Dirty Forums

Dirty Forums (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/index.php)
-   world. (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites? (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9739)

Jan 01-27-2009 07:17 AM

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
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. 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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan (Post 108124)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cacophony (Post 108120)
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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 108076)
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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
as a counter point i found this masters thesis on the impact of file sharing on indie record labels.

Quote:

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.


Quote:

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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangelet (Post 108134)
as a counter point i found this masters thesis 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. 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 - you know, within the realm of a reasonable margin of error.

Quote:

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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck (Post 108137)
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. 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 - 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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 108126)
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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Snake (Post 108128)
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

Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cacophony (Post 108144)
i dunno. i got tired of reading so i just threw that out there. :D

Awesome. :)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.