I don't like having to pay extra for consumer electronics so that DRM can be added to protect some else's interests. I don't like anyone telling me when, where, or how I llisten to music I plegally purchased. I don't like my "fair use rights" under copyright llaw bein eroded. Don't encourage the scoundrels by purchasing DRM'd devices or music. Please take a look at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition in the link below. If you agree with it please sign and submit it.
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
Here is a video of a guy ralking about one of the RIAA infamous lawsuits that you may also be interested in.
Video - Rant Against RIAA (http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/12/11/congratulations-to-the-riaa-legal-team/)
Here is the blog of the attourney who represents Mrs. Swartz and a number of others.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
Hold on a sec.
first of all couldn't play the video.
But the RIAA "attacked" a 12 year old for filesharing. So because she's 12 years old and she's an "ordinary" human being, she can go on and file share the shit out of her?
I don't know the actual case, but I it's not quite obvious on what the girl did.
I've never entered file sharing. I got all the games in the world, and I pay for the software I use (quite dearly I may add). I don't see any reason to actually steal my software or my songs. Not to mention that I have all the videos I want through youtube anyways, so I don't even need the radio.
I can't see the video so I'm probably a little ill informed, but:
Ok there is reasoning and common sense. IF the girl downloaded "a couple" of tracks, or "a couple" of games, then... maybe ok (though plainly illegal, but it's human nature). If on the other hand that girl has a huge library of 5000+ mp3 files, then... well wait a minute, she was served rightly the 2000$.
Again, could be ill informed, please inform me better...
Ok.
Saw the video and saw the petition.
Let's see now. Wondering if indeed the RIAA is not giving anything to the artists.
I'm sure that lawsuits all over ordinary people is not the solution, as I don't think that punishment is enough to prevent illegal activity.
I do believe that is illegal and that it is harmful (piracy I mean), but I also think that it's very useful:
1. If you check my signature you'll see something about a music comp. I contacted these people and they're giving a prize of 259$. I know these people and I work together. If they are financially hurt, then this kinda touches me as well. I talk with Gary Garritan (as a couple of members know here), and hope for a collaboration. anyone pirating GPO, or any other sample library of his, could possibly be hurting my own interest. (<- simply put piracy could be something that touches me... and maybe other members in here).
2. Of course we all know that 90+% of people who pirate software would never ever buy it, and actually that the left 8%, will eventually buy it after trying "try before buy", which makes perfect sense to me. So the loss is actually very small.
3. Prices are waaaay up high for music, and I have stoped buying music! I buy 1-2 CDs per year (as well as games... but old games which I can finf at 2£ per game :D)
4. Microsoft is what it is because of piracy.
I mean in the end piracy is not so bad... but there are people who actually are loosing money...
(also this post seems to be going more and more off topic...) sorry
Most of the stuff you watch on youtube is there without permission, unless you like watching the user produced stuff like teenagers singing along to songs on their webcams (oh wait, that music is there without permission too...). File sharing ethics side though, the RIAA and many of the larger labels it represents are outdated organisations clinging to power through litigation, and unless they can successfully abuse their position it's only a matter of time before these middle men are less important in the commercial music model as everything heads digital (from production to distribution to playing). Their strategies for maintaining that hold on the industry suck, not least including irritating DRM which hasn't once been effective, and limits people's (legal) ability to transfer audio between devices.
I fully agree with RickJ. And when we talk about DRM, let's not forget about the virus Sony was kindly distributing. >:(
As I said I am ill informed... DRM sucks big time... Sorry for my previous post (which still stands but is irrelavent...)
Adding silly DRMs just brings the possible sales down. Where the CDs with all the stuff on them cost more and are harder to use the temptation to download them off the net grows even stronger. And about all CDs get leaked way before the release date anyway.
For Nikolas and anyone else who wasn't able to view the video, here's a little homebrew transcript:
------
Okay, I know, this is totally the last thing you'd ever expect from me, but I'd like to take a moment to congratulate the RIAA legal team. And let me tell you why: after years of trying, those crazy kids managed to squeeze both feet in their mouths at the same time--winning the admiration of all their former law school classmates and redefining evil for the twentieth century. That's not easy to do!
In the case of elector vs. schwartz, the RIAA claimed to have a rock solid letter from the defendent's ISP. In this case, America Online, parent of our own weblogsinc: "Confirming that the defendent owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed." Woah, slow up your roll RIAA law guy. This week, Ray Beckerman, attourney for Ms. Schwartz, obtained copies of the letter and, guess what? There's not a mention of copyright infringment present--not even a whisper. Further, when the RIAA made these claims, they did so in front of a judge, in effort to prevent Ms. Schwartz's motion for summary judgment.
So what does this mean? Let's put two and two together. Essentially, through misappropriation of facts, the RIAA lied to the judge in order to keep a very flimsy case together. Still not convinced the RIAA holds their board meetings somewhere around the seventh circle of hell? There's more. Ms. Schwartz isn't just your average RIAA defendent. Or maybe she is? You see, Ms. Schwartz is a multiple sclerosis patient, which is a neurological disease that's easily exacerbated by stress or anxiety. So, apparently, the RIAA misled and misguided the court in order to continue a relatively unsubstantiated case against a woman who's legal battle is actually causing her physical harm. You see now why I've got to hand it to these guys, cause when they go looking for new ways to be evil--they don't mess around.
------
EDIT: Also check this out: http://www.radioandrecords.com/radiomonitor/news/business/top_news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003466905
I guess the musicians are making too much money, and it's not fair for the RIAA...
Thanks Greg.
Now... it is indeed true that musicians are all millioners... ;D
I know this pisses off a lot of people here abouts but I don't buy CDs anymore. MP3 is free and I can get whatever I want for free.
I'm not a cheap guy, but I refuse to pay 15 USD for something that costs them 30 cents to produce. Until they DRASTICALLY lower the cost per CD (I'm talking 1-2 USD each) I'm sticking with my FREE mp3 downloads.
The whole RIAA, DRM, "fair rights" blah blah blah ... is such a COLOSSAL waste of time/resources which only serves to raise the cost of music. And after 1 year of them busting their humps 10 hours a day, 7 days a week to create the latest greatest copy protection to screw over their consumers ... some 14 year old kid in his parent's basement cracks it in 10 minutes. Total waste of time and money.
How these people can actually fight this "war" is beyond me.
http://www.amazon.com/Memorex-700MB-80-Minute-50-Pack-Spindle/dp/B000075UZ7/sr=8-2/qid=1165865233/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-0805942-1045400?ie=UTF8&s=electronics
But CDs are less than a dollar each now. Oh you mean the entire cost of producing a band, paying advertisers, mixing the sound and all that.
Also, why can't people spell Colossal by now?!
I still buy CDs, as it's my prefered way to purchase music. It may or may not be connected to an "old school" way of thinking that money should be exchanged for actual physical goods rather than data that exists as a file on my PC.
E-Distribution is every companies dream, eliminating the need for a physical product and costs related to such.
DRM-controlled E-Distribution is every companies wet dream. A world where you control not only the product, but how the costumer has access to it too.
This is not a world I look foward to being a consumer in.
1-2USD Darth?? :o I might as well give my album away when it is ready! For I would be losing out overall from the costs of making it in the first place at that price. And I don't even have advertisers, mixers, producers etc to pay, or a record company taking a large cut!
I usually agree with you on many things Darth, but not today!
Limping Fish: Yeah I prefer something physical! Not just to feel like I actually got something that I can display on my shelf, peruse the artwork etc, but take this example: I played my legit copy of Oblivion loads. What about my copy of Fable? I keep forgetting I even have it because it's not actually here for me to see it! Teehee!
What Eric and Matt said.
CDs are still very nearly my sole means of purchasing and listening to music, and I almost never feel cheated paying 15-20 dollars for an album. That having been said, I do realize that digital distribution is inevitable and will be the standard eventually. This is sad news for me, because I like the artistic potential in having a physical CD distributed in a case with liner notes and pictures inside. The good news is that this kind of artistry is still possible with digital distribution. So all of that to say... I like pie.
As a consumer, I don't feel violated by the RIAA, but I don't follow this kind of stuff at all, so I don't even know how I'm being cheated, if at all (Note that I didn't even click on the link in the first post, as petitions do not interest me). I am, however, interested in how record company executives traditionally cheat their artists as standard industry procedure, and digital distribution as a standard is actually a good step to take on this front, because it then becomes much easier for artists to be independently successful. This is good.
Okay, I don't have much to say that is terribly relevant. Carry on.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Mon 11/12/2006 20:20:051-2USD Darth?? :o I might as well give my album away when it is ready! For I would be losing out overall from the costs of making it in the first place at that price. And I don't even have advertisers, mixers, producers etc to pay, or a record company taking a large cut!
I usually agree with you on many things Darth, but not today!
As I said, I bump heads with a lot about my feelings toward this! No worries though! I respect your opinions; even if we don't agree :)
But if you produce your own album and are releasing if yourself I'll pay you 15 USD for it! At least you're getting all the money rather than the record company taking 14.999 and giving you a 10th of a cent for your cut. As I said, I'm not cheap but I'm not going to line the pockets of the record labels who's pockets are lined too much as it is. You can show me all the stats about producing a CD as you want (marketing, blah blah blah) I don't accept that all that ads up to 12-15 USD per CD. If it really does ... then they need to find a way to lower their costs, to lower the cost for us.
Bottom line ... as long as mp3 is free and widely available, which it ALWAYS will be, they NEED to lower their costs.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Mon 11/12/2006 20:20:05
1-2USD Darth?? :o I might as well give my album away when it is ready! For I would be losing out overall from the costs of making it in the first place at that price. And I don't even have advertisers, mixers, producers etc to pay, or a record company taking a large cut!
That's because you don't do it on the same scale they do.
But I'd be willing to pay up to ~$15 per CD as long as the music is good. It is, however, harder and harder to find full CDs that I would even consider listening into, let alone buying it. I still buy CDs every once in a while (back in Hungary I have ~200 CDs), but in the past 6 years I only bought maybe 15.
I also wouldn't mind buying downloadable music as long as the format is fully unprotected mp3. I tried iTunes (which I hate along with Apple) but I refuse to pay even a single cent for music that is locked down and low-quality. (AFAIK, the compression iTunes uses is below even CD-quality mp3 to keep file sizes down.)
(BTW, if any of you can recommend good music, I'm all ears. I listen to Mike Oldfield, Jean-Michel Jarre, Vangelis, etc., so if you know something that's good and similar to these artists, please let me know.)
Well truthfully, I download shitloads of music almost daily. whenever I feel like it. But note, that that is the one and only reason who I now have more cds that I can afford. I usually download a cd, unless it's my favourite band, like the flower kings, which I bought the day it was out, And I listen to the album. If it's good I'm going to buy it. this happened with The Tears, Tiktak, Caravan, Renaissance's all albums, Tasavallan Presidentti, Magenta etc. Now I don't mind if the cds cost 20 euros each, I'm willing to pay that to the artist, I'm even willing to pay that to Bunnymilk once he gets his new songs ready, but I'm so god damn bored of having to be warned by my dad that the police are going to take me away. Which they did to 2 people this year who got caught from sharing and downloading terabytes of stuff, now that downloading is illegal in Finland too. 2 God damn people. The whole law is useless.
Sorry, I had a few beers, what's RIAA?
Most CD's now are from, $17.99 to $19.99, which I agree with Darth, is crazy. I think $12 is a reasonable MAXIMUM for a CD. I haven't bought many CD's lately, because they are all so expensive. I understand that there are a lot of costs involved in making CDs, but if you sell 1 million copies at $20, your making less then 3 million at $10. But two CDs for $40 is terrible. I wouldn't even think about that. Three for $30 isn't bad.
Also, band's need to be more creative with their CDs. They're not just selling music, they're selling art and information. Beck's most recent album had a great idea, to make your own cover with stickers. You can't download that. You can't download album art (usually).
Another random addition to legal music rights, a parent group at our school pushed to eliminate radios being played in the classrooms. Not because it was distracting or because it was violent and sexual, but because they don't have a "broadcasting licence". Because the school didn't have the rights to play music. Yet they also pushed to get them to play ACDC's Back in Black at the football games. Thirty students in a class room or close to a thousand people at a football game?
I can see where you're coming from Darth.
Yes, different circumstances, Traveler, which is why I mentioned not having a producer etc, but sure, you're right.
For me the artwork for my albums is almost as important as the music! My last album, well the artwork was BETTER than the music! haha! This album, well the artwork ties in with a song on it, which said song will sometime soon have the video released, which ties in with that! I am happy that I've got a theme going on that's all connected and not an afterthought.
I tend not to buy albums in the shops as it's way cheaper on the internet, as you all know. It's kinda sad to know my local record shops are suffering, and it's only a matter of time before they disapear.. sometimes I will buy an album in there to support them, one I like to visit in particular. That is, the independant record shops, we clear? I couldn't give a rats ass about HMV.
I'd be interested in seeing "actual" statistics of what it takes to make a cd for a major distributor and where the money goes. If 1 cent goes to the performer and that proves to be a grossly unreasonable number, I'd like to know.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 11/12/2006 20:54:05
But if you produce your own album and are releasing if yourself I'll pay you 15 USD for it! At least you're getting all the money rather than the record company taking 14.999 and giving you a 10th of a cent for your cut. As I said, I'm not cheap but I'm not going to line the pockets of the record labels who's pockets are lined too much as it is. You can show me all the stats about producing a CD as you want (marketing, blah blah blah) I don't accept that all that ads up to 12-15 USD per CD. If it really does ... then they need to find a way to lower their costs, to lower the cost for us.
So even if the musician actually does make money, you say it's okay to steal it because it costs to much? Thats ridiculous. Every time you download music illegally the price goes up to make up for the music you stole. It may not be that much but it does add up.
Darth how many mp3s have you got?
Cause I know paople with thousands of mp3s... x 0.01$ it does make 10+$... It's not a tiny tiny tiny ammount.
For the whole wheel to turn for a CD, you need lots of stuff, apart from the band, the instruments, the studio, the producer, the marketeer, the graphic designer, the factory with the CDs, teh presses, the advertising team, the marketing team, the people who transfer the CD, the people who sell the CD, rent for offices, warehouses, studios, electricity and so on... (the list could go on)... oh btw, the songwriters, and the lyrics writers as well...
I mean it might as well be 30+ people who are into 1 particular CD. How much money should everyone get? And how much time will everyone devote to that? A composer may very well spent half a year working on an album. How much money should he get from that?
I'm not saying that it is fair, as I think that the companies are indeed taking the largest share and the distribution is not fair at all, but still even if the CDs prices droped to 12$ (max), nothing would change I think. Who is crazy enough to abandon free, for paying stuff? Nobody! :-\
Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 11/12/2006 22:24:35
I'm not saying that it is fair, as I think that the companies are indeed taking the largest share and the distribution is not fair at all, but still even if the CDs prices droped to 12$ (max), nothing would change I think. Who is crazy enough to abandon free, for paying stuff? Nobody! :-\
I'd be glad to buy CDs again. When I hear good music, I still buy them, but it happens ever more rarely. I bought the last few CDs from directly the artists at festivals.
I have lots of mp3-s (I converted all my CDs to mp3 so that the disc itself is not used and doesn't get scratched) and I prefer listening to music on the computer. But I also prefer having the CD. (I could also download movies, but I don't, because I like having the DVD if the movie is otherwise good.)
I don't mind paying for something good, but it must be good. Most CDs have at most 1 or 2 songs that are anywhere near good, the rest are trash. There are exceptions, rarely.
I don't think there is anything wrong paying for music - the artist will only make other good pieces, if (s)he has something to eat. What RIAA, Sony, BMG and the rest of the maffia (Microsoft, Apple, Adobe included) does is highway robbery. I think it's outrageous that no one went to jail for the Sony virus. >:(
Quote from: Traveler on Mon 11/12/2006 23:44:10
I don't mind paying for something good, but it must be good. Most CDs have at most 1 or 2 songs that are anywhere near good, the rest are trash. There are exceptions, rarely.
Lets just clarify, as most people who say that fall into this assumption. Did you hear their singles loads of times, and then heard the album songs only a few times? What I'm getting at is, did you let them grow on you? If you tried and indeed they were still rubbish, I am going to conclude it's the kind of artists you buy that are different to the majority of the stuff I purchase.
Quote from: skyfire2!!! on Mon 11/12/2006 22:19:22So even if the musician actually does make money, you say it's okay to steal it because it costs to much? Thats ridiculous. Every time you download music illegally the price goes up to make up for the music you stole. It may not be that much but it does add up.
Wha ... ??
First off ... I never said it was okay to "steal". I said I don't agree with the unncessarily high costs of CDs and am not going to buy them because of that.
Second ... I've been downloading mp3 for 10 years and the costs of CDs has stayed pretty much the same since then (if anything the cost has come down a bit).
Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish
Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 11/12/2006 22:24:35Darth how many mp3s have you got?
I have a lot.
Here's the way I look at it:
All of the people involved in making the CD aside, the CD is nothing without the artist(s). Yet the artists get dick from the sales of their CDs. This is, basically, what I'm fundemantly opposed to. This is why I pay big bucks and go to as many concerts as I can (I'm told that touring is where artists make their money). So I
do support the artists I care about.
Furthermore:
If an artist that I'm interested in listening to starts whining about mp3 downloads because last year they only made 10 million instead of 11 million dollars. They are no longer an artist I care about anymore. Ever since Metallica went on their "whining" campaign I've not listened to their music. If all you're making music for is money then you aren't an artist I admire anymore. I understand that a person needs to make money ... but I make a lot less than a million dollars a year and I live a VERY nice life-style.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 12/12/2006 01:57:52
First off ... I never said it was okay to "steal". I said I don't agree with the unncessarily high costs of CDs and am not going to buy them because of that.
So you admit that you
"wrongly" steal music because you don't like to pay for them. Just trying to clarify.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 12/12/2006 01:57:52
Second ... I've been downloading mp3 for 10 years and the costs of CDs has stayed pretty much the same since then (if anything the cost has come down a bit).
Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-996205.html
The link may be dated but it's still common sense.
Hmmm, actually I've read articles that say that people who download MP3 actually buy just as many CDs as the next person. It'd be like saying that people who download movies illegally don't go to movie theaters any more.
It's also interesting that many college libraries have a large CD collection (or at least mine does, it has a very extensive collection of many genres. They've got your Coltrane, your Jamiroquai, your Grateful Dead, your Flecktones, you name it). Why aren't people complaining about these libraries stealing CD sales?
Sometimes if it's just a single song I'm interested in, I'll download that, but if I like the whole CD, I'll buy the whole CD. (I'm a sucker for the liner notes, etc.) Many people I've talked to have similar opinions and habits.
I can back up what Darth said regarding the money the band actually makes. CDs for bands commonly are just advertisements for their live concerts. However, there are some musicians who attempt to make money purely through CD sales, which is a tough route to go.
I remember back when the Sony rootkit story came out, I immediately went and download one of the 'protected' CDs just to prove a point.
I am definitely never going to buy any CD that has that kind of protection. Never. I don't care if it the RIAA wins, and all file sharers are rounded up and executed, and all CDs come with a million layers of security and fingerprint identification so you have the priviledge of listening to the product you bought. I'll just live without music, and the RIAA will live without my money.
I have to agree with Darth on this one. Just to be sure, I did some reading (here (http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html) and here (http://www.music-law.com/publishing.html), but there's a lot more out there if you do a google search). Let's break it down:
It looks like artists get two sources of income from record deals: royalties and publishing rights.
Royalties from a major labels are about 10-15% (9-12% for indies). But this is based off standard retail price (SRP), so sales at less than SRP are at a lower royalty rate, as are any foreign sales. On top of this are a bunch of other deductions, so in the end an artist can expect royalties of about $1.00 off a full-priced album (the article uses $17).
It gets better: artists also owe the record label "recoupment." Basically, the label gives the artist a bunch of money to go make the album. All of this money is paid back out of the royalties before the artist sees anything. So if a label spends $250,000 to make an album, the artist must make $250,000 in royalties before they get any money, which means the album needs to sell 250,000 copies. Approximately 80% of albums never do this well (other sources say only 1-in-10 albums are profitable), which means most artists never get any money from royalties.
Now for publishing rights. The U.S Copyright Royalty Rate (http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html) says the artist gets 9.1 cents for every physical reproduction of one of their songs. Normally these rights are signed over to the label for either a lump-sum or a percentage (typically 50%). This means the label assumes responsibility for enforcing the copyright (i.e. suing everybody) and also leads to those situations where artists can't use their name (remember Prince?) or perform their old songs when they leave the label.
So for a 12-song album, the artist gets 12 x 9.1 cents x 50% = 55 cents out of $17.
Of course, if it sells over 250,000 copies, the artist gets a whopping $1.55!
I'm all for supporting musicians, but DRM isn't about artists' rights, it's about exploitative labels' bottom line. It doesn't stop piracy, it only prevents well-intentioned consumers from exercising fair-use of the content that they've spent money for (making back-ups, or copying it over to their portable media players, etc.). I don't mind paying money for music, but not when record labels install illicit software on my equipment when I try to play it and sue me for making copies for my own personal use.
Btw Skyfire, you may want to take a look at these:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4150747.stm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051229-5864.html
Quote from: skyfire2!!! on Tue 12/12/2006 02:19:37So you admit that you "wrongly" steal music because you don't like to pay for them. Just trying to clarify.
To clarify, it sounds more like
you think I'm "wrongly stealing" music. What I consider "wrong" is $15 for a CD. A point I made abundantly clear and didn't try to hide. Also, I didn't say "I don't like paying for them". You're taking what I did say and putting into another context to prove a very weak point you're attempting to make.
Quote from: skyfire2!!! on Mon 11/12/2006 22:19:22Every time you download music illegally the price goes up to make up for the music you stole. It may not be that much but it does add up.
Your argument was that my downloading music causes the price of CDs to rise ... I asked for your source, you provided the following:
Quote from: skyfire2!!! on Tue 12/12/2006 02:19:37
Quote from: Darth Mandarb link=topic=29398.msg3
Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-996205.html
Now ... I read it quickly, but I do believe that nowhere in that article does it say "downloading mp3 is raising the price of CDs to cover the cost".
Quick Google searches are never a good idea.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Tue 12/12/2006 00:42:53
Lets just clarify, as most people who say that fall into this assumption. Did you hear their singles loads of times, and then heard the album songs only a few times? What I'm getting at is, did you let them grow on you? If you tried and indeed they were still rubbish, I am going to conclude it's the kind of artists you buy that are different to the majority of the stuff I purchase.
Maybe you're right. I used to try albums at stores, but randomly looking for music this way is very tiring and time consuming. I tried listening to radios, but (at least here in the states) they're mostly up for ads and sometimes there is music in-between. (I don't like pay stations - I'm cheap and I really don't care about radio. :) )
After living in the US for a few years now, it appears to me that most music stores carry only the completely generic 'American Idol' type of music - 'music' from generic, untalented 'bands' created by marketing morons. I even tried their recommendation system (if you like this, try this and this... - well, that was pure, 100% miss for every single recommendation. :( )
I'm actually quite desperate to find good music: I'm either completely missing the good stores where it's easy to find quality or it's just easier in Europe. I honestly don't know. Every once in a while I see something good on public television, those I try to get. (Last week there was a superb concert on air from Celtic Women - that's a CD I'm going to buy.) The end result is that nowadays I'm listening to movie soundtracks and to my old music. Unfortunately - as much as I like them - this gets boring after a while.
Actually it's interesting, most of the CDs I buy these days are from the band/musician itself at concerts. I wonder if that makes any difference, though? Depends on whether the musician is signed or not, I guess.
Quote from: skyfire2!!! on Tue 12/12/2006 02:19:37
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 12/12/2006 01:57:52
Second ... I've been downloading mp3 for 10 years and the costs of CDs has stayed pretty much the same since then (if anything the cost has come down a bit).
Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-996205.html
Hey Skyfire, why don't you find an article that's less than 3 years old as your evidence. Maybe something from, oh I don't know... 2006?
Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 12/12/2006 04:13:31
Btw Skyfire, you may want to take a look at these:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html
quote from cnet
The study is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. Previous studies have been released showing that file sharing had both positive and negative effects on music sales.
There's your answer Mr McPee.
I'm not into the type of black and white arguments of the type: "A thief is a thief is a thief" (that was in a post directed at me in a different forum...)
But we are aware that downloading mp3s is in fact illegal, right? The only reason I'm mentioning this is that if anyone comes asking for 2000$, there should be no complaints... I mean there is a risk (however stupid and small and fair), but it is there.
You know... for some bands (not all), writing the music and lyrics seems like... and easy job. Meaning that one grabs a guitar (Oasis anyone?) plays some chords and has an amazing talent (true) for great melodies, and he can have a song in 2-3 hours. The rest is not a job of the songwritter (and lyrics writter as well), but for the rest of the band, or mostly the producer/arranger. Same with film music (especially film music). I've heard that John Williams is coming up with around 5 minutes of music daily. BUT he comes up with certain shortcut codes and the rest are job of an army behind him who orchestrate, notate and so on.
I am all for artists and all that, but why exactly should Britney be paid for? She is working her arse for what she does (because it is a tough job), but still why? The major job comes from the songwriters and so on, who again might not be working that hard. The producers are people who do get money, but not royalties.
The whole that one wants to back up artists, is not exactly valid in the music industry (it's not unreasonable either, it's quite fair, but just to say some things...). In the whole process to make a CD and bring it out, it is quite possible that the less job is done from the song writers. And of course without them there would be no album. Well without the producers the album would definately suck, without the graphic designers there would be no CD sleeve and so on.
Ever wonder why the bands go on tours? Exactly for what Greg says: To make money and pay off the companies. But note something: IF all bands have "tons" of time (cause let's face it, going on tours takes time, doesn't it), then they must not have a "steady job". song writing is not a full-time job, it's not even part-time by some measures...
;)
Just some extra ideas, but let me repeat that I understand what Darth is talking about.
On the other hand, personally I believe that all these label and RIAA issues aren't going to be as prominent in the future, which hopefully, with the globalization in music of the internet, will make self-publication and marketing of albums a lot easier. I mean, already we are seeing websites that'll burn your CDs, print the album art and liner notes, and assemble it all into a professional product. (the same goes for publishing your books, making your t-shirts and other merchandise, etc.) Not to mention in our post-Fordist world the prices for this manufacturing is becoming less expensive. Now we are seeing the ability to essentially POD your products rather than having to keep boxes of hundreds of CDs, which makes the idea self-producing albums even more tempting. I guess the main issue then is not the manufacturing of professional CDs, but the actual marketing. I'm certain that there is a way to make a name for yourself over the internet, and get an amount of CD sales.
So I say, let's keep selling tangible CDs, but there's a way to bypass the music industry and still create great products.
I've engineered bands before, and I really don't think it takes a billion-dollar studio to produce a great album. But then again, I'm against this whole concentration on product rather than process, and dislike all these over-produced and frankly sterile, lifeless albums we're hearing these days. (not to say there aren't any good albums coming from major labels, of course)
BTW, Greg, How is the Appretince deluxe soundtrack doing? I would love to get my hands on it (buy it I mean... :p)
Yes internet is showing the way for artists to shape their own careers and their own marketing.
Production is not a bad thing on it's own, but it can "hide" momentarily bullshit songs... :-\
Quote from: skyfire2 on Tue 12/12/2006 07:23:42
Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 12/12/2006 04:13:31
Btw Skyfire, you may want to take a look at these:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html
quote from cnet
The study is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. Previous studies have been released showing that file sharing had both positive and negative effects on music sales.
There's your answer Mr McPee.
Wow, what an answer. Let me just smell it for a second. Sniff, sniff, yep, smells like bullcrap. Why don't you actually post something more recent, like a 2006 University of Chicago study that shows "people who regularly download music online are more likely to buy music" despite "peer-to-peer usage reduces the probability of buying music by 30 percent"? Because a study like that shows some balance
as well as being current. Posting ONE link to a 2003 CNet article proves two things in this discussion: jack and shit.
Hi Nikolas,
I'm sorry that you initially thought that I was advocating that people not respect copyrighted works. Here are the things I object to:
- I object to being charged an extra fee for each blank VHS tape I purchase to compensate Hollywood for any money they may have lostjust in case someone made a copy of their stuff. After they pressured (bribed) the US congress into making this the law of the land they started raking in massive amounts of dough, they hadn't counted on, from the movie rental and retail purchases.
- I object to not having had the opportunity to purchase DAT (digital audio tape) machines because the US congress prevented that type of machine from being sold in the US.
- I object to attempts at restricting my fair use rights. I shouldn't have to buy a new copy of content I have already purchased so that I can consume it on another device.
- I object to being required to install and run software on my computer to reasure someone else that I am not violating their copyright with out being reimbursed for the computer time and other resources said program consumes.
- I object to not being able to watch DVD's on my linux computer. It's possible but it's not legal in the US.
- I object to my DVD's being restricted from playing on the family DVD player in Bolivia. Why shouldn't it?
- I object to the RIAA using the US legal system to extort money from innocent people. And yes they have sue and continue sue people they know to be completely innocent. They apparently sued one guy who wasn't actually the guy who they said he was. Imagine for example the sheriff showed up at Nikolas' door one day and served him with a court summons notifying him that he was being sued. He hires a lawyer and learns that some guy named RickJ allegedy did something for which he deserves to be sued. Nikolas and his lawyer explain that Nikolas is Nikolas and not RickJ. However this makes no difference and the lawsiut continues. Nikolas and his lawyer then goto court, perhaps more than once, and then after having spent his childrens future on attorney fees, the judge finally throws out the case.
I suppose it would have better to have put "Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation" in the subject line. However, the purpose of the post was to ask anyone who is interested to give their support to the EFF so that they (we) will have a voice in the congress when this comes up again. The EFF seems to me to be an honorable organization. I gave them money once when they were defending a Russian graduate student/researcher pro bono (that means free for those who are Latinly challenged) who was arrested for giving lecture about his research and how he wrote a program that did text-to-speech conversion on DRM'd e-books for the blind. In any case the EFF is comprised of laywers and so are considered to be officers of the court they and therefore not permitted to advocate lawbreaking.
Quote
But we are aware that downloading mp3s is in fact illegal, right?
AFAIK it is in the US since copyright was updated by the DMCA a few years ago. Prior to that I am not so sure this is true in all cases nor should it be, IMHO. What you say? Suppose someone has a music collection and they want to listen to some of it on their MP3 palyer or computer or at some remote location. Now suppose that person downloaded music which he previously purchased and is now in his collection. Why should this be considered theft, immoral, or a copyright violation?
Having said this, let me be clear that I don't condone or advocate anyone violating a copyright. It's just plain wrong, just don't do it.
==========================
Ok, one more thing I'd like to address is the "How will the artists get paid if downloading is allowed?" argument. IMHO, this whole RIAA thing isn't about artists making a living or copyrights at all. The RIAA doesn't represent recording artists, they represnt the companies that promote, manufacture, and distribute little plastic cositas (CDs). In a digital world CDs and the companies that produce them are unnecessary, inefficent, expensive, and wasteful of resources. The only function not obsoleteis promotion.
The RIAA's real concern is that artists will come to realize that they don't need a monster company to promote their work and that they just need a good agent/publishist. In a world where manufacturing and distribution are virtually free of cost there isn't much left for a big record company to do.
In a digital world artists, the really good ones, will make as much or likely much more that they would have in the old world. Not only that there will be greater variety and it will be easier form artists to get started. The winners and losers will be determined by us, the people, instead of a few of pin heads in the seats of power.
That's the kind of world I'd like to live in, how about you?
[edit]
Dag gummit Geoffkhan!!
Hehehe ;D, not only did your beat me to the punch but you said it in a lot less words too.
Well said Greg..
Heh, did I ever tell you lot I get put off buying some DVDs because of the annoying anti-piracy adverts? Angel series 5, I bought that, and everytime I load it up, The annoying anti-piracy campaign kicks in, "DO NOT COPY THIS, YOU BASTARD!!!" Well okay it doesn't say that, but it feels like it! After having watched an episode a day, and therefore had the anti-piracy advert come on about 22 times, once a day, I wished I'd got a pirate copy instead. They wouldn't have this shit!
Bands get profits from selling T-shirts too! I remember one band was desperate to sell them when they went on tour, to cover expenses!
RickJ, great post. Though aspects of it don't apply in my situation, as I am in Greece, on the whole very well put. Seconded.
Very well put Rick!
Those are, essentially, the same things I'm opposed to as well.
They spend all that time and money to develop easily cracked/hacked copy protection. It's futile.
I object to unskippable FBI warnings and lame-ass anti-piracy PSAs on my DVDs. I have over 300 (bought and paid for) and everyone of them forces me to see an FBI warning about copying and a good portion of the newer ones force me to watch some stupid PSA about movie piracy. I bought the thing and shouldn't be forced to watch this.
I object to how the "legal" mp3 download sites (I think iTunes does this) restrict the number of times you can burn the content to a CD? That's beyond rediculous. If I buy the thing I will have a copy of it on as many machines, CDs, whatever that I want. I pay for it, it's mine. Simple.
I object to paying [roughly] 1 USD per song on "legal" download sites. This is rediculous. So for a full album you still pay the same as a CD only now you're not getting the actual CD?? How does this make sense?
Is it illegal question ...I could be wrong, but I don't believe that
downloading mp3 is illegal. I believe supplying the downloads is.
QuoteThe RIAA's real concern is that artists will come to realize that they don't need a monster company to promote their work and that they just need a good agent/publishist. In a world where manufacturing and distribution are virtually free of cost there isn't much left for a big record company to do.
In a digital world artists, the really good ones, will make as much or likely much more that they would have in the old world. Not only that there will be greater variety and it will be easier form artists to get started. The winners and losers will be determined by us, the people, instead of a few of pin heads in the seats of power.
That's the kind of world I'd like to live in, how about you?
Spot on! I've been saying this for years! Artists can now use the internet to be heard/known. They don't need the big record labels anymore. I think, more than anything, it's this fact that has the record labels browning their shorts.
Thanks Rick, indeed great post!
I had no idea about those things you're mentioning (since I've never been to the States, in even if I was , I wouldn't go searching for a DAT in my holidays or something... :D), so indeed your post was very educational.
We agree on all those things I think.
About being legal or illegal, don't really know, to be honest, It was a sincere question. I do think that the "illegal" problem lies at the duplication of the track. Supposidely, when you listen to a track, you have either bought it, either the person playing it has bought it, either it's on the radio or telly (or internet), where the royalties are being paid... In this kind of sense, someone listening to a track that he got from his friend over the internet seems illegal. Can't be too sure though... Have no idea... I would imagine that it's the same as taking a tape and copying a friends tape. Isn't this illegal? Or copying a CD... Again can't be too sure...
Certainly if I was selling my music, and found out that people (lots of them) were listening to my tracks without having paid a dime to me, I would be annoyed, wouldn't you? (Imagine the companies... :p)
To put things straight and there is no misunderstanding:
I don't really mind mp3 downloads. My initial post, went ahead to different areas (software piracy, where things are a little different...). I do think that with the internet the big companies should go f*ck themselves.
Generally this whole thing about movies and especially CDs and music is a very grey area.
I don't know where things are headed, but it seems that the more things go towards the piracy thing (not a bad thing per se), the more "protection" the big companies will have, which will make innocent consumers suffer (just another example for the software thing where in music you get the "dongles", bloody awful things that will allow you to work with a program you've bought! Still you're wasting 1 usb port, since it's usb stick! Bloodu awful business! I think I'll just go back to using cracked programs!)
My impression is that from now on, people with ordinary computers, and ordinary lifes, can make extra ordinary works of art! So no need for the middle man! With the internet these things can be shown and promoted! No need for the middle man!
Hopefully this is the era were the artists will be more active than ever, and the quality will be the same (or even maybe better... who knows). I don't need to buy any music actually, because I can get millions of free songs, from soundclick and myspace! Same with games! I can get 1000s of games as freeware (AGS etc...), don't really need to play oblivion or anything like that (just an example).
It takes some training to think like this though, because we are consumers and we do need to be free from advertising (which is where the bucks are spent of course), cause there is where the "need" for the new amazing game starts!
BTW, Darth, just a short question (honest question nothing else...):
Why have you bought so many DVDs, but not any CDs? Or you already have CDs, just stoped buying any more? Isn't it the same thing? If nothing else, DVDs, seem to have more annoying things than CDs...??? Just wondering...
Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 12/12/2006 15:35:06BTW, Darth, just a short question (honest question nothing else...):
Why have you bought so many DVDs, but not any CDs? Or you already have CDs, just stoped buying any more? Isn't it the same thing? If nothing else, DVDs, seem to have more annoying things than CDs...??? Just wondering...
A valid question.
I think DVDs are, as with CDs, rediculously over-priced. But I can't load up Limewire and get a DVD from it. Plus ... I'm perfectly content having my mp3 only on my computer and listen when/if I want. I don't want to watch my movies on the computer.
Thanks Darth,
In the case of DVDs, if I may comment, that making movies is far more expensive than making an album. Don't know if it is ridiculously overpriced (although I'm usually renting not buying...)
Yes, there are a lot of annoyances relating to DVDs, and CDs also. Any burned CDs I have refuse to play in my hardware CD player. That's my own music, refusing to play in the CD player. In a passive-aggressive attempt to partially thwart piracy, they have affected my attempts at playing legitimate CDs.
It's when copy protection affects its customers negatively where copy protection goes wrong. Like what Nikolas said, now you have things like USB dongles with computer software (by the way, Nikolas, did you hear the news that IK multimedia is going to take the dongle off of Miroslav Philharmonik?). Although I personally don't have a problem with them, I understand that they can cause problems on some people's computers.
Anyway, what I dislike the most is when people rip off small companies and individuals, thinking that they're some "large corperation." It's when people copy the CDs that were self-published by musicians. It's when people scan in fake books (books of sheet music) and distribute them on CDs (a bit of a specific example that I'm currently heated about--the author of the New Real Books is getting ripped of majorly by people who don't realize that he's just an individual trying to make a living).
Technically it's no more illegal than ripping off CDs or software made by large corperations, but when it's something ripped off from you and me: that's infuriating.
---
On the other hand, there are places like pandora.com, from which in essence you can listen to high-quality tracks from CDs (but only once). Also, Rhapsody features a promotional program in which you can download 25 free MP3s every month, legally (at least that's what they say). Rhapsody's deal is pretty handy, because then I can listen to a high-quality track from a CD to decide whether or not I want to purchase it. It's basically like having Borders' CD sampling available in your home.
I think that there is a considerable difference between buying cds of world-famous artists and buying those of local ones. As much as I like say, U2, I hardly think that they rely on my presumable copy of their album to live on. Moreover, they've never come to play here live.
On the other hand, I do buy Bulgarian cds, not that there are an awful lot I like these days, but still, I do.
On the copy protection idea, lots of companies were thinking about dongles, but found it a bad idea...
Actually all I had to do to shake the water was to show them a screnshot with Cubase SX3 in, cracked! No piracu protection works! Good think about IK Multimedia though...
Yes, indeed it's a different issue downloading an indie game, or a huge game, isn't it?
What Vel said mainly...
Quote
Certainly if I was selling my music, and found out that people (lots of them) were listening to my tracks without having paid a dime to me, I would be annoyed, wouldn't you? (Imagine the companies... :p)
Hehe, ;) yeah but I bet you would be more annoyed if nobody was listening to it and a whole lot poorer as well.
I disagree with the notion that maxium economic benefit (for the artist or publishing company) is achieved when there is 100% copyright compliance. Although this is somewhat counter intuitive at first glance it is logical and demonstratably true.
There is no business, organization, machine, or technology that is 100% efficient. It just doesn't exist. Further, the cost of improving efficiency increases exponentionaly as you approach 100%. So eventually a point is reached where the cost of making an incremental increase in effiency exceeds the benefit gained.
Does anybody know of or remember "Lotus 123"? That was the first spreadsheet program and they owned the market. Everything was going along swimmingly for them and others in the infant PC software industry. Then copy protection became all the rage and required that the original floppy disk be inserted into the drive before starting the program. Those who went in heavily for copy protection were cruely punished in the marketplace.
Have you heard of Borland International? As I understand it a young fellow named Philip Khan (not sure of the spelling) wrote a Pascal (Pascal is a programming language) compiler as a school project while at University. It featured the first incarnation of an IDE, intergrated development environment, that allowed people to rapidly write, debug, and test code. Whilest looking for employment he spent his spare time polishing up his school project. At one point he started selling Turbo Pascal for $50 bucks. It came with a couple of floppy disks and a nice professionally bound softcover manual. At that point in time it was impossible to purchase a compiler for under $5000 and then you only got shitty little three ring binder for a manual.
Supposedly Philip was told that he couldn't sell his compiler for only $50 bucks because everyone would make illegal copies of it and so he would have to sell it for $5000 to make up for his losses. He said that he still intended to sell it for $50. When asked if he was concerned that people would make illegal copies of it he supposedly replied that he was
depending on it.
He did and they did. But a funny thing happened, people copied it illegally, tried it out, and liked it. After a short period of time they got tired of standing in front of the zerox machine and would decide that the nicely bound softcover manual alone was worth 50 bucks and so they sent in $50 to get their official version. Since people pervieved that $50 was a fair asking price and since they could afford/justify it they did what comes natural to most people, they just bought the damn thing. On the other hand when people percieve they are being cheated they will also do what comes natural; take steps to achieve a just result.
There were probably a good number of people who never got around to writing a check, but so what. Philip didnn't have to supply the floppy disks or pay for the photo copies of his manual. Sure these seem to be lost sales but are they really? If he had a bullet proof copy protection scheme how many of these people would have made the purchase? How many sales, he would have otherwise made, would be lost due to copy protection? Would people have found out about it as quickly if there were copy protection? Multiply $50 times the number of people who didn't pay and you get an amount that is dwarfed in comparison to the cost of traditional marketing and advertising. The fact that it was easy to get a copy actually made the market for it. Well anyway Turbo Pascal & Philip went on to become Borland International and the rest is history.
Ok, I've said enough and I'll let someone else have a say. Cheers all.
Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 11/12/2006 18:25:31
4. Microsoft is what it is because of piracy.
I mean in the end piracy is not so bad... but there are people who actually are loosing money...
I agree with you! I agree whole heartidely! Just trying to be in someone elses shoes. No matter if you're Bulgarian singer, or Bono, still if someone told you that : "Hey! I ripped your CD, and you didn't get anything", it is annoying! That's what I simply said...
I know that there is
no maximum econimic benefit, with 100% copyright compliance! Heck piracy serves very much as promotion and advertisment (the microsoft comment!)
:)
I would like to clarify that I pay for Netflix ... it's something like 20 USD / month for unlimited 3-at-a-time service. I can usually get about 9 DVDs a month for that cost.
Now ... if an mp3 site were to say "20 USD / month for unlimited song download" I would gladly pay that. I'm not opposed to spending money, I'm opposed to spending too much money on something I consider to be over-priced.
I understand that I'm not the owner (the one selling the items) and I don't get to determine the price. However, being that I disagree with the "raping" they do to their consumers with the costs, and the wide availability of a free alternative I choose to go the mp3 route as do millions of other consumers.
The record labels are foolishly fighting a losing battle.
Could be deadly wrong, and ignorant but, isn't this something like 2,000,000 songs, unlimited acces for 6$ per month?
http://music.yahoo.com/ymu/default.asp?
Ok it's not that... You're not downloading music you can save... NEver mind then... It's all BS!
In the Netherlands, downloading is fully legal, yet uploading isn't. So technically, with my 5606 MP3's stashed neatly away ordered on genre, band and album, I'm doing nothing wrong. Especially worth noting is that over 3000 of these MP3's are files I ripped from my own CD's, because MP3's are just that much more convenient than CD's are (they break, they're cumbersome, and try making a playlist with a couple of bands - I really don't need a CD switcher for that purpose, now do I?).
I bought around 35 albums this year. All of them directly from the band/artists. I haven't bought a CD from a regular store, not a single regular CD, in over 5 years. I refuse to pay 20 euro (yes, 20 euro, that's 26 USD) for a CD. Especially when I know that same CD costs 15 USD in the states, and importing it would be cheaper. This is a prime example of how incredibly fucked up the market is nowadays.
Knowing that a marginal amount of those 20 euro actually go to the people who created the work - wrote the music, played the instruments - I can't really find any realistic reason to pay that much for it.
I paid 50 euro for a CD, directly to the artist. It was a special edition CD, with a T-shirt, poster and a huge sticker along with the package. 50 euro was that, and shipping was included.
Of that money, about 40 euro went to the guys who created the music, had the CD pressed, had the T-shirts printed with their own design, made the stickers/poster.
That makes me feel good about myself, it really does. I'm literally supporting them in what they're doing, rather than support an industry that's basically killing off creativity and treating their clients horribly.
A local band started doing this, you know. They offered their songs for free on their website. Now, you'd say they wouldn't make money off of that, but they included a link where you could, if you liked the CD, purchase it for 12 euro. 15 if you wanted a poster with it. 25 if you wanted the poster + t-shirt. They don't have a record deal, they're doing everything by themselves. Normally, without a record deal you won't get airtime due to shitty PR, or won't get to play on big festivals. They've played the biggest Dutch alternative/rock festivals many times, they've gotten an insane amount of airplay back when the CD's first couple of singles were released, and they've sold a LOT of CD's. Their gimmick of selling it online to those who wanted to eventually made it possible to get their indie CD (and truly indie, as there was no publisher but themselves) into the standard music stores.
That's an inspiring tale, and it gives me hope for the music industry. RIAA needs to get with the program.
Thank god they can't touch me, since I'm doing nothing wrong ;)
additionally: concerning software and stuff, if I ever finish a game that I think would be good enough to ask money for, I'd make it a price that people would go "well, that's entirely reasonable!" at, simply because I know that's what I'd want to see. 5 USD for a game isn't much, but it won't stop people from getting it. If it's easily worth more than 5, 10 or 15 seems decent as well. The point is that, as with the Turbo Pascal example, you need to make it a "reasonable" price. Music albums have turned away from reasonable and are now unreasonably expensive (or so it seems).
Hmm that's an idea, I could sell two versions of my album. The full works, fully coloured inlet, etc, for around a fiver maybe (Depends on costs), and just the album on a disc in a wallet, but at a cheaper price, say the cost of the postage and about 50p or something to buy me a loaf of bread haha. I'd rather not do the digital mp3 download thing.. sounds complicated.
I got annoyed with the anti-piracy measures for PC games too. My original copies of Hitman Blood Money, GTA: San Andreas, and Postal 2 tell me that my ORIGINAL disc is a copy, which I am told is because it senses I have a virtual drive. I've worked around it, use your imagination, but it's annoying to say the least.
Oh, and dreadful game "Pirates of the caribbean" on the PC (The original one) didn't work on my PC because I had NERO installed. Yes, that's right. Uninstalling it caused the game to work, only to find it was one of the worse games I have ever played.
If you don't like the cost of CDs, you could always go without.
Just offering an alternative to "I don't like the inflated cost of CDs, so I'm just going to download the music for free."
I don't judge either way, but that seems to be the most popular route. When I see something I like, but think is too expensive, why should my first thought be "Nah, I'll just get it for free."?
Like I said I'm not here to judge. But people seem to disagree with the costs of a lot of products, judging by what floats over the internet. Movies, games, music, software...
P.S I am not the Grinch :-*
Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 12/12/2006 18:31:05If you don't like the cost of CDs, you could always go without.
Yes I could. But there is a very easy alternative which gives me the music at a much lower price.
If there were no mp3 available (or any alternative to CDs I mean) I might well go without. However, were that the case, I might not realize just how badly they are ripping us off and might still be buying CDs.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 12/12/2006 18:31:05Just offering an alternative to "I don't like the inflated cost of CDs, so I'm just going to download the music for free."
I would reply with, "I'm not going to buy CDs just to avoid people thinking my reason for not buying them is BS!".
I'm not downloading just because it's free. I'm downloading because it's a much more reasonable price. That IS my reason. I'm not making it up ;) If there were a legal outlet for a price I find reasonable, I'd pay it.
Could you please just admit outright that you're happy to steal music from artists because it's easier than getting out your wallet? Because it is outright theft, you know. I can't stand to see people trying to justify stealing music from musicians for the sole reason that it is EASIER TO DO SO THAN PAY FOR IT and pretend that what they are doing is not wrong.
But you also prefer getting the music for free, like any normal person would. :P
How much would music have to cost for you to purchase it, and how would that cost have to break down? Does the argument you give just act as a means to an end, seeing as it would be very naive to think the music industry will ever "fairly" treat both its product and consumers to a degree that satisfies?
I'm not personally questioning you, Darth ( :P), but just the realism of the argument you put forward.
I don't buy CDs out of some need to feel noble, not that you implied such, and sometimes I do actually go without when I feel a CD has been priced unfairly. But the price of a normal CD purchase for me rarely goes above 10-15 euro. I find that acceptable, which doesn't mean other people will, or have to, and that's fine.
I don't really care how much goes to the artist, the publisher, or the store, or that the physical CD itself only costs a couple of cents to produce, and maybe that makes me a sap.
I'm just saying the first thought into my head isn't "I can get it for free." I don't feel any better for not downloading, and is doesn't make me any better than somebody who does.
And now I've forgotten my initial point, so I'll just end here. :P
Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 19:25:26Could you please just admit outright that you're happy to steal music from artists because it's easier than getting out your wallet?
I'll admit that I'm happy to download music for free as long as the cost of CDs is rediculously high. If I think the cost of something is justifiable, I get out my wallet. CDs are overpriced, I have a way to get the music for [a lot] less money, so I do. This isn't that complicated really. I'm not "stealing" the music from the artist either ... I'm pretty sure they still have it.
Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 19:25:26Because it is outright theft, you know.
No, it's not. If it were outright theft to download mp3 there'd be millions of us in jail. And yet I am still walking the world free and downloading mp3 on a near daily basis with no intention of stopping.
Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 19:25:26I can't stand to see people trying to justify stealing music from musicians for the sole reason that it is EASIER TO DO SO THAN PAY FOR IT and pretend that what they are doing is not wrong.
Just because
you think it's wrong doesn't make it so.
I think paying rediculous prices is wrong. So I don't pay it. There are millions of us downloading mp3 and that isn't going to stop no matter how much whining and complaining is done against it.
If they want to sell more CDs they need to lower the costs. If the do, they'll sell more and guess what? Same amount of money in the profit margin (if not more).
We can argue about this until we're all blue in the face. The truth of the matter is this: Mp3 is free, easy, and not going away. No matter what a few people in the "Biz" try to do to stop it, they can't. They need to get on board, lower the costs, or suffer from slackin' sales.
Simple.
itunes? whatever the zune store is called?
Cheap, and easy.
Surely problem solved?
Darth, you gotta stop spelling "Ridiculous" wrong! You always spell it like that! You're going to make me think it's spelt with an 'e' soon! ;)
Uh..Darth... it's not legal to own mp3's of copyrighted music unless you own the original disc yourself. Now this would be UK law, but I'm sure it's the same in America. It's just not the sort of crime people get busted for unless they get caught spreading the stuff around in vast quantities.
I understand why you do it, but you have to understand that it's a crime, no matter how small a crime it is, it's still a crime. Just not one a policeman would want to bother filling in the paperwork for and using up police resources.
Now Matt ... you're just being REdiculous :)
Actually ... Darth can't reply anymore to this thread. He's been arrested and is spending life in prison because he downloaded an mp3.
Oh ... and he's going to hell too.
I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.
I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.
What else costs too much? Is it ok to steal that? Can I walk into a shop and steal something because I feel it's too expensive? The people who make clothes in china aren't paid nearly enough for what they do, can I steal shirts off the racks because of this?
You want music but it's too expensive or you have a moral reason for not downloading the music. Outcome: You don't get to listen to or you take a moral stand against owning the CD. That's the way things work for 99.9% of every other good. Want to hear the music and support the artist? Go to a show and buy a cd directly off of them. If that performer doesn't tour around you or it'd be really expensive to see every show, too bad. That's the way it works. You either buy the cd or you don't.
Or admit you're stealing something without paying for it. I steal things off the internet all the time. Even if I have a moral reason against paying for something I admit I'm a thief.
Don't want to be a thief and don't want to give the record companies any money? Boycott the product.
QuoteNo, it's not. If it were outright theft to download mp3 there'd be millions of us in jail. And yet I am still walking the world free and downloading mp3 on a near daily basis with no intention of stopping.
It is outright theft, dude. You did not pay for it, you have stolen it. It's no different than walking into an unstaffed music shop and picking up anything you want - when there's no risk involved it suddenly doesn't seem like stealing!
QuoteJust because you think it's wrong doesn't make it so. I think paying rediculous prices is wrong. So I don't pay it.
Yet you will buy hundereds of DVDs, which are arguebly more overpriced than CDs, just because you can't get them from limewire! Just because
you think it is right to not pay for music doesn't make it so. You're not trying to prove a point by not paying for stuff that costs over $10, you're stealing something because it is risk free and more convenient. That does not make it right, or justifiable.
Stealing for me has a definition close to "taking something, thus depriving it from someone else". This is not happening here. It's definately not the same to walk into a shop and steal a t-shirt, or download mp3s.
Darth, You are very well causing harm to people and lots of them, from artists, to marketing directors, and finally to everyone, by forcing RIAA to act like shit! (<-what a nice argument! I don't actually believe that but since it does stand as an argument I'll leave it in ;D)
The thing is that, as I said, a CD, is a job for many people, and for many many more in the case of a film. Believe it or not, all things play a role, and should be rewarded.
Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 21:16:31It is outright theft, dude. You did not pay for it, you have stolen it.
Matter of opinion. The person I got the mp3 file from shared it willingly. That's not stealing. Nor did I pay him/her for it, thus no copyright law was broken. Symantics I know, but none-the-less true.
Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 21:16:31It's no different than walking into an unstaffed music shop and picking up anything you want - when there's no risk involved it suddenly doesn't seem like stealing!
Actually it's entirely different.
Quote from: Adamski on Tue 12/12/2006 21:16:31That does not make it right, or justifiable.
To you maybe. This might come as a shock, but I don't live my life by other's opinions!
If somebody can point me to the law that says, "The obtaining of music mp3 from p2p networks (or any other source) for free is illegal" I would greatly appreciate it. Until then, it's not stealing in my book. You can argue against my point all you want with your points. As far as I'm concerned neither point is more valid.
Now if they enact a law that says that ... I'll gladly and openly call myself a thief. I won't stop downloading mp3 for free, but I'd capitulate to being a thief.
DISCLAIMER: Note that Darth didn't actually respond here ... remember, he's in hell/prison.
Yes, it's illegal, yes it's stealing. But is it WRONG? Up to one's morality. If it's a bad thing, it's not a huge bad thing as most of the time you're putting a small hurt on a company that is an enormous beast out for blood. Don't forget, it's the huge companies that are waging the war against consumer piracy. Those companies are not looking out for the best interest of art, nor artist, but for their monetary gain. Now, someone would come and post a sarcastic 'so, helm, a company wanting to make money is bad? lol you naive naive person' to which I reply: "fuck you." and also yes, there's such a thing as milking a consumer, and there's another in bleeding them dry.
I think art shouldn't be product. Artists should be supported by goverment, organisations and charitable individuals. It might not be superstar money, but fuck the superstars anyway. People that wanted to make a living out of art should expect to barely make it. It's conductive for good art to struggle, anyhow! Besides, consider how great it would be for art to not have to think wether what you're making is sellable or not. Of course some would abuse the system and make crap for art and get money for it, but hey, the same people abuse the welfare system, and it's not a huge bleeding sore for the economy, is it? I'm not talking for much more money than that. If you want more money, tour, do exhibitions, become good enough that some wealthy person takes you under their wing or your country aknowledges your skill and gives you more grant money. If you don't want more money, just go on creating with your bad self for the little you get and get by with. If you can't cut it get a real job.
Most artists that feel threatened by piracy are doing so because they think it'll mean they won't be making a living out of it, not because it will deny them the millions they feel they deserve.
I download a lot of music. From all that I download, I tend to love 10 cds a year or so. Most of them I buy. I think that's sensible, and I don't think all the other stuff I downloaded I should have had to buy at all since I didn't love them. I don't see how this is hurting anyone. I am sampling the music - and now that disk space is running out - if it's not satisfactory after a few listens, it gets deleted. If it is, it might linger about for a while until I either decide I love it enough to buy it for liner notes, art, whatever, or I decide it's not good enough and it goes. Darwinian method.
Lots of the music I buy is obscure, on some strange german mailorder (I prefer Hellion) or at a live show (where I also get t-shirts to support the band if they were good enough) and the good thing about the music I listen to is that I know that most artists I'm ripping off would rather have me listen to the music than not listen to it at all, even if it means downloading it. Heavy Metal people are like that (metallica notwithstanding). They only get annoyed if the downloaded music is of bad encoding, 'cause it makes their stuff sound worse, and that's understandable. I promise to steal only good quality mp3s!
EDIT: an interesting thing about 1 dollar per song on iTunes, if the concept is actually embraced, and people stop putting out cds... I think artists will just make one song at a time. Not book for 60-minute album recording sessions. That'd be interesting, for me. Then again, an artist that has made a 15-minute opus would feel ripped off! I guess that means most songs will be in the 3-4 minute range. Oh pop music, how much more will you become like disguised advertising.
Helm, this is a really difficult area to enter, but I would like to comment a little...
(stealing, not stealing and so on, don't care really...)
The "art should not be a product" and the rest are far more interesting! The system idea, again is true, and I do think that in France there is a simmilar system already working! As long as you prove that you have done some work, then you can live by wellfare...
I'm not sure if artists, should expect to live poorly! Why exactly?
I mean, no artist should mind if his art is sellable, indeed very true, but what about, that his art is communicating with his audience? In the end art, is all about communication, where words always fail (at least I think so), so the art, while not commercially accpetable, if it's not the "art for the art" argument, then it should do...ok. No?
I just find this notion that artists, should basically starve (more or less), because they're artists, and shouldn't expect money appaling to me! I just can't see why! I mean it's not that an artist should be locked in a room and make his art and nothing else, and then bring it to he light, and not care what happens to it afterwards... is it?
(note the question marks! Striving for discussion here... even if I'm changing the subject almost completly!)
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 12/12/2006 21:45:03
Matter of opinion. The person I got the mp3 file from shared it willingly. That's not stealing. Nor did I pay him/her for it, thus no copyright law was broken. Symantics I know, but none-the-less true.
But did they have the RIGHT to share that file with you? Did they hold the copyright?
Links then, first one from RIAA!
http://www.riaa.com/News/newsletter/093003_2a.asp
Second link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3600464.stm
Third link:
http://tech.yahoo.com/gd/peering-into-peer-to-peer-file-sharing/153224
Remember Napster getting into trouble, yes?
Please understand, I am not telling you not to do it, I just want you to be aware. If I told you not to, I would be a hypocrite!
As a side note, there's this ridiculous anti-piracy campaign going on in Sofia. Local artists are half-naked on huge posters around the touch and on their chests there is a red sign that says "Piracy Steals". It's indeed hilarious, for among the people whom piracy has done great wrong are a painter, and a sculptor.
I'd also like to say how much I respect a Bulgarian alternative rock band, called PIF. They make music and released two albums in 2001 and 2003(which are probably the best Bulgarian albums from the new millenium I own). Then they decided that the income from record sales isn't really that vast and released their third album for free on the Internet. To make a living, they constantly tour. Not huge venues, at least, not often, but clubs and such.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Tue 12/12/2006 22:19:47But did they have the RIGHT to share that file with you? Did they hold the copyright?
No, but they didn't sell me the mp3 either, so they didn't break copyright law (as far as I understand it). Though I do believe the RIAA is targetting the people that provide the mp3, not the ones doing the downloading.
If I go out any by a box of cookies, and I share them with all the people I work with, are they theives for eating them?
Theft is defined as being:
Quotethe act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it or an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
You're not TAKING anything away from anyone. What you're doing is illegally copying, not stealing. So I would like to ask that this nuance be applied, as it's very important. People use the term "stealing music" constantly, while it isn't stealing per say. You're definitely copying something illegally, but using the term stealing is only in order when you would've bought the CD if there'd been no way of downloading things for free.
The most you'd be stealing in that case would be profit. Income. But mind you, while you're 'stealing' about 15-20 USD from the record companies by not buying the album, you're only 'stealing' less than a dollar from the actual artists.
Doesn't make it right, I know, but perspective is important.
Also, while uploading is illegal in the Netherlands, I've uploaded a lot of CD's, specifically meant to share them for free with others, while I purchased them a few years back. Why? Because the CD's are out of print, the bands don't exist anymore, and google yields no results on any of their band names, album names or songs. Yet, this is still illegal, and will remain to be until the copyrights dissolve in what... 70 more years? This means that legally speaking, this music is condemned to be forgotten for at least that period, and after that, well, probably the same. While I'm doing something illegal, my feeling of justice says I'm doing the right thing - and that the copyright laws need to be altered to fit with the times.
What we see happening is the record companies (in the form of the RIAA) despreately trying to hold on to the old status quo. And they're failing, because everything's different from when those rules and guidelines were first drafted. Once more, it's time they stop fighting and start thinking of how to create a situation in which all of the important facets (the new technology, the new opinions on these things by the general public), and profit for both the companies and artists) are represented.
If there's a fair alternative, then by all means, I'll join in. I'm already doing that by purchasing music directly from the artists, and I'll keep doing that. For those artists who don't want to join that movement, that's fine. Just make sure your albums are reasonably priced (and that's possible to do, if you choose your label right. A local band's been keeping their album prices low for years, even though they're on Epitaph, whose CD's are generally all in the same price range).
It's a difficult situation we're discussing. On one hand no music fan wants to hurt the artists, and we definitely wouldn't want to be the artists getting hurt. On the other hand, how things are now is wrong, and both artists and consumers are being shanked by the record companies. Something needs to change, and so far, illegal downloading's got a lot changed. Napster started it off, by becoming a dedicated music download program, then all the spinoffs. It was only a matter of time before legal alternatives came, and thank god they did.
A lot of good things started out illegally. Bittorrent, now used in World of Warcraft, and soon in a service by Time Warner, is mostly used as a tool to download illegal things. This has caused its popularity, and subsequently its rapid development. In no time it turned into a viable platform for distributed data sharing, and let's be honest, it wouldn't have been anything without the illegality it obviously concerns itself with.
The music situation will stabilize, I hope, and things will be re-assessed, causing consumers who're currently disillusioned to start purchasing again, and the companies to feel more secure in their market.
Don't forget - it's basically the evolution of technology causing this. 8-tracks made easy, affordable copying of music possible, but it was quite a hassle. Cassettes made it easier, and even more affordable, still remaining a bit clumsy. Being able to copy CD's made it MUCH easier, and a lot handier. Downloading music makes it as easy as it can be.
The method's changed, 's all.
All of you who're saying you shouldn't download free music, how many cassettes do/did you have that you copied off of a friend's CD/record? How many copied CD's? That's 'stealing' too, you know, just more oldskool ;)
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 12/12/2006 22:51:12
Though I do believe the RIAA is targetting the people that provide the mp3, not the ones doing the downloading.
Stop them, you stop the downloaders. Hit the problem at the source. It doesn't mean the downloaders are in their rights. You did read the links I gave you? ::)
QuoteIf I go out any by a box of cookies, and I share them with all the people I work with, are they theives for eating them?
Erm... Darth, you usually have intelligent and good points. This must be your off day! :P ;)
If you got the recipe for the cookies and made them to replica standard, and started giving them out yourself, maaaaybe! But this is a silly comparison. And the cookies are eaten, not copied to your friends.
EDIT: Good grief, that's a long post by Voh! I think I'll post this and read straight after!
Sorry, I get carried away sometimes ;D
Quote from: ManicMatt on Tue 12/12/2006 23:04:09Erm... Darth, you usually have intelligent and good points. This must be your off day!
I was trying to be a little silly (to lighten the mood in here) but I do think it's a similar point.
If some guy buys a CD (legally) and freely gives away the songs on the CD it is, in my opinion, no different than somebody buying a box of cookies and givin them away free. Those that eat the cookies are enjoying the product without paying for it.
The difference is that when you give out cookies, you paid for, say 10 cookies, give away 8, only have 2 left. So you paid for 10 cookies, 10 cookies get eaten. Also, cookies are done after you've eaten them.
If you buy a CD, and share your MP3's, you're not doing the same. It'd be the same if an album you bought as MP3's has 10 tracks, you give out 8 of them, and delete your own MP3 of the songs you gave out. Then it's a good comparison. Now, not so much :)
I'd like some answers to my post, if anyone pleases.
I can see both sides of the argument here.
The person hosting free downloads is definitely breaking the law. Remember the publishing rights I talked about earlier? At the very least, they should be paying a royalty everytime they provide a new physical copy of the music. I'm not sure how digital reproduction applies here, but I suspect the principle remains the same.
As for the person doing the downloading ... seems like more of a gray area. They're not the ones doing the reproduction and violating copyright. They're just taking advantage of a service (admittedly, one of questionable legality). I guess it's a little bit like buying scalped tickets, if you could make infinite, valid reproductions of the ticket.
But I think the x-factor here is that the people being harmed here aren't the artists, it's the record labels. You generally don't see musicians kicking down doors and ranting about copyright violations; they're just happy that people are listening to their music. But then again, the record labels have basically taken away most of the musicians' rights to their own music and given them a few pennies for their trouble. Now they're trying to use the same strong-arm tactics on the consumers, sueing individuals at the drop of a hat (while doing nothing to combat the massive, organized piracy rings in the Pacific rim). I think most people see the recording industry as getting their just desserts, hence the lack of guilt about getting free music. I think people are tired of paying $15-20 or more for CDs and when the musicians (who it seems are ultimately responsible for most of the costs of production) getting basically nothing.
The system definitely needs to be fixed.
Buying cookies and duplicating said cookies in a cookie-duplicating machine, and then sharing the duplicated cookies among friends and strangers while retained the original cookies for your own usage, having only purchased the rights to eat those original cookies...is a crime (of varying moral/legal degrees). Anyone who knowingly eats one or more of the counterfeit cookies is an accessory to that crime.
Baking your own cookies (using a recipe of your own design!), by investing in various cookie-making ingrediants and/or devices and sharing/selling the resulting cookies, is not.
LimpingFish opens a packet of Hob Nobs.
Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 12/12/2006 21:11:08
I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.
I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.
What else costs too much? Is it ok to steal that? Can I walk into a shop and steal something because I feel it's too expensive? The people who make clothes in china aren't paid nearly enough for what they do, can I steal shirts off the racks because of this?
You want music but it's too expensive or you have a moral reason for not downloading the music. Outcome: You don't get to listen to or you take a moral stand against owning the CD. That's the way things work for 99.9% of every other good. Want to hear the music and support the artist? Go to a show and buy a cd directly off of them. If that performer doesn't tour around you or it'd be really expensive to see every show, too bad. That's the way it works. You either buy the cd or you don't.
Fat Tony begs to differ...
(http://www.billmon.org/archives/fattony.gif)
Fat Tony: Is it it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No..
Fat Tony: Well suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Nuh-uh
Fat Tony: And what if your family don't like bread. They like.. cigarettes.
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away.. you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell no!
See, it's not wrong to steal a box of cookies to feed your starving family but if your family doesn't like cookies and prefers MP3s, that's okay too. Not only that, you can even sell them at a price that was practically giving them away, and it's still not a crime! So technically, free file sharing is less than not being a crime -- in other words, it's actually benefits society!
If Bart Simpson can see the light, why can't you, Eric?
I'd say downloading music is stealing.
The music industry could cut back on middle men if you ask me. I'd like it if music went totally independent. There would be some really talented people that didn't get drowned out by the bubble gum packaging of other artists. Bob Dylan would have been found all the same in such a world.
As a serious post, there was a report just released in the last few days by Forrester Research (http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,40858,00.html) that had some interesting details about the correlations between iPod owners and music purchased from iTunes.
Quote
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Forrester's recent analysis of more than 2,700 US iTunes debit and credit card transactions reveals that 3% of online households made an iTunes purchase in the past year. Apple's iTunes proves that $0.99 micropayments for digital music can lead to substantial revenue; buyers spent an average of $35 at iTunes over the past year. With half of all transactions costing $3 or less, though, transaction fees threaten to make iTunes unprofitable. Since the introduction of the iTunes Music Store, Apple has been steadily selling just 20 iTunes tracks for each iPod sold, suggesting that even at $0.99, most consumers still aren't sold on the value of digital music.
The report's author, Josh Bernoff, expands a little in a blog (http://blogs.forrester.com/devicesmedia/2006/12/is_20_itunes_pe.html).
QuoteSince iPods went on sale, people are consistently buying about 20 iTunes per iPod. There's been a small uptick to 23 lately, but that's it. What's the explanation? It's either:
1. People are buying at a low but steady rate, but replace their iPod every few years -- which would imply that iPod user market is growing more slowly than it appears, or
2. People buy about 20 songs and then get tired and don't buy any more.
Now, to further extend this discussion, here's a good op-ed piece from Joe Lewis (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20061212IsnbspiTunesSingingItsSwanSong.html) of webpronews.com.
QuoteThere's no denying that people love their iPods. Filling the portable devices with content, however, seems to find users looking more toward unprotected formats and pirated tracks, rather than dealing with the hassle of paying for content with little to no device portability.
Bernoff puts it this way, "There's a problem here. CD sales have fallen 20 percent over five years. The message here is not that CD sales are coming back, the ability to obtain pirated music is now so widespread the DRM looks to consumers more like a problem than a benefit."
How long has the handwriting been on the wall when it comes to DRM and iTunes?
Quotef digital music aficionados are becoming disillusioned with iTunes, then other services need to step up to the plate and offer a viable alternative.
Nick Carr shares a similar viewpoint, putting the ball in the recording industry's court:
"The upshot of the study is clear. Online sales of digital music continue to be relatively modest, and if music companies want to increase them they'll probably need to look beyond Apple's iTunes store, which may well be tapped out as a source of growth. I'd be surprised if we don't see record companies make a concerted effort to open more online retailing channels in 2007, probably selling songs in unprotected MP3 format."
QuotePeople want easy access to their music, and once purchased, they want the ability to do anything they want with it. This is the nature of the portable media beast. If the choice is between DRM and piracy, you can bank on the fact that piracy is going to win that battle every day of the week (and twice on Sunday). And if other music services can offer a lower cost, DRM-free alternative, iTunes is in for some serious trouble.
Obviously, people are fine paying for music. Otherwise, no one would have bought the 1.5 billion songs from iTunes. The problem is people are starting to realise how fiddly the Fairplay DRM. And consider that there's a number of ways to by-pass the DRM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Digital_rights_management), which makes having Fairplay more of a hurdle for piracy rather than something that stops it.
I understand the moral implications of piracy but consider when people are faced with this decision: why pay for something cumbersome compared when you can something easy-to-use for free (though illegally)? It's obvious why people prefer to download music rather than pay for it.
But I do believe people would be okay paying for their music and staying within the confines of the law. Consider the positive initial reaction to iTunes. However, I think more people would pay for music if they dropped a lot of the DRM protection.
I know that the only thing stopping me from buying music from iTunes is the cumbersome DRM. I prefer to have control over the things I own. I don't have a problem buying my music -- I believe when you pay for something, you're putting commitment into something, and the more commitment you invest, the more you value it. And I do value my music.
However, I also like to have control over what I commit to. I don't like committing to things I have limited control over.
Interesting reading, DGMacphee.
I find it amusingly ironic that the very steps the music industry has taken to prevent losing sales - locking down content to prevent people from making copies of it - is actually causing declining sales. Not only does it not stop people from making copies, but people are more inclined to get pirated music so they don't have to deal with the DRM.
Unfortunately it leaves the consumer between a rock and hard place. Not only is music downloaded from legitimate onlines stores encumbered with DRM, it's worse quality than what you can get on a CD (MP3 being a lossy compression). If I could download music in a lossless compression format (like flac) without any restrictions on its use, then I'd considering getting my music online.
Unfortunately CD's aren't a much more attractive option. Not only are they overpriced (someone explain to me again why the RIAA's pricing model doesn't constitute a monopoly?), but it seems like more and more they're trying to put DRM on them as well. I don't know, maybe (hopefully!) the whole Sony debacle has caused record labels to rethink their position bit.
Not quite sure what the answer is. I personally don't condone downloading pirated music (though I can certainly understand why people do it). I find myself in pretty much the same shoes as Traveler: with a fairly old and small collection of music that gets a bit boring after listening to it all the time.
With the advent of HD television (at least in the U.S.), the situation isn't any prettier on that front either. Anybody ever heard of HDCP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP)? All I can say is, here we go again. :P
Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 13/12/2006 08:56:17Not quite sure what the answer is.
Create a website/program offerring ALL music from ALL labels EVER produced in high-quality mp3 format w/ a [reasonable] monthly subscription for unlimitted downloads. Simple.
Quote from: voh on Tue 12/12/2006 23:27:58
The difference is that when you give out cookies, you paid for, say 10 cookies, give away 8, only have 2 left. So you paid for 10 cookies, 10 cookies get eaten. Also, cookies are done after you've eaten them.
If you buy a CD, and share your MP3's, you're not doing the same. It'd be the same if an album you bought as MP3's has 10 tracks, you give out 8 of them, and delete your own MP3 of the songs you gave out. Then it's a good comparison. Now, not so much :)
It's still a good comparison. You're buying a product and freely giving it to those that didn't pay for it.
So if a guy buys a CD with 10 songs, rips it to mp3, and gives the songs to 10 people only. That's okay? It's just not okay if he gives multiple copies?
1 cookie or 1,000 doesn't matter. Those eating the cookies didn't pay for them. They are stealing the cookies and are thieves!!
It's not a good comparison and they aren't thieves.
If I buy a tv and give it away, no one stole it. The company got money for 1 tv and 1 tv was transfered leaving no tvs in my garage.
When I take an MP3 from someone the company got money for 1 CD and 1 cd was transfered and there is still a cd in my cdplayer and another in someone elses.
And to reiterate:
I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.
I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.
You want music but it's too expensive or you have a moral reason for not downloading the music. Outcome: You don't get to listen to or you take a moral stand against owning the CD. That's the way things work for 99.9% of every other good. Want to hear the music and support the artist? Go to a show and buy a cd directly off of them. If that performer doesn't tour around you or it'd be really expensive to see every show, too bad. That's the way it works. You either buy the cd or you don't.
Also, since you stated that the reason you don't download DVDs is because it isn't as easy as loading up a program and searching and downloading. What if it was? Would you download them then? What if it was real easy to just download a movie without paying for it and watch it on your TV? [then again, with torrents, it's terribly easy to download movies and can be downloaded in a few hours]
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 13/12/2006 14:13:05
It's still a good comparison.Ã, You're buying a product and freely giving it to those that didn't pay for it.
No it isn't a good comparison. You're buying a pack of cookies, and if you give them away, that's fine. They've been paid for. If you buy a CD, and you give it away, that's fine. It's been paid for.
If you start making copies of that CD, creating identical products, while retaining your original. You've still got your own copy, you won't be buying antoher one, whoever you gave the copied CD (or MP3's to) won't buy the album because they've already got one.
You're comparing an edible (and therefore ultimately perishable if not eaten) product, which is limited to one use per definition, to something one can copy, use over and over again, and will never go stale.
Your comparison is flawed.
addition after reading Ashen's post:
If you give a cookie away, you can't eat it anymore. If you give an MP3 away, you can still listen to it. That's where the discrepancy lies.
Quote
So if a guy buys a CD with 10 songs, rips it to mp3, and gives the songs to 10 people only. That's okay?
To go back to voh's earlier example: If you give one (different) MP3 to each person, and then destroy the original CD (and
your MP3 copy), then possibly. Provided they never give copies to anyone else.
I still agree with your basic position, I just think this example is seriously flawed, and not doing you any favours.
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 13/12/2006 14:30:45
I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.
I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.
Do you hear that knocking sound? That's the internet police and they're coming for yo' ass!!! :)
I understand the "discrepancies" and the "flaws" but the simple fact remains that people are enjoying a product that they didn't pay for.
So if a person were to buy a CD, rip it to mp3, destroy the CD and give away the mp3s and then delete the copies he has, he's doing nothing wrong. So if the person he freely gave the mp3 to makes 10 copies of each and freely gives them away is it the first guy's fault for giving it to him in the first place? The second guy is giving away something that was freely given to him so is it his fault? Maybe it's the record label's fault for producing it in the first place?
I'm really not trying to step on anybody's toes here ... I respect all your opinions on this subject. The over-all point I'm trying to make (and beating a dead-horse doing so) is that it's a confusing jumble of shit and the bottom line is no matter how much people rally against file sharing it's going to continue. If the recording industry hires 10,000 people to fight against it they'd still be outnumbered more than 100,000 to 1. They cannot win this war they've chosen to fight. All they're doing is making themselves look even more greedy and incredibly foolish and turning consumers against them. One good thing to come from their foolishness ... it's exposing their greed and corruption and opening a lot of eyes.
In truth, I'd say all the negative energy directed towards it [file sharing] just makes it increase more.
"But ... but ... You can't do that!!!" feebly stammers the RIAA.
"Wanna bet?" says John Q. Public as he opens LimeWire ...
The subject, though open to a lot of viewpoints, is not very confusing, Darth, and you're fast becoming incoherent.
That we agree on. The recording industry needs to find out what they can do to make legal purchasing more interesting and more worthwhile, rather than put all efforts on dissuading people from illegally downloading. Because let's be honest, that'll always continue. Whatever protection scheme they figure will stop them, or at least slow them down, is usually beaten within a couple of days.
The internet's a big place, and it's given everyone an equal voice. This is what the RIAA can never beat - the fact that there's so damn many people trying to do the same things. What they need to do is work with the consumers, not against them.
I feel that there is something wrong with how copyright laws (especially regarding intellectual property) work currently.
If an american breaks american copyright law, the RIAA takes action, and doesn't step outside of legal boundaries in the process, everything has happened the way it should, even if they sue a MS patient (as long as that patient was the one responsible for breaking the law).
One problem comes from how money influences opinions that form laws (lobbyism for example), and I don't see the current copyright laws serving the public interest.
Not to mention that America in it's turn pressures other countries to enforce similar copyright-laws.
The hardest part is to motivate citizens to take interest in their society and fight for their moral values. Everything that you do counts, even internet petitions. Breaking the law and stealing mp3s will too, but unless you believe that people should be allowed to break the law when they wish, you are sending the wrong message. The RIAA (and other organisations) might even fight back on the same terms (probably will too, in order to survive), but they have more money than you (and will probably crush you).
Organise yourself, take a stand, fight for what you believe in, don't merely opt for convenience. Luxury products like music should even be quite easy to boycot.
Quote from: Helm on Wed 13/12/2006 15:32:21The subject, though open to a lot of viewpoints, is not very confusing, Darth, and you're fast becoming incoherent.
My last post was intentionally "incoherant". There are countless opinions on the subject. Now matter how much one thinks his/her opinion is "correct" there are others who think something different. That makes the situation confusing. Though I have the solution to the confusion (which I stated a few posts back).
Quote from: voh on Wed 13/12/2006 15:34:16The internet's a big place, and it's given everyone an equal voice. This is what the RIAA can never beat - the fact that there's so damn many people trying to do the same things. What they need to do is work with the consumers, not against them.
In total agreement there.
I would imagine that the idea is this:
You bought a CD, which contains 10 tracks! You paied fees and royalties for 10 tracks! If at some point there appears an 11th track then BAM! it goes wrong! Don't know whos fault is it, and anyway, noone would ever go and make 10 mp3s and destroy then the CD... :)
Of course RIAA are totally morons by fighting this totally stupid war. Things are changing and there's no turning back. simple facts.
Still atm piracy is considered "stealing" (although I dont' agree with the term, still someone gets something that he should've paid for, but never did...). BTW, I watched a rented DVD today (Superman Returns, quite bad imho), and the piracy part was not skipable, but it could move fast forward, which made things easier... ? Also my sons Whinie the Pooh DVDs, don't have any piracy info and stuff...
In the end, Darth (who I repsect you, and I agree with all your points, as well as Rick! But Rick didn't show up saying, I rip mp3s but I'm certain it's not illegal!), what made me feel a little bad, is that you are after your own convinience and nothing else. While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life: While ripping the hell of mp3s (and why not? I don't entirely dissagree), you still buy DVDs (although they probably cause more pain than the CDs), for the simply reason that you wouldn't be able to enjoy them so much. This simply is breaking all the things (on which we agree on) you said earlier.
How come you're against RIAA, DRM and all that stuff, against the anti-piracy ads, teh high prices etc, adn still buy DVDs, but not CDs? Come on! Think about it! One needs to be a little more "coherent" to his options and "small rules" he sets up. Other wise you are basically canceling everything you said about the above stuff (RIAA and so on so fourth). Don't you agree?
I really hope I'm not insulting anyone with this post, it's of course not my intentions.
Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 13/12/2006 15:50:21
In the end, Darth (who I repsect you, and I agree with all your points, as well as Rick! But Rick didn't show up saying, I rip mp3s but I'm certain it's not illegal!), what made me feel a little bad, is that you are after your own convinience and nothing else. While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life: While ripping the hell of mp3s (and why not? I don't entirely dissagree), you still buy DVDs (although they probably cause more pain than the CDs), for the simply reason that you wouldn't be able to enjoy them so much. This simply is breaking all the things (on which we agree on) you said earlier.
How come you're against RIAA, DRM and all that stuff, against the anti-piracy ads, teh high prices etc, adn still buy DVDs, but not CDs? Come on! Think about it! One needs to be a little more "coherent" to his options and "small rules" he sets up. Other wise you are basically canceling everything you said about the above stuff (RIAA and so on so fourth).
I don't understand why it's so hard to simply accept that I don't like the cost of CDs.
Nickelback is one of my favorite bands. They are coming in concert down here in March and I already bought my tickets. 2 tickets for $122.84, bought and paid for. I have every Nickelback song I can find on mp3. I don't own a single one of their CDs. I support them by buying concert tickets (and I'll get a shirt when I'm there). If that isn't good enough for them ... they can cry about it at their mansion in the hills while lounging by the pool behind the garage with 15 luxury cars while their man-servent refills the apple-tini.
I REALLY don't like the cost of DVDs either (especially now that I'm buying HD-DVDs at 29-39 USD each). But if I want to watch them, right now, just "digging out my wallet" is the most convenient way to do it. I'd rather spend 20 dollars on a DVD than spend hours downloading, converting, burning, etc. This isn't the case with mp3. It takes me 1 minute to pull down a song and I can instantly listen to and enjoy it. The music biz needs to pull their heads out of their greed corrupted fat-asses and get with the times.
Adapt or go extinct. Good riddance I say.
And before anybody says "but without the record companies you wouldn't have music ..." do you REALLY believe that? Without greedy pigs running the show we'd actually see "the day the music died"? I don't think so.
QuoteNickelback is one of my favorite bands.
sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH
See, I'm just trying to get you to understand it's not legal, it's not my opinion, it's FACT. I don't care what you do, but you keep trying to come up with excuses and justifying your actions.
Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506). The FBI investigates allegations of criminal copyright infringement and violators will be prosecuted.
Here is a link to the FBI's page. See?
http://tampa.fbi.gov/investprograms/internetfraud/theftofintellectualproperty.htm
Can you refute THAT?
No you can't.
Remember, I'm not saying if I think it's right or wrong, I just can't believe you think it's totally legal to do so!
Didn't comment on this in my last post:
Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 13/12/2006 15:50:21While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life
I admire Rick's informed "crusade" against the RIAA. The way I look at it is like this; I'm opposed to it, but this debate has been going on for years and isn't going to stop anytime soon.
Show me a petition I agree with and I'll sign it
Ask me my opinion on the matter (this thread) and I'll give it.
Devote a lot of my time and energy to fight against something that can't possibly win in the first place? Nah.
If that's "simply after my easier life" than sure, I guess I'll agree with that.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Wed 13/12/2006 16:23:40
Here is a link to the FBI's page. See?
http://tampa.fbi.gov/investprograms/internetfraud/theftofintellectualproperty.htm
Can you refute THAT?
No you can't.
Thank you Matt. That is what I was looking for. Though it seems more like it was written by a kid than an actual law-maker. If that
is legit, than I'll admit to "theft". I won't stop doing it, but I'll admit to it.
Quote from: Helm on Wed 13/12/2006 16:11:53
QuoteNickelback is one of my favorite bands.
sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH
Why "OUCH"? Because you don't like Nickelback? Well ... they must suck then. I'm sure their millions of fans who keep them at the top of the billboard charts and selling out concerts world wide would agree.
So if it was easier to download DVDs for free and display them on your TV you would do that too?
What about computer programs? Those you download, install and use right on the computer you downloaded them on, no burning required.
Also, the cost of setting up your house to allow you put a movie on a removable storage device and display it on the TV is probably much less than that of buying DVDs for the rest of your life.
You don't like the prices of things so you take them unless it's not convenient? This is my take away from this thread.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 13/12/2006 16:35:10
Thank you Matt. That is what I was looking for. Though it seems more like it was written by a kid than an actual law-maker. If that is legit, than I'll admit to "theft". I won't stop doing it, but I'll admit to it.
Finally! :D
If you delete the rest of the url it goes here, which surely would be legit? I actually started off from looking in the overall FBI website, and did a search.
http://tampa.fbi.gov/
Quote
Why "OUCH"? Because you don't like Nickelback? Well ... they must suck then. I'm sure their millions of fans who keep them at the top of the billboard charts and selling out concerts world wide would agree.
Bad argument dude, because the same could be said for Westlife, Backstreet boys, or whatever talentless pap you can think of. My point being, an argument that suggests something is good because loads of people like it doesn't mean it's good! However Helm is just being a big meany! Nickelback are okay, but I am not into them.
QuoteMP3s may be protected by copyright, but Dutch copyright law contains several provisions that limit the rights of the copyright holder. Dutch copyright law for example states in article 16b that it is allowed to make a few copies of a copyrighted work, if those copies are only used for private practice, study or use. This is called a "home copy". Under Dutch law it is permitted to convert your CD collection to MP3, and to play those MP3's at work, as long as they are not played back publicly so all your colleagues can hear them.
The same applies for rented or borrowed CDs, because the law does not require that you must be the legal owner of a work in order to be allowed to make a home copy. By analogy this also applies for music in other formats, such as MP3's as found on the Internet. According to Dutch law it is therefore legal to copy a rented or borrowed CD, or to download music from the Internet for one's private use.
Such a home copy may not be distributed any further, because it may only be used for private practice, study or use. Downloaded music may thus not be put on the Internet or be transmitted to anyone else.
I love my countryÃ, ;D
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 13/12/2006 16:38:15
So if it was easier to download DVDs for free and display them on your TV you would do that too?
What about computer programs? Those you download, install and use right on the computer you downloaded them on, no burning required.
Also, the cost of setting up your house to allow you put a movie on a removable storage device and display it on the TV is probably much less than that of buying DVDs for the rest of your life.
You don't like the prices of things so you take them unless it's not convenient? This is my take away from this thread.
I've run my own company for several years now. I'm developing "something" (sorry, under wraps can't talk about it) that I intend on selling. I know full well what the value of that product is, what it costs to produce, manufacture, and distribute. I know how much I need to charge to make a profit and still serve my customers fairly. I'm not going to mark it up 200% just so I can be filthy rich. I
could do so, but I'm not going to.
That is what I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to the general public being so brainwashed that they fork over ridiculous amounts of money on over priced products and never question it ... just mindlessly "going with the flow" and continually getting screwed over.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Wed 13/12/2006 16:47:13Bad argument dude, because the same could be said for Westlife, Backstreet boys, or whatever talentless pap you can think of. My point being, an argument that suggests something is good because loads of people like it doesn't mean it's good! However Helm is just being a big meany! Nickelback are okay, but I am not into them.
Just because millions think something is good doesn't mean it is. Just as one person thinking something is "OUCH" doesn't mean it is. It was just his opinion, which is fine, but it didn't really need to be said.
Edit - I'm getting wierd looks at work here ... so I might not respond for a bit as I need to actually accomplish some work! I'm enjoying this debate though, and will return later!
I get weird looks from colleagues all the time.
Must be because of my fully legal unpaid MP3's, that always gets themÃ, ;D
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 13/12/2006 16:51:25
I'm developing "something" (sorry, under wraps can't talk about it) that I intend on selling.
I have to ask! If people think the price you charge it at is unreasonable, do you mind if they obtain a duplicate copy of it without paying?
Quote from: ManicMatt on Wed 13/12/2006 16:47:13because loads of people like it doesn't mean it's good!
QuoteJust because millions think something is good doesn't mean it is.
So we agree then! And yeah Helm didn't need to say that. If he brings up his death metal bands that I don't like, I see no point in telling him what i think of them in a spiteful manner.
Quote from: biothlebop on Wed 13/12/2006 15:45:50Not to mention that America in it's turn pressures other countries to enforce similar copyright-laws.
I think you'll find that it's more than just America that's pressuring other countries with weak copyright laws to tighten up their standards.
What's interesting is to see how studios survive in countries with rampant piracy. For example, in one country I read about (I want to say India, but I don't think that's right), a film basically has 1-2 weeks to make all its money before the pirated copies hit the streets.
As a result, films are produced on a very low budget (at least by American standards), and DVDs are available for purchase at the movie theaters. If people liked the movie, they could buy a copy right at the theater after seeing it. I also wanna say that it actually encouraged experimentation in an effort to draw people to the theaters, but I could just be making that up.
I guess the point is that there are business models that work even in an environment where pretty much everyone gets their content from piracy. The situation in America (and other countries with a strong tradition of copyright law) isn't nearly this bad, and it just goes to show companies could still continue to rake it in (not that they're not now) if they had the wisdom to adjust their business model to accomodate changing technology.
yes but darth... you don't like the price of DVDs and as I said you could save hundreds of dollars and protest the price point of DVDs by setting up your house to play downloaded movies easier.
And again, what about computer programs?
Quote from: Helm on Tue 12/12/2006 21:51:19
EDIT: an interesting thing about 1 dollar per song on iTunes, if the concept is actually embraced, and people stop putting out cds... I think artists will just make one song at a time. Not book for 60-minute album recording sessions. That'd be interesting, for me. Then again, an artist that has made a 15-minute opus would feel ripped off! I guess that means most songs will be in the 3-4 minute range. Oh pop music, how much more will you become like disguised advertising.
Yikes! I'm very much in the habit of composing 2 hour opuses. Is this bad news for Erenan?
Actually, I suspect this won't pose too much difficulty in the long run, because it will almost certainly continue to become easier and easier to use home recording environments and distribute music independently. And in that case, there'd be no excuse for stealing the music because it wouldn't be filtering through a corporate monster.
Quote from: Helm on Wed 13/12/2006 16:11:53
QuoteNickelback is one of my favorite bands.
sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH
Why "OUCH"? Because you don't like Nickelback? Well ... they must suck then. I'm sure their millions of fans who keep them at the top of the billboard charts and selling out concerts world wide would agree.
Quote
Yeah all I ment was 'nickelback sound awful to me'. It doesn't have any bearing on this discussion, I just find them extremely bad. I am certain the millions of fans that like them think otherwise, but then again, they're mostly stupid, probably.
The russian site allofmp3 sells mp3s for next to nothing, something like .79c an album.
The legality may be shrouded in grey, but it's not illegal per se.
As for DRM...
I buy a CD, I can play it on any CD player. I should be able to rip a least one copy of that CD to a portable media player.
I really don't see any way companies can put in place any software or hardware based security that won't infinge on my basic consumer rights.
Music purchased from iTunes is only playable on an iPod and that's fine. You have an iPod, you shop at iTunes. Everybody's happy. I presume iTunes has a way to back up the files you've paid for, which covers the right to make at least one back up for your own use (if it doesn't allow this, I'm sure someone will point it out to me.)
This also limits Apples consumer base to those that own iPods, which doesn't make the most financial sense, but they seem happy with it.
Apple might be seen as forcing people to shop at iTunes for their musical needs, but it's part and parcel of buying an iPod. So if you don't like it, don't buy an iPod.
The other, more nebulous concept of DRM that most companies seem to be flogging is a lot less black and white in my opinion, and until it's made more accessable I'll be staying well clear.
My brother's laptop is broken. He has an ipod. And there wasn't enough room on his hard drive to keep everything he ripped off discs, so it was mostly deleted after he transferred the files to his ipod. Now he is within reach of another computer - mine. However he tells me that if I install the ipod software on here, and he plugs his ipod in, he will lose all the music on it if it's not in my library. DRM or something, I presume. This of course, sucks, and I am glad my mp3 player is not an ipod.
EDIT - Also, his CD collection is in another city, out of reach for the time being.. and I don't like the idea of ripping 500 discs to my computer either!
Nickelback is known for their full-soul depth lyrics.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yWxaohCvQFg
Nickelback is the the number 1 band in Portugal! http://youtube.com/watch?v=r3k8Z1n657E&mode=related&search=