|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: An excuse for downloading music illegally?!
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Jesus, ya moron!
What are they teaching in those Orthodox churches these days?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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.
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.
This is basic capitalism. To refer to Nonpropheteers and Ruth(?)'s analogy to petrol, you can totally purchase gas and do what you like with it. And you can buy a CD and lend it to someone, give it to someone, or use it to siphon petrol if you're really creative. What you *can't* do is illegally copy it and give the copies to people.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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.
Legally, it isn't. You haven't made an illegal copy of anything by listening to it at a listening station. In fact, if you read back, you'll see it listed in my reference list of ways to listen to a song legally.
I'd also like to point out that as I pointed out BEFORE that if the artist permits you to make a copy, then it is quite allowed! The Grateful Dead encouraged it. Phish encouraged it. Make all the tapes/CDs/MP3s of their shows you want, pass em around, trade em, build a house out of them - they've given you permission and you're allowed. Metallica didn't give you permission, so don't make copies of their stuff. Ever. Whether or not to do this has a lot of different factors in making the decision, from marketing strategies, to bands differing focus on revenues and how they're obtained (if it gets the people to go to the shows and the get most of the money from t-shirt sales, then bootlegs of the concerts freely available can be a great idea. There may be other reasons to do such a thing too.) The thing is, it isn't your place to decide. It is the owner of the copyright.
Oh, and for what it is worth, Lawrence Lessig rocks my world. Now *that* is a sad statement. But the man knows his stuff! He actually just gave a great talk (and if you want great comparisons of approaches to this problem, go to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society's webpage - they just had a conference on this. With Lessig! Sigh.....)
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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 ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ) 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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The difference between the two scenarios I painted sounds entirely technical.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The difference between the two scenarios I painted sounds entirely technical.
Honestly, at a certain level it is. Basically, the law is that you can pass around a copy to as many people as you like (the listening station) or play it to as many people as you like (as in a club), but you cannot make copies of it, because the copies are where revenue is potentially lost. As Papio pointed out, he doesn't pay for CDs for stuff he doesn't like. What's to stop him from not paying for stuff he does like?
(this next bit is NOT meant as a slam at Papio, he's just put himself out there. I don't know the man).
Assume Papio is telling the truth, then he is indeed contributing to the revenue of a band he likes. But assume that Papio may be lying, or more likely misrepresenting himself (even to himself). I know personally I have lots of old CDs (and, she admitted, showing her age) tapes that I only ever liked one or two songs on and was ticked about buying the whole album. Or, of course, my other pet peeve, when they release an album and then release anotoher version six months later with the song they've propelled to number one on it (which wasn't on the first version.) Drove me crazy!
The one thing that seems to have been overlooked here is that driven to it the record companies have finally responded. You *can* download just one song for the price of 99cents without getting the whole album. More music is being added every day. I was able to listen to the new Nelly Furtado song about 80 gazillion times off her website before the CD came out (then they took it off). Effective - I bought the CD (actually I downloaded it from iTunes.)
As for the technical difference, if you drive down a highway at 65mph in Massachusetts, you're in compliance with the law. If you drive down the Turnpike to Springfield at 80, you're still on the same road, but it is not in compliance with the law. Technicalities are where it is at!
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngelaSo
Shipmate
# 6699
|
Posted
Wow you guys really have to slow down...
I think there's no way to stop people from getting a copy of the song illegally - whether it's from online or not.
I believe the idea of downloading a song legally for 99 cents is great. I think the idea to buy a CDs just to listen to one or two songs really put people off. So, I echo on what some of you people are saying.
I talk about Britney Spears in my last post because I get the impression that her songs are the most popular among "illegal" downloaders. I've downloaded a couple of her songs before but I would never ever consider buying her CDs. I wouldn't even consider buying her songs for 99 cents each either. If they weren't for free, I don't think I would have her songs on my computer. But I buy CDs from Dido because I really support her music.
Want to be a Britney Spears hater,
Angela
Posts: 135 | From: London Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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?
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...
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Amusingly, I don't listen to radio stations much because of all the advertising...
Advertising? I can't remember the last time I heard a radio advert. Maybe I should move the dial away from Radio 4.
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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?
Actually, no I don't. 99% of the time I ride my bike (obeying local traffic laws and wearing a helmet), and the other times I don't speed.
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...
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. Spiderman was the UK's most pirated movie ever, with bootleg copies at boot sales all over the UK while the movie was still in the theatres. Fasttrack-Kazaa had 3.6 billion (yes, dear I said billion) downloads in Feb 2002 alone ( See the Guardian story here on policing net pirates in the UK. ) How big do you want this to be before you think it worthy of your time?
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.
And you, quite frankly need to get to grips with the reality of the situation.
[If you're going to spray spittle at me, at least get your code right.]
[ 04. June 2004, 23:08: Message edited by: RooK ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
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. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 04. June 2004, 23:01: Message edited by: Rain Dog ]
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Just out of curiosity: RuthW and GoAnneGo, do you ever speed?
On very rare occasions, yes. But generally I follow the speed limit.
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?
No, I don't have horrible attacks of guilt.
quote:
RuthW and GoAnneGo, while technically correct, seem to be narrow-minded dinosaurs that need to get lives.
Because we think musicians should get paid for their work? Right.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
I have to totally disagree with Ruth. I don't think musicians should get paid for their work.
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.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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$3 billion a year.See here for recent story. When Napster wasn't legal, people were downloading 20 MILLION songs a day. One song here, one song there, everyone does it, it adds up. When I was in Hong Kong, it was estimated that 75% of the computer software for sale was pirated, and thus unable to be verified or supported.
Well all this is not _real_ loss as in someone coming into a shop and taking a CD/DVD/prgram off the shelf so I'm not sure how they can calculate that. Spiderman was also one of the biggest grossing films in theaters as well as on DVD so it's obvious it will be more pirated. Were they out of pocket? Nope.
Yes, they were out of pocket. Just because they'd already made a profit on something doesn't make their loss any less real. As with any other business (particularly media ones) revenues from one movie/artist/band/writer that is successful helps promote the estimated nine others on a label or company that aren't. Not everything is profitable, you know!
quote:
Re: the software piracy - how many people would actually want to pay for M$ 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.
Actually, in most "western" countries, most people do pay for Window$. Mostly because it is so bugridden they want to ensure they can get support for it.
But interestingly Linux (and I *love* Linux and open sourceware - different business model entirely and much more in line with my values, showing that people can share and still make money at it, a la Red Hat) is equally litigious when it comes to its copyright and licensing terms. They're just on the other side of the equation - prosecuting those who try to tie up their copyright without their permission. Read the cases at the Free Software Foundation - they're fascinating!
[You'd think that someone so anal about copying would at least try to get quotes right.]
[ 04. June 2004, 23:33: Message edited by: RooK ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Because we think musicians should get paid for their work? Right.
I think you're technically right, because I agree about the value of copyright. I think you should get a life because the whole issue seems like a waste of time. Despite GoAnneGo's crystal ball numbers about losses, I think the same effect on music profits will happen now that people can buy just what they want more readily.
So, bully for you. Now go find another windmill. I'll comment on that too, of course.
It seems worth mentioning that I don't have the same laissez-faire attitude towards movie piracy. With movie rentals so easily available and inexpensive, I find it hard to believe that someone going through all the trouble of chugging piles of gigabytes off the internet are doing so just to save themselves two bucks at Blockbuster.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
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.
Well I don't think anyone is advocating that any of these good people doesn't get paid. I just think that now the genie is out of the bottle, they're better trying to use it to their advantage rather than alienating potential buyers. I also think it's assuming a lot that people who download via p2p would autmotically have bought the CDs of each song they download. It's highly unlikely but it serves the music industry to make people believe that. A bit like assuming that people who tape music off the radio (as I used to do as kid) would have bought the albums for each artist we recorded - but why didn't the record companies knowing full well lots of us were doing that quit getting their songs played on the radio? Because the CDs still sold very well (and they were fleecing us at the time as we now know).
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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.
The fact of the matter is that now that you can download legally for 99cents, your music scenario vs your movie piracy scenario doesn't hold up. They're now the same thing. And there *always* were easy, relatively convenient ways to do it legally.
As for letting it go, it *is* a big deal, and in the past I've been paid rather a lot of money for it (on both sides of the equation)to make sure people did get paid. The illegal downloading has meant that actually a lot of people did NOT get paid, didn't get their money or didn't get invested in by a record company because millions of people were not buying CDs or tapes or albums or whatever. Were they fleecing us? Yeah. And we knew it at the time (cf the old Billy Bragg CD "Pay no more than 2.99 for this CD" or even going back further "Steal this Book.") Arugably, they're fleecing us even now, bringing into debate the question of how much profit is enough? Generally if you're making it, it isn't enough, and if someone else is making it off your back, it is far too much. Basic consumerism says someone builds a better mousetrap and the consumer buys it. You might already own a mousetrap, but you'll buy the better one. Which explains why I'm old enough to own some albums on vinyl AND CD and now MP3.
This is a huge issue, affecting how a lot of industries, and a lot of industries you interact with on a daily basis, make or lose money. They're not my crystal ball numbers - if you think of 20 million downloads on Napster in a day, not every one of those people needs to not buy a CD they would have otherwise before you start to amount to a whole lot of losses.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Don't like having your posts edited? Try using preview post. Or complain about me in the Styx. Complaining in Hell about having your posts edited by Hellhosts will just earn you scorn.
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.
I also disagree about the assertion that this is an important issue. Just because some people are willing to throw lots of money at it does not make it worthwhile. I expect that one of the qualifications for being in your field, GoAnneGo, is to be absolutely dedicated to believing it's important. I don't share that hindrance. The "losses" you keep referring to seem a lot like the "losses" I suffer by not winning the lottery.
[Edited for clarity.]
[ 05. June 2004, 02:02: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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
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.
You can't get Old English Spangles either. There are lots of things that aren't being made any more. The situation with recorded music in particular but Copyright material in general is by contrast far better than is the case for any other kind of property.
As for your final point about getting a taste that is 100% fair and does need to be addressed by the rights owners and retailers. In shops you can sample the album and on line retailing has to go fully that way. It is there in part, but it needs to go further to make p2p unnecessry as well as illegal.
ps. I like some Clifford T Ward.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
GoAnneGo - nope, I am not depriving an artist of money for not buying a CD I wasn't ever gonna buy.
RooK - if you don't agree with me, please say why. Cheers.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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.
Ah, you gotta love the stupid idiots.
Actually, no, you don't.
1. Editing was for your blown code - I hit the dit button about 2 secs after RooK's edit went through. If I had been quicker, you would have had my rude comments, not his.
2. Insulting commentary was clearly by RooK about you. Commentary was made in the same way as all hostly editing comments in Hell. So either you're extraordinarily thick, and have never noticed them before, or you're a whinging muppet.
So, which are you? Stupid or whiny?
Both is also possible.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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.
My understanding is that they're basing that figure on a percentage of sales that would have been realized. For example, not every downloaded song would have resulted in a sold CD - far from it. But if you take the 20Million songs a day on Napster for February 2001 (when not as many people owned the software to do p2p) and extrapolate that out, 20million songs on average for every day in Feburary (28 of them) means 560 million songs. Feburary's a short month, but we'll use that as an average anyway, so 560 million songs a month times 12 months is 6,720,000,000 songs a year. On one network. Being illegally downloaded. Huge, huge problem. Bring in other networks, etc and you start to see the huge scale of the issue. Even if only a small percentage of these people would have bought the CD, the CD sells for $20ish. That's a whole lot of lost revenue.
There's a couple other factors at play here as well. First off, the most rampant illegal downloaders prior (and honestly, after) to the RIAA suing people (which did have a real chilling effect, and bringing out legal download networks such as iTunes and legalized Napster is helping as well)were college students, who frankly are the ones who had the serious bandwidth to do it. (And tend to be a) more into the music scene and its changing tastes, and b) not have any money). And because the issue wasn't clear (and initially in the days of Napster, it wasn't - hadn't been decided. The law does tend to play catch up to technology.), it didn't occur to them it was illegal. No one had said it was illegal, not even the courts (not that the kids were watching the courts - why should they?)and if is isn't illegal then it is legal. Ish. So the scene is set for lots of techno savvy kids to swap gazillions of files of some good, some bad quality. Heck, it was an undergraduate here at Northeastern (Sean Fanning) who even designed Napster. It was a good tech idea and it took off. And then it was ruled illegal (which by the end of the litigation it got kind of obvious it was going to be, once the judge ruled that it wasn't file swapping but file copying, but there you have it.). But everyone was already doing it, and how were they going to stop these people? There were no sanctions, there were no penalties except theoretical ones, there was nothing but the possible fear of litigation, and who's going to sue poor studious little undergrads and high school students? Turns out, the RIAA, that's who! Because there was really no other way to stop it. And in suing and showing that the penalties had teeth, there was a huge chilling effect on other people doing it, particularly by getting parents involved and seeing what their kids were doing on line (a good idea anyway, for reasons other than copyright violations!) and being forced to sit down and say to the kids "Look, sex - get protected. Drugs - be educated. Copyright violations - here's section 106(d) of the copyright laws (which is about fair use if I remember correctly but I don't have my texts in front of me. But you get my point.)." None of the litigation cases of the RIAA have actually gone to trial yet, and the vast vast majority have settled out of court as liability is very clear, and possible penalties are up to $100K per violation. As in each song copied. When you're facing a couple million in possible fines plus legal fees and the RIAA is offering to settle for $3K, you settle.
Simultaneously, the record companies DID wake up to the possibility of legal downloads and went as fast as they could to play catch up and offer iTunes, a legal version of Napster and others. iTunes just marked its first anniversary with 70 Million downloads - legally. There's been 500K legal downloads in the UK so far, but it is catching on (there aren't as many legal services available there yet).
There had to be a reason to stop people downloading illegally - and in the end turns out the threat was litigation (stick) with legal alternatives (carrot). Getting the generation that was doing it illegally to do it legally offers a lot more promise for the future. Older generation people (like me!) tend to download and still buy CDs sooner or later, but the MP3 iPod generation doesn't. They don't buy CDs at all, except maybe blank ones to burn. These are the bigger issue.
That said, people rip on the record companies for huge gouging profits, and with good reason. This has been the case since the beginning of the music industry. I think the internet offers some serious possibilities that are going to take artists and put them in much more control of their artistic lives, and consequently their own revenues. Internet radio is one of those alternatives, but the ability to record, produce and in fact release music on line is also going to help.
I think the other bit of good news is that it is getting easier and easier to find music along the lines of what Pyx_e alluded to. I myself own a copy of a song by an artist that has never been released commercially although it was on the radio. Thanks to the power of the internet, I was able to state the reasons why I owned it and the artist granted me permission to get a copy of a radio broadcast which had it on it. With the comparative low cost of putting old songs on something like iTunes, there is a lot of new money to be made from old hash for exactly the songquest situation that Pyx_e has described, and I think a lot of us have gone through! It is just taking a while for all of that music to get up there!
Teh internet/tech revolution is also going to help people you're NOT talking about here who are also getting gouged - authors. The ability to self publish and self promote on line is going to help authors phenomonally. We all know how hit or miss the publishing world is (I'm sure all those publishing houses that passed up JK Rowling are kicking themselves now!) and internet access could really change the way that business is done as well.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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.
The Mona Lisa has been in public domain for coming up to 500 years now. Go nuts! Make as many copies as you like! You're right, no one will give a shit!
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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?
To see if I wanted to buy it. If I decide that I don't like the music, then I wasn't ever gonna buy it. If I like the songs, I buy it. I won't buy an album unless I am sure I will enjoy it becuase I think that £15 is a lot of money. It is to me anyway.
I do also get songs legally, but as I say, those songs do not always represent the album.
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace*
Shipmate
# 4754
|
Posted
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.
All the more reason the industry should have gotten its act together four years ago and sanctioned alternatives like today's ITunes and WallyWorld "less than $1". I seem to recall that you could buy the mp3s legally some way at the time but you had to jump through hoops. They seemed to concentrate on taking Napster down and found that didn't work since people switched to Kazaa instead. D'oh!
I've personally never downloaded any music - intellectual property has been berry, berry good to me and I have to clean up after downloaders clogging disks and network connections at work. I also think that Kazaa (and other P2P software) is a major league, big time security hole, so it won't go on any machines I own.
Now that I do have broadband at home I might try the ITunes type download. I did make some album purchases based on tunes other people had downloaded and played for me.
Charlotte
--------------------
.sig on vacation
Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
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.
It's not exactly the same - more like if you were provided with the plans on how to make these toys and you went about recreating them yourself. You're breaking their copyright by recreating them but are they actually going to care? Probably not. Take a look at homeoftheunderdogs where many many game developers have abandoned their rights to old games that will no longer sell so people can still enjoy them...
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Just as an aside, if anyone wants to know more about these issues, I would totally recommend starting with a book called "Copyright's Highway" - well written to be a good read to the average joe, giving a great history of the whole thing from the Statute of Go Anne Go, I mean the Statute of Anne, to just shy of the current state of play. It was written pre-Napster, but it gives you the great background on the law, how it developed, rationales behind it and plenty of good anecdotes. I'd send you my copy, but I already a) packed it, and b) promised to send it to Mousethief when I unpack.
When you get the basic issues, I strongly then recommend Lawrence Lessig's books (any of them) but in particular "The Future of Ideas." He gives a number of different possibilities for how to resolve a lot of these issues.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Who wrote "copyright's highway"?
I'm not against copyright, I just think that downloading a few tracks is, or should be, such a minor offence that it isn't worth worrying about.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Copyright's Highway is by Paul Goldstein (and interestingly, currently part of a double offer with The Future of Ideas on Amazon. I swear to you, I didn't know!). Paul is also at Stanford, like Lessig. Used hardcover copies are available for $1.38, and I would say they're worth more than that! (Paperback copies are more.) I read this book before taking Copyright in law school and I read it again before taking Advanced Copyright. I lend it to all kinds of people. It is really good at explaining all the basic concepts, and tracing the history through, which helps understand the law so much.
The thing with the one or two downloads is generally the whole "slippery slope" idea. One or two here, three or four million there.......
[ 05. June 2004, 15:04: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
To follow the logic of why illegal downloads are OK, I offer the following actions. Would you do them, too?
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?
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Because I'm not costing anybody any money?
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
[ 05. June 2004, 16:57: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
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?
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...
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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.
Exactly.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
So, under the "okay to download music" theory, it okay to sneak into a theater, sit in an unsold empty seat and see a movie without paying for a ticket?
You haven't kept the theater owner from selling that seat to someone else, and you haven't deprived him of the "property" - he still has the reels of film and can show them over and over. Just curious as to how you feel this analogy applies.
Regards,
Sienna
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
But do you think it's okay to do it? You're not costing anyone any money, you haven't deprived them of a tangible, re-saleable good.
So, why should I pay to go to the movies?
Sienna
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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...
A couple of things: Although there are International agreements on Copyright (Berne Convention amongst others) the law is still determined nationally so what France does applies in France to, under convention, all Copyright matters there.
Secondly the rights regarding AIDS/HIV drugs were negotiated. It wasn't simply a matter of the countries that needed cheap AIDS drugs going off on their own although many of the countries involved did have the means, which added some muscle to that side of the negotiations.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
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
[ 05. June 2004, 20:54: Message edited by: Sienna ]
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
