Hey!
Who cares if its legal or not. At least we are going to have it. Be happy for what you got...
Who cares if its legal or not. At least we are going to have it. Be happy for what you got...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Morpheus Mac
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmmm...ambitious...
I assure you that I am not "right-wing" though I may be a whacko...
That said...I'd like you to clarify your point. Do you think that my taking software off of a P2P network is not stealing? Even if I think software, in the future, should be free, are you suggesting that I should then treat current software that way?
Please clarify your position.
I assure you that I am not "right-wing" though I may be a whacko...
That said...I'd like you to clarify your point. Do you think that my taking software off of a P2P network is not stealing? Even if I think software, in the future, should be free, are you suggesting that I should then treat current software that way?
Please clarify your position.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Re: Don't flatter yourselves...
Timothy: "Trying to compare stealing music and software to a revolution akin to the Boston Tea Party or Robin Hood is ridiculous.
[snip] don't kid yourself that you are pursuing some noble cause by stealing music"
You should learn to read more carefully before casting ridicule, Timothy. I'm not comparing the act of stealing with revolution, I'm comparing the results. Indulge me in some self-flattery as I quote my post:
"Changing the system is probably not the motive behind most file-sharing, but the end result should be that the music industry will be forced to reevaluate its practices. "
I'm looking forward to the music industry results of people's use of p2p, but I really don't care about their motives as I am not a member of the Morality Patrol (can you hear me way, way up there on that horse, Timothy?).
"Theft is theft, no matter how pretty you try to paint it"? Theft may always be theft, but it may not always be wrong. I sure would like to live in your clear-cut, black and white world where there are no grey areas to navigate. On second thought I take that back, I would hate to live in such a world.
[ bracing myself for the withering rejoinder I so surely deserve ]
Timothy: "Trying to compare stealing music and software to a revolution akin to the Boston Tea Party or Robin Hood is ridiculous.
[snip] don't kid yourself that you are pursuing some noble cause by stealing music"
You should learn to read more carefully before casting ridicule, Timothy. I'm not comparing the act of stealing with revolution, I'm comparing the results. Indulge me in some self-flattery as I quote my post:
"Changing the system is probably not the motive behind most file-sharing, but the end result should be that the music industry will be forced to reevaluate its practices. "
I'm looking forward to the music industry results of people's use of p2p, but I really don't care about their motives as I am not a member of the Morality Patrol (can you hear me way, way up there on that horse, Timothy?).
"Theft is theft, no matter how pretty you try to paint it"? Theft may always be theft, but it may not always be wrong. I sure would like to live in your clear-cut, black and white world where there are no grey areas to navigate. On second thought I take that back, I would hate to live in such a world.
[ bracing myself for the withering rejoinder I so surely deserve ]
That last was from me
I forgot to log in, so that last post was from me, Mackenzie999. Didn't want to look like I was hiding behind an anonymous post.
I forgot to log in, so that last post was from me, Mackenzie999. Didn't want to look like I was hiding behind an anonymous post.
stealing??
Timothy--
maybe you could clarify for me:
1. Would you consider me to be stealing music if I already owned a copy of the song or songs that I was downloading?? If yes, what if I no longer had the record/CD/tape, but did indeed pay for it. In essence, do you think that I should have to pay for the same thing twice??
Also:
2. Is it stealing if you record music off of the radio for your own personal use at a later time? This is no different from VCR's or TiVo when speaking of video. So I would think your answer to this question would be that it is indeed not stealing.
3. If radio is free (which it is), and assuming that recording off of the radio is allowable, can I have a friend of mine record a song for me from the radio from a station that I can't listen to?
4. If I can record a song off of the radio, why can't I have that friend record the song off of a CD? Encoding an mp3 loses a considerable amount of sound quality on a high fidelity stereo, so I certainly would not be using this song for anything other than portable music. Someone has already paid for it, so is it stealing??
There are a lot of questions that you can ask similar to these that basically all boil down to one question.
Why will the music industry give away music in one format and ask you to pay for it in another?
The two ideas are contradictory and I would hate to be an industry insider right now. I never buy CD's. I listen to the radio almost exclusively, yet when I download mp3's from a P2P, I am one of those statistics quoted by the industry. I am lost revenue to them because if I didn't download an illegal copy I would buy the CD. That simply is not correct. It is estimated that the industry loses billions of dollars each year. And I am losing billions of dollars of lottery winnings on the tickets that I don't buy.
I think that accusing people of stealing music from these P2P networks is pretty brave. This is music that is constantly GIVEN AWAY FREE at one time or another. How do you know that all of the mp3's on the web aren't encoded from free promo disks given away or recorded directly from free radio? Of course we know that is not the case, but how can anyone think that they are naive enough to stop the spread of information, © or not.
Timothy--
maybe you could clarify for me:
1. Would you consider me to be stealing music if I already owned a copy of the song or songs that I was downloading?? If yes, what if I no longer had the record/CD/tape, but did indeed pay for it. In essence, do you think that I should have to pay for the same thing twice??
Also:
2. Is it stealing if you record music off of the radio for your own personal use at a later time? This is no different from VCR's or TiVo when speaking of video. So I would think your answer to this question would be that it is indeed not stealing.
3. If radio is free (which it is), and assuming that recording off of the radio is allowable, can I have a friend of mine record a song for me from the radio from a station that I can't listen to?
4. If I can record a song off of the radio, why can't I have that friend record the song off of a CD? Encoding an mp3 loses a considerable amount of sound quality on a high fidelity stereo, so I certainly would not be using this song for anything other than portable music. Someone has already paid for it, so is it stealing??
There are a lot of questions that you can ask similar to these that basically all boil down to one question.
Why will the music industry give away music in one format and ask you to pay for it in another?
The two ideas are contradictory and I would hate to be an industry insider right now. I never buy CD's. I listen to the radio almost exclusively, yet when I download mp3's from a P2P, I am one of those statistics quoted by the industry. I am lost revenue to them because if I didn't download an illegal copy I would buy the CD. That simply is not correct. It is estimated that the industry loses billions of dollars each year. And I am losing billions of dollars of lottery winnings on the tickets that I don't buy.
I think that accusing people of stealing music from these P2P networks is pretty brave. This is music that is constantly GIVEN AWAY FREE at one time or another. How do you know that all of the mp3's on the web aren't encoded from free promo disks given away or recorded directly from free radio? Of course we know that is not the case, but how can anyone think that they are naive enough to stop the spread of information, © or not.
OK...
Ok MacKenzie...
Your entire point (in your previous post) seemed to rest upon the idea that the music industry is "corrupt." While I, too, don't like the industry, I am not sure that I would call it corrupt. So, I'll ask you, what is it that you consider "corrupt" about the current industry?
Also...is it your assertion that I should beallowed to take any software application that I choose without having to pay for it?
Please clarify your position so that I can see where exactly we differ.
Ok MacKenzie...
Your entire point (in your previous post) seemed to rest upon the idea that the music industry is "corrupt." While I, too, don't like the industry, I am not sure that I would call it corrupt. So, I'll ask you, what is it that you consider "corrupt" about the current industry?
Also...is it your assertion that I should beallowed to take any software application that I choose without having to pay for it?
Please clarify your position so that I can see where exactly we differ.
Re: OK...
Tim: "Also...is it your assertion that I should beallowed to take any software application that I choose without having to pay for it?"
Woops, missed this point first time around. It was never my intention to address software (other than mp3) but once again I'll bite.
This one is a bit trickier because of the chicken-and-the-egg phenomonon. Sure, $650 seems like an awful lot to pay for Photoshop, but I've read that only 10% of all software in use is legitemately licensed; this drives up the prices that honest folk must shell out. I'd be much happier if everyone paid there way and Photoshop was more wallet-friendly. Fortunately for me I am a design professional and PS is at least tax-deductable.
Not much of an argument there, and this probably contradicts my thoughts on the music biz, but as I said I am not a black & white guy. Kinda pasty though.
Tim: "Also...is it your assertion that I should beallowed to take any software application that I choose without having to pay for it?"
Woops, missed this point first time around. It was never my intention to address software (other than mp3) but once again I'll bite.
This one is a bit trickier because of the chicken-and-the-egg phenomonon. Sure, $650 seems like an awful lot to pay for Photoshop, but I've read that only 10% of all software in use is legitemately licensed; this drives up the prices that honest folk must shell out. I'd be much happier if everyone paid there way and Photoshop was more wallet-friendly. Fortunately for me I am a design professional and PS is at least tax-deductable.
Not much of an argument there, and this probably contradicts my thoughts on the music biz, but as I said I am not a black & white guy. Kinda pasty though.
Thanks...
Hey MacKenzie...thanks for your answers. I asked because I think the answer to these questions are fundamental to the debate over peer-to-peer in general.
A major label, on average, spends about $750k recording and producing an album for one of their bands. The label nets approximately $4 of each album sold, meaning that just for the label to break even, the band has to sell 187,500 albums at full retail cost. Now, factor in that somewhere less than 10% of all bands sell anywhere near that many CD's (and even fewer sell significantly more than that), and you begin to see where the economics of the situation come into play. The labels lose money on most bands, and contrary to one post earlier in this thread, the risk is entirely upon the shoulders of the label; the bands are not responsible for the money that is put into them by the label, except that some of the costs are recoupable out of sales.
You seemed to imply that the cost of CDs produced by the majors somehow impacts the cost of the CDs by the independent artists. Truth be told, the independent market needs to charge *more* per CD, not less. A *great* and successful independent artist (1 in 1000?) will sell somehwere around 10,000 to 20,000 CD's. They will of course spend less on production, but it can easily still cost $20-50,000 for a well-produced product. So, say you have a 5-piece band; assuming they sell 20,000 CDs over three years, after expenses, they have still only netted $15K per member year each. If they charge less than a basic $15 per disc, they're dead. No one can make a living on that. And, that does not account for marketing and equipment expenses.
BTW...I've done controlled studies with independent musicians. We've lowered the price of their CDs to less than $10 to see if they sold more at the lower price than at the higher price. The result? Price did not influence sales (within reason, of course). They sell just as many at $15 as they do at $9. Why? Because in reality, if you like the music, and want to buy it, $15 isn't out of reach.
I agree that there are a lot of great bands out there that never get heard. I place the blame for this not on the industry, but on the buying public who likes to have their entertainment spoon-fed to them. I am not sure how it is the fault of the "industry" if you don't go out to the local clubs, listen to new bands, and buy their music. Where ever you live, I'd be willing to bet that there is a local band playing tonight and trying to get your attention. The major labels are not stopping you from getting out there and buying music from the independent market.
I agree with your assessment of the market, with a few notable exceptions. This is why I choose to work primarily with independent artists.
Hey MacKenzie...thanks for your answers. I asked because I think the answer to these questions are fundamental to the debate over peer-to-peer in general.
A major label, on average, spends about $750k recording and producing an album for one of their bands. The label nets approximately $4 of each album sold, meaning that just for the label to break even, the band has to sell 187,500 albums at full retail cost. Now, factor in that somewhere less than 10% of all bands sell anywhere near that many CD's (and even fewer sell significantly more than that), and you begin to see where the economics of the situation come into play. The labels lose money on most bands, and contrary to one post earlier in this thread, the risk is entirely upon the shoulders of the label; the bands are not responsible for the money that is put into them by the label, except that some of the costs are recoupable out of sales.
You seemed to imply that the cost of CDs produced by the majors somehow impacts the cost of the CDs by the independent artists. Truth be told, the independent market needs to charge *more* per CD, not less. A *great* and successful independent artist (1 in 1000?) will sell somehwere around 10,000 to 20,000 CD's. They will of course spend less on production, but it can easily still cost $20-50,000 for a well-produced product. So, say you have a 5-piece band; assuming they sell 20,000 CDs over three years, after expenses, they have still only netted $15K per member year each. If they charge less than a basic $15 per disc, they're dead. No one can make a living on that. And, that does not account for marketing and equipment expenses.
BTW...I've done controlled studies with independent musicians. We've lowered the price of their CDs to less than $10 to see if they sold more at the lower price than at the higher price. The result? Price did not influence sales (within reason, of course). They sell just as many at $15 as they do at $9. Why? Because in reality, if you like the music, and want to buy it, $15 isn't out of reach.
I agree that there are a lot of great bands out there that never get heard. I place the blame for this not on the industry, but on the buying public who likes to have their entertainment spoon-fed to them. I am not sure how it is the fault of the "industry" if you don't go out to the local clubs, listen to new bands, and buy their music. Where ever you live, I'd be willing to bet that there is a local band playing tonight and trying to get your attention. The major labels are not stopping you from getting out there and buying music from the independent market.
I agree with your assessment of the market, with a few notable exceptions. This is why I choose to work primarily with independent artists.
actually acourding to the supreme court making any copy of a copyrighted material for anything other than an educational purpose is illegal. just one of those little loophole that no one pays attention to.
kinda like the law that says only chicken feathers may be released from a car on a state and or federal highway...my point only that people comit theft and crime and don't even know it
the joy of my best friend being a constitutional lawyer major at harvard...loopholes are endless
kinda like the law that says only chicken feathers may be released from a car on a state and or federal highway...my point only that people comit theft and crime and don't even know it
the joy of my best friend being a constitutional lawyer major at harvard...loopholes are endless
better late than never...
wow, i've never seen so many lame arguments to justify theft. if you're taking something and not paying for it--you're a thief--PERIOD.
are the record labels unfair to most artists? absolutely. what the heck does that have to do with you? if you think you're going to change them or teach them a lesson you woefully underestimate the depths of their pockets.
is it a black and white issue? sure, because the music you're stealing is a luxury. you're not stealing food for your starving kids.
if you bought a cd and you lost it then go buy another. what if it were a pair of sunglasses? surfboard wax? geeze, some of you guys have some MAJOR character flaws.
i find it interesting how much flaming occurs on this sight about M$'s unethical behavior but when the opportunity presents itself-some of you guys are just little Bills.
and BTW, yes i've been signed to both major and indy labels-and been screwed by both. so what? my choice.
wow, i've never seen so many lame arguments to justify theft. if you're taking something and not paying for it--you're a thief--PERIOD.
are the record labels unfair to most artists? absolutely. what the heck does that have to do with you? if you think you're going to change them or teach them a lesson you woefully underestimate the depths of their pockets.
is it a black and white issue? sure, because the music you're stealing is a luxury. you're not stealing food for your starving kids.
if you bought a cd and you lost it then go buy another. what if it were a pair of sunglasses? surfboard wax? geeze, some of you guys have some MAJOR character flaws.
i find it interesting how much flaming occurs on this sight about M$'s unethical behavior but when the opportunity presents itself-some of you guys are just little Bills.
and BTW, yes i've been signed to both major and indy labels-and been screwed by both. so what? my choice.
First off, I'd like to say that it's cool that this has stayed flame free. I've seen some good "point/counter point" opinions and examples.
And here's the 2 cents I feel like sharing now:
If you are an artist and you want (or don't care) your music to be shared freely then fine. That's very cool of you. But if you *don't* want yer music shared freely you should have a way to stop it from happening. I mean, that's what the whole thing between Metallica and Napster was. 'Tallica didn't want *their property* to be distrubited for free, but Napster refused to cooperate so 'Tallica called in the big guns and off to court they all went.
I think P2P (and the digital medium in general) is great, especially for low-budget and indie types 'cause it allows you to get a lot of bang for the buck, but I don't think people should be forced into letting their product or property be given away for free. I mean, people ragged on 'Tallica 6 ways from Sunday, but all Metallica wanted was for Napster to stop giving away Metallica's property, WTF is wrong w/that?
For me P2P has been a great "try before I buy" solution. If someone says, "Hey check out this band" I'll grab some of their songs on-line and see if I like them. If I do then I go buy the CD, if I don't then I trash the files 'cause I think they suck.
Lethal
And here's the 2 cents I feel like sharing now:
If you are an artist and you want (or don't care) your music to be shared freely then fine. That's very cool of you. But if you *don't* want yer music shared freely you should have a way to stop it from happening. I mean, that's what the whole thing between Metallica and Napster was. 'Tallica didn't want *their property* to be distrubited for free, but Napster refused to cooperate so 'Tallica called in the big guns and off to court they all went.
I think P2P (and the digital medium in general) is great, especially for low-budget and indie types 'cause it allows you to get a lot of bang for the buck, but I don't think people should be forced into letting their product or property be given away for free. I mean, people ragged on 'Tallica 6 ways from Sunday, but all Metallica wanted was for Napster to stop giving away Metallica's property, WTF is wrong w/that?
For me P2P has been a great "try before I buy" solution. If someone says, "Hey check out this band" I'll grab some of their songs on-line and see if I like them. If I do then I go buy the CD, if I don't then I trash the files 'cause I think they suck.
Lethal
Re: better late than never...
(I risk getting burned by flamethrowers by speaking up, but i've got my suit on.)
The difference here is that while you're paying for the sunglasses or surfboard wax themselves, you're not with the CD. With the CD, you're paying for the music. The CD is merely the medium the music is held on (although admittedly a bit of the price comes from the CD itself). However, if you wanted blank CD's, they're a lot cheaper than 15 bucks a piece.
If one lost a pair of sunglasses or some surfboard wax (lost as opposed to used/worn out), I personally feel it would be perfectly acceptable to get another copy of the same pair, IF it could be done without negative impact to anybody. Unfortunately, in the sunglasses analogy every pair has to be made, and each pair costs the company money to make. Therefore, the only model that would work in the real world (where people could also claim their glasses were lost even if they really weren't) is one where the customer must pay for each pair/bottle. Otherwise, companies might go out of business providing 'free refills'.
With the CD, however, the situation changes. If one loses the CD, he or she can find the music online. The difference in this scenario is that it doesn't cost the company (record) any money to make the copy (as the music can be duplicated as many times as one wants, with the only costs being the electricity one uses while one makes the copy, and the harddrive used to hold it, which one presumably already has), and thus has no direct negative impact on them. The person has already paid for the music, and therefore is not 'pirating' or 'stealing' the music. Of course, if the person then starts distributing the music personally, and especially if he or she gives it to people who would otherwise buy the CD, the company is negatively impacted again. That area, however, I'll leave to everyone else.
Originally posted by 3rdpath
if you bought a cd and you lost it then go buy another. what if it were a pair of sunglasses? surfboard wax? geeze, some of you guys have some MAJOR character flaws.
(I risk getting burned by flamethrowers by speaking up, but i've got my suit on.)
The difference here is that while you're paying for the sunglasses or surfboard wax themselves, you're not with the CD. With the CD, you're paying for the music. The CD is merely the medium the music is held on (although admittedly a bit of the price comes from the CD itself). However, if you wanted blank CD's, they're a lot cheaper than 15 bucks a piece.
If one lost a pair of sunglasses or some surfboard wax (lost as opposed to used/worn out), I personally feel it would be perfectly acceptable to get another copy of the same pair, IF it could be done without negative impact to anybody. Unfortunately, in the sunglasses analogy every pair has to be made, and each pair costs the company money to make. Therefore, the only model that would work in the real world (where people could also claim their glasses were lost even if they really weren't) is one where the customer must pay for each pair/bottle. Otherwise, companies might go out of business providing 'free refills'.
With the CD, however, the situation changes. If one loses the CD, he or she can find the music online. The difference in this scenario is that it doesn't cost the company (record) any money to make the copy (as the music can be duplicated as many times as one wants, with the only costs being the electricity one uses while one makes the copy, and the harddrive used to hold it, which one presumably already has), and thus has no direct negative impact on them. The person has already paid for the music, and therefore is not 'pirating' or 'stealing' the music. Of course, if the person then starts distributing the music personally, and especially if he or she gives it to people who would otherwise buy the CD, the company is negatively impacted again. That area, however, I'll leave to everyone else.
Re: Nothing but theft...
Or we could all just steal music online and then send a few bucks to the artist. A person could argue that some civil disobedience is a good thing. If the artists are being treated unfairly or being exploited by the labels why not break the law? Borrowing from the previous post that used slavery as a metaphor for the way artists are treated by labels, why not steal? Why propagate a system that is unjust? If a slave escaped from the south during the period of slavery, would you send them back? Just because that's what the system said you ought to do? Granted, the ethical weight of the slavery metaphor is a bit heavier than that of the music industry. It's all going to change, whether the labels like it or not, because of advances in digital media technology. In the very near future (even now) artists will be able to record at a high level of quality with inexpensive equipment. As internet delivery becomes better, the major record labels (and movie studios) are going to disappear or drastically change form. Anyhow, please accept this as some vocal musing and don't be to quick to judge anyone you disagree with. That never leads to anything positive.
C.
Or we could all just steal music online and then send a few bucks to the artist. A person could argue that some civil disobedience is a good thing. If the artists are being treated unfairly or being exploited by the labels why not break the law? Borrowing from the previous post that used slavery as a metaphor for the way artists are treated by labels, why not steal? Why propagate a system that is unjust? If a slave escaped from the south during the period of slavery, would you send them back? Just because that's what the system said you ought to do? Granted, the ethical weight of the slavery metaphor is a bit heavier than that of the music industry. It's all going to change, whether the labels like it or not, because of advances in digital media technology. In the very near future (even now) artists will be able to record at a high level of quality with inexpensive equipment. As internet delivery becomes better, the major record labels (and movie studios) are going to disappear or drastically change form. Anyhow, please accept this as some vocal musing and don't be to quick to judge anyone you disagree with. That never leads to anything positive.
C.
Re: Re: better late than never...
Excellent point. That's the whole thing. A CD costs the publisher somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty cents to press in quantity. Maybe less by now. Think about it -- if they were any more expensive than that AOL would have gone out of business long ago. The big justification for the high cost of CDs is that what you're paying for is a license to listen to the music. And yet, if somehow the medium becomes damaged, your only option is to pay again for music you've already purchased a license for once.
In fact one of the reasons the cost of CDs is so high is that CDs don't wear out as fast as any previous distribution medium. The extra price, for a disc that costs them less to produce than a cassette tape, is that they're losing a lot of revenue compared to the good old days when people had to replace their favorite albums every year or two.
In one sense, Timothy's right on the money. Taking the music without paying for it is illegal, and ninety-nine percent of the people who talk about how the labels are corrupt, abuse the artists, etc, could not care less that the labels do those things except insofar as it gives them something to say when people point out to them that stealing music is wrong. In other words, most of you would never think to protest the injustice of the music industry if you weren't getting free music out of the deal.
At the same time, once you get away from the individual ethics of the situation (which I think I can do fairly since my Napster usage didn't tend towards the illegal), the situation is not as black-and-white as that. Even though the people who steal the music are not justified in doing so, the hubris and greed of the labels has played no small part in creating the situation they now find themselves in. The labels have managed to successfully circumvent all of the usual controls in a free-market industry. By building up enormous complexity, they have actually succeeded in creating legal price fixing in their industry. When theft of a product is as ubiquitous as Napster usage was, then there is something wrong with the economics of the situation. In this case, part of what's wrong is that it is now possible to distribute music far, far cheaper than the established process. In fact, the music literally distributes itself. For that matter, it's hard to stop it. The very existence of this option makes the traditional distribution mechanisms far less valuable to the consumer. In effect, the labels now force consumers to pay an outrageous premium for an outdated and inefficient publishing and distribution mechanism which consumers demonstrably neither want or need.
What's happened here is that the complexity which allowed the labels to fix and maintain enormous profits at the same time made the industry too complex to be able to adapt to changes in the market environment. So when something truly revolutionary comes along (and personal worldwide distribution of content certainly qualifies), their only choice is to do their very best to crush it and maintain the status quo. Essentially, they're engaging in anticompetitive business practices, not against a specific competitor, but against the proverbial idea whose time has come. I'm pretty sure it's ultimately a losing battle for the labels, but it's going to be a hell of a mess for a while as they try to maintain their position.
Excellent point. That's the whole thing. A CD costs the publisher somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty cents to press in quantity. Maybe less by now. Think about it -- if they were any more expensive than that AOL would have gone out of business long ago. The big justification for the high cost of CDs is that what you're paying for is a license to listen to the music. And yet, if somehow the medium becomes damaged, your only option is to pay again for music you've already purchased a license for once.
In fact one of the reasons the cost of CDs is so high is that CDs don't wear out as fast as any previous distribution medium. The extra price, for a disc that costs them less to produce than a cassette tape, is that they're losing a lot of revenue compared to the good old days when people had to replace their favorite albums every year or two.
In one sense, Timothy's right on the money. Taking the music without paying for it is illegal, and ninety-nine percent of the people who talk about how the labels are corrupt, abuse the artists, etc, could not care less that the labels do those things except insofar as it gives them something to say when people point out to them that stealing music is wrong. In other words, most of you would never think to protest the injustice of the music industry if you weren't getting free music out of the deal.
At the same time, once you get away from the individual ethics of the situation (which I think I can do fairly since my Napster usage didn't tend towards the illegal), the situation is not as black-and-white as that. Even though the people who steal the music are not justified in doing so, the hubris and greed of the labels has played no small part in creating the situation they now find themselves in. The labels have managed to successfully circumvent all of the usual controls in a free-market industry. By building up enormous complexity, they have actually succeeded in creating legal price fixing in their industry. When theft of a product is as ubiquitous as Napster usage was, then there is something wrong with the economics of the situation. In this case, part of what's wrong is that it is now possible to distribute music far, far cheaper than the established process. In fact, the music literally distributes itself. For that matter, it's hard to stop it. The very existence of this option makes the traditional distribution mechanisms far less valuable to the consumer. In effect, the labels now force consumers to pay an outrageous premium for an outdated and inefficient publishing and distribution mechanism which consumers demonstrably neither want or need.
What's happened here is that the complexity which allowed the labels to fix and maintain enormous profits at the same time made the industry too complex to be able to adapt to changes in the market environment. So when something truly revolutionary comes along (and personal worldwide distribution of content certainly qualifies), their only choice is to do their very best to crush it and maintain the status quo. Essentially, they're engaging in anticompetitive business practices, not against a specific competitor, but against the proverbial idea whose time has come. I'm pretty sure it's ultimately a losing battle for the labels, but it's going to be a hell of a mess for a while as they try to maintain their position.
what is art?
in response to some of the points lethal made about Metallica crying about their music being taken.
When an "artist" completes a work and shares it with the world, he/she is openly giving it to everyone. they are saying, "hey, look what i did.... i made some cool music." the problem is that too many people try to create just for the money. this seems to be what the definition of an artist is. if your art sucks then either, no one else understands it or you are really bad. and if you think that it is good art, then you will continue to make it despite the odds because thats who you are...an artist. where do aritsts get the fantasy that art should make them rich? the reward is in the art itself, not in how much it will be sold for. this concept seems to be absent in today's music industry. musicians should leave the money making to the business people because that is what they do. just as long as the musicians have enough money to keep making music, then they shouldn't be complaining. it seems though that this is exactly the problem, that independent artists don't have the resources to be a musician. so how is this problem fixed? well, not everyone can be a superstar.....independent artists must keep on keepin on if you know what i mean and then maybe someday, people will catch on to their music. but then again maybe your art will never catch on and you'll have to suffer from the same neglect that many artists have suffered throughout history. it seems that throughout history some of the best art was created in situations of angiush and poverty.....or some situation to create art about. i think their are too many ordinary people that haven't experienced enough pain to say anything truly moving with their art. me included. this is a whole different topic.
there is some similarity to Amb. Lemon's article. the author seemed to be in support of sharing discoveries and being able to improve on them. this can be applied to music and computer science. if you developed something and decided to share it then share it. charging would be like newton saying, "okay, everytime you integrate that i want you to give me 10 bucks. and i'm not going to show you how i did it, i'll just give you the equation and tell you how to use it. and if you don't pay up then i'll have you put in the gulletin." if that had been the case then calculus might not have grown into what it is today. of course people and companies still need to make money in order to produce these products for us, otherwise you would have the time to write Photoshop 7? but $640! damn...i'll be in line to get the latest surfers serials. so i don't know what side that puts me on.
forgive me if this post is not coherent..its kinda late. and feel free to tell me how it is.
punjab
emagdnimy
in response to some of the points lethal made about Metallica crying about their music being taken.
When an "artist" completes a work and shares it with the world, he/she is openly giving it to everyone. they are saying, "hey, look what i did.... i made some cool music." the problem is that too many people try to create just for the money. this seems to be what the definition of an artist is. if your art sucks then either, no one else understands it or you are really bad. and if you think that it is good art, then you will continue to make it despite the odds because thats who you are...an artist. where do aritsts get the fantasy that art should make them rich? the reward is in the art itself, not in how much it will be sold for. this concept seems to be absent in today's music industry. musicians should leave the money making to the business people because that is what they do. just as long as the musicians have enough money to keep making music, then they shouldn't be complaining. it seems though that this is exactly the problem, that independent artists don't have the resources to be a musician. so how is this problem fixed? well, not everyone can be a superstar.....independent artists must keep on keepin on if you know what i mean and then maybe someday, people will catch on to their music. but then again maybe your art will never catch on and you'll have to suffer from the same neglect that many artists have suffered throughout history. it seems that throughout history some of the best art was created in situations of angiush and poverty.....or some situation to create art about. i think their are too many ordinary people that haven't experienced enough pain to say anything truly moving with their art. me included. this is a whole different topic.
there is some similarity to Amb. Lemon's article. the author seemed to be in support of sharing discoveries and being able to improve on them. this can be applied to music and computer science. if you developed something and decided to share it then share it. charging would be like newton saying, "okay, everytime you integrate that i want you to give me 10 bucks. and i'm not going to show you how i did it, i'll just give you the equation and tell you how to use it. and if you don't pay up then i'll have you put in the gulletin." if that had been the case then calculus might not have grown into what it is today. of course people and companies still need to make money in order to produce these products for us, otherwise you would have the time to write Photoshop 7? but $640! damn...i'll be in line to get the latest surfers serials. so i don't know what side that puts me on.
forgive me if this post is not coherent..its kinda late. and feel free to tell me how it is.
punjab
emagdnimy
stealing? who cares.
so say that my moral code is shot...
i don't care if it's stealing when i download a song, and sometimes i don't use my turn signal, and sometimes i look at my neigbor's wife and say, damn, she' hot.
big deal. i think if i walked into the dc police department at lunch and gave them my powerbook because i have a copy of the photoshop beta i probably wouldn't end up on COPS with my face blurred and BadBoys playing in the background.
so say that my moral code is shot...
i don't care if it's stealing when i download a song, and sometimes i don't use my turn signal, and sometimes i look at my neigbor's wife and say, damn, she' hot.
big deal. i think if i walked into the dc police department at lunch and gave them my powerbook because i have a copy of the photoshop beta i probably wouldn't end up on COPS with my face blurred and BadBoys playing in the background.
Lemme just start some ****...........
Does anyone remember Guetenberg? No, it's not a WWII death camp or a treaty, it's the name of the guy who invented the printing press in 1450. His process was siezed upon by Martin Luthor and his gang of Protestants who believed that the Bible should be available to the common man. The Catholic Church, which had created an Empire, slaughtered entire Nations (The Cathars) and suppressed literacy predictably freaked out. The prospect of the Bible being available to everyone, particularly in the common languages threatened the basis of Catholic Empirial power. How could they extort and manipulate all of Europe if people could commune and understand independantly?
When a behemoth and monopolist industry cries fowl I find it more than a bit satisfying that no one cares. Artists never had the means to "get rich quick" until the recording industry accidentally created the rock stars of the 50's. After the mid 60s the Labels figured out that Advertising, Spin and market research could allow them to pick and choose what sold, what was paid for it and who provided the content.
Over the last 30 years we've seen the Labels evolve from a genuine effort to promote new Acts to a bloated and self-serving Enron/Standard Oil/Mideival-Catholic institution. I feel that these companies need a kick in the nuts and fully deserve it. I feel that the loss of proffits argument is crap. I feel that this is an un-precidented new kind of boycott.
If they want to sell me a liscence, fine. Sell me a Liscence that gives me access and priveleges just like software vendors do. I want to pay 20.00 for Metallica ONCE and have access, not a hunk of highly scratchable plastic with no actual rites attatched. This system sux as much as the IRS.**** em, if they can't adapt they'll die. Sorry Brittany, I guess you'll just have to resort to stripping.
Does anyone remember Guetenberg? No, it's not a WWII death camp or a treaty, it's the name of the guy who invented the printing press in 1450. His process was siezed upon by Martin Luthor and his gang of Protestants who believed that the Bible should be available to the common man. The Catholic Church, which had created an Empire, slaughtered entire Nations (The Cathars) and suppressed literacy predictably freaked out. The prospect of the Bible being available to everyone, particularly in the common languages threatened the basis of Catholic Empirial power. How could they extort and manipulate all of Europe if people could commune and understand independantly?
When a behemoth and monopolist industry cries fowl I find it more than a bit satisfying that no one cares. Artists never had the means to "get rich quick" until the recording industry accidentally created the rock stars of the 50's. After the mid 60s the Labels figured out that Advertising, Spin and market research could allow them to pick and choose what sold, what was paid for it and who provided the content.
Over the last 30 years we've seen the Labels evolve from a genuine effort to promote new Acts to a bloated and self-serving Enron/Standard Oil/Mideival-Catholic institution. I feel that these companies need a kick in the nuts and fully deserve it. I feel that the loss of proffits argument is crap. I feel that this is an un-precidented new kind of boycott.
If they want to sell me a liscence, fine. Sell me a Liscence that gives me access and priveleges just like software vendors do. I want to pay 20.00 for Metallica ONCE and have access, not a hunk of highly scratchable plastic with no actual rites attatched. This system sux as much as the IRS.**** em, if they can't adapt they'll die. Sorry Brittany, I guess you'll just have to resort to stripping.
The next step...
OK...for those of you who have now convinced yourselves that in reality you are not stealing music, but are instead revolting against tyrrany, explain this to me...
In your new utopia, where no one pays for music, how will the independent artist survive?
You've all argued that what your trying to do is to support the artist...but I just don't get it. If you establish the pattern that all music should be free...who wins?
I'll await your explanation.
OK...for those of you who have now convinced yourselves that in reality you are not stealing music, but are instead revolting against tyrrany, explain this to me...
In your new utopia, where no one pays for music, how will the independent artist survive?
You've all argued that what your trying to do is to support the artist...but I just don't get it. If you establish the pattern that all music should be free...who wins?
I'll await your explanation.
Tim,
You're making some good points.
Can produce any info to show me that swapping is hurting album sales? I believe in Napster's first year of operations, album sales were up.
You're making some good points.
Can produce any info to show me that swapping is hurting album sales? I believe in Napster's first year of operations, album sales were up.
the artist will survive by being a bartender at night (either at a chain restaurant or an independent bar) until his shows catch on around the local scene, and then once he starts playing at bigger venues, i will procede to download his shows recorded live on morpheus, listen to it, and go to bed without losing sleep. if he plays good stuff, i'll buy the whole disc (to be determined if i want to buy it at barnes and noble or a small record shop) because morpheus is a pain to download every track on his album.
then i'll go see him live, pay the cover, and drink my face off, deciding at the time whether or not i want to support my local microbrewery, or if 2 dollar miller lites are better.
the next day i will probably eat my sandwich, throw away the crust, and not think of starving ethiopians when i take out my trash.
then i'll go see him live, pay the cover, and drink my face off, deciding at the time whether or not i want to support my local microbrewery, or if 2 dollar miller lites are better.
the next day i will probably eat my sandwich, throw away the crust, and not think of starving ethiopians when i take out my trash.
emagdnimy: good to hear someone read that article. I thing the long post scared most people off. Clearly Tim didnt read since he clearly doesnt understand. Why is "Stealing" an improper term to pin on the sharing of digital mediums? Well for the very reasons outlined in that article and reiterated by so many on this board. Digital media can be reproduced basically for free and can therefore be given form one person to another without a cost to either individual and without either individual being deprived of the item. ie if i have a book and i give it to my friend i dont have a book. but with digital media if i have a mp3 and i give it to my friend i still have the mp3. There is really no comparison to material objects that makes sense. Yes, under the law sharing digital media is "stealing." but frankly i have always been more concerned about what is right and moral than what the governement wants me to believe is right and moral. i suggest all of you do the same.
I have never really bought in to the whole im stealing music because the music industry is corrupt thing myself. i understand and can appreciate such an argument on a non violent protest level but i dont subscribe to the agrument myself. And Tim no matter how much you want to make us believe you know what you are talking about when you quote a bunch of numbers those of us who actually know, know that you are lying. Dont try it your not very good at it. I buy independent and major labels alike and i can tell you the indy bands are almost always cheaper. there are many many bands that sell their cds for less than $10 and do just fine. There are even a few well known bands who do this. Check out your local music store and notice the prices of most of the punk and indyrock bands.
The best metaphore that works is that digital media is most like thoughts, ideas, discoveries. These things are freely distributed in our society. Just take a look at the way scientists publish research that often costs many thousands of dollars and allows the masses to freely consume this information. Why do we do this because the free distribution of knowledge helps us develope more great ideas and inventions. Yes there are copy right laws on inventions and such but these merely prevent people from using another person's invention to make money. The information itself is free. Givernment and law has typically been designed to benefit society. Thats why sharing knowledge is free, this benefits society.
If we look at the example of free software and open source codes and such our metaphor begins to show clear application to real life. Many people assume erroneously that private development of software provides better software and that open source code creates cheap applications that are made by a bunch of silly hackers. As i said this is an erroneous conclusion although not entirely intuitive the oposite is actually true. Many independant research by universities has been published in peer reviewed journals regarding the advantages of open source development and the benefits of free software for society. This is why many of us are so excited about Mac OS embracing unix. As I said this is not exactly the most intuitive conclusion one would reach but when one reviews the glaring flaws in private development (think windows xp) of software versus the many rock solid applications that are freely developed and distributed.
Someone asked how we feel about "pirating" software that was not intended to be free. Honestly I have a sort of funny line I draw. I freely share whatever I own or have "acquired" with any who request it and do not ask questions about how they will use it. I believe it is an individual thing to decide what is moral and i will not dictate my own morals to someone else when offering them data. However I will explain my own feelings on this to all of you. If i use any application to make money I will pay for it, no questions asked. Photoshop is a good example. Many many people use photoshop at work and make their living because of what adobe has provided them. these people should be payying the $600+ dollars for this application. However the 15 year old kid who just wants to use photoshop to make some neat pictures or design a startup screen for his computer should not be expected to shell out hundreds of dollars for what is a free luxury. i say free luxury because the application he is using can be reproduced at no cost and luxury because this is an application that he both does not need and will never pay for. If he could not get it for free he would not buy it and therefore this does not represent lost income to the developers of the application just a gain to society who can share in this young lad's creations. Games of course are a touchy issue here. who uses games to make money? I download and preview games all the time typically the game is deleted and never used after the first 3 days of my downloading it. why? because i didnt like the game. this is simply a preview system that actually encourages people to purchase more games since they can purchase with certainty. When i find a game i like (TheSims) i run out and buy it and play it for months. Generally with any game, application, utility or whatever i always ask myself if i could not get this for free would i purchase it. if the answer is yes i purchase it.
Perhaps the most laughable argument the music industry makes is the lost revenue argument. i think a few people have already addressed this quite well but im on a roll. when i download a john denver mp3 does it mean the denver estate or label is loosing money? no! why? because i would never purchase a john denver album (im a industrial kinda guy). why would i download muysic i wouldnt purchase. a lil extra variety is nice now and then. if anything the music industry saw extra profit due to the sharing of music files. how so? in two ways i can think of. the first being this preview feature. we can often download and preview music before it is even in stores. i know so many kids who have downloaded a song and been raving about how the instant it comes out they are buying it. and sure enough there they are standing in line cash in hand waiting for the store to open on the big day. The other way music labels see increased profits is because of increased market permetation. more people are being exposed to more music. its free advertising. how many computer nerd did you know in the 80s who were big music fans? think of all teh nerds you went to school with in before napster was brought to the mainstream. how many of them listened to music. now every good nerd has a harddrive or two full of music and an impressive cd collection to rival any dj. new customers plain and simple. but market permetation doesnt stop their in addition to finding new customers the music industry has also found customers who are being exposed to new music and buying it up. these people might have been rock fans who discover country music is to thier liking as well, or classic rock junkies who discover rap. suddenly the old customer base is buying more msuic as well.
that all sounds well and good but its just speculation right? well yes mostly, based on personal observations and a lot of simple common sense. but also think about record sales lately and just what has been popular lately. record sales are breaking old records like never before and bands that are appealing to youth are taking over (boy bands, britney, etc). these badns that are taking the world by storm are targeting the same age groups that most use p2p music transfers. the old fogees who dig more refined music and typically less familiar with computers are watching these trends with tears in their eyes since their bands arent doing so well. kinda odd that an industry that claims its loosing sales is selling more than it ever has and is selling the most to the very people who most use the p2p filesharing the music industry claims detracts form sales.
ive got a few more points about "the good of society" issues (i know its sounds corny but its well backed up and not nearyly as corny as it sounds) but im gonna be late for a meeting if i sit here any longer.
good to hear someone read that article. I thing the long post scared most people off. Clearly Tim didnt read since he clearly doesnt understand. Why is "Stealing" an improper term to pin on the sharing of digital mediums? Well for the very reasons outlined in that article and reiterated by so many on this board. Digital media can be reproduced basically for free and can therefore be given form one person to another without a cost to either individual and without either individual being deprived of the item. ie if i have a book and i give it to my friend i dont have a book. but with digital media if i have a mp3 and i give it to my friend i still have the mp3. There is really no comparison to material objects that makes sense. Yes, under the law sharing digital media is "stealing." but frankly i have always been more concerned about what is right and moral than what the governement wants me to believe is right and moral. i suggest all of you do the same.I have never really bought in to the whole im stealing music because the music industry is corrupt thing myself. i understand and can appreciate such an argument on a non violent protest level but i dont subscribe to the agrument myself. And Tim no matter how much you want to make us believe you know what you are talking about when you quote a bunch of numbers those of us who actually know, know that you are lying. Dont try it your not very good at it. I buy independent and major labels alike and i can tell you the indy bands are almost always cheaper. there are many many bands that sell their cds for less than $10 and do just fine. There are even a few well known bands who do this. Check out your local music store and notice the prices of most of the punk and indyrock bands.
The best metaphore that works is that digital media is most like thoughts, ideas, discoveries. These things are freely distributed in our society. Just take a look at the way scientists publish research that often costs many thousands of dollars and allows the masses to freely consume this information. Why do we do this because the free distribution of knowledge helps us develope more great ideas and inventions. Yes there are copy right laws on inventions and such but these merely prevent people from using another person's invention to make money. The information itself is free. Givernment and law has typically been designed to benefit society. Thats why sharing knowledge is free, this benefits society.
If we look at the example of free software and open source codes and such our metaphor begins to show clear application to real life. Many people assume erroneously that private development of software provides better software and that open source code creates cheap applications that are made by a bunch of silly hackers. As i said this is an erroneous conclusion although not entirely intuitive the oposite is actually true. Many independant research by universities has been published in peer reviewed journals regarding the advantages of open source development and the benefits of free software for society. This is why many of us are so excited about Mac OS embracing unix. As I said this is not exactly the most intuitive conclusion one would reach but when one reviews the glaring flaws in private development (think windows xp) of software versus the many rock solid applications that are freely developed and distributed.
Someone asked how we feel about "pirating" software that was not intended to be free. Honestly I have a sort of funny line I draw. I freely share whatever I own or have "acquired" with any who request it and do not ask questions about how they will use it. I believe it is an individual thing to decide what is moral and i will not dictate my own morals to someone else when offering them data. However I will explain my own feelings on this to all of you. If i use any application to make money I will pay for it, no questions asked. Photoshop is a good example. Many many people use photoshop at work and make their living because of what adobe has provided them. these people should be payying the $600+ dollars for this application. However the 15 year old kid who just wants to use photoshop to make some neat pictures or design a startup screen for his computer should not be expected to shell out hundreds of dollars for what is a free luxury. i say free luxury because the application he is using can be reproduced at no cost and luxury because this is an application that he both does not need and will never pay for. If he could not get it for free he would not buy it and therefore this does not represent lost income to the developers of the application just a gain to society who can share in this young lad's creations. Games of course are a touchy issue here. who uses games to make money? I download and preview games all the time typically the game is deleted and never used after the first 3 days of my downloading it. why? because i didnt like the game. this is simply a preview system that actually encourages people to purchase more games since they can purchase with certainty. When i find a game i like (TheSims) i run out and buy it and play it for months. Generally with any game, application, utility or whatever i always ask myself if i could not get this for free would i purchase it. if the answer is yes i purchase it.
Perhaps the most laughable argument the music industry makes is the lost revenue argument. i think a few people have already addressed this quite well but im on a roll. when i download a john denver mp3 does it mean the denver estate or label is loosing money? no! why? because i would never purchase a john denver album (im a industrial kinda guy). why would i download muysic i wouldnt purchase. a lil extra variety is nice now and then. if anything the music industry saw extra profit due to the sharing of music files. how so? in two ways i can think of. the first being this preview feature. we can often download and preview music before it is even in stores. i know so many kids who have downloaded a song and been raving about how the instant it comes out they are buying it. and sure enough there they are standing in line cash in hand waiting for the store to open on the big day. The other way music labels see increased profits is because of increased market permetation. more people are being exposed to more music. its free advertising. how many computer nerd did you know in the 80s who were big music fans? think of all teh nerds you went to school with in before napster was brought to the mainstream. how many of them listened to music. now every good nerd has a harddrive or two full of music and an impressive cd collection to rival any dj. new customers plain and simple. but market permetation doesnt stop their in addition to finding new customers the music industry has also found customers who are being exposed to new music and buying it up. these people might have been rock fans who discover country music is to thier liking as well, or classic rock junkies who discover rap. suddenly the old customer base is buying more msuic as well.
that all sounds well and good but its just speculation right? well yes mostly, based on personal observations and a lot of simple common sense. but also think about record sales lately and just what has been popular lately. record sales are breaking old records like never before and bands that are appealing to youth are taking over (boy bands, britney, etc). these badns that are taking the world by storm are targeting the same age groups that most use p2p music transfers. the old fogees who dig more refined music and typically less familiar with computers are watching these trends with tears in their eyes since their bands arent doing so well. kinda odd that an industry that claims its loosing sales is selling more than it ever has and is selling the most to the very people who most use the p2p filesharing the music industry claims detracts form sales.
ive got a few more points about "the good of society" issues (i know its sounds corny but its well backed up and not nearyly as corny as it sounds) but im gonna be late for a meeting if i sit here any longer.
the future is still out...
tFaz...
I am not going to argue that swapping has had any significant impact, to date, on the Music industry. Currently, the swapping industry is miniscule compared to CD sales. Probably less than .1 percent in comparative volume.
However, this is due mainly to the idea that very few people, currently, are equipped to listen to digital music as their primary source of music. However, this scenario is changing rapidly, and the economics of the issue will begin to become much more apparent.
With the advent of great MP3 apps like iTunes, and the appearance of great MP3 players such as the iPod...it is becoming more realistic that MP3s or similar technologies will shortly become the primary source of music for the listener. I've converted my entire CD collection to MP3's, and now I rarely listen to a CD. Most of my music listening is via digital files. I even take my iPod with me in my car, and plug it in to the car stereo.
In this world, where the majority of music is delivered digitally, there is no distinction of how I have obtained my music. If I download a song for free, load it into iTunes and my iPod, there is absolutely no motivation for me to ever buy the song. So, while it may be argued that currently this practice does not impact the music industry, we are going to see changes very rapidly, and we are helping to set the stage.
I guarantee you that by establishing a system where no one pays for their music, you will negatively impact the independent artist much more than you will impact the record labels. Take for the example the browser market...microsoft has created a market where nobody is willing to pay for a web browser. Why do you think they are doing this? They know that they can last in this market much more easily than the small guy...they can "starve him out of the business" as it were. In the end, the only player left will be Microsoft. The same will hold true for the music industry. Even if you force a new business model, the monied interests will win. You are not helping the independent artist.
tFaz...
I am not going to argue that swapping has had any significant impact, to date, on the Music industry. Currently, the swapping industry is miniscule compared to CD sales. Probably less than .1 percent in comparative volume.
However, this is due mainly to the idea that very few people, currently, are equipped to listen to digital music as their primary source of music. However, this scenario is changing rapidly, and the economics of the issue will begin to become much more apparent.
With the advent of great MP3 apps like iTunes, and the appearance of great MP3 players such as the iPod...it is becoming more realistic that MP3s or similar technologies will shortly become the primary source of music for the listener. I've converted my entire CD collection to MP3's, and now I rarely listen to a CD. Most of my music listening is via digital files. I even take my iPod with me in my car, and plug it in to the car stereo.
In this world, where the majority of music is delivered digitally, there is no distinction of how I have obtained my music. If I download a song for free, load it into iTunes and my iPod, there is absolutely no motivation for me to ever buy the song. So, while it may be argued that currently this practice does not impact the music industry, we are going to see changes very rapidly, and we are helping to set the stage.
I guarantee you that by establishing a system where no one pays for their music, you will negatively impact the independent artist much more than you will impact the record labels. Take for the example the browser market...microsoft has created a market where nobody is willing to pay for a web browser. Why do you think they are doing this? They know that they can last in this market much more easily than the small guy...they can "starve him out of the business" as it were. In the end, the only player left will be Microsoft. The same will hold true for the music industry. Even if you force a new business model, the monied interests will win. You are not helping the independent artist.