Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: StaedlerMars on 14 Oct 2007, 06:36

Title: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: StaedlerMars on 14 Oct 2007, 06:36
Punknews (http://www.punknews.org/article/25898)


Quote
We have sold around 200k records across 3 releases. We’re not ‘huge’ by any stretch but do alright and live off (and ON subsequently) the road. Fans and friends ask me all the time how I feel about "stealing music." I just told someone yesterday "I have a hard time seeing it as stealing…when I don’t see any money from cd sales to begin with. What are they actually TAKING from me?"

If you want to squeeze an opinion on theft out of me, ask me about the dude that grabbed our tshirt off the table tonight in Detroit or better yet.. ask me about record contracts.

I encourage our fans to acquire our album however they please. The philosophy I’ve adopted is that if you’re supporting disc sales, you’re keeping the old model around longer…the one that forces dudes like me to tour 9 mos/year if they want to make ends meet with a career in music. If you wanna really support a band, "steal" their album….help bury the label….and buy a tshirt when you show up at their show and sing every word.

See, I always figured that small-time bands don't make that much money of records sales. And that it was their shows that most bands really make money off, but I've never been in a band that actually produced something, so I'm not sure.

If a band is telling me to download their music illegally, what's stopping me?
How much do bands rely on cd sales (big bands and small bands?)
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: RockabillyLove on 14 Oct 2007, 06:54
All I have to say is that I really don't give a shit. I download anyway, if that is what I get arrested for, I will just laugh at fate. You know, the bands that make the biggest fuss about downloading are bands like Metallica. As if they need the extra cash from a few post-craze cd's being sold. The bands that could actually use the money know that they're going to make more money off of selling t-shirts and stickers than their CD's at shows anyway.

Besides, if I like a band enough, I still buy their cd.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: GenericName on 14 Oct 2007, 07:37
That's probably the best argument I've heard for music sharing.  Although, one could argue that you're taking revenue away from the record industry by downloading, so someone still loses even if it's not the band.
People that argue this show the fact that the RIAA is slowly making less and less money as the years drag on. It was something like 13 billion dollars in the '90s, now it's down to 11 billion. They ask, can we send an industry into the ground in the name of progress?
Are self-producing bands (over the internet) the music industry of the future? I can see music becoming something like the art industry, where people could have steady jobs and make music in their free time. Perhaps record labels, simply because of their concept, are doomed to failure soon in the future.
No one can get around the fact that online music sharing is unarguably illegal. We can justify it by stating some of the RIAA's more ethically questionable practices, but recieving a digital copy of the music without permission from the artist (when you don't already own a copy, and you're not just sampling it before you buy the album) is against the law. I may be a hypocrite because I'm listening to illegally downloaded music right now, but I do have to point out that no matter who condones it, by US law music sharing is illegal.
For more on this, try reading Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. Ironically, it's available for download online if you just google it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 14 Oct 2007, 08:19
People already do have steady jobs and make music in their free time. I know a lot of musicians but I don't know any that make money from it and only a couple who ever hope to or have, and in most cases wouldn't even if the opportunity arose. DIY bands have been self-producing and distributing their music for about thirty years now, long before the internet came along. That's just made it even easier.

Bad as the music industry is, the art world is not a good model to follow. With the art industry in order to make a living you have to produce work which appeals to certain narrow groups with a large amount of capital. Since the production of art is so time-consuming and only certain kinds of pieces lend themselves to mass production artists don't have the luxury musicians do of being able to appeal to large amounts of individuals with little capital.

I've never had a problem with downloading music myself, I have little respect for the idea of property anyway. If it has a knock-on effect of destroying the music industry then so much the better.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Thrillho on 14 Oct 2007, 08:32
I make music because I want to, just like I write and draw because I want to. I don't make money from any of it. Doing any of it for a living would be great, but the majority of people don't make much of a living off it and so work as well.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: valley_parade on 14 Oct 2007, 08:48
If EitS want to put one of their EPs up for download, and I don't have the money to go to a show and buy it from them, damn right I'm gonna download it.

I think my whole excuse for downloading instead of buying is "I AM A BROKE COLLEGE STUDENT".
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: ALoveSupreme on 14 Oct 2007, 10:07
I love that that quote is from Throwdown.  I don't think I would even bother stealing an album of theirs (it is a very well worded quote, though).

Anyhow, a friend of mine for a 400 level course made a documentary on music piracy, and it pretty much stated the same thing.  Who's really losing in music piracy?  Not anyone that you give half a shit about.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 14 Oct 2007, 11:05
This is worth discussing again I think, in light of a few things that have happened since last time. I've given this some thought and here's how I think of music today, at this specific moment. I'm not saying "this is correct" or "this is definitely the right way to think of it and if you disagree you are an asshat" - this is literally my own personal two penneth at this moment in time. Feel free to disagree!

A few weeks back, a musician whose work I have enjoyed for a good long while sent me his new band's new record. He did it because he knew I am a massive fan and he is just an incredibly decent person. It was a nice gesture and the spirit in which it was made was literally "isn't this great, we all got to hang out in a studio and make a record in our spare time. We enjoyed making it and you might like listening to it so here it is!" The band is four guys and between them they have around six kids. They all work hard for a living but they managed to get together and make a great record because they like making music as a hobby. Between them they are experienced enough to appreciate that nobody owes them a living because they happen to be extraordinarily good musicians. They have day jobs that earn enough money to support their dependants. It's one of the best records of this year too. You can buy it from their website for a very reasonable amount, essentially enough to cover how much it made to make print the vinyl and the artwork. For a while I wondered how I could show my support for their band and how I could get some other folks to go the extra mile and actually buy this new record from their site. In the end I just decided to buy ten records so I could just give the records to other folks who might want to hear it also. This exchange made me think about the whole downloading music situation quite a lot.

I think that if you are in music to make a living, you have maybe missed the point. I don't think anyone ever wrote a song while thinking "this song is for people with X amount of money only". If they did, I don't think any of us would be too interested in hearing their music anyway. Art is separate from commerce for a number of reasons that are so obvious that I don't want to insult people by reiterating them again. You can't judge a musician by how many records they sell or a person by how many records they can afford to buy. I understand that making music can be expensive, which is why people are going to have to come up with new ways to justify charging people however much they can afford to spend. The system works much better when the audience is asked to contribute but not forced. The example I use time and time again is that of Questionable Content itself, which I consider to be part of the independent music community. Jeph has found a way to give people his art for free but has also managed to think of novel and non-intrusive ways of allowing people to support his work if they choose to do so. I know it's favouritism to use this analogy on his forum but you can change the name Jeph Jacques to John Allison, Chris Onstad, Mitch Clem or anyone you want to. The point remains - there is a way of making money from art without the interest or blessing of the mainstream. The proof is right here on this forum, in this community.

The gentleman quoted in the original post is correct. The old system of selling over-priced CDs in megastores was only benefiting the industry itself, not the artists (aside from a tiny minority). Forcing artists to find new ways to make money from their art independently of gigantic corporations can only be a good thing. I think bands should seriously consider just setting up a Paypal account on their website and making money purely from gigs, merchandise and donations. It won't make you a millionaire but that's probably because the point of music is not to make you stinking rich. The music itself is the end result, anything else is tertiary. Honestly, what good did it ever do anyone anyway? How many bands made better albums or became more productive after they became financially solvent? Not as many as you might assume, that's for sure. Less income also means that bands wouldn't be able to make such costly, over-indulgent albums, which can only be a good thing for the state of music as a whole. By nature, we all like to assume that everything is always like it has been in the past and will continue to be. We like to think that because U2 and Metallica were able to become incredibly rich men, everyone should be able to make their pile in exactly the same manner. The way the music industry operates is changing and people are going to have to change with it. The assumption that somehow your audience owes you this living is arrogant and misguided.

With regards to the downloading music phenomena, I still think it's essentially a good thing because it is going to kick those purely interested in profit out of the music scene. When the corporations realise there is no money to be found conning people into buying their over-priced coasters, they will up sticks and leave. At the end of the day, it's not quite the same as stealing because nothing physical is being taken off the shelves. If you want the artwork and the discs, you still have to pay because you are actually gaining something tangible. A mess of binary representing an album? I still don't really understand how that can be considered the same. If it was my music being downloaded, that's the way I'd think of it. Surely, surely it's enough that people are taking an interest in your art of all the billions of people in the world. I'd be flattered and encouraged to continue, not indignant that someone not as financially fortunate as other folks was getting to hear your music. Like has been already mentioned, you can support bands by going to shows.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: pilsner on 14 Oct 2007, 14:35
Everyone who thinks that we should band together and find Tommy a job where he gets paid by the word, say "aye".  I think copy this well worded deserves to be on the music blog *ahem* especially if I get to do a point/counterpoint with Harry as my proxy.  Harry, you don't know me, but I'm a superb debater and an excellent ventriloquist.

There have been a number of studies that have shown no correlation between music downloading and the decade long decline in CD sales that the industry has been suffering through.  (Source: CNet (http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html); Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html); MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3073260) citing conflicting studies with the RIAA commissioned study showing, unsurprisingly that downloads do hurt and that you should go out and buy 20 copies of the new J-Lo album right now.)

Nevertheless, I respectfully differ with Tommykins over the right and propriety of musicians to expect to be paid for their art on a per album business and to want to make a living from their music.  Paying someone to amuse, entertain, challenge or educate you does not devalue the amusement, challenge or education in itself.  Wanting to be paid to amuse, etertain, challenge or educate doesn't mean you can't mix art with the craft.  Believing that your audience owes you the lifestyle of U2 or Metallica is arrogant.  However, believing that your audience owes you a certain quantum of money in return for the privilege of listening to your art, that's  not arrogant.  If you feel obliged to pay the plumber, the electrician and the locksmith for their services, why not the people who just provided you with a pleasurable, meaningful and inspiring bunch of sounds?  Just because it's art doesn't mean that it can't also be a (very, very important) service.  If it helps, think of musicians as people making food for your soul.  You pay for food, right?

Furthermore, I am very dubious of Tommy's implication that bands tend to worsen when they become financially solvent.  Personally, my top 20 favorite live musicians are all professional.  They make a living doing what they do.  They all sound awesome (to me).  And with only a few exceptions, I got into each of them when they after they had become professional musicians.

I think we as a community of music hobbyists have to distinguish between our dislike of the Big Music/Big Label business dynamic and our opinions about our moral obligations to buy the albums of the musicians we like and listen to.  Sure, buying an artist's CD at Virgin doesn't put much money in their pocket.  Perhaps this is a reason to not buy the CD at Virgin, but it is not a reason to decline to buy the CD at all.  Personally, I try whenever possible to wait to buy the CD at a concert and download after the album leaks.  If I can't go to the concert or the merch table is ridiculous, I order off the (indie) label's or the artist's website.  I definitely have not paid for every album I own, but I hew to this system as strictly as I can, especially for live and touring musicians.  My goal is to, whenever possible, put as much money as I can in the artist's pocket.  Frankly, beefing up merch tables at concerts could really help.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Spinless on 14 Oct 2007, 15:25
Most (if not all) statistics and 'facts' published by the RIAA and other such parties are VERY exaggerated, twisted and distorted, assuming they're not outright lies in the first place.

Tommy and Pilsner talked very well about the artist, so I'm going to talk about the industry, and specifically, lawsuits.

A common misconception is that filesharing is 'music piracy' or 'theft'. Now, I don't pretend to keep up to date with the english language, but in order for a theft to occur, property has to exist in the first place right? Theft is taking something physical from it's original owner and thus depriving them of that object, or profit they might make from the object. So, filesharing is not theft. Yet people are still afraid of 'stealing' music? Well...no...they're not...
You see, one argument for the lawsuits that people keep getting hit with is that they are an effective deterrent from illegally downloading music. Much like the idea that filesharing is theft, this is also a lie.
Every single day, more and more people are logging onto filesharing networks. The more people log on, the less likely you are to be slapped with a lawsuit. While the RIAA, IFIAA or whatever will likely say 'The lawsuits have vastly reduced the number of filesharers in the US and worldwide' the opposite is true. Infact, since the lawsuits started, the number of filesharers has increased from around 2 million to 15 million worldwide, with more than half of these people living in the US.

Now, the recording industry is reporting a steady decline in sales each year since filesharing became the 'big thing'. They're attributing this loss of sales to filesharing. What they don't publicize is that they distribute less and less CDs to stores worldwide each year. Nearly up to 150 million CDs worldwide. It is this 'loss of sales' that has been blamed on p2p networks.
Apparently filesharing is KILLING the music industry, which lets be honest, is an industry that *should* have died  back in the 80s, like the British RIAA equivalent the BPI promised back in early 80s with this advertising campaign:
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4565/hometapingiskillingmusian9.png)

The recording industry is reporting a loss of "billions" in sales, and quite frankly, this is so absurd and ridiculous, mostly for reasons already stated in this thread, and indeed in this post that I'm not even going to address it.

Filesharers are not criminals, they have not done anything wrong. There is not a single person worldwide who has been found guilty in a court of law for "filesharing" or even "illegally downloading music". Why is this? Well...it's not illegal. It's frowned upon, but none of the things that the RIAA is slapping lawsuits on people for seem to be illegal. They HAVE however broken many laws regarding people's privacy and invaded on a lot of people's rights in order to get money from these alleged "criminals".

It's a well known fact, the major label music industry is comprised of nothing but complete and utter bastards, and they are doing nothing to change my mind. Actually, I read a report that since parents have been wisening up and stating they can not be held accountable for their children infringing copyright laws, the recording industry has now started targetting children.

That's right. After suing the poor, the elderly AND the deceased, encouraging people to drop out of school to pay up and using scare tactics and harassment in order to get money from people, they are now directly suing minors.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 14 Oct 2007, 15:31
Everyone who thinks that we should band together and find Tommy a job where he gets paid by the word, say "aye".

I wrote this at work! I write everything at work, so I am being paid. Thanks though. It's nice of you to humour my bullshit.

If you feel obliged to pay the plumber, the electrician and the locksmith for their services, why not the people who just provided you with a pleasurable, meaningful and inspiring bunch of sounds?  Just because it's art doesn't mean that it can't also be a (very, very important) service.

The plumber only has one reason to fix my pipes and that is because he expects to be paid for this service. Presumably, people create art everywhere without expecting to be paid. I wrote a song last week and I will never be paid for it. I think I did it to expel a complex emotion from my system and afterwards I felt a lot better. The plumber does not plumb unless he is being paid in some way. It is a functional act as opposed to a creative one.

You pay for food, right?

Yes but If I could download it for free I would.

Furthermore, I am very dubious of Tommy's implication that bands tend to worsen when they become financially solvent.  Personally, my top 20 favorite live musicians are all professional.  They make a living doing what they do.  They all sound awesome (to me).  And with only a few exceptions, I got into each of them when they after they had become professional musicians.

I think they happen to be good musicians, regardless of their profession. Nothing will change when music ceases to be such a lucrative career except for weeding out those who are in it for the money. If you can eek out a living playing music, that's neat. Nina Nastasia does this and I can't think of anyone I hold in higher regard as an artist. She does it by touring extensively and recording for independent labels. Her lifestyle is modest and thus she can survive on the relatively small amount of money she earns from playing out. Fair play to her. She had been playing for a decade before friends insisted that she should make a record. I think she's a good example of how an artist can make a living without an artistic compromise. I guess I wasn't very clear that I do believe it can be done correctly. Nastasia will suffer not a jot from the demise of major labels/the CD format because she's never been part of that world.

I think we as a community of music hobbyists have to distinguish between our dislike of the Big Music/Big Label business dynamic and our opinions about our moral obligations to buy the albums of the musicians we like and listen to.  Sure, buying an artist's CD at Virgin doesn't put much money in their pocket.  Perhaps this is a reason to not buy the CD at Virgin, but it is not a reason to decline to buy the CD at all.  Personally, I try whenever possible to wait to buy the CD at a concert and download after the album leaks.  If I can't go to the concert or the merch table is ridiculous, I order off the (indie) label's or the artist's website.  I definitely have not paid for every album I own, but I hew to this system as strictly as I can, especially for live and touring musicians.  My goal is to, whenever possible, put as much money as I can in the artist's pocket.  Frankly, beefing up merch tables at concerts could really help.

You're settling though. Why should we accept that an artist will be shat upon by a major label? I don't think we should. I want artists to forgo major labels entirely and sell to me directly. The means to do so now exist. I buy albums direct from bands quite a lot these days. You can always email them and ask. If they decided to buy into the current system, I regret that I suffer from an incredible lack of sympathy that people are downloading their music rather than lining the pockets of a huge corporation. I want change and I think the best way to do it is to force the majors out of business.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Spinless on 14 Oct 2007, 15:47
If they decided to buy into the current system, I regret that I suffer from an incredible lack of sympathy that people are downloading their music rather than lining the pockets of a huge corporation. I want change and I think the best way to do it is to force the majors out of business.

Are you making the assumption that all bands on majors decide that they're going to get fucked? I have a lot of sympathy for a lot of artist because face it, most are pretty much tricked into signing horrible contracts that guarantee they'll end up owing money to their label. It doesn't mean I'll put money into the corporation's pocket, but I don't feel somewhat bad for the artist who's been thoroughly screwed right in the ass, it doesn't matter if they asked for it, they definitely didn't expect it to be that big. In cases like this, I doubt the artist cares at all about people downloading their music, most would be encouraging it, they'd just be angry at the label. Not their fans.

(Remember folks, not every band that's on a major is in it to turn a profit. Majors really can help to create a better album or help you reach a wider audience. Remember who the 'enemy' is, it's not the bands on the major label)
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 14 Oct 2007, 16:03
Take a job eating bees....
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 14 Oct 2007, 16:21
You're settling though. Why should we accept that an artist will be shat upon by a major label? I don't think we should. I want artists to forgo major labels entirely and sell to me directly. The means to do so now exist. I buy albums direct from bands quite a lot these days. You can always email them and ask. If they decided to buy into the current system, I regret that I suffer from an incredible lack of sympathy that people are downloading their music rather than lining the pockets of a huge corporation. I want change and I think the best way to do it is to force the majors out of business.

As well as buying directly from bands there is also the wonderful world of DIY distros. I always marvel at the fact that there are people out there kind-hearted enough that they will put massive amounts of time and effort into making sure that the music they love can be heard by other people too. They make no money from it, in fact they usually lose it, but many keep at it year in year out. There is so much music that I love that I would never have been able to hear if it wasn't for those excellent, unsung individuals.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Liz on 14 Oct 2007, 21:35
I download music.

That's all there is to it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Luke C on 18 Oct 2007, 03:55
A common misconception is that filesharing is 'music piracy' or 'theft'. Now, I don't pretend to keep up to date with the english language, but in order for a theft to occur, property has to exist in the first place right? Theft is taking something physical from it's original owner and thus depriving them of that object, or profit they might make from the object. So, filesharing is not theft. Yet people are still afraid of 'stealing' music? Well...no...they're not...

Sorry to get technical but, in english law at least, property dosn't have to be tangible. So it IS theft.

But like the joke says: "I wouldn't steal a car but if my friend had one and he could make me a free copy I would take it".

I think it is perfectly reasonable for any musician to expect a fair living of music. If they want to be mega-rich then they are most likely deluded but it is fair to receive money for something you create, tangible or not. Just because there are many people on the internet giving away their music for free not everyone should be expected to do so.

Personally I think it is fair if you download a band's album for free, that you enjoy and will listen to it again, as long as at some point you give them some sort of money for it. Either you buy the album, go to a gig or buy some merch whatever. I just think morally it is the decent thing to do.

Perhaps some people on this board would prefer music to be more like the art world: lots of art produced, very little recognised or rewarded. If this were the case in music you would essentially only have small bands playing local bars and nothing more. I don't think I'm the only one who can appreciate both this and bigger bands.

Basically what I think is this:
Downloading music is illegal but IMO as long as the artist gets some money for it its not immoral
I don't dislike bands just because they can perform to more than 2,000 people at a time
I don't dislike bands for wanting money for their art but I do if they want excessive amounts
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Spinless on 18 Oct 2007, 05:19
Well, that's all filesharing is. Making a free copy. Theft is the removal of property whether it's tangible or not. Theft is taking something away from a person.. But with filesharing, no property is removed from anywhere. Most studies (all studies not conducted my the majr labels) show that there is almost no loss at all from filesharing. Sure, maybe it affect one of two album sales. But it takes 5000 downloads to negate one album sale apparently.
It is much like your friend making you a photocopy of a magazine article. An mp3 is a shitty compressed poor sounding digital copy of a recording. Put simply, mp3s are not worth money.

And it is NOT theft. Theft is illegal. There are currently no laws against filesharing and downloading music.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: supersheep on 18 Oct 2007, 05:26
On the legal issue: Filesharing is definitely not theft. Downloading and uploading is a civil matter (there is a contract forbidding unauthorised sharing in there somewhere), not a crime, although selling pirated material is a criminal matter.

EDIT: Just to clarify, this is (as far as I know) the legal status in the UK and Ireland.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: John Curtin on 18 Oct 2007, 06:16
Depends on where you are.  As far as I know, in some jurisdictions, it is an offence to distribute unlicensed copies, in others it is an offence to receive unlicensed copies.  In many jurisdictions there is no criminal offence relating to copyright at all.  Problems can arise in terms of conflict of laws: where is the offence or breach of contract or tort committed when you download something from the internet hosted in a different country?  Is it where the server is, or is it where your computer is, or both?  Does a person who uploads onto the internet commit an offence in every place where somebody downloads?

I don't know the answer to these questions because I haven't studied conflict of laws or intellectual property law.  But it's definitely not theft: theft involves physically moving some property belonging to somebody else.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 18 Oct 2007, 07:25
Personally I think it is fair if you download a band's album for free, that you enjoy and will listen to it again, as long as at some point you give them some sort of money for it. Either you buy the album, go to a gig or buy some merch whatever. I just think morally it is the decent thing to do.

Why should my appreciation of something be morally reliant on a financial transaction? And can can I really be said to have downloaded a band's album when all I have is a few digital files? Is it possible to really claim ownership of a sequence of sounds?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: StaedlerMars on 18 Oct 2007, 10:27
Just as much as it is possible to claim ownership over an idea, and people do that all the time.

I think he meant that, instead of buying the album, you can sponsor the band in ways that actual affect them. You're not morally responsible, but it would be a nice gesture. The artists did put some work into it, and you can show some appreciation. Whether this is by sending them an e-mail with 'you guys are great' or by buying one of their shirts - if the band is making music just to make music - they'll be glad to accept both.

and as an update,

according to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/10/16/radiohead-download-piracy-tech-internet-cx_ag_1016techradiohead.html?boxes=author) people are still more likely to rip the album than actually get it for free of the website.

I figure it's not actually accurate because people probably just assumed that they wouldn't pay anything anyways, but apparently more radiohead albums were downloaded through filesharing/torrents than from the actual website.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 18 Oct 2007, 11:20
Reporter: "How do you feel about people downloading your music off the internet?"

Dave Grohl: "I don't care. I'm already rich."

Now, that's a man who's got his priorities straight. Perhaps.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Ninja-bot on 18 Oct 2007, 11:33
I'd hesitate to download an album from a local band whom I know to have fronted the costs of their own EP/album. Also, at most shows, the CDs on sale were purchased by the band (for cost, or near to it as possible) for resale. They end up seeing a few dollars more, more often than not from those sales.

In the end, do your part and help support the bands you love, otherwise they may not make another album of music, downloadable off a torrent or otherwise.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: jeph on 18 Oct 2007, 13:29
In my case, it's a simple question of whether a band benefits more from my ten dollars spent on iTunes, or from me telling ~150,000 people that their record is really good and they should check it out. But that's obviously a fairly unique situation.

Really, just look at webcomics. It is totally possible to give your work away and still generate a living income off of it. Not everybody can do it, but not everybody can release an album a hundred thousand people would enjoy, either.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 18 Oct 2007, 14:05
And it is NOT theft. Theft is illegal. There are currently no laws against filesharing and downloading music.

More than that, theft in its very nature is intended to do damage to someone while helping the thief.

I have not talked this year to a single performer opposed to filesharing. The common theme is, "It definitely brings people out to our shows, buying our merch, etcetera." It is very rare that theft is beneficial to all involved.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: GenericName on 18 Oct 2007, 14:29
[...] but apparently more radiohead albums were downloaded through filesharing/torrents than from the actual website.
I torrented it, but only because I heard something about having to have a cell phone and I don't.
If Radiohead had just provided a torrent or something, I wouldve downloaded it from them.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 18 Oct 2007, 16:59
Just as much as it is possible to claim ownership over an idea, and people do that all the time.

Oh I know people do that, but is it justified? Personally, I'd argue that we'd all be a lot better off without intellectual property rights but that's a whole other story.

Quote
I'd hesitate to download an album from a local band whom I know to have fronted the costs of their own EP/album. Also, at most shows, the CDs on sale were purchased by the band (for cost, or near to it as possible) for resale. They end up seeing a few dollars more, more often than not from those sales.

In the end, do your part and help support the bands you love, otherwise they may not make another album of music, downloadable off a torrent or otherwise.

Supporting bands financially is great since it's an expensive business, but speaking as a musician myself I'd much rather people downloaded my work and enjoyed it than avoided getting it because of some moral uneasiness about obtaining something for free. If someone downloads my music they've stolen nothing from me, I'd just be immensely flattered somebody liked one of my shitty bands enough to want to have my songs. They're certainly not obligated to support me in any way.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: camelpimp on 18 Oct 2007, 19:19
Why is there the whole thing about whether or not filesharing is theft?

I thought it was just copyright infringement.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: supersheep on 19 Oct 2007, 03:08
It's probably something to do with the ridiculous "You wouldn't steal a car" bit on the front of most films, basically saying that downloading a film is theft. On that note, this is funny. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OyoFVGvks4)

My own personal way of doing things is this. I will download an album. If I like it, not only will I rant about it to my friends (even if they don't listen), I will also attempt to purchase it on vinyl (cos this is prettier), and go see the band if they ever come to Dublin (which is rare enough).
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Orbert on 19 Oct 2007, 08:25
Quote from: Johnny C
More than that, theft in its very nature is intended to do damage to someone while helping the thief.

Exactly. I hate all those idiots that say I "steal" music. Excuse me, is somebody missing their CD? Show me the person who's missing the CD I supposedly stole from them, and I'll gladly give it back.

"But it's stealing because you didn't pay for it." No, it was free, out there for the taking, so I took one. No one has lost anything in order for me to gain. If anything, the net something of the world has gone up, not down, due to my actions.

"But the band has lost the money they would have made when you bought it." Wrong again. I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway, because I don't have money for new CDs. They never would have gotten my money anyway, and thus have lost nothing.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Ninja-bot on 19 Oct 2007, 09:23
No matter how you slice it, the music on a CD is copyrighted. No one except the copyright owner has the right to give it away in whatever form they choose. Saying it was out there for the taking does not mean it's LEGAL. If a car has its doors unlocked with the keys in the car, does that mean it's LEGAL to get in and drive to Mexico with it?

No, it's theft. Laws embedded in copyright law itself mean it's illegal to give something away you don't legally own. No matter how you slice it.

"But it's different, mp3s are DIGITAL. It's not like I'm stealing a hard copy CD". CDs are just a conduit for the digital files embedded in them. Same damn thing, just compressed which makes it, well, quicker to take. The whole "stealing a car" analogy, while played out, is only repeated because theft is theft, whether it's a piece of solid property or whether it's intellectual property. You can walk into a store, grab a candy bar and then when the owner says "Hey, you didn't pay for that!" you then say "But it was there. It was right there. If you didn't want me to take it, why didn't you put it behind locked glass?"

Regardless of who gets the cash, be it the band, the publisher, the distributer, etc, intellectual property is just that, SOMEONE'S property. Theft is almost NEVER just for the sake of doing damage to someone or something. It's almost ALWAYS about someone getting something they want without paying for it. You don't rob a bank because you don't like their hiring policies, you rob it 'cause you want a shitload of money.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm any better than anyone else. Lord knows my I didn't buy about 70% of the music on my mp3 player. I'm just saying everyone should quit kidding themselves and admit to what they're doing. If you don't purchase the album in some way, then find another way to support the band. Buy a t-shirt or two. Go to their concerts. If Jeph tells people on QC to go listen to the latest Modernboys Moderngirls EP (which is awesome), and everyone downloads it but then never gives the band a dime in some way shape or form, then it doesn't matter at all that the band got a nice feature if they are dependent on their art for their living.

It's all well and good when the band isn't deriving their primary income from their music, like A Pack of Wolves a few posts above me, but that's not the case for all bands. Anyone who thinks intellectual property laws should be eliminated obviously doesn't make their living with their intellectual property. If people couldn't make money off their intellectual property, be it music, inventions, art, etc, then there'd be very little incentive to do so and we'd be going down that wonderful (in spirit) road of Communism, which if you hadn't noticed royally sucks ass in practice.

In hindsight, writing such a post with almost no history on these boards could be the death of me. Virtual suicide ftw!
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: mberan42 on 19 Oct 2007, 09:47
Nah, Ninja-bot, your post was clearly well thought-out and informative.

Quote from: a pack of wolves
I'd argue that we'd all be a lot better off without intellectual property rights but that's a whole other story.

I'd love to hear your argument for that, because in my mind I cannot fathom what the world would be like without intellectual property rights.

Quote from: Orbert
No one has lost anything in order for me to gain. If anything, the net something of the world has gone up, not down, due to my actions.

Unless you downloaded a Metallica or Slip Knot album - the net something of the world would go down, definitely.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: valley_parade on 19 Oct 2007, 11:23
If you don't purchase the album in some way, then find another way to support the band. Buy a t-shirt or two. Go to their concerts.

That's pretty much my theory on it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 19 Oct 2007, 12:08
Quote from: Johnny C

What the cockshit?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: mberan42 on 19 Oct 2007, 13:02
Whoa, sorry. My browser at work is all wonky - won't let me quote using the links, so I have to do it manually from the post reply page. Orbert quoted you in the post he said what I quoted, so I saw your name and missed his. Sorry JC. I fixed it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Orbert on 19 Oct 2007, 13:11
Quote from: Ninja-bot
If a car has its doors unlocked with the keys in the car, does that mean it's LEGAL to get in and drive to Mexico with it?

No, because I would be taking the car. If I download a copy of a CD, have I taken something from someone? As I said, if someone is missing their copy and I took it, I will give it back.

People keep saying "Stop trying to justify it, stop trying to fool yourself, it's wrong." The fact is that I've given it a hell of a lot of thought, and I'm fine with it. I would not take someone's car, I would not take anything away from someone. They would be deprived of it, and that is wrong. But if I make a copy of something, and the original's still out there, no one has been deprived of anything.

Again, if you want to convince me that what I'm doing is wrong, don't fall back on "it's illegal" because there are things that I do which are illegal and I'm fine with it. Show me how I've deprived someone of something. Show me how I have taken something away from them and they do not have it now. Otherwise, I haven't stolen anything. It's still there. I just have a copy now, too.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: GenericName on 19 Oct 2007, 14:01
Perhaps here's a slightly better analogy.
If I had a magical device that could duplicate anything I want, and someone left their car unlocked with the keys in the car and I used my device on it, did I steal their car?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: supersheep on 19 Oct 2007, 14:07
Here's a quick question: Has anyone been prosecuted for filesharing anywhere in the world? I've heard of lots of civil actions, but no prosecutions.

Ninja-bot, to the best of my knowledge, no country believes that downloading music from the internet is theft. As a matter of fact, in Canada, downloading music for personal use is legal (see BMG Canada vs John Doe, 2004 FC 488 (http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2004/2004fc488/2004fc488.html). Copying music illegally is copyright infringement, not theft.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Oct 2007, 14:35
I'd love to hear your argument for that, because in my mind I cannot fathom what the world would be like without intellectual property rights.

Well, this probably isn't quite the right thread to go into too much detail (or indeed the right forum). But in brief, intellectual property is a means by which wealthy individuals and organisations maintain their wealth at the expense of the rest of us. Personally I think this, and the general economic system it's a part of, are a poor way of running the world. A mix of anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism would, in my view, be a lot better.

Quote
Anyone who thinks intellectual property laws should be eliminated obviously doesn't make their living with their intellectual property. If people couldn't make money off their intellectual property, be it music, inventions, art, etc, then there'd be very little incentive to do so and we'd be going down that wonderful (in spirit) road of Communism, which if you hadn't noticed royally sucks ass in practice.

I know quite a few people who make their money from their intellectual property but nonetheless would like to see it done away with. I used to work in the banking sector, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have been happy to do away with banks even if they were temporarily providing my income. And if you make things because of the monetary reward then what you make will no doubt be very shoddy. I'd much rather have the music of people who do it for the love of it and might possibly make money as a side-effect of that.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Joseph on 19 Oct 2007, 14:48
Here's a quick question: Has anyone been prosecuted for filesharing anywhere in the world? I've heard of lots of civil actions, but no prosecutions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071004.wdownloading1004/BNStory/Technology/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20071004.wdownloading1004
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: supersheep on 19 Oct 2007, 14:54
That's a civil case, once again. I'm wondering if there have been any criminal cases. I highly doubt it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: KharBevNor on 19 Oct 2007, 16:07
Well, this probably isn't quite the right thread to go into too much detail (or indeed the right forum). But in brief, intellectual property is a means by which wealthy individuals and organisations maintain their wealth at the expense of the rest of us. Personally I think this, and the general economic system it's a part of, are a poor way of running the world. A mix of anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism would, in my view, be a lot better.

Pssht. Market Anarchism and crypto-anarchism are the way forward I say!

But then again, as far as I see it, if there was a genuinely anarchic society, then the various strands of anarchism could easily exist together.

Then again, wrong forum.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 17:18
I'm kind of new here, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.  A lot of the music I listen to just isn't available in stores without special ordering it.  I listen to a lot of death and black metal, and stores just don't sell much of that.  The Heavy Metal section of my local FYE is about 20 feet long, and is populated by mostly pop metal garbage (Linkin Park, etc).

So I download much of my music, essentially at random to see what I like.  If I really like what I hear, I'll go out and buy a CD (or vinyl, if I can find it, but that's not so easy) for the better sound quality, even if I have to special order it, or get it secondhand.  I buy for two reasons: 128kbps sounds like crap much above a quarter maximum volume, and because if I have the money (which I usually do) and don't pay for what I've gotten, I am depriving someone of what they've worked to create.

Downloading music and never compensating the artist IS stealing based on the definition of "to appropriate without right or acknowledgement."  If a local artist says "go ahead and share my music with your friends, he has given you the right to appropriate and share his music, but otherwise, copyright law says that he (or maybe his record company) has the sole right to distribute and reproduce his music.  An mp3 is a real, physical thing: it is a series of magnetic impulses that encode the music in question.  If you copy that mp3, you are infringing on copyright law.

I care a lot about copyright because I'm a writer, and it would annoy the heck out of me if I wrote a popular book, only to sell about a dozen copies of it because everyone else just got a photocopy, or PDF.  What would be my motivation to continue to write, an activity that takes up a lot of time and effort, if I could not expect to be compensated for it because some jackhole said "It isn't like I'm STEALING from this guy, I'm just not paying him for using something he created!"?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Oct 2007, 18:03
Wouldn't you want to write in order to create art? No offense, but if your only motivation really is monetary compensation I can't imagine your books would be of any interest so your stopping writing wouldn't be much of a loss. And the same goes for musicians who only create for the money (not that downloading necessarily hurts their incomes in any case).
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 18:15
Sure, I enjoy writing because it creates something for others to enjoy, but if I intended for them to enjoy it for free, well, I'd distribute it under a different license than Copyright, like Creative Commons or something.  But I don't usually. Sometimes I have.  But putting a huge amount of effort into something with the expectation that I'll be compensated and then watch others deliberately deny me wat I'm due is just... very annoying.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Oct 2007, 18:25
But why would you be due it? You weren't involved in the creation or distribution of the copies, and it didn't cost you anything. If people enjoyed your work then maybe they would compensate you for it if they could afford it. Just because you do something expecting to make money doesn't mean you will.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 19 Oct 2007, 18:54
CryoSilver, what's your position on libraries then?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Joseph on 19 Oct 2007, 18:55
  I think there's an important difference between things like writing and things like music though, in that a writer cannot generate money through means of touring and performing live.  With bands which tour, the main means of income is certainly not the sale of CDs in stores.  For a writer, it's the only source of income, unless they are fortunate enough to win prizes.  I don't think one should go into writing expecting money, but in order to create a well crafted novel, a huge amount of time and effort must go into research, editing, and the like.  Certainly, the same is true of music, but the recording of the music is only part of that experience.  An author, if they aren't compensated for their work, only have the option of working another job to support themselves.  Nothing wrong with that though, and if someone is truly passionate about their art, then I believe they would be more than willing to work full time and write on the side.

  I know people who've done both things.  My mom writes, but works a full time job, writing on the side, not relying on sales of her work for any sort of money.  My grandmother though, made her living purely as an author.  It's something that's really rare, for certain, but I believe that a person should be able to make money at an art; the ability should be there.  No one should go into writing expecting to make money though, and that definitely shouldn't be the ultimate goal.

  Also, with writing, I don't think you're likely to see .pdf files or digital copies replacing books as a medium of choice anytime soon anyhow.  Neither are half as convenient as a book format.

EDIT:  Libraries are pretty much one of the most wonderful institutions we have around.  The ability to spread art like that is pretty unparalleled, and I'd like to see an author of any sort who protested against them.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 19:01
Quote from: a pack of wolves
But why would you be due it? You weren't involved in the creation or distribution of the copies, and it didn't cost you anything. If people enjoyed your work then maybe they would compensate you for it if they could afford it. Just because you do something expecting to make money doesn't mean you will.

It costs me the premium charged by the publishing house, assuming I retain the rights to what I write.  If it were otherwise, it'd be all profit to me, above the cost of the materials and time used to produce the copy.  If I get something published, it's because I can't afford to buy a printing press myself. That doesn't make the product any less MINE.  If someone can't afford to have something that I produced, copy or no, then they can't have it.  That's the entire premise of capitalism, and that's the "All Rights Reserved" clause of copyright.  If they acquire it by illegal means, they've committed a crime, simple as that.  I don't always agree with the law, but that doesn't give me the right to break it.

Quote from: Johnny C
What's your position on libraries then?

A library is a public borrowing house.  I don't object for a couple reasons.  One: someone paid for the book (the town, most likely).  Two: whoever borrows it can't keep it (well, they could keep taking it out again and again, but eventually the librarian yells at you).  Three: There is still only one book; unless someone illegally scans or photocopies the book, there is only the one book, which has been paid for.  If a library let you take a free copy of the book to keep, which they produced without compensating the author, I'd object, but they don't.  They have one book, which they lend out.  If your buddy lets you borrow his CD, but you don't rip it, you just listen for a week and give it back, that's basically how a library works.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 19 Oct 2007, 19:12
That's the entire premise of capitalism, and that's the "All Rights Reserved" clause of copyright.  If they acquire it by illegal means, they've committed a crime, simple as that.  I don't always agree with the law, but that doesn't give me the right to break it.

In order: Maybe that's the problem with capitalism, if it was that simple we wouldn't have a thread about it right now, and why the hell not?

Quote from: Johnny C
What's your position on libraries then?

A library is a public borrowing house.  I don't object for a couple reasons.  One: someone paid for the book (the town, most likely).  Two: whoever borrows it can't keep it (well, they could keep taking it out again and again, but eventually the librarian yells at you).  Three: There is still only one book; unless someone illegally scans or photocopies the book, there is only the one book, which has been paid for.  If a library let you take a free copy of the book to keep, which they produced without compensating the author, I'd object, but they don't.  They have one book, which they lend out.  If your buddy lets you borrow his CD, but you don't rip it, you just listen for a week and give it back, that's basically how a library works.

Nobody paid for the CD at one point?

Beyond that your argument is logically sound, I suppose. Except I can keep borrowing the book. I can lend the book, once I have it, out to my friends - and I do on a pretty regular basis. The art gets around. Maybe one or two of them buy a copy, and that's one or two more than otherwise would have.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 19:27
"Nobody paid for the CD at one point?"

And I have no problem with them lending out the CD.  I have a problem with them copying the CD, or ripping it and then distributing the digital files.  Now you haven't lent it to someone, you've reproduced it, which is the sole right of whoever holds the copyright (generally the artist or record company).
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 19 Oct 2007, 20:17
And there you have it. The problem is that based on copyright whoever bought the CD has essentially purchased not the music itself but the privilege of listening to the music.

Imagine this: I'm currently sitting enjoying a piece of beef jerky. When I bought it, it was agreed that I owned the jerky now and could do whatever I wanted with it. I didn't pay to have the privilege of owning the beef jerky and having it in my house. I paid for the jerky. I can eat it. I can give it to my friends to eat. I can throw it at a wall or make tender love to it. It's my beef jerky. When whoever made the jerky decided to turn meat into salty delicious meatleather they weren't making a copyright, they were making jerky.

When I buy music I'm buying the music. When I make music I'm making the music. Copyright is so that EMI can sue the pants off of a woman for wanting to hear Kansas without buying a rich band's greatest hits record.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 21:29
You are not, however, allowed to determine exactly how that jerky is made and then produce unauthorized copies of it to distribute to your friends.  That right is subject to patent law, which is just copyright for physical objects.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 19 Oct 2007, 22:53
Why not? Why is there a copyright on that particular combination of ingredients? Why is there a copyright on a particular combination of notes? What purpose does it serve? Who does it really benefit?

At this point we're arguing over copyright. I am against copyright in most if not all of its forms. It's a silly mechanism that's a great signifier of the absolute lack of trust in the current capitalist system. Why not worry about providing quality so that people will buy your stuff rather than clutching it tightly to your chest and using the legal system to shout "MINE" instead?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 19 Oct 2007, 23:05
So essentially no one owns their own ideas, in your ideal world?  Patent and copyright were established so that people could benefit from the things they came up with.  And in most cases, they work the way they're supposed to.

Copyright has gotten a little out of hand (I think now it lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator of whatever is copyrighted), and patents last for 17 years.  Why WOULDN'T someone expect that if they came up with something unique, someone else couldn't just come along and say "Hey that's great, I'm going to use it without your permission, okay?"

It isn't so much about providing quality so people will buy your stuff, as you say, so much as it is that if there were no copyright law, no one would BUY your music/art, because they could just copy it for free.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 20 Oct 2007, 00:32
Nobody making art needs to own their ideas beyond "I created this." You lose the point as soon as you say, "They NEED to benefit from it." The act of creation in itself is its own reward, and the most it's guaranteed. This is a point that has been emphasized and re-emphasized throughout the thread. Besides, how does filesharing not benefit the artist? We've once again established this: it generates interest in performers and their work, to a degree where merch and records are bought and shows are attended.

Copyright works for people who want to make money. For most others it's unnecessary at best.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: KharBevNor on 20 Oct 2007, 05:10
So, what's your opinion then, downloading opponents, on buying and selling second hand CDs? Surely that's infinitely worse than file-sharing: not only is someone getting their greasy hands on the music without the band seeing a penny, but some interloping racketeer is making a profit out of it instead! How could we allow such things in the 21st century? Surely, once you get tired of a CD, you should be required to drop it in a woodchipper?

Another question: Ever used a VCR? Depending on where you live, taping live television is either fair use, fair use under certain circumstances, or technically illegal but nobody cares. Did you ever watch a film in school? That's illegal, read the warning at the front of a video or DVD some day.

You ever photocopied anything? Printed out a picture from the internet? Posted a picture from the internet on another website? Any of those actions could well have been an infringement of copyright.

Basically, what I'm saying is, copyright law is stupid and everyone has broken it, probably without even realising.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: schimmy on 20 Oct 2007, 05:32
Drop it in a woodchipper?! But it's not yours! You're destroying the artist's property! How dare you!

So, yeah, basically I think what I believe has already been said by other people: File sharing is okay, but you should really try to support the band in some other way, if you can.
As Khar points out, everyone breaks copyright law, but only in the case of downloading media do people feel the need to point it out and make a big deal about it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 20 Oct 2007, 09:08
Why WOULDN'T someone expect that if they came up with something unique, someone else couldn't just come along and say "Hey that's great, I'm going to use it without your permission, okay?"

Because it limits creativity and actually limits and reduces any art I (or anyone else) might create. You make that statement sound like a bad thing, whereas to me it's nothing but positive. So a small number of people might see slightly decreased revenue from their intellectual property. That's a small price to pay for there to be more art in the world.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 09:26
Quote from: Johnny C
Nobody making art needs to own their ideas beyond "I created this." You lose the point as soon as you say, "They NEED to benefit from it." The act of creation in itself is its own reward, and the most it's guaranteed.

So at what point do people start owning the things that are theirs?  If art isn't yours, are ideas?  What about plans, schematics, etc?  Does the guy who invents, say, a new kind of solar panel own the plans of that solar panel, or is it now in the public domain, where anyone can use it free of charge?  What about actual, physical things?  What's the substantial difference between an mp3 (a series of impulses recorded on a magnetic plate) and an actual CD (a series of tiny holes on a foil sheet)?  Where should the line be drawn?

Quote from: KharBevNor
So, what's your opinion then, downloading opponents, on buying and selling second hand CDs? Surely that's infinitely worse than file-sharing: not only is someone getting their greasy hands on the music without the band seeing a penny, but some interloping racketeer is making a profit out of it instead! How could we allow such things in the 21st century? Surely, once you get tired of a CD, you should be required to drop it in a woodchipper?
This goes in the same line as the library thing: if you sell the CD, you no longer have it.  One CD (and therefore, one copy of the music) has been purchased and paid for, and, presuming you don't rip it and then sell the CD, one copy of the music exists.

Quote from: KharBevNor
Ever used a VCR? Depending on where you live, taping live television is either fair use, fair use under certain circumstances, or technically illegal but nobody cares. Did you ever watch a film in school? That's illegal, read the warning at the front of a video or DVD some day.

Actually, I've never recorded anything on my VCR, and if I watched a video in school, it's my teacher's fault, not mine.  But I do get your point, which is that "If everyone does it, it must be fine."  The fair use clause is a tricky thing, and usually relates to how much of a work you're quoting/using.  But in the case of filesharing, the thing in question, you are distributing the entire package, which does not fall under fair use.  The copyright holder reserves the right to reproduce the media in question, which means you don't have it, and you never did. You never bought that right.  You COULD buy it, if you have the money to give the record company, or you could get permission (if the artist is really nice), but when you bought the CD, you bought it with the understanding that you would NOT copy it and give it away.

People make a big deal out of filesharing because it's widespread, easy and (mostly) free.  Not as many people photocopy or scan books because it's time consuming and boring, but ripping a song and then sharing it is a simple as clicking a button.  But if it was as easy to do that with, say, cars, pills or nuclear weapons, people would make a big deal over that.  There's always trouble in the electronics industry because of patent infringements; it's the same thing.  If the laws weren't there to keep people's ideas theirs, people would have totake it into their own hands, and that couldn't end well at all.

Quote from: a pack of wolves
Because it limits creativity and actually limits and reduces any art I (or anyone else) might create. You make that statement sound like a bad thing, whereas to me it's nothing but positive. So a small number of people might see slightly decreased revenue from their intellectual property. That's a small price to pay for there to be more art in the world.
And that is why (originally) copyright expired after 50 years (which is a while, but not so unreasonably long).  But the marvelous Disney Corporation stepped in and got it extended to 95 years, which is a bit too long, in my opinion.  Patents last for a much shorter time (about 20 years).

Now, I do think copyright lasts too long, but it I still feel it should exist, because people should have the right to security in the things they create.  IF they WANT their art to be used by others, they can relinquish their rights; you can always voluntarily relinquish rights, but the moment they get taken away, it's an injustice.

I do realize I'm probably not going to change any minds, but I think it's important to have a devil's advocate and shake up the groupthink a little...
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: schimmy on 20 Oct 2007, 10:33
What's the substantial difference between an mp3 (a series of impulses recorded on a magnetic plate) and an actual CD (a series of tiny holes on a foil sheet)?  Where should the line be drawn?
When you steal a CD, it can no longer be sold, so the artist* has lost money.
When you download MP3s, the amount of CDs that can be sold has not changed. They have not lost money. Arguably, they lost money because you might not buy the record, but I think that the tiny sum of money they get per record is easily negated by ticket sales and merchandise.
*Read: record label

This goes in the same line as the library thing: if you sell the CD, you no longer have it.  One CD (and therefore, one copy of the music) has been purchased and paid for, and, presuming you don't rip it and then sell the CD, one copy of the music exists.
But the reseller is still making money off of the intellectual property of the artist. They have, presumably, listened to the record as much as they would like to, and so are selling it on. If they sell it on at the price they bought it, they get all their money back, so haven't they 'stolen' the music on the CD? I admit that they likely won't sell it for full retail price, but they're still getting the CD at a severe discount.

Actually, I've never recorded anything on my VCR, and if I watched a video in school, it's my teacher's fault, not mine.
You were still participating in the 'crime' of copyright infringement of your own free will.


if it was as easy to do that with, say, cars, pills or nuclear weapons, people would make a big deal over that.
I don't know if they would. I think everyone would just be all "Oh man I got a sports car for free. Awesome!" And free, unlimited supplies of medicine?* Who could possibly object to that?
* (I assume that's what you mean by pills... the drug industry hardly has a lot of supporters in the media and law)


There's always trouble in the electronics industry because of patent infringements; it's the same thing.  If the laws weren't there to keep people's ideas theirs, people would have to take it into their own hands, and that couldn't end well at all.
Would they? I don't know. Wouldn't the world be a better place if IP didn't exist, and people were free to modify and improve the works of others as they saw fit? Sure, some people could lose some money here and there, but aren't freedom and artistic / technological progress more important than a few dollars?



Now, I do think copyright lasts too long, but it I still feel it should exist, because people should have the right to security in the things they create.  IF they WANT their art to be used by others, they can relinquish their rights; you can always voluntarily relinquish rights, but the moment they get taken away, it's an injustice.
Where does the idea of copyrighting come from? It's a social construct. There more ethically acceptable ways of protecting your work. Take the creative commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/). It states:
Quote
You are free:

    * to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
    * to Remix — to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

    *Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
    *Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
I think that's a much more artistic and fair way of protecting intellectual property.


I do realize I'm probably not going to change any minds, but I think it's important to have a devil's advocate and shake up the groupthink a little...
That's no problem. A little healthy debate never hurt anyone. And, if any of us are wrong, it's probably better that we at least have a chance of being convinced of the truth, whatever that may be.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 11:08
Quote from: schimmy
Arguably, they lost money because you might not buy the record, but I think that the tiny sum of money they get per record is easily negated by ticket sales and merchandise.
So what's the cutoff for how much money it has to cost a record label before it becomes not okay to steal their music?  Ten cents?  Ten dollars?
Quote from: schimmy
But the reseller is still making money off of the intellectual property of the artist.
But now they no longer have access to that property.  There is still only one CD, and only one person in possession of that CD: in theory, the person who sold it has to acquire a new CD if he wants to listen to it again after he sells it.  You can sell your car, too, and not give more money to the dealership/factory, but now you don't have a car any more.  Same thing.
Quote from: schimmy
You were still participating in the 'crime' of copyright infringement of your own free will.
Free will? Not really; I had to be in school.  But that's getting off the point.
Quote from: schimmy
Would they? I don't know. Wouldn't the world be a better place if IP didn't exist, and people were free to modify and improve the works of others as they saw fit? Sure, some people could lose some money here and there, but aren't freedom and artistic / technological progress more important than a few dollars?
I strongly disagree here.  If I create something, it's mine, and I should be free to use it or let others use it as I see fit.  In my opinion, a song or book is no different than a potato, or loaf of bread: it is something that someone created, and is therefore, their property.  And while I might not expect to make a lot of money from my art, that doesn't make it okay to deprive me of even more of it.  "I'm only stealing a LITTLE" is not a valid argument.  What if there was no money, and the music was traded directly for, say, food? "I'm only stealing some of his food" is okay?

I do know about the Creative Commons license, and I think it's a great thing for people who want to use it.  But some of us don't.  Some of us want the things we write/compose to be ours, and to remain unaltered.  I wouldn't appreciate it if someone painted my car pink because it "looks better now" and in many cases, I wouldn't appreciate it if my characters and settings get altered and Mary-Sued up for the same reason.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: schimmy on 20 Oct 2007, 11:38
So what's the cutoff for how much money it has to cost a record label before it becomes not okay to steal their music?  Ten cents?  Ten dollars?
Record labels are superfluous to the art. They have no right to or reason to be making money off of the artists they exploit. And trust me, the artists are being exploited. There's an article written by Steve Albini that I'm looking for that illustrates my point perfectly, but at the moment I can't find it. I'm fairly sure a link's been posted fairly recently on this forum, if anyone can find it, that'd be great.

Free will? Not really; I had to be in school.  But that's getting off the point.
Admittedly, it might be off the point, but if you so object to copyright infringement, then surely you could have at least voiced your concerns and/or asked to not watch it?

I strongly disagree here.  If I create something, it's mine, and I should be free to use it or let others use it as I see fit.  In my opinion, a song or book is no different than a potato, or loaf of bread: it is something that someone created, and is therefore, their property.
But what if someone can improve the recipe for a loaf of bread, or find some way to duplicate that bread for free, so as to feed those in the world with no food. Should they be stopped? And, yes, I am comparing art to food. As far as I see it, art is as important to human society as food is.

And while I might not expect to make a lot of money from my art, that doesn't make it okay to deprive me of even more of it.  "I'm only stealing a LITTLE" is not a valid argument.  What if there was no money, and the music was traded directly for, say, food? "I'm only stealing some of his food" is okay?
I think this is the point that we will never agree on. You think that artists lose money through downloads, while I think they don't. I guess we should leave it at that.

I do know about the Creative Commons license, and I think it's a great thing for people who want to use it.  But some of us don't.  Some of us want the things we write/compose to be ours, and to remain unaltered.  I wouldn't appreciate it if someone painted my car pink because it "looks better now" and in many cases, I wouldn't appreciate it if my characters and settings get altered and Mary-Sued up for the same reason.
They wouldn't be painting your car pink, though. You would still have your car. They would merely have created a pink version of it. And what if their modification makes the car more environmentally friendly, for example. Should a person be stopped from modifying the designs that your car is based off of, and thereby benefiting everyone, just because you want protection from people doing a better job than you could in designing the car, because the designs are your IP.

On the whole, I think the way our arguments fundamentally disagree is on the principle that you believe that downloading is exactly the same as physically taking a CD, while I see it as just duplicating the CD.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 20 Oct 2007, 16:47
You think that artists lose money through downloads, while I think they don't. I guess we should leave it at that.

It's not even a matter of think!

Trent Reznor encourages fans to download his music! Radiohead gives away their album for free! It's 2007!

Seriously. I've opened for at least one touring band a month since about June and none of them have any problem with downloading. It brings people out to your shows, and that's where any artist will make the most money. Record sales? Record sales count for shit. After getting the CD recorded and mastered, most bands just want to make that money back. They're working to get back to square one. In probably ninety percent of cases a record is an advertisement for a live set.

If you want to talk about record labels, CDs and theft then the best thing to do is find out how much a major label expects in return from its signees. I bet you'll be surprised.

Besides that, I totally missed the memo when us artists were supposed to become greedy and secretive with our work. Personally when I make a song I want to share it with as many people as I can, not talk about how it's mine, all mine. It's one thing if someone tries to make money by passing my exact work off as their own but it's another thing if someone just wants to have it. Maybe they wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Maybe now that they've downloaded it they will.

To illustrate my last point, here's a list of artists whose LPs I am looking at RIGHT THIS SECOND that I wouldn't have bought if I hadn't heard it based on duplication and downloading first.

Ladyhawk
Ted Leo
Final Fantasy
Sleater-Kinney
Caribou
Slint
Shellac
Young Galaxy
Fugazi

It adds to sales. Maybe it doesn't in every single case but it does in enough that make it a good thing.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 17:50
Record labels are superfluous to the art. They have no right to or reason to be making money off of the artists they exploit. And trust me, the artists are being exploited. There's an article written by Steve Albini that I'm looking for that illustrates my point perfectly, but at the moment I can't find it. I'm fairly sure a link's been posted fairly recently on this forum, if anyone can find it, that'd be great.
They (the artists) have the option not to sign: no one is forcing them to take a contract.
Quote
Admittedly, it might be off the point, but if you so object to copyright infringement, then surely you could have at least voiced your concerns and/or asked to not watch it?
The last time I watched a movie in school I was about 13 and didn't care.
Quote
But what if someone can improve the recipe for a loaf of bread, or find some way to duplicate that bread for free, so as to feed those in the world with no food. Should they be stopped?
They should ask first.
Quote
They wouldn't be painting your car pink, though. You would still have your car. They would merely have created a pink version of it. And what if their modification makes the car more environmentally friendly, for example. Should a person be stopped from modifying the designs that your car is based off of, and thereby benefiting everyone, just because you want protection from people doing a better job than you could in designing the car, because the designs are your IP.
Same thing: they should ask first.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 20 Oct 2007, 18:48
Why should they ask? The only decent response would be "yes" and anything else should be ignored, so the answer ought to have no bearing on the course of action taken. To act as if I needed permission from someone to use something which has entered into the public domain (whether legally or illegally) is an unnecessary infringement on liberty since no-one will be harmed by my doing so.

I have a feeling the Albini essay mentioned before may well be this one: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
There are quite a few other essays on the Negativland site relavent to this discussion actually: http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 20 Oct 2007, 18:52
They (the artists) have the option not to sign: no one is forcing them to take a contract.

Plenty don't and are perfectly fine with their music being downloaded.

The last time I heard any performer say "don't download my stuff" was Will Smith in his song "Switch":

But don't download / Go out and buy the rekkid.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: CryoSilver on 20 Oct 2007, 19:06
Why should they ask? The only decent response would be "yes" and anything else should be ignored, so the answer ought to have no bearing on the course of action taken. To act as if I needed permission from someone to use something which has entered into the public domain (whether legally or illegally) is an unnecessary infringement on liberty since no-one will be harmed by my doing so.
No one harmed except the person whose idea you have appropriated, because he is no longer the sole supplier of the product of that idea.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: KharBevNor on 20 Oct 2007, 19:38
Ok, I'm going to cut to the quuick

Cryosliver, you're an ill informed cunt. Shut up.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 21 Oct 2007, 03:33
No one harmed except the person whose idea you have appropriated, because he is no longer the sole supplier of the product of that idea.

Or to put it a little more nicely than Khar, that isn't harming them. Where's the act of violence in duplication or modification? It's purely creative.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: supersheep on 21 Oct 2007, 06:19
GUYS GUYS I HAVE AN IDEA

LET'S PATENT THE WHEEL AND BECOME RICH

I MEAN IT'S AN IDEA SO WE CAN OWN IT
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: öde on 21 Oct 2007, 07:02
Copyright law is old and greedy. Artists, if they are any good, will still make money. One of my friends wants to have a career in music so he's becoming a session musician and I assume he'll still have his own projects on the side. People that make their band their career presumably do it because they love making music, not to get rich and live a lavish life.

Copyright law is also silly! How far does it go anyway? If I hear a song used in an advert, can I not think about the song at a later point in time unless I pay to do so? I'm essentially hearing the music without buying it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 21 Oct 2007, 08:45
Maybe I should become a session musician.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Toba on 21 Oct 2007, 10:04
If it weren't for music piracy, I really never would have gotten into music at all.  When a band I like is nearby, I'll go to their show, buy their shirts, etc.  There's no way I'd ever spend money on music without already knowing it'll be good - too many CDs suck to risk wasting my 15 bucks on a CD that might not be any good.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: KharBevNor on 21 Oct 2007, 13:51
Precisely. If CDs were more in the same price range as DVDs, then I would buy a hell of a lot more CDs.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: ViolentDove on 23 Oct 2007, 19:13
Copyright law is also silly! How far does it go anyway? If I hear a song used in an advert, can I not think about the song at a later point in time unless I pay to do so? I'm essentially hearing the music without buying it.

Yeah, that's illegal. The record companies will actually cut out the piece of your brain responsible for playing music.

Which reminds me... what's the legality of performing cover songs live these days? I should know this, I've just never bothered to find out.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: KharBevNor on 23 Oct 2007, 19:19
I'm pretty sure that it's basically illegal but nobody cares. If it's anything like performing plays, then you have to buy the rights off the music publisher.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Toba on 23 Oct 2007, 20:52
This child cares.

(http://toba.ath.cx:724/~eastein/wpic/cone.jpg)

He cares too much. And it hurts.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: ViolentDove on 23 Oct 2007, 20:57
He's obviously in a devo covers band. And therefore ILLEGAL.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 24 Oct 2007, 10:02
I'm pretty sure that it's basically illegal but nobody cares. If it's anything like performing plays, then you have to buy the rights off the music publisher.

I'm pretty sure most venues pay fees to the songwriters' association that allow them to have both covers and incidental music.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: MysticalChicken on 25 Oct 2007, 16:16
Here's my stance on downloading music:

Step 1:  "Hmm, this blog mentions a band called Spastic Cheese Monkeys*.  I've never heard of them, because the radio station I listen to has never played them.  Oh, how will I ever find out what they sound like?"

Step 2:  INTARWEBS (actually, I was already on the intarwebs  :oops:)

Step 3:  Search for downloads of Spastic Cheese Monkeys songs on each of the three or four websites I use for free MP3s.  Download up to maybe 5 songs.

Step 4:  "Wow, Spastic Cheese Monkeys is an awesome band!"

Step 5:  Make excursion downtown to local brick-and-mortar record store to buy Spastic Cheese Monkeys CD.  Possibly buy more SCM CDs in future if initial CD is good.

*Spastic Cheese Monkeys is not a real band, but if they were, they would be my favorite band.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: BobJoeJim on 25 Oct 2007, 17:50
Confirmed, I'm calling my local radio station to complain that they don't play enough music by Spastic Cheese Monkeys.  This is a problem they need to fix NOW.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: MysticalChicken on 25 Oct 2007, 20:02
BTW, if I ever form a band, I have dibs on the name Spastic Cheese Monkeys.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Kai on 28 Oct 2007, 19:12
Spastic Cheese Monkeys is a terrible fucking name.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: John Curtin on 28 Oct 2007, 19:35
it's an ok band name though
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Toba on 28 Oct 2007, 20:58
No. It is not.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Oct 2007, 22:26
It's really, really not.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: GenericName on 29 Oct 2007, 03:34
I hope they can make awesome music to balance it out.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: MysticalChicken on 29 Oct 2007, 17:01
Good lord.  You people.  Seriously.   :roll:  You do realize that SCM doesn't actually exist and will never, ever exist, right?

I know it's an awful name, in fact I made a list of made-up terrible band names, and that was one of them.  It just happened to be the one that first popped into my head.  I could have used Chunky Muffin Overcoat, which I think might actually be worse (and really sounds more like a rap artist's name).  Or Floor Pie (Simpsons reference), or I Hate Everything Ever, or I Touched Seaweed, or... okay, I think I may be venturing into torturous territory here.  My point is that I meant it to be a bad band name.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Toba on 29 Oct 2007, 18:46
WE'RE TRYING TO ARGUE ABOUT SHIT THAT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HERE
DO YOU MIND
DO YOU?!?!?!
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: StaedlerMars on 04 Nov 2007, 03:55
rerailing the thread:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/

Downloaders buy more music than non-downloaders.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: GenericName on 05 Nov 2007, 03:00
But those are CANADIANS!
Not PEOPLE!

PS I don't mean it, canadian people. You're all people!
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: thehollow on 05 Nov 2007, 15:49
This article (http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html) articulates my overall views on downloading way better than I ever could.


One of the main reasons I support downloading is that CD's are ridiculously overpriced. They've been around for 20-some years and still cost 15 bucks average. I have no idea how stores like FYE, etc. manage to stay in business, charging like $20 per cd.

I download music.
Although I'm a poor college student, to purchase the album if it's a band I end up liking, unless it's an RIAA-affiliated label. If it's RIAA and I still really need to have it, I find it used.
I support the bands I like, RIAA ties or no, through merchandise that actually brings them a decent amount of profit, like concert tickets, shirts, etc.

End result: bands I like get money. I get to sample music for free, and I don't have to listen to shitty radio anymore. I see them in concert and such, which further contributes to supporting the band. I voice my disapproval for the current status quo by avoiding supporting the RIAA, in hopes that it'll bring about some sort of change. IMO it's a win-win situation for both me and the bands I like. The RIAA kinda loses out, but, screw em.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Orbert on 06 Nov 2007, 09:25
Wow, what a great article! I agree with almost every word of it. And it comes from someone who's been inside and knows how these people think. Sadly, it's just what we figured: it's all driven by greed. Profits and the bottom line.

Read that article! It's long, but not nearly as long as you think. After ten minutes, my scrollbar said I was only a fraction into it, but I was almost done. I forgot that 80% of the page (probably more by time you read this) was comments.

Thanks, thehollow!
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: thehollow on 06 Nov 2007, 12:03
yeah, it's a really well-written piece.

Do take a bit to scroll through the comments, as the author responds to many of them and further elaborates on the article, I think he was posting as Rob in the comments.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: GenericName on 06 Nov 2007, 17:03
thehollow, have you linked to this piece before? I seem to remember gettibng a link from these fori and reading that article.

It brings up some good points!

Also, I can't remember if we've talked about the fact that sometimes the downloaded music is just for a backup copy. For example, I just got a new computer and haven't synced my iPod to it, so none of my music is on it. But I really wanted to listen to Arcade Fire, so I torrented Funeral and am now listening to it.

Similarly, my friend's mother downloaded a couple gigs of music but it was all stuff she has on record.

Are these uses wrong?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: thehollow on 06 Nov 2007, 17:16
I found it on the afterthepostrock.com forums, I don't think I linked it here, but I did on the postrockxchange livejournal page.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 06 Nov 2007, 18:35
thehollow, have you linked to this piece before? I seem to remember gettibng a link from these fori and reading that article.

It brings up some good points!

Also, I can't remember if we've talked about the fact that sometimes the downloaded music is just for a backup copy. For example, I just got a new computer and haven't synced my iPod to it, so none of my music is on it. But I really wanted to listen to Arcade Fire, so I torrented Funeral and am now listening to it.

Similarly, my friend's mother downloaded a couple gigs of music but it was all stuff she has on record.

Are these uses wrong?

I'm pretty sure that's completely legal, at least in the UK, and is considered the same as when people make a tape of an LP to listen to it on a walkman. Well, it would be if the files had been acquired from something like Soulseek and not shared, with a torrent inevitably it means sharing them with people who hadn't bought copies of the music at any point and that's what people get prosecuted for.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Toba on 06 Nov 2007, 20:36
Good article. I agree with it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 07 Nov 2007, 08:24
Think about this. The rate of emerging technologies suggests that within the next decade there will be portable devices with enough capacity to store all of the music ever recorded. Maybe not legally but I'll bet some clever chap will compile a torrent with everything on it and by then you will have the internet connection to download and enough capacity to store it. Or whatever has become the piracy standard by then. I think this is a very real possibility indeed and when such a device shows up it's going to render this whole debate pointless.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: StaedlerMars on 07 Nov 2007, 12:03
About that, I know a guy that has 3 TB of music and videos. That's 3000 GBs of music and videos. I think that's already a pretty all-encompassing amount right there.

I have no idea if he's ever listened/seen it all.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 07 Nov 2007, 12:57
Right. Let's assume that before 2017 that such a capacity will be peanuts.

Certainly the current rate of technological evolution suggests it will be.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: qiZzer on 07 Nov 2007, 20:23
This is ridicules the way this society functions is the people provided goods and services for profit weather you like it or not that is the expection and that is their right. Pardon but i belive that the right to distribution lies with the creator , they spent their time they should decide if you get it for free. Forcing your ideals on others intentions is wrong. I agree with the quote "[if] The concept of theft would become ridiculous. The concept of wealth would go out the window, along with the primary way society rewards people for hard work and risk and innovation."
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: thehollow on 07 Nov 2007, 20:48
Distribution rights aren't held by the creator as it is, they're held by the record labels.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Toba on 07 Nov 2007, 20:55
All the music ever on a device is still a few decades in the future.  Not to mention that advances in AI will make music get produced much faster than ever before in the future (so there will be more of it) -- or other unforseen increases in the amount of data you'd have to store.

Remember, data expands to fill available storage.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 07 Nov 2007, 21:05
This is ridicules the way this society functions is the people provided goods and services for profit weather you like it or not that is the expection and that is their right.

The way society functions might be unsuitable for some people and they could instigate a sea change. Remember that society itself could be fundamentally flawed in the first place. Things change fairly quickly these days. Think of how quickly the civil rights movement happened in America. Or female suffrage. These are examples of mass changes in the way a majority of people think as initiated by a minority. Similarly, just because people have an "expectation" it does not mean they have not reached it through erroneous or misguided conclusions.

Forcing your ideals on others intentions is wrong.

Wouldn't this work both ways? I for one am pretty tired of being told what I should believe when it comes to this issue. You'd be amazed how little I care about the pre-conceived notions of society on this of all subjects.

I agree with the quote "[if] The concept of theft would become ridiculous. The concept of wealth would go out the window, along with the primary way society rewards people for hard work and risk and innovation."

First of all, the argument of whether file-sharing is actually theft is still up in the air. As we've discussed, nothing is actually missing from a shelf, it is just a bunch of binary that combines to form a sound file. Second of all, the music industry definitely, definitely does not reward "hard work and risk and innovation". It seems to reward pandering, self-indulgence and all manner of other excesses which have brought it to the point we find ourselves at today.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: qiZzer on 07 Nov 2007, 22:28

you all make great points but....
while  i can agree that the music biz not always beneficial to the artist but in term of monetary gain it can be better than going unsigned (plus the legal benfis)t. Any ways are you arguing that data can be property, ok that go with that for a bit. With this reasoning than  identity theft isn't a crime, because they didn't take anything concrete they didnt take your body or face and  they didt take actul money from you they just stole data. Yes i agree the system needs a change but letting the old one crash and burn so you can rebuild a new doesn't work. Thats how Hitler came to power and we can all agree that he was worse of than prewar geramny. All im saying is that much of our live are turning into binary and if even if the world start to think that its not property were gonna end up in  a system thats abused by the powers at be then if we just reconised it as property. Communism tryed that and I hate  to break it too ya but it didn't work
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: jeph on 07 Nov 2007, 22:36
Oh my gosh I think Godwin's Law just kicked in!

Discussion over.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Johnny C on 07 Nov 2007, 23:25
How did this of all threads get Godwon?

Jeez.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Mnementh on 07 Nov 2007, 23:45
INTERNET.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Storm Rider on 07 Nov 2007, 23:53
(http://www.tomleemusic.ca/images/inventory/88525_f.jpg)?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: supersheep on 08 Nov 2007, 02:11
Wow.

Also, Hitler did not 'destroy the old system', he exploited flaws in the Weimar constitution to bring himself to power legally. If you are going to bring history of entirely no relevance into a thread, then at least make sure you are using history that bears a vague relationship to the real world, kay?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 08 Nov 2007, 02:14
I've now got this mental image of Hitler downloading Metallica albums while he cackles with glee. Meanwhile Lars Ulrich sheds a single tear for a doomed world that just didn't understand his true purpose.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Kai on 08 Nov 2007, 04:24
we're all focusing on the Hitler part but nobody noticed the part where he called us all communists
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: qiZzer on 08 Nov 2007, 04:38
dam it i had not intention of set off godwins law and i did not wan tto shut down the  thread. In my post I did not call any one a Nazi, or a commie i never attacked anyone, i was just trying to set a president. But apparently  using a WWII reference was wrong. Ok how about When coke tried a new formula that was a disaster. Only assholes resort to name calling and personal insults, I'm sorry that what it turned into therefore i remove my self from the conversation out of respect for others, all im going to say did anyone get what i was trying to say about the importance of data as property of the owner and/or creator? (is that better grammar for you)
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 08 Nov 2007, 04:57
It's really hard to work out, your spelling and grammar are so bad it's borderline gibberish. It seems to be based almost entirely on a woeful misunderstanding of history but that's about as far as I can get.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 08 Nov 2007, 06:51
i was just trying to set a president.

As they say, to catch a thief set a...president?
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 08 Nov 2007, 09:04
dam it i had not intention of set off godwins law and i did not wan tto shut down the  thread. In my post I did not call any one a Nazi, or a commie i never attacked anyone, i was just trying to set a president. But apparently  using a WWII reference was wrong. Ok how about When coke tried a new formula that was a disaster. Only assholes resort to name calling and personal insults, I'm sorry that what it turned into therefore i remove my self from the conversation out of respect for others, all im going to say did anyone get what i was trying to say about the importance of data as property of the owner and/or creator? (is that better grammar for you)

Yeah, that's readable now. The argument isn't very well constructed though, so I still don't see the importance of what you're saying or the reasoning behind it.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Mnementh on 08 Nov 2007, 10:54
As they say, to catch a thief set a...president?

There is an election 2000 joke in here that I'm just not smart enough to make.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 08 Nov 2007, 11:15
Yeah I spent like five minutes trying to word it myself and then gave up.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: StaedlerMars on 08 Nov 2007, 11:47
I think what he is getting at is that it's hard to draw the line between data and actual property. He used identity theft as an example, which I believe isn't a bad call. Identity theft is just the stealing of binary files. Yet it's definitely theft. In a weird way it's comparable to downloading. I think it's possibly the best argument against the 'mp3s are just binary code' put forwards so far.

However, that isn't to say that I agree with the idea that the enormous datafile isn't going to happen. Most music can already be found of it. Like tommy said, with download speeds increasing, getting access to almost unlimited amounts of music in a heartbeat isn't such an obscure thought. Last night I had the surprising pleasure of having an 8mbs connection. This is a song in half a second.  In ten years time who knows...
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: tommydski on 08 Nov 2007, 11:57
Identity theft is used to commit fraud, which is a tangible crime.

I'm not using MP3s to commit fraud.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: supersheep on 08 Nov 2007, 12:52
The argument about data being the property of the creator has been made already. It doesn't hold in my book. The creator of antiretroviral drugs owns them. Lots of people have died because cheap copies could not be made. This is a bad thing.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: amok on 08 Nov 2007, 13:21
Identity theft is used to commit fraud, which is a tangible crime.

I'm not using MP3s to commit fraud.

yeah if identity thieves just re-posted the identities on private trackers for other identity-lovers to read the information and enjoy and never do anything illegal with, it would not be such an issue

interesting thought experiment but poor analogy I'm afraid
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: jeph on 08 Nov 2007, 17:10
you know what you guys are

is a bunch of fucking fascists
 :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police:

Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: a pack of wolves on 08 Nov 2007, 17:21
Happy, Frankie Goes To Hollywood styled fascists apparently.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Toba on 09 Nov 2007, 14:53
jeph,

Don't call us mere fascists.  We are Hitler communist fascists who steal music.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Tom on 09 Nov 2007, 18:53
Happy, Frankie Goes To Hollywood styled fascists apparently.
formally known as Hollycaust.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: KharBevNor on 10 Nov 2007, 11:09
I'm not using MP3s to commit fraud.

YOU ARE DEFRAUDING YOUR EARS INTO BELIEVING YOU BOUGHT THE CD.

THOUGHTCRIME DOES NOT ENTAIL DEATH: THOUGHTCRIME IS DEATH.
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: StaedlerMars on 10 Nov 2007, 12:25
jeph,

Don't call us mere fascists.  We are Hitler communist fascists who steal music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb6q_aplycA
Title: Re: The whole downloading music thing...
Post by: Juxtaposition on 10 Nov 2007, 13:31
If by downloading a cd illegally I am stealing because the fact that I didn't pay for it costs the labels money, well, I would have cost them the same money either way. Because I wouldn't have bought a completely unfamiliar CD for such high prices. So, I cost the label the same amount of money either way, but by downloading the CD I am much more likely to buy tickets to that band when the have a concert near me. I am more likely to buy a t-shirt. I am even more likely to buy the CD itself, because I want it and it has pretty cover art that I wouldn't have cared about in the first place, had I never gotten into that band.

So, illegal downloading benifits the artists and screws the labels over. I would totally download music illegally if I weren't technologically illiterate. Now, back to my sad existence of paying for music.