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

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'?

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

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Seven crimes to consider Before you pirate the music.

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.

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

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.

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

Interesting response from Matt Bellamy of Muse to this rant by Lily Allen:

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

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.

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

Great point.

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

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

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

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.

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

and how much more should I pay than US$79 a month I currently pay for my home business static IP via COX cable?

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

I 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.

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

Agree with bas - data does not = copyright infringement.

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.

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

A local media commentator here in NZ posted this recently.

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 on September 23rd, 2009
http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/wp-co...9/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.

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

The link to that page is down. It's an interesting argument but I wonder how many 'lost sales' there really are. Doing your calculations based on how many people theoretically would have bought your book if they hadn't checked it out is very dubious. And again, I'd argue it works both ways. I've bought books that I had rented for free because I liked them so much, or bought books from the same author, etc. The problem with this logic is that it basically says that everyone who has ever lent a book, CD, movie, etc. is a criminal. Do we really want to go down this path?

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

A really good article about the history of the music/movie industries and the innovations they tried to kill:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-own-words.ars