The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[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?

[potatobroth]

The means at which you are acquiring music that has not been paid for shouldn't discussed differently with regards to technology. Just because its easy to download an Underworld song for free doesn't make it right in just the same way that taking an Underworld CD doesn't make it right.

Why do people feel entitled to free music/software/art? Is the defense really so hinged on availibility? Make me understand because right now, I can't help but hear, "since I can, I do."

[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...

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

I'm not the only one who asserts this definition of theft. The dictionary does too.

The dictionary says that downloading an MP3 is the equivilent of shoplifting a CD? Whoa

Originally Posted by Sean

They're different.

How much different? If I tape songs off the radio I'm getting intellectual property that I didn't pay for, right?

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Okay, in that case, buying a used album is also immoral and selfish, because I didn't pay the creator/owner. It's not as cut and dry as 'they do have value' or 'they don't'. The reason why I use the example of downloading some obscene amount of music is to show the way in which they DON'T have value. Say I make a song and decide to sell it for 99 cents. What is that file worth? 99 cents multiplied by what? The amount of people who want to buy it? Say I make 10,000 copies of that file, what's it worth now? We're not talking about commissioned works or anything like that. Downloading music doesn't take it away from them.

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

That analogy doesn't work at all. I'm on a salary. Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music. Again, your argument seems to be more geared towards commissioned works. They're not paying me to sit around coding whatever I want. As for the other argument - you're insisting that a guy who is given a copy of a disc and then goes on to buy a ticket IS directly hurting the artist. Lets say the disc and the ticket are $10 each. Scenario 1: before filesharing, guy does not get burned disc and does not go to the show. Artist is owed $0. Artist gets $0. Scenario 2: after filesharing, guy gets disc and goes. Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $10. Artist did the same amount of work both times. Yes, he was owed more, but he's getting something, and if not for this activity he would get nothing. Multiply this by a thousand and you can see how filesharing could be keeping artists alive.

Originally Posted by Sean

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?"

"Of course you didn't respond"...are you trying to make a point or win an argument? Again my answer is that I don't really feel like I'm 'entitled' to it, but I don't feel it's stealing either. It does justify it in my mind to know that the artists directly profit from what I'm doing and would not profit at all if I had not. Would any artist be seriously upset if someone who had never heard of the band downloaded two albums and bought one??

Originally Posted by Sean

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?

Well, it is copyright infringment. Whether it's morally wrong...I said maybe because I don't really know. You can argue it either way. Again you're arguing against something that could either hurt them or help them.

Originally Posted by Sean

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...

Of course, look I know I do MY part, but the thing is it's not going away. The public at large is gonna download because they're sick of being ripped off by the record companies, and of course the fact that many albums simply aren't available anymore. I remember asking for some obscure UW B-side on this very site a few years back, something way out of print, and instead what I got was an eBay link. Look, I understand not wanting to participate in filesharing on a forum like this, but the song isn't being sold, and probably won't in the future. Of course, you could argue that the song WILL be sold in the future and that's why I need to wait...fine, but why then direct me to a method that costs me money, lets someone else profit, and doesn't benefit the band at all?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Okay, in that case, buying a used album is also immoral and selfish, because I didn't pay the creator/owner. It's not as cut and dry as 'they do have value' or 'they don't'. The reason why I use the example of downloading some obscene amount of music is to show the way in which they DON'T have value. Say I make a song and decide to sell it for 99 cents. What is that file worth? 99 cents multiplied by what? The amount of people who want to buy it? Say I make 10,000 copies of that file, what's it worth now? We're not talking about commissioned works or anything like that. Downloading music doesn't take it away from them.

Well, you're clearly not willing to accept that there is an inherent debt owed to someone's who's work you have illegally obtained despite it's legal availability. The fact that we're discussing a digital file versus a physical product is fundamentally irrelevant, and I've given numerous reasons why. Repeating myself is getting extremely boring, so that's that.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

That analogy doesn't work at all. I'm on a salary. Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music.

What a cop-out. The analogy is appropriate enough to illustrate a valid point. Your contract (assuming you have one) stipulates that you get compensated with a certain amount of money in return for each week's work. It's not within your employer's rights to arbitrarily decide that they're only going to pay you for the work you did on Monday and Friday. Musicians have copyrights instead of contracts to guarantee that they get compensated for their work. Neither you or anyone else has the right to arbitrarily decide that you're only going to pay for two of the five files you're downloading from them.

And no, "they aren't entitled to money just because they made some music", but they are legally entitled to money if you've taken possession of that music once they've made it available for purchase.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Lets say the disc and the ticket are $10 each. Scenario 1: before filesharing, guy does not get burned disc and does not go to the show. Artist is owed $0. Artist gets $0. Scenario 2: after filesharing, guy gets disc and goes. Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $10.

You left out the final element of scenario 2: "Artist has been robbed of other $10", as well as "Scenario 3: Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $20." Imagine that. Interesting that scenario 3 didn't even make your list....

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Artist did the same amount of work both times. Yes, he was owed more, but he's getting something, and if not for this activity he would get nothing. Multiply this by a thousand and you can see how filesharing could be keeping artists alive.

I see. So then to paraphrase, "Hey music-man - you did 'x' amount of work, for which you are charging $20. Well, screw that - I've determined that $10 is sufficient, so take it and be thankful you got anything at all." Nice. On behalf of myself and all the other professional artists out there, I'd like to not thank you.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

"Of course you didn't respond"...are you trying to make a point or win an argument?

Just wanted a response to the central point I was making, because it appeared that you were dodging it.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Again my answer is that I don't really feel like I'm 'entitled' to it, but I don't feel it's stealing either. It does justify it in my mind to know that the artists directly profit from what I'm doing and would not profit at all if I had not.

Okay, so then you believe it's okay to steal one thing from someone as long as you pay them for something else later on. I'm not, and neither are those who are being hurt by having their work stolen from them. Thanks to folks with similar beliefs to yours that this is somehow "not stealing", artists will continue to be hurt by this behavior whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Would any artist be seriously upset if someone who had never heard of the band downloaded two albums and bought one??

Holy crap - that's what I've been saying has happened to musicians I personally know, not to mention to me directly! If it meant being robbed of the money they needed to keep their label running, or of being able to continue having a career in music, then abso-freakin'-lutely they (and I) would be (and are) upset! That you can actually sit there in the face of a professional musician who's telling you it specifically happened to them and to other professional musicians they know, and yet you still insist that there's no problem, is simply stunning!

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Of course, look I know I do MY part, but the thing is it's not going away. The public at large is gonna download because they're sick of being ripped off by the record companies, and of course the fact that many albums simply aren't available anymore. I remember asking for some obscure UW B-side on this very site a few years back, something way out of print, and instead what I got was an eBay link. Look, I understand not wanting to participate in filesharing on a forum like this, but the song isn't being sold, and probably won't in the future. Of course, you could argue that the song WILL be sold in the future and that's why I need to wait...fine, but why then direct me to a method that costs me money, lets someone else profit, and doesn't benefit the band at all?

Out of print stuff is another issue entirely. You're not hurting the artist if you're getting a free copy of something that's not even available to purchase. All I've been talking about is music that people choose to download for free despite it being readily available to legally purchase.

Think I'm done with this thread for a while. Not sure what more can be said than already has been. If people aren't getting it at this point, then it's probably not gonna be got.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

Think I'm done with this thread for a while. Not sure what more can be said than already has been. If people aren't getting it at this point, then it's probably not gonna be got.

Like I said... the patience of job. I'm just completely floored the kind of logic being employed by some people here. And how patiently you trashed their shit. I just can't do it....

If you want to download that's one thing. Being completely unwilling to recognize its stealing it blows my fucking mind.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Artists aren't. They aren't entitled to money just because they made some music.

un-fucking-believable.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I've given up reading this thread. It's increased my smoking habit.

Other than the posts that are short and/or funny.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

What a cop-out. The analogy is appropriate enough to illustrate a valid point. Your contract (assuming you have one) stipulates that you get compensated with a certain amount of money in return for each week's work. It's not within your employer's rights to arbitrarily decide that they're only going to pay you for the work you did on Monday and Friday. Musicians have copyrights instead of contracts to guarantee that they get compensated for their work. Neither you or anyone else has the right to arbitrarily decide that you're only going to pay for two of the five files you're downloading from them.

It's not a cop-out; the analogy simply does not work. At all. Does a musician have a contract saying that they are owed X amount of dollars for simply making a copyrighted work? Musicians get paid based on what the fanbase decides they are worth! I get paid regardless of whether or not my work makes the company lose money or make money. That's because I am being commissioned to do it. Musicians are not. What is the set value of a piece of music? A buck for each person who downloads it? So if someone writes a bad song but markets it well, is his music more valuable than the guy who writes good music but can't get the word out?

Originally Posted by Sean

You left out the final element of scenario 2: "Artist has been robbed of other $10", as well as "Scenario 3: Artist is owed $20. Artist gets $20." Imagine that. Interesting that scenario 3 didn't even make your list....

How is that interesting? I'm not saying I'm in favor of everyone downloading albums and not paying for them. I'm just saying; this is a real world scenario. In reality, this person is not going to pay for a disc a friend made for him. In scenario 1, he makes no money. In scenario 2, he does. Scenario 3 is not an option because it's dealing with a person who isn't going to buy the disc anyway. If you were chief of police and you needed to come up with something to curb speeders would your solution be, "people should just not speed!" I'm just saying, copyright infrigement is going to happen. There is not going to be a way to stop it. However the effects of it are debateable. This scenario is one in which the artist is clearly benefitting from it.

Originally Posted by Sean

I see. So then to paraphrase, "Hey music-man - you did 'x' amount of work, for which you are charging $20. Well, screw that - I've determined that $10 is sufficient, so take it and be thankful you got anything at all." Nice. On behalf of myself and all the other professional artists out there, I'd like to not thank you.

I actually think most musicans would be thankful. You're acting as though they're being commissioned and then short changed. We're not talking dedicated fans who normally buy the new discs but now don't. Clearly that is hurting the artist. We're talking a scenario where an artist makes money where previously he would make none. The fact that you don't even recognize this is curious.

Originally Posted by Sean

Holy crap - that's what I've been saying has happened to musicians I personally know, not to mention to me directly! If it meant being robbed of the money they needed to keep their label running, or of being able to continue having a career in music, then abso-freakin'-lutely they (and I) would be (and are) upset! That you can actually sit there in the face of a professional musician who's telling you it specifically happened to them and to other professional musicians they know, and yet you still insist that there's no problem, is simply stunning!

You see, it doesn't mean being robbed of anything. Okay, so I d/l 2 of your CDs, and pay for one. You are not making the money you're entitled to. Fine. But if I didn't download any of them, you make nothing. You didn't do more or less work because of it. You go broke and can't continue to make music, but at least you're not being robbed of anything. You can sleep well knowing your intellectual property is safe.

The thing is that smaller musicians don't really have any sort of guarantee for an amount of copies they will sell. Say you sell an album for $10. 50 people buy it and 450 download it. You will say, see, I only made $500, if not for downloading I would have made $5000! That is what we call a logical fallacy. Any non-RIAA commissioned study into the effects of file sharing on the sales of music say, if anything, it either benefits the artists or has no real discernable effect. You will argue that without downloading, you would have sold 500 copies. I will argue that you will have sold 20. How do you prove your point?

And I find it interesting that you're ducking the issue of selling used CDs and records - how is this okay while filesharing is not?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Like I said... the patience of job. I'm just completely floored the kind of logic being employed by some people here. And how patiently you trashed their shit. I just can't do it....

If you want to download that's one thing. Being completely unwilling to recognize its stealing it blows my fucking mind.

Call it what you want. Then I will call you a dirty thief for all those used CDs you bought that ripped money directly out of the artists pockets. Because apparently you can steal without actually taking anything away from anyone. I'm not saying we shouldn't support the artists. I'm not even saying that downloading isn't on morally shaky ground. I'm just arguing that downloading some artist's music is not like going into their house and stealing their TV. I'm saying that music's value is determined by the public and is nothing like contracted or commissioned work.