It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet

[mister-o]

if someone takes money out of my pocket, it hurts.

What matters is how the artist is affected.

Case A: 10 people buy your CD at $10. You make $100. But someone releases the mp3s and 20 people download it for nothing, and don't buy the CD. You make $100 and 20 more people have the music for nothing. That sucks. But they wouldn't have bought it anyway (they wouldn't have even heard it), so no one "took money out of your pocket" since no money minus no money plus no damn money is nothing. Did it hurt the artist? Not monetarily. It's illegal though.

Case B: the same 10 people buy your CD at $10. You make $100. But someone releases the mp3s and 20 people download it, and through word of mouth 5 more people buy your CD at $10. So you make $50 more, and 15 people got something for nothing. Did it hurt the artist? Quite the opposite, precisely because piracy caused the CD to reach a wider audience. $100 + nothing from 15 people + $50 = $150. And now 30 people have heard your music, so instead of having the 10 guys who bought your CD come to your show, you have 15 plus maybe a freeloader or two who liked the music.

You imagine Case A or something worse (what if no one buys the CD?). What studies purport to show is that piracy might often be more like Case B. I've heard the rumor that Microsoft is soft on Windows piracy because it helps keep their market share dominant! What's good is what helps the artist. And whether piracy is harmful to the artist is an open, empirical question that cannot be answered with a stomp of the foot.

Roger McGuinn testified before the Senate in 2000 that The Byrds never saw a dime of royalty money for "Turn, Turn, Turn" and "Mr. Tambourine Man". Pirating those records doesn't "take money out of Roger's pocket", because buying them doesn't put any money in.

Who piracy hurts and when is an extremely complicated issue. Some piracy is dead wrong, some of it seems to help artists, and some of it seems to be in between. I'm not trying to sell you on the idea that up is down. It's an extremely thorny issue, and as with all thorny issues, gut reactions and simplistic arguments are almost always worthless.

 

[Pablo Fanque]

Here's one more monkey wrench to throw into the mix: Buying USED CDs.

Until recently I spent A LOT of money each month buying music, but in order to save myself some money I always bought my CDs at places that resold CDs. One day I was discussing music piracy and the merits of the "loss of revenue for the artist" argument when I realized that IF DLing ALBUMS IS "STEALING" THEN SO IS BUYING CDs USED. I promptly quit buying CDs used because I realized I was simply throwing money down a hole and the only people profiting was the reseller. So, if you buy your CDs used you might as well just DL off the net because either way you are listening to the artists work without paying them for it. thoughts?

No, because the law doesn't treat used materials the same way. Maybe you don't like the distinction, but used books can be sold w/out violating copyright laws. But you can't take a book, photocopy it and return it to the store (well, you could but that would be illegal.)

 

[baalroo]

No, because the law doesn't treat used materials the same way. Maybe you don't like the distinction, but used books can be sold w/out violating copyright laws. But you can't take a book, photocopy it and return it to the store (well, you could but that would be illegal.)

Legally, I agree with you and that much of the argument is obvious, but laws can be changed and are (supposed to be) based on the will of the people whom the laws govern. Laws however don't automatically line up with ethics (there are so many examples of this in even the US history that I don't think I need to point to any specifics) and the ETHICS of it are what I'm talking about here. We decided long ago that not ALWAYS paying an artist what they deem their work is worth is OK when in regards to used Books and CDs. As a culture we looked at the difficulty of trying to criminalize the reselling of intellectual property and decided that it wasn't a realistic goal and we legalized the reselling of artists intellectual property without paying them for their work.

In other words, as a culture we decided that sometimes it's ok to read or listen to an artist's work without paying them for it, even if said artist has set a price for said work.

If you buy Nickelback's newest CD at a secondhand store and I download it from the internet, the end result is that we are both listening to Nickelback's intellectual property and neither of us paid them for it. The only difference between you and me in said situation ethically would be that you PAID someone to assist you in "stealing" and I did not.

 

[Tim C.]

But you can't take a book, photocopy it and return it to the store (well, you could but that would be illegal.)

You sure as heck could if you got it from a library.

Remember those things, where you can get movies, books and CDs for absolutely nothing?

Sure, a given artist makes one sale for a library to own a copy of their work. The library then makes it freely avaiable to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people essentially for free.

So, you know what? You anti-downloading guys are right. We shouldn't torrent music, we should just upload it onto our computers from library copies for free, which is 100% legal. You win!

 

[Roy Vogt]

right, well the person who originally bought the track and uploaded it to the P2P paid for it as well (except most major label releases get uploaded to the private trackers for free download directly by the label, but that's a whole other conversation). What you're saying is that it's ok to read the book or listen to the album without paying the artist as long as you pay SOMEONE for it. I really don't understand your argument at all. Either the artist deserves payment for their work by EVERY PERSON WHO LISTENS TO IT or they don't. If you buy used media you are a pirate, end of story.

The one thing in the equation that you are not considering is the degree of distribution without compensation. While a used CD may change hands 5-10 times in an extreme case, a bittorrent or filesharing system may put the same material in the hands of hundreds or even thousands of potential customers. If everyone did that to Pro-Tools, Digidesign would shut it's doors in 6 months. So much for DIY Record Production-technical support would be a whole new ball game....
Besides logic and theoretical arguments about whether this is right and wrong, it's helpful to realize that actions have consequences. Back to the my initial post on this thread: it was not as much about the morality of the idea (I think I've made my opinion clear on that) but the consequences of the actions on musicians and the bass community in particular.

 

[baalroo]

The one thing in the equation that you are not considering is the degree of distribution without compensation. While a used CD may change hands 5-10 times in an extreme case, a bittorrent or filesharing system may put the same material in the hands of hundreds or even thousands of potential customers. If everyone did that to Pro-Tools, Digidesign would shut it's doors in 6 months. So much for DIY Record Production-technical support would be a whole new ball game....

well, if piracy is so rampant and such a problem then why hasn't Digidesign "shut it's doors" yet? the evidence does not seem to support your claims.

besides, you're dodging my questions in regards to the ethics of the whole thing, which is what I thought we were talking about... y'know, the whole "either way it's stealing" argument that you guys keep throwing at me. You guys have explained to me repeated exactly why you believe it's stealing (you're listening to the artist's intellectual property without paying them for it), and I give you another example that falls into the same category and you simply ignore it. I guess you're not as comfortable using the same logic when it deems something you believe to be "ok" as stealing? go figure.

 

[Melik]

she may not be good with computers but oh dude, on how many 1# she's played on?

 

[Jim Campbell]

well, if piracy is so rampant and such a problem then why hasn't Digidesign "shut it's doors" yet? the evidence does not seem to support your claims.

besides, you're dodging my questions in regards to the ethics of the whole thing, which is what I thought we were talking about... y'know, the whole "either way it's stealing" argument that you guys keep throwing at me.

perhaps they are partly shut now,but more on the distribution end.....we used to have some great record stores here that would stock a wide range of music......now few remain and they are inclined to stock the bigger sellers only.......i am quite sure that downloading has affected the ability of retailers to stock the less mainstream stuff

 

[baalroo]

she may not be good with computers but oh dude, on how many 1# she's played on?

depends on who you ask

 

[Roy Vogt]

well, if piracy is so rampant and such a problem then why hasn't Digidesign "shut it's doors" yet? the evidence does not seem to support your claims.

Because a significant number of their customers (possibly including you and your band) have done the right thing and bought their product. It's linked to their hardware, but I've seen many, many cracks of the program that are not linked to their hardware floating around.
The end game is that if enough people pirate Victor Wooten's CDs or downloads he'll no longer be making them. (Remember, if it's OK for you to do an illegal P2P download, EVERYONE should be able to, so only 1 copy of anything could theoretically be all that's needed to be sold.) The record company will go bankrupt and then if he puts them out on his own the same thing could happen and he could find it's economically unfeasible to continue to do what he does. Farfetched, but that's the idea of actions having consequences. Look at Global Warming....or Melamine in contaminated pet food....or lead-tainted toys. All of these are actions that have consequences. Your love for a particular Artist that drives you to download his work from a P2P site may in fact be crippling his career.

 

[YL_Bass]

Because a significant number of their customers (possibly including you and your band) have done the right thing and bought their product. It's linked to their hardware, but I've seen many, many cracks of the program that are not linked to their hardware floating around.
The end game is that if enough people pirate Victor Wooten's CDs or downloads he'll no longer be making them. The record company will go bankrupt and then if he puts them out on his own the same thing could happen and he could find it's economically unfeasible to continue to do what he does. Farfetched, but that's the idea of actions having consequences. Look at Global Warming....or Melamine in contaminated pet food....or lead-tainted toys. All of these are actions that have consequences. Your love for a particular Artist that drives you to download his work from a P2P site may in fact be crippling his career.

You should see what getting arturia software is like.

I'm pretty sure DRM makes me want to pirate instead of purchase.

Which is funny because the only people DRM affects are the people who are purchasing.

 

[baalroo]

Because a significant number of their customers (possibly including you and your band) have done the right thing and bought their product. It's linked to their hardware, but I've seen many, many cracks of the program that are not floating around.
The end game is that if enough people pirate Victor Wooten's CDs or downloads he'll no longer be making them. The record company will go bankrupt and then if he puts them out on his own the same thing could happen and he could find it's economically unfeasible to continue to do what he does. Farfetched, but that's the idea of actions having consequences. Look at Global Warming....or Melamine in contaminated pet food....or lead-tainted toys. All of these are actions that have consequences. Your love for a particular Artist or Product that drives you to download his work from a P2P site may in fact be crippling his career.

all this assumes that the old business model is the only viable model (which it's not). plus, what you're saying is that even an extremely high dollar program like protools can continue to be a viable product EVEN THOUGH it's readily available for free online by anyone willing to circumvent the law. doesn't that sort of contradict the part about how if Vic's CDs are available online for free that no one will buy them? How do you square these too diametrically opposed ideas WITHIN THE SAME PARAGRAPH? (again, not rhetorical)

Honestly, it's starting to become apparent that you have little interest in applying logic and reason to this debate. You have already made up your mind on this issue and are disinterested in any ideas that may contradict you. Unless you start actually discussing this point with me instead of talking in circles and ignoring every point I make I think I will refrain from wasting my time any further trying to come up with intelligent and metered responses to your posts. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's only fair for me to be clear, and no one else here seems too uncomfortable with calling others "liars, thieves, and pirates" so I guess a little bit of discontent is allowed.

I do have one last point though, the part of your statement that says "linked to their hardware." they are offering a digital product that is enhanced by a physical product in order to continue making money... you can get the software alone for free (again, illegally) but it's just not as good or cool as having the physical product that goes along with it and creates a fuller/better product. Y'know, like the difference between a digital music download and the tactile/visual experience of purchasing/listening to a vinyl.

 

[baalroo]

Yes he is, BUT THE ARTIST HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR THAT BOOK.

so you do not believe that an artist should be paid for their "intellectual property" by each person who reads/listens/etc to it?

THIEF!!!!

 

[Honk'n_down-low]

The one thing in the equation that you are not considering is the degree of distribution without compensation. While a used CD may change hands 5-10 times in an extreme case, a bittorrent or filesharing system may put the same material in the hands of hundreds or even thousands of potential customers. If everyone did that to Pro-Tools, Digidesign would shut it's doors in 6 months. So much for DIY Record Production-technical support would be a whole new ball game....
Besides logic and theoretical arguments about whether this is right and wrong, it's helpful to realize that actions have consequences. Back to the my initial post on this thread: it was not as much about the morality of the idea (I think I've made my opinion clear on that) but the consequences of the actions on musicians and the bass community in particular.

Not taking sides here so much as stating that the argument or premise that buying used and downloading illegal copies are the same - they are not. The used copy was purchased legitimately at some point - and it will never reach the same level of distribution.

Clearly you can argue if I buy a used copy or obtain a used copy - under the illegal download premise I am a Pirate - but that is just it - they are two separate means of distribution. So you can use the used CD premise to make the point - BUT IT IS NOT entirely the same to Rays' point. The distribution is much larger and therefore so is the potential loss to the Artist.

Even arguing that the folks getting it for free might buy a legit copy - while true to some degree - all of the people getting it for free will not buy a legit copy - so all of those free copies where there was no initial payment to the Artist are costing the Artist Money - they have to be.

So let's be real, people that are looking for new Music typically look to see if they can get it on-line first free. If not, they might purchase it or download from iTunes or Zune or somewhere else and pay for it.

Having said that - I don't feel terrible for the Music Industry - because they were screwing everyone for so long and making substantial profits and in some cases Artists still were not getting what they deserved.

Buying songs now at 99 cents a pop is not a real hardship for anyone that I can see - it is better than having to buy the whole over priced CD to get the few tunes you might want.

If you create a piece of Music and are relying on the purchase and profit of said piece to make your living - then you bet your ass you want people to pay for it, if not, then you are expecting to get paid via touring and merchandising to get your paycheck - but the latter assumes you have attained pretty substantial success.

This can be argued forever and has - my point was you can't effectively argue the I buy a CD and resell argument effectively against thousands or millions of people downloading music at not cost to them and no payment to the Artist.

 

[mister-o]

Even arguing that the folks getting it for free might buy a legit copy - while true to some degree - all of the people getting it for free will not buy a legit copy - so all of those free copies where there was no initial payment to the Artist are costing the Artist Money - they have to be.

I've said this at least three times already and not a single person has addressed it on its merits to try to refute it (either with data or theoretical argument): if a person who was not going to buy the CD anyway downloads the music, by definition no money is lost. No money minus no money plus no money is nothing. If 10 people bought the CD and 100 people "own" the music, it simply does not follow, without a great deal of further assumptions, that the artist lost 90 sales worth of money. It just does not follow. Period.

Does the artist deserve 90 sales worth of money? That question is related, but they are not the same question.

 

[baalroo]

Not taking sides here so much as stating that the argument or premise that buying used and downloading illegal copies are the same - they are not. The used copy was purchased legitimately at some point - and it will never reach the same level of distribution.

Clearly you can argue if I buy a used copy or obtain a used copy - under the illegal download premise I am a Pirate - but that is just it - they are two separate means of distribution. So you can use the used CD premise to make the point - BUT IT IS NOT entirely the same to Rays' point. The distribution is much larger and therefore so is the potential loss to the Artist.

Even arguing that the folks getting it for free might buy a legit copy - while true to some degree - all of the people getting it for free will not buy a legit copy - so all of those free copies where there was no initial payment to the Artist are costing the Artist Money - they have to be.

So let's be real, people that are looking for new Music typically look to see if they can get it on-line first free. If not, they might purchase it or download from iTunes or Zune or somewhere else and pay for it.

Having said that - I don't feel terrible for the Music Industry - because they were screwing everyone for so long and making substantial profits and in some cases Artists still were not getting what they deserved.

Buying songs now at 99 cents a pop is not a real hardship for anyone that I can see - it is better than having to buy the whole over priced CD to get the few tunes you might want.

If you create a piece of Music and are relying on the purchase and profit of said piece to make your living - then you bet your ass you want people to pay for it, if not, then you are expecting to get paid via touring and merchandising to get your paycheck - but the latter assumes you have attained pretty substantial success.

This can be argued forever and has - my point was you can't effectively argue the I buy a CD and resell argument effectively against thousands or millions of people downloading music at not cost to them and no payment to the Artist.

these are good points, and there's some validity to them if we continue to assume that from now on things will continue to operate as they have in the past, despite the massive sweeping changes in technology and digital distribution. Again though, what I was doing with the USED analogy was addressing the ETHICS issue that everyone keeps bringing up as the lynchpin of their arguments. If it's simply wrong because it's "stealing," and their definition of stealing is "listening to an artist's intellectual property without paying them for it" then my used CD analogy is perfectly valid within that aspect of the discussion and deserves to be addressed.

also, if you thought the recording industry was ripping people off BEFORE itunes, it's hard to imagine having the opinion that buying tracks for 99 cents a pop has alleviated that problem. an album with 12 tracks on itunes is gonna cost the consumer $12, yet it was much cheaper to get that album to the consumer than it was when they were charging $15 for a physical CD. To make matters worse, the consumer is actually getting a lot less product than they used to when they paid the $15 a few years ago. PLUS, I know a lot of people who are fairly well established "regional acts" who openly say that they would rather you DL their album from a torrent tracker than off of Itunes because they've never seen a single red cent from the itunes sales... even though people are buying them from there. I can neither confirm or deny the validity of this claim, but anecdotally I've heard it SO MANY TIMES from SO MANY different people that I'm starting to believe it.

on the other side of the coin there's that kid from Owl City who made enough money on itunes sales to buy himself a house in a middle class neighborhood, so I dunno. oh, btw, he will tell you himself that it's the existence of private torrent trackers that raised the public awareness of his music high enough to garner those sales and buy that house.

 

[Honk'n_down-low]

Mister-O - I read your statement - but how does it hold water. I am not going to buy a CD for a particular artist - but like the Music enough to download it for free?

There is still a loss - you are getting the work for no cost - and you had to want it so therefore you should have paid for it (otherwise why download it?) - either the single song or the whole CD - how is there no loss to the artist? Just because you are claiming you did not want the CD and would not pay for it - but gladly take it or songs from it at no cost - if you are downloading and listening to it you are consuming and should have paid something for it? Open minded to hearing how you reconcile that?

 

[Honk'n_down-low]

these are good points, and there's some validity to them if we continue to assume that from now on things will continue to operate as they have in the past, despite the massive sweeping changes in technology and digital distribution. Again though, what I was doing with the USED analogy was addressing the ETHICS issue that everyone keeps bringing up as the lynchpin of their arguments. If it's simply wrong because it's "stealing," and their definition of stealing is "listening to an artist's intellectual property without paying them for it" then my used CD analogy is perfectly valid within that aspect of the discussion and deserves to be addressed.

In that context, Ethically, I can agree with regard to the definition of stealing - they are the same as no payment has been made directly - although in one case there was initial payment (The used CD was purchased) in the other there was nothing paid. The result to the Artist is ultimately different is the assumption here.

 

[mister-o]

Mister-O - I read your statement - but how does it hold water. I am not going to buy a CD for a particular artist - but like the Music enough to download it for free?

I hear a song on Pandora. I want to know if the album holds up or if just the song is good. I download it. The album sucks, so I delete it after a single listen (if I even listen to the whole thing once). Or, I like it, and I buy it. Believe me -- and I will cop to this -- I've downloaded a decent amount of music, and I buy more new music (as in, legal digital downloads or in-the-shrinkwrap vinyl from mom and pop stores) than almost all of my friends combined. I just bought two new records this week. Should I have paid for all the ones I downloaded and deleted? If I had gone down that road, I would have stopped buying as soon as I discovered that I was buying three or five records for each one I actually wanted to own.

When I was in high school I had no money. Even if I wanted to I could have maybe bought a couple of albums per year. So yeah, I wanted the albums and didn't buy them, and yeah I downloaded some or got mp3s or burned CDs from friends. If I really liked something I would ask my parents to get it for me for my birthday or Christmas. But I couldn't have bought them because I didn't have the money in the first place. No money is no money. You think that 13 year old kid was going to buy those 10 albums? With what trust fund? Was the kid who stole your laptop about to go out and buy a new Dell from Best Buy but just came across the opportunity to rip you off? In your dreams.

Hopefully my karma is evening out as I continue to buy music, but even if I bought two thousand more records I think some guys would still be wanting me to burn in hell.

 

[baalroo]

Mister-O - I read your statement - but how does it hold water. I am not going to buy a CD for a particular artist - but like the Music enough to download it for free?

There is still a loss - you are getting the work for no cost - and you had to want it so therefore you should have paid for it (otherwise why download it?) - either the single song or the whole CD - how is there no loss to the artist? Just because you are claiming you did not want the CD and would not pay for it - but gladly take it or songs from it at no cost - if you are downloading and listening to it you are consuming and should have paid something for it? Open minded to hearing how you reconcile that?

have you never listened to the radio? filesharing is so incredibly easy a lot of people use it to fulfill the exact same role as things like the radio and soul train filled in the past. they DL an album (which with a decent internet connection takes about 5 seconds to find and another minute to DL), listen to it for awhile, and then decide whether or not they deem it worthy of purchase.

In that context, Ethically, I can agree with regard to the definition of stealing - they are the same as no payment has been made directly - although in one case there was initial payment (The used CD was purchased) in the other there was nothing paid. The result to the Artist is ultimately different is the assumption here.

actually, for most major label releases at least, the album gets uploaded to all the major private trackers BY THE RECORD LABEL before it's ever available to purchase in exactly the same way the labels used to send out promotional copies to radio stations in years past. However, you do have a point that although "stealing" music or a book by buying it used is just as ethically deplorable as downloading it (or maybe more deplorable, since you're paying someone else for the theft), on a broader level it may be less damaging to the artist who expects to be paid a set amount per listener simply due to how much more user friendly and efficient stealing over the internet is as compared to stealing through buying used.

so you do not believe that an artist should be paid for their "intellectual property" by each person who reads/listens/etc to it?

THIEF!!!!

The author got paid x amount per unit printed and/or sold(new legal copies). If someone buys a used book he doesn't owe the author anything because THE AUTHOR HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID. If illegal copies are involved that's a different matter.

Re: "THIEF!!!!" I prefer pirate.

Re "thief" vs "pirate": touche. (p.s. pirate totally wins in that fight)

but just to clarify, can you please answer the actual question? y'know: Do you believe that an artist should be paid for their "intellectual property" by each person that reads/listens to it?

you seem to be answering "no, they should not" but a clear answer would be helpful.