Also, how many Spanish galleons are consumers boarding on the high seas? The word “pirate” doesn’t mean what commercial interests have tried to make you think it means. There isn’t even any theft involved in this discussion; it’s copyright infringement, which is a different issue.
I used the term pirate* because it is the term most commonly associated with a person who serially downloads copyright material, redistributes, and makes no attempt whatsoever to appropriate any compensation towards the producers of the content they freely consume. The semantics of this discussion are, in my opinion, on hold pending further reactions from the industry and lawmakers.
Thus far the the laws have been reactionary to the increased amount of illegal downloading and redistribution that the internet has enabled. The way things are going, it may not be long before music ‘piracy’ is treated as a far more serious infraction than today. I hope this does not happen, as I put in my post, I don’t think that the industry or the government has any idea what they are doing. But the ‘pirates’ don’t either.
*Main Entry: pirate
Function: verb
1: to commit piracy on 2: to take or appropriate by piracy: as a: to reproduce without authorization especially in infringement of copyright b: to lure away from another employer by offers of betterment
intransitive verb
: to commit or practice piracy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pirate[2] [/quote]
Just because Merriam-Webster says it doesn’t make it right.
People who participate in filesharing know exactly what they’re doing, unless they’re being used as a mule by someone who REALLY knows what they’re doing. You’re absolutely correct in that legislators have no idea what’s going on, though, except where that next bribe is coming from.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
buffalokilla wrote:
I’m curious; if a lot of people go and download a band’s music, how does that fuck them over? I haven’t heard a coherent argument about how the consumer is damaging upcoming talent by downloading free music. Given that record sales and ticket sales tend to go up the more a song is downloaded, how is it a problem? How much of a record sale or iTunes download do you think a band gets?
I already said in my first post that I don’t think people who download and then buy(includes merch and shows) are the problem. Nor do I think that people who download sparingly are the problem either. They are also a minority. The majority, and the people I was referring to are the people who do it compulsively. Who are constantly running multiple torrents, for movies, music, books, games, software…etc. People whose default behavior is to download. People who consume products, enjoy them, talk about them, think about them, love them… but don’t pay for them.
This is a problem not just financially or economically, it is a problem culturally and mentally. When people start to feel as though they are entitled to another person’s creation, just because it is the internet, and this becomes default behavior. That is fucking content producers over. It’s creating a culture that says “If you’re a musician, fuck you for wanting to make a living doing what you’re good at and what I want from you, the only acceptable way for you to make money is playing live and selling t-shirts.” ignoring the fact that live shows are almost never profitable when factored against the costs of running a band.
[/quote]
Okay, so you have a problem with the gimme culture then. The problem you describe goes way beyond filesharing, it’s just a small symptom of the many, many assholes society is allowing to behave poorly. I can understand that position.
I’ve been under the impression that live shows and merchandising is the primary revenue source for bands signed by labels, though; do you have some data on that to the contrary?
[quote]Fiction wrote:
I am slightly disturbed by the number of people who, while classifying the act of downloading as stealing, have no problem downloading from someone who is successful.
So stealing is okay, so long as it is from the rich?
Which is not to say that I have a problem with filesharing, but if you think it is stealing, why are only successful people subject?[/quote]
as barry bonds said “You all have dirt in your closets. Clean out your own closet before cleaning out someone elseâ??s.”
I got 80 gig off illegaly downloaded music of my computer. I would have paid approximately 20 000$ if I had buyed all of it. And I can’t get any off the music I want in store. The only exception was The complete works of Edgar VarÃ?¨se I couldn’t find on the web and it happened that it was available in store. I paid 45$ for that.
I dont listen to mainstream stuff, and thanks to the internet and illegal downloading to show me there was something else…real music. I would sure be missing something if it wasnt for the internet. I wouldn’t have buyed the 4-5 CD I own if I didnt discovered all the music I like on the net. Radio suck. We got an huge source of information that is internet, just be a little curious and you can discover real great stuff. If you are an idiot and listen to pop and what they play in the radio, if music for you gotta have lyrics, then too bad.
Okay, so you have a problem with the gimme culture then. The problem you describe goes way beyond filesharing, it’s just a small symptom of the many, many assholes society is allowing to behave poorly. I can understand that position.
I’ve been under the impression that live shows and merchandising is the primary revenue source for bands signed by labels, though; do you have some data on that to the contrary?[/quote]
Merchandising and ticket sales are major revenue streams, but not as major as you might think, and as I stated above, it’s almost exclusively ‘big label’ acts that can actually draw significant cash from live concerts on a consistent enough basis to not only make a living for themselves, but sustain the industry mechanisations that gave them their position. For smaller bands, regardless of how awesome and talented they might be, merchandising and ticket sales are significantly less reliable, and significantly less likely to support a band solely. Often times smaller clubs and venues take a bite out of both ticket sales and merch sales. It is also somewhat common to have a band losing money to the venue for failing to sell enough tickets.
I apologize for not having ‘data’ for you, so you can take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. I get my info from having worked with many bands and been around bands of varying levels of “success”. Despite what the internet might lead you to believe, it is, in fact, very difficult to support a band on ticket sales and merchandise alone, let alone support the band members.
Another thing that happens sometimes is that a band will make enough money to sustain itself(or at least enough to prolong going broke for a while), but the individual members are still perennially broke, since the majority of the revenue goes back into maintaining the band, which can be expensive(factoring in rent for a rehearsal space, repairing and buying gear, maintaining vehicles, gas as well as creating merchandise, having a street team and any other ‘staff’, and of course… making records, which is still quite expensive to do right.)
In my opinion “the major label” addresses many of the difficulties in operating a band, and for a long time, major labels and bands and consumers got on pretty well(back in the 60s and 70s, bands were ‘cultivated’ as long-term projects that the labels invested heavily in, it is no coincidence that some of our best music comes from that period). But these days, the labels have gotten so scared to sign anything that they aren’t ‘absolutely sure’* will make a profit. That it has become increasingly difficult for an unsigned band to ever hope at crossing that threshold, and even if they do, they have to be savvy enough to not get completely reamed by contracts and poor management. Meanwhile, the consumer stopped perceiving recorded music as being worth money, and the whole situation has become confusing and messed up.
Personally, I have faith that it will sort itself out eventually. But between now and then, it is a discouraging time to be a musician, and that is sad because I don’t think the value of music has diminished at all in anyone’s lives.
*Of course the joke is no one is ever sure of what will sell until it does.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
iTunes went DRM free months ago.
I know, I know. I just wanted to post the cartoon anyway.[/quote]
Fair enough. But really, I think that both Amazon and iTunes offer significantly better services than most illegal downloading. The prices are reasonable(and cheaper than a real CD), the quality is as good or better than what illegal downloading will most usually get you. The selection is very large(larger than most torrent sites, and also significantly more diverse) the selection is also consistent, unlike a torrent, you don’t ever have to wait on seeds. Also, there is no searching around trying to find what I am looking for, it is either there or it isn’t(and it usually is). Download speeds are impressively fast. A song is usually on your HD in seconds, an Album in ~minute or less, and now that it is all DRM-free, there are no reservations about the longevity of the product.
To me, it’s worth it.
(note: it has been a long time since I’ve downloaded anything illegally, I don’t really know what the current ‘scene’ is like, so apologies if some of the aforementioned points are no longer valid)
[quote]jahall wrote:
Wrote my final paper (10 pages) in english 102 about how file sharing is good for the consumer and artist. So just take my word for it.
EDIT: 2500 words, not 10 pages. [/quote]
Maybe if it were a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation for a field somehow related to economics or even sound recording I could be tempted, but English 102?
Okay, so you have a problem with the gimme culture then. The problem you describe goes way beyond filesharing, it’s just a small symptom of the many, many assholes society is allowing to behave poorly. I can understand that position.
I’ve been under the impression that live shows and merchandising is the primary revenue source for bands signed by labels, though; do you have some data on that to the contrary?
Merchandising and ticket sales are major revenue streams, but not as major as you might think, and as I stated above, it’s almost exclusively ‘big label’ acts that can actually draw significant cash from live concerts on a consistent enough basis to not only make a living for themselves, but sustain the industry mechanisations that gave them their position. For smaller bands, regardless of how awesome and talented they might be, merchandising and ticket sales are significantly less reliable, and significantly less likely to support a band solely. Often times smaller clubs and venues take a bite out of both ticket sales and merch sales. It is also somewhat common to have a band losing money to the venue for failing to sell enough tickets.
I apologize for not having ‘data’ for you, so you can take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. I get my info from having worked with many bands and been around bands of varying levels of “success”. Despite what the internet might lead you to believe, it is, in fact, very difficult to support a band on ticket sales and merchandise alone, let alone support the band members.
Another thing that happens sometimes is that a band will make enough money to sustain itself(or at least enough to prolong going broke for a while), but the individual members are still perennially broke, since the majority of the revenue goes back into maintaining the band, which can be expensive(factoring in rent for a rehearsal space, repairing and buying gear, maintaining vehicles, gas as well as creating merchandise, having a street team and any other ‘staff’, and of course… making records, which is still quite expensive to do right.)
In my opinion “the major label” addresses many of the difficulties in operating a band, and for a long time, major labels and bands and consumers got on pretty well(back in the 60s and 70s, bands were ‘cultivated’ as long-term projects that the labels invested heavily in, it is no coincidence that some of our best music comes from that period). But these days, the labels have gotten so scared to sign anything that they aren’t ‘absolutely sure’* will make a profit. That it has become increasingly difficult for an unsigned band to ever hope at crossing that threshold, and even if they do, they have to be savvy enough to not get completely reamed by contracts and poor management. Meanwhile, the consumer stopped perceiving recorded music as being worth money, and the whole situation has become confusing and messed up.
Personally, I have faith that it will sort itself out eventually. But between now and then, it is a discouraging time to be a musician, and that is sad because I don’t think the value of music has diminished at all in anyone’s lives.
*Of course the joke is no one is ever sure of what will sell until it does.[/quote]
Personal experience certainly qualifies as data here; I was still in science mode when posting last night. The bands I personally know have had a different experience; they usually come out significantly ahead after each show. Not enough to make a living only off the music, but a significant second income. They have regular jobs as well, which for a lot of bands makes sense. It doesn’t take 40 hours per week to be a good local band. Hell, it doesn’t take 40 hours per week to be a good big name band either, but by sheer volume they can afford not to work otherwise.
The ones I have familiarity with play in St. Louis mostly; could be the venues there are more small-act friendly than the ones you have familiarity with.
the moral question is irrelevant. why would you pay for something that is infinitely reproducible at almost no cost? there is an arbitrarily large supply of digital music files, therefore the cost must go to zero.unless you artificially restrict the supply i guess.
here’s an anecdote: i felt guilty about paying for music from emusic, but then i justified the cost to myself as: “hey i can download an album in less than 10 seconds, with good quality tracks, and i can use their database to explore other music i might like. that’s worth $15 a month”. but then they raised their prices and lowered the monthly allocation, so now idk. back to p2p sharing?
Personal experience certainly qualifies as data here; I was still in science mode when posting last night. The bands I personally know have had a different experience; they usually come out significantly ahead after each show. Not enough to make a living only off the music, but a significant second income. They have regular jobs as well, which for a lot of bands makes sense. It doesn’t take 40 hours per week to be a good local band. Hell, it doesn’t take 40 hours per week to be a good big name band either, but by sheer volume they can afford not to work otherwise.
The ones I have familiarity with play in St. Louis mostly; could be the venues there are more small-act friendly than the ones you have familiarity with. [/quote]
Definitely where you live makes a significant difference, and also what your goals are as a musician. In Los Angeles, things are not quite as generous. Additionally, while the amount of time it takes to be a ‘good local band’(especially in a smaller city) is roughly a part-time job. The amount of time and commitment it takes to be a great band that can get somewhere… well it’s more than a full time job. It’s your life.
[quote]grettiron wrote:
the moral question is irrelevant. why would you pay for something that is infinitely reproducible at almost no cost?
[/quote]
Because it costs (a lot of, if you do it right) money to produce initially, because the people that produce it are offering you something that you will use and value in your life, they work hard on doing what they do for your enjoyment, they have lives of their own to support and need every sale they can get, because they are asking you to, and because it is against the law not to.
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.” – Thomas Jefferson
With the advancements in technology, suppose perfect recall is eventually achieved. If this occurs, should it be illegal for someone to think of a song without paying for it?
The difference between a real pirate and me is that pirates steal, I’ve used my own resources to copy something. If I create a chair, and the chair had a very good design. Then another man created this chair for his house, with no intent to sell it, does this man commit a crime? I say no.
I believe there is a huge difference with whether someone is to gain profit directly from another person’s idea. So selling a CD you downloaded is wrong. Downloading a song for your personal use helps enrich your life and expands your knowledge and understanding of music.
“Society confronts the simple fact that when everyone can possess every intellectual work of beauty and utility–reaping all the human value of every increase of knowledge–at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no longer moral to exclude. If Rome possessed the power to feed everyone amply at no greater cost than that of Caesar’s own table, the people would sweep Caesar violently away if anyone were left to starve. But the bourgeois system of ownership demands that knowledge and culture be rationed by the ability to pay.” – Eben Moglen
At what point do we draw the line and say another man’s idea cannot be used. I argue against such strict policies pertaining to intellectual property in general, not just music.
To anyone using the argument that they’re rich and they can afford it, this is ridiculous. If I had 1,000 cows, and you stole a steak from me, who are you to tell me that I have too much steak? When you steal from a supplier, you take the economy further away from equilibrium.
[quote]jimmyjamesii wrote:
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.” – Thomas Jefferson
With the advancements in technology, suppose perfect recall is eventually achieved. If this occurs, should it be illegal for someone to think of a song without paying for it?
[/quote]
That is a mighty big ‘if’. Too big to seriously address. But, I would say that if we do possess that level of technology, chances are, who is downloading music will be the least of our concerns.
You are describing Fair Use. Fair Use is legal, it involves making digital copies of a CD that you own(as in, bought, paid money for, purchased), and keeping it, within reason, to yourself(there are limited provisions for sharing, but making copies to give to others is a no-no). That is also not what this discussion is about. It is about downloading media, which is illegal. It is explicitly against the law, as copyright infringement, which is, for the most part, stealing.
So do you believe that the creators of that music don’t deserve compensation for their efforts, especially when it helps 'enrich your life and expand your knowledge and understanding of music." ? Artists work out of love of art, creation, creativity, expression, freedom of speech and individuality, as well as many many other things. But, all of those lofty ideals aside, they also need to eat, pay rent, live lives and sustain themselves.
[quote]
“Society confronts the simple fact that when everyone can possess every intellectual work of beauty and utility–reaping all the human value of every increase of knowledge–at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no longer moral to exclude. If Rome possessed the power to feed everyone amply at no greater cost than that of Caesar’s own table, the people would sweep Caesar violently away if anyone were left to starve. But the bourgeois system of ownership demands that knowledge and culture be rationed by the ability to pay.” – Eben Moglen
At what point do we draw the line and say another man’s idea cannot be used. I argue against such strict policies pertaining to intellectual property in general, not just music.
To anyone using the argument that they’re rich and they can afford it, this is ridiculous. If I had 1,000 cows, and you stole a steak from me, who are you to tell me that I have too much steak? When you steal from a supplier, you take the economy further away from equilibrium.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you are attempting to argue here as it pertains to the discussion. Care to elaborate?
