Are the mods really all Intellectual Property nuts?

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by EasyPhil *
**I think there’s a larger percentage of people that download music as a means of making a purchasing decision than you woule like to believe. **

It’s not that I wouldn’t like to believe it, it’s just that, in my experience, I have never known anyone IRL to actually do this. Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t occur though.

**

Unlike some things a CD doesn’t have a 30 day money back guarantee, additionally there’s no option for a person to obtain a single song that they want even by paying for it. I’m willing to bet that an artist could charge less than $1 dollar for a hot tune, offer it up for download from the net and probably realize more money from the ensuing sales than any other distribution method. The industry if it were smart and not so monolithic could change the way they distribute music and realize much larger sales. The downside to this is the effect on the retail channel, but that would need to change radically as well.
**

I am by no means trying to suggest that the current system is flawless. Far from it. The industry needs to keep up with the technological advances and they have been woefully inadequate at doing so. BUT, as a songwriter, I have to be concerned when artists are not getting compensated for their work, primary because people have a beef with the system in place. The artist just wants to make a living at their craft. That is a hard enough accomplishment, even if there wasn’t the ability to illegally copy music.

And for the record, I am not against the concept of being able to download individual tracks for a small fee. I think it should be worked out though so that there is still an incentive to buy the complete CD, rather than purchase each track individually. I remember 45’s being priced at about $1.25 when I was a kid and that seemed like a fair price. Say, for arguments sake, it was $1.75 per download, a 10 song CD would cost you $17.50 to download. Then, if you could purchase the same CD for $15, which included the liner notes, lyrics, etc…, perhaps people would be willing to take that route.

I also wouldn’t be against you having the ability to download a low quality version of a song for free to see if you like an artist before you make a purchase. It would have to be a low enough quality though that it wasn’t a substitute for owning the higher quality legit version.

In order for either of these ideas to be feasable though, the problem of illegal downloads still has to be addressed and curbed. The only way I see that happening is by substantially increasing the penalties for doing so AND enforcing the laws in a way that people seriously reconsider whether it is worth the risk to engage in illegal activity. Right now, nobody really worries about being caught and therefore, some people literally fill their hard drives with music that they never intend to purchase. That has to change in order for a new system to work in a way that makes everyone happy.

I think that the technology of being able to download music to your home computer is a wonderful thing. I think the ability to rob an artist of the compensation that they deserve is awful and needs to be stopped. People don’t realize that it can be a substantial investment of time and money to get music to the point that it is of a quality you are used to hearing. And as pointed out earlier, if there is no reimbursment, then the artist is forced to look for another line of work. Then everyone loses.

[2nd_Law]

*Originally posted by EasyPhil *
**You are wrong in both instances, the artist makes the royalty during the first purchase of the CD by a distributor or wholesaler. **

The artist gets a royalty even if the CD nevers sells at the retail level?
I’m surprised that CDs that don’t sell at retail aren’t remaindered like unsold paperbacks. I stand corrected.

However, in each instance, the artist did make a royalty, contrary to neutron star’s post.

[EasyPhil]

*Originally posted by musicguy *
**
And for the record, I am not against the concept of being able to download individual tracks for a small fee. I think it should be worked out though so that there is still an incentive to buy the complete CD, rather than purchase each track individually. I remember 45’s being priced at about $1.25 when I was a kid and that seemed like a fair price. Say, for arguments sake, it was $1.75 per download, a 10 song CD would cost you $17.50 to download. Then, if you could purchase the same CD for $15, which included the liner notes, lyrics, etc…, perhaps people would be willing to take that route. **

See you’re still thinking in terms of the old system. The low overhead and material cost of electronic distribution means that you can offer the single cut for less than a dollar and realize a lot more sales and profit.

**
I also wouldn’t be against you having the ability to download a low quality version of a song for free to see if you like an artist before you make a purchase. It would have to be a low enough quality though that it wasn’t a substitute for owning the higher quality legit version. **

It can be argued that the 128 bit rate is low quality, additionally your idea implies that it isn’t really about the content itself i.e. the song but more about whether or not it’s in optimal listening condition. We could make the argument that a DVD should be free or less than the price of a movie because it’s going to be played on a much smaller screen that is no match for a real theatre experience.

**
In order for either of these ideas to be feasable though, the problem of illegal downloads still has to be addressed and curbed. The only way I see that happening is by substantially increasing the penalties for doing so AND enforcing the laws in a way that people seriously reconsider whether it is worth the risk to engage in illegal activity. Right now, nobody really worries about being caught and therefore, some people literally fill their hard drives with music that they never intend to purchase. That has to change in order for a new system to work in a way that makes everyone happy.

**

It’s not going to stop because the model, even if illegal, is very close to radio with the exception that you get to choose what you want to hear and when to hear it, sort of the next evolution of radio at a time when radio is playing less variety.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by EasyPhil *
**See you’re still thinking in terms of the old system. The low overhead and material cost of electronic distribution means that you can offer the single cut for less than a dollar and realize a lot more sales and profit.

**

Perhaps. Just keep in mind that a good chunk of the cost of a CD is to recoup the costs of recording the artist in an expensive studio, paying the engineer and producer, plus any additional musicians. Then there is the cost of mastering the final product. Now add marketing and advertising so that people even have a clue that this product is available.

My point is only that it is more expensive than you might think.

**
It can be argued that the 128 bit rate is low quality, additionally your idea implies that it isn’t really about the content itself i.e. the song but more about whether or not it’s in optimal listening condition. We could make the argument that a DVD should be free or less than the price of a movie because it’s going to be played on a much smaller screen that is no match for a real theatre experience.

**

I’m suggesting a bit rate lower than 128. Personally, I would rather you could only get a fragment of a song, instead of the whole thing. It is just as much about content as it is quality. There has to be a strong reason for you to want to purchase the real product. Thats the problem right now. What you down;oad is not CD quality but it is close enough that most people couldn’t care less.

**
It’s not going to stop because the model, even if illegal, is very close to radio with the exception that you get to choose what you want to hear and when to hear it, sort of the next evolution of radio at a time when radio is playing less variety. **

Yes, but with radio, the artist gets compensated. It’s just that you don’t pay, the advertisers do.

And illegal downloading would be far less popular if you knew that there was a good chance that you were going to slapped with a $1000 fine for illegally copying the music. Of course it would have to be enforced. I think we may see that day coming though. And I have no sympathy for anyone that gets caught doing something that they know is illegal. I’m willing to try to come up with something that makes everyone happy (as if I make the decisions ) but it has to be a give and take thing. If a system is going to be put in place to get music legally off of the internet, it will only work if there is incentive to do it. And for that to happen, the risk of continuing to download music illegally has to be something that most aren’t willing to take.

[Evil_Captor]

Bottom line is that around here, we have access to a free board that has been of great benefit to many of us, and we respect the wishes of the company that makes this board available as a public service. It’s part of the rules for making use of this board that we agree to when we join as members of it – just like, if I happen to disagree vehemently with your opinions in a Great Debate thread, I’ve agreed not to call you a moronic asshole outside this forum – the Pit – in print, despite the fact that I might consider your views expressed in GD to be those of a moronic asshole.

I have seen this argument crop up on many discussion boards on the Web. It’s very consistent and hard to attack, except for one thing – what it always, always, always boils down to is this:

The person who has the money has the power. Everyone else can go straight to hell.

A person who espouses such a philosophy is saying that, “Where democracy and capitalism are opposed, democracy must always lose.”

The people who make such claims will often claim that that’s the way things are. I think they believe that. I also think that’s the way they want things to be.

[2nd_Law]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
** I also think that’s the way they want things to be. **

let me see…

the Reader pays for this website, and I don’t. They make the rules as to the content of their website.

I have a website (for which I pay a regular fee). I get to decide what is and what isn’t on my website.

Yep, that’s the way I want things to be.

[Misery_Loves_Co]

*Originally posted by 2nd Law *
**The artist gets a royalty even if the CD nevers sells at the retail level?
I’m surprised that CDs that don’t sell at retail aren’t remaindered like unsold paperbacks. I stand corrected.

However, in each instance, the artist did make a royalty, contrary to neutron star’s post. **

CAVEAT:

In most contracts, there are provisions that if the distributor does not sell all the CD’s, they get sold back to the wholesaler and the royalty is charged back to the artist (as is everything).

The only point at which the artist has made their money is when the album is purchased by the consumer.

I’ll note, also, that resale of a CD by the consumer (used) and distribution by a library are specifically addressed in Title 17 as exceptions. In both cases there are stipulations as to how these actions are defined.

You cannot use these examples to get around duplication and distribution of copywrited materials.

[Nightime]

From one site alone, a few thousand people dowloaded one song over a relatively short period of time. We talked to the site owner who apologized, removed the MP3, and let us see the download stats – it was all quite friendly, she’s actually very cool and had never thought that it was actually affecting anyone. So yeah, we can actually get a pretty good idea of how much an artist actually loses that way.

No, you can’t. Just because people download a song does not mean they would have bought it. In fact, how do you know they would have even heard of the song without downloading it? How do you know they even liked the song? Your argument makes no sense.

Basically, you are saying that every person who downloads a song would have been willing to buy the album blind, without knowing what was on it, and without any ability to return it.

Not only is that obviously untrue, but it is an unfair business model. That’s all there is to it.

Actually, we have an option for just “internet”.

Once again, it is no surprise they didn’t first hear about the song by file-sharing. The sequence of events is that they hear about the song first, and then they download songs from the album to see if it is worth buying. But the point is, they would not have bought the album under your preferred business model, where they have no idea if they will like it, and are not allowed to return it if they don’t.

How about this, instead of file-sharing, let people return cds they don’t like. Either way, the old business model is outdated and unfair.

But one of the reasons is that the market itself is smaller due to the proliferation of file sharing.

Do you have any evidence at all for this statement? How do you respond to the fact that indie labels are seeing increasing sales, and major labels are seeing decreasing sales, but the decrease is smaller than the decrease in releases? The music industry is using extreme deception to make file sharing seem like the culprit, but even a cursory glance at the numbers shows that it just isn’t so.

By the time they realize that they like it, they already have a copy of it on their hard drive that can be burned to a CD that they can listen to anywhere. I would love to believe that people download songs, find out they like them, erase them from their drive, and purchase a legitimate copy. I just have never met anyone that actually does this.

Well sure, not many people do this. Why should they delete the song from their hard drive when they have bought a legitimate copy? However, many, many people download songs to decide whether or not to buy the cd. I don’t see why you want them to delete the song once they have bought it?

Perhaps they got that idea because of the devices that play “free” music i.e. radios, cable and satellite tv. This downloading phenomena is no different from taping stuff you like off of the radio and playing it at your convenience and sharing with your friends. The only problem with it now is the notion of “original” or “high” quality, if the quality of downloaded music was radio quality, I don’t think there would be as much of fuss as there is now.

Exactly. If there was radio quality music to download, to decide whether or not to buy the cd, then most people would not download high quality copies, and those that did could be punished. The refusal of the music industry to allow even radio quality copies, combined with their business model in which you have to buy a cd blind, and have absolutely no recourse if you don’t like it, is sickening. It just has to end.

Not only that, but it is hurting the music industry itself! There is a huge market out there of people who are unwilling to be victimized by the current music industry business model, and the music industry, instead of capitalizing on this, is actively decreasing their releases in an attempt to create the illusion that file sharing is harming them.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by EasyPhil *
**So you’re saying that file sharing did this? I don’t believe it for one moment. If people were interested in the music and heard it they would have purchased it. **

’
Not if they could get it for free.

[Skywatcher]

I just read all three pages and found a glaring omission. P2P software isn’t just for music, people trade games too. Check out this fool asking on a company’s message board where to get a free copy of that company’s most popular game.