Limewire is finally getting it. I'm using limewire right now, so I'm not too excited. If they use the Grokster case as defense then they have a good shot.
Edit: For poor grammar.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Wow, I'm surprised it hadn't happened yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Didn't Kazaa just have to pay out a rather large sum of money for the same thing?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think we all know how I feel about this subject.
-pH
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I know how you feel about every subject. For I am your God.
What?
No. Not all of us know everything about each other. How about you tell us how you feel about this subject, friend fellow initial-person.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not going to go on a rant, so I will sum this up in three words:
About damn time.
-pH
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
For the record, I am neutral on this subject, relatively. I think it's important for artists to be paid for their work but I also think it's wrong to paint the average, garden-variety file-sharer as a thief.
So I'm...
conflicted.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I have to echo the general "Wow-this-should've-happenned-long-ago" sentiment here.
--j_k
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
For those who don't know, pH is very PRO-musician and very ANTI-piracy. I believe this stems from her close relationship to many musicians in her native Florida and (probably) in New Orleans as well.
That's all I have to contribute on the subject. I really don't care about intellectual property rights in the digial age anymore.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm still not sure I understand the legal logic for these suits. As far as I can tell, it's not the p2p services but rather the users of them that are breaking copyright. Could someone show me what the legal rationale is for it being their fault?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
File sharing is illegal, in the same sense that selling crack is illegal.
You go after the dealer.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They aren't providing the files. And file sharing is not, in and of itself, illegal.
Dealing drugs is a crime. There's a law that says "You can't sell drugs to people."
The same is not true for providing a conduit through which people can exchange files. The idea is absurd. So I'm wondering what else is it that makes the legal argument that this is the fault of the people who design the service's fault.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Besides, when they go after the users, they are automatically evil, unfeeling bad guys.
But it's totally not unfeeling at all to illegally download a record instead of spending money toward buying it, thus leading to many artists being dropped from their labels.
Especially considering how EASY it is to buy music in a legal digital format, there's no excuse.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...not arguing about whether piracy is a bad thing or not or whether people should do it. I'd like to understand the legal rationale here.
But I do have to add, saying
quote:Besides, when they go after the users, they are automatically evil, unfeeling bad guys.
is kind of like saying that it's the jeans that make your butt look fat.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Are there examples of artists being dropped from their labels because of illegal downloads? This is a loaded question, I realize, but I'm actually just curious...I haven't heard of any, but I haven't gone looking for the information either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's no law that says stealing music you didn't pay for is wrong?
I can understand not how the file sharing network itself isn't stealing, but it's going along with it. Isn't there an accessory to theft law being broken?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The question of whether or not to drop an artist comes from the album sales. If the album sales are insufficient, the artist will be dropped. It's not a matter of recoupment - artists make much more money off mechanicals and other things than they do on the after-recoupment royalties. It's a matter of making the artist a bad investment for labels. Now, illegal downloading is not the ONLY cause of lower album sales (music is a luxury good, after all), but it does contribute. And before anyone goes off on the majors being evil, I will point out that it's not uncommon for bands to get WORSE deals from indie labels than from the big boys.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:There's no law that says stealing music you didn't pay for is wrong?
Yes, there is (sort of. You're not using accurate language though.) However, you said "file sharing", which is not at all equivilent to this.
Also, again, I'm looking for the actual legal justification, not a series of weak analogies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Now, illegal downloading is not the ONLY cause of lower album sales (music is a luxury good, after all), but it does contribute.
I'm not sure that this is true, for people whose record sales are lower enough to get them dropped from a label. But obviously you know more than I. Could you substantiate this?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not sure exactly what it is that you want me to substantiate. The point at which you've sold enough albums to have your second option picked up? The fact that illegal downloads often lead to people not buying the album?
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
MrSquicky, here's a hypothetical.
It's illegal to sell drugs. It's not illegal to own a house. However, if you own a house that is being used by thousands of drug dealers and drug addicts every day, you're a part of the problem.
I'd imagine there is some legal avenue to prosecute the owner of a house knowingly being used for criminal activity, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know specifically.
The same principle applies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, leaving aside that again this is not what I'm looking for, you're saying that a landlord should be prosecuted if people commit crimes in some of his property?
I rent a house out to someone. They sell drugs out of it. You think I should be thrown in jail for that?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: It's illegal to sell drugs. It's not illegal to own a house. However, if you own a house that is being used by thousands of drug dealers and drug addicts every day, you're a part of the problem.
I'd imagine there is some legal avenue to prosecute the owner of a house knowingly being used for criminal activity, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know specifically.
The same principle applies.
I'm not sure about that. With LimeWire, information is transfered from one computer to another, and nothing is stored at a LimeWire server. It is more analogous to a road that drug dealers use than to a house where the trafficking occurs. P2P sharing is basically vamped-up e-mail.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Mr Squicky,
If the drugs are stored on your property, you could be charged with posession. That's just the way it is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not acutally true though. If I'm a landlord, I am generally not responsible for what my tenants do or keep on my property.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Bands that make a big stink about file sharing lose my business, not the other way around. Metallica is the first example that comes to mind. I haven't bought an album of theirs since they made the big show of dumping boxes of file sharers' names in front of a court house. Before that I had bought every single album. They are also unwilling to offer their files on services such as Yahoo Music ToGo.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Bands that make a big stink about file sharing lose my business, not the other way around. Metallica is the first example that comes to mind. I haven't bought an album of theirs since they made the big show of dumping boxes of file sharers' names in front of a court house. Before that I had bought every single album. They are also unwilling to offer their files on services such as Yahoo Music ToGo.
What do you want, a cookie?
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Bands that make a big stink about file sharing lose my business, not the other way around. Metallica is the first example that comes to mind. I haven't bought an album of theirs since they made the big show of dumping boxes of file sharers' names in front of a court house. Before that I had bought every single album. They are also unwilling to offer their files on services such as Yahoo Music ToGo.
What do you want, a cookie?
-pH
That's a constructive, well-thought out response.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Metallica has recently reversed their position somewhat, and is now available on iTunes (and possibly others, I don't know).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I feel pretty much the same way BQT, although I pretty much stopped buying RIAA CDs through regular channgels ever since the RIAA went on their rampage.
Of course, I'm also the sort of person who boycotts going to professional sporting events.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Beo, I find it very frustrating that people who say they won't buy music from bands that openly oppose filesharing seem to think they have some kind of moral high ground. What, you're entitled to a product for free....why? When did the possession of albums become an ENTITLEMENT?
Also, indie labels can be just as opposed to filesharing as the majors, so don't think that this is an evil corporate sellout issue.
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:That's not acutally true though. If I'm a landlord, I am generally not responsible for what my tenants do or keep on my property.
You are if you know about it. If you are aware that your tenants are performing illegal activities and you do not report it, you can be held legally accountable.
Take into consideration that you are profiting from illegal activities that you have facilitated (by allowing them to use your property/website for illegal activity) and that compounds the problem.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't file share. I just thought I'd clear that up because I wasn't sure if the 'you' in your post was specific to me or just a general 'you.'
I just happen to think that suing your customers and potential customers is flat out stupid. The perception is the that of big corporate multi-billion dollar RIAA bringing its full resources to bear on a pimply 14 year old girl because she downloaded the latest Green Day song. Again, I'm not defending file sharing, or saying the girl is entitled to it- I'm just describing how its perceived. When Metallica starts ranting on how it's all about the money the situation is worsened as their fans start to feel betrayed, even 'legitimate' ones like me.
I said customers in the above paragraph because every single person I know that used to file share bought numerous CDs off the files they downloaded as well as attending concerts, etc. Harvard business school had an interesting article relating to this phenomenon a few years back, there was a different study done with Canadian artists that had similar findings.
The bottom line was that rather than hurting the industry, the explosion of digital file sharing has actually helped it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dave Matthews Band has always confused me with their file sharing policy.
"Stand Up" is their most recent record. It came with some sort of built in programming so you can only burn it three times, that's it. There's a million ways around that, but it still pissed me off. I could just as easily RIP the burned copy and then burn to my heart's delight, so why the annoyance?
On top of that, Dave lets people tape any and all of his concerts, and those tapings can be shared for free with anyone who wants them and can get access to them. For a guy who allows nearly unlimited access to his music, I don't understand being so anal over the latest cd.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's entirely possible it wasn;t the band, but rather the label that set up the things on the CD.
---
Occasionally on Hatrack, you learn things. I learned that I really don't care enough arguing this weak analogy to research landlord/tenant law.
I agree that if you knew about the drug dealing, you might be liable in some way. I don't see how that's relevant here though.
Again, I'm looking for the specific legal justification. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I'd like to know what it is. Besides the regular reasons, I am myself working on a product that could make passing along certain types of copywrited material substantially easier, though it is not designed for this purpose at all.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I'm curious as well (about what MrSquicky is asking). I'm apathetic to the whole situation. I don't care if people file share (though it does smack of a certain disregard for the law) or if the RIAA sues people as a result of their file sharing (though it does smack of a certain disregard for the fans).
pH, do you have any specific stats about how file sharing has hurt the music industry? It makes sense that it would, but I don't know the context at all. What I mean is that if I heard of a 50 million dollar project that ended up being a waste, I'd think that it was a pretty big blow to whoever put out the money. But then if I heard that it was a government project, I'd think that it was unfortunate, and still a waste of money, but really just a drop in the bucket. See what I'm saying? Is it really that big of a deal?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Is there actually any data that says that people who file share buy fewer albums? I don't file share myself, but almost everyone I know who does actually buys more albums than they did before they started file sharing.
Edit: For the record, I operate under a philosophy of, "If I want a product to continue, I'm going to have to pay for it." So, for example, I got into Veronica Mars over Christmas break last year watching the Season 1 DVDs. When Season 2 started up again after the hiatus I was faced with a choice of not watching the second season until the DVDs came out, or downloading the episodes I'd missed, watching them as they aired, and then watching the second season again with my parents when the DVDs came out. I choose the second option, the main consideration being which option would provide the show with more of my consumer dollars. I understand that technically, that option was illegal. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me it was morally wrong, though.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Some of the questions you are asking were addressed in the articles I linked to:
Harvard Business School:
quote: The researchers believe that most downloading is done over peer-to-peer networks by teens and college kids, groups that are "money-poor but time-rich," meaning they wouldn't have bought the songs they downloaded. In that sense, the music industry can't claim those downloads as lost record sales. In fact, illegal downloading may help the industry slightly with another major segment, which Oberholzer and Strumpf call "samplers"—an older crowd who downloads a song or two and then, if they like what they hear, go out and buy the music.
You can't count them as lost sales if they weren't going to buy them in the first place, or they end up buying what they downloaded.
quote:consisted of monitoring 1.75 million downloads over 17 weeks in 2002, scouring through server logs from OpenNap (an open source Napster server), and comparing the sales of almost 700 albums as reported by Nielsen SoundScan. Oberholzer and Strumpf concluded that there was almost no relationship between the two. ... Our study provides the first serious evidence that file sharing cannot explain the decline in music sales in the last couple of years. In addition, in the last two quarters, music sales increased while file sharing has become even more popular.
quote: Our research shows that people do not download entire CDs. They download a few songs, typically the hits that one would also hear on a Top 40 station. This suggests that P2P is much like the radio, a great tool to promote new music. The music industry has of course long recognized that giving away samples of music for free over the airwaves can stimulate sales. The same seems to hold for P2P.
From the Canadian article:
quote: Although the music industry seems loath to discuss the matter publicly, according to an October 2004 Economist article, an internal music label study found that between 2/3 and 3/4 of recent sales declines had nothing to do with Internet music downloads [8]. That finding was echoed in a Ministry of Canadian Heritage commissioned report which concluded that
"[t]he assumption by the recording industry that demand for CDs is fundamentally strong and that Internet piracy is to blame for falling sales is a simplistic reaction to a complex problem ... to place the burden wholly or partly on illegal downloads from the Internet is to ignore a host of other reasons."
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
About time!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We know that record companies and music publishers are not our enemies. They are often run by people who love music and are passionate about the promotion of Canadian culture.
Much of their lobbying, however, is not about protecting artists or promoting Canadian culture. It is about propping up business models in the recording industry that are quickly becoming obsolete and unsustainable. It is about preserving foreign-based power structures and further entrenching the labels' role as industry gatekeepers. Their lobbying efforts are focused on passing laws that restrict artists' ability to take control of their own music, reach their fans in more direct ways and earn a decent living from music without sacrificing their autonomy.
We, as Canadian music creators, have identified three simple principles that should guide copyright reform and cultural policy. - First, we believe that suing our fans is destructive and hypocritical. We do not want to sue music fans, and we do not want to distort the law to coerce fans into conforming to a rigid digital market artificially constructed by the major labels.
- Second, we believe that the use of digital locks, frequently referred to as technological protection measures, are risky and counterproductive. We do not support using digital locks to increase the labels' control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music, nor do we support laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures, including Canadian accession to the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet Treaties.
These treaties are designed to give control to major labels and take choices away from artists and consumers. Laws should protect artists and consumers, not restrictive technologies.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Is there actually any data that says that people who file share buy fewer albums? I don't file share myself, but almost everyone I know who does actually buys more albums than they did before they started file sharing.
Edit: For the record, I operate under a philosophy of, "If I want a product to continue, I'm going to have to pay for it." So, for example, I got into Veronica Mars over Christmas break last year watching the Season 1 DVDs. When Season 2 started up again after the hiatus I was faced with a choice of not watching the second season until the DVDs came out, or downloading the episodes I'd missed, watching them as they aired, and then watching the second season again with my parents when the DVDs came out. I choose the second option, the main consideration being which option would provide the show with more of my consumer dollars. I understand that technically, that option was illegal. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me it was morally wrong, though.
You and the people you know seem to be exceptions to the rule, then, 'cause while I definitely know my fair share of intelligent, artist-supporting listeners, NONE of them owns more physical copies of albums than the equivilant in mp3s.
Not even close.
Then again, my friends average over 40,000 mp3s, which, converted to albums at approx 11 tracks/album, is 3,636 albums...or (at average $14.99/album) $54,503.64.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I love you MrSquicky. I was gonna post some stuff from the Ladies earlier but had to run off. So here's some now.
quote:Music sharing is not new. It's been happening for decades. The only thing that has changed is the technology. This is the crux of the issue - home taping (despite industry propaganda to the contrary) did not kill music.
quote:As Steven points out, P2P sharing is the most accessible method people have to music. "There's no reason to punish fans for what they've always been doing. Better technology is just a means for them to enjoy their music better and it should be a way for us to help our business rather than preserving a business model that is out of date," says Steven.
quote:Steven makes the case that record labels still need to learn that music is not a commodity, and marketing it in that way alienates fans who view it in an almost spiritual sense. Music is a touchstone in our lives - it's the soundtrack of our past, tied directly to our emotions and memories. The impression of fans is that the recording industry wants to control what most people consider to be something very personal.
Should we have banned the tape recorder or the VCR? That's what the TV industry wanted then. Looking back on it, it doesn't make any sense, does it? In fact, it sounds ridiculous, since VCRs created an entirely new channel to generate even more revenue, while giving video fans exactly what they wanted. P2P file sharing is today's VCR or
As a special note, I own all of their albums that I have been able to track down and will be buying two copies (a physical cd set and file-filled usb) of their new album. And with the band's grace, I also have unreleased fan-copied performances so that I can enjoy concerts too far for me to dream of attending.
I find the concept of "lost sales" interesting since I've noticed the same trend among my generation of "dry cheerios SO counts as dinner" college students. If I was told to delete all of my downloaded music, I can say its very unlikely that I'd be rushing to the store the next day to replace them. If anything the music I'm given by friends is either heard and discarded or enjoyed enough that I purchase further albums (better physical quality) and concert tickets.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't fileshare, but not for ethical reasons, I'm just a big fan of actually owning products. I'm the same way with books. I rarely go to the library because I like reading the book and then being able to put it on my shelf, even if I don't plan on rereading it. I don't know why. It's a weird thing.
But, in my experience, I think filesharing helps out the musicians. I have a friend that doesn't listen to much music outside of the mainstream. She only gets her music through listening to the radio and then downloading the songs. I like alot of indie bands, classic rock bands that don't get played on the radio anymore, and other stuff. I also love going to concerts and she often comes with me. The only way I can get her to come with me to concerts of bands she hasn't previously heard is by telling her good songs from the bands to download. I could loan her CDs, but most of the time when I'm inviting her it's a day before the concertm and over the phone or AIM or something. So I think bands have made money from their live shows from people who wouldn't go to a concert of a band they've never heard before if they didn't download their songs beforehand. At least in my experience of one Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Here's my take on the file sharing issue: label's are out of date. Wave good bye the the labels. Cds for selling and buying and putting music out there are entirely unnecesary. Music was originally a performance art, it should be again a performance art. The way things are headed, and the way they should continue to head is this:
Ditch labels entirely. Band's should record their own music (good, high quality and easy to use recording equipment and software are becoming very easy to come by) and put it openly available for download online.
Bands should then tour and perform and make money from the shows they put on.
That's where downloading's taking us and that is a good place for music to go.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I think that'd be a big loss of money for musicians. They're already making what they are from tours, but if you minus CD salesm they'll be making alot less. And how will bands be discovered through downloading only? And where will bands get the funds to go on a national tour if they don't make money elsewhere? I don't think your plan would work.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Lemme take out the metaphor then, MrSquicky, if that's too hard for you to grasp.
If you run a website that enables people to break the law, and you knowingly allow them to break the law without putting measures into place to prevent them from breaking the law and to punish them when they do, then you are an accessory to their criminal acts so far as I see it.
You can argue about the criminality of the act all you want, but the law (printed clearly on every CD you buy) clearly states that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed. If you host a website that encourages unauthorized reproduction and facilitates it, then you are an accessory to that crime.
Multiply that tiny crime by several thousand to several million instances, and you've got a problem.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They're not running a website. (Actually that's not entirely true, because obviously limewire.com is a website. But surely that's not the nature of their putative offense.)
Also, that wasn't a metaphor and it wasn't too hard for me to grasp. It was, as I said, a weak analogy.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: You and the people you know seem to be exceptions to the rule, then, 'cause while I definitely know my fair share of intelligent, artist-supporting listeners, NONE of them owns more physical copies of albums than the equivilant in mp3s.
You misunderstood me. They don't own more physical albums than they do on mp3s, many of them are like your friends and have easily 20 gigs of music on their harddrive, which seems completely pointless to me, because they never listen to all of it. But I'm not really a music person.
What I meant was that, all else being equal, before they starting downloading music they would buy one album a week, whereas now they buy three albums a week. Actually, even though I don't download music myself, I'm planning on buying two albums by artists I would never have heard of if my friends hadn't downloaded their music (and my average buying rate is about one cd a year).
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Is it true that the artists only get a small percentage of the sale of CDs and the record company gets the majority?
I would buy CDs if they weren't so expensive! The music industry keeps complaining that they are being ripped off by people downloading their songs instead of paying for them but they have never actually done anything to make buying the CD more attractive like by putting the price down just a tad?
I would RATHER buy the CD than download it but with a budget like mine it's just not feasible to own all the CDs I want.
So anyway I'm kinda on the fence about this, I empathize with the artist but I think the record companies are too greedy for thier own good.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But it's totally not unfeeling at all to illegally download a record instead of spending money toward buying it, thus leading to many artists being dropped from their labels.
Especially considering how EASY it is to buy music in a legal digital format, there's no excuse. -pH
There is also no excuse for record companies continually seeking total control of the means of production in the recording industry. Though I agree with you on the downloading bit, I simply remind you for form's sake of something you already know- the record industry was a villanous thief long before the private downloader. Let's not kid ourselves.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Mr. Attaway responds: Wendy, you have brought up what should be the key word in this discussion: balance. You are absolutely right -- copyright is a balance. And DRM is essential to achieving that balance.
Consumers should have a choice to either own a copy of a movie for multiple viewing, or to just view it one time for a much lower price. And movie companies want to provide that choice, and many more. But without DRM, every transaction would have to be priced as a sale, not just of one copy but of many copies, in order to account for unrestrained copying. Why would anyone purchase a higher-priced sale copy of a movie if he could simply rent, rip and return -- that is, rent, make a copy and return the original?
To repeat my refrain, if there is a problem, it is that DRM technology is not sophisticated enough to provide the optimum balance. The content industry is working hard with the technology industry to improve DRM and the options available to consumers. Good public policy will encourage that process by promoting the development and implementation of DRM.
With regard to your comment that many DRM technologies can be circumvented by commercial pirates, you are correct, but DRM is not intended to prevent commercial piracy. It is intended to insure that most consumers will keep the deal they make with movie distributors. Like the lock on your door, they are not a guarantee against theft, but they "keep honest people honest."
You know, filthy pirate that I am, the MPAA has a pretty good point. It's hard to argue against anything this guy's said. This admission will earn me the hate of many an Internet nerd, I know -- but people have a right to sell (or license) their creations as they see fit.
But I still pirate. Why? I can't afford the crazy prices of media. And in truth, this approach has led me to spend thousands, where before I wouldn't have bothered -- exposure to new and better artists that I never would have found through ClearChannel has led me to buy an unbelievable amount of CDs, all of which I promptly burned to mp3s and put away.
Three hard drives later, I'm glad I have the ability to re-rip these CDs.
This is very much a fence issue with me, as is illegal immigration (fence, get it, ha ha) and probably a couple other points. I hate the RIAA -- and I can't see them lasting out the century. They're simply not needed anymore -- musicians don't need to whore themselves for pennies to an album to these grasping publishers for publicity (and if they want it, they can hire... a publicist), and with the Internet, there's no limit to how much exposure they can win without spending a dime.
All those creative works that have been bought and paid for by publishers, they have their right to their control. But when they price me out of the market, well... I'm going to pirate. There's no reason for me not to -- insofar as pirating isn't costing Damien Rice anything, since I can't afford to buy his music legally. And the exposure he gets from me playing his music wins affection with me and possible new fans from the many people that cycle through my dorm room -- he simply doesn't lose, here, at least relative to the alternative which is me never buying OR listening to him. Many an artist have I downloaded, appreciated, gone to concerts, and purchased the next album (though sometimes that gets you burned, damn you post-Hybrid Theory Linkin Park).
Not that there haven't been efforts to make music affordable. I'm particularly fond of Napster and Rhapsody, with all-you-can-download music at high bitrates for $15 a month -- at those rates, I'll play. Netflix, the same deal -- I'm definitely playing there. I can't wait to watch a new movie every night.
But... the guy makes a point. None of his arguments lack for soundness, though they might for vision -- grasping control of creative works does (or should, in theory) protect them from rampant piracy and ultimate poverty, since nobody will pay for the original after already downloading the property. But for a man representing a company that promises little more than bondage in exchange for publicity, he seems astoundingly unappreciative of the exposure piracy grants artists -- perhaps unnecessary for household names like Eminem or Madonna, but I know Linkin Park won a great deal of their fame through P2P popularity. Speaking personally, I can't list the number of bands I adore (and purchase!) thanks to file-sharing, though the Afghan Whigs deserve more than an honorable mention.
What's at stake for the publishers is not merely revenues, though no doubt those are significant -- perhaps less so than they believe, since most people wouldn't buy a fraction of the the amount of music they download -- but their very model of business. Within a decade, the Internet's rendered them irrelevant, their deals bondage; at least, compared to the far more fruitful rewards artists can (or will be able to, very soon) reap by publishing themselves, through the Internet. This is their fear, and it's a legitimate one.
So I'll keep downloading, and I'll keep buying artists I discover and love (Sage Francis is next up), and within the decade I hope I can afford the near $200/year Rhapsody costs. Netflix is on the menu, and soon, poverty be damned. And though I don't think Pearce'll rejoice to hear it, I don't regret my downloading, and I think I've made many an artist -- far more than I would have otherwise -- richer because of it.
Uh, rant over. I meant for this to be, like, a paragraph.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: You and the people you know seem to be exceptions to the rule, then, 'cause while I definitely know my fair share of intelligent, artist-supporting listeners, NONE of them owns more physical copies of albums than the equivilant in mp3s.
You misunderstood me. They don't own more physical albums than they do on mp3s, many of them are like your friends and have easily 20 gigs of music on their harddrive, which seems completely pointless to me, because they never listen to all of it. But I'm not really a music person.
What I meant was that, all else being equal, before they starting downloading music they would buy one album a week, whereas now they buy three albums a week. Actually, even though I don't download music myself, I'm planning on buying two albums by artists I would never have heard of if my friends hadn't downloaded their music (and my average buying rate is about one cd a year).
You're right, I definitely misread that. My bad! To address your actual point:
On the one hand, it's undeniable that file sharing brings an unusually diverse amount of music to a lot of people who would not otherwise have heard it, and that leads to sales of albums that would not have occured otherwise. I can't count the number of artists I've discovered and ultimately purchased because I stumbled across their music on a P2P network or because a friend said "hey, check this out" and AIM'd me a track.
On the other hand, I can think of several instances where I personally would have bought an album but didn't, for any number of reasons, once I'd downloaded it. These reasons include: I disliked what I heard, I liked it enough to listen to periodically but not enough to buy the album, I was short on money at the time and neglected to buy the album once I did have money.
I have no statistics on the matter, but I feel like a lot of the money lost by the industry is in CD singles. I personally bought singles when I didn't think I was going to like the entire album or when I wanted a specific mix of a song (e.g. instrumental, club mix, or an obscure remix for DJ use). I know I stopped buying singles almost entirely when filesharing became popular.
I don't fileshare anymore, outside of periodically sending songs to friends for recommendation purposes. I don't think there was one reason why I stopped; partly because several people I know got in legal trouble for it, partly because I've always wanted to be a recording artist and the part of me that still does would not appreciate people taking what I've worked hard to create for free, partly because many artists (even on major labels) make barely any money on their CD sales anymore because of the enormous amount of promotion and dwindling CD revenues, partly because I don't want to continue to contribute to the problem that results in ever-rising CD costs, etc., etc.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by stacey: [QB] Is it true that the artists only get a small percentage of the sale of CDs and the record company gets the majority?
In short: yes.
quote:I would buy CDs if they weren't so expensive! The music industry keeps complaining that they are being ripped off by people downloading their songs instead of paying for them but they have never actually done anything to make buying the CD more attractive like by putting the price down just a tad?
This is a circular problem: the record companies will continually cite piracy as the reason behind rising CD costs, and piraters will continually cite rising CD costs as the primary reason they continue their illegal activity.
quote:I would RATHER buy the CD than download it but with a budget like mine it's just not feasible to own all the CDs I want.
See, here's where I think the root of the matter is: is this valid justification? I hear responses like yours all the time and have to ask, again, as has been asked previously in this thread: are we ENTITLED to this music?
Insofar as it's a copyrighted product created at least partially with intent to sell, I think the answer is inarguably no.
This doesn't begin to address the moral issue. Lalo's response is pertinent, so I'm going to requote it here:
quote:All those creative works that have been bought and paid for by publishers, they have their right to their control. But when they price me out of the market, well... I'm going to pirate. There's no reason for me not to -- insofar as pirating isn't costing Damien Rice anything, since I can't afford to buy his music legally.
If this is true, then I can wholeheartedly agree; I think the problem is that everyone has a gray area, and that area becomes very morally ambiguous. For example, you have $50 in do-whatever-you-want money this month. You go out to dinner one night, $15. You go to a movie another night, $10. You go to a club another night, $10 cover. That leaves you $15, enough to buy an album, but you want three albums. So you buy one, and download the other two, and you're basically a moral person, so you tell yourself you'll buy the others later.
Repeat the situation the next month, only this time there are three more albums you want, and you still only have money for one. Repeat for 12 months. Repeat for 120.
What can you really afford here? It always comes back to entitlement.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Here's a thought...
The way I understand it, I can be sued for downloading digital copies of music I already own.
So what am I paying for? Am I paying for the music, or the product?
For example, would it be unethical for me to download, via p2p applications, digital copies of albums which I already own on cassette? Or on records? Or on CD's? How about a digital copy of a cassette I owned, and paid for, but lost somehow, over the years?
How many times do I have to pay the same record companies and the same artists for the music?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I did that, by the way. I downloaded digital copies of every single album I own (whether it be on cassette, compact disc -- whatever), so I could have mp3's of the music I've already paid for over the course of my life.
I'm talking 300 albums.
I feel perfectly justified in having done so.
[ August 08, 2006, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:For example, would it be unethical for me to download, via p2p applications, digital copies of albums which I already own on cassette? Or on records? Or on CD's? How about a digital copy of a cassette I owned, and paid for, but lost somehow, over the years?
Would it be unethical for you to steal CD copies of albums you already own on cassette, or on record, or on CDs you once owned but lost?
Would it be unethical to buy bootleg ripped CDs from a guy on the street who bought one copy and made 1000 copies for those same reasons?
Is it the nature of the act that makes your attitude different - that you can click to get your music instead of actually buying from a guy selling illegal copies on the street or actually taking a physical product?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I feel perfectly justified in having done so
This is interesting to me.
Do you feel there a difference in quality between a record and a CD, or between a casette and an mp3? Further, do you feel that increasing quality warrants increased pricing?
If you have a cassette that you bought in 1986, there is only so much functionality you bought. At the time, you understood what you were purchasing and what its capabilities were. Now, though, in 2006, the cassette is lacking the quality and functionality that you want. So, instead of paying for a product that has increased quality and functionality beyond what you originally paid for, you feel justified in taking a product with increased quality and functionality at no personal cost. In essence, getting something for nothing.
This would be like taking a paperback copy of a book you have in hardcover without paying for it, or copying a friend's purchased ebook of a newly published book you already own so you can have searchable text and the convenience of storage.
You want greater quality and versatility in your product, but you don't want to pay anything more for it. And this is somehow justified to you.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
If filesharing copyrighted materials were legal, why would anyone actually pay for it? Sure, there are those of us that like to own the actual copy, actively support the artists or creators, or like to have the physical CD, artwork, or lyrics. But are there enough of us to support an entire industry? I know plenty of people that would never buy another CD again if they knew they could legally get it all for free.
-----
Unless Limewire is encouraging illegal filesharing, I don't see how they can be held responsible. Facilitating it means nothing or else your local Internet Service Provider would also be guilty.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Used CDs are dirt cheap. In fact, they're often much, much cheaper than getting the music from an online downloading service. If you're looking for the latest releases, you'll have a harder time, but you can always find CDs on half.com and Amazon's used service on the cheap. I also regularly scour the local used CD stores and bookstores for older music that has been substantially reduced in price. I regularly get good music for $1-3 per CD.
If music industry greed is your problem, then don't be part of the machine. Don't consume new products or buy directly from musicians.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Buying directly from musicians (at concerts, especially) does still give the label money, but it's money that the band has already spent purchasing their own CDs at a very discounted price.
Like, a really simple example, a lot of bands will sell their CDs on tour. If they're signed, maybe they paid $5 per CD, and they'll sell the albums for let's say $15. Thing is, although those CD sale don't count towards recoupment on their advance, that's ten bucks cash the band gets to hold onto.
Legal forms of digital downloading are so readily available that I think it's absolute selfishness not to do it legitimately. I pay fifteen bucks a month, and I get unlimited transfers to my mp3 players. I have a 20 gig and a 2 gig player right now. That means I can download 22 gigs of music, if I want, and have it on my mp3 player and take it wherever I want.
Sorry guys, I'm trying to stay out of this one. These threads invariably piss me off to no end, especially when it turn into this "major labels are evil" nonsense. I work for an indie label and an artist management company. Neither of them are all that big on people illegally downloading their albums, either.
-pH
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:Sorry guys, I'm trying to stay out of this one. These threads invariably piss me off to no end, especially when it turn into this "major labels are evil" nonsense. I work for an indie label and an artist management company. Neither of them are all that big on people illegally downloading their albums, either.
The difference is that your indie label isn't writing laws to prevent piracy that have a side effect of making a lot of legitimate and necessary computer activity illegal.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Perhaps if you were not using this legitimate computer activity to do illegal things, you wouldn't be having this problem.
I'll also point out that I got my start with a one of the big majors, so to me, they aren't formless boogeymen.
-pH
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Perhaps if you were not using this legitimate computer activity to do illegal things, you wouldn't be having this problem.
That doesn't translate directly into suing LimeWire. By that argument, you could make the manufacturers of guns, knives, alcohol, most garden tools, anything capable of producing fire, and bottled water distributors illegal.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Are you saying that Limewire would still be under fire if people WEREN'T using it to download things illegally?
-pH
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm also not stepping into the ring to argue points about whether or not P2P, bittorrent and other file sharing applications are illegal in and of themselves.
What I'm talking about is people who justify their illegal activities with some sort of Robin Hood mentality. Whether or not it is justified, in the end Robin Hood still had to be exonerated of his crimes by King Richard. He was still doing things that were illegal.
Downloading an albumn you have not paid for (or paid some kind of service like Napster [that's a weird sentence- not something I would have typed about 6 years ago]) is theft. You are a theif. You are stealing. You are lying. You are being an underhanded bastard. Get that into your head. Don't try and justify your actions in any other way.
If you're still okay with that at the end of the day, then fine, but don't pretend to be some kind of crusader on a quest to take down the big record companies. The reason you downloaded that albumn or movie or whatever is because you liked it but couldn't afford to purchase it.
Therefore, you stole it. Deal with that fact and shut up about the industry. Find legitimate ways to combat them.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:manufacturers of guns, knives, alcohol, most garden tools, anything capable of producing fire, and bottled water distributors illegal.
This has nothing to do with the argument, and you know it. Limewire isn't the manufacturer of anything, so your comparison falls apart.
Limewire set itself up as a website that facilitates sharing of files. When people then shared files illegally, they didn't do anything to identify or stop those acts. If you really want to use an analogy, it would be like a restaurant that allowed alcohol to be brought in from outside that didn't card its patrons and is then surprised when it's held responsible for illegal drinking.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Limewire set itself up as a website that facilitates sharing of files. When people then shared files illegally, they didn't do anything to identify or stop those acts.
Again, my point is that using a legal means to do something illegal does not make the process itself illegal. I'm not condoning illegal file-sharing, but if people were sending packages through the mail we wouldn't be suing the U.S. Post Office...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm also not stepping into the ring to argue points about whether or not P2P, bittorrent and other file sharing applications are illegal in and of themselves.
What I'm talking about is people who justify their illegal activities with some sort of Robin Hood mentality. Whether or not it is justified, in the end Robin Hood still had to be exonerated of his crimes by King Richard. He was still doing things that were illegal.
Downloading an albumn you have not paid for (or paid some kind of service like Napster [that's a weird sentence- not something I would have typed about 6 years ago]) is theft. You are a theif. You are stealing. You are lying. You are being an underhanded bastard. Get that into your head. Don't try and justify your actions in any other way.
If you're still okay with that at the end of the day, then fine, but don't pretend to be some kind of crusader on a quest to take down the big record companies. The reason you downloaded that albumn or movie or whatever is because you liked it but couldn't afford to purchase it.
Therefore, you stole it. Deal with that fact and shut up about the industry. Find legitimate ways to combat them.
What if you listen to Radiohead and they verbally requested people to steal the album? Is it the artists right to make that call, or should the record company have the final say?
Most of the music I listened to was not available where I grew up. They did not have the cd's for sale at the stores I went to. Eventually I found ONE store in the middle of an alley that sold SOME of the music I liked and I bought a bunch of CD's from them. But I continued to experiement with new bands through p2p networks and if I found a band that was consistantly good I bought their cd while I was in the states during the summer. If they had one song I liked, well I didnt buy their cd, sorry, I didnt want to pay $15-20 for one good song.
Now I live in the US and I have itunes. If a band I like comes out with an album, I buy the individual tracks I like, but I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song. TONS of songs are awesome because of the natural progression. Would you buy a book because somebody read 2 chapters from the middle? Well, maybe, but just as likely not.
Since when was stealing and smuggling illegitimate? American's didn't want to buy tea from the evil East India Company, so they smuggled Dutch tea in. Even when British tea prices dropped below Dutch tea and what the smugglers were asking, people did not drink the British tea as it symbolized complacency with a government they were upset with.
Personally I find that most of my bands offer better previews of their music than itunes do. Jimmy Eat World lets you listen to their whole album on their site, and you can go to itunes afterwards and get it if you want.
But bands that are anti P2P networks, thats fine, just expect that most people will not understand why that is. Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album. If you are metalica you need to explain why you were so reluctant to work with itunes.
Somebody asked a question about Dave Matthews Band and their CD only being able to be burned 3 times. That was in actuality a record company decision. I remember reading and article about it where the band apologized that that had happened and they had no idea when it was implemented. They even posted instructions on how to bypass it, but I think those were subsequentially removed.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Again, my point is that using a legal means to do something illegal does not make the process itself illegal.
This is confusing, but I think you mean that Limewire's providing a way for people to commit criminal acts is not, in itself, criminal.
If Limewire put into place measures to prevent illegal file sharing, to identify those who broke the law, and to adequate punish (ban) any they found to be sharing files illegally, this would be a different story. So far as I'm aware, they have not cracked down on their own users regarding their criminal acts.
quote:if people were sending packages through the mail we wouldn't be suing the U.S. Post Office...
The Post Office has an entire branch dedicated to investigating and stopping criminal acts using the mail. They can open any non-first-class mail they feel may be sending something illegal, and can detain any first class mail they feel is sending illegal materials after obtaining a search warrant. They take criminal use of the mail very seriously (it's a federal offense) and police it very strictly.
Do you really want to compare their dedication to preventing criminal misuse of their services to Limewire?
Edit: To make a quote an url. D'oh.
[ August 09, 2006, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song.
Which is why God invented subscription download services.
And illegal downloads are not the same as checking out books from a library. But you go ahead and keep justifying your actions. Do remember though, that illegal downloads hurt small bands more than big ones. So you go and make your statement.
-pH
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What if you listen to Radiohead and they verbally requested people to steal the album? Is it the artists right to make that call, or should the record company have the final say?
Most of the music I listened to was not available where I grew up. They did not have the cd's for sale at the stores I went to. Eventually I found ONE store in the middle of an alley that sold SOME of the music I liked and I bought a bunch of CD's from them. But I continued to experiement with new bands through p2p networks and if I found a band that was consistantly good I bought their cd while I was in the states during the summer. If they had one song I liked, well I didnt buy their cd, sorry, I didnt want to pay $15-20 for one good song.
Now I live in the US and I have itunes. If a band I like comes out with an album, I buy the individual tracks I like, but I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song. TONS of songs are awesome because of the natural progression. Would you buy a book because somebody read 2 chapters from the middle? Well, maybe, but just as likely not.
Since when was stealing and smuggling illegitimate? American's didn't want to buy tea from the evil East India Company, so they smuggled Dutch tea in. Even when British tea prices dropped below Dutch tea and what the smugglers were asking, people did not drink the British tea as it symbolized complacency with a government they were upset with.
Personally I find that most of my bands offer better previews of their music than itunes do. Jimmy Eat World lets you listen to their whole album on their site, and you can go to itunes afterwards and get it if you want.
But bands that are anti P2P networks, thats fine, just expect that most people will not understand why that is. Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album. If you are metalica you need to explain why you were so reluctant to work with itunes.
Somebody asked a question about Dave Matthews Band and their CD only being able to be burned 3 times. That was in actuality a record company decision. I remember reading and article about it where the band apologized that that had happened and they had no idea when it was implemented. They even posted instructions on how to bypass it, but I think those were subsequentially removed.
Blah blah blah. "I like to steal but can't admit it to myself so I couch my view in long-winded essays that dance around that very basic fact."
I'm not taking the high-road on this one. I download crap all the time. I don't care. I'm okay with stealing, but I, at least, have the balls to admit it to myself.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Primal Curve, I think you are too easilly dismissing the difference between technicality and morality.
If a poor man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, yes, he is technically stealing, and yes, he can be prosecuted and would have to accept that his actions had legal consequences, but I think you would be hard pressed to apply such black and white reasoning as to whether his actions were moral (I would be inclined to say they are).
Now I know downloading music is nothing like stealing food for your starving family, and I do think that most, if not all, people who download illegal music are aware that they are doing something technically illegal, but I think the issue of morality is a much more difficult one to deal with, and you are being too simplistic if you say "you are [automatically] being an underhanded bastard" if you download music illegally. If you do not agree with the state of the music industry, with the fact that many CDs have only 1 good song on them and 14 useless tracks, and that many talented artsists get completely overlooked because they aren't as "marketable" as britney spears, then downloading the 1 good song and not buying the album (whose profits go mostly to the record label) is a great form of protest.
Or here's another example. I had never heard of Damien Rice until a few weeks ago when a friend of mine suggested I go see a show with him. Before I accepted, I downloaded "O", and since I liked it, I went and paid for a concert, and then ended up buying his CD afterwards. Without illegal downloading, none of that would have happened.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album.
A couple things here.
You can go to the library and borrow books, as long as you give them back. You also can't make copies of the books you borrow without illegally violating copyright.
You can go to the library and borrow CDs, too, and that's totally legal.
Of course, you can't legally borrow the CD, rip it to your computer, then give it back... without violating copyright.
Your library justification only works if you are okay with illegally copying library materials, too... which means you're justifying an illegal activity with another illegal activity.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You are not illegally downloading music to feed your starving family.
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:then downloading the 1 good song and not buying the album (whose profits go mostly to the record label) is a great form of protest.
Great. Do it at iTunes or MusicMatch or WalMart (shudder) and pay your buck for that song.
Don't steal it.
You have avenues to get a single song without buying the whole album that don't force you to resort to theft.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song.
Which is why God invented subscription download services.
And illegal downloads are not the same as checking out books from a library. But you go ahead and keep justifying your actions. Do remember though, that illegal downloads hurt small bands more than big ones. So you go and make your statement.
-pH
Can you back this statement up with any evidence? Because I would argue that illegal downloading has done more good for small bands than anything else in the history of music. I for one have bought and now support a myriad of small independent bands only because I originally illegaly downloaded their stuff after hearing about them from friends on on the internet. And furthermore, I think that illegal downloading has made the issue of quality and content much more important. If a band wants to sell CDs, they now have to made a album that is all good, not just 1/15th of that quality. We are also seeing much more interesting cover art and extra features, like music videos and other thigns.
Take Econ 101, the only time illegal markets arise *AND thrive* is when consumers and not satisfied with the legal ones. I care much more about myself and the consumer than I do about the major label music industry, and if they want my money, they are going to have to earn it, otherwise I will get my stuff for free, and support the smaller bands that actually make good musis by going to their shows and spreading their name around.
EDIT: case and point, the new RHCP CD, which was spectacular, and I bought. Or the new Gnarls Barkley CD, which was not spectacular apart from 3 songs, and I didn't buy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What if you listen to Radiohead and they verbally requested people to steal the album? Is it the artists right to make that call, or should the record company have the final say?
Most of the music I listened to was not available where I grew up. They did not have the cd's for sale at the stores I went to. Eventually I found ONE store in the middle of an alley that sold SOME of the music I liked and I bought a bunch of CD's from them. But I continued to experiement with new bands through p2p networks and if I found a band that was consistantly good I bought their cd while I was in the states during the summer. If they had one song I liked, well I didnt buy their cd, sorry, I didnt want to pay $15-20 for one good song.
Now I live in the US and I have itunes. If a band I like comes out with an album, I buy the individual tracks I like, but I really hate that I only get 30 seconds of preview and its in the middle of the song. TONS of songs are awesome because of the natural progression. Would you buy a book because somebody read 2 chapters from the middle? Well, maybe, but just as likely not.
Since when was stealing and smuggling illegitimate? American's didn't want to buy tea from the evil East India Company, so they smuggled Dutch tea in. Even when British tea prices dropped below Dutch tea and what the smugglers were asking, people did not drink the British tea as it symbolized complacency with a government they were upset with.
Personally I find that most of my bands offer better previews of their music than itunes do. Jimmy Eat World lets you listen to their whole album on their site, and you can go to itunes afterwards and get it if you want.
But bands that are anti P2P networks, thats fine, just expect that most people will not understand why that is. Librarys didnt destroy authors, you need to explain to your fans why you feel they ought to pay what they do for your entire album. If you are metalica you need to explain why you were so reluctant to work with itunes.
Somebody asked a question about Dave Matthews Band and their CD only being able to be burned 3 times. That was in actuality a record company decision. I remember reading and article about it where the band apologized that that had happened and they had no idea when it was implemented. They even posted instructions on how to bypass it, but I think those were subsequentially removed.
Blah blah blah. "I like to steal but can't admit it to myself so I couch my view in long-winded essays that dance around that very basic fact."
I'm not taking the high-road on this one. I download crap all the time. I don't care. I'm okay with stealing, but I, at least, have the balls to admit it to myself.
Interesting definition of an essay you have there, was your response your definition of a, "Rebuttal?" Oh yes I love to steal, I download music for the sheer thrill of sticking it to the man. I have no desire to listen to the music, its all about the stealing for me.
You are confusing having balls with having the intelectual prowess to see the difference between doing something immoral and doing something because the alternative is worse.
But I suppose your answer to that is, "Don't listen to music then, its not a need."
Sorry, that is not an option I find acceptable.
Edit: FC I do use itunes now that its an option. Growing up itunes did not exist. If my band is not found on itunes more then likely the band is so underground they offer their music free as a download.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Take Econ 101,
Newsflash: I have a business degree with a concentration in music industry studies. I've been working with music for five years. Big names, small names. Major labels, indie labels. Individual bands. The fact remains that while downloads can help spread the news about a VERY small band initially, there's a gap that said band has to jump between being local and starting to be news in the Big Picture, and that won't happen if you keep stealing their songs.
Fact is, they ARE putting out a product that you want. You're using it, after all. You just don't think you're hurting anyone because you probably don't personally know of anyone who's affected. So if you don't see it, it must not exist.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Take Econ 101,
Newsflash: I have a business degree with a concentration in music industry studies. I've been working with music for five years. Big names, small names. Major labels, indie labels. Individual bands. The fact remains that while downloads can help spread the news about a VERY small band initially, there's a gap that said band has to jump between being local and starting to be news in the Big Picture, and that won't happen if you keep stealing their songs.
Fact is, they ARE putting out a product that you want. You're using it, after all. You just don't think you're hurting anyone because you probably don't personally know of anyone who's affected. So if you don't see it, it must not exist.
-pH
I have not seen anyone argue that they can download all the want without buying any cd's. Pretty much everyone here has argued in favor of downloading mp3's to get a feeling for the bands sound, and then buying cd's if they want more of the bands material in the future.
Edited for spelling/grammar
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If a poor man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, yes, he is technically stealing, and yes, he can be prosecuted and would have to accept that his actions had legal consequences, but I think you would be hard pressed to apply such black and white reasoning as to whether his actions were moral (I would be inclined to say they are).
I would argue that his actions are still not moral when there are many provisions that enable him to feed his starving family while not resorting to theft. Likewise with the music industry, there are many provisions that enable people to listen to music without requiring theft to do so. Some of these provisions have already been mentioned several times here.
quote:Or here's another example. I had never heard of Damien Rice until a few weeks ago when a friend of mine suggested I go see a show with him. Before I accepted, I downloaded "O", and since I liked it, I went and paid for a concert, and then ended up buying his CD afterwards. Without illegal downloading, none of that would have happened.
I disagree with the last sentence. There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:But I suppose your answer to that is, "Don't listen to music then, its not a need."
Sorry, that is not an option I find acceptable.
This boggles my mind. You really, honestly believe that you have the right to listen to whatever music you want on demand?
quote:Edit: FC I do use itunes now that its an option. Growing up itunes did not exist. If my band is not found on itunes more then likely the band is so underground they offer their music free as a download.
Filesharing on a modern scale didn't exist then, either.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But people. Don't. Do that. They don't. I don't care if you say YOU do, the fact remains, people don't. And if you want to learn about new bands, if you want to check out new bands, you can get a subscription service and check them out legally.
Edit: That was to BlackBlade.
-pH
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But people. Don't. Do that. They don't. I don't care if you say YOU do, the fact remains, people don't. And if you want to learn about new bands, if you want to check out new bands, you can get a subscription service and check them out legally.
Edit: That was to BlackBlade.
-pH
I am well aware that there are people who download with no intention of buying cd's. I guess it remains to be seen if punishing those people is economically productive even if those who do eventually buy cd's are also turned off.
Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Tower Records & most good music stores have many listenable albums, where you can sit there and listen to the entire CD, on repeat, if you desire.
The radio.
Indie music mags.
Sampler CDs.
Live performances.
TV performances.
MTV/2/VH1/CMT/BET.
Clubs.
Bars.
Getting the picture yet?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But people. Don't. Do that. They don't. I don't care if you say YOU do, the fact remains, people don't. And if you want to learn about new bands, if you want to check out new bands, you can get a subscription service and check them out legally.
Edit: That was to BlackBlade.
-pH
In terms of these suscription services, you said (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that for 15$/month, you can download all the music you want? I'd like to know how much money goes to the artist in this case, it just seems like so little money for so much product, just a step up really from getting it for free.
As for your assertion that people don't primarily act like I do, I would like some form of evidence if you're going to make such a wide sweeping claim. I am simply speaking from my own perspective and from my experience with friends around me, and a large majority of them dowload music illegally, but also buy a good deal of CDs and take pride in supporting bands they think are talented (regardless of whether or not they are indie).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Once more: SUBSCRIPTION DOWNLOAD SERVICE. You can listen to the song by paying a monthly subscription without paying for each individual song. Then you can go listen to it for free online whenever you want in a legal fashion.
-pH
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
The fact that you have to be online and also go to their website to listen to it is a major difference. There's also a major difference to the millions of people that do NOT later buy the CDs or go to concerts or support the artists in some other way.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Tower Records & most good music stores have many listenable albums, where you can sit there and listen to the entire CD, on repeat, if you desire.
The radio.
Indie music mags.
Sampler CDs.
Live performances.
TV performances.
MTV/2/VH1/CMT/BET.
Clubs.
Bars.
Getting the picture yet?
Those are all either completely inconvenient, or no better than a 30 second sample. If they want MY money, they are going to have to work for it, just like in any other industry. I will not go out of my way to spend money on something that might be crap unless I am sure that it is not going to be. The absolute best way to do that right now is to download illegaly. Period.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Download services that offer subscriptions have different fees depending on the package you get. The most expensive is $15 a month, which I like because I enjoy listening to massive amounts of music in my car, and it allows me to put the songs on my mp3 player without paying for each individual one. You can pay $10 a month just to listen/download unlimited music without the ability to burn/transfer until you pay the usual 99 cents a song. See also: http://www.napster.com
As to how the artist is paid, why do you give a crap if you're already listening in a way that gives the artist no credit? But it's my understanding that it's a performance royalty.
By the way, I have the subscription service and STILL buy physical albums, despite the fact that I am generally very capable of getting CDs for free legally, as a perk. If I can do it, and I have many, many more options and reasons not to pay than you do, then so can you.
-pH
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
There was never a time in which napster/kazaa were popular/accessible on the scale file sharing programs are today, but iTunes and other legal download sources were not available.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by camus: There are many ways to sample music without having to steal it.
But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment. You might say I could go to the band's website where they might have the entire album online, but I really don't see how it is any different (besides the issue of convenience) to dowload the song, since I could go and listen to it for free online anyway whenever I wanted.
Tower Records & most good music stores have many listenable albums, where you can sit there and listen to the entire CD, on repeat, if you desire.
The radio.
Indie music mags.
Sampler CDs.
Live performances.
TV performances.
MTV/2/VH1/CMT/BET.
Clubs.
Bars.
Getting the picture yet?
Those are all either completely inconvenient, or no better than a 30 second sample. If they want MY money, they are going to have to work for it, just like in any other industry. I will not go out of my way to spend money on something that might be crap unless I am sure that it is not going to be. The absolute best way to do that right now is to download illegaly. Period.
We come back to convenience.
Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Download services that offer subscriptions have different fees depending on the package you get. The most expensive is $15 a month, which I like because I enjoy listening to massive amounts of music in my car, and it allows me to put the songs on my mp3 player without paying for each individual one. You can pay $10 a month just to listen/download unlimited music without the ability to burn/transfer until you pay the usual 99 cents a song. See also: http://www.napster.com
As to how the artist is paid, why do you give a crap if you're already listening in a way that give sthe artist no credit? But it's my understanding that it's a performance royalty.
-pH
The way that I like to predominatly listen to my music is live, and when I pay for a show, I am giving the artists a much higher proportion of the money I spend than if I buy a CD.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:But I want to do more than just sample. I don't want a 30 second clip from the song, I want to know if it is going to be worth my hard earned money to spend it on this particular form of entertainment.
Then download one song at a time. Or listen to the radio and make requests of local stations, specifically college indie stations if the band you're interested in isn't major yet. Or find someone who already knows about the band and listen to whatever music they have (without making copies for yourself).
quote:Napters/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
And the great thing was, the downfall of Napster and Kazaa led to the creation of sites like iTunes and MusicMatch. People complained that they didn't want to buy the whole album for one song, so they gave them the option of buying one song.
And still they stole music.
If Limewire and all the other sites that profit off a culture of selfishness and theft were to go away, then more legitimate, *legal* avenues will arise to fill the desires of the consuming public.
And still people will find ways to steal, because they want something for nothing. The trick is to make it as difficult as possible to break the law - it will never be impossible.
As one of the articles quoted above said, locks keep honest people honest. If you really want free music, you can rip copies of all your friends' CDs, all the CDs in the library, and whatever other CDs you can get your hands on, violating all their copyrights and getting the music (illegally) for free.
No one can stop you from breaking the law - but they can make it as inconvenient as possible.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And this justifies stealing music how?
Edit: to Ang...sorry, I can't spell your name.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
There was never a time in which napster/kazaa were popular/accessible on the scale file sharing programs are today, but iTunes and other legal download sources were not available.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I was using Napster and Kazaa back in 1999-2001 and they had plenty of userbase. Certainly P2P networks are larger then they were then but there was no such thing as itunes back in 2001. I started using Kazaa because Naptser went under.
Edit: FC: Right, thats why I use itunes now. But occasionally the previews offered by itunes suck, and there are even artists that do not offer their music through itunes. For example I can't get Rage Against The Machine's cover album (the last one) on itunes. I bought the cd quite a few years ago but have since lost it. I have not yet decided whether to repurchase it if it is released on itunes, or to simply redownload the 2-3 songs on the album that I did like.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Then this is where we disagree. And just for reference, there has always been some forum where people shared music illegally, and there will always be one. Just like the Barenaked Ladies said, the only difference now is the technology, pirating music has always been around.
And as long as you are comfortable with being taken advantage of by a huge industry, and wasting your hard earned money, then I have no problem with you buying all your music legally.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Demonstrocity: Napster/Kazaa were both huge while I was in highschool which predates itunes by quite few years.
There was never a time in which napster/kazaa were popular/accessible on the scale file sharing programs are today, but iTunes and other legal download sources were not available.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I was using Napster and Kazaa back in 1999-2001 and they had plenty of userbase. Certainly P2P networks are larger then they were then but there was no such thing as itunes back in 2001. I started using Kazaa because Naptser went under.
You're forgetting several things:
1) Napster/Kazaa were not nearly as widespread as the technologically savvy like to believe. Most people did not use them. Most people had no clue what they were.
2) Most people did not have high speed internet connections; the advent of widespread broadband has been shown to be a direct contributor to the proliferation of filesharing.
3) Most people did not own computers.
Basically, you're under the mistaken impression that your high school was a representative sample; it wasn't.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well good, Anglo. Now that we've established that I, the person who both works for the industry AND only listens to music in an aboveboard manner, am the immoral one, this discussion will be so much more productive.
-pH
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Interesting definition of an essay you have there, was your response your definition of a, "Rebuttal?"
You're showing the weakness of your argument here. You cannot truely justify your actions so you resort to semantics. Good job.
quote:Oh yes I love to steal, I download music for the sheer thrill of sticking it to the man. I have no desire to listen to the music, its all about the stealing for me.
Now you're just misinterpreting what I said (probably purposefully). I in no way implied that you were stealing for the sake of stealing. My point is that you are stealing. Period. Your other justifications are moot. The methods you use to "sample" music are illegal according to the laws of the US government. It's really that simple. You may feel justified in doing that, but you need to realize that you are stealing first and foremost.
quote:You are confusing having balls with having the intelectual prowess to see the difference between doing something immoral and doing something because the alternative is worse.
You seem to believe that theft somehow makes you a pillar of morality. You seem to think that your justifications make you immune to rule of law.
You're not and you aren't.
quote:But I suppose your answer to that is, "Don't listen to music then, its not a need."
Sorry, that is not an option I find acceptable.
This is going to sound hypothetical to your ears, but now you're engaging in simple hyperbole. I love music. I make music myself. I can't see living life without music.
However, not downloading music does not prevent you from listening to it. You can turn on a radio and listen to music. You can browse all kinds of websites that clutter the internet and listen to music for free. Bands regularly post complete songs on their own websites, on MySpace and on their label's sites.
File sharing is not your only option. You could borrow the CD (without ripping it) and listen to it at home and then give the CD back to your friend who recommended that band and then go out and buy your own copy (or, on iTunes, the two or three songs you like).
You can go to concerts and pay for the band you want to see and get introduced to new ones by listening to the opening acts. You can go to music festivals and wander around finding all sorts of new songs. You can go to a bar and listen to all kinds of shitty underground bands that you'd never have heard of.
There are plenty of options out there. You're just taking the easiest one.
That makes you a lazy thieving bastard.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:The way that I like to predominatly listen to my music is live, and when I pay for a show, I am giving the artists a much higher proportion of the money I spend than if I buy a CD.
Going to a concert does not mean you can steal a shirt, sticker, CD, or any other product that you want to have.
------
It's one thing for you to listen to a song and then purchase it later, but do you honestly believe that everyone that illegally downloads music will eventually pay for it or that there won't be at least some negative consequences if the music industry were to say that filesharing is okay to do and that you don't have to pay for CDs?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:But occasionally the previews offered by itunes suck, and there are even artists that do not offer their music through itunes.
iTunes isn't the only fish in the sea for pay per song downloads. And for the artists who don't offer their music through iTunes, go to Borders and listen to their album before you buy it - it's likely not out of your way, because Borders and BN stores crop up like mushrooms.
And Angio, You say that previewing music at a record store is inconvenient? You're already there buying albums, why not sample other bands while you're there? Or are you not ever in a music store buying albums, and you just download all your music illegally and for free?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: And this justifies stealing music how?
Edit: to Ang...sorry, I can't spell your name.
-pH
I'm not saying that justifies it. Ideally, I wouldn't steal music. Ideally, all the music that was put out would be high quality and thoughful, and untalented hacks wouldn't make millions of dollars. But we don't like in that ideal world, and in order for me to break through the crap and get to the good stuff (which I am more than happy to support) I do some things that I ideally wouldn't do.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Then this is where we disagree. And just for reference, there has always been some forum where people shared music illegally, and there will always be one. Just like the Barenaked Ladies said, the only difference now is the technology, pirating music has always been around.
And as long as you are comfortable with being taken advantage of by a huge industry, and wasting your hard earned money, then I have no problem with you buying all your music legally.
To compare the pirating done pre-file sharing and post-file sharing is ludicrous. The two are so dissimilar in scope that comparison is worthless (but then, I'm used to thinking of anything associated with the Barenaked Ladies as worthless. ZING!).
This isn't me trying to crusade against file sharers. This is me trying to get file sharers to stop pretending that what they're doing is legal. Moral considerations aside, admit you're a criminal; it's that simple.
Then, having done that, don't be surprised or upset when the RIAA sues you for the tens of thousands of dollars in merchandise you've stolen.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
This is why I don't enjoy threads like this. Because I take it personally. Because it IS personal. An EMI/Virgin guy wrote my college recommendation. I AM a part of this evil, vast conspiracy that you're so valiantly battling through theft. It frustrates me that you refuse to put a FACE on this monstrous, terrible, gigantic industry that you find so distateful.
-pH
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:The way that I like to predominatly listen to my music is live, and when I pay for a show, I am giving the artists a much higher proportion of the money I spend than if I buy a CD.
Going to a concert does not mean you can steal a shirt, sticker, CD, or any other product that you want to have.
------
It's one thing for you to listen to a song and then purchase it later, but do you honestly believe that everyone that illegally downloads music will eventually pay for it or that there won't be at least some negative consequences if the music industry were to say that filesharing is okay to do and that you don't have to pay for CDs?
In my experience, illegal file sharing has benefitted the state of music. Yes there are negative consequences, as people will abuse the system, just like any other one. But are those consequences worse than the consequences that the major labels system have incured on the state of music today? I don't think so.
In my perfect world, musicians would make all their money playing live shows, and all their music would be available for free in digital form. People would go see these shows if the artsits was talented enough to make it worth their money (which many of the people I listen to are). Yes the big performers out there would make ALOT less money than they do today, but I'm perfectly happy with that, becasue I also thing the talented people would make more money, as they would have a product of some value to offer.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:You're showing the weakness of your argument here. You cannot truely justify your actions so you resort to semantics. Good job.
You don't even resort to semantics, you simply dismiss everything and write, "blah blah blah".
quote:Now you're just misinterpreting what I said (probably purposefully). I in no way implied that you were stealing for the sake of stealing.
"I like to steal but can't admit it to myself so I couch my view in long-winded essays that dance around that very basic fact."
Sounds like an accusation that I like to STEAL not LISTEN TO MUSIC.
quote:You seem to believe that theft somehow makes you a pillar of morality. You seem to think that your justifications make you immune to rule of law.
You're not and you aren't.
No, No, and No. Why would anybody think that stealing in of itself makes them a pillar of morality? I simply said I did what circumstances required of me to listen to music. Now that I can actually listen to the music and pay the artists in an efficient manner, I do so. I do not have any P2P software on my computer at this time, but I do not think I was doing ANYTHING wrong when I used to.
quote: However, not downloading music does not prevent you from listening to it. You can turn on a radio and listen to music. You can browse all kinds of websites that clutter the internet and listen to music for free. Bands regularly post complete songs on their own websites, on MySpace and on their label's sites.
File sharing is not your only option. You could borrow the CD (without ripping it) and listen to it at home and then give the CD back to your friend who recommended that band and then go out and buy your own copy (or, on iTunes, the two or three songs you like).
You can go to concerts and pay for the band you want to see and get introduced to new ones by listening to the opening acts. You can go to music festivals and wander around finding all sorts of new songs. You can go to a bar and listen to all kinds of shitty underground bands that you'd never have heard of.
There are plenty of options out there. You're just taking the easiest one.
I think you would have done well to read my posts (both the one you responded to, and the subsequent ones) rather then breeze through one of them. Your comments here are not applicaple for that reason, seeing as how I DO do all the things you suggested.
quote: That makes you a lazy thieving bastard.
And here is another reason why, you are wasting everyone's time with name calling, and not only that you have completely misapplied that term by calling me that.
edited for misplaced quotation brackets.
[ August 08, 2006, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Then this is where we disagree. And just for reference, there has always been some forum where people shared music illegally, and there will always be one. Just like the Barenaked Ladies said, the only difference now is the technology, pirating music has always been around.
And as long as you are comfortable with being taken advantage of by a huge industry, and wasting your hard earned money, then I have no problem with you buying all your music legally.
To compare the pirating done pre-file sharing and post-file sharing is ludicrous. The two are so dissimilar in scope that comparison is worthless (but then, I'm used to thinking of anything associated with the Barenaked Ladies as worthless. ZING!).
This isn't me trying to crusade against file sharers. This is me trying to get file sharers to stop pretending that what they're doing is legal. Moral considerations aside, admit you're a criminal; it's that simple.
Then, having done that, don't be surprised or upset when the RIAA sues you for the tens of thousands of dollars in merchandise you've stolen.
I've always acknowledged that the act of downloading music illegaly is... illegal. I don't dispute that. But as I've said before, I am not arguing technicality, I am arguing morality. And I don't personally believe that my actions are immoral. I know there are possible consequences to my actions, and I accept those, though they are so minimal (me living in canada and the fact that I don't share or download massive ammounts of music) that it almost never crosses my mind, and I am not remotely afraid.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Even with Limewire being sued theres always gonna be other forms of file sharing software out there like Bearshare, which is basically the same thing. Its gonna take more than just a bunch of lawsuits for this type of thing to stop.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Even with Limewire being sued theres always gonna be other forms of file sharing software out there like Bearshare, which is basically the same thing. Its gonna take more than just a bunch of lawsuits for this type of thing to stop.
Maybe so, but I am sure the lawyers enjoy this method of dealing with things.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But are those consequences worse than the consequences that the major labels system have incured on the state of music today?
How exactly have the major labels harmed the state of music? Sure, there is a lot of crap out there, and a lot of that crap makes millions of dollars, but that's also true of movies, books, sports, and many other things. But I'm not forced to pay for that stuff. If I don't like the artist, it's not like I have to buy it, and if I only like one or two songs, then I only spend a buck. I just don't see this horrible state of music that you claim exists as a result of the music labels.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
A lot of the music I listen to would be considered crap by other forumers, So im gonna say it now.
Crap is opinion.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Angio likes to paint violation of copyright as civil disobedience it seems.
Thing is, you can't be civilly disobedient in private. You need to make it public and bring the punishment you receive to the public eye. Breaking the law in private is just being a closet criminal.
But you seem not to mind breaking the law, so long as it's okay in your sense of morality - and fits into your "perfect world." Do you have a disregard for law in its basic form as an agreed upon social order, or just in this specific case?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Well, I was going to reply to your post, BlackBlade, but I realize that I'm right and you're wrong and all my reply would do is start a "Who's got the last laugh NOW!?" pissing contest and I'm bored and have better things to do.
Tah tah.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
You're right, the same is true of movies, books, sports, and many other things, and I don't support those things just as much as I don't support the major record labels.
The only reason I download music is to sample it. If it is good and worth speding my money, I will then buy it, or support the musician in other forms (such as attending their shows and buying merchandise). As far as I'm concerned, I'm just being a discerning customer.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
in cases such as music downloading, people really don't aim to break the law, they just do whatever they feel is best for them, even if it does include breaking the law. However, the law wasn't designed to deal with each individuals morals.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio likes to paint violation of copyright as civil disobedience it seems.
Thing is, you can't be civilly disobedient in private. You need to make it public and bring the punishment you receive to the public eye. Breaking the law in private is just being a closet criminal.
But you seem not to mind breaking the law, so long as it's okay in your sense of morality - and fits into your "perfect world." Do you have a disregard for law in its basic form as an agreed upon social order, or just in this specific case?
Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
EDIT: and it's not really civil disobedience, that's absurd. It's simply the boycotting of an industry whose practices I don't agree with. I know alot of people who don't buy nike or drink coke for similar reasons, are they cowards if they don't tell everyone about it!?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio likes to paint violation of copyright as civil disobedience it seems.
Thing is, you can't be civilly disobedient in private. You need to make it public and bring the punishment you receive to the public eye. Breaking the law in private is just being a closet criminal.
But you seem not to mind breaking the law, so long as it's okay in your sense of morality - and fits into your "perfect world." Do you have a disregard for law in its basic form as an agreed upon social order, or just in this specific case?
Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
My dad did that and got fined.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
If it were practical and easy to do that, I'm sure alot more people would. Wouldn't you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Well, I was going to reply to your post, BlackBlade, but I realize that I'm right and you're wrong and all my reply would do is start a "Who's got the last laugh NOW!?" pissing contest and I'm bored and have better things to do.
Tah tah.
Yes because you have clearly demonstrated that you are so willing to articulate your arguements, and all I do is resort to premature dismissal and name calling.
see you later alligator
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Would it be unethical for you to steal CD copies of albums you already own on cassette, or on record, or on CDs you once owned but lost?
Would it be unethical to buy bootleg ripped CDs from a guy on the street who bought one copy and made 1000 copies for those same reasons?
Is it the nature of the act that makes your attitude different - that you can click to get your music instead of actually buying from a guy selling illegal copies on the street or actually taking a physical product?
Just to throw a monkey wrench into a hypothetical question, to some of these, I'm going to say, "no, it wouldn't be unethical."
If I bought a cassette tape some time in the eighties, I probably wasn't aware I was buying any kind of license. I certainly didn't sign anything saying that I was purchasing a limited license to use the content of the media and not actual rights to the blah blah single user blah blah no redistribution...
Most likely, I thought I was buying music. I wasn't offered any other way to do it. I wasn't offered a guarantee that said "if your car's cassette player turns your music into confetti, we'll issue you a new copy on the media of your choice." Maybe if that had been made available, knowing my options, I would have done so. Though I suspect the average purchaser of music doesn't really consider the lifespan of the media they're purchasing or the likelihood that they won't be able to purchase hardware capable of playing that media in a decade. They just think they're buying music.
If I'm a fan of some ancient band whose label no longer sees fit to distribute their music in any form and the only way I can get a replacement for my chewed eight-track is to download music from a Peer-to-Peer network, would I feel justified in doing so?
Yes. Without question. Utterly.
If there is a current version available for a decent price, I'd probably prefer it. Though, again, the (shudder) "license" I'm buying is probably not one that's to my best benefit as an imagined purchaser of music; it's just all that's available to me. And as the battle between RIAA affiliates and peer-to-peer networks accelerates, those "licenses" are getting worse for legitimate purchasers. As anyone who got their computers crashed by Sony's security software can attest.
The Peer-to-Peer software model does have legitimate and worthy uses, uses which are significantly compromised by putting enormous security gateways all over the software. I'm going to venture a likely unpopular position and suggest that, while I don't approve of wholesale piracy, the value of P2P networks eclipses the perrogative of music companies to make a profit on every copy of their product "out there", and these not infrequently frivilous and vindictive lawsuits endanger something valuable that should be protected.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:You're right, the same is true of movies, books, sports, and many other things, and I don't support those things just as much as I don't support the major record labels.
Would you say that disliking the Yankees entitles you to sneak into a Mets game without paying if there are empty seats that wouldn't be paid for anyway? Or hating Tom Cruise entitles you to take a movie from a movie rental place without paying for it as long as you return it? Which brings up an interesting question in my mind. Is morality based on whether anyone notices?
In all honestly, I'm not as concerned with your stated justification for downloading songs. My problem is that it seems that most people use the justification you use, regardless of whether they even try to compensate the artist in any way whatsoever. At least you actually purchase the song if you like and listen to it.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Take it from me. Bootlegged CD's and Mixtapes usually aren't licensed. That's the whole point of them being bootlegged. The distributor can just burn a couple thousand and sell them all, and he won't get in trouble with the record label, because technically the CD doesn't even exist. So the whole bootleg CD analogy is just trash, sorry.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that I spend more money on music because of my illegal downloading than I would otherwise.
Everybody wins.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I think you're oversimplifying. I wouldn't walk into a game for free, but I might borrow a friend's season passes and see a few games before I bought my own. I might not steal a movie from a rental store, but I might download that movie or lend it from a friend before I went a paid money to have my own hard copy. Morality is based on many things, in this case I would say it's an issue of "are you doing anyone significant harm by downloading songs". I believe the answer is no, if you operate by standards like mine. And of course, some people abuse this, just like people abuse any system, but that is inherent in any situation, and in my own opinion is outweighed in this case due to the good that can come out of having music freely available online.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
So, Angio, what happens if you download something to sample it and dislike it? Do you NOT buy the album?
'Cause that's unashamed, immoral, illegal theft.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
Here's the problem. While running a red light in your scenario may not actually affect anyone, you most certainly can't say that people should be allowed to run a red light whenever they think it's okay to do so, because not everyone is going to operate based on your standards. So, while there may be nothing morally wrong with your scenario, it's still necessary to outlaw running red lights at 3 AM with no cars or pedestrians within miles in order to prevent larger scale problems.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Probably better to have the conversation without the name-calling, guys.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I call it being a discerning customer. If I bought a vaccum cleaner that I used, and then didn't like, would it be theft to return it?
(I might mention that I tend to delete the songs I download and don't like)
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
What if a band churned out one single that topped the charts for weeks. However, the rest of their CD was trash, so in a sense they are relying on that one song to get them any revenue. However, if everyone just downloaded that song, legally and illegally, they wouldn't get nearly as much money as they would have if people went and bought their CD. So of course they're going to sue. Morals dont mean anything in a situation like this, because the law ISNT BASED ON MORALS.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
Darn you for posting what I was going to, only first and better phrased! *shakes fist*
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: If it were practical and easy to do that, I'm sure a lot more people would. Wouldn't you?
I wouldn't. But then, I don't download music illegally either. And I thought you've been claiming that you are morally in the right? Would that be true of FC's examples as well, in your opinion?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
Here's the problem. While running a red light in your scenario may not actually affect anyone, you most certainly can't say that people should be allowed to run a red light whenever they think it's okay to do so, because not everyone is going to operate based on your standards. So, while there may be nothing morally wrong with your scenario, it's still necessary to outlaw running red lights at 3 AM with no cars or pedestrians within miles in order to prevent larger scale problems.
I agree with you. And I've said numerous times, I fully acknowledge that downloading music illegally.. is illegal. The only point I am trying to make is that in certain situaions (like with the red light example) there is nothing morally wrong with downloading that music. Can we agree on that? I just think that people tend to approach moral issues with a black and white mentality when in reality, they should be viewed in a shades of grey manner.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: I call it being a discerning customer. If I bought a vaccum cleaner that I used, and then didn't like, would it be theft to return it?
(I might mention that I tend to delete the songs I download and don't like)
There are no laws against returning. Returns imply you made a purchase in the first place. You traded something of value and, as per the policy outlined by the merchant prior to sale, you traded back, possibly less a restocking fee.
Deleting the files you don't like doesn't change the crime committed.
You've clarified your position sufficiently for me, though: that you're not only a criminal, but an immoral consumer as well.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: What if a band churned out one single that topped the charts for weeks. However, the rest of their CD was trash, so in a sense they are relying on that one song to get them any revenue. However, if everyone just downloaded that song, legally and illegally, they wouldn't get nearly as much money as they would have if people went and bought their CD. So of course they're going to sue. Morals dont mean anything in a situation like this, because the law ISNT BASED ON MORALS.
In that case I'd be happy if the band didn't make money, maybe it will encourage them not to put out trash in the future.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I think you're oversimplifying. I wouldn't walk into a game for free, but I might borrow a friend's season passes and see a few games before I bought my own. I might not steal a movie from a rental store, but I might download that movie or lend it from a friend before I went a paid money to have my own hard copy.
You changed my examples so that they are no longer relevant.
In any case, you say that you actually purchase the songs that you actually like. In my mind, that's not really as much of a problem as is the fact that many people use that excuse without actually following through on the purchasing part of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: So, Angio, what happens if you download something to sample it and dislike it? Do you NOT buy the album?
'Cause that's unashamed, immoral, illegal theft.
I've said this a thousand times, and I'll say it again.
Copyright infringement like this is very different from stealing a tangible object like a loaf of bread. If I steal your bread, I have it and I don't. If I copy your CD, I have it and you still have it.
Using words like "theft" and "stealing" to describe copyright infringement like this is misleading propaganda at best, and dishonest obfuscation at worst.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: You've clarified your position sufficiently for me, though: that you're not only a criminal, but an immoral consumer as well.
I'm sorry, but I just find this to be extremely hillarious. I think this is one of my favorite sentences of the day.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: I call it being a discerning customer. If I bought a vaccum cleaner that I used, and then didn't like, would it be theft to return it?
(I might mention that I tend to delete the songs I download and don't like)
Thats like taking a bite out of a cookie and then throwing it away.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I think you're oversimplifying. I wouldn't walk into a game for free, but I might borrow a friend's season passes and see a few games before I bought my own. I might not steal a movie from a rental store, but I might download that movie or lend it from a friend before I went a paid money to have my own hard copy.
You changed my examples so that they are no longer relevant.
In any case, you say that you actually purchase the songs that you actually like. In my mind, that's not really as much of a problem as is the fact that many people use that excuse without actually following through on the purchasing part of it.
Agreed, and I'm not trying to defend their position.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:ME: would it be unethical for me to download, via p2p applications, digital copies of albums which I already own on cassette? Or on records? Or on CD's? How about a digital copy of a cassette I owned, and paid for, but lost somehow, over the years?
How many times do I have to pay the same record companies and the same artists for the music?
quote:FlyingCow: If you have a cassette that you bought in 1986, there is only so much functionality you bought. At the time, you understood what you were purchasing and what its capabilities were. Now, though, in 2006, the cassette is lacking the quality and functionality that you want. So, instead of paying for a product that has increased quality and functionality beyond what you originally paid for, you feel justified in taking a product with increased quality and functionality at no personal cost. In essence, getting something for nothing.
This would be like taking a paperback copy of a book you have in hardcover without paying for it, or copying a friend's purchased ebook of a newly published book you already own so you can have searchable text and the convenience of storage.
That is ridiculous. The difference is that an mp3 is not a physical product. It costs nothing to produce. It is information. The only LOSS, to the artist or to the company that produced the music, would be if you hadn't already paid for the music. I already paid for the music.
There are no damages to the record company. Your argument is that I should pay for the music twice? Why? What for?
Is it your opinion that it would be illegal for me to rip my CD's (or cassettes) to mp3 for my own personal use?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: So, Angio, what happens if you download something to sample it and dislike it? Do you NOT buy the album?
'Cause that's unashamed, immoral, illegal theft.
I've said this a thousand times, and I'll say it again.
Copyright infringement like this is very different from stealing a tangible object like a loaf of bread. If I steal your bread, I have it and I don't. If I copy your CD, I have it and you still have it.
Using words like "theft" and "stealing" to describe copyright infringement like this is misleading propaganda at best.
The absence & presence of a product isn't what the law is about; the presence and absence of payment for that product is.
You take something that you're supposed to pay for, by law, without paying for it. I'll even dictionary quote it for you:
"Theft (larceny): a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."
Explain to me how the use of the word "theft" is misleading propaganda.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
What if only 1/10th of the cake tasted good and the other 9/10ths were moldy? If no two sodas tasted exactly the same your point would make sense. And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them? No they would probably download them from torrent websites....oh wait....
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
What if only 1/10th of the cake tasted good and the other 9/10ths were moldy? If no two sodas tasted exactly the same your point would make sense. And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them? No they would probably download them from torrent websites....oh wait....
What if they've never seen the movie.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I agree with you. And I've said numerous times, I fully acknowledge that downloading music illegally.. is illegal. The only point I am trying to make is that in certain situaions (like with the red light example) there is nothing morally wrong with downloading that music. Can we agree on that?
Yes, I agree with your position as well.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
That's interesting. Does your theater actually recoup these losses from the studio, or do you eat the losses? Do you advertise this policy?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
What if only 1/10th of the cake tasted good and the other 9/10ths were moldy? If no two sodas tasted exactly the same your point would make sense. And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them? No they would probably download them from torrent websites....oh wait....
I believe a "touche" is in order.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
Where is this theater?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
I don't think that's a fair comparison. If you eat one slice of a cake or taste a bottle of soda before buying it, no one else will buy that product either and you basically ruined it. If you download a song, your not preventing other people from getting the song also.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think that a few points have been overlooked in this thread.
I read Ars Technica on a daily basis, and there has been plenty of coverage on the music piracy issue. A few minutes searching through their news archive turned up a number of links.
There is some evidence suggesting that people who use P2P file-sharing software to pirate music buy more legal music than people who don't.
There is also some evidence suggesting that music from legitimate sources is more common on portable music players than pirated music.
The five largest American distributors of albums on CD settled out of court when sued for price-fixing.
CD sales continue to decline, but overall music sales are growing very healthily.
There is a major, real piracy concern: bootleg CDs. In markets where legitimate copies of albums retail far out of the reach of the average consumer (e.g. China), bootlegs sell.
"CD prices have risen significantly faster than inflation in the past 15 years, even as CD production and distribution costs have fallen through the floor." Interesting.
These points are not conclusive when each is considered individually. Survey respondents could lie; the record labels settled and thus a verdict was never rendered; the RIAA considers ripping a CD that you bought in a store and then putting it on your MP3 player to be piracy (using their metric, most music on portable music players is still "pirated"). However, taken together, a complete and entirely plausible picture emerges: The industry increased the price of CDs at a rate greater than inflation during an economic slowdown in the U.S., while simultaneously not providing consumers with a suitable legal digital distribution mechanism. Now that such mechanisms exist, music sales are increasing (and online music sales are exploding).
Justification for piracy? No. But it's a reasonable explanation of why it took off when and how it did.
Also, judicious use of the "preview post" button just showed me MPH's 3:27 PM post, with which I fully agree.
[Edited for list formatting and typos.]
[ August 08, 2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
I've heard of that policy but I had not experienced it first hand so I could not cite it. Thats interesting though, I imagine you could not advertise that policy as many people would probably ask for a refund even if they liked the movie. But then again I guess thats more trouble then its worth to go back to the box office and ask for your money back.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Recoup the losses from the studio? You don't seem to understand how movie theaters work.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
At the big theaters in Toronto, you can walk out for any reason within 30 minutes, and get a refund. But I've never heard of the deal TL advertises.. It seems like having that kind of policy is just asking to be taken advantage of.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Recoup the losses from the studio? You don't seem to understand how movie theaters work.
No, clearly I don't, which is why I asked clarifying questions.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Isn't there a music service (maybe Real or something like that) that allows you to download ten or fifteen songs per month for free? It would be subscription music, so you couldn't keep it forever, but it would enable you to preview complete songs before purchasing them. I think this would be extremely useful as part of the pay-per-download services, where you could download songs for a month for free and if you want to continue listening to them, you have to pay a fee to keep them.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Sounds interesting.. I think pH has something like that.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
Other possible solution: offer 64/96 kbps or mono full versions of songs as samples. The quality is clear enough that you can more or less tell whether you're going to like the song or not, but the quality is bad enough that it would be irritating to listen to.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Take it from me. Bootlegged CD's and Mixtapes usually aren't licensed. That's the whole point of them being bootlegged. The distributor can just burn a couple thousand and sell them all, and he won't get in trouble with the record label, because technically the CD doesn't even exist. So the whole bootleg CD analogy is just trash, sorry.
Wow, trash. Harsh words.
Maybe you don't understand the word bootleg, or you are applying your own connotation to it. All "bootleg" means is a copy that was made illegally. What I was trying to say was that a CD existed, someone went and burned a thousand copies of it to sell at half price on the street, and you're buying pirated material at a lowered cost. (This happens with DVDs all the time).
quote:Most likely, I thought I was buying music.
No, you were buying a cassette. Just as earlier you would have bought an 8 track, or 4 track, or record. And when a better recording medium came out for the music, you would buy the better medium because you wanted more functionality and quality.
Like Tommy Lee Joes said in MIB - "I'm going to have to buy the White Album again." When it's offered in a different form, you buy it in its different form if that's the form you want. Just because I buy a poster of the Mona Lisa doesn't mean I'm entitled to a print, postcard, stamp, t-shirt, and original painting. I didn't buy the art I bought the art on a poster - and if I wanted the art on something else, I'd buy that too.
quote:I believe the answer is no, if you operate by standards like mine.
This is what I'm curious about. Your standards. Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
At least that's what you seem to be saying. Am I getting it wrong, or do you fashion yourself as living outside the law?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Recoup the losses from the studio? You don't seem to understand how movie theaters work.
I think that's a valid question. In other words, would the theater still have to report that as a ticket sale, thus taking the entire loss itself, or does it just subtract from the number of tickets sold and pass that loss on to the studio?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: This is what I'm curious about. Your standards. Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
At least that's what you seem to be saying. Am I getting it wrong, or do you fashion yourself as living outside the law?
In a situation where my moral standards clash with the standards that society has legally established, I will often take a position that is in accordance with my moral standards. Surely this is not a foreign concept to you?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Okay, it's like this. Movie theaters only make a tiny percentage of the money from ticket sales. It's not profit -- probably wouldn't even cover the power bill. Movie theaters make their money from the snack bar, which is why drinks and popcorn are so expensive there. Movie theaters do not operate like most businesses. The money from the ticket sales goes directly to the movie studios.
However, because the movie theater is the exhibitor of the films, and is the point of contact place for customers/movie-goers, movie theaters have the freedom to deal with passes/refunds/etc however they please.
They're our customers. If they're unhappy with the experience, it's the theater that takes the hit, not, generally speaking, the movie studio.
Our policy to issue refunds to any customer at any time for any reason.. That's just common sense, and good ethics. Nobody takes advantage of us, because customers are usually honest. And if someone honestly comes out upset enough over the content of a film that they want their money back -- if we say no, who is he going to be angry at? Us or the studio? Us. He probably won't even remember which studio it was that released that film. Issuing a refund costs us nothing: it's the customer's money. We want to keep the customer happy.
And that happens so incredibly rarely, that if every once in a while if a customer does take advantage, and we lose the 75 cents we would have made on that ticket sale, and the studio loses it's eight bucks --
Oh well. If we're going to make an error, we're going to err on the side of the customer, rather than on the side of squeezing every possible dime having unhappy customers.
That's just the philosophy of the company I work for.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:In other words, would the theater still have to report that as a ticket sale, thus taking the entire loss itself, or does it just subtract from the number of tickets sold and pass that loss on to the studio?
Subtracts from the number of tickets sold. The loss is shared by the studio and the movie theater. The studio would take the largest hit, obviously, in terms of dollars. But technically when you issue a refund it's as if the ticket was never there.
Which I think is quite correct, because the movie theater, as the VENUE where people see the movies, has to have some flexibility in dealing with customers.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
It's trickier than that. Yesterday I read about a case where a masseuse could lose her state license as a massage therapist because she was having sex with her client, which is illegal here in MN. Oh, but that client is her husband. However, the law doesn't make an exception for that. So, clearly she's guilty for breaking the law, right?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Which I think is quite correct, because the movie theater, as the VENUE where people see the movies, has to have some flexibility in dealing with customers.
I agree. Thanks for the info.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Apparently, legality does not factor into your decision making process. The standards agreed upon by society and codified into laws don't apply to you, so long as you're living by your own standards.
It's trickier than that. Yesterday I read about a case where a masseuse could lose her state license as a massage therapist because she was having sex with her client, which is illegal here in MN. Oh, but that client is her husband. However, the law doesn't make an exception for that. So, clearly she's guilty for breaking the law, right?
my wife is a massage therapist!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Take it from me. Bootlegged CD's and Mixtapes usually aren't licensed. That's the whole point of them being bootlegged. The distributor can just burn a couple thousand and sell them all, and he won't get in trouble with the record label, because technically the CD doesn't even exist. So the whole bootleg CD analogy is just trash, sorry.
Wow, trash. Harsh words.
Maybe you don't understand the word bootleg, or you are applying your own connotation to it. All "bootleg" means is a copy that was made illegally. What I was trying to say was that a CD existed, someone went and burned a thousand copies of it to sell at half price on the street, and you're buying pirated material at a lowered cost. (This happens with DVDs all the time).
I buy bootlegged CDs all the time. Your right on some parts of your explanation, but the problem is most CDs that are bootlegged are Mixtapes, not actual albums. Mixtapes belong to no labels and have no licenses, so its perfectly legal to make copies of a mixtape and sell them.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:In a situation where my moral standards clash with the standards that society has legally established, I will often take a position that is in accordance with my moral standards. Surely this is not a foreign concept to you?
No, it's not. Disregard for the law is not new, nor is it foreign. People do it all the time. When they get caught doing it, they pay fines, do community service, or end up in jail.
It's the way society works, by maintaining a certain set of rules everyone follows and punishing those that don't follow the rules.
I just wanted to be clear that you felt yourself above the law.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Mixtapes belong to no labels and have no licenses, so its perfectly legal to make copies of a mixtape and sell them.
Now you're willfully deluding yourself.
If the mix tape is made with with even one song that came from a copyrighted album, then the mix tape itself is a violation of copyright.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: my wife is a massage therapist!
Just make sure you don't pay her for massages. Or sex.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:In a situation where my moral standards clash with the standards that society has legally established, I will often take a position that is in accordance with my moral standards. Surely this is not a foreign concept to you?
No, it's not. Disregard for the law is not new, nor is it foreign. People do it all the time. When they get caught doing it, they pay fines, do community service, or end up in jail.
It's the way society works, by maintaining a certain set of rules everyone follows and punishing those that don't follow the rules.
I just wanted to be clear that you felt yourself above the law.
In keeping with "being clear", I might point out that I don't think I'm above the law. In a situation like I described, where I chose my moral standards above legal ones, I would be perfectly willing to accept any legal consequences involved in that choice.
EDIT: If you read my posts with the idea in your head that I am some sort of immoral criminal miscreant, we are never going to be able to have a meaningful discussion.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Mixtapes belong to no labels and have no licenses, so its perfectly legal to make copies of a mixtape and sell them.
Now you're willfully deluding yourself.
If the mix tape is made with with even one song that came from a copyrighted album, then the mix tape itself is a violation of copyright.
The songs that are on mixtapes are from albums that haven't even been made yet. Thats the whole point of a mixtape, to see if the audience likes the material.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
For the record, I still haven't seen the following question answered by the anti-p2p folks (well, FlyingCow specifically):
Why is it wrong for me to download mp3's of cd's or cassettes I already own, when it would be perfectly legal for me to rip the same mp3's directly from the cd's or cassettes?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Yesterday I read about a case where a masseuse could lose her state license as a massage therapist because she was having sex with her client, which is illegal here in MN. Oh, but that client is her husband. However, the law doesn't make an exception for that. So, clearly she's guilty for breaking the law, right?
You are misrepresenting the case. Although I agree that the law is unreasonably strict. Two years?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'd second pH's endorsment of subscription based music. I use Yahoo Music ToGo and am pretty satisfied with it. On the other hand, I would never purchase a single track using DRM.
Two points about this service: 1) I don't believe the music companies would have ever given permission for this kind of system if it wasn't for the vast filesharing that took place and is taking place. 2) This subscription based music model is much like the filesharing model I've seen most people use: You get exposed to a lot of new music, find what you like, download it, and if you really like it then you purchase the CD, delete the other files. Repeat.
Please note: I'm not trying to morally support or condemn filesharing. Just noting some effects.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: my wife is a massage therapist!
Just make sure you don't pay her for massages. Or sex.
Would giving her a weekly allowance constitute paying for either massages or sex?
I'm totally kidding, all our funds are basically OUR money.
Though it might be unethical if I physically went to her massage office and solicited sex while she was giving me a massage. I can see why that would be grounds for revoking ones liscence, or at least suspending it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:You are misrepresenting the case. Although I agree that the law is unreasonably strict. Two years?
Ah yes. I scanned through the newspaper article yesterday, and apparently didn't quite recall it correctly. It was an old client that is now her husband, but either way, current laws say that it [was] still unlawful for her to have sex with her husband.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The absence & presence of a product isn't what the law is about; the presence and absence of payment for that product is.
You take something that you're supposed to pay for, by law, without paying for it. I'll even dictionary quote it for you:
"Theft (larceny): a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."
Explain to me how the use of the word "theft" is misleading propaganda.
Nothing was "taken". It was copied. It's an important difference.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word mixtape. In my reckoning, it's an album made from an amalgam of songs from other albums. Such as car mixes people make for themselves or party mixes of various artists that DJs put together. To reproduce and distribute these would be illegal.
If it's unreleased material and the artist is releasing it to gauge interest, it's not bootleg at all.
A "bootleg" album is an album made illegally. That's the definition of the word. For example, copies of movies made with handheld cameras before the DVD is released. Things like that.
If you're talking about a promo tape of some kind released for free by an artist to gauge audience interest, that's entirely different.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Mixtapes are made by one group or artist. Its just like an album except that usually the artist is experimenting (and its not licensed). They aren't really for parties or anything like that. Pharrell put out a mixtape recently to prelude his new album thats coming out. Lupe Fiasco is being hailed as one of the best new rappers, and he hasn't even put out an album, just mixtapes. Mixtapes aren't promo tapes because usually there isn't anything to promote, its just the rapper making money without even putting out an album. Thats why you never see ads for Mixtapes in store catalogues, they aren't licensed and therefore the record companies just turn blind eyes to them.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Why is it wrong for me to download mp3's of cd's or cassettes I already own, when it would be perfectly legal for me to rip the same mp3's directly from the cd's or cassettes?
If you own the physical CD, there is no problem ripping the songs from that CD to some mix tape to use in your car, or to play on your computer. I believe there is a stipulation in copyright law for two or three copies allowable for personal use. This would include a cassette tape, for instance, if your car didn't have a CD player.
However:
- if you go and make 100 copies of your CD and distribute them to friends, you are infringing on copyright.
- if you upload the songs on your CD to a site where thousands of people can download them and make copies, you are infringing on copyright.
- if you make copies of your CD to sell, you are infringing on copyright.
- if you are downloading songs for a CD you *used* to own, but no longer own (through loss, destruction, theft, etc), you are stealing music.
Does that answer your question?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Nothing was "taken". It was copied. It's an important difference.
That's what copyright law is built upon.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: I call it being a discerning customer. If I bought a vaccum cleaner that I used, and then didn't like, would it be theft to return it?
(I might mention that I tend to delete the songs I download and don't like)
Anglo, I once more point out that there are plenty of LEGAL services that let you listen to entire songs before purchasing them. You refuse to even acknowledge that I am telling you this, much less that they exist.
-pH
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:- if you are downloading songs for a CD you *used* to own, but no longer own (through loss, destruction, theft, etc), you are stealing music
see, this is the one that blows my mind... I buy a tape, rip it to mp3 and CD. The next day my house burns down and I lose the mp3 and the tape but luckily my backup CD is in the car. Apparently I now an breaking the law? I can't backup my music in case of destruction? What if I keep the old burned-up tape... am I legal then since I still 'own' the tape even though I can't actually play it??
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Sorry TL, I totally missed this before:
quote:That is ridiculous. The difference is that an mp3 is not a physical product. It costs nothing to produce. It is information. The only LOSS, to the artist or to the company that produced the music, would be if you hadn't already paid for the music. I already paid for the music.
There are no damages to the record company. Your argument is that I should pay for the music twice? Why? What for?
Is it your opinion that it would be illegal for me to rip my CD's (or cassettes) to mp3 for my own personal use?
The thing here is, in my mind, you didn't pay for the music. You paid for a cassette. If that cassette is lost or destroyed, you aren't entitled to another one - you have to buy it. Same as if you lose or destroy anything else - you have to pay to replace it.
Also, physical product or not, it is still a commodity. Time is not a physical product, but people pay for that every day. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it has no value.
If you pay for an artist to paint a mural on your wall, then the wall gets destroyed - you pay for him to paint it again if you want the mural back. You didn't buy the art, you bought the medium it was on.
In the case of music, you aren't buying the music, per se, but the file it's recorded in. If that file became corrupted or deleted, the music would be lost. The file is something you pay for - just like you pay for software like MS Office or Adobe PhotoShop. It isn't tangible, but it has value and should not be freely replicated and distributed.
That is why we have copyright law.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:see, this is the one that blows my mind... I buy a tape, rip it to mp3 and CD. The next day my house burns down and I lose the mp3 and the tape but luckily my backup CD is in the car. Apparently I now an breaking the law? I can't backup my music in case of destruction? What if I keep the old burned-up tape... am I legal then since I still 'own' the tape even though I can't actually play it??
I'm not sure if you're intentionally misreading or not.
If you backup files and information you own, then you are not breaking the law. For instance, if you had Adobe Photoshop on your computer, and the install discs were in the car, you could install it on another machine should your computer break down. If you had your CDs in your car, you could once again put them on your new computer.
However, if the install discs were in the house, and all was destroyed, you are not justified in stealing a copy of PhotoShop to replace what you lost - just like you are not justified in stealing another house to replace what you lost. If your CDs were lost in the fire, you can't just go and steal the music back to replace what you lost.
That's why you have insurance, to reimburse you for loss. If your CD collection was valued at $3500 dollars, your insurance will cover that. If your mp3 collection was valued at $3500 (based on receipts from iTunes or whatnot) you could probably get reimbursed for that as well. I'm not sure if iTunes lets you download a song twice if you paid for it once - it's never come up in my usage of the software.
Granted, if you have no insurance to replace any of this, that was your decision.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
FC, I know that with Napster, you can redownload music if your computer eats it. Or just if your computer is acting weird and you have to format. They re-issue your licenses.
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
That's a nice feature, and it's good business. It will keep people coming back to their site.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
They also have really cool tech support people who love to talk about music. You don't sit on hold forever. So if I do have to call to get my licenses re-issued or whatever, I'm not like, "Auuuugh, I hate this, I have to call Napster..." and clearing my schedule for the afternoon so that I can sit around and wait to talk to someone who is clearly not located within this country.
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
That's certainly nicer than MusicMatch - they have no phone tech support. None. They don't even have a phone number, and say as much on their site. You have to email them.
Irritating.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That's lame. I wouldn't have the patience for that. I require actual people.
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If you read my posts with the idea in your head that I am some sort of immoral criminal miscreant, we are never going to be able to have a meaningful discussion.
Not at all. You're moral according to your own standards, just not law abiding. I get that.
You'll take whatever punishment is meted out for any delinquent behavior. I get that.
I hope you manage to stay clear of any legal authority.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Nothing was "taken". It was copied. It's an important difference.
That's what copyright law is built upon.
Exactly. My point is that it is copyright infringement, not "stealing".
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:In the case of music, you aren't buying the music, per se, but the file it's recorded in. If that file became corrupted or deleted, the music would be lost. The file is something you pay for - just like you pay for software like MS Office or Adobe PhotoShop. It isn't tangible, but it has value and should not be freely replicated and distributed.
That is why we have copyright law.
I think from this quote we can safely surmise that FlyingCow has absolutely no understanding of copyright law, and we can go ahead and ignore the rest of his posts.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think from this quote we can safely surmise that FlyingCow has absolutely no understanding of copyright law, and we can go ahead and ignore the rest of his posts.
Is ignorance the only reason why we can ignore posts? Or can we do it when people are obnoxious as well?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
TL, Seriously, not cool.
You could try explaining why copyright law doesn't work the way FC thinks it does. Or you could ignore his posts. But that, that doesn't serve any purpose than to be nasty.
I don't think we really don't need to get nasty over this.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I agree, Squicky. And I wasn't trying to get nasty. I'm sorry to FC if it sounded that way.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Ya mon that was like ouch...
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Kindness did sort of fly out the window when he called someone a thieving lazy bastard. Maybe now's the time to bring it back in.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Is ignorance the only reason why we can ignore posts? Or can we do it when people are obnoxious as well?
I take it you mean that I'm being obnoxious. Well, it's true that I'm a little bit touchy about being called a thief for owning digital copies of music that I already own. I think that is a stupidly rigid position to take, and every analogy which has been posted in favor of this position has been ridiculous.
Note: I am not calling anyone stupid.
Also, I am a little on edge from reading the rest of this thread in which people are being called immoral and thieving bastards, etc.
No offense was meant.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Copyright law exists to offer artists legal protection to make sure they are paid for their work. Its purpose is not to gouge consumers into paying for the same thing over and over again. That is the Disney concept of copyright; not the original intent of copyright.
But that's a different conversation.
Basic copyright law: If I own something, I am legally justified in making a back-up copy for my own personal use. Which is where FlyingCow, and others, seems to go off the deep end.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I can't own a digital copy because it's a different medium?
Makes no sense. Especially when you consider the fact that it costs nothing to produce.
It isn't REMOTELY like stealing a copy of a book because I already paid for another copy. A book is a physical product which costs money to produce and distribute.
I am, and I'll be honest here, stunned beyond belief that someone could even *have* an interpretation of copyright law that would lead them to believe that it is immoral/illegal to own backup copies of music you already paid for.
It isn't the reaction I was expecting when I posed that question.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
FlyingCow's understanding of copyright law is far closer to correct than yours. Also, he's explicitly said he knows about the right to make a backup copy, making your outburst particularly incorrect. The issue is when you copy files you do not have a license for, which is copyright infringement even if you have a separately licensed file with the same music.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:FlyingCow's understanding of copyright law is far closer to correct than yours. Also, he's explicitly said he knows about the right to make a backup copy, making your outburst particularly incorrect. The issue is when you copy files you do not have a license for, which is copyright infringement even if you have a separately licensed file with the same music.
Outburst?
*sigh*
Would you care to explain HOW his understanding of copyright law is far closer to correct than mine? Particularly since what you seem to be saying is that FlyingCow and I are actually in agreement, and we're having some kind of misunderstanding?
And - since when do you need a license to own a backup copy of something you already own? Could you please explain that to me as well?
Thank you.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Is FC's more correct? With the Adobe example, he said if you lost all backups, tough luck, you still can't copy a friends CDs for the reinstall. You'd have to purchase new software.
Is it copyright infringement then to copy my friends CDs with the same program, use my License Key, and reinstall?
Edit: To be clear, I'm asking a question, not arguing a point. If what I'm suggesting is in fact illegal, then I think there's some serious problems with copyright laws.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I think FC crossed the line too. Here's the thing though, you are responsible for your actions and words. You've got the choice to follow people over the line or not.
FC called you a lazy thieving bastard. That reflects on him. What you say in response reflects on you. Ultimately, the direction the conversation takes depends on what both of you say and you are responsible for your part.
That's all I have to say about that.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
disclaimer - I only skimmed after Flying Cow's post on page 4 so if this has been covered, forvime me...
quote: I'm not sure if you're intentionally misreading or not.
not
quote: However, if the install discs were in the house, and all was destroyed, you are not justified in stealing a copy of PhotoShop to replace what you lost - just like you are not justified in stealing another house to replace what you lost. If your CDs were lost in the fire, you can't just go and steal the music back to replace what you lost.
Actually, it doesn't work that way, If I had a licensed copy of Adobe Acrobat or Windows in this scenario I would indeed be allowed to obtain a CD with the software from someone else and install in on my machine with my license. In fact very often companies don't get a CD for each license, they just get 1 CD and everyone installs from it...
The point is that for software I pay for the license to use the software, not for the physical media. This is because the software is really independent of the media...
So my point is that if I have that fire and my only copy of my favorite CD is destroyed I may very well be able to, and I think I should be able to, copy that CD from someone else to replace it.
Ultimately if it's OK for me to make a backup copy of my CD it should be OK for me to make a backup copy of my CD using someone elses identical CD... and once I do who's gonna tell the difference anyway.
Or, in other words IANAL but I believe that "Yes Mr. RIAA guy, that's a copy of the CD but I have the original right here. Yeah, it's ruined and can't play but you can still see the bit of the label that tells you what CD it is so obviously I own that CD" must either be OK or not OK regardless of the actual source for the music on my copy....
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
TL: His understanding is more correct in that it is copyright infringement (albeit very minor copyright infringement nobody much cares about) to download a sound file from someone else of a CD you already own a copy of, or take analogous actions in other media where only copyright law and the implicit license due to the sale are operating. Your purchase of a physical CD allows you to listen to that physical CD, sell that physical CD, make copies for certain types of personal use (including backup) of that physical CD, loan that physical CD to a friend so he or she can listen to it, and many other things. It does not permit you to make a copy of someone else's virtually identical physical CD. Similar statements apply to downloaded files, though there's typically a more explicit (and likely more constraining) copyright license involved there. You do not need a copyright license to back up your music that has been purchased on CD; that is covered by fair use and the doctrine of first sale.
Also, allow me to quote from FlyingCow:
quote:If you backup files and information you own, then you are not breaking the law.
Note the not in there.
His understanding isn't completely correct; there is no explicit limit on the number of copies you can make, though making too many might violate fair use. You can make as many copies as there are fair uses for. Fair use, fortunately or unfortunately, is murky territory.
BQT: software licensing is very hazy, but not because of copyright laws. The licenses as written tend to be ambiguous as to whether or not it matters where the source of the application files is. But yes, it probably is copyright infringement.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
just_me: you might think that, but it is not correct. Now, nobody's going to go after you for doing it, but that's a different matter.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Yeah, I think FC crossed the line too. Here's the thing though, you are responsible for your actions and words. You've got the choice to follow people over the line or not.
FC called you a lazy thieving bastard. That reflects on him. What you say in response reflects on you. Ultimately, the direction the conversation takes depends on what both of you say and you are responsible for your part.
That's all I have to say about that.
I agree. Which is why apologized immediately. What else can I do?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BTW, some caveats:
First, in the bizarre situation someone were to go after you for such a thing, the worst they could likely make you do is make you delete the copied files via a civil suit.
Second, a court case could suddenly make this fair use, though its unlikely ever to come up.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I have always recorded my best disks with Reel to Reel, as soon as I open them. I always use a new cartridge. I play the tapes and replace them if they become scratchy. The disks have only been played once or twice in the last 40 years. That way the sound has stayed crisp and clean. I consider this to be fair use. So there. I never copy music, even though the zerox machine makes it tempting and replacement copies are hard to find.
[ August 08, 2006, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: - if you are downloading songs for a CD you *used* to own, but no longer own (through loss, destruction, theft, etc), you are stealing music.
Good luck ever enforcing that.
For that matter, good luck finding anyone who's willing to go through the trouble of enforcing that.
"I was in the process of backing up my legally purchased disk to MP3 format when a colossal hardware error caused the destruction of the disk. Fortunately, the MP3 version survived." ...Or it could be I just downloaded the MP3s after my disk got scratched.
"I own the cassette tape, so I was using the audio input of my sound card to make MP3s off of a cassette deck." ...Or I just downloaded them, reasoning that it was fair use to have back-ups of music that I had purchased. But... *gasp*... Those MP3s might approach CD, rather than cassette quality!...
...And the minute we have any law enforcement agencies with so little time on their hands that they're actually doing quality comparisons, they Libertarians are going to increase their rolls.
The reasoning that's getting used here is bad for users, business, and law alike. If you put the screws to consumers with the terms of a license, you encourage them to wait until the product isn't at its inflated first-run price... Until its in a more durable format... Until its available on a 5.1 DVD... And the current product never gets sold.
Instead, people assume, rightly or wrongly according to the law, that they're buying music and they have certain rights with regard to what they can do with that music. Working under other assumptions is pretty much untenable.
And at least one legal scholar has noted (pardon I don't have the quote available on hand) that copyright law was not created to "protect the rights of content creators", but to assure that their content could be accessed, provided a fee was paid to the creator. For a certain length of time. That's not an insignificant difference. If the goal is content availability and preservation, a system arranged entirely under profit motives is not necessarily viable.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Sterling, are you paying any attention whatsoever to what's being said? If you make a backup copy of music from a CD that you already own, that's legal.
If you make a backup copy of music from a CD that you already own BY DOWNLOADING IT ILLEGALLY, that is NOT legal.
-pH
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Yes, pH, I know that. If you will note the passage I quote, however, the question of whether one is considered to "own" an album that has been damaged, or that one has a right to digital copies of an album that one originally purchased in a non-digital format (tape, vinyl, et al.), apparently remains up in the air. As does the question of one's "right" to download music one owns on CD, rather than ripping it oneself. Various groups have claimed in the past that they have been permitting download of copyrighted materials soley so legitimate owners of said materials could have back-up copies they themselves are unable to make; these arguments in the past have usually not been well received.
My larger point is that the "licenses" music groups believe they sell when they sell an album (in whatever form) are
A) Not terribly well understood by the average purchaser,
B) Not particularly in the best interests of the average purchaser,
C) In some cases would not be accepted, were they understood, by the average purchaser,
D) Counter-productive to numerous positive ends, including preventing wide-scale piracy, being significantly enforcable by law, creating goodwill with a legitimate purchasing public, and allowing works that do not offer an immediate profit not to vanish completely with obscurity.
Or, to put it more succinctly, yes, pH, I'm paying very close attention to what's being said.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sterling: your rememberance is probably slightly off. Copyright was not created (at least, as part of the Constitution) to ensure access to the works under copyright, but to provide an incentive for creators to create works, so that they could be enjoyed by the public (period). The initial enjoyment happens under license because the ability of the creator to issue such is what copyright is, but eventually the work passes into public domain. Sadly, the works take far too long to do so nowadays.
Licenses will always be complicated. There is no way to make licenses and fair use simple, even if they were more strictly codified (which, given the quick evolution of technology and the pliability of Congress to commercial interests in the short term, might very well turn out to be a bad thing). Copyright could be improved, but making definitely allowable a use that no copyright holder cares much about anyways is not the first, second, or even tenth most important step in that direction.
What's more, there's a real danger to adding such an exception. It might imply a responsibility on the part of the licensor to provide the licensee with a new copy if his or hers becomes damaged, which is a significant additional burden on the licensor.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'll just jump in real quick and say that I've heard songs before which have probably been downloaded illegally. I've then gone out and paid for music from those artists, who I never would have heard of otherwise.
In some cases, illegal file sharing increases music sales. In fact, easily 90% of the music I've purchased in the last year has been as a direct result of hearing free versions of songs online first.
Just something for artists to think about.
I think Jonathan Coulton has the right idea. He offers his songs free via podcast. He has lots of free songs on his website, and he uses Creative Commons licensing so that people can use his songs in non-commercial venues to spread the word about his music.
I love his music, so even though I first heard free copies of his music (in this case, because he offered them for free), I've since purchased songs and donated to his website. He never would have made money from me if I had not heard his free music, but now he has.
More musicians need to get a clue. The record companies need to learn to live in the present, and stop being greedy asses.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm going to bold this because clearly, no one is reading what I am typing.
There are perfectly legal ways to discover new music online beyond a 30-second clip.
-pH
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Sterling: your rememberance is probably slightly off.
Quite possibly. I've heard various interpretations of the incentive for copyright, from protecting the authors to benefitting the education of the general public. And certainly, the piece in question was one opinion. Still, I think it would be erroneous to suggest that the sole purpose of copyright is to protect the rights of authors/artists/content providers.
quote:I'm going to bold this because clearly, no one is reading what I am typing.
Must... Resist... Snarky... Reply.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well Sterling, I just feel that the "Oh, I use it to discover new music" justification is a load of crap, and I have given a reason why it is a load of crap, and yet....it's still held up as a reason that downloading illegally is a-okay.
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Load of crap or not, in my case it's earned artists and labels more money than they would have earned otherwise.
If they don't like my money, they don't have to take it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: There are perfectly legal ways to discover new music online beyond a 30-second clip.
Are they free?
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well Sterling, I just feel that the "Oh, I use it to discover new music" justification is a load of crap, and I have given a reason why it is a load of crap, and yet....it's still held up as a reason that downloading illegally is a-okay.
I think that in some cases you're confusing "justification" with "explanation." Saying "I use illegal downloading to discover new music" is not the same as saying "illegal downloading is morally right and good because it can be used to discover new music." I've already cited some evidence suggesting that people who download music illegally buy more legal music than people who don't. Again, that isn't a justification for illegal downloading, but it's certainly problematic for the RIAA's argument that illegal downloading is hurting their bottom line in any significant way.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Wow, a lot happened while I was gone.
First off, if you go back and read through all my posts clearly, I never once used the word "thief" nor did I ever call anyone a thieving bastard.
I used a variation on the word "steal" only three times in this thread. One was in a hypothetical "would you..?" question, one was to say "don't steal it" (with regard to music), and the other was in a general sense when I said "still they stole music" ("they" in this case being "those people who felt it their right to get music without paying for it").
Before you accuse people of saying things, please make sure you know who said them.
This is basic netiquette and common courtesy.
I understand there are a lot of people on this board, but before you call someone out, be sure you're calling out the right person.
Next, TL, your emotions are clouding your reading comprehension. I never said it was illegal to back up files or music (go back and check), and your saying that I did doesn't make it any more true.
What I did say was that you don't have a right to any and all music you ever owned just because once upon a time you owned it. You didn't buy the rights to the music, you bought a product (a cassette, CD, mp3, etc).
To use some extreme examples, if I owned a record of "Puff the Magic Dragon" when I was 4 years old which has been long lost, I do not have the right to make a copy of that same song from a CD someone else purchased. If I owned a copy of Ender's Game when I was 6 years old and it was lost in a fire at that age, I don't have the right to scan a copy of Ender's Game into my computer from a book I borrowed from the library. Both actions are violations of copyright.
If you lose ownership of something (through loss or destruction of the product) and you have no backup copies of that thing, you don't have an automatic right to replacement under the law. You can buy insurance beforehand to be reimbursed for loss, and you can appeal to the makers of whatever it was you lost to possibly replace their product as an act of good will.
So, to get back to your example of the fire. Say you lose everything, including all backups, leaving you with only the clothes on your back. You can appeal to your insurance company to reimburse you for your loss, but it is loss. Your house is destroyed, so you aren't entitled to take another one. Your furniture was destroyed, so you aren't entitled to take other furniture. Your DVDs are melted, so you're not entitled to burn copies of your freinds' DVDs. Your books went up in smoke, so you're not entitled to go and scan copies from friends or the library or fileshare eBooks. If all your music and software is lost, you can't just make copies of a friend's music or software to replace it.
None of that is technically legal, though the difference in degree of illegality between taking a replacement house and taking replacement music is huge, obviously.
Now, with regard to music and software, you have some recourse. If you paid for all your music through some download service, you can contact that service and ask if they will replace the music (because they already have a record of what music you've bought). If you paid for Adobe software and registered it by sending in all their paperwork, you can request that they send you replacement software to install on your new machine.
Those are services provided by those companies, but they also rely on record of your purchase. If you never sent any paperwork in to Adobe, they will have no record of you using their software and won't replace it. If, in some freak coincidence, iTunes melted down completely and went out of business after losing all their digital records, you would have no recourse there either, because they would have no record of your purchase.
Either way, you'd need to repurchase what you lost and wouldn't have the right to make reproductions of another person's copyrighted material.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Are they free?
Yes, and they've been listed.
However, they were written off as not being convenient. The right to convenience was apparently added to the Bill of Rights while we weren't looking.
I do want to add, however, that I don't have a problem with someone downloading a song, listening to it for free, and then deleting it. I do have a problem with people downloading a song, listening to it for free, and then keeping it. The first I can see as simply being sampling, almost like requesting a song on the radio, listening to it in a music store, or borrowing a friend's CD - in the end, you've heard the song but don't own it. The second is making a copy of copyrighted material to own without paying for it, which seems to me would be clearly considered "unauthorized reproduction."
There are, of course, services set up so that you can listen to unlimited music on demand without having the option of dowloading the files. So far as I understand, they have a small monthly fee but allow you to sample and enjoy music to your heart's content - without violating copyright.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Are they free?
Yes, and they've been listed.
Sorry, I meant to stipulate that I was talking about digital previewing methods. My fault. In my experience, you have to either try your luck with the artist's website(s) and hope you find streaming audio/downloads, or listen to clips via Amazon or iTMS.
I've definitely bought CDs after spending some time listening to them in those players they have in record stores.
Again, for me, it isn't a question of justification, it's a question of understanding the reasons why illegal downloading occurs. In a sense, online music services are in market competition with P2P. At one booth you have 30-second preview clips with decent selection, at another you have hit-and-miss streaming or downloads, but there's this guy in a trenchcoat over in the alley who'll give you better quality and the best selection this side of anywhere, and it's even free. For some people, the drawback of illegality is obviously not as great as the drawbacks of the other methods.
The RIAA initially tried to crush digital distribution via lawsuits, and failed dismally. Now it seems to be more of an "old habits die hard" thing, since the success of the online distribution model the labels were finally persuaded to adopt shows that consumers want to buy music legitimately, and they'll do it preferentially over illegal methods if you make it easy and keep the DRM from being too much of a pain.
There isn't much point in arguing about whether the RIAA's lawsuits are justified -- that's for lawyers to do, and it's certainly clear that some of the people they sue have indeed broken the law. The real question is, what's the point? P2P usage is growing much more slowly than legitimate online distribution mechanisms, and there's a real bogeyman in the closet -- CD bootlegging in developing nations -- that they could be focusing on. Instead, they're trying to alienate a group of consumers comprised at least partly of some of their very best legitimate customers. It's pretty counterintuitive.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:P2P usage is growing much more slowly than legitimate online distribution mechanisms
I agree that the slowing down of P2P growth is partly due to newly available legitimate online distribution methods, but I'm curious about how much of it might be due to P2P services being sued/shut down and individual file sharers being sued who are then forced to use the legitimate methods. I've seen no data to support this, but if it's true, that would somewhat justify the RIAA's concerns and actions.
quote:and there's a real bogeyman in the closet -- CD bootlegging in developing nations -- that they could be focusing on
I think they are focusing on this as well. They've tried to create protected CDs, which completely failed due to consumer backlash, so now they are trying to push DRM as much as they can on online downloads, since consumers don't seem to mind DRM as long as it's not on their CDs. Unfortunately I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but it looks like that's the direction that most online distribution methods are taking.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's a mistake to view the RIAA as being primarily interested in immediate revenue loss when confronting p2p and other forms of on-line file sharing.
Sure, they are concerned about it, but even if you could demonstrate that they are making substantially more money becayse of these practices, I think they're still going to fight it.
I've mentioned this on the topic before and Lalo mentioned it above. The advent of these new technologies and methods of content distribution threaten not just the RIAA's immediate bottom line (if, in fact, they do) but ultimately the continued existence of their exploitive monopoly.
As I understand it, RIAA members controlled 4 main aspects of musical media that made it pretty much necesssary for artists to go to them: recording, production, distribution, and promotion. They are inevitibly losing the first two to the advance of inexpensive technologies for both. The growth of non-traditional distribution and promotion channels represented by p2p and other on-line models is taking away their exclusive hold on the latter two.
They've gotten fat on their previously unassailable position of being able to dictate terms to both the artists and the consumers. Even though they will inevitibly lose this fight, they're going to hold onto this position as long as they can.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
pH, a lot of those arguments were not saying that it was legal to download things, but that it isn't necessary or productive for the RIAA to use draconian measures against the people doing this, as THAT will hurt their bottom line figures worse than filesharing ever has.
I doubt their motives, to be honest, and some of their "solutions" are invasive and violate my right to privacy. Their copyright rights are not greater than my right to privacy, and some of their suggestions are amazingly disingenuous.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: I agree that the slowing down of P2P growth is partly due to newly available legitimate online distribution methods, but I'm curious about how much of it might be due to P2P services being sued/shut down and individual file sharers being sued who are then forced to use the legitimate methods. I've seen no data to support this, but if it's true, that would somewhat justify the RIAA's concerns and actions.
Well, suing and shutting down P2P file sharing and suing individual file sharers didn't make a dent in P2P file sharing growth, which IIRC didn't slow until online music stores took off. That suggests to me that the suits don't have any significant impact, though if the RIAA continues to lobby the U.S. government to pass ever-stricter laws protecting copyrights, maybe that will change.
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:and there's a real bogeyman in the closet -- CD bootlegging in developing nations -- that they could be focusing on
I think they are focusing on this as well. They've tried to create protected CDs, which completely failed due to consumer backlash...
I think this was aimed at P2P -- if you can't rip it, you can't share it -- rather than at bootleggers, since bootleggers could just make a byte-for-byte duplicate of the disc, including the protection. They don't care if the people who buy their bootlegs can't rip them.
The real problem in the developing world is pricing. Protecting the content will make no difference as long as it's priced out of the range of the vast majority of consumers in those countries. Those people will continue to buy bootlegs at a fifth to a tenth of the cost, since they can't afford the genuine article.
As an example, Warner China is trying a new approach with one of their DVD releases this year -- dramatically reducing both the price and the window between the theatrical and DVD releases.
Added: I agree, MrSquicky.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The music industry embracing digital music is not complete and has been slower than I'd like, but they're coming around.
The 30 second samples need to go. Make so that you can hear 50% of a song, or even 70% of a song. Or maybe even set it up so that you can stream the entire song to hear it, but not download it to your harddrive unless you pay a dollar.
There's nothing financially inhibiting about letting consumers listen to a whole song. Letting them *have* a whole song to play at their leisure for free is a different thing entirely, but letting them hear the music before buying it shouldn't be a big deal.
It will catch up in time.
One of the primary arguments from the early Napster days was "The album sucks and I just want one song! I'm not paying for a whole album, so I'll just download it illegally!" Some business folk recognized the demand and filled that market niche, giving us digital song-by-song purchase options.
If one of the primary arguments now is "30 seconds isn't enough! I want to hear more!" then the first business person to offer longer samples will get more business, and the industry will adapt to offer longer samples - or entire songs to be heard, if not downloaded.
This will likely pull some people away from illegal filesharing and increase digital sales, but there will always be those "free music" types shaking their fists and breaking copyright anyway. They've been around since convenient recordable media, and they always will be with us.
Still, if the industry listens to the consumers' demands and adapts, they will increase profit and limit piracy.
They won't stamp it out.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I think this was aimed at P2P -- if you can't rip it, you can't share it -- rather than at bootleggers, since bootleggers could just make a byte-for-byte duplicate of the disc, including the protection.
I think it started out as a defense against the P2P networks, but I think the idea (DRM) gradually caught on that here is a new method of distribution that the record labels can have much stronger control over than with CDs, and people don't seem to be terribly concerned about the restrictions. I think they would prefer to have CDs disappear and have all the music sold via online downloads or subscription services (especially the ones that do not allow burns to CD). Granted, bootleggers will still be able to create and distribute their CDs, but it will be a bit less convenient, and they might even be able to encode into the file a way to track the major offenders.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that there are serious flaws with copyright law as it exists in the USA right now, but I'm nowhere near informed enough to offer any worthwhile alternatives.
I also think that a lot of this boils down to a lot of people simply being unwilling to admit, "I am willing to routinely violate the law over a matter of pure convenience."
Unquestionably, downloading music that you have not previously purchased (with a few, generally paid services online) is illegal. Unquestionably, listening to music you like is a convience. You will not die without it. You won't be wounded without it. Neither your friends nor family will be either. You won't suffer loss of property. You'll be inconvenienced by having to spend a larger amount of money on a luxury (i.e. >0, for music) than you otherwise would.
Whoever it was that said there must be a public element to civil disobedience efforts to change the law was entirely accurate, and furthermore the point of civil disobedience is to get caught, take the punishment and in doing so expose how unjust the law really is and how badly it needs to be changed.
How many supporters here for illegal file-sharing are doing that? I'd guess the number to be somewhere between zero and not a whole lot. So...that particular excuse just doesn't fly at all. I'm not remotely impressed by support for illegal file-sharing by way of opposition to unjust and inadequate law.
So we come back to willingness to violate the law in pursuit of a convience, a luxury.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Sterling, I just read back over this last page and saw this:
quote:Good luck ever enforcing that.
So, are you saying it's okay to break as many little laws as you want because the police can't spend their time enforcing them?
The justification of "I can break the law because the law can't be enforced" is a bit silly. Does that mean it's okay for a politician to take a little bribe, or for a businessman to embezzle a little money? Those crimes are too far under the radar to be enforced, because the police have so many more important things to do with their time, so does that make committing them okay?
It seems like the "it's not a crime if you don't get caught" mentality, which removes responsibility from the individual and places it on enforcement agencies. That way of thinking is selfish and irresponsible.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Then again, my friends average over 40,000 mp3s, which, converted to albums at approx 11 tracks/album, is 3,636 albums...or (at average $14.99/album) $54,503.64.
I know the discussion has really passed by this, but I thought I'd mention that this was addressed by the Harvard study linked by (I think) BQT. This is not 'lost revenue' to either the artists or the labels, simply because the vast majority of the 40000 songs were downloaded just out of boredom, or on a whim, and are probably listened to rarely, if ever. What I mean to say is that if possessing unlicensed mp3s became punishable by death, starting tomorrow, your friends wouldn't go out and buy all 3600+ albums. They'd buy the ones they liked (which they probably wouldn't have done had they not downloaded them and listened to them illegally), and not the rest (which, I'd guess, would make up the majority of their songs).
It's like the sample trays at grocery stores. I'll try something if it looks good, but only because it's free. If I like it, I'll most likely buy the product. If not, well then life goes on. If the samples cost money (even a neglegible amount), I'd just abstain. Me taking the sample isn't costing anyone any revenue; if anything, it's inducing me to spend money where I wouldn't have ordinarily. I know there are several holes in that analogy as it pertains to this subject, specifically the legality of offering samples, but you get the gist.
That's my rationalization for downloading music (which I don't do anymore, though I do have quite a bit that I've illegally obtained over the years still on my hard drive): it all falls into the category of (a) stuff I wouldn't have bought, and (b) stuff I discovered, liked, and bought the album (in, I'd guess, 90% of the cases). Oh yeah, and (c) stuff I already owned but downloaded digital copies of. Legally, I've participated in a good deal of copyright infringement. Morally, I sleep good every night.
I also go out of my way to go to as many concerts as I can afford, where I'm typically a merch whore. Tshirts, CDs, you name it. I do my part to spend my money in ways that will directly get to the artists.
------
There are about 36 other posts I'd like to respond to, but I just missed the boat, I think.
I would like to mention that I agree with m_p_h's distinction between copyright infringement and theft; I think it's crucial to realize that downloading a song does not deprive the rightful owner of it the way stealing something tangible does. I also agree wholeheartedly with twinky's post from atop page 3.
It seems that there are two arguments going on here: is it legal to download music, and is it morally defensible to download music. And if so, under what circumstances.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think it's as clear cut as samples from a grocery store. A large part of the problem is that people keep trying to force material analogies onto what is really a question of patterns of information.
People are clearly downloading and listening to songs without paying for them. And it's not a matter of them not paying for the ones they don't like and therefore don't listen to. It's more, a vast majorty of these songs, the people would never buy the CDs or whatever for and at least some of the people buy more music as a consequence of file-sharing.
The situation is that people are getting music that they aren't paying for and listening to it. You can make a case for that being wrong in itself, but the argument that music companies and artists are losing money because of it relies on several more steps.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just as an aside, I mentioned this thread to my girlfriend, and she said she was frustrated that they were closing down Limewire. She added that her music purchases have gone down considerably since she's had access to Limewire and other filesharing sites. Why buy music you can get for free?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
FC, I'm not sure that your anecdotal evidence of a single instance outweighs the results of the more methodical, much wider studies that people have posted.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just sayin' - like I said "just as an aside."
It was your own reading that made you think I was using it to outweigh anything, not anything I said.
And, I'd appreciate it if you edited your earlier post incorrectly accusing me of calling someone a "thieving bastard" - or at least apologize for it. You seem awfully quick to attack, and awfully slow to admit when you're wrong.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I don't think it's as clear cut as samples from a grocery store. A large part of the problem is that people keep trying to force material analogies onto what is really a question of patterns of information.
I didn't say it was. In fact, I specifically mentioned that it was not accurate in all ways. It's an analogy; it's not perfect, nor is it meant to be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Totally my bad, FC. You didn't say that. Primal Curve did. I didn't read carefully enough and thought it was you. I apologize for that and withdraw it. Still think the way you are conducting yourself is pretty poor.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
JT, You may notice that I didn't just criticize your analogy, but rather went on to show what parts of it I didn't agree with (edit: or rather found it incompletel). I'm sorry if my phrasing didn't jibe with you.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
No no, that's fine. It was just meant to illustrate one specific facet of downloading, that is that people sometimes use it to try music they would ordinarily have no interest in, and that those downloads are not 'losses'.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm curious as to why you think so, MrSquicky, and I'm sorry if I have inadvertantly offended you.
I feel as though I've approached this subject as coldly and rationally as I can, asking as many questions of people whose opinions I didn't understand as I could, and expressing my opinions as clearly as possible.
I haven't called anyone any names, and I don't feel as though I've been insulting. I have expressed the strong opinion that violating copyright is illegal and that there is no justification that makes it "right" or "okay" - people may not feel bad about breaking the law, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.
I have questioned and challenged people's attempts at justification for illegal music piracy in as clear and logical a way as I can.
Is there some point where you feel I was out of line, other than in posts you misattributed to me?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It's like the sample trays at grocery stores. I'll try something if it looks good, but only because it's free. If I like it, I'll most likely buy the product. If not, well then life goes on. If the samples cost money (even a neglegible amount), I'd just abstain. Me taking the sample isn't costing anyone any revenue; if anything, it's inducing me to spend money where I wouldn't have ordinarily. I know there are several holes in that analogy as it pertains to this subject, specifically the legality of offering samples, but you get the gist.
This analogy is invalid. A closer analogy would be if by clicking a button sitting at your desk you could sample the product, and if you liked it you could click another button to buy more of the product, or click a different button and receive as much of the product as you want for free.
I'm glad there are people who use filesharing morally; I have no problem with it, as long as they don't do it on an internet connection with my name attached to it. But there are definitely a lot of people who don't use it morally, and it is costing people money, and my point remains: it's against the law.
My goal in this has only been to get piraters and people who share illegal files to admit that they are breaking the law and that they are criminals. You did so later in your post, so we have no qualm, as I don't care whether you feel morally ok with it or not.
quote:I would like to mention that I agree with m_p_h's distinction between copyright infringement and theft; I think it's crucial to realize that downloading a song does not deprive the rightful owner of it the way stealing something tangible does.
I'll repeat what I said earlier: this isn't about a person depriving another person of a product, it's about a person obtaining merchandise without paying for it. In this regard, copyright infringement and theft are identical.
Edit to further clarify: I am not (nor have I ever been) talking about people who download copies of songs they already own a copy of in a different media format. While I don't agree with that, either, I disagree for reasons entirely different.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
It's also worth pointing out that people have been incorrectly attributing Primal Curve's name-calling ("That makes you a lazy thieving bastard.") to Flying Cow.
Edit: just noticed Squick pointed this out already not 5 posts above.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:This analogy is invalid. A closer analogy would be if by clicking a button sitting at your desk you could sample the product, and if you liked it you could click another button to buy more of the product, or click a different button and receive as much of the product as you want for free.
It's not invalid, but I think you and squick are hung up on the same parts of it. If someone's giving out free samples of cookies (free to me, they're costing someone, either the store or manufacturer money), then I'll try one. Because there's no risk taken on by me that I might waste my money buying a product and not liking it. If I like it, I buy it. If not, then I don't. But since I wouldn't have bought it had the samples not been available, it's not a loss to the cookie company when I fail to purchase the product.
You're saying that most 'samplers' aren't just trying a bite and then buying or not, correct? They're trying an all you can eat buffet. Fine, but the analogy was meant to clue everyone in on how I used to download. Not everyone. I don't doubt that there are those who abuse the system. Everywhere there's a system in place there's someone trying to abuse it; c'est la vie.
quote:I'm glad there are people who use filesharing morally; I have no problem with it, as long as they don't do it on an internet connection with my name attached to it. But there are definitely a lot of people who don't use it morally, and it is costing people money, and my point remains: it's against the law.
My goal in this has only been to get piraters and people who share illegal files to admit that they are breaking the law and that they are criminals. You did so later in your post, so we have no qualm, as I don't care whether you feel morally ok with it or not.
I've never seen anything to convince me that it is costing either the artists or the labels money, in fact, the bands who've embraced downloading have done well off of it, AFAIK. Though I don't begrudge anyone who wants to err on the side of the artists, I just don't think that argument holds water.
I agree that downloaders are criminals, just like I agree that 18 year olds who drink even one beer are criminals, and anyone who drives so much as one mile over the speed limit is a criminal. Point being, using the word 'criminal' in cases like this make it a pretty worthless distinction.
I think that some downloaders are using moral justifications that are borderline delusional, but that's not my business.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It's not invalid, but I think you and squick are hung up on the same parts of it. If someone's giving out free samples of cookies (free to me, they're costing someone, either the store or manufacturer money), then I'll try one. Because there's no risk taken on by me that I might waste my money buying a product and not liking it. If I like it, I buy it. If not, then I don't. But since I wouldn't have bought it had the samples not been available, it's not a loss to the cookie company when I fail to purchase the product.
You're saying that most 'samplers' aren't just trying a bite and then buying or not, correct? They're trying an all you can eat buffet. Fine, but the analogy was meant to clue everyone in on how I used to download. Not everyone. I don't doubt that there are those who abuse the system. Everywhere there's a system in place there's someone trying to abuse it; c'est la vie.
No, I'm saying that regardless of what your intentions are, that's the way the system works: whether you elect to use it as a buffet or a sample cart doesn't change that the buffet is what's available. Regardless, it's illegal whether you're taking a sample or eating your fill, as the company has authorized neither.
quote:I've never seen anything to convince me that it is costing either the artists or the labels money, in fact, the bands who've embraced downloading have done well off of it, AFAIK. Though I don't begrudge anyone who wants to err on the side of the artists, I just don't think that argument holds water.
Whether the company ultimately makes money in the long run through increased word-of-mouth sales inspired by downloads is irrelevant; every time someone downloads a song, they are obtaining a product that should be paid for without paying for it.
To address the issue seperately: I really want to know what the numbers for Harvey Danger's latest release look like. Their limited edition LP Little by Little released concurrently with the entire album in digital format becoming available on their website as a free download. An indie label picked up the album as a re-release, so I'm guessing they must have had enough support to merit that decision.
I'd also be interested in seeing what would happen if that occured on a wider scale, since one example isn't going to be nearly enough to judge.
quote:I agree that downloaders are criminals, just like I agree that 18 year olds who drink even one beer are criminals, and anyone who drives so much as one mile over the speed limit is a criminal. Point being, using the word 'criminal' in cases like this make it a pretty worthless distinction.
Meh, I know people who've been ticketed/jailed for all of the above (myself included) and even pettier crimes (jay walking in a non-busy area with no traffic, for example), and therefore have no problem with applying the label "criminal," especially since it carries no moral judgement.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: just_me: you might think that, but it is not correct. Now, nobody's going to go after you for doing it, but that's a different matter.
Can you clarify what you are talking about that doesn't work the way I think?
Because I know from first-hand experience I don't always/usually don't need the original media (or my copy of the original media) to have a legal license when it comes to software.
Since the only definitive statement I made in my post (I think?) was about software I think it's the one you are referring to, so if I'm wrong please explain how, why etc because I honestly don't think I am.
I will say that there probably are exceptions out there, but I'm talking about a general rule for most software.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:No, I'm saying that regardless of what your intentions are, that's the way the system works: whether you elect to use it as a buffet or a sample cart doesn't change that the buffet is what's available. Regardless, it's illegal whether you're taking a sample or eating your fill, as the company has authorized neither.
True. However, the analogy was meant to convey, morally, how I felt about downloading. Since I know that it's illegal, it wasn't meant to pertain to legality. I see now where the confusion comes from.
quote:I'd also be interested in seeing what would happen if that occured on a wider scale, since one example isn't going to be nearly enough to judge.
Same here.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I've never seen anything to convince me that it is costing either the artists or the labels money
I know plenty of people that illegally download songs that feel absolutely no obligation to purchase other songs, merchandise, or give at least some support in any other way to the artist or label. Many times these people are willing to purchase the album, but only if they can't get the album from a friend or p2p network. In fact, just the other day one of my friends said that she was going to buy a certain CD, but she was going to try to get a friend to copy it for her first, in which case she would no longer need to purchase the CD. So in these cases the artists and labels are most definitely being deprived of money.
Granted, these anecdotal examples don't exactly represent any specific portion of file sharers, but at the same time, it shows that these types do exist and I'm pretty sure that there are others besides the ones that I personally know.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I've never seen anything to convince me that it is costing either the artists or the labels money
I know plenty of people that illegally download songs that feel absolutely no obligation to purchase other songs, merchandise, or give at least some support in any other way to the artist or label. Many times these people are willing to purchase the album, but only if they can't get the album from a friend or p2p network. In fact, just the other day one of my friends said that she was going to buy a certain CD, but she was going to try to get a friend to copy it for her first, in which case she would no longer need to purchase the CD. So in these cases the artists and labels are most definitely being deprived of money.
Granted, these anecdotal examples don't exactly represent any specific portion of file sharers, but at the same time, it shows that these types do exist and I'm pretty sure that there are others besides the ones that I personally know.
I don't think anyone's arguing that everyone is one way or the other about using filesharing as a replacement or preview for music purchases; the debate centers around which side is in more abundance, and whether the artists & record companies are experiencing a net gain/loss. Given the lack of reliable information in this regard, I've abstained from commenting on that part.
JT, we basically get each other here. I'd even go so far as to say we're on the same page. Edit: with regards to legality and acceptance of one's actions, not morality. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:the debate centers around which side is in more abundance, and whether the artists & record companies are experiencing a net gain/loss.
Is the Harvard business school study or the study of the Canadian Music Industry not reliable enough for you? Why not? Realize there are practical limitations to the ability to gather information due to the nature of the topic.
Edited: typo, of to or
[ August 09, 2006, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:the debate centers around which side is in more abundance, and whether the artists & record companies are experiencing a net gain/loss.
Is the Harvard business school study of the study of the Canadian Music Industry not reliable enough for you? Why not? Realize there are practical limitations to the ability to gather information due to the nature of the topic.
I've seen neither; if they've been linked in this thread, can you point me?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Check out the first page, halfway down. Post is made by me.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I referenced it, too. Though not as well as the Hah-vahd folk did.
But yeah, we understand each other.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:the debate centers around which side is in more abundance, and whether the artists & record companies are experiencing a net gain/loss.
Is the Harvard business school study of the study of the Canadian Music Industry not reliable enough for you? Why not? Realize there are practical limitations to the ability to gather information due to the nature of the topic.
I've seen neither; if they've been linked in this thread, can you point me?
I also provided a couple of less thorough links at the very top of page four.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'd be interested to see comparisons between sales of iPods and other mp3 players vs. sales of actual music, too.
It would obviously be impossible to compare the amount of songs on people's iPods to sales of actual music, but that would be interesting to see as well.
The advent of the iPod, and their amazing marketing campaign, has made it wildly popular to have those white buds in your ears while doing... well, basically anything. I would be interested to see a study on the average number of hours per day people listen to music compared to several years ago, and then a comparison to music sales.
It would stand to reason that if music popularity was up significantly that music sales should have gone up accordingly. If, just for sake of argument, music interest increased 70% and music sales increased only 20%, could this be an argument for lost sales - even though sales increased over that span?
Does that make any sense?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Check out the first page, halfway down. Post is made by me.
Thanks.
The Harvard article is interesting; I like that they've explored several possible relationships but have not solidly confirmed anything.
I'll have to look into it further before forming anything representing a coherent opinion, but it will likely reinforce my gutshot stance: that filesharing is, ultimately, a positive influence on the music industry in every way, from leveling the playing field between big and small labels to making music more easily and readily accessible to all consumers.
I'm at work, so I'm leaving the Canadian article until later, but wanted to acknowledge that I am in fact looking at this and not just trying to avoid having an opinion on the matter. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I also liked the Harvard article (which is what prompted my last post) but I'm curious about statements like "it may even boost sales of some types of music".
What does that mean? What types of music? Were certain parameters put on the study that aren't detailed in the article?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:It would stand to reason that if music popularity was up significantly that music sales should have gone up accordingly. If, just for sake of argument, music interest increased 70% and music sales increased only 20%, could this be an argument for lost sales - even though sales increased over that span?
This is a really pertinent observation; I can already see where both sides will fall on this.
The record companies: Yes, those are lost sales. The filesharers: No, they are not lost sales, your net revenues are up as a result of filesharing. Me: They are not lost sales, but were still theft. Edit: Ok, not "theft" - "illegaly obtained products."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yeah, I looked around for the actual study, the article is just a question & answer type report of the study. If anyone finds it and can post it, that would be great because it left me with a lot of questions too.
In response to a query, I think the Canadian article actually said that people spend less time listening to music now than they used to because of all the alternative media. However, I don't know if that was just conjecture or if it was part of the study.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I'd be interested to see comparisons between sales of iPods and other mp3 players vs. sales of actual music, too.
It would obviously be impossible to compare the amount of songs on people's iPods to sales of actual music, but that would be interesting to see as well.
Something vaguely similar was done in one of my links (top of page four). The researchers were attempting to find out what portion of the music people put on their MP3 players is acquired through legitimate means. Their sample size was about 1,100 people. They found that, on average, a bit more than 70% of the music on a portable MP3 player comes from legitimate sources.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Personally, I don't own an mp3 player. (I also don't own a cell phone, so call me a Luddite all you want - I've heard it. )
I do, however, see people with iPod's all the time. On buses and trains, jogging or cycling in the park and on my street, waiting at the laundromat, on television at the world series of poker, at work in their cubicles, etc. They seem to be everywhere - far more than I remember people wearing headphones for walkmen or discmen in years past.
Plus, with mp3 capable CD players in cards, you can put hours of music on one disc, or days worth in a 10 disc changer.
Also, at your computer, you can customize hours and hours worth of playlists to listen to while surfing the web, writing email, or playing games.
I have no data for this, but it seems like people are listening to more music (and more variety of music) than ever before, just from my own observations. You would think, with such an increase in music (and such ease of listening in nearly any situation), music sales would be booming.
They're not. They've gone up a bit at the start of this year, but they're still down from years past.
Where is all this music coming from?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I don't think anyone's arguing that everyone is one way or the other about using filesharing as a replacement or preview for music purchases; the debate centers around which side is in more abundance, and whether the artists & record companies are experiencing a net gain/loss.
It's not quite that simple. If music sampling from the p2p networks is leading to increased music sales, then if the p2p networks are no longer avaialable, those people will then go to the many other legal services that allow music sampling. Eventually one of the companies (Apple, Real, or Napster etc.) will incorporate a free music sampling service into their pay-per-download or subscription service, which will give them an advantage over the competition. Thus, the music samplers will still lead to increased music sales, but in a legal way, while the losses from the p2p networks are eliminated.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I don't think anyone's arguing that everyone is one way or the other about using filesharing as a replacement or preview for music purchases; the debate centers around which side is in more abundance, and whether the artists & record companies are experiencing a net gain/loss.
It's not quite that simple. If music sampling from the p2p networks is leading to increased music sales, then if the p2p networks are no longer avaialable, those people will then go to the many other legal services that allow music sampling. Eventually one of the companies (Apple, Real, or Napster etc.) will incorporate a free music sampling service into their pay-per-download or subscription service, which will give them an advantage over the competition. Thus, the music samplers will still lead to increased music sales, but in a legal way, while the losses from the p2p networks are eliminated.
I'm not sure how you're making this really, really big leap. Evidence? Or just conjecture?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Oh, it's obviously all conjecture with not an ounce of proof, but it might be able to explain the direction the RIAA may be taking and the reasoning behind it.
My point is that it's not just as simple as "is there a net loss or net gain."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
And, referencing my previous post, I don't think "net loss or gain" is the issue.
If music ownership is up 70% and music sales are only up 20%, that's a pretty big difference. That extra 50% increase would be in illegally copied music (either from p2p, copying from friends, or whatever). If that 50% were purchased, there would have been a far greater increase in sales.
So, if market forces predict a 70% increase, and you only are reaping a 20% increase - that 50% is lost revenue. At least from a sales standpoint.
Of course, that's all conjecture.
I do think, though, if music download sites such as iTunes and the like would offer full versions of songs that are able to be played from their site as previews (but not downloaded or put into playlists), the "sampling" of illegal music phenomenon would go away.
Or, contrarily, they could have only 80% of the song, or a lead-in "talk over" on the track saying "Preview track" on top of the music (much like DJs would talk over the beginnings or endings of songs, making taping from the radio not the same as buying the cassette - back in "the day").
That would eliminate those just browsing to buy, because they could browse to buy legally. What groups would then be left illegally downloading? Would we then be down to people who just want something for nothing?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I think we also have to consider whether the 70% increase would have even existed without the illegal options in place. If we took away all the illegal methods to acquire music, then maybe music listening wouldn't have risen as much, so then you can't really say that the difference there is today (this arbitrary 50% we are talking about) is actual loss, since that difference wouldn't even exist without the illegally obtained music.. Am I making any sense? Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Very true. The illegal options to sample may have increased interest among those people who would not have bought the music anyway - time rich and money poor, as they say.
However, if iTunes and the like allowed better sampling (as I described above) than they do now, and the illegal options were even more curtailed, more people would start using legitimate means of sampling - with an easy option to buy.
I think the filesharing sites like Limewire need to go away, but also the legit music sellers need to adapt to offer what the consumer wants.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: They're not. They've gone up a bit at the start of this year, but they're still down from years past.
Where is all this music coming from?
According to the study I mentioned above (and linked earlier), the lion's share of legitimate music on people's MP3 players comes from ripping their CD collections. I think one reason you see more iPods around than you used to see Walkmen or Discmen is that you can carry around a lot more music on an MP3 player. With a cassette or disc-based player, you have to carry the music around separately, meaning if you want to listen to more than one album (or mix), you have to have a carrying case. Apple's original "1,000 songs in your pocket" tag line for the iPod was presumably intended to sell iPods to people who might not have bought cassette or disc-based players but were still interested in listening to music on-the-go.
BTW, I don't have a cellphone either, but I do have an iPod.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Where is all this music coming from?
There is a whole lot more music available legally for free than you might think. Podcasts are very popular and many play only podsafe music or have the appropriate licenses to play the music they do play. Many sites offer hundreds of thousands of user created music files for free. Almost all artists/labels offer an assortment of full length tracks for free on their websites. The live music archive has terrabytes of music that is sanctioned by the bands and made available for free.
I'm not saying that the majority of people listening to music are abandoning commercial music entirely but there are many people who build their collections from the sources mentioned above.
I am Canadian so many of the legal questions are rendered moot as our copyright laws have been interpreted by the courts to allow downloading for personal use (source) . This is under appeal by the Canadian Recording Industry Association so that may change at some point.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yet people are still buying a lot of music even though it's totally free and legal just to download it?
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Yes. Many people still enjoy having a tangible object for whatever reason (artwork, liner notes, cd-rom features, bonus DVD, etc.) or just like to know that they are sending some money to the artist (I don't think most people realize how little of the money from CD sales goes to the artist). For other people it is more convenient to buy the CD. Many people still aren't computer literate enough to make downloading an option for them or they are just computer literate enough to be scared of the viruses they might get from engaging in such practices. Also, we are so inundated with media from the U.S.A. that many people don't understand that we cannot be sued like the people they see on the TV news stories. They assume that the same rules apply here.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well Sterling, I just feel that the "Oh, I use it to discover new music" justification is a load of crap, and I have given a reason why it is a load of crap, and yet....it's still held up as a reason that downloading illegally is a-okay.
-pH
Yes, there are ways to discover new music that don't involve illegal downloads beyond the thirty second clip. I know you've mentioned subscription services. I'll even suggest a few of others: internet radio stations, artist sites, legal free MP3 services (where artists either use looser copyright terms or offer limited amounts of their music to the public domain.)
Please understand, though we obviously have disagreements with some aspects of P2P and copyright, I'm not failing to heed your position.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, are you saying it's okay to break as many little laws as you want because the police can't spend their time enforcing them?
The justification of "I can break the law because the law can't be enforced" is a bit silly. Does that mean it's okay for a politician to take a little bribe, or for a businessman to embezzle a little money? Those crimes are too far under the radar to be enforced, because the police have so many more important things to do with their time, so does that make committing them okay?
It seems like the "it's not a crime if you don't get caught" mentality, which removes responsibility from the individual and places it on enforcement agencies. That way of thinking is selfish and irresponsible.
Not quite what I'm saying.
With some laws, there is a degree to which they aren't enforced; it's recognized that the cost and/or harm done by a complete enforcement of the law is greater than the cost and/or harm caused by the infraction. It may even be necessary for a degree of infraction for some systems to work at all.
Some instances that could be labelled "copyright infringement" are somewhat ridiculous because the end result from the point of view of one of the participants is completely identical to the end result of a completely legal act. If I rip a song from a legally owned CD to my own drive, the end result is a file that is identical to the one I would have downloaded.
Pardon me for a sec, I'm going to do the politician's trick of answering my own question.
"But why would you ever need to download a file, if you can just rip it from your own drive?!"
Then, we get into weird realms of legality. What if the disk is under some kind of DRM software? What if I can't rip the file? Maybe I can't even play the disk... But someone in Finland has found a way to circumvent the DRM?
...Okay, so why don't I just download the circumvention?...
...What if it's illegal in my country? Just to add to the silliness, what if that circumvention is legal in Finland?
Oy.
So, there could be a situation where fair use says I can have a back-up copy of the disk that I own but can't play because the only CD player is a computer that won't play a disk with DRM software. But the only way I can use my music is for a distant person to offer it for download (possibly illegally), having circumvented the DRM software (possibly illegal or quasi-illegally), for me to download it (possibly illegally.) And then I have a digital copy of a disk I own... The ownership of which, arguably, is legal, since I would be able to copy it for my own purposes under fair use, were the DRM to allow it.
Except, the EULA forbids circumventing the DRM.
Except, the only way to read the EULA, if it's clearly stated, is to open the disk packaging. And once opened, the store you purchased the disk from won't accept its return, largely because they believe you may have copied it.
...Maybe you begin to see why I don't accept either the legality or the morality of copyright issues as black and white.
And, yes, I recognize for some of the actions I've described, a defendant might be taken to court. However, with a competent defense, they might well win.
And the whole thing would cost more money and time than is worth it to anyone.
Which is part of the reason so many of these things get settled out of court.
Which is kind of a pity, really, since some of these issues of copyright and fair use really could use more of a hammering than they've gotten. Instead, the group that can afford to throw more money at it gets their way... until they have to do it again.
Which is, again, part of why I say some interpretations of the law are good for neither the people they convict nor the people they protect.
<crickets>
...And I'm reserving the right to quote back parts of my increasingly long-butt diatribe back to people who single out individual parts to misinterpret. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Allow me to digress a moment, if you will.
We've been talking a lot about "filesharing" and "piracy" with regards to music, but the term is not limited to that. Any electronic file can really be shared via p2p sites, or through email or whatever.
By accepting music filesharing, is the door not opened for other types of filesharing?
In this specific case, I want to look at a niche market that has a limited number of consumers and does not have nearly the clout or economic stature of the music industry.
I'm talking about roleplaying games.
The roleplaying industry (in print form) is dying slowly. For years they have had difficulty making a profit from their print product, and for years they've been trying to stamp out those who type or scan books onto the internet for free distribution. When I worked at White Wolf, this was a constant issue and the webmaster was constantly writing emails threatening legal action to people who violated copyright in this way.
The books had a hard enough time making a profit, yet people who were fans of the game were pirating copies instead of buying them - which led to lower profits and smaller print runs, and even defunct game lines.
The gaming industry is switching rapidly to .pdf games, which do not have the overhead of print games, but this opens the door to piracy even further. The product is already in a downloadable and transmittable form.
With such a small consumer base, and significant production costs, "fans" of the medium who share modules and games around are actually limiting the producers' ability to make more product (and lowering quality, as producers can't afford to pay quality writers' rates and instead must go with untested writers).
Still, the culture of filesharing bleeds into this area and has far more significant impact than in the music industry. My worry is that eBooks can go down the same road, but I think Baen Books and others have shown that isn't a foregone conclusion (though it may be when eBooks and eBook readers become more popular).
I just wanted to interject that the culture of selfishness that stems from filesharing has a wider impact than just music.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I've seen people do it with comics, too.
To kind of riff off of what Cow just wrote, I think one aspect of all this that hasn't been touched on is that it's good to have a store, a neutral place where like-minded people can hang out. For people who like games and comics, it's your local games and comics store.
These places can't exist without money that they get from selling games and comics.
If they do not exist, it's harder to meet like minded people who read comics and game.
Therefore, it's harder for that community to thrive in a city.
I know, I know, you have electronic communities, but I don't think they're the same. For one thing, I think it is significant for society at large to see that comics and gaming exist. I think the sign out front of a comics store is a good way of saying 'We exist'.
For another thing, from the gaming aspect, you need a lot of space to play some of those suckers and unless you are blessed with a large table and an equally large space to play warhammer 40k, rpgs, mage knight and what have you, you can't play.
I can't really speak to the music industry and its health, but I can tell you that comics and games, and comics and games stores, are struggling and they need all the cash they can get. You stupid fookers that steal this stuff off the net are pissing in your own back yard. Stop it before I come over to your house and pee in your shoe.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
FlyingCow: I'd like to comment on your role playing information, because I find that it has a lot of similarities with the music file sharing.
Both industries have a large target demographic among teens, who have limited funds. In my experiences, there are many cases where the music industry and the role playing game industry (if there is such a thing) attempt to milk their consumers by releasing products which are mostly fluff: Albums with one good single and a lot of really bad music or role playing books with a few pages of important rules, and a lot of filler.
I understand the reasoning. How can you recoup the expenses of selling a 10 page book or an album with one song? You have to make a 200 page, hard bound Player's Guide and a fancy CD with lots of artwork, then sell them for a whole lot of money.
Both industries also have a glut of titles, most of them pretty bad, or simply derivative copies with nothing worth while to add. The companies want to cash in, so they make "Best Of" and Greatest Hits albums, they make Spells and Sorceries Guide and the Book of New Worlds to boost sales.
The poor consumers simply don't have the money to buy everything. They're being offered a trough full of pig manure, expected to wade through it looking for the gems, and pay the companies for any of the crap that gets stuck on their boots in the process.
I'm not saying that this justifies theft. I am saying that the greed of the industries, or at least their business models, promote file sharing and illegal copying.
Would you pay $60 for a cheeseburger because it was served on a plate with 40 lbs. of parsley? Why should the industry expect someone to pay $60 for a role playing book with 10 pages of important information and 190 pages of filler? Why should someone pay $18 for a CD with one good song and 8 bad ones?
If the industries were willing to adjust their business model, give the customers what they want, and stop trying to pull a fast one to make money, I think a great deal of their problems would go away.
Unfortunately, they only seem to know one way to do things, so rather than learn and grow, and give their customers what they want, they think they'll succeed by bullying people so that they can continue to rip them off.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Okay, from that post, you obviously don't play RPGs - or at most, you dabble here and there.
The RPG industry does not have a "large" demographic anywhere. A successful print run for a book may be 10,000 copies. Some of the most popular books top off at 50,000 copies over their entire lifespan. You're talking about a tiny demographic, and it's not mostly teenagers - it's spread pretty evenly between 16-35 year olds.
quote:the role playing game industry (if there is such a thing) attempt to milk their consumers by releasing products which are mostly fluff:
Yes, there is such a thing. And if a roleplaying company produces fluff, it doesn't sell. Even books that are highly anticipated have a hard time selling, with a ravenous fanbase for Changeling unable to sell out even a 2,000 copy print run of the game line's final book.
The problem is that if you have five gamers, only one will buy books and serve as a "library". The others will often either borrow books they want, or worse, scan copies to print out for themselves.
It's this practice that has crippled many game lines, because the fans who want more material pirate it - essentially preventing new material from being written for lack of funds.
A successful game line can pay its writers 6 cents a word or more, which draws in the experienced professional writers to make the product of high quality. A game line that is struggling can only hope to offer 3 cents per word, which forces them to rely on new, untested talent or fans who would take any amount of money to say they were published in that game line. The fewer copies sold (aka, the more copies pirated), the more of the latter you will get.
As a freelance writer for RPGs and a member of a freelance listserv, I can assure you that the industry standard compensation for writers is decreasing - and sometimes publishers go under before they can pay their writers at all.
quote:Both industries also have a glut of titles, most of them pretty bad, or simply derivative copies with nothing worth while to add.
At the start of the Open Gaming License, there was a boom of new game lines published taking advantage of the newer, more open rules about using specifically d20 products. The RPG consumers had X amount of money, and the industry kept getting new publishers trying to get a piece of that pie. What happened was, X was divided too many ways, most of those new publishers couldn't make ends meet, and the glut of new d20 books subsided.
quote:They're being offered a trough full of pig manure, expected to wade through it looking for the gems, and pay the companies for any of the crap that gets stuck on their boots in the process.
Difference between game companies and music companies is that you can flip through whatever game book you want and see exactly what you're getting with regards to art, content and quality. You always have been able to do that. The books that are crap don't get pirated - it's the books that people want, but don't want to pay for.
Bad books don't sell, and their companies go under. Good books sell and barely cover costs. Often good books sell and are pirated, and don't cover costs, and their companies still go under.
quote:If the industries were willing to adjust their business model, give the customers what they want, and stop trying to pull a fast one to make money, I think a great deal of their problems would go away.
What you don't understand is that the industry *is* giving customers what they want - which is more game material. The books they want the most, they pirate the most. Of course, that means the books that are most sought after can make about as much money as the books that aren't as sought after.
It's not the same as the music industry. There is no "sampling" to see if you like a product. People read a product in the store, like it, go home and try to find it on the web. Or, people buy a product, like it, then offer it on the web for whoever wants it - or email it to their friends so they can save some money.
quote:Unfortunately, they only seem to know one way to do things, so rather than learn and grow, and give their customers what they want, they think they'll succeed by bullying people so that they can continue to rip them off.
A lot of this happened because TSR (the makers of Dungeons and Dragons and the most published game company in the world at that point) kept their prices artificially low and eventually went bankrupt. Yes, the most published and well known company went bankrupt because they were charging *too little* for their product. They were also forcing the industry to keep those artificially low products to stay competitive with the big boy on the block.
Of course, after TSR went belly up, it was bought by Wizards of the Coast (makers of Magic the Gathering) who retooled their business model and saw that they had to charge a lot more, because TSR didn't increase costs based on inflation in nearly twenty years.
The quick jump in pricing needed to prevent bankruptcy angered many consumers and they turned to illegal filesharing to get what they wanted - causing the industry to struggle more.
This has forced the industry to learn and grow, as you put it, and move into .pdf sales over the last few years. While this lowers prices on products (less overhead) and increases unit sales, it also makes piracy that much easier.
The ePublishing Guide sold by RPGNow.com says that piracy has become a fact of life, and that there is little you can do about it other than being vigilant in looking for illegal copies of your product on the web. It further says:
quote:In general, any copy protections that are attempted by publishers have resulted in more negative feedback from valid customers than it’s worth in sales lost to pirates. As this chart shows, by far the most hated practice from publishers is turning off the ability to cut and paste from your document. Worse still is if you add a password protection on the PDF or other such thing.
So, pirates will lose you sales by illegally copying your material, but any efforts to stop them will lose you sales in frustrated customers.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Yes, there are ways to discover new music that don't involve illegal downloads beyond the thirty second clip. I know you've mentioned subscription services. I'll even suggest a few of others: internet radio stations, artist sites, legal free MP3 services (where artists either use looser copyright terms or offer limited amounts of their music to the public domain.)
There's always the library too. I go to the library at least once a week, and I generally check out at least a couple of CDs each time. I've checked out a mountain of crap, but there have been a few artists I've been delighted to have discovered.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:So, pirates will lose you sales by illegally copying your material...
I guess the question here, as with music, is "how many of those pirated copies are actually lost sales?" Sure, when I was a teenager, only a couple of us had copies of the AD&D 2nd edition Player's Handbook, and the rest of the players would just thumb through them on an as-needed basis. But then, you don't really need six copies of that book in order for six people to play the game. If only two have it, and they share, is that really four lost sales?
Added: I'm not saying that piracy has no impact on PnP RPG sales; I don't know enough about industry sales figures to make such a judgment.
However, I think you also need to consider the impact of CRPG development on PnP RPGs. For example, these days I play NWN a lot more often than I play D&D... and I don't even play World of WarCrack.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:But then, you don't really need six copies of that book in order for six people to play the game. If only two have it, and they share, is that really four lost sales?
It isn't, but if none of the players own a legit copy, it is two lost sales. If the piracy is as widespread as FC is saying, I would expect that there would be plenty of groups that didn't have any purchased copies of the rule books among them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::Adding this as a seperate post rather than an edit, although it addresses something that twink said in his edit of his previous post::
quote:However, I think you also need to consider the impact of CRPG development on PnP RPGs. For example, these days I play NWN a lot more often than I play D&D... and I don't even play World of WarCrack.
This is an excellent point. Another factor to consider are the online open source D20 rules that we've been using for the most part in our PBEM and forum based games. Their existence has meant that most of us playing in the games haven't had to shell out for rule books.
On the other hand, their existence also means that people who were a little bit interested in role playing, but not interested enough to actually spend the money on the books got exposed to the world of PRGs, and may buy books in the future, I suppose.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
While online RPGs have become very popular, they offer a different product. It's like comparing sales of decks of cards to sales of online poker software.
The niche market of tabletop rpg players still exists, and the .pdf market has been doing very well - people like that they can pay $5-$10 for a product they used to pay $15-$30 for, that is also searchable, with maps and pictures that can be enlarged and printed for their players.
Still, you will find people buying a .pdf module, then posting it on their website for all to see. Or you will find people buying a $5 module, then copying it for friends so they can run it in their own gaming groups.
Before, if you bought a book you would surely share it with friends - but while it was out, you couldn't use it, and if it was a highly used book, you'd need more than just one copy to go around.
For example, I used to play Werewolf, and the Core rulebook and Player's Handbook were needed constantly throughout gameplay and character generation. It slowed things down a lot to have to use one book for a six person group, so two of us bought extra copies - bringing the total of each of those books to 3 instead of 1.
It was a popular game, and that was reflected in multiple sales of one book per gaming group.
We could have simply scanned the book into my friend's computer and printed out copies for ourselves (or emailed it) - many people do this instead of buying a second book, and the game line (a game line they like! and often a game line they want more books from!) suffers because of it.
Of course, eight years ago, that process was a lot harder than it is today. Scanners were more expensive, fewer people had high speed internet to make emailing such a large file worthwhile, and compiling the book into a format for easy transfer would have been hard.
Now, the obstacles to piracy of gaming materials have lessened, and prices on books have increased so that companies can pay their staff and their overhead - making piracy more attractive.
With .pdf games, which are growing rapidly in popularity (and, I believe, are the future of tabletop roleplaying), all obstacles to piracy are removed, making the industry more vulnerable.
Of course, costs (and subsequently, prices) are a lot lower on .pdf games because you don't have to pay for printing, warehousing, shipping, binding, etc. However, you do have to pay for writing, artwork, editing, layout, eMall fees, website design and maintenance, etc.
The current feeling is that the only thing you can do is to trust people won't pirate your material and be vigilant in discovering and stopping the ones that do.
Unfortunately, the culture of entitlement and getting something for nothing that is so prevalent with music makes me much less trusting.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:This is an excellent point. Another factor to consider are the online open source D20 rules that we've been using for the most part in our PBEM and forum based games. Their existence has meant that most of us playing in the games haven't had to shell out for rule books.
Actually, online RPGs have increased tabletop sales in some areas. For instance, the Warcraft tabletop version didn't come out until after World of Warcraft was so popular.
Also, if you notice, the System Reference Documents (SRD) that we use online do not have any information on character generation or creation, nor do they include deities or other system specific information. Also, monsters and antagonists are limited.
I'm pretty sure those who run games have hard copies of the books in front of them (or at least hard copies of some books). While the d20 SRD has made it much easier to write modules and campaign settings to sell in .pdf form, a new player can't use them to start fresh. There's a lot of gaps in the information.
Of course, other game companies, such as White Wolf, are not open systems, requiring you to buy their core rulebooks.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The other thing I'm just realizing is that this discussion is only starting. The advances that FC mentions are going to continue, making it easier and easier to digitally download and dupe pretty much any and all media in the near future. The last ten years it's been music; how long until it's movies? And not the current method -- downloading or bittorrenting a grainy bootleg or ripped DVD, but downloading image files that unzip with one click and contain everything the DVD (or HD-DVD) has (menus, special features, commentaries, and all that noise).
This argument is just starting.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Unfortunately, the culture of entitlement and getting something for nothing that is so prevalent with music makes me much less trusting.
I think this may be the crux of our disagreement (such as it is). I think the spectacular and continuing success of online music stores shows that people are willing to pay for music even when files of equivalent or greater quality are available for free illegally.
I recognize, though, that PnP RPGs are a very different market, so online distribution may not be the success that it has been in the music industry.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I bow to your superior knowledge of the role playing industry FlyingCow. My experience is only with several gaming groups, and hanging out in game stores, so I probably made some incorrect generalizations.
My friends and I who play (all in our 20s-30s) have dozens of RPG books each, usually several copies of the core books for any game, and each of us will have one supplement or more.
I know when I was younger, I couldn't afford that kind of spending, so my friends and I would scrounge through used book stores and buy the tattered old $8 copy of the book that was $25 new.
Honestly, I'd be really interested in doing some writing for a RPG company, so I sympathize with their difficulties. I want the companies to survive so I can keep playing new games, and I want them to do well so they can pay me to write for them. I want talented musicians to put out new music and make a living at it too.
I just think that some smart people need to figure out new ways to make these things work, without alienating all the fans who are expected to pay for all this stuff.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:My friends and I who play (all in our 20s-30s) have dozens of RPG books each, usually several copies of the core books for any game, and each of us will have one supplement or more.
You and your friends are the target demographic, and may you continue to prosper!
Younger kids often get books bought for them by parents, as gifts for birthdays or holidays. They rarely can afford the money for game books, at least in any quantity. These days, the target is more younger adults with free time and an income.
In fact, most people who download online .pdf games print them off at work.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah, I only owned one RPG book as a kid (AD&D 2E Player's Handbook), but since starting my job a year and a half ago I've bought four (all Call of Cthulhu stuff, one d20 and three Chaosium).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I think the spectacular and continuing success of online music stores shows that people are willing to pay for music even when files of equivalent or greater quality are available for free illegally.
Yes, but it's also a lot larger market with a lot more leeway in profitability. If 70% of the music on an iPod is legit (which I think was referenced earlier), then 30% is not. If games were pirated 30% of the time, they can't recoup money from concerts and other avenues.
Of course, I understand that those 30% would not all have bought the product anyway. Still, if 10% would have, that's significant.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I confess, I've made text files to copy character stats from archetypes in RPGs like Feng Shui: Shadowfist, which are frequently out of print. It just takes forever to make characters if everyone has to pass one increasingly battered copy of the book around. But I did buy the book in the first place.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Have you tried here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm still not sure I understand the legal logic for these suits. As far as I can tell, it's not the p2p services but rather the users of them that are breaking copyright. Could someone show me what the legal rationale is for it being their fault?
Squicky, I don't know if your original question about the legal theory was ever answered to your satisfaction. Take the following with a large grain of salt. Each principle could be a long article in and of itself.
First we need to note that we're talking civil liability, not criminal. The threshold showings are simply much lower.
There have traditionally been two principle theories of secondary liability (liability for someone else's act) for copyright infringement: Vicarious infringement and contributory infringement.
Vicarious infringement is when someone copies on your behalf. The prototype example is an employee copying Windows to install on company machines. That's not what's at issue here.
Contributory infringement has two elements: 1) knowledge and 2) substantial participation.
Substantial contribution is pretty easy: absent the defendant's actions, would this specific act of infringement have been able to occur? If an injunction could stop the specific acts of infringement taking place, then it is likely that there is substantial contribution.
Knowledge is based on a reasonableness standard. If the defendant knew or should have known infringement was occurring. The fact that a technology may be used to infringe on copyrights does not in and of itself impute knowledge. For example, photocopiers have many valid uses. The fact they can be used to violate copyright protections does not mean Xerox knows of any such use. The general rule, very much in flux, is that the presence of substantial non-infringing uses of a given technology will insulate a defendant from contributory liability absent proof of actual knowledge. Knowledge will be imputed if the information about what is shared is given to the company, even if the company doesn't keep records.
The rule isn't quite as protective as it sounds, however. Expert testimony that a technology is primarily used for infringing may possibly overcome the defense. The Supreme Court did not rule on this with respect to P2P file sharing in Grokster. "Willful blindness" can be treated as knowledge.
Instead, the Grokster Court created a third form of secondary copyright liability called inducement: "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
It cited three acts that could lead to a finding of inducement: 1.) the defendant "showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users;" 2.) the defendant did not "attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software;" and 3.) how much money the defendant makes is depends "on high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing."
The problem in understanding this is that it is impossible to say what a Supreme Court decision really means until the Court explains what it actually meant in a subsequent decision. So beyond this bare guidance, which was not presented as an exhaustive list, we don't know what qualifies as "inducement."
This is all meant to be an explanation of the state of the law, not to comment on its rationality. It's also important to note that the Court did not say Grokster was liable, only that the case could proceed to trial.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It's also important to note that the Court did not say Grokster was liable, only that the case could proceed to trial.
So, if I understand correctly, the Court created a new form of liability that Grokster "may" be guilty of, effectively saying "if they are doing *this*, then yes they are infringing" - but they aren't trying the case, just clarifying law to make it possible for a case to be tried?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Thanks, Dag, that was very informative.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, if I understand correctly, the Court created a new form of liability that Grokster "may" be guilty of, effectively saying "if they are doing *this*, then yes they are infringing" - but they aren't trying the case, just clarifying law to make it possible for a case to be tried?
Depending on what you mean, yes.
Grokster moved for summary judgment, which is granted if there are no "genuine issues of material fact." What this means is that, in civil cases, a judge will rule in favor of one party prior to trial if, according to the subset of facts which are not contested, one side should win "as a matter of law." The trial judge granted Grokster's motion and the 9th circuit upheld that decision. SCOTUS overruled and essentially said, "if these facts are found to be true, then Grokster could lose, so there should be a trial."
Okay, so the Court said that certain facts were legitimately allowed to be used to make a case against Grokster, without making any value judgement as to Grokster's possible liability.
In essence, it said things were not so cut and dry as to be settled by a summary judgement.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
my wife is a massage therapist!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You don't sit on hold forever. So if I do have to call to get my licenses re-issued or whatever, I'm not like, "Auuuugh, I hate this, I have to call Napster..." and clearing my schedule for the afternoon so that I can sit around and wait to talk to someone who is clearly not located within this country.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)