RIAA wins court case for significant damages.

[geni]

A court in the US has ordered a woman to pay $222,000 (£109,000) in damages for illegally downloading music.

The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 32, from Minnesota, to pay for offering to share 24 specific songs online - a cost of $9,250 per song.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7029229.stm

Statutory damages. Gotta love them.

[Ryokan]

That's just wrong.

[geni]

That's just wrong.

Why?

[pipelineaudio]

This is a really hard one for me. In many ways it is the death of my whole meaning in life.

By the time it was my turn and I had paid my dues, the music business I inherited was destroyed from so many directions, it seemed like such a scary place, right at a time when technology had finally made so many ideas possible...

but as bad as it had gotten, NOONE thought the record companies themselves could ever be in danger

oops

Half of me says "good riddance", the other half of me says " Oh, <word censored by thought police> !!!"

As bad as the record companies were, they paled in comparison to the sharks of the pay to play, battle of the bands, and supernannies

[Tobermory]

To date, I have not heard of the RIAA pursuing someone for simply downloading music. So far, it seems that putting a stop to file sharing by going after those who make a large number of songs available for download has been the Association's main goal. If someone knows of a case where simply downloading was involved, I would love to hear (or read) about it. I'd also be interested in any bit torrent cases, where uploads and downloads run simultaneously, as well as any cases involving podcasts. (In the meantime, I'm sure the wondrous Google will help me do my own research.)

As to the "morality" of sharing music, I have no opinion. Personally, I will always prefer the sound quality of real CDs to MP3s or other compressed audio formats. Therefore, I will continue to buy CDs by artists whom I admire. Paying $1 for an MP3 doesn't bother me either (although I do wish lossless compression were an option). In such a case, I'd rather pay the dollar than subject myself to the possibility of a lawsuit.

[a_unique_person]

She probably can't afford the fine and other costs. Does that mean she goes to jail?

[WildCat]

She probably can't afford the fine and other costs. Does that mean she goes to jail?
You cannot go to jail simply for owing a debt in the US. You CAN go to jail for failing to pay a debt you can pay, if you are held in contempt of court (for example failing to pay child support).

[Tobermory]

This was not a criminal case but a civil case. Therefore, the judgment will largely be impossible to collect unless the defendant's wages are garnished for the rest of her life. It's not even clear that the RIAA will attempt to collect the judgment -- I believe the RIAA was after the publicity this case received, and not necessary collecting this judgment from what appears to be a judgment-proof debtor.

[pipelineaudio]

besides the music/movie and software industries, any other industry people would be SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER that all their work was being stolen, downgraded, trashed.

Its amazing that our work, which makes so much of today's lifestyle even possible, is held to be so worthless by the same people who would pay 100 dollars for a pair of shoes that they will wear once

I work with the guy people hold most responsible for making this filesharing possible, but I dont blame him, and surprisingly few others do either...it was bound to happen, but I dont think anyone knew just what sort of immoral thieves people REALLY were at heart, or maybe they dont think about it, I dont know

[quixotecoyote]

Or maybe copyright violation doesn't equate to theft.

It doesn't. It's a separate issue which requires it's own justification and moral responses.

[pipelineaudio]

Or maybe copyright violation doesn't equate to theft.

It doesn't. It's a separate issue which requires it's own justification and moral responses.

not going to go down this can of worms

Its theft. We put in as many hours or more than any other industry and we are paid less than almost any other. If the average recording engineer in this day and age is making 2 dollars an hour I'd be pretty amazed

[quixotecoyote]

not going to go down this can of worms

Its theft. We put in as many hours or more than any other industry and we are paid less than almost any other. If the average recording engineer in this day and age is making 2 dollars an hour I'd be pretty amazed


If something is stolen, you do not have it anymore. What object do you no longer have?

Answer:No object was stolen.

The current economical model in the United States allows for artists and publishers to make money from sales of recordings of an original work. There is no particular moral rule that says that has to be the case. The model could just as easily be formed in another way. Music sharing is a violation of the current economic model, but it is not theft.

[OMGturt1es]

not going to go down this can of worms

Its theft. We put in as many hours or more than any other industry and we are paid less than almost any other. If the average recording engineer in this day and age is making 2 dollars an hour I'd be pretty amazed

i agree that it's unfair to steal the work of others, or, in this case, to enjoy the work of others without paying. the problem is that many folk use mp3s downloads as a means to judge the product prior to purchase. like, for example, myself. same with movies, actually.

if i download something, and i enjoy it, i'll go out and buy it for two reasons:

1. i want to support those whose hard work went into creating the product, and
2. i want the shiny jewel case, booklet and inlay, etc.

mp3/movie downloads have increased my media spending ten fold. prior to discovering new albums via file sharing, i owned under 20 CDs. i now have hundreds.

i'll be glad to stop downloading when the RIAA/MPAA stop releasing 90% turds. if i buy based on one song, or one movie trailer, i'll just end up with something i don't want more often than not.

ETA: i actually don't really download any longer. i'm partly lazy, partly not interested, and partly somewhat worried of what i consider wildly excessive punishment, expecially given that the downloads drive me to buy new music.

[shalomsteph]

They can suck my (non-existent) Richard.

I say this as someone who has actually paid for every single item on my iPod. I think that once I pay for a song, it is mine to do with as I please. If I want to share it, I should have the right to do that. It is MINE, not theirs. I paid for it.

[quixotecoyote]

They can suck my (non-existent) Richard.

I say this as someone who has actually paid for every single item on my iPod. I think that once I pay for a song, it is mine to do with as I please. If I want to share it, I should have the right to do that. It is MINE, not theirs. I paid for it.


This is an example of what I was talking about earlier. Someone protesting the dominant economic model.

Obviously, legally shalomseph doesn't have a case here. She didn't actually buy the right to share it. Morally, she is claiming the right based on an alternate interpretation of the buyer/seller relationship and what the rights in that circumstance should be.

[pipelineaudio]

If something is stolen, you do not have it anymore. What object do you no longer have?

Answer:No object was stolen.


The time we spent making the product on spec or commission

Don't worry, people are leaving these industries in droves for more lucrative fields like McDonald's drive thru

[TragicMonkey]

The time we spent making the product on spec or commission

Don't worry, people are leaving these industries in droves for more lucrative fields like McDonald's drive thru

Have you ever recorded a television program? Is that theft?

[pipelineaudio]

Have you ever recorded a television program? Is that theft?

Whether or not you consider the theft a theft or not, two things are happening

The people who make music, and the people who make software have learned that they cannot make a living selling these products any longer so they either

1) leave for that much more lucrative position flipping burgers

2) Find a way to integrate their product as part of a commercial for another product

in the case of 1, the cool stuff that enhances our lives is no longer being done, so much of the driving force of innovation is off the table, technology suffers. Look at the case of the DX or VST reverb plugin offerings. People have had almost two decades to make one on the PC or MAC of the same quality as hardware ones made in the 80's with 1/1,000,000th of the processing power available today

They still havent. The minds that make these things either split a long time ago, knowing they would not be paid, or split as soon as they reach a level where they could

In the case of 2, this is actually working out rather well in a lot of cases, but really, do we want all our tech to come as a specific target of a marketing campaign?

[Cuddles]

besides the music/movie and software industries, any other industry people would be SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER that all their work was being stolen, downgraded, trashed.

But would they be screaming bloody murder if work they had done 40 years ago was copied? Can you name a single other industry where someone can do a few hours work and then expect to get paid for the rest of their life? If I make a chair I expect to get paid for it once. I don't expect to get paid every time someone sits on it and I don't expect to get paid when the owner sells it on to someone else.

This isn't a new issue, it's been around ever since the tape recorder was invented. The music industry couldn't do anything about that so they didn't bothe rmaking a fuss. They think they can do something about the internet, so they do make a fuss. They are wrong. The music industry is a close parallel to the oil industry. They can't keep on trying to force the old models on people, they either need to change with the times or they will die and be replaced with people who are willing to provide what people want rather than trying to tell them what they want.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But would they be screaming bloody murder if work they had done 40 years ago was copied? Can you name a single other industry where someone can do a few hours work and then expect to get paid for the rest of their life? If I make a chair I expect to get paid for it once. I don't expect to get paid every time someone sits on it and I don't expect to get paid when the owner sells it on to someone else.

How about if that chair is in a movie theatre? A few minutes work to install it and then get paid every time someone sits on it.

I think a better analogy is a building. If I build a new property, I can choose to sell it to you outright or to lease it to you under certain conditions. If a choose the latter course, and you breach those conditions, I can sue you for damages. The argument that "I paid for it therefore it is mine to do whatever I want with it" doesn't seem any more valid to me in regard to music than in regard to property - the deal under which you acquired it contained conditions, if you don't like the conditions you agreed to you shouldn't have bought it, but it does not give you a right to ignore them.

[Nick Bogaerts]

The people who make music, and the people who make software have learned that they cannot make a living selling these products any longer so they either

1) leave for that much more lucrative position flipping burgers

2) Find a way to integrate their product as part of a commercial for another product

Stop trying to conflate the software industry with the music industry, because you couldn't be more off base. I've yet to see Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds flipping burgers. In fact, they're quite succesful competing against a convicted monopolist.

[rjh01]

<snip>
I say this as someone who has actually paid for every single item on my iPod. I think that once I pay for a song, it is mine to do with as I please. If I want to share it, I should have the right to do that. It is MINE, not theirs. I paid for it.

Actually I do not think that you have ever bought all rights to a song. What you have bought is
1. CDs and other similar devices. This is whatever you can physically touch.
2. The right to listen to the songs.

If you bought [the copyright to] a song you would have the right to re-sell that song as many times as you like to whoever you want. That is something you do not have the right to do.

[ponderingturtle]

besides the music/movie and software industries, any other industry people would be SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER that all their work was being stolen, downgraded, trashed.

Its amazing that our work, which makes so much of today's lifestyle even possible, is held to be so worthless by the same people who would pay 100 dollars for a pair of shoes that they will wear once

I work with the guy people hold most responsible for making this filesharing possible, but I dont blame him, and surprisingly few others do either...it was bound to happen, but I dont think anyone knew just what sort of immoral thieves people REALLY were at heart, or maybe they dont think about it, I dont know


Who knows next they might even rent CD's!!!!!!! Imagion being able to rent something out just because you own it! Shocking!

[ponderingturtle]

The time we spent making the product on spec or commission

Don't worry, people are leaving these industries in droves for more lucrative fields like McDonald's drive thru

INteresting arugement, can you support that there is significantly less spending on music than there was?

[ponderingturtle]

Have you ever recorded a television program? Is that theft?

No but it should be. THe music industry has just been more successful at getting the laws written in their favor. If the Television industry had their way it would be, and they tried, but congress does not listen to them as much as it does the music industry.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually I do not think that you have ever bought all rights to a song. What you have bought is
1. CDs and other similar devices. This is whatever you can physically touch.
2. The right to listen to the songs.

If you bought [the copyright to] a song you would have the right to re-sell that song as many times as you like to whoever you want. That is something you do not have the right to do.

Look you own nothing, you only have the rights congress decides you should have. For example you do not have a real right to resell what you own in music, congress can take that right away. The idea that you actualy own anything is silly, if you owned it you could do things like rent the CD. As you can't do that legaly you clearly do not own the CD.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Look you own nothing, you only have the rights congress decides you should have. For example you do not have a real right to resell what you own in music, congress can take that right away. The idea that you actualy own anything is silly, if you owned it you could do things like rent the CD. As you can't do that legaly you clearly do not own the CD.

You have the rights that you paid for. No less and no more. That does not include the right to distribute copies - if you want that right, then you will need to negotiate with the owner to buy it.

[geni]

i agree that it's unfair to steal the work of others, or, in this case, to enjoy the work of others without paying. the problem is that many folk use mp3s downloads as a means to judge the product prior to purchase. like, for example, myself. same with movies, actually.

if i download something, and i enjoy it, i'll go out and buy it for two reasons:

1. i want to support those whose hard work went into creating the product, and
2. i want the shiny jewel case, booklet and inlay, etc.


Within 20 years it is posible that you will be able to print the case.

[geni]

They can suck my (non-existent) Richard.

I say this as someone who has actually paid for every single item on my iPod. I think that once I pay for a song, it is mine to do with as I please. If I want to share it, I should have the right to do that. It is MINE, not theirs. I paid for it.

And indeed you are free to share it in exactly the same way you are free to share your iPod. In fact you would likely have to do both at the same time. Give your friend the iPod and when they have finished listening they give it back.

You are not free to copy and redistibute. You have not paid for a license to do that. If you want to do that you are free to attempt to but such a license.

[geni]

Have you ever recorded a television program? Is that theft?

Time shifting is considered fair use under US law. If you then gave the recording to a friend there would be a problem.

[CFLarsen]

They can suck my (non-existent) Richard.

I say this as someone who has actually paid for every single item on my iPod. I think that once I pay for a song, it is mine to do with as I please. If I want to share it, I should have the right to do that. It is MINE, not theirs. I paid for it.

Do as you please?

You can sell the songs again, pretending to have written and performed the music yourself?

That's a new one.

[jsfisher]

Have you ever recorded a television program? Is that theft?No but it should be. THe music industry has just been more successful at getting the laws written in their favor. If the Television industry had their way it would be, and they tried, but congress does not listen to them as much as it does the music industry.


I don't believe that is true. The MPAA has a very strong and powerful lobby. Yes, the MPAA lost the VCR battle, but that was already after the RIAA had lost the cassette tape battle. The RIAA is fighting so hard against music piracy because there is so much of it; the MPAA will join in, too, in the not too distant future. (And, although it doesn't make the press as often, the MPAA is suing people, too.)

Neither industry has figured out that some strategic change in their business models may resolve the whole battle against the Internet with them profiting heavily.

One note of interest: Part of the RIAA campaign seems to be to coerce universities into being its accomplice in helping to reduce piracy (by providing legitimate online music services, imposing content filtering, offering education programs, etc.). The end result may be to shift much of the liability to the universities themselves if they aren't as "cooperative" as others.

[geni]

No but it should be. THe music industry has just been more successful at getting the laws written in their favor.


Not really. The only thing that really went their way lately was MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. which is of course caselaw not written law.

[geni]

Do as you please?

You can sell the songs again, pretending to have written and performed the music yourself?

That's a new one.

Actualy it is done all the time. Getty and Corbis will be quite happy to sell you public domain images and pretend they hold the copyrights. Less common with music because there is less public domain music and the artist name is generaly a selling point.

[pipelineaudio]

But would they be screaming bloody murder if work they had done 40 years ago was copied?

When you race horses what color nail polish do you paint your umbrella with.....wait, WHAT?

Can you name a single other industry where someone can do a few hours work and then expect to get paid for the rest of their life?

A few hours?????????

You have no idea what you are talking about

If I make a chair I expect to get paid for it once. I don't expect to get paid every time someone sits on it and I don't expect to get paid when the owner sells it on to someone else.

They arent getting paid once, theyre not getting paid EVER

Here is how it works, regardless of how you want to justify it

It costs X amount of money to make some cool new technology. If noone buys it, you dont even make X back

Thats the cold, hard facts. The people who make intellectual products are leaving for other work

[pipelineaudio]

Stop trying to conflate the software industry with the music industry, because you couldn't be more off base. I've yet to see Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds flipping burgers. In fact, they're quite succesful competing against a convicted monopolist.

Sorry, you dont know what you are talking about. Music piracy and software piracy go hand in hand. Its a connection linked even harder since one of the most active and furthest ahead cracking communities in in audiowarez (even further than games)

[pipelineaudio]

INteresting arugement, can you support that there is significantly less spending on music than there was?

this isnt even an argument. There is almost NO spending on music right now, all the revenue is coming from product placement, not album sales

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117444575607043728-lMyQjAxMDE3NzI0MTQyNDE1Wj.html

[pipelineaudio]

No but it should be. THe music industry has just been more successful at getting the laws written in their favor. If the Television industry had their way it would be, and they tried, but congress does not listen to them as much as it does the music industry.

The Video industry has WAY better, more, and more enforceable laws written for it than music.

The only music industry laws out there are just for the RIAA and publishing companies..they don't do JACK to protect the musicians themselves

[Wirelight]

To Whom It May Concern at the CRIA:

I have been an avid music collector for many years, and have approximately 1000 CD’s in my collection, not counting albums that I have purchased over the internet and own only digital copies of. I purchase approximately 30-40 new CDs per year. However, thanks to your recent decision to block Canadian users from accessing Demonoid, I have decided that I cannot continue to support this backwards, dysfunctional industry with my money any longer, and as such, I do not plan on purchasing music ever again if it means that one penny goes to your organization.
I listen to heavy metal music, a form of music that “the industry” stopped supporting many years ago, so I have a hard time feeling any sympathy. Sites such as Demonoid have done far more to promote the music I love than your organization or the industry in general has ever done. I can find out about new artists and new releases from artists that are never promoted. I can listen to music from artists that have never been played on the radio, will never be shown on MuchMusic or MTV, and never have a review or even mention of their new album written about in the local newspaper. From listening to this music, I can make an informed decision if I wish to purchase the album or not, as I am not going to gamble $15-20 on something that I haven’t heard anything off of before.

25 years ago, I primarily learned about music from friends who dubbed a copy onto a cassette tape, where I could listen to it and make a decision if I wanted to buy the tape for myself. Now, many years removed from school, my “gang” of friends to share music with has shifted from cassette tapes and the school cafeteria to sharing mp3’s online. I listen to some things that I don’t like, and consequently, I don’t buy those albums. What I do like, I buy, or at least I used to, before your decision intended to stop me from hearing new music.

The industry cries that record sales are down, and blames this all on internet downloading. I won’t be so naïve as to say that internet downloading has no impact on the sales. Downloading has certainly stopped me from making the stupid purchases where I heard one single that I liked and bought an entire album only to find out that the rest of the songs are crap, and the CD sits collecting dust on my shelf. But for every CD that I didn’t buy based on those premises, there are 2 or 3 other CDs that I did buy because I heard of them for the first time on a site like Demonoid.
In the meantime, the music industry itself needs to recognize that they are to blame for sagging record sales. For years, they have been marketing recycled crap, and people are getting tired of it. On the odd occasion that something fresh and new accidentally slips through and gets radio play, the music industry immediately signs a seemingly infinite number of clone bands that makes the “new, fresh” sound boring almost instantly. It seems the music industry doesn’t even care about making or promoting good music any more. Instead, they market a young, pretty face that can dance provocatively and lip-synch well, and push this on the radio stations to play while getting the tabloids to print large pictures of their breasts. If bands like AC/DC or Motorhead were to emerge today, they would never be successful; not because of poor record sales due to downloading, but due to the fact that they’re ugly so the record company wouldn’t promote them, if they picked them up at all. In the meantime, they’re falling all over themselves to promote Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, or any teenage tramp that can be airbrushed to look sexy.

The record labels cry about downloading cutting into the profits of the sales of albums. They put out “greatest hits” albums by 20-year olds with 2 or 3 albums under their belts, released with one new track to try and sucker the fans that already have both albums into spending another $20 for one new song, or re-releasing a 3-month old album with a “previously unreleased bonus track”. Then they can’t understand why people aren’t buying them, and cry foul that people are downloading the one new song instead.

I know not only the record companies are crying. Artists that have been around long enough to have enough clout to get a cut of the record sales are concerned about their cut, like Metallica that also clamor that “downloading is evil”, and then go on to sell over 9 million copies of their last album instead of 9.1 million. Boo hoo. Meanwhile, many younger, smaller artists favor downloading, because they know it’s the only way that people will get to hear the music and in turn come out to see their shows, because the record label sure as hell isn’t promoting them. But they can’t say that out loud, can they? If they do, guess which band is going to get dropped by the label?

So tell me, what does the CRIA do to promote metal? Oh, right, you’ve got a link to the top 50 “metal” albums in Canada, which after a quick glance at the top ten this week includes punk acts like Dropkick Murphys, Finger Eleven, and Billy Talent, and rock acts like Nickelback and Queen, but very little that resembles heavy metal. (Perhaps you should ask the Celtic punk band, Dropkick Murphys, what they think of being labeled as “metal”.)

And also tell me, without Demonoid, where would I have found out about bands like Evile or Dublin Death Patrol and made a decision to purchase their album online (because no record store that I have found in Canada carries either one). And god forbid the CRIA would care about the promotion of Canadian talent, such as longtime recording artist Annihilator, which released one of the better albums of 2007. However, I have yet to see their new album sold in any store in Canada, including HMV’s flagship store on Yonge Street in Toronto, and I ultimately had to buy a copy from a UK website. Considering the only place I had heard about this album was having downloaded it from Demonoid, do you really expect anyone to make this kind of effort to buy an album without ever having heard it?

The record labels and CRIA have gone to great lengths to tell us that downloading and sharing music is killing the music industry. Open your eyes and you will see that the music industry dinosaur has already been killing itself for years, and by resisting technology rather than embracing it and using it to their advantage. “Oh, but they have,” you try to insist, pointing to the sites devoted to selling music in mp3 format online. I notice that most of the metal bands I am interested in are still not available through these services. I also notice that buying an entire album ends up costing as much, if not more, than if I went to buy it in the store, even though there are no longer costs of materials or shipping that have to be paid for, and once again, I fail to come up with any sympathy for the music industry. I hope the music industry does die, because I know that music itself will not die so with the corrupt aspects of the industry gone, only then might music once again flourish.

Sincerely,

A former music buyer

[WildCat]

this isnt even an argument. There is almost NO spending on music right now, all the revenue is coming from product placement, not album sales

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117444575607043728-lMyQjAxMDE3NzI0MTQyNDE1Wj.html
This doesn't support your case, as CD sales are but a percentage of music sales. What about sales via d/l, are they decreasing? What about concert tickets? What about licensing?

[quixotecoyote]

The time we spent making the product on spec or commission

So now they have your time? Where were you keeping it? Did you leave it unlocked?

[pipelineaudio]

This doesn't support your case, as CD sales are but a percentage of music sales. What about sales via d/l, are they decreasing? What about concert tickets? What about licensing?

Concert tickets are not CD sales, and due to the incredible decline in music venues, concerts are only available to the very biggest acts, or those acts who want to pay to play a small bar. Not BE paid to play, actually pay to play

Now, sales via download is something to watch. There really arent hard numbers, but it is said that the singles nature of paid downloads could do some GOOD for the industry as a whole

[strathmeyer]

To date, I have not heard of the RIAA pursuing someone for simply downloading music. So far, it seems that putting a stop to file sharing by going after those who make a large number of songs available for download has been the Association's main goal. If someone knows of a case where simply downloading was involved, I would love to hear (or read) about it. I'd also be interested in any bit torrent cases, where uploads and downloads run simultaneously, as well as any cases involving podcasts. (In the meantime, I'm sure the wondrous Google will help me do my own research.)

You consider 22 to be a large number?

[pounce]

i'm just saying yes to everything pipelineaudio has posted.

file"sharing" is a weak euphemism. the legality and ethics surrounding taking intellectual property for which you have not compensated the creator is obvious. in the case cited in the OP, it is well and right that the defendant was found to have been willfully and consciously downloading and uploading significant amounts of audio files. she wasn't a victim, and she never bought the music. it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination hers to to with what she wants.

these ignorant comments about things like artists working "a few hours" ha ha ha and making money forty years later are not indicative of real life in the music business. in fact, more to the point, all the p2p file stealing means that artists or other IP creators aren't getting paid EVER.

i think this is a great legal reminder that it is still ILLEGAL and WRONG by every measure to download and than distribute IP of any sorts (music, movies, software, games, etc.) as is being done right now via p2p and bit torrent networks. this digital looting is doing incredible harm to all of those industries which create IP that is used and enjoyed every day by people.

the idea of patronage - that artists and other IP creators need to be supported is as old as it is obvious. there is no free ride. not paying for things that you are taking, besides being obviously wrong, is also a behavior that tends to kill the industries you are taking from.

there is a larger discussion about all the damage and effects this is having on the music industry in particular, and how this behavior will tend to reduce the amount of new bands and diversity that can be introduced, and this behavior has certainly put the squeeze on small bands, small labels, smaller recording studios, etc. maybe too much of the public believes that mtv's cribs is what the industry is like, and far from it. instead, lots of the little guys, the majority of folks who collectively are the business, get hurt financially by this. and most of us can't afford the losses. to a small label, the % of sales lost to downloading could be the difference between staying in business or not.

i have music for sale on itunes and other places. if you want it, i'd prefer you bought the cd or download. i would not appreciate having it taken and not at all being compensated. radio and club play does compensate me, and sales of my recording do. p2p gets me nothing. i can't pay bills on that.

ok, gotta run. i find the concept here fairly basic and academic. but i still say that folks using software like p2p programs to do some digital looting without paying for the stuff are no more music fans than carjackers are auto enthusiasts.

[CFLarsen]

Actualy it is done all the time. Getty and Corbis will be quite happy to sell you public domain images and pretend they hold the copyrights. Less common with music because there is less public domain music and the artist name is generaly a selling point.

We are not talking about public domain issues.

[CFLarsen]

You consider 22 to be a large number?

If you count using your fingers and toes...

[geni]

You consider 22 to be a large number?

It was over 1000. The 24 songs were mearly a subset chosen to keep the potential award amount sane (theoretical maxium was in excess of 200 million).

[geni]

We are not talking about public domain issues.

Ghostwritten books are legal under US law.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Sorry, you dont know what you are talking about. Music piracy and software piracy go hand in hand. Its a connection linked even harder since one of the most active and furthest ahead cracking communities in in audiowarez (even further than games)

That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm saying that when it comes to software, you don't need to deny everyone the right to share, learn from and modify your software in order to make a profit. To take the most obvious example, randi.org runs on Red Hat Linux and the Apache web server. There's not charging people for using and copying their software, and yet they don't seem to be starving. Red Hat's revenues are around $280 million USD, derived from services rather than products. It's a different business model, and it works. As software developers, we don't need, and in many cases don't want proprietary software in order to make a living. If all software were free, we'd all be much better off.

I don't know if the music industry is in the same situation, but if you insist that they are, that would mean we wouldn't need proprietary music.

[CFLarsen]

Ghostwritten books are legal under US law.

Yeah. But then, you have the permission of TheBigName.

[Fnord]

Pipelineaudio, I really feel for you and for any other truly creative musician out there who is trying to make a living off their talents.

I used to work as an audio tech and roadie. Now, no more. Back in the day when a four-member group could expect $50 per member for three hour's work, the roadie/tech was lucky to get a few free beers a a phone number from a not-quite-hottie who couldn't score with the band.

Now, every musician is his/her own audio tech, and the equipment is portable enough for most musicians to handle on their own. The last time I worked with a band, I ran the lighting, and that was it.

(I'm talking bar/club bands here.)

Otherwise, folks seem to get paid for playing covers of other people's songs. Local groups with any originality tend to avoid the Big Record Houses and self-produce their own CDs and download sites.

True artists are never fully recognized in their own lifetimes, nor are their efforts ever fully appreciated.

Copyright laws? I used to buy 33s, record the one or two tracks that were worth listening to, and sell the LP at cost to anyone who had the money and could not make it to the record store (30 miles away). This was in violation of copyright laws, but it was also before the Internet became a global wonder. Besides, I was a teenager, so what did I care?

Now, I buy the CDs, copy everything onto my iPod, and stash the CDs in my closet. Then, I listen to my iPod to my heart's content. The artists get paid, I get my music, and if my iPod is ever stolen I still have the original CDs to fall back on. This seems to be within the copyright laws.

However, copyright laws do not work if they are not enforced, but enforce your own copyrights at the risk of your popularity as a musician.

[pipelineaudio]

Nick, my living comes from a software program with ZERO copy protection, so I know what you are saying

However, that is something WE chose, I don't believe it should be forced on everyone

[geni]

Now, I buy the CDs, copy everything onto my iPod, and stash the CDs in my closet. Then, I listen to my iPod to my heart's content. The artists get paid, I get my music, and if my iPod is ever stolen I still have the original CDs to fall back on. This seems to be within the copyright laws.


Depends on where you live.

[dudalb]

That some allleged "rational thinkers" seem to be against the right of an artist to own and profit from his work is a sad commentary on the world today.
Bottom line is a lot of people don't want to pay for their entertainment,and are making up a lot of good sounding justification for stealing intellectual property.

[Beth]

The issue I have with the whole piracy/record company/artists thing is how much of the revenue from sales do the artistis actually receive? When people fileshare music, are they ripping off the artist or just the record company?

My impression (not necessarily accurate) is that the record companies are angry that they are getting cut out of the picture and very little of the revenue from sales actually makes to the artists, particularly if the artist is not a big name star. I have heard that if you really want to support the artist, go to their concert or website and buy a t-shirt because substantially more of that money goes to the artist rather than the recording industry corporations. Or just send the artist a little change whenever you download on of their songs.

[quixotecoyote]

That some allleged "rational thinkers" seem to be against the right of an artist to own and profit from his work is a sad commentary on the world today.
Bottom line is a lot of people don't want to pay for their entertainment,and are making up a lot of good sounding justification for stealing intellectual property.
Shall we play 'spot the fallacy'?

[pipelineaudio]

The issue I have with the whole piracy/record company/artists thing is how much of the revenue from sales do the artistis actually receive? When people fileshare music, are they ripping off the artist or just the record company?

My impression (not necessarily accurate) is that the record companies are angry that they are getting cut out of the picture and very little of the revenue from sales actually makes to the artists, particularly if the artist is not a big name star. I have heard that if you really want to support the artist, go to their concert or website and buy a t-shirt because substantially more of that money goes to the artist rather than the recording industry corporations. Or just send the artist a little change whenever you download on of their songs.

These are good questions, but even if stealing is hurting the record company more than the artist, % wise, the artist is still getting even LESS

Record companies are probably gone. Rick Rubin is in charge of one now, we'll see if he pulls it from the ashes. Your post brings up the question of whether he should even bother. Its a good question

Going to a concert or buying merch can help the artist, but not necessarily. It may have been money fronted or advanced that theyd never see anyway.

[danielk]

That some allleged "rational thinkers" seem to be against the right of an artist to own and profit from his work is a sad commentary on the world today.
Bottom line is a lot of people don't want to pay for their entertainment,and are making up a lot of good sounding justification for stealing intellectual property.

While I can see where you come from, I don't believe it's all simply justification for immoral behavior. I believe both these points are true:

1) An artist does have the right to own and profit from his work.
2) Intellectual work is copied, not moved, therefore it isn't the same as stealing material goods.

Add to that the efforts of the content industry to control and restrict the devices I use to play their content. You cannot seriously believe that laws which make it illegal to watch bought DVDs on my Linux computer are sensible. That's insane. Another example of an insane idea would be DVD region codes.

Really, I despise the cavalier attitude some people have towards copyright infringement just as you do, but nonetheless I think the laws which are dreamed up these days are sheer madness. By the way, as far as I understand the iPod example someone has mentioned would be considered illegal under the new German copyright protection law if enacted without changes.

[LBN]

17 U.S.C. § 506 (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc506.htm)

Effective April 27, 2005; current as of March 1, 2007

(a) Criminal infringement.--

(1) In general.--Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

[Tobermory]

17 U.S.C. § 506 (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc506.htm)

Effective April 27, 2005; current as of March 1, 2007

(a) Criminal infringement.--

(1) In general.--Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

That's simply the relevant federal criminal statute. There may also be state statutes that are applicable, to the extent they do not contradict the federal law. These penalties do not include the additional civil liability a person may face for infringing someone else's intellectual property rights. Right now, the RIAA is bringing civil law suits. It is also possible for the government to prosecute under the statute cited above (and potentially under other statutes).

But in general, I don't understand why people must look at this issue as purely black or white. On the one hand, I appreciate the desire to hear music before making a CD purchase, because so much of what appears on today's pop/rock/indie/country/rap CDs is just filler. On the other hand, clearly the copyright holder's rights should be protected in some way. But as someone said a long time ago in this thread, this is by no means a new issue. In fact, this has been an issue ever since kids started recording songs off the radio with tape recorders. There is no clear evidence that file sharing reduces a record label's profits to a significant degree, such that it eliminates other potential causes for the loss. In other words, even if there's correlation, it still does not establish causation. As skeptics, we can all agree to at least this much, right?

As to sharing a huge number of songs with thousands of potential downloaders, it's against the law and, therefore, stupid. The RIAA, as far as I know and have stated above, has not yet brought a case based solely on downloading, though it could certainly do so if it wished. But such a case is not likely to result in the same type of damages as sharing a file with the masses.

When it comes to streaming content, there is some indication that the RIAA is not yet concerned with the issue, but I am watching the climate carefully because I do allow people to listen to a few odd tracks on my site. I do, however, protect the streamed content to the extent that I am able or, to be more accurate, to the extent that LBN is able. (In other words, the songs cannot be downloaded unless the downloader is a mad evil genius with super stream-ripping powers.) I certainly do not condone downloading this music, but I recommend purchasing it from sites such as Amazon, ITunes, or A Different Drum.

I guess I'm not sure I see the reason for so much passionate argument in this thread. Yes, sharing a file is conceptually and legally different than stealing apples from a grocery store. No, this doesn't necessarily make it right (or wrong). But in the face of new technology, we must find new solutions that properly fit the novel situations presented. This is particularly true because clever people who wish to share files will always find a way to do so under the radar. It's only the naive who get caught.

Disclaimer: Please do not consider anything in my post to be legal advice. If you truly wish to know about the legal consequences of sharing music on the intartubes, please consult a copyright attorney.

[TragicMonkey]

That some allleged "rational thinkers" seem to be against the right of an artist to own and profit from his work is a sad commentary on the world today.
Bottom line is a lot of people don't want to pay for their entertainment,and are making up a lot of good sounding justification for stealing intellectual property.

Actually, I think it's the reverse. When art is a commodity, and the artist expects to earn income from his labor as an artist, that is the sad commentary on the world today. When did art turn into a product like a bale of hay or a can of Coke? Maybe people shouldn't expect to be able to live off art at all. If they are able to live off it, then are they creating art or are they selling a product? You can't have it both ways--insist that it's "art" and at the same time wish to apply business models to it. "Intellectual property"? Owning an idea?

And I'm not even going to touch the whole art = entertainment conflation. Why would that be assumed to be true?

eta: and to forestall the inevitable accusations, no I don't download music or movies or anything. 99% of all the "art" being produced by these large industries is total crap; the few items I care for I purchase. It's a rare occurance, so the ridiculous prices don't really bother me.

[fagin]

The penalty in this case seems to massively outweigh the value of the damage. Seems wrong to me but you guys do have a unique? legal system.

[geni]

Actually, I think it's the reverse. When art is a commodity, and the artist expects to earn income from his labor as an artist, that is the sad commentary on the world today. When did art turn into a product like a bale of hay or a can of Coke? Maybe people shouldn't expect to be able to live off art at all. If they are able to live off it, then are they creating art or are they selling a product? You can't have it both ways--insist that it's "art" and at the same time wish to apply business models to it. "Intellectual property"? Owning an idea?


In the case of copyright the presentation of an idea. If you want to own an idea you need to patent it.

Art has always been a comodity. First for the rich with comissioned paintings and then for everyone once mass production kicked in.

That said I've seen Duchamp's Fountain being blamed for the current extent of copyright law.

[geni]

The penalty in this case seems to massively outweigh the value of the damage. Seems wrong to me but you guys do have a unique? legal system.

The US has satitory damages in the case of copyright. Not common in other legal systems. Under UK law the main theat would be being left with the legal bill.

[Tobermory]

Art has always been a comodity. First for the rich with comissioned paintings and then for everyone once mass production kicked in.


So true.

Also, most symphony orchestras, opera companies, etc. are still subsidized by the rich. When my mother was the Seattle Symphony pianist, she was always listed in the programs with "Such-n-Such-Rich-Person Principal Keyboards" next to her name. The name would change from time to time, depending on the sponsor.

The bottom line here is that artists need to feed their families too. And those who excel at what they do should be compensated. When it comes to classical music, this is still frequently done through donations and grants.

[pipelineaudio]

Actually, I think it's the reverse. When art is a commodity, and the artist expects to earn income from his labor as an artist, that is the sad commentary on the world today. When did art turn into a product like a bale of hay or a can of Coke? Maybe people shouldn't expect to be able to live off art at all. If they are able to live off it, then are they creating art or are they selling a product? You can't have it both ways--insist that it's "art" and at the same time wish to apply business models to it. "Intellectual property"? Owning an idea?

Well hey, throw away the computers, modern profile camshafts, and medical technology that makes modern life so good.

No we shouldnt expect to be paid

We didnt sacrifice a lot of our lives, our health, our earning power to do anything cool for you. We dont deserve jack

[Roadtoad]

I'm in weird sort of position on this one. I download legally some music I like, but most of the time, when I'm downloading, I'm looking for stuff I can actually purchase once I have the scratch. Most of the folks I listen to are waiting for that big break when they can get a recording contract, so they produce and sell their own discs online or at craft fairs. (Yeah, I know. I'm more of a libertarian mindset, but I enjoy going to craft shows.)

At the same time, when I go to B&N, or Borders, and I find a CD I like, but the majority of it is nothing but dross, what do you do? You wind up buying a whole CD for nearly $20, and all that for one miserable song which, had it been possible, you'd have bought for one buck. (Yes, I know it's possible, but some of us want something resembling a hard copy.) When I can buy one Enya CD for the same price, and enjoy every track on it, (and Nick Ryan, her producer, is right: She can't write a bad melody!), but I can't seem to find many other artists who can manage to write more than one song per CD that's worth listening to more than once, you have to wonder what the music industry is thinking.

Other part of this, (and a bit of full disclosure here): I used to go to school with a guy named Mitch Bainwol (Rikzilla might know him, too. Zilla, where are you?). Don't know if it's the same guy, but if it is, it wouldn't surprise me that he's going for blood on this. That was the kind of guy he was in Frankfurt. In his eyes, there's right and there's wrong. Filesharing is wrong in his eyes. (IIRC, he wouldn't have taken the copied cassette, either.)

[TragicMonkey]

Well hey, throw away the computers, modern profile camshafts, and medical technology that makes modern life so good.

No we shouldnt expect to be paid

We didnt sacrifice a lot of our lives, our health, our earning power to do anything cool for you. We dont deserve jack

Oh, my. You equate singing a song with producing something useful? Here's a clue: if your industry, job, and life's work falls under the heading "entertainment" it means "we can survive without you." We wouldn't want to, but we could in a pinch.

Get over yourself. You didn't invent the MRI. You aren't arresting rapists. You aren't teaching the children, purifying the water supply, or defending the indigent in court. You're complaining because you can't make a living selling music. Your options appear to be a) find a real job or b) make better music that people will actually want to buy.

Sorry to be harsh, but don't waffle on about "sacrificing your life" to entertain people. If you really are doing that, then you need to realign your priorities.

[Roadtoad]

Well hey, throw away the computers, modern profile camshafts, and medical technology that makes modern life so good.

No we shouldnt expect to be paid

We didnt sacrifice a lot of our lives, our health, our earning power to do anything cool for you. We dont deserve jack

Are you a member of the Sacramento Symphony? (Now the Sacramento Philharmonic...) At one point, one of the former music directors told the board that if they'd pay a little better, the city would be able to hire some first rate talent and attract some phenomenal guests.

The board sat silent for several minutes, until one pinch-faced matron demanded, "You mean they expect to be PAID!?!?!?"

[mumblethrax]

The bottom line here is that artists need to feed their families too.
Sure, but it doesn't follow that we need a professional class of recording musicians, or that any particular model of compensating artists is justified. There are plenty of artists who are essentially uncompensated, and I think I'd probably object if a painter decided that I owed him after taking a snapshot of a painting (regardless of what copyright law has to say on the matter). The law is just unequipped to deal with implications of modern technology, and is way out of sync with public perception. That's not a problem that can be solved by further alienating the public with punitive fines.

[Roadtoad]

Oh, my. You equate singing a song with producing something useful? Here's a clue: if your industry, job, and life's work falls under the heading "entertainment" it means "we can survive without you." We wouldn't want to, but we could in a pinch.

Get over yourself. You didn't invent the MRI. You aren't arresting rapists. You aren't teaching the children, purifying the water supply, or defending the indigent in court. You're complaining because you can't make a living selling music. Your options appear to be a) find a real job or b) make better music that people will actually want to buy.

Sorry to be harsh, but don't waffle on about "sacrificing your life" to entertain people. If you really are doing that, then you need to realign your priorities.

Sorry, TM, but PA has a point. For the most part, people are willing to pay to be entertained, (hence the obscene salaries that some sports figures are paid), so for a person to download and take what another has earned simply isn't right.

[Tobermory]

Sure, but it doesn't follow that we need a professional class of recording musicians, or that any particular model of compensating artists is justified. There are plenty of artists who are essentially uncompensated, and I think I'd probably object if a painter decided that I owed him after taking a snapshot of a painting (regardless of what copyright law has to say on the matter). The law is just unequipped to deal with implications of modern technology, and is way out of sync with public perception. That's not a problem that can be solved by further alienating the public with punitive fines.

I actually agree with the substance of your post; namely, I agree that the law is not properly equipped to deal with the emerging technology in this area, and the status quo does not strike the proper balance. I think selling mp3s for a low price is a step in the right direction, but I wish that the sound quality was better. At this point, when we're buying individual MP3s, we're basically paying a high price for a lower quality product.

[quixotecoyote]

Sorry, TM, but PA has a point. For the most part, people are willing to pay to be entertained, (hence the obscene salaries that some sports figures are paid), so for a person to download and take what another has earned simply isn't right.

True, but consider the other side to your justification. If people are not willing to pay for an album and are instead willing to download, then the other person hasn't earned it.

[geni]

Well hey, throw away the computers,

Computers have never been meaningfuly driven by copyright or even patents. Mosre relying on first mover advantages or trade secrets.

[geni]

Oh, my. You equate singing a song with producing something useful? Here's a clue: if your industry, job, and life's work falls under the heading "entertainment" it means "we can survive without you." We wouldn't want to, but we could in a pinch.

Get over yourself. You didn't invent the MRI.

We could survive without MRI.


You aren't arresting rapists.


The various technologies around DNA fingerprinting have likely been patented.


You aren't teaching the children,


Textbooks are protected by copyright.


purifying the water supply, or defending the indigent in court.


You are suggesting that lawyers are not expendable?


You're complaining because you can't make a living selling music. Your options appear to be a) find a real job or b) make better music that people will actually want to buy.


The problem is that people who might want to buy are instead takeing.

[TragicMonkey]

Sorry, TM, but PA has a point. For the most part, people are willing to pay to be entertained, (hence the obscene salaries that some sports figures are paid), so for a person to download and take what another has earned simply isn't right.

But the athlete is paid for performing in events, not paid for electronic reproductions of those events. An athlete doesn't play one game then expect people to go on paying, year after year, to watch that same game again via technology.

If the musician is so concerned about technological duplication of his work, he should insist on being paid a lot for the initial performance, and that performance only, and receive no money at all from sales of electronic copies of that same performance. Like so:

1. Musician plays a demo for the record company.
2. Record company thinks it could be a hit and sell $4 million worth of albums.
3. Record company pays the musician $3 million to record the song. Musician, paid up front, cedes all potential future earnings from that song to the record company.
4. Who now make and sell copies of what is now their work.

It puts the burden of worrying about unauthorized copies where it belongs: on the corporations selling them. If the song sells a billion copies or if it sells ten copies, the musician doesn't care--he's already been paid for the single performance of his song.

[geni]

Sure, but it doesn't follow that we need a professional class of recording musicians,

Professional musicians have existed for all of recorded history.


or that any particular model of compensating artists is justified. There are plenty of artists who are essentially uncompensated, and I think I'd probably object if a painter decided that I owed him after taking a snapshot of a painting (regardless of what copyright law has to say on the matter).

Object all you like you'd still lose the case.



The law is just unequipped to deal with implications of modern technology,


For the most part it gets by pretty well. New tech but the same old principles.



and is way out of sync with public perception.


The public is an ass


That's not a problem that can be solved by further alienating the public with punitive fines.

Not a fine.

[TragicMonkey]

The problem is that people who might want to buy are instead takeing.

Which demonstrates that they are not people who want to buy.

[geni]

But the athlete is paid for performing in events, not paid for electronic reproductions of those events. An athlete doesn't play one game then expect people to go on paying, year after year, to watch that same game again via technology.

Clearly need to negoiate a better rights deal.


If the musician is so concerned about technological duplication of his work, he should insist on being paid a lot for the initial performance, and that performance only, and receive no money at all from sales of electronic copies of that same performance. Like so:

1. Musician plays a demo for the record company.
2. Record company thinks it could be a hit and sell $4 million worth of albums.
3. Record company pays the musician $3 million to record the song. Musician, paid up front, cedes all potential future earnings from that song to the record company.
4. Who now make and sell copies of what is now their work.


You realise that isn't legal under US law let alone french?


It puts the burden of worrying about unauthorized copies where it belongs: on the corporations selling them. If the song sells a billion copies or if it sells ten copies, the musician doesn't care--he's already been paid for the single performance of his song.

In reality he will generaly be paid maybe 1K until he can prove he can produce hits.

[geni]

Which demonstrates that they are not people who want to buy.

No it shows they would rather take than buy. If takeing was not an option the ones who are prepared to by buy would.

[TragicMonkey]

You realise that isn't legal under US law let alone french?

Why wouldn't it be legal? In the US, you can decide your own business deals. If all parties agreed, I don't see it violating any laws.


In reality he will generaly be paid maybe 1K until he can prove he can produce hits.

Then he is foolish for participating in such an unequal deal. If the record company is unable to predict successful product lines, then they are clearly not up to the job. Every other seller of commodities to the public has figured out how to navigate the gamble of anticipating future public consumption of their products. What makes record companies so incompetent and unwilling to take on risk?

[pipelineaudio]

At the same time, when I go to B&N, or Borders, and I find a CD I like, but the majority of it is nothing but dross, what do you do? You wind up buying a whole CD for nearly $20, and all that for one miserable song which, had it been possible, you'd have bought for one buck. (Yes, I know it's possible, but some of us want something resembling a hard copy.) When I can buy one Enya CD for the same price, and enjoy every track on it, (and Nick Ryan, her producer, is right: She can't write a bad melody!), but I can't seem to find many other artists who can manage to write more than one song per CD that's worth listening to more than once, you have to wonder what the music industry is thinking.

Now, I know this isnt directed at you, but nowhere did I excuse the record companies from any blame in this...they are putting out crap

but its funny, if its such crap why does everyone want to steal it? Thats a whole nuther can of worms

But roadtoad you have the right idea, and the one that will likely save the smaller botique record companies:

Just buy the enya CD if it has all killer no filler on it

DONT buy the crap CD that has one single on it

this will go a LONG way to paying those who do good, and punishing those pushing dreck

[TragicMonkey]

No it shows they would rather take than buy. If takeing was not an option the ones who are prepared to by buy would.

You are dealing in hypotheticals. You assume that those who want the product enough to have it for free would be willing to buy it if it weren't available for free. I think it's more likely that were the product not available for free, its consumption would be vastly reduced.

Ever see anybody actually buy whatever the free samples at the supermarket are for? Lots of people try the free samples only because they are free.

[quixotecoyote]

No it shows they would rather take than buy. If takeing was not an option the ones who are prepared to by buy would.

Says you and who else?

[pipelineaudio]

Get over yourself. You didn't invent the MRI. You aren't arresting rapists. You aren't teaching the children, purifying the water supply, or defending the indigent in court. You're complaining because you can't make a living selling music. Your options appear to be a) find a real job or b) make better music that people will actually want to buy.

Im not just talking about music here.

Music, video and software are LOCKED in this issue. It happens to be the music side thats taking the fight right now, but the exact same thing is happening in software. For me, since I record and mix music but also promote software, I can see both ends in this

If you dont think people are leaving innovative tech for jobs they might get paid in you are fooling yourself. This could very well be the end of the incredibly speedy technical curve we've been seeing. The focus is now going into product placement instead of product development

[dudalb]

While I can see where you come from, I don't believe it's all simply justification for immoral behavior. I believe both these points are true:

1) An artist does have the right to own and profit from his work.
2) Intellectual work is copied, not moved, therefore it isn't the same as stealing material goods.

Add to that the efforts of the content industry to control and restrict the devices I use to play their content. You cannot seriously believe that laws which make it illegal to watch bought DVDs on my Linux computer are sensible. That's insane. Another example of an insane idea would be DVD region codes.

Really, I despise the cavalier attitude some people have towards copyright infringement just as you do, but nonetheless I think the laws which are dreamed up these days are sheer madness. By the way, as far as I understand the iPod example someone has mentioned would be considered illegal under the new German copyright protection law if enacted without changes.


I am no defender of the music industry's response to the problem,and think they have managed the new technology with all the grace of an pregnent Elephant, but time and time again I see whats amounts to contempt for intellectual property among a lot of people.

[pipelineaudio]

But the athlete is paid for performing in events, not paid for electronic reproductions of those events. An athlete doesn't play one game then expect people to go on paying, year after year, to watch that same game again via technology.

If the musician is so concerned about technological duplication of his work, he should insist on being paid a lot for the initial performance, and that performance only, and receive no money at all from sales of electronic copies of that same performance. Like so:

1. Musician plays a demo for the record company.
2. Record company thinks it could be a hit and sell $4 million worth of albums.
3. Record company pays the musician $3 million to record the song. Musician, paid up front, cedes all potential future earnings from that song to the record company.
4. Who now make and sell copies of what is now their work.

It puts the burden of worrying about unauthorized copies where it belongs: on the corporations selling them. If the song sells a billion copies or if it sells ten copies, the musician doesn't care--he's already been paid for the single performance of his song.

You seriously have NO IDEA what goes into making a record

I do like your money grows on trees theory though

[mumblethrax]

Professional musicians have existed for all of recorded history.
Which is why I said professional recording musicians, who have existed for only a few decades.

As for the rest of your finely parsed reply, you seemed to have missed the point: I'm not saying that it's not illegal to pirate music, but that alienating the demographic that you rely upon for revenue is a self-defeating strategy, regardless of the legal principles involved. The recording industry gives the impression of an institution struggling against recognition of its own demise.

[TragicMonkey]

You seriously have NO IDEA what goes into making a record

I do like your money grows on trees theory though

I'm suggesting that a corrupt, bloated, and failing business model, which is fighting with technological progress and public opinion at this point, be replaced with a different one. But by all means, keep the status quo. It seems to be working so well...well, except for the failures you've been complaining about.

I do like your "stamp your feet and make the world change its ways" theory, though.

[dudalb]

When art is a commodity, and the artist expects to earn income from his labor as an artist, that is the sad commentary on the world today. When did art turn into a product like a bale of hay or a can of Coke? Maybe people shouldn't expect to be able to live off art at all.
:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

Does'nt know much about the history of art,does he?

Professional Artist have expected to be paid for their efforts ("Product")
since time began.
It is just that they sell to a mass audience rather then a few patrons nowdays.
You seem to be suffering from a lack of knowledge of history...somthing a lot of people suffer from.
BUt I am really shocked you seem to think that artist expecting to earn a living from their art is some new and evil development. I don't know what planet you are living on in this regard but it is not the earth.

[geni]

Why wouldn't it be legal? In the US, you can decide your own business deals. If all parties agreed, I don't see it violating any laws.


Termination of transfer.


Then he is foolish for participating in such an unequal deal. If the record company is unable to predict successful product lines, then they are clearly not up to the job.

The shortgun aproach works. At 1K a time $1million will get you 1000 works. One of them should be sucessful.


Every other seller of commodities to the public has figured out how to navigate the gamble of anticipating future public consumption of their products.

Not remotely. See venture capitalists


What makes record companies so incompetent and unwilling to take on risk?

Small ones can't aford to and the big one have cheaper options.

[TragicMonkey]

Im not just talking about music here.

Music, video and software are LOCKED in this issue. It happens to be the music side thats taking the fight right now, but the exact same thing is happening in software. For me, since I record and mix music but also promote software, I can see both ends in this

If you dont think people are leaving innovative tech for jobs they might get paid in you are fooling yourself. This could very well be the end of the incredibly speedy technical curve we've been seeing. The focus is now going into product placement instead of product development

So join the club. That's true of every industry. As wonderful as it would be to make tons of money while getting to experiment and innovate, that's not what works. What pays the bills is what we know and do and can sell now. Innovation is extra, and it's a gamble. If your business is strong enough to support the risk of wasted time and resources, it can afford some innovation. If your business is desperate enough it can devote all its time and resources to innovation. But no business should expect to be completely free to innovate and experiment and assume no risk and have its financial bottom line utterly secure.

[geni]

You are dealing in hypotheticals. You assume that those who want the product enough to have it for free would be willing to buy it if it weren't available for free. I think it's more likely that were the product not available for free, its consumption would be vastly reduced.

Ever see anybody actually buy whatever the free samples at the supermarket are for? Lots of people try the free samples only because they are free.

None of which is remotely relivant. Your only interest is in those who are prepared to buy.

Basic free market. If people can take bit indentical free copies they are not going to buy.

[geni]

Says you and who else?

The free market. You cannot compete against bit identical free stuff.

[danielk]

It happens to be the music side thats taking the fight right now, but the exact same thing is happening in software. For me, since I record and mix music but also promote software, I can see both ends in this

If you dont think people are leaving innovative tech for jobs they might get paid in you are fooling yourself. This could very well be the end of the incredibly speedy technical curve we've been seeing.

I disagree, and I am a software developer. I'm not aware that proprietary software is, in general, any more innovative than Open Source software. However, the main problem I see with software piracy is that it actually helps the monopolists. Why buy Paint Shop Pro if I can just download Adobe Photoshop for free? Same with Microsoft Office etc. This is particularly true for developing countries, where piracy is the rule rather than the exception. It's a huge new customer base in the making, once they reach the level where it pays to adhere to international copyright agreements.

[geni]

Which is why I said professional recording musicians, who have existed for only a few decades.

As for the rest of your finely parsed reply, you seemed to have missed the point: I'm not saying that it's not illegal to pirate music, but that alienating the demographic that you rely upon for revenue is a self-defeating strategy, regardless of the legal principles involved. The recording industry gives the impression of an institution struggling against recognition of its own demise.

Actually if you have the right back catalogue (happy birthday random major hits of the last few decades) then "sue everyone" could be a valid business strategy.

[quixotecoyote]

The free market. You cannot compete against bit identical free stuff.


The free market has produced file sharing and people are preferring it.

By your own argument, you lose.

[TragicMonkey]

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

Does'nt know much about the history of art,does he?

Professional Artist have expected to be paid for their efforts ("Product")
since time began.
It is just that they sell to a mass audience rather then a few patrons nowdays.
You seem to be suffering from a lack of knowledge of history...somthing a lot of people suffer from.
BUt I am really shocked you seem to think that artist expecting to earn a living from their art is some new and evil development. I don't know what planet you are living on in this regard but it is not the earth.

Yeah, I'm such an idiot. I forgot that in ancient Egypt, all those reliefs were carved by paid professional artists. No doubt they all had agents and negotiated great commissions with the god-king. And Gothic cathedrals? Oh, how the architects lived glamourous lives of fancy parties and little berets. Illuminated manuscripts, oh the sex scandals of those famous, famous artists.

Art used to be a craft. It was a job. People made things. You wanted a barrel, you went to a cooper. You wanted a mural, you went to an artist. You paid for each and it was done. Then art eventually evolved into Art. People started waxing philosophical about it, and getting some very odd ideas.

I suggest that art can be either a product or it can be the other kind, Art. But expecting the glories of the latter with the commercial benefits of the former is as foolish as it is greedy.

As for earning a living, I think that if someone is really creating something sublime for the ages, they shouldn't be doing it for the money at all. If they aren't creating Art, then they have no call to be so precious about it.

[TragicMonkey]

None of which is remotely relivant. Your only interest is in those who are prepared to buy.

Basic free market. If people can take bit indentical free copies they are not going to buy.

Is there a free clinic, or free medical care available in your locale?

Are all the for-profit hospitals and doctors out of business as a result?

Reality, which doesn't conform to market principles in all areas, demonstrates that just because something's free doesn't mean people won't pay for it.

[geni]

I'm suggesting that a corrupt, bloated, and failing business model, which is fighting with technological progress

DRM is probably driveing technological progress.

[pipelineaudio]

I disagree, and I am a software developer. I'm not aware that proprietary software is, in general, any more innovative than Open Source software. However, the main problem I see with software piracy is that it actually helps the monopolists. Why buy Paint Shop Pro if I can just download Adobe Photoshop for free? Same with Microsoft Office etc. This is particularly true for developing countries, where piracy is the rule rather than the exception. It's a huge new customer base in the making, once they reach the level where it pays to adhere to international copyright agreements.

The completely open source software model lags the proprietary in most software I can think of, with awesome exceptions

We do our best to help the linux guys, but we cant help them stop fighting each other and reinventing the wheel every time. Ardour had the support of no less than SSL, the top hardware mixing company in music and is still flopping (though it is cool as hell, all the infighting is hosing it)

openarena is doing well

openoffice is pretty good

other than that?

[geni]

Is there a free clinic, or free medical care available in your locale?

Of course I live in the UK


Are all the for-profit hospitals and doctors out of business as a result?


Which part of "bit identical" don't you get?


Reality, which doesn't conform to market principles in all areas, demonstrates that just because something's free doesn't mean people won't pay for it.

They thing they pay for is not bit identical.

[TragicMonkey]

The shortgun aproach works. At 1K a time $1million will get you 1000 works. One of them should be sucessful.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it isn't fair.


Not remotely. See venture capitalists.

Who learn what gambles to take, or else they stop being venture capitalists quite quickly. The successful ones pick the right projects.

Small ones can't aford to and the big one have cheaper options.

So? Nobody said all playing fields are level. If you want to compete in business, you have to accept that and work around it.

[pipelineaudio]

I'm suggesting that a corrupt, bloated, and failing business model, which is fighting with technological progress and public opinion at this point, be replaced with a different one. But by all means, keep the status quo. It seems to be working so well...well, except for the failures you've been complaining about.

I do like your "stamp your feet and make the world change its ways" theory, though.

Which business model?

I dont think anyone here is defending the record companies. Im certainly not, but that has 0.00000000000000001% to do with this issue, though the thieves make it 99% of the issue in their attempt to rationalize

[geni]

The free market has produced file sharing and people are preferring it.

By your own argument, you lose.

No it simply means that the RIAA has to increase the costs of file shareing. Either through technological barriers moral barriers or massive damages.

People don't appear to have moral concerns so they go for the other two.

[TragicMonkey]

They thing they pay for is not bit identical.

And you don't get a nice plastic case and a little booklet if you download a song from the internet, or the air of sanctimonious superiority for being a good participant in capitalism.

[geni]

And you don't get a nice plastic case and a little booklet if you download a song from the internet,

That doesn't appear to be a strong enough enducement. It is hard to add value to sound.


or the air of sanctimonious superiority for being a good participant in capitalism.

I'm not seeing that one.

[TragicMonkey]

Which business model?

The one where people try to make buckets of money from reproductions of a single performance, and attempt to fight technological advances with lawsuits and lobbying in order to protect their own profit margin off their increasingly-obsolete business methods.

It's like portrait artists going to law to try to stop the spread of photography. Doomed to failure, and the more they refuse to accept and adapt the less relevant and sympathetic they become.

[geni]

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it isn't fair.

Fair? In the free market? Are you french or something?


Who learn what gambles to take, or else they stop being venture capitalists quite quickly. The successful ones pick the right projects.


Not really. Venture capitalists are the people who can afford to lose. Odds of 100:1 are not a problem. You don't know which one will come off but don't care as long as one has a payout of 10,100%.


So? Nobody said all playing fields are level. If you want to compete in business, you have to accept that and work around it.

Um what you just said makes no sense in responce to what I wrote.

[TragicMonkey]

That doesn't appear to be a strong enough enducement. It is hard to add value to sound.

Well, if I were in the business of selling albums, I'd work quite hard to find a way. It would be in my interests, after all. But then I always thought that trying new ideas is a better path to success than suing the pants off people.


I'm not seeing that one.

It's all over this thread!

[mumblethrax]

Actually if you have the right back catalogue (happy birthday random major hits of the last few decades) then "sue everyone" could be a valid business strategy.
I can't imagine a better way to bring about swift reform in intellectual property law than to sue everyone who has ever downloaded music illegally. But I doubt it would work, anyway: just how much of this $200,000 does the RIAA expect to recover? Enough to offset legal costs? And this for a particularly egregious case.

[geni]

The one where people try to make buckets of money from reproductions of a single performance, and attempt to fight technological advances with lawsuits and lobbying in order to protect their own profit margin off their increasingly-obsolete business methods.

It's like portrait artists going to law to try to stop the spread of photography. Doomed to failure, and the more they refuse to accept and adapt the less relevant and sympathetic they become.

Portrait artists were not having their work infringed (well they do but a big no cameras sign normaly takes care of it). Someone else was creating a completely seperate work.

That isn't what is happening in this case.

[geni]

I can't imagine a better way to bring about swift reform in intellectual property law than to sue everyone who has ever downloaded music illegally. But I doubt it would work, anyway: just how much of this $200,000 does the RIAA expect to recover? Enough to offset legal costs? And this for a particularly egregious case.

It doesn't matter because now they can say to everyone else "better settle out of court or we make a complete mess of your life". The money from this judgement is unemportant.

[TragicMonkey]

Fair? In the free market? Are you french or something?

Um what you just said makes no sense in responce to what I wrote.

I should have said "unwise" deal. The musician with the great hit who accepts too little money no doubt feels it's unfair, but then he didn't have to accept the deal. Likewise the record company which finances a disaster.

[geni]

Well, if I were in the business of selling albums, I'd work quite hard to find a way. It would be in my interests, after all.

You assume there is a way.


But then I always thought that trying new ideas is a better path to success than suing the pants off people.


The owners of various submarine patents would probably beg to differ. Of course that approach has been slightly outlawed.

You don't make money building a road to progress. You make money by setting up a tollbooth. There are various ways of doing this.



It's all over this thread!

Did it get you to buy the gift wraped version of this thread?

[TragicMonkey]

You assume there is a way.

If you conclude there isn't a way to save your industry, you should abandon that industry for another or retire. There is always a way, you just might not see it. It's usually worth a try.

You don't make money building a road to progress. You make money by setting up a tollbooth. There are various ways of doing this.

You might, I wouldn't. There are various ways of doing many things, and sometimes the path to maximum profit is not the path to maximum jollility. Luckily I don't have the sort of life where my main interest is wringing as much coinage out of people as I possibly can.

eta: Also, I see progress as worth it for its own sake, not as a mere way to profit.



Did it get you to buy the gift wraped version of this thread?

I'm holding out for the collector's edition with the extras, booklet on the "making of", and scale model.

[WildCat]

Concert tickets are not CD sales,
CD sales are not the only way people pay to hear music.

and due to the incredible decline in music venues,
Source? There are other music venues besides giant ampitheaters.

concerts are only available to the very biggest acts, or those acts who want to pay to play a small bar. Not BE paid to play, actually pay to play
And this is different when the record company sends a band on tour, and at the end of the tour have their accountants show that the band owes the record company money? Bands are discovering they don't need record companies to exploit promote them in ways that make indentured servitude look progressive by comparison.

Now, sales via download is something to watch. There really arent hard numbers, but it is said that the singles nature of paid downloads could do some GOOD for the industry as a whole
The music industry and bands will do fine. Record companies will suffer, unless they realize it is futile to try to prop up the old way of doing business. Physical-format music sales are on their inevitable slide to the pages of history.

[danielk]

The completely open source software model lags the proprietary in most software I can think of, with awesome exceptions

I think you're focusing too much on professional audio software, which is produced for a highly specialized market. Note that I said I don't think there's a difference in general.

We do our best to help the linux guys, but we cant help them stop fighting each other and reinventing the wheel every time.

There's a lot of reinventing the wheel in proprietary software development as well. Obviously, since the culture of sharing code as much as possible doesn't exist. And reinvention of the wheel in the Open Source world has actually been on the decline for years now. See the Freedesktop.org project, for example.

Ardour had the support of no less than SSL, the top hardware mixing company in music and is still flopping (though it is cool as hell, all the infighting is hosing it)

Ah, Paul Davis' baby. :) I know him from our mailing list -- Ardour uses gtkmm for the GUI, a project which I'm co-maintainer of. Wouldn't know about any infighting since I'm not a user or developer of Ardour.

other than that?

Yes. The foundations of the Internet, for instance. And at least one entire operating system.

[pipelineaudio]

The one where people try to make buckets of money from reproductions of a single performance, and attempt to fight technological advances with lawsuits and lobbying in order to protect their own profit margin off their increasingly-obsolete business methods.

This has no bearing to reality whatsoever

Do I have it wrong or do you think a bunch of guys get together, play a song once and then a CD pops out?

[mumblethrax]

It doesn't matter because now they can say to everyone else "better settle out of court or we make a complete mess of your life". The money from this judgement is unemportant.
The L. A. Times gives a typical settlement figure of less than $5,000 for 26,000 lawsuits over the past four years, which is at most $16,250,000 per year, before court costs and assuming full payment. Not nearly enough to recover their investments, considering that they have to secure the rights to popular songs in the first place. If they step up the rate of litigation in order to recover those costs, they'll encounter the twin problems of diminishing marginal utility and a public relation disaster which could easily lead to their business model being legislated out of existence.

Not a business I'd want to be in, but they're welcome to it.

[pipelineaudio]

CD sales are not the only way people pay to hear music.

yeah, theres also product placement


Source? There are other music venues besides giant ampitheaters.

Check any local paper for the number of bars with bands playing in them compared to 5 years ago. Alcohol litigation and anti-tobacco along with noise laws have dried this one out

And this is different when the record company sends a band on tour, and at the end of the tour have their accountants show that the band owes the record company money? Bands are discovering they don't need record companies to exploit promote them in ways that make indentured servitude look progressive by comparison.

Yes, this is the popular myth, though it is far from reality

The music industry and bands will do fine. Record companies will suffer, unless they realize it is futile to try to prop up the old way of doing business. Physical-format music sales are on their inevitable slide to the pages of history.

No, it wont, and if you looked into the subject you'd see that most of it is already gone.

Most of the good rooms are either parking lots now or have been sold to educational facilities, who can ill afford to maintain them.

[quixotecoyote]

yeah, theres also product placement




Check any local paper for the number of bars with bands playing in them compared to 5 years ago. Alcohol litigation and anti-tobacco along with noise laws have dried this one out



Yes, this is the popular myth, though it is far from reality



No, it wont, and if you looked into the subject you'd see that most of it is already gone.

Most of the good rooms are either parking lots now or have been sold to educational facilities, who can ill afford to maintain them.


I see raw assertion coupled with obvious ********. Any real evidence to back this up?

[geni]

The L. A. Times gives a typical settlement figure of less than $5,000 for 26,000 lawsuits over the past four years, which is at most $16,250,000 per year, before court costs and assuming full payment.

Vast majority have not gone to court.




Not nearly enough to recover their investments, considering that they have to secure the rights to popular songs in the first place. If they step up the rate of litigation in order to recover those costs, they'll encounter the twin problems of diminishing marginal utility and a public relation disaster which could easily lead to their business model being legislated out of existence.

Not a business I'd want to be in, but they're welcome to it.

Sure it's risky but so are junk bonds.

[pipelineaudio]

I see raw assertion coupled with obvious ********. Any real evidence to back this up?

Yes

Look at studio rates

Look at the number of professional rooms

Look at engineer rates

Look at record sales

Look in any paper for the number of bars with live bands

Look anywhere you want in the music business

This is like asking for evidence that there is air in the sky

[Fnord]

Commercial art, in its every form, is derivative. There is very little art that is truly "new," only samples rearranged into a collage and then sold as original. And if it is new, it quickly suffers the same chop-shop fate.

Then there are galleries full of "original" work and stores full of mass-produced replicas. Except for some of the more disturbing forms of gallery art, you can find the same thing as store art in a mall outlet.

Lastly, I am tired of dealing with people who try to pass their freakish junk off as art. Art is a communication between artist and world. If I look at or listen to a piece of "art" and the only message I get is "I threw this together aimlessly because I lack creativity and I'm really indifferent to the quality of the work so just pay for it and get it out of here so that I can put more half-effort crap in its place" I'm not going to buy it. And that goes for anything that every no-talent hack tries to pass of as either dynamic or static art.



Please forgive the spelling and grammar errors, as I've misplaced my glasses and can't read what I've typed. I don't even know if I'm on topic or not, or if this post fits in at all.

[pipelineaudio]

Commercial art, in its every form, is derivative. There is very little art that is truly "new," only samples rearranged into a collage and then sold as original. And if it is new, it quickly suffers the same chop-shop fate.

Then there are galleries full of "original" work and stores full of mass-produced replicas. Except for some of the more disturbing forms of gallery art, you can find the same thing as store art in a mall outlet.

Lastly, I am tired of dealing with people who try to pass their freakish junk off as art. Art is a communication between artist and world. If I look at or listen to a piece of "art" and the only message I get is "I threw this together aimlessly because I lack creativity and I'm really indifferent to the quality of the work so just pay for it and get it out of here so that I can put more half-effort crap in its place" I'm not going to buy it. And that goes for anything that every no-talent hack tries to pass of as either dynamic or static art.



Please forgive the spelling and grammar errors, as I've misplaced my glasses and can't read what I've typed. I don't even know if I'm on topic or not, or if this post fits in at all.

then why bother stealing it?

[pounce]

so we are getting some of the usual response here, which is disappointing. all i have figured out is that tragic monkey doesn't know anything about the reality of creating musical works and getting them out to listeners. nor is there a proper answer to the question, if folks don't want to buy those songs why do they keep downloading them?

this notion that muddying up the water with this stuff that the labels are evil, or that artists should work for free or some such nonsense doesn't add to the discussion at all. sure, many bands got bad contracts with labels, but downloading IP without compensating the creator only means in this case that the band gets nothing instead of a little. this behavior has been closing studio's, small record labels, distributors, and putting lots of other little people in the business out of business. that should matter. the "industry" isn't a big nameless faceless thing, and this discussion isn't and shouldn't be about sticking it to the mean old record labels. the fall of the music industry takes out a lot of little guys too. and a lot of the good guys go. with that, a LOT of good music doesn't get out, or if it does you'll never hear about it. there are consequences to actions, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is a great and demonstable bad effect on everyone involved in music by digital looting.

while i do think a great discussion can be had from those connected to the industry about future improved business models, this is not the thread for that. and frankly, as a person who's been full time in this industry for many years, there is not much added to the discussion about industry models by those who don't really know a lot about the business. no offense monkey man, but this is an area of discussion that you cannot significantly contribute to.

that a court found a person guilty of willful infringement was a proper judgement, and gives a much needed nod to the idea that the creators of things have rights first and foremost. those things are our creations, and often our livelihood. patronage of the arts is an appropriate thing. if you like a song enough to download it, you like it enough to pay .99 cents for it on itunes. i get more money back from itunes sales now than i did from my last record contract. i love legal digital downloads. what i'm saying is there is a solution. high quality, drm free, legal, fast downloads are available now from places like itunes. the legal option is ubiquitous and any person can choose to actually support the things that they enjoy and bring into their lives, or they willfully choose to loot stuff. i know it's illegal to do the piracy thing, and it's unethical. frankly, i remember being told as a kid that what we did when we knew we weren't being watched/couldn't get caught is what defined true selves. what does it mean that with the supposed anonymity of the internet folks choose to take without paying, and choose many other behaviors that are unbecoming? i don't think it speaks well of civilised and polite people who would otherwise insist that they were good and righteous and knew right from wrong. for my money, the proof is in the behavior.

i am excited about some of the possible futures for the music industry. the internet does provide some opportunities to make things more democratic than they'd ever been before, and opportunities for otherwise unknown folks to find and audience.

however, this future will require one thing.


that folks who want music (or movies, software, games, etc.) buy it. support it. until there is some whole other economic system we are living under, we need patronage. that's it.

so the question is, will folks do the right thing and buy the IP enriches their lives? or has society gotten so used to just taking it that there can be no return to respecting IP in this digital age? with more of everything in life becoming digital, having a whole generation of folks who have no respect for IP is going to become a serious problem.

as i'm typing this, i live in the USA, i am a content creator, this is a capitalistic society, and i make a full time living working in audio. if you don't like my music or engineering work, don't buy it. i'm fine with that. but if you do like it, please DO buy it. i've even said please.

[TragicMonkey]

It's so nice to have lectures Delivered Unto Us. Uncapitalized, at that, and by a self-professed expert. I guess that settles everything.

Oh, except the whole piracy thing, which rages unabated in the face of any amount of naive meandering and heartfelt pleading.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7029229.stm

Statutory damages. Gotta love them.

Sorry, late to the thread, but:


:clap::clap::clap:

[pipelineaudio]

It's so nice to have lectures Delivered Unto Us. Uncapitalized, at that, and by a self-professed expert. I guess that settles everything.

Do a little googling before making an <censored by thought police> of yourself

[Roadtoad]

The obvious question has been asked: If it's worth downloading, why steal it?

I clearly don't have the problem of people stealing what I write. Not yet, anyway. But let's assume I actually get the book I've been working on for a while published. While the content can be posted on the web, should it, and should anyone be able to distribute it as they see fit?

There's content you create for the web, and you expect that some of it will appear in places you might otherwise not have expected. But, the reality is that when you create, you have a right to compensation for that work. And, given that intellectual property tends to endure, in many ways, copyright law reflects that. (I forget how long copyright is good for, but after a certain period of time, it becomes public domain.)

In other words, what I create is a resource I own, and it is mine to do with as I (largely) see fit. You may not take from me what is mine without due compensation. If you don't like it, don't purchase it, or better yet, don't take it without compensating me for my efforts.

Remember what I said earlier, about Mitch Bainwol? As I said before, I don't know if he's the same guy who's the main gun for the RIAA, but back in high school, the Mitch I knew simply would not take a cassette copy of an album. He paid for what he listened to. The dude was a straight arrow even then. I suspect he is now.

Considering the number of great artists who aren't being heard, and more importantly, who aren't receiving pay for what they've earned, considering how badly they need it, it's not fair for others to take their work without paying for it.

Again, when I have downloaded, I did so legally, and generally, I treated it as I would have an old 45 single: If you liked the song, you bought the album. (45s were loss leaders for the record industry.) Frankly, I've enjoyed the search for great music. I found some great stuff by Stan Getz which I didn't even realize was out there from the latter part of his career. Now, I'm trying to find some of Paul MacCandless' material, simply because I enjoyed his work with the Winter Consort and Oregon. I want to buy more of it, but it's not cheap. I have to plan what I buy. (Wow, what a thought!) Ditto some of the albums from Nightnoise, whom I've been listening to for years.

I'm funny this way, but I think that Paul MacCandless deserves to be paid for his work. I believe his work is his own, and I'm only purchasing access to it. I am purchasing the media which carries the work, but not the work itself. If I were to take that work and sell it, share it, pass it around, distribute it, without paying Mr. MacCandless, I would be stealing from him. There would be no incentive for him to continue creating the phenomenal music he's known for.

And that would be a greater tragedy.

[TragicMonkey]

Do a little googling before making an <censored by thought police> of yourself

I wasn't commenting on the truth or falsehood of the self-profession, merely pointing out that it was a self-profession.

[pipelineaudio]

I wasn't commenting on the truth or falsehood of the self-profession, merely pointing out that it was a self-profession.

Did you want him to lie and say he was a cab driver?

[TragicMonkey]

Did you want him to lie and say he was a cab driver?

As long as he could do so briefly.

[WildCat]

This is interesting, download the new Radiohead (http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/index3.html) album and pay what you think it's worth! Pay nothing, or pay something. I wonder what price the market will set for the album?

eta: Wilco streamed their last few albums from their web site for free, and if anything it's helped their CD sales.

[pounce]

all i'm saying is at this point is that monkey man is simply trolling the thread.

all i have self-professed is that i have been making music and been involved in audio production for many years now as a full time professional. yes, that gives me more expertise in this subject than someone outside of the industry especially with respect to structuring entirely new business models for the music business.

like most things, the music business is more complicated than an outsider would expect. so most outsiders tend, out of honest ignorance, to simply make arguments unaware of many layers of reality that have to be factored into any discussion.

in the here and now, discussions about if music or software should be free are moot. i still can't get past the idea that creators of original works truly DESERVE to be compensated for those works. with that, we can do a lot to tweak the model of how that happens, but a discussion about reality here and now must includes that.

that is part of what the legal decision in the OP was about. you can't just choose to ignore the rights of the creators of IP, nor the responsibility of the consumer to compensate the creators of IP when they obtain a copy. that part of it is still pretty simple.

[pounce]

This is interesting, download the new Radiohead (http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/index3.html) album and pay what you think it's worth! Pay nothing, or pay something. I wonder what price the market will set for the album?

eta: Wilco streamed their last few albums from their web site for free, and if anything it's helped their CD sales.

i think it's absolutely fascinating. i ordered the download only copy yesterday and can't wait to get it ( i do like radiohead). i paid about 12 bucks for the download only copy, which is roughly what things might cost via itunes. so that seemed more or less like current "fair market price" for digital tracks.

anyway, radiohead is cool on so many levels, and this is a very clever tactic of theirs. i can't wait to see how it turns out.

[quixotecoyote]

Yes

Look at studio rates

Look at the number of professional rooms

Look at engineer rates

Look at record sales

Look in any paper for the number of bars with live bands

Look anywhere you want in the music business

This is like asking for evidence that there is air in the sky

You have failed to provide evidence that product placement is the only alternative to cd sales.

You have failed to provide evidence that the number of bars with live bands have decreased over a five year period.

You have failed to provide evidence that record company exploitation is a myth.

You have failed to provide evidence that the majority of venues are now parking lots or educational facilities.

In short, you have failed to provide evidence for any of your assertions.

YOU. HAVE. FAILED.

[pipelineaudio]

This is interesting, download the new Radiohead (http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/index3.html) album and pay what you think it's worth! Pay nothing, or pay something. I wonder what price the market will set for the album?

eta: Wilco streamed their last few albums from their web site for free, and if anything it's helped their CD sales.

Our software is on a similar system. Its interesting but in both these cases, the founders already have money, and are in positions to do this

A new band starting out wouldnt be able to do what radiohead is doing

Still, I applaud them

[pipelineaudio]

You have failed to provide evidence that product placement is the only alternative to cd sales.

I didnt say it was the only alternative

You have failed to provide evidence that the number of bars with live bands have decreased over a five year period.

You have failed to provide evidence that record company exploitation is a myth.

You have failed to provide evidence that the majority of venues are now parking lots or educational facilities.

In short, you have failed to provide evidence for any of your assertions.

YOU. HAVE. FAILED.

The fact that these things arent self evident to you proves you have no place discussing these issues

[Roadtoad]

all i'm saying is at this point is that monkey man is simply trolling the thread...

Whoa.

Out of line. You may not agree with Tragic Monkey, but I've never known him to be a troll.

[TragicMonkey]

in the here and now, discussions about if music or software should be free are moot. i still can't get past the idea that creators of original works truly DESERVE to be compensated for those works. with that, we can do a lot to tweak the model of how that happens, but a discussion about reality here and now must includes that.

Reality is that when technological progress makes it impossible for you to continue doing things the way you've been doing them unless you manage to overcome human nature, it's time to change how you're doing things. Is the best defense against illegal copies whining about them? Blah blah rights blah blah content creator blah blah artist. That's not going to fix anything. In fact, it makes it worse because then it looks like the artists are crybabies, the record labels are greedy bullies, and the public is left wondering if any of it is worth the fuss or money.

Questions of fairness and deserving are lovely to debate, but even a winning argument is not a constructive real-world solution. Once music took electronic form, copies became inevitable. You can work with it, or you can fight it. Which looks like a winning proposition?

[pounce]

all this business about emphasizing that i am a "self-professed" expert and taking digs about capitalization were off topic, ad hominem, troll style jabs counter to the discussion. i see troll style off topic jabs and i call them as such.

[TragicMonkey]

More evidence for the characterization hypothesized in my last post.

[pounce]

Reality is that when technological progress makes it impossible for you to continue doing things the way you've been doing them unless you manage to overcome human nature, it's time to change how you're doing things. Is the best defense against illegal copies whining about them? Blah blah rights blah blah content creator blah blah artist. That's not going to fix anything. In fact, it makes it worse because then it looks like the artists are crybabies, the record labels are greedy bullies, and the public is left wondering if any of it is worth the fuss or money.

Questions of fairness and deserving are lovely to debate, but even a winning argument is not a constructive real-world solution. Once music took electronic form, copies became inevitable. You can work with it, or you can fight it. Which looks like a winning proposition?

i'm not arguing for or against any model of the industry per se. i'm intensely interested in a new and better version of the music industry for many many reasons. that said, i do believe i'm in the right on the issue of downloading. i didn't put up the OP, but i'm happy to contribute to the thread. first of all, i am quite confident that the primary point i've made is correct - that creators of IP deserve compensation. in fact i mentioned that it doesn't as much matter that the model is changing so much as it matter that IP is valued by all who enjoy it's use. that is only fair and right. that simple point is often glossed over in discussions of downloading, and deserves to be restated - even at risk of me apparently looking like a whiner according to you.

i hope the new music industry model is more fair to everyone, artist and public alike. i'm sure a new model is needed. however, i cannot imagine a new model that doesn't also include the patronage of things such as music. someone still needs to support it. in the meantime i suppose i'll continue to be called a whiner if i am bothered by having my created works taken without compensation. is it odd that i have a problem with that? i think the discussion of the new model for the music industry is a fascinating and large discussion that members of the industry haven't fully figured out yet. i hope it comes out great. i don't mind discussions of a new model for the business. but staying on topic, taking stuff without paying for it is still wrong now as it was when we were all taught that in kindergarten.

[pounce]

if anyone is interested, here is this same thread but in an audio forum. participating are musicians and engineers with varying degrees of experience and a number of different opinions, but i believe it offers some insight into how real folks who are eeking out an average living in the music industry talk about the issue and things like various proposed models for the future industry

http://womb.mixerman.net/showthread.php?t=4683

things like subscription models or a tax like the british tv tax are amongst the things discussed.

i still don't know why illegal downloading is up, but those same folks wont buck up and pay .99 on itunes to do it legally. there ARE OPTIONS now, to download high quality legal tracks without drm immediately. bam. i bought one an hour ago. it's simple. legal and guilt free. also, it's the right thing to do.

i get the idea that within a piracy discussion some complaints about the music industry will be tossed around. some are valid, most are irrelevant. even when cheap legal downloads are available, people still have decided to take music "for free". and while it may get me labeled as a "whiner", frankly i have every right to be upset to see my created works taken without compensation. and it is fair and just that i view it the way i do. while i recognize that the gates are open, accepting that IP is being stolen just because technology provides a vehicle to do so is not something i will happily do. taking something without compensating the creator of it is still simply wrong, no matter what model of the industry we are talking about.

[geni]

things like subscription models or a tax like the british tv tax are amongst the things discussed.

Tried that in spain. Sociedad General de Autores y Editores are not exactly popualr as a result.

[mumblethrax]

Vast majority have not gone to court.
Fair enough--we'll still need to consider the costs of conducting the investigation and paying the legal team.

Are you aware that Jennifer Pariser, the chief litigator for Sony BMG, stated during the trial that they lose money on these lawsuits? It's clear that they're trying to effect a disincentive to pirating in the first place, and not to attempt to recover losses from pirating. Trouble is, there's no evidence that it's working.

Sure it's risky but so are junk bonds.
Junk bonds owe their existence to the fact that higher grade bonds exist--your model requires that the entire recording industry survive by speculating on their own cast-offs. Where do the new licenses come from? If you have to develop new talents, you're no longer talking about low-investment, high-yield assets; you're buying Apple and shutting down production to focus on licensing and protecting your patents. It doesn't make any economic sense, I don't see how you'd attract musicians to such a poisonous venture, and the RIAA is still welcome to it.

[Corsair 115]

Basic free market. If people can take bit indentical free copies they are not going to buy.It seems to me this is a too simplistic of an analysis, and that in reality things are more complicated than that, with different motivations influencing how things play out.

The game Galactic Civilizations II comes to mind. This was a game which was intentionally released with no copy protection, none whatsoever. The reasons for this were, as I understand it, twofold: 1) a lot of customers were greatly annoyed by software copy protection schemes which require the CD to be put into the drive, and in at least a few cases, schemes which caused damage to the computer (see: Starforce), and 2) to get the game in as many people's hands as possible. Note that while the basic game was protection free, to access patches and special content you had to have purchased a copy of the game.

The game itself was a very good product, well-received by both reviewers and gamers. And it sold well. Very well, in fact. It would seem the lack of copy protection did not prevent plenty of people actually purchasing the game.

I dont think anyone here is defending the record companies. Im certainly not, but that has 0.00000000000000001% to do with this issue, though the thieves make it 99% of the issue in their attempt to rationalizeIn regards to theft, weren't a couple of the record companies and/or retailers some years back convicted of price fixing for artificially keeping the price of CDs higher than they should have been?

[quixotecoyote]

The fact that these things arent self evident to you proves you have no place discussing these issues

So you have no evidence. Were you just talking out your *** or being actively dishonest?

[pipelineaudio]

In regards to theft, weren't a couple of the record companies and/or retailers some years back convicted of price fixing for artificially keeping the price of CDs higher than they should have been?

And that has what to do with whether or not its right for you to steal?

[pipelineaudio]

So you have no evidence. Were you just talking out your *** or being actively dishonest?

What sort of evidence do you want? I told you where to look

Or do you think theres a " department of how many bars have live bands now compared to before, number of professional studios, salary of recording engineers, for one click googling results"?

You might to be halfway informed to understand the evidence

Where do you want me to start?

[shalomsteph]

I PURCHASE the music I download. I PAY for it. This is not stealing or taking it. It is legally purchasing it.

The music industry is probably still losing SOME money on me, because I am not forced to buy an entire CD when I only like one or two songs. On the other hand, when I "get in the mood" to buy music, I WILL spend some serious money. I sample music I may not otherwise sample, and end up buying some. I explore new territories. Instead of the recording industry going after people, they need to learn to capture and capitalize the online market. This is where music is heading, and, like it or not, they need to follow.

I almost always bought used CDs before iTunes. That means the music industry made nothing from me. Now, they may not be making as much as they would like, but they are making SOMETHING. I WANT to legally purchase music. Make it available. Let me sample it.

Maybe they should just go after the Napsters and Limewires instead?

[quixotecoyote]

What sort of evidence do you want? I told you where to look

Or do you think theres a " department of how many bars have live bands now compared to before, number of professional studios, salary of recording engineers, for one click googling results"?

You might to be halfway informed to understand the evidence

Where do you want me to start?


Admitting that there's no way you could know these things as fact and that they are your personal opinions based on necessarily limited experiences as opposed to presenting them as obvious and accepted truth would be an excellent start.

[pipelineaudio]

Admitting that there's no way you could know these things as fact and that they are your personal opinions based on necessarily limited experiences as opposed to presenting them as obvious and accepted truth would be an excellent start.

OK, lets go thru this point by point

first: Do you dispute that there are less bars with live, local bands than five years ago?

[Wildy]

To date, I have not heard of the RIAA pursuing someone for simply downloading music. So far, it seems that putting a stop to file sharing by going after those who make a large number of songs available for download has been the Association's main goal. If someone knows of a case where simply downloading was involved, I would love to hear (or read) about it. I'd also be interested in any bit torrent cases, where uploads and downloads run simultaneously, as well as any cases involving podcasts. (In the meantime, I'm sure the wondrous Google will help me do my own research.)

Ok, I can bring you many examples of instances where the RIAA have had suits brought against people for simply downloading music.

In Capitol v. Foster (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Capitol_v_Foster/), Deborah Foster was charged with illegally downloading music, and when she claimed that her adult child and her husband also had access to the account she was re-labelled as a co-defendant under the RIAA's logic of "The IP never lies".

Atlantic v. Anderson (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070604-riaa-throws-in-the-towel-in-atlantic-v-andersen.html) saw the RIAA suing disabled single mother, Tanya Anderson, for supposedly downloading gangsta rap. I have to look more but I want to get this posted but if I remember correctly she managed to show that she didn't even download the songs. The RIAA is now defending a counterclaim from her.

Elektra v Wilke (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/09/riaa-says-that-without-pretrial.html) is a case where they made a claim that he distributed all this music that was on his computer, but he can prove otherwise (http://p2pnet.net/story/9838) (I like how they mention a summary of that case on the latter site).

How about when they sued Brianna LaHara for just downloading music? (http://web.archive.org/web/20041010141527/www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/brianna_laHara.html) She was 13 at the time.

Priority Records v. Chan II (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/riaa-deliberately-sues-14-year-old.html) was a case where they sued a 14 year old girl (Brittany Chan) after they couldn't make a case stick to the mother? What they were alleging (http://p2pnet.net/story/6485) in Priority Records v. Chan I was that Candy Chan (the mother) was responsible for her daughters actions because she gave the girl a computer. That case collapsed because the RIAA refused to submit a reasonable plan for the appointment and payment from the RIAA for a guardian ad litem for the girl.

The classic one involved Gertrude Walton (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/) who was err... dead, when they claimed that she downloaded the songs. She must have used some sort of synapse connection to the net because she didn't even have a computer.

They just aren't going after people who distribute the songs, they believe that just having the songs on the computer and IP evidence that you can go on the net as enough evidence to show that you are a "thief".

The bigger irony is when you learn that the labels themselves can be linked to using p2p stuff (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060911-7708.html).

It was over 1000. The 24 songs were mearly a subset chosen to keep the potential award amount sane (theoretical maxium was in excess of 200 million).

Even though the songs could have been downloaded for about US$23?

You do know that they tried to sue the Russian site AllOfMP3.com for US$1.65 trillion?

UMG v. Lindor (http://www.bizreport.com/2006/11/riaa_under_fire_for_750_lawsuits_over_70_cent_song s.html) argued that the US$750 amount was far more then the record companies were losing (about US$0.70). Even in the case that they just won they were arguing US$9250 per song.


True artists are never fully recognized in their own lifetimes, nor are their efforts ever fully appreciated.

Here in Australia we have on the radio station Triple J an 'Unearthed' competition where Australian bands would send in a sample and the listeners would chose a winner that got some record deal with some label that I don't remember who it was though.

The plus side was that the entrants would get some air time on a station that, as well as playing pretty much any song like three months before the mainstream stations, helps the band by giving them some coverage.

The Unearthed site (http://www.triplejunearthed.com/) has all these songs from these artists.

----------------
Now playing: Weird Al Yankovic - Don't Download This Song (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/weird+al+yankovic/track/don't+download+this+song)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

[quixotecoyote]

OK, lets go thru this point by point

first: Do you dispute that there are less bars with live, local bands than five years ago?

I haven't observed this myself. The majority of bars around here (Springfield, MO) have live music at least once a week. My old band back in Massachusetts has split into two groups and neither has mentioned problems finding gigs, although they usually find venues other than bars.

It's not obvious enough to accept at face value. I've no doubt in some areas less bars host live music and in other areas more would host. Without some evidence of an overall trend I'm not willing to accept dire predictions of live music's downfall.

[Merko]

Music sales go down because record companies have made their own customers the enemy, bringing us to court. And because their pricing model is completely out of date.

RIAA apologetics like to say that musicians need an income to make music. Which is true of course. But musicians' salaries do not make up a major part of music price tags. We pay for the production of useless plastic, distribution of said plastic into millions of places that are all further away from the consumers than their computers are, bribes to radio stations to play the artists of choice (you'd think record labels would sue radio stations for spreading their music free of charge for anyone to copy), and lawyer fees for suing music lovers who use their own spare time to promote record labels' products.

If I buy a CD, I have to spend 15 minutes ripping it and manually making sure titles and other tags are correctly entered.

Now if I buy a song at one of the 'legal' online stores, it's much worse. Their stuff is hopelessly crippled, to the point where the only sane thing is to get a pirate download for the same thing you just bought, anything else is just too much hassle.

Record labels say that if they sold an album for a couple of dollars, they'd go bankrupt. That makes absolutely no sense. In a parallel universe, someone could claim that if radio stations were allowed to air the latest and most popular music for free or almost for free for everyone to hear, musicians would get no income. That would actually make much more sense. But we live in this universe, where we know it isn't true.

Start the maths in the other end. How much are music consumers willing to pay per year? What do they want? Can musicians provide this at that price? I think you'll find that currently, the vast majority of music consumers buy only a fraction of the music they would actually want to listen to in a year.

Today, with digital technology, distribution of music is practically free. If a musician sells her work to a thousand or a million users makes very little difference in terms of overhead. Instead of selling one album to ten thousand people who considered ten albums before they bought this one, they could sell it to a hundred thousand who casually buy whatever they fancy at the moment.

Digital technology has made the universal jukebox possible. You pay a small sum to listen to anything you want. Individual songs, albums, or playlists offered by critics of your choice. But record labels are doing what they can to ruin this, by crippling such services because of their irrational fear of piracy. Irrational, because all this stuff is already easy to get in pirated form - except the pirated material is less hassle and of better quality.

I buy music. I also get pirate copies of music. Back when music piracy was awkward and you had to use cassette decks and physically send things around, I never pirated anything. I also never, ever bought anything. Finding something that I liked was just too much work. When they shut down Napster and Audiogalaxy, my 'to buy'-list was soon empty.

If I compare the advantages and disadvantages of pirated versus commercially distributed music, the lower price is actually one of the least important factors. The pirated material is more accessible. It is of better quality compared to most commercial digital distributions. It is much less hassle. There is a wider choice of music.

Record companies are not evil. They don't do the foolish things they do because they genuinely want to **** up music lovers' lives or because they hate the wonderful new digital technology. Nor do they do it because they can't see the new possibilities. They do it because they are huge companies with thousands of employees, centered around the idea of selling a small number of expensive products that only they can distribute, rather than selling a large number of cheap products, competing against free pirated versions with better availability, faster and more reliable downloads, and less hassle for users. It will take a new generation of music companies to do this. The old ones will not be able to adapt.

[TragicMonkey]

It seems to me this is a too simplistic of an analysis, and that in reality things are more complicated than that, with different motivations influencing how things play out.

The game Galactic Civilizations II comes to mind. This was a game which was intentionally released with no copy protection, none whatsoever. The reasons for this were, as I understand it, twofold: 1) a lot of customers were greatly annoyed by software copy protection schemes which require the CD to be put into the drive, and in at least a few cases, schemes which caused damage to the computer (see: Starforce), and 2) to get the game in as many people's hands as possible. Note that while the basic game was protection free, to access patches and special content you had to have purchased a copy of the game.

The game itself was a very good product, well-received by both reviewers and gamers. And it sold well. Very well, in fact. It would seem the lack of copy protection did not prevent plenty of people actually purchasing the game.

I bought that game and the expansion pack, and they rock. A quality product sold to me by a company that doesn't treat its customers like potential thieves...very classy.

[Fnord]

then why bother stealing it?


I haven't the vaguest idea, as I don't steal art*. I buy my CDs, record them to my iPod, stash the CDs, and listen at my leisure. No one else "profits" from my purchase, and I have no intention of re-selling the CDs.

I think this is covered under "fair use" here in America, in that the purchaser can make one copy of music or software for personal use and/or archival purposes. PLEASE correct me if I have this wrong.

(* - Used to, as a teenager, when I thought there was nothing wrong with buying LPs, recording them to cassette, and then reselling the LPs at cost. Bad Fnord. Bad, bad Fnord!)

[jsfisher]

Ok, I can bring you many examples of instances where the RIAA have had suits brought against people for simply downloading music.

In all of the cases you cite, the RIAA sued for distributing not downloading files.

Case in point:
The classic one involved Gertrude Walton (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/) who was err... dead, when they claimed that she downloaded the songs. She must have used some sort of synapse connection to the net because she didn't even have a computer.

The very first sentence of that citation said:
Lawyers representing several record companies have filed suit against an 83 year-old woman who died in December, claiming that she made more than 700 songs available on the internet.

Distribution, not download.

[CFLarsen]

Record labels say that if they sold an album for a couple of dollars, they'd go bankrupt.

And that's where they are wrong.

They would sell a lot of music, simply because it wouldn't be worth the hassle - and risk - of stealing it off the Internet.

They would also sell a lot of music from much lesser known artists. If you are to pay $18-19 for a CD, you have to really want it - you don't throw out that kind of money easily. But you would be much more inclined to pay $3-4 for a CD as an impulse buy.

So, what if you don't like it after a day or so? You can just give it to someone else (legal), or throw it out. Still, you have heard some music, but you don't feel ripped off. If you like it and want more of the same kind, you will certainly buy more, because the cost isn't prohibitive.

People would have huge music libraries, instead of a collection of maybe 50-100 CDs, where they regret buying maybe a third of them. They would have them legally, and they would probably be listening to more music, since their appetite would be whetted constantly.

I mostly listen to classical music (Beethoven is the last before music turned evil), and there can be huge differences in performance. There can also be versions of the same work but by different conductors or orchestras that I would like to compare. I have to be very careful when selecting those, though, because I know I will be disappointed a lot. But if it goes like this, I would buy much more:

"Oh, you like this artist? Then, you'll like this one. $3. Two for $5."

"Sure, I'll try something new."

That's the thinking record companies should cultivate.

[pipelineaudio]

I haven't observed this myself. The majority of bars around here (Springfield, MO) have live music at least once a week. My old band back in Massachusetts has split into two groups and neither has mentioned problems finding gigs, although they usually find venues other than bars.

It's not obvious enough to accept at face value. I've no doubt in some areas less bars host live music and in other areas more would host. Without some evidence of an overall trend I'm not willing to accept dire predictions of live music's downfall.

This would be a hard one to get exact numbers on from around the world.

In my area its easy enough, we have ONE left, but other areas are doing a bit better than we are. One indicator of how many places to play is probably the rise of the fake promoters, which require you to pay them to play

Were not talking about the old LA pay to play thing which MIGHT, have someone "important" in the audience. This is Joe's corner bar, with possibly 50 people in it, where you are required to pay for 300 tickets to play that night

[pipelineaudio]

Sadly, this thread seems to have boiled down to : " With those slutty clothes, she was asking for it"

[WildCat]

In my area its easy enough, we have ONE left, but other areas are doing a bit better than we are. One indicator of how many places to play is probably the rise of the fake promoters, which require you to pay them to play

Were not talking about the old LA pay to play thing which MIGHT, have someone "important" in the audience. This is Joe's corner bar, with possibly 50 people in it, where you are required to pay for 300 tickets to play that night
Plenty of places here in Chicago: http://dev.chicagoreader.com:10000/music/pop-rock/

I have never heard of a Chicago club making a band pay to play there.

[quixotecoyote]

Sadly, this thread seems to have boiled down to : " With those slutty clothes, she was asking for it"

See, this is the type of thing that got me all angry at you in the first place.

This is a question with legitimate points on both sides. You not only don't acknowledge that, but go completely over the top comparing those who disagree with you to thieves and rapists.

I really don't see how a discussion is possible if you keep doing this.

[geni]

Fair enough--we'll still need to consider the costs of conducting the investigation and paying the legal team.

Are you aware that Jennifer Pariser, the chief litigator for Sony BMG, stated during the trial that they lose money on these lawsuits? It's clear that they're trying to effect a disincentive to pirating in the first place, and not to attempt to recover losses from pirating. Trouble is, there's no evidence that it's working.

The court cases are a loss leader. You make your profit on your money or we take you to court letters.


Junk bonds owe their existence to the fact that higher grade bonds exist--your model requires that the entire recording industry survive by speculating on their own cast-offs. Where do the new licenses come from?


Current ones can lst between 90 and up to 140 years depending on the contract type.


If you have to develop new talents, you're no longer talking about low-investment, high-yield assets; you're buying Apple and shutting down production to focus on licensing and protecting your patents. It doesn't make any economic sense, I don't see how you'd attract musicians to such a poisonous venture, and the RIAA is still welcome to it.

You don't. You let other companies do all the production and mindshare development and pick up the rights after a few years when their initial value has dropped somewhat.

There are already companies that do quite well out of this business model provideing services to Getty and Corbis images. PicScout would be the most well known example.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I haven't the vaguest idea, as I don't steal art*. I buy my CDs, record them to my iPod, stash the CDs, and listen at my leisure. No one else "profits" from my purchase, and I have no intention of re-selling the CDs.

I think this is covered under "fair use" here in America, in that the purchaser can make one copy of music or software for personal use and/or archival purposes. PLEASE correct me if I have this wrong.

I don't believe that is the case regarding music. I know that you are allowed to make a single backup of operating system software, but I honestly don't know if it applies to games and other types of software.

The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 says (as noted on Wikipedia):

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

And even if you do use copyrighted material for a nonprofit, educational purpose, there are other things you have to be careful about. The Wikipedia entry on fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) has some references to some court cases that touch on this.

[pipelineaudio]

See, this is the type of thing that got me all angry at you in the first place.

This is a question with legitimate points on both sides. You not only don't acknowledge that, but go completely over the top comparing those who disagree with you to thieves and rapists.

I really don't see how a discussion is possible if you keep doing this.

Actually I would say the problem is you guys conflating issues which are not germaine to the fact that this is theft we are talking about

Lets take all the "record industry is giant capitalist pig amerkka eating babies" stuff out of the picture and admit that YES it is theft

THEN lets talk about what could be done to fix the record companies ( I say, goodbye, good riddance to them , but others may not feel the same way, doesnt mean its RIGHT to STEAL from them)

[pipelineaudio]

Plenty of places here in Chicago: http://dev.chicagoreader.com:10000/music/pop-rock/

I have never heard of a Chicago club making a band pay to play there.

Noone is going to like this but...Its no secret bands from all over go TO Chicago because they haven't banned smoking. I know, I know, that couldnt possibly be it, smoking bans are good for business, thats why we have to force them on people

Lets see how the law is interpreted after 2008

[mumblethrax]

The court cases are a loss leader. You make your profit on your money or we take you to court letters.
How do you know who to send the letter to?

You don't. You let other companies do all the production and mindshare development and pick up the rights after a few years when their initial value has dropped somewhat.
I think you're having a different conversation that I am. I'm talking about the problem for the industry as a whole (declining sales and soaring piracy). No one's going to produce new talent if they can't make any money at it.

A comparison to Getty isn't appropriate--they rarely deal directly with consumers, and producing albums is a lot more expensive than taking photos.

[geni]

How do you know who to send the letter to?


Automated scanning and requests to ISPs for adresses.


I think you're having a different conversation that I am. I'm talking about the problem for the industry as a whole (declining sales and soaring piracy). No one's going to produce new talent if they can't make any money at it.

You are looking for content that people want. Talent is secondary.


A comparison to Getty isn't appropriate--they rarely deal directly with consumers, and producing albums is a lot more expensive than taking photos.

But a lot more people will violate the copyright on your albums than on your photos.

[quixotecoyote]

Actually I would say the problem is you guys conflating issues which are not germaine to the fact that this is theft we are talking about

Lets take all the "record industry is giant capitalist pig amerkka eating babies" stuff out of the picture and admit that YES it is theft

THEN lets talk about what could be done to fix the record companies ( I say, goodbye, good riddance to them , but others may not feel the same way, doesnt mean its RIGHT to STEAL from them)

Your equation of copyright violation and theft is invalid. They are distinct and different issues. If you think that copyright violation is wrong, I can understand that position even if I may disagree with it, but it is not theft. They are distinct and separate actions and your continued conflation of terms is hurting your argument.

[mumblethrax]

Automated scanning and requests to ISPs for adresses.
The service SafeNet currently provides. It isn't free, and it's unreliable.

You are looking for content that people want. Talent is secondary.
The content people want (disregarding talent) tracks closely with what record labels produce and promote. Stop producing and promoting, and musicians have no reason to sign with you.

But a lot more people will violate the copyright on your albums than on your photos.
Which brings us back to the problems already discussed: pimply teenagers and 30-year-old single mothers don't have any money, diffuse petty lawsuits are cost prohibitive, you can't sustain a multi-billion dollar industry by sending threatening letters.

[Roadtoad]

And that's where they are wrong.

They would sell a lot of music, simply because it wouldn't be worth the hassle - and risk - of stealing it off the Internet.

They would also sell a lot of music from much lesser known artists. If you are to pay $18-19 for a CD, you have to really want it - you don't throw out that kind of money easily. But you would be much more inclined to pay $3-4 for a CD as an impulse buy.

So, what if you don't like it after a day or so? You can just give it to someone else (legal), or throw it out. Still, you have heard some music, but you don't feel ripped off. If you like it and want more of the same kind, you will certainly buy more, because the cost isn't prohibitive.

People would have huge music libraries, instead of a collection of maybe 50-100 CDs, where they regret buying maybe a third of them. They would have them legally, and they would probably be listening to more music, since their appetite would be whetted constantly.

I mostly listen to classical music (Beethoven is the last before music turned evil), and there can be huge differences in performance. There can also be versions of the same work but by different conductors or orchestras that I would like to compare. I have to be very careful when selecting those, though, because I know I will be disappointed a lot. But if it goes like this, I would buy much more:

"Oh, you like this artist? Then, you'll like this one. $3. Two for $5."

"Sure, I'll try something new."

That's the thinking record companies should cultivate.

Agreed here. A lot of the CDs I have from lesser known artists have been picked up for less than $5. Sometimes you get some good stuff, sometimes, you want to use it for target practice at the local shotgun range, but you're not losing that much when it's all said and done.

Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much room for a record exec to own his Lambo, his Malibu beach house, and the private school for his kids where they don't have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi, much less a weekend in Aspen during the winter and the Bimmers for the wife and the gf on the side. And that's where the real battle takes place.

[Roadtoad]

Sadly, this thread seems to have boiled down to : " With those slutty clothes, she was asking for it"

Perfect Pith. Nominated.

[pipelineaudio]

Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much room for a record exec to own his Lambo, his Malibu beach house, and the private school for his kids where they don't have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi, much less a weekend in Aspen during the winter and the Bimmers for the wife and the gf on the side. And that's where the real battle takes place.

Bummer for the mythical record executive in the mythical scenario you describe

The truth is, this theft hurts the artists a hell of a lot more than the mythical record execs. Software theft is completely killing innovations, we should be WAY further along in modelling processes than we are now

[Corsair 115]

And that has what to do with whether or not its right for you to steal?Two thoughts:

1) You reap what you sow.
2) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I find some measure of irony in the companies crying about their lost sales if they themselves were artifically increasing profits by price fixing.

[Roadtoad]

I'm not so sure how mythical those record execs are. Clive Davis is hardly living a hardscrabble existence these days.

I would suspect you and I are closer than you might think on this one. I read far too much about the record execs who live like that, while the artists they've managed are living in squalor. (Care to guess how much Phil Spector paid out in royalties to the people whose work he basically stole?) No, illegal downloading is not right; you're dead on when you say the artists are getting screwed. But, my contention is that artists are getting screwed from both above and below.

For all the mention they get, artists who stay at luxury hotels who wind up trashing the rooms and the like, they are extraordinarily rare. Most are just folks who are trying to make a decent living for themselves and their families.

Years ago, when I was in radio, I interviewed the members of the band Saxon. For all that they were outrageous bad-asses on stage, off stage, they were some of the greatest guys I'd ever spent time with. Performing almost nightly across Europe, it wasn't just a job to them, it was their lives. They left behind family and friends in England, and hoped for the most part they'd be home for the holidays.

The fly in the ointment for them was getting shafted by promoters and managers. That was in 1982. Today, they now have to worry about someone pirating their music and passing it around. It can be done far more cheaply than it could years ago, with better fidelity. The bands are getting screwed, from the execs and their lavish lifestyles to the "fans" who are swiping what they've created.

[Corsair 115]

I bought that game and the expansion pack, and they rock. So did I. And I agree with your assessment. They've got another expansion pack coming out in November or thereabouts.

A quality product sold to me by a company that doesn't treat its customers like potential thieves...very classy. And that's why it sold well.

[pipelineaudio]

Two thoughts:

1) You reap what you sow.
2) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I find some measure of irony in the companies crying about their lost sales if they themselves were artifically increasing profits by price fixing.

Since we are not without sin, let me know where your house is so I can help myself to some of your stuff ok?

[CFLarsen]

Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much room for a record exec to own his Lambo, his Malibu beach house, and the private school for his kids where they don't have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi, much less a weekend in Aspen during the winter and the Bimmers for the wife and the gf on the side. And that's where the real battle takes place.

Oh, I think he is covered. I posted this some time ago:

In 1999, I attended an Internet conference in New York, at the Javits Centre. It was when Napster was just beginning to pick up steam, so they had a session where file sharing issues were discussed.

They had some head honcho from RIAA, who spoke of theft, crime, jail, blah, blah, blah. She did, however, spill the beans on a very interesting snippet of data.

She said that, when the CD arrived in the store, it had cost about 80 cents to get it there.

This, at a time when the CD cost about 18 bucks.

Now, consider the many layers of production that go before a CD is in the store: The music company has to produce the record. Post-production, buying the empty CDs, "burn" them, creating the artwork, printing it, putting the package together, and ship it. Also, add ad campaigns, make a video, buy time on MTV and VH1, and so on. All that is paid by the CD.

But 80 cents when it hits the store? Who are the criminals here?

Know why the old big groups like Rolling Stones are touring? Because that's where the money is.

[Roadtoad]

Know why the old big groups like Rolling Stones are touring? Because that's where the money is.

Touche, sir.

[Wheezebucket]

Larsen nailed it. Tours, tours, tours.

18 bucks for a CD? Who's the one stealing again?

I'll keep downloading for now, thanks.

[Fnord]

I don't believe that is the case regarding music. I know that you are allowed to make a single backup of operating system software, but I honestly don't know if it applies to games and other types of software.

The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 says (as noted on Wikipedia):

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

And even if you do use copyrighted material for a nonprofit, educational purpose, there are other things you have to be careful about. The Wikipedia entry on fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) has some references to some court cases that touch on this.

Okay ... I plead "Not Guilty" under subparagraph 2, as the nature of the copyrighted work is such that it is intended for listening (which I do); and under subparagraph 4, as the effect of the use upon the potential market is zero -- I am one person, purchasing one audio product, listening to only one copy of that product at any given time, and taking reasonable steps to prevent others from listening to the same product.

That last bit give me an idea ... if someone is blasting copyrighted music from their stereo, I can theoretically get them in trouble for violating local noise ordinances, but could I also sic the RIAA on them for "broadcasting" copyrighted material without express written permission from the copyright holders?

I wonder if any lawyers would take such a case ...

[Sherman Bay]

This isn't a new issue, it's been around ever since the tape recorder was invented. Which brings me to my point: as soon as recording was invented, copyright needed to be redefined and perhaps discarded.

We are faced with an increasing dilemma due to technological progress. If the cost of copying anything (a sound or a piece of furniture) becomes near zero, and the ease of doing it becomes trivial, then no matter what the ethical factors may be, enforcement of copying prohibitions and collection of fees becomes difficult, and perhaps impractical.

I suggest it is time for a bold new model of property rights, or possibly the abolition of some. The alternative is more trials like this one. It's a little like the drug war -- if the supply continues to increase in spite of penalties, prohibition becomes expensive and mostly useless.

[geni]

Larsen nailed it. Tours, tours, tours.

18 bucks for a CD? Who's the one stealing again?

I'll keep downloading for now, thanks.

If you view that price as unacceptable create something yourself and sell it for less.

[Fnord]

We are faced with an increasing dilemma due to technological progress. If the cost of copying anything (a sound or a piece of furniture) becomes near zero, and the ease of doing it becomes trivial, then no matter what the ethical factors may be, enforcement of copying prohibitions and collection of fees becomes difficult, and perhaps impractical.

The way I see it, it's sorta like breeding cats. You can keep them all on your property, never sell any of them, and everything is just fine -- but you will never made a profit from the sale of a single kitten.

Or, you can sell the kittens, and only hope that no one else breeds them and sells the resulting kittens without sharing any profits with you.

Then again, why expect any financial gain from the sale of the offspring of a cat that you've already sold?

Copycatright legislation is the answer! Now, the law dictates that you will receive a share of the profit from the sale of every cat bred from the originally-sold cat, unto the seventh generation of kittens, as long as great, great, great, great-grandma cat is still alive.

But what about the new science of cat-cloning? Should you get a share of the profits from the sale of clonecats? No, not under the current law.

Back to the courts ... maybe you win, maybe you don't ... but before the case can go to trial, the cat with the original DNA expires, and you no longer have any claim to profits from the sale of its offspring.

What next, triple-lifetime cats? More changes to the legislation? Buy back all the cats and start again?

There comes a point where every artist, parent, and cat breeder must say, "Now it belongs to the world," and move on to something else.

I sincerely doubt that DaVinci's descendants receive any royalties from the sale of "Mona Lisa" copies.

[geni]

Okay ... I plead "Not Guilty" under subparagraph 2, as the nature of the copyrighted work is such that it is intended for listening (which I do); and under subparagraph 4, as the effect of the use upon the potential market is zero -- I am one person, purchasing one audio product, listening to only one copy of that product at any given time, and taking reasonable steps to prevent others from listening to the same product.

Ah but if you didn't take your actions the market value for the formats you copy into would be higher.

No clause 4 is more useful when argueing that your use of the work is transformative or is being used in such a different way compared to the original that there is no posibility for competition.

An example would be a computer game screenshot being used in a book as an example of a certian type of graphic technology. The screenshot has no effect on the market for the game.


That last bit give me an idea ... if someone is blasting copyrighted music from their stereo, I can theoretically get them in trouble for violating local noise ordinances, but could I also sic the RIAA on them for "broadcasting" copyrighted material without express written permission from the copyright holders?

Would depend on the terms under which they purchased the music.


I wonder if any lawyers would take such a case ...

Very unlikely.

[geni]

Which brings me to my point: as soon as recording was invented, copyright needed to be redefined and perhaps discarded.

Copyright on pictures and text has surivied the existance of the photocopier.


We are faced with an increasing dilemma due to technological progress. If the cost of copying anything (a sound or a piece of furniture) becomes near zero, and the ease of doing it becomes trivial, then no matter what the ethical factors may be, enforcement of copying prohibitions and collection of fees becomes difficult, and perhaps impractical.

I suggest it is time for a bold new model of property rights, or possibly the abolition of some.

Okey lets hear it.

[geni]

The way I see it, it's sorta like breeding cats. You can keep them all on your property, never sell any of them, and everything is just fine -- but you will never made a profit from the sale of a single kitten.


Cats are not an orginal work.


Or, you can sell the kittens, and only hope that no one else breeds them and sells the resulting kittens without sharing any profits with you.


Actualy you can trivialy neuter them. Or require anyone buying one to sign a contract giveing you a percentage of any future sales.


But what about the new science of cat-cloning? Should you get a share of the profits from the sale of clonecats? No, not under the current law.

Back to the courts ... maybe you win, maybe you don't ... but before the case can go to trial, the cat with the original DNA expires, and you no longer have any claim to profits from the sale of its offspring.

What next, triple-lifetime cats? More changes to the legislation? Buy back all the cats and start again?

There comes a point where every artist, parent, and cat breeder must say, "Now it belongs to the world," and move on to something else.

I sincerely doubt that DaVinci's descendants receive any royalties from the sale of "Mona Lisa" copies.

Most of the world operates on copyright terms of life of the author +70 years with various exceptions (uk only gives 20 years for typesetting for example).

US has

* for works first published before 1978: until 95 years after the first publication, and
* for works first published 1978 or later: until 70 years after the author's death, or for anonymous works or work made for hire, until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since the creation of the work.



Incerdently if rather than cloneing the cat you geniticaly enginered it to say glow in the dark you could patent it.

[Fnord]

Okey lets hear it.

A law that prohibits the construction, purchase, use, and sale of any recording device except to registered users of same.

Another law to prohibit the modification of playback equipment to make it capable of recording, except by the original manufacturers of the device.

And yet another law to prohibit the recording, retrieval, transmission, reception, or reproduction of the theory or procedures that would allow the construction, purchase, use, and sale of any recording device except to registered users of same, or the modification of playback equipment to make it capable of recording, except by the original manufacturers of the device.

When recording devices are outlawed, only outlaws will have recording devices!

Come to think of it, there seem to be some parallels between the attempts to control the unlawful possession and use of firearms, and the unlawful possession and use of copyrighted material, not the least of which is that in both cases, efforts so far have been largely futile.

[geni]

A law that prohibits the construction, purchase, use, and sale of any recording device except to registered users of same.

Another law to prohibit the modification of playback equipment to make it capable of recording, except by the original manufacturers of the device.

And yet another law to prohibit the recording, retrieval, transmission, reception, or reproduction of the theory or procedures that would allow the construction, purchase, use, and sale of any recording device except to registered users of same, or the modification of playback equipment to make it capable of recording, except by the original manufacturers of the device.

When recording devices are outlawed, only outlaws will have recording devices!



When I said lets hear this bold new model of property rights I meant lets here a model that might be more sucessful than the existing one.

The recording companies generaly prefer to have a leavy placed on the items rather than haveing them outlaw. Sociedad General de Autores y Editores for example is quite happy for the devices to remain legal.

[Corsair 115]

Since we are not without sin, let me know where your house is so I can help myself to some of your stuff ok?Perhaps you should stop by the record companies first since they did the stealing originally, in large amounts, thanks to price fixing. Or does corporate theft not count?

Incidentally, I haven't downloaded music in years and years and years. Haven't bought any CDs in years either for that matter.

ETA: In Canada, last I recall hearing, downloading music wasn't actually illegal anyway. Different laws in place. There have been moves to get the laws changed, but I don't think anything's come of it yet.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Okay ... I plead "Not Guilty" under subparagraph 2, as the nature of the copyrighted work is such that it is intended for listening (which I do); and under subparagraph 4, as the effect of the use upon the potential market is zero -- I am one person, purchasing one audio product, listening to only one copy of that product at any given time, and taking reasonable steps to prevent others from listening to the same product.

Interesting argument, but you're forgetting that those subparagraphs come into play if the copy is for "...purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." From what I can tell from your posts on the subject, that wasn't the case. Keeping the copy and selling the original to someone else would be very likely to get you in trouble if this somehow got taken to court.

Back in my college media criticism courses, they'd occasionally play educational videos that contained many clips from TV programs. In order to help qualify them for being "fair use," they were distributed for free and got traded around like books in an interlibrary loan service. Even then, they had to be careful about certain details, like blurring out the trademarked network logos/screenbugs.

That last bit give me an idea ... if someone is blasting copyrighted music from their stereo, I can theoretically get them in trouble for violating local noise ordinances, but could I also sic the RIAA on them for "broadcasting" copyrighted material without express written permission from the copyright holders?

Hhmmm...that'd probably depend if cranking up one's stereo would actually fit the legal definition of "broadcasting." The closest thing I could find (via a quickie Google search) was a reference (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/16/pirate_radio/?page=2) to how, under FCC regulations, "...a low-power station (from one to 100 watts) is not required to be licensed if it doesn't exceed a transmission range of 200 feet" and I'd imagine that your hypothetical neighbor would probably fall well under those limitations (although I don't know if a stereo would count as a power station). Then again, that regulation also says that the low-power station has to be used for "...non-commercial purposes such as public safety or traveler's information" and if you found the "right" lawyer...

[pipelineaudio]

Perhaps you should stop by the record companies first since they did the stealing originally, in large amounts, thanks to price fixing. Or does corporate theft not count?

How does what the record company did wrong justify stealing from ME? From all the small software companies? From all the smaller label bands?

You are trying to rationalize the indefensible by pulling the old "magical faceless corporation" copout

[pipelineaudio]

I dont understand why people keep referencing record companies here, even IF somehow it was ok to steal from them, theres a LOT more at stake than just record companies

It is dishonest to keep throwing up the "record companies are evil" argument

[Roadtoad]

I dont understand why people keep referencing record companies here, even IF somehow it was ok to steal from them, theres a LOT more at stake than just record companies

It is dishonest to keep throwing up the "record companies are evil" argument

No argument, there. Not all record companies are evil, and for the most part, as you've pointed out, it's the artist that gets screwed nearly every time. I could remind people of Moses Asch, who started Folkways Records. Money was tight, but he saw to it that artists who would not have ordinarily been heard were recorded, and PAID. Let's face it: Had it not been for Asch, would we have EVER heard Leadbelly, Woodie Guthrie, or Pete Seeger? (Yes, Seeger's a flake, but he's probably one of the few folkies with the repertoire and the talent to get much of what he recorded listened to.)

Add to this that he did so fighting the likes of Joe McCarthy, and you cannot claim that all record companies are evil, greedy, or simply in it for market share.

Now, consider what might have happened if P2P were available then. Scary stuff, kids. Guthrie might never have been heard.

[Fnord]

Uh, Roadtoad? Moses Asch (1905-1986) and Folkways Records (founded 1948) are effectively relics from the distant past. In fact, the entire Folkways catalogue is now administrated by the Smithsonian Institution, which is re-issuing the recordings under the Smithsonian Folkways Recordings label.

Aside from Aigle Music, are there any modern-day recording labels that adhere to the same high standards as Mr. Asch once did?

[Wildy]

In all of the cases you cite, the RIAA sued for distributing not downloading files.

Case in point:

The classic one involved Gertrude Walton who was err... dead, when they claimed that she downloaded the songs. She must have used some sort of synapse connection to the net because she didn't even have a computer.

The very first sentence of that citation said:


Lawyers representing several record companies have filed suit against an 83 year-old woman who died in December, claiming that she made more than 700 songs available on the internet.

Distribution, not download.

I probably shouldn't have used that one. However can you explain in the other examples where they were distributing?

There is a bit of a semantic argument over what the RIAA calls a copyright violation. Let's take a poster here not at random because I wouldn't be able to show my point otherwise. Fnord said on the last page that he (she? I don't know...) rips music from CDs and puts them on an iPod.

Well in 2006 the RIAA decided to say (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php) that it was a breach of "fair use" to do that.

Elektra v. Barker (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060126-6057.html) is a case where the RIAA is trying to use the result of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. to argue that "making available" is an infringement of copyright, and that they only need to show that there are shareable files.

[pipelineaudio]

Aside from Aigle Music, are there any modern-day recording labels that adhere to the same high standards as Mr. Asch once did?

Hundreds of them (which is a WHOLE nother can of worms)

[jsfisher]

I probably shouldn't have used that one. However can you explain in the other examples where they were distributing?


The RIAA has no effective way to tell if you downloaded anything (unless, of course, you downloaded it from it). They can only tell if you made it available to others for download. However, since the P2P network software all share your files at least while you are downloading from others, the act of downloading can expose you to allegations of distribution.

The subtlety often gets ignored by the press; it will report a case involving file distribution as one of simple downloading. Moreover, the RIAA, itself, in its effort to cast as broad a legal net as possible, uses this language in its complaints:

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without permissions or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyright Recordings, to distribute the Copyright Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others.

The RIAA has some evidence of "available for distribution to others" only, but will use the discovery process to find evidence of the rest.

As for the individual cases:

Capitol v. Foster -- Try this link (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005114.php). "Good news today from the great state of Oklahoma. Debbie Foster, a single mom who was improperly sued by the RIAA back in 2004 for file sharing, has won back her attorneys' fees."

Atlantic v. Anderson -- The first sentence at your link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070604-riaa-throws-in-the-towel-in-atlantic-v-andersen.html) makes it clear: "One of the most notorious file-sharing cases is drawing to a close."

Elektra v Wilke -- Try this link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060911-7708.html): "With Elektra v. Wilke, the RIAA is facing another motion for summary judgment. Paul Wilke, who is accused by the RIAA of illegally sharing music over a P2P network"

Brianna LaHara -- Try This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brianna_LaHara). "Brianna LaHara (born 1991) is a girl from New York who was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on September 8, 2003 for allegedly distributing music via the Internet...".

Priority Records v. Chan II -- Try this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_Records_v._Brittany_Chan): "Priority Records v. Brittany Chan was a Michigan case by the RIAA against 14-year old child who allegedly infringed plaintiffs' copyrights when she was 13 years old, through peer to peer file sharing".

[jsfisher]

Elektra v. Barker (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060126-6057.html) is a case where the RIAA is trying to use the result of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. to argue that "making available" is an infringement of copyright, and that they only need to show that there are shareable files.

I am not sure of what point you are trying to make. This seems a bit afield of the download versus distribution discussion.

Are you saying you don't understand how making available for distribution could be the basis for a copyright suit? Or you don't accept the argument so the RIAA must be evil for using it? Or what?

[Unalienable]

Part of what makes this whole morass so complicated is that, contrary to public belief, there is an ENORMOUS volume of 100% copyright-free material being downloaded through all of the same file sharing networks that allow people to download the copyrighted stuff. The internet has created an enormous boom of interest in a huge spectrum of music which is public domain either by decree of the artist or because the copyright has elapsed.

I am personally into a certains genre of such copyright-free music, and I enjoy downloading it regularly. So why should I have to stop, just because other people are using the service for allegedly illegal purposes?

[pipelineaudio]

I am personally into a certains genre of such copyright-free music, and I enjoy downloading it regularly. So why should I have to stop, just because other people are using the service for allegedly illegal purposes?

Noone is saying you should.

Indeed, filesharing is opening a lot of doors for bands which dont have the money for distribution.

Theres a lot of GOOD things in this area. We're only complaining about the bad

[geni]

Part of what makes this whole morass so complicated is that, contrary to public belief, there is an ENORMOUS volume of 100% copyright-free material being downloaded through all of the same file sharing networks that allow people to download the copyrighted stuff.

Unlikely. The largest legal traffic flow in terms of data is probably firmly copyrighted GLP and LGPL software.



The internet has created an enormous boom of interest in a huge spectrum of music which is public domain either by decree of the artist or because the copyright has elapsed.

Actualy there is very little truely PD stuff. Some US millitry band stuff and a little copyright has elapsed stuff but few people have the equipement to do wax cylinder to computer conversions (my limit is 78s).


I am personally into a certains genre of such copyright-free music, and I enjoy downloading it regularly.


Examples?


So why should I have to stop, just because other people are using the service for allegedly illegal purposes?

You don't have to.

[Roadtoad]

Uh, Roadtoad? Moses Asch (1905-1986) and Folkways Records (founded 1948) are effectively relics from the distant past. In fact, the entire Folkways catalogue is now administrated by the Smithsonian Institution, which is re-issuing the recordings under the Smithsonian Folkways Recordings label.

Aside from Aigle Music, are there any modern-day recording labels that adhere to the same high standards as Mr. Asch once did?

As a matter of fact, yes. The only problem is that my CD case is in the other room.

Windham Hill, when it was its own separate label, turned out incredible music. I love George Winston's artistry, and frankly, Will Ackerman and Scott Cossu are two more of my favorites. Alex DeGrassi now has his own label, (just got The Water Garden, which kicks some serious @$$), as do any number of others.

[UserGoogol]

People don't have some sort of magical entitlement to the "sweat of their brow." If you work hard, produce something that other people derive happiness from, and get nothing in return, then you are merely a sucker. Nothing more. There are no free lunches in life.

When an attractive person walks down the street, they cause other people sexual arousal. They put a certain amount of effort into looking pretty, and people benefit from this. Does that mean that we should put blinders on everyone and prohibit them from looking at pretty people without paying some sort of fee? Of course not.

Copyright infringement is a harmless act. A person can only be said to be harmed if they are physically effected by something. When copyright infringement occurs, the only people effected are me and whoever downloads it. Everyone else remains blissfully unaware. Furthermore, copyright infringement is free speech, although usually not in a sense that is legally meaningful. Speech is expression, the transmission of an idea from one person to another. Copyright infringement is, therefore, expression. Sure, it's not "their" ideas, but no ideas are original. We human beings are nothing but slabs of meat, the products of our inputs and nothing more. The only difference between "original" thought and copyright infringement is the degree to which the brain mixes together the input ideas. (For derivative works, this argument is of course more convincing.)

I admit the need for a mechanism to promote the creation of art. But copyright, as it currently exists, is a method which has so much collateral damage. You are preventing people from being able to enjoy art so as to promote the creation of art, which is just silly. Perhaps there are better ways. Maybe assurance contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts) (maybe that could be partially subsidized by the government) might be able to work. Or maybe the government could set up a tax credit system whereby donations to artists would be matched by tax credits equal to the amount of they give. (Thus essentially making donations to artists be free as long as they do not exceed the amount of tax money you pay, and it wouldn't cost the government much because the artist would pay taxes on their income, so it would essentially just be shuffling the tax burden over.) But these are just ideas I'm pulling out of my ass, and they might not be feasible. Copyright might very well be a necessary evil. But even so, I feel that the particulars of things like this are unnecessarily evil.

[quixotecoyote]

When an attractive person walks down the street, they cause other people sexual arousal. They put a certain amount of effort into looking pretty, and people benefit from this. Does that mean that we should put blinders on everyone and prohibit them from looking at pretty people without paying some sort of fee? Of course not.


I prefer the example of an factory worker making a widget and then demanding the company cut him a share of the sale of said widget beyond that of his wages. It gets across the idea that while music may be a money-making industry, there's no fundamental law that says anything you create is always yours.

[geni]

I prefer the example of an factory worker making a widget and then demanding the company cut him a share of the sale of said widget beyond that of his wages. It gets across the idea that while music may be a money-making industry, there's no fundamental law that says anything you create is always yours.

Because US IP law does not recognise "sweat of the brow". If the employee had created a new type of widget and had patented it things would be different.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I prefer the example of an factory worker making a widget and then demanding the company cut him a share of the sale of said widget beyond that of his wages. It gets across the idea that while music may be a money-making industry, there's no fundamental law that says anything you create is always yours.

It sounds like the widget is being created as a work-for-hire, which would give the company the copyright (but then again, I suspect a manufactured item would fall under patent law rather than copyrights).

While you are quite correct about how creating something doesn't always make it yours (such as something done as a work for hire), I feel the need to post this quotation from copyright.gov (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc):

"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.”

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date."

Also, someone here mentioned needing a new model of property rights earlier. Are they not familiar with Creative Commons licenses or is there some sort of problem with it that I'm not aware of?

[Davo]

The penalty in this case seems to massively outweigh the value of the damage. Seems wrong to me but you guys do have a unique? legal system.

Agreed there.

The penalty should be similar to that one would receive from stealing the 20 CD`s from a shop.

If anything less penalty since there was no physical theft of CD and Case and the download was MP3 format not the full CD track.

Just another question for the forum, is it OK to download an MP3 track from a CD you already own ? ( In the instance you have scratched the CD and need a copy of the damaged track)

Half of the problem is CD`s are way overpriced. A movie DVD is on average cheaper than a CD (given the cost of making a movie against making an album this doesn`t make sense)

[geni]

Agreed there.

The penalty should be similar to that one would receive from stealing the 20 CD`s from a shop.

If anything less penalty since there was no physical theft of CD and Case and the download was MP3 format not the full CD track.

The issue was not with the intial take but the redistibuteing.


Just another question for the forum, is it OK to download an MP3 track from a CD you already own ? ( In the instance you have scratched the CD and need a copy of the damaged track)

No.


Half of the problem is CD`s are way overpriced. A movie DVD is on average cheaper than a CD (given the cost of making a movie against making an album this doesn`t make sense)

You are not factoring in unit volume.

[geni]

Also, someone here mentioned needing a new model of property rights earlier. Are they not familiar with Creative Commons licenses or is there some sort of problem with it that I'm not aware of?

Some of the creative commons licenses have issues but I suspect the requirment that those complaining start creating themselves is part of the issue.

[pipelineaudio]

Creative commons liscence is set by hardware manufacturers to deny software and art (otherwise knows as content) providers to take away their right to negotiate a deal

Anything that the EFF finds good should tell you how NOT good for artists it would be

[Unalienable]

"So why should I have to stop, just because other people are using the service for allegedly illegal purposes?"

Noone is saying you should.

That's not quite true--remember Napster? I was downloading several hours of copyright free material from that service daily until, by court order, they were shut down.

Now recently some torrent sites have either gone offline, or refused to take traffic from the USA, based on the same logic.

No, there's no doubt about it, there are people out there who are very keen at tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

"I am personally into a certains genre of such copyright-free music, and I enjoy downloading it regularly."

Examples?

Sure: just about every live recorded concert of the Grateful Dead, live concerts by Phish, and recently I've been enjoying a bluegrass band called Leftover Salmon. All of these bands have released statements to the effect that their live shows should be considered within the body of public domain. I've also taken an interest in some of the really really old recordings, the Library of Congress stuff, like Woody Guthrie and turn-of-the-century jazz recordings. I know positively that this stuff is free for distribution and in the case of the modern-bands, the artists have stated so in no unclear terms.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Creative commons liscence is set by hardware manufacturers to deny software and art (otherwise knows as content) providers to take away their right to negotiate a deal

Anything that the EFF finds good should tell you how NOT good for artists it would be

Interesting...I've often heard people who support downloading and the like talk about Creative Commons as if it was the greatest thing ever created.

[pipelineaudio]

Interesting...I've often heard people who support downloading and the like talk about Creative Commons as if it was the greatest thing ever created.

its great for people who support downloading and even better for people who need free content to be able to sell more hardware.

This whole mess is making the hi-tech hardware and hi-tech software people, once the greatest, of friends into mortal enemies.

We content providers LOVE to have better hardware, as it lets us code more into things/release into hungrier formats

The hardware makers LOVE to have lots of bundled content, if they can get it cheap enough, as it helps sell product, but if thats not possible, the next easiest thing for them is to advertise the ability to acquire free content.

[pipelineaudio]

That's not quite true--remember Napster? I was downloading several hours of copyright free material from that service daily until, by court order, they were shut down.

Now recently some torrent sites have either gone offline, or refused to take traffic from the USA, based on the same logic.

No, there's no doubt about it, there are people out there who are very keen at tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are also people out there who steal cars, start wars, raid pensions, that doesnt have anything to do with this

File sharing is here, there is nothing morally wrong with it, as long as you aren't stealing. This isnt an argument on whther napster should exist, anymore than vehicular homicide is an argument that cars shouldnt exist

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

its great for people who support downloading and even better for people who need free content to be able to sell more hardware.

This whole mess is making the hi-tech hardware and hi-tech software people, once the greatest, of friends into mortal enemies.

Ah, now I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Wildy]

I am not sure of what point you are trying to make. This seems a bit afield of the download versus distribution discussion.

Are you saying you don't understand how making available for distribution could be the basis for a copyright suit? Or you don't accept the argument so the RIAA must be evil for using it? Or what?

I see I didn't actually finish what I should have said and left you hanging didn't I?

They are trying to use the Napster case as precedent for various suits, even though it was overturned in a higher court in UMG Recordings Inc. et. al. v. Bertelsmann AG Inc. et. al. (which is just the Napster case after Napster went bust).

The RIAA is making a claim that this person is downloading music but does not have any strong proof that the alleged crime has taken place.

[pipelineaudio]

The RIAA is making a claim that this person is downloading music but does not have any strong proof that the alleged crime has taken place.

That's being speculated on elsewhere too. One of the freakiest questions to me was "is it even possible to HAVE proof?"

THAT is a scary thought, thinking men with guns (or process servers) could come get you for something you didn't even do

[shalomsteph]

Then again, why expect any financial gain from the sale of the offspring of a cat that you've already sold?



The hypo-allergenic kittens with special DNA are shipped already spayed and neutered to protect copy-catright. :)

[geni]

Creative commons liscence is set by hardware manufacturers to deny software and art (otherwise knows as content) providers to take away their right to negotiate a deal

Anything that the EFF finds good should tell you how NOT good for artists it would be

CC has little to do with software. Software more generally dealt with by the GPL and the like from the FSF. The FSF picked up its original ideology when hardware manufacturers made their drivers closed source.

Creative Commons comes from Lawrence Lessig an idologicaly driven academic not hardware manufacturers. After all it makes little difference to hardware manufacturers what people chose to view with their systems.

[geni]

No, there's no doubt about it, there are people out there who are very keen at tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. You want somewhere you can download free stuff from? better be prepared to keep an eye out for and help remove copyvios.



Sure: just about every live recorded concert of the Grateful Dead, live concerts by Phish, and recently I've been enjoying a bluegrass band called Leftover Salmon. All of these bands have released statements to the effect that their live shows should be considered within the body of public domain.

Link?


I've also taken an interest in some of the really really old recordings, the Library of Congress stuff,

Library of Congress cannot be trusted to provide accuret statements as to the copyright status of a work.

[geni]

its great for people who support downloading and even better for people who need free content to be able to sell more hardware.

Free content has not been a selling point of any hardware I've purchased in the last decade.


This whole mess is making the hi-tech hardware and hi-tech software people, once the greatest, of friends into mortal enemies.


Have Google fallen out with AMD and Intell or something?


We content providers LOVE to have better hardware, as it lets us code more into things/release into hungrier formats

The hardware makers LOVE to have lots of bundled content, if they can get it cheap enough, as it helps sell product, but if thats not possible, the next easiest thing for them is to advertise the ability to acquire free content.

If you want free content NASA and the US army has gigs of the stuff. You don't need CC.

[WildCat]

Link?
It's not copyright-free, but you are allowed to share live recordings as long as no money changes hands.

Phish's policy (http://www.phish.com/guidelines/index.php?category=6).
The Grateful Dead always allowed fans to tape/trade their shows, and there are a lot of soundboard recordings going around that sound great.

At any rate, a surprising number of bands allow people to d/l their live recordings. Since the record companies do not own the live recordings the RIAA has no say in the matter. This site (http://www.dimeadozen.org/index.php) is a large bit torrent site, and they do not allow torrents of artists who do not wish their live shows to be traded. The list of prohibited artists (http://wiki.dimeadozen.org/index.php/NAB) is quite small! I've downloaded a lot of great stuff from there, such as mid-70's Van Morrison concerts.

[WildCat]

BTW, speaking of Van Morrison it seems in 1967 he was very unhappy with his record label, Bang Records. Unfortunately, he was obligated to put out several more records for them. But he found a way to fulfill his obligation without Bang Records getting a dime.

Van Morrison's contractual obligation recordings! (http://wiki.dimeadozen.org/index.php/NAB) :D

[jsfisher]

They are trying to use the Napster case as precedent for various suits, even though it was overturned in a higher court in UMG Recordings Inc. et. al. v. Bertelsmann AG Inc. et. al. (which is just the Napster case after Napster went bust).


No, it is not the Napster case, although it is closely related to it.

You provided this link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060126-6057.html) to an article mentioning the Bertelsmann AG case. The article makes a couple of claims that simply are not true. A quick read of the actual court decision (http://www.svmedialaw.com/Napster%20summary%20judgment%20order.pdf) linked by that article bares that out.

It looks like the author of the article didn't bother to read very carefully. The Napster decision was not overturned.

[geni]

It's not copyright-free, but you are allowed to share live recordings as long as no money changes hands.

Phish's policy (http://www.phish.com/guidelines/index.php?category=6).


Oh Zeus custom attempts at NC licenses when will people learn. For example nominaly the above license would ban converting from one format to another of lowering the the bitrate.


The Grateful Dead always allowed fans to tape/trade their shows, and there are a lot of soundboard recordings going around that sound great.

At any rate, a surprising number of bands allow people to d/l their live recordings. Since the record companies do not own the live recordings the RIAA has no say in the matter. This site (http://www.dimeadozen.org/index.php) is a large bit torrent site, and they do not allow torrents of artists who do not wish their live shows to be traded. The list of prohibited artists (http://wiki.dimeadozen.org/index.php/NAB) is quite small! I've downloaded a lot of great stuff from there, such as mid-70's Van Morrison concerts.

Those would be ones who have gotten around to activly prohibiting. What makes you think that say john doe's band have even considered the matter or even if they have have been included. For example Fairport Convention (Folk Rock band aparently popular amoung middle class 40 year olds) limit to personal use only but are not on the list.

[pipelineaudio]

Creative Commons comes from Lawrence Lessig an idologicaly driven academic not hardware manufacturers. After all it makes little difference to hardware manufacturers what people chose to view with their systems.

But its being pushed hardest by the EFF and those in that camp.
Yes, it makes little diffeence to hardware manufacturers WHAT people chose for content, but it makes all the difference in the world to them that free content is available, it means there is more money to spend on hardware

[pipelineaudio]

Free content has not been a selling point of any hardware I've purchased in the last decade.

You may not have noticed, but sure it is. Cable internet for instance

Have Google fallen out with AMD and Intell or something?

Well its not across the board of course, software that helps find free content is having a happy relationship with hardware still


If you want free content NASA and the US army has gigs of the stuff. You don't need CC.

NASA has the latest albums and Movies? Show me the NASA site with the cracked Windows Vista 64, Half Life Orange, and Outlook

[geni]

But its being pushed hardest by the EFF and those in that camp.

Not really. CC Have their own community and the biggest impact is probably due to flickr.

Remeber CC licenses only work within the current copyright law framework.


Yes, it makes little diffeence to hardware manufacturers WHAT people chose for content, but it makes all the difference in the world to them that free content is available, it means there is more money to spend on hardware

The makers of game consels might beg to differ.

[geni]

You may not have noticed, but sure it is. Cable internet for instance

Wikipedia has been mentioned in a handful of adds but that is about it.


Well its not across the board of course, software that helps find free content is having a happy relationship with hardware still


Google isn't very good at finding free content. They also employ a pretty big chunk of the top programers around.


NASA has the latest albums and Movies? Show me the NASA site with the cracked Windows Vista 64, Half Life Orange, and Outlook

None of those are free. They are protected by copyright that does not allow free distribution. I can show you Linux, OpenArena and Mozilla Thunderbird.


In the case of free as in beer the second one is probably better met by America's Army.

[pipelineaudio]

Not really. CC Have their own community and the biggest impact is probably due to flickr.

Remeber CC licenses only work within the current copyright law framework.

I urge you to look into the movement further, and/or ask people who would potentially be affected by it

The makers of game consels might beg to differ.

Exactly why this RIAA suit is a mere slap on the wrist to the prosecution methods against anyone who pirates console game titles. Also note the proprietary, closed system they use SPECIFICALLY for copy protection

Note that many console games are not available for open format PC or Mac

It says a lot

[pipelineaudio]

Wikipedia has been mentioned in a handful of adds but that is about it.

http://www.cox.com/fairfax/highspeedinternet/boostfaqs.asp

or any other cable ad in the known universe

Google isn't very good at finding free content. They also employ a pretty big chunk of the top programers around.

Name something you want to steal, and let me google it up for you

None of those are free. They are protected by copyright that does not allow free distribution. I can show you Linux, OpenArena and Mozilla Thunderbird.

And your point is? Thats exactly what Ivebeen saying all along, none of it is free and the developers expect to get paid if you get their product

In the case of free as in beer the second one is probably better met by America's Army.

America's Army's developers are paid just fine (WAY overpaid if you ask me). The Army choses to make that available for free

Again, and again and again I say: Noone is saying they dont have that right, what Im saying is that should not be FORCED upon people who make a product with the specific rule that they get paid per instance.

[geni]

I urge you to look into the movement further,

CC? Lightwight will jump on any bandwagon don't really have the FSF's solid idology. On the other hand have actualy managed to write a free content license from time to time.


and/or ask people who would potentially be affected by it


Courts already delt with that one. Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al.




Exactly why this RIAA suit is a mere slap on the wrist to the prosecution methods against anyone who pirates console game titles. Also note the proprietary, closed system they use SPECIFICALLY for copy protection


That isn't relivant. The fact is people will buy hardwhare even when free content is near imposible.


Note that many console games are not available for open format PC or Mac

It says a lot

Console work in rather a different way to PCs so porting is hard. the PC game market doesn't really justify the effort.

[geni]

http://www.cox.com/fairfax/highspeedinternet/boostfaqs.asp

or any other cable ad in the known universe

There are legit ways to purchase and download music, videos and games online. Steam for example.


Name something you want to steal, and let me google it up for you


Beilstein database


And your point is? Thats exactly what Ivebeen saying all along, none of it is free and the developers expect to get paid if you get their product


Except in the case of CC and GPL licenses they don't (or at least don't expect to get paid for reuse) yet strangly you object to that.



America's Army's developers are paid just fine (WAY overpaid if you ask me). The Army choses to make that available for free

Legaly they have little choice the army can't claim copyright on stuff.


Again, and again and again I say: Noone is saying they dont have that right, what Im saying is that should not be FORCED upon people who make a product with the specific rule that they get paid per instance.

And yet you attack CC which is generaly based around what authors want rather than the FSF which tends to be based around reusers (just look at the way the licenses are structured).

[pipelineaudio]

Console work in rather a different way to PCs so porting is hard. the PC game market doesn't really justify the effort.

Im sorry, and I dont want to be an ass but you are wrong. Most software titles at this point, for console games are designed on PC. They often DO have PC ports, often not.

Ask the developer why they dont spend more time on the PC game and they will tell you : because it is too easily stolen

You keep bringing up canards that are indeed popular from an outsider's perspective, like the "wheres the transitional fossils" or "darwin was a racist" arguments from creationists

Im telling you, you need a LOT more digging into this subject before you are prepared to argue with anything other than "25 arguments creationists should not us"

[pipelineaudio]

And yet you attack CC which is generaly based around what authors want rather than the FSF which tends to be based around reusers (just look at the way the licenses are structured).

I dont attack CC or EFF on principle, what I object to is that the movemnt is trying to FORCE CC/EFF upon all content providers. If that happens, we lose all incentives and bargaining power. Our choice after that is "work or dont" All items are the same value

It didnt work out so well for the soviets, unless you think the Yugo is a technological marvell.

I urge you to look further into this before continuing the ping pong game

[Nick Bogaerts]

PipelineAudio, I think you are way off base regarding hardware manufacturers and free software.

If you look at the largest corporations actively pushing free software, you'll find a few names popping up over and over again: IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell, Google. Of these, Novell, Red Hat and Google have never been harware makers. Big Blue has divested itself of its harware to Lenovo, and has nearly given up on proprietary software: AIX is nerarly dead. It survives only as a legacy system these days. Sun is the only one which can still call itself a hardware manufacterer: it's traditional products are SPARC and Solaris. But even they are changing. They are now offering Intel and AD x86's in addition to the SPARCs, and have open sourced Solaris in order to keep it alive.

[geni]

Im sorry, and I dont want to be an ass but you are wrong. Most software titles at this point, for console games are designed on PC. They often DO have PC ports, often not.

PCs and console's handel data in different ways (regardless of what microsoft claims). Porting across is more than just recombiling the code. You risk haveing to do a serious rewrite unless you want to take a significant performance hit.


Ask the developer why they dont spend more time on the PC game and they will tell you : because it is too easily stolen

Biggest selling FPS is half-life at about 8 million units Halo 2 is at 6.5 million units. The original half-life was firmly PC based.


You keep bringing up canards that are indeed popular from an outsider's perspective, like the "wheres the transitional fossils" or "darwin was a racist" arguments from creationists

Im telling you, you need a LOT more digging into this subject before you are prepared to argue with anything other than "25 arguments creationists should not us"

I think it you who have missed the basic principles. GLP LGPL CeCILL (okey okey I know that is a GPL clone) GFDL CC-BY-SA CC-BY-NC FAL. They all require copyright law following much the current system in order to work. Attempting to lump them in with those who do not respect copyright is a mistake.

[geni]

I dont attack CC or EFF on principle, what I object to is that the movemnt is trying to FORCE CC/EFF upon all content providers.

Wrong people again. The only force is in the viral licenses are you don't have to use content released under those licenses. CC isn't committed viral licenses. If it was CC-BY wouldn't exist. No it is the FSF that is behind virial licenses such as the GPL LGPL and GFDL.


CC even supports the CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND licenses which are only limited competition for proprietary content.


If that happens, we lose all incentives and bargaining power. Our choice after that is "work or dont" All items are the same value


Not really. Lets take photos as an example. At most the stock photography industry will be destoryed (from the photographers POV it pretty much already has been). Will have zero impact on the market for weding photos and the like.


It didnt work out so well for the soviets, unless you think the Yugo is a technological marvell.


While technicaly the segway was a technological marvel I'm not sure it was a creat idea. There has been proprietary software that has run into much the same issue. CC and FSF are part of the free market I've already mentioned the relivant court case.


I urge you to look further into this before continuing the ping pong game

I'm one of the group that resulted in CC issueing a clarification over their moral rights term.

[geni]

If you look at the largest corporations actively pushing free software, you'll find a few names popping up over and over again: IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell, Google.


Google tent to stick to a firmly proprietary model.

[geni]

One thing to remeber about viral licenses and even NC and ND licenses is that they give a person a very personal stake in copyright law. If you want to see your viral terms or non comercial terms enforced you have a very personal reason to see that copyright law continues to function because it is your content that it is protecting.

[pipelineaudio]

Im sorry, we still seem to be talking past each other

Nick and Geni, you see the little reaper icon as my avatar?

Google it. It should clear up whether I misunderstand philanthropic software, GPL, the music business, and file sharing.

If you were to ask the "file sharing killed the music business" guys who is most responsible for that demise, one name will come up over and over. You'll see my cooperation and participation with him and hopefully we can end any nonsense that I am against filesharing or dont understand the issues involved.

[geni]

Im sorry, we still seem to be talking past each other

Nick and Geni, you see the little reaper icon as my avatar?

Google it. It should clear up whether I misunderstand philanthropic software, GPL, the music business, and file sharing.

Err a movie or REAPER software which is under some kind of proprietary license which I can't view without downloading the thing.

[pipelineaudio]

REAPER software which is under some kind of proprietary license which I can't view without downloading the thing.

err, good sluething there.....not

[pipelineaudio]

A rather salient post from a forum where many of the people know what they're talking about on this issue

"The idea of intellectual property rights has never been well understood by the public and does feed into this situation. In the past, when you bought a vinyl record, a cassette, a CD, a movie, or Windows Office, it seemed that you owned it. You could give it away, you could sell it to somebody else and (except for software) you could even copy it for your own use. That is a pretty complete rights package. However, if you owned a bar and wanted to play music for your patrons, you then had to pay additionally for it because you were using it commercially. Still very understandable.

However, the public only owned the plastic the product was duplicated on and only had limited USE rights to the actual product. Very few people understand this concept, especially evidenced by the continued defense of pirating on this and other forums.

So no, the Entitled Generation are not to blame for getting it wrong initially. What they and anybody at any age are wrong about and responsible for, is not ATTEMPTING to UNDERSTAND the situation when it is explained to them. The continued defense of the pirating of music, movies, games and software becomes a criminal action when you know better and continue the behavior.

Shoplifting has caused Wal Mart to respond with cameras and guards. No one would call shoplifting a "market change" even though it has dramatically affected how retail does it's business. Each and every one of you is considered a thief when entering a Wal Mart or Target. You are watched every minute by a staff who expect every one of you to steal something.

When the record companies treat their customers with the same caution, they are loudly criticized. That is where the hypocrisy is being committed.
"

Bolding mine

Even though many probably did not read pounce's link and this may be an excercize in futility, here is where the post is from http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/0/19709/32/937/#msg_19709

[geni]

err, good sluething there.....not

What point are you trying to make.