Note: This thread is not for the discussion of where or how to download music, but of the news article, and opinions of it.
So yeah, a student gets caught downloading and sharing music, and is ordered to pay $675,000 -- if this charge passes, he says he will file for bankruptcy.
He has admitted to downloading hundreds of tracks -- but the case is only for the 30 he was caught sharing (dumb move on his part).
But anyways, I was wondering what you guys think of this case and of pirating music in general.
30 tracks of music is basically equivalent to shoplifting a pair of jeans (price wise) -- although you wouldn't get in too much trouble for the jeans now would you?
Although obviously, copyright laws are behind licensed music so the situation isn't really the same -- that being said, do you think it's right for artists or record companies to destroy someone's life for a petty crime, even if it's just to set an example?
Pirating music is a problem, especially with millions doing it (even though big name albums do sell a lot, that doesn't justify stealing music). But do you think there is a better way to combat it instead of fines?
He should sue the record companies right back for $675,000,000 on account of ruining our youth by making tv stations and radios play terrible music 95% of the time. Let _them_ go bankrupt, nobody needs them and their millionaire-puppet-"artists".
if i were ever taken to court and sued 30k per song for 600k i'd just bust out the 1tb external and let them lay it on just to prove a point. or maybe i'm just crazy, who knows?
I write music, and I am against "sharing". I find that most people who are for it, just want to justify not paying. My wife, and my brother in law, both of who I respect very much, happen to dissagree. It's someone else's time, effort and ideas. I'm essentially a socialist and think lots of things should be public property, but since I live in America and have to pay to eat and drive and do anything- damn right I think Music should have the same costs. In a better system, maybe not though.
I saw this few days ago, I couldn't fucking believe it. Ridiculous. I don't know the whole story by jaw dropped when all this kid did was download music... something EVERYONE that I know, that has a computer has done.
I buy almost only all of my music. Sometimes when I'm checking out a new band I'll download a couple albums, and if I like it, I'll burn it to disk until I get around to buying it.
selling music only cheapens and diminishes it. music should be free for everyone
musicians that truly enjoy making music release it for free in their spare time, rather than charging people and making a job out of it. making great music and interacting with great musicians is the reward
On August 03 2009 17:17 JohnColtrane wrote: selling music only cheapens and diminishes it. music should be free for everyone
musicians that truly enjoy making music release it for free in their spare time, rather than charging people and making a job out of it. making great music and interacting with great musicians is the reward
well if you make great music your going to reap the benefits eventually.
i'd actually be curious if music artists would make more or less money if tomorrow, music was no longer able to be pirated.
On August 03 2009 17:17 JohnColtrane wrote: musicians that truly enjoy making music release it for free in their spare time, rather than charging people and making a job out of it. making great music and interacting with great musicians is the reward
I call bullshit. I think most artists that get paid enjoy making music too; besides it gives them an incentive to continue doing music
And yeah, while the fine is gigantic, I guess they want to set an example. Downloading and sharing copyrighted material is illegal. What are people so upset about? Everyone knows this but tends to think that they are excluded or not doing anything wrong.
On August 03 2009 16:54 cUrsOr wrote: I write music, and I am against "sharing". I find that most people who are for it, just want to justify not paying.
Word. People who don't want to pay aren't usually the ones who are actually making all the content (music, movies, games etc) these leeches wanna get for free.
On August 03 2009 16:54 cUrsOr wrote: I write music, and I am against "sharing". I find that most people who are for it, just want to justify not paying. My wife, and my brother in law, both of who I respect very much, happen to dissagree. It's someone else's time, effort and ideas. I'm essentially a socialist and think lots of things should be public property, but since I live in America and have to pay to eat and drive and do anything- damn right I think Music should have the same costs. In a better system, maybe not though.
You are basically right ... a good musician should get paid since he has to pay, too.
But you see, things like music or music are somehow important cultural goods and so it's understandable that people download music/movies if they cannot (or don't want) pay that much money.
Guess the biggest problem is actually to find the right middle. Obviously, if a student pay's more than lets say 200$ per month for music/movies, he is overdoing it somehow. And vice versa, if someone just consumes but never pays treats the artist behind the product not really fair either. Still, somewhat inside me is against the proclamation of the industry, that EVERY person who's downloading is a web-equivalent to a Thief.
And actually, if you think about it, it is also not in your interest as a musician that only a few people have the chance to listen to your music.
To cut a long story short, I don't think it's a problem of moral (what you never said, btw: it's completly random that i'm quoting you) but rather of the given structures.
Usually you would get at least a warning for the first offense.
But really... 800 songs total? I mean that's a lot of pirating. And trying to put the blame on your family! Sure $675k is a lot of money, but seriously trying to pass the blame off like that is just disgusting.
Even though he's a total douche, the fine doesn't match the crime.
This is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my life. How can thirty songs ever be worth that much money. These people are insane.
Although this reminds me of the southpark episode with piracy.
"Look what happens when you download music. Instead of Brittaney Spears getting the delux ultimate private jet with a hut tub, she can only afford the regular one now"
On August 03 2009 17:26 Mystlord wrote: Usually you would get at least a warning for the first offense.
But really... 800 songs total? I mean that's a lot of pirating. And trying to put the blame on your family! Sure $675k is a lot of money, but seriously trying to pass the blame off like that is just disgusting.
Even though he's a total douche, the fine doesn't match the crime.
I know very kind people who have over 10,000 songs on their computers. They are music nuts, they download like mad and ironically -- they also have more store-bought albums than most people, and actually see their favorite bands in concert.
at first i read 675$ and thought cranky! that's loads of money. poor sod... then I realised that it was 675k and it felt surreal. When will the major record companies just fade away and die I can't think of anything useful that they're doing. Legalized blackmail.
In China, it's pretty much openly accepted to the point that piracy is inevitable and at this point almost encouraged. Artists are aware of it and it actually helps them spread the music around much more easily since most people wouldn't even buy their music in the first place. They get bigger and usually benefit from this when more people show up to their concerts and also from sponsors. Now, I'm not promoting piracy, but just saying how it's not a completely disastrous thing for artists. If they know it's happening, they should at least take advantage/counter balance by going on tours.
OP isn´t that wrong then. He´s only facing charges of uploading and sharing mp3s not downloading...
I think piracy sucks and I only download music to test if it´s any good, I don´t want shitty CDs all over my apartment. CD´s are not expensive, people just should start thinking that listening music is a hobby and not meant to be free.
this is absurd and for the people saying that its unethical and not right to "pirate" music yall need 2 get it right wuts absurd is these fucking uneducated hoodrats with the IQ equivalent of box of raisins and the vocabulary of a hamster make millions and millions of dollars for singing "TTTTUuuuurrrnnnn mmmaaahhh swwwaggggg aaaooonnnn, and thatsss wuts up"
FUCK ALL THOSE ILLITERATE PIECES OF SHIT THAT ARE PROBABLY STILL ON FOOD STAMPS!! and now they are ruining a kid whos spent years trying to educate himself and is on his way to becoming a contributing member of society for listening to their music...
On August 03 2009 17:47 NerO wrote: this is absurd and for the people saying that its unethical and not right to "pirate" music yall need 2 get it right wuts absurd is these fucking uneducated hoodrats with the IQ equivalent of box of raisins and the vocabulary of a hamster make millions and millions of dollars for singing "TTTTUuuuurrrnnnn mmmaaahhh swwwaggggg aaaooonnnn, and thatsss wuts up"
FUCK ALL THOSE ILLITERATE PIECES OF SHIT THAT ARE PROBABLY STILL ON FOOD STAMPS!! and now they are ruining a kid whos spent years trying to educate himself and is on his way to becoming a contributing member of society for listening to their music...
you know if these guys didnt get payed for their 'music', they wouldnt exist
So my friends have this melodic death metal band that are relatively known. They were on two different US record labels but didn't hardly make any money so a couple records later they were like:
"ok, fuck it. We all have jobs/school, no one in the band really wants to go live the rockstar dream anymore since it would just be driving for long hours and playing shows. Let's release the album for free on our website, just for the sake of showing people our music."
So they paid like 50k+ for recording and then put out their album on their website. If anyone likes metal you should check it out, they sound very professional. The album is on the front page
On August 03 2009 16:54 cUrsOr wrote: I write music, and I am against "sharing". I find that most people who are for it, just want to justify not paying. My wife, and my brother in law, both of who I respect very much, happen to dissagree. It's someone else's time, effort and ideas. I'm essentially a socialist and think lots of things should be public property, but since I live in America and have to pay to eat and drive and do anything- damn right I think Music should have the same costs. In a better system, maybe not though.
Maybe the whole industry thing that developed around music is wrong. Maybe musicians shouldn't expect to make oh-so-much-money out of their stuff. Hell, most of us work 8-10 hours / day and make in a month what a decent band makes in one concert. Maybe the whole "rock stars own the world" ideal most musicians dream of is the problem.
On August 03 2009 17:47 NerO wrote: this is absurd and for the people saying that its unethical and not right to "pirate" music yall need 2 get it right wuts absurd is these fucking uneducated hoodrats with the IQ equivalent of box of raisins and the vocabulary of a hamster make millions and millions of dollars for singing "TTTTUuuuurrrnnnn mmmaaahhh swwwaggggg aaaooonnnn, and thatsss wuts up"
FUCK ALL THOSE ILLITERATE PIECES OF SHIT THAT ARE PROBABLY STILL ON FOOD STAMPS!! and now they are ruining a kid whos spent years trying to educate himself and is on his way to becoming a contributing member of society for listening to their music...
you know if these guys didnt get payed for their 'music', they wouldnt exist
so much shitty music would be off the radio
There is only shitty music on radio. Pick any channel: SHIT.
I really don´t think that 700k is enough for that villain. Prison I say.
On August 03 2009 17:47 NerO wrote: this is absurd and for the people saying that its unethical and not right to "pirate" music yall need 2 get it right wuts absurd is these fucking uneducated hoodrats with the IQ equivalent of box of raisins and the vocabulary of a hamster make millions and millions of dollars for singing "TTTTUuuuurrrnnnn mmmaaahhh swwwaggggg aaaooonnnn, and thatsss wuts up"
FUCK ALL THOSE ILLITERATE PIECES OF SHIT THAT ARE PROBABLY STILL ON FOOD STAMPS!! and now they are ruining a kid whos spent years trying to educate himself and is on his way to becoming a contributing member of society for listening to their music...
you know if these guys didnt get payed for their 'music', they wouldnt exist
so much shitty music would be off the radio
There is only shitty music on radio. Pick any channel: SHIT.
I really don´t think that 700k is enough for that villain. Prison I say.
You need to start listening to internet radios And I agree, these days on radio they play pure garbage. How can one call that even music...
Companies that think that without piracy they would be able to sell that crap and make huge profits are dead wrong. But they are too stubborn to realise that. What they need to do is to start promoting quality music and not generic crap that actually with modern software in not that hard to make.
What you guys don't understand somehow is that this kind of thing happens all the time. Many people get sued by the RIAA for downloading music constantly. Very few ever make it to the news.
I heard through the grapevine that in 2005, several students at my university alone were sued by the RIAA.
They're picking random people and suing them for just a few songs and are winning. Eventually, once they've built up enough legal precedents from all parts of the country, they're going to be unstoppable in enforcing this kind of stuff.
Pirating and dl music illegaly is destroying the music industry. Artists are forced to play in the festivals to make money, because cds aren't sold anymore. And it's getting worse everyday.
But dl free music gives the oportunity to many unknown artists to be discovered. I think when you dl music, you should just keep it to yourself and not sharing it.
First off allt he people that are saying ahh well musics your passion, you should just be happy to do it are wrong. When you spend 20 hours a week while investing thousands of dollars into gear and recordings(Ive spent 4 grand on my guitar setup alone) you start to realize that this is a job. That much of an investment begs for a return.
Now moving on there is a perfect medium and thatt my friends is Myspace. Myspace allows users to listen to my bands singles while there on any computer, BUT it does not let them download unless they pay for it on itunes or snocap. This is perfect exposure because w out risking the virus's and the obvious fine that started this thread people can listen to your music see your bands image and see when your coming to there town all in one webpage!! Perfect, Since theres only a song or two up there ppl are encouraged to buy your cd to get the rest.
In regards to the fine i think tahts insane, but they trying to make an example but regardless that screams unconsitutional to me, yes he broke the law and deserves punishment but 650K?????? IMO the artists that seem to suffer w this are the huge bands such as metalica who count on millions of ppl buying there record these guys dont need to worry about exposure they have plenty!
what it comes down to is that you cant sell a product people arent willing to pay for. i see the whole pirating issue as the music industry failing to adapt to changes in technology.
lets face it, most people who buy CDs are doing it out of charity, this is a BAD BUISNESS MODEL.
its also not as though no music will be produced without the major record labels...
i have no coherent thoughts, also no i didnt read the whole thread, just the posts that looked well written
On August 03 2009 18:12 Arkqn wrote: Pirating and dl music illegaly is destroying the music industry. Artists are forced to play in the festivals to make money, because cds aren't sold anymore. And it's getting worse everyday.
But dl free music gives the oportunity to many unknown artists to be discovered. I think when you dl music, you should just keep it to yourself and not sharing it.
Oh no! They actually have to work to make money? *gasp*
I don't support the concept of intellectual property, so, yeah. This is dumb.
In the context of coming up with an idea actually meaning you "own" it...then this is completely valid. He stole another person's property and the (unjust, heavily lobbied, idiotic) law as it stands sets the price at what they're claiming, give or take.
The musicians themselves need to get paid for their music otherwise they couldn't make music as they couldn't support themselves. Its the industry that grew into a greedy corporation that raised prices. Pirating IS wrong but the whole way that the industry is attacking back is retarded and should be curbed. Besides Don't musicians make more money on concerts and shirts and shit then they do on the CDs? They could lower CD prices as a show that they care and it would make people come back to legit buying. Pirating will always be there but they can fight it by making it less worth it that way and by not being so hostile.
On August 03 2009 18:32 JohnColtrane wrote: i spend heaps of time jerking off and spending money on condoms / pills / porn, so that automatically makes it 'my job?' and it deserves a return?
lol get real buddy
well, it might be valuable to me (us?) that some musicians can spend all of their time thinking about music, instead of doing some exhausting job that takes all their energy.
Despite all the efforts by record companies to the contrary, the connection between free sharing and lower buying ratio couldn't be proven.
I see the whole discussion about recording rights in a bigger picture. All the "conservative" media like newspapers, recording companies, TV broadcastings still need to get used to the "new" situation of internet age systemwise. Especially pricewise.
Like... how many times has one dled something from internet, didn't like it that much and threw it away after couple of days? Do the traditional recording companies offer any form of "tryouts"? No attempt ever seen. Should one pay 20$ for a tryout? No. So whats the answer?
On August 03 2009 18:32 JohnColtrane wrote: i spend heaps of time jerking off and spending money on condoms / pills / porn, so that automatically makes it 'my job?' and it deserves a return?
I find it absurd for how much money (or for which "crimes") people can be sued in the US. Suing McDonalds for 2.84 million for serving hot coffee? Wicked Sick. It's very obvious that a student can never have so much money. Make it 1500 bucks and the guy will learn his lesson. 675000$ is in no way in a reasonable relation to the damage caused.
On August 03 2009 17:26 JohnColtrane wrote: you know what else gives musicians incentive to make music?
passion
Yeah of course but I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive
You don't see how the artist's message can be manipulated by greed? They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but take a look at the type of songs being produced by major record labels today. They can manufacture artists that will sell the same stereotypical music because it makes money. Today, artists adhere to the audience's demands for music, not vice-versa. Foucault should take a lesson from Chomsky, and not just on linguistics and inherent human cognition.
Some of the opinions expressed in this thread clearly come from kids who are still in high school; that, or they simply have no idea how the real world works.
What the fuck, "real" musicians release music for free? LOL. That's completely bullshit. Yea, I guess doctors treat people for free and supermarkets give us free shit and we all live in a happy little communist country? Yea fucking right. Even if what you're doing is humanitarian work you still need compensation even if it is only free housing or food. You can't just fucking doing something for your living and not make any money from it. Musicians do not reach widespread audiences without the help of a label and they have to pay a ton of the proceeds out throughout that organization. That's just how life works. If you want to whine you can whine about that. Saying that "true" musicians play music for the music's sake may be moderately true but if that's all they made music for we wouldn't have music after awhile because they'd all be dead as fuck.
On August 03 2009 18:32 JohnColtrane wrote: i spend heaps of time jerking off and spending money on condoms / pills / porn, so that automatically makes it 'my job?' and it deserves a return?
lol get real buddy
if u post a vid of urself jerking of and ppl like it, then it makes it ur job ;P and would deserve a return.
NoobsOfWrath, how do you think record labels select songs or artists? How do songs get on the radio? Who chooses them? Who owns radio? Is it in the owners' (almost owner's) best interest to put some songs on the radio as opposed to others?
Musicians would certainly prefer to be paid, but many are now opting to sign with independent labels. "True" musicians will continue to play music whether they are paid or not.
True musicians will have no choice but to stop playing music for a living when it ceases to put food on the table. Sure musicians can still play in their spare time; I suppose one can try to shop demos around while working some other job and many do, but my point was merely that suggesting that a "true" musician plays for no other reason than the love of music is naive (in my opinion). It is pretentious to suggest that one is only a "true" musician if one plays only for the love of the music, regardless of critical acclaim, financial success, etc. I did overreact a little, although I guess that's my tendency.
On the actual topic, of course it's absolutely ridiculous to fine the student such a huge amount of money. As someone suggested the student may as well bring in a HD full of music and have them sue him for 20 million; his capability to pay off either fine would be about the same. It is also the RIAA's own fault for tenaciously ignoring all studies related to P2P music sharing and how to successfully use it to market music. They are falling into the same trap that so many ailing businesses are today; an inability, more like refusal, to admit the power of the internet and thus a business model that does not at all take advantage of the changing landscape. You see it all over the place; the example that comes to mind right this moment is Blockbuster vs Netflix.
I'm really tempted to go into tenuously relevant rant about healthcare costs in the US but I'll contain myself.
1) Make the fine equivalent to the "damage done" = CD cost + lawyer if necessary and nobody can complain. 700k for this is bullshit. They won't get the money, anyway. Greedy fucking bastards.
2) People shouldn't be so quick to pull the piracy-stinks-trigger since there are major benefits that can be reaped from it. If only they knew how to do it right.
"Piracy is good?" -
edit: Wow, didn't know this was implemented automatically. Nice. There's 7 parts in total, so you may want to watch this in your spare 50 minutes.
3) Lastly, the music industry should put things into perspective. They've been expecting their benefits to stay the same or even grow steadily.... which is totally bonkers. If people don't want to pay these prices for a CD anymore, find another way to make money (hint, hint: live shows), and MAYBE, just maybe, cut back on your expectations. No more 10 luxurious mansions? Too bad. Now of course this mainly applies to the big names in the music industry, 'small' bands will probably, as they always have, have to struggle for a while longer (though, at the same time, some of them will rise to fame THROUGH this active sharing community), until some day a better system comes along that's win-win for everyone.
I always thought there was something called the 8th ammendment which says no "cruel and unusual punishments"
I hardly see how you can be fined so much for "copyright infringement" when the actual songs themselves cost like 30 bucks max.
Then again, I supposed if he uploaded them 675,000 times I could see how they could make a case. On the other hand, I think he hardly uploaded 3mb * 675,000 = 2.025 TBs worth of data before they caught him. And that's a low end estimate.
im just wondering, does 1 CD really have to cost 25$, its kind of a deterrent for me to buy when its that high, would it be so bad if they were 10$, id buy more then for sure, like this i could afford like 1 album every 2 months, and that would make me sad
On August 03 2009 16:48 On_Slaught wrote: It's because he was the only one of many stupid enough to actually fight the charges and try to justify it with some bullshit.
I imagine they just randomly select one poor bastard to make an example of every now and then to scare people into buying music (although I'd never really buy a CD unless I really wanted it, they are just a huge rip off).
It's not really stealing so I don't see anything overly wrong with it, or more accurately what is wrong with it is greatly exaggerated.
isnt this the perfect case to get thrown out for profiling? its illegal and unconstitutional to pursue 1 individual when there is available information of others committing the same crime with the information they have.. you cant pursue charges on one and not the other, and if you do it should be thrown out. This is how u get out of speed trap tickets claim that they saw a young male driving a sports car and pulled u over when they let the grandma in the minivan who was going the same speed in front of u go.
this should get thrown out at the appeals court... if i ever look out my peep hole and see Feds im going right to my bath room filling up the tub then smashing my computer with a bat and throwing it in the full bath tub plugged in.. then i unplug it and start the tub draining and go answer the door...
"Hello? who are u?" "we have a warrant to search" "be my guest... omg i just had an accident with my laptop in the bathroom while i was shitting w/ the shower running listening to music =( "
Money is actually the reason why contemporary music has lost quality in my opinion. The first types of music (like operas) were only paid for in concert, of course they didnt have CDs back then, but music was not something you could buy but rather something you could attend to and be amazed by, like a theater play.
Ever since the music industry boomed with artists ranging from Michael Jackson to Britney Spears, among many others, it began to sell MILLIONS and MILLIONS of CD copies, so the industry was destined to be pure greed. Nowadays, an artist like Lil Wayne will be lucky to sell 1 million copies, and it serves him right if you ask me. What is popular music now anyway? a compilation of sex, cars, drugs, alcohol, and shit like that, all in a non-sensical way ("i got your bitch riding my dick with no shocks," gotta love it but where is the quality in that?). Though i like a lot of it much like any other teenager, you have to admit that most music genres have lost quality over time, and that is because most "musicians" just want to come up with a record hit (soulja boy? what the fuck) as opposed to making good music. True, some genres havent changed as much, such as jazz for example, but even there it's hard to find musicians that are truly motivated by passion. If a musician is sincerely motived by passion, what he should want is to perform in front of live audiences and show the world his love for music. He shouldn't be mainly concerned with selling.
Music nowadays is not worth what the price tag tells.
I usually buy the CDs of bands I hear on concerts if I like their music. But I find downloading music ok since the artists becomes more well known. If you make good music people are going to buy it anyway. The soulless fucks that do music with the intention of getting rich can go die in a fire.
when overwhelmingly large proportions of citizens break the law, it is NOT the citizens who are wrong... Absurd Fines and other overly hard punishments just show you that the government has no control of the situation whatsoever and desperately tries to somehow gain the power of enforcing their stupid laws again by extreme actions like this.. Of cus the majority of people cant be stopped or held under a law 90% break and despise anyways. Whether you like people pirating or not, you have to accept that copyright laws will change in the (hopefully near) future. No retarded law that isnt followed anymore stays for too long after it has lost its democratic consensus.
Music Industry Lures ‘Casual’ Pirates to Legal Sites
Article Tools Sponsored By By ERIC PFANNER Published: July 19, 2009
PARIS — Record company executives say there are three kinds of music fans. There are those who buy music, and those who get a kick out of never paying for it. And then there are those whom Rob Wells at Universal Music Group calls “dinner party pirates”: the vast majority of listeners, those who copy music illegally because it is more convenient than buying it.
If those low-level copyright cheats could be converted to using legal music services, the digital music business would get much-needed help. Yet even industry executives acknowledge that until recently, they were not giving those listeners many ways to do what they wanted: to sample new music and to play it back anytime, at little or no cost.
Over the past year, however, as sales of CDs have continued to fall and paid-for downloads from services like Apple’s iTunes have fallen short of hopes, record companies have moved to embrace casual file-sharers. Legal services offering free, unlimited streaming of music, rather than downloads, are proliferating. According to a survey published last week, they are taking some of the wind out of the pirates’ sails.
“Consumers are doing exactly what we said they would do,” said Steve Purdham, chief executive of We7, a service that says it has attracted two million users in Britain in a little more than half a year by offering unlimited access to millions of songs. “They weren’t saying, ‘Give me pirated music’; they were saying, ‘Give me the music I want.”’
The music industry has high hopes that the growth of sites like We7, whose investors include the former Genesis musician Peter Gabriel, can change the reputation of Europe as a hive of digital piracy. Similar businesses include Deezer, in France, and Spotify, which was started by two Swedish entrepreneurs and has grown rapidly in Britain and elsewhere. All of them are licensed by the music industry and hope to make money from advertising.
Last week, Microsoft said it, too, planned to offer a music streaming service in Britain, via its MSN Web business, though it provided few details.
Meanwhile, the survey by two research firms, Music Ally and Leading Question, showed that Britons were adopting such services in large numbers. Among British teenage music fans, 65 percent said they listened to streamed music at least once a month, with 31 percent saying they did so every day.
The survey showed a striking decline in the number of British teenagers who said they had regularly engaged in unauthorized file-sharing; only 26 percent said they had done so as of January, when the survey was taken, compared with 42 percent in December 2007.
Music industry executives say that does not mean the piracy problem has been solved. The survey results did not distinguish between licensed and unlicensed streaming services or others, like YouTube, where both kinds of music can be found. Illegally copied music still accounts for the vast majority of digital listening, they add.
Still, executives say there are some promising signs. Rather than cannibalizing existing digital businesses, they say, the new services are often attracting people who previously shared files illegally. According to research by one of the major record companies, nearly two-thirds of Spotify users say they now engage in less piracy.
Spotify says it has two million registered users in Britain and another two million in Sweden, Spain and France. Paul Brown, managing director of its British arm, said it wants to expand to the United States by the end of the year.
There, it would go up against a number of digital businesses that also offer free music in various ways, including MySpace Music, Imeem, Last.FM, Pandora and others.
While Pandora has said it expects to be profitable by the end of the year, analysts say most other free streaming services are still losing money. Some advertising-supported free music sites, like SpiralFrog, have already gone out of business.
“You only have to use these services for a while to realize that there’s not a lot of advertising on them,” said Paul Brindley, chief executive of Music Ally.
I find it amusing that a company will sue its consumers. Luckily this will just make them die faster due to consumers either having no money or ill will toward the company.
I wouldn't download any music that I would be sued for downloading (most of the artists I like either give it away for free and I donate money to them or they don't care enough to sue because they just like making music), so I could care less.
But, if you wanna download the newest turd released by a major record label, expect to get harassed and possibly sued (although the probability is really small). You deserve it for consuming that garbage. Also expect to die quickly when smoking cigarettes, or eating McDonald's.
musicians should do more concerts or they should stfu!
i mean, albums are around 50 $, LOOOL! here in croatia average pay is around 700 $ .. and i should buy every album of every artists i want to hear? hahaha, yeah right! if you want money come here and make concert! croatians are ready to give 200 $ for a ticket (U2 was sold out in few hours so they made one more concert day after that was sold out again in few hours) so every musician can earn more then from selling records...
musicians, games makers, movie makers etc, etc.. have no sense for customers and sharing all of these things is one of few ways to fight against big companies and rothen capitalism... ppl, pls don't feel sorry for greedy musicians and their houses.. make an album for 10 $ and maybe more ppl wuld buy it .I.
On August 03 2009 21:57 Charlespeirce wrote: I find it amusing that a company will sue its consumers. Luckily this will just make them die faster due to consumers either having no money or ill will toward the company.
I wouldn't download any music that I would be sued for downloading (most of the artists I like either give it away for free and I donate money to them or they don't care enough to sue because they just like making music), so I could care less.
But, if you wanna download the newest turd released by a major record label, expect to get harassed and possibly sued (although the probability is really small). You deserve it for consuming that garbage. Also expect to die quickly when smoking cigarettes, or eating McDonald's.
I guess TL really is pretentious.....oh wait 3 posts still time to change!
First one is: Is it okay to download pirated music?
Second one is: Is it okay to destroy someone's life with a $675,000 dollar fine for downloading pirated music?
I believe the OP was asking for debate on the second question. I doubt many music artists would support such a move, and it's generally the RIAA who will take such a stance in order to protect their outdated business model and try to get us all to go back to buying CDs at a record store like good little children.
Screw the RIAA, and screw their business model. If I want to get a music track, I will not drive over to a record store and buy a CD.
I will download it from the comfort of my home. Through the iTunes Music Store.
Considering our entire sham of a legal system is based on the punishment fitting the crime, the outrageous fees associated with downloading music (but not games, software, books, blah blah blah) are just frankly silly.
I'm guessing 99% of the people in this thread didn't actually read what happened so are just using this thread as a sounding board against the RIAA (which is perfectly understandable) but for those who want to move beyond being a sheep, this is what happened:
Guy leaves Kazaa open and gets caught sharing music. He is NOT in trouble for downloading music. No one has ever been sued for downloading music.
The RIAA issues him/his ISP a statement telling him to stop and ordering him to pay some relatively minimal fee, usually like $500-1000. Guy decides he has some legal merit to stand on and doesn't pay it, therefore they take him to court.
He obviously loses because he's in the wrong, and a JURY OF HIS PEERS choose the damages. The judge may still lower it.
Moral of the story? If you get caught, just pay the fucking fine. The RIAA might be terrible, but there is no legal or moral ground to stand on if you're downloading music. That and don't be an idiot and use Kazaa/Limewire/public trackers/etc.
The reason CD sales are dropping is because the CD is an obsolete technology. Forcing people to use it as stupid as forcing people to use tapes when the CDs came out. There is new technology for both distribution and storing of music today, and it should be used. The CD is dead, and blaming piracy and using it as an excuse to continue producing CDs is stupid. How the fuck do I mash a CD down in my ipod or similar device?
One thing the antipirates are always proclaiming is the death of the music industry. Funny, since the "music industry" is still alive. And this in the age where the vast majority of all teenagers and young adults (the large music consumers) are downloading illegally. They claim that in some future, the music industry will begin to suffor from this, when it's only suffering a little now. Somehow this is going to grow even bigger and more problematic in the future when all music is free on internets. Oh wait, it already is. And they're not dead yet.
Fighting piracy is the wrong way to go, the correct way is to give good alternatives to an obsolete CD. Spotify, for example. I've basicly stopped downloading music all together since I got the free version of Spotify, financed through advertisements. An excellent way the "music industry" can live on in the age of this rampant piracy. Other ways of getting money is selling extra stuff, T-shirts, wallpapers etc. And of course concerts, which can never be pirated.
And the huge majority of musicians do not earn any money on what they do, they still produce music. I'm not saying everyone should do this, I'm just saying the vast vast majority of all musicians the "industry" claims to stand for never earned anything on music, except for the odd live show in a bar or so if they get really lucky. Still nothing that can be hurt through piracy.
This huge fine for 30 songs is absurd. I got thousands of songs on my computer, all downloaded illegally. Let's say I got 3000, which is still a small amount compared to some of my friends. That would mean $675,000,000. That's about 0.5% of the Swedish state budget each year. I doubt that's proportional to the damage I've done to the music industry.
Is there any evidence that 30k per song is the most likely cost to the company? Some guy at UPenn (Wharton Business school; can't remember who right now) estimated that filesharing actually increases record sales, which means they owe this guy money. Our legal system is based on archaic ideas of morality and punishment, rather than consequentialism as it should be.
And the jury of his peers quantified the damages how? I'm sure they just picked a salient number instead of estimating the actual cost to the company. This has been studied pretty extensively.
Start with:
Hastie, Schkade & Payne (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's request and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and human behaivior, 23(4).
On August 03 2009 22:21 Charlespeirce wrote: Is there any evidence that 30k per song is the most likely cost to the company? Some guy at UPenn (Wharton Business school; can't remember who right now) estimated that filesharing actually increases record sales, which means they owe this guy money. Our legal system is based on archaic ideas of morality and punishment, rather than consequentialism as it should be.
What? Why the fuck should it be based on consequentialism? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, besides your equally ridiculous post on the "threat" of a Manchurian candidate.
Are you getting a PhD in English or something?
The guy is clearly in the wrong and deserves to pay. The only thing that's questionable is the amount of the penalty, and it was awarded by a JURY.
Uhh, that threat post was meant to be ironic, but whatever.
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
And he continued to infringe, even after his father warned him in 2002 that he would get sued, even after he received a harshly-worded letter from the plaintiffs’ law firm in 2005, even after he was sued in 2007, and all the way through part of 2008.
And when he took the stand on Thursday, Tenenbaum admitted it all, including the fact that he had “lied” in his written discovery responses and at his first deposition in September 2008.
...
Judge Gertner previously announced that she will hold a post-trial proceeding to determine whether the size of the award violates the US Constitution’s guarantee of due process of the law. While no federal court has ever invalidated an award of copyright statutory damages as constitutionally excessive, the record labels’ litigation campaign has spurred arguments that the Supreme Court cases imposing limits on punitive damages should be extended to statutory damages, which may contain a punitive element.
The fee is bound between 750 and 150k, which I believe was determined by the number of people you might connect to while sitting on a file sharing network.
On August 03 2009 22:32 A3iL3r0n wrote: The internet will eventually cause the population of the earth to realize that money isn't real, and is only an instrument of slavery.
1. The fine seems like a lot but it's probably a form of punitive damages. Most filesharers don't get caught, so they make the fine big so that the expected cost of piracy is bigger than the cost of paying for music. If the fine was only $30, no one would pay for music since they could just pay the $30 if they got caught.
2. The intellectual property system is set up so that people who wish to make money from their products can choose to do so. If not for this system, there would be much less music/inventions/novels in this world, for better or worse. There is probably a better way to do this than the way it's implemented now, but one can argue that if you don't want to pay, then don't consume the product.
3. The fact that you usually can't full judge an information good without purchasing it is known as the Arrow Information Paradox. Things such as radio, demos, and low-res pics are attempts to circumvent this. Record companies need to find a better way around this, such as giving away low-fidelity mp3s
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you?
I drive my car into your house, and accidentally uncover a treasure chest hidden in a wall worth millions. There's any number of examples that show how absurd this would be, and what if the person never asks for help to begin with? You help someone on your own accord, and then sue them because it positively benefited them?
And time frame? Consequentialism comes with a time frame that can be extended as long as you'd like to make the outcome good or bad. Can I sue in 1 month, and then sue again in 3 months?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
So punitive damages are thrown out the window? No longer used?
On August 03 2009 22:48 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: i read an article form CNN that a 32-year old woman was also charged because she downloaded music and she was fined more than a million dollars!!!
the fine is really ridiculous imo.
may be someone should invent something that no one could rip any cd/dvd.
Jamie Thomas lied on the stand and destroyed evidence, plus she downloaded Green Day.
Downloading is estimated to increase social welfare by reducing dead weight loss by $38/person.
I'm unaware of any estimates that relate the probability of getting caught to the total industry expected loss. I also see no reason for punitive damages unless a deterrent effect is established.
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you?
I drive my car into your house, and accidentally uncover a treasure chest hidden in a wall worth millions. There's any number of examples that show how absurd this would be, and what if the person never asks for help to begin with? You help someone on your own accord, and then sue them because it positively benefited them?
And time frame? Consequentialism comes with a time frame that can be extended as long as you'd like to make the outcome good or bad. Can I sue in 1 month, and then sue again in 3 months?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
So punitive damages are thrown out the window? No longer used?
Right, lets base policy on extremely unlikely scenarios. You really didn't understand the sarcasm of my Manchurian Candidate post.
To make it simple, the point is this:
Suppose the probability of crashing into someone's house and finding a million dollars (or a successful Manchurian Candidate) approaches zero. The expected cost of this to society may be large (although in the crash example, it is clearly positive for both parties). However, the expected cost of using a non-consequentialist policy for dealing with this infinitely improbable circumstance (and of course, the infinitely many other infinitely improbable circumstance) is immensely larger than the insurance we buy by having non-consequentialist policies to protect us.
Also, I've got a bunch of negative expected value bets you might want to purchase. Want to buy some lottery tickets?
On August 03 2009 22:18 Jibba wrote: I'm guessing 99% of the people in this thread didn't actually read what happened so are just using this thread as a sounding board against the RIAA (which is perfectly understandable) but for those who want to move beyond being a sheep, this is what happened:
Guy leaves Kazaa open and gets caught sharing music. He is NOT in trouble for downloading music. No one has ever been sued for downloading music.
The RIAA issues him/his ISP a statement telling him to stop and ordering him to pay some relatively minimal fee, usually like $500-1000. Guy decides he has some legal merit to stand on and doesn't pay it, therefore they take him to court.
He obviously loses because he's in the wrong, and a JURY OF HIS PEERS choose the damages. The judge may still lower it.
Moral of the story? If you get caught, just pay the fucking fine. The RIAA might be terrible, but there is no legal or moral ground to stand on if you're downloading music. That and don't be an idiot and use Kazaa/Limewire/public trackers/etc.
I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Seriously, pirating music IS illegal. If you're dumb enough to get caught, you should go ahead and pay the fine. If you don't, it's your fault that the "big bad RIAA" take you to the cleaners in court with their "big bad group of lawyers".
Seriously, trying to fight the music industry in court is asking to be raped unless you're a billionaire yourself.
Still though, I hate the RIAA. They make it sound like everyone who download illegally would've bought a legitimate copy if pirating weren't available, when they cite their numbers. Which is of course just a bunch of baloney.
It's been eternities since I've last bought an album. Why? Because it's overly expensive and such a small amount of the money I pay go to the actual artist: between 2 and 10 %. I can't do the math any other way than it being the record label reaping some 60-70 % of the profits. (You think the studio man and CD facility are making big bucks?) Are there any other industry where the company can claim such a ridiculous mark-up? Also supporting companies that openly sue parts of their customer base is just a bigger disincentive.
A had a friend visiting a couple of days ago, who had been to the Metallica concert in Copenhagen af few days before. (OT: Guess who owns a pick James Hetfield has played with now ) When he left he forgot his used ticket which I kept: pricetag on it reads 650 kr, equivalent to 4½ CD's or 110 $. My mother and big brother paid 130-140$ to see Bob Dylan. Seriously what the hell? Now let us assume I want to try and keep my music and movie collection up to date - 1 new of each per week -, while going to, say, a concert a month. Hardly unreasonable.
For a year this totals to: 12x4x150kr = 7200 kr. 12x4x250kr = 12000 kr 12x400kr = 4800 kr Total = 2400 kr ~ at little less than 5000 $.
I don't have that kinda money lying around, hence the '1 DL = 1 lost sale' is just so fallacious it pains me to see people still using it as a serious argument.
I went to Roskilde festival this summer, and saw Oasis, Coldplay, Slipknot, Nine Inch Nails, Malk de Koijn, Mew, Volbeat and a few minor bands for 350 $. That's about 50 $ per concert, which is reasonable, if not cheap. The most I'd ever pay to see any concert would be 100$ - anything above that is just scrupulous.
On 675k to a damn student? Get a grip RIAA, this is neither a good approach to the piracy 'problem', nor is it rational.
I'd stop right now, but I had something to say that I forgot after reading 6 pages. The Artists shouldn't work with other companies. Each concert, say there's about 1000 people, with ticket at an average of $50.that's $50,000 for one night JUST from ticket sales. Now lets say they have 1 concert a month. Nothing else, just one concert a month. That's $600,000 a year. When you're making $600,000 a year from once a week work, I don't think you need a company to control what you're doing. I'd personally hate having a company telling me what to do if I can get along fine on my own. Then lets say they sell their music. Instead of $15-20 an album, they decide to sell it for $10. Assume they sell 10,000 albums. That's another $100,000. You get TV commercials, product endorsements, fan signings, and a whole lot more. Sure the 1st few years will be tougher, buying all the equipment, but seriosuly, in the long run, they'll be making shitloads more. Do they really need that extra money from a company?
this is stupid when you go and buy a cd how much money from that do you thnk actually goes to the artist? like 2 $ a cd :/ over time yes this will add up but 30 songs would be like 4$ for the artist but hes getting sued for 675k :/ ( this is assuming you buy the cd at a store such as best buy FYE wal mart etc.)
if you really want to support an artist buy their merch from their site or go to their shows.
alot of bands one being bring me the horizon has even said they dont care if people pirate their music.
On August 03 2009 16:54 cUrsOr wrote: I write music, and I am against "sharing". I find that most people who are for it, just want to justify not paying. My wife, and my brother in law, both of who I respect very much, happen to dissagree. It's someone else's time, effort and ideas. I'm essentially a socialist and think lots of things should be public property, but since I live in America and have to pay to eat and drive and do anything- damn right I think Music should have the same costs. In a better system, maybe not though.
Are you for real? I take huge exception to what you say.
If you write music then ummm you should know how the industry works. Okay for one, if you're a song writer and NOT an artist (as in, you write songs that record companies use for pop artists that can't write songs but are the image of their act.. a top tier example would be Britney Spears), then you do get a small share of CD sales, but not huge. Your main money income will come from radio play which gets publishing rights, whenever the song is played in a public place such as a night club or a restaurant too. Basically, if this were the case, you would want people downloading your music 'cause uhhhhh file downloading has enabled artists to become more popular than ever, EASIER Than ever.
Same logic basically goes if you're an artist that's not hit it big yet and writes their own music. Dude, if you're a small act trying to get big with the help of a record label (that pays for your producer, engineers, stylists, publicists, promotion team, etc), this is how much money you're going to make from CD sales with or without people downloading your music: zero. that's right, absolutely nothing. Unless you basically sell enough CDs to overcome the debt that went into making the CD, which is extremely hard to do because that is AFTER the record companies take away 88% of the money made off your CD (and you don't even make 12%, you make more like 3%, i won't get into detail but basically you'd have to sell 100,000 CDs to overcome a 30,000$ deficit, which is not that unrealistic deficit when it comes to how much work has been put into making your CD). Well, after that the money that you make from CD sales onward is your profit, but at that point, if you're selling that many CDs, you're probably doing pretty well in the first place.
Basically, most of your money would come from live revenue, and publishing rights, SOME OF WHICH DO COME FROM THE CD, but most of it comes from your songs being played on the radio, TV, night clubs, restaurants, public places, movies, etc etc etc. It's a tough tough life being an artist (theyr'e the ones that work the hardest but make the least money), but if you're a song writer or an artist that is trying to work their ass off to get known and get signed by a top tier label and make the money that comes with it, well, you want people downloading your music because that's how you get popular these days. Believe me, it's much easier, because of the internet, to be successful with music.
Besides, if you're making music simply because you want to make money off of it, find a different job.
(sources are post secondary schooling (audio engineering), and the book Confessions of a Record Producer which basically in depth explains each position, producer, artist, song composer, engineer, that goes into making a CD and how record labels treat each one).
and with that in mind, 99.9999999% of artists do not support the record labels and RIAA trying to sue people like this or trying to stop people from downloading music. The artists aren't the ones that have anything to lose from people downloading music, it's the record labels and the publishing companies that already have billions of dollars.
oh and also:
if you think "oh shit well music downloading is going to eventually kill the major/corporate record companies" well
1.) it's not, these record companies are still making huge profits, increases in every year and 2.) if it does, that's fucking great. I'm SICK of the fact that four guys basically own the music industry (Sony, Warner, Universal, EMI) and the fact that artists are releasing their albums independently and bypassing the corporate music world is awesome.
so download all the music you want. lets make it easier for artists trying to make an impact on this world and independent record labels that just want to help musicians get known get successful
On August 03 2009 22:48 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: may be someone should invent something that no one could rip any cd/dvd.
Been there done that in many forms. They stopped doing that because people showed companies its just as easy to circumvent them. You cannot stop piracy like this.
I am all for downloading music for free... If I want to fill up my iPod I'm not doing it legally by wasting thousands just so I can have music to hear. However I have no objective argument supporting my opinion, music is a product like everything else, so there isn't anything to do about it... copyright laws exist for a reason.
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you?
I drive my car into your house, and accidentally uncover a treasure chest hidden in a wall worth millions. There's any number of examples that show how absurd this would be, and what if the person never asks for help to begin with? You help someone on your own accord, and then sue them because it positively benefited them?
And time frame? Consequentialism comes with a time frame that can be extended as long as you'd like to make the outcome good or bad. Can I sue in 1 month, and then sue again in 3 months?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
So punitive damages are thrown out the window? No longer used?
Right, lets base policy on extremely unlikely scenarios. You really didn't understand the sarcasm of my Manchurian Candidate post.
To make it simple, the point is this:
Suppose the probability of crashing into someone's house and finding a million dollars (or a successful Manchurian Candidate) approaches zero. The expected cost of this to society may be large (although in the crash example, it is clearly positive for both parties). However, the expected cost of using a non-consequentialist policy for dealing with this infinitely improbable circumstance (and of course, the infinitely many other infinitely improbable circumstance) is immensely larger than the insurance we buy by having non-consequentialist policies to protect us.
Also, I've got a bunch of negative expected value bets you might want to purchase. Want to buy some lottery tickets?
You're arguing on the basis of greater social welfare? According to what and who? Social efficiency as calculated by economists? Ridiculous. Consequentialism (utilitarianism) is one of the biggest threats to modern society. It's one thing to apply it to moral decisions, but completely another to apply to to the rule of law, thereby removing the rule aspect of law. Not only is it not feasible, but it's just a ghastly concept that would only reward whoever makes a better slant.
At least try Mill's utilitarianism, not that Benthamite garbage. That's like a fast track to national socialism.
On August 03 2009 17:26 JohnColtrane wrote: you know what else gives musicians incentive to make music?
passion
Yeah of course but I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive
because cds are too expensive :C
Yes but also fucking Itunes charges 1$ per song. A FUCKING DOLLAR A SONG. What a rip-off
STOP TRYING TO RIP OFF THE MUSICIAN YOU NOOB. YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO WRITE A SONG?
sure it is hard. most of the music out there consists of the same generic melody and a variation of "i love you i love you, i love this girl, my life sucks blah blah blah"
STOP TRYING TO RIP OFF THE MUSICIAN YOU NOOB. YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO WRITE A SONG?
sure it is hard. most of the music out there consists of the same generic melody and a variation of "i love you i love you, i love this girl, my life sucks blah blah blah"
+2
Some trivia just for the heck of it: Guess who was totally not cool with Mozart writing down *cough* stealing *cough* the (Gregorian?) chants that had only been passed down orally until then, using them as a blueprint for some of his works?
Life goes on, greedy music-industry-men, life goes on.
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you?
I drive my car into your house, and accidentally uncover a treasure chest hidden in a wall worth millions. There's any number of examples that show how absurd this would be, and what if the person never asks for help to begin with? You help someone on your own accord, and then sue them because it positively benefited them?
And time frame? Consequentialism comes with a time frame that can be extended as long as you'd like to make the outcome good or bad. Can I sue in 1 month, and then sue again in 3 months?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
So punitive damages are thrown out the window? No longer used?
Right, lets base policy on extremely unlikely scenarios. You really didn't understand the sarcasm of my Manchurian Candidate post.
To make it simple, the point is this:
Suppose the probability of crashing into someone's house and finding a million dollars (or a successful Manchurian Candidate) approaches zero. The expected cost of this to society may be large (although in the crash example, it is clearly positive for both parties). However, the expected cost of using a non-consequentialist policy for dealing with this infinitely improbable circumstance (and of course, the infinitely many other infinitely improbable circumstance) is immensely larger than the insurance we buy by having non-consequentialist policies to protect us.
Also, I've got a bunch of negative expected value bets you might want to purchase. Want to buy some lottery tickets?
You're arguing on the basis of greater social welfare? According to what and who? Social efficiency as calculated by economists? Ridiculous. Consequentialism (utilitarianism) is one of the biggest threats to modern society. It's one thing to apply it to moral decisions, but completely another to apply to to the rule of law, thereby removing the rule aspect of law. Not only is it not feasible, but it's just a ghastly concept that would only reward whoever makes a better slant.
At least try Mill's utilitarianism, not that Benthamite garbage. That's like a fast track to national socialism.
Reductio ad hitlerum. I win. GG.
Every normative model of decision making I know of relies on consequentialism. Deontological decision making is contradictory and leads to unfortunate laws varying from anti-drug to anti-gay. It is also unscientific.
On August 03 2009 22:48 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: may be someone should invent something that no one could rip any cd/dvd.
Been there done that in many forms. They stopped doing that because people showed companies its just as easy to circumvent them. You cannot stop piracy like this.
not to mention we have the right to make as many copies as we want for personal use.
On August 04 2009 01:09 Shad0w59 wrote: I think the "I Come to Shanghai" ( http://icometoshanghai.com/ ) aka Radiohead model works the best.
Actually, people are more generous when you ask them to donate rather than to buy, even when the responsibilities are functionally equivalent.
Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean.
Pretty much.
We give to ourselves and expect from others a greater perception that we are 'altruistic' or 'good' when what we are doing is labeled 'donation' rather than 'buying'. Donation is basically a purchase of a positive self/social perception rather than the physical good you get in return.
Why does it seem that every time someone tries to have a discussion regarding piracy it always spin towards whether piracy is ethical?
I don't agree that piracy is stealing, but I wouldn't consider it to be without flaws. I just don't seem to understand why certain individuals are so bitter to be extreme on both sides.
As far as the main topic goes.. it's clear they want to make an example out of him. However, I think the fine will be severely reduced if the prosecution actually wants to get a guilty verdict.
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you?
I drive my car into your house, and accidentally uncover a treasure chest hidden in a wall worth millions. There's any number of examples that show how absurd this would be, and what if the person never asks for help to begin with? You help someone on your own accord, and then sue them because it positively benefited them?
And time frame? Consequentialism comes with a time frame that can be extended as long as you'd like to make the outcome good or bad. Can I sue in 1 month, and then sue again in 3 months?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
So punitive damages are thrown out the window? No longer used?
Right, lets base policy on extremely unlikely scenarios. You really didn't understand the sarcasm of my Manchurian Candidate post.
To make it simple, the point is this:
Suppose the probability of crashing into someone's house and finding a million dollars (or a successful Manchurian Candidate) approaches zero. The expected cost of this to society may be large (although in the crash example, it is clearly positive for both parties). However, the expected cost of using a non-consequentialist policy for dealing with this infinitely improbable circumstance (and of course, the infinitely many other infinitely improbable circumstance) is immensely larger than the insurance we buy by having non-consequentialist policies to protect us.
Also, I've got a bunch of negative expected value bets you might want to purchase. Want to buy some lottery tickets?
You're arguing on the basis of greater social welfare? According to what and who? Social efficiency as calculated by economists? Ridiculous. Consequentialism (utilitarianism) is one of the biggest threats to modern society. It's one thing to apply it to moral decisions, but completely another to apply to to the rule of law, thereby removing the rule aspect of law. Not only is it not feasible, but it's just a ghastly concept that would only reward whoever makes a better slant.
At least try Mill's utilitarianism, not that Benthamite garbage. That's like a fast track to national socialism.
Reductio ad hitlerum. I win. GG.
Every normative model of decision making I know of relies on consequentialism. Deontological decision making is contradictory and leads to unfortunate laws varying from anti-drug to anti-gay. It is also unscientific.
No, when you talk about making decisions to protect "social welfare" (which is completely ambiguous), you've already made the connection to fascism yourself.
Nothing is strictly consequentialist. And how about Rawls? He's kind of a big deal when it comes to ethics. His nonconsequentialism is consequentialist?
And I can already imagine that your definition of 'scientific' is laughable, but please define it for us.
On August 04 2009 01:09 Shad0w59 wrote: I think the "I Come to Shanghai" ( http://icometoshanghai.com/ ) aka Radiohead model works the best.
Actually, people are more generous when you ask them to donate rather than to buy, even when the responsibilities are functionally equivalent.
Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean.
Pretty much.
We give to ourselves and expect from others a greater perception that we are 'altruistic' or 'good' when what we are doing is labeled 'donation' rather than 'buying'. Donation is basically a purchase of a positive self/social perception rather than the physical good you get in return.
I can buy that pure altruism doesn't exist, but do you believe that no amount of it exists? We donate purely to feel good about ourselves?
Did you know it would cost $30K to fill a 120GB ipod in 128-Kbps AAC format?
Did you know it would cost 12.19$ to fill a 6.4 tall guys stomach at Old Country Buffet?
Actually wouldn't it cost $30.00? Doesn't Microsoft offer some kind of unlimited download program involving their Zune? Does that music become void after you cancel your account?
On August 04 2009 01:09 Shad0w59 wrote: I think the "I Come to Shanghai" ( http://icometoshanghai.com/ ) aka Radiohead model works the best.
Actually, people are more generous when you ask them to donate rather than to buy, even when the responsibilities are functionally equivalent.
Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean.
Pretty much.
We give to ourselves and expect from others a greater perception that we are 'altruistic' or 'good' when what we are doing is labeled 'donation' rather than 'buying'. Donation is basically a purchase of a positive self/social perception rather than the physical good you get in return.
I can buy that pure altruism doesn't exist, but do you believe that no amount of it exists? We donate purely to feel good about ourselves?
It depends I think. There is a big component of social/self perception that we buy and makes us feel good.
There is a lot of evidence that if one feels empathy for someone else one is likely to behave in a purely altruistic manner (see Daniel Batson, University of Kansas' work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Batson).
It also depends on what you are buying. People tend to be more altruistic with in-kind transfers than monetary transfers, etc.
In terms of Rawls, I am not sure how is viewpoint differs from a consequentialist perspective, except it adds a bunch of unnecessary language and caveats that don't amount to much. In all honesty, I don't know much about it.
Scientific just means one can subject conceptions of 'good' and 'bad' to reasonable empirical investigation. Anyway, I am not arguing that the social welfare garnered from stealing outweighs the harm to the companies, because clearly the companies prefer to have no stealing and no law suit over stealing and law suit and social welfare.
On August 04 2009 01:09 Shad0w59 wrote: I think the "I Come to Shanghai" ( http://icometoshanghai.com/ ) aka Radiohead model works the best.
Actually, people are more generous when you ask them to donate rather than to buy, even when the responsibilities are functionally equivalent.
Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean.
Pretty much.
We give to ourselves and expect from others a greater perception that we are 'altruistic' or 'good' when what we are doing is labeled 'donation' rather than 'buying'. Donation is basically a purchase of a positive self/social perception rather than the physical good you get in return.
I can buy that pure altruism doesn't exist, but do you believe that no amount of it exists? We donate purely to feel good about ourselves?
It depends I think. There is a big component of social/self perception that we buy and makes us feel good.
There is a lot of evidence that if one feels empathy for someone else one is likely to behave in a purely altruistic manner (see Daniel Batson, University of Kansas' work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Batson).
It also depends on what you are buying. People tend to be more altruistic with in-kind transfers than monetary transfers, etc.
In terms of Rawls, I am not sure how is viewpoint differs from a consequentialist perspective, except it adds a bunch of unnecessary language and caveats that don't amount to much. In all honesty, I don't know much about it.
Scientific just means one can subject conceptions of 'good' and 'bad' to reasonable empirical investigation. Anyway, I am not arguing that the social welfare garnered from stealing outweighs the harm to the companies, because clearly the companies prefer to have no stealing and no law suit over stealing and law suit and social welfare.
You will get ripped to shreds by anyone proficient with these kinds of statements
On August 04 2009 01:09 Shad0w59 wrote: I think the "I Come to Shanghai" ( http://icometoshanghai.com/ ) aka Radiohead model works the best.
Actually, people are more generous when you ask them to donate rather than to buy, even when the responsibilities are functionally equivalent.
Is that because donating is an act of "generosity"? Really, what does your sentence mean.
Pretty much.
We give to ourselves and expect from others a greater perception that we are 'altruistic' or 'good' when what we are doing is labeled 'donation' rather than 'buying'. Donation is basically a purchase of a positive self/social perception rather than the physical good you get in return.
I can buy that pure altruism doesn't exist, but do you believe that no amount of it exists? We donate purely to feel good about ourselves?
It depends I think. There is a big component of social/self perception that we buy and makes us feel good.
There is a lot of evidence that if one feels empathy for someone else one is likely to behave in a purely altruistic manner (see Daniel Batson, University of Kansas' work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Batson).
It also depends on what you are buying. People tend to be more altruistic with in-kind transfers than monetary transfers, etc.
In terms of Rawls, I am not sure how is viewpoint differs from a consequentialist perspective, except it adds a bunch of unnecessary language and caveats that don't amount to much. In all honesty, I don't know much about it.
Scientific just means one can subject conceptions of 'good' and 'bad' to reasonable empirical investigation. Anyway, I am not arguing that the social welfare garnered from stealing outweighs the harm to the companies, because clearly the companies prefer to have no stealing and no law suit over stealing and law suit and social welfare.
You will get ripped to shreds by anyone proficient with these kinds of statements
The fine is pretty ridiculous. I mean if they want to actually make a legitimate punishment fine him like $2000 or something (depending on how rich he is, is it even legal to sue someone in accordance with how wealthy they are because that would make more sense than picking a random number for all people who do the same crime.)
1) Compensatory: An empirical estimation of the cost to the company 2) Punitive: The amount needed to deter people from stealing including the probability of getting caught, etc.
Punitive damages above and beyond this are retribution and I am against them. Scientific estimation should be used to justify both compensatory and punitive amounts, not a flawed estimation by a jury who are subject to severe biases (e.g., anchoring in this case). That is the consequential perspective, and the most logical one in my opinion.
BUT: Since I'm a musician myself I can tell you guys that the "millionaire puppet" artists are at maximum something like 0,1% of all the musicians around. All the others who try to make money with their music, are e.g. signed at an independent label and put all their heart and effort in it just get robbed by download piracy. If you like what a musician is doing, appreciate it and pay for it. You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?!
Since nobody wants to pay for music anymore, the quality of music will decrease soon enough. Passion is one thing, but the financial possibility to be musician as full-time job is entirely another, it is slowly disappearing.
On August 04 2009 02:02 Gregsen wrote: The fine is way too high, I agree.
BUT: Since I'm a musician myself I can tell you guys that the "millionaire puppet" artists are at maximum something like 0,1% of all the musicians around. All the others who try to make money with their music, are signed at an independent label and put all their heart and effort in it just get robbed by download piracy. If you like what a musician is doing, appreciate it and pay for it. You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?!
Since nobody wants to pay for music anymore, the quality of music will decrease soon enough. Passion is one thing, but the financial possibility to be musician as full-time job is entirely another, it is slowly disappearing.
I honestly have to disagree. I have a friend who knows a lot of well known indie/alternative bands. They all have side jobs, because as you said they simply can't make enough money from their music alone. They make most of their money from t-shirts and playing live at the Metro here in Chicago. However, they still continue to play. Bands have always made most of their money from live shows and merchandise.
I think they honestly love to write/play music above anything else. I agree that financial difficulties could dissuade you from continuing your career as musician, but if you can be dissuaded by monetary needs, then are you a true musician to begin with? I'm not trying to say musicians are not entitled to a paycheck like everyone else, but a musician isn't exactly the same thing as a blue collar worker in terms of structure and influence.
I honestly don't claim piracy is a legitimate way to obtain music, but as it has proven it's sometimes the only method for people. While, there is always someone who downloads for ease there is always someone who can't afford the music, but absolutely appreciates it.
I think that's why most artists either publicly or privately don't criticize pirates. They understand that this issue is bigger than the monetary loss of now. It's something bigger.
I didn't mean to offend you and I hardly want to get in a debate about this right now. I just really think that like anyone who truly loves something, you'll do it no matter what hardship comes through your way.
On August 03 2009 16:48 Irrelevant wrote: Fine is fucking retarded. I've gotten probably 10k songs from the net, what are they going to sue me for a 3rd world country?
Good point. Although I doubt the law expects you to have 10 million dollars to spend in fines.
http://education.zdnet.com/?p=2889&tag=nl.e539 Apparently the RIAA isnt' going to go after anyone anymore? Haha. Does anybody actually have a link to that actual statement? I never heard about that before.
If 99% of music today wasn't complete trash I wouldn't mind buying a cd from a store, but as is you're lucky to get 1-2 decent tracks on an album. Same with movies, if you put out a good money I'll gladly give you $12 for a ticket and another $30-40 for fucking dried out popcorn, the issue is there's maybe 1-2 good movies a year.
On August 04 2009 02:34 Irrelevant wrote: If 99% of music today wasn't complete trash I wouldn't mind buying a cd from a store, but as is you're lucky to get 1-2 decent tracks on an album. Same with movies, if you put out a good money I'll gladly give you $12 for a ticket and another $30-40 for fucking dried out popcorn, the issue is there's maybe 1-2 good movies a year.
Zune pass. $15/mo gives you unlimited access to the library + 10 DRM-free downloads per month. It's basically like $5/mo for unlimited music.
30 tracks of music is basically equivalent to shoplifting a pair of jeans (price wise) -- although you wouldn't get in too much trouble for the jeans now would you?
WRONG !
the fact that he SHARED them makes it much more. Imagine 1000 people dl'ed the songs from him. 30x1000 = 30.000 track is worth 5 $ ? 30.000 x 5 = 150.000 $
The point is not, that he owns the tracks now, but the fact that he probably gave them to hundres of other people illegally too.
30 tracks of music is basically equivalent to shoplifting a pair of jeans (price wise) -- although you wouldn't get in too much trouble for the jeans now would you?
WRONG !
the fact that he SHARED them makes it much more. Imagine 1000 people dl'ed the songs from him. 30x1000 = 30.000 track is worth 5 $ ? 30.000 x 5 = 150.000 $
The point is not, that he owns the tracks now, but the fact that he probably gave them to hundres of other people illegally too.
ofc 675K is absurd anyways T_T
This calculation is not reasonable:
1) The market price of a track is $1 (itunes) 2) The probability that of each of the songs shared would have been purchased by the people who have been shared with is somewhere around 10%. 3) There is also a positive effect of sharing by creating buzz and providing information to consumers, thus reducing this 10% figure.
Thus, if he shared 30,000 tracks worth $1 each with a maximum 10% probability of buying he owes at MOST $3,000 in compensatory damages. That is an upper bound estimate.
However, say the probability of getting caught is 1/500k. Then, to make stealing actuarialy unfair, we would need $3,000X500,000, meaning he should have to pay 1.5 billion. So the amount they asked for is probably actuarialy unfair to have a deterrent effect, given the assumption that consumers are risk neutral.
30 tracks of music is basically equivalent to shoplifting a pair of jeans (price wise) -- although you wouldn't get in too much trouble for the jeans now would you?
WRONG !
the fact that he SHARED them makes it much more. Imagine 1000 people dl'ed the songs from him. 30x1000 = 30.000 track is worth 5 $ ? 30.000 x 5 = 150.000 $
The point is not, that he owns the tracks now, but the fact that he probably gave them to hundres of other people illegally too.
ofc 675K is absurd anyways T_T
This calculation is not reasonable:
1) The market price of a track is $1 (itunes) 2) The probability that of each of the songs shared would have been purchased by the people who have been shared with is somewhere around 10%. 3) There is also a positive effect of sharing by creating buzz and providing information to consumers, thus reducing this 10% figure.
Thus, if he shared 30,000 tracks worth $1 each with a maximum 10% probability of buying he owes at MOST $3,000 in compensatory damages. That is an upper bound estimate.
However, say the probability of getting caught is 1/500k. Then, to make stealing actuarialy unfair, we would need $3,000X500,000, meaning he should have to pay 1.5 billion. So the amount they asked for is probably actuarialy unfair to have a deterrent effect, given the assumption that consumers are risk neutral.
For them to believe that the punitive damages have a deterrent effect they would have to believe that people are severely risk averse: U(X)=X^(8.94831198×10^-9)
Instead they make these judgments based on 'gut feeling'. Stupid in my opinion.
On August 04 2009 02:02 Gregsen wrote: The fine is way too high, I agree.
BUT: Since I'm a musician myself I can tell you guys that the "millionaire puppet" artists are at maximum something like 0,1% of all the musicians around. All the others who try to make money with their music, are e.g. signed at an independent label and put all their heart and effort in it just get robbed by download piracy. If you like what a musician is doing, appreciate it and pay for it. You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?!
Since nobody wants to pay for music anymore, the quality of music will decrease soon enough. Passion is one thing, but the financial possibility to be musician as full-time job is entirely another, it is slowly disappearing.
Can you not possibly see that "illegal downloading" is making it EASIER, not harder, for you to make a living making music and playing shows? There is WAY WAY WAY more to an artists profit than CD sales, and actually, an artist will rarely see profit come from selling CDs as you don't get profit for selling CDs until your debt is gone. At least when dealing with a label. And besides, the internet spreads music around and makes it so accessible it's not even funny. it makes it sooo much easier for you to promote yourself.
Of course this isn't true when you release a CD independently (either produced and engineered by yourself or contracted out by you to someone you know), but in that case you're probably not big enough to get affected by downloading anyway.
Now, then there's the possibility that you are an artist making a CD on an independent label (which mostly same rules apply as a major label or a branched label), but you still get publishing rights for every time a DJ plays your song on the radio, or in a night club, or wherever in a public place. That's a huuuuge amount of your income, and that combined with live shows (and this includes CDs being bought at your shows, because that doesn't get taxed/treated the same way) would most likely be your profit unless, of course, you're fucking huge and sell millions of CDs, but in that case you're probably well off enough anyway.
edit: by the way, i'm not necessarily trying to justify downloading music (even though i think everyone should do it), but what I am saying is that it in NO WAY hurts the artist. only the record label (and the producer too because he gets usually 3% of your CD sales... but producers usually are doing pretty well themselves as they are contracted out money by the label ALONG with that 3%)
30 tracks of music is basically equivalent to shoplifting a pair of jeans (price wise) -- although you wouldn't get in too much trouble for the jeans now would you?
WRONG !
the fact that he SHARED them makes it much more. Imagine 1000 people dl'ed the songs from him. 30x1000 = 30.000 track is worth 5 $ ? 30.000 x 5 = 150.000 $
The point is not, that he owns the tracks now, but the fact that he probably gave them to hundres of other people illegally too.
ofc 675K is absurd anyways T_T
This calculation is not reasonable:
1) The market price of a track is $1 (itunes) 2) The probability that of each of the songs shared would have been purchased by the people who have been shared with is somewhere around 10%. 3) There is also a positive effect of sharing by creating buzz and providing information to consumers, thus reducing this 10% figure.
Thus, if he shared 30,000 tracks worth $1 each with a maximum 10% probability of buying he owes at MOST $3,000 in compensatory damages. That is an upper bound estimate.
However, say the probability of getting caught is 1/500k. Then, to make stealing actuarialy unfair, we would need $3,000X500,000, meaning he should have to pay 1.5 billion. So the amount they asked for is probably actuarialy unfair to have a deterrent effect, given the assumption that consumers are risk neutral.
yea ok i agree. ur right.
but the main point of my post stays:
the damage done is not just the price of the 30 tracks (30 $).
On August 03 2009 17:17 JohnColtrane wrote: selling music only cheapens and diminishes it. music should be free for everyone
musicians that truly enjoy making music release it for free in their spare time, rather than charging people and making a job out of it. making great music and interacting with great musicians is the reward
Well you're obviously not musically talented or good enough to sell records or else you wouldn't be saying that.
30 tracks of music is basically equivalent to shoplifting a pair of jeans (price wise) -- although you wouldn't get in too much trouble for the jeans now would you?
WRONG !
the fact that he SHARED them makes it much more. Imagine 1000 people dl'ed the songs from him. 30x1000 = 30.000 track is worth 5 $ ? 30.000 x 5 = 150.000 $
The point is not, that he owns the tracks now, but the fact that he probably gave them to hundres of other people illegally too.
ofc 675K is absurd anyways T_T
This calculation is not reasonable:
1) The market price of a track is $1 (itunes) 2) The probability that of each of the songs shared would have been purchased by the people who have been shared with is somewhere around 10%. 3) There is also a positive effect of sharing by creating buzz and providing information to consumers, thus reducing this 10% figure.
Thus, if he shared 30,000 tracks worth $1 each with a maximum 10% probability of buying he owes at MOST $3,000 in compensatory damages. That is an upper bound estimate.
However, say the probability of getting caught is 1/500k. Then, to make stealing actuarialy unfair, we would need $3,000X500,000, meaning he should have to pay 1.5 billion. So the amount they asked for is probably actuarialy unfair to have a deterrent effect, given the assumption that consumers are risk neutral.
yea ok i agree. ur right.
but the main point of my post stays:
the damage done is not just the price of the 30 tracks (30 $).
Compensatory damages are definitely not $30.
I think it would be better if they asked for the 1.5 billion. At least they would have a reason for the amount they are asking for.
It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
On August 03 2009 16:48 On_Slaught wrote: It's because he was the only one of many stupid enough to actually fight the charges and try to justify it with some bullshit.
I'm glad the arrogant prick got shat on.
Then thats what the stupid bitch gets..
you don't do something illegal and then say " WELL THEIR WAS A GOOD REASON " that's like saying " I KILLED SOMEONE BUT THEIR WAS A GOOD REASON HE GOT ON MY NERVES PLEASE LET ME GO "
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about and don't know how the music industry works. It's an entirely different beast than say, stealing a bottle of shampoo from walmart.
I'm a musician myself, and I am playing a local show in 3 weeks. If it weren't for the internet, this would be absolutely unknown
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
That is not correct. Check out Fader's work on the effect of Napster on Napster users' music purchases. They actually increased:
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Well, i think i am doing them a favor, because if it wasnt for me, many of my friends including me would never ever buy quite many of the albums that we first pirated and listened to them, and if we liked them, we bought them.. If it wasnt of the piracy, i would never ever buy the album based on one song that i hear and i like, and probably i would never even hear for many of the other albums..
So basicaly all they got from me was +. Including my friend, more pluses.. Because of it, we went to concerts that we wouldnt attend otherwise..
Sadly, today there is way too many shitty music and albums that contains 1 ok music and the rest are shit, so piracy today is a necessity.
I always buy the music that deserves my money.
Further more, the fine just shows how bad the system really is.. 650k.. Pathetic.. I will download 3 times for mp3's that i currently have, and laugh even more.
Just because unknown garage bands can get famous from file sharing doesn't mean it's beneficial to major recording artists. All it takes is one bombed album to end their careers and cause them to do stupid VH1 reality shows for money. Even selling 250,000 albums gets reported as a bombed album and the negative press from it is highly damaging to their career.
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
That is not correct. Check out Fader's work on the effect of Napster on Napster users' music purchases. They actually increased:
There is also an argument that the market prices of the music are too high, which may be true.
I don't see that paper on the front page. I guess it was an old paper? Likely since napster was so long ago.
Regardless, I'm guessing what the paper suggest is that relatively unknown musicians are able to get better sales from distribution sites like napster. But that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which really just deals with musicians that has already made it. i.e. If you're a Britney Spears fan, you're not going to more likely buy her CDs if you get if for free. But if you found an unknown band's music interesting, you may buy it to support them.
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about and don't know how the music industry works. It's an entirely different beast than say, stealing a bottle of shampoo from walmart.
I'm a musician myself, and I am playing a local show in 3 weeks. If it weren't for the internet, this would be absolutely unknown
Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
the thing i don't understand is the perception that musicians have to do shit for free otherwise they're not true musicians. where else does this apply? I've yet to see anyone come up to my co-workers and say, "hey, you know what, you should really do your risk analysis for free, otherwise you're not a true investment banker"
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
That is not correct. Check out Fader's work on the effect of Napster on Napster users' music purchases. They actually increased:
There is also an argument that the market prices of the music are too high, which may be true.
I don't see that paper on the front page. I guess it was an old paper? Likely since napster was so long ago.
Regardless, I'm guessing what the paper suggest is that relatively unknown musicians are able to get better sales from distribution sites like napster. But that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which really just deals with musicians that has already made it. i.e. If you're a Britney Spears fan, you're not going to more likely buy her CDs if you get if for free. But if you found an unknown band's music interesting, you may buy it to support them.
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about and don't know how the music industry works. It's an entirely different beast than say, stealing a bottle of shampoo from walmart.
I'm a musician myself, and I am playing a local show in 3 weeks. If it weren't for the internet, this would be absolutely unknown
Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
Theoretically.. I would get a gun and kill myself, leaving a note saying "bye cruel world". Just to set an example. I wouldnt want to live in 675k dept from my 20s.
Given the state of piracy and the music industry today, I think the people who download illegally and then buy the real album / go to concerts are beneficial to the artists.
However, this type of exchange only exists because piracy is so widespread. For many of us, downloading illegally is the norm. However, suppose now that music piracy doesn't exist. In that scenario, the norm would probably be to buy off i-tunes for $0.99. I'm not an economics expert, but I do believe that if this were the case, musicians would make more money than they do now.
Ultimately, I think it's a conflict between short-term gains and long-term benefits. If piracy is rampant, then more piracy is beneficial, but not as beneficial as the eradication of piracy would be.
On August 04 2009 04:14 JeeJee wrote: the thing i don't understand is the perception that musicians have to do shit for free otherwise they're not true musicians. where else does this apply? I've yet to see anyone come up to my co-workers and say, "hey, you know what, you should really do your risk analysis for free, otherwise you're not a true investment banker"
It's because music is considered more of an art and less of a career path. I have yet to meet anyone who does risk analysis as a hobby, but tons of people play and perform music for little to no fee, because it's what they WANT to do with their time.
I think it sucks that technology is (debatably) screwing over the music industry, but it's just a consequence and they need to put up with it rather than attempting these absurd lawsuits. I do believe the downloading trend helps the new musicians gain popularity, and to be honest, the top top musicians will still probably perform and make music even if they're half as rich, or a quarter as rich, or even a tenth as rich as they are today. I think the music industry is slightly inflated past where it absolutely needs to be to produce the best possible music (i.e. we could reduce the music industry's income and still have equal quality music)
Also, I think there needs to be more of an effort to make free, legal websites work. iTunes is a good idea because it charges a comparable amount to CDs but has the convenience of illegal downloading. However, while it addresses the convenience issue, it doesn't address the fact that people want thousands of songs for their iPods without paying thousands of dollars. To address this, we should try getting advertising-based websites up and running efficiently. Ruckus was a fantastic resource for college kids who wanted to listen to thousands of songs for free while not putting themselves at risk legally. It was advertising based, and the advertising was hardly a big deal. Musicians should just accept that technology has turned on them and work WITH it. Google has HOW much of a budget based on advertising alone?
On August 04 2009 04:14 JeeJee wrote: the thing i don't understand is the perception that musicians have to do shit for free otherwise they're not true musicians. where else does this apply? I've yet to see anyone come up to my co-workers and say, "hey, you know what, you should really do your risk analysis for free, otherwise you're not a true investment banker"
I think it stems from the fact that musicians have to start off writing music for free. No one will pay to see you perform if they've never heard of you. This leads to the perception that musicians must always do it because "they love music" and that money is only a side-effect. However, I doubt there's any musician who tried to become pro without thinking about $$$. The perception is quite understandable since all we can physically see is the transition from doing it for the music to doing it for the money.
On August 04 2009 04:13 baubo wrote: Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights.
the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then).
i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth.
oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..)
oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now.
On August 04 2009 04:23 Sigh wrote: This reminds me of the woman who got fined 1.9 million dollars for downloading 24 songs. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html In my opinion, the fine is too ridiculous. Each song is what, 1 dollar? He should only be fined 30$. Seriously. They are just desperate.
Well, you have to look at the number of songs SHARED, not downloaded.
You need money to live, you can't make music for free unless you have a patron or something. Of course, some musicians are vastly overpaid and overrated, but most aren't.
The fine is way too high. Sure, the trial was expensive but did they really have to make an example out of this kid by ruining his life? The RIAA just makes the music industry look bad.
Poll: What damages should a music filesharer be responsible for? (Vote): No damages under any condition (Vote): Damages only to cover the record label's lost profit (Vote): Damages only to deter future filesharing (Vote): Damages for losses and deterrence (Vote): Damages for losses, deterrence, and extra damages for retribution against the thief
Well regardless of the lack of ethics or whatever behind downloading/sharing/refusing to buy music I hope everyone agrees about the fact that ruining a person's life to set an example on such a trivial matter is a concept that shouldn't fit at all in a modern democracy. A normal thief would never pay that much if he had stolen stuff worth a thousand times more than those 30 songs. That guy's life is totally fucked just because american law supports the greedy attitude of music companies, which resort to the fear of losing everything just to not make people messing with their products. It's plain barbaric.
On August 04 2009 04:47 iG.ClouD wrote: Well regardless of the lack of ethics or whatever behind downloading/sharing/refusing to buy music I hope everyone agrees about the fact that ruining a person life to set an example on such a trivial matter is a concept that shouldn't fit at all in a modern democracy. A normal thief would never pay that much if he had stolen stuff worth a thousand times more than those 30 songs. That guy's life is totally fucked just because american law support the greedy attitude of music companies, which resort to the fear of losing everything just to not make people messing with their products. It's plain barbaric.
On August 04 2009 04:13 baubo wrote: Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights.
the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then).
i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth.
oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..)
oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now.
Again, you're not saying anything related to the subject, which is:
IT'S ILLEGAL.
You can complain about the record companies all you like. Personally, I think they take on the risk, they should deserve the most money. But again, that's immaterial to the current argument.
Because it's still ILLEGAL to download such musics. And the people who own the music are pissed off and wants to punish people who do. I don't see how that's hard to comprehend.
You can say this is bad business practice. But that's just an opinion. The fact is America is a country where people are suppose to obey laws. And the law says downloading and sharing copyrighted music is illegal. That's all there is to it.
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
That is not correct. Check out Fader's work on the effect of Napster on Napster users' music purchases. They actually increased:
There is also an argument that the market prices of the music are too high, which may be true.
I don't see that paper on the front page. I guess it was an old paper? Likely since napster was so long ago.
Regardless, I'm guessing what the paper suggest is that relatively unknown musicians are able to get better sales from distribution sites like napster. But that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which really just deals with musicians that has already made it. i.e. If you're a Britney Spears fan, you're not going to more likely buy her CDs if you get if for free. But if you found an unknown band's music interesting, you may buy it to support them.
On August 04 2009 03:38 ColdLava wrote:
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people.
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free.
Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead.
Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about and don't know how the music industry works. It's an entirely different beast than say, stealing a bottle of shampoo from walmart.
I'm a musician myself, and I am playing a local show in 3 weeks. If it weren't for the internet, this would be absolutely unknown
Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
On August 04 2009 04:13 baubo wrote: Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights.
the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then).
i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth.
oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..)
oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now.
This is true if you just look at where the revenue is. However you're assuming that artists would earn the same amount of money without the producer, and that is ridiculous. It is important for both producers and artists to make money, imo. I am not saying I agree with some of the things producers do, but I just don't like this arguement.
Also big fines like these are because when you download songs illegally, you are also sharing them to a wide spread audience. It is how torrents are set up to work, and it just happens to make it a large number of times more illegal than it already is.
EDIT: I also want to point out that even a 1% cut on a record is good money. And also frankly your %s are complete bullshit.
On August 04 2009 04:23 Sigh wrote: This reminds me of the woman who got fined 1.9 million dollars for downloading 24 songs. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html In my opinion, the fine is too ridiculous. Each song is what, 1 dollar? He should only be fined 30$. Seriously. They are just desperate.
Well, you have to look at the number of songs SHARED, not downloaded.
On August 04 2009 04:13 baubo wrote: Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights.
the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then).
i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth.
oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..)
oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now.
This is true if you just look at where the revenue is. However you're assuming that artists would earn the same amount of money without the producer, and that is ridiculous. It is important for both producers and artists to make money, imo. I am not saying I agree with some of the things producers do, but I just don't like this arguement.
Also big fines like these are because when you download songs illegally, you are also sharing them to a wide spread audience. It is how torrents are set up to work, and it just happens to make it a large number of times more illegal than it already is.
EDIT: I also want to point out that even a 1% cut on a record is good money. And also frankly your %s are complete bullshit.
Yah so lets just ruin the guys life and basically make his life worthless for the next 5 years. Why don't we kill his first born child too?
The producers make money two ways (usually both ways), 1.) up front when they sign the contract to produce an album, and 2.) they make a percentage on the CD too (at the artists expense). They are much, much, much better paid than the artists. The artists are the ones who work the hardest and get paid the least, generally.
I got my numbers from Confessions of a Record Producer (it was attached to a course I took at college), where it took a sample contract, and basically broke it down.
But no, 1% cut on a record is not good money, at all. Basically, that 1% is going towards paying off the debts that the CD cost in the first place, and then after that it's profit for the artist. That's extremely hard to get though if you're not a band that's doing really really well.
Open Door shall accrue to your account in accordance with the provisions of Article 7, the following royalties for the sale of Phonograph Records derived from Master Recordings hereunder:
7.01.(a) A royalty of thirteen percent (13%) of the Royalty Base for Net Sales of all Albums sold by Open Door for distribution through Normal Retail Channels in the United States (collectively "U.S.N.R.C.") derived from the Recording Obligations for all executed Option Periods.
ok i was off by 1 percent
All recoupable advances which will apply to all option periods will be charged against and recoupable from royalties accruing to your account hereunder, the following:
.....
Recording Budget shall not be less than the minimum set forth below nor more than the maximum amounts set forth below with respect to each Album.
Minimum Maximum ------- ------- First Option Period $20,000 $50,000 Second Option Period $25,000 $65,000 Third Option Period $60,000 $80,000
"Recording Costs": All costs including pre-production, production and post-production costs incurred for and with respect to the production and solicitation of Master Recordings, including Audio-Visual Recordings, Recording Costs include, without limitation, payments for musicians, vocalists, conductors, arrangers, orchestrators, copyists, etc.; producer's fees' studio charges; costs of tape, editing, mixing, mastering, reference discs, and engineering; expenses of travel, per diems and rehearsal halls; costs of non-studio facilities and equipment; dubbing; costs and transportation of instruments including cartage and rental fees; payments required by law or contract (including agreements with any labor organization); payments of third parties which Open Door is required by law or contract to pay in connection with the Recordings; costs of clearing so-called "samples" and other rights; and other costs which are customarily recognized as recording costs in the Record Industry or production costs in the audiovisual recording industry.
13.17"Advances": An "advance" shall be deemed a prepayment of royalties and shall be charged against and recoupable from all amounts otherwise payable to you hereunder or pursuant to any other agreement between Open Door and you.
Again, you're not saying anything related to the subject, which is:
IT'S ILLEGAL.
You can complain about the record companies all you like. Personally, I think they take on the risk, they should deserve the most money. But again, that's immaterial to the current argument.
Because it's still ILLEGAL to download such musics. And the people who own the music are pissed off and wants to punish people who do. I don't see how that's hard to comprehend.
You can say this is bad business practice. But that's just an opinion. The fact is America is a country where people are suppose to obey laws. And the law says downloading and sharing copyrighted music is illegal. That's all there is to it.
Dude, you were arguing that illegal downloading is hurting musicians. I explained why it's not.
If you don't want to do something because it's illegal, that's fine. Just know where our perspective comes from..
And yes the guy got caught for somehting he knew that was illegal, that is true. But this is where morals should step in and not ruin the guy's fucking life. The music industry is the absolute epitome about what happens when power becomes absolute and starts controlling laws and rulings.
On August 04 2009 04:13 baubo wrote: Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free.
Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way.
i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights.
the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then).
i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth.
oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..)
oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now.
This is true if you just look at where the revenue is. However you're assuming that artists would earn the same amount of money without the producer, and that is ridiculous. It is important for both producers and artists to make money, imo. I am not saying I agree with some of the things producers do, but I just don't like this arguement.
Also big fines like these are because when you download songs illegally, you are also sharing them to a wide spread audience. It is how torrents are set up to work, and it just happens to make it a large number of times more illegal than it already is.
EDIT: I also want to point out that even a 1% cut on a record is good money. And also frankly your %s are complete bullshit.
Yah so lets just ruin the guys life and basically make his life worthless for the next 5 years. Why don't we kill his first born child too?
The producers make money two ways (usually both ways), 1.) up front when they sign the contract to produce an album, and 2.) they make a percentage on the CD too (at the artists expense). They are much, much, much better paid than the artists. The artists are the ones who work the hardest and get paid the least, generally.
I got my numbers from Confessions of a Record Producer (it was attached to a course I took at college), where it took a sample contract, and basically broke it down.
But no, 1% cut on a record is not good money, at all. Basically, that 1% is going towards paying off the debts that the CD cost in the first place, and then after that it's profit for the artist. That's extremely hard to get though if you're not a band that's doing really really well.
There is a big difference between killing someone and having someone file for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy wont be the end of his life, especially if you look at the reasons for his bankruptcy. He'll have some trouble but all in all it will be a slap on his wrist for commiting a crime and getting caught w/o cooperation. People get much, much, worse penalities for having or selling drugs.
Also I would like to see this record company sheet you talk of. I can see a record company paying a royalty of 3% to producers and the artists. This would be if you were looking at an individual CD. That is because it is not the artists who create and distribute the CD. The record company first would have to buy the right to create and distribute the music in addition to the "3%" royality on each CD. Im sure if you're an amateur artist than 3% royalities wont do you much, but it was never suppose to. You make money from licensing your work and the concerts you work on. The record company is its own company, it pays the costs of creating and distributing and it will earn most of the profits.
Think of it like this. If you wrote a novel and published and distributed it yourself it wouldn't be very successful at all. But if it got onto Oprahs book club suddenly you would have a ridiculous demand that you couldn't even handle yourself. The producers and record companies provide artists with the demand increase and the distribution of their music that they would not otherwise get.
If you want to truly use numbers and %ages you would have to look at every number from the creation of a song to the guy buying it at a store. This is including the cost of shipping a CD from X to Y, this is including the cost to ship the materials to physically make a CD from X to Y, this is including the cost to pay the lawyers and everyone elses salary that works for each individual business including the shipping companies and even the artist who drew the font of the band name on the CD cover.
Read the thing i put in spoilers for you. (i edited in after you quoted it, sorry)
i explain everything
...
EVERYTHING
edit: and i'm also going to add that most contracts are pretty standard. i mean, they're the same contract offered from band to band. i'm sure U2 has a contract of their own with a team of lawyers working on it for them though, but for most artists, that's pretty much the standard (the contract i quoted for you)
I can´t see how people listnening to more music than they ever could have done 20 years ago can be bad for the music industry.
If you want to make a living through music in the future, your revenues won´t be coming from track sales, but from gigs and concerts. It will be more of a service than a product. The music will be free, the experience wont.
On August 03 2009 16:54 cUrsOr wrote: I write music, and I am against "sharing". I find that most people who are for it, just want to justify not paying. My wife, and my brother in law, both of who I respect very much, happen to dissagree. It's someone else's time, effort and ideas. I'm essentially a socialist and think lots of things should be public property, but since I live in America and have to pay to eat and drive and do anything- damn right I think Music should have the same costs. In a better system, maybe not though.
SOCIALIST? UNAMERICAN THAT'S FOR SURE GO TO FRANCE!!
Dude artists dont pay the cost of making the CD the record company does. If an artist gets a 3% revenue royality that is a before cost cut. If they get a 3% profit cut than it is 3% of the profit made after the costs. The benefit the producers artists get is exposure and they liscense the work for $$$. It is in their benefit. You are stealing from the record companies by downloading, but you are also stealing from the artists because guess who takes a cut in the loss of money? The artists.
They dont have to sign those contracts or go with the certain producers and labels, but its so greatly in their benefit and profitable to an artist that they will. Those opportunites are obviously hurt when you steal from the provider.
Okay I looked at your contract. It seems it is 13% royalities on net profits. Also to me this contract seems like an artist goes directly to a record company to create and distribute records? It isnt the same as a big name artist get a recording deal. Regardless, I took a look at the contract and if did the most costly recording option and maxed its costs to $80,000 you would only need to sell about 30,750 records at $20 a piece to break all the costs. If you're going to pay max costs and the biggest recording contract then lets hope you can break 30,750 sells with this company.
Honestly that seems reasonable to me. And honestly when you break the law and then fight it when you're caught you deserve to be fined. I really think you guys need to take a look into how bankruptcy works. His life is NOT ruined by any stretch. He will be limited and have some options taken away for a few years and thats it. Its way way waaaay better than if he were to of gotten caught selling pot.
On August 04 2009 06:06 Medzo wrote: Dude artists dont pay the cost of making the CD the record company does. If an artist gets a 3% revenue royality that is a before cost cut. If they get a 3% profit cut than it is 3% of the profit made after the costs. The benefit the producers artists get is exposure and they liscense the work for $$$. It is in their benefit. You are stealing from the record companies by downloading, but you are also stealing from the artists because guess who takes a cut in the loss of money? The artists.
They dont have to sign those contracts or go with the certain producers and labels, but its so greatly in their benefit and profitable to an artist that they will. Those opportunites are obviously hurt when you steal from the provider.
Ummmmm no, that's why it's called RECOUPABLE ADVANCES and I bolded it just for you.
And like I said many many times before this, I think the internet exposure which gets you much more live revenue and radio interest far far far exceeds album sales, when you're not a top tier level at least. I mean, for every song that plays on the radio, you get publishing rights.
By the way, something I mentioned earlier but I haven't mentioned in my few past posts is that artists do get publishing rights from their CDs that don't count towards the recoupable advance (unless the artist stupidly gives it away in the contract). Those do take a hit when people instead download your music, but I think the exposure + possibility of radio play + night club play etc etc etc far outweighs it as you get publishing rights/money from that too. But that's only if you make your own songs in the first place
I completely gave up trying to convince randoms that piracy and sharing benefits artists more than it hurts them after an episode that I'll remember for the rest of my life:
I went in a live show of a comedy group that got nationally famous because of the internet. Ticket prices ranged from $50 to $150, which is very high for our standards. All the ~300 tickets sold out in 2hours so they announced a second show after the first one (this was the one I fit in) and the next batch of ~300 sold in 2 days. And these guys were making shows like these every week. About one month after this show they signed a contract with MTV and now they have their own 1h show on MTV Brazil every thursday. So you can have a clue of how much they're making.
Anyway. When I watched their show here. At the very beginning. Before any jokes, one of them asked the audience: - "How many of you have watched us live before?" - one or two out of 300 raise their hand - "How many of you are here because you watched us on youtube?" - every freaking one of the 300 payers, including me, raise their hand
At this point I was thinking to myself. "Well I guess at least these guys understand how beneficial file-sharing is for artists today. You will never see those guys fighting piracy, that would be stupid." But about ~1min later the same guy asks the audience: "Oh and btw.. if you have any cameras. Please don't record this show and put on the internet. Piracy hurts us, artists."
W T F?
How can people be so dumb? What the hell is so hard for you guys to understand? Isn't this above example obvious enough? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
On August 04 2009 06:06 Medzo wrote: Dude artists dont pay the cost of making the CD the record company does. If an artist gets a 3% revenue royality that is a before cost cut. If they get a 3% profit cut than it is 3% of the profit made after the costs. The benefit the producers artists get is exposure and they liscense the work for $$$. It is in their benefit. You are stealing from the record companies by downloading, but you are also stealing from the artists because guess who takes a cut in the loss of money? The artists.
They dont have to sign those contracts or go with the certain producers and labels, but its so greatly in their benefit and profitable to an artist that they will. Those opportunites are obviously hurt when you steal from the provider.
Ummmmm no, that's why it's called RECOUPABLE ADVANCES and I bolded it just for you.
And like I said many many times before this, I think the internet exposure which gets you much more live revenue and radio interest far far far exceeds album sales, when you're not a top tier level at least. I mean, for every song that plays on the radio, you get publishing rights.
By the way, something I mentioned earlier but I haven't mentioned in my few past posts is that artists do get publishing rights from their CDs that don't count towards the recoupable advance (unless the artist stupidly gives it away in the contract). Those do take a hit when people instead download your music, but I think the exposure + possibility of radio play + night club play etc etc etc far outweighs it as you get publishing rights/money from that too. But that's only if you make your own songs in the first place
I responded to your recoupable advances earlier. I think that for a small or amateur artist free songs and internet exposure is much better than signing a contract when youre not big. But when it comes to downloading a new Tool album, they would certainly make more if it wasn't available for free illegal downloading.
I think there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread.
The profits from the sale of CDs mostly go straight to the record label. The artist hardly sees any of them. A while back this used to work fairly well since recording equipment was ridiculously expensive and only a large and rich organization could afford to provide it. Consequently this is roughly how things would generally go:
The record label discovers and signs an artist The label then pays for the band to record an album (which was very expensive at the time) The label then sells the album, collects money and pays a small cut to the artist.
Unfortunately this system has become obsolete since the cost of quality recording equipment has plummeted and continues to drop at an astronomical rate. These days artist and aspiring producers and enthusiast are able to amass the gear necessary to make high quality recordings fairly easily (by which I mean a dedicated enthusiast with a normal job should be able to do so over a few years).
Here is how things are beginning to evolve into:
Bands with written material decide to make a recording for whatever reason. The band then seeks out an enthusiast with a home studio or use their own equipment The band pays to make the recording and then uses the internet and live shows for exposure The band makes a profit at shows and selling merchandise
I think as the music industry starts moving this way things will be a lot better. Bands will have more creative control without a label holding a contract over their heads. The existence of musicians is guaranteed so small studios will always have a way to profit. As studios become smaller and more numerous the demand for sound engineers and producers will increase making this career option more viable. Everyone gets a chance to make at least a small profit while doing what they love be it playing, recording or producing music.
This brings me to my point. The concept of treating a recording as property only benefits record labels. The only purpose of a record label is to allow artists without vast sums of money to get a chance to make recordings and to promote the band. It no longer costs vast amounts of money to make a recording. The internet promotes artists far better than labels have ever been able to (in addition to evening the playing field between really huge bands and unknown bands in terms of exposure). Thus, having recordings be public property only hurts record labels and to some extent super popular bands like Green Day or Metallica.
SMALL TIME ARTISTS ONLY BENEFIT FROM GIVING AWAY RECORDINGS FOR FREE. RECORD LABELS ARE GREEDY ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE CLINGING TO AN OBSOLETE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED THEM TO PROFIT OFF OF BANDS.
This is just my opinion and I'm not sure how accurate my facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is mostly a correct assumption.
The music industry as a whole is completely disgusting and takes advantage of artists in ways I can't even imagine.
It costs Microsoft lots of developement dollars to make the content on their products. It costs record labels next to zilch. Microsoft gets most of the proceeds from its sales. Artists get crapped on. It's stupid and it's going the way of the dinosaur. The fact that the government is taking action against a kid to the tune of half a mil for something more kids do than graffiti is absolutely ridiculous.
Yea, certain things are illegal, like copying someones ideas and distributing them all over the place. When the artists, and not the music industry, step up and forbid people from stealing their music, you might have a defendable position.
But greedy record labels who already fleece the artists going out and prosecuting students?
On August 04 2009 06:57 mister.bubbles wrote: I think there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread.
The profits from the sale of CDs mostly go straight to the record label. The artist hardly sees any of them. A while back this used to work fairly well since recording equipment was ridiculously expensive and only a large and rich organization could afford to provide it. Consequently this is roughly how things would generally go:
The record label discovers and signs an artist The label then pays for the band to record an album (which was very expensive at the time) The label then sells the album, collects money and pays a small cut to the artist.
Unfortunately this system has become obsolete since the cost of quality recording equipment has plummeted and continues to drop at an astronomical rate. These days artist and aspiring producers and enthusiast are able to amass the gear necessary to make high quality recordings fairly easily (by which I mean a dedicated enthusiast with a normal job should be able to do so over a few years).
Here is how things are beginning to evolve into:
Bands with written material decide to make a recording for whatever reason. The band then seeks out an enthusiast with a home studio or use their own equipment The band pays to make the recording and then uses the internet and live shows for exposure The band makes a profit at shows and selling merchandise
I think as the music industry starts moving this way things will be a lot better. Bands will have more creative control without a label holding a contract over their heads. The existence of musicians is guaranteed so small studios will always have a way to profit. As studios become smaller and more numerous the demand for sound engineers and producers will increase making this career option more viable. Everyone gets a chance to make at least a small profit while doing what they love be it playing, recording or producing music.
This brings me to my point. The concept of treating a recording as property only benefits record labels. The only purpose of a record label is to allow artists without vast sums of money to get a chance to make recordings and to promote the band. It no longer costs vast amounts of money to make a recording. The internet promotes artists far better than labels have ever been able to (in addition to evening the playing field between really huge bands and unknown bands in terms of exposure). Thus, having recordings be public property only hurts record labels and to some extent super popular bands like Green Day or Metallica.
SMALL TIME ARTISTS ONLY BENEFIT FROM GIVING AWAY RECORDINGS FOR FREE. RECORD LABELS ARE GREEDY ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE CLINGING TO AN OBSOLETE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED THEM TO PROFIT OFF OF BANDS.
This is just my opinion and I'm not sure how accurate my facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is mostly a correct assumption.
Your assumptions arent too bad except you seem to think that recording a song is the same as creating a record. Unless you plan to only sell digitally, its not the same. There is still a LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE market for CDs and even records. Record companies are far from obsolete, for now.
Piracy is not a danger to music. It's a danger to the record industry. Anyone who is passionate about making music and being an artist can do so, regardless of piracy. Some of the best artists I have ever heard are relatively unknown, and some who are extremely well-known are some of the worst.
Record labels use the veil of morality, ethics, legality, etc. to hide the exorbitant cash cow they have. There is no moral / legal solution because someone will always be unhappy. Personally, I would just prefer it be the record industry who suffers.
On August 04 2009 07:07 gjg.instinct wrote: Piracy is not a danger to music. It's a danger to the record industry. Anyone who is passionate about making music and being an artist can do so, regardless of piracy. Some of the best artists I have ever heard are relatively unknown, and some who are extremely well-known are some of the worst.
Record labels use the veil of morality, ethics, legality, etc. to hide the exorbitant cash cow they have. There is no moral / legal solution because someone will always be unhappy. Personally, I would just prefer it be the record industry who suffers.
Records labels do use morality, ethics, and legality, "etc" because its exactly what you're exploiting by downloading illegal songs. Yes piracy is a danger to the record company. Anyone who is an artist can make music without a record label. This is all true.
But they do use record labels, and they are under contracts and make big money with them. And if youre stealing from the record company, you're stealing from them and the artists. Don't try to confuse the creation of great music with the act of stealing a song owned and distributed by a company. "The is no moral solution because someone will always be unhappy." The unhappy person is what? the guy who wants to steal thousands of dollars worth of music and without it being legal? I want a billion dollars and I am unhappy I dont have it, but it is not a "moral solution"(?) for me to steal a billion dollars.
Rule #1: Don't trust college/shared internet. Rule#2: Don't download popular trash music owned by huge corporations
This is fucking ridiculous, can't wait until the day where these rules and laws are finally over with. (I expect it to be at least 20 years off, when the children of today who have known really nothing other than downloading music, and the young adults of now take over those industries)
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke. And he does of course.
On August 04 2009 06:57 mister.bubbles wrote: I think there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread.
The profits from the sale of CDs mostly go straight to the record label. The artist hardly sees any of them. A while back this used to work fairly well since recording equipment was ridiculously expensive and only a large and rich organization could afford to provide it. Consequently this is roughly how things would generally go:
The record label discovers and signs an artist The label then pays for the band to record an album (which was very expensive at the time) The label then sells the album, collects money and pays a small cut to the artist.
Unfortunately this system has become obsolete since the cost of quality recording equipment has plummeted and continues to drop at an astronomical rate. These days artist and aspiring producers and enthusiast are able to amass the gear necessary to make high quality recordings fairly easily (by which I mean a dedicated enthusiast with a normal job should be able to do so over a few years).
Here is how things are beginning to evolve into:
Bands with written material decide to make a recording for whatever reason. The band then seeks out an enthusiast with a home studio or use their own equipment The band pays to make the recording and then uses the internet and live shows for exposure The band makes a profit at shows and selling merchandise
I think as the music industry starts moving this way things will be a lot better. Bands will have more creative control without a label holding a contract over their heads. The existence of musicians is guaranteed so small studios will always have a way to profit. As studios become smaller and more numerous the demand for sound engineers and producers will increase making this career option more viable. Everyone gets a chance to make at least a small profit while doing what they love be it playing, recording or producing music.
This brings me to my point. The concept of treating a recording as property only benefits record labels. The only purpose of a record label is to allow artists without vast sums of money to get a chance to make recordings and to promote the band. It no longer costs vast amounts of money to make a recording. The internet promotes artists far better than labels have ever been able to (in addition to evening the playing field between really huge bands and unknown bands in terms of exposure). Thus, having recordings be public property only hurts record labels and to some extent super popular bands like Green Day or Metallica.
SMALL TIME ARTISTS ONLY BENEFIT FROM GIVING AWAY RECORDINGS FOR FREE. RECORD LABELS ARE GREEDY ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE CLINGING TO AN OBSOLETE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED THEM TO PROFIT OFF OF BANDS.
This is just my opinion and I'm not sure how accurate my facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is mostly a correct assumption.
Your assumptions arent too bad except you seem to think that recording a song is the same as creating a record. Unless you plan to only sell digitally, its not the same. There is still a LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE market for CDs and even records. Record companies are far from obsolete, for now.
You are exaggerating big time.
The CD market has plummeted for a reason that has everything to do with the internet. CD's are generally totally obsolete and the only people that buy records are collectors.
On August 04 2009 07:07 gjg.instinct wrote: Piracy is not a danger to music. It's a danger to the record industry. Anyone who is passionate about making music and being an artist can do so, regardless of piracy. Some of the best artists I have ever heard are relatively unknown, and some who are extremely well-known are some of the worst.
Record labels use the veil of morality, ethics, legality, etc. to hide the exorbitant cash cow they have. There is no moral / legal solution because someone will always be unhappy. Personally, I would just prefer it be the record industry who suffers.
Records labels do use morality, ethics, and legality, "etc" because its exactly what you're exploiting by downloading illegal songs. Yes piracy is a danger to the record company. Anyone who is an artist can make music without a record label. This is all true.
But they do use record labels, and they are under contracts and make big money with them. And if youre stealing from the record company, you're stealing from them and the artists. Don't try to confuse the creation of great music with the act of stealing a song owned and distributed by a company. "The is no moral solution because someone will always be unhappy." The unhappy person is what? the guy who wants to steal thousands of dollars worth of music and without it being legal? I want a billion dollars and I am unhappy I dont have it, but it is not a "moral solution"(?) for me to steal a billion dollars.
I've though about this argument over and over again and it has re-appeared SEVERAL times on TL.net.
The person that you quoted has said something very true and I'm pretty sure you'll be surprised to know that RECORD COMPANIES DON'T PAY YOU SH*T.
They give you a "record deal". That means they pay you an upfront amount to make music for the label. For most artists (if they're already good) this is like $1m - $2m. We're not talking Beyonce or Rhianna or any SUPER star. We're talking your average up and coming musician. The Veronicas, for example, (Australia's hottest and most promising pop act) were signed for a sh*tty $1m. With that you may get royalty per cd sold or every time your song is played on the radio but Record Labels and Publishing companies usually take a FAIR chunk of this.
So, how does an artist make money? TOURING.
Why do you think Madonna is so super rich? Coz she tours almost every year and does every bloody city in the world. The woman is almost half a billion dollars worth!
So, what do you need to become a succesful touring artist? YOU NEED GOOD PROMOTION.
---> That's what the record labels and publishing companies are. PROMOTERS. They add NOTHING to music. They're Don King pimping you for your next fight and dumping you when you lose.
In the day and age of the internet where distribution and communication is THE EASIEST THING POSSIBLE artists should start looking at differetn modes of business. Instead of having someone pimp you WHY NOT GIVE YOUR ALBUM OUT FOR FREE ala NIN?!?! Think about it, all you really need is publicity and if people like your songs you're gonna make money anyways from touring/concerts! To the individual artist I REALLY REALLY REALLY believe the current industry model is DYING OUT. You cant stop people from pirating, all you can do is think of a new, better business model to promote yourself.... and this scares record labels because they KNOW they're not gonna make money from record sales any more.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE ARTISTS. This is about the record labels. Most artist don't give a flying f*ck if their songs are on youtube or being pirated. If you told them their song got 40 million hits on youtube they'd be pleased, because hey, ching ching ching ching lots of people like me = lots of tickets sold at concerts = MONEY MONEY MONEY. In the end that's what it comes down to...
The CD market has plummeted for a reason that has everything to do with the internet. CD's are generally totally obsolete and the only people that buy records are collectors.
Don't pretend otherwise.
Not pretending here. CDs and records still bring in some very large $$$ in revenue. I didnt say they havent fallen. Doesnt mean there isnt a mutli million dollar market around. Also people who are into music still buy records, they have a different tone and if you're passionate about music you might enjoy them (I do).
Also im am not trying to say that artists make most of the money off CD sales. I never have said this. They DO make money, and a good bit of it, and they also benefit A LOT and make money because of the fact that they have these record companies partnering with them.
Record companies make records and CDs. They have a right to protect their music and sue. You do not have a right to steal it. The justifications im hearing are bullshit and most of them have extremely little understanding of how marketing works.
The most common justification is that record companies don't make good music, the artists do. But it is the artists that benefit from these record companies and make good music with the services and revenue they provide for them. If you cant see this, just wake up and realise that if they didnt benefit from them, they would not need record deals. A company that makes CDs will profit the most of the sell of the CD, use some common sense. It doesn't mean that an artist wont make a shit ton of money from it too. 13% net profit is a lot of fucking money man. Imagine making an album 10 years ago and then you a very small amount (lets say 1000) CDs are purchased this month for just $10 each. And $2 is net profit. Congrats you just made $260 in a month for something you did 10 fucking years ago, and you did no work creating anything physical at all in the present. You have no more risk, only return. And you can still benefit off the publicity you get from whatever record label that promotes you. And you can find opportunity having a record that is still selling 10 years later thanks to this record company.
Now lets say you the artist decided to create these CDs yourself. Here you are 10 years later having to order material and physically create 1000 CDs then ship them and cover all of the material costs, then intangible costs like shipping or promoting, use marketing techniques to find an ideal retail price, have a lawyer on salary, use proper operational management models to estimate the demand of your own CD this month before it happens (or pay holding costs to store unnecessary CDs you created to meet demands as they come). This is like the very very basics of what a producing something would take. Or you can have another company take care of all that for you and pay you your royalty fee and help promote your own label and take on all the risks.
You decide what is beneficial for an artist who has demand.
On August 04 2009 08:01 MaZza[KIS] wrote: So, how does an artist make money? TOURING.
Please allow me to extrapolate and generalize your answer to every type of media content developer. Ranging from musicians to graph artists and programmers.
So, how does a content creator makes money without selling Intellectual Property? SERVICES
Welcome to 2009. When independent creators are bigger and more powerful than ever. And record labels are so desperate to see their outdated business model die that they got to the point where they sue individuals hoping that spreading fear will slow down their inevitable disappearance.
pirating is a problem that the society should find a solution for, sure. But as far as a crime goes, it's not stealing. Shoplifting should be a worse crime than downloading music, and shoplifting isn't much of a crime in the first place. and while the spreading of copyrighted materials might cause some problems it also provides alot of wealth for the citizens in a society, basically access to unlimited digital media. I have some issues against owning ideas in the first place, if you can copy someone's idea then you should be allowed to and the only restrictions to this would be if it the copying of such ideas would do more harm than it does good, for example the case of promoting companies spending money on research. But intellectual property only goes as far as far as we allow it to, and there's no link between owning ideas and what i consider basic human rights such as free speech and the ability to make a living.
I personally feel that piracy has its positives. It allows consumers to spread software that would otherwise be unknown. For example, Spore (game) may not necessarily have had the best advertisement methods. However, due to the popularity in downloads in torrent sites, it quickly caught attention. I feel that this works the same way for movies, music, etc.
Besides, are they seriously going to sue teenagers for several $K? I highly doubt they'll make money, let alone compensate for legal fees.
i dont get you guys complaining about support the artist, it's hard for me to find even semi famous torrents sometimes.
If theres a torrent up of their songs then they're probably already getting paid a shit load. Not to mention like said before, the only REAL incentive should be the passion for music, money is just a plus
On August 04 2009 07:47 CharlieMurphy wrote: This is fucking ridiculous, can't wait until the day where these rules and laws are finally over with. (I expect it to be at least 20 years off, when the children of today who have known really nothing other than downloading music, and the young adults of now take over those industries)
Yeah man... like we'll never let a fucker like Nixon in office ever again man... things will be totally different man... everyone will just share their stuff man... we'll make sure there's never war again man.
On August 03 2009 17:17 JohnColtrane wrote: selling music only cheapens and diminishes it. music should be free for everyone
musicians that truly enjoy making music release it for free in their spare time, rather than charging people and making a job out of it. making great music and interacting with great musicians is the reward
How retarded. Who the hell are you to say that other people's work should be free for everyone? If people want to charge for their work, they should be able to do it. You're asking people for a fucking forced charity. Why don't you donate your house to charity and the "reward" will be feeling good you helped a ton of people get fed?
On August 03 2009 17:17 JohnColtrane wrote: selling music only cheapens and diminishes it. music should be free for everyone
musicians that truly enjoy making music release it for free in their spare time, rather than charging people and making a job out of it. making great music and interacting with great musicians is the reward
How retarded. Who the hell are you to say that other people's work should be free for everyone? If people want to charge for their work, they should be able to do it. You're asking people for a fucking forced charity. Why don't you donate your house to charity and the "reward" will be feeling good you helped a ton of people get fed?
You didn't steal anything from the musician, you played your own very accurate cover of their song. Your instrument was a program and your notes were ones and zeros rather than vibrations in the air but you took nothing from him. Previously you didn't have the song, your computer created the song, you made a cover of it for personal use. It's the same principle as taking a photo of a painting, you haven't stolen the painting, you've used your own equipment to do your own picture which bares the likeness of the original. Until you start selling it you've not stolen a thing. The difference between recording a cover of a song you like with a musical instrument and with a program is negligible.
On August 03 2009 17:44 Foucault wrote: Let's have some fun this thread is sick I wanna take a ride on your hydralisk
Actually a lot of songs revolve around clever catch phrases and a nifty chorus.
hahahaa, I couldn't stop laughing at that first line.
I presume the $675k fine was meant to represent not only the value of the music stolen, but also the loss of profit assumed from his sharing as well as the criminality of his actions?
As a person who literally never downloads music I'm probably a bit less biased than most here. I think that selling CDs and holding on to the believe downloading is illegal is old fashioned. If I were into music I'd gladly pay $10+ for something such as spotify. Allocating this money to the artists will see greater returns than any cd sale and it will supply people with whatever music they want. Seems like a win-win situation and it's only a matter of time till the music industry realizes this. So till then download all you want to convince them of a long needed change.
Also there is the argument that a small artist who is very much in need of money will greatly benefit the sharing of music online. It gives him an audience and a medium to reach people without being in the position to do so through TV and CDs. He can use the online sharing attitude and bring himself to the next level. On the other hand the multi-millionaires of the music industry might be losing money but at the same time they are making millions by filling stadiums.
As a person who isn't insistent on MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PIRATE and who doesn't feel that THE LAW IS THE LAW DAMN IT all I have to say is "hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..."
On August 04 2009 06:57 mister.bubbles wrote: I think there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread.
The profits from the sale of CDs mostly go straight to the record label. The artist hardly sees any of them. A while back this used to work fairly well since recording equipment was ridiculously expensive and only a large and rich organization could afford to provide it. Consequently this is roughly how things would generally go:
The record label discovers and signs an artist The label then pays for the band to record an album (which was very expensive at the time) The label then sells the album, collects money and pays a small cut to the artist.
Unfortunately this system has become obsolete since the cost of quality recording equipment has plummeted and continues to drop at an astronomical rate. These days artist and aspiring producers and enthusiast are able to amass the gear necessary to make high quality recordings fairly easily (by which I mean a dedicated enthusiast with a normal job should be able to do so over a few years).
Here is how things are beginning to evolve into:
Bands with written material decide to make a recording for whatever reason. The band then seeks out an enthusiast with a home studio or use their own equipment The band pays to make the recording and then uses the internet and live shows for exposure The band makes a profit at shows and selling merchandise
I think as the music industry starts moving this way things will be a lot better. Bands will have more creative control without a label holding a contract over their heads. The existence of musicians is guaranteed so small studios will always have a way to profit. As studios become smaller and more numerous the demand for sound engineers and producers will increase making this career option more viable. Everyone gets a chance to make at least a small profit while doing what they love be it playing, recording or producing music.
This brings me to my point. The concept of treating a recording as property only benefits record labels. The only purpose of a record label is to allow artists without vast sums of money to get a chance to make recordings and to promote the band. It no longer costs vast amounts of money to make a recording. The internet promotes artists far better than labels have ever been able to (in addition to evening the playing field between really huge bands and unknown bands in terms of exposure). Thus, having recordings be public property only hurts record labels and to some extent super popular bands like Green Day or Metallica.
SMALL TIME ARTISTS ONLY BENEFIT FROM GIVING AWAY RECORDINGS FOR FREE. RECORD LABELS ARE GREEDY ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE CLINGING TO AN OBSOLETE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED THEM TO PROFIT OFF OF BANDS.
This is just my opinion and I'm not sure how accurate my facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is mostly a correct assumption.
Your assumptions arent too bad except you seem to think that recording a song is the same as creating a record. Unless you plan to only sell digitally, its not the same. There is still a LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE market for CDs and even records. Record companies are far from obsolete, for now.
I'm aware of the difference between recording songs and physically producing/marketing a record. If people bought CDs as much as they did then piracy probably would hurt artists. The market for CDs has been decimated by MP3 players and piracy though so the only people who are buying them are fanatics.
I also didn't mean that record companies are completely obsolete. I was referring more to the BIG labels such as Sony or Geffen. I think (hope) that small and independent labels will be able to flourish once the old reptilian giants have died out like they should.
EPT
And I agree, these days on radio they play pure garbage. How can one call that even music...![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/01/opinion/musicforweb2.gif)
