The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites? [Archive]

Sean

01-24-2009, 09:41 AM

I have mixed feelings about this stuff. While being able to easily share files is incredibly convenient and fun when used responsibly, it's also being abused to a level that really hurts some people. The singer who gave me my first opportunity to have a couple remixes released did so through her own start-up label. She's an established vocalist who's been featured on tracks by people like A Guy Called Gerald and Dyad10 along with others, with relative hits like last 2001's "Sugar (Sweet Thing)" (http://www.traxsource.com/index.php?act=show&fc=tpage&cr=titles&cv=21872). But when she released her own album and singles last year, which required personal investment and sacrifice, she made no money at all because the releases were immediately made available for free on P2Ps and torrent sites by some jerk-offs. In fact, she lost money and is now probably shutting down the label as a result. On a personal level, the last time I spoke to her, she sounded pretty crushed about it, and is struggling just to make ends meet.

So it's tempting to think that shutting down these file sharing sites is just because big businesses are protecting their fiscal interests, but it's far harder on the little guy based on what I've seen - thanks to the assholes of the world who don't have the common sense or decency to realize how their illegal actions hurt the lives of others.

mmm skyscraper

01-24-2009, 12:12 PM

Sean

01-24-2009, 01:00 PM

But without technology, your friend would never be able to record/release music anyway. Public performance and merchandise will be the only real way to make money in the future or we can go back to the time before recorded music where comissions were the way to make money.I haven't got an issue with technology - I have an issue with selfish and thoughtless behaviour, which is exactly what stealing someone's music and making it available for free is. Not to mention the fact that theft is illegal whether you're stealing physical items from a store, or virtual items from the comfort of your own home.

And I completely disagree with your assertion that "public performance and merchandise will be the only real way to make money in the future". In fact, it's less that I disagree, and more that I believe it's literally impossible. How can you afford to tour in support of an album you can't afford to make in the first place? And how do you merchandise it if you've actually lost money just trying to get the music out there? No one's going to buy merchandise for a non-existant album. And why bother trying to make music when it's even harder now to make any kind of living at it than it was before thanks to the assholes of the world who feel it's their right to take your work and distribute it for free? As long as this mindset that "art is free, man" persists, art and artists will suffer.

I can only pursue music because I have a day job. Because despite having a few remixes officially released at this point, I haven't made a single penny off of them. Why? On one of them, I had a contract for a flat fee payment, but the label is going under thanks to people stealing the tracks, and has no money to pay as a direct result. On another, because I had a contract for a portion of profits from sales, but clearly sales don't happen when it's being passed around for free. And on the last, we'll see what happens since it's only just about to be released. But I have had to join the local musician's union, which over the past couple years has cost me a few hundred dollars. So basically, ever since I started getting professional work in the music industry, it's actually cost me money.

So how eager do you think I am to continue pursuing a career in music? And how many other amateur musicians do you think have been forced to abandon an attempt at having a career in music thanks to assholes who steal their work? People need to wake the hell up to the consequences of their actions. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this after having seen exactly how file sharing has negatively affected truly talented and inspired artists. It stifles their talent and kills their inspiration. Well done, music fans!

chuck

01-24-2009, 03:26 PM

Oh boy. This debate. It's like abortion and Israel - no-one ever wins.

Currently in NZ there is a bill - that will become law on Feb 27th - Section 92a (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html) - which makes ISP's liable for all copyright infringement. And ISP's must terminate internet connections of those suspected of said copyright infringement. No proof is required. No court action is required. Merely allegation.

It's being pushed by APRA, and the record labels - and it's being opposed by many - including artists (http://creativefreedom.org.nz/).

The law is poorly written - on so many levels and ignores a new reality of digital work. One example of how it's badly written is in its very definition of an ISP - it includes any person or organisation that has a website. WTF?

Naturally it opens up a whole can of worms - and of course much controversy. Apart from the sheer insanity of the technology and man hours required to prove an allegation - why would ISP's want to disconnect their clients? It's like holding the government liable for deaths of people on state owned roads.

In NZ it's illegal, under the current law for me to buy a CD - then rip the contents of that CD onto my computer and then load it onto my iPod. The big business side of the recording industry has seen fit to make me purchase a VHS, a DVD, and now a Blu-ray of the same content. Not to mention the number of times Lucas has foisted re-interpratations of the Star Wars trilogies on us.

I love movies, I've bought plenty on VHS and now on DVD, but if I want to watch one of the movies I already own on MY portable player - I have to go out and buy (PSP) or pay to download another copy (via iTunes)- of the same thing? That's a bit shit when I'll even do the re-encoding myself to save you the work.

I have to disagree on one of your points Sean - imo - this is not an issue of theft. Theft is if I take something that belongs to you - and you no longer have it. If I torrent a copy of your remix - you still have the remix. This is an issue of fair use and who is compensated for created content. I'm all for fair use and fair compensation - but this issue of piracy isn't exactly Johnny Depp and the pirates of Barbary.

I mean - here in NZ - not only is the definition flawed - but the language is inflammatory and ridiculous. This is the pdf (http://www.nzfact.co.nz/press_releases/P2P%20Illegal%20filesharing.pdf)- that got sent out to schools by NZFACT. Can you actually read that and not chuckle at the OTT-ness of it all?

If you use peer-to-peer file-sharing services, you risk breaking the law, downloading a serious computer virus, sharing your personal data, which can lead to identity theft, and getting exposed to pornographic materials.Yes - if you use P2P technology you could be exposed to pornographic material!!!! aaarrghh.... as opposed to, you know, turning on the news.

If I go to a library and borrow an author's book - read it, then put it back, am I in breach of copyright? Is the next person who borrows that book? Is the rate-payer funded library liable?

If I go and look at a painting hanging in a public gallery, decide I like it - then buy a copy of that painting as a postcard, then download a copy of that painting to use as my desktop - at which point do I break copyright? Is it when I downloaded the image using bittorrent? Or was it when I scanned the postcard into my computer? Or was it if I took out my cellphone and took a picture of the painting?

As a teacher, I will be in breach of the law in NZ when I show a youtube video, such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDC_S4zTGyY). That is the BBC's content - not mine.

I have friends who've been screwed over by record labels, and have then gone on to do done damn well licensing their music - and selling it online. There's Radiohead, there's NIN, there's the Python's cleaning up - after they setup their own youtube channel.

And has been said - all it does is push filesharing further underground - another protocol or co-located host will be setup. I mean - wasn't the victory over Napster meant to save the music industry? They poured millions of dollars into that fight - and then expect us to go out and pay for Girls Aloud and yet another Hannah Montana compilation?:rolleyes:

Lawrence Lessig, the people over at Creative Commons, the EFF - there are sane people discussing this issue. IMHO - they need to be listened too.

Sean

01-24-2009, 04:52 PM

There's no debate as far as I'm concerned. Enforce reasonable laws against the people who illegally share music files. But to pretend that stealing music from an artist hurts no one is ignorance at best, maliciousness at worst.

Chuck - what if suddenly your students stole their lessons from you for free, so there was no way for you to be paid for teaching? Would it be cool with you to hear people say "hey - the future of teaching is writing and selling books, not teaching in a classroom".

cacophony

01-24-2009, 07:09 PM

And I completely disagree with your assertion that "public performance and merchandise will be the only real way to make money in the future". In fact, it's less that I disagree, and more that I believe it's literally impossible.
but that's traditionally how most artists have made their money. most record contracts with large labels are structured so that the artists make zilch off of record sales and unless their album goes friggin' platinum they'll never make enough off of simple record sales to recoup the cost of production. on the other hand, touring is where they make bank. performance and merchandise is where artists become financially successful. not record sales.

chuck

01-24-2009, 07:16 PM

There's no debate as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately - the debate has to be had here in NZ - it's been shaped/forced through by the record labels/big business. They blatantly attack the technology as the reason for piracy - read the quote I reference above - IF you use p2p - YOU WILL get infected with viruses etc, etc. The wording of the new law is insanity - and leaves the door wide open for businesses, libraries, schools all to be cut off the Net - under the accusation of guilt.

How do they prove who's downloaded what? Under the NZ law - they don't have to prove it, the ISP must terminate the connection, if they receive notice that a user has been downloading illegal content. No proof, no court case, and the user has no way to defend themselves against the charge - because you don't have to provide evidence.

Under this legislation wireless hotspots - like in Starbucks or the airport will have to be shut down, regardless of the fact that you can't prove who's downloaded what. I have a wireless point at home - how can I prove it's not been hacked by the neighbour, who's then downloaded the latest episode of Heroes.

What if an artist wants to download their own music - from a torrent site - how do they prove their the author/creator of that content. They can be cut off.

If you taped a copy of Heroes or BSG for me in the US - then mailed me the cd or the vhs tape - because it won't screen in NZ for another month - who's broken copyright?

Some good discussion here (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/5845) and here (http://it.gen.nz/2008/09/25/cutting-off-your-internet-if-you-are-accused-of-infringement/).

The debate is being led by certain interests here in NZ (and possibly around the globe) - and the majority of our parlimentarians are ignorant of the implications - or the consequences of a simple black and white solution.

Besides, all it's going to take is several letters of complaint to the ISP's that supply Parliament for them to realise how insane this legislation is.

Chuck - what if suddenly your students stole their lessons from you for free, so there was no way for you to be paid for teaching? Would it be cool with you to hear people say "hey - the future of teaching is writing and selling books, not teaching in a classroom".

Um - well, I give away my lessons for free, as I work in a public school. The government pays me - it's a social good/social contract kind of thing. Taxes pay my wages - just like they pay the wages of the police, the nurses, doctors, garbage collectors. I assume that my students are going to take my ideas, add them to their own experiences, combine them with the teachers, coaches and family that they have around them as they grow up and then create, design, build, write their own ideas.

NO teacher works in a vacuum - all teachers will use, reuse, reshape ideas.

I use the internet and content on the net to inform and put together the majority of my lessons. I expect my students to do the same - there's a case that could be made for leaving them all at home and telling them to use google to learn. There are dozens of websites where you can download worksheets, pdfs, lesson plans - many set up by teachers. Most homeschooling parents will do the same.

Most teachers don't expect to make money off their lesson plans, but they are their intellectual property - and so if I started putting my materials up online, I'd slap a Creative Commons notice on them - just as I do on my flickr page.

If you're talking about making knowledge propietary and enforcing copyright of ideas - that's another topic. There is grounds for it I guess - but if you look up iTunes U (http://www.apple.com/education/mobile-learning/) - or MIT's Open courseware (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm) or even TED (http://www.ted.com/) - knowledge is getting more open, more available and oddly enough, the majority of it is FREE.

Sean

01-25-2009, 01:29 AM

but that's traditionally how most artists have made their money. most record contracts with large labels are structured so that the artists make zilch off of record sales and unless their album goes friggin' platinum they'll never make enough off of simple record sales to recoup the cost of production. on the other hand, touring is where they make bank. performance and merchandise is where artists become financially successful. not record sales.I'm not talking about financially successful. I'm just talking about financially viable. Like me - I'm not looking to make bank - besides being unrealistic, I just don't want to have to dig into my mortgage money to continue being able to have some songs released.

And for the record, I don't agree with the extreme measures big record companies are taking, either. All I'm saying is that the habit that's developed in our society of stealing music with zero remorse is hurting independent artists. No ifs ands or buts. That's what's happening, and it needs to be considered as the decisions that will shape the music industry's future happen.

cacophony

01-25-2009, 12:11 PM

i'm not disagreeing with you in general, just on the point that performance and merchandising isn't where artists get their income. i think the argument that it's not theft because the original owner retains the original copy is just a way to split hairs and absolve yourself of guilt. intellectual property theft is different from physical property theft. it's apples and oranges.

the problem is, the availability of free pirated creative works has turned us all into gollum: "we wants it, so we takes it." wanting a piece of music isn't justification for just outright taking it.

we can quibble about where to split the hair, is it when you look at the pretty painting, or when you take a pretty pictue of the pretty painting, or when you scan the pretty picture of the pretty painting.... it's all a bunch of self-soothing faux-intellectual crap. you know when you launch bittorrent whether you're planning on getting your grubby mitts on a piece of music that is commercially available for pay. period. if the intention of the artist was to make their artistic expression available in exchange for money, then you're stealing when you choose not to exchange money for it. end of story, it's no more complicated than that.

does that mean i'm squeaky clean? nope. i'm part of the problem, too. by and large i pay. i pay for 99.9% of what i have. but every now and then there's that single that was released as a b-side in 1992 and isn't available anywhere online or in stores or on ebay.... and what do you know, i have a copy of bittorrent installed right here on this machine.

but i'm not going to write oodles and oodles of paragraphs debating whether or not it's stealing. it's friggin' stealing. i don't care how hard it is to find or how badly you wanted it, it's still stealing.

call it what it is.

chuck

01-25-2009, 02:17 PM

OK - let's call it what it is.

Let's call the speed limit what it is as well.

Because that's a 'law' - as I understand it - and of course, we're all law abiding citizens - and no-one breaks the law.

I understand your definition of stealing - but as I see it - there is a difference. And you might all insist that it's splitting hairs, but if we can't even agree on the language, then it's a pointless argument. Again - the OTT language that is used by NZFACT and the industry here in NZ basically says, if you use p2p technology - YOU WILL DIE FROM A HORRIBLE DISEASE AND YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN WILL BE CURSED.

It's bullshit, and excessive, and ignores the reality.

You might say it's all faux-intellectual claptrap, but it strikes me that many of us break the law constantly, and we don't all get locked up or penalised for it. How many have been to Asia and bought a pair of cheap Diesel jeans? Or cheap Adidas? Or made a copy of the CD that you've bought and paid for - for the iPod? What's the difference between the copy of Lost on your Tivo - or the copy of Lost that you recorded to VHS? Sung Happy Birthday? Yes - Warner Music own the rights to that one too (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp).

These cases are being argued on the basis of intellectual and copyright law - and the RIAA/MPAA is rampantly screwing people, without any regard for fair use, or any grasp of reality. The new Section 92A of NZ law will be impossible to police or credibly maintain - ISP's are in a lose-lose situation. They can be sued by big business who say they are allowing copyright infringement, and they can be sued by terminated clients, for not having the proof of said infringement. Because the NZ law is based on "accusation of guilt".

This case is indicative (http://joelfightsback.com/about-the-case/). And the fact that the RIAA opposed the case being streamed on the net - seems to me like a case of "cake" and "choking on it". But they might win - some of the people (http://copywrite.org/) trying to argue the case - are just getting out (http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-blog.html). For reasons like this:

2. The Current State of Copyright Law is too depressing

This leads me tomy final reason for closing the blog which is independent of the first reason: my fear that the blog was becoming too negative in tone. I regard myself as a centrist. I believe very much that in proper doses copyright is essential for certain classes of works, especially commercial movies, commercial sound recordings, and commercial books, the core copyright industries. I accept that the level of proper doses will vary from person to person and that my recommended dose may be lower (or higher) than others. But in my view, and that of my cherished brother Sir Hugh Laddie, we are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illness stage. Much like the U.S. economy, things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.
I'm all for artists being compensated fairly - but the film industry pisses me off for treating me like a criminal and insulting my intelligence by showing their shit "You wouldn't steal a purse. DON'T DOWNLOAD" - at the start of a movie, I've paid for, and a DVD I've paid for. We are getting to the point where the anti-piracy ads will be just like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4).

Anyone else see the irony in an industry that attacks the technology for destroying their livelihoods - then uses that technology to show us this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA#).

The Warner Music Group and Youtube split (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/4297069/Google-boss-denies-screwing-music-industry-and-defends-YouTube-in-Warner-row.html) has caused some interesting reactions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdFe4JNsuIo) and responses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hklsnCunHis) and rants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4nkS68mp6U). It really is a bit shit when you can't even sing covers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnsZLhI4zb4) anymore. Yes, yes, I understand it's been published in an online environment... but good god, talk about how to alienate and piss off the very people you want to purchase your product.

Jan

01-25-2009, 04:13 PM

Just imagine if usage of the Amen break would be illegal (technically it is, but the Winstons don't/didn't care)... an entire genre of music gone. If you think about it, culture is just taking something old and rearraging it slightly. Too restrictive copyright will lead to less cultural diversity.

I know 90% of the music I listen to from the Internet... what would happen if copyright law actually was enforced! I guess we would return to sharing cassettes and CDs like 'in the old days', but that was very limited.
As a music lover I feel criminalized... I spend a lot of money for CDs and try to buy everything I like. How is that different from going into a record store and listening to CDs there before you bought them (I wish there was a good record store here, I love good record stores).

Right now, I think there are two possibilities:

1) There will be a 1984 scenario. The Internet is shut down, and we will listen to generated music coming from the telescreens.

2) Copyright changes from the arbitrarily prolongable (we'll be at 95(!) years soon) tool of the music industry back to its original intent, which was that people gave a little of their freedom away in exchange for more content, nothing more nothing less. Just because you had a hit single or invented Mickey Mouse doesn't mean that your grandchildren are set for life.

she made no money at all because the releases were immediately made available for free on P2Ps and torrent sites by some jerk-offs.
There will always be idiots like those, but this is a general problem of society and not limited to this one aspect.

Sean

01-25-2009, 04:27 PM

Unfortunately - the debate has to be had here in NZ - it's been shaped/forced through by the record labels/big business. They blatantly attack the technology as the reason for piracy - read the quote I reference above - IF you use p2p - YOU WILL get infected with viruses etc, etc. The wording of the new law is insanity - and leaves the door wide open for businesses, libraries, schools all to be cut off the Net - under the accusation of guilt.I'm fully in agreement with you that this is too extreme.

Um - well, I give away my lessons for free, as I work in a public school. The government pays me - it's a social good/social contract kind of thing. Taxes pay my wages - just like they pay the wages of the police, the nurses, doctors, garbage collectors. I assume that my students are going to take my ideas, add them to their own experiences, combine them with the teachers, coaches and family that they have around them as they grow up and then create, design, build, write their own ideas.

NO teacher works in a vacuum - all teachers will use, reuse, reshape ideas.

I use the internet and content on the net to inform and put together the majority of my lessons. I expect my students to do the same - there's a case that could be made for leaving them all at home and telling them to use google to learn. There are dozens of websites where you can download worksheets, pdfs, lesson plans - many set up by teachers. Most homeschooling parents will do the same.

Most teachers don't expect to make money off their lesson plans, but they are their intellectual property - and so if I started putting my materials up online, I'd slap a Creative Commons notice on them - just as I do on my flickr page.

If you're talking about making knowledge propietary and enforcing copyright of ideas - that's another topic. There is grounds for it I guess - but if you look up iTunes U (http://www.apple.com/education/mobile-learning/) - or MIT's Open courseware (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm) or even TED (http://www.ted.com/) - knowledge is getting more open, more available and oddly enough, the majority of it is FREE.I wasn't actually presenting that as a literal and 100% accurate hypothetical. My point is simply that very few people could afford to do a job that didn't give them the necessary capital to simply get the job off the ground, or even costs them money in the process. Musicians need some measure of return on a release in order to get a tour and merchandising off the ground. If all they get is financial losses with each release, and no way to measure the release's success, then the tour and merchandising simply cannot follow. If you had to pay to be a teacher, you probably couldn't afford to be one.

Sean

01-25-2009, 04:34 PM

Just imagine if usage of the Amen break would be illegal (technically it is, but the Winstons don't/didn't care)... an entire genre of music gone. If you think about it, culture is just taking something old and rearraging it slightly. Too restrictive copyright will lead to less cultural diversity.It needs to be restrictive enough that it stops people from stealing the work of musicians.

I know 90% of the music I listen to from the Internet... what would happen if copyright law would actually be enforced! I guess we would return to sharing cassettes and CDs like 'in the old days', but that was very limited.
As a music lover I feel criminalized... I spend a lot of money for CDs and try to buy everything I like. How is that different from going into a record store and listening to CDs there before you bought them (I wish there was a good record store here, I love good record stores).Listening to a preview is one thing. But if you then walked out of the CD store with CDs you didn't pay for, then that's stealing. And that's exactly the same as downloading a free digital copy of an album or single that's commercially available.

There will always be idiots like those, but this is a general problem of society and not limited to this one aspect. Agreed. And these idiots are why we have laws - to hold them accountable for the actions they take that hurt others.

Sean

01-26-2009, 01:19 AM

i'm not disagreeing with you in general, just on the point that performance and merchandising isn't where artists get their income.I do absolutely acknowledge that performance and merchandising are huge aspects of an artist's income. I never meant to imply any different. But if you're an independent artist, or just trying to get started and your album is stolen, it can sink your career - or at least deal it a serious set-back. It kind of kills your chance to maybe organize a tour, or to design and market your merchandise.

Deckard

01-26-2009, 04:21 AM

It comes back to what I always say: only ever steal from the big guys. ;)

cacophony

01-26-2009, 07:22 PM

so, what, the argument is, "the law only exists where punishment exists?"

Jan

01-27-2009, 07:17 AM

Actually I am feeling bad. Not about breaking this particular law but about breaking a law in general.
Still, copyright needs to be changed. Some intelligent people think that 14 years are enough (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.ars). This month Born Slippy has fallen into Public Domain.
14 years may seem a little short, but it will result in more diverse content, not less.
Unfortunately, copyright in its current form is not compatible with the Internet... maybe someday someone will find a solution that doesn't compromise user privacy.

btw, how do you justify to yourself being a member of RTSR and illegally sharing copyrighted Underworld material, therefore breaking a law?

Sean

01-27-2009, 09:00 AM

btw, how do you justify to yourself being a member of RTSR and illegally sharing copyrighted Underworld material, therefore breaking a law?RTSR only shares non-commercially available material, so it doesn't take a single penny out of the pockets of the artist. I don't know if it's technically legal or not, but the RTSR is run openly so that Underworld presumably knows about it and has no problem with it, and it's run responsibly and respectfully. Frankly, I'm less concerned with laws - laws are often flawed - than I am with personal responsibility. Chuck gave a perfect example of what I would consider wrong-headed laws in New Zealand, but the flawed laws don't justify stealing someone's work that they're depending on for income.

Don't get me wrong, I love the ability to easily share files when used responsibly. I don't want to see p2p websites shut down. I just want to see people held reasonably accountable for stealing music/movies and such (along the lines of having to pay the 99 cents they should have been paying for every commercially available track they've stolen) so that smaller artists aren't put out of business. I think this is a perfectly reasonable stance to take.

so, what, the argument is, "the law only exists where punishment exists?"I'm not quite following. Who's argument is that a summary of?

King of Snake

01-27-2009, 09:30 AM

I can only pursue music because I have a day job. Because despite having a few remixes officially released at this point, I haven't made a single penny off of them. Why? On one of them, I had a contract for a flat fee payment, but the label is going under thanks to people stealing the tracks, and has no money to pay as a direct result. On another, because I had a contract for a portion of profits from sales, but clearly sales don't happen when it's being passed around for free. And on the last, we'll see what happens since it's only just about to be released.

So how eager do you think I am to continue pursuing a career in music? And how many other amateur musicians do you think have been forced to abandon an attempt at having a career in music thanks to assholes who steal their work? People need to wake the hell up to the consequences of their actions. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this after having seen exactly how file sharing has negatively affected truly talented and inspired artists. It stifles their talent and kills their inspiration. Well done, music fans!

just playing devil's advocate here, but how do you know that filesharing was at the root of all these problems? Surely some records and labels failed just as hard before filesharing even existed. Could be any number of reasons for it.
How do you explain the incredible success of the iTunes store or Beatport? Obviously there are loads of people more than willing to shell out cash for their mp3's, even when the prices aren't exactly all that attractive in all cases compared to physical media.

You have to have a certain degree of luck and be doing just the right thing (or sell your soul and start making Euro Trance) to be able to have a career in music (or any other kind of creative endeavour). It seems to me it's always been like that, filesharing or not.

Strangelet

01-27-2009, 10:16 AM

I don't know guys.

Sean gave a perfectly concrete example of what has been happening all over the music industry this decade. And responses, while interesting reads, does nothing to overturn the point. File sharing has crippled creativity, clearly seen in his example, to a level where I'm sure this chick can actually see disparity between her revenue and the mass copies of her music out on market, extrapolated out to affect the entire industry.

Thank god for youtube and myspace because they have offset the otherwise consolidation of music output towards modonna and britany spears. But just because intarnets offer exposure isn't an excuse to use the same media to rob the industry. It just means that more cash in hand consumers are able to be reached to compensate.

I can't wait for all file sharing, bit torrent sites and p2p to just go away and everything water down to people just making love letter mixes on blank cd's. Simply out of my love for music do I say this.

Strangelet

01-27-2009, 12:11 PM

as a counter point i found this masters thesis (http://etd.ils.unc.edu/dspace/handle/1901/51) on the impact of file sharing on indie record labels.

This study describes a web-based questionnaire survey of the effects of peer-to-peer file sharing on independent record labels in the United States and Canada. The owners and managers of such labels were contacted via email and asked to participate anonymously in the survey. The survey encouraged them to describe their labels, estimate the financial impact file sharing has had on their labels, and share their opinions of file sharing. A total of 883 label owners and managers were contacted. Ninety-seven responded. The data was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. The survey results indicate that approximately two-thirds of the respondents favored file sharing and reported that it either benefited or at least did not harm their businesses. However, a consistent proportion of the respondents either opposed file sharing or had no opinion of it at all. Finally, most of those respondents who included comments with the survey expressed opposition to file sharing.

When prompted to respond to statements that address the financial impact of file sharing on their labels’ music sales, the participants returned to the kind of support for file sharing seen in Table 6. 57.8% of the participants denied that file sharing reduced overall music sales. A similar 55.7% answered the same way regarding previously-released, in-print music sales and 60.8% disagreed that file sharing reduces the number of people willing to buy music from their labels.

But I still think the issue is cloudy to see what is really going on even for the management of these labels.

1. Most of the qualitative support towards file sharing is actually negative support for the actions of the RIAA and the corporate record labels.
2. They don't distinguish the difference between file sharing and exposure. Whereas I see a huge difference on a simple fiscal level. Exposure is radio, streaming audio like rhapsody, youtube, or myspace embedded files. File sharing is simply owning the damn music.

chuck

01-27-2009, 01:51 PM

as a counter point i found this masters thesis (http://etd.ils.unc.edu/dspace/handle/1901/51) on the impact of file sharing on indie record labels.

But I still think the issue is cloudy to see what is really going on even for the management of these labels.

1. Most of the qualitative support towards file sharing is actually negative support for the actions of the RIAA and the corporate record labels.
2. They don't distinguish the difference between file sharing and exposure. Whereas I see a huge difference on a simple fiscal level. Exposure is radio, streaming audio like rhapsody, youtube, or myspace embedded files. File sharing is simply owning the damn music.

I agree, there is a huge difference - it's not like you see the RIAA sueing punters for recording music off the radio. I spent a good portion of my teen years hunched over the radio waiting to hit the pause button and avoid getting Casey Kasem on my mixtape. Broke the law every weekend! And I understand that in a digital world, the scale of copying has naturally changed - to the point that there is a financial impact.

But then again - it's not like the movie industry is running out of cash (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090105-what-piracy-movie-biz-sees-record-box-office-in-2008.html). And yes - just because they make money, is not a reason to allow rampant file copying and dvd pirating to continue. Not at all - but one of the MPAA/RIAA's major arguments is that online piracy is affecting the bottom line. That's a hell of a bottom line - and having a wife who works in the industry, I'm aware of the implications.

And it'd be nice if the MPAA would get the research that they base their accusations on (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/oops-mpaa-admits-college-piracy-numbers-grossly-inflated.ars) - you know, within the realm of a reasonable margin of error.

After commissioning a 2005 study from LEK Consulting that showed collegiate file-swappers were responsible for 44 percent of movie studio "losses" to piracy, the MPAA then used the report it bought to bludgeon Congress into considering legislation to address this massive problem. Now the MPAA admits that the report's conclusions weren't even close to being right; collegiate piracy accounts for only 15 percent of "losses." Oops. And that's assuming you believe the rest of the data."The law here in NZ will not distinguish between 'exposure' - as in a youtube video, a streamed file from an artists website - and "stolen property" - as in an ftp'd/torrented file from a server. It relies on ISP's taking down users connections based on official letters from complainants. Without the user being aware of charges. It's just really shit law - before we even get to the technical differences! Or the implications in an online environment.

I should repeat myself - I'm all for fair use, and fair recompense for people who make stuff. Copyright is designed to do that - it's meant to protect those people for a reasonable time.

As currently enforced though - copyright is so prohibitive it's insane (the rights issues around Watchmen being made into a movie and Alan Moore's refusal to be connected with his own work is one example) - and it's an endgame that the big corporates are going to be unable to win. Not without serious losses on all sides. IMO.

Strangelet

01-27-2009, 05:54 PM

I agree, there is a huge difference - it's not like you see the RIAA sueing punters for recording music off the radio. I spent a good portion of my teen years hunched over the radio waiting to hit the pause button and avoid getting Casey Kasem on my mixtape. Broke the law every weekend! And I understand that in a digital world, the scale of copying has naturally changed - to the point that there is a financial impact.

But then again - it's not like the movie industry is running out of cash (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090105-what-piracy-movie-biz-sees-record-box-office-in-2008.html). And yes - just because they make money, is not a reason to allow rampant file copying and dvd pirating to continue. Not at all - but one of the MPAA/RIAA's major arguments is that online piracy is affecting the bottom line. That's a hell of a bottom line - and having a wife who works in the industry, I'm aware of the implications.

And it'd be nice if the MPAA would get the research that they base their accusations on (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/oops-mpaa-admits-college-piracy-numbers-grossly-inflated.ars) - you know, within the realm of a reasonable margin of error.

The law here in NZ will not distinguish between 'exposure' - as in a youtube video, a streamed file from an artists website - and "stolen property" - as in an ftp'd/torrented file from a server. It relies on ISP's taking down users connections based on official letters from complainants. Without the user being aware of charges. It's just really shit law - before we even get to the technical differences! Or the implications in an online environment.

I should repeat myself - I'm all for fair use, and fair recompense for people who make stuff. Copyright is designed to do that - it's meant to protect those people for a reasonable time.

As currently enforced though - copyright is so prohibitive it's insane (the rights issues around Watchmen being made into a movie and Alan Moore's refusal to be connected with his own work is one example) - and it's an endgame that the big corporates are going to be unable to win. Not without serious losses on all sides. IMO.

I find myself agreeing with everything you said, not surprisingly. I think we all have the same ideal world in mind, maybe just coming at it from different angles. I think the only difference is I don't just blame the RIAA and government copyright laws, but also the consumers. Neither have been very legitimate at bringing about what I think everyone knows is the foregone conclusion of the music industry. That it will be largely data file based, purchased over the internet, with the artists wresting increasing amount of compensation and control over their work away from the material world publishers. File sharing networks have been just as much of an obstacle to this dream as major labels refusing to release their work in mp3 format, readily available for purchase. That's my only counter point.

Also, I don't think its that cut and dry to argue that artists have traditionally made their money only on shows and the merchandise they sell at them, so its moot to argue for the artists' benefit when it comes to piracy. For one, that's only been the case because industry has argued they needed to pay for those uber expensive plastic media devices, (which is pennies to the dollar), and then all their awesome work at product placement (yeah right, like mtv is anything like youtube). Or recoup the cost of having to take on other unsuccessful acts. (if someone's shit is unsuccessful, its the studio time at risk, that's it) I mean that's all going away. More than ever its word of mouth and the quality of the work. period. Second, Say you're in a band called Citizen Dick, which is huge in Belgium. How do you know if you're huge in Belgium if the belgians have just downloaded your shit, and not bothered to buy it? To wit, where is your fan base? where do you tour?

cacophony

01-27-2009, 06:27 PM

I'm not quite following. Who's argument is that a summary of?
i dunno. i got tired of reading so i just threw that out there. :D

Sean

01-27-2009, 08:34 PM

just playing devil's advocate here, but how do you know that filesharing was at the root of all these problems? Surely some records and labels failed just as hard before filesharing even existed. Could be any number of reasons for it.Could be - I'm just telling you what her label claims to have discovered with their first single release. They have also been hurt by some other factors beyond their control, but the illegal file sharing appears to have definitely cut into any return on their investment in the recordings.

Sean

01-27-2009, 08:36 PM

i dunno. i got tired of reading so i just threw that out there. :DAwesome. :)

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

01-28-2009, 08:52 AM

Listening to a preview is one thing. But if you then walked out of the CD store with CDs you didn't pay for, then that's stealing. And that's exactly the same as downloading a free digital copy of an album or single that's commercially available.

No, that is not exactly the same. This is the RIAA's way of thinking and it's ridiculous. One downloaded copy != one lost sale. In some cases, yes. In many others, no. If the single sold 1000 copies and was downloaded 9000 times, do you think that in a world without filesharing it would sell 10000? There is really not a good way to tell - it could sell 1000, 2000, 10000, 500...who knows. Albums/singles have failed before the internet as there was no real exposure. The RIAA and MPAA want to treat files as though they were physical objects when they are not. A man who downloads four million albums for himself is not affecting the industry. However a man who obtains four million cases of beer without paying for them is depriving many stores and the beer industry out of lots money because they can actually sell those objects.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Nearly 95% of the CDs I own are a result of filesharing. So has practically every show I've been to. If it were not for filesharing the music industry would have lost thousands of dollars from me personally.

Strangelet

01-28-2009, 11:26 AM

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Nearly 95% of the CDs I own are a result of filesharing. So has practically every show I've been to. If it were not for filesharing the music industry would have lost thousands of dollars from me personally.

ok but then there's this.

Additionally, the economic theory often cited by P2P proponents has been misused to defend Internet file sharing. P2P advocates argue (1) that file sharing increases album sales (known as the sampling effect) and (2) that individuals who use P2P to download music would not have purchased the music in the first place.

Stan J. Liebowitz provides an extensive analysis of why the first idea--the sampling effect--does not hold up to scrutiny.2 (http://www.heritage.org/research/internetandtechnology/bg1790.cfm#pgfId-1131423) The sampling story holds that consumers use P2P to "sample" songs from full-length albums. Because consumers could not sample prior to P2P, they were less likely to buy the full-length album. Therefore, the story goes, consumers who sample on P2P are now more likely to buy music.

The main problem with the sampling story is that consumers who sample may find that they dislike the music. These consumers will not purchase the album. For sampling to increase music sales unambiguously, individuals would have to sample the music, like the music, and then purchase the music they had already acquired free of charge (all with no downward pressure on music prices). Although this process may hold true for some music consumers, a complete market analysis suggests that the sampling effect will decrease overall music sales.
http://www.heritage.org/research/internetandtechnology/bg1790.cfm

anyway you're arguing that file sharing serves as art exposure which it just isn't. its art ownership. everything in the world is on youtube these days. hard to believe not a lot of what you've purchased from file sharing couldn't also have been purchased from hearing it on rhapsody, lastfm, or youtube.

chuck

01-28-2009, 01:35 PM

I guess another aspect to throw into the mix is that most people today - don't buy albums. They don't even buy singles really - they just buy/download songs.

You could argue that iTunes put paid to that - but then again, when was the last decent "album" of musical work that was a coherent whole, released?

The 1980s? Def Leppard's Hysteria ? ;) :D

So in a way - the delivery mechanism, ie. albums as in a CD or an LP is, to some extent in a digital environment, flawed.

Disregarding the amount of innocuous pap that's being presented as musical talent these days.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

01-28-2009, 02:37 PM

ok but then there's this.

http://www.heritage.org/research/internetandtechnology/bg1790.cfm

anyway you're arguing that file sharing serves as art exposure which it just isn't. its art ownership. everything in the world is on youtube these days. hard to believe not a lot of what you've purchased from file sharing couldn't also have been purchased from hearing it on rhapsody, lastfm, or youtube.

I don't really find what is quoted a problem. Isn't buying an album and not liking it the reason why so many people complain in the first place? It seems to suggest that sampling is going to move people away from bad albums and on to good ones. That is a good thing.

As for the lastfm/youtube thing...certainly this is what I'd be doing if not for filesharing, I guess the reason why I download stuff instead is because it's higher quality and allows me to listen at work.

To be honest I would just really like some kind of actual user-friendly solution. When Napster and OINK were in their heydays a lot of people commented on how they would gladly pay for the service. I mean seriously there are so many albums...out of print stuff, imports, whatever, that just can't be bought unless you're going to pay $50-60 off eBay for it. Furthermore I think a lot of people hate the way the industry is run and will not support it. Since the ridiculous lawsuits started I have not bought any RIAA CDs and will continue to not do so - plus, it is disheartening to know that artists only recieve a few cents from each song download. Furthermore few sites really even have a sensible pricing model - I do love eMusic, but I don't like that I can download three hour-long five-track albums for the same 'price' as a short fifteen-track one.

Sean

01-28-2009, 04:17 PM

No, that is not exactly the same. This is the RIAA's way of thinking and it's ridiculous. One downloaded copy != one lost sale. In some cases, yes. In many others, no. If the single sold 1000 copies and was downloaded 9000 times, do you think that in a world without filesharing it would sell 10000? There is really not a good way to tell - it could sell 1000, 2000, 10000, 500...who knows. Ah - but what you fail to acknowledge is that the rampant free downloading is a direct result of the ease of stealing the files. No, it may not directly reflect the specific number of lost sales, but if it was equally easy to steal a CD from a music store, than that would probably happen almost as frequently as digital theft happens. So I agree that the number of copies stolen doesn't directly reflect the number of lost sales, but a portion of them certainly does. So say we go with your numbers, and the 9000 stolen copies translates into even 1000 lost sales. That's a lot of lost sales - possibly enough to recoup the costs of a mastering session. See what I'm saying?
I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Nearly 95% of the CDs I own are a result of filesharing. So has practically every show I've been to. If it were not for filesharing the music industry would have lost thousands of dollars from me personally.People like you probably aren't the problem though. I'm talking about the people who see something available illegally for free, take it, and never pay for a permanent copy, thus robbing the artist of money they invested in the production, marketing, and distribution of their album/single.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

01-28-2009, 07:29 PM

Ah - but what you fail to acknowledge is that the rampant free downloading is a direct result of the ease of stealing the files. No, it may not directly reflect the specific number of lost sales, but if it was equally easy to steal a CD from a music store, than that would probably happen almost as frequently as digital theft happens.

I don't quite understand the analogy. But I don't think it really applies, people will download from the internet because it's not really hurting anything. CDs are things that people have to pay for. The thing is it is just not *that* easy to download things anymore, particularly obscurities - Soulseek is really the only good option. The lucritive digital download market seems to suggest that people are still willing to pay.

Sean

01-29-2009, 10:36 AM

I don't quite understand the analogy. But I don't think it really applies, people will download from the internet because it's not really hurting anything. CDs are things that people have to pay for. The thing is it is just not *that* easy to download things anymore, particularly obscurities - Soulseek is really the only good option. The lucritive digital download market seems to suggest that people are still willing to pay.Of course it applies. Lost sales = lost money. Lost money = hurt artist.

Providing a digital file may not require the same cost as the actual pressing of a physical cd, but the creation and marketing of the music does cost the same whether it's a cd or a digital file. At least some of that money needs to be recouped through sales, and the success of a release is primarily measured through number of sales.

And as for how easy it is or isn't to obtain digital files illegally, it seems to be pretty easy. A study released last summer (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece) showed that an average teenager's digital music player contains an average of 1770 tracks, and of those, an average of 842 tracks were obtained illegally. That's 48% of an average teenager's music collection.

Now in a more recent study (http://hothardware.com/News/95-of-Music-Downloads-are-Illegal-IFPI/) released by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), they estimate that around 10% of illegal downloads are probably lost sales. Granted, the IFPI is basically the "global version of the RIAA", so their numbers will surely be questioned, but the 10% assumption doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me.

Now here's something that I don't think a lot of people consider. That 10% probably isn't evenly distributed between all labels and individual releases. So if a specific single is immediately leaked onto a P2P website, it'll take a bigger sales hit than one that doesn't get leaked. And if the leaked one is from a small independent artist, it does serious damage to that artist. So overall, it may only be around 4.8% of the average teenager's music files that represent lost sales for the music industry as a whole, but the individual damage it can do to lesser known artists can still be devastating.

King of Snake

01-29-2009, 12:07 PM

maybe not totally relevant... or maybe..... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqX-tkDXEk&feature=PlayList&p=8DEEE5BE09B19227&index=0)

:)

Sean

01-29-2009, 02:42 PM

maybe not totally relevant... or maybe..... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqX-tkDXEk&feature=PlayList&p=8DEEE5BE09B19227&index=0)

:)Aside from being exciting to see (thanks for the link :D) I think it actually is relevant. The Monty Python approach in this case is a great way to use how the internet is evolving as an advertising opportunity rather than trying to go to war with it. I'm all for this kind of creative thinking.

But making your videos available to be viewed on Youtube as an advertising tool to sell DVDs of your movies and TV shows is very different from having people illegally download them to their computer so they can burn it to DVD for free and watch them any time or place they choose.

I seem to be repeating the same points over and over at this point to little avail though, so I guess that's that. Some people just don't seem to want to accept that stealing the work of artists - especially smaller independent artists - hurts those artist's careers and lives. As a smaller independent artist in the music industry myself, I can attest to it.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

01-29-2009, 03:49 PM

Of course it applies. Lost sales = lost money. Lost money = hurt artist.

Providing a digital file may not require the same cost as the actual pressing of a physical cd, but the creation and marketing of the music does cost the same whether it's a cd or a digital file. At least some of that money needs to be recouped through sales, and the success of a release is primarily measured through number of sales.

And as for how easy it is or isn't to obtain digital files illegally, it seems to be pretty easy. A study released last summer (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece) showed that an average teenager's digital music player contains an average of 1770 tracks, and of those, an average of 842 tracks were obtained illegally. That's 48% of an average teenager's music collection.

Now in a more recent study (http://hothardware.com/News/95-of-Music-Downloads-are-Illegal-IFPI/) released by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), they estimate that around 10% of illegal downloads are probably lost sales. Granted, the IFPI is basically the "global version of the RIAA", so their numbers will surely be questioned, but the 10% assumption doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me.

Now here's something that I don't think a lot of people consider. That 10% probably isn't evenly distributed between all labels and individual releases. So if a specific single is immediately leaked onto a P2P website, it'll take a bigger sales hit than one that doesn't get leaked. And if the leaked one is from a small independent artist, it does serious damage to that artist. So overall, it may only be around 4.8% of the average teenager's music files that represent lost sales for the music industry as a whole, but the individual damage it can do to lesser known artists can still be devastating.

Of course the question is, how many sales are lost? Dealing with a smaller-scale artist it seems pretty much impossible to tell. I just wonder how much of it has to do with leaks, which is something I think that IS bad for the industry. Discs that get leaked 6 months ahead of the release date have to have lower-than-expected sales. If the industry could stop them I think it would help a lot.

As for the IFPI numbers...such a study seems really tough to do, as I've read some that claimed the opposite. We DO know CD sales peaked in the age of Napster, when free downloading was also at a peak. The RIAA purposely misreports their numbers to make it look like things are worse than they are:

http://www.musicdish.com/mag/?id=9452

They also point their fingers at downloading as an explanation even when they release something like fewer CDs from one year to the next. The internet model seems like it could kill off the idea of the megastar, from whom the RIAA profits immensely. Honestly I believe their problem with downloading is that it opens peoples ears to different types of music, in particular stuff not promoted or even on their labels. When five releases sell 20 million copies apiece, the RIAA's profits skyrocket - however, spread those 100 million sales across many different albums and they make less.

King of Snake

01-30-2009, 03:40 AM

But making your videos available to be viewed on Youtube as an advertising tool to sell DVDs of your movies and TV shows is very different from having people illegally download them to their computer so they can burn it to DVD for free and watch them any time or place they choose.

Not sure how different it is really.
And you could apply the exact same principle to marketing music. Except that instead of youtube you have p2p networks. Make music available for free online as an advertising tool for your concerts and merchandise (and better quality copies of the music on cd or paid download). The principle is exactly the same.
There's always gonna be people who will settle for the inferior quality donwload and not buy the cd, just as there will be people who will be perfectly happy to watch Python clips on youtube and never buy a dvd, but still they decided to embrace the idea of online filesharing rather than fight it, as they literally say in the video.

I seem to be repeating the same points over and over at this point to little avail though, so I guess that's that. Some people just don't seem to want to accept that stealing the work of artists - especially smaller independent artists - hurts those artist's careers and lives. As a smaller independent artist in the music industry myself, I can attest to it.

Now Sean, just because you keep repeating the same point doesn't mean that other people can't disagree or try to provide different points of view. ;)
And while I sympathise and understand that you feel passionately about this, I have to say that just because your are an independant artist yourself doesn't make your point of view the only right one. (I'm sure that's not how you meant it but it does come across like that in your last paragraph).

Sean

02-01-2009, 01:19 PM

Not sure how different it is really.The advertising approach is making the video available only on youtube. You can't download it to watch it any where any time like you could if you had it on a dvd. It's also only available on youtube as a compressed file. So logically, if someone wants a copy that they can watch any where at any time, and that's full quality, they'll buy the dvd.

Having an illegaly downloaded copy on dvd means that you can watch it any where at any time, often at full quality without having paid for it, thus robbing the creators of the content of income. It's pretty clearly different.

you could apply the exact same principle to marketing music. Except that instead of youtube you have p2p networks. Make music available for free online as an advertising tool for your concerts and merchandise (and better quality copies of the music on cd or paid download). The principle is exactly the same. Agreed.

The illegal downloading I have a problem with is when people use P2P sites to share full quality, copyrighted material, causing an artist to lose sales. Using lower quality downloads (although I would lean towards the youtube model of non-downloadable previews like Amazon.com does) for advertising is a great idea. Myspace does the same thing, providing a lower quality music player that can provide the full, non-downloadable track as a preview. I think that's great.

Now Sean, just because you keep repeating the same point doesn't mean that other people can't disagree or try to provide different points of view. ;)
And while I sympathise and understand that you feel passionately about this, I have to say that just because your are an independant artist yourself doesn't make your point of view the only right one. (I'm sure that's not how you meant it but it does come across like that in your last paragraph).Point of view is one thing. We can all have diverse points of view on how best to deal with the issue of illegal downloads. But in the last paragraph you mentioned, I'm talking about a simple fact that too many people ignore. Stealing the work of an artist rather than paying for it hurts the artist financially. That's not my opinion, or my personal point of view - it's a simple fact. What we do about it is where all our different - and in many cases valid - points of view come into play.

Deckard

02-16-2009, 04:08 PM

New Zealand Internet blackout protest against insane copyright law.

click (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/6247)

Black out your Twitter avatar, Facebook/Myspace pages, or even websites to protest against the insane new law that will come into full force on February 28.

(three cheers for Stephen Fry for tweeting it to wider attention)

chuck

02-16-2009, 06:39 PM

Yeah - cheers Stephen.

I don't follow his tweets - but if you follow the links, you'll see the insanity of the law.

Here's the former minister, kicked out last year, in effect doing her best Marie Antoinette impersonation: "they can go to the library to use the internet" (http://blog.theyworkforyou.co.nz/post/59243864/section-92a-cut-off-anyone-who-might-be-breaking).

Fucking ridiculous.

I'm in charge of info-tech at our school - we run the risk of being cutoff because some child watches a youtube video of the latest Paramount - or god forbid, remixes an image in an art appreciation class (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/13/MN2715SEPA.DTL).

Someone should just cut the pissy little pipe that provides our link the net - and the RIANZ and NZFACT can all cut their losses and save the world. Fucking pricks.

And yes - I'm posting from school. :)

Sean

04-17-2009, 05:04 PM

chuck

05-28-2009, 12:52 AM

In a desperate bid to keep hope alive... the Canadian BSA - just makes a whole bunch of numbers up (http://techdirt.com/articles/20090527/1125035034.shtml) - aiming to prove that piracy is thriving (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4005/125/) - they just don't have any evidence, because they never actually did any surveying in Canada.

Oh yeah - we're taking it seriously now.

matt

05-28-2009, 01:24 AM

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

05-28-2009, 12:21 PM

I don't use torrent sites as I don't d/l movies or tv shows and to be honest these days I don't even use soulseek much as it seems ridiculously easy to type in 'band name, band album, rar' into Roogle and find a leaked album on rapidshare or mediafire in seconds.

There's also loads of blogs out there that post links to leaked albums so I can't really see how they're going to stop it unless they do get the ISPs to come down on people with heavy traffic. But then if you've paid for Unlimited broadband I can't see how that will work unless they can prove you're d/l illegal content and it doesn't take to much research on Google to find out how to mask your ISP address when d/l if you so wanted.

Actually, fuck it, if they're serious they should go after Google as I can learn do to all sorts of illegal things using their search engine...

No, no, no, you don't get it. It just takes the focus off the stealing from tax payers. I think. Maybe. To be honest, I don't really pay attention to this stuff. I'm just bored. For now.

(arrow thing pointing down)
...and if Hoffman-La Roche isn't liable for every sexual assault that happens because of Rohypnol, then how are the guys from TPB guilty of anything?...

Yeah, but really, is it Oregano* or Basil* I'm tasting?

*I'm being all artsey now.

Future Proof

06-02-2009, 11:50 AM

The founders of Pirate Bay, based in Sweden, have been sentenced to a year in prison and a fine of a little under 4 million dollars each. They're defying the court ruling (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6111777.ece).

I'm hoping to get some thoughts from others on this here, because I'm somewhat torn on it. On the one hand, they're not actually involved with hosting the illegal files being shared through their site, but on the other, what other purpose does their site serve than enabling illegal file sharing? Even the name implies as much - "Pirate Bay".

And of course there's still the issue that I'm in the minority on here, which is that I know first-hand how illegal file-sharing absolutely devastates lesser known artists and labels, so I'm against it from the get-go. But I know that many here believe it's a good thing because of the exposure it can provide. I actually understand that argument, but disagree with how beneficial it is to smaller artists, because while it's nice to hear that thousands of people love you're work, admiration and praise simply don't pay the bills....

I can't say that I agree that the issue is about who's getting hurt and how, but whether or not the site owners are complicit in any way. In my mind this is really a slippery slope. Some of the content on TPB isn't copyrighted, and some is but the problem that I see is that if Ginsu's not liable for every person that's been murdered by their knives and if Hoffman-La Roche isn't liable for every sexual assault that happens because of Rohypnol, then how are the guys from TPB guilty of anything? TPB helps people commit illegal acts but what about movies that glorify violence?

I think that society's definition of complicity is way too vague to force these guys to pay $4,000,000 and a year of incarceration.

Deckard

06-08-2009, 10:48 AM

Sweden's Pirate Party has won a seat in the European Parliament. The group - which campaigned on reformation of copyright and patent law - secured 7.1% of the Swedish vote. The result puts the Pirate Party in fifth place, behind the Social Democrats, Greens, Liberals and the Moderate Party.

Swedish pirates capture EU seat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8089102.stm)

BeautifulBurnout

06-08-2009, 01:14 PM

Ben Goldacre did his usual expert hatchet job on the dodgy statistics being bandied about by industry and government as to how much revenue is "lost" as a result of downloading in his Bad Science column in the Grauniad. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/ben-goldacre-bad-science-music-downloads)

//\/\/

06-08-2009, 02:20 PM

Sean

06-08-2009, 04:09 PM

I can't say that I agree that the issue is about who's getting hurt and how, but whether or not the site owners are complicit in any way. In my mind this is really a slippery slope. Some of the content on TPB isn't copyrighted, and some is but the problem that I see is that if Ginsu's not liable for every person that's been murdered by their knives and if Hoffman-La Roche isn't liable for every sexual assault that happens because of Rohypnol, then how are the guys from TPB guilty of anything? TPB helps people commit illegal acts but what about movies that glorify violence?

I think that society's definition of complicity is way too vague to force these guys to pay $4,000,000 and a year of incarceration.Well let's be real about this specific case. The website was designed largely for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material, all the way down to their name. I mean seriously - "Pirate Bay" is a pretty blatant announcement of their intent. And like any of the copyright law-abiding companies out there, they could very simply set up their site in a way that fights illegal sharing - employing filters that identify copyrighted materials, having site administrators who keep on the lookout for abuse, banning members who make copyrighted material available, etc. Simply because we live in the digital age doesn't mean responsibility is no longer relevant.

Don't get me wrong, I have no great love of big-ass record labels, or even big movie studios despite being employed by one. If I didn't need money to survive, I would be working on my own projects all the time, not on these gigantic, "four-quadrant", hundred million dollar movies. But that being said, people and companies are entitled to protecting their products and belongings. Pre-digital age, the equivalent of "Pirate Bay" would be something like "Shoplift Express", and they would be providing the means to remove those bulky old CD security cases that they used to use in music stores. But would we be having a debate about whether it was right or wrong to purposefully facilitate shoplifting? Probably not. Somehow, because we're talking about digital files being stolen instead of physical products, it's become something to support and even celebrate in many people's eyes.

And just in case anyone has missed when I've said it in the past, I also don't agree with the harsh measures being taken by large labels/studios - there's no justification to absolutely destroy Jane or John Doe's entire financial existence as retribution for having a few hundred illegally downloaded songs. They could just demand the cost of the illegal files along with a reasonable fine to discourage illegal behavior, and call it even. But to pretend that there's nothing wrong with stealing music or movie files is, in my opinion, ignorant, selfish, short-sighted, and typically damaging to small, independent artists. A company like Pirate Bay sets a horrible example, and I'm all for seeing them shut down, or forced to modify their business model to be in line with copyright laws. As a professional artist both in film and music, I've witnessed artists being screwed over time and time again when they didn't have proper copyright protections in place, so to see the power of copyrights being nullified is extremely disheartening.

chuck

06-15-2009, 04:45 AM

And in Australia - they're going after the music that's played in cafe's, gyms, shops, the pub....

I'll have a little more Elvis with that thanks... (http://www.theage.com.au/national/ill-have-a-little-elvis-with-that-thanks-20090613-c6sy.html)

CAFE and restaurant patrons could soon be eating in silence, after a proposal by Australia's largest record labels to increase the cost of background music by up to 2000 times.

The push to raise the cost of playing recorded music could also make gym membership more expensive unless fitness classes use artists excluded by Australian copyright laws, including Elvis Presley and Beethoven.
The bid by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, which represents more than 750 record companies, follows a decision by the Copyright Tribunal to approve an increase of 15 times the music costs for the nightclub industry, which was recently endorsed by the Federal Court of Australia.

The Australasian Performing Right Association, which collects licensing fees on behalf of composers and artists, has launched a separate action for a tenfold increase in the fees paid by nightclubs for recorded music.
Buoyed by the nightclub ruling, the PPCA is now targeting eateries. It wants to increase licensing fees in a 120-seat restaurant to $19,344 a year — up from $125. Small cafes would be slugged with a 4729 per cent yearly increase from $124 to $5860.

Action against fitness centres is under way and the PPCA has indicated it will review the cost of playing music in pubs, shops and hairdressing salons.

...

Mr Healey said illegal internet downloads were robbing the music industry of its main income source — CD sales — and the PPCA was looking for other ways to make money for record companies.

PPCA chief executive Stephen Peach said recorded music attracted patrons to venues and was significantly undervalued. "The rates we have historically charged are barely nominal and we are looking to establish a fair return. The cafe owner just has to ask if the music is worth it, and if it isn't they don't have to play it," he said.
I think you'll find they'll either ignore it - and play whatever iPod that's brought in - or they'll just not play any music.

Or. SHOCK HORROR! They'll source Creative commons licensed music - or get tunes direct from the artist and holy hell - the big record labels are still screwed.

What a sad bunch of little people run organisations like the PPCA.

Sean

06-16-2009, 11:46 AM

chuck

06-17-2009, 02:56 AM

What the hell ever happened to, say, a 5% increase? They really have to shoot right for a 2000% bump? Stupid.

Agreed - I think most people would understand a nominal increase - but this just seems like an insane amount to ask - during a recession, when most small businesses are struggling anyway.

Sean

07-27-2009, 12:45 PM

Just came across some interesting stuff in a profile page (http://www.ecademy.com/account.php?id=407090) of one of the smaller, independent musicians I've been mentioning that has suffered from illegal file-sharing:

The changes in the technologies and the attitudes of everyone toward the World Wide Web are all extremely exciting to me. Even so, my last three records have been stolen in their entirety by torrent sites and as a result, sadly we can no longer release records. It has been extremely frustrating but like many of my fellow artists, I feel that at least my work is out there and being listened to. I do get many promises from folk who say they love the music. I even get emails of great encouragement, but if everyone that visited my profile on Myspace, Facebook, or my personal site bought just one track for £1 or even an album, it would make a really big difference to us. So if you can afford to, please do visit, listen and BUY at julieishername.com

How many of us are illegally downloading songs and tunes when we can afford to buy?

Make no mistake! IT IS KILLING NEW MUSIC AND STARVING OUT OTHERWISE EMERGENT ARTISTS!

With the entire hullabaloo about how bigger labels and chart artists are losing millions, it is the smaller, independent labels that are hardest hit by this. Most have no option but to shut up shop if more than one record get torrented. We can never make our outlay back nor pay our already long-suffering and underpaid artists their due (myself included).

Skipping ahead...

It is the bigger torrent sites, their organisers like The Pirate Bay and their internet service providers that must be taken to task now. They like to come across as if they are freedom fighters and rebels when in fact they are all just organized chancers and rip off merchants that make a lot of money gleaned from advertising while using the vehicle of OUR songs that they give away for free!

IT IS, INDISPUTABLY, FRAUD!

I believe that if most people were properly educated about the ramifications of illegal downloading for lesser-known artists, they would be more inclined toward the support of artists- especially if they know that their money goes into the pocket of artists direct.

You can see from my obsessive rant that this has rather taken up all head space for some time now but I don't apologize for being so passionate or for feeling so cross and protective about the work that I create.

Just thought I'd share since it comes from a musician/record label owner who has suffered the severe negative affects of illegal file sharing directly. I really hope that some of this information has some impact on someone out there, because the damage being heaped on independent artists by the actions of so many people out there is a huge problem. It's hard enough establishing yourself as a professional artist without then having your professional work stolen out from under you.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-27-2009, 01:38 PM

What the hell ever happened to, say, a 5% increase? They really have to shoot right for a 2000% bump? Stupid.

I think you're reading that wrong; they're actually asking for a 200000% increase. Good luck!!

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-27-2009, 02:26 PM

Pre-digital age, the equivalent of "Pirate Bay" would be something like "Shoplift Express", and they would be providing the means to remove those bulky old CD security cases that they used to use in music stores. But would we be having a debate about whether it was right or wrong to purposefully facilitate shoplifting? Probably not. Somehow, because we're talking about digital files being stolen instead of physical products, it's become something to support and even celebrate in many people's eyes.

I still disagree with this, this has more to do with the difference between a physical object and a digital one. If I shoplift 40,000 CDs, that is a big problem for the music industry - if I download the same amount, it's really not a big deal.

Sean

07-27-2009, 06:19 PM

I still disagree with this, this has more to do with the difference between a physical object and a digital one. If I shoplift 40,000 CDs, that is a big problem for the music industry - if I download the same amount, it's really not a big deal.You're placing the value of a musical product solely on it's physicality, which is simply not the case. The production of an album involves hiring musicians that need to be paid, hiring people to work the recording and mastering sessions, paying for the use of a recording studio, the cost of marketing, etc. There are a ton of expenses that are often far more costly than just the physical media the album is burned to.

And even the monetary investments aside, there's the time and creative investment put in by the artists themselves. This is their livelihood. Like anyone, they can only afford to continue to do their job - making music - if it provides them with enough financial return to fund the process. If they put in the time and effort to create something and make it available for purchase, but you simply take it for free, then what return are they getting to make it possible for them to make more? Do you do something for a living that you could afford to continue doing even if it meant you'd be losing money rather than getting a paycheck?

And ultimately, when you take something that doesn't belong to you from someone that you're not supposed to, whether it's a physical item or intellectual property, it's stealing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal). Actually, are you familiar with the concept of intellectual property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property)? You may not be based on your repeated claims that illegally downloading a digital file is somehow not stealing, or at the very least, not a problem.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

07-27-2009, 07:06 PM

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-27-2009, 10:05 PM

I completely disagree with you on this. We can't get married now.

What's the disagreement?

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-27-2009, 10:10 PM

You're placing the value of a musical product solely on it's physicality, which is simply not the case. The production of an album involves hiring musicians that need to be paid, hiring people to work the recording and mastering sessions, paying for the use of a recording studio, the cost of marketing, etc. There are a ton of expenses that are often far more costly than just the physical media the album is burned to.

And even the monetary investments aside, there's the time and creative investment put in by the artists themselves. This is their livelihood. Like anyone, they can only afford to continue to do their job - making music - if it provides them with enough financial return to fund the process. If they put in the time and effort to create something and make it available for purchase, but you simply take it for free, then what return are they getting to make it possible for them to make more? Do you do something for a living that you could afford to continue doing even if it meant you'd be losing money rather than getting a paycheck?

And ultimately, when you take something that doesn't belong to you from someone that you're not supposed to, whether it's a physical item or intellectual property, it's stealing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal). Actually, are you familiar with the concept of intellectual property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property)? You may not be based on your repeated claims that illegally downloading a digital file is somehow not stealing, or at the very least, not a problem.

I KNOW it's not just the physicality of the object. And I do know what intellectual property is. But you need to realize that there's a difference between a digital file and a physical product. It is possible to 'steal' a digital file and cause absolutely no damage to anyone. There is an infinite amount of digital files. There is a finite amount of physical products.

The problem is that it's too hard to put a value on these files, especially since many studies conflict (often depending on whether or not the RIAA funds them). Remember how the music industry was preparing for Kid A to be a huge flop since it leaked 6 months early? (this was right at the peak of the Napster age) Remember how it hit #1 like experimental albums like that NEVER do?

Whether or not it's unethical I think is a real grey area. If I download a new CD that I really want instead of paying for it, yeah, that's unethical. On the other hand, just recently I downloaded some Primal Scream albums (which I otherwise never would have heard) and bought a ticket to their show; the band directly profitted from my downloading. It's not as cut and dry as you think it is.

Strangelet

07-27-2009, 10:24 PM

I still disagree with this, this has more to do with the difference between a physical object and a digital one. If I shoplift 40,000 CDs, that is a big problem for the music industry - if I download the same amount, it's really not a big deal.

it is a huuuuuuge deal. I know that you know that many record labels are not sony pushing mariah carey. They are small start ups where 40,000 downloads could equate to sales for an entire quarter or total sales for a good chunk of their artists. That means bankrupsy. All because dl'ers are too intellectually lazy to put some comparisons on things, refusing to see the guy forfeiting the money as anything but a fat ass in a limo ear deep in hookers.

Strangelet

07-27-2009, 10:26 PM

The problem is that it's too hard to put a value on these files

the reason you see it difficult is because its not your job. its the artist's preferably and if not them, the label. this isn't a turkish bazaar.

Strangelet

07-27-2009, 10:28 PM

Whether or not it's unethical I think is a real grey area. If I download a new CD that I really want instead of paying for it, yeah, that's unethical. On the other hand, just recently I downloaded some Primal Scream albums (which I otherwise never would have heard) and bought a ticket to their show; the band directly profitted from my downloading. It's not as cut and dry as you think it is.

its only gray for any one person to download, in the aggregate, it is black and white ethical. During ww2 london had strict gas rations. everyone was supposed to turn down their heat during the winter. So does that mean its unethical for one person to heat it up a few degrees now and then? What if everyone did it?

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-27-2009, 10:51 PM

it is a huuuuuuge deal. I know that you know that many record labels are not sony pushing mariah carey. They are small start ups where 40,000 downloads could equate to sales for an entire quarter or total sales for a good chunk of their artists. That means bankrupsy. All because dl'ers are too intellectually lazy to put some comparisons on things, refusing to see the guy forfeiting the money as anything but a fat ass in a limo ear deep in hookers.

i'm meaning that i download 40,000 copies of something. it is different from stealing 40,000 cds.

i don't know how many startups are losing that many in sales. i am sure that some smaller record labels are suffering from file sharing. some may be benefitting from it.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-27-2009, 10:53 PM

its only gray for any one person to download, in the aggregate, it is black and white ethical. During ww2 london had strict gas rations. everyone was supposed to turn down their heat during the winter. So does that mean its unethical for one person to heat it up a few degrees now and then? What if everyone did it?

that's dealing with a finite resource though. if 10,000 people who have never heard of your band downloaded a CD and went to a show, is that unethical, even if this clearly is beneficial for the band?

stimpee

07-28-2009, 03:28 AM

Its quite simple.

Of course downloading 40,000 copies of something is different to stealing 40,000 CDs. But, downloading a copy of an album only has no effect if you werent intending to buy the CD anyway. The only time it makes a difference is when you were going to then got the free mp3s and didnt buy it. However, theres the flipside which is when you hear a few mp3s from a band you've never heard of, and then proceed to buy their CDs based on this.

The data based on the actions above is pretty much guesswork. The people discovering new music and buying CDs vs the people stopping buying and just downloading. Its very hard to quantify.

As for me, I dont buy very much music anymore, but I do have around 2000 CDs already so I dont feel too guilty about downloading stuff. I've given a lot of cash to the music industry, far more than the average joe. I do like and prefer physical product, and its getting harder to walk into a shop and buy a CD. I think that thanks to the music industry not being quick enough to provide an easy way to buy digital music, they are getting used to not buying anything and we'll have a generation of people used to getting all their music for free.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-28-2009, 07:08 AM

I think that thanks to the music industry not being quick enough to provide an easy way to buy digital music, they are getting used to not buying anything and we'll have a generation of people used to getting all their music for free.

That's so true; I can't believe that iTunes is still kind of a recent thing. I remember when I was in 1st grade my Dad telling me about the internet and how it was going to be the future of everything, including music, and that some day you'd be able to just get music on your computer and make CDs out of it. This was in 1993 mind you. There's a good article out there on how the major labels basically dropped the ball on the internet thing, dismissing it as just a fad, and most of the higher-ups didn't even really know what it was. Yikes.

stimpee

07-28-2009, 08:33 AM

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86724/uk-music-economist-says-music-industry-revenue-up-4-7/

Sean

07-28-2009, 02:21 PM

I KNOW it's not just the physicality of the object. And I do know what intellectual property is. But you need to realize that there's a difference between a digital file and a physical product. It is possible to 'steal' a digital file and cause absolutely no damage to anyone. There is an infinite amount of digital files. There is a finite amount of physical products.Of course there's a difference in that one is physical and one is digital, but the glaring flaw in your point here is that the potential for a seemingly infinite number of digital files being copied with ease and at no cost is simply irrelevant. What is relevant is how many copies, regardless of format, are actually consumed by the public and whether or not those copies were paid for. That's why the sentence "it is possible to 'steal' a digital file and cause absolutely no damage to anyone" is stunningly naive. Ask yourself, "what if everyone downloaded a particular digital album illegally instead of buying it?" Of course the answer would be that the artist who created the album would get absolutely no return on their financial, creative, and time investments, regardless of whether it was 100 people who illegally downloaded it, or 1,000,000. And by extension that would likely have a significant negative affect on their ability to continue creating the music that you and everyone else are sitting at home enjoying your stolen copies of. Nowhere in that reality does it matter that a digital file could be duplicated for free. The consequences of having a product stolen remain the same regardless of whether that product was physical or digital.

The problem is that it's too hard to put a value on these files, especially since many studies conflict (often depending on whether or not the RIAA funds them). Remember how the music industry was preparing for Kid A to be a huge flop since it leaked 6 months early? (this was right at the peak of the Napster age) Remember how it hit #1 like experimental albums like that NEVER do?Generally speaking, the value is 99 cents per track. Why is that any harder to accept than placing a value of around $15 on a physical CD that only costs pennies to press? Everything that's available for purchase is subject to having a relatively arbitrary value placed on it, digital files included.

As for Radiohead, I'd hardly call them emerging artists. They were already solidly established, and as such can count on a certain amount of guaranteed success with each release. Although personally, I don't view that as any kind of justification for stealing their albums. But that aside, my primary concern lies with lesser known artists who suffer the repercussions of your actions on a much more severe level. The people to whom every sale counts as they try to get their careers off the ground.

Whether or not it's unethical I think is a real grey area. If I download a new CD that I really want instead of paying for it, yeah, that's unethical. On the other hand, just recently I downloaded some Primal Scream albums (which I otherwise never would have heard) and bought a ticket to their show; the band directly profitted from my downloading. It's not as cut and dry as you think it is.So then in your view, purchasing one item from a group justifies stealing multiple other items from them as well? Does that mean that the converse would be true, and I could feel just spiffy about buying one of their albums, and then sneaking into a few of their concerts for free? Nevermind the separate laundry list of expenses that go into putting on a concert - lighting, roadies, managers, venue, transportation, security, etc. - after all, the band has already profited from my single album purchase, so there's nothing wrong with enjoying the non-physical product that is a few concerts, right?

Or maybe we should apply the same thought process to downloadable software. I record my music using Reason. Since I already bought a previous version of the program, I might as well just steal any upgrades that come out for it from now on. Nevermind research and development costs, employee salaries, marketing costs, etc. - after all, they've already profited from me, and it's not a physical product.

This line of reasoning is nothing more than weak justification for selfish, unethical, illegal behavior.

As a final example, I'm currently working on my first album. As a partial list so far, I've had to join the local musician's union, upgrade some of my recording software, set up studio time, set up recording sessions with a guitarist, a drummer and a few singers, and have invested quite a bit of time into getting the first four tracks to a point where I'm ready bring in these other musicians. I still have to set up my own label so I can self-distribute the final album, master the tracks once they're done, create the visual artwork for it, assemble it all into a cohesive package, market it, etc., etc. - all of which will probably take me at least another year or two. And yet you think that after all of my personal and financial investment in creating this final product, it's no problem if you just hack into my private online storage site and download the album for free. That's "hurting no one" in your opinion. Well frankly, in a situation like this, your opinion doesn't matter. I'm the one who owns the intellectual property that is my album, and I'm choosing to put it on the market as a product meant to be purchased. If you want it, you're legally and ethically obliged to honor my wishes as said owner. As my sig says, you're free to go download all the remixes I have available online at no cost to you, but I need some return on the investments I'm making in this album. Simply put, you're not the one who dictates to me the price that you've decided you're going to pay for the product that I've created. That's my legal right, and if you violate it, you're wrong and should be held accountable.

stimpee

07-28-2009, 04:02 PM

So then in your view, purchasing one item from a group justifies stealing multiple other items from them as well? Does that mean that the converse would be true, and I could feel just spiffy about buying one of their albums, and then sneaking into a few of their concerts for free? Nevermind the separate laundry list of expenses that go into putting on a concert - lighting, roadies, managers, venue, transportation, security, etc. - after all, the band has already profited from my single album purchase, so there's nothing wrong with enjoying the non-physical product that is a few concerts, right?I think it does justify it in some cases. If you would have never gone to a Primal Scream concert if you didnt download the albums then the band get money from you that they otherwise wouldnt have received.

Also going to gigs pays bands more money than if you buys cds because the record company takes less/none of the cash, so doing it in reverse is worse for the band. I've blagged guest lists before to gigs, and then bought a CD later. Is this wrong?

Sean

07-28-2009, 07:17 PM

I think it does justify it in some cases. If you would have never gone to a Primal Scream concert if you didnt download the albums then the band get money from you that they otherwise wouldnt have received.Sure, but they didn't receive the money they're owed for the stolen albums that are now a part of 3....'s music collection, so they're still out some cash that they've worked for. I just don't personally see the justification in saying "I have four products from these people, but I only stole three of them. Since I paid for the fourth thing after liking those first three that I stole, it's okay! They made money off me!"

Also going to gigs pays bands more money than if you buys cds because the record company takes less/none of the cash, so doing it in reverse is worse for the band.That depends on the band. If it's an artist who has their own label set up to release their own music through, then you're stealing more money from them when you illegally download their music.

I've blagged guest lists before to gigs, and then bought a CD later. Is this wrong?Not sure what "blagged" means, but since when is it a solid argument to say that it's okay to steal something from someone because you could have stolen something from them that was more expensive?

stimpee

07-29-2009, 01:43 AM

I'm not happy with the first point either, but thats how things are these days and its how artists are being discovered from giving their music away (unintentionally via torrents, or intentionally like Radiohead or The Charlatans and to a certain extent Underworld who gives us loads of free stuff). Its not a clear cut justification to steal the music but if you do discover a band via downloading and then give money to the band afterwards it has to be seen as a positive thing. Good things come from bad.

I see your point about the own label thing. Blagging means begging or scrounging or being cheeky and asking the right people for the guest list. But this is just a small part of the 'hospitality' that venues have.

potatobroth

07-29-2009, 08:26 AM

I don't see the connection between giving away music for free (ala Underworld's Riverrun series) and downloading a leaked pre-release copy of Oblivion With Bells and then never buying a copy because "I fully intend to go see them live when they come to my city."

I can't believe this thread is multiple pages of people defending stealing intellectual property. Its stealing. You've taken something that has a cost/value associated with it and taken it without paying that cost. That is the very definition of theft.

Argue all you want about who it hurts, or who it helps, but its all moot. If I declare that my album is worth $10, and that to own my album you need to pay $10, and you download it for free, you just stolen that album.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-29-2009, 08:46 AM

Of course there's a difference in that one is physical and one is digital, but the glaring flaw in your point here is that the potential for a seemingly infinite number of digital files being copied with ease and at no cost is simply irrelevant. What is relevant is how many copies, regardless of format, are actually consumed by the public and whether or not those copies were paid for. That's why the sentence "it is possible to 'steal' a digital file and cause absolutely no damage to anyone" is stunningly naive. Ask yourself, "what if everyone downloaded a particular digital album illegally instead of buying it?" Of course the answer would be that the artist who created the album would get absolutely no return on their financial, creative, and time investments, regardless of whether it was 100 people who illegally downloaded it, or 1,000,000. And by extension that would likely have a significant negative affect on their ability to continue creating the music that you and everyone else are sitting at home enjoying your stolen copies of. Nowhere in that reality does it matter that a digital file could be duplicated for free. The consequences of having a product stolen remain the same regardless of whether that product was physical or digital.

Well I'm sorry for being 'stunningly naive" but I'm sick of people saying that downloading = shoplifting. I know that some people will think that every download = one lost sale, but that's simply not true. A kid who has 10,000 albums and downloads 10,000 more that he never intends to listen to is not then causing the music industry $150,000 worth of damage. The actual figure would probably be about $0. If he shoplifted CDs then he is definitely hurting the music business. Yes, it takes control out of the hands of the artists and can hurt them, but it's not going to go away, and calling it outright 'theft' is a little strongarmed when you compare it to the theft of physical products. Yes, if everyone downloaded the album instead of buying it, the artists would be losing money. Same thing if everyone who test drove a certain car didn't buy it. The idea that the amount of people downloading and not buying your album is valid but only in a narrow view. If a million people download your album, there's interest for a tour, merchandise, advertising; maybe you wouldn't want to do that stuff, but it's not as though every album was guaranteed to recoup its investment post-digital age through CD sales either. In fact, in that age you'd probably never even be able to record and release your own music.

Generally speaking, the value is 99 cents per track. Why is that any harder to accept than placing a value of around $15 on a physical CD that only costs pennies to press? Everything that's available for purchase is subject to having a relatively arbitrary value placed on it, digital files included.

I meant in terms of the artist, not the consumer. When I download an album that I didn't intend to purchase, how much money is the artist losing? Could they actually be making money from that? Hard to say isn't it?

As for Radiohead, I'd hardly call them emerging artists. They were already solidly established, and as such can count on a certain amount of guaranteed success with each release. Although personally, I don't view that as any kind of justification for stealing their albums. But that aside, my primary concern lies with lesser known artists who suffer the repercussions of your actions on a much more severe level. The people to whom every sale counts as they try to get their careers off the ground.

Understood. But the fact of the matter is that Kid A NEVER would have hit #1 if not for illegal, immoral, and selfish theft. That makes this not such a black and white issue.

So then in your view, purchasing one item from a group justifies stealing multiple other items from them as well? Does that mean that the converse would be true, and I could feel just spiffy about buying one of their albums, and then sneaking into a few of their concerts for free? Nevermind the separate laundry list of expenses that go into putting on a concert - lighting, roadies, managers, venue, transportation, security, etc. - after all, the band has already profited from my single album purchase, so there's nothing wrong with enjoying the non-physical product that is a few concerts, right?
Or maybe we should apply the same thought process to downloadable software. I record my music using Reason. Since I already bought a previous version of the program, I might as well just steal any upgrades that come out for it from now on. Nevermind research and development costs, employee salaries, marketing costs, etc. - after all, they've already profited from me, and it's not a physical product.
This line of reasoning is nothing more than weak justification for selfish, unethical, illegal behavior.

Naaah, I'm actually pretty good about buying albums from bands I actually do like and supporting the artists that I'm a big fan of. If you want to argue that it's illegal or unethical, that's one thing. But that's not the logic I'm trying to use here. I'm just arguing that it's not as black and white as *actual* theft. Consider these scenarios:

1. A guy who has never heard of your band is burned a copy of the CD by a friend, and then buys a ticket to a show.
2. Someone sneaks into a non-sold out concert, likes the music, and buys a T-shirt
3. Someone downloads a copy of a certain software, but likes it enough to buy the next version when it comes out.

Now, according to what you're saying, all three of these people are immoral, selfish, and acting outside the law. However in all three cases, the artist/band/software company has made money from this behavior at NO COST. I'm not saying downloading music is ethically sound. I know it would be bad if EVERYONE did it and nobody bought CDs. But that's just not what's happening now and probably not what's going to happen in the future

You can be upset that your friends are no longer able to make music because they only sold 1,000 copies of a disc due to everyone downloading. But how do you know that the disc wouldn't have sold only 500 if nobody downloaded it?

potatobroth

07-29-2009, 08:56 AM

Well I'm sorry for being 'stunningly naive" but I'm sick of people saying that downloading = shoplifting. I know that some people will think that every download = one lost sale, but that's simply not true. A kid who has 10,000 albums and downloads 10,000 more that he never intends to listen to is not then causing the music industry $150,000 worth of damage. The actual figure would probably be about $0. If he shoplifted CDs then he is definitely hurting the music business.

And if no one ever paid for music again, is the net loss $0?

1. A guy who has never heard of your band is burned a copy of the CD by a friend, and then buys a ticket to a show. Giving a CD to a friend is fine, so long as that friend doesn't put said CD on the mass-market P2P sites.
2. Someone sneaks into a non-sold out concert, likes the music, and buys a T-shirt
3. Someone downloads a copy of a certain software, but likes it enough to buy the next version when it comes out.

1. No one ever argued for one-off situations. Mass-downloading/P2P is the problem, not face-to-face "check out this new band" copying.
2. Sneaking into a non-sold out concert is illegal. T-shirt or not, the venue didn't make the expected money off of you, the band didn't make the money off of you, and its a slap in the face to the concert-goers who shelled out their cash as well.
3. Stealing.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-29-2009, 10:26 AM

And if no one ever paid for music again, is the net loss $0?

This isn't what I'm arguing. I'm just showing why it's NOT the same as shoplifting or other types of theft, which is why I don't like seeing it compared that way.

1. No one ever argued for one-off situations. Mass-downloading/P2P is the problem, not face-to-face "check out this new band" copying.
2. Sneaking into a non-sold out concert is illegal. T-shirt or not, the venue didn't make the expected money off of you, the band didn't make the money off of you, and its a slap in the face to the concert-goers who shelled out their cash as well.
3. Stealing.

The issue is not whether this is illegal or even whether or not it's some form of theft, it's whether or not this is killing musicians (or software developers). I just cited three examples of activities described as illegal, unethical, and selfish that directly benefit the artists involved.

Jan

07-29-2009, 11:37 AM

To all who made the mistake: Theft/stealing and copyright infringement are different concepts. Please try your best not to confuse the two.

Also it's maybe hard to accept for some musicians but they don't "own" anything. We (the public) merely granted them a temporary exclusive right (should be around 10 years, but due to lobbyism etc. 50+ years now) to market their creations. We do that because we want to hear more music in the future.

Fact: If you don't want people to hear your music, don't release it. Once an idea is out there, how do you want to stop it?

Another fact: There is no shortage of good music; so apparently the situation is not as bad as some people describe it. If you are a musician and nobody buys your album, maybe it isn't the fault of "The Pirate Bay", but maybe it's because the music is bad?

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

07-29-2009, 11:39 AM

...I can't believe this thread is multiple pages of people defending stealing intellectual property. Its stealing. You've taken something that has a cost/value associated with it and taken it without paying that cost. That is the very definition of theft.

....

Music's just the type of the iceberg dear boy.

potatobroth

07-29-2009, 12:13 PM

Music's just the type of the iceberg dear boy.

Yep. I see stolen photos and even illustrations all the time. The internet has made that super easy.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

07-29-2009, 12:24 PM

Try thinking a little bit bigger.

I see 401K's 404'd.

King of Snake

07-29-2009, 12:48 PM

that definition of theft is at least partly based on the assumption that there's a scarcity of the good in question. If you steal someone's car, that person loses his car. If you download an album, the artist doesn't lose that music, nor does the retailer lose a physical product (cd/lp).
The artist and retailer might have lost a sale if the downloader would have bought the physical product if the free download was not available. This is not certain though.
Just saying that with the current state of technology there is a definite grey area in the whole downloading=stealing debate IMO.
I can't claim to be completely on one side or the other myself. I've definitely downloaded music and software for free that otherwise I might have bought, but I do also buy a lot of music and software that I might not have bought if I hadn't downloaded it "illegally" first (I put that in quotes cause over here downloading music is actually still legal, but uploading isn't).

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

07-29-2009, 02:20 PM

See?

stimpee

07-29-2009, 03:38 PM

Sean

07-29-2009, 04:17 PM

Well I'm sorry for being 'stunningly naive" but I'm sick of people saying that downloading = shoplifting. Have you considered that maybe people keep saying it because it's true? If you illegally download and keep a product that's only been made available by it's copyright owners for purchase, then you have stolen it.

I know that some people will think that every download = one lost sale, but that's simply not true. A kid who has 10,000 albums and downloads 10,000 more that he never intends to listen to is not then causing the music industry $150,000 worth of damage.I absolutely agree, and have said as much earlier in this thread.

The actual figure would probably be about $0.On this, I disagree. It's fair to assume that a certain portion of the illegally downloaded files in most people's collections are indeed representative of lost sales.

I meant in terms of the artist, not the consumer. When I download an album that I didn't intend to purchase, how much money is the artist losing? Could they actually be making money from that? Hard to say isn't it?Let's focus on the actual problem I have here, which is that there are tons of people out there who download albums for free simply because they can do it rather than having to pay. I listen to music in my office a lot, and I've had many people pop in to say "that sounds really cool - can you burn me a copy?" And when I tell them that I have kind of a rule about not doing that, they look at me confused, like they have no idea why someone wouldn't just make free copies of an album for all their friends. So my impression is that a huge percentage of people do this with far less consideration of the consequences than most people in these forums seem to have.

That being said, your questions above aren't really that hard to answer. One, there are many ways to be exposed to hearing music we would have otherwise never purchased, but none of them justify theft. Back when I used to frequent more record stores, I was constantly hearing them play something I had never heard of, and would find and buy it right there and then. That's how I came across some of my favorite groups as a matter of fact, like One Dove, Voices of Kwahn, and many others. But there's a crucial difference now with illegal downloads, which is that instead of hearing it being played in a store and then buying their own copy, people download something they've never heard of, like it, and then simply never pay for it. You mentioned earlier that you downloaded some Primal Scream albums which led you to attend one of their concerts. I assume that means you enjoyed the albums, yes? So then did you ever buy official copies of them?

Understood. But the fact of the matter is that Kid A NEVER would have hit #1 if not for illegal, immoral, and selfish theft. That makes this not such a black and white issue.Not sure how you can assert this as fact.

Naaah, I'm actually pretty good about buying albums from bands I actually do like and supporting the artists that I'm a big fan of. If you want to argue that it's illegal or unethical, that's one thing. But that's not the logic I'm trying to use here. I'm just arguing that it's not as black and white as *actual* theft. What does that mean, "*actual* theft"? The act of stealing is taking "another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it". Illegally downloading music is taking another person's intellectual property without permission or legal right, and many people do it without any intent to pay for it. What's not "*actual* theft" about that? And seriously, the fact that a digital file is non-physical and therefore as a format has no inherent value, does not in any way discount the fact that there is inherent value to the music itself, and that said music is legally owned by it's creator or whoever happens to possess the copyrights. So saying you've taken nothing of any value is false.

Consider these scenarios:

1. A guy who has never heard of your band is burned a copy of the CD by a friend, and then buys a ticket to a show.
2. Someone sneaks into a non-sold out concert, likes the music, and buys a T-shirt
3. Someone downloads a copy of a certain software, but likes it enough to buy the next version when it comes out.

Now, according to what you're saying, all three of these people are immoral, selfish, and acting outside the law.In these instances, yes. They are behaving in immoral, selfish, and illegal ways.

However in all three cases, the artist/band/software company has made money from this behavior at NO COST.I disagree. In your first point, once again, you're only weighing the cost of the physical medium itself. You're ignoring the fact that the creation, distribution, and marketing of the music indeed constitutes a "cost" for the artist who's being ripped off, not just the medium it's released on.

In your second point, your hypothetical person has denied the artist return on their investment in booking the venue, paying the band members, lighting set-ups, roadies, transportation, live performance equipment, etc, etc. Buying a t-shirt helps defray the cost of designing and manufacturing merchandise, but not the concert.

Your third point about illegally downloading software was already addressed as well. When you buy software, you're helping pay for all the costs that have gone into developing and marketing that software. When you subsequently purchase upgrades, you're helping pay for all the additional research and development that's gone into improving the program.

So ultimately, in all three scenarios, you're bizarrely trying to justify stealing one thing by paying for another. That just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You're not the one who decides what you should pay for and what you should take for free - the people who own and provide the goods and services in question are. What in the world would make you feel like you're entitled to steal something from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on down the road?

I'm not saying downloading music is ethically sound. I know it would be bad if EVERYONE did it and nobody bought CDs. But that's just not what's happening now and probably not what's going to happen in the futureBut it's happening enough that it's hurting artists - smaller independent artists in particular. And the attitudes towards illegal downloading seem to be getting more and more flippant, which doesn't bode well for future artists.

You can be upset that your friends are no longer able to make music because they only sold 1,000 copies of a disc due to everyone downloading. But how do you know that the disc wouldn't have sold only 500 if nobody downloaded it?I can't be certain exactly how much it cost them, but I do know that one of the singles in question actually charted in the UK, so it's popularity certainly wasn't reflected in it's sales (or lack thereof).

potatobroth

07-29-2009, 04:25 PM

pototobroth: are you telling me you've never downloaded any music you've not paid for? (assuming it wasnt given away).

I'm not trying to justify _my_ downloads. I've downloaded lots, but it has led me to buy lots of music that I wouldnt have otherwise which I think is the general argument here. Theres no way that if the only way I could listen to music was to buy it or listen to 30 second clips that I would have bought so much music. Thats just the state of play right now. Its not theft, but its definitely copyright infringement. There is no justification, just a listening path which leads to investment.

Of course I have. I just can't side with the fact that some don't think its stealing or even condone it.

I'll be honest though, aside from live gigs I haven't illegally downloaded in a LONG time. I iTunes everything now. Same goes for software; I buy all of it now. I'm not saying this to be preachy or whatever, I just never understood the argument in favor of downloading music for free.

Heck, I have a good friend, who is a BIG Underworld fan, who didn't even purchase OWB. How fucked up is that? He got hold of a copy a few weeks before release, burned that to a disc to tide him over til the proper launch, but never actually went out to get the album. Now, that friend has put tons of money in UWs pockets thru live gigs, merch, you name it. But still to this day I still find it strange that he never purchased the actual CD of the band he loves -- no, it wasnt me. :)

Sean

07-29-2009, 04:35 PM

To all who made the mistake: Theft/stealing and copyright infringement are different concepts. Please try your best not to confuse the two.There are indeed differences, but both "copyright infringement" and "stealing" apply equally to the issue of illegal downloading. Please try your best to understand that as you read on.

Also it's maybe hard to accept for some musicians but they don't "own" anything. We (the public) merely granted them a temporary exclusive right (should be around 10 years, but due to lobbyism etc. 50+ years now) to market their creations. We do that because we want to hear more music in the future.I absolutely beg to differ. When I create and copyright a piece of art, be it music, paintings, photographs, or whatever else, I do legally own it. And if I create a remix for hire, I sign a contract that states in no uncertain terms that the original artist legally owns said remix when it's done. It doesn't matter that we're discussing intellectual property versus physical property, ownership is very clearly outlined in any legal agreement regarding artwork.

The philosophical argument can be made about ownership of less tangible forms of artwork, but ultimately, people need to respect the fact that an artist creating a piece of art and selling it is no different than any manufacturer out there making any other product that they sell.

Fact: If you don't want people to hear your music, don't release it. Once an idea is out there, how do you want to stop it?Who said they didn't want their music to be heard? I think virtually all musicians want their music heard - they just don't want to be ripped off. Like I said before, I've made plenty of my own music available for free through my sig below, but some tracks I've done are only available for purchase. I want those to be heard too, but since they're only available for sale rather than free download, I do expect that people pay for them. And how do I want to stop people from illegally obtaining my work? That would be through copyright laws.

Another fact: There is no shortage of good music; so apparently the situation is not as bad as some people describe it. If you are a musician and nobody buys your album, maybe it isn't the fault of "The Pirate Bay", but maybe it's because the music is bad?Oh dear lord.

Jan

07-29-2009, 05:41 PM

I see a lot of small independent labels releasing new exciting music. :confused:

Sean

07-29-2009, 07:16 PM

I see a lot of small independent labels releasing new exciting music. :confused:So what are you saying...that this somehow means other small independent labels aren't going under after losing sales to illegal file-sharing?

potatobroth

07-30-2009, 06:57 AM

The means at which you are acquiring music that has not been paid for shouldn't discussed differently with regards to technology. Just because its easy to download an Underworld song for free doesn't make it right in just the same way that taking an Underworld CD doesn't make it right.

Why do people feel entitled to free music/software/art? Is the defense really so hinged on availibility? Make me understand because right now, I can't help but hear, "since I can, I do."

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-30-2009, 08:53 AM

Have you considered that maybe people keep saying it because it's true? If you illegally download and keep a product that's only been made available by it's copyright owners for purchase, then you have stolen it.

Well, you're one of the only ones I've ever heard claim it who didn't work for the RIAA, so I kind of take it with a grain of salt...

What does that mean, "*actual* theft"? The act of stealing is taking "another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it". Illegally downloading music is taking another person's intellectual property without permission or legal right, and many people do it without any intent to pay for it. What's not "*actual* theft" about that? And seriously, the fact that a digital file is non-physical and therefore as a format has no inherent value, does not in any way discount the fact that there is inherent value to the music itself, and that said music is legally owned by it's creator or whoever happens to possess the copyrights. So saying you've taken nothing of any value is false.

So would you also agree that home taping kills music too? They seem like the same concept to me. And then would you agree that deleting the MP3 files after you listen to them would be 'returning' the file? The reason why I can't equate it with shoplifting is because it's totally different. Unless you were planning to buy that CD, nobody gets deprived of anything. If there was such an inherent value in the music itself, why can I sell my CDs but not my MP3s? Or are used CD stores killing music too? After all, the artists don't recieve any compensation from that.

I disagree. In your first point, once again, you're only weighing the cost of the physical medium itself. You're ignoring the fact that the creation, distribution, and marketing of the music indeed constitutes a "cost" for the artist who's being ripped off, not just the medium it's released on.

In your second point, your hypothetical person has denied the artist return on their investment in booking the venue, paying the band members, lighting set-ups, roadies, transportation, live performance equipment, etc, etc. Buying a t-shirt helps defray the cost of designing and manufacturing merchandise, but not the concert.

Your third point about illegally downloading software was already addressed as well. When you buy software, you're helping pay for all the costs that have gone into developing and marketing that software. When you subsequently purchase upgrades, you're helping pay for all the additional research and development that's gone into improving the program.

So ultimately, in all three scenarios, you're bizarrely trying to justify stealing one thing by paying for another. That just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You're not the one who decides what you should pay for and what you should take for free - the people who own and provide the goods and services in question are. What in the world would make you feel like you're entitled to steal something from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on down the road?

I know that the physical medium is not the ONLY cost. I'm not sure why you keep pressing this point as it's pretty obvious. Are you arguing that the 'theft' here is directly hurting this artist? Is 0 CD sales and 0 ticket sales somehow better than 0 CD sales and 1 ticket?

Second point: pretty sure artists profit from their merchandise.

Third point: I still think you're kind of missing the point here. I AM AWARE that software has a cost. I'm a software developer for crying out loud. When you say these arguments don't hold up to any scrutiny, I suppose you mean in a legal debate, or maybe a moral debate, but if you're talking real world, I think this argument holds up very well. You're acting as though each piece of software/album release is some kind of tangible object where the vendor has less of every time someone makes a copy. I pointed out three examples where the artist DIRECTLY PROFITS from this kind of behavior, and I don't think any of them were really far out...this sort of thing happens all the time. When Napster was at its peak, so were CD sales. Look it up. Illegal downloading is a convienient scapegoat for people to explain why their releases failed because it puts the blame on other people. The RIAA complained about how downloading is killing music because CD sales went down 10% in a year. They failed to mention that new releases were down 15%. You have to take the good with the bad and remember that some new releases bombed in the pre-internet age, too. If illegal downloading is killing everything, what do you suggest we do about it? Outlaw the internet? Ban CD-Rs? Ban iPods? Sue poor college students for millions of dollars? Is there a solution?

Sean

07-30-2009, 02:36 PM

Well, you're one of the only ones I've ever heard claim it who didn't work for the RIAA, so I kind of take it with a grain of salt...I'm not the only one who asserts this definition of theft. The dictionary does too.

So would you also agree that home taping kills music too? They seem like the same concept to me.They're different.

And then would you agree that deleting the MP3 files after you listen to them would be 'returning' the file?Essentially, yes. If you downloaded music just to check it out and subsequently decided you didn't like it, then just delete the file. You don't share it on a P2P/torrent site, or keep it because you "would never have bought it anyway" - it's not yours to do these things with. On the other hand, if you ended up liking it and wanting to add it to your collection permanently, then go buy an official copy to keep.

I know that the physical medium is not the ONLY cost. I'm not sure why you keep pressing this point as it's pretty obvious.Are you for real? Why do I keep pressing the point that the cost involved in creating music goes far beyond the medium it's presented in? Because you keep insisting that digital music files have "zero" value! Whether you're being charged for a CD or a digital file, your payment goes towards defraying the costs of production, marketing, distribution, and possibly even turning a profit. So once you've taken possession of copyrighted music that's being sold by it's creator/owner, you owe them money. If you don't pay them, then you have taken that money from them. It is no longer your money - it's theirs, and keeping it is theft.

Are you arguing that the 'theft' here is directly hurting this artist? Yes.

Is 0 CD sales and 0 ticket sales somehow better than 0 CD sales and 1 ticket?That's not the question. Of course the one ticket is a legitimate purchase that helps the artist out. But the stolen CD still doesn't. Why should artists be satisfied with only being paid a fraction of what's legally owed them? Because it's better than nothing? Bull ca-ca. Who else in the world would ever be expected to settle for that? Would you? If your employer only paid you for 2 days out of a 5 day work week and tried to justify it by saying "it's better than not getting paid at all", would you just respond with, "well that's true" and walk away, satisfied with the situation? After all, they haven't taken anything physical from you - only lines of code, or whatever you develop at the software company where you work. All they did was take your digital work without paying, so no one gets hurt, right? I doubt you would feel this argument was justified. Artists shouldn't be on the receiving end of such nonsense either.

Second point: pretty sure artists profit from their merchandise.Yeah....if you take a second look, you'll see that I totally agreed the t-shirt sale gives the artist money. But that's a separate issue from the fact that they've been robbed of money for the concert. It's still denying the artist compensation that they're owed despite the t-shirt sale.

Third point: I still think you're kind of missing the point here. I AM AWARE that software has a cost. I'm a software developer for crying out loud.Of course you didn't respond at all to the fundamental problem I raised that runs through all three of your hypothetical examples, which is what I said earlier: "...ultimately, in all three scenarios, you're bizarrely trying to justify stealing one thing by paying for another. That just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You're not the one who decides what you should pay for and what you should take for free - the people who own and provide the goods and services in question are. What in the world would make you feel like you're entitled to steal something from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on down the road?"

When you say these arguments don't hold up to any scrutiny, I suppose you mean in a legal debate, or maybe a moral debate...Wait a second - you agree that it's legally wrong, and you agree that it's morally wrong? So then what are you fighting me on?

...but if you're talking real world, I think this argument holds up very well.The real world is dependent on a society that adheres to legal and moral standards to function effectively, so I fail to see how the legal and moral justifications for my arguments are somehow irrelevant.

If illegal downloading is killing everything, what do you suggest we do about it? Outlaw the internet? Ban CD-Rs? Ban iPods? Sue poor college students for millions of dollars? Is there a solution?"Killing everything"? Where exactly did I say that? Please quote me on it if you're going to assert it.

As for what we should do about it, how about reasonably enforcing copyright laws? How about exercising personal responsibility in the ways we obtain our music? How about showing some common respect for the artists who's work we enjoy? You know, crazy stuff like that...

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-30-2009, 03:58 PM

I'm not the only one who asserts this definition of theft. The dictionary does too.

The dictionary says that downloading an MP3 is the equivilent of shoplifting a CD? Whoa

They're different.

How much different? If I tape songs off the radio I'm getting intellectual property that I didn't pay for, right?

Are you for real? Why do I keep pressing the point that the cost involved in creating music goes far beyond the medium it's presented in? Because you keep insisting that digital music files have "zero" value! Whether you're being charged for a CD or a digital file, your payment goes towards defraying the costs of production, marketing, distribution, and possibly even turning a profit. So once you've taken possession of copyrighted music that's being sold by it's creator/owner, you owe them money. If you don't pay them, then you have taken that money from them. It is no longer your money - it's theirs, and keeping it is theft.

Okay, in that case, buying a used album is also immoral and selfish, because I didn't pay the creator/owner. It's not as cut and dry as 'they do have value' or 'they don't'. The reason why I use the example of downloading some obscene amount of music is to show the way in which they DON'T have value. Say I make a song and decide to sell it for 99 cents. What is that file worth? 99 cents multiplied by what? The amount of people who want to buy it? Say I make 10,000 copies of that file, what's it worth now? We're not talking about commissioned works or anything like that. Downloading music doesn't take it away from them.

That's not the question. Of course the one ticket is a legitimate purchase that helps the artist out. But the stolen CD still doesn't. Why should artists be satisfied with only being paid a fraction of what's legally owed them? Because it's better than nothing? Bull ca-ca. Who else in the world would ever be expected to settle for that? Would you? If your employer only paid you for 2 days out of a 5 day work week and tried to justify it by saying "it's better than not getting paid at all", would you just respond with, "well that's true" and walk away, satisfied with the situation? After all, they haven't taken anything physical from you - only lines of code, or whatever you develop at the software company where you work. All they did was take your digital work without paying, so no one gets hurt, right? I doubt you would feel this argument was justified. Artists shouldn't be on the receiving end of such nonsense either.

That analogy doesn't work at all. I'm on a salary. Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music. Again, your argument seems to be more geared towards commissioned works. They're not paying me to sit around coding whatever I want. As for the other argument - you're insisting that a guy who is given a copy of a disc and then goes on to buy a ticket IS directly hurting the artist. Lets say the disc and the ticket are $10 each. Scenario 1: before filesharing, guy does not get burned disc and does not go to the show. Artist is owed $0. Artist gets $0. Scenario 2: after filesharing, guy gets disc and goes. Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $10. Artist did the same amount of work both times. Yes, he was owed more, but he's getting something, and if not for this activity he would get nothing. Multiply this by a thousand and you can see how filesharing could be keeping artists alive.

Of course you didn't respond at all to the fundamental problem I raised that runs through all three of your hypothetical examples, which is what I said earlier: "...ultimately, in all three scenarios, you're bizarrely trying to justify stealing one thing by paying for another. That just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. You're not the one who decides what you should pay for and what you should take for free - the people who own and provide the goods and services in question are. What in the world would make you feel like you're entitled to steal something from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on down the road?"

"Of course you didn't respond"...are you trying to make a point or win an argument? Again my answer is that I don't really feel like I'm 'entitled' to it, but I don't feel it's stealing either. It does justify it in my mind to know that the artists directly profit from what I'm doing and would not profit at all if I had not. Would any artist be seriously upset if someone who had never heard of the band downloaded two albums and bought one??

Wait a second - you agree that it's legally wrong, and you agree that it's morally wrong? So then what are you fighting me on?

Well, it is copyright infringment. Whether it's morally wrong...I said maybe because I don't really know. You can argue it either way. Again you're arguing against something that could either hurt them or help them.

As for what we should do about it, how about reasonably enforcing copyright laws? How about exercising personal responsibility in the ways we obtain our music? How about showing some common respect for the artists who's work we enjoy? You know, crazy stuff like that...

Of course, look I know I do MY part, but the thing is it's not going away. The public at large is gonna download because they're sick of being ripped off by the record companies, and of course the fact that many albums simply aren't available anymore. I remember asking for some obscure UW B-side on this very site a few years back, something way out of print, and instead what I got was an eBay link. Look, I understand not wanting to participate in filesharing on a forum like this, but the song isn't being sold, and probably won't in the future. Of course, you could argue that the song WILL be sold in the future and that's why I need to wait...fine, but why then direct me to a method that costs me money, lets someone else profit, and doesn't benefit the band at all?

Sean

07-30-2009, 07:27 PM

Okay, in that case, buying a used album is also immoral and selfish, because I didn't pay the creator/owner. It's not as cut and dry as 'they do have value' or 'they don't'. The reason why I use the example of downloading some obscene amount of music is to show the way in which they DON'T have value. Say I make a song and decide to sell it for 99 cents. What is that file worth? 99 cents multiplied by what? The amount of people who want to buy it? Say I make 10,000 copies of that file, what's it worth now? We're not talking about commissioned works or anything like that. Downloading music doesn't take it away from them.Well, you're clearly not willing to accept that there is an inherent debt owed to someone's who's work you have illegally obtained despite it's legal availability. The fact that we're discussing a digital file versus a physical product is fundamentally irrelevant, and I've given numerous reasons why. Repeating myself is getting extremely boring, so that's that.

That analogy doesn't work at all. I'm on a salary. Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music. What a cop-out. The analogy is appropriate enough to illustrate a valid point. Your contract (assuming you have one) stipulates that you get compensated with a certain amount of money in return for each week's work. It's not within your employer's rights to arbitrarily decide that they're only going to pay you for the work you did on Monday and Friday. Musicians have copyrights instead of contracts to guarantee that they get compensated for their work. Neither you or anyone else has the right to arbitrarily decide that you're only going to pay for two of the five files you're downloading from them.

And no, "they aren't entitled to money just because they made some music", but they are legally entitled to money if you've taken possession of that music once they've made it available for purchase.

Lets say the disc and the ticket are $10 each. Scenario 1: before filesharing, guy does not get burned disc and does not go to the show. Artist is owed $0. Artist gets $0. Scenario 2: after filesharing, guy gets disc and goes. Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $10.You left out the final element of scenario 2: "Artist has been robbed of other $10", as well as "Scenario 3: Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $20." Imagine that. Interesting that scenario 3 didn't even make your list....

Artist did the same amount of work both times. Yes, he was owed more, but he's getting something, and if not for this activity he would get nothing. Multiply this by a thousand and you can see how filesharing could be keeping artists alive.I see. So then to paraphrase, "Hey music-man - you did 'x' amount of work, for which you are charging $20. Well, screw that - I've determined that $10 is sufficient, so take it and be thankful you got anything at all." Nice. On behalf of myself and all the other professional artists out there, I'd like to not thank you. :rolleyes:

"Of course you didn't respond"...are you trying to make a point or win an argument?Just wanted a response to the central point I was making, because it appeared that you were dodging it.

Again my answer is that I don't really feel like I'm 'entitled' to it, but I don't feel it's stealing either. It does justify it in my mind to know that the artists directly profit from what I'm doing and would not profit at all if I had not. Okay, so then you believe it's okay to steal one thing from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on. I'm not, and neither are those who are being hurt by having their work stolen from them. Thanks to folks with similar beliefs to yours that this is somehow "not stealing", artists will continue to be hurt by this behavior whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Would any artist be seriously upset if someone who had never heard of the band downloaded two albums and bought one??Holy crap - that's what I've been saying has happened to musicians I personally know, not to mention to me directly! If it meant being robbed of the money they needed to keep their label running, or of being able to continue having a career in music, then abso-freakin'-lutely they (and I) would be (and are) upset! That you can actually sit there in the face of a professional musician who's telling you it specifically happened to them and to other professional musicians they know, and yet you still insist that there's no problem, is simply stunning!

Of course, look I know I do MY part, but the thing is it's not going away. The public at large is gonna download because they're sick of being ripped off by the record companies, and of course the fact that many albums simply aren't available anymore. I remember asking for some obscure UW B-side on this very site a few years back, something way out of print, and instead what I got was an eBay link. Look, I understand not wanting to participate in filesharing on a forum like this, but the song isn't being sold, and probably won't in the future. Of course, you could argue that the song WILL be sold in the future and that's why I need to wait...fine, but why then direct me to a method that costs me money, lets someone else profit, and doesn't benefit the band at all?Out of print stuff is another issue entirely. You're not hurting the artist if you're getting a free copy of something that's not even available to purchase. All I've been talking about is music that people choose to download for free despite it being readily available to legally purchase.

Think I'm done with this thread for a while. Not sure what more can be said than already has been. If people aren't getting it at this point, then it's probably not gonna be got.

Strangelet

07-30-2009, 11:28 PM

Think I'm done with this thread for a while. Not sure what more can be said than already has been. If people aren't getting it at this point, then it's probably not gonna be got.

Like I said... the patience of job. I'm just completely floored the kind of logic being employed by some people here. And how patiently you trashed their shit. I just can't do it....

If you want to download that's one thing. Being completely unwilling to recognize its stealing it blows my fucking mind.

Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music.

un-fucking-believable.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

07-31-2009, 01:00 AM

I've given up reading this thread. It's increased my smoking habit.

Other than the posts that are short and/or funny.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-31-2009, 07:38 AM

What a cop-out. The analogy is appropriate enough to illustrate a valid point. Your contract (assuming you have one) stipulates that you get compensated with a certain amount of money in return for each week's work. It's not within your employer's rights to arbitrarily decide that they're only going to pay you for the work you did on Monday and Friday. Musicians have copyrights instead of contracts to guarantee that they get compensated for their work. Neither you or anyone else has the right to arbitrarily decide that you're only going to pay for two of the five files you're downloading from them.

It's not a cop-out; the analogy simply does not work. At all. Does a musician have a contract saying that they are owed X amount of dollars for simply making a copyrighted work? Musicians get paid based on what the fanbase decides they are worth! I get paid regardless of whether or not my work makes the company lose money or make money. That's because I am being commissioned to do it. Musicians are not. What is the set value of a piece of music? A buck for each person who downloads it? So if someone writes a bad song but markets it well, is his music more valuable than the guy who writes good music but can't get the word out?

You left out the final element of scenario 2: "Artist has been robbed of other $10", as well as "Scenario 3: Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $20." Imagine that. Interesting that scenario 3 didn't even make your list....

How is that interesting? I'm not saying I'm in favor of everyone downloading albums and not paying for them. I'm just saying; this is a real world scenario. In reality, this person is not going to pay for a disc a friend made for him. In scenario 1, he makes no money. In scenario 2, he does. Scenario 3 is not an option because it's dealing with a person who isn't going to buy the disc anyway. If you were chief of police and you needed to come up with something to curb speeders would your solution be, "people should just not speed!" I'm just saying, copyright infrigement is going to happen. There is not going to be a way to stop it. However the effects of it are debateable. This scenario is one in which the artist is clearly benefitting from it.

I see. So then to paraphrase, "Hey music-man - you did 'x' amount of work, for which you are charging $20. Well, screw that - I've determined that $10 is sufficient, so take it and be thankful you got anything at all." Nice. On behalf of myself and all the other professional artists out there, I'd like to not thank you.

I actually think most musicans would be thankful. You're acting as though they're being commissioned and then short changed. We're not talking dedicated fans who normally buy the new discs but now don't. Clearly that is hurting the artist. We're talking a scenario where an artist makes money where previously he would make none. The fact that you don't even recognize this is curious.

Holy crap - that's what I've been saying has happened to musicians I personally know, not to mention to me directly! If it meant being robbed of the money they needed to keep their label running, or of being able to continue having a career in music, then abso-freakin'-lutely they (and I) would be (and are) upset! That you can actually sit there in the face of a professional musician who's telling you it specifically happened to them and to other professional musicians they know, and yet you still insist that there's no problem, is simply stunning!

You see, it doesn't mean being robbed of anything. Okay, so I d/l 2 of your CDs, and pay for one. You are not making the money you're entitled to. Fine. But if I didn't download any of them, you make nothing. You didn't do more or less work because of it. You go broke and can't continue to make music, but at least you're not being robbed of anything. You can sleep well knowing your intellectual property is safe.

The thing is that smaller musicians don't really have any sort of guarantee for an amount of copies they will sell. Say you sell an album for $10. 50 people buy it and 450 download it. You will say, see, I only made $500, if not for downloading I would have made $5000! That is what we call a logical fallacy. Any non-RIAA commissioned study into the effects of file sharing on the sales of music say, if anything, it either benefits the artists or has no real discernable effect. You will argue that without downloading, you would have sold 500 copies. I will argue that you will have sold 20. How do you prove your point?

And I find it interesting that you're ducking the issue of selling used CDs and records - how is this okay while filesharing is not?

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-31-2009, 08:06 AM

Like I said... the patience of job. I'm just completely floored the kind of logic being employed by some people here. And how patiently you trashed their shit. I just can't do it....

If you want to download that's one thing. Being completely unwilling to recognize its stealing it blows my fucking mind.

Call it what you want. Then I will call you a dirty thief for all those used CDs you bought that ripped money directly out of the artists pockets. Because apparently you can steal without actually taking anything away from anyone. I'm not saying we shouldn't support the artists. I'm not even saying that downloading isn't on morally shaky ground. I'm just arguing that downloading some artist's music is not like going into their house and stealing their TV. I'm saying that music's value is determined by the public and is nothing like contracted or commissioned work.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-31-2009, 08:13 AM

I'm saying that music's value is determined by the public and is nothing like contracted or commissioned work.

I already know how you're going to respond to this and it's going to miss the point, so let me make myself clear. The artist can determine how much it's going to sell for, but the public decides how many are going to be sold. Multiply those numbers and that's the value.

Jan

07-31-2009, 08:44 AM

Being completely unwilling to recognize its stealing it blows my fucking mind.
Please, "stealing" is the wrong word here. You are infringing on copyright not stealing.

To make it perfectly clear: According to Marriam-Webster, theft is:
the act of stealing. specifically: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
"with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" are the magic words here.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

07-31-2009, 11:02 AM

I need a cigarette.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

07-31-2009, 02:56 PM

You mentioned earlier that you downloaded some Primal Scream albums which led you to attend one of their concerts. I assume that means you enjoyed the albums, yes? So then did you ever buy official copies of them?

I couldn't help but notice this is where your argument starts to break down. You are saying you'd be okay with me downloading an album if I bought a copy a week later, right? If downloading really did = stealing, shoplifting, whatever, then would it be okay to shoplift anything I wanted as long as I bought it a week later? Obviously not, so why is this idea much better for downloading? (for the record I did end up with the Primal Scream albums)

potatobroth

08-02-2009, 06:26 PM

349...
Would you download Underworld music rather than purchase it? If so, why? If not, why not?

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

08-03-2009, 07:34 AM

349...
Would you download Underworld music rather than purchase it? If so, why? If not, why not?

Yes and no? Anything that's readily available I buy, because I like the band and want to support them, plus I am still a collector, even if I never use the CDs. I thing I've bought everything on the uwlive website. I've d/led a few of their EPs and stuff (like the D&L EP with "Thing in a Book") and some other rare things like the Live in Tokyo set.

Sean

08-03-2009, 06:06 PM

No point in replying to the silliness that has ensued in this thread from "3...." and Jan since I left it, but what I will say is that if you look back in this thread, you'll see that the answers to every one of your points since I stopped replying are contained in my previous posts. Like here for Jan: ...both "copyright infringement" and "stealing" apply equally to the issue of illegal downloading and here for "3...": If you downloaded music just to check it out and subsequently decided you didn't like it, then just delete the file. You don't share it on a P2P/torrent site, or keep it because you "would never have bought it anyway" - it's not yours to do these things with. On the other hand, if you ended up liking it and wanting to add it to your collection permanently, then go buy an official copy to keepThat's why I stopped - there's really nothing more to say without repeating myself over and over and over and over and over and over......

That being said, why I'm really posting in this thread again is that I just got back from an interesting lunch a couple hours ago where this subject was brought up in the context of the film industry. First off, everyone there was a professional artist - an art director, a storyboard artist/voice actor, a feature film writer, and me. It was unanimous among the others that illegal downloading has done damage to the entertainment industry, from music to film. When I mentioned that I had been debating that very subject here, and that there were some people who literally didn't consider illegal downloading to be "stealing", the initial reaction was a chuckle and a flippant "well of course they realize it's 'stealing' - they're just saying they don't to justify doing it". I said that no, I had spent like a week or so trying to explain how it qualifies as stealing, and that when all was said and done, those who started out saying it wasn't had clung inexplicably to their beliefs. The others had a very hard time believing that anyone could actually fail to grasp the clear theft aspect of it. In fact, by the end of lunch, they still didn't really believe that anyone actually thinks it's not stealing. It was just too bizarre for them to think that anyone could fail to get it.

So that's it really. I thought it was interesting that the concept of illegal downloading somehow not qualifying as "stealing" is viewed as so unbelievable as to be laughable, and by a bunch of artists no less! Although once they started to even entertain the thought that people may actually believe this, the laughing was replaced by much more serious, concerned expressions...

Strangelet

08-03-2009, 06:53 PM

Its just soooo transparent that people will say anything to assauge their conflict of moral footing when file sharing media art.

case in point

Then I will call you a dirty thief for all those used CDs you bought that ripped money directly out of the artists pockets. Because apparently you can steal without actually taking anything away from anyone.

Which I'm sure buying a used cd is the same thing as buying a bootleg cdr off a blanket on a brooklyn street corner, right? We just conveniently forget that copying more and buying from a constant numbered pool of resources are two vastly different things from the artist's financial perspective?

Its transparent because the arguments are so bad. Its not that the people aren't logical. THey are just bound to arguments are just a few steps away from being "I'm a self-entitled consumer who feels like if the technology exists to circumvent all established forms of exchange then I'm morally justified in doing so."

That entitlement is bolstered by the evilness of the RIAA and by a complex karmic calculus by the downloader to make sure that they go to the concert and buy the shirt as compensation.

But its all just entitlement that is overwhelmingly self-originated. Like all theft.

potatobroth

08-03-2009, 09:11 PM

either you steal all music and feel that its not worth your money, or you pay for all music that you listen to. There is no grey area with "I wouldn't have purchased it."

Its no moral conundrum.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

08-03-2009, 09:55 PM

Which I'm sure buying a used cd is the same thing as buying a bootleg cdr off a blanket on a brooklyn street corner, right? We just conveniently forget that copying more and buying from a constant numbered pool of resources are two vastly different things from the artist's financial perspective?

There's really no shortage of used CDs. I think it's pretty delusional to think that the sale of used discs actually helps the artist.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

08-03-2009, 09:59 PM

either you steal all music and feel that its not worth your money, or you pay for all music that you listen to. There is no grey area with "I wouldn't have purchased it."

Its no moral conundrum.

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Do YOU pay for every single thing you listen to? Maybe in a perfect world where everyone has loads of money and respected copyrights there is no gray area, but this is the real world.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

08-03-2009, 10:03 PM

My god, will it ever end? I'm out of smokes.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

08-03-2009, 11:22 PM

No point in replying to the silliness that has ensued in this thread from "3...." and Jan since I left it, but what I will say is that if you look back in this thread, you'll see that the answers to every one of your points since I stopped replying are contained in my previous posts. Like here for Jan: and here for "3...": That's why I stopped - there's really nothing more to say without repeating myself over and over and over and over and over and over......

That being said, why I'm really posting in this thread again is that I just got back from an interesting lunch a couple hours ago where this subject was brought up in the context of the film industry. First off, everyone there was a professional artist - an art director, a storyboard artist/voice actor, a feature film writer, and me. It was unanimous among the others that illegal downloading has done damage to the entertainment industry, from music to film. When I mentioned that I had been debating that very subject here, and that there were some people who literally didn't consider illegal downloading to be "stealing", the initial reaction was a chuckle and a flippant "well of course they realize it's 'stealing' - they're just saying they don't to justify doing it". I said that no, I had spent like a week or so trying to explain how it qualifies as stealing, and that when all was said and done, those who started out saying it wasn't had clung inexplicably to their beliefs. The others had a very hard time believing that anyone could actually fail to grasp the clear theft aspect of it. In fact, by the end of lunch, they still didn't really believe that anyone actually thinks it's not stealing. It was just too bizarre for them to think that anyone could fail to get it.

So that's it really. I thought it was interesting that the concept of illegal downloading somehow not qualifying as "stealing" is viewed as so unbelievable as to be laughable, and by a bunch of artists no less! Although once they started to even entertain the thought that people may actually believe this, the laughing was replaced by much more serious, concerned expressions...

Not surprised the movie industry would say that. You know, the same guys whose piracy concerns nearly killed off the very device that saved their asses (Betamax). I don't think they're the smartest group of guys when it comes to these matters.

I appriciate all the downtalking in that post though. The last sentence was my favorite. "So we sat around talking about how stupid and ignorant you were, until we realized that you are going to put us all out of work"...nice. Could have done with a few more instances of the word "illogical" and a couple more italicized phrases...otherwise, bravo.

Again, I do agree it's stealing if you twist the definition of stealing to fit copyright infringement as well. As Webster defines, they do NOT apply equally to the idea of downloading. And even if you believe they do, it's kind of silly to say it's hurting artists when I'm providing scenarios where they are profitting where otherwise they would not? What other kind of theft can you say that for? Mike Doughty claims that illegal file sharing saved his life. How can you say there's no gray area there?

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

08-03-2009, 11:46 PM

You did that on purpose.

Sean

08-04-2009, 10:57 AM

Not surprised the movie industry would say that. You know, the same guys whose piracy concerns nearly killed off the very device that saved their asses (Betamax). I don't think they're the smartest group of guys when it comes to these matters."The movie industry"? Four artists working in the film industry constitute what you refer to as "the movie industry"? I think you're confusing artists with executives.

What's most impressive to me is that you have the confidence to insist that most artists "would be thankful" to have people steal their work and only maybe pay for part of it, despite the fact that I, a professional artist, and virtually all of my professional artist friends can tell you with no hesitation that we are in fact not thankful for having our work stolen. And the vast majority of my friends, co-workers and aquaintances are professional artists, so I'm not just talking about a couple of people.

I appriciate all the downtalking in that post though. The last sentence was my favorite. "So we sat around talking about how stupid and ignorant you were, until we realized that you are going to put us all out of work"...nice. Could have done with a few more instances of the word "illogical" and a couple more italicized phrases...otherwise, bravo.Honestly, it wasn't meant as downtalking - it was simply relaying an actual event that happened as a direct result of me communicating your belief that illegal downloading isn't stealing. And I honestly didn't distort what you've said either. I told them that a big part of the reason you viewed it as not stealing is because mp3s are digital files that can be duplicated for free as opposed to physical CDs and such. I can't help it if they laughed at that.

And the last sentence in particular is not a slam, it's a fact. They were chuckling and being dismissive because they really thought it was just a line you and others were pushing to justify stealing, but when they realized I had really come to believe you were being serious, they got more serious too. They were concerned that people would actually have this attitude in regards to intellectual property. Our entire livelihood is based on compensation for the intellectual property we create and sell/get paid for, so when people are suddenly so flippant, we aren't super-jazzed about it.

Again, I do agree it's stealing if you twist the definition of stealing to fit copyright infringement as well. As Webster defines, they do NOT apply equally to the idea of downloading. And even if you believe they do, it's kind of silly to say it's hurting artists when I'm providing scenarios where they are profitting where otherwise they would not? What other kind of theft can you say that for? Mike Doughty claims that illegal file sharing saved his life. How can you say there's no gray area there? As I've said all along, there's no evidence that it hurts everyone and I've never claimed as much, but I think it's important for people who illegally download files to consider that it is undeniably hurting many smaller artists. I don't think most people who steal music realize that. And hell, car theft helps some people when their car is a clunker and the insurance payment allows them to buy a better new one, but that doesn't change the fact that car theft is illegal, unethical, and wrong.

Aside from that, your scenarios are, quite frankly, insulting to artists. It doesn't seem you'll ever accept that but again, I'm a professional artist as are most of my friends, and I'm telling you straight up that they are. No one in any industry should ever be "thankful" for having half their work paid for and the other half stolen. And it is stealing, despite any of your claims otherwise. Whether it's a digital file, or a tape, or a record, or a CD, you're legally and ethically supposed to pay for the intellectual property ("property" being the operative word here) you intend to take possession of - not the medium it's distributed on - otherwise you've stolen it.

And incidentally, what's ironic is that your line of argument is actually more in line with the big movie and television studios right now than it is with any artists. The recent writer's and actor's union strikes were instigated by the big companies refusing to treat legal, digital distribution of films and TV shows as things they needed to pay residuals to actors and writers for simply because they aren't being distributed on a physical medium.

Now I know the reality of the situation is that this behavior will continue, as will all other crime - car thefts, assaults, breaking and entering, insider trading, etc - but that doesn't in any way justify taking part in these acts, or change the fact that they're all crimes that carry consequences, most notably the consequence that they all create victims. And victims are seldom "thankful" for being on the receiving end of a crime...

Jan

08-04-2009, 11:40 AM

Please, would you stop using the word "stealing" in this context? It makes your arguments much less powerful.

Take this blog post from Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert): http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/04/is_copyright_vi.html
While I disagree with some of his points, he at least agrees to some extent that there is a difference between "stealing" and "copyright infringement".

You might also find this interesting: http://philip.greenspun.com/dldf/dismiss-order.html
esp. this part:
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate
with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a
separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright:
"Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by
using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the
five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the
copyright."

Sean

08-04-2009, 12:35 PM

Please, would you stop using the word "stealing" in this context? It makes your arguments much less powerful.No, I won't, because the word "stealing" is appropriate and applicable from my perspective as a professional artist who has had his work taken and not paid for (ie "stolen"). But thanks for offering up the link to the Scott Adam's page. It totally supports my points about how illegal file downloading being a victimless crime is a fundamentally flawed argument. And frankly, his dismissing of the words "theft" or "steal" seem to come from a place where he's simply setting that semantic debate aside in favor of focusing on how illegal downloading actually hurts artists. But I wouldn't be surprised if he does personally define illegal downloading as "stealing". I would think most artists view the intellectual property they create as a clear product that, if taken from them, constitutes theft. I know that I and the artists I know do.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

08-04-2009, 01:16 PM

What's most impressive to me is that you have the confidence to insist that most artists "would be thankful" to have people steal their work and only maybe pay for part of it, despite the fact that I, a professional artist, and virtually all of my professional artist friends can tell you with no hesitation that we are in fact not thankful for having our work stolen. And the vast majority of my friends, co-workers and aquaintances are professional artists, so I'm not just talking about a couple of people.

And why not? If indeed the choices are 5,000 sold or 10,000 sold and 10,000 taken for free, you'd honestly choose the 5,000? If you say no, then there IS some justification for filesharing. As illegal and immoral as you want to see it, it's not an obvious netgative.

Honestly, it wasn't meant as downtalking - it was simply relaying an actual event that happened as a direct result of me communicating your belief that illegal downloading isn't stealing. And I honestly didn't distort what you've said either. I told them that a big part of the reason you viewed it as not stealing is because mp3s are digital files that can be duplicated for free as opposed to physical CDs and such. I can't help it if they laughed at that.

And the last sentence in particular is not a slam, it's a fact. They were chuckling and being dismissive because they really thought it was just a line you and others were pushing to justify stealing, but when they realized I had really come to believe you were being serious, they got more serious too. They were concerned that people would actually have this attitude in regards to intellectual property. Our entire livelihood is based on compensation for the intellectual property we create and sell/get paid for, so when people are suddenly so flippant, we aren't super-jazzed about it.

I'm not even arguing that it doesn't have its consequences. Obviously it does. But it not as though I'm going to just download everything because I can. I realize that if I really do want some movie or album I should pay for it. At the same time I'm not feeling guilty if I d/l something that I never would have bought anyways as a means of gauging interest, as though I went into the guy's house and took some of his property.

As I've said all along, there's no evidence that it hurts everyone and I've never claimed as much, but I think it's important for people who illegally download files to consider that it is undeniably hurting many smaller artists. I don't think most people who steal music realize that. And hell, car theft helps some people when their car is a clunker and the insurance payment allows them to buy a better new one, but that doesn't change the fact that car theft is illegal, unethical, and wrong.

Aside from that, your scenarios are, quite frankly, insulting to artists. It doesn't seem you'll ever accept that but again, I'm a professional artist as are most of my friends, and I'm telling you straight up that they are. No one in any industry should ever be "thankful" for having half their work paid for and the other half stolen. And it is stealing, despite any of your claims otherwise. Whether it's a digital file, or a tape, or a record, or a CD, you're legally and ethically supposed to pay for the intellectual property ("property" being the operative word here) you intend to take possession of - not the medium it's distributed on - otherwise you've stolen it.

Yes, but the notion of property is entirely granted by the government. It looks like you're arguing on a legal standpoint as you never said anything about used CDs, which AFAIK 'hurt' the artist just as much as downloading. As that blog points out (in one of the comments) - what if I send a book to the publisher, get it rejected (and therefore get no copyright), then see them publish it under a different name, for which I recieve no credit or compensation? It seems to me like that's the type of theft that applies more to intellectual property. I buy tons of vinyl used; should I feel guilty for that? After all, the record store buys them, I buy from the record store, and the artist doesn't get any 'cut' of the profit. I don't think the car example applies there. The insurance company still gets hurt by it.

I do think file sharing can hurt smaller artists. I really do. PROVING it is another obsticle altogether. Were the artists hurt because they didn't sell enough or did they feel bad because their copyrights were stomped on? If it's the former, how do you prove that filesharing caused the album to not sell as projected as opposed to poor marketing/general disinterest/lousy quality? Albums and movies flopped long before filesharing ever took place. I don't disagree that filesharing could be the reason. I am arguing that it may not be, or in fact could have led to bigger sales than you expected.

And incidentally, what's ironic is that your line of argument is actually more in line with the big movie and television studios right now than it is with any artists. The recent writer's and actor's union strikes were instigated by the big companies refusing to treat legal, digital distribution of films and TV shows as things they needed to pay residuals to actors and writers for simply because they aren't being distributed on a physical medium.

Doesn't this just show the RIAA/MPAA's willingness to bend their definitions to fit their goals more than anything?

Now I know the reality of the situation is that this behavior will continue, as will all other crime - car thefts, assaults, breaking and entering, insider trading, etc - but that doesn't in any way justify taking part in these acts, or change the fact that they're all crimes that carry consequences, most notably the consequence that they all create victims. And victims are seldom "thankful" for being on the receiving end of a crime...

Well, jaywalking is a crime too. Should I stop trying to justify my jaywalking? Seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's the only way to walk. You're right, victims are not thankful for being on the receiving end of a crime. But when it comes to filesharing, some people are. Maybe this is an indication that there is some gray area?

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

08-04-2009, 01:19 PM

No, I won't, because the word "stealing" is appropriate and applicable from my perspective as a professional artist who has had his work taken and not paid for (ie "stolen"). But thanks for offering up the link to the Scott Adam's page that totally supports my points about how illegal file downloading being a victimless crime is a fundamentally flawed argument.

Yes, and if you go 1 mph over the speed limit, you have broken the law and are a criminal. I guess you can bend it anyway you want. Equating copyright infringment with shoplifting is like equating speeding with assault; technically they're both crimes.

potatobroth

08-04-2009, 01:45 PM

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Do YOU pay for every single thing you listen to? Maybe in a perfect world where everyone has loads of money and respected copyrights there is no gray area, but this is the real world.

I pay for all music/movies/tv/books that im suppossed to, and freely enjoy the others and by others i mean radio, internet articles, etc.

I download live shows, which Underworld has been okay with forever so long as we keep it seprate, and singles that are out of print or not released here.

There are some people that don't feel right wholesale downloading music like you are referring to.

As for your comments on "loads of money", its bullshit. If you can't afford it, then you can't own it. 20 years ago, if you didn't have the money to buy 1000 albums then guess what, you didn't buy 1000 albums. Technology doesn't give you the right to just do whatever you want. Its always been the real world and just because you can get away with something doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

IsiliRunite

08-04-2009, 01:48 PM

If only I could convince all the executives and lawyers in the world that me saving 3,000 dollars on music today will be good for society in the long run...

I guess thats not true, though, because I can't even buy most of the stuff I want to download. I would like to think filling my ears with illegal music is not the most un-artistic thing that happens in the music industry, though. Don't most musicians think executives are 'stealing'?

Sean

08-04-2009, 03:10 PM

And why not? If indeed the choices are 5,000 sold or 10,000 sold and 10,000 taken for free, you'd honestly choose the 5,000? If you say no, then there IS some justification for filesharing. As illegal and immoral as you want to see it, it's not an obvious netgative.

I'm not even arguing that it doesn't have its consequences. Obviously it does. But it not as though I'm going to just download everything because I can. I realize that if I really do want some movie or album I should pay for it. At the same time I'm not feeling guilty if I d/l something that I never would have bought anyways as a means of gauging interest, as though I went into the guy's house and took some of his property. Well then it's pretty unclear to me what you're arguing. In your above question, if I knew for a fact that I could have 10,000 sold as a result of 10,000 taken for free, sure I'd choose that. Who wouldn't? But there's no way of knowing that up front, and unfortunately, I've ONLY had the opposite actually happen to me and the musicians I've worked with directly. I've been hired to do remixes, the singles they were on were released, sales were low while the illegal filesharing the label tracked was high, and the label had to subsequently shut down because they were unable to pay the remixers they hired, their own employees, and themselves. How many of those shared files would have been legitimate sales as opposed to "sampling" style downloads? I have no way of knowing, but it's probably safe to assume that a decent percentage of them would have been. Say 10 or maybe 20%? Probably enough to at least pay the remixing fees to the people who created the intellectual property on the releases.

So again, as I've acknowledged all along, some people have benefitted from illegal file sharing. All I'm arguing is that others have been seriously hurt by it, and I personally don't feel it's right to gamble with other people's livelihoods by saying "downloading this illegally might very well hurt this artist, but it might help them too, so I'm willing to take that chance!" Take this kind of chance with your own career if you'd like, but not with someone else's. And I don't know exactly what you're trying to argue because you claim to pay for any music you have in order to support the artists you like. So why do you do that if you're so adamant about how awesome illegal downloading has been for so many artists, how the gray area makes it impossible to know if it's really hurting anyone, and even that illegal downloading "hurts no one"?

Yes, but the notion of property is entirely granted by the government. It looks like you're arguing on a legal standpoint as you never said anything about used CDs, which AFAIK 'hurt' the artist just as much as downloading.Used CDs have their own specific issues to weigh, some legal, and some practical. Many CDs in used shops have been sold or traded to the store by the original owner, and from a legal standpoint, that's allowed under the first sale doctrine. First sale doctrine basically states that you have the freedom to do certain things with your particular copy of a CD once you've gained legal possession of it from the original copyright owner. Included in those rights is reselling it. You also frequently see "for promotional use only" stickers on many of the CDs in used shops. These copies are virtually guaranteed to have at least been in the hands of people who can effectively promote the intellectual property contained on the CD - DJs, radio stations, whoever - so by the time they've
hit the shelves of a used CD shop, they've probably already paid for themselves plus some. So there are a different set of issues to be discussed in the case of used CDs, although I do agree that abuse of these rights can obviously be capable of hurting some artists as well. Practically speaking though, I don't think it was ever as rampant an issue as illegal downloading is today.

I do think file sharing can hurt smaller artists. I really do. PROVING it is another obsticle altogether. Were the artists hurt because they didn't sell enough or did they feel bad because their copyrights were stomped on? If it's the former, how do you prove that filesharing caused the album to not sell as projected as opposed to poor marketing/general disinterest/lousy quality? Albums and movies flopped long before filesharing ever took place. I don't disagree that filesharing could be the reason. I am arguing that it may not be, or in fact could have led to bigger sales than you expected.So in some strange way, we basically agree. It could help some people, yes, but it also hurts others. And as long as people continue perpetuating the attitude that there's nothing wrong with it, the potential for more people to get hurt increases.

Doesn't this just show the RIAA/MPAA's willingness to bend their definitions to fit their goals more than anything? It doesn't just bend the definitions - they're flat out lying. That's part of why your similar stance on this confuses me. I'm not saying you're lying, but their stance doesn't stand up to any logic or scrutiny, and your stance takes a similar approach to the subject. Meanwhile, artists keep getting screwed out of money that should rightfully be theirs by both big businesses and individual consumers.

Well, jaywalking is a crime too. Should I stop trying to justify my jaywalking? Seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's the only way to walk. You're right, victims are not thankful for being on the receiving end of a crime. But when it comes to filesharing, some people are. Maybe this is an indication that there is some gray area?I never said there was no gray area in the overall affects of illegal file sharing. I've only said that people need to realize it is undeniably hurting some smaller artists. I don't know how many times and ways I have to say that before it's clear. People shouldn't just download whatever they want for free thinking that it's somehow a victimless crime, or that they're even some kind of Robin Hood for sticking it to those rich labels and musicians - and a lot of people do that these days. Period. That's my argument.

Here's Kid Rock's sarcastic take on it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUgB0hNf0bs).

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

08-04-2009, 03:28 PM

F-ing hell, thank God I could afford a new pack of smokes.

Sean

08-04-2009, 03:40 PM

Don't most musicians think executives are 'stealing'?This is actually a strong, pertinent point to discuss. Music deals that many labels offer to musicians these days tend to be stacked so heavily in the label's favor that the artists often find themselves losing money despite the phenomenal success of a release, or only making the equivalent of the salary they could have made by working at a 7-11 or something. Honestly though, that's not stealing - it's up to the artist to be responsible enough to know what kind of deal they're signing, and what kind of label they're signing with. I went through the same thing when I started at Sony Pictures. I signed a lowball offer because I was naive and just happy to get my foot in the door of computer animation when all my previous experience had been in traditional, hand-drawn animation. That was my own fault, and I had to live with it for a couple years, watching some people doing lower quality work than me while getting paid more, unable to do anything about it. But I made up for it with my next contract, and have been very aware and informed ever since then before signing anything.

Anyway, this reality is exactly what's led so many artists to start up their own little labels so they can self-distribute, which makes them much more vulnerable to piracy. A big label can lose a few thousand bucks and not really be hurt, but if a little independent label started up by you or I loses a few thousand bucks, it can mean the end of the road. Hopefully, as time goes on, more consumers can understand that and try to change their ways to keep it from being too destructive.

How I think we should behave when it comes to the ways we obtain art, such as music, is summed up very well in the movie Contact:

DAVID DRUMLIN
I know you must think this is all very unfair.
Maybe that's an understatement. What you
don't know is I agree. I wish the world was a
place where fair was the bottom line, where
the kind of idealism you showed at the
hearing was rewarded, not taken advantage
of. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

ELLIE ARROWAY
Funny, I've always believed that the world is
what we make of it.

Screw the RIAA and big movie studios - it's up to us to be responsible for our own actions.

Strangelet

08-04-2009, 10:20 PM

Which is where you and I were bound to meet on this issue, Sean.

The most important aspect of this debate for me is what is best for the artists.

Now that the distribution and manufacturing of physical media is no longer an excuse to fuck over the artists down to pennies on the dollar, and advertisement is as viral as a sock puppet video on youtube, there's actually more economic sense for labels and artists to work in agile, like minded collectives.

But that's dependent on the assumption that people will actually pay for their shit.

which is why people who wholesale download whatever the fuck they want, while smirking at Sony, is actually doing a great job of giving the RIAA/MPAA corporate model a new excuse to control everything. So that they can spend all their money on lawyers and more restrictive DRM technology. They can continue the mindset where the consumer's interests come before the artists. Because its all about the great unwashed birther dumb fuck consumer with the corporate model. And that's what we have and will continue to have if consumers act like artists exist for their whims.

chuck

08-25-2009, 02:08 AM

Seven crimes to consider Before you pirate the music. (http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2009/08/17/seven-crimes-to-consider-befor/)

I don't agree with everything in this article - but it's an interesting take on the issue.

I'm quite keen on the burning down Lars Ulrich house one as well. ;-)

And yes - it's hypothetical and written as entertainment. So don't get too hot under the collar.

I was interested in the fact that Obama's appointed a couple of RIAA lawyers to the justice department though.

34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

08-25-2009, 07:15 AM

That is definitely the thing I hate the most about the RIAA; most punishments fit the crime, but this one is out of whack. I remember a study being done that said that more people have pirated music than voted for president, and if the RIAA thinks that they're fining the proper amount, they must think then that they are entitled to something like a million billion dollars from the American public. It would be like if speeding carried a 6-figure fine and several years in jail. Really hamfisted and not helping their cause at all. It is strictly negative PR and nobody's going to be able to pay that much.

matt

09-17-2009, 05:17 AM

Interesting response from Matt Bellamy of Muse to this (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=36707169&blogId=510114316) rant by Lily Allen:

Lily
My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.
Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).

We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast!

bas_I_am

09-17-2009, 06:16 AM

Interesting response from Matt Bellamy of Muse to this (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=36707169&blogId=510114316) rant by Lily Allen:

Mr. Bellamy has made a seriously flawed argument. what if that 1 gig of data per day is my own data? When I am developing I am often pulling a half gig of data or more over my pipe in both directions.

that data is mine. I own the copyright.

Sean

09-17-2009, 11:28 AM

Mr. Bellamy has made a seriously flawed argument. what if that 1 gig of data per day is my own data? When I am developing I am often pulling a half gig of data or more over my pipe in both directions.

that data is mine. I own the copyright.Great point.

matt

09-18-2009, 12:31 AM

Great point.

Yes & no.

If bas is using 1 gig of data a day then surely he should pay more than someone who just wants to check a few emails daily and maybe browse a few web pages. I understand that in this case why should the PRS get a cut if it's not copyrighted data, but I'd imagine the majority of people d/l a gig or more a day are involved in illegal file sharing

Deckard

09-18-2009, 02:25 AM

True. People's bandwidth requirements vary hugely, and from a purely resource-based perspective, charging according to usage amount seems fair enough to me, irrespective of any assumptions about what the bandwidth is used for.

While it's a good bet that most are indeed currently illegal file sharers, it would be hugely unfair to assume that, say, 94 per cent =100 per cent, and have 6 per cent of users being unfairly charged (Figures courtesy of my ass!) without some more accurate way to identify illegal downloading.

With the increasing use of BBC iPlayer HD and other services, it'll become harder and harder to make that assumption anyway.

bas_I_am

09-18-2009, 02:52 AM

Sean

09-18-2009, 12:06 PM

Yes & no.

If bas is using 1 gig of data a day then surely he should pay more than someone who just wants to check a few emails daily and maybe browse a few web pages. I understand that in this case why should the PRS get a cut if it's not copyrighted data, but I'd imagine the majority of people d/l a gig or more a day are involved in illegal file sharingI was referring mainly to how his point applies to assumptions about ownership. I do a lot of uploading and downloading to storage sites and such too, because I'm working on an album that I listen to on all the systems I can to check production quality. I also do a lot of photography work online. So what I'm up/downloading is all mine, and I wouldn't want people charging me more because they've assumed that the files I'm dealing with are being illegally traded.

chuck

09-20-2009, 04:58 AM

Agree with bas - data does not = copyright infringement.

Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).

My wife works from home - is always connected to her work network, uploading/downloading data files, terminal sessions etc. We use VOIP a lot - for work, for keeping in contact with family. All data - nothing to do with the RIAA or any artists.

ISP's should not be judge and jury of data monitoring. I think it's a ridiculous claim to make that because someone uses 1 gig of data a day - they're obviously breaking copyright and ripping off an artist.

chuck

09-29-2009, 04:36 AM

A local media commentator here in NZ posted this recently.

Why Public Libraries are just a form of theft. (http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/09/why-public-libraries-are-just-a-form-of-theft/)

Has some interesting ideas - and the comments section after the post is excellent - as his ideas get roundly condemned. Fair play to him for defending his point of view, but ignoring what others are saying.

And no - I don't agree with his argument. Bold emphasis is mine.

Why Public Libraries are just a Form
of Theft

Posted by BE (http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/author/brian/) on September 23rd, 2009
http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/bte04711.jpg

So you’ve just been reading in the paper about the zillions of dollars Dan Brown will make from The Lost Symbol to add to the zillions of dollars he made from The Da Vinci Code and the zillions more he made from the re-release of all his earlier books. And you’re thinking, ‘I should write a book. Even with a fraction of Dan Brown’s royalties, I’d be sitting pretty.’ You would, but you won’t - unless, like Lloyd Jones, you’re shortlisted for the Booker Prize and that’s unlikely. For the rest of us Kiwi hacks, there’s very little money in writing books.

I’m not really complaining. There are only 4½ million of us and, despite the fact that we’re keen readers, that’s a pretty small market.

What pisses me off as an author is that for every person who buys your book, dozens of others get to read it for nothing. Let me give you an example. A few years back I wrote a biography of Helen Clark. It took about six months to write and during that time I had effectively no other income. The book retailed at $45. On the standard author’s royalty of 10%, I got $4.50 for every copy sold. Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister sold 9,000 copies, a reasonable if not spectacular figure in the New Zealand market. So I got $40,500 before tax for my six month’s work.
I’m not complaining about that either. But…

Every public library in New Zealand bought at least one copy of Helen. And they lent each of those copies to other people to read for… nothing. Last year there were still 227.4 copies of the bookin New Zealand public libraries. If each of those copies was taken out by one person a month, that’s 2,729 people who read but didn’t pay for my book - my six month’s work. At $4.50 per unsold copy, that’s a theoretical loss of income to me in one year of $12,280.

But wait! We have something in Godzone called the New Zealand Authors’ Fund. Recognising that easy access to books is in the public interest, that authors should therefore be encouraged to write books for people to read and that, as Jesus taught, ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’, the Fund was set up to pay New Zealand authors a sum of money for each and every copy of each and every one of their books held in a public library, providing there were at least 50 copies of each book. Hooray!

But wait, there’s more! Regardless of the length of the book, the time it took to write or how many people borrowed it, everyone was paid the same. Good old Kiwi egalitarianism in action. The current rate is $2.6488 per copy. So for the 227.4 copies of the Helen biography I get paid $602.34 to compensate me for the $12,280 I would have earned if all of those borrowers had bought a copy for themselves. Nett loss per annum $11,677. The Helen book was published 8 years ago. Do the math.
OK, it’s a good thing that people can go to a public library and borrow a book to read. Lots of books even. And obviously only a fraction of the 2,729 people who notionally borrowed Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister, would have bought a copy from Whitcoulls, Borders or Paper Plus if public libraries had been banned. And yes, fewer and fewer people would have taken the book out each year after publication.

But there’s a principle here: when one person buys a book and lends it to another person to read, they effectively become an accessory to theft. Their generous act amounts to little more than stealing the author’s work. When a public library buys a book and lends it to thousands of other people to read, it’s grand theft copyright and really no different from illegally downloading music or movies or copying CDs or DVDs on your computer.

:eek:

If governments want to argue that it’s in the national interest for citizens to read and be informed, then either the governments or the citizens should recognise the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.
There would be two ways of doing that - direct and indirect. The direct method would involve borrowers paying a fee each time they took out a book, that fee to go to the author or the author’s estate. The indirect method would link the Authors’ Fund payments to the number of borrowings rather than the number of books held in libraries. Why should already impoverished writers have to subsidise the public good? And why should the author with a permanent waiting list for his or her books at the library subsidise the author nobody wants to read? User pays, my friend, user pays.

As to what the fee should be, I’m not suggesting it should match the author’s royalty. We don’t want to be greedy. But 25% of the royalty might be reasonable and just enough to keep the wolf away from some future Janet Frame’s door.

And, by the way, a fee based on borrowings would hugely benefit the authors of children’s books and therefore the nation’s children.
Finally, will the person who failed to return .6 of Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister to their local public library, thereby reducing the total number of available copies to 227.4, please do the decent thing and return the missing pages. You may want to use the after hours box to avoid embarrassment. No questions will be asked.