ody perspective as a wise man once said.

ginalee

10-18-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Jackonicko

"Real music fans don't download."

"Real music fans don't download."

I've said it. I've said a Jackonickally correct sentence. Do I NOW also get invited over for a beer? Or is it just Todd W and Geistwerks?

<sarcasm>
Seriously, Muse is probably feeling the positive effects of all of this free publicity due to thousands of ipodloungers buying their cds legit.
</sarcasm)

I'm sure that this thread has helped many "saints and sinners" re-think their actions and reasons behind them.

loGan, I'm disillusioned. I always looked up to Virgin's staff. They always seemed so knowledgable. ;)

*putting the red hot poker away for safe-keeping*

Alicia

loGan

10-18-2003, 12:10 PM

With regard to Virgin and the total lack of Muse CDs, I finally found someone with a clue who just came right out and said we don't stock that at our smaller stores. You will need a mega store, people just want chart music here.

Pretty indicative of my experiences with all high street music retailers. Shame that to be a "real misc fan" you have to like chart music.

geistwerks

10-18-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by loGan
Maybe someone can tell me why the music industry has never been investigated for monopolistic price fixing and over charging?

The last time I checked that was a crime.

Good to see this fruitless argument still continuing.

I've just returned from a short international trip so I thought I would do an experiment whilst bored in Heathrow airport and read some magazines and pick up some cds in the good old fashioned "Real Music Fan" mold.

Unfortunately the mag I picked up didn't have a mention of Muse though it did recomend that I don't go and see Kill Bill and gave it 1 out of 5. #### that journalist is stealing from Tarantino, lucky I went to the movie before reading his valuable words. No luck there but no worries I'll just pop into the Virgin store and pick up the one Muse LP I haven't got yet.

"Hi there, I'm looking for Showbiz by Muse, you don't seem to have anything by them on the shelves, where would it be?"

Blank looks.....Muse ?

"Operatic rock like Radiohead? Begins with a M?"

Errrrr don't think we have it mate, do you like Justin? We've got his new single....

Doh....

Do I have to like Justin to join the "Real music fan club"?

As Jacko seems to think his position as an author lends his argument more credence perhaps I should point out that I am a software designer and now part time musician with 15 years of recording and distributing of my stuff behind me so I suppose I should have some perspective too. Perhaps too much blo.ody perspective as a wise man once said.

HA!

first of all the RIAA has been CONVICTED of price fixing. they owe everyone in america who signed on around $20, but they have thrown it all into a big void called the appeal process. we'll prolly never see a dime of it.

the RIAA are nothing more than a mafia. plain and simple.

and no, being a real music fan does not mean you like justin.

see, if i wanted music, i used to log in to soulseek, enter the name of an artist and download away. but the fact is, indie artists are suffering dearly because of file sharing. if we file share their music, they're going to go away.

believe me, my music tastes are far more obscure than yours. i have to travel hours and search forever in some crusty little record shop filled with people even weirder than me, and even then i have to dig and dig. try looking for lustmord or zoviet france albums sometime. next to impossible. i had a few laughs with mainstream mall stores once, and got tired of the dumb looks i got.

maybe read some of my earlier posts in this topic. i went on quite a rant.

anyway, what we need is more options, like ITMS. then we can download to our hearts content, make sure the artists get paid for their work, and load up our ipods.

loGan

10-20-2003, 06:48 AM

I don't know whether this has featured in this thread at all yet. I think it deserves a mention to illustrate the hypocracy of the so called morally superior Record business.

"Slashdot reported last night that after two years, a price-fixing lawsuit brought against the major music companies has finally been settled for US$67.4 million. The lawsuit, brought by 43 states and commonwealths of the United States, said that the companies had exchanged subsidized advertising for retailers in return for their agreement not to sell CDs below a certain price, and that the practice had artificially inflated the cost of CDs from 1995 to 2000. A Reuters story indicates that the companies have agreed to cease the practice and also to distribute US$75.7 million of CDs to US organizations, in addition to the cash payout mentioned above. A USA Today story goes into detail:

"This is a landmark settlement to address years of illegal price-fixing," New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said in a statement. "Our agreement will provide consumers with substantial refunds and result in the distribution of a wide variety of recordings for use in our schools and communities."

The companies, including Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Bertelsmann's BMG Music and EMI Group, plus retailers Musicland Stores, Trans World Entertainment and Tower Records, admitted no wrongdoing.

The companies have not practiced the pricing agreement since 2000. At that time, they agreed in settling a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission that they would refrain from MAP pricing for seven years.

Former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky said at the time that consumers had been overcharged by US$480 million since 1997 and that CD prices would soon drop by as much as US$5 a CD as a result."

Jackonicko

10-20-2003, 08:38 AM

Irrelevant.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

loGan

10-20-2003, 10:23 AM

I think it is very relevant to the argument though I would agree that two wrongs do not make a right.

It renders all arguments connecting the fall of record sales and the impact of p2p irrelevant and undermines the credibility of an organisation trying to take high moral ground.

Given the propensity of human beings to reach their "destination" by taking the path of least resistance, the continued fixed high prices of CDs through most of the nineties and actual price rises probably contibuted largely to the invent and explosion of Napster in the early days and the continued success of P2P services since. Pandora's box once opened cannot be closed.

ToddW

10-20-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Jackonicko
Todd W and Geistwerks.

We appear to be singing from a similar hymn sheet. If only you guys were over here I'd buy you a beer.

(Then we could go round and plant a burning CD-shaped object on Logan's front lawn.....)

Thanks Jacko! I'm all about self expression "let the CD burning begin" ;)

ToddW

10-20-2003, 06:42 PM

We are in the day in age now, where a big decision is being made about intellectual property rights. Say what you want, stealing is stealing.

If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family, you are committing a crime. I'm sure anyone of us would do this if needed. Morally is it wrong? According to the vast majority of religons out there, yes it is. Is it ethical, that is another debate.

The RIAA knows that in a criminal court that they would not win in the publics eye. That is why the RIAA is going into the civil cour to make there point. Is what they are doing wrong? IMHO, you dang right it is. I thinking sueing all these people just makes me detest corporations more.

The fact is, that using P2P networks to download copyrighted material is breaking the law. Copyright law is to protect those people who work their asses off making a living based off their talent. (my opinion is different with some artists though)

It doesn't matter that corporations mark up their prices, it doesn't matter that CDs cost so much or any of the other excuses people are using to download music/movies/software/etc... It is steal wrong. Most of the arguments people use to defend themselves I agree with. Corporations are the scum of the earth, and I hate that prices are marked up on a lot of items. And it is true that a lot of artists envolved with these corporations do not make a lot of money off their albums. They still make something off of it, whether it is 1 cent or 1 dollar off every unit sold is made, stealing is stealing no matter how you try to defend it.

loGan

10-21-2003, 06:39 AM

You are of course right that stealing is wrong even using the argument of justified theft, starving family loaf of bread etc. I suppose the reason that so many people feel comfortable in downloading copyright material is due to the grey area of law which has said up until this point in time that file sharing is not stealing. The anonymity of the process also helps.

I was interested to see that new laws are being proposed in Europe which would change the definition of copyright violation and actually make it theft with the penalties associated with it.

I don't believe that ultimately this will provide the solution that the industry is looking for but it would at least clarify what is currently a murky area which the general public are happy to blissfully ignore. It is easy to ignore chaos whereas when things are crystal clear from a legal point of view and from a penalty point of view it will be harder for people to ignore their own behaviour.

Chadian22

11-29-2003, 04:20 PM

Just because it's the law. Doesn't mean it's right and fair. Remember that.

Jackonicko

11-29-2003, 06:43 PM

It is absolutely right and fair. Copyright infringement is theft.

DrPino

12-07-2003, 02:52 AM

Songs are a form of art or a method of communication, and not necessarily a consumable good. Stories and history have long been passed down from generation to generation (especially before the printing press and archival storage) through song and other forms of perfomance art that was never "priced" out by a distributor. You can argue that songs and music have been "commodities" for quite some time but that only holds true for the performance of the song or piece of music (i.e. traveling musicians for hire). It wasn't until performances were recorded that song/music really become a material good that could be consumed.

Music has been so commercialized in today's society of mass media consumption to the extent that a "copyright" has become a sort of derivative of music - call it an "option" (like in Economics). You can set a price for the option (which the "music industry" has done) but the true market value (read: demand/popularity) of the underlying security (the song) remains dynamic based on audience/consumers desire for it. Performance relative to the competition must also be taken into account. In today's society, with the advent of the Internet and technology as a distribution channel, the brokers of said "options" (read: the big 5 and the RIAA) have been shown to be an unecessary step and overbearing force in the transaction of song and music from artist to listener. We're just challenging the inefficiences of the biased capitalism of this country - it's what "the people" are supposed to do. Look how online trading of equities effected the financial industry. Firms needed to find a way to incentivize the customer to continue paying them to manage his/her money - they needed to prove that the "middle-man" was still necessary. Now it's come down to expertise and performance.

If someone sings a song from memory, it's not a commodity but a concept. Now song/music is a form of intellectual property. Our current laws weren't conceived to accomodate for mass distribution of intellectual property. You can't choose to disseminate your idea broadly and expect to keep complete control over it, who uses it and what it becomes.

Song/music is not "a consumable good" but a form of art and communication. It's the commodification of music that is at the epicenter of the current situation.

If musicians and artists want to continue putting a price on the DISTRIBUTION of their music, they need to take control of the industry and find other methods and specifically pricing structures/business models.

The demand for song/music will always be there. Creating a system where profitability is possible is the challenge because the current system is flawed. Holes in the big 5/RIAA's business model will continue to be exploited until a threshold is reached when both artists and the listener/consumer/audience/fan agree on a "fair price" to charge for "owning" a song. If the commerical music industry doesn't find a solution to this problem, society will - it's inevitable. File sharing/p2p/the internet is just the catalyst to this end.

Jackonicko

12-07-2003, 06:51 AM

Demand for food will always be there. Does that make it right to steal it from those who work to produce it?

I'm a creative professional. Infringe my copyright and you are stealing my income. Full stop, end of story, and no amount of self justification will alter that basic fact.

geistwerks

12-07-2003, 05:44 PM

we have the ability to store every recorded work of music in a small format on some server(s). we have the ability to make this information available to anyone who pays a fee. it's time someone (some persons) stops screwing around and makes this happen.

no one has to steal music ever again, if somebody would just set up the servers. itunes music store? cute. a good vision of the future. if they would just add the "acid rain ep" by underground resistance we can all be friends and p2p will go away.

tw0k1ngs

12-08-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by geistwerks
we have the ability to store every recorded work of music in a small format on some server(s). we have the ability to make this information available to anyone who pays a fee. it's time someone (some persons) stops screwing around and makes this happen.

no one has to steal music ever again, if somebody would just set up the servers. itunes music store? cute. a good vision of the future. if they would just add the "acid rain ep" by underground resistance we can all be friends and p2p will go away.

This sounds kinda like Communism... (without the fee thing) Machiavelli had it right when he said all people were evil at heart. People will NEVER all be friends.

And second, I believe that stealing music is wrong, but I also believe that the overpricing of this music is wrong too. Don't you people realize that by stealing the music from the RIAA you are stooping to their level? What is worse, overpricing the music, or stealing it from them becuase they have no competition required to lower music prices? They are both WRONG, and like I said, this will always be evident because people are greedy. I bet that if you were the music artists and making all the money, then you would be a little bit more in favor of BUYING the music...

Sparky_92

05-02-2008, 09:42 PM

What does everyone think about the RIAA sueing 261 people? I mean i am a downloader who downloads of people and i can see why they are sueing people but i just want to know what everyone else thinks. Does anyone actuall pay for the songs online cause if this does get more serious i might consider paying for it and downloading online. What about everyone else what do you all think about this dilema and what you gona do about it?

Sorry to bump an old thread, but it's relevant again. The RIAA has recently increased lawsuits by 80% in the last couple of weeks.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/riaa-sends-spik.html

Here's my simplest take on music copyright infringement (which is NOT stealing): It's going to happen, it always will happen, and I don't want police nor corporations invading my privacy or clogging up courtrooms with copyright infringement cases. I don't see how this is going to hurt industry or society.

Just look at iTunes to see how to do it correctly.

mypugglewuggle

06-15-2008, 01:36 PM

I don't get how this is any different then walking into a CD store and taking CD's without paying. So what if people are "sharing" music. It's also stealing at the samet time.

VonKashmir

06-28-2008, 10:01 AM

Downloading songs is no different to photocopying my books! And believe me, I want to be paid by those who read them - even if some might say that it's the reader who deserves payment for wading through such turgid tripe.

In your caveman analogy, the musical genius was probably excused hunting and the other cave-fans came back and brought him a nice slice of mammoth in payment for the songs he sang and the drums he banged. But cavemen aside, the artist needs to make a living, and paying money for their music seems the best way.

So how does the artist get the money they're legitimately entitled to?

And how does the music industry get a return on its investment?

I'm not pretending that the RIAA is snow white (far from it) but there must be payment for artists and copyright owners.
Downloading music for free is not the same as photocopying your books
the only way you make money is off of selling books
music artists get paid to play at concerts
there will always be people who prefer CD's to downloading online
because of the album art/quality/concept
the CD's most people are stealing
are not from starving artists
their from the mainstream bands
who, believe me, do not need any more money
their fine
go to a record store
it's all the same stuff, nothing new
to help a new artist, you can buy their CD
or give a donation
that concept will never change
but artists make money off their music other ways
the internet HELPS those other artists
it makes our selection of what we listen to bigger
which means we listen to more artists
it's more publicity
at the price that some people may not pay for it
which you may not agree with
but ideals forced upon anyone is not freedom
I believe in freedom
and I believe that there will always be people who will appreciate an artist enough to make a donation
what there should be is a mega downloading site
with everything, at god quality and for free
and with an option to send a donation to the artist
DIRECTLY to the artist
if you want to
which cuts out the record companies
and still makes the artist money

Code Monkey

06-28-2008, 12:59 PM

In an age where your most passionate music consumers haven't voluntarily listened to radio, terrestrial or otherwise, in years, where exactly do they think sales of new artists are coming from? Music sharing is the new radio. Take music sharing out of the equation and the more than 125 albums I've purchased since 2004 would only have been about 20, 'nuff said.

The labels aren't soiling themselves because the music industry in the aggregate is losing sales. Even adjusted for inflation, population increases, etc., music sales are still much higher than they were prior to the inherently temporary boon they got when the first digital media, the compact disc, prompted two decades of no-effort extra sales of back catalogs. They're soiling themselves because they can't control what we consume any more. The modern music consumer is almost as likely to be exposed to some tiny band from a garage in Saskatchewan as they are to some label creation with millions of dollars in promotion behind them. With far, far more music to choose from than anybody could realistically ever afford to support, people are giving their money where they believe it's best deserved, and the labels hate that.

That's what the labels are suing for: the power to control what people are exposed to and, as a result, what people are spending their money on. They can't and won't win this power back at this point, it's far too late.

Anyone who equates increasing the amount of music heard out there where not one manufactured CD is removed from the sales pool; where not one dollar is taken from the bottom line of a music retailer; where an artist's fan pool is increased with no additional effort on the part of the artist or their labels, with all the subsequent increasing of the odds for future album, concert ticket, and merchandise sales; where promotion of good artists is viral and costs the artists and labels nothing, with theft is in sore need of an eye opening.

kornchild2002

06-28-2008, 06:08 PM

Artists don't make very much money from CD sales anyway. Code Monkey is right, the ones who are "hurting" here are the record companies as they profit the most from CD sales and they want to control what we listen to. Artists make more money from concerts and selling merchandise than they do their CD/DVD sales. So most artists could care less if you downloaded their album and heard it for free. More than likely, if you like what you heard, you will go see them live in concert. This is basically taking money away from the record companies and giving it more to the artists, they don't like this.

Some record companies are changing things. Back in 2005, Korn signed a deal with Virgin/EMI records for about $24 Million (that was split four ways). This was for a two album deal. The record company was in charge of all promotion and would take a smaller cut from album sales. However, the record company was in charge of all touring duties and they would take a bigger cut from merchandise and ticket sales. The Virgin/EMI deal was not a traditional arrangement and it gave more money to both parties.

Either way, I think it sucks that the RIAA is suing people who are downloading music. At least the judges have been lenient so far with the fines. I remember reading a case not too long ago where a 14 year old girl was charged with about $3000 in fines from the RIAA. She was taken to court and the judge reduced the fine to $100 or $200. I am sure there have been other people who are charged more but it just goes to show you that most judges find the whole thing to be out of hand.

I myself see downloading music as being completely different than walking in a CD store and taking an album off the shelf without paying. First off, downloading is a form if advertisement. As I previously said, most real artists don't care if you download their music for free as you will more than likely either purchase something of their in the future. Artists are getting a very small cut when it comes to CD sales so they couldn't care less. There was a time in the beginning when they didn't like people to download their music but I think that has all changed. Secondly, stealing a physical CD takes money and resources away from a retail store. Downloading doesn't do that. If one argues that downloading takes money away from the stores then one can also argue many other things. For example, I go into Hastings and see a CD on sale for $19.99 (that store is expensive) and yet I can walk over to Best Buy and see the same CD for $12.99. Am I taking money away from Hastings by going to Best Buy and buying the CD? Absolutely not. Hastings might be losing money due to their high prices but I am not taking anything away.

I myself haven't illegally downloaded anything for quite a bit of time. I normally like to support the artists and their material. I will listen to songs online on their myspace page and, if I like them, I might just purchase the couple of good songs from the iTunes Store or Amazon's mp3 service. That being said, I am all for free downloading as long as the artists are getting their music out. You can call me a thief, crook, delinquent, whatever. At least I am not a sheep wanting to blindly follow what the major record companies spoon feed me.

bdb

06-28-2008, 07:38 PM

The major label music industry has always targeted youth, mostly casual consumers who aren't really music lovers. Let's be honest, for the mainstream casual music consumer, the availability of free music has decreased their purchases, and they aren't making up for that by attending the high-priced concerts of all those artists (and they certainly aren't sending them money direct!).

The labels appear to be completely befuddled about how to address with this situation. Fines and lawsuits haven't slowed the pace of illegal downloading, and have only served to make the labels appear greedy and mean-spirited. I don't think they're just wanting control for control's sake - I think they just can't come up with any better answer.

I can't say I have an answer for them either. Analogies all fail one way or another, and only serve to divert attention from the basic fact of the music business today - among the major labels' chief customers, they are competing with a price point of zero.

The reality is, that is only one recent shift in the music business that has hurt the major labels. Discounted and used CDs are much more readily available, particularly online. Paid downloads completely broke their sales model of a CD with 2 - 3 good songs and a lot of filler. Indie labels & artists are getting more exposure via the Internet (and downloading), and are winning over the music lovers who gladly pay for their music. The major labels have run into a perfect storm, with no end in sight.

Personally I download a lot of music, and my music purchases are at least 10x of my non-downloading days. I do concede that this downloading is ethically akin to stealing f I keep listening to songs and never buy them, but I deal with labels that just want their music to be heard, and purchased by those who like it. If I don't like it, it ends up getting deleted to make space. I don't download RIAA label music, because clearly they consider controlling downloading more important than selling music. They are truly lost.

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/25/riaa.jpg
Cartoon from a Wired article about a recent judgement against the RIAA. (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/judge-orders-le.html)

Edit: one other thing - about artists not making money from CDs. This really isn't the case with smaller labels. Often contracts are such that once production costs are covered, they split profits about 50/50.

kylo4

06-28-2008, 11:33 PM

I don't get how this is any different then walking into a CD store and taking CD's without paying. So what if people are "sharing" music. It's also stealing at the samet time.

It is slightly different, because you're just getting the digital tracks. When you walk into a store and steal a CD you are also taking the jewel case, the booklet, the disc, all of these things cost manufacturing money, unlike the digital tracks by themselves.

bdb

06-29-2008, 01:35 AM

It is slightly different, because you're just getting the digital tracks. When you walk into a store and steal a CD you are also taking the jewel case, the booklet, the disc, all of these things cost manufacturing money, unlike the digital tracks by themselves.By that logic, iTunes tracks should be worth basically nothing...and iTunes is "stealing" when they take money out of your account. ;)

kylo4

06-29-2008, 02:18 AM

By that logic, iTunes tracks should be worth basically nothing...and iTunes is "stealing" when they take money out of your account. ;)

I didn't mean it that way, what I mean is it would cost more so it's not a fair comparison. Sadly, the musicians only make 10 cents a song off an iTunes sale. They should be making more. If you really want to support a musician, you should see them in concert.

kornchild2002

06-29-2008, 04:45 AM

I didn't mean it that way, what I mean is it would cost more so it's not a fair comparison. Sadly, the musicians only make 10 cents a song off an iTunes sale. They should be making more. If you really want to support a musician, you should see them in concert.

The money that musicians make per song from iTunes is actually more than what the record companies give them for album sales. That is why many artists are behind using only the iTunes Store to distribute their material. When an artist sells a physical CD; money will first go to the record company, advertising company, producer (unless the album was produced by the band), engineer, mixer, instrument technicians, the song writer if they aren't a member of the band (pop "artists" often have their songs written for them by other people), the band's manager, and then finally the band. Too many people have their hands in the cookie jar and the artists are normally the last on the list to be paid when it comes to album sales.

With digital distribution, the artists actually get more. I also know that many big artists are looking at what Trent Reznor did with the last couple of Nine Inch Nails releases as he received all of the money from the digital sales of Ghosts I-IV and then divided it up accordingly to who worked on the double album. So he was in charge of all the financial situations, normally the record companies are the ones in charge of dividing the money up to everyone and they always give the biggest cut to themselves. It takes one single artist 10+ years and millions of album sales before they rack up $1M in the bank yet record company heads easily have $20M here, $10M there, etc. Take former Korn guitarist Brian Head Welch as an example. He was a founding member of Korn and they released their first CD back in the fall of 1994. They toured relentlessly and sold about 30 million albums world wide while he was in the band (he left in 2005). When he left, he had about $1.7M in the bank. That is a lot of money but not when you think about the amount of albums that they have sold, all the years of touring, and the amount of publicity that they once had. The other members' wallets are sure fat now after their deal with Virgin/EMI but still, $1.7M isn't a whole lot yet you know that Sony Records/Epic received a very large amount of money from Korn's career with them.

The problem here isn't really illegal downloading but rather the way the record industry is and how big companies are trying to dominate and force feed the public the flavor of the month. People don't want to spend $12.99 for a CD that has 2 or 3 good tracks with a bunch of other crap songs. There are many people that will then go online and spend the $3 to legally download the songs from the iTunes Store. That being said, there are also more knowledgeable people who will go online to download the entire album for free. Not only that but many artists are releasing special edition packages that go for $14.99 or even $40 or higher. Linkin Park are a prime example of this as they released the normal edition of their album for $9.99, the deluxe edition for $15.99, and then they had a fan package for $80 (I think it was that high, it might have been even higher). It wasn't autographed or anything, it just came with a coffee table art book of them recording the album. People just don't want to pay these high prices for albums that they may not like. Most of the artists are missing out on a very small amount of money when it comes to illegal downloading but the people feeling the big squeeze are the record companies.

The problem is that they don't want to change the way they do business so they will hunt down the fans and cap them with ridiculous fines. I think Trent Reznor has the right idea as he said that pretty much all record companies are bad. Nine Inch Nails have been with Interscope Records (I think they are owned by Universal Records) for the longest time and he said that Year Zero is absolutely the last album that he will ever release with a record company. Instead he decided to distribute everything himself. Now, he may contract a record company to distribute the material but they won't be the ones in charge of handling the music.

Either way I think it sucks that one can "illegally" download anything these days. I remember a day when you could literally download anything and it would never be labeled as illegal. That was in the Napster days and before. The internet was viewed as an open format in which media could not be regulated. I guess the RIAA and Big Brother have different plans in mind. God forbid that little Stacy download the latest Mariah Carey song for free rather than spending $15 to purchase the album just for that one song.

bdb

06-29-2008, 05:45 PM

I read a great summation of the situation recently, something of the line of: for the typical RIAA album with only two good songs, the difference between iTunes and illegal downloading is that they lose 'only' 80% of their revenue rather than all of it. Even if the could somehow manage to kill off the download industry, they'll never get back to the days when two songs could sell an album.

misper666

07-20-2008, 01:29 PM

these are some of the people who go round bars & malls & other public places demanding money from radio airplay. they're like the mafia. it should be pointed out (again) that the actual artists only get a tiny percentage of this revenue (& indeed other revenue from sales also)

imo the RIAA & similar organisations are acting mostly for themselves, harassing ordinary people & in doing so actually harming the artists work by stifling much of the publicity & intimidating people mostly for their own financial gain, (& secondarily for the artist who gets a tiny cut)

this is mafia behaviour

#####. no wonder so many artists put out stuff for free. (which ofcourse, these ##### will still collect money with menaces for).

we have a world where there's too many parasite organisations feeding off others, time to cut out the middle man

Germansuplex

07-23-2008, 11:53 PM