On 'music piracy' and illegal internet downloading

[dammit905]

I have to admit that in theory I agree with the anti-piracy people. It is just like theft. But the reality of the situation is very different from the situation on paper. In reality, many people download music on the internet because they're sick of being told what kind of music to listen to. Clear Channel, Viacom and a handful of other similar companies decide what music the public can hear. Certainly you could buy a band's CD online, or even order it through a record store, but who wants to buy a CD based on a description and without sampling the music to decide if you like it or not? People who enjoy mainstream music can simply flip on the radio and hear the latest dance, rap, nu-metal or country-pop hits, then spend their money on entire CDs if they like certain hit songs. But if you're into underground music like myself, opportunities to sample new music are very limited. You can see a live show if a particular band you're interested in is in town, you can listen to a friend's CD if they happen to have it... other than that, what? You download a song or two to see if you like it. That's why we need internet music piracy, for now. Because the few corporations already have too tight a stranglehold on art, and some of us don't want to watch independent music die.

[arcos]

1. exactly! n/t

[jeff30997]

2. I couldn't agree more!

:headbang:

[Curious Dave]

3. Sticking it to the man

has always been in its own special class of thievery. If you're ripping off someone or something that has been ripping off people for years are you really doing a bad thing?

[redstateblues]

71. Sticking It To Us Songwriters

While there might be a handful of songwriters that are getting rich, I can assure you that most songwriters are struggling to make a living. It's a complicated issue, but the fact of the matter is that illegal downloading has taken a devastating toll on the creative community. I am not some big corporation, and while I am not a fan of the big record companies, there are laws that make them pay us when they use our songs.

[Beloved Citizen]

83. Apologists for piracy are clueless

I work in the music business. At the beginning of this year I worked in an office in Los Angeles with 34 people. Since then 30 have been laid off, leaving just 4 including myself.

Thousands have lost their jobs in my industry because people steal our products. Lame excuses like "people are telling us what to listen to" make me want to throw up.

[Baltimoreboy]

85. They don't want to hear you

It is easier on their consciences if they believe this "free information" bullshit that harms no one.

[Beloved Citizen]

87. No, they just live in their own little world

...of easy rationalizations and responsibility avoidance.

Maybe its the national atmosphere set by the president.

[AntiCoup2K4]

95. Is that because of downloading or is it because....

...the industry has put out nothing but CRAP for years. How pathetic is the music scene when people who actually write songs and play instruments can't get a minute airtime, but every boyband, Mickey Mouse club reject Republican cheerleader, and Vanilla Ice retread (that would be Marshall Mathers) gets promoted to infinity and has the typical 6 month shelflife of a bubblegum pop star artificially extended - because the labels have nothing to replace them with. And then they sell even that weak product at a 500% markup.

Sorry, but the industry (like every other industry that's in the hands of just a few mega corporations) has nobody to blame but itself.

[Beloved Citizen]

102. Sure, pop.

The music these kids listen to today is all crap.

[MsUnderstood]

4. Wow--I almost bought it . . .

" but who wants to buy a CD based on a description and without sampling the music to decide if you like it or not? "

You can go to sites like Tower.com or walmart.com or download programs like itunes, napster which allow you to sample the music.

"But if you're into underground music like myself, opportunities to sample new music are very limited. You can see a live show if a particular band you're interested in is in town, you can listen to a friend's CD if they happen to have it... other than that, what? "

The mainstream music groups are the ones NOT hurt by internet piracy. YOU are hurting the bands you claim to love, who rely on the sale of CDs to get by because they aren't pumped up by radio, television, etc.

"Because the few corporations already have too tight a stranglehold on art, and some of us don't want to watch independent music die."

Because you download the independent songs for free, you are killing the artform you profess to love.

Fortunately, those same underground groups are adapting and providing samples of their music for free so you can hear them and make a choice while the big companies are slow to learn the lesson.

[coloradodem2005]

7. Downloading for me has made me buy albums that I would not otherwise buy.

I found songs on Napster that you just don't hear on the radio very much.

[Systematic Chaos]

5. Some of us simply can't AFFORD to buy music regularly.

If a person likes a band that gets absolutely NO radio airplay, and they have no way to borrow the music from a friend or even the library, does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to hear that music? Then, there's the issue of music that's out of print. P2P sites usually have at least some active users who have copies of music that just CAN'T be bought in a new record store. If that material is also unavailable on Ebay, does that mean that only the owners of existing legitimate copies of those albums should be able to hear them? I guess the list of arguments in favor of downloading is pretty long, and many of those arguments are quite valid.

[Baltimoreboy]

9. I can't afford to buy new clothes

Does that mean I can roll into Hecht's and take what I want?

You have no right to the music you don't buy or can't afford. If you want to lobby the government to fund libraries more so they can buy CDs and DVDs, go right ahead.

In the meantime, you are a crook. Or you are siding with crooks.

Musicians, writers, artists, etc. need to be paid for their work. You treat them like they work for you as slaves.

[jeff30997]

15. If you can't afford to buy new clothes...

Then go to the Salvation Army,they're going to give you some.Oh!Wait!Don't! If you do that,you're going to destroy the clothing industry!

[Baltimoreboy]

18. Then start a music charity

I think you can donate CDs to libraries as well.

But don't resort to theft.

[Systematic Chaos]

19. Thank you, Jeff....

I was never trying to compare a form of entertainment to a necessity in the first place.

And yes, I suppose I am siding with crooks to some extent, but you know what? I'll still sleep okay tonight.

[kiahzero]

34. No, because copyright infringement isn't theft. (n/t)

[NashVegas]

48. You Can Always Try Them On

The 30 seconds you get from iTunes is the equivalent to deciding, while something's still on the rack, whether you want to buy or not.

Hearing a full song (or several) is much more equivalent to trying out the fit in a dressing room with full mirrors.

Musicians, writers, artists, etc. need to be paid for their work.

Unfortunately, not all musicians produce good work. The majority produce mediocre, formulaic work, at best.

Record labels decide their promotional budgets based on a guess as to whether or not an artist and their work meets the right formula. If they fear a particular album won't meet that formula, they won't budget for its promotion.

If a label finds an artist "difficult," and plans on dropping them from their roster, they will ask radio stations to stop playing a record. If the label stupidheadedly wants to work an album to college radio first (cause they think it gives an artist more credibility) they will ask commercial stations to hold off on playing it. And if said album doesn't do anything at college radio after this, and/or doesn't build the sales from it they were hoping for, they'll reduce any future budget for commercial radio promotion.

You've heard of Radiohead, haven't you? They're the band that twice drove sales of their own record and created excitement by releasing mp3s of albums they hadn't yet released. Didn't hurt their sales in the least.

The average working musician who is confident in their ability to make good music, that people will buy, understands that file sharing is GOOD for them.

The people who are most threatened by file sharing are the people at the record labels who set promotional budgets, and their stockholders. Not musicians. At least, not good ones.

[Baltimoreboy]

53. You have no "right" to try on music

Many stores allow you to sample their wares. Not all do so.

Just because you might not like a musician's work, it doesn't mean they don't deserve to be paid when people listen to it.

For every anecdotal example of online music success there are many more of failure. Radiohead made the CHOICE to distribute their music that way. It's called free will. If they choose not to do so, you don't have the right to overrule them.

Any musician who wishes to participate in P2P has that option, contracts permitting.

No one is making musicians sign with music labels.

[Mr. Blonde]

6. I find it interesting

that those who download illegally are also twice as likely to buy a cd as those who don't.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Libraries are piracy

This whole deal of "legal entrepreneurship" is nuts. Want to enact a special law for yourself? If you have the money to flood the "marketplace of ideas" with your phony law, soon it will be enacted into real law.

SCOTUS ruled on video rentals being lagal back in 1986, IIRC. Chances are good that Valenti & Co. are going to want that decision revisited after enough case law against music downloaders has accumulated. Once again, money will buy law.

Not justice ... law.

--bkl

[pitt71]

10. Really good

rationalizing! "I don't want independent music to die, so I'll just steal their music. Just in case their music's no good, ya know!"

[Yavin4]

11. Music Sharing Has Always Been Around

People taped concerts, songs off of the radio, swapped CDs, created mixed tapes, loaned each other albums, etc. Sharing music off of the internet is no different, and it's not the reason why music sales are down.

You want to know why music sales are down? Look at the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, The Who, and The Grateful Dead, music legends that had 30-40 year runs. Now, look at the bands that got started in the past two or three years and give me the name of one of them that can have that type of run.

[KharmaTrain]

12. So Much Grey Here

As one whose had his works "stolen" by a Clear Channel...I find it ironic that they should complain when something similar is done to them. Actually with P2P music downloading, they have little invested here...they make their billions with playing the music and staging the concerts, not the making of the sausage.

Having 30 years of dealing with recording artists, record company types and so on...I see who gets hurt with this and whose crying wolf. Remember, when you purchase a CD legally, you have purchased the right to copy it and use it in whatever manner you see fit. This is known as "fair use". The legal battle has been how far that "fair use" goes. Does it prevent you from making a copy of your own CD on another CD for your own use? No. For your brother or best friend? No. How about your 2,000 closest friends? Now that's where things get fuzzy. Since there's no money exchanged on P2P the battle has and always will be over the issue of "fair use" and how far that extends. I personally side with the uploaders/downloaders that these are individual exchanges and not an attempt at defauding large corporations. They're not losing money as at least one of those copies had to have had the royalties paid, but the possible "lost revenues" if everyone who got a copy of that song had gone out and bought it.

That assumes a few things. First, that the music is available. P2P brought out a lot of music the record companies had long since taken out of print and rekindled interest. For example, I just picked up a copy of Ray Charles Greatest Hits (the only CD I could find in the area)...so I could enjoy the liner notes and other goodies I couldn't download. Yet, it was missing a lot of his real early stuff...what made Ray Charles so great. Thanks to 2P2, I got a bunch of his early 50's recordings...I'm sure Ray wouldn't mind.

Hell, a lot of us would "rent" an album from the library and tape it...or those who worked at radio stations walked out with free copies or had access to record all the music we wanted. This is just about the greedy wanting to be greedier. It hasn't washed in court and even if there's a win here or there, the internet and technology will find another way.

Art has so little to do with this battle...fortunately, the internet has been a boon to Independent artists and now gives them a way to bypass the large corporations. That's something I keep a very close eye and and always extremely supportive of.

Cheers!

[Baltimoreboy]

13. Your attitude would end the music business

The movie business. The book business and a bunch of others.

One person would buy it and share it for free with the world. Here's you CD, that will be $1.2 million.

[KharmaTrain]

14. True If It Were A Real Reproduction...

A downloaded copy of a movie or song is not the equivelent of buying it from a Best Buys. You don't get the liner notes, the song order or other relevant information that is as integral in the work as the name or the song.

Now you're assuming that a lot of people have been and are downloading and what they're doing with it. I've seen studies that say that most of the downloaded music is of inferior quality, are incomplete files or are erased or lost on computers rather than burned on CDs and played. It's a zero gain situation.

Also, even with a broadband connection, downloading a DVX movie still takes several hours and isn't that easy to file share (compared to an individual song).

Last point...writers always put their materials to "share"...just look around here. There's not a major newspaper or columnist whose writings you can't find and "download" (cut & paste)...doesn't seem to stop people from buying newspapers, does it?

The problem with the record companies is they wanted to keep milking the golden calf of control of distribution of popular culture and they can't. So do we cry over money someone could have made? I could have made millions today, too. I shed little tears for a recording industry that abused its customers for so long and were too lazy to respond to the change in their own marketplace. You snooze, you lose.

[Baltimoreboy]

16. We have some disagreement

No, downloads aren't as good. But I know people who have thousands and seldom if ever buy music now. And the liner notes and other stuff is on the web if you want it.

Many downloads are bad, but it's NOT a zero gain situation. Billions of dollars are being lost.

Yes, movies are still slow, but again I know people who download TV on a regular basis.

No, writers do not always put their materials on share. They tend to get paid first, THEN they share. And such sharing is seriously harming the newspaper business. That's why many papers have mandatory registration on their sites. Over time, that will become paid in many cases.

The record companies and artists believe that if you spend six months writing and perfecting a song, you should get paid for it.

If you take it otherwise, you are a thief.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Agree To Disagree...

I still contend that the effort in constructing an identical copy of an album...ALL the music, liner notes is not the same as an individual song...just as much as getting an excerpt is not the same as reading the entire book. Thus the copyright infringement against fair use is already on very shaky ground...and has been in court cases.

Next, the artists for most of these recording companies ARE paid for their work in advance...and in many cases don't start making the "big money" until X number of units are sold. There are still some bands that are stuck in multi-album deals that pay them a flat rate...forcing them into that arrangement just to get the distribution and access. I could tell you a ton of stories of bands who got screwed on contracts; either being stuck in bad deals or having their material taken and given to others. Again, no tears for the record industry here.

Now how does sampling one's product hurt business? As Baltimoreboy put...and I think the mindset of a majority who download...is they're curious about the music and will buy an album based on what they hear on a download. Again, where's the lost money there?

At one station I was at, the record rep would come in and encourage us to make copies of an album of a new band and spread it around. In fact, he left ample copies of the album around...this was 1980 and the album was "Boy" from this unheard of Irish band. You might have heard of them. Now how badly did that hurt Bono?

A thief is one who wantonly steals...or targets an individual. Those who P2P download aren't doing either. I think the one whose been stealing for all these years have been the record companies that have charged people like me 4 times for a copy of virtually all my Beatle albums (the CD versions were at least 4 times what I paid for the vinyl). Now after that kind of investement, don't I have the right to decide if I share this, in fair use, and not for my financial gain, with whomever I want?

I'd suggest you look further into this issue...you've only heard one side of this issue (the company line). Art & Commerce are enhanced when there is free flow, and free exchange of information and ideas.

[Baltimoreboy]

21. It still has value

Remember all of those sales of singles? CDs? 45s? (If you are old enough.)

If I have a whole collection of art in my home and you break in and steal a Picaso so you can look at it, it's still theft. Even if you leave the rest for me.

The artists are paid for their work in advance based on expected sales. And many also get a percentage of units sold. If they don't sell or the company makes no money, there will be no future albums.

Bands don't "get screwed." They sign contracts. If they don't like the contracts, they shouldn't sign them.

Sampling a product that is not then easily reproduced might not hurt business. With electronic files, I can rip a song or an e-book or whatever and send it to 20 million people via P2P. There is no guarantee they will buy anything.

My CD collection has several choices from bands that had one good song. I would have purchased only that if I had the option.

As you explained, your example might has well been from 1880 for all that it relates to modern technology. Electronic copies spread across the Internet are nothing like that. Your comparison is ridiculous.

No, a thief is not "one who wantonly steals...or targets an individual." A thief takes that which does not belong to him or her. You don't have to do so wantonly.

You have a right to make PERSONAL use copies of your Beatle albums. You can't share them with the entire nation of China.

I hear the industry is suing about 500 more people. Perhaps if they bankrupt a few thousand P2P people, then others will understand.

If you destroy the economic reasons for producing art and commerce, you destroy them both. That's why we have jails.

[KharmaTrain]

22. What Determines Value?

I just went through a ton of old vinyl. A lot were 45s and LPs that I spent my hard-earned allowance on ages ago. All I've replaced on CDs. The only albums of value I kept were with unique covers or other anomolies (eg. Cheech & Chong with the rolling paper). I looked to see what the value of these hundreds of dollars of music was. The answer: nil. The day that album was pressed onto CD, the vinyl was worthless. So what investment, other than sentimental is there?

I don't encourage or condone those who download...but I do understand their reasons for doing so, and support their right on a Peer To Peer...and that's the key...one on one basis.

File sharing isn't as if you put something out on the net and it finds it way into millions of computers, people have to take the effort to create the files and then search it out. Yes, dedicated downloaders have accumulated thousands of songs, but those are the exception, not the rule. Again, under the terms of fair use, a person who buys the product and the licenses therein for private use, should be free to share it privately with others. Again, if there was a profit motive involved here...yes, then I would say it's theivery as it was part of a criminal enterprise. The theivery you describe is a moral one rather than a legal one. Is it wrong? To you it is.

Actually if I had the ability, under free use...I could make a copy of an album for each person in China, and do so legally...as long as it was one-to-one...and I wasn't charging to do so. But then China is not a good example to use when coming to copyright laws or enforcement.

Now how has P2P downloading destroyed the recording industry? That part I don't see nor have. I've seen an industry get fat on throwing out whatever they feel they can market for the most money and ride the living daylights out of it. I still see a large syndicate involving radio, recording, concert venues and television that constrict what is seen and heard or who has access to it. Now you telling me what's destroying art and commerce...freely distributing it or hording it for a few more pieces of gold?

Based on your definitions, we should have to pay when viewing any painting, pick up any book or make a copy on a xerox machine (the place where fair use came about in the first place).

Oh, and about those suits. Some were for teenagers that didn't quite look good when the kids were trotted out on national TV and the suits were quietly settled or dropped...no one was bankrupted...and the cases never went to court. There's several lawyers I know who are hoping a real suit happens...they have one hell of a class action waiting to drop on the large record companies should they lose.

The record companies use 2P2 as a reason to screw both the consumer and the artist...a perfect foil, and they thank you for buying into it.

[Baltimoreboy]

23. It's not truly one to one, it's a network

And a highly evolved, electronic one that steals from the creators of copyrightable material.

Some albums have good value and many of us still have record players. So your collection still retains value. A lot depends on quality and that relates entirely on how you maintained it. (Unless you have a copy of the album "Dangerous Dreams" by the Nails. I never found an LP that was pressed correctly.)

The problem with P2P is that it is using a technicality to try and circumvent copyright law. So far, they are losing in the courts.

The thievery I describe is theft. Not moral theft. Legal theft. That is what should be happening. The owners of these sites shouldn't just be sued. The P2P criminals should be prosecuted.

China is a perfect example for copyright laws, because they violate them. We need to protect intellectual property at home and abroad.

P2P downloading is still relatively new. Even then, music sales are in the decline and, anecdotally, I don't know anyone who has bought an album in months.

It sounds like you crave an Internet or radio solution to this problem. I urge you to push forward and then remember you need to pay for it and if you are creating songs or delivering content, someone could easily steal it.

Some musuems charge admission, and that is the same as charging a per painting view fee. Book stores obviously charge for their products. It's how our system works.

Personally, I hate having lawyers involved in this. But there are too many "information wants to be free" morons out there for any other result. I do think getting proscutors involved is simpler.

[KharmaTrain]

91. We Agree On The Major Points...

I think our debate here is on what constitutes a theft. The legal battle surrounds who owns that music being shared. That hasn't been decided in a courtroom and I doubt we'll ever see that go to trial since a result one way or the other that is backed by a court ruling would hurt the Record Companies as much as the downloaders as it would codify a way of doing business that these companies won't necessarily want to follow either...so best left vague and dealt with on a case by case basis.

Just like you, I have a serious problem with people who take music and copy and sell it or attempt to (go to Ebay and you'll see music being sold right and left and the record companies don't get a dime of those sales) for a profit....benefiting from the works of others for their own personal gain. Yes, I have a real problem with that and I consider that, as would the law, as theft of services/property. There you can trace "consideration"...where you can't on a file share.

Comparing a vinyl library to a CD one to a downloaded one is an apples & oranges discussion since each has its own value. I assure you the day Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD, my vinyl copy was and still is totally worthless...the $4.99 or whatever I paid in 1974 (and that was top dollar) is worth zero today. Was I compensated for this loss though a discount for a CD copy? Of course not. I got screwed, as did millions of others who had their vinyl libraries made obsolete virtually overnight when the switch to CDs came in. Again, no sympathies here for the past actions of the recording industry and part of the reason why I see a lot of resentment (and I'll admit to my own) towards this entity in this dispute.

Now, to blame downloading as the major cause for the recording industries problems is like blaming the xerox machine for why we don't have great artists. The problem isn't people downloading the new Matchbox 20 or Outkast or whatever...it's spending $20 or more dollars on an album where there might be one or two good tunes. Gone are the days when you could buy an album and expect at least half the material to be interesting. I won't get into the the industry spiting their face for profits, but that's what happened...they were more interested in making billions from the Britanny Spears crap than investing $25 or 50,000 for a new band or providing distribution networks for independent labels...in fact they fought that real hard...consolidating their control on the industry and restraining the creation and distribution of music. Try finding a back catalogue or lesser-known band at a local "record store" (tranlation: Walmart/Best Buys)...good luck.

Things have been changing in the past 2 years...and I expect there will be an accomodation in the near future to address the downloading and streaming issues once and for all. Yes, P2P is new, but not that new now. Napster started appearing in '98...6 years ago...and plenty of time now to assess what damage has been created by them or Kazaa or Morpheus or whatever the hot program of the month was/is.

Internet radio streaming is a whole other issue as there the record companies and their big broadcast brothers almost succeeded in destroying that medium until the record companies realized that prohibitive royalty payments they wanted to charge the dude in Orlando spinning the All Grateful dead format from his computer for $2Gs a year, could mean $200Gs for one of their Clear Channel friends. So some sanity prevailed there.

I see the record companies attempting to get into the game with I-Pod, Rhapsody and other services...but I still contend it's not the same quality/value as one gets when you purchase the physical CD. Yet, if you download a song, you're paying the same price as you would (actually more if you pro-rate the song vs. the cost of the CD) for something that's not of the same quality.

There are a lot of alternatives available. I've felt the computer is a great medium for radio and music. It's a limitless pipeline that, yes, will be abused, but over time it will work in a capitalistic fashion...either it will find a way to make money and survive or die. I'd prefer that to be due to the open market, not domination and control by large corporations who use their money and legislative weight to destroy competition and manipulate markets.

If you had an idea of how much money I've invested in music over the years, you'd be careful on suggesting I haven't or don't pay for them. In fact, there's very little music I have or am interested in downloading. I've been more an interested bystander in this debate, knowing people who do have financial interests involved here. You speak virtually one side of the street...I'm playing Devil's advocate.

One major reason I caution those who download isn't as much the legal issue as what viruses, trojan horses and other goodies that could be included in that file. Recently, my brother-in-law had to replace his puter...it locked up and wouldn't start. The problem? Virused MP3 file that wiped out his hard drive.

Now, let's do a real-life situation...if you care. I have copied several of my favorite albums onto MP3...and through my network my daughter can access and copy that file on her machine. Is that thievery? Or if someone who loves The First Cut Is The Deepest and would like to hear the Cat Stevens original (which isn't available)...is it wrong to send that person the file so they can enjoy the song? Cat Stevens...the writer, doesn't lose a dime on that one as there was no way this person could purchase the music...and if it helped him in his decission to buy the Sheryl Crowe album, then I'd say that's a move in the record companies' direction.

Last thing...(whew)...as a Music Director in a past life, I battled a record company that wanted to charge our non-commercial college station for record service. Their justification almost parrots a lot of the file sharing arguments. They felt that sending these free copies to a college station opened up the door to making bootlegs and so on. I challenged them at the time...along with several other stations...and we did our own little survey to back up our argument. We were able to show two things...first, play of their album on our station always saw at least one purchase if not more of that album within the next 4 days at a nearby record outlet. We're not talking Top 10, but new releases, jazz and imports (in the days when you could buy those at a local store)....we figured the local sale not only recouped the pressing and mailing costs for the company but also gave them a 40% profit too boot.

Second, we found that many of worked at the station would buy the albums we were playing. Sure, they could go and record the album, but it wasn't that easy. You'd have to get into a studio that had a tape machine and then hope no one noticed the album missing from the studio. If we were recording stuff, it wasn't new albums, it was older material. Just like file sharing. It was far easier just to go out and buy the album...and the more one could sample and hear, the likelihood they'd go and make a purchase.

What is needed is not prosecution and litigation...but accomodation. Record companies are starting to come around, but there's still the control freak factor and a lot of bad feelings and distrust going on. P2P and other forms of technology won't vanish through legislation and the nebulous nature of the internet will make it impossible to shut down a P2P host as they take advantage of the same off shore laws the Record companies do. It's a problem that time and the marketplace WILL decide.

Cheers!

[NashVegas]

51. Your Analogies Are Flawed

If I have a whole collection of art in my home and you break in and steal a Picaso so you can look at it, it's still theft. Even if you leave the rest for me.

Again, this is not a case of stealing the Picasso. This is more like you taking a photo of the Picasso and having it printed up and selling it to people. How much of the profits from this go to Picasso's estate depends on what kind of contract you have with the artist.

Someone takes it a step further and photographs the photo and gives it away freely. This is potentially taking away from your ability to sell the higher quality prints.

Some of the people who are given copies of the lower-quality prints will go searching for the better quality ones, if they enjoy the subject matter enough to spend money on it. Some of these people may otherwise not have been previously exposed to the artist's work. This will further enrich both you and Picasso if you have a fair contract. If you don't, Picasso doesn't make squat and he'd be better off distributing his own copies.

Now, let's say you have Vincent Van Gogh out on the street, and no buyers will touch his originals. So Vincent takes his own photo of it and freely distributes that, or someone else does. Those copies spread around and come to the attention of people who otherwise woudn't have been exposed and who would want to buy a decent quality copy of it. Vincent makes all the money, and you, who didn't think his work was promotable, don't make a dime.

The artists are paid for their work in advance based on expected sales. And many also get a percentage of units sold. If they don't sell or the company makes no money, there will be no future albums.

Before an album can be sold, people have to be made aware it exists. If the record label, for any reason, doesn't allocate money to promoting awareness of an album, who knows it exists?

My CD collection has several choices from bands that had one good song. I would have purchased only that if I had the option.

That's your own fault, for not having better antennae. Just because you spent $15 on filler when buying a single would have done the trick .... (that is, assuming you actually bought these crappy albums and didn't receive promotional copies).

I hear the industry is suing about 500 more people. Perhaps if they bankrupt a few thousand P2P people, then others will understand.

I wish they'd come after me, I've already got a mental list of program directors and marketing executives I'd call to the stand in my defense; alas, I'm really not enough of an mp3 user to draw attention.

If you destroy the economic reasons for producing art and commerce, you destroy them both.

Real art will always find an audience that's willing to engage in commerce with the artist. If the main economic reasons for distribution of art are to support the middlemen - labels, stockholders, etc. - than the industry should rightly be smashed.

You will never destroy genuine artistic expression, although the record companies are doing their damndest.

[Baltimoreboy]

57. "Your Analogies Are Flawed"

This is far more than taking a photo of the Picasso and having it printed up and selling it to people. This original can be identical to the original in all ways.

How you can not see that is stealing is beyond me.

Albums can and have been sold by word of mouth. Typically companies spend money promoting them. They CHOOSE (please pay attention to that word) to do it however they wish, sometimes including distribution of a free track. They are not obligated to give away their product.

I did indeed buy some crappy albums. Sometimes I liked the song so much that I took the shot. That was my choice.

Oh, so you are only talking about "real art." Care to define that elitist term?

[NashVegas]

63. Wrong

This is far more than taking a photo of the Picasso and having it printed up and selling it to people. This original can be identical to the original in all ways.

No it's not. You still have the master recording (original Picasso). It's still there on your wall.

They are not obligated to give away their product.

No they are not. However, they DO give away their product to radio stations, in hopes for airplay and further back it with promotional dollars. They DO know that if they withhold promotional dollars from certain projects, the music will not get played.

They DO give away their product at showcases and live shows (occasionally). Filesharing exists as proof that labels often make bad choices. DMCA is a welfare act, engages in propping up those choices.

Care to define that elitist term?

I am referring to genuine human expression. Although that is a subject term and no two maps are the same, you, yourself admitted to buying crappy albums, therefor you acknowledge crap exists.

[Baltimoreboy]

65. Wrong

You can have the master recording all you want. But if an acceptable version of the song is spreading around the Internet for free, that is worthless.

They allow you to SAMPLE their product on radio. They do not give it away.

While there are some showcases and free shows, those are rare.

Filesharing is only proof that technology is moving faster than some industries can cope.

I acknowledge that I viewed those albums as crappy. I would place nearly all rap music in that category, despite its popularity. "Crap" is a subjective term only.

[NashVegas]

72. Wrong Again

They allow you to SAMPLE their product on radio. They do not give it away.


Record companies give radio free promotional copies: for DJs because they know if a jock likes an album, they'll say so on the air and influence a purchase; for giveaways both on air and at events, because, again, it creates artist awareness.

If I worked in radio and had the leave to do so (programming choice), I could not only play an entire album on air with impunity, but also make the label reps cream in their pants for doing so. And if someone has recording capabilities with their radio, that too is legal.

If I ran a website for a radio station, and put up mp3s of live performances an artist did on our airwaves, I would make the major (emphasis on major) label reps *secretly* cream in their pants while they say a prayer no one from their legal department finds out. Indie label reps would be more likely to send me a copy of their artists' albums and a letter of thanks.


Oh and PS - try telling an artist who's dying to retake control over distribution, remixer or a masterer (you know, the people who clean up old recordings for reissues) master recordings are worthless.

[Baltimoreboy]

75. Wrong, again

Giving a few sample CDs to DJs is not the same as giving it to millions of prospective buyers.

Yes, recording for YOUR OWN USE is legal. Sharing it with the world is not.

I never said master recordings are worthless, but they lose worth if copies of the songs are spread worldwide for free.

[NashVegas]

80. Ummm ...

Giving a few sample CDs to DJs is not the same as giving it to millions of prospective buyers.

Playing it on the air in a market of 1 million + listeners is much more comparable to internet distribution than the 5-100 hard copies given per station. For giveaways, everytime the album is even mentioned (usually 3 per giveaway) is money in the bank for the record label.

Master recordings will never lose their value to the people who need to work with the tracks. Just as an original painting is the only one usuable to a restorer.

People who understand how the industry works and what drives people to buy recordings know that the only ones who are undermined by file sharing are marketing and A & R vice presidents who make horrendous choices, and the stockholders looking to get money off of those choices.

[Baltimoreboy]

84. Not comparable

There is again a huge difference between an audio format and an MP3 recording, already made.

I know this might surprise you, but stockholders are owners. They have a right to get money off of their investments. You do not.

[NashVegas]

88. Does The Stockholder Have More Rights Than the Artist?

Does a stockholders' need (and it is a need, not a right, unless you wish to equate stock ownership with welfare for the wealthy) to have their investment risk propped up supersede the need of the artist to have their work exposed, which in turn raises their ability to get money off of their investment of time and physical and mental exertion?

[Baltimoreboy]

92. Depends on who owns what

And that goes back to each individual contract. If you sell all or most of your rights to me, then it is my decision, not yours.

[NashVegas]

94. Thank You

"Musicians, writers, artists, etc. need to be paid for their work. You treat them like they work for you as slaves."

Nothing like your own words biting you in the ass, is there?

[Baltimoreboy]

96. Nothing biting

Musicians who own their work get protected. If a musician sells his work to me, then I need to be protected. If we both own it, we both deserve protection.

[kiahzero]

38. What about the studies

which correlate downloading with increased purchasing?

With a small amount of searching, I found reference to this particular one:
http://slashdot.org/features/00/12/28/1653257.shtml

Oh, and to reiterate - It's not theft. Stealing a CD is theft. Downloading the music online without a license is copyright infringement.

[Baltimoreboy]

42. I can find a study that says anything

I know some serious downloaders and some amateurs. Not one of them has ever bought a CD as a result.

And being part of a conspiracy to commit copyright theft is criminal.

[kiahzero]

134. Do you have something against the English language?

And being part of a conspiracy to commit copyright theft is criminal.

So you are alleging that the creators of P2P software are somehow conspiring to transfer the copyright from the proper owner to themselves? Because that's what you're alleging. You keep trying to work "theft" into the sentence where it does belong, and your language will become more and more distorted as a result.

As for your anecdotal evidence, it doesn't trump valid sociological generalizations; unless you are prepared to argue that the people you know, the serious downloaders and the amateurs, are somehow a statistically valid sample of the population, your anecdotal evidence is meaningless.

[bitchkitty]

82. Thanks for the clarification -

I'm divided on this issue. It is theft, in a sense, but if the artist is okay with it, so am I.

[jeff30997]

17. Right on IMRadioactive !!!

:yourock:

[Jack_DeLeon]

31. The music business is obsolete.

Ford's idea pretty much ended the horse drawn carriage business.

So what if the various ideas of the people who brought us the PC ruins the music business.

Should we stiffle technology and the free sharing of information just so RIAA gets the ammount of profit it thinks it deserves?

So what if the RIAA goes out of business, so what if the entertainment industry has to change and evolve? Thats life.

We should stagnate our technology and our society just for the entertainment industry.

[Baltimoreboy]

44. No need to stifle technology

Just stifle the abusers of it.

Hackers have access to tons of computers, should we give up using them?

Fuck the P2P users and abusers. They have no right to steal.

[Jack_DeLeon]

46. contridicting statements

Fuck the P2P users and abusers.

So you say we shouldnt stifle technology, but from your statement it seems like you think we should stifle P2P technology?

They have no right to steal.

Its not stealing, its copyright infringment, and I hope someday our copyright laws are changed, because I dont agree with the current system.

I work at a Walgreens store, in the photo department and I see from time to time how our copyright laws fuck over the average person.

We have this machine called the "Kodak Picture Maker," anyways with it you can scan in your older pictures and edit them some or make reprints or whatever.

Anyways the thing is that we arent supposed to let people use professional photos in it because the photographer "owns the copyright."

So here you have some old lady or whatever wanting to make copys of some pictures of their family members and I have to explain to them how they dont really own thier own pictures and how they have to go back to the people they forked over big bucks to make the pictures and pay more so that they can buy the copyright.

[Baltimoreboy]

47. No I don't want to stifle technology

I want it used legally. The P2P community, in my experience, does not wish that.

It is not mere copyright infringment. That's like saying Iraq is a big American "visit."

The reason your Walgreens' picture maker limits the use of professional photos is because they Do Not own the copyright. That's tough.

[Colin Ex]

24. Relevant hypothetical situation here.

Well, not so hypothetical given that I actually did this, but hey.

I got a mixtape from my friend in Florida that had an Interpol song on it that I enjoyed. At college, I downloaded a couple of Interpol songs off the Internet (illegally). I liked them a lot, so I borrowed the Interpol album from a guy I knew and burned a copy of it. Four months later, I was in a record store and I saw a new vinyl press of the Interpol album, which I bought.

At what points am I violating moral obligations (more bluntly, when am I a thief and when am I not a thief)? Share your thoughts.

[AP]

25. Just buy it from iTunes.

[Colin Ex]

29. iTunes doesn't have

the limited print Sick Lipstick / xBxRx split seven inch called "Teenage Robots". Is it okay to download the songs on that release?

How about that one album by Orphan Powered Death Machine? I'm willing to bet iTunes doesn't have that -- is it okay to download then?

-C

[AP]

32. For bands that small, it's even worse to take their music without paying.

How long will those bands be in business if people aren't paying for their music?

Go buy their music at a record store. Any store selling those bands deserves your money.

[Colin Ex]

36. For the Sick Lipstick example,

the five hundred print was an exception. They have an album (Sting Sting Sting) and a debut EP that are still in print. The xBxRx split was meant more as a collector's item than anything (this is one of those super-indie music scene things that makes collectors hate themselves, really).

But, either way, I have both their other releases and the only way to get the split 7" would be to go on eBay or record trade boards and beg and beg and beg. All the copies of said 7" would be coming to me secondhand. Is it still stealing if I download it?

-C

[Baltimoreboy]

45. Yes

They may decide to re-release it at a later date. I suggest you buy a copy from eBay.

[Sirveri]

50. When they do he can buy it.

Either way the artist doesn't get hurt. And the artist probably wouldn't be hurt even if he didn't buy a re-release since the artist probably didn't even get paid for it.

If it's a collector CD that is OOP, and I want it, I will DL it. I will not use iTunes. I will use Kazaa and I will not care.

And I don't even download music.

[Baltimoreboy]

54. Yes, the artist does get hurt

If a unique song is spread across the 'Net for free, that means they can't use it again. You have limited their future earnings.

It comes down to this: The pro-P2P mob is a bunch of selfish and self-serving music fans. They want what they want and don't want to pay for it. Who cares who gets screwed as a result.

[NashVegas]

58. Bull

If a unique song that's out of print gets spread across the net for free, this forces the copyright holder (if they are smart) to reissue the recording commercially.

It was Napster that forced the labels to reissue tons of OOP '80s new waave/underground stuff.

[Baltimoreboy]

61. Welcome to 2004

Nothing is truly out of print. Just because the album is currently unreleased doesn't mean there are no plans for it. The song is not your property. You have no right to force the copyright holder (if they are smart) to reissue the recording commercially.

Yeah, Napster. Remember what happened to them?

[NashVegas]

69. Napster

Yeah, Napster. Remember what happened to them?

The labels had deeper pockets and better access to legislators than Shawn Fanning, that's what happened.

You have no right to force the copyright holder (if they are smart) to reissue the recording commercially.

Tell that to all the musicians who would have loved to have their stuff in print in 1998 but the labels refused to distribute, and refused to sell them back the master tapes. And the ones who are *still* trying to buy back the master tapes.

[Baltimoreboy]

70. Napster lost, THAT'S what happened

Unlike the pro-thieving Napster fans, the legislators and courts actually understood that Napster was committing wholesale theft.

Musicians who dislike their arrangement with their labels should not have signed unfavorable contracts.

[AntiCoup2K4]

98. Napster lost because Lar$ Ulrich is a fucking hypocrite.

You know how Metallica got a record deal?

By openly encouraging their fans to copy their demo tape and circulate it all over the country, that's how. If Napster had existed in 1982, they would have used it to their advantage, and "No Life Till Leather" would have been one of the most circulated Mp3's around. Why shouldn't new bands today be able to do the same thing, using current technology?

Because Lar$ doesn't want competition, maybe?

[Baltimoreboy]

99. Technology changed and that change modified his view

Perhaps they would have released a song or two as a marketing ploy. That would have been their choice.

[AP]

74. If it's available free because peope are P2P'ing it, then you reduce the

incentive to issue a new print. Who's going to buy it if you can just steal it?

[Colin Ex]

101. I will! I will!

You can't download vinyl LPs, or split seven inches, or the first print issued on transparent purple vinyl. And MP3s definitely don't pick up scenester chicks.

-C

[NashVegas]

108. I Have, I Will

Maybe it's just the people who are so anti-DL that can't seem to work up the motivation to buy what they can have for free, and think the rest of us are the same.

[Sirveri]

59. Buying used CD doesn't help the artist either.

Your point is disingenuous. Buy the CD on eBay, and it still doesn't help the artist. Hell, maybe that person made a mp3 copy themselves and decided to pawn off their copy! Neither of those hurt the artist because either way, the artist still hasn't gotten paid.

No song is unique. No band releases one CD. Just because it has spread across the net for free does not mean that other people will not buy it. the entire world does not P2P their music. And a lot of those that do go out and buy a copy of the album anyways! Also, I've yet to see any figures showing that P2P has hurt sales.

What if you already own the CD, you download a copy as mp3 cause you're a 14 year old teenager and you don't know how to rip the CD. Is that stealing? I've heard this very case being discussed on my local radio around a year and a half ago. It sticks in my mind because of the response.

[AP]

76. At least the artists might have a few original copies they could sell on

eBay if people aren't burning it for free.

[NashVegas]

86. eBay

If the copy on eBay sold is coming directly from the artist, it will fetch a higher price. If a collector has the means, a used copy Joe Schmo had lying around is going to fetch a pittance in comparison to what a copy from the artist's own stash (if the artist makes theirself known) will. They can even go a step further and autograph it.

Last year, Jason Mraz took the step of placing his own memorabilia on eBay to raise money for charities when he saw the ridiculousness of what some private collectors were doing (the infamous soft-drink bottle auction was the catalyst).

[NashVegas]

56. Copyright Holders Get NO MONEY FROM USED RECORD Sales

unless the eBay copy is sold directly by the artist, there is no difference between downloading and eBay (except the eBay copy is not going to be compressed, therefore higher quality).

The only person the eBay purchase supports is the person who previously purchased the record (and that's IF it was a purchase, and not a promotinal copy).

[Baltimoreboy]

62. Yes, there is a difference

The electronic era enables music publishers, musicians, etc. to reissue albums, recast albums, add, subtract and modify songs. If you spread a song around for free, you are hurting them.

[NashVegas]

124. You Completely Miss the Point

Which was, publishers, musicians, etc don't see a dime from sales of used copies. ie, there is no difference.

[Baltimoreboy]

127. There is a complete difference

I can sell ONE CD and lose the entire market because of these idiotic free information advocates. That is NOT the same.

[NashVegas]

130. You Are Not Going to Lose a Market to Free Info Advocates

Unless your music SUCKS. There will always be people who will put their money where their mouth is when they perceive value.

[Baltimoreboy]

133. You will certainly lose some

To thieves and those who support them.

[AP]

73. Who owns the copyright? Get their permission.

[kiahzero]

26. Nitpick

I have to admit that in theory I agree with the anti-piracy people. It is just like theft.

No, it's not "just like theft." It's copyright infringement, which is a civil tort rather than a criminal offense.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you say, but I just had to throw that out there.

[Baltimoreboy]

27. Conspiracy on a large scale is not just civil

RICO undoubtedly applies to these P2P companies.

[kiahzero]

33. Bullshit

P2P has far more applicability than downloading music or movies. It's great for mass distribution of any sort. Attempting to classify a company as organized crime because it created a P2P app is ridiculous - roughly on par with Sen. Hatch's suggestion that user's computers be destroyed for copyright infringement.

[Baltimoreboy]

66. P2P is wildly abused

You have to admit that.

The examples of widespread use -- movies, songs, TV shows, porn, etc. -- all take advantage of copyright material that belongs to others. The operators of those networks have criminally conspired to make money from criminal activities.

If you wish to share info across a P2p network, have at it. Just don't make that decision for others.

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. I think information should be free.

I also dont think we should pass laws that will turn American into a police state and limit our technology just for the sake of an industry that is here to "entertain" us.

[Colin Ex]

30. Where do you get police state?

That's kind of out there, don't you think? I mean, if I go to a movie and pay seven bucks, am I living in a police state?

-C

[Jack_DeLeon]

35. I'm actually referring more to the RIAA than to the MPAA.

For the most part the MPAA has been alright they seem to price thier products more fairly. I.E. they give you more for your money, in regards to DVDs vs CDs. But thats just my opinion. I'm sure they might become more like the RIAA as more bandwidth becomes available to more people.

I refer to the RIAA. They are primarily responsible for the lobbying and passying of things like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA), it has been abused in numerious ways by different groups to get info they dont want out suppressed.

An example would be sites like Fatwallet. Its a site where they share info from various retail stores about upcoming sales. Several stores have threatened to sue fatwallet using the DCMA for allowing images of future ads to be displayed on thier website. Claiming that thier copyright has been violated.

The RIAA also threatens to sue various ISPs unless the turn over thier customers information to them.

I'm glad I use Southwestern Bell, they have stood up to the RIAA and have won in court. They wont turn over thier customers information and for that I am proud of them.

Lets also not forget the retarded republican senator from Utah Orrin Hatch who seems to be in bed with the RIAA. Once he got an idea that Congress should make it legal for the RIAA to go around hacking the computers of Americans if they had "illegal material."

[Colin Ex]

37. I'm glad we agree that Orrin Hatch is a dumbass.

I'm still a little sketch on your language, however. I think using the term "police state," especially when it comes to a relatively petty organization like the RIAA. Realistically speaking, if I download the new Britney Spears single, I don't get locked up by men in black helicopters.

That's why I think "police state" is a little too harsh. But we agree that the RIAA blows, at least.

-C

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. Well there are other examples...

I definately think its wrong for increased cooperation between organizations like the RIAA and law enforcement in such a manner that it blurs the line between the two.

RIAA Police is something that I would hate for us to have to endure. If things keep going the way they are I'm sure the RIAA could buy the votes necessary to give them the authority to enforce thier own copyrights.

There was a recent news article about how RIAA "agents" went along with some FBI agents on a raid of some warehouse where they were loading up some bootleg CDs and whatnot. Apparently one of the guys loading up the trucks got shot by one of the feds. The article said that the RIAA guy was in no way responsible, but still the RIAA guys are not law enforcement and they shouldnt pretend.

I remember another article I read somewhere else several months ago about how the RIAA was hiring guys to go shakedown and sieze bootleg tapes and CDs from street vendors and whatnot. They were pretending to be police.

Even if the vendors did have illegal tapes and CDs they had no authority to there and sieze them, themselves. They do not have law enforcement powers. Hopefully they never will.

[Baltimoreboy]

43. They can't seize

But what the RIAA staffers do is walk up to the vendor and give them a choice -- either give up the merchandise or the police will be called.

If you regularly steal to make your living, sounds like a fair trade.

[AntiCoup2K4]

116. No, that's a corporate greed state

Because the majority of theaters are owned by mega chains such as Regal and Loews (now a subsidiary of the Bush Criminal Empire/Carlyle Group) they are able to fix the prices. I paid $8.75 to see Fahrenheit 911 last night and with popcorn and a Coke it was close to $20. At least this movie was worth it, as most these days aren't. But the irony is that I'll probably pay less than $20 for the DVD in October and then be able to watch it whenever I choose, with popcorn and my choice of beverage, which will cost me far less than $20 a viewing. So yes, the theater owners are crooks, but not fascists. Except for the ones who refuse to show Fahrenheit 911, of course ;)

[Scottie72]

40. I agree....

What I do like though is that in our area the FYE stores have listening stations where you can hear a sample of off all the tracks on any CD. I have gone in listned to several CD's and then headed out to find the cheapest CD place instead of paying the Sky high mall prices. (approx $20 a CD)

[Lestat]

41. I'm not going to pay $17 for a freakin' cd for one song.

I've had it. I've been downloading songs for the past four years. I will never stop downloading music for free. If the RIAA has a problem with it, that's tough shit. I'm not afraid of their stupid lawsuits or threats. :grr:

[MUSTANG_2004]

77. I won't pay $17 for a song either

But how do you justify stealing something that you don't need simply because you don't think the seller is asking a fair price? A simple respect for other people's property would suggest you should do without if you don't think it's worth the money.

[Lestat]

104. I'm not stealing a damn thing.

If anything, they're stealing from ME. $17 for a cd??? What's up with that? A CD with 12-3 minute songs is not even worth $10. :grr:

You go on and keep buying cds. I'll be sitting here laughing at all the suckers who are paying for them. :D

Hmm...what can I buy today with the money I saved by downloading music for free...?

[Baltimoreboy]

78. While you are online, I borrowed your car

Too bad you don't like it.

[Lestat]

103. Ok...

you keep paying $17 for one song. I'll be sitting here counting all the money I saved by downloading music. :D

Please don't give me that moral crap about d/ling music. I'm sick of hearing it.

[Baltimoreboy]

109. Have fun, I hope you are one of the ones sued

Or even prosecuted.

[Lestat]

111. They can go ahead and try to sue my ass.

I download music on public computers! :D

[Baltimoreboy]

113. Over time, that will probably be prevented

As it should be.

[Lestat]

114. What the hell is the big deal if I download music?

What's it hurting you? I don't know why anyone would have problems with it unless you work for the RIAA...

[Baltimoreboy]

118. You must be kidding

I wouldn't work for them if I could avoid it and I can. Still, I don't like theft of any kind.

[Lestat]

120. It's no different than taping a song you like off the radio.

:eyes:

[Baltimoreboy]

122. Yes it is

This has been addressed elsewhere in the thread. It lacks the same quality.

[wuushew]

125. What happens when digital FM hits the scene?

old days = analogue copies of analogue source
1980-95 = analogue copies of digital source
modern = digital copy of digital source


can you tell at what point "quality" becomes a criminal consideration?

[NashVegas]

126. That's Being Addressed

The issue is already starting to come up, with the RIAA wanting some kind of built-in copy protection.

Nevermind that radio did not ask to be forced to go digital.

[Maestro]

49. My only problem is that it does seem to hurt

those new bands who need the exposure that only big companies can give them. Sure, you have some bands that have made it via Internet sales and constant touring, Phish, but most need some help. If you download I would hope that you would support those bands that you really like; otherwise, they will be no more in a few years.

[Sirveri]

52. Download all you want.

You're only screwing the RIAA and they deserve to die a painful death, followed quickly by Wal*Mart. Trash them all.

Here's how p2p works. you give me the keys to your storage shed and I take a picture of a painting done by some guy who happens to do popular paintings. Then the person who owns the copyright for that painting gets pissed and comes down and tells you to lock up your shed and stop letting people take pictures of your painting. He doesn't care about me, he just sues you. That's basically what is going on here.

That's fucking stupid.
Copyright infringement is not theft. Because nobody has stolen anything. It doesn't hurt the artists. The thing hurting the artists is the RIAA in their never ending quest for greater profits.

[Baltimoreboy]

60. Are you completely ignorant of capitalism?

Sort of the system we have here?

If I make an album (let's say $500,000 in basic production costs and marketing, along with costs to print the CD) and I sell 1 million copies of the CD, then I make a profit.

If I make the same album, one stupid asshole uploads it and I only sell 1,000 copies, then I go bankrupt. People lose their jobs. The artist never gets paid (I went bankrupt, after all). And there is no incentive to make new songs.

[Sirveri]

64. Yeah, except that doesn't actually happen.

That's what they would have you believe. What ends up happening is that some stupid asshole uploads it, and you end up selling 1.5 Million copies and then bitching about the guy who uploaded it and sueing him. Then you screw the artist over by paying him a set fee in advance and dicking him on royalties because you're a asshole record executive who doesn't give a shit about the artist.

Then when you finish wasting all your company money on high end prostitutes and stupid junk bonds and your company defaults, you take the remaining profits, give yourself a parachute clause and bail on the company for a beach in tahiti while your underpaid interns wander off to go thru the same thing again.

[Baltimoreboy]

67. It seems you have an axe to grind

And not any real point.

[Sirveri]

68. upping my post count is ALWAYS fun. N/T

[wuushew]

105. You claim to support capitalism but you are espousing monopoly

Since preserving jobs apparently is your primary goal in this argument I assume you are also for this country's support of agricultural subsides, steel and auto tariffs and various other trade barriers than invariably cost the consumer money. This in my opinion is very short sighted because it prevents the redistribution of money and resources in any given society to more productive ends.

Displaced workers in a functioning economy will automatically retrain to sectors in the labor market where there is demand. The real abuse by the RIAA and others trumpeting the supremacy of intellectual property is that they desire to both control the physical medium of the distribution and the content, a tyrannical situation that has far outstripped the founding father's original ideas on patent law. In movies and songs the corrupting influence of money has extended copyright for decades beyond the original artist's death.

I feel the various arguments regarding libraries, sharing amongst friends and the nature of radio play are all quite valid. The current situation mirrors similar controversies that arouse with the advent of am radio, VCRs etc. In most cases the people in many industries have gone to see increased profits. Hollywood freaked out when CGI hit movies but even more people work in special effects than ever before. With the advent of digital storage such and event quite possibly is upon us.

Music companies must lower the prices of CD's and or offer more value to compete with the advantages of paying nothing for a slightly lower quality digital copy or go out of business. A true system of capitalism would say that enjoying a free product is not immoral, it simply is a by product of not selling a physical good or a non-duplicatable service. I guess in the end it depends how libertarian you are.

[Baltimoreboy]

106. No, I am espousing legality

I am against theft.

There are many reasons to be against theft. It is both a moral and a legal argument.

No, there are only vague similarities with what has gone before. worldwide electronic transfer of copyrighted material is nothing like those situations.

No, music companies don't have to lower the price to compete with their own material. They simply have to stop the crooks.

I am not libertarian enough to leave my door unlocked or let my neighbor take my car.

[wuushew]

110. I guess I have problems with the concept of owning something intangable.

The ideas of patents for scientific and medical applications is obvious as outlined in the constitution.

Article I, section 8, which reads “Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”


Nowhere in the constitution does it say because I am in industry X do I have the right to constrain the market so I can make more money. Go into producing live music if you are so worried, or do your skills not apply?

I am not denigrating you but who is to say whose opinion is right or wrong. I do not believe in moral certainty. Nothing is black or white.

[Baltimoreboy]

112. Too bad

It's not intangible. It's a concrete asset. The version of a song as performed a certain way. The song itself. The music as well.

You are disagreeing with your own quote. If I make a song today, I have a right to protect that creation.

Yes, some things are indeed black and white. If I own something and you steal it, you are in the wrong.

[wuushew]

115. How? What about it is unique?

what about if I copy the song and make a change of one bit to the data stream? or sample a song by analogue recording and lower the frequency? Do you own the sound wave, the words? Can't you see the problems inherent in defining intellectual property?

How is it black and white?

[Baltimoreboy]

119. You still used MY song as the basis

If my song forms the basis for your work, it's theft.

The same would apply for blueprints for technology.

[wuushew]

121. By that logic Vanilla Ice ripped off Queen/David Bowie

Ice Ice Baby = Under Pressure?

[Baltimoreboy]

123. Yes, he did

[NashVegas]

128. Bad Example, Bad Argument

When you sample someone's work, you credit them and share songwriting royalties, else you get sued.

Garageband.com is a great site for downloading indie music all you want, free of charge, with the proviso you don't manipulate it. Kind of like a GNU license.

[spanone]

55. Stealing is stealing.

what if someone stole your job? Or had you do the work and not pay you for it? So BUY independent music. The musicians can't afford to make you an album for free.

[Monte Carlo]

79. My attitude is that if it's on the radio, it's up for grabs.

As far as I'm concerned, all those singles that get put on the radio and played again and again are fair game. The problem comes when entire albums are downloaded at a time. I don't mind paying for music, but the RIAA is not fighting for revenue - it's fighting for control over what music becomes popular and what does not.

[Baltimoreboy]

81. Not hardly

The RIAA is fighting for revenue and for its future. Playing a song on the radio gives you the right to listen to that song -- even record it. It doesn't give you the right to share it with 6 billion people.

[NashVegas]

90. My Feeling Is Just the Opposite

If it's not getting played on the radio, it's because the labels aren't putting up the money to promote it. File sharing is necessary to expose music that's not being promoted, that's where the real threat to label control of distribution comes in. It's the stuff that is getting played that's devalued. Especially if someone distributes album cuts that aren't getting played, and the album really sucks and people realize it when they hear the rest of the tracks.

Ever try to return an album at the record store and get your money back because you think the record sucks? Good luck.

[AntiCoup2K4]

89. Downloading Mp3's is no different than listening to the radio

Back in the "old days" before the current technology existed, a lot of people used to tape entire albums off the radio too. Especially the ones that your favorite (pre-corporatization) FM rock station would get a month or so in advance. Hell yes I would tape that thing, and listen to it repeatedly.

And then buy the album the day it was released. As I've done with every album that was "leaked" to the Internet. BTW, it's the same people doing the leaking now as it was then - the record labels themselves. It's called FREE ADVERTISING. They would be fools NOT to do it, actually. But they are damned hypocrites to condemn kids for downloading the "product" that they themselves made available.

As far as music that has been commerically released goes, I believe it's completely reasonable to download one or two songs for listening. I don't consider that any different than listening to it on the radio. And these file sharing networks serve the purpose that FM radio used to serve, as radio itself won't play anything not issued by the 5 mega-record companies (Capitol/EMI,Sony,BMG,Universal,WEA)

I myself would never pay for music in a lossy format such as MP3, but if enough people would to keep I-Tunes, the "new" Napster and other for profit services in business, that's up to them.

Instead, most of my downloads come from sites such as www.sharingthegroove.org where none of the music available is commercially released. Members can upload and download their collections at will - as long as it's nothing you can buy at Best Buy and not in a lossy format (Mp3/WMA etc.)

As far as the absurdity of a CD which takes less than $2 to produce (and that's counting the artwork and the manufacturing costs) retailing for $17.... Don't even get me started on that. But as plastics often come from petroluem byproducts, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets worse.

[Baltimoreboy]

93. That's ludicrous

And apes are no different than cats. They are both mammals after all.

Yes, people taped for PERSONAL use. Now they can record a song or album and spread it worldwide -- earning no money for the artist or firm.

Just because you consider theft OK, doesn't make it so. I consider giving you a computer worm that allows me to use your computer OK. Isn't that the same?

There is a lot of cost in a $17 CD. That includes marketing, promotion, production, staff, finding artists, etc.

[AntiCoup2K4]

97. Glad you brought that up, about the virus thing.....

...Because record labels are now willingly spreading viruses in the name of "anti-piracy". Geezus, sounds just like something the Bush Criminal Empire would do, huh?

Beastie Boys CD installs virus
By Thomas C Greene
Published Wednesday 23rd June 2004 11:18 GMT
A new Beastie Boys' CD called "To the Five Boroughs" (Capitol Records), is raising hackles around the Web for reputedly infecting computers with a virus.

According to a recent thread at BugTraq, an executable file is automatically and silently installed on the user's machine when the CD is loaded. The file is said to be a driver that prevents users from ripping the CD (and perhaps others), and attacks both Windows boxen and Macs.

The infected CD is being distributed worldwide except in the USA and UK, which prevents us from giving a firsthand report. However, according to hearsay, we gather that the Windows version exploits the 'autorun' option, and that the Mac version affects the auto play option.

On Windows, when a CD is loaded, a text file called autorun.inf is read, and any instructions within it are executed. In this case, the machine is instructed to install some manner of DRM driver that prevents copying. We haven't seen either the .inf file or any of the executables, so we can't say how or at what level it accomplishes this - or if indeed it actually does accomplish this.

But assuming that the unconfirmed reports are accurate, we have here a media company infecting users' machines silently with a file that affects a computer's functionality, without first obtaining informed consent: a likely violation of pretty much every jurisdiction's anti-hacking laws. It's possible to foresee criminal charges being brought at some point: after all, having a good reason for spreading malware has never been much of a defence in court. And a file that alters a computer's functioning without the owner's informed consent is the very definition of malware. Because this malware can be transferred from machine to machine on a removable disk, and requires user interaction to spread, it is, quite simply, a computer virus. (A worm, on the other hand, is distinguished by its ability to spread without user interaction.)

<snip>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/beastie_boy_cd_virus/

It's not just the Beastie Boys CD either. My burner's been doing weird shit since I bought the Velvet Revolver CD a couple weeks ago.

Fact is, once I purchase a CD, it is MINE. If I want to rip the entire thing to my hard drive, mix tracks with others on a compilation CD, convert it to MP3's for personal use, that's my right to do so. And fuck any corporate fascist who thinks otherwise.

[Baltimoreboy]

100. As long as they label it, that is fair

You don't have to buy it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

136. You expect them to put "This CD contains a virus" on the label??

And who would buy such a thing?

[Baltimoreboy]

137. This CD contains special copy protection program

[Forkboy]

138. Every argument I've heard before

This all sounds soooo familiar.Almost like someone I know.

Huh :shrug:

[drdigi420]

107. As an artist, I'd rather you download my songs than not have them

For me it's about being heard, not making money.

Download all you want, for FREE: http://drdigi.stonernet.org

Including the immensely popular: My Name is Bush

I just want to be heard.

[NashVegas]

117. Digi that's a hoot

Edit out the cuss words a la Daily Show and get it to college radio.

[Deja Q]

129. The RIAA also gets money per blank CD sold... they are as much thieves

as the rest of us.

You are right on your points.

But when they take away freedoms while suing everybody for downloading WHILE collecting royaties for products that are not directly related to their industry...

May as well give the medical industry a royalty every time somebody buys a bullet or machete...

Corporations only give a fuck about the biggest buck. They don't care about niche or cult markets, unless they collect all the rights to niche materials and then promote themselves as a company who supports niche and cult music/programming/whatever.

That's also why they get the power in government and we're left to take it up the rear end with a big broomstick.

Fritz Hollings and Orin Hatch proposed a new law that would make any consumer item capable of even indirectly breaking copyright law illegal. This means no scanners, no cd burners, no sound cards with audio input, no movie digitizing hardware, no nothing. It's on zdnet.com - I made a post a couple of days back but it seems nobody gave a flying fuck about it. x( x( x(

Fucking INSANE our degenerate greedy inhuman inhumane hypocritical law-this and legality-that bullshit excuse of a society is becoming to.

Nice to know somebody else is angry about the situation, I never get any responses to much of anything. Ever.

[wuushew]

132. Amazing that there are those here on DU who defend the RIAA

and most of those DLC types support the Iraq war and so called "free trade" as well.

The RIAA sucks and so does Clinton for signing the DMCA.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[Peak_Oil]

131. My thoughts on the subject

I have a couple thoughts on this.

1. P2P is free advertising for bands/labels
2. What exactly is it that I get when I buy a CD?
3. F*** the lazy bastards that make sh** music that I can't return.

1. Free advertising. I can go buy a couple CD's a week if I want. I've done that for years and years. Problem is that most of the music I have bought is sh%% and I can't return it. I can sell it back to the same store I bought it from for maybe 20% of what I paid for it. Yay. Great customer service, love that return policy. With P2P, I download songs from 20-30 bands and pick out 1-2 to purchase, if it's good enough. In that case, I'm happy with what I buy, and I don't bitch about the lousy return policy.

2. What is it I get for my money? Do I get the songs, which I can do with as I wish? No. If I'm a bar owner, I have to pay to play that CD in my own bar. So, I don't really get the "music" in that case. Do I get one storage medium containing the songs? Not really. In the case that my storage medium wears out/becomes defective, the record company does not replace it. If I lose it or break it I have to go buy it again. This is not the case with other things I own. Other things I own have warantees and return priveleges. I can, however, sell this thing I have with the songs on it for whatever the market will bear. I can make personal copies for personal use. So, what if I buy the CD, copy it onto another CD, and then sell the original on Ebay? Is that legal? I say it is. What if I buy it used, make a copy, and then re-sell my used copy? Is that legal? Apparently. What if I rip it to mp3 format, store it on my computer, and sell the original? Legal? I think so. What if I buy the CD used, and then download the mp3's from P2P software? Legal? No! How bizarre.

3. Lousy music that I can't return? Well, guess what? The music business has lost my personal business until I have a reasonable way to sample my choices before parting with my hard-earned cash. Amoeba Records has a way for me to sample, which necessitates my standing in their store for HOURS before I can find one lousy CD to buy. I've had enough, personally.

My choice?

I switched to entertaining myself with movies. I rent on Netflix, burn em and return em. Then I watch it whenever I feel like it. I also tell everyone I know about Netflix and how great it is. If I could get CD's this way I'd be on the 10-at-a-time list with NetMusic. But, it's not to be. They're too fucking greedy, and they can f*&% themselves at this point. I have better things to do than jump through all the hoops I need to jump through in order to avoid wasting too much time and money.

[Dogmudgeon]

135. Moral Entrepreneurs

The RIAA (as well as a consortium of other Intellectual Property seizing syndicates like Microsoft, the MPAA and the Software "Professionals" of America) decided that, in order to better control their markets, they would declare a new moral principle: That copying music was immoral, identical to theft, and ergo, a crime.

It took less than a decade of repeating the Big Lie before the Legislative Branch gave them exactly what they wanted -- and more.

And the Big Lie "took", because a large number of people get up in arms about "piracy".

They also cry bitter alligator tears for the Poor Artiste, but were never informed that the Poor Artiste almost always surrenders the copyright under contract. So it's all legal. That's why businesses all have corporate attorneys.

I call this "Moral Entrepreneuring". It is not just a form of theft, it is --

Grand Theft: The money involved is huge.

Robbery: These designer laws are written to permit the use of Police, or armed robbery under color of law.

Blackmail: Public humiliation of the targets of their actions before charges have been filed is permitted and encouraged.

Retroactive Penalties: Copying phonorecords of any kind had never been illegal until the RIAA decided to become a corporate Moral Entrepreneur. Literally hundreds of cases were decided in favor of their victims. But millions of people are now retroactively prosecutable because of the legal radicalism of Reagan/Bush judicial appointees.

Unconstitutional: The body of "law" written by this well-paid moral marketing violates any number of well-established Constitutional principles (freedom of expression, no cruel and unusual punishments, e.g., $250k fine per song copied, right of appeal, right of habeas corpus in criminal proceedings), the charter of the US Patent Office, and common sense.

If you think things are bad now, wait a year or two when the MPAA throws its weight behind the marketing of this new moral code. Jack Valenti is pushing for Tori Clarke to be the new capo of the RIAA. He's a life-long Democrat, but she's as right-wing as the rest of her Team Bush buddies.

How long will it be before the Royal Family of England demands compensation from publishers for use of "their" language?

And if anyone out there is still weeping for the Poor Artiste -- buy a concert t-shirt. There's a better chance they'll see a profit from it.

--bkl
Public Libraries: Tax-supported THEFT!