quote:

---

Originally posted by AngelaSo:
One doesn't need an excuse for downloading music illegally. If you claim to be poor, have a computer, and you have an internet connection, you would download.

Ange

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
The whole issue seems like a waste of brain cells.
Janis Ian says it better than I could, on the Baen Free Library.

---

Wow, Janis Ian is still alive. Who'd a thunk? Smart human, that Janis, and a great article. Thanks for the link, Rook.
 

---

Posted by lord_of_the_beans (# 6631) on :
 
At www.walmart.com you can download singles for 88 cents(american) - Just FYI - almost like stealing
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Not the original point of my post seems to have gone all purgatorial to me.....
 

---

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :
 
But music posters are really cool! As is graffiti and street art. I'm guessing others will disagree though...
 

---

Posted by DJMarc (# 141) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
But music posters are really cool! As is graffiti and street art. I'm guessing others will disagree though...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
But music posters are really cool! As is graffiti and street art. I'm guessing others will disagree though...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:
I can't afford to buy CDs, so I don't, and frankly, it would never cross my mind to download music. It's theft, unless the artist has given his explicit permission, or the work in question is out of copyright.

Deborah

---

I download music all the time. Before CDs, my friends and I used to make copies of each others tapes, or make our own compilations because face it: There are usually only 2 or 3 good songs on any albumn. The band may have 10 good songs they want to publish, but the record companies will split them up onto different albumns to force you to buy two or three CDs to get the songs you want.

The music industry has made money off of me because of peer-to-peer music file trading.
The quality of these file transfers are rarely as good as an actual CD (IME) unless you are paying for them - in which case a royalty is being paid to the record company. If I want to check out an artist that I have heard about, say Nina Simone, I am not going to go pay $14-$25 for a CD. I will download some songs, and if I like the artist, I will consider buying the CD. Since I discovered P2P, the number of "store bought" CDs I own has increased by 10 fold (until 2001 I only owned 3 CDs). The only reason I have bought the CDs I own now is because of the availability of 'pirated' music.

That bit being said:
I hate fly posting. I hate advertising period, but realize it is a necessary evil; at least until we've totally dismantled free market capitalism. Then the government will control the record industries and can encourage the comrads...er, citizens to purchase a CD a week or something. Then advertising won't be necessary.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
I pretty much agree with RooK and NP.

There's no way that I can afford £15 for an CD if I have no real idea what it is going to sound like (and who knows if the one song I may have heard represent the album as a whole. It may not).

There is also no way that having a few poor-quality tracks is as good as having the CD or even LP (since I like vinyl, cos I am sad )

On the P2P site I use (KaZaA), a lot of the more obscure rock and metal bands (which is my rather questionable taste) only have a few tracks available. There is often no way to download the whole album and so the only way to hear the whole album is to buy it. However, as the music I listen to tends to get very poor media exposure, the only way to know what a band sounds like is often to download a few tracks or get some stuff hometaped from a friend or something.

At the moment, I am lucky if I can afford on CD every couple of months (although I try to do so) but nearly all the CD's I have bought in the last couple of years have been of bands I first heard on KaZaA and I wouldn't have bought those albums otherwise, because I wouldn't have known that I liked the bands.

Those who think that people like me are harming the music industry couldn't be more wrong. As I have argued on various other threads, there is virtually no difference between P2P downloading and tape-trading.

A lot of the better known rock and metal bands only became well known through tape-trading. Illegal tape-trading increased a given bands fanbase, which resulted in increased gig attendance and street cred for the band, and this is what got them noticed by the record labels in the first place. Ironically, this is precisely what happened in Metallica's case.

In the same way, once they had been signed, people would hear an illegal copy of the bands wors and go out and buy it if they enjoyed it, or go to a gig, or buy a t-shirt or whatever.

Illegal music copying can and does actually help smaller bands (alternative music sales are up ) and only really "harms" bands that are definately going to sell many hundreds of thousands of copies anyway. Incidentally, I know a fair number of metal fans who now refuse to buy Metallica records or merchandise explicitly because of what they did to Napster.

The records companies themselves are harming the music industry by damaging their own credibility, just as much as the people who download 100GB of music and never buy a CD are. Actually, the only downloaders I think who do the music industry are the pirates who sell piss-poor recordings outside gigs and so forth and largely these are the people that the record companies get fed up with too.

Not sure why I have bothered to say all that, since I have said it all before ad infinitum. But hey.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Papio:

Sure you've got an excuse. Tell it to the judge.

Copyright breach is still theft. You can be sued and it can be a criminal matter. One day you may write, compose or record something and you might get cheesed off at getting nothing for your efforts.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Papio:

Sure you've got an excuse. Tell it to the judge.

Copyright breach is still theft. You can be sued and it can be a criminal matter. One day you may write, compose or record something and you might get cheesed off at getting nothing for your efforts.

---

Not if my music gets passed around the net, my fanbase get's increased and I end up getting a record deal and a music career out of it.

Theft Smeft! Who cares? Illegal mucic trading has benifitted more bands then you can shake a stick at. That isn't just some lame excuse. It's a historical, empirical fact that can easily be found in any number of books on popular music. Do you think the bands would still rather no-one downloaded stuff for free even if it meant they had a much smaller fanbase and sold much fewer records? Do you honestly? I bloody don't!

Why do you think that some bands put free mp3's on their websites or say in interviews that downloading is ok? Because they know what side their bread is buttered on, that why. It is abso-fucking-lutely not even bloodly marginally different from tape trading. The bands who tend to slag off downloaders tend to be the famous bands who have "made it". Funny that.

As I say, alternative record sales are up, due to the increased exposure of the bands.

And no-one is gonna sue me. They are only suing people who download shitloads and shitloads, enough to make it probably that it is for commerical purposes. And they haven't started doing it in the UK yet anyway.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Papio:

Sure you've got an excuse. Tell it to the judge.

Copyright breach is still theft. You can be sued and it can be a criminal matter. One day you may write, compose or record something and you might get cheesed off at getting nothing for your efforts.

---

And no-one is gonna sue me. They are only suing people who download shitloads and shitloads, enough to make it probably that it is for commerical purposes. And they haven't started doing it in the UK yet anyway.

---

They are not only sueing people who download stacks of material. A 12 year old kid was sued for down loading a dozen tracks. OK, the injuction was merely threatened (most in this area are warning shots) but it is still theft.

I had a running battle with people in my church about copyright material and only after 4 years have they got the licenses. We had a production at Easter, directed by a law studnt who's dad's a lawyer and she used copyright material without permission and not subject to the limited exemptions.

If bands decide to allow copying that is their right to choose, not yours to abuse.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Then convince me that I am doing active harm to a band by finding out what they sound like and telling my mates about them if I think they are good.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Then convince me that I am doing active harm to a band by finding out what they sound like and telling my mates about them if I think they are good.

---

You're doing no harm at all. Like you aren't often doing harm if you drive too fast. Still an offence though. Strict Liability and all that.
 

---

Posted by irreverentkit (# 4271) on :
 
At 88 cents (Wal Mart) or 99 cents (iTunes) a pop, you can download for cheap and stay legal.

Don't steal. If you take a 25 cent chocolate candy from the display next to the cash register, that's still stealing. Even if you think the 7-11 is making too much money off that candy, it's still stealing.

P.S. Kazaa acts like spyware and all kinds of people can get INTO your computer. Mr Irreverent, governor of all computer paranoia and protection, says just say NO to Kazaa!
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Ah, here we go again. How MANY times have I heard this conversation! The argument that "oh, it increased my CD sales" Yes, you maybe, but not generally. "Alternative music sales are up" - statistically this is the biggest pantsload out there.

As Sioni said, tell it to the judge. Here's the simple facts:
1. Copyright. Break it down and it is really simple - the right to copy. If you have the right to copy then you can copy under the terms you've been permitted. If you don't have the right to copy, then you don't. End of freaking story. Ways that give you permission:
a) the explicit permission of the author. Which might be the band *and it just might not be the band.*
b) implied licenses - having MP3s to download on a website for example. These in fact may be specific licenses - we allow you to copy this for your own personal use, etc. Read the terms, baby.
c) the copyright expiring on a piece of music - currently a varying range of 20-75 years after the death of the author based on where you are.

Think of it like a house. When we were all growing up, there was always a house in the neighbourhood where everyone ran through, in and out, all day, the owners didn't care, were happy to have everyone round, come play in the pool, what have you. Some bands (Phish, the Grateful Dead) are like this. And some bands, just getting started, etc are like this too. And there was always the other house which was locked up tight, with a vicious dobie named "Muffin" that you weren't allowed in without express invitation. Other bands are like this. There are many reasons why they might be like this - onerous record company contract terms, selfishness, fear of what might happen if the music is released generally. But the point is, just because the first set of people let you in their house all the time doesn't mena the second set of people gave you permission. And any kind of justification you come up with really isn't going to work.

Yes, they are suing people. Even people who've just done relatively minor downloads. Currently, plenty of websites allow you to download just the one song that you want for under a dollar at a time, and new music is being added to these sites every day. Mostly the suits are being settled out of court, basically because there's no defense at law to this.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Go Anne Go:

I see no evidence at all that I am doing anything wrong. I am not buying fewer C.D's then I would be otherwise, if anything I am buying more.

Sales of less well known albums are up. If I am wrong, prove it. And frankly, I actually don't care if you think I am immoral. Sorry and all that, but I really, truly don't give a monkeys.

The law is simply wrong on this issue and the record companies are talking a load of shite. Those are the facts, so far I am concerned.

Do the record companies, or anybody else, actually believe that cracking down on KaZaA or whatever is going to stop music "theft"? Do they think that it wasn't invented before most people had the internet?

If they do, they are simply cretins. If they don't, but they think that cracking down on P2P downloading is going to "solve" the "problem" then they are equally cretinous.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Whether or not you are wrong is a moral question. What you are doing is definitely illegal. I allege that what you are doing is also wrong, in the classic "think what would happen if they did it to you?" format.

CD sales went down due to Napster and Kazaa, and now after crackdowns they're up again. Plus, legal downloads of singles at reasonable prices are taking off. There are PLENTY of legal alternatives, and they're not expensive, so really what you're doing when you illegally copy music is taking money out of artists mouths. The law has been this way since the Statute of Anne way back when. Pertains to books, music, art, the whole lot.

Justify all you want, but I'm sure not going to defend you when the Federales come for you! If you think you're so in the right, why not turn yourself in to challenge the law? Because you're a big mouth and small trousers, that's why.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Because I don't live in America where the paranoid-as-fuck RIAA are helping bands to shit on their own fans?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I've tried to think where it says that if people are paranoid cretins it's okay to steal from them, but I can't. Perhaps you will enlighten us, Papio?
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
What-the-law-says put aside...and how people are stealing from Metallica etc put aside...

How is downloading music (mp3) different from just recording a song off the radio?

I honestly would like to know.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Legally, downloading a song isn't any different than recording it off the radio. Practically, recording a song off the radio loses something in the transmission (announcing, back announcing, fade in and out, static, cutting off ends to segue into something else), and if you're taping it, it also loses something in the reproduction.

Taping off radio (and in fact VCR recording) in the US now includes a small fee on every blank tape and blank VCR tape to go to compensate copyright holders based on the amount of play etc they get. But with taping, every subsequent taping loses a little bit of quality, tapes stretch, etc. It also took a fair bit of time and effort to cue up tapes, etc. Now through the magic of techonology, it can all be automated and through digital techology no quality is lost in quick, cheap easy reproductions. This is partly why the huge fuss.

Well, that and people like Papio, who think theft is ok if it suits them just fine. If he's in the UK, the British arm of the RIAA is indeed filing lawsuits and if he's not, I'm quite certain there's someone he can turn himself into. "Hey! I'm a copyright infringer!" Won't get you the chicks, baby.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I think on my next visit to Blighty, I'm going to Papio's house and steal his car. It would suit me well, and he's a cretin, so under his own justifications this is just fine! It might even cause me to buy my own car if I like owning his. But if I don't like it, well then I can just keep it anyway and not buy a car.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Um, I don't own a car and I rather suspect that the number of music fans who have never downloaded a song, or taped off the radio or tape a friends album must be rather tiny.

It's hardly as though it is an unheard of thing to do, but I guess that anyone who's ever done it is a cretin. Ah well.

Some people here are acting as though I have downloaded thousands of songs (I haven't) or as though anyone who has ever owned an illegal copy of a song is a major-league criminal or something. Really, it ain't a big deal. I know (in real life) almost no-one who would even consider it an issue whatsoever. I can't believe that people are getting upset cos someone they have never met downloads a few songs off an album before buying it. I mean, I really can't see why people are making a fuss about it. It strikes me as rather sad.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
So where's the line? One song? Ten songs?? A hundred? A thousand????? Where's the line between what you think is ok, and what you think isn't? And why is that the line? Since you can now download songs legally and cheaply, why don't you do that?

You might not have a car, but you get my point. Trying to justify something illegal, being so proud of it, and yet not willing to turn yourself in (so it obviously isn't some great stand against infringements of civil liberties) does make you a cretin, not to mention your horrid language.

Some people call us sad. Other people call us internationally qualified copyright lawyers. Like say, my Mom, and the degrees on my wall.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Some call you a waste of time.

I don't consider downloading MP3s for evaluation purposes a big deal. Of course, I also don't consider $0.99 per song a big deal either, so I tend to use iTunes while the record companies fool themselves about music piracy. It doubt it matters much, because the end result is the same: the music companies are going to have an increasingly difficult time selling the majority of the utter shyte they produce.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Where did I say that it was some "great stand for civil liberties"? Find where I said that and I'll cave in . And If the word "bloody" is horrid then you ought to hear me when I am actually angry.

So, wanting to know what an album is like before I buy it makes me a cretin, but hammering on at someone over a total non-issue, and misrepresenting what that person is saying doesn't make you a cretin? Ok, I'll bear that in mind.

Oh, and the fact that you have a degree clearly makes you much brighter than some poor sod who is about to graduate. Yeah, it must do.

I think I would be rather sad if I was "proud"! that I have the ability to double click on a song on KaZaA, and I really don't think that FYI. I am not "proud", I just can't believe that anyone actually thinks that I am some sort of bogey-man because I am sick of buying albums and then discovering that the one or two songs I have heard legally do not actually represent the album.

And I am also annoyed by people who simply won't acknowledge that tape-trading was an important factor in some bands popularity.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I've tried to think where it says that if people are paranoid cretins it's okay to steal from them, but I can't. Perhaps you will enlighten us, Papio?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
I have only one thing to say (in a very concerned and pious voice):

"What Would Jesus Do?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Do the record companies, or anybody else, actually believe that cracking down on KaZaA or whatever is going to stop music "theft"? Do they think that it wasn't invented before most people had the internet?

If they do, they are simply cretins. If they don't, but they think that cracking down on P2P downloading is going to "solve" the "problem" then they are equally cretinous.

---

I took this as part of your defense of downloading music illegally. If it was not meant as such, I withdraw my remarks about your argument. But I still think you're doing something you ought to know is wrong.
 

---

Posted by AngelaSo (# 6699) on :
 
RuthW, I know you are a great believer of one shouldn't downland music from the net.

I agree with Papio. In fact, music "theft" has been around for a looong time - Long before the invention of KaZzA or other P2P software.

And pop music CDs are really overpriced. I agree that a classical music CD should worth $20CAD or more, knowing that many classical musicians aren't making that much of money. Pop stars like Britney Spears already have loads of money and they don't need me to contribute to their income.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The oil companies are evil and gasoline prices have gone through the roof while my income has remained the same, so I'll just fill up the tank without paying.

What is the difference between that and what you describe, Angela?
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Ok, so now the arguments seem to boil down to:
1) big music companies won't miss a bit of "spare change" so it is ok to steal from them.
2) Britney spears seems to have a lot of money, so it is ok to steal from her.
3) Classical musicans don't make a lot of money (although I live round the corner from Yo Yo Ma, and he seems to be doing just fine, thank you) so it is not ok to steal from them.

Apparently, it is all relative.

Tape trading did help some bands, but not many. Also, people were more likely to buy a regular copy of the tape as the copied version was diminished in quality. Not true with MP3s. And in fact there *was* litigation over copying on blank tapes, which is why in the US at least there is a surcharge included in the price of every blank tape to cover copyright infringement! (Ditto, VHS tapes.) So everyone had to pay for it, whehter they were doing it or not. Which is what is happening and going to happen more as people pirate music. I'm being forced to pay for Papio's crimes. We all are! What a cretin!

Oh, and Mr. "About to get a degree" I'm not claiming betterment than you because I have a degree. I'm claiming better education than you because I'm about to finish my fourth degree. In this area! I'm claiming I'm better than you because I don't steal.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Where did I say that it was some "great stand for civil liberties"? Find where I said that and I'll cave in

---

quote:

---

So, wanting to know what an album is like before I buy it makes me a cretin, but hammering on at someone over a total non-issue, and misrepresenting what that person is saying doesn't make you a cretin? Ok, I'll bear that in mind.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and the fact that you have a degree clearly makes you much brighter than some poor sod who is about to graduate. Yeah, it must do.

---

quote:

---

I think I would be rather sad if I was "proud"! that I have the ability to double click on a song on KaZaA, and I really don't think that FYI. I am not "proud", I just can't believe that anyone actually thinks that I am some sort of bogey-man because I am sick of buying albums and then discovering that the one or two songs I have heard legally do not actually represent the album.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The oil companies are evil and gasoline prices have gone through the roof while my income has remained the same, so I'll just fill up the tank without paying.

---

...but the seller has no right to say what you do with your gas after you buy it. You can siphon off a few gallons to give to your friends or a stranded motorist. You can even resell it if you want and can find a buyer.

If CDs were sold like gasoline or any other product, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
RuthW - I do understand your position and cheers for withdrawing your remark since you did indeed misunderstand what I was saying. My fault perhaps.

GoAnneGo - No, your not "being forced to pay for my crimes" because, as I have already said, I don't in fact download as a substitute for purchasing. I buy CD's legally and I probably bought more CD's then I would have otherwise. The reason I don't buy more CD's then I do is that I genuinely cannot afford to do so. I now believe that you have never downloaded a song illegally, however, since you apparently think that they are of the same quality as a CD. They are not.

Oh, and it's hell, if you think that I should specify how many songs I have downloaded then tough luck cos I ain't gonna. If I like the songs, I buy the record and if I don't like the songs I delete them.

As for the rest of you unsubstantiated remarks about me, I really don't care. You can twist my words and call me fluffy names but just don't think that I give a shit.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
For the benifit of the terminally stupid, if I don't know what a band sounds like or I don't like the band, I am not going to buy that CD anyway. Therefore, the record company are not losing money because I haven't purchased the CD since I had no intention of doing so anyway.

If, on the other hand, I download 2 or 3 songs of a band that I have heard of but haven't heard, like the tracks and then buy the CD then the record comapany are actually making money from me.

The reason is: I have bought a CD which I would not have purchased if I hadn't heard it. Paying to download songs defeats the object of this.

So, in my case at least, you arguement is horseshit, Anne.
 

---

Posted by Rain Dog (# 4085) on :
 
Talking of which one of the artist's I got into via P2P downloads (and have since bought all of the records) has come out in favour of what I was doing all along

Thea Gilmore Interview here

The bits re: P2P:

quote:

---

How about file-sharing - some argue that lots of artists are losing out because of it...

Well lots of records companies are arguing that anyway!

So do you think it has helped you or the opposite?

Well I think the whole hoo-ha about file-sharing is a load of bollocks. The record industry will argue that it's killing the music business. That's rubbish - what's killing the music business is record companies with their lack of belief in music and their lack of faith in artists they can't control every single aspect of. At the same time, I don't like the thought that people think that music should be for nothing, I think that's wrong; I think music, like any form of art, should have a price on it; people shouldn't feel it should be free but I think that file-sharing is a fantastic tool. I tend to find that most people who file-share, are the very same people you'll find in a record shop on a Saturday, buying a record they downloaded off the internet.
(C) CDtimes.co.uk

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The oil companies are evil and gasoline prices have gone through the roof while my income has remained the same, so I'll just fill up the tank without paying.

---

...but the seller has no right to say what you do with your gas after you buy it. You can siphon off a few gallons to give to your friends or a stranded motorist. You can even resell it if you want and can find a buyer.

If CDs were sold like gasoline or any other product, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
(Admins, I hope the above quoting is OK. If not, please remove the quote and leave the link)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
For the benifit of the terminally stupid,

---

quote:

---

if I don't know what a band sounds like or I don't like the band, I am not going to buy that CD anyway. Therefore, the record company are not losing money because I haven't purchased the CD since I had no intention of doing so anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
(Admins, I hope the above quoting is OK. If not, please remove the quote and leave the link)

---

So you recognize the importance of copyright law?

---

Not wanting to get shipOfFools into trouble was my main objective

But generally I do only use P2P to get bootlegs of concerts (which are given the thumbs up by the likes of Ryan Adams, Wilco, Willard Grant Conspiracy and most bands I'm into). I know quite a few artists personally and most of them feel sharing is infringing on their intellectual property - granted they have relatively low profile so it allows them to not be hit as hard by p2p and they have a loyal fanbase who will always buy their records. Globally, I do think artists should be protected from this so globally yes I do agree with copyright protection but I think record companies are barking up the wrong tree and failing to see there's a lot of promotion in P2P sharing.

It's their their lack of support of real artists that's killing them not P2P.

[ 04. June 2004, 15:59: Message edited by: Rain Dog ]
 

---

Posted by Rain Dog (# 4085) on :
 
missed a crucial NOT in that last post.

All the artist I know think sharing is _not_ infringing on their inellectual property.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
(Admins, I hope the above quoting is OK. If not, please remove the quote and leave the link)

---

So you recognize the importance of copyright law?

---

Not wanting to get shipOfFools into trouble was my main objective

But generally I do only use P2P to get bootlegs of concerts (which are given the thumbs up by the likes of Ryan Adams, Wilco, Willard Grant Conspiracy and most bands I'm into). I know quite a few artists personally and most of them feel sharing is infringing on their intellectual property - granted they have relatively low profile so it allows them to not be hit as hard by p2p and they have a loyal fanbase who will always buy their records. Globally, I do think artists should be protected from this so globally yes I do agree with copyright protection but I think record companies are barking up the wrong tree and failing to see there's a lot of promotion in P2P sharing.

It's their their lack of support of real artists that's killing them not P2P.

---

 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
missed a crucial NOT in that last post.

All the artist I know think sharing is _not_ infringing on their inellectual property.

---

in which case, a bigger
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
All the artist I know think sharing is _not_ infringing on their inellectual property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
All the artist I know think sharing is _not_ infringing on their inellectual property.

---

And I know a musician who is absolutely infuriated by it.

---

Clearly you guys cancel each other out. Who can rescue me from this body of death?!
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Jesus, ya moron!

What are they teaching in those Orthodox churches these days?
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:

Taping off radio (and in fact VCR recording) in the US now includes a small fee on every blank tape and blank VCR tape to go to compensate copyright holders based on the amount of play etc they get.

---

WEll shit, if I'm paying for it already, then I have the right to copy whatever I want. If I am being charged a fee because I might record a copyrighted program, then I have done my bit.

So screw them.
 

---

Posted by Rain Dog (# 4085) on :
 
Since we're on the subject of VHS taping (and since Sony tried to prevent it from being allowed back in the 80s), I wonder how many people actually do obey the law and erase their tapes after the fair use period is up (I think it's something like a month in the UK). It is still a breach of copyright but one that seems to have become socially acceptable (of course that doesn't make P2P acceptable).

I do have to agree with you NP - they're assuming you're going to something illegal with it so making you pay (in part) for it which has the effect of semi-legitimatising piracy. France has done the same with all CD-Rs IIRC (there was a major rush on CD-Rs in the last weeks before the tax came in). I don't think assuming guilt of the consumer is a good way of grabbing the moral high ground.

Lessing's Free Culture (which is freely available of course ) gives an interesting insight into the current state of copyright, P2P and all that stuff. It's quite technical but a very enjoyable read.

Shouldn't this thread be moved to purgatory as it's getting far too reasonable and rational for hell?

[ 04. June 2004, 17:26: Message edited by: Rain Dog ]
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
I buy CD's legally and I probably bought more CD's then I would have otherwise. ... If I like the songs, I buy the record and if I don't like the songs I delete them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
There you go, case in point. You downloaded songs illegally, you didn't like them, you didn't purchase the single or the CD. Thus, you have deprived the artist of money. You seem to think it is ok since you didn't like the song, but this is still the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
There you go, case in point. You downloaded songs illegally, you didn't like them, you didn't purchase the single or the CD. Thus, you have deprived the artist of money. You seem to think it is ok since you didn't like the song, but this is still the case.

---

Huh? If I go to the store and listen at their "listening station" and decide not to buy the CD, have I deprived the artist of money? What Papio describes is the same, only he does it at home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
All the artist I know think sharing is _not_ infringing on their inellectual property.

---

And I know a musician who is absolutely infuriated by it.

---

My audio teacher was once also am independant record producer, and is very adamently against downloading. She says it hits the indies the hardest, because they are so dependant on even small sales.(Her record label just recently closed ) In fact most of the people I know who don't see a problem with downloading very quickly change their tune when they get on the production end of things.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The difference between the two scenarios I painted sounds entirely technical.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
The difference between the two scenarios I painted sounds entirely technical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Amusingly, I don't listen to radio stations much because of all the advertising...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Just out of curiosity: RuthW and GoAnneGo, do you ever speed? If you do, when you do, do you have horrible attacks of guilt? Or, like many of us, is it really just not matter that much?

---

quote:

---

It seems sensible to me that making unlicensed copies of copyright material would be technically an offence, but I don't perceive it as being one worth the trouble to pursue policing. Especially not with the vast potential for free marketing. How many millions of dollars do record companies pay to convince radio stations to play their product? Amusingly, I don't listen to radio stations much because of all the advertising...

---

quote:

---

So, basically, Papio should shut up, and get hell off my side. RuthW and GoAnneGo, while technically correct, seem to be narrow-minded dinosaurs that need to get lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Not that big of a problem worth policing? Surely you're joking right? The Motion Picture Industry in America lists lost revenue from copyright infringement on films (not music) at US$3 billion a year.See here for recent story. When Napster wasn't legal, people were downloading 20 MILLION songs a day. One song here, one song there, everyone does it, it adds up. When I was in Hong Kong, it was estimated that 75% of the computer software for sale was pirated, and thus unable to be verified or supported.

---

Well all this is not _real_ loss as in someone coming into a shop and taking a CD/DVD/prgram off the shelf so I'm not sure how they can calculate that. Spiderman was also one of the biggest grossing films in theaters as well as on DVD so it's obvious it will be more pirated. Were they out of pocket? Nope.

Re: the software piracy - how many people would actually want to pay for M$ software if they had to pay the full price? Much fewer than the 75% - in fact it's widely believed that piracy helps Windows stay such a dominant platform. If they enforced the law in a much harsher fashion. you would probably see an exodus towards Linux (which I have done BTW since I didn't want to pirate my software nor could I afford to pay for Bill Gates stipend over and over again). I'd be happy if M$ managed to wipe out piracy tomorrow, as it will be the ultimate pyrrhic victory and hand the world over to us Linuxers.

[ 04. June 2004, 23:01: Message edited by: Rain Dog ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Just out of curiosity: RuthW and GoAnneGo, do you ever speed?

---

quote:

---

If you do, when you do, do you have horrible attacks of guilt? Or, like many of us, is it really just not matter that much?

---

quote:

---

RuthW and GoAnneGo, while technically correct, seem to be narrow-minded dinosaurs that need to get lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Not that big of a problem worth policing? Surely you're joking right? The Motion Picture Industry in America lists lost revenue from copyright infringement on films (not music) at US$3 billion a year.See here for recent story. When Napster wasn't legal, people were downloading 20 MILLION songs a day. One song here, one song there, everyone does it, it adds up. When I was in Hong Kong, it was estimated that 75% of the computer software for sale was pirated, and thus unable to be verified or supported.

---

Well all this is not _real_ loss as in someone coming into a shop and taking a CD/DVD/prgram off the shelf so I'm not sure how they can calculate that. Spiderman was also one of the biggest grossing films in theaters as well as on DVD so it's obvious it will be more pirated. Were they out of pocket? Nope.

---

quote:

---

Re: the software piracy - how many people would actually want to pay for M$ software if they had to pay the full price? Much fewer than the 75% - in fact it's widely believed that piracy helps Windows stay such a dominant platform. If they enforced the law in a much harsher fashion. you would probably see an exodus towards Linux (which I have done BTW since I didn't want to pirate my software nor could I afford to pay for Bill Gates stipend over and over again). I'd be happy if M$ managed to wipe out piracy tomorrow, as it will be the ultimate pyrrhic victory and hand the world over to us Linuxers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Because we think musicians should get paid for their work? Right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I think musicians, artists, poets, software writers, novelists, writers, comic strip artists, people like me who design knitting patterns, journalists, sportswriters, graphic artists and anyone who places anything in a fixed medium should be paid for their work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Not that big of a problem worth policing? Surely you're joking right? The Motion Picture Industry in America lists lost revenue from copyright infringement on films (not music) at US$3 billion a year.See here for recent story. When Napster wasn't legal, people were downloading 20 MILLION songs a day. One song here, one song there, everyone does it, it adds up. When I was in Hong Kong, it was estimated that 75% of the computer software for sale was pirated, and thus unable to be verified or supported.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e.:
The first song I downloaded was : "Put a little love in your heart." by Lennox and Green from the movie "Scrooged." I spent 3 years looking for it. I tried ordering it from shops (it's deleted). I looked in every second hand shop (even though the artists would have received nothing in royalties). In the end I used a p2p programme to get it. Illegal? yes.

I am in the, have loads of CD's and use p2p to make better choices in my purchasing corner. I buy as many CD's as I ever did. Indeed I have recently bought a Leftfield album and a Norah Jones Album on the back of a bit of p2p "tasting."

I agree with all the arguments about unhelpful and overly profiteering nature of the record companies. I agree p2p is illegal. But for getting a taste or for finding deleted and unavailable tracks it has proved a real boon.

I do not really bother with artists who are the cash cows of the industry. I mean, Clifford T Ward, do you like his stuff? On the back of my reccomendation how would you have a taste without spending £15 and six hours looking for stuff?

P

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Ah, you gotta love Hell - where the hosts at their whim edit your posts and leave insulting commentary ostensibly made by yourself due to a lack of quotes, which is what they were insulting you on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Not that big of a problem worth policing? Surely you're joking right? The Motion Picture Industry in America lists lost revenue from copyright infringement on films (not music) at US$3 billion a year.See here for recent story. When Napster wasn't legal, people were downloading 20 MILLION songs a day. One song here, one song there, everyone does it, it adds up. When I was in Hong Kong, it was estimated that 75% of the computer software for sale was pirated, and thus unable to be verified or supported.

---

They are basing that figure on the revenue they would have potentially gained if they had actually sold the albumns. If I download one song that is on a $25 CD, then they say "We lost $25 in sales", which is simply not the case. Because I am not going to go buy a CD from an artist I've never heard just to listen to one song a friend mentioned three days ago. If I download the song and like it, I am more likely to go buy the CD.

I can understand being upset if I was downloading and selling the copies I made... but thats not what I do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

I reject the assertion that different art forms are equivalent because of the potential for copying. Pardon me while I find a digital copy of the Mona Lisa on the web, and print it out to pin on my wall. I'll pout with disappointment while others fail to give a shit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
GoAnneGo - nope, I am not depriving an artist of money for not buying a CD I wasn't ever gonna buy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
GoAnneGo - nope, I am not depriving an artist of money for not buying a CD I wasn't ever gonna buy.

---

If you weren't ever going to buy it, why are you downloading it illegally? Why not just listen to samples on line, or do it in a legal way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
When Napster wasn't legal, people were downloading 20 MILLION songs a day. One song here, one song there, everyone does it, it adds up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
When I was a child I had quite a collection of Matchbox and Corgi die-cast cars. They aren't being made any more and I would dearly love to have them again. But isn't that the point? You don't have a right to something simply because it has done at some time in the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irreverentkit:
Eat produce on display at the grocery store to see if you "like it" before deciding to buy it. Or just take it. Shouldn't produce be free?

Take a book home from the local book store to see if you "like it" before deciding to buy it. Or, just take it. Shouldn't books be free?

Drive away from the gas station without paying for your fuel because the petroleum companies are polluting, worker-exploiting, profit-grubbing capitalists.

Help yourself to some Motrin or Claritin or Benedryl from the pharmacy shelves because the pharmaceutical companies are the spawn of Satan, gouging sick people with high costs for necessary medicines.

Why are songs any different from these other products?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
If I eat a vegetable, burn a tank of gas, or steal a book from a store, then those things cannot be sold to another customer, so I have deprived the rightful owners of (potential) income.

If I download a song, I do not deprive anybody of anything. There is nothing that they used to have, that my "theft" has deprived them of. There is nothing that they could have sold to another customer but now cannot.

There may be a case for making such downloads illegal. But your analogies are completely beside the point, irreverentkit. They aren't analagous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:

(note - partial quote)
None of these examples are the same as P2P and we've already talked about this. You take a CD from a store, the store has one less - you download an mp3, the store still has that CD.

Interestingly, your first example is in fact law in France. You have the right to test fresh products before buying - it's the consumers right. So is the French law wrong and encouraging thieving?

Your final example is also fallacious (have you actually read the thread?) as I've already pointed out - it's more like producing generic drugs to alleviate say AIDS - oh wait a minute, 3rd world countries already _do_ have that right to do that in the case of AIDS drugs...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
What about the origination of the file being downloaded? The copyright notices, etc. are pretty clear, so, if you're not being deceptive by downloading, aren't you profiting from someone else's illegal act, namely whoever distributed the file to begin with? And they quite possibly purchased the original file with no intention of abiding by the notice, which is deceptive.

And because I'm just following this down various trails, is it okay to buy bootleg DVDs and software from the guy on the corner, even if you know they're bootlegs?

Sienna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irreverentkit:
Intellectual property is in fact, property. It may not be tangible (sorry you all didn't like my produce/gasoline examples), but it is still property under the law.

---

quote:

---

There are plenty of MP3s out there that the artists offer for free. There is a lot of shareware out there that the programmers offer for free (check out snood.com, my personal fave). It is their choice to share with the rest of the world, to relinquish their right to profit from their creations.

But until they do, the right to use that intellectual property belongs to the copyright holder.

---

quote:

---

There is no moral high ground for people who download music illegally. Why not just say you steal music and be honest about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
As I've previously stated I never keep mp3s or burn them into CDs since I'd rather support the artist than do that. If I were a thief I should stop doing that, stick to my murky principles and never buy a CD again, just freeloading forever more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
RooK - if you don't agree with me, please say why. Cheers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
RooK - if you don't agree with me, please say why. Cheers.

---

Papio, before I made this statement you seemed to by saying that there was nothing wrong with downloading illegal MP3s. This is just clearly not so, because the concept of intellectual property is a well-established one. The rights of those owning a song include not letting anyone "sample" it without buying a CD. Sure, it seems like a stupid business model that will probably fail, but that's what our society has agreed upon, and consumers don't have a say about it. Go to iTunes and behold the high-quality bounty, with free samples.

---

quote:

---

Referring to GoAnneGo's raw downloads numbers for songs, I'd like to point out that companies drool unabashedly at TV commercials that are anywhere near that kind of audience size. A radio station with that kind of listenership would be getting its ass kissed belovedly by the record companies. At the risk of becoming too Purgatorial, I'd like to suggest that the music companies spending who-knows-how-much to ineffectually stanch this tide of free advertising have their business model all fucked up. It shouldn't be about creating prepackaged bits of artistic property for sale; it should be about entertaining and charming people out of their money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Thank God, I finally feel like someone's read what I wrote.

---

quote:

---

Free advertising? Free advertising?

---

quote:

---

"Record companies are evil" is just an excuse used by people to justify their illegal copying.

---

quote:

---

The record companies are trying to staunch this tide because their bottom line is affected - end of story.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I don't really know a basic corporation anywhere that isn't based on exploiting the worker...

<Pardon me while I tune out marxist rant. I've got toenails to clip.>

...you're just stealing.

---

quote:

---

Free advertising? Free advertising?

---

quote:

---

For those intelligent enough to recognize it, yes, that's exactly what it could be.

---

quote:

---

"Record companies are evil" is just an excuse used by people to justify their illegal copying.

---

quote:

---

I hope you're not saying this to me. I said they're stupid, not evil. I'm also saying that you're stupid, and lacking the requisite panache to be evil.

---

quote:

---

The record companies are trying to staunch this tide because their bottom line is affected - end of story.

---

quote:

---

Wow. Did you figure that out by yourself, or were you taught that in one of your 3.5 degrees?

---

quote:

---

The situation reminds me of how much the Big Three auto makers screamed bloody murder when evil "under-priced" imports caused their profits to spiral down the tube. They must have spent billions on lobbyist groups to crank up import duties. The amusing thing was that people were actually buying the imports, despite the hardships, because all the domestic vehicles were complete shit in comparison. They didn't pull themselves out of that slump until they started making products of comperable quality. My point? Now that consumers can buy single songs without wasting money on stuff they don't like, record company profits are going to spiral downward anyway, and their current desperation is just a waste of their money. Still, scape goats are handy - just don't expect me to care when they arbitrarily mention losses in the same sentence with illegal downloads.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I don't really know a basic corporation anywhere that isn't based on exploiting the worker...

<Pardon me while I tune out marxist rant. I've got toenails to clip.>

...you're just stealing.

---

quote:

---

Again, are you referring to me? I'm paying for my downloads, thankyouverymuch. I just don't particularly care how the low-quality, spyware-ridden, hacker-infested P2P systems effect the music market. I agree that it's wrong, and wouldn't disagree with making those found guilty pay the buck-per-track plus some punitive fine. I'm arguing that it's a waste of time.

Of course, considering that you're resorting to arguing that record companies have a right to trick people into paying for something they don't actually want as a legitimate business model, wasting time appears to be one of your degrees.

---

I'm sorry, at what point did I say that? I'm all for iTunes and better consumer choice. I, too, have paid plenty for one hit CDs where the rest of them sucked. I'm just perpetually suprised that people seem to think that the music company business model is something new. It is one of the reasons why there are separate albums and singles charts. People buy books they think will be good, which turn out to suck after the opening chapter. It's one of the reasons Microsoft tried to bundle explorer in with its OS. You may think I'm stupid and a time waster, but you're obviously pig-ignorant as to how the real world works.

[You fucked up your code, AGAIN? Is there anything simple enough for you to learn, besides corporate dogma?]

[ 06. June 2004, 20:47: Message edited by: RooK ]
 

---

Posted by Joykins (# 5820) on :
 
I'm following this debate with interest because my husband is an independent musician with his own label, who does most of his marketing online.

As in the debate here, indie musicians' opinions are divided on the topic of illegal downloads. Some view it as expanding their fan base, while others see it as lost sales.

I asked my husband what he thought and he seemed most bothered by, get this, the deterioration in sound quality that happens when one person rips an mp3 from a cd (lowering the bit rate or some such thing) and sets it up on a P2P.

His label did experiment with free downloads. The downloads were posted, and a totally optional "click to donate to support this project" was set up. He got hundreds of dollars in donations.

Joy
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
One last chance, GoAnneGo, to see if you can manage to follow my point without just resorting to your mantra. After this, I'm probably just going to start insulting you recreationally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
The simple fact is that while certain forms of downloads from legitimate websites are used as advertising, p2p file sharing networks aren't advertising.

---

quote:

---

This has to be the dumbest analogy you've come up with yet.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry, at what point did I say that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoAnneGo:
And Papio, I'll tell you for the gazillionth time (and no doubt you'll repeat yourself again anyway) - part of the horrid business model that no one likes except companies that are trying to sell you something is that before, you would have bought the CD to see if you liked it. You still might not have liked it, but you'd already have bought it. Now, through your sampling, you haven't bought it, and thus you've deprived someone of money. Maybe you wouldn't have bought the CD every time, but I'm willing to bet that if you look back through your CD collection there's CDs in there that had you used your P2P sampling, you would not have bought. But you bought them anyway. Because this is no longer happening, you're depriving someone of income.

---

quote:

---

People buy books they think will be good, which turn out to suck after the opening chapter.

---

quote:

---

You may think I'm stupid and a time waster, but you're obviously pig-ignorant as to how the real world works.

---

No, I'm painfully aware that the "real world" is stuffed full of stupid, time-wasting people. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

So, I think I've finished explaining why I think P2P music-sharing is really only a minor issue. Don't bother trotting out any more revenues numbers that would make global-warming climatologists cringe uncomfortably. I recognize that you disagree, and that's fine, especially considering your background. But if you insist on trying to chase this around one more circle of witless repetition, I assure you that all future turns will be ugly.
Yeah, I know that sounds lamely threatening. Amusingly, seasoned Denizens will probably recognize it as one of my rare moments of being considerate.
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
The fact is that a service allowing us to pay for single downloadable tracks would never have been made available without the "illegal" file trading that blossomed. Were it not for bootleggers and the government's inability to control them, we would still have prohibition.

The American (indeed the world) public wants to be able to download individual tracks and avoid all that crap that record companies use to fluff up their sales and CD sizes. It is only through the efforts of those willing to take the risk that we gain freedom from corporate corruption and greed. I'm willing to risk 99 cents on an artist to find out if I am interested in their work, but I will never go spend $20 just for a test drive. Especially since most places will not let you return a used CD.

Thank you mp3 pirates, for making the record companies finally come around to giving me a true choice about the music I listen to.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
So the ends justify the means?

Argue all you want about whether the system is right, ethical, fair, good, what-have-you. Bottom line is that those who illegally download music are breaking the law. That's kinda given in the 'illegally' part.

So, Papio, argue all you want about whether the law is right or wrong. If you think it's wrong, and therefore that you're morally justified in breaking it, then you should also be ok about accepting the consequences. Just don't whine that it's really ok to break the law, and you shouldn't be punished for it.

Three pages of the same tedious whirligig whining and rebuttals. God it's boring.

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I won't post anymore except to say I am enjoying more and more how pro-capitalist bourgeois RooK is getting as Go Anne Go provokes him to hit that hockey puck into the goal tender. Yowza!

I will refrain though from anymore comments since I hate being 100% in agreement with him so I can say no more.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Cycling on the pavement is illegal, because some people do it inappropriately and inconsiderately. But on a narrow country road that is packed with cars and empty of pedestrians the only sensible thing for a cyclist do to is hop up on the footpath. Everybody wins - the road isn't obstructed, the drivers don't get frustrated and overtake on a corner, and the cyclist doesn't get splatted.

Sure, if the police decided to come along and arrest you, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, you are breaking the law and would just have to pay the fine. Does that make it morally wrong and worthy of vilification?

Luckily, the police generally have better things to do than run around arresting cyclists for behaviour that is harming no-one and benefiting everyone. It sounds like record companies would do well to follow their example, stop pouring money into fighting a losing battle against minor downloaders and make album tracks available to download as a loss-leader to encourage sales. Bearing in mind that someone who downloads a track and likes it will very likely not just buy that particular CD, but future releases by that band as well.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
From where I sit it seems that the genie is out of the bottle and the record companies really can't do a hell of a lot about it. Sure they can wave scary lawsuits around but that only alienates their customer base and makes people less likely to want to obtain music in the proper and legal manner.

Sure they've been getting away with obscene profit levels but that's really beside the point. This would have happened even if they weren't making obscene profits. The technology came along for p2p music sharing, and it caught the record companies napping, and now they're in a quandry over how best to do damage control.

Frankly I'm glad I'm not in their shoes. I think that 20 years from now there won't be any record companies; every artist will promote his own music and get paid directly. The record companies will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. They are becoming, and will soon be completely, obsolete.

No wonder they're so upset. Poor souls.
 

---

Posted by Ian M (# 79) on :
 
This idea that the Internet etc. will make the music and book publishing industries obsolete just doesn't go away, does it? And yet so far for books at least the Internet has just led to increased sales of paper books - and some electronic sales as well.

The problem is that if everyone's free to promote their own novel or songs, the choice gets so overwhelming that you're likely to end up with everyone plumping for the safest possible option (or you get companies set up to spot the talent, develop it and bring it to people's attention - ie. to publish it, in whatever form that may be).

Anyway, I've read all through this thread with the intention of contributing, but it's been done for me - just as the record companies used CDs (with their 'improved' technology) to make everyone re-purchase stuff they already owned on LP, so surely they now need to develop a better-than-CD download technology that they can have an exclusive on to promote proper quality recordings of their artists' work? After all, MP3s aren't even as good as CDs anyway... Or just make low-bit-rate files available really readily, and sell the MP3 versions.

It's frankly pathetic how long it's taken for record companies to get anything worked out with regard to electronic distribution of music files, and it's hardly surprising people have taken it into their own hands. But as/if people can get hold of stuff legally with ease and at reasonable prices, most will end up doing that.

Tactility is the only other thing they could consider - I still love LPs for the physical involvement you have with getting the record out, the space for artwork etc. on the sleeve; and CDs have some of that, and it helps one when considering what to listen to, rather than just having a long list of artists and tracks as when files have been bought over the internet.

I guess we could end up with MP3 download plugs in record shops and you could get given the 'album cover' at the same time; but would there be any equivalent for electronic purchases?

Ian
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
One last chance, GoAnneGo, to see if you can manage to follow my point without just resorting to your mantra. After this, I'm probably just going to start insulting you recreationally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
The simple fact is that while certain forms of downloads from legitimate websites are used as advertising, p2p file sharing networks aren't advertising.

---

ad·ver·tise
v.tr.
To make known; call attention to.

How's that for a simple fact? How hard would it be to release low-bitrate versions of songs into the wild on P2P, with a tag soundbyte mentioning where they can buy a high-quality version? I'm guessing... pretty fucking easy. And it would be advertising, and it would be free. If you could have rubbed the minimum number of braincells together to think of it. I really have to stop assuming you can get subtle suggestions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
This has to be the dumbest analogy you've come up with yet.

---

And yet, you seemed to miss the point of it - the fundamental point that fighting P2P isn't going to be worth the trouble. Tell us honestly: considering the time and money spent on "cracking down" on P2P, how much actual return on investment do you think it has earned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I'm sorry, at what point did I say that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoAnneGo:
And Papio, I'll tell you for the gazillionth time (and no doubt you'll repeat yourself again anyway) - part of the horrid business model that no one likes except companies that are trying to sell you something is that before, you would have bought the CD to see if you liked it. You still might not have liked it, but you'd already have bought it. Now, through your sampling, you haven't bought it, and thus you've deprived someone of money. Maybe you wouldn't have bought the CD every time, but I'm willing to bet that if you look back through your CD collection there's CDs in there that had you used your P2P sampling, you would not have bought. But you bought them anyway. Because this is no longer happening, you're depriving someone of income.

---

quote:

---

Go Anne Go:
People buy books they think will be good, which turn out to suck after the opening chapter.

---

quote:

---

RooK:
Uh-oh! Now she's after the book-sharing establishment - public libraries!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
From where I sit it seems that the genie is out of the bottle and the record companies really can't do a hell of a lot about it. Sure they can wave scary lawsuits around but that only alienates their customer base and makes people less likely to want to obtain music in the proper and legal manner.

---

quote:

---

Sure they've been getting away with obscene profit levels but that's really beside the point. This would have happened even if they weren't making obscene profits. The technology came along for p2p music sharing, and it caught the record companies napping, and now they're in a quandry over how best to do damage control.

Frankly I'm glad I'm not in their shoes. I think that 20 years from now there won't be any record companies; every artist will promote his own music and get paid directly. The record companies will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. They are becoming, and will soon be completely, obsolete.

No wonder they're so upset. Poor souls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian M:
This idea that the Internet etc. will make the music and book publishing industries obsolete just doesn't go away, does it? And yet so far for books at least the Internet has just led to increased sales of paper books - and some electronic sales as well.

The problem is that if everyone's free to promote their own novel or songs, the choice gets so overwhelming that you're likely to end up with everyone plumping for the safest possible option (or you get companies set up to spot the talent, develop it and bring it to people's attention - ie. to publish it, in whatever form that may be).

Anyway, I've read all through this thread with the intention of contributing, but it's been done for me - just as the record companies used CDs (with their 'improved' technology) to make everyone re-purchase stuff they already owned on LP, so surely they now need to develop a better-than-CD download technology that they can have an exclusive on to promote proper quality recordings of their artists' work? After all, MP3s aren't even as good as CDs anyway... Or just make low-bit-rate files available really readily, and sell the MP3 versions.

It's frankly pathetic how long it's taken for record companies to get anything worked out with regard to electronic distribution of music files, and it's hardly surprising people have taken it into their own hands. But as/if people can get hold of stuff legally with ease and at reasonable prices, most will end up doing that.

Tactility is the only other thing they could consider - I still love LPs for the physical involvement you have with getting the record out, the space for artwork etc. on the sleeve; and CDs have some of that, and it helps one when considering what to listen to, rather than just having a long list of artists and tracks as when files have been bought over the internet.

I guess we could end up with MP3 download plugs in record shops and you could get given the 'album cover' at the same time; but would there be any equivalent for electronic purchases?

Ian

---

quote:

---

Originally screeched by GoofAnneGoof:
Oh, like you haven't already?

---

Smeglick to English translation: Kick me.

OK.
Your clueless persistance with the exact same failed thrusts indicate that you are either insane, or an amazing world-class moron. Yes, I acknowledge that both P2P music sharing and jaywalking are illegal, I just don't care and I think it's a waste of resources to pursue. You have failed, again and again, to produce any reason why I should care or convincing argument about why it would be worthwhile.

So, if you've used the exact same argument already, and I don't agree - what non-functional little excuse of a neuron makes you think that saying the same stupid shit again is going to be convincing this time? Maybe you think that the added panache of totally fucking up the formatting such that your useless comments are buried in garble will make them more entertaining for me? Maybe having to fix the code on virtually every moronic post you make will warm me up to the idea of puerile litigation against 12-year-olds?

Guess what, you unfortunately-unspilled-blot-of-semen, that doesn't work very well. I hope you try this sort of arguing technique while you're working for the record companies, because your ineptitude will certainly hasten the end of this stupidity.

To summarize: Go clumsily fuck yourself with a rusty garden rake, you annoyingly shrill little felchdrip.
 

---

Posted by Norman the Organ (# 5477) on :
 
[tangent]

My God, is there some sort of award for screwing up code about ten times on the same thread?

[/tangent]
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Quite simply put, to apply RudE's arguments against himself, since I think Preview Post and UBB code are a big waste of time, I don't have to worry about them, and none of his apathetic little attacks are going to make me care either, although it tickles me muchly that he feels the need to go back and re-edit them!
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So the ends justify the means?

Argue all you want about whether the system is right, ethical, fair, good, what-have-you. Bottom line is that those who illegally download music are breaking the law. That's kinda given in the 'illegally' part.

Sarkycow

---

Sometimes the ends do justify the means, especially when the law is being used to abuse people. While obviously p2p file sharing is not on the same 'injustice' scale as as some laws that have been passed, it is only by breaking laws (such as Rosa Parks did in the '60s) that an progress is made in the law. The consumer now has options. Options that the record lables never would have made available to them if they didn't have to.

With choices, the consumer has the power to decide how much of their money gets spent where.

I'm genuinely surprised that so many democratic/ socialist types would support laws that protect greedy, corrupt, price-gouging corporations. (*not putting that lable on you, specifically, Sarky... it just occured to me as I skimmed back through some of the posts.)
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
To G.A.G:
Fair enough. I never said you must use code correctly, just that you appeared stupid because of it.

What I'm wondering now is if you're this tense and bitchy because you can't get laid, or if you can't get laid because you're this tense and bitchy. It's probably one of those chicken-and-egg things though, right? Kind of like you failing to comprehend my points because you're stuck in your dogmatic little wheel, and you're stuck in your dogmatic little wheel because you fail to comprehend my points. Whatever. Keep on spinning that squeaky little wheel all you want, if it makes you feel better.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Go Anne Go finds a new excuse for being incompetent.

{typo}

[ 07. June 2004, 22:02: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Me, I was just asking a question. Oh, and pointing out that disputing whether it's illegal or not is rather stupid. Arguing whether it's moral, right, good, what-have-you - these are infinitely better arguments to have.

Beyond that, I haven't got a dog in the fight.

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Norman the Organ (# 5477) on :
 
Oooooo - a full house of Hellhosts, all in a row. What do we win?
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
The pleasure of us ripping some stupid poster a whole new asshole
 

---

Posted by Norman the Organ (# 5477) on :
 
Ahh, I see.

Do carry on
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
What I'm wondering now is if you're this tense and bitchy because you can't get laid, or if you can't get laid because you're this tense and bitchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
Ah, Sine, but he has to go through the lesser insults, like "fucktard", first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
The pleasure of us ripping some stupid poster a whole new asshole

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
Ahh, I see.

Do carry on

---

quote:

---

Yes, I acknowledge that both P2P music sharing and jaywalking are illegal, I just don't care and I think it's a waste of resources to pursue. You have failed, again and again, to produce any reason why I should care or convincing argument about why it would be worthwhile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:

quote:

---

Yes, I acknowledge that both P2P music sharing and jaywalking are illegal, I just don't care and I think it's a waste of resources to pursue. You have failed, again and again, to produce any reason why I should care or convincing argument about why it would be worthwhile.

---

I think I will let this stand for me, too.

When has anybody claimed that P2P were legal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This may not be more than a pointless interjection but the BBC News website has a line about publishers ignoring valuable e-book sale opportunities.

It is however attributed to an e-book seller so, once again it can be put down to vested interests. No surprise there.

Publishers (and e-book sellers) want to control the market, people who don't want to pay stacks of cash to acquire things legally when they feel they can get it free with little risk want the whole area levelled out so that the need or desire to copy illegally is reduced or removed and I'm sure that many copyright lawyers recognise the need for some change in the law because historically it takes technological advances to force changes in copyright law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
But claim not to care about whether or not / goes before or after some bit of code and RooK's knickers get all in a twist. Why? Because he feels compelled to go fix it. So it is obviously worth *his* time to go correct my typos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by G.A.G.:
BUT he's willing to waste his time here arguing with me about it, AND he claims that his downloads are all legal, so there's something motivating him to do it legally, and judging by his general obnoxiousness, it isn't his undue respect for authority. So I'd love to know what it actually is. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here - I'm generally curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by G.A.G.:
BUT he's willing to waste his time here arguing with me about it, AND he claims that his downloads are all legal, so there's something motivating him to do it legally, and judging by his general obnoxiousness, it isn't his undue respect for authority. So I'd love to know what it actually is. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here - I'm generally curious.

---

I like arguing. Especially when I'm more adept at it than a supposedly professional arguer.
I prefer the high-quality, spyware-free, secure products and service I get from iTunes. I grew annoyed with P2P MP3s because they were generally low quality, and it literally infested my machine with spyware.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
But claim not to care about whether or not / goes before or after some bit of code and RooK's knickers get all in a twist. Why? Because he feels compelled to go fix it. So it is obviously worth *his* time to go correct my typos

---

Actually, and I find it surprising you don't know this, fixing code is one of the primary hostly duties. They do it to make it easier for the rest of us to read posts by people who are too lazy or uncaring to use preview post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Perhaps if my purpose were to convince a judge, I would use a different method. My purpose has been to toy with you, and I've been fantastically successful.

I'd actually argue that the record companies are wasting their time with the whole process. Your personal involvement undoubtedly is primarily associated with getting paid by the record companies, so you're the best judge of whether that's worthwhile for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I'll concede that the "by the record companys" bit can be dropped.

I'll also concede that I'm somewhat surprised that you were able to be hired more than once. You haven't demonstrated even the insightfulness that I'd expect from an organ-grinding macaque.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0