Do You Pirate Music?

[Tumeg101]

So umm yeah, I was just wondering how many of you guys here, pirate music...

[Blue Velvet]

No, never. And this is going to turn into one of those threads... we've seen it all before.

[Leareth]

No

Its perfectly legal to download music for personal use here in Canada.

[phungy]

You think those who do pirate music are going to even post here? What a funny thread...

[techlover828]

You think those who do pirate music are going to even post here? What a funny thread...

why wouldn't you?

[Blue Velvet]

...the general Internet consensus on copyright, which is, roughly paraphrased, “Copyright is burdensome and overwhelming, and almost everything should be available inexpensively or as fair use, except the stuff that I or my friends created, because it’s totally bogus when other people rip off my tunes or Web site designs or graphics for use without my permission.”

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/20/ringtones/index.php?lsrc=mwtoprss

[iHerzeleid]

yes. i try before i buy.

[phungy]

why wouldn't you?

Cause you didn't either ;)

[marioman38]

yes. i try before i buy.

Same concept. If I like the song, i'll most certainly go out and buy the CD!

[zelmo]

I don't dl tunes off the web, but I will borrow a CD from a friend and rip it to my iPod for a listen down the road. To me, this is just the same as borrowing an LP from a friend for a week or two, although I'm sure the record companies would like to put me away for years. The vast majority of this 'borrowed' music is deleted after one or two listens. Now and again I'll like something enough to put into my iTMS cart for purchase.

I purchase a fair amount of stuff from iTunes. Around 600 songs out of the 4500 in my collection were purchased from Apple. The rest were ripped from my own CD library.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I also pirate DVDs, applications, books, audiobooks, video game ROMs, basically if it can be stolen over the internet I'll take it. It's a personal choice. So sue me! :D

No actually don't. I don't have money to buy any of your intellectual property or I wouldn't pirate it. So I definetly can't afford fines or lawyer's fees. But I thought I'd jump on the poll.

[Bjerre]

Honestly, yes, 90% of my 3500 songs are pirated. But I am a teen in a lower middle class family, being a busboy at a Mexican restaurant, and having a $1500 repair job on my a/c. I'm not saying I'm proud, I just can't. (lame excuse too.)

[Principessa]

I have bittorrent running 24/7. xD

CDs are a pain in the ass to rip, plus my family travels often so I don't like accumulating a lot of stuff. I support bands by going to a ton of shows and buying a shirt or whatever.

[bousozoku]

No

Its perfectly legal to download music for personal use here in Canada.

Copyrighted music? I would assume that clubs and radio stations are the principal non-personal uses that keep music stores open, if this is all legal.

[Duff-Man]

Copyrighted music? I would assume that clubs and radio stations are the principal non-personal uses that keep music stores open, if this is all legal.

Duff-Man says...it is a bit of a "grey area loophole" in some very old copyright laws here that are currently being examined and rewritten. You can bet the loophole will eventually be closed. But then - legally legal does not equal morally legal and that's where you have to make your own judgements and decisions.

I do not pirate and have never accepted any of the common "excuses" and that is just what they are....oh yeah!

[iMacBook]

Yes, I do.

It's addicting. I LOVE music. I'd go into debt if I couldn't buy the music that I love.

It really is a bad habit.

[Duff-Man]

Yes, I do.

It's addicting. I LOVE music. I'd go into debt if I couldn't buy the music that I love.

It really is a bad habit.

Duff-Man says...so essentially what you says is - better the people creating the music you love go into debt than you.

At least you acknowledge it's a bad habit though that does not pay the piper...oh yeah!

[Victor ch]

Hi,

To be honest I have in the past pirated music. I will buy all of my music if iTunes had a frkin' costarican store, but they dont, so I buy using gift cards. I go like this: like a song, preview it in itunes store; if i really really like it I will buy it, if not I either not download or pirate it. What I hate about pirated music is that they are soooo crappy, for example a regular song 128kbps pirated using tri-port acoustic headphones sounds horrible, then or buy cd-import it, or buy on iTunes and you will notice a lot of difference. (easily 20-50 songs of my 2037 songs are pirated, the rest legally acquired via cds (mainly, friends included hehe) or itunes store.

-Victor

[iBookG4user]

Nope, my dad and I have the same music tastes and he likes to buy CDs, so I just rip his CDs to my computer.

[bartelby]

(easily 20-50 songs of my 2037 songs are pirated, the rest legally acquired via cds (mainly, friends included hehe) or itunes store.


So more than 20-50 are illegally gained then...


Nope, my dad and I have the same music tastes and he likes to buy CDs, so I just rip his CDs to my computer.

Which is technically pirating music.

[LethalWolfe]

Honestly, yes, 90% of my 3500 songs are pirated. But I am a teen in a lower middle class family, being a busboy at a Mexican restaurant, and having a $1500 repair job on my a/c. I'm not saying I'm proud, I just can't. (lame excuse too.)
Which begs the question what else do you take that you can't pay for?


Yes, I do.

It's addicting. I LOVE music. I'd go into debt if I couldn't buy the music that I love.

It really is a bad habit.
I'm sure the people that make the music you love would love to get properly compensated for their efforts...


Lethal

[taytho]

its tough... there are some bands who see so little of the money from their album sales that essentially you are ripping of 'the man' which is their record label. with small bands it can be a bit of a gamble to buy an entire cd if you can find it to get exposure. I guess i have a little problem sometimes with musicians and athletes and entertainers and how much they get paid.... does that justify what i do? to me? yes. to most? no. i love music. i buy plenty of cds.... go to 3-4 dozen shows a year.... and support plenty of local art. i figure i am not doing completely wrong here.

[Victor ch]

So more than 20-50 are illegally gained then...




Which is technically pirating music.

Well... its kind of dumb. I mean: Say I buy a CD and my sister likes the band and wants that music; NOOO buy another cd for yourself, common!!. Sure the band will like if they sell more records but emm who does that??

-Victor

[EricNau]

No. Absolutely not.

[LethalWolfe]

its tough... there are some bands who see so little of the money from their album sales that essentially you are ripping of 'the man' which is their record label. with small bands it can be a bit of a gamble to buy an entire cd if you can find it to get exposure. I guess i have a little problem sometimes with musicians and athletes and entertainers and how much they get paid.... does that justify what i do? to me? yes. to most? no. i love music. i buy plenty of cds.... go to 3-4 dozen shows a year.... and support plenty of local art. i figure i am not doing completely wrong here.
Album sales do more than generate money for a band though. They also give a band negotiating leverage, let them know where their fans are so they know the best places to tour, etc.,. Labels judge their acts on sales numbers and if the sales aren't there the band probably won't be for long either.

Well... its kind of dumb. I mean: Say I buy a CD and my sister likes the band and wants that music; NOOO buy another cd for yourself, common!!. Sure the band will like if they sell more records but emm who does that??

-Victor
Me. If a band both my gf and I like comes out w/a new album I'll pick up a copy for each of us.


Lethal

[Victor ch]

Album sales do more than generate money for a band though. They also give a band negotiating leverage, let them know where their fans are so they know the best places to tour, etc.,. Labels judge their acts on sales numbers and if the sales aren't there the band probably won't be for long either.


Me. If a band both my gf and I like comes out w/a new album I'll pick up a copy for each of us.


Lethal

ooook, my bad there hehe. You are indeed a very emm how should I say this...correct person. Glad to see those around :)

-Victor

[colocolo]

Well... its kind of dumb. I mean: Say I buy a CD and my sister likes the band and wants that music; NOOO buy another cd for yourself, common!!. Sure the band will like if they sell more records but emm who does that??

-Victor

With this, I do agree; I believe there is no sense in buying more than one CD per household. I assume that is the whole purpose of the 5 computer limit on purchased songs as well... unless they think everyone has 5 computers for themselves!

By the way, all of my songs for the past 3 years have been purchased legally through the iTMS. I do share those songs legally with the 5 computer limit with my gf (and I think my mom's computer is authorized as well as I forgot to deauthorize it before handing my old computer to her).

Given this logic, I most certainly would rip one of my girlfriend's CD or let her rip one of mine; I think that is perfectly fine using the iTMS criteria. Having said that, I must clarify that I'd rather buy the song through iTMS than ripping the songs I like from CD's, and that's the method I've been using as of late.

[bartelby]

With this, I do agree; I believe there is no sense in buying more than one CD per household. I assume that is the whole purpose of the 5 computer limit on purchased songs as well... unless they think everyone has 5 computers for themselves!

By the way, all of my songs for the past 3 years have been purchased legally through the iTMS. I do share those songs legally with the 5 computer limit with my gf (and I think my mom's computer is authorized as well as I forgot to deauthorize it before handing my old computer to her).

Given this logic, I most certainly would rip one of my girlfriend's CD or let her rip one of mine; I think that is perfectly fine using the iTMS criteria. Having said that, I must clarify that I'd rather buy the song through iTMS than ripping the songs I like from CD's, and that's the method I've been using as of late.

I thought the 5 machine limit was for songs purchased from iTunes. I'm sure the 5 machines also have to be in one household.

[synth3tik]

I also pirate DVDs, applications, books, audiobooks, video game ROMs, basically if it can be stolen over the internet I'll take it. It's a personal choice. So sue me! :D

No actually don't. I don't have money to buy any of your intellectual property or I wouldn't pirate it. So I definetly can't afford fines or lawyer's fees. But I thought I'd jump on the poll.


that reason does not fly, it's simple economics.You can't afford it, you can't have it. Now if you were to say
No actually don't. I don't have any money to sue for, but really if I was worried I wouldn't pirate it.


:D

[colocolo]

I thought the 5 machine limit was for songs purchased from iTunes. I'm sure the 5 machines also have to be in one household.

From the iTMS terms of service:
(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time.

Full ToS at
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html
(http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html)

By the way, to clarify my previous point:

if you are married and use the same computer with your wife, would you actually buy 2 copies of a CD to rip it? It makes no sense at all :)
I would most certainly just buy one copy to put on the single Music Library. There is a limit where common sense must take over.

Again: I do NOT pirate music nor i indulge it in any way,form or shape. But this particular case (which is an extension of the sibling case presented by the post I quoted earlier) is just too much.

[Tumeg101]

if you are married and use the same computer with your wife, would you actually buy 2 copies of a CD to rip it? It makes no sense at all :)
I would most certainly just buy one copy to put on the single Music Library. There is a limit where common sense must take over.

I have to agree with this point...
In my family, if someone buys an album off iTunes, or a CD at a store, we will all take turns and rip it to our computer (if purchased off iTunes we will burn to a CD and rip to to our comps(by doing this, it can be on however many computers, authorized or not)) But if it is a DRM free song, we just put it up on our server, and drag and drop it to our libraries...

[colocolo]

I have to agree with this point...
In my family, if someone buys an album off iTunes, or a CD at a store, we will all take turns and rip it to our computer (if purchased off iTunes we will burn to a CD and rip to to our comps(by doing this, it can be on however many computers, authorized or not)) But if it is a DRM free song, we just put it up on our server, and drag and drop it to our libraries...


Heh, well I must say I do not entirely agree with you :)
By circumventing the iTunes DRM by burning and reripping to avoid authorization you are actually going against the ToS; is there any particular reason you can't just authorize everyone's computer? That big of a family? Or stubborn members staying away from iTunes? :)

[LethalWolfe]

ooook, my bad there hehe. You are indeed a very emm how should I say this...correct person. Glad to see those around :)

-Victor
Feel free to call me a "boy scout" or some such, I know you want to. ;) I also inform my employer in the rare event that I get over paid, and have returned to the store when I noticed they failed to charge me for one of the items I purchased.

The Golden Rule, right. :D


Lethal

[colocolo]

Feel free to call me a "boy scout" or some such, I know you want to. ;) I also inform my employer in the rare event that I get over paid, and have returned to the store when I noticed they failed to charge me for one of the items I purchased.

The Golden Rule, right. :D


Lethal

Honesty and modesty don't always come together it seems, Mr boy scout ;)

Just kidding, good for you! I do try to follow the "don't let your left hand know what your right hand does" for good deeds though, unless necessary to prove a point.

I do think of you as a role model for many things now, though :)

[Osarkon]

I'll occasionally download an album to see what it's like before deciding whether to buy it. If it do like it, I buy it and delete the downloaded copy. If I don't like it, I just delete the downloaded copy.

Normally I'll just buy the cd anyway.

[Victor ch]

Feel free to call me a "boy scout" or some such, I know you want to. ;) I also inform my employer in the rare event that I get over paid, and have returned to the store when I noticed they failed to charge me for one of the items I purchased.

The Golden Rule, right. :D


Lethal

hehe ill stick with correct. Anyways is good there are people like this, I don't have salary but I will do the same thing, also if they don't charge me something, its only the music thing I don't believe hehe.
BTW:there should more people with this attitude, seriously.

-Victor

[Eric Lewis]

it really legal in Canada?

[xfiftyfour]

I buy from iTunes VERY occasionally - only songs that aren't available someplace else. Everything else I pirate.

I used to buy CDs religiously when I actually used 'em, but ever since that first iPod....

[AdeFowler]

CDs are a pain in the ass to rip,
Really? Why? :confused:

[juanster]

it really legal in Canada?

im pretty sure it's not, a copyright is a copyright from what i understand

[cwedl]

I had just finished uni and got a fulltime job, the only reason why I pirated was because I couldn't afford it. I deleted all my illegal music and bought songs I listen too, I had so much music at one stage, I was redownloading songs because I didn't realise I had it! I have just stopped downloading films etc, its just because you watch a film once or twice but listen to a song hundreds if not thousands of times, 79p is just more value for money!

[AstrayCliche]

If something is out of print and unavailable on eBay or what not, then I'll do it. Otherwise, I buy my stuff. I can usually preview stuff on YouTube, Myspace, Band Websites, etc.

[twoodcc]

I used to, but now I rarely do it. Mainly b/c I dont want to go buy a cd before knowing what's on it. At least on iTunes you get a preview.

Btw, "how cruel, is the golden rule" - FOB

[iMacBook]

Duff-Man says...so essentially what you says is - better the people creating the music you love go into debt than you.

At least you acknowledge it's a bad habit though that does not pay the piper...oh yeah!

Duff-Man says a lot. :D

Well, I mean, they are making a lot of money off concerts, a place where the government can't touch them. If you buy a CD, a lot of money is going to the agency, not directly to the bands themselves.

I would buy music if there was a lower price and if bands got 50% if each CD. But, that'll never happen with all the money addicts out there. :(


I'm sure the people that make the music you love would love to get properly compensated for their efforts...

Lethal

Oh yeah. If I LOVE a CD a lot, then I'll buy it. I've bought a good 50 CDs that I love. That out of about 1500 songs. Don't know the pirated to legal ratio would be.

[netdog]

400GB. None pirated. Trade a lot of Grateful Dead, but that's not pirating.

[Dagless]

I suppose so. I've ripped my parents CD's and LP's.

Friends music too. One of them got an iPod and doesn't have a computer. He brought over a ton of CDs and set iTunes to do that Rip>Eject method. I kept some stuff. It's nothing that I wanted, unlike my parents stuff.

No torrents or the likes. The amount of computers I've had to fix because of dodgy P2P media...

[Poopface Morty]

What about out-of-print tunes? :confused:

[Agathon]

Me?

Hardly ever any more. I buy a lot of CDs (in the thousands), and I've bought about 6 gigs worth of music from the iTunes store since the New Zealand version opened.

When I lived in Canada I downloaded vast amounts of music from file sharing services, but it isn't illegal there, so it doesn't count as piracy.

If I was consistent with my political beliefs, I would do it all the time, as it seems the only weapon that ordinary people have against those who would lockdown our culture as their own personal property.

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says a lot. :D

Well, I mean, they are making a lot of money off concerts, a place where the government can't touch them. If you buy a CD, a lot of money is going to the agency, not directly to the bands themselves.

I would buy music if there was a lower price and if bands got 50% if each CD. But, that'll never happen with all the money addicts out there. :(


Duff-Man says....they do not necessarily make loads of money from concerts. Touring has become *very* expensive these days. And I think it is also important to differentiate between the big companies and the indie releases. Buying direct from the band puts more money in their pockets. Saying that the agents and other 'middle-men' are getting all (or too much of) the money is really no excuse to steal the music - even if the artist only got one penny you've robbed them of that.

But this whole issue has been beaten to death around this forum countless times before and I suspect has rarely changed anyone's habits or opinions....oh yeah!

[it5five]

I pirate music.

But I also purchase albums I find myself listening to a lot. And when I do buy them I usually almost always buy directly from the artist's website.

One thing I hate about the anti-piracy group is how they build up this nasty image of people who do download music.

Like LethalWolfe, if I am ever given extra change at the store, I correct the error and give back the extra money. I'm an honest person, and I don't steal.

So, anti-piracy people, please stop using that convenient image when trying to talk bad about music pirates.

[Principessa]

Really? Why? :confused:

If you have a lot of CDs it takes forever... I'm lazy. :p

[Duff-Man]

I pirate music.

I'm an honest person, and I don't steal.

So, anti-piracy people, please stop using that convenient image when trying to talk bad about music pirates.

Duff-Man says.....So, you don't steal, but you admit that you do...yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes:....oh yeah!

[bluefiberoptics]

I don't "pirate" anything. I simply "download" the content I want.
(I'm joking if you can't tell)

[Virgil-TB2]

No, never. And this is going to turn into one of those threads... we've seen it all before.I was going to say "No, never" as I don't agree with pirating music, but then I realised I had to do this (pirating) just the other day, so I guess it depends on the situation.

Interestingly, the reason I did it the other day was because (being a sucker for that sort of advertising) I went out and tried to buy some "Feist" albums when I got my new iPod nano last week. I went to five or six major Music stores, and ran the full gamut of used CD shops on the downtown mall (about 10 shops) and all I could find was overpriced copies of the most recent Feist CD. No backlist, no special deals, just over 27 dollars (!) for the brand new latest CD with the "1,2,3,4" song on it.

So I went online when I got home, and easily found all the backlist and everything Feist ever wrote in about ten minutes, for free. (it did take longer to download though)

I was going to go back and buy the one CD offered if I liked the stuff, but even though I do like it, I will probably wait now until the CD is a reasonable price. Even though I didn't pick up the Feist, I did buy 4 other CD's, spending about a hundred and fifteen bucks in the process.

So if the RIAA had the music available, and at a reasonable price, they would have made even more than the hundred or so they got off me, but since they don't, I got it (quasi) illegally. There is no way that even a brand new CD should be 27 dollars.

I think the majority of folks are in this same position in that if everyone who bought an iPod filled it up with music that they had to buy on CD's at the same time, we are talking at least a thousand dollars worth of CD's. I'm thinking that most don't do that.

Especially for the backlist, if the RIAA doesn't want people to pirate stuff, they should actually make it available to people and stop concentrating on pushing the latest crap at inflated prices. If all those old albums were available on iTunes in uncompressed un-DRm'ed format, I would buy all my music from there as at least I could find what I want when I want it.

[Blue Velvet]

Especially for the backlist, if the RIAA doesn't want people to pirate stuff, they should actually make it available to people and stop concentrating on pushing the latest crap at inflated prices.


The RIAA are not a label, they are not a distribution chain... they are a trade industry group.

The RIAA's stated goals are:
• to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists;
•*to perform research about the music industry;
• to monitor and review relevant laws, regulations and policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA

There's brilliant music out there everywhere; search for it and support your favourite artists by buying it. And support all those in the entire production chain that goes towards bringing that music to you.

There's not one argument for piracy that stands up to any scrutiny. It's all based on selfishness... if people would just admit that then I wouldn't have a problem with their stance.

The tortured reasons that people use to try and convince others that what they're doing is somehow justified, noble and somehow helping the artist; that's what makes me cross.

The day when those who pirate produce something of quality and lasting value, and see it ripped off by people who will not reward you for your work, is the day that you will come to understand this very simple concept.

Support the creative industries.

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says.... ^ ^ very good post BV!...oh yeah!

[LethalWolfe]

Honesty and modesty don't always come together it seems, Mr boy scout ;)
I'm only human... :D


I do think of you as a role model for many things now, though :)
Thanks, I don't think I should qualify as role model though. :):o Like I said before, I just try and go by the Golden Rule as much as possible.


Duff-Man says a lot. :D

Well, I mean, they are making a lot of money off concerts, a place where the government can't touch them. If you buy a CD, a lot of money is going to the agency, not directly to the bands themselves.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a place where the government can't touch them."

Labels also help cover touring costs and pay for marketing/advertisings costs that let you know when your favorite band is in town and where you can pick up their latest CD.


I would buy music if there was a lower price and if bands got 50% if each CD. But, that'll never happen with all the money addicts out there. :(
I've rarely paid more then $15 USD for a CD.
If some people weren't so obsessed w/money they might actually only take things they've paid for.


Oh yeah. If I LOVE a CD a lot, then I'll buy it. I've bought a good 50 CDs that I love. That out of about 1500 songs. Don't know the pirated to legal ratio would be.
Even bands you don't "love" would still like to get compensated for their time and effort.



If I was consistent with my political beliefs, I would do it all the time, as it seems the only weapon that ordinary people have against those who would lockdown our culture as their own personal property.
boycott
|?boi?kät|
verb [ trans. ]
- withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.

Not only does boycotting send a stronger message than just taking w/o paying, it also doesn't give big corporations a chance to play the victim.



I pirate music.

But I also purchase albums I find myself listening to a lot. And when I do buy them I usually almost always buy directly from the artist's website.

One thing I hate about the anti-piracy group is how they build up this nasty image of people who do download music.

Like LethalWolfe, if I am ever given extra change at the store, I correct the error and give back the extra money. I'm an honest person, and I don't steal.
You don't steal you just acquire some things w/o paying for them...


So, anti-piracy people, please stop using that convenient image when trying to talk bad about music pirates.
It's only convenient 'cause it's accurate.



Interestingly, the reason I did it the other day was because (being a sucker for that sort of advertising) I went out and tried to buy some "Feist" albums when I got my new iPod nano last week. I went to five or six major Music stores, and ran the full gamut of used CD shops on the downtown mall (about 10 shops) and all I could find was overpriced copies of the most recent Feist CD. No backlist, no special deals, just over 27 dollars (!) for the brand new latest CD with the "1,2,3,4" song on it.
.
.
.
So if the RIAA had the music available, and at a reasonable price, they would have made even more than the hundred or so they got off me, but since they don't, I got it (quasi) illegally. There is no way that even a brand new CD should be 27 dollars.
I'm not familiar w/the band Feist, but I found their three latest albums on Amazon.com and Best Buy's web site for about $10 each.

I think the majority of folks are in this same position in that if everyone who bought an iPod filled it up with music that they had to buy on CD's at the same time, we are talking at least a thousand dollars worth of CD's. I'm thinking that most don't do that.

What does having an iPod have to do w/anything? If I have a computer w/a 500gig HDD does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for any software, music, or movies I want to store on that HDD? If I buy a big house does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for the furniture I want to put in it?

We aren't talking about getting adequate food, clothing or shelter here were are talking about luxuries. Having an iPod is a luxury. Having a butt load of music or movies or video games is a luxury. Just because something is out there and you want it doesn't mean you are entitled to just take it.


Lethal

[notjustjay]

I don't pirate.

I used to, though. In my first year of university in 1996 I remember walking all over downtown to find a friend's house to give him $5 (the actual cost) of a burned CD filled with mp3 music. Wow.

At one point I sat on the various alt.binaries.mp3.* groups and downloaded what amounts to gigabytes of movie soundtracks and whatnot.

Then I realized I was pulling in music faster than I could listen to it, and realized it was all pretty pointless.

If I like the music, I buy the CD. If I don't like it enough to buy the CD, I'll buy the track off iTunes. And if I don't like it enough to do that, then I do without it!

Frankly I don't understand people's need to be constantly isolated and buried in their huge libraries of music. But that's probably just me - I can't focus on work or studying or reading when there's music on. I work best when it's silent. I listen to music in the car and on the bus, and that's about it. Everywhere else -- like when shopping or at coffee shops or walking around town, at restaurants and even at parties -- I prefer to hear the goings-on of people around me. I find that much more interesting than canned music that I could put on anytime I wanted.

I'm probably the exception to the rule, though.

[Agathon]

Duff-Man says.....So, you don't steal, but you admit that you do...yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes:....oh yeah!

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

A good case can be made for it as a form of civil disobedience.

[LethalWolfe]

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

A good case can be made for it as a form of civil disobedience.

Or, like I said before, you could do something more effective and legal and boycott them. And if you do see it as a form of civil disobedience then you have no room to whine if the RIAA and/or your ISP get in contact w/you.


Lethal

[Virgil-TB2]

The RIAA are not a label, they are not a distribution chain... they are a trade industry group....While I actually agree with your stance, I find your response way out of line with the nature of my post.

If all you are looking for are people who reply with, "yes I have pirated music and here is why" so you could shoot them down and belittle them, why aren't you "up front" about that, considering you are arguing that people aren't being up front about their selfishness?

I *don't* pirate music, but I set out an interesting scenario where for *once* I did do it on a *temporary* basis because of what I considered to be a good reason (no one would sell it to me), and simultaneously *purchased* a large amount of music at premium prices.

For a response I get a lecture about the corporate entities involved in the RIAA (I did know that thanks), and a slap in the face about how "there is no justification" for *piracy* and "ripping off" musicians???? :confused:

Way, way over the top IMO.

If I like music I buy it, the same for movies or any media. I am the guy who had the wall of LP's back in the day, and still have over 2,000 CD's and at least a thousand DVD's all bought at retail prices. I also have over ten thousand (yes *thousand*), books in my house. I should be the poster boy for purchasing your own media, not being annoyed by "do-gooders" like you spreading the wonderful message of the RIAA across the internet.

Hrmph! :mad: Hrmph I say!

[pdxflint]

I used to DL tons of music with p2p networks, but gradually stopped altogether and just buy what I really want either from iTunesMS or eMusic. One thing I haven't done is make available to the whole world my music, regardless of how I got it - let's say it's not worth the trouble these days anyway. I do support the artists I like, especially the independent ones, and don't mind paying something for their gift of the music in my life. Once it's mine, I will make an occasional mix-cd (not an mp3 disk) for a friend or two, so in that sense I am pirating the music by giving it away in some form, but I'm not just handing it out to the general public in original form.

I have a friend who buys everything - 5 copies of WinXP pro for his five networked home computers (and does he ever have problems... but that's another story..,) full price for Photoshop CS, purchases music cd's from Amazon, which he then rips as hi-bitrate mp3s for his iTunes library. This guy spends a hell of a lot of cold cash. Then, he tells me to get a cheap 500gig hard drive, and he'll load me up - just like that. It's a bit of a contradiction. I felt tempted, but also just a bit strange... somehow.

In the end for me, I think it's alright for me to aquire "software" - be it music or other stuff - without a cost upfront to see if I want to live with it, or actually use it over the long run. If I don't, nothing really gained, and nothing lost, since I'm not profitting from it's use (in fact not using it at all...) But, if it becomes a part of my life, a tool, or a piece of music I return to and get something out of, software that works and makes me productive - I always pull out my wallet to buy, and become legit. To me it's all about fair value, and paying for what I actually get, and with something intangible like music or software, it has little to do with "possession" of a physical thing.

[i.Feature]

it really legal in Canada?

Contrary to popular opinion, file sharing in Canada is legal. Important distinctions have been made regarding the legality of downloading versus uploading copyrighted material. Previous Canadian copyright decisions found it legal to download material, but not to upload it.[2][3]

However, in BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe -- the most recent decision on the matter by the Federal Court, the highest Canadian court to rule on the issue -- both uploading and downloading were found to be legal. This decision has not been overturned, so this is current Canadian law.

[Blue Velvet]

While I actually agree with your stance, I find your response way out of line with the nature of my post.

I'm not responsible for your feelings.


If all you are looking for are people who reply with, "yes I have pirated music and here is why" so you could shoot them down and belittle them, why aren't you "up front" about that, considering you are arguing that people aren't being up front about their selfishness?

If I was looking for people in the way that you describe, perhaps you might have a point. But I'm not.


...the RIAA (I did know that thanks)

Your comments about 'So if the RIAA had the music available, and at a reasonable price' and 'if the RIAA doesn't want people to pirate stuff, they should actually make it available to people and stop concentrating on pushing the latest crap at inflated prices' bely that notion.

They are not responsible for setting prices or distribution. They are not responsible for withholding or 'pushing the latest crap' to use your words. This is a factual correction and is repeated again just to educate people what they do. If you have a complaint about how certain labels promote certain acts, then don't buy or listen the music; no-one's forcing your hand.

Most of my post was directed to a larger audience and not specifically at you. You may 'humph' all you like, that doesn't change the truth of what I'm saying. I'm not an apologist for anyone, but when I see industries go to the wall — affecting people I know — because of the greed and selfishness of others, then I have the perfect right to stand up and say to people:

What you are doing is wrong and if the tables were turned and if you were producing something people wanted to buy, you'd be annoyed and wanting to protect your creative work from being ripped off as well.

If you (in the general sense) are happy about seeing artists — artists that you profess to love — go unpaid for their work, then how does that support them? When was the last time you worked for free?

[colocolo]

I was going to say "No, never" as I don't agree with pirating music, but then I realised I had to do this (pirating) just the other day, so I guess it depends on the situation.
...
So I went online when I got home, and easily found all the backlist and everything Feist ever wrote in about ten minutes, for free. (it did take longer to download though)

I was going to go back and buy the one CD offered if I liked the stuff, but even though I do like it, I will probably wait now until the CD is a reasonable price. Even though I didn't pick up the Feist, I did buy 4 other CD's, spending about a hundred and fifteen bucks in the process.


I can understand feeling tempted by pirating, but really, it still isn't justified :)

Is that group so vital you have to have it by any means necessary instead of looking around some more or just (gasp) waiting a little longer until it actually drops in price?

I'll give you an example. I've been trying for a while to find the song "Over my shoulder" from Mike & the mechanics (nostalgic purposes mainly :) ), to no avail.
It is not in iTMS (where you didn't look btw), nor in the newly launched amazon mp3 service. My only chance, at this point, is to download it ilegally.

Every time I feel tempted because I want to listen to that particular song, I think: Am i gonna die if I don't? Do I have the right to steal just because I have to have everything I want? The answer, obviously, is no :)

So here I am, music deprived, but that is certainly not the end of the world. I'll just patiently wait until I can find it or it becomes officially "abandonware" (for the lack of the right musical term).

In short, I agree with BV: pirating does show selfishness. I try not to judge anyone in particular though, cause we have all done wrong stuff in our lives; but if we can use this forum to try and create a pirate-awaraness and why it is wrong, we can help make this a better place.

BTW BV, when you say support the creative industries, I hope you are talking about software developers as well... ;)

[notjustjay]

What I've always found interesting is companies blaming piracy for their own problems. HMV is a good example. Remember not long ago they made a big hoo-haw about how piracy has been affecting business, losing money, forced to slash prices, blah blah blah? I felt that statement had no credibility whatsoever. Why? HMV's prices were always insane to begin with!

Pick a CD or DVD, anything you want, and go shopping.

Wal-Mart: $14.88
Target: $16.00
Best Buy: $15.00
HMV: $28.99

Do they think we're idiots?

[Kardashian]

98% of my music is my own - purchased either in a store, or downloaded from iTunes (90% of my music is from the iTS, within the last 18 months).

I do use Limewire, BUT, it is not to 'share' my music or anybody elses.

I mostly find myself using it for a song I cannot obtain on iTunes UK or US, of for a song that isn't yet available (and when it becomes available, I purchase it, purely for the better quality and album art.. I'm a neat freak).

I also find myself using LimeWire to decide whether I like a song or not, as sometimes the 30second preview just isn't enough.

There are also some live recordings I've got off LimeWire - which are not available on any sort of official release, therefore by keeping these I am not costing the artist/label money.

So short answer, yes - but not often, and not for long periods of time (or however long it takes iTunes to get it on their store :) )

[Bjerre]

Which begs the question what else do you take that you can't pay for?

Lethal

Actually, nothing, I've never stolen anything in my life except for a piece of candy from Wal-Mart when I was 3. Music is the only thing i "steal" but, which doesn't really matter, I don't download music from indie bands. Just the big ones.

[Malfoy]

Of all the topics on all the boards that need to be locked before the first reply, this ranks in the top 5.

I miss the good old days of the internet when mods made the right moves for the right reasons.

[colocolo]

Of all the topics on all the boards that need to be locked before the first reply, this ranks in the top 5.

I miss the good old days of the internet when mods made the right moves for the right reasons.

Heh, I think you would like China or North Korea :D

But seriously, why would this topic offend you? :confused:

It's not like its a personal attack on anyone; it's just a good discussion of an important (at least to me) topic.

I agree that we should try and avoid judging any particular individual, but to share points of view is always healthy.

[LethalWolfe]

Music is the only thing i "steal" but, which doesn't really matter, I don't download music from indie bands. Just the big ones.
I guess that makes it okay then...:rolleyes:

So how much money do you have to make before you no longer deserve to be compensated for your work?

Also, keep in mind that much of the profit generated by the big acts goes to cover the costs of the majority of other bands that will barely (if ever) turn a profit for their label, and when the purse strings start to get pulled it's the little bands, not the cash cows, that are going to get dumped first.


Lethal

[Bjerre]

I guess that makes it okay then...:rolleyes:

So how much money do you have to make before you no longer deserve to be compensated for your work?

Also, keep in mind that much of the profit generated by the big acts goes to cover the costs of the majority of other bands that will barely (if ever) turn a profit for their label, and when the purse strings start to get pulled it's the little bands, not the cash cows, that are going to get dumped first.


Lethal

Well as I said, I don't make much. I am sixteen, however. I like a lot of indie bands that have no record labels. I buy from their websites or at concerts at local bars and such. But you do have a valid point, it is bad. I know that once I pay off my loan (yeah, i had to get a co-sign) for that $1,500, I will most likely pay for all my music.

[colocolo]

I know that once I pay off my loan (yeah, i had to get a co-sign) for that $1,500, I will most likely pay for all my music.

That's the spirit :)

[UbuntuFu]

Well back in the days before MP3's and broadband, my friends would just make cassette dubs of CD's. or just record songs on the radio to tape.

The question is, if pirating was harder or the risk for getting caught was moderate to high, would you still do it? I mean, I'll park illegally sometimes and take the risk of paying a parking ticket or getting my car towed. But most of the time I'll just wait and find a legal parking spot. But with MP3's the risk of getting fined is fairly low, it's like jaywalking.

[Duff-Man]

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

Duff-Man says...don't play silly semantic games...that "copyright infringement" STEALS income from the righful owner of the copyright and you know it no matter how you try to dress it up and dance around the issue...oh yeah!

[EricNau]

I might start to after today's Amazon & Universal announcement. :D

[Agathon]

Duff-Man says...don't play silly semantic games...that "copyright infringement" STEALS income from the righful owner of the copyright and you know it no matter how you try to dress it up and dance around the issue...oh yeah!

Duff man needs a better argument.

Copyright is not like other property rights. The concept of property is ancient, yet copyright is only two to three hundred years old. But it's not just an age difference. Copyright is a fundamentally different kind of right in that has always been viewed in law as conditional on its benefiting consumers. So calling copyright violation a violation of property rights is misleading.

The fundamental justification for copyright is that allowing people to charge for use of copy will encourage people to create worthwhile ideational goods that benefit everyone. I simply do not care if you disagree, those are the facts, and every single US court decision about copyright has, to my knowledge, upheld this utilitarian understanding of it (it actually explicitly says this in article one of the US Constitution).

I quote:

"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

The whole point is to promote these things, not to recognize some spurious pre-existing notion of "intellectual property". Copyright is a wholly conventional and legal fiction. It does not, and has never embodied some intrinsic ethical right.

At present, we find this notion of copyright – the notion that benefits consumers – under attack. More and more, those who own copyrights want to recast it as a traditional property right, which may be held in perpetuity (or at least for a very long time). Technological change, along with digital rights management is allowing these people to curtail traditional fair use rights.

Moreover, given the increased power of creation and distribution that the internet enables, it isn't clear that we really need the same copyrights we used to have. Things like books and recorded music used to be much more expensive to make and distribute, and hence some form of protection for investments was necessary to encourage people to take the risk in the first place. It's not clear that this still applies in many areas of human endeavour.

But our glorious lawmakers aren't listening and aren't even considering this. Their view of copyright seems to be that the point is to screw the consumer. That's why I'm not allowed to rip a DVD I've paid for to watch on another device, and that's why I have to sit through garbage copyright notices that I can't fast forward and don't want to watch. It's also why I'm apparently not allowed to lend my music to friends, except under ridiculous circumstances, or that I will have spyware surreptitiously installed on my computer if I try to play a CD on it.

Thus, if we want more consumer friendly laws, our only real option is civil disobedience. It's not like we can afford to bribe politicians like content corporations do. I don't see why consumers should stand idly by while Sony, Universal et al dictate to us.

[LethalWolfe]

Duff man needs a better argument.

Copyright is not like other property rights. The concept of property is ancient, yet copyright is only two to three hundred years old. But it's not just an age difference. Copyright is a fundamentally different kind of right in that has always been viewed in law as conditional on its benefiting consumers. So calling copyright violation a violation of property rights is misleading.

The fundamental justification for copyright is that allowing people to charge for use of copy will encourage people to create worthwhile ideational goods that benefit everyone. I simply do not care if you disagree, those are the facts, and every single US court decision about copyright has, to my knowledge, upheld this utilitarian understanding of it (it actually explicitly says this in article one of the US Constitution).

I quote:



The whole point is to promote these things, not to recognize some spurious pre-existing notion of "intellectual property". Copyright is a wholly conventional and legal fiction. It does not, and has never embodied some intrinsic ethical right.

At present, we find this notion of copyright – the notion that benefits consumers – under attack. More and more, those who own copyrights want to recast it as a traditional property right, which may be held in perpetuity (or at least for a very long time). Technological change, along with digital rights management is allowing these people to curtail traditional fair use rights.

Moreover, given the increased power of creation and distribution that the internet enables, it isn't clear that we really need the same copyrights we used to have. Things like books and recorded music used to be much more expensive to make and distribute, and hence some form of protection for investments was necessary to encourage people to take the risk in the first place. It's not clear that this still applies in many areas of human endeavour.

But our glorious lawmakers aren't listening and aren't even considering this. Their view of copyright seems to be that the point is to screw the consumer. That's why I'm not allowed to rip a DVD I've paid for to watch on another device, and that's why I have to sit through garbage copyright notices that I can't fast forward and don't want to watch. It's also why I'm apparently not allowed to lend my music to friends, except under ridiculous circumstances, or that I will have spyware surreptitiously installed on my computer if I try to play a CD on it.

Thus, if we want more consumer friendly laws, our only real option is civil disobedience. It's not like we can afford to bribe politicians like content corporations do. I don't see why consumers should stand idly by while Sony, Universal et al dictate to us.

Apologies up front if this is a bit scatter brained but I'm putting it together piece meal while at work.


I agree that in some cases protection of IP has gone to far, but that does meant that IP protection itself is inherently flawed. And just because something isn't physical property doesn't mean it's worth less than something that is. In many cases it's worth more. I mean, a bottle of Coke is worth a buck but the formula for Coke is worth millions (if not billions). You mention protection of investment but the cost of producing and marketing keeps going up. It's like the fallacy that all this technology will make us able to work faster and that will create more leisure time for people. Yeah, that looks good on paper but the fact is we are working longer and harder now than we were 30 years ago and have less buying power to boot.

If you have a problem w/how a company does business boycott them. All pirating does is undercut your position because you can be portrayed as a "thief" and the giant company can be portrayed as the "victim." If I'm sitting in my corner office at Sony and see people pirating my product I'd say to myself, "Okay. They want the content, but because of technology they've found a way to get it w/o paying for it. How do I plug that hole?" Now, if I see people boycotting my product I'd say, "Okay. They aren't buying our product because they're mad at us. How do I get the public to stop being mad and start buying our stuff again?"


Nice posts, BTW, Agathon.


Lethal

[Blue Velvet]

Technological change, along with digital rights management is allowing these people to curtail traditional fair use rights.


Fair use as a term is over-used and often misunderstood to justify acts that are not covered under its legal definition.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[Agathon]

I agree that in some cases protection of IP has gone to far, but that does meant that IP protection itself is inherently flawed.

I don't think I claimed it necessarily was. My claim is that in the current context it is probably in our interest as consumers to test it our way rather than have it chosen for us by politicians who have been bribed by IP holders.

My own view is that current IP laws are anti-consumer and too stringent. Especially since the current trend in media is towards the collaborative model rather than the "artist makes, and we can't change what they give us" model.

There's also various obvious annoyances. We now have the technology to let anyone access any piece of media in a very short time at minimal cost. Yet the selection of what you can get is often awful or locked into MS Windows DRM. It's just not good enough. Illegally copying media is not just people wanting something for free. It is also a sign to media companies to come up with something better. iTunes did this for me. It's simply less hassle to buy a song for a buck than it is to hunt through file sharing sites (and I've spent over a thousand dollars on iTunes since December last year).

The lesson for media companies should be. People want their product. They want it whenever they want, in the format they want, and there is money to be made by doing so. If media companies aren't going to provide this service, or will provide it, but only in a way that customers don't want, is it any wonder that piracy is rampant.

For example. I am prepared to pay quite a large sum of money to be able to download my football (soccer) team's games to my Mac. I support a popular team in the English League, and I know that this is a viable commercial proposition. In most cases I won't get to see most of the games, even if I pay for the best cable service available in my country. Could you blame me for resorting to Bittorrent in this instance? It's not that people won't pay. It's that the idiots who are running the show are so conservative and stupid that they would rather put their own potential customers to all sorts of trouble, merely because we want to consume their product.

I see piracy as leverage to get these clowns to start actually providing services that people want. If they won't, then I hope the pirates put them out of business until they are replaced by companies that know what they are doing.

And if I do manage to buy their products, I am often greeted with an advert that I can't fast foward, that tells me in loud and obnoxious tones (or in languages I can't read) not to steal a product that I just bought!!!! ARRGGGGHHH!!!

And just because something isn't physical property doesn't mean it's worth less than something that is. In many cases it's worth more. I mean, a bottle of Coke is worth a buck but the formula for Coke is worth millions (if not billions).

Sure. I don't have any real disagreement with that.

You mention protection of investment but the cost of producing and marketing keeps going up.

Perhaps, but how much of this is due to the virtual oligopoly of the major labels?

It's like the fallacy that all this technology will make us able to work faster and that will create more leisure time for people. Yeah, that looks good on paper but the fact is we are working longer and harder now than we were 30 years ago and have less buying power to boot.

I don't think it is quite the same. The barriers to entry are now much lower than they ever were. I'm not talking about the ordinary Joe, but about the enthusiast who would raise a few thousand dollars to cut his own album.

If you have a problem w/how a company does business boycott them.

That's less leverage. They don't have to spend money and time in futile persecution of boycotters.

All pirating does is undercut your position because you can be portrayed as a "thief" and the giant company can be portrayed as the "victim."

And the opposite is also true. Look at the pirate bay.

If I'm sitting in my corner office at Sony and see people pirating my product I'd say to myself, "Okay. They want the content, but because of technology they've found a way to get it w/o paying for it. How do I plug that hole?"

See. This is what I can't stand. They should be thinking: "How can I get out a better product to compete with the pirates. A product that is so much easier to access that potential pirates with money will just plunk down a few bucks, rather than fiddling with torrent trackers.

iTunes did this. It's now the third biggest music store in the US, and it has much more potential.

Now, if I see people boycotting my product I'd say, "Okay. They aren't buying our product because they're mad at us. How do I get the public to stop being mad and start buying our stuff again?"

The problem with that is that boycotts really don't work very well. They require vast amounts of co-ordination and self restraint on the part of the boycotters, and the usual response to boycotted parties is to bribe some of the boycotters with price cuts and destroy the solidarity of the boycott. Then things go back to where they were.

The genius of pirate civil disobedience is that it is in the self interest of individuals and it can't be bought off without more radical change. You don't have to bribe many boycotters to break the solidarity of a boycott. You do have to do a lot more work to persuade every individual that giving up free media is in their interests.

Nice posts, BTW, Agathon.

Cheers. Thanks for the response.

[LethalWolfe]

I don't think I claimed it necessarily was. My claim is that in the current context it is probably in our interest as consumers to test it our way rather than have it chosen for us by politicians who have been bribed by IP holders.
Unfortunately consumers will pull the pendulum too far in the opposite direction if it's just left up to them.


There's also various obvious annoyances. We now have the technology to let anyone access any piece of media in a very short time at minimal cost. Yet the selection of what you can get is often awful or locked into MS Windows DRM. It's just not good enough. Illegally copying media is not just people wanting something for free. It is also a sign to media companies to come up with something better. iTunes did this for me. It's simply less hassle to buy a song for a buck than it is to hunt through file sharing sites (and I've spent over a thousand dollars on iTunes since December last year).

The lesson for media companies should be. People want their product. They want it whenever they want, in the format they want, and there is money to be made by doing so. If media companies aren't going to provide this service, or will provide it, but only in a way that customers don't want, is it any wonder that piracy is rampant.

For example. I am prepared to pay quite a large sum of money to be able to download my football (soccer) team's games to my Mac. I support a popular team in the English League, and I know that this is a viable commercial proposition. In most cases I won't get to see most of the games, even if I pay for the best cable service available in my country. Could you blame me for resorting to Bittorrent in this instance? It's not that people won't pay. It's that the idiots who are running the show are so conservative and stupid that they would rather put their own potential customers to all sorts of trouble, merely because we want to consume their product.

Part of the problem is that the technology is growing faster than the business models the large media companies are built on. It's only natural that if you are running a multibillion dollar company you aren't going to to turn change how the company works at the drop of a hat. It takes time for these things to happen and the growing pains aren't pretty (as we are seeing now).


Perhaps, but how much of this is due to the virtual oligopoly of the major labels?

Not very much, IMO. If you look at other forms of popular entertainment (everything from movies to video games) the budgets just keep getting larger and larger, even though the chance for a successful return-on-investment keeps shrinking because people have so many entertainment options these days.


I don't think it is quite the same. The barriers to entry are now much lower than they ever were. I'm not talking about the ordinary Joe, but about the enthusiast who would raise a few thousand dollars to cut his own album.
The lower cost of technology is a double edged sword and becomes less important the higher up you get on the production food chain. For example, Walter Murch (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004555/) makes a helluva lot more money than I do even though we both use FCP. IMO the lowering of the bar helps as much as it hinders. Yes, you can now make your own record or movie on the cheap, but so can millions of other people. Something like 60,000 videos a day are uploaded onto YouTube so how do you make yours stick out? Production value? Quality of content? Marketing/advertising? All those things cost money far above and beyond the cost of entry level gear. Marketing/advertising alone on a typical album can easily cost a few million dollars.



That's less leverage. They don't have to spend money and time in futile persecution of boycotters.
How many of those costs are passed onto the consumer though?



See. This is what I can't stand. They should be thinking: "How can I get out a better product to compete with the pirates. A product that is so much easier to access that potential pirates with money will just plunk down a few bucks, rather than fiddling with torrent trackers.

I don't think that's a very likely first reaction though. I mean, if you make widgets and sell them for $1.00 and Bob across the street steals your widget design and starts giving the exact same thing away for free is your first reaction going to be, "Damn, how do I come up w/a better widget that will let me out sell Bob" or is it "Damn, how the hell do I stop Bob from stealing my widget designs and giving them away for free?"

Of course companies that have to bear the brunt of R&D costs (or in the case of music labels the costs of making an album such as recording, marketing, distribution, music videos, touring, etc.,) are going to freak out when someone violates their IP and under cuts them in the market place. What really scares the ***** out of content creators is a situation like China and it's lack of IP protection. One of the biggest revenue streams in the US (DVD distribution rights) is worthless in China because of the wide spread pirating there. All you need is one guy whispering in a boardroom "What if that happened here..." and *bam* you have lawsuits taking down Granny who can barely send e-mail let alone know what MP3s are. It's not rational, it doesn't help the situation, but I understand the underlying motivation and fear.

If a big ass bear is blocking your path you can lure him away w/food or poke him w/a stick, as both will get him to move, but one way might have an unpleasant side effect that the other does not. ;)


The problem with that is that boycotts really don't work very well. They require vast amounts of co-ordination and self restraint on the part of the boycotters, and the usual response to boycotted parties is to bribe some of the boycotters with price cuts and destroy the solidarity of the boycott. Then things go back to where they were.
Boycotts can work very well, but like you said it requires the boycotters to have a little bit of discipline which is too much work for most "pirates" because, honestly, they don't care about instigating change or artists rights they just want free *****.


Lethal

[Dybbuk]

Yes.

However, many of the artists I listen to are foreign artists who do not release CD's here and it is often prohibitively expensive to import them. With that being said, I am attempting to systematically replace my downloaded copies with authentic ones. I've so far managed to do this with half of my library. :)

[Pira C]

I PLEAD THE FIFTH:mad:

[SirCrumpet]

I used to, but since the iTMS was released in australia i've used that for all my music.

For me, its a hell of a lot easier to download music from itunes than to aquire it illegally, so thats what I do.

All I need now is for iTunes to release their movie store in australia...

[Cassie]

I do it sometimes. I make a list of songs I want during the month, and at the end of the month I count up all the change I have on me and buy songs. Most of the time, I don't have enough and I'll pirate it (Usually just two or three songs)

Although I did pay $22 for Audio Hijack....:rolleyes:

[halfgoon]

Nup.

Well, I used to. I'd borrow heaps of CDs from the library (my library has an awesome CD collection) and rip them into iTunes. That was in 2005.

Since then, either that music's disappeared because I didn't like it, or I've gone and bought my own copies. I even sent an email to Belle & Sebastian in which I apologised for ripping their albums and that I'd now bought them. Their response was positive.:)

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter whether it's an independent band trying to make a name for themselves, or a big-name 'Radiohead'-type band. It's still depriving the artists of their rightful income. They wrote, performed and recorded their music, and deserve to be paid for that work.

I really don't care how much the record companies are making off the artists. An album/single sale is still a sale, and it still puts money into the artists' pocket, however much that may be.

I've also found that people often say 'well, what's one less album sale going to matter? It's only a dollar or so. It doesn't matter.' The problem with this is that this sort of mentality means that it's not just one dollar. It's ten/one hundred/one thousand dollars. Because there's not just one person justifying it this way. It's a lot more. That's why it's hurting so many artists. And I don't believe that's right at all.

I completely understand why people hate the record companies. I don't much like how they've treated some of my favourite bands. One in particular (SonyBMG) has a habit of kicking out well established and incredibly talented artists in favour of the shiniest new thing, purely because they'll bring in a few hundred thousand quick sales. I don't think that's any way to treat people. Especially when the 'shiniest new thing' is a one-hit wonder, and is dropped after their hastily cobbled-together album flops. Nobody's a winner, in that regard. And it's because of the company's mad grab for cash.

But then, pirating music in response to their actions isn't going to help anyone, either. Sure, they're not going to get your hard-earned cash, but neither is the artist, and the record company might drop them from the roster due to poor sales.

Going independent may mean the artist gets more money from their music, but that's not the be-all and end-all. Without the support from record companies, many bands find it incredibly hard to even get their stuff recorded, let alone released and put out there. Hell, one of my favourite artists, Spod, has been working for a few years now on his new album, scheduled for independent release this year. But just last month he lost everything due to a massive computer meltdown, and had to ask for donations from fans to be able to afford some new hardware and to re-record everything he lost. Were he with a record company, he'd most likely not had to go through that. The same thing happened with another band, The Red Paintings. They needed money to get their album recorded, and the only way to get that money (outside touring) was to go direct to the fans and say 'We need money to record. If you donate money, you'll get a CD when it's done'.

So yeah, I think what I'm trying to say is that pirating music is hurting the people whose work you're enjoying. If that's not a disincentive to make music, I don't know what is.:(

[Poopface Morty]

What do you guys think about situations like with NIN and in Australia, where their latest CD was priced 10 dollars more than the other current releases (theirs was like ten bucks more than Avril Lavigne's, which came out the same day)? When the label was confronted by Reznor about it, they first dodged it and said 'because of the packaging', which Reznor knows how much is lost due to packaging, and it wasn't that. Then they admitted "oh, well, you're right, it doesn't. Basically it's because we know you've got a core audience that's gonna buy whatever we put out, so we can charge more for that. It's the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy it. True fans will pay whatever"

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21741980-5006024,00.html

I mean, I have purchased all of my music, never pirated anything, but when I find out that the publisher/record label is performing practices like this, doesn't it piss you off something fierce?

[halfgoon]

I thought it was quite low, how they overpriced Year Zero like that. I'm not a big NIN fan, but I did buy the album because what I'd heard of it sounded quite interesting. I think I paid $28 for it. Usually I pay between $17-$21 per album.

They know that Reznor's got a loyal core audience, and they capitalised on it quite well. On a purely financial level, it was a fantastic move on the label's part. But for the fans, and Reznor, it was an insult.

The labels know that it's harder to get the casual pop listeners to purchase an album. From what I can tell, it's all about the singles. That's what they base their success on, and that's why so many good bands lose out - they sell albums, not singles. So they price an album like Avril Lavigne at $18, so it's like an impulse purchase, or something you'd get someone as an inexpensive gift because you know they like that one song. It's aggressive pricing and it seems to work. You know, the old 'make up for it in volume' thing.

But pricing an album higher just because they know that fans will buy it no matter what is just plain wrong. Despite what I said the other night (couple of posts up), seeing as Reznor seems to have told his fans to download his music, they're one band I probably would download. Just like the Brian Jonestown Massacre, who put all their albums up on their website for free download.

[jpmittins]

I have two file formats on my iPod; AAC and MPEG. The AAC songs are all imported from CD (though not all of the CD's were mine; some were the library's or just CD's burned from my sister, who I taught to pirate music). The MPEG are all pirated. I think MPEG outweighs AAC. I don't do it as much now, and now that I have a bank account I will probably set up an iTunes linked to PayPal so I can get really hard to find music easily.

P.S. Woo! 100th post! That was fast (and no, that's not what she said, for those interested).

[Gray-Wolf]

Why people glorify pirating, I will never understand.

[jpmittins]

Why people glorify pirating, I will never understand.

If a friend has a CD you really like, have you ever asked him/her for a burned copy of it? P2P in my eyes is essentially the same principle, just on a much larger, digital, and anonymous scale. I'm not glorifying piracy, I'm just explaining the mentality behind it. However, I know that it's money not getting to the artists, who IMO should get more of a cut of their own record sales. On the other hand, downloading is great for finding music that is obscure and hard to find in stores or on online music stores.

[Gray-Wolf]

If a friend has a CD you really like, have you ever asked him/her for a burned copy of it? P2P in my eyes is essentially the same principle, just on a much larger, digital, and anonymous scale. I'm not glorifying piracy, I'm just explaining the mentality behind it. However, I know that it's money not getting to the artists, who IMO should get more of a cut of their own record sales. On the other hand, downloading is great for finding music that is obscure and hard to find in stores or on online music stores.

If I have a friend who has a CD I like, I borrow it and listen to it. If I like it enough, I buy my own. These days, that involves iTunes rather than the physical disk. If I don't like it enough, I just give it back to him.

I prefer to own my on things.

[Mr. lax]

No

Its perfectly legal to download music for personal use here in Canada.

REALLY?? As a canadian resident i find that really hard to believe.

[jpmittins]

If I have a friend who has a CD I like, I borrow it and listen to it. If I like it enough, I buy my own. These days, that involves iTunes rather than the physical disk. If I don't like it enough, I just give it back to him.

I prefer to own my on things.

Ehh, I've never seen it like that. If it comes to owning my own things, I'll either borrow the CD and make my own copy or rip it onto my computer. If I really like the CD, I'll try to find a copy I can buy; if I'm going to buy something, I'd rather it be a CD; unfortunately, most music I listen to is very hard to find in American shops and I can't always order something off the internet.

[Gray-Wolf]

Lax, his post is rather old. Sep 23, 2007, 07:28 PM :D

[Galley]

A few years ago I ripped a few dozen of my friend's CDs. I later deleted those tracks, and purchased every single one of the CDs.

[Gray-Wolf]

Supporting the artist is the right thing to do. They have to earn a living like anyone else does. And I want them to keep making the music I love. :apple:

[penter]

Originally Posted by iBookG4user
Nope, my dad and I have the same music tastes and he likes to buy CDs, so I just rip his CDs to my computer.

Which is technically pirating music.

If that is the case, then you are saying that technically Apple does not only OPENLY supports the pirating of music, but AIDS US in the process by making easy-to-use "pirating" software (i.e. iTunes).

[iJon]

If I bought all the music I listen to I'd be broke instantly. On the flip side though I spend a great deal of my paycheck every month on live music and I do drive/fly great distances to see my favorite artists. Many of my favorite artists I have seen many times and I'm sure they would rather have my concert money than CD money.

jon

[penter]

I think that this quote by Duff-Man is the basis of all the anti-Copyright Infringement supporters:

Duff-Man says...so essentially what you says is - better the people creating the music you love go into debt than you.


Duff man needs a better argument...

I Agree.
Give me a break, Duff-Man, do you really believe that these artists will really go into debt? Musicians nowadays go into the business well aware of this issue.
I believe Agathon to have the stongest stance on this argument

Things like books and recorded music used to be much more expensive to make and distribute, and hence some form of protection for investments was necessary to encourage people to take the risk in the first place. It's not clear that this still applies in many areas of human endeavour.



To cap it all off, another quote by Agathon:


Thus, if we want more consumer friendly laws, our only real option is civil disobedience. It's not like we can afford to bribe politicians like content corporations do. I don't see why consumers should stand idly by while Sony, Universal et al dictate to us.

[nomar383]

I've honestly gotten too lazy to fire up BitTorrent lately. I usually only want a song or two and I know the iTMS will tag everything up perfectly. And when I do BitTorrent an album, I almost always support the artist by buying it later (That is, if it's any good).

[jpmittins]

I've honestly gotten too lazy to fire up BitTorrent lately. I usually only want a song or two and I know the iTMS will tag everything up perfectly. And when I do BitTorrent an album, I almost always support the artist by buying it later (That is, if it's any good).

See, this is the kind of thing that bothers me. To me, this just sounds hypocritical; sure, if you like the album you've torrented, you go ahead and buy it. But say you torrent an album that you listen to a few times and realize you hate it. Chances are, you probably delete it. Do you pay for it? If not, that's still stealing. Stealing is always stealing, whether you like what you've taken or not.
I know that sounds weird coming from me (someone who is vastly in favor of torrented music). My point was just made to all those who pay for "what they like" so therefore they're not stealing. They way I see it, if you're going to pay for what you've downloaded to counteract what you've downloaded, be prepared to pay for it all, otherwise you're no better than someone who doesn't pay for any of it.

[nomar383]

See, this is the kind of thing that bothers me. To me, this just sounds hypocritical; sure, if you like the album you've torrented, you go ahead and buy it. But say you torrent an album that you listen to a few times and realize you hate it. Chances are, you probably delete it. Do you pay for it? If not, that's still stealing. Stealing is always stealing, whether you like what you've taken or not.
I know that sounds weird coming from me (someone who is vastly in favor of torrented music). My point was just made to all those who pay for "what they like" so therefore they're not stealing. They way I see it, if you're going to pay for what you've downloaded to counteract what you've downloaded, be prepared to pay for it all, otherwise you're no better than someone who doesn't pay for any of it.

I completely agree with your logic

[benzslrpee]

sure do. why not? cause it's "illegal"? kinda like how the Louis Vuittons that "fell off the truck" are illegal right? so why don't Coach/LV/Burberry/Prada create their own little legal group and hound every girl from 12-35 that currently sports a knockoff or look-a-like?

the music and movie industry need to get their heads out of their asses, if they produce something, expect it to get pirated or copied. yeah i know it's not legally correct but then reality isn't always legal is it? the only difference is that if it's good enough then people will actually want to pay for it because...well...it's that damned good.

take the Dark Knight movie for example, half the torrent sites i'm on have people constantly raving how badass the movie was and how they are going to see it in the theatre again. oh, and wait for the good part...many of them are actually wanting to BUY the dvd once it's released.

*gasp* OMG?!

same with Iron Man, Hulk, and other movies/music that are actually have decent story lines and not the stupid, flavor of the minute, polished turds that features Will Ferell or what not.

same with how Pixar can keep coming up with smash hits. it's to the point where if it has the Pixar logo on it people automatically know it will be good.

same with how Apple/LV/Burberry/Zegna/Canali/Brioni still have droves of Yuppies/Dink's (dual-income-no-kids) flocking to their stores to buy the real stuff even though there are knock off's to be had.

same with how people in China prefer Sony/Toshiba/Panasonic/Apple brand electronics over their own cheapo knock-offs.

you create a popular product then expect it to get copied. you create a popular crappy product then expect people to want to get it for free instead of forking over there cash.

[angelneo]

Actually I agreed with Agathon on most points. The thing is that music industry needs to evolve as our technology improves, they need to look at piracy and ask themselves, "why is piracy so popular?", if you just keep looking at the fact that it is free, then check out the points benzslrpee made (not suggesting that I agreed with him).

Most big companies hate changes and they resist it until it becomes too overwhelming

[LethalWolfe]

sure do. why not? cause it's "illegal"? kinda like how the Louis Vuittons that "fell off the truck" are illegal right? so why don't Coach/LV/Burberry/Prada create their own little legal group and hound every girl from 12-35 that currently sports a knockoff or look-a-like?

What makes you so sure they don't have their own people, as well as government agents, trying to stop counterfeiters?

Pssst... Wanna Buy Some Clubs? (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,464468-1,00.html) is a Time magazine article about counterfeiting centered around the golf industry.
Forget Prada, Burberry, Louis Vuitton -- Counterfeiters Go After Toothpaste (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/Story?id=3283736&page=1) is and ABC News article mentioning counterfeit toothpaste made w/toxic chemicals.
Warren Pair Admit Trafficking in Counterfeit DVDs (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/olivieraPlea.htm) is a brief DoJ statement regarding the arrest of some counterfeiters.
The Counterfeiting Paradox (http://www.atkearney.cz/shared_res/pdf/Counterfeiting_Paradox.pdf) talks about the $500 billion counterfeiting industry in China.
U.S. Readies Sanctions In China Trade Dispute (http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/05/15/target.t_0.php) is an article from '96 and talks about possible sanctions against China because of the rampant piracy there.

Most of the people and organizations fighting piracy and counterfeiting aren't as ham-fisted as the RIAA so they tend not to get the memorable headlines. ;)


Actually I agreed with Agathon on most points. The thing is that music industry needs to evolve as our technology improves, they need to look at piracy and ask themselves, "why is piracy so popular?", if you just keep looking at the fact that it is free, then check out the points benzslrpee made (not suggesting that I agreed with him).

The industry is evolving, but like I said in a previous post changes take time (years, not days or months). You don't take a giant corporation and rush headlong into uncharted territory of a completely new business model. And I can't exactly blame them that much considering the 'first steps' by bands like Radiohead and NIN have pretty much been failures. Cheap, lazy people who value 'free' above all else are making life difficult for the rest of us.


Lethal

[angelneo]

The industry is evolving, but like I said in a previous post changes take time (years, not days or months). You don't take a giant corporation and rush headlong into uncharted territory of a completely new business model. And I can't exactly blame them that much considering the 'first steps' by bands like Radiohead and NIN have pretty much been failures. Cheap, lazy people who value 'free' above all else are making life difficult for the rest of us.


Lethal

Indeed, changes are coming, like I say, they are very resistant to changes. But the thing now is not to change to an entire new business model and there's no need to. All they need to do is to grow another channel of distribution, an extension to what they have now. In fact, with their capability, that would be relatively easy. I think their main grip is that they feel it might cannibalize their current revenue stream, and fearing the new distribution will not provide as much returns as they are receiving now. Another lesser fear is that the new distribution method might render them less attractive to the creatives, if proven successful.

[Mousse]

Odd as this may sound, I've never pirated music.:eek: It's true. It's because it's cheaper to just buy the CD instead of copying/downloading/burning. Most of the music I listen to can be found in the bargain bin for a buck or two.
It's sad to see Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mozart, Bizet, Strauss and so on so neglected that they're regulated to the bargain bin.:( Well, it's good for my wallet.:D

[jpmittins]

I completely agree with your logic

Wait a minute, I just realized that you're agreeing with a point made with the intent of calling you out. So what is it, do you agree with me and pay for everything or are you the kind of person I described?

Odd as this may sound, I've never pirated music.:eek: It's true. It's because it's cheaper to just buy the CD instead of copying/downloading/burning. Most of the music I listen to can be found in the bargain bin for a buck or two.
It's sad to see Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mozart, Bizet, Strauss and so on so neglected that they're regulated to the bargain bin.:( Well, it's good for my wallet.:D

Okay, how can a CD (even in the bargain box) be cheaper than free music from The Pirate Bay?

[nomar383]

Wait a minute, I just realized that you're agreeing with a point made with the intent of calling you out. So what is it, do you agree with me and pay for everything or are you the kind of person I described?



Okay, how can a CD (even in the bargain box) be cheaper than free music from The Pirate Bay?

I agree with your point and realize my justification (along with most for pirating music), is incorrect. It doesn't mean I won't do it, but you are right in what you said

[LethalWolfe]

Indeed, changes are coming, like I say, they are very resistant to changes. But the thing now is not to change to an entire new business model and there's no need to. All they need to do is to grow another channel of distribution, an extension to what they have now. In fact, with their capability, that would be relatively easy. I think their main grip is that they feel it might cannibalize their current revenue stream, and fearing the new distribution will not provide as much returns as they are receiving now. Another lesser fear is that the new distribution method might render them less attractive to the creatives, if proven successful.
Well, yeah, the hurdle isn't "how do we distribute individual songs over the internet." The hurdle is "how do we distribute individual songs over the internet using a viable business model for our company." Putting stuff up on the internet is easy. Successfully monetizing the stuff you put up on the internet is not.


Lethal

[Kilamite]

Tricky one. I just can't afford to buy all the music I love to own - and I see no reason to pay a huge premium price for it. £10 for an album is an absolute rip off.

An artist goes into a recording studio, records music with their talent, doing something they love. This costs money, but I really don't agree with the huge price tag the record labels put on it.

If an artist really cares about their music and making money, they should tour and promote it. That is how I support artists - the ones who actually get off their arse and tour.

I'd happily pay £30 to see my favourite band. Heck, I paid £50 to see Guns N' Roses, worth every penny.

Promote live music for money making, not the high percentage cutting record label b******s.

[iJon]

Tricky one. I just can't afford to buy all the music I love to own - and I see no reason to pay a huge premium price for it. £10 for an album is an absolute rip off.

An artist goes into a recording studio, records music with their talent, doing something they love. This costs money, but I really don't agree with the huge price tag the record labels put on it.

If an artist really cares about their music and making money, they should tour and promote it. That is how I support artists - the ones who actually get off their arse and tour.

I'd happily pay £30 to see my favourite band. Heck, I paid £50 to see Guns N' Roses, worth every penny.

Promote live music for money making, not the high percentage cutting record label b******s.

Yep, I'm in the same boat. I will usually only buy a CD if I can't find it online. If they are good and put on a good live show I'll make a good effort to go see them live.

jon

[northy124]

Yh sure what ever, I get my songs illegally some I buy though.

[LethalWolfe]

Tricky one. I just can't afford to buy all the music I love to own - and I see no reason to pay a huge premium price for it. £10 for an album is an absolute rip off.
What do you think is an appropriate price for the average album and what is your business model to support your suggested price point?


I'd happily pay £30 to see my favourite band. Heck, I paid £50 to see Guns N' Roses, worth every penny.
Please tell me that was the real GN'R from back in the day and not the travesty Axel Rose is peddling now.:p


Lethal

EDIT: You guys do realize that album sales, besides being a source of income, also help determine where bands tour and how much leverage they have when negotiating w/the labels, right?

[Kilamite]

What do you think is an appropriate price for the average album and what is your business model to support your suggested price point?

We no longer live in the era where the internet doesn't exist in nearly every family home in the modern world.

£1.99 for an album. I'd easily pay that, and I'd buy a hell of a lot of albums.

You guys do realize that album sales, besides being a source of income, also help determine where bands tour and how much leverage they have when negotiating w/the labels, right?

As I said, online distribution of music is becoming main stream now - Coldplay's new album featured exclusively on iTunes until it was released in stores. Releasing online means you don't waste money in producing CD's, packaging, moving the CD's around the world etc.

I view a world where music will become online only, and record labels will cease to exist. Instead, like the way the iTunes App Store is evolving, people will put up their music either for free, or for a small fee. It won't happen over night, but it'll happen eventually. If an artist really is that good and become popular, at a price of £1.99 an album, a lot of people who pirate the music will easily buy it instead just for the convenience and getting it at good quality. I know I certainly would. And I'm confident they'd make enough money to earn an average living and be able to gig around the world if they wanted to. That's if they did make it big.


Please tell me that was the real GN'R from back in the day and not the travesty Axel Rose is peddling now.

Unfortunately, being only 20, I wasn't able to see the original band live :p I'm amused by how badly Robin Finck attempted Slash's solo's, but Axl's voice just makes it all worth it. And I quite like their more industrial musical direction - their new songs, especially Madagascar and The Blues are pretty epic tunes I think.

[Xander562]

I first thought his thread was about Pirate Music and if I liked it.... I love pirate music, and this was a let down. :o

[rockosmodurnlif]

See, this is the kind of thing that bothers me. To me, this just sounds hypocritical; sure, if you like the album you've torrented, you go ahead and buy it. But say you torrent an album that you listen to a few times and realize you hate it. Chances are, you probably delete it. Do you pay for it? If not, that's still stealing. Stealing is always stealing, whether you like what you've taken or not.
I know that sounds weird coming from me (someone who is vastly in favor of torrented music). My point was just made to all those who pay for "what they like" so therefore they're not stealing. They way I see it, if you're going to pay for what you've downloaded to counteract what you've downloaded, be prepared to pay for it all, otherwise you're no better than someone who doesn't pay for any of it.
I completely disagree. Downloading a torrent to try out an album is the equivalent of listening to the album in the store and you don't pay to listen to an album in store. It does vary from store to store. There are some stores which use the digital scan and play one or two tracks or samples of tracks and then there are those stores that have the whole CD in a player and you can stand there and listen to the whole album if you wanted.

When I download an album to see if it's crap or not, I'm not then going to then support the artist if I don't like the music, just as I'd walk out of a store or leave a concert if the music being played was awful.

That's the problem with pirating, people assume that if something is pirated that it is something that would have been purchased which then leads to the conclusion that it is stealing. If I download it, listen to it and delete it, it's no worse than listening to a song sample, listening to the radio or visiting the artist's website or Myspace which typically have tracks you can listen to for free.

[Mousse]

Okay, how can a CD (even in the bargain box) be cheaper than free music from The Pirate Bay?

The value of something is more than just the cost. Finding online, then downloading, then burning the music I want would eat up too much of my time. Time I'd rather spend with my family. In monetary terms, a CD cost more than freely downloaded music. In terms of what's important to me (family time), the CD is a better value, therefore cheaper.

[LethalWolfe]

We no longer live in the era where the internet doesn't exist in nearly every family home in the modern world.

£1.99 for an album. I'd easily pay that, and I'd buy a hell of a lot of albums.
And your business model for supporting that price point is...?


As I said, online distribution of music is becoming main stream now - Coldplay's new album featured exclusively on iTunes until it was released in stores. Releasing online means you don't waste money in producing CD's, packaging, moving the CD's around the world etc.
Recording and marketing are by far the two biggest costs of making an album and online distribution doesn't really address either of those issues.


I view a world where music will become online only, and record labels will cease to exist. Instead, like the way the iTunes App Store is evolving, people will put up their music either for free, or for a small fee. It won't happen over night, but it'll happen eventually.
Being part of an avalanche of media isn't really much better than being on the outside of the industry trying to get in and as long as people aren't able to finance their albums, movies, TV shows, books, etc., themselves there will be a need for people w/money (music labels, books publishers, movie studios, TV networks, etc.).


If an artist really is that good and become popular, at a price of £1.99 an album, a lot of people who pirate the music will easily buy it instead just for the convenience and getting it at good quality. I know I certainly would. And I'm confident they'd make enough money to earn an average living and be able to gig around the world if they wanted to. That's if they did make it big.
So far not so good. Radiohead and NIN experiments w/direct sales, from what I've read, aren't encouraging. And that's for two bands w/huge fan bases already. Eventually someone will figure out how to do it (and become a very wealthy individual) but until that day comes I don't expect large corporations to chose to be the canary in the coal mine.


Unfortunately, being only 20, I wasn't able to see the original band live :p I'm amused by how badly Robin Finck attempted Slash's solo's, but Axl's voice just makes it all worth it. And I quite like their more industrial musical direction - their new songs, especially Madagascar and The Blues are pretty epic tunes I think.
My first concert was GN'R and Metallica back in '92. I was in middle school and it completely blew my mind.


Lethal

[Xander562]

Sorry but I couldn't resist. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVXCr6upWUo) I hope this hasn't been posted in the thread already.

[jpmittins]

I completely disagree. Downloading a torrent to try out an album is the equivalent of listening to the album in the store and you don't pay to listen to an album in store. It does vary from store to store. There are some stores which use the digital scan and play one or two tracks or samples of tracks and then there are those stores that have the whole CD in a player and you can stand there and listen to the whole album if you wanted.

When I download an album to see if it's crap or not, I'm not then going to then support the artist if I don't like the music, just as I'd walk out of a store or leave a concert if the music being played was awful.

That's the problem with pirating, people assume that if something is pirated that it is something that would have been purchased which then leads to the conclusion that it is stealing. If I download it, listen to it and delete it, it's no worse than listening to a song sample, listening to the radio or visiting the artist's website or Myspace which typically have tracks you can listen to for free.

Downloading something for free is nothing like listening to something in stores to see if you like it. In stores, you can only listen to as much as the machines allow, for as long as the other customers allow, and you walk away without owning the music. If you download something, you have the music for as long as you want to test it on your computer. You could listen to it for 3 weeks before you realize you don't like it, at which point you throw it away, not paying for it. But since you didn't like it, it's okay you didn't pay for it. It's a cross between test-driving a car and rape. You test it out to see how it is and when you realize you don't like it you throw it away without looking back (weird simile, I know, but I have to make my brain start to work again and similes are a fun way for me to do that). The way I see it, if you're going to say you don't really pirate because you pay for everything that you think is good, then you damn well better pay for all of it, otherwise you're no better than the rest of us low-life music pirates.

[nomar383]

Downloading something for free is nothing like listening to something in stores to see if you like it. In stores, you can only listen to as much as the machines allow, for as long as the other customers allow, and you walk away without owning the music. If you download something, you have the music for as long as you want to test it on your computer. You could listen to it for 3 weeks before you realize you don't like it, at which point you throw it away, not paying for it. But since you didn't like it, it's okay you didn't pay for it. It's a cross between test-driving a car and rape. You test it out to see how it is and when you realize you don't like it you throw it away without looking back (weird simile, I know, but I have to make my brain start to work again and similes are a fun way for me to do that). The way I see it, if you're going to say you don't really pirate because you pay for everything that you think is good, then you damn well better pay for all of it, otherwise you're no better than the rest of us low-life music pirates.

Argh!

[queshy]

As SJ once said...a movie you will watch once, maybe twice if it's really good. But you listen to a favorite hundreds if not thousands of times in your lifetime. So what's $1 for a really good song? You can preview it in the iTMS, and even listen to the whole thing on YouTube (in poor quality).

[Xavier]

Generally, I look for the album or song on iTunes first. I will usually buy it.

If I cannot find the album anywhere else than a torrent, I will go ahead and download it.

[rockosmodurnlif]

Downloading something for free is nothing like listening to something in stores to see if you like it. In stores, you can only listen to as much as the machines allow, for as long as the other customers allow, and you walk away without owning the music. If you download something, you have the music for as long as you want to test it on your computer. You could listen to it for 3 weeks before you realize you don't like it, at which point you throw it away, not paying for it. But since you didn't like it, it's okay you didn't pay for it. It's a cross between test-driving a car and rape. You test it out to see how it is and when you realize you don't like it you throw it away without looking back (weird simile, I know, but I have to make my brain start to work again and similes are a fun way for me to do that). The way I see it, if you're going to say you don't really pirate because you pay for everything that you think is good, then you damn well better pay for all of it, otherwise you're no better than the rest of us low-life music pirates.
Test driving a car and rape? I don't even know what you're talking about.

Anyway, using your logic, there is a difference between someone who downloads an album listens to the first three songs, realizes they don't like it and deletes it and someone who listens to it over the course of three weeks. One's a thief and the other one is just doing what they could in the store.

People always bring up this car-driving analogy. They never bring up things you can buy and return if you don't like it, like clothes or electronics. I mean you can buy a TV, set it up, turn it on, use it for a couple days and then decide you don't want it, pack it back up and return it for a full refund.

[LethalWolfe]

I mean you can buy a TV, set it up, turn it on, use it for a couple days and then decide you don't want it, pack it back up and return it for a full refund.
And you used to be able to do that w/music and video/computer games before pirating became so easy and widespread.


Lethal

[Telp]

What are you gonna do? Clone the TV and return the original. This isn't Aqua Teen Hunger Force. But that would be amazing if it was...

[MyDesktopBroke]

I download songs from Ruckus, rip them to iTunes, then buy the songs from iTunes at a later date.

Example: I downloaded some songs by Gaelic Storm from Ruckus. I liked the sound, went to iTunes and bought the songs I'd downloaded, plus more.

I downloaded a cajun song I'd assumed was an instrumental from ruckus. However, it was not an instrumental and had a very strange vocal segment. I deleted the song and did not waste my money on the iTunes store.

I also have ripped the credit music from Dead Man's Chest from the DvD. While this could be illegal, the piece of music is not on the soundtrack and my dad payed for the DvD, so I don't think it's morally wrong.

CHEERS

[c-Row]

See, this is the kind of thing that bothers me. To me, this just sounds hypocritical; sure, if you like the album you've torrented, you go ahead and buy it. But say you torrent an album that you listen to a few times and realize you hate it. Chances are, you probably delete it. Do you pay for it? If not, that's still stealing. Stealing is always stealing, whether you like what you've taken or not.

Some people prefer (pre-)listening to an album in their chosen environment, not via a pair of rubbish headphones in an overcrowded shop, or limited to 30 second low-quality snippets of the most uninteresting part of the song, to decide whether or not it is worth picking up.

The "you are not allowed to download it although you pay for it afterwards" point of view is a bit like not being allowed to test drive a new car before purchase but instead having to watch the sales person do a few rounds on their own premises, and maybe - maybe - being allowed to sit down on the back seat once.

I have listened to CDs in those mentioned not-so-optimal environments, and they sounded good enough to me. Turned out that they were complete junk when I had a listen to them on my home stereo. Another 15 bucks wasted, thanks a lot.

As for the original question - yes, I download albums to properly preview them before getting a physical copy if there is no other way of getting a good (!) idea of what they sound beforehand. And I download tracks which are not available in physical or (legally) digital form, like promo remixes of which only 20 CDRs are in circulation and which will never be available to purchase anyway.


[edit] I see someone else already brought up the test drive analogy...

[angelneo]

If you really apply the "test drive a car" to music downloads, You must add in the part where the salesman actually handed you the keys and trust you to return the car at the end of the day. He/She has no way of getting the car back if you do not return.

I test drive my music as well, but I try it out on iTunes preview, the artists' website, or youtube if there are any available.

[c-Row]

If you really apply the "test drive a car" to music downloads, You must add in the part where the salesman actually handed you the keys and trust you to return the car at the end of the day. He/She has no way of getting the car back if you do not return.

That's a good point indeed. The problem would be that any implemented system that would allow me to listen to an album at home and automatically delete or disable those tracks would be broken in no time, so I doubt this will be coming anytime soon.

[Kilamite]

Recording and marketing are by far the two biggest costs of making an album and online distribution doesn't really address either of those issues.

Depending on what musical genre you are referring to - producing an album is getting very straight forward. Electronica music is really picking up, and to produce this, it does require a lot of time, but ultimately you won't have to go near a recording studio. Home studio's are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and the software is becoming easier and easier to use. I'm not saying this will happen over night, but in the next 10 years or so, I doubt record labels will even exist. As for marketing and advertising, there is a local band come out of Glasgow called Glasvegas. A few of my friends stumbled upon their MySpace and really really liked their songs. As a result, when we saw they were playing a gig in Edinburgh, we all went along and paid £15 on the door. I recently found out that the band are now signed to Columbia Studios with an album coming out in September.

Not saying MySpace will become a mainstream site playing the role of promoting and advertising bands, but something along those lines will flourish in the future.


Being part of an avalanche of media isn't really much better than being on the outside of the industry trying to get in and as long as people aren't able to finance their albums, movies, TV shows, books, etc., themselves there will be a need for people w/money (music labels, books publishers, movie studios, TV networks, etc.).

Again, I'm not talking about what we have today. I'm looking to the future - book publishers and record labels are hard copy producers. With everything becoming electronic, there won't be a need to use either of these. As for Movie studios and TV networks - I'd put them in a different category from pirating music.


So far not so good. Radiohead and NIN experiments w/direct sales, from what I've read, aren't encouraging. And that's for two bands w/huge fan bases already. Eventually someone will figure out how to do it (and become a very wealthy individual) but until that day comes I don't expect large corporations to chose to be the canary in the coal mine.

But that is two bands who experimented with the idea. I'm confident it won't be the last we hear of this idea either.


My first concert was GN'R and Metallica back in '92. I was in middle school and it completely blew my mind.

Awesome! I would love to have seen the original band in their prime. And 1992 was when they were at their peak. Was that one of the concerts where big fights broke out between GN'R fans and Metallica fans?

[mrwizardno2]

I am guilty of downloading music from places that aren't "legal" but usually if I like it enough, I will go buy the CD so I can rip it at a decent quality... and also support the artist. There are certain artists I will buy their stuff without hearing first because I've loved everything else they've done. That's only a small handful though.

The other cheap trick I have is just buying the used CD's off Amazon. You can't beat the price. Everyone wins.

I really wish everyone did the NIN / Radiohead thing and distributed their own music. I'd feel a lot better about paying them the money than giving it to the recording industry punks.

[c-Row]

The other cheap trick I have is just buying the used CD's off Amazon. You can't beat the price. Everyone wins.

Record labels think otherwise.

[mrwizardno2]

Record labels think otherwise.

Let them. They're a bunch of greedy b*st*rds. I'd rather burn my money than give it to them.

[gorilly]

i've worked in the music industry... i d/led for a few years...

now i can afford to buy i do via itunes... in the past i d/led because i was a poor student.

and i can honestly say... album sales is not where the majority of money is made. promotions, live shows, merch, appearances are where the money is made.

when record companies / stores stop being so greedy they will sell more.

lets face it

in the uk if a cd is £13 (yes thats $25) your not going to buy it, you'll download it.

when its more like £4-6 ($ to $12) you will buy.

they are slowly learning- its their own fault, you cant blame the d/lers.. before we downloaded everyone i knew had thousands of D90 tapes. its nothing new


dont listen the the blanket lying being made public in the press... its all BS

[LethalWolfe]

Depending on what musical genre you are referring to - producing an album is getting very straight forward. Electronica music is really picking up, and to produce this, it does require a lot of time, but ultimately you won't have to go near a recording studio. Home studio's are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and the software is becoming easier and easier to use.
Specifics man, specifics. You said 1.99 was a fair price for an album and I'm just wanting to know how 1.99 per album covers all the costs associated w/recording, marketing, and distributing an album. Gear is cheap, the expensive part is the human talent. The lower cost of entry (cheaper gear) hasn't really eliminated any road blocks it's just changed where the road block is. It's easier to produce something, but it's harder to get noticed because it so much easier to produce something. For example, it's harder to get into Sundance Film Festival now than it was 10 years ago even though the minimum cost to make a movie is much cheaper now than it was 10 years.

I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything but it's become a pet peeve to hear people say 'just make it and sell it on the internet' like it's as easy as posting a video on YouTube or something. For the past two years I've been involved w/an independent documentary and I've been paying close attention to industry trends regarding the internet and how best we can leverage the internet to promote, and hopefully ultimate sell, our doc and it's not really a pretty picture. There's tons of speculation, tons of failures, but just enough success stories, or quasi-success stories, to keep people hoping that the light at end of the tunnel is just around the corner.


I'm not saying this will happen over night, but in the next 10 years or so, I doubt record labels will even exist. As for marketing and advertising, there is a local band come out of Glasgow called Glasvegas. A few of my friends stumbled upon their MySpace and really really liked their songs. As a result, when we saw they were playing a gig in Edinburgh, we all went along and paid £15 on the door. I recently found out that the band are now signed to Columbia Studios with an album coming out in September.
If you get a chance to see Glasvegas again maybe you could ask them why they chose to sign w/a major label instead of financing everything themselves and selling their songs directly via their website.

Again, I'm not talking about what we have today. I'm looking to the future - book publishers and record labels are hard copy producers. With everything becoming electronic, there won't be a need to use either of these. As for Movie studios and TV networks - I'd put them in a different category from pirating music.
Book publishers and record labels advance money to artists so those artists can produce works that the publishers can then sell. When there comes a day that everyone can self-finance their own stuff then that'll be the day that labels and the like will no longer be needed.

Back in '98 or '99 I first started hearing about how the internet is going to kill the labels and bands are just going to start selling songs from their websites. Well, it's 10 years later, the majors still exist, and I'm not seeing a plethora of bands self-distributing on line so just put me in the "I believe it when I see it" camp.;)

But that is two bands who experimented with the idea. I'm confident it won't be the last we hear of this idea either.
Oh yeah, people will keep trying until someone figures it out. I'm just saying that no one has figured it out yet so don't expect a large corporation to risk everything on an unproven business model. I just don't think that's very realistic.


Awesome! I would love to have seen the original band in their prime. And 1992 was when they were at their peak. Was that one of the concerts where big fights broke out between GN'R fans and Metallica fans?
I didn't see any fights, but the 90min set change did kinda suck. W/that being said though both bands played 2.5-3hr sets it was definitely worth it. This was the tour that James got caught in a pyro blast in Toronto and Axel later threw a hissy fit and walked off stage resulting in a huge riot by the fans.


Lethal

[mpw]

...they are slowly learning- its their own fault, you cant blame the d/lers....
Yes you can, they're thieves.

You think that if enough people stole Aston Martins they'd drop the price?

[jpmittins]

Depending on what musical genre you are referring to - producing an album is getting very straight forward. Electronica music is really picking up, and to produce this, it does require a lot of time, but ultimately you won't have to go near a recording studio. Home studio's are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and the software is becoming easier and easier to use. I'm not saying this will happen over night, but in the next 10 years or so, I doubt record labels will even exist.

Excuse you? Have you ever heard good (and I mean good electronic, not that $h!t they play in clubs? I bring Simon Postford as my example, a giant in the electronic music industry. He has done dozens of different band projects, started the one-man-group known as Hallucinogen, and my favorite, runs Shpongle with Raja Ram. Shpongle, first of all, incorporates live instruments into their music; I would imagine that they would need a studio for they superbly clear sound the produce. Ever heard Hallucinogen? Amazing quality sound, clear, layered, rich, impossible to produce without real technology. In fact, I once read an interview with Postford and Benji Vaughn (who alone is Prometheus and with Postford is Younger Brother) in which they both stated that anyone with some money can go and buy recording software and use the loops to make electronic music. But for the real art that they produce, they both prefer to have a retro mixing board and all sorts of physical equipment-all of which necessitates a studio. Be narrow minded if you want, but good electronic music (and it really can be music) is mind blowing; there's nothing like it. If you want, I can PM you links to download it from The Pirate Bay. Or, you can download all of Shpongle's albums, Prometheus's albums, Younger Brother's albums, and almost all of Hallucinogen's albums (but if you want the last song on the first album, you'll either have to travel to The Pirate Bay or pay 10 pounds for one song from the Twisted [record label] site.

Yes, this post does seem a little malicious, I just really hate it when people insult music that doesn't deserve it; like the music that people work damn hard on to make. FYI; it took three years to make the third Shpongle album, and four to make the second Younger Brother and Prometheus albums. That's how much work goes into them.

[iJon]

Excuse you? Have you ever heard good (and I mean good electronic, not that $h!t they play in clubs? I bring Simon Postford as my example, a giant in the electronic music industry. He has done dozens of different band projects, started the one-man-group known as Hallucinogen, and my favorite, runs Shpongle with Raja Ram. Shpongle, first of all, incorporates live instruments into their music; I would imagine that they would need a studio for they superbly clear sound the produce. Ever heard Hallucinogen? Amazing quality sound, clear, layered, rich, impossible to produce without real technology. In fact, I once read an interview with Postford and Benji Vaughn (who alone is Prometheus and with Postford is Younger Brother) in which they both stated that anyone with some money can go and buy recording software and use the loops to make electronic music. But for the real art that they produce, they both prefer to have a retro mixing board and all sorts of physical equipment-all of which necessitates a studio. Be narrow minded if you want, but good electronic music (and it really can be music) is mind blowing; there's nothing like it. If you want, I can PM you links to download it from The Pirate Bay. Or, you can download all of Shpongle's albums, Prometheus's albums, Younger Brother's albums, and almost all of Hallucinogen's albums (but if you want the last song on the first album, you'll either have to travel to The Pirate Bay or pay 10 pounds for one song from the Twisted [record label] site.

Yes, this post does seem a little malicious, I just really hate it when people insult music that doesn't deserve it; like the music that people work damn hard on to make. FYI; it took three years to make the third Shpongle album, and four to make the second Younger Brother and Prometheus albums. That's how much work goes into them.

Agreed. Twisted Records is some fine music and stands out from the rest of the electronic crowd. I've pirated almost all my Twisted Records but on the flip side I've paid and seen:

Shpongle - 2x
Prometheus
Younger Brother
Hallucinogen
Ott - later this winter

By the way, you sound like someone who went to Camp Bisco.

jon

[jpmittins]

Agreed. Twisted Records is some fine music and stands out from the rest of the electronic crowd. I've pirated almost all my Twisted Records but on the flip side I've paid and seen:

Shpongle - 2x
Prometheus
Younger Brother
Hallucinogen
Ott - later this winter

By the way, you sound like someone who went to Camp Bisco.

jon

Awesome! Someone else who loves Twisted! Plus, you've been to some of their shows. What was Shpongle/Hallucinogen like? I would imagine them to be the most intense ones to go too, then Ott, and Prometheus would tie with Younger Brother (but if Benji played a bunch of stuff from Corridor of Mirrors, it might even could rival Hallucinogen!). Really, I do want to buy the CD's, just to have physical versions of them (plus the inside CD stuff is great, I've seen pictures on Discogs). I just don't want to pay that much for them right now, maybe in a few years. Funny story though; I would have bought Skylon, except that I found a torrent of it a few days after it came out; I later found out the torrent had actually come out before the album had. And no, I've never been to Camp Bisco, I don't think a 16-year-old could get in, nor would my parents let me. Still, that would be something to look forward to for my 18th birthday; Shpongle, DJ Shadow, Younger Brother and more live in an outdoor festival. Sweet.

[Kilamite]

Yes, this post does seem a little malicious, I just really hate it when people insult music that doesn't deserve it; like the music that people work damn hard on to make. FYI; it took three years to make the third Shpongle album, and four to make the second Younger Brother and Prometheus albums. That's how much work goes into them.

I understand what you are saying - but my post was referring to previous posts, where I was talking about how I saw music production in the next 10 years. That's what I meant by saying 'ultimately not going near a recording studio'.

[iJon]

Awesome! Someone else who loves Twisted! Plus, you've been to some of their shows. What was Shpongle/Hallucinogen like? I would imagine them to be the most intense ones to go too, then Ott, and Prometheus would tie with Younger Brother (but if Benji played a bunch of stuff from Corridor of Mirrors, it might even could rival Hallucinogen!). Really, I do want to buy the CD's, just to have physical versions of them (plus the inside CD stuff is great, I've seen pictures on Discogs). I just don't want to pay that much for them right now, maybe in a few years. Funny story though; I would have bought Skylon, except that I found a torrent of it a few days after it came out; I later found out the torrent had actually come out before the album had. And no, I've never been to Camp Bisco, I don't think a 16-year-old could get in, nor would my parents let me. Still, that would be something to look forward to for my 18th birthday; Shpongle, DJ Shadow, Younger Brother and more live in an outdoor festival. Sweet.

Shpongle was pretty good. It's just Simon though doing DJ sets which isn't too exciting. The Live Shpongle show in London this Halloween is where I really want to be at and I'll probably shed a tear on that night knowing that it's going on without me.

Hallucinogen Live is excellent. To hear Simon mix what he does is truly an amazing experience.

Prometheus was very good to listen to but it was still a DJ set, just listening to him swap CD's is okay but not as good as a Live PA.

I do look forward to seeing Ott this winter. He will be playing with the Disco Biscuits in NYC near New Years.

I love Younger Brother but their recent tour was with a Live band so it wasn't much of a psytrance event but more of a all around musical performance. Very good performance though.

By the way, they don't check ages at Camp Bisco and your only 4 hours away. If you want to see your Twisted pals then Camp Bisco is the ticket for you.

jon

[jpmittins]

I understand what you are saying - but my post was referring to previous posts, where I was talking about how I saw music production in the next 10 years. That's what I meant by saying 'ultimately not going near a recording studio'.

Sorry, I thought you meant to produce electronic did not necessitate the use of good recording equipment and that anyone with half a brain could make it.

Shpongle was pretty good. It's just Simon though doing DJ sets which isn't too exciting. The Live Shpongle show in London this Halloween is where I really want to be at and I'll probably shed a tear on that night knowing that it's going on without me.

Hallucinogen Live is excellent. To hear Simon mix what he does is truly an amazing experience.

Prometheus was very good to listen to but it was still a DJ set, just listening to him swap CD's is okay but not as good as a Live PA.

I do look forward to seeing Ott this winter. He will be playing with the Disco Biscuits in NYC near New Years.

I love Younger Brother but their recent tour was with a Live band so it wasn't much of a psytrance event but more of a all around musical performance. Very good performance though.

By the way, they don't check ages at Camp Bisco and your only 4 hours away. If you want to see your Twisted pals then Camp Bisco is the ticket for you.

jon

Ooh, I would love to go to the Shpongle Live Halloween set; unfortunately, as you said, I live four hours away from Camp Bisco, but several hours away from London. Since I'm not that good of a swimmer, I don't think I'll go.
About the live shows you went to:
Shame about the Prometheus event just being DJ; however, the Younger Brother show sounds pretty cool. I'm still way jealous of you for seeing Hallucinogen live; if I had a things to do before I died list, that would be on it. Have lots of fun at the Ott show; maybe he'll even preview Hallucinogen: In Dub 2. You should make a thread about it afterwords (or else go to the Twisted forum, where it might be better suited. However, it would be unique on this site).

[iJon]

Sorry, I thought you meant to produce electronic did not necessitate the use of good recording equipment and that anyone with half a brain could make it.



Ooh, I would love to go to the Shpongle Live Halloween set; unfortunately, as you said, I live four hours away from Camp Bisco, but several hours away from London. Since I'm not that good of a swimmer, I don't think I'll go.
About the live shows you went to:
Shame about the Prometheus event just being DJ; however, the Younger Brother show sounds pretty cool. I'm still way jealous of you for seeing Hallucinogen live; if I had a things to do before I died list, that would be on it. Have lots of fun at the Ott show; maybe he'll even preview Hallucinogen: In Dub 2. You should make a thread about it afterwords (or else go to the Twisted forum, where it might be better suited. However, it would be unique on this site).

Do you have any live sets of any of those artists. I'd love to bless you with some. PM me if you are interested. I have many many live sets of various Twisted artists.

jon

[mpw]

Do you have any live sets of any of those artists. I'd love to bless you with some. PM me if you are interested. I have many many live sets of various Twisted artists.

jon
Are these sets copyrighted? I'm pretty sure sharing copyrighted music, as well as being illegal and just plan wrong, is also frowned upon by MR's admins.

[Klaxons2012]

I'm not going to implicate myself either way in this discussion because who knows what may come out of this.

But.

If it wasn't for the so called "music pirates" that started out exchanging midi and wav files over FTP years before most music consumers ever logged onto the web, there would be no demand for online music sales, period. The cost of beta testing and development for file distribution over networks and content access could be billed to record labels and other institutions for setting up the framework of their new online ventures.

But do you see me banging down their door for royalties? No. Of course copyright laws don't protect me in this instance which is why I purchase my music legally. I still think the early work of file sharers lead the charge on progress in the entertainment industry.

[iJon]

Are these sets copyrighted? I'm pretty sure sharing copyrighted music, as well as being illegal and just plan wrong, is also frowned upon by MR's admins.

These sets are not copyrighted and are completely legal for me to listen to and share as long as I do not sell them.

Ever see archive.org?

jon

[Klaxons2012]

These sets are not copyrighted and are completely legal for me to listen to and share as long as I do not sell them.

Ever see archive.org?

jon

That's where I get my Dave Matthews Band mayne! :p

[iJon]

That's where I get my Dave Matthews Band mayne! :p

Yeah, it's a great site. Not to keen on Electronic music but I have other sources for that.

jon

[gracest]

This really is the most crucial issues concerning the music industry today-- content distribution is rapidly morphing as technology develops, and in order to preserve the market something needs to be done to prevent stealing- WITHOUT forgoing the speed, convenience and social aspects of online file-sharing. Check out Grooveshark.com (http://www.grooveshark.com/) -- it's a Web site that I work for which allows users to create accounts, add and share music, mix playlists, etc-- all for free. The trick is, a fee applies to actually download the music for keeps- which serves as artist royalties. Legal and easy. let me know what you guys think about the model- it's definitely a unique solution to the online pirating issue. :o

[gorilly]

Yes you can, they're thieves.

You think that if enough people stole Aston Martins they'd drop the price?

its not as black and white as that i'm afraid...

if aston martins could be driven around for free, or people could pay £150k for one what do you think people would do? they wouldnt pay!

the record companies were forced into a situation which is a shame, they didnt ask for this but all i can say is "oowwoo my heart bleeds" - stop the greed or get nothing, keep up with the times

when you look at how the money is divided up on record sales... trust me, its greed.

the industry needs to look at profit / how the money is sorted out as a whole.

Also do you really think downloads have ruined the industry and taken all the money out of it? nope - the very forum we are sitting here talking on - Macs... well IT in general... and i've seen it direct. i'm a qualified sound engineer... there are fewer studios... you can have it all on a mac, no need for a desk anymore, no need for tape editors, no need for runners (email has replaced).

technology is to blame... but then thats just evolution.

Now lets get really down to the nittygritty... how many artists do you think have paid for that copy of fruity loops, logic, garage band, reason?

i bet not as many as you think... so should they be earning for the mucis they made on pirated software?

Same goes for the print industry... you dont need a 4 colour GTO any more... you just buy a printer... all the true printers are o ut of a job.

Graphic designers - you dont need a light table, scalpel etc any more you just do it at home on a mac or pc.

you cant fight the digital revolution... you need to adapt your ways to fit with it.

All the above have made a difference to my family... i've worked in sound, my dad is graphic design, other members of the family in print... all had to change their ways, or even change their jobs. The music industry labels are pretending that the only thing to blame is downloading... well its far from the truth, its just a tiny part!

the only real way they can ever fix it... allow artists to choose weather or not their work is out there for free... i would say over 75% would say yes...

its wrong to steal - but its also wrong to be ripped off.

[adversecamber]

if aston martins could be driven around for free, or people could pay £150k for one what do you think people would do? they wouldnt pay!


It doesn't make it right. You can lobby to get the law changed but just because you feel that it's too expensive doesn't mean it's ok to break the law.

If it was you who relied on royalties to feed your family, I think you'd feel very differently.

[gorilly]

It doesn't make it right. You can lobby to get the law changed but just because you feel that it's too expensive doesn't mean it's ok to break the law.

If it was you who relied on royalties to feed your family, I think you'd feel very differently.

i didnt say it was right, infact its wrong but if keeping your head above the water means finding a way to please the consumer then your going to have to do it. kicking and screaming because your profit margins are down and blaming everyone but yourself is not a good move.

thats what im trying to say... it was the industry which paid my wage... but im not sour about it all...

Royalties is the problem, artists make VERY little money from sales, espch if its a band... the healthy part of the music industry is live stuff, promo and merch... Sales... bah thats for the fat cats to make their money.

this is why PRS is so important... which makes me laugh. People are fools, they think its hurting people downloading yet its ok not to pay a PRS license... they have it the wrong way around...
(im not sure if prs is uk - only)

ive met MANY working musicians... the people who rely on the money get paid for live stuff... for example playing pubs, bars... even if its stadiums - thats still where the main bit of the cash comes in.

its a very small percentage of the wage which comes from cd sales.

also i for one know of how downloading can help sales because i've done it! Downloaded one tool album, gone out and bought all of them - i know lots of people who do this. I have done this with LOADS of groups.

living in london, there is not one radio station which will play decent alternative music (unless you listen at 1am)... without downloading i'd never have bought so much music

[mpw]

its not as black and white as that i'm afraid...

...its wrong to steal - but its also wrong to be ripped off.
It is that black and white, people who choose to steal are totally to blame for stealing.

Nobody's being 'ripped off'. Why do people feel entitled to have music, and trot out this ridiculous argument 'I wouldn't steal it if it were cheaper'. I don't believe them, do they send in a portion or the price of music/software that see as fair to the company they've stolen from? Of course not, because they're thieves.

[c-Row]

Why do people feel entitled to have music, and trot out this ridiculous argument 'I wouldn't steal it if it were cheaper'. I don't believe them, do they send in a portion or the price of music/software that see as fair to the company they've stolen from? Of course not, because they're thieves.

I think you have to distinguish between people who are willing to pay if albums were cheaper and those who won't stop downloading until they get paid to pick up the original album.

[gorilly]

I think you have to distinguish between people who are willing to pay if albums were cheaper and those who won't stop downloading until they get paid to pick up the original album.


Perfect, couldn't have put it better myself.

I'm sure most people out there would be happy to go out and buy music if it were cheaper.

as ive said before in my posts, im not saying its right, but the labels and outlets are shooting themselves in the foot... if they want things to change, they have to accept they are over pricing - then the consumer will start to buy again. they are not helping themselves

[mpw]

...I'm sure most people out there would be happy to go out and buy music if it were cheaper...
Well figures from Radiohead's 'pay-what-you-want' album Rainbows say different. 62% (most) decided the amount they were willing to pay was zero.

[c-Row]

Well figures from Radiohead's 'pay-what-you-want' album Rainbows say different. 62% (most) decided the amount they were willing to pay was zero.

Just because they could get it for free legally doesn't mean they wouldn't have been happy with, for example, 4.99 for the proper, physical album.

[nplima]

Well figures from Radiohead's 'pay-what-you-want' album Rainbows say different. 62% (most) decided the amount they were willing to pay was zero.

That does not mean that people were less willing to spend on concerts. Just because the record company does not make money does not mean that the music business is flawed.

[LethalWolfe]

Just because they could get it for free legally doesn't mean they wouldn't have been happy with, for example, 4.99 for the proper, physical album.
Why would they have been happy w/$4.99 when they could've just gotten it for free illegally? This is just another example of how the widely stated pirate mantra of fighting for artists' rights is nothing more than a hollow attempt at justification. The majority of people who take ***** w/o paying for it aren't doing it to forward a cause they are doing it because they are cheap ******** who don't care about other people as long as they get what they want. They don't care about the artists, they care about their perceived entitlement to take whatever they want. The internet is the answer to the old hypothetical question, "What would you do if you knew you'd never get caught."

That does not mean that people were less willing to spend on concerts. Just because the record company does not make money does not mean that the music business is flawed.
What record label? Radiohead isn't signed to a label. And if the people that invested the money (be it the band, the record label, or private investors) to make the album a reality don't make money either the album was a commercial flop or the business model is flawed.


Lethal

[mpw]

Just because they could get it for free legally doesn't mean they wouldn't have been happy with, for example, 4.99 for the proper, physical album.
It was offered at a price the people were willing to pay, 62% were only willing to pay zero.

What you're saying is they paid less than they were willing to because they could get away with it.

Trouble is technology allows people the feeling that they can get away with not paying for music whether the vendor asks $1, $5 or $15 and clearly that is what people are happy to do, even though it's theft.

$4.99 sounds about the price a lot of music is available for after a few months, from the bargain bin. THose not wanting to pay the asking price could just wait and buy then... but they don't do they?

That does not mean that people were less willing to spend on concerts...
You're right, but then you could also argue that that it also does not mean that Apple will release a G5 PowerBook next Tuesday for the same reason; it was never meant to mean that??
...Just because the record company does not make money does not mean that the music business is flawed.
Do you mean that the record company's profitability shouldn't be linked to sales?

Do you mean that a specific sector within an industry does not represent the whole industry? fair enough I guess, but it's still theft to steal from the record companies. If you're happy only hearing the music of your favourite band at live shows great, but you can't justify stealing just because you paid to see a concert.

[gracest]

i didnt say it was right, infact its wrong but if keeping your head above the water means finding a way to please the consumer then your going to have to do it.

In this article (http://tinyurl.com/5d65bz) on Financial Times, a study following an analysis of In Rainbows concludes that the music industry should "embrace" illegal file-sharing Websites. One of the co-authors said something very similar to you- “It’s time to stop swimming against the tide of what people want."

so, are you saying that just because people want to steal (knowing they can get away with it), the biz should just look the other way and accept it?

[nplima]

Do you mean that the record company's profitability shouldn't be linked to sales?


nah.


In this article (http://tinyurl.com/5d65bz)so, are you saying that just because people want to steal (knowing they can get away with it), the biz should just look the other way and accept it?

nah.

I'm saying that bootlegging is a problem of the media distributors, not of the artists. Distributing music on CDs or whatever and getting 99% share of the sales is a doomed business model.

The "biz" should re-size, get used to a 5% slice of the sales and live with it. Of course they can and will carry on spending a fortune on bribes for politicians and fees for law firms, but their business will never be the same regardless of the number of tracks traded without their permission.


Right now, "the biz" sell albums as a premium product and the performers get most of their revenue from ... performing live. As more and more of the music sales are made as internet sales, the bigger will be the appeal for artists to deal directly with Amazon, iTunes, ZuneMusicStore, whatever... One day online sellers my decide to offer MP3s as a cheap (or free) by-product in exchange for a share of the concerts revenue. Everyone will be OK with it except for RIAA members who have not gone "low-cost".

and nothing of value will be lost.

[ProwlingTiger]

Saw this on Diggnation the other day: http://musikas.net/pirates-buy-more-music/

[Karpfish]

I really try to buy my music, if it is on iTunes and I want it I will get it from iTunes. However, if there is a song I want(Remix or the song is not on iTunes for whatever reason) then I will usually download it illegally. Until b-side remixes start showing up on itunes i will keep limewire on my computer.

[LethalWolfe]

I'm saying that bootlegging is a problem of the media distributors, not of the artists.
And when the artists *are* the media distributors?


Right now, "the biz" sell albums as a premium product and the performers get most of their revenue from ... performing live. As more and more of the music sales are made as internet sales, the bigger will be the appeal for artists to deal directly with Amazon, iTunes, ZuneMusicStore, whatever... One day online sellers my decide to offer MP3s as a cheap (or free) by-product in exchange for a share of the concerts revenue.
So in this world purchasing albums & songs will be insanely cheap, or free, and ticket prices will go through the roof because now everything will be riding on how much money the tour generates. One of the hurdles the music industry has is that there are relatively few avenues to generate. A big movie on the other hand has many ways to make money. For example, promotional tie-ins w/other companies, toy/merchandise licensing, video game licensing, DVD sales, DVD rentals, network TV, cable, pay-per-view, internet distribution, etc.,. That's one reason the DVD of a $200 million movie isn't much more than the CD of a $2 million album. Sure Aerosmith made some extra cash licensing out the band for a few video games, but that's just a drop in the bucket compared to all the cross promotion and ties big movies require now as almost a standard.


Lethal

[c-Row]

It was offered at a price the people were willing to pay, 62% were only willing to pay zero.

What you're saying is they paid less than they were willing to because they could get away with it.

You might have missed the fact that "In Rainbows" still outstripped combined profits from digital downloads of all of the band's other studio albums, and the later released physical album still sold more than 100,000 copies within the first month alone and took the #1 spot both in the US and the UK, even though it had been available for free before, effectively. Those people were willing to pay a price higher than zero, even though they didn't have to.

[Gray-Wolf]

A LOT of my music comes from iTunes. The rest in the form of CD's. I still can not understand the logic of wanting something you do not earn, make, create or anything else, but someone else did for free?

Would you mind if I came to your house, and while you are building ship models, I help my self to a couple, no harm since your building so many.

*Shakes head*

[jpmittins]

A LOT of my music comes from iTunes. The rest in the form of CD's. I still can not understand the logic of wanting something you do not earn, make, create or anything else, but someone else did for free?

Would you mind if I came to your house, and while you are building ship models, I help my self to a couple, no harm since your building so many.

*Shakes head*

I understand your logic and have two things to say.
1) Have you ever gotten a burned CD from a friend? You know, you don't actually own that and it says right on the original CD any un-authorized duplication is illegal.
2) What a strange, yet extraordinarily comical example. I have one or two model ships in my basement that were never built; do you want those?

[iParis]

YES I do.
I won't say other wise.
I know it's wrong, but my mom won't let me get an iTunes account because she's doesn't trust Apple.
But I don't do it if don't have to.
If can have the money then I buy the CD.

A lot of you guys are saying that it's literally stealing music.
It may be stealing music from artist (I'm not even totally convinced on that), but it's more like sharing music with people you don't know.
When you start to pirate music you automatically agree to share you library.
But I always copy the files to my external hard drive so I can't share it, then I delete the original.
All in all I think it's just sharing music with other people.

[Gray-Wolf]

@jpmittins

No, I have never gotten music from someone else's CD's. I have listen to them, and returned them, and then, because I liked the music, went out and bought them. This was back before iTunes mind you.

Shame on you for not finishing the models. Now, get out the glue, no sniffing, and build those things! :D

[LERsince1991]

I agree with a lot of what 'gorilly' says.

Times have changed considerably since the laws were written, they need to be changed to adapt to today's market. Making ridiculous laws that only the minority abide by is pointless. I would bet that 90% of all music has some form of pirated content in.

Buying a CD for everyone that uses it is stupid, waste of resources and money.
I do agree to paying for music but i don't agree to the prices and laws that are in place today.
Something has to be done before the whole economy is ruined.
Actually a lot of the market in England and America (that i know of) has already felt the economic collapsing.
CHANGE THE LAW OR RISK THE ECONOMY

[iParis]

I agree with a lot of what 'gorilly' says.

Times have changed considerably since the laws were written, they need to be changed to adapt to today's market. Making ridiculous laws that only the minority abide by is pointless. I would bet that 90% of all music has some form of pirated content in.

Buying a CD for everyone that uses it is stupid, waste of resources and money.
I do agree to paying for music but i don't agree to the prices and laws that are in place today.
Something has to be done before the whole economy is ruined.
Actually a lot of the market in England and America (that i know of) has already felt the economic collapsing.
CHANGE THE LAW OR RISK THE ECONOMY

The government could shut down all pirating sites.
Just a thought.

[LethalWolfe]

but it's more like sharing music with people you don't know.
When you start to pirate music you automatically agree to share you library.
But I always copy the files to my external hard drive so I can't share it, then I delete the original.
All in all I think it's just sharing music with other people.[/EDIT]
:rolleyes:

You aren't "sharing" anything. Letting someone else check their e-mail on your computer is sharing. Bumming a ride is sharing. Letting a buddy borrow your iPod for a cross-country flight is sharing. What you are doing is distributing unauthorized/unlawful copies of someone else's work, which you didn't pay for yourself, to a potential audience of millions, if not billions, of people world wide.


Lethal

[iParis]

Hmm...... I have question.
Not sure if this is pirating or not.
If it pirating if your friend has a music file burnt from a CD on his iTunes and he sends it (using something like AIM or MSN) to me?
Is that me pirating?
Is that him pirating?
Is that both of us pirating?
Or is it perfectly legal?

[LERsince1991]

The government could shut down all pirating sites.
Just a thought.

not an option :P
they would just come back anyway, the government wouldn't want to do that, cost them too much to track down the sites and resources to shut them down.
The sites are useful for free downloads anyway or music you cant download from a legal site or buy in the shops.

They need to alter the laws, make it legal to share a cd with members of your household or immediate family. make it cheaper to buy songs, maybe have iTunes do a monthly subscription to download their music. I would defiantly get an iTunes subscription, discounts for regular users,

music artists don't need that much money anyway... they just waste it...
I actually went on an educational/British Council trip to Nigeria last month (tought 2000+ kids to play sports and designed and decorated classrooms), they could have used that money the music artists don't need... :(

[iParis]

not an option :P
music artists don't need that much money anyway... they just waste it...
I actually went on an educational/British Council trip to Nigeria last month (tought 2000+ kids to play sports and designed and decorated classrooms), they could have used that money the music artists don't need... :(

Agreed.
I normally don't pirate music from an artist if that artist had just recently started making music and it's their first or second CD.
Artist already have their effing huge houses and stretch limos.
The have everything they could want, and most of them are involved in stuff other than music like TV shows and movies.
They already have everything they could want.

[LethalWolfe]

They need to alter the laws, make it legal to share a cd with members of your household or immediate family.
What law exists making it illegal for you to let a family member borrow a CD?


music artists don't need that much money anyway... they just waste it...
I actually went on an educational/British Council trip to Nigeria last month (tought 2000+ kids to play sports and designed and decorated classrooms), they could have used that money the music artists don't need... :(
There are lots of people w/lots of money that don't need it and the vast majority of them aren't in the music biz.

Agreed.
I normally don't pirate music from an artist if that artist had just recently started making music and it's their first or second CD.
Artist already have their effing huge houses and stretch limos.
The have everything they could want, and most of them are involved in stuff other than music like TV shows and movies.
They already have everything they could want.
Actually the vast majority of artists don't get rich, fail in their dreams of being career musicians, and get 'normal' jobs.

Same thing w/actors. All we hear about are the minuscule minority of super successful actors/actress even though they make up less than 1% of professional actors. IIRC only about 1-2% of SAG (Screen Actors Guild) members make a living wage from acting. The 98% still need 'day jobs' while they pursue their acting career.


Lethal

[jpmittins]

@jpmittins

No, I have never gotten music from someone else's CD's. I have listen to them, and returned them, and then, because I liked the music, went out and bought them. This was back before iTunes mind you.

Shame on you for not finishing the models. Now, get out the glue, no sniffing, and build those things! :D

Yeah, my dad told me and my twin when we turned six, us three would build one of them. I had my 16th birthday in February. That gives a little peek into what my home life is like (not really complaining, just saying).

The government could shut down all pirating sites.
Just a thought.

That's not legal; the government couldn't do it, that's not how the law works in places such as Sweden, where a lot of the servers are held. Plus, as earlier said, it would take too much time and resourses to do.

[MacGeek7]

yes. i try before i buy.

Ditto...if I like enough I'll buy it - if not, I delete it from my HD

[jpmittins]

Ditto...if I like enough I'll buy it - if not, I delete it from my HD

Read one of my earlier posts; how, exactly, are you better than someone who doesn't pay if you only pay for what you like? You're still stealing stuff (for a given definition of stealing).

[c-Row]

Read one of my earlier posts; how, exactly, are you better than someone who doesn't pay if you only pay for what you like?

Because that someone else won't even pay for what he likes. I think two pirated copies and one subsequent sale is still better than one pirated copy and no sale at all.

[nplima]

And when the artists *are* the media distributors?


As things are today, they had better find cheap ways to distribute, because the marker is dominated by a half dozen of big companies. Bootlegging is the least of their problems if they want to do what the RIAA does without having a big portfolio of products to disribute.


So in this world purchasing albums & songs will be insanely cheap, or free, and ticket prices will go through the roof because now everything will be riding on how much money the tour generates.


From the artists' point of view, everything already depends on the revenue from touring. The distributor could want to have their slice of that increased to compensate the decreased sales from records, but that is up to the artists to negotiate: if they don't need a company to distribute physical CDs in shops, if they can promote their work at Jamendo and hopefully benefit from good reviews, what is the right share for the distributor? certainly not 99%

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
(Courtney Love does the math - fascinating article)

[Melrose]

I'd be lying if I said I never did, but it's so bloomin' seldom I can't point to the last time with any certainty, and by no means is it a habit. I don't know whether to say 'yeah I do,' but I have in times past so I can't really say I never have or never do.. ya know?

no, wait - the last one was "Thunderbird" from the Thelma & Louise soundtrack. I'd been looking for it for years, and finally got that '25 free listens' on Rhapsody, and nabbed it for my collection. I was very happy to have it at last... enough to warrant a two-syllable sah-weet, or da-amn. :D

[jpmittins]

Because that someone else won't even pay for what he likes. I think two pirated copies and one subsequent sale is still better than one pirated copy and no sale at all.

Once again, read one of my earlier posts. I expressed interest in owning many of the albums I torrented, yet I don't because I don't have the capabilities (money, location, rarity of album). And besides, you're still wrong. You said that you don't pay for what you don't like; you're still stealing, even if you got rid of what you stole. If someone steals a car, realizes that they don't like it, and just leave it at the dock or some random location, should they be cleared of all charges if they are caught? Because I don't think that the phrase "well, I didn't like it, so I just left it miles away" will fly in court; the person still stole it. And unless you pay for everything you've downloaded, you're still a pirate too.

[iJon]

The other cheap trick I have is just buying the used CD's off Amazon. You can't beat the price. Everyone wins.


You do realize that nobody really wins other than the person buying it and receiving it. When you buy CD's off the secondary market the record labels nor the artists are getting any money.

I don't think it's wrong to buy CD's, it's just fine, but I just wanted to point out that artists aren't benefited by used CD sales. For them the outcome is the same as pirating.

jon

[hexonxonx]

You do realize that nobody really wins other than the person buying it and receiving it. When you buy CD's off the secondary market the record labels nor the artists are getting any money.

I don't think it's wrong to buy CD's, it's just fine, but I just wanted to point out that artists aren't benefited by used CD sales. For them the outcome is the same as pirating.

jon

I think that's the point in buying a used CD. Artists and labels aren't getting any money from a new CD sale.

In fact, I think I may start doing the same thing. It's been a decade since I last purchased a CD (I buy from iTunes) and it would be a whole lot cheaper than buying new CDs.

[LethalWolfe]

From the artists' point of view, everything already depends on the revenue from touring. The distributor could want to have their slice of that increased to compensate the decreased sales from records, but that is up to the artists to negotiate: if they don't need a company to distribute physical CDs in shops, if they can promote their work at Jamendo and hopefully benefit from good reviews, what is the right share for the distributor? certainly not 99%

But that's the thing. If artists didn't need labels, didn't need people w/money to finance their albums, then labels wouldn't exist. It takes money to be in a band. It takes money to buy gear. It takes money to record, market, and sell an album. It takes money to go on tour (especially in the US w/gas prices currently). It takes money to have a manager, a lawyer and an accountant. Where does the money come from? A major label is willing to drop a million or two into a band and odds are they won't make that money back. Are the band members themselves able to take a financial risk like that? IMO the way the system is right now is screwed up, but so is the idea that labels/private investors are a thing of the past and everyone is just going to self-finance and sell their music directly via the internet.

Things will definitely change, but how much and how soon is up for debate.


http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
(Courtney Love does the math - fascinating article)
Yeah it is. I've dug that article up on more than one occasion.

You do realize that nobody really wins other than the person buying it and receiving it. When you buy CD's off the secondary market the record labels nor the artists are getting any money.

I don't think it's wrong to buy CD's, it's just fine, but I just wanted to point out that artists aren't benefited by used CD sales. For them the outcome is the same as pirating.

jon
The situations aren't exactly the same. Every used CD started out as a new CD (w/the exception of when places sell promo copies that aren't supposed to be sold) so the ratio of album owners and CDs sold stays the same at 1 to 1. If 100 people want the CD that means 100 copies of the CD have to be sold. The same isn't true w/P2P pirating. W/P2P a single copy of the CD can cloned and mass distributed to millions, if not billions, of people world wide at little to no cost. So, for example, 100 people could have a copy of the album but only 40 people actually paid for it.


Lethal

[jpmittins]

But that's the thing. If artists didn't need labels, didn't need people w/money to finance their albums, then labels wouldn't exist. It takes money to be in a band. It takes money to buy gear. It takes money to record, market, and sell an album. It takes money to go on tour (especially in the US w/gas prices currently). It takes money to have a manager, a lawyer and an accountant. Where does the money come from? A major label is willing to drop a million or two into a band and odds are they won't make that money back. Are the band members themselves able to take a financial risk like that? IMO the way the system is right now is screwed up, but so is the idea that labels/private investors are a thing of the past and everyone is just going to self-finance and sell their music directly via the internet.

Things will definitely change, but how much and how soon is up for debate.


Yeah it is. I've dug that article up on more than one occasion.


The situations aren't exactly the same. Every used CD started out as a new CD (w/the exception of when places sell promo copies that aren't supposed to be sold) so the ratio of album owners and CDs sold stays the same at 1 to 1. If 100 people want the CD that means 100 copies of the CD have to be sold. The same isn't true w/P2P pirating. W/P2P a single copy of the CD can cloned and mass distributed to millions, if not billions, of people world wide at little to no cost. So, for example, 100 people could have a copy of the album but only 40 people actually paid for it.


Lethal

I kind of agree with your logic, I just want to point something out. As of July 2008, the world population is estimated to be around 6.684 billion. However, only like one billion of those people have the internet and I somehow doubt each and every one of them will download the same album. Therefore, your idea that billions of people could have an album from P2P is illogical and unrealistic.

[alphaod]

Not really. Well I demo music; if I like I buy it, if I don't I delete it.

I used to use my Rhapsody subscription for that, but it doesn't work on Macs.

[LethalWolfe]

I kind of agree with your logic, I just want to point something out. As of July 2008, the world population is estimated to be around 6.684 billion. However, only like one billion of those people have the internet and I somehow doubt each and every one of them will download the same album. Therefore, your idea that billions of people could have an album from P2P is illogical and unrealistic.
I should've said "potentially" as obviously not every single person w/an internet connection would download the album, and eventually billions of people will be online so at some point in time in the future my statement won't be inaccurate anymore.:p


Lethal

[c-Row]

The situations aren't exactly the same. Every used CD started out as a new CD (w/the exception of when places sell promo copies that aren't supposed to be sold) so the ratio of album owners and CDs sold stays the same at 1 to 1.

I think the music industry doesn't care about a ratio. They are in for the money, and a second hand purchase on eBay/Amazon/in a local shop is one lost sale for them, since two people enjoyed the music but in the end, only one of them paid for it full-price.

[gracest]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080810-developer-to-pirates-tell-me-why-you-steal-and-ill-change.html

saw another interesting bit on digg.. i suppose this guy got the exact sort of response i would expect him to. at least he is trying to adapt to the new terms of file sharing rather than fight it

[LethalWolfe]

I think the music industry doesn't care about a ratio. They are in for the money, and a second hand purchase on eBay/Amazon/in a local shop is one lost sale for them, since two people enjoyed the music but in the end, only one of them paid for it full-price.
I wasn't commenting about what the music industry, or the book industry, or the video game industry, or the electronics industry or the clothing industry or the movie industry thinks about the First Sale doctrine. I was commenting that buying and selling used CDs is not the same thing as unlawfully distributing and downloading files via P2P. The ratio example I used was merely there to help illustrate my point.


Lethal

[mpw]

I heard a novel (to me anyway) idea recently.

A subscription service to keep those people who want to pay only for the music they like, to support the artists they think should be supported etc.

Say a service charges $2 for a track; A monthly/weekly charge of $20 buys 10 tracks, OR 10 tracks at a minimum charge of $1 leaving $10 for the user to apportion however he feels is deserved between those 10 artists. Maybe he wants to pay $1 each to 9 mediocre artists, but $11 to one he felt 'rocked'.

[c-Row]

I wasn't commenting about what the music industry, or the book industry, or the video game industry, or the electronics industry or the clothing industry or the movie industry thinks about the First Sale doctrine. I was commenting that buying and selling used CDs is not the same thing as unlawfully distributing and downloading files via P2P. The ratio example I used was merely there to help illustrate my point.

But in the end, the result for the artist is the same - one sold copy only instead of two.

[mpw]

But in the end, the result for the artist is the same - one sold copy only instead of two.
I don't think I'd feel the same were I an artist trying to sell my work.

If somebody bought my work and then re-sells it, it's very different to buying it, copying it and selling the copies or original, but still retaining a it/a copy for their ongoing enjoyment.

[Xavier]

I think the music industry doesn't care about a ratio. They are in for the money, and a second hand purchase on eBay/Amazon/in a local shop is one lost sale for them, since two people enjoyed the music but in the end, only one of them paid for it full-price.

I agree. The music industry is so money hungry, and that is all they care about.

Personally I try to buy as much DRM free music as I can, and then I tend to pirate.

[mpw]

I agree. The music industry is so money hungry, and that is all they care about.

Personally I try to buy as much DRM free music as I can, and then I tend to pirate.
Better to steal and cheat then to make your living honestly without hurting anybody? :rolleyes:

I'm curious as to what you do for a living, and how you'd feel if I came and stole from you or didn't pay you for working for me??

[c-Row]

I don't think I'd feel the same were I an artist trying to sell my work.

If somebody bought my work and then re-sells it, it's very different to buying it, copying it and selling the copies or original, but still retaining a it/a copy for their ongoing enjoyment.

I guess that's what separates the artists from those who are just in it for the money. ;)

[iJon]

I wasn't commenting about what the music industry, or the book industry, or the video game industry, or the electronics industry or the clothing industry or the movie industry thinks about the First Sale doctrine. I was commenting that buying and selling used CDs is not the same thing as unlawfully distributing and downloading files via P2P. The ratio example I used was merely there to help illustrate my point.


Lethal
I'm aware that they aren't the same. Buying used CD's is completley legal where as downloading music isn't. It's just the fact that when a person either debates to spend a little money and buy a used CD or pirate a copy, the end result is the same for the record companies and artist.

As a result, recently a few years ago the RIAA wanted to implement a law of some sort that requried used record shops to pay a fee every year to remain open so they get their cut of the pie. As we can all tell, nothing like that ever passed.

jon

[LethalWolfe]

But in the end, the result for the artist is the same - one sold copy only instead of two.

I'm aware that they aren't the same. Buying used CD's is completley legal where as downloading music isn't. It's just the fact that when a person either debates to spend a little money and buy a used CD or pirate a copy, the end result is the same for the record companies and artist.
The end result, number of albums sold vs number of people who have a copy of the album, is not the same because P2P allows people to unlawfully mass distribute an unlimited number of albums from a single copy. More of a parallel to P2P would be if the used CD store had a duplicator set up in the back and only sold burned copies of the CDs. Another more apt parallel would be if the people uploading albums onto P2P purchased a new copy of the album every time a person downloaded the album from them.


Lethal

[mpw]

I guess that's what separates the artists from those who are just in it for the money. ;)
Well those artists who really aren't in it, the music business, for the money, may well be happy to share their art freely by download, and I applaud them, but they won't(or shouldn't have) have signed deals with managers/producers/labels/etc. to make, promote and sell their work.

[c-Row]

The end result, number of albums sold vs number of people who have a copy of the album, is not the same because P2P allows people to unlawfully mass distribute an unlimited number of albums from a single copy.

What about copies for friends or relatives? They are (within a certain range) perfectly legal in my country, as our Fair Use politics are not as restrictive, and suddenly there are more people having a copy than the number of records sold.

[mpw]

What about copies for friends or relatives? They are (within a certain range) perfectly legal in my country, as our Fair Use politics are not as restrictive, and suddenly there are more people having a copy than the number of records sold.
That's just splitting hairs. If it's legal in Germany, then it's legal. The issue globally is not one or two copies of an original shared by family, but of people downloading hundreds and thousands of copies from a single illegal source.

[c-Row]

That's just splitting hairs. If it's legal in Germany, then it's legal. The issue globally is not one or two copies of an original shared by family, but of people downloading hundreds and thousands of copies from a single illegal source.

So what you say is you are perfectly fine with sharing copies as long as it remains in a small scale. And legal, for whoever defines what that is. Oh, and for those who are interested, it's seven copies, although I doubt that so many members of my family are interested in the albums I would share with them... :D :p

[rockosmodurnlif]

So what you say is you are perfectly fine with sharing copies as long as it remains in a small scale. And legal, for whoever defines what that is. Oh, and for those who are interested, it's seven copies, although I doubt that so many members of my family are interested in the albums I would share with them... :D :p
No. You sharing CDs with your family and friends isn't the same as bittorrenting or using Limewire and you know this. It's the difference between giving a friend a cigarette and handing out cartons you got from the back of a stolen truck.

[TomsMacBook]

I do, and I see it this way:

I download it, and it's not a sale lost, seeing as I wasn't going to buy it in the first place.

Just my two cents.

[mpw]

So what you say is you are perfectly fine with sharing copies as long as it remains in a small scale....
You say that that is legal in Germany, the labels selling in Germany are aware of this and still choose to do business within the territory so nobody's cheating anybody.
...I download it, and it's not a sale lost, seeing as I wasn't going to buy it in the first place...
Do you also steal software? What about perishable goods from the market? They usually throw away a bunch of food once it's out of date, so just help yourself next time you're in there; it's not like they'll have lost a sale is it? it just means that eventually they'll throw less out:rolleyes:

[jpmittins]

No. You sharing CDs with your family and friends isn't the same as bittorrenting or using Limewire and you know this. It's the difference between giving a friend a cigarette and handing out cartons you got from the back of a stolen truck.

No, it's not like that. It is as if you have millions of friends that all want the same CD you have.

I do, and I see it this way:

I download it, and it's not a sale lost, seeing as I wasn't going to buy it in the first place.

Just my two cents.

Heh, I like your logic. +1 for that.

[mpw]

...Heh, I like your logic. +1 for that.
I've asked other self professed pirates, but none have answered, so I'll ask you too; What do you do for a living?

I'm curious as it strikes me that anybody who works for a living would appreciate how wrong it would be to be stolen from or simply not paid for their work done.

[TwinCities Dan]

No. You sharing CDs with your family and friends isn't the same as bittorrenting or using Limewire and you know this. It's the difference between giving a friend a cigarette and handing out cartons you got from the back of a stolen truck.

+1 for that analogy! I'm going to have to remember that! :D :cool:

[Metuas]

Music, never.

Adobe CS3, well...

[northy124]

Adobe CS3, well...

You crook LoL, Don't worry loads of people do it (Not me I pay for products that I find useful, Music not so much).

[iParis]

Music, never.

Adobe CS3, well...

I've sorta done the same thing for Photoshop CS3.
My friend downloaded the trial, then she downloaded the keygen which got her the full version.
Then she burned it to a disk for me.

I do, and I see it this way:

I download it, and it's not a sale lost, seeing as I wasn't going to buy it in the first place.

Just my two cents.

Agreed.
I can't remember how many times I've said that.
And if anyone ask what I do for a living...
... nothing.
I'm a 15 year old kid (16 in two months).

[jpmittins]

I've asked other self professed pirates, but none have answered, so I'll ask you too; What do you do for a living?

I'm curious as it strikes me that anybody who works for a living would appreciate how wrong it would be to be stolen from or simply not paid for their work done.

I'm sixteen; I don't have a job. And I don't see how it is wrong; if it bothers you that much that I pirate, pretend that I'm testing the music indefinitely.

[c-Row]

[edit] Whops...

[c-Row]

No. You sharing CDs with your family and friends isn't the same as bittorrenting or using Limewire and you know this. It's the difference between giving a friend a cigarette and handing out cartons you got from the back of a stolen truck.

Well, to keep up your analogy - the thing about downloading and listening before picking up your own copy would be the same as being handed a carton of cigarettes from that truck, deciding they are really good and then picking up your own carton at the local shop which you would have never done otherwise. Or maybe you would have done if local cigarette shops would have let you "test-smoke" more than just the filter.

[TwinCities Dan]

Well, to keep up your analogy - the thing about downloading and listening before picking up your own copy would be the same as being handed a carton of cigarettes from that truck, deciding they are really good and then picking up your own carton at the local shop which you would have never done otherwise.

No personal disrespect towards you (c-Row), but I fixed your post for ya... ;) :p

Well, to keep up your analogy - the thing about downloading and listening before picking up your own copy would be the same as being handed a carton of cigarettes from that truck, smoking most of them, then deciding they are really good and then rather than picking up your own carton at the local shop, you decide that since you already smoked (downloaded) the parts you prefer, you decide you don't "owe" anything to "Them", you decide to keep your "free" version, you end up SCREWING the Tobacco Worker/Artist/Band/Label/Programmer/Company, which you would have never done otherwise. ;) :)

[c-Row]

No personal disrespect towards you (c-Row), but I fixed your post for ya... ;) :p

Well, to keep up your analogy - the thing about downloading and listening before picking up your own copy would be the same as being handed a carton of cigarettes from that truck, smoking most of them, then deciding they are really good and then rather than picking up your own carton at the local shop, you decide that since you already smoked (downloaded) the parts you prefer, you decide you don't "owe" anything to "Them", you decide to keep your "free" version, you end up SCREWING the Tobacco Worker/Artist/Band/Label/Programmer/Company, which you would have never done otherwise. ;) :)

:D No offense taken.

However, that wasn't what I was talking about. You talk about downloading and keeping what you got without going out and getting yourself a proper copy afterwards - I didn't. ;)

[mpw]

...I'm a 15 year old kid (16 in two months).

I'm sixteen; I don't have a job...
I guess that being children it goes some way to explain your lack of understanding, maybe when you grow up and have to earn a living you'll think differently. Maybe not though as I knew right from wrong much earlier than 15years old.

[gorilly]

In this article (http://tinyurl.com/5d65bz) on Financial Times, a study following an analysis of In Rainbows concludes that the music industry should "embrace" illegal file-sharing Websites. One of the co-authors said something very similar to you- “It’s time to stop swimming against the tide of what people want."

so, are you saying that just because people want to steal (knowing they can get away with it), the biz should just look the other way and accept it?


no, change their stance to entice consumers.

i would also place money on the fact that until about 2 years ago, there were a lot of people who are actually that naive they downloaded thinking it was 100% ok


and as for in rainbows... i got it for free... listened and then paid what i thought it was worth which was £3.50... which in my view is a fair price.

NIN just released a new album for free, infact i find that listening to xfm in london, you get the chance to download most tracks for free (legally)... as these days its the best way of promotion.


ok so how about this... is youtube wrong for having entire albums on there which you can stream?

i worked in the industry, this is a problem which has hurt me personally... i still dont blame the people who download... but the industry for failing to adapt their ways to cope with it.

also no one has mention the point of why this is really hurting a lot of today's artists... because they are ****ing piss poor and cant perform live, no one actually likes them but the labels force them on the public with no real return.... which is why they are really making no money. unless you can headline, release some decent clothing and make some appearances, album sales or not - you are doomed.

[Gray-Wolf]

MAybe the music industry should do like the movie groups are starting to do. Make the music downloadable and really cheap. But make it not playable after 2 days. They do have disposable movies now, so why not disposable music. ;)

[Berlepsch]

I'm curious as it strikes me that anybody who works for a living would appreciate how wrong it would be to be stolen from or simply not paid for their work done.

If someone steals from me (i.e. taking away bits of my property), that would bother me. But there is a difference between stealing and copying without consent. In the latter case, I continue to possess all my stuff. Of course, if my business is based on selling copies, there is a potential loss in income (potential, because the copyist could decide to buy from me at a later point, or he wouldn't buy from me anyway).

As for your second point, you ask about not getting paid for one's work. Basically, that is a risk for many professions. Look at a salesmen who invest a lot of time talking to customers that will eventually buy elsewhere. Or take an architect who designs new buildings that his potential clients don't build in the end.

Obviously, if everyone only copied music, and no-one bought the songs, there'd be no money for the musicians, except from T-shirts and concerts. So the point is, if you pirate music, do so responsibly. P2P (and youtube as well) offers a great opportunity to widen your musical horizon and learn about new bands and styles. But it only works as long as people continue to buy songs and records. The majority understands this, and for the music industry, it would be wiser to welcome them as loyal customers than accusing them of theft or robbery.

[mpw]

...As for your second point, you ask about not getting paid for one's work. Basically, that is a risk for many professions. Look at a salesmen who invest a lot of time talking to customers that will eventually buy elsewhere. Or take an architect who designs new buildings that his potential clients don't build in the end...
Any architect I've ever used charged, and got paid, for his designs, regardless of whether I chose to use them or not.

And a salesman enters into the pitch or negotiations aware that there is a risk his time will prove fruitless.

Somebody making a product for sale expects to be paid for that product if it's chosen by a 'customer', there shouldn't be any 'acceptable' risk that the customer are just gonna choose not to pay, but take the product anyway.

[CarlsonCustoms]

I pirate music sometimes but if I actually like the music I'll buy it on vinyl or cd..


oh and I say YARRRR when I do it so I guess its ok right?

[jpmittins]

I guess that being children it goes some way to explain your lack of understanding, maybe when you grow up and have to earn a living you'll think differently. Maybe not though as I knew right from wrong much earlier than 15years old.

You know, I really don't appreciate being talked to in that fashion, as if I was just some dumb kid. In fact, I have a very high moral code, it just doesn't apply to P2P because I see no difference in that and sharing a CD with a friend. And for your information, I know damn well what right from wrong is, I just don't think there is something wrong with P2P. I agree with other people; when music becomes cheaper, I'll buy it; until then, I prefer free (and it's still okay, since I'm not actively stealing money from the artist, or anything else. All I'm doing is taking a copy of something that someone has been nice enough to give me).

[TomsMacBook]

I guess that being children it goes some way to explain your lack of understanding, maybe when you grow up and have to earn a living you'll think differently. Maybe not though as I knew right from wrong much earlier than 15years old.

Ouch, that was low. I don't mean, shallow, I mean seriously sub-zero.

And, I'm sure that we know right from wrong. Problem is, 'wrong' has become the norm. Now, I can predict that you're going to say that "Kids these days, hurr hurr hurr, no respect, you're all sheep", etc, but hear me out.

Have you noticed that the music industry has become HUGELY corporate-centred? I'm all for giving money to artists. Hence why I pay full price when I go to concerts, but telly me why I should give money to some suit, instead of the band? If the band put their music out there by themselves, then I'd purchase it. It's that I don't want to see my hard-earned money go straight into a business-mans bank account.

And, another point, P2P helps bands. More and more people get exposure to bands via P2P, and many of them will buy a CD, hence increasing sales.

Think about it.

[jpmittins]

Ouch, that was low. I don't mean, shallow, I mean seriously sub-zero.

And, I'm sure that we know right from wrong. Problem is, 'wrong' has become the norm. Now, I can predict that you're going to say that "Kids these days, hurr hurr hurr, no respect, you're all sheep", etc, but hear me out.

Have you noticed that the music industry has become HUGELY corporate-centred? I'm all for giving money to artists. Hence why I pay full price when I go to concerts, but telly me why I should give money to some suit, instead of the band? If the band put their music out there by themselves, then I'd purchase it. It's that I don't want to see my hard-earned money go straight into a business-mans bank account.

And, another point, P2P helps bands. More and more people get exposure to bands via P2P, and many of them will buy a CD, hence increasing sales.

Think about it.

Ah, finally another person I agree with. If it wasn't for P2P I wouldn't have the majority of the music I have. And when one considers the size of my music collection to some of the gigantic ones belonging to those who hundreds of CD's, it actually makes more sense (cents? ha ha ha) fiscally to torrent music, since you won't then be spending hundreds of dollars on CD's.

[LethalWolfe]

What about copies for friends or relatives? They are (within a certain range) perfectly legal in my country, as our Fair Use politics are not as restrictive, and suddenly there are more people having a copy than the number of records sold.
Since yer changing the subject again I assume we both agree now on the whole used CDs/P2P thing?:p Like someone else already said, the unlawful mass distribution an unlimited number of albums is different than the lawful sharing of album under a 'family license' if you will. I'm not very familiar w/German copyright law. Do you have a link better explaining it? I'm interested in reading more up on it.

This also brings up the question of as more things go global how do we reconcile the differences in laws between countries? We all know what a PITA it's been for the iTMS to set up various 'shops' all over the world.


ok so how about this... is youtube wrong for having entire albums on there which you can stream?
Unless YouTube is licensed to do so then yes they are in the wrong.

i worked in the industry, this is a problem which has hurt me personally... i still dont blame the people who download... but the industry for failing to adapt their ways to cope with it.
I really can't help but blame the pirates because they are the source of the problem. And it's not like these are people stealing food because they can't afford to buy it or rummaging through junk yards looking for building materials to construct a shack to live in. They are refusing to pay for goods just because it's convenient and they have an extremely low risk of being caught. The P2P pirates as well as 'industrialized' pirates (for lack of better term) that produce knock-off goods, identity thieves, and run-of-the-mill shoplifters also screw up stuff for the rest of us by jacking up prices and forcing companies to be weary of technology. Why do computer games need various forms of copy-protection? Why doesn't iTunes allow you to stream your playlists across the internet anymore? Why are shopping malls littered w/security guards, cameras, and anti-theft tags on products? No one implements anti-theft measures when there's no threat of theft.

oh and I say YARRRR when I do it so I guess its ok right?
As long as you are wearing a pirate hat and have a parot on your shoulder then yes.:D


Have you noticed that the music industry has become HUGELY corporate-centred? I'm all for giving money to artists. Hence why I pay full price when I go to concerts, but telly me why I should give money to some suit, instead of the band? If the band put their music out there by themselves, then I'd purchase it. It's that I don't want to see my hard-earned money go straight into a business-mans bank account.
You say "have become" like it's something new (of course we can't miss the irony of that statement by someone who frequents a web-site dedicated to a corporation) and the reason the suit deserves a cut is because the suit took a huge, odds-are-you'll-never-get-your-money-back financial risk on the band. Do most bands get the short end of the stick when they sign to a major? Yes, but the bands choose to make that deal w/the devil. Also, where do you draw the line between 'okay' and 'not okay' in terms of how much money the band gets per album sale and how much money the label gets?


And, another point, P2P helps bands. More and more people get exposure to bands via P2P, and many of them will buy a CD, hence increasing sales.

If a copyright holder wants to distribute their work at no cost they are free to do so. The decisions is theirs to make though not yours.

You know, I really don't appreciate being talked to in that fashion, as if I was just some dumb kid. In fact, I have a very high moral code, it just doesn't apply to P2P because I see no difference in that and sharing a CD with a friend.
:rolleyes:
Really? You can't tell the difference between one copy of a CD being shared between friends and an unlimited number of copies being unlawfully distributed all over the world? Seriously? You can't see the difference between 'one' and 'unlimited?' Is the school system really that bad these days?

Ah, finally another person I agree with. If it wasn't for P2P I wouldn't have the majority of the music I have. And when one considers the size of my music collection to some of the gigantic ones belonging to those who hundreds of CD's, it actually makes more sense (cents? ha ha ha) fiscally to torrent music, since you won't then be spending hundreds of dollars on CD's.
Well, as long as you get everything you want that's what really matters, right? Everyone else can just FOAD.


Lethal

EDIT: Also, I cobbled together this post over a number of hours so if something doesn't make sense I apologize in advance.

[jv17]

im sorry to say that yes I pirate music..that's why there are lots of download programs are created in the web..

[rockosmodurnlif]

Well, to keep up your analogy - the thing about downloading and listening before picking up your own copy would be the same as being handed a carton of cigarettes from that truck, deciding they are really good and then picking up your own carton at the local shop which you would have never done otherwise. Or maybe you would have done if local cigarette shops would have let you "test-smoke" more than just the filter.
I was talking about the seeder not the leecher. The one handing out the cigs, not the one destroying their lungs :D

[Gray-Wolf]

Ah, finally another person I agree with. If it wasn't for P2P I wouldn't have the majority of the music I have. And when one considers the size of my music collection to some of the gigantic ones belonging to those who hundreds of CD's, it actually makes more sense (cents? ha ha ha) fiscally to torrent music, since you won't then be spending hundreds of dollars on CD's.

You mean if you legit payed for the music, your collection would be a tad smaller? You have admited to stealing a large amout of money from the creators of the music. That is a prosecutable offense, you know. :rolleyes:

[calculus]

It does have to be admitted that theft is cheaper than purchasing. Anyone fancy going shoplifting?

[TomsMacBook]

Also, where do you draw the line between 'okay' and 'not okay' in terms of how much money the band gets per album sale and how much money the label gets?
Well, truth of the matter is, I don't draw the line. Because, simply, I don't purchase music. I could go around in circles trying to explain myself, but we'd get nowhere, and we'd both end up getting frustrated. Either way, agree to disagree?

And if this make no sense, sorry in advance, as it was written at 4:21 AM.

EDIT: @ your 'Corporate website' remark, I'd say that I wasn't going against my morals, as I'd be here for the community, not for the product. Although, by purchasing said computer, I'd be buggering up my morals anywho. Ah well.

EDIT2: Also, @ iMac-Knight, I'd be pretty safe, seeing as there are no laws against pirating music in this country. Ta!

[GuyInTheBack]

No, I completely understand you.

It's sort of funny how people are being conditioned to reduce getting MP3s online to 'taking from the musician's pocket'- which is bs in my opinion. What about the person that gets the cd from a friend? Or the person that records the local radio feed? Or the person that simply listens to thousands of free songs off imeem? Or even the add-on that allows you to download it off youtube or any other streaming website? Let's face it, as soon as it reaches the basic level of popularity and availability music becomes public property. An awareness/PR campaign from labels moguls won't change that.

There are endless ways to get the music for free- albeit, often with the video. To simply get the pure mp3 from the web is no different from that. It becomes a question of format- not of content.

And that's as far as I'm willing to go in that discussion.

[LERsince1991]

Let's face it, as soon as it reaches the basic level of popularity and availability music becomes public property.

I like that comment! :p

[jpmittins]

:rolleyes:
Really? You can't tell the difference between one copy of a CD being shared between friends and an unlimited number of copies being unlawfully distributed all over the world? Seriously? You can't see the difference between 'one' and 'unlimited?' Is the school system really that bad these days?


Well, as long as you get everything you want that's what really matters, right? Everyone else can just FOAD.


Lethal

No, I really don't see the difference. How do you know I don't have 200 friends that I gave a music album to personally? As I've said before, a lot of my music is hard to find, even on The Pirate Bay. So, when you look at the download count there, it's not even like it's been distributed to millions of people; it's generally just a few dozen. I could easily have found a few dozen people in my life I know, handed them a burned CD of what they could have downloaded, and you never would have said anything, am I right? It's just that as soon as people mention "piracy" they act completely different, because it's simply on a larger scale (and sometimes, like in my earlier example, not even that much larger).

And no, me getting everything isn't all that matters; I am a very conscientious pirate; I make sure my share ratio is always at least one for each thing I download. The pirating community is generally very nice; it's a case of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". So no, I really don't want everyone to FOAD (which seems rather extreme behavior, if you ask me. Are you harboring psychopathic thoughts?).

You mean if you legit payed for the music, your collection would be a tad smaller? You have admited to stealing a large amout of money from the creators of the music. That is a prosecutable offense, you know. :rolleyes:

I have not admitted to stealing a large amount of money; I never stole any money from the artists. Did I physically take the cash from their pockets? Or better yet, did I necessitate the production of another CD, guarantee the artist I would buy it, and instead I downloaded it? Yes, if I had done that then I would be guilty of stealing their money, for they would not be able to cover the lost money in the production of the CD. However, since I never made any intent to buy the CD, I did not steal anything.

Also, when I said that since my collection is rather small compared to other people's piracy seems like a good idea, I was joking. Jeez, learn to spot humor once in awhile. Sure, I may be doing something wrong, but so are many other people. Plus, it's not like we pirates are killing anybody. Have I broken any of the Ten Commandments? (for you biblical folks) No, so at least I'm not going to hell for all this.

[Metuas]

One of the reasons that I've never pirated music is that, well, most bands that I listen to are not always in prosperous financial shape. They could use the $10, especially if I buy it at a concert, where they actually get that money. The same goes for merch. I will almost always buy a T-shirt of a band I like.

Software, though, is a little different. Adobe isn't struggling to survive, and the wage slaves there are getting the same amount whether I pour $1800 into their company or not. So the CEO makes $1800 less? He's a multimillionaire. I'm not. I spent all of my money on a MacBook Pro (which I paid LESS for than a piece of software? WTF?). As long as I'm not using this software commercially, my use of the software has no effect on them.

[Cassie]

Call me a hypocrite, but I just have to say something here.
No, I really don't see the difference. How do you know I don't have 200 friends that I gave a music album to personally? As I've said before, a lot of my music is hard to find, even on The Pirate Bay. So, when you look at the download count there, it's not even like it's been distributed to millions of people; it's generally just a few dozen. I could easily have found a few dozen people in my life I know, handed them a burned CD of what they could have downloaded, and you never would have said anything, am I right? It's just that as soon as people mention "piracy" they act completely different, because it's simply on a larger scale (and sometimes, like in my earlier example, not even that much larger).
Doesn't matter how small of a scale it is, stealing is stealing, period.

I have not admitted to stealing a large amount of money; I never stole any money from the artists. Did I physically take the cash from their pockets? Or better yet, did I necessitate the production of another CD, guarantee the artist I would buy it, and instead I downloaded it? Yes, if I had done that then I would be guilty of stealing their money, for they would not be able to cover the lost money in the production of the CD. However, since I never made any intent to buy the CD, I did not steal anything.
The flaw in your logic here is, you say you never intended to purchase the CD. And yet, you have the contents of the CD, without actually buying it. Unless said CD was released for free, you just stole the "CD".
Sure, I may be doing something wrong, but so are many other people. And that makes it OK?
Plus, it's not like we pirates are killing anybody. Have I broken any of the Ten Commandments? (for you biblical folks) No, so at least I'm not going to hell for all this.
Thou shalt not steal?:rolleyes:

No matter how you spin this, it's stealing. I'm 15 as well, I do not have a job. I buy as much of my music as I can afford. If I can't afford what I want, I usually don't buy it. Sometimes, yes, I do pirate a song or two. I'm no better then anyone else who steals music. At the very least however, I admit that what I do sometimes is wrong, instead of trying to justify stealing.

[c-Row]

Since yer changing the subject again I assume we both agree now on the whole used CDs/P2P thing?:p

Since no one commented on the Radiohead sales figures I posted I assume we all agree that people are willing to pay for something they could have gotten for free? :p

I don't want to defend p2p sharing per se, but I still think that a purchase based on a previously downloaded album is better than no purchase at all. My music collection would be a lot smaller if it was only for the albums I could have properly listen to at the local shop or internet pages before. Some music tastes are hardly covered on- or offline. ;)


Like someone else already said, the unlawful mass distribution an unlimited number of albums is different than the lawful sharing of album under a 'family license' if you will. I'm not very familiar w/German copyright law. Do you have a link better explaining it? I'm interested in reading more up on it.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatkopie

Unfortunately, there is no english translation for this article. In summary, you are allowed to share up to seven copies with close friends or relatives as long as you don't charge them for it. Copies can be both analogue or digital, though you are not allowed to circumvent a working copy protection (although there's no definition of "working" afaik) or use them for commercial purposes (there are exceptions to this).

Within the EU, countries are free to decide whether or not they allow private copies, so there is no universal law covering this subject for all member states.

[gorilly]

another thing people are forgetting, for an artist to be sucessful they need to be popular, the more popular they are the more tickets they will sell at live sows, the more tshirts they will sell and the more promo they will be asked to do, most importantly, the more likely it is for the band to have deals to make more albums.

downloading has got a lot of bands where they are today, without it they would have barely grown popular.

artic monkeys for example, if they didnt put their music up for free on myspace they would not have been signed - they were famous before they were even on the radio or tv... all thanks to the net. people need to learn how to use it as a promotional tool.

[mpw]

You know, I really don't appreciate being talked to in that fashion, as if I was just some dumb kid...
I never said you were just a dumb kid, you're a thief too.

...am I right?...
No. Over and over again you're wrong, and clearly you just can't see it. That you can't see that what you are doing is wrong doesn't make it right. It's really quite sad.

Ouch, that was low...
Maybe I was just bringing it to your level?

...artic monkeys for example, if they didnt put their music up for free on myspace they would not have been signed...
Okay, but the point is that just because they gave one or two of their tracks away for free doesn't mean they don't want paying for their next. In fact, as you say, they signed a contract specifically to get paid for their efforts.

If I go to a motor show and Aston-Martin give me a free promotional pen, do you think it'd be okay to steal a DB9??

[rockosmodurnlif]

Since no one commented on the Radiohead sales figures I posted I assume we all agree that people are willing to pay for something they could have gotten for free? :p

No one commented on it? Fine, I'll do it.

Of course people are willing to pay for something they could have gotten for free and they're willing to pay more for something they can get cheaper. Is that the argument? What people are willing to pay for? CDs still sell, even popular CDs available all over the net still sell. Would there be less pirating if CDs were cheaper, possibly. I know I will pick up a CD I haven't downloaded from an artist I don't know if its $10 and I know I won't if it's $11. Heck I wouldn't if it were $10.25.

But I'm not buying some crap CD in order not to be called a thief. They should be the called the thieves for putting trash on the shelf and then only playing the one or two good songs on the record on the radio. I will download, listen to an entire record and, if it's good, buy it to support whoever found and released this good album so they can continue to do more of the same. If the record is crap, I can only hope to encourage more people to steal it so the company will go out of business or whoever discovered this artist will be fired and I have one less source of garbage music to sort through.

[jpmittins]

Thou shalt not steal?:rolleyes:



Crap, I forgot. I was thinking about not killing and coveting my neighbor's wife (which as far as I know, piracy does not entail). This is why I don't get involved with religion, normally; for some dumb reason I did anyway. At least I know it's the eight Commandment, except for the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans.

I never said you were just a dumb kid, you're a thief too.

**** you, you don't even know a single thing about me, except what little information I have placed on these forums. There's no cause for insults; did I ever do call you a bad name in this entire discussion where everyone seems to be against me? No. I kept it mature, which is more than you can say. I have only ever tried to explain things so that you understand them better. However, since you seem to have lost every shred of maturity you may ever have had and now become a five year old in your logic, I suppose I can't explain my thoughts as well, seeing as I will have to use monosyllabic words. I apologize in advance if you can no longer understand my arguments, but it is so very hard to find one syllable synonyms for "piracy".

[jpmittins]

I've actually just gotten a great idea. For all those people who don't like pirating and for all those people who do like it but feel it gives a bad name to the action, how about we call it swashbuckling? Then everyone's happy because it's too ridiculous a term to mean anything that could be bad.

EDIT: Or how about buccaneering? That's good too.

[mpw]

...**** you, you don't even know a single thing about me, except what little information I have placed on these forums...
And lets re-cap that information that you placed in this thread shall we:
You're a thief
You're 16
You don't see anything wrong with stealing.

Hmmm, I didn't insult you, I repeated the facts that you supplied.

Thief is not a bad name, in fact it's a very good name... for a thief.

[jpmittins]

And lets re-cap that information that you placed in this thread shall we:
You're a thief
You're 16
You don't see anything wrong with stealing.

Hmmm, I didn't insult you, I repeated the facts that you supplied.

Thief is not a bad name, in fact it's a very good name... for a thief.

You seem to so quickly forget what I was really complaining to you about. While I may be a 16-year-old who doesn't see anything wrong with sharing music, you are the one who goes down several levels by insulting me and then denying that you have gone down several levels and insulting me once again.

Maybe I was just bringing it to your level?

Does that ring any bells? You seem incapable of responding to an argument; instead you just insult the person you're arguing with as opposed to coming up with a well constructed counter-point.

Now if you don't mind, I have to go now to watch The Venture Brothers; pirated, of course!