The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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?

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

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.

Originally Posted by potatobroth

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]

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?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jan

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.

Originally Posted by Jan

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.

Originally Posted by Jan

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.

Originally Posted by Jan

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]

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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jan

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

So what are you saying...that this somehow means other small independent labels aren't going under after losing sales to illegal file-sharing?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

But 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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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).

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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...

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

They're different.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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?"

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

...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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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...