The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

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?

Originally Posted by Sean

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?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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"?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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.

.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

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