Whether you call it theft or not, who cares. It is still illegal. It still hurts artists who are trying to make a living. All because you have determined that you are so special that you should no longer have to follow the laws.
As an artist, I personally cannot wait until the day comes that the laws are actually enforced and people are fined for downloading music illegally. Don’t like the laws? Change them. Otherwise, abide by them or face the consequences.
WTF? I’m in congress now? When did that happen? And where is my intern?
I tried trying to persued the RIAA by voting with my wallet (i.e. not buying CDs) and they blamed it on pirates. so call me a pirate and thus i become one. Now walk the plank, son, your repressive rules won’t sway me! (not that i’d illegally have any of your stuff, i usually buy albums from smaller groups i like, so unless you are Joe RIAA executive who has less time to rape artists due to the pressure of blaming others for your terrible music’s terrible sales, this isn’t hurting you one bit)
I can’t wait while the site loads all three pages of this thread, so I’ll risk pitting if I’m repeating here:
Shut down all the P2P sites you want, more people will just learn how to use alt.binaries. I don’t, personally, but I know people who do. I haven’t learned because the existence of P2P sites makes it unecessary. Would I if it came to it? Probably. Downloading hasn’t decreased my music buying at all. I only buy CDs occasionally and still buy them occasionally. What it has increased is my music consumption. In one case, searching for one type of music (from the play Chicago), led me to discover that most of the soft rock songs I’ve always liked are done by the band Chicago - and I went out and bought a CD of theirs.
The recording industry historically rips off the artists it claims to protect, often forcing artists to sue their way out of oppressive contracts written entirely in the label’s favor. Many artists make their best money by touring and selling merchandise. Freed from the record labels, artists could keep more of their own money. The technology to produce an album is SO cheap now, compared to years past, that a musician can literally become his own label. Studios can become time-rental arrangements where artists produce themselves, leasing time on the equipment (much like video editing suites).
What the RIAA is resisting is a paradigm change that isn’t in their favor. But you know what they say about resisting progress…
I agree that by our current laws it is illegal, but I also believe that a solution can be found that benefits the public and the artists. The recording industry may go the way of the horse feed industry, but that’s life. If the RIAA is smart, they’ll take a page from Kellogg’s book and adjust accordingly.
musicguy: Here’s the thing though, it DOESN’T hurt artists. See EasyPhil’s post on the previous page for cites. Easy availability of music online results in increasing CD sales, thus earning MORE MONEY for artists. Music trading is illegal, true, but only because it undermines the artist’s control over their work, NOT because it steals the bread from their mouths.
I, personally would like to see some really good research done that looks at whether artists, writers and publishers really do lose out or not and if they are losing something, in what way and do they gain in others.
The whole notion of copyright, obviously needs to undergo a serious change. Working in a tertiary institution makes me realise this more and more. We can legally copy 10% of any book and use for teaching purposes but I can safely say that staff do not stop to think how much of a book is 10%. Also, journal articles are available on line for free - arguably, the journal publishers are losing out on this as noone is paying library fees or buying the journal to get access.
I think we should get things for free - I can’t stand this ‘user pays’ mentality, especially if it is for the good of human kind (that is education and quality leisure activities).
I can’t believe I am letting myself get sucked into another one of these threads but here goes…
A songwriter makes their money from royalties alone. No sales, no royalties. Most people that download songs DO NOT buy what they just got for free. Show me all the biased cites you want. The fact is I know too many people with gigs of stuff on their hard drive. They listen to it, they enjoy it, and they have no reason at all to purchase it. So every piece of music that you download and enjoy but do not purchase robs the artist of a potential royaly.
I can’t believe you guys actually believe the bullshit that you are typing.
Anything that fucks over the big record companies is a good thing.
Well, isn’t that special. What do you do for a living? Would you mind doing it for me for free? I mean, it would be good for human kind, wouldn’t it?
And since when the fuck are “quality leasure activities” free? Movies aren’t free. Playing golf isn’t free. A baseball game isn’t free. Reading a comic book isn’t free. Why on earth would you think that something should be free that costs people a lot of money to create? The logic escapes me. Do you have any idea what a recording studio costs per hour? I suppose I am supposed to become a non-profit organization just so you can have more fun in your life.
This article leads me to believe that A) older versions of Kazaa made use of a central list of SuperNodes when the supplied list ran out, and B) since a list was supplied with the program, the nodes on that list are probably run by Kazaa. The network is still decentralized; those nodes are just a starter list so you can connect immediately after downloading the program.
However, the protocol can work without any “official” servers. If all of Kazaa’s assets were melted down and shot into the sun, the FastTrack network would still exist - but you’d have to find SuperNodes on private lists, which is how Gnutella already works. And as soon as you connect, the client discovers more nodes and adds them to its own list.
So if anyone who violates the No Electronic Theft Act is a thief, then anyone who violates the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, right? Anyone who violates the Defense of Marriage Act is attacking the institution of marriage? Anyone who doesn’t celebrate Loyalty Day is unloyal?
Looks like you need to read 1984 again.
(N.B. You can infringe copyright without violating the NET Act, since NET only applies if you distribute more than a certain dollar amount of copyrighted work.)
musicguy: Quote all the biased RIAA propaganda that you want, you still won’t be able to show a negative effect on sales attributable to file sharing. Your average user BUYS a CD after he listens to the music online because it gets him a better experience. He gets a fancy jewel case, liner notes, lyrics, better audio quality, and a nice pressed aluminum CD to easily allow him to transport his music. These are things you do NOT and can NEVER get when downloading music, hence why CDs are still sold. If an artist themselves manages to somehow destroy all of the various incentives to buy their CDs by making the CD buying experience worse than the music downloading experience, they don’t deserve a PENNY in income. It takes a fantastic amount of stupidity to fuck things up that badly, and it shouldn’t be rewarded.
Incidentally, this is why online music subscription services have failed royally so far. For a price that isn’t significantly less than the real CD in a store, you get a product that is inferior to what you can download for free. And they WONDER why no one goes for it?
MusicGuy, I do volunteer activities which you could benefit from for free, but you’re right, I make a living out of something else which I wouldn’t do for free - but I would quit if the salary became too little - indeed, I’m retraining now for a higher salaried job.
No I don’t think that you should become a non-profit organization just so that I can have more fun in my life.
Perhaps you need to see songwriting or music making (if that’s what you do for a living) as a hobby if recording studios cost too much for you, people download your music for free and you can’t make money.
I remember seeing a fairly mediocre street performer in London get angry with people for not giving him enough money after he’d finished. If you decide to make your living from doing something in the public domain, you cannot be gauranteed a certain amount of money - it’s up to the people who see you to decide how much they’ll pay. (This is not a commentary on your music).
I’m happy to pay for CDs - always have been, but at the moment I’m making some compilation CDs for a party - I’m using some songs from CDs I have bought and some that have been downloaded. Why would I go and buy more when I can do this?
I’m interested to know how much money you estimate you lose each year from people downloading your music for free?
Do you make enough to support yourself anyway?
MusicGuy, I do volunteer activities which you could benefit from for free, but you’re right, I make a living out of something else which I wouldn’t do for free - but I would quit if the salary became too little - indeed, I’m retraining now for a higher salaried job.
No I don’t think that you should become a non-profit organization just so that I can have more fun in my life.
Perhaps you need to see songwriting or music making (if that’s what you do for a living) as a hobby if recording studios cost too much for you, people download your music for free and you can’t make money.
I remember seeing a fairly mediocre street performer in London get angry with people for not giving him enough money after he’d finished. If you decide to make your living from doing something in the public domain, you cannot be gauranteed a certain amount of money - it’s up to the people who see you to decide how much they’ll pay. (This is not a commentary on your music).
I’m happy to pay for CDs - always have been, but at the moment I’m making some compilation CDs for a party - I’m using some songs from CDs I have bought and some that have been downloaded. Why would I go and buy more when I can do this?
I’m interested to know how much money you estimate you lose each year from people downloading your music for free?
Do you make enough to support yourself anyway?
**
Prove it. I can’t think of a single one of my friends, all totally average people, who have gone out and purchased legit CDs to replace their stolen MP3 files. Prove that “the average user” does this. Show us, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the correlation of how many downloads on each of these theivery services led to sales that actually gave money to the owners of the music that has been stolen.
spectrum: Cites backing my POV have already been made. It can, of course, not be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Nor can the opposing viewpoint be proven. I will say that all of the CDs that I have ever purchased I have purchased expressly because of music I have downloaded, listened to, and liked. And, again, using the terms “thievery” and “stolen” is at best inaccurate, at worst blatantly lying. Stop.
Spectrum, maybe you’d like to show me the piece of legislation that says downloading mp3s is theft. Bill H. was unable to, but maybe if the two of you work at it, you’ll be able to find something. (But I doubt it)
musicguy: I’ve never heard a single one of your songs. Why on earth would I pay for any of your music?
To take what does not belong to you without compensation is theft. If I create a song, i deserve to be paid whenever some worthless piece of scum hacker creates a copy of my work for their enjoyment. Unless you pay for the music you posess, you are a theif and should be treated as such.
Gex, if you want to hear musicguy’s music, you must either pay to hear it or listen to the radio, who has paid musicguy. Or perhaps from a friend who has done the right thing and paid for a copy of musicguy’s work. You have no right to enjoy his work if he’s not being compensated. It is HIS music, after all. You have no right or claim to it.
What about theft by the RIAA? The Dixie Chicks get a whopping $75,000 for selling over 20,000,000 CDs.
They sign the contracts, they have to deal with the terms. That’s the way of things. If they don’t like it, they should unionize, or start their own label. It’s been done before. Hell, in Hollywood, actors who didn’t like the deals they were getting with the big studios started their own entire studio, which is still working today. The talent is theirs. If they break away, their fans will follow. If they were truly so unhappy with their deals, they would do so.
If for example you took a picture and a painting happened to be in it should you pay the artist for that painting? I’d say yes, otherwise you are a thieving piece of scum.
Also similarly whenver you play music you are creating a copy of it so every time you play music you should be paying the artist for the right of the cd player to copy it.