RIAA isn't screwing around anymore

[Condog]

Or, or.. this may sound crazy, you could like buy the music/movies/etc. Sounds weird but hey, it does no harm.

If I find a song i really like, then sure, I'll go and buy an album - preferably with that song on it - by the same band. But i'm not - hypothecially speaking ;) - going to waste my money trying to find something I like.

I also vaguely recall an argument from a South Park episode that made a good point on downloading music illegally in one of their aesops. If i can find it, I'll link it, but hopefully some others will know what I'm talking about.

[Rose]

Or, or.. this may sound crazy, you could like buy the music/movies/etc. Sounds weird but hey, it does no harm.

Completely agreed on this one. Stealing is stealing no matter how common it is.

[otters~1]

Foreign music sites!!!!!!

-------

Do not admit to illegal acts. Read the forum guidelines, damnit.
-------

Come on, does GNR really need any more money? Chinese Democracy wasn't even that good.

-------

Wait. Did I just admit to something? Yes, and don't do it again.

[T3chno]

Foreign music sites!!!!!!Come on, does GNR really need any more money? Chinese Democracy wasn't even that good.

QFE

[scythe]

Ahaha. I knew this would happen.
ISPs tell RIAA to show them the money.

Also, regarding filesharing:
First, I think the term "piracy" puts more rhetoric into a debate that's already got far too much of it.
Second, I'm pretty sure that in the case of music, there could exist a music industry with or without filesharing. I figure that the world "with" isn't so bad.
Third, in the case of games (warez), filesharing does nothing but damage, really, and unlike music and movies, game engineers' only source of income is sales. I don't download games-though to be fair the last games I played were Diablo 2 and N. I don't encourage anyone else to, either.

[blue_tetris]

Ahaha. I knew this would happen.
ISPs tell RIAA to show them the money.

Dave called it more.

Third, in the case of games (warez), filesharing does nothing but damage, really, and unlike music and movies, game engineers' only source of income is sales. I don't download games-though to be fair the last games I played were Diablo 2 and N. I don't encourage anyone else to, either.

Hmmm. Where can I download software company employees' quarterly reports? Are we certain that musicians are making money on more than just sales? That seems like wacky justification to me.

Filesharing games does more than damage. It gives me a free product which I'd otherwise pay for. The product is more expensive than a single song, but I do tend to download albums all at once. I think the loss of income for both groups is comparable. In either case, I'm getting a service rendered for the low, low cost of $0 and not just damaging a company.

The truth is, game designers wear T-shirts, blue jeans, and pocket protectors; they type on Dvorak and use Linux. Musicians wear tubetops, pants with too many buckles, and sunglasses. One of them seems more like you and not socially adept, so it's not okay to decrease their sales volume. The other thinks he's sooooooooooooooooooooo cool.

[otters~1]

What exactly is wrong with jeans and a T-shirt? I see programmers in more like a sweater or something. Also, my friend uses Linux and Dvorak, and he's an amateur programmer. You nailed that part.

[jean-luc]

Have you ever been to Google? jeans and t-shirts abound. I type on Dvorak! I only kind of use Linux, though (although I'm "a believer", I use MS windows because much oft he software I use is not available for Linux).

Third, in the case of games (warez), filesharing does nothing but damage, really, and unlike music and movies, game engineers' only source of income is sales. I don't download games-though to be fair the last games I played were Diablo 2 and N. I don't encourage anyone else to, either.

Incorrect. There's a massive number of ways in which game and other software developers can profit, besides software sales. I'd say software developers have more obvious choices for alternative monetization than musicians.
Economics is based on scarcity. Software is abundant - it can be copied and distributed with virtually no expense. So, create and charge for things that are scarce - physical items such as printed matter, or services, such as those that require server capacity. MMOs are already familiar with this model, as they charge a monthly fee for server capacity. Makers of games that don't require server capacity per-user can create other content or media that is scarce, such as books, manuals, and community.

[blue_tetris]

Reminds me of the concept of "feelies" in early games marketing.

[Radium]

One of them seems more like you and not socially adept, so it's not okay to decrease their sales volume. The other thinks he's sooooooooooooooooooooo cool.

I think you have a point, but you are hypersensitive to the subject because you may be one of those linux-using techies.

[scythe]

Ahaha. I knew this would happen.
ISPs tell RIAA to show them the money.

Dave called it more.

Third, in the case of games (warez), filesharing does nothing but damage, really, and unlike music and movies, game engineers' only source of income is sales. I don't download games-though to be fair the last games I played were Diablo 2 and N. I don't encourage anyone else to, either.

Hmmm. Where can I download software company employees' quarterly reports? Are we certain that musicians are making money on more than just sales? That seems like wacky justification to me.

Filesharing games does more than damage. It gives me a free product which I'd otherwise pay for. The product is more expensive than a single song, but I do tend to download albums all at once. I think the loss of income for both groups is comparable. In either case, I'm getting a service rendered for the low, low cost of $0 and not just damaging a company.

The truth is, game designers wear T-shirts, blue jeans, and pocket protectors; they type on Dvorak and use Linux. Musicians wear tubetops, pants with too many buckles, and sunglasses. One of them seems more like you and not socially adept, so it's not okay to decrease their sales volume. The other thinks he's sooooooooooooooooooooo cool.

My argument had nothing to do with the cost of either. You completely ignored it and instead took the opportunity to call me socially awkward.
Thanks.

[blue_tetris]

Ahaha. I knew this would happen.
ISPs tell RIAA to show them the money.

Dave called it more.

Third, in the case of games (warez), filesharing does nothing but damage, really, and unlike music and movies, game engineers' only source of income is sales. I don't download games-though to be fair the last games I played were Diablo 2 and N. I don't encourage anyone else to, either.

Hmmm. Where can I download software company employees' quarterly reports? Are we certain that musicians are making money on more than just sales? That seems like wacky justification to me.

Filesharing games does more than damage. It gives me a free product which I'd otherwise pay for. The product is more expensive than a single song, but I do tend to download albums all at once. I think the loss of income for both groups is comparable. In either case, I'm getting a service rendered for the low, low cost of $0 and not just damaging a company.

The truth is, game designers wear T-shirts, blue jeans, and pocket protectors; they type on Dvorak and use Linux. Musicians wear tubetops, pants with too many buckles, and sunglasses. One of them seems more like you and not socially adept, so it's not okay to decrease their sales volume. The other thinks he's sooooooooooooooooooooo cool.

My argument had nothing to do with the cost of either. You completely ignored it and instead took the opportunity to call me socially awkward.
Thanks.

The line in question that seems to have garnered the most attention is "One of them seems more like you and not socially adept", which was to be taken as two different components of the computer programmer. Socially adept people are easier to hate, because they have their shiny smiles and their fashionable clothes, so it's easier for us to justify taking files that were generated from their artistic work.

Secondly, and more importantly, I didn't ignore your argument. I took the points you mentioned and discovered them at length. One of your two points was "game engineers' only source of income is sales". I responded to that with my first paragraph. I believe that's false. If it's not, respond. The other of your two points was "in the case of games (warez), filesharing does nothing but damage". I responded with my second paragraph, to the tune of: Filesharing renders a service to me, whether it's games or music. It does more than simply damage the distributor. It provides me free content.

Having determined that neither the "all from sales" argument nor the "sharing games only damages (and is therefore not utilitarian, unlike sharing music)" argument were cogent reasons for justifying music filesharing while taking a stance against game filesharing, I yet refused to view you as having no reason behind favoring one. So I attempted to find a third reason why you might find enough disparity between gamers and musical artists to make filesharing one medium justifiable.

And I went for familiarity. I didn't intend it to be insulting. Myself, Huey Lewis, and the News all agree that it's hip to be square. Everyone on this forum has a little more connectivity with Will Wright than with Will Smith, so stealing from one of them seems fair while stealing from the other seems to do "nothing but damage". We get into big arguments at this forum about sharing music and the consensus is "go for it". When the same thing comes up for games, we suddenly enter some morally shakey ground. Because we're gamers and not musicians.

[scythe]

My argument had nothing to do with the cost of either. You completely ignored it and instead took the opportunity to call me socially awkward.
Thanks.

The line in question that seems to have garnered the most attention is "One of them seems more like you and not socially adept", which was to be taken as two different components of the computer programmer. Socially adept people are easier to hate, because they have their shiny smiles and their fashionable clothes, so it's easier for us to justify taking files that were generated from their artistic work.

Secondly, and more importantly, I didn't ignore your argument. I took the points you mentioned and discovered them at length. One of your two points was "game engineers' only source of income is sales". I responded to that with my first paragraph. I believe that's false. If it's not, respond. The other of your two points was "in the case of games (warez), filesharing does nothing but damage". I responded with my second paragraph, to the tune of: Filesharing renders a service to me, whether it's games or music. It does more than simply damage the distributor. It provides me free content.

Having determined that neither the "all from sales" argument nor the "sharing games only damages (and is therefore not utilitarian, unlike sharing music)" argument were cogent reasons for justifying music filesharing while taking a stance against game filesharing, I yet refused to view you as having no reason behind favoring one. So I attempted to find a third reason why you might find enough disparity between gamers and musical artists to make filesharing one medium justifiable.

And I went for familiarity. I didn't intend it to be insulting. Myself, Huey Lewis, and the News all agree that it's hip to be square. Everyone on this forum has a little more connectivity with Will Wright than with Will Smith, so stealing from one of them seems fair while stealing from the other seems to do "nothing but damage". We get into big arguments at this forum about sharing music and the consensus is "go for it". When the same thing comes up for games, we suddenly enter some morally shakey ground. Because we're gamers and not musicians.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying.
You make a good point about the gamer vs. musician thing.
Also, you reminded me of this:
"I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway.

Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.

Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.

--Ian Clarke"

[capt_weasle]

Hmm, I see it more like the guy providing the fire hand-built the lighter after months of hard work to his own design and mechanics, and wanting to share his ingenuity with the world, but at the same time needing to feed his family, decides to charge for each light. It doesn't really matter if the fire is able to be replicated with ease and free of charge, the fact is that person worked hard on what he is offering, and is selling it to sustain himself, because that's what he is good at. That quote makes it seem like the artist/whoever in question just pooped out their work and handed it to the world with the curse of a fee (not that some don't actually do that, but the point still stands). If a musician offers his work for free, kudos to him, the world could use that every now and then. But when said person needs the sales it is their right to charge money. If you don't like that/can't afford it, that's too bad. Find some other way to entertain yourself. Besides, it isn't like paying 99 cents for a song on iTunes is going to kill you.

EDIT: Though I will admit I hate DRM-protected files. Here's lookin' at you, iTunes.

[Tanner]

Hmm, I see it more like the guy providing the fire hand-built the lighter after months of hard work to his own design and mechanics, and wanting to share his ingenuity with the world, but at the same time needing to feed his family, decides to charge for each light. It doesn't really matter if the fire is able to be replicated with ease and free of charge, the fact is that person worked hard on what he is offering, and is selling it to sustain himself, because that's what he is good at. That quote makes it seem like the artist/whoever in question just pooped out their work and handed it to the world with the curse of a fee (not that some don't actually do that, but the point still stands). If a musician offers his work for free, kudos to him, the world could use that every now and then. But when said person needs the sales it is their right to charge money. If you don't like that/can't afford it, that's too bad. Find some other way to entertain yourself. Besides, it isn't like paying 99 cents for a song on iTunes is going to kill you.

EDIT: Though I will admit I hate DRM-protected files. Here's lookin' at you, iTunes.

I appreciate your point of view but it isn't really a valid one. When I download a copy of an album off the internet it's just that, a copy. I'm not taking the physical disk and I am not subtracting a sale of the disk from the artist. There are several reasons why I am not removing a sale from the artist. Firstly, I would not necessarily buy everything that I would otherwise download. There are some albums that are otherwise unavailable to me or that I do not have the means (financial or otherwise) to purchase. Secondly, I am considered by many of my friends to be a fair repository for certain genres of music so that when they are interested in purchasing an album, they ask me if I've heard it first. Many times the answer is yes and, if it's a decent CD, the artist has just made a sale off of me and I am what amounts to free (or, really, negligible) advertising at the grassroots level. Thirdly, there are some albums that, despite remaining copyrighted by the record company, are no longer produced or readily accessible to the public. In most cases, the artist just wants you to enjoy their stuff. Most notably, to me, is Dune: Spice Opera.

That said, I still buy the albums of artists that I want to support. Why wouldn't I? I also go see them in concert and purchase their other merchandise. Business models should follow logic and not vice versa.

[capt_weasle]

I understand that getting a copy does not necessarily mean subtracting sales for the artist, and I think downloading music to see if you like it before you buy it is a pretty good idea. However, most of the people who illegally download music don't think that way and just don't want to pay money. This means the artist isn't getting as much out of it as he could be, and saying that there are other ways to make a profit isn't really justified because you still are taking product without paying, regardless of what sales are or are not being made. Your idea of "test-driving" is good, but the flaw is you aren't obligated to "give it back." A better way of dealing with that is an album "trial," where a person is able to download the entire album (or parts, depending upon who is selling it I suppose) for free (at least I think it should be), but the album is useless after a week, at which point the person may choose to purchase the album. Unfortunately I am sure that there are flaws within that plan, too, and doesn't resolve the whole DRM-locked bullpoo.

[Tanner]

capt_weasle, I cannot recommend Free Culture to you strongly enough. You are the audience for this book. I can't expand on every point that Lawrence Lessig makes therein and neither would I want to. It's free and you don't even need to read it all the way through.

I strongly question this statement that "most of the people who illegally download music don't think that way and just don't want to pay money." I refer you to this study and the quote that follows, "[...] internet piracy played a significant role in the decline in CD sales in 2001, but can hardly account for the subsequent drop in 2002." And this study and the quote, "Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Our estimates are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the decline in music sales during our study period." Those were only the first two results when searching for "internet piracy and CD sales" on Google Scholar but I encourage you to dig deeper. These are independent research institutions, universities and they have no financial claim in this. How can we accept what the music industry says about its gross sales when these studies fly in the face of those numbers?

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Saying that the artist can't make money if people illegally download music always seemed like a non-sequitor to me. There are lots of things you can do as an occupation that require skill and don't allow you to make any money. It's impossible to make a living as a musician if people download songs. It's also impossible to make a living playing chess with hobos at the park. This doesn't mean that this kind of interaction is unethical, though.

To show that downloading music is unethical, one must demonstrate that it in some way violates the rights of a party involved. Is intellectual property a real thing? Are the record companies the only people allowed to distribute this information?

My answer: Yes. It is bad (in most cases) to download music illegally. This is not because it is stealing. This is not because intellectual property exists. This is because of the nature of a copyright. I think of a copyright as a contract between the seller and the buyer. The seller agrees to give information to the consumer, under the condition that the buyer does not distribute it. To download music illegally requires a violation of that contract somewhere along the line. However, it may be possible to argue that because you do not enter into contract with whoever you're sharing files with, you're free to take and distribute at will. I don't know. I haven't thought about this enough.

I do think that copyright laws need to be reevaluated and liberalized quite a bit. Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this. Old copyright laws come from a time where information was distributed very differently from the way it is communicated today. I think that our laws need to reflect the societal changes.

[blue_tetris]

If the consumer model doesn't support them making money off of music, you don't change the consumers. The sellers need to find new ways to do business. They can either stop making music or they can license their music in other ways to get money off of more than just album sales.

Really, yeah, we all feel bad for people who can't get money off of their music. But do we pay more money because we feel bad? No. That's not helping the environment, it's not helping the economy, it's just not helping anything. Pay less money, people. Demand more service. Evolve the market with your dollar bill! EVOLVE IT.

Guitar Hero sequels sell pretty sexy and licensing music with those still makes money. Licensing music for places of business who have to pay royalties--that still makes money. Asking for straight-up donations or government art grants. Still makes money. Live concerts! Still makes money.

(The corrolary to caveat emptor means that the buyer also gets to reap the full advantages of acquisition. It's a jungle out there, and sometimes the consumer gets a turn at the hunt.)



Finally, if it stops making money entirely to be a musician, too bad. I dream of a future in which chiropracty doesn't make money, either. I am fond of the fact that blood-letting stopped making money. Thank God all these anti-Bush calendars, ballcaps, and quote-spouting toilet paper rolls are going to bottom out soon, vanquishing another niche market. There's a time and a place for a market to die. What we're seeing from the music industry are the final throes of a diehard market. We're watching the picketing scabs out front the sonic factory, sad that their manual factory line jobs have been mechanized. We're watching the 18th Century auditory barbers melancholic that new-age Internet dentists have taken over in the matter of tooth extraction. Old becomes new, and it serves the consumers (as well as any marketers willing to surf the foam-crest of the wave moderne).

This metaphor is the best forever.

[Atilla]

"I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway.

Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.

Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.

--Ian Clarke"[/i]

Because he was drunk, he did not have the capacity to commit to a legally binding contract, so your position is iffy in that scenario. Verbal contracts are also of dubious validity, since it can't be proven that you did in fact inform him of the appropriate conditions. Also, you didn't invent the fire and don't really have IP rights over it, so it's not entirely comparable to music and software.

Anyway, let's pretend, for a moment, that you did invent fire and actually issued a valid, binding contract governing its use. Now, personally I think your business plan is goddamn stupid. Nevertheless, breaking the contract should still be illegal (after all, that's the whole point of a contract) and if you've actually agreed to the contract, you shouldn't break it. If you think the fire-license is idiotic, don't use the fire. What you're doing instead is shoving the fire-seller over, taking his lighter and using it, then handing it back and saying "He's still got the lighter, so I did nothing wrong!" Okay, so the fire-seller was a dolt, but that doesn't give you the right to be a cock and use his stuff without permission.

So, basically, the music industry needs to change its business plan, but that doesn't give you the right to abuse their IP. By the same token, if you're playing football and the other team is losing because they have a poor game plan, that doesn't give you the right to cheat.

[smartalco]

When radio began sending out its signal, recording artists were outraged that there were no royalties honoured. The courts ruled against them.

I'm not sure when, but radio hasn't been royalty free for awhile (also, you missed the internet radio crap that went on over the last couple of years)

[Tanner]

When radio began sending out its signal, recording artists were outraged that there were no royalties honoured. The courts ruled against them.

I'm not sure when, but radio hasn't been royalty free for awhile (also, you missed the internet radio crap that went on over the last couple of years)

I'm not going to go over the entire proceedings for how radio as we know it came to be. I will instead refer you, again, to Free Culture and say that under the law governing radio performances today, the radio station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need only pay the composer.

Also, the key thing to think about in terms of internet radio is that old "last couple years" thing. Over the last couple years, the courts have somehow forgotten that 90% of creative undertakings over the past century have been derivative and, under today's definition, plagiarism. Also, Free Culture reserves a chapter for internet radio. *cough*