That’s the crux of it, the ability to get high quality copies to a shitload of people really, really fast.
**
The distribution is different, and that’s why copying some tapes isn’t very harmful, and file sharing potentially could be. (We don’t know yet, it might, it might not)
If I copy a tape for a friend, first I have to spend at least (high speed dub) 15 or minutes or so doing it. Being able to generate four copies an hour is pretty pathetic from a piracy point of view. Next, the tape quality of a fourth or fifth generation tape is so horrible you can’t listen to it, and this is the big difference.
World Eater Piracy International (a Rupert Murdock company:D) Output capacity.
4 first generation tapes an hour (original)
16 second generation tapes an hour (copy)
64 third generation tapes an hour. (copy of a copy)
256 fourth generation tapes an hour (copy of a copy of a copy)
Can we find a way to pirate tapes? Sure, it just isn’t nearly as efficient as internet file sharing, and that’s the difference.
**
In this case, the children have to physically interact, and that is another huge difference versus file sharing. They also need to purchase the media, which slightly adds to the inconvenience of tape piracy.
**
Hell, it’s all about scale. Me and Bill gates both have a salary.
**
Well I’d imagine there’s a threshold where it goes from nuisance to detrimental. Has it been crossed? Hell if I know.
**
Oh they are totally in the dark ages, dragging their feet kicking and screaming.
**
I wouldn’t worry, the industry is going through some growing pains right now, and free market will weed out people like the RIAA. I bet someone right now is forming a non evil company that will perform the functions of the RIAA for the electronic age, being able to keep tabs on royalties generated by downloads and such. Most likely they will wave a big carrot to some important people and it will lead to people to jump the RIAA ship in droves. This new company will eventually become evil, and the process will begin anew in about 40 years or so, when they can beam the music straight into your head.
**
This somehow reminds me of how the insurance industry tries to get people to turn against eachother with their funny little adds on TV about filing false claims. They want their customers to police eachother.
I know it’s not the same at all but it just makes me think of it probably because of the giant fault line that seems to devide the two points of view. Maybe it’s the extremes they go to (invading computers, suing old men and little children) that causes a controversy which then get people fighting among themselves.
It is wrong across the board. But the scales were so different that righting the first “wrong” was hardly necessary; righting the second is.
If I discover, after I’m ten miles away from the store, that a clerk at Walmart gave me five cents too much in change, I am unlikely to return it. If I discover a clerk gave me $50 too much in change, I absolutely would turn around and drive back.
In as much as I’m not a lawyer, I appreciate your argument, and stand corrected. Still, I cannot help but think there are some 4th amendment implications with the WAY that the searches were made, even if they didn’t specifically violate the amendment.
That not withstanding, would you not agree that the suits are nothing more than scare tactics (persistently effective ones, but scare tactics none the less) on the part of the Industry, based upon their failure to vigorously embrace the techology that their customers have integrated into their daily lives?
I maintain that the Industry cannot possibly sue 60 million people effectively (if that count is even an accurate one) and that their losses are not precisely calculated, simply because they cannot be, therefore the basis for the lawsuit is shaky at best and frivolous at worst. Rather than target people who are engaging in an exercise of their culture, perhaps the RIAA might consider a way to meet the demands that their customers are making, by sharing the music.
The business model that the industry subscribes to has caused this. They have dug the hole, they have thrown themselves in it, and pulled the consumer in time and again. If pressing records no longer meets a 42% margin of profit, get out of the business. OR…Adapt, improvise and overcome, and stay on top of your business, remaining agile is essential to a business, unless of course you are a monopoly, then you overpay your lawyers to sue the life from your competitors, and in this case, your customers.
You’re really asking what relevance sincerity and honesty have?
I have already conceded that their statements might be accurate. My point had nothing to do with the accuracy of their statements, and i was not going to use an admission of prior guilt to argue that their statements were inaccurate, or that their case had no merit (despite the fact that some lawyers often do everything they can to use a witness’s prior bad acts against them–even when this is officially not permitted in the courtroom). I’ve already conceded that file-sharing is illegal, and that there are some compelling moral arguments against it.
I guess i just like to know who the hypocrites are, that’s all. It may not help me judge their argument, but it can help me draw a conclusion about their character.
You’re making the claim that people’s filesharing has a negative effect on the amount of music they buy. It’s up to you to prove that claim. I am saying that since we do not know what affect people’s filesharing has on the amount of music they buy, we should not make statements assuming we do know.
All I can tell you is what I do, as a filesharer.
This is true, in my case. I couldn’t hope to buy the CDs for all the mp3s in my collection. In many cases, I wouldn’t want to, even if I was unbelievably rich. Perhaps this shows that in my case, the artists are not deprived of any money I would spend, because I do not have the disposable income to actually purchase everything I download.
I don’t have the harddrive space to backup my CDs on mp3. Shame that.
I rarely download a whole album. It’s a pain in the arse for a start. And while I’m downloading twelve tracks by one artist, I’m reducing the amount of new music I’m being exposed to. Why would I download twelve tracks by an artist that I know I like, when I could be spending my valuable time exposing myself to one track from twelve different artists that I may like? Hence, when I stumble across something really good, I’ll download about 4-5 songs from the album, listen to them for a few days, then buy the album. I then delete the songs I downloaded, so I have more space.
Because I fileshare, I reduce the likelihood that the albums I buy will only have “2 or 3” good songs (I’m not sure where the “these days” comment comes from - didn’t filler exist in the '60s?). Because I listen to good artists, I diminish the likelihood that the albums I buy will only have “2 or 3” good songs. In short, because of my music-seeking practices, I buy good music, and more of it.
For those who are interested, there’s a good article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald that deals with the issue, and gives some comparisons between the situation in the US and in Australia.
One paragraph points to a key difference between Australia and the US–the case of format-shifting:
I would say that the second statement shows that negative effect you speak of. Why do you think you have a right to posess all of these files that you admit you will never legitimately purchase.
That is why filesharing is wrong. You don’t want to pay the artists, but you are perfectly willing to enjoy the fruits of their labor. To me, thats like having someone do work for you in good faith and then not pay them for it. It’s not fair or ethical.
You say, “I would never buy this stuff, even if I was rich, so the artist loses no money.” But they lose control of the work they created. Control that they are legally entitled to. You are still enjoying their product for free. They did not give you permission to do that. With any other product out there, if you aren’t willing to purchase it, you don’t get to enjoy it.
And here is what I really don’t understand. You like the stuff enough to download it and store it on your hard drive, yet you don’t like it enough to purchase it. Why not delete it then? Because my guess is that if there was no such thing as file sharing, you would have purchased at least some of what is currently on your hard drive. You just want free music, regardless of the fact that it was nowhere near free to create. You want others to pay the price so that you can be cheap. Gee thanks.
Had I read your post more carefully, I would have seen this part, which destroys a portion of my argument. My apologies. It still stands though for those who don’t ever delete anything that they like. And there are far more of them than you. Want a cite? I can’t provide it because most people are not going to honestly admit to this fact. But they are out there. I see them all the time. I actually have been asking people I know, who download a lot of material, if they have any intentions of buying any of it. The response is almost always “Why, I already have it for free.” Thats the point.
If you want to show that enjoying music without paying for it is immoral, you’ll have to show that artists are morally entitled to control who gets to listen to their music and who doesn’t, not just legally entitled. Otherwise you’ve only shown that it’s illegal, which we all know.
Your last sentence ignores the well-known differences between music and other products. You can’t enjoy other products without purchasing them because that would necessarily mean depriving someone else of the products.
This had my bullshift detector firing. Or maybe you just have more than averagely-dishonest acquanitences. Because I literally know only one out of a dozen people who download who would either say this, or, in fact do this.
Everyone else has actually bought new (or used) CD’s that they would never have bought if it were not for filesharing broading their musical horizons.
This has certainly happened to me, I’m always delighted to discover a new artist, and when I do I usually buy multiple CD’s. (and then rip them to a lossless format and listen to that)
Now, the interesting thing about the guy who doesn’t buy is the he is also the one with the largest MP3 collection (well, besides the guy who has literally 1000’s of CD’s). Any way, the one who has downloaded the most and doesn’t buy has probably 100 Gb or more of MP3’s from every possible genre. He seems more of a collector than a music lover, because there is no possible way he could EVER listen to all of the MP3’s he has.
He reminds me of some of the early '90’s hackers who had hard drives FULL of cracked software that they collected, but never actually used.
Anyway, when I hear about a new band that I might want to listen too. I can usually get a sample (usually a full album) from the collector-guy and make a determination based on that.
In effect, even the guy who doesn’t pay for any of the music he owns still in effect, facilitates the buying habits of the rest of us. Even he ends up acting as a net benefit to musicians.
Because I want to listen to it, and they’re not losing out by me listening to it.
This analogy is not a good one; I did not contract the artist to produce a song for me, they made a song and offered it for sale.
I know that what I do is quite possibly illegal. But I don’t care. I still consider it ethical.
I would understand if I was (say) advertising some nasty product with their song. But I don’t really think a musician should be able to tell me that I shouldn’t listen to their music in my own house because I didn’t give them the money for it.
That’s because with most other products, by using it and not paying for it, you are depriving someone else of the ability to enjoy it. Digital music isn’t like this.
I have displayed what can be read as a very selfish, anti-musician attitude in my post so far. This is because I knew I would explain that attitude here.
There are many songs that I want to hear, but just aren’t good enough for me to shell out the money for. There are a variety of reasons for this, and I shall attempt to illustrate them with an example.
One song I have most recently downloaded is Mya’s My Love Is Like Wo. I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread. Now, I like this song. It’s got a great rhythm, and those "wo"s are too cool. But let’s not kid ourselves. It’s a pretty cool song, but it’s throwaway pop. I’m not going to want to listen to it in 10 years time and I probably won’t want to listen to it in 10 months time. It’s a very now song, like a lot of pop music is. A whole lot of music isn’t the sort of thing that will stick around for the long term.
I’m not rich. I go to uni and work part time to get by. I’m not interested in buying music that I’m not going to listen to next year. I buy a lot of music, though. Heaps of it; much more than I can afford.
Next, just because Mya has one pretty cool song, it doesn’t mean she’ll have a whole album of good songs. In fact, I’d predict that would be the only song I would like on the whole album. I don’t want to pay $30 for one song. It’s not worth that much.
The next reason is a little more complicated, but still relevant. I won’t listen to an album if it has bad tracks on it. People say “you can skip the bad ones,” but the way I listen to music, I just don’t end up listening to albums with bad tracks on them. I pass over them in favour of something more consistent. If I bought an album for one song, I’d never listen to that song, let alone the album. It’s too much effort to put a cd on and have to change it 3 minutes later.
I would pay for individual songs if there was a way I could do it. But there isn’t, not to me in Australia, and from what I’ve heard about American services, they are extremely limited in what the consumer can do with the music they “purchase.”
But if I could have gone somewhere and paid for a copy of Mya’s My Love Is Like Wo, (preferably through a subscription system) I would have. But I can’t. That says market failure to me.
(That said, I wouldn’t do this with every song. Some things I just want to try out to see whether the album is worth buying.)
I can’t find a single song on my harddrive that I would buy if I couldn’t have got it by downloading it. You know why? Because I download songs, but I buy albums.
There are songs that I will buy now that I’ve dowloaded them. Let’s talk about the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. When I first heard them I dismissed them as garage hanger-ons. Pre-file-sharing that would have killed them for me. But I read some reviews, and noted that they were getting good reviews and that all the reviews were mentioning a song called Maps.
I downloaded it.
This is a great song. I loved it. So I started downloading more of their stuff - after all, maybe I was wrong about them. And you know what? It seems I was. They have a lot of other great songs, and I’m going to buy their album. Next paycheck (I’m still living on a budget, remember).
There’s no way I’d download the YYY’s album. It’d take me a long time, the quality would be dodgy and I’d have to turn my computer on whenever I wanted to listen to it. I wouldn’t get any artwork and it’d take up space that could be occupied by other mp3s.
I’m not a bad guy. I’m just a music lover that wants what’s best for me and for the artists worth my money.
And I’ll finish with a quote from mhendo’s SMH link:
Musicguy, I’d like to ask a question about a comment that you made in a post a couple of pages ago, if I may.
Let me start off by saying that I agree with your assertion here. Now, my question: If I am in a band who produces an album that doesn’t sell well, wouldn’t it be a benefit to me to have my music available on FAV_P2P_APP? My thinking here stems from the fact that there are 4 types of people who may download your songs:
Those who will download my music, like it, and buy the CD.
Those who will download my music, not like it, and not buy the CD.
Those who will download it, like it, but not buy the CD for FAVORITE_REASON. (Cds are too expensive, fuck the RIAA, don’t want to pay, whatever).
Those who will not download it at all, and therefore will never know if they like my song or not.
Well, have I (or the label) really lost anything in cases 2 and 4? I can’t imagine I have. They wouldn’t have bought my CD anyway.
In case 1, we obviously have a net benefit to myself as a musician and artist (and for the label as well), because someone has now purchased my CD who would not have otherwise.
Case 3 is the most tricky in terms of net benefit. They get to enjoy my music without compensating me for it. But they wouldn’t have heard my music without downloading it anyway. Additionally, they just might come to a show on my tour, or buy a t-shirt, or tell a friend about my music (who may, in turn, buy the CD).
So, out of these 4 cases, we have 2 which have no effect on me, one which is a definite plus, and one which is indeterminate.
I’m reminded of a quote I heard once attributed to an artist (rapper, maybe) whose name I unfortunately can’t remember or cite properly):
Pretty simple then, you shouldn’t fucking listen to them.
**
This should be amusing.
**
Sounds like you like it to me.
**
Are you kidding me?
Because you won’t want to hear a song ten years from now, that is justification for downloading it? That warped logic could be applied to 99% of the music today.
**
So is there some sort of minimum time of enjoyment thing here?
You will not pay for a CD that you will enjoy for 11 months, but will for one you will enjoy for 13 months?
Pray tell, how do you determine that you will only like a song for 11 months, 6 days, and 37 minutes? That’s quite a skill you have there.
**
Pretty hard to determine if you don’t have the entire album wouldn’t you say?
**
What is the basis of this prediction? Because if you believed any different you would look like even more of an ass?
**
So don’t buy it.
Paying $30 for a song is just as wrong as paying $0
Still doesn’t give you the right to download it and listen to it.
**
No, you mean even dumber.
**
“Bad tracks” being entirely subjective.
**
So you are telling me that on every album you own, you love every song?
You must own only 2 or 3 albums in that case.
**
See this is what I don’t understand. I’ll hear something on a movie sound track, the TV or the radio, say “hmmmmm that sounds pretty cool”, find out who it is, read a few reviews, then go buy the album. I have literally hundreds of albums I bought because of one song.
The point is almost everyone buys an album because of a song or two they heard somewhere. I guess there are a few people like yourself who meticulously research every track of a 20 track album and run it through some temporal computations to see if you will enjoy it 10 years in the future.
**
So have you signed up for itunes? If you own a PC will you sign up when it becomes available? As soon as you sign up you will cease trading right?
I’ll let you in on a little secret. The “one” song you like happens to be her biggest single. I would suspect that most of the songs you like from other artists happen to be the single as well.
**
Sure sure.
**
Boy you must have been lost before filesharing.
**
Luckily most 12 year olds with a CD burner have gotten around the having the computer on to listen to music thing.
Why? Mya isn’t losing out by my listening to the song. She’s losing out by my not paying for the song. And I was not paying for the song in the first place, file sharing or not. At least this way, I get to listen to the song. Now, before you reply, read that again. Very slowly. Do you understand, or do I have to dumb it down further to get it through your thick skull?
Hey, someone get this kid a Nobel prize! Of course I like it you moronic fucktard! Do you think I download music that I don’t like? Do you think that I download music to torture myself with? Of course I fucking like it!
That still doesn’t mean I like it enough to pay $30 for it! Do I have to explain value here, or can I rely on you to look it up in the dictionary?
No. I’m 100% serious. A lot of music is ephemeral. It’s why you can get Beatles records a lot easier than you can Strawberry Alarm Clock records.
I told you the kid was brilliant. Of course that logic could be applied to 99% of music today! It does apply to 99% of music today! That’s why I don’t pay for 99% of music today! Are you going to buy a car that you’re not going to use in a years time? Then why buy a record that you won’t use in a years time?
If the best argument you can make is by quibbling on my choice of words, you’re standing on very shaky footing. Since you appear to lack the ability to comprehend the concept of ballpark figures, and insist on reading everything with such unswerving literalism, I’ll attempt to explain this simply.
There are two sorts of music. There is music that will exist for the long term, that I will get much enjoyment out of for a substantial period of time. Then there is music that is completely of its particular time: the Macarena for instance.
I buy music that I will enjoy on a long-term basis. I download music I will enjoy on a short-term basis. I do not download the Macarena; it was only used as en example of pop with a short lifespan.
Well, I could download a few other songs off the album to check, but according to you, that’d destroy the music industry. Maybe now you understand why I download?
No. She’s throwaway pop. From past experiences with throwaway pop, I can tell you that it’s extremely likely the album has very little else worth listening to.
I’m not buying it. Thanks for the advice, though.
I’d pay it if they offered it for a reasonable price. They don’t. That’s their fault, not mine. I’m not going to suffer because the music industry can’t pull its head out of its arse.
Are we talking about legality? Because I thought I made it abundantly clear that I’m perfectly aware of the illegality of my actions, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m right and the law’s wrong.
Yes. However, since I’m the one buying the CD, it’s my opinion that counts. Are you even thinking about what you’re posting, or are you just repeatedly shouting “no, you’re wrong”?
I told you, I won’t listen to an album if it has tracks that I think are bad. I’m the one doing the listening, so the only relevant opinion on the quality of the tracks is mine. If other people like the tracks, they can listen to the CD.
Sheesh, maybe you should just quit the board. You are obviously not capable of contributing to the fight against ignorance.
Pretty much. I have some albums from when I was younger that I’ve grown out of, and a few bad purchases made by not properly checking out the release (buying it on the basis of a song or two, buying it on the quality of the band’s previous album), but for the most part, I like all the music on all the CDs I own. I’d be an idiot to pay money for something I didn’t like.
Closer to 2 or 300, actually.
Aren’t you a schmuck? Why should I be blamed because you’re not intelligent enough to become a smarter buyer?
I download enough to make sure the artist has a consistency that will last for an album. Usually three to five songs. I like sampling a single or two, the opening track and a randomly chosen album track or two(chosen by seeing what stands out in reviews, what has a good title, etc.) It works well, and means I don’t buy junk.
itunes doesn’t have everything, and more importantly, deprives me of my right to make copies for personal use. What if I want to burn a CD to listen to in the car? What if I want to put the song on a compilation I’m making (I like making comps)? itunes places unreasonable restrictions.
Also, itunes is useless for sampling music to determine whether the album is worth buying. If I download three songs from itunes, I’d have already payed about $5. If I then buy the album with those songs on it, I still have to pay the full amount for the album. That’s why I’d prefer a subscription service.
If itunes allowed me my rights as a consumer, I would use it in some cases. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to pay for a song twice if I like it enough to buy the album that it’s on.
That’s about $6 for me. 1/5 the price of an album for one song is a little excessive. I’d never end up listening to a CD single anyway. I’d have to change it three minutes later. Too much fiddling around.
You’re absolutely right. What’s your point?
If you’re just going to accuse me of lying, then what’s the point in discussing this? What do you want? Scans of covers of CDs that I’ve bought? A scan of an actual receipt? How about a screenshot of music downloading from a filesharing program, and then a photo of me holding the cd and waving a receipt in your moronic face?
Do you have to keep reminding yourself to breathe, or is your unbelieveable stupidity restricted to matters musical?
Yeah, pretty much. I had less money than, so I didn’t buy as much music, anyway. I had to take my chances more, so I ended up with more shit. I didn’t buy as much music because when you don’t have a lot of money, it’s a big investment to blow $30 on something with one good song.
So, you are somewhat correct. I bought less music, I bought less quality music, and I had no way to hear the underground music that I love so dearly.
I have a burner. It would still take me a long time to download an entire album, the quality would still be dodgy and I still wouldn’t get any artwork. I’d still have to contend with dropouts and files that cut off two seconds before the end. And rather than using my time to expose myself to new music, I’d have my time taken up downloading something I could buy as a nice package.
Are you under some impression that your constant bleating that filesharing is against the law is at all informative? Do you think you’re posting something new, something that hasn’t been posted in this thread, and every other thread on the subject?
I know it’s against the law. We all know that it’s against the law. Sometimes the law gets things wrong.
Morality and the law are not the same thing.
I can’t believe I wasted so much time on your inanities. Especially considering my suspicion that you’re being deliberately dense.
If you decide to reply to this post, please think very carefully about what you’re writing. Otherwise the :smack: smiley shall be asking to be paid overtime, with the amount of use it will be getting.
First off, sorry for not responding sooner. It was a busy weekend.
jweb,
I agree with much of what you have said. Yes, it can be beneficial for a band to have tracks available for free download for marketing purposes. Many bands even offer a few tunes or snippets of tunes so others can get an idea of what they sound like. I have nothing against an artist who wants to do this being able to do so. My problem is when the artist or their representation loses control of the content that is given out for free.
There are few times in any business where someone gives out their entire product for free and then hopes that someone will pay for it later. As can be suggested by the popularity of file sharing, the chances of someone paying for it later are somewhat slim when they already have the entire thing for free. I find it very telling that people that are into filesharing would not be happy enough to have a few snippets or complete tunes to decide whether they want to purchase the CD or not. They also aren’t willing to accept files that can’t be copied to "determine whether or not they want to buy something. No, they have to have every single (complete) track available for free to make this determination. And they must be able to burn these files to a CD if they so choose. THEN, they will determine whether or not to buy the CD, after the whole album in it’s entirety is on their hard drive.
Basically, if an artist wants to give everything away for free, I have no problem with that. Whatever works for you. The fact that most don’t however should be an indicator that this isn’t what the artist wants to do. They would like to make money from their work, just like you. But the artist has every right, legally and morally, to control how they distribute their work. If they make poor marketing decisions and nobody buys it, so be it. But they, rather than some college kid, should determine how and when to distribute their work. It should not be up to some filesharer to determine that their catalog should be available to millions for no charge. Filesharing takes that control away.
