your thoughts on piracy and p2p

[JimmyM]

that's pretty wild. you pay for a ticket, and then you donate more cash? or is she saying there would be no admission charge and you solely rely on donations? how could you rent out venues? you'd have to have a lot of confidence in your drawing power/ability to get people to open up their wallets. i guess it could work for some folks, but i don't know...it seems too inconsistent to work on a wide scale, but i guess it's worth a shot.

 

[totallyfrozen]

I haven't acquired any music illegally since I was young and stupid years ago.

Interestingly enough, making this conscientious stand has led to me listening to more and more work by small artists releasing their music for modest prices in easily downloaded open digital formats. The $0.99-only-opens-in-Apple-iTunes stuff is so far away from appealing that it's almost silly...

I think Starbucks partnership with iTunes has helped this immensely. At least it has with me. When I go to Starbucks, I ask for the music download card that you get for FREE. I don't care what genre it is, I always download my freebie and give it a listen. Consequently, I have gone on to purchase albums by artists that I'd previously never heard of. So, for me, the Starbucks freebies in the iTunes store has been a pretty effective sales tool.

As far as "$0.99-only-opens-in-iTunes" stuff...Well, I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. ALL the music files that I purchase from iTunes can be converted to MP3 format IN iTunes even and the copied anywhere and/or opened with any MP3 player. I've never had any trouble with this feature--ever.

 

[NateS]

(longish post from somethng i'm passionate about, and i'm sure to get flamed over)

i'm sure that i'm not the only one who feels that, when it comes down to it, an MP3 file is a bunch of 000s and 1111s...that somehow get turned into a sound that seems like a song an artist has put out.

I download unashamedly. I can't count the number of times i've accidently downloaded demos, alternate versions, and just outright incorrect songs.

I would love to be able to buy every single cd that have. i want to pay for the ART. the book, the CD, the casing. that's why i buy underground, ambient avant-garde music well before buy a jewel case in a store - i'm buying art.

the entire thought of "stealing" an mp3 is ludicrous. stealing means that i take it from you, and you no longer have it. It i came over and stole a CD, and you looked and the CD was still there, you wouldn't be so mad, would you?

Stealing only works with physical media, because if i steal a CD from a brick-and-mortar store, they have 1 less copy. they lost 10 bucks. But that doesn't exist on the internet. There is no physical media to steal. I can make 100 copies of an MP3 ON MY COMPUTER.

I want to ask a question, so i'll space this away from the wall-of-text:



If I right-click a file, copy, and paste again, did i just steal it?

 

[totallyfrozen]

...I read that the Eagles were getting $2 from the sale of a $15 CD. I feel that the record companies have made their bed and now need to lie in it.

As with most things, a common middle ground needs to be found but probably won't. The vultures at the top will not budge. Folks at the bottom will keep pirating. And we will be having this conversation again in the years to come.

I agree but we also should bring into this converstation (if it hasn't been already; I confess I haven't read EVERY post yet)--artists should expect to make a good percentage of their money from merchandising. You could download an album and share it with me and in essence, the band just had 2 copies of the album distributed but only made money on one. If you buy a t-shirt or some other stuff, you can't really share that with me because we'd still only have ONE t-shirt. I don't know from experience but I'm guessing that artists could have better control over merchandising and the money from it than they can from record sales that are controlled by their label.

 

[WMV2]

Music is not a "product" anymore. It's a service.

Let piracy happen. It's up to US to find out how to make a living off of it.

Out dated ideas simply aren't working, and they won't start working again.

 

[totallyfrozen]

...the entire thought of "stealing" an mp3 is ludicrous. stealing means that i take it from you, and you no longer have it. It i came over and stole a CD, and you looked and the CD was still there, you wouldn't be so mad, would you?

Stealing only works with physical media, because if i steal a CD from a brick-and-mortar store, they have 1 less copy. they lost 10 bucks. But that doesn't exist on the internet. There is no physical media to steal. I can make 100 copies of an MP3 ON MY COMPUTER.

I want to ask a question, so i'll space this away from the wall-of-text:



If I right-click a file, copy, and paste again, did i just steal it?

Unfortunately, you're NOT correct on that point. "Intellectual property" does exist and is protected by law. "Good ideas" as well as "creative ideas" are the property of the minds that came up with them. By your logic, you can steal video games and movies too as long as you don't actually touch the DVD itself. Unfortunately, some college grads a lot more clever than you already thought of that and made it illegal.

Let's over simplify it for a hypothetical:
Let's say you have a great idea to win over this hot chick. You tell me the idea and I run over there an pull your move and get the hot chick for myself--and she never even notices you. You'd be as mad as hell. "You stole my idea, you asshat!" is probably what you'd say to me. Stealing "good ideas" is the same as stealing anything else in the eyes of the law. The reason is that ideas are what people pay for. That's why the college grad makes more money than the highschool grad. College grad comes up with better ideas based on education and effort.

So...sorry but stealing creative ideas (which songs are) is still stealing under the law. When you have a good idea or write a kickass song and someone steals it, you'll probably change your mind about it.

As far as your copy/paste question, it depends of the file is copyrighted to someone. So maybe, yes, that might be stealing. And just because you might be able to point out instances where WE are stealing, doesn't mean that you're NOT also stealing. Nice try, though.

 

[JimmyM]

If I right-click a file, copy, and paste again, did i just steal it?

of course you did. intellectual property theft is just as valid a theft as anything imho. just because the cops won't come bust you for it doesn't make it any less of a theft.

 

[NateS]

So...sorry but stealing creative ideas (which songs are) is still stealing under the law. When you have a good idea or write a kickass song and someone steals it, you'll probably change your mind about it.

As far as your copy/paste question, it depends of the file is copyrighted to someone. So maybe, yes, that might be stealing.

maybe so. i'm still in that "young and dumb" demographic, so time will tell.

i also need to send microsof a cease-and-desist letter, they need to remove that theft-authorizing device from their operating systems!

(both of those were only in jest, no harm meant)

edit; i forgot to mention in my earlier post, that once i make said 100 copies on my computer, there are still the 100 copies in the store to be purchased. the store, label, and everyone else is not harmed by my doing so. to say that the "move" your witty analogy stated doesn't work on the hot girl, is not to say that it won't then not work on the next one. no need to water down the vodka here, i can follow the fancy words

 

[JimmyM]

edit; i forgot to mention in my earlier post, that once i make said 100 copies on my computer, there are still the 100 copies in the store to be purchased. the store, label, and everyone else is not harmed by my doing so.

how do you figure that? you're not buying it, so of course everyone who stands to make money from it is harmed if you download it. listen, i ain't the morality police...if you feel comfortable doing it, then whatever. but let's not pretend that it's not stealing just because you think it's ok.

 

[NateS]

i'm broke. i wouldn't have bought it either way. May not be everyone's case, but at this time in my life, i can barely afford bills, much less bass stuff, and BUYING music to get my fix? I'll be a customer when i get the cash to, but with the exception of truely unique releases, i will get to it eventually.

and, i will pay my dues. i dunno about "the other 4 million" as you said, but i will.

ps: i'm not arguing at all, opinions differ and the only people who have any control over the rules are in the pockets of the people who care strongly for cash. Not to mention, the law has become such an outdated thing on the internet that by the time any legislation is finally pushed through red tape, it's old anyway. Nobody uses limewire any more, and hasn't for several years, and that just got shut down.

 

[nataku]

the entire thought of "stealing" an mp3 is ludicrous. stealing means that i take it from you, and you no longer have it. It i came over and stole a CD, and you looked and the CD was still there, you wouldn't be so mad, would you?

Stealing only works with physical media, because if i steal a CD from a brick-and-mortar store, they have 1 less copy. they lost 10 bucks. But that doesn't exist on the internet. There is no physical media to steal. I can make 100 copies of an MP3 ON MY COMPUTER.

This is completely backwards to me. Accessibility does not equal ownership. Just because you can make a copy, doesn't mean you have the right to. If you don't have the money to buy a product, then you shouldn't get the product. You can try to justify it any way you want, but that's a point I've never seen anyone get past. I agree that digital theft and physical theft are different things, but they are both unarguably theft.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

While Nataku and NoseBleedKid are discussing the morals

Agreed completely, but morals factor into plenty of people's choices. Most in this thread have voiced a version of moral basis or justification, from what I recall.

For me, it boils down to an issue of property and ownership right. I agree that downloading is a useful tool, and I wish more artists would put their material out there. The situation right now is that they have the right to release their music in whatever manner they please. The law is on their side, and I think that the laws are justifiable. If they don't want their music out there for free online, then it's their right to have it that way as they own it. I agree that the system doesn't sit well with many people, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work. It is rightfully the artists/distributors choice to release the music in their own way, even if it seems silly to you.

I still feel that the Internet has nothing to do with it. The product is now digital and easier to copy, but accessibility doesn't equate to ownership. The laws are there for a good reason. I know that you can make infinite copies of music, but that doesn't mean taking it without permission isn't a crime. The fact is that the people who own it have the right to do whatever they want with it, and disagreeing with them doesn't justify breaking the law. I think the issue is a lot less grey than people are making it out to be.

I can see your point, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the accessibility of media as a SIGNIFICANT factor in P2P and other downloading methods. I'm not saying that because something's easy to get you SHOULD own it (herpes!), but that without the internet, as a medium, piracy is much less a problem. If it is a problem at all.

I've always been told the death knell of cassettes was when piracy started becoming mainstream. Whether or not that's true or not I couldn't say. What I can say is there's no way for record companies to change this technology we're using, their adaptation will be interesting.

 

[namraj]

I think we need to accept that the sale of records in the conventional sense is dying. And therefore we should start using p2p to our advantage. As a recording artist, I allow all my music to be downloaded free from my websites, and I encourage people to share it... it's free advertising.

I believe Spotify should manage to keep the industry afloat, but saying that, people are never going to stop making music, so perhaps it's best if the Record Labels and Giants went bust, then the people making music would be the people who really wanted to and had the talent, rather than groups of pretty girls that fat cats round up to make money.

 

[JustOpenYourMind]

Hi,

I think that the industry has changed quite considerably with all the cheaper means for artists to produce and sell their own music.

Songs are not worth anything anymore, at least not in the same sense, a lot of bands understood that and are giving away their whole albums on their webpages.

You can't fight piracy so why not use it as a tool.

Bands want to make their music available and known to the largest pool of people they can.

The thing is nowadays, rockstardom, larger than life bands is a dying idea, every little band in every part of the world can produce a quality album in their basements with just a few thousands dollars. That creates a lot of competition and a lot of music available to the listener, in fact there is so much good music available that everyone can find a new band putting out material that they like every month, you just won't hear them on the radio or MTV, they are self-promoted or promoted by websites or (free) independant culture magazines.

You see bands selling out big clubs in towns where their cd's are very rare or completly unavaillable, because of the internet.

Alternative ways to make money for bands exists, one is to create collectable items and sell them at a fair price to those people that are attending your show and WANT to buy your stuff to encourage you.

-T-shirts
-Vinyls with availlable mp3 downloads
-Cd's sold directly by the bands at a fair price.

I've seen it, it works, people buy the stuff and are happy to go to shows

Now let me use myself as an example.

I am an avid music fan, mainly emerging and independent music, there are litteraly hundreds of releases each year, I can't afford to buy that much music, not to mention that with the ipod era, when I buy a cd, I rip it to my computer and the cd becomes ''dead plastic'' that gets stored on a shelf for years without ever being used again.

I download every new album I see having good reviews... I download lots of music,

Hang the thief!!! you might say...

Well,

I go out several times a week to see the gigs of all those bands I would never have listened to if I didn't download their music, when I see an interesting item that I like, LP or T-shirt that I like I buy it, directly from the band...

Another good thing is that, often those bands are not the only one playing those nights, they bring opening acts with them, band that you don't know and guess what, often theses bands are fantastic, what do I do then? I buy their stuff and encourage them...

All of this because of ''piracy''

Sorry but the music industry is falling appart, it is not a viable model anymore.

Don't fight technology, embrace it and use it to your advantage...

 

[4StringTheorist]

As far as "$0.99-only-opens-in-iTunes" stuff...Well, I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. ALL the music files that I purchase from iTunes can be converted to MP3 format IN iTunes even and the copied anywhere and/or opened with any MP3 player. I've never had any trouble with this feature--ever.

Well that's cool. Back in 2004 you had to burn your music to a CD, then rip that to mp3. I guess they've realized how stupid it was keeping their customers locked into a hard-to-access format was.

 

[4StringTheorist]

If I right-click a file, copy, and paste again, did i just steal it?

(Highly opinionated post to follow... more so than my earlier posts in this thread. Take with whatever size grain of salt you please.)

You've just committed copyright infringement. You did not commit theft in the intuitive sense we all recognize, nor even in the legal sense.

Copyright, patents, trademark and servicemark are not property, per se. They have specific definitions under law and, I stress again, their legal definitions are not property as classically construed.

The four things I mentioned above (especially those first two) are getting lumped into a relatively new term "intellectual property." The idea behind the use of that term is to shift the debate in the direction of thinking of and therefore treating those things as property. Where our conceptions are going, our laws are beginning to follow.

So, basically the answer to your question is:

• 100 years ago: No.
• Now: Lawsuit time! A judge or jury will decide
• 100 years from now: Definitely, and our culture won't belong to us ("we the people" us) anymore

To avoid thread derailing, I won't answer any questions related to this post in thread. PM me if you've gotta.

 

[Harper]

Brian Eno's take:

"I think records were just a little bubble through time and those who made a living from them for a while were lucky. There is no reason why anyone should have made so much money from selling records except that everything was right for this period of time. I always knew it would run out sooner or later. It couldn't last, and now it's running out. I don't particularly care that it is and like the way things are going. The record age was just a blip. It was a bit like if you had a source of whale blubber in the 1840s and it could be used as fuel. Before gas came along, if you traded in whale blubber, you were the richest man on Earth. Then gas came along and you'd be stuck with your whale blubber. Sorry mate -- history's moving along. Recorded music equals whale blubber. Eventually, something else will replace it."

 

[jmjbassplayer]

That's the ****. I was wondering when someone was going to quote Eno.

 

[JimmyM]

it's kind of arrogant. sort of an "i got mine, hahaha losers" vibe to it. but i can't prove him wrong, so maybe he's just being honest.

 

[Greevus]

if people are sharing, then it's like the old tape traders. look what tape-trading did for Metallica. there were some major studies just conducted that showed file-sharers also bought the most music. i think to equate it to "stealing" is stupid. the "industry" really brought it onto itself. videos, longer CD recordings with greater cost, less frequent and more expensive tours, etc, all contributed to the Ipod/mp3 era. it's cheaper to buy a Macbook with Logic and record yourself digitally nowadays. record companies dictated too much. now everyone is charging outrageous live prices to compensate and live shows are endangering themselves by doing so. if the labels dissolve and big tours die back, then small clubs will once again be the draw, and bands will tour more as before.

if fans aren't making profit from P2P, then so be it. it's a great way to get exposed to much more music without brainwashing and allows bands greater freedom to write/record what they choose. it allows the fan to make a better choice of how to spend funds in a tough economic period. good songs, good players, will find a way to survive...