Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...

  Dirty Forums > world.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 07-28-2009, 07:33 AM
stimpee
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,757
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86724/u...evenue-up-4-7/
__________________
UW0764 || Professor: "Underworld have never failed to disappoint me" || Yannick changed my avatar picture.
  #72  
Old 07-28-2009, 01:21 PM
Sean
Where in the world...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,437
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j View Post
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.
__________________
Download all my remixes

Last edited by Sean; 07-28-2009 at 01:59 PM.
  #73  
Old 07-28-2009, 03:02 PM
stimpee
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,757
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
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?
__________________
UW0764 || Professor: "Underworld have never failed to disappoint me" || Yannick changed my avatar picture.
  #74  
Old 07-28-2009, 06:17 PM
Sean
Where in the world...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,437
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimpee View Post
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!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by stimpee View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stimpee View Post
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?
__________________
Download all my remixes
  #75  
Old 07-29-2009, 12:43 AM
stimpee
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,757
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
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.
__________________
UW0764 || Professor: "Underworld have never failed to disappoint me" || Yannick changed my avatar picture.
  #76  
Old 07-29-2009, 07:26 AM
potatobroth
bungalow
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,056
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
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.
  #77  
Old 07-29-2009, 07:46 AM
34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
blue
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 922
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
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?

Last edited by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j; 07-29-2009 at 07:49 AM.
  #78  
Old 07-29-2009, 07:56 AM
potatobroth
bungalow
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,056
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j View Post
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?

Quote:
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.

Last edited by potatobroth; 07-29-2009 at 08:02 AM.
  #79  
Old 07-29-2009, 09:26 AM
34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
blue
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 922
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by potatobroth View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by potatobroth View Post
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.
  #80  
Old 07-29-2009, 10:37 AM
Jan
vision
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 607
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
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?
__________________
uw#0523
Post Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.