Does the fact that I refuse to listen to the radio help? I hate ads, so I only listen to CDs or tapes. If I do happen to get stuck where I have no CDs, and have to listen to the radio, I generally stick to “classic rock (Aerosmythe through Scorps type0” or golden oldies type stations (yup, I’m ancient :D).
Does that help explain it? I do think I’ve seen the Video though (it’s the one where the guy is all dressed in weird green golf looking clothes right? And he’s playing all the instruments in the band?), but I’ve always had the sound off when MTV was on, so I’ve not actually heard it. Weird, I know, but true.
Radio stations broadcast copyrighted material all day, and my understanding is that they are issued a permit to do so. This permit entitles the station to transmit the copyrighted material to the public. There are also internet radio stations which presumably also operate under the same or similar licenses.
As it stands now, a person can buy a cassette tape in a store and the price of the unit includes a royalty to the recording industry. That royalty pays for the consumer’s right to fill that tape with songs recorded off the radio.
Could that whole legal scenario be format shifted to P2P? IOW, could a radio station legally operate a filesharing database (just another form of transmitting the music) provided those who download pay the recording industry a royalty for doing so? And what about the price - it could be a lot cheaper than the current 99¢/song standard set by iTunes and others. Correct me if I’m wrong but a blank tape or music CD-R doesn’t cost nearly as much as the number of CD singles or iTunes downloads it can hold.
So every mp3 you have, you went out and bought the CD? If not, then your “preview” argument is even dumber then if you did own everything.
Good, and you realize that this is mostly the reason for many of the problems you bitch about. People are essentially taking advantage of the labels, acquiring their (not the people’s) product, and your getting pissed at them?
Well “not everyone” out of hundreds of millions of people with Internet connections is still “quite a shitload”.
Well then you need to pull you head out of the ground and listen to this thing called “radio”, as that song has been all over the airwaves for almost a year. Who knows, you may find that it is a nice way to sample some music. If you knew it was Outkast (if you didn’t, how did you search and download it?) you could have gone to their website, or go to Towerrecords.com and listened to samples of the song. Most people that actually want their music floating around on the Internet have a web presence of their own with files to download, as well. Go to the Outkast website first next time, it makes all the difference between legal and illegal.
Let’s face it this is a crock of shit, because as you state below…
Who is going to drive all the way to the store to buy something they already have? There are lots of people who wouldn’t even drive to the store if they were giving them away free, let alone driving then paying $15 or whatever bucks for it.
Then this is your problem, the companies are not obligated to distribute the music through every possible avenue. You don’t have a right to steal the music if they don’t offer a “service” you wish they had. The only thing you can do is withhold your business or use a company that does offer the service you want. It appears that at the moment companies are not willing to plunk down the loot to build a “sampling station” infrastructure, because it probably isn’t worth the money. For them it’s probably more worthwhile for them to herd people to a few specific mediums they can concentrate their ad budget on. At the same time I’m sure everyone would love the music to be beamed directly into their brain, it’s the most convenient after all. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the reality that market forces have settled upon.
You don’t want to drive there you lazy fuck? :rolleyes:
It’s also illegal.
And yet you don’t care. you are the problem.
I’m in a band that gets no radio airplay, and you know what? It’s our problem not yours. It’s up to us to get our music out into the world utilizing every available mean. These things include…
A) sending to small college radio stations
B) to magazines for review or possible write up
c) Internet radio stations
d) putting up a website, with files available for sharing
e) Making files available on p2p services.
Guess which one did the most poorly?
That’s right E. Why you ask? Because no one fucking heard of us! Who the hell is going to search on some shit they don’t know exists? If you haven’t heard of Subtech you’re not going to look for us. If you have heard of Subtech, there are legal ways to check us out and take a listen. See how that works?
Take it straight from the horse’s mouth, it doesn’t really do anything.
Radio, TV or little sound bite played on MTV = great promotion (people hear you)
Magazine with interview and photos = Great promotion (people see you)
Website, or websites with your files on them = Ok promotion (people who have heard you can come check you out, but they have to take the step as opposed to the other two methods above which isn’t so good)
Letting you music “float” around on some P2P = Shitty promotion (if they haven’t heard of you, they won’t put you name in the search, which means only bands that people have heard of get “checked out”. This obviously means it’s a bad means of promotion for a band no one has ever heard of, right?)
I don’t doubt this, but here is how I look at it.
People who buy band they wouldn’t have normally bought < People who would have bought album but instead got it free.
If you acquired music illegally without paying for it (unless the band gives their blessing), you are a fucking thief, it’s a pretty black and white concept, and people fall into one of two camps.
Makes it pretty clear which camp you are in.
Why go out, after all you’re too lazy to drive to the store anyway. How about getting people to pay, and then download it? The real problem is that there will never be a way to secure the music, so how do we proceed with that in mind?
Well Itunes is doing pretty damn well from what I hear so maybe it is “it”.
What is the point of these companies to do something that isn’t profitable? If they can’t make a profit they might as well fold house. The world (read - YOU) doesn’t have some God given right to Outkast. If a person comes along and takes a gamble on them, invests millions in promotion, lawyers and recording fees, I’ll assume they’re in it for the money, not to hook up humanity. If these people don’t make money, what is the point of doing it? Does your business run at a loss? And some of these people with decades of experience with dozens of hits who have made tens of millions are too stupid to “tap” the internet? Get the fuck out of here.
Ah the million dollar question. We obviously need to convince them of the ramifications of their actions. After we have a good laugh attempting that, we should figure out a way to best curb their activities. This can encompass the whole spectrum from the carrot to the stick.
You know, this is such a stupid comment and really shows you don’t have a clue as to what the fuck you’re talking about.
All these companies do is make money, that’s all they’re about. They’ve dreamed up more ways to separate you from your precious dollar then you could come up with in your wildest dreams. (Think Divx)
Now I’m not saying that there is no way to make a buck off of downloading, I’m sure like most ventures, it starts off with a niche market and then someone figures out the best combination of factors to a successful enterprise and then come the other companies that do the same thing. I would say at the moment these companies have more of a if it ain’t broke don’t fix it attitude, and seeing that downloading at the moment could be more risky then what they are currently are doing, they aren’t willing to change. There will come a point in time where their current attitudes will cost them more money then it’s worth, and when that happens they’ll switch in a heartbeat, trust me.
Blalon, that’s a really sweet sentiment. I’d like to take you out for dinner this evening, where we can discuss this issue further and admire your unsullied car.
Everyone Else: Party at Blalon’s tonight from 6:30 until about 9pm.
From a legal standpoint, you’re absolutely right, and even the stupidest dipshit already knew that P2P music sharing is illegal before you repeatedly iterated that fact.
So people who can’t/won’t buy a song have a choice between A.) don’t buy a song and do without, or 2.) get online and download the song. Neither choice results in any revenue for the recording industry, but one results in that person having the song to enjoy and the other does not. Naturally, some people make the obvious choice.
Your argument is legally correct, but morally null.
This is an issue which I’d like to see Yosemitebabe, Worldeater, et al answer.
Say I’m a 98 year old partially paralyzed and blind woman who is dirt poor, and subsist soley off of government aid. I can’t afford to buy CDs. I love lissening to music, but I don’t have the money, nor will I ever in the future have the money to pay for it. I go and download it on the internet and get a great deal of enjoyment before I go to the grave.
How is that morally wrong? The artists don’t see a dime either way.
What, there’s no Braille Institute or other resource for the blind to help her out? My sister (who is blind, as it happens), gets all sorts of help because of her visual impairment. She used to get books on tape mailed to her (this was before she got her own “reading machine,” which enlarges text so she can read regular books). She used to attend classes at the Braille Institute.
And since this hypothetical woman is so poor and everything, how does she afford an Internet service and a computer? And isn’t there this thing called the library that you can go to and borrow CDs? I understand that she is paralyzed, but she obviously has someone help her out (in order for her to survive her day-to-day life). So even if this hypothetical blind, paralyzed woman can’t get out to go to the libarary herself, certainly her caretaker could do it for her.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see where you’re going with this. Presumably 99.99% of the MP3 leeches are not hypothetical 98-year-old paralyzed blind women.
So, my opinion on your scenario? Outstanding. It’s got everything; pathos, bathos, and probably some other sort of -athos that we haven’t heard of yet. It’s got audience appeal, and you can easily see Meryl Streep getting an Oscar™ for her bold portrayal of a partially sighted tetraplegic on the lam with only an ipod to comfort her while (get this) her estranged son unwittingly tracks her down in his job as an FBI assassin. I’m seeing Jeff Bridges as the attorney who gradually wakes up to the searing injustice of it all as the old lady lies motionless in his waiting-room, downloading Prince 512 bits at a time by writing to the library where a clerk copies down the patterns on the CD. The little man (obviously) triumphs, passing a constitutional amendment whereby Napster is reinstituted as a branch of social security entitled “Musicaid”, run entirely by amputees with congenital wallet loss.
In other words, it is utterly, batshit, mad-as-a-bag-of-cats insane and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Not addressed to me, I know, but that’s flawed. A better analogy would be having a special duplicator that would allow you to make an exact copy of my car without harming the original. In which case, I wouldn’t mind it (provided the copy has a different license plate and VIN, so you can register it and make it all legal).
These analogies are always flawed because of the inherent differences between ‘informational’ and ‘physical’ property. Copying a CD does not deprive anyone of their own music, nor does copying a book, a picture, or a patented idea. The original owner still has all the same things he started with, however those things suddenly become less and less valuable with all the copying. I think that’s really the key of copyright, now that I think about it.
If you want to try and stretch the analogy, you own a one of a kind car that’s worth $1,000,000, now how do you feel about me making a few thousand exact duplicates? Sure, when I was copying your AMC Gremlin you didn’t really care too much, but now that the Deusenberg you spent a fortune on is worthless, maybe it matters.
You know, I don’t think that every dipshit sees it as illegal.
Oh yeah I almost forgot about this stupid argument. :rolleyes:
People who can’t buy a song? Tough shit. If someone can’t afford something they are entitled to a freebie? There are plenty of things I can’t afford, so instead of demanding it free, which frankly is insane, I go without them. If there are a lot if things I want that I can’t afford, perhaps I should go back to school or get a better job, or figure out how to make more money.
People who won’t buy a song? Tough shit. If someone doesn’t feel they are getting a good deal, don’t buy the merchandise. Under no circumstances are you entitled to a free copy. The logic and morality behind this should be pretty clear.
As far as the obvious choice, I would think that is the one that doesn’t involve stealing.
It’s morally wrong because of the following reasons:
It is a violation of copyright law. When you let people pick and choose which laws to break, barring a case of a missing vital essential of life, then you have serious problems in society.
It is not a case where it is a “vital essential” of life. It is not food, shelter, heat, cool, water, healthcare, dental care - or even if you want to extend it to virtual essentials - electricity, communications (phone), or anything else one might dream up.
It also is not a reduction in her “cultural quality of life” either, which is a frequent moan of the copyright thieves. She can also download lots of free music, she can go to the library and read the Braille journals and books, since she’s tech savvy enough to download songs she can also get a text-to-speech software to read the contents of Project Gutenberg to her. You know, somehow, someway, people were actually able to have rich, fulfilling lives before Kazaa and Napster. To hear people talk it sounds like enforcing copyright laws is akin to barcode tattoos on the scalp and concentration camps.
And if a 98-year old with a PC can’t find ANYTHING else in the BILLIONS of places online to enjoy - if her life is so focused and shallow that ONLY downloading songs in violation of copyright makes it full - then she has a serious mental disorder.
Blalron’s hypothetical 98-year-old might be a bit extreme, so how about a real world example. From this site and others I have compiled a list of over 1,000 songs (and a dozen or so albums) I would like to have. At the current rate, it would cost me over $1,000 to buy those on iTunes (and have to deal with what from what I hear sounds like a crappy file format) and who knows how much they would cost as CD singles. So at the moment the only legal way for me to get these songs is by taping them off the radio. The tapes themselves aren’t free either (and I haven’t been pricing them lately so can’t say for sure how much they cost) but I’ll bet ya the royalty that goes to the recording industry is a hell of a lot less than $1/song.
Jesus, is everything people can’t afford to be made municipal in the World of Tomorrow? Because I’d quite like a Ferrari, but I seem to be short around £300,000. Won’t someone please think of the Ferrari-loving-but-merely-moderately-well-off, for the love of God!
I’m still not sure why anyone is arguing the recording industry’s (RI’s) side. The RI accepts money every year from a surchage placed on all blank media and recording instruments. If the RI thinks they are losing money they should negotiate a larger surcharge or something not sue people for legal acts. From the Audio Home Recording Act:
Now IANAL but it seems to me the bolded section implies a private/non-commercial copy is completely inbounds. Could an RI defender correct my understanding?
Great googly-moogly, are you on my computer right now? How did you get through ZoneAlarm AND a hardware firewall?
Because I had typed up a hypothetical response involving myself and wanting a Ferrari, and being short $500,000, and then got called to a meeting and killed my browser window. :eek:
Okay, we’ll go with this analogy, even though in a moment it’s going to get ridiculous. A Ferrari is indivisible so we’ll have to scale the figures up a little. Let’s say you can buy a 12 car garage for a little bit more than the price of a Ferrari, and a tax included in the price of the garage pays for the right to fill the thing with free Ferraris from the Great Big Car Broadcasting station. (I just love thinking big, don’t you?) Now what if you don’t want to bother with the damn garage and decide instead to buy the Ferraris directly. Why the hell should it cost so much more?
Do you see what I’m saying here - the industry has already set a price for music, and it’s so much less than what it costs to legally download it.
Now if we want to continue the analogy some more, we find that the legal iFerrari dealer is selling them in limited selection in some kind of format that is not recognized by common Ferrari players, and maybe even imposes limits on where/when the Ferraris can be used. This is why time and again I say car analogies and other material object analogies don’t work, because they fall apart.
The point here is that some of us, whether we can afford it or not, don’t want to deal with the headaches of iTunes et al (e.g. making and ripping hundreds of music CDs) and don’t believe their prices are reasonable. Some of us think spending $1000+ on non-essential items is superfluous. Maybe downloaders also represent such opinions, or maybe they just say “oh cool I can get music for free”, I don’t know, but they won’t stop downloading until a convenient legal alternative exists.
Well, I can’t afford a Ferrari, right, so I figured when you got one I’d just nick it. Owning your computer is just a first step :p.
CarnalK, I also ANAL (as it were) but can think of two pertinent responses. Firstly, the act states that no prosecution may be brought under that act with respect to non-commercial copying, not that no prosecution may be brought at all. I don’t know what the legal semantics of this are, though, so I may be mistaken. Secondly, the definition of non-commercial is not explicitly stated. While no money is changing hands on P2P networks, such sharing as does go on is performed in the expectation of receiving goods in return. This can be clearly seen in sites with upload ratios, hubs with minimum share requirements, participation ratings on Kazaa, etc. and so forth. It can therefore be very reasonably argued that the distribution is, in fact, commercial and therefore infringing.
cityboy916, I don’t see where you’re going with this. You say you can’t afford something, or at least don’t believe it is worth the price. This is certainly a reason why cheapskates will steal it, but is not a reason why it’s okay to do so.
If you don’t like the product or the price, you just don’t buy it. It is that simple.