Is "copyright infringement" the same thing as "stealing"? Maybe not. But, when you're talking about "copyright infringement" or "copyright infraction" of digital music files attained through illegitimate channels and/or against the will of the company/person responsible for distributing the music, then you are stealing.
I love how people can come up with all of these relativistic excuses to justify their actions when it comes to "stealing" music. As someone left in a comment on my post about the RIAA visiting ASU yesterday:
The fact is downloading music is nothing more than copyright infraction and is not technically stealing. Not only is it not technically stealing its also true that very small amounts of the money that one spends on CD's goes to the artist and the fact is copying and downloading music files hurts n one but the very RIAA we hate.
He's right, though. It is "not technically stealing." But, does that make it right? Does that make it justifiable? Does that make it legal? Absolutely not.
Just because YOU don't want to spend money on a CD from the RIAA because the artist receives "very small amounts" of your payment doesn't mean you should take the music via illegitimate means. Also, you're wrong about it hurting "no one but the very RIAA we hate." Here's the deal: the artist signed a contract with a record company wherein that artist conceded the right to ownership of the distribution methods of the artist's music. No one FORCED the artist to sign that contract; the artist signed the contract and it was that artist's decision to do so, thereby accepting the terms of the contract.
Furthermore, just because the artist receives so little of your CD purchase price doesn't mean that the artist hasn't received a decent sum of money in the first place. Here's where your small-change argument falls apart: generally the artist receives an "advance" to record an album, which is a lump sum of money, or payment, to the artist before the product is released. Furthermore, when an artist goes on tour, the record company generally pays for that tour, giving the artist a "per diem," which is a set amount of money paid to the artist per day to use however the artist wishes and to keep forevermore. Furthermore, the record company pays for all the other expenses, including the tour bus, the gas to move the tour bus, the bus driver, the trucks necessary to move the artist's gear around the country, etc. And do you know who pays to market the album and the tour itself? The record company! So, just because the artist receives pennies on the dollar for every CD sold doesn't mean that you're not supporting the artist.
So, if you don't buy a CD and you steal it instead, are you hurting the artist or the record company? The answer is: both. You are hurting the record company because you are taking a product that you are not entitled to have and thus "stealing" a sale from them. You are hurting the artist because the artist's livelihood depends on sales of his product. Even if an artist is hugely popular, if his sales suck, the record company won't sign him to release another album (unless a tour is wildly successful). And who's fault is that? If you ran a company that depended upon the sales of a product by someone else and that person's sales didn't live up to your business expectations, what would you do?
If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy their music and don't listen to the music they release. The artist signed with the RIAA and made a pact with "the devil" to release their music through RIAA channels. If you don't like the RIAA, then don't support their artists. The artists have a choice, too, with whom they sign contracts.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but the record companies that make up the RIAA aren't total idiots and they aren't all bad. Their business strategy is bad! The way they are treating customers is bad! But, the reason they do it is because the formerly-loyal customer has turned her back on the companies. Do I think "education through litigation" is wrong? Of course!! But, do they have the right to protect their property? Yes they do. Does the RIAA need to find a way to survive in light of music piracy? Of course! But, people also need to be educated that stealing music (as opposed to stealing a physical CD from a store) is wrong.
I want you people who don't think downloading music illegitimately is illegal to listen to this:
You are not entitled to free music!
There is no birthright to free music. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it's okay to get music without paying for it (when it is the wish of the artist/record company to sell that music and not give it away for free). We live in a capitalistic society (if you don't like it, you don't have to live here) where people choose to release a product in order to make a profit. And artist can also choose to release her product for free, if she has retained sole ownership of that product throughout the duration of its life. It's called the free market and it's a beautiful thing. In this free market, there is an exchange of goods and services for other goods and services. If you cut out one side of the equation, you are violating the terms agreed upon when you entered the free market and, thus, are breaking the verbal contract you've established with the proprietor. In our country, if you don't pay for something that's supposed to be paid for, it's called "breaking the law." Now, if a musician like me decides to release his first two albums for free, which I have, and I release a third album and I want to make money off of that album, I'm going to get upset if someone steals, duplicates, or illegitimately releases the album to people who could be paying me for it. You can distribute my first two albums as much as you possibly can, but don't do it to my third album unless I give you permission. I am allowed to make these decisions because I OWN THE WORK and I CHOSE TO RELEASE IT THIS WAY. If I had signed a deal with a record company, I would have chosen to forfeit those rights and allow the record company make the decision for me, unless we agreed upon different terms and conditions within said contract.
There are some artists who don't mind their music being downloaded, and that's great. I praise them for their willingness to spread the goodness of their art. But, typically, those artists have not signed deals with the record companies that are in the RIAA. Therefore, you DO NOT have the permission to "infringe the copyright" by downloading that music. Just because you can download their music doesn't mean there won't be repercussions.
To people who think "sharing means caring," you're immature, you don't have a basic understanding of economics, and you aren't living in the real world.
If you don't have money and you download a cd you wouldn't buy in the first place how is the RIAA losing money? How are the artists losing money? At least in this case you might be able to listen to the cd and maybe even like it! That might actually add to business.
I won't even go into the logical fallacies behind this statement. If you can't see the problems with this line of thinking, please take a long time to think about if you were the artist or if you owned the record company that released the record that people were stealing. This post is not meant to be demeaning, but rather to be a wake-up call to people that might not have an understanding of economics and what it takes to maintain a civil and healthy society.
On 2007-03-29 21:36:03, rosemary said, "lucidus!"
thanks for posting this rant. haha, here's a song for you: http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/ode-to-the-riaa/
On 2007-03-29 23:57:33, Electronicmaji said, "The distinction..."
The main fallacy in this train of thought is that you simply cannot compare making a digital copy of a cd with stealing a copy from a store. The second involves actual physical goods that cost money to produce. While it is a small amount of money it is still money. Frankly when your friend shares a digital copy with you no physical resources are consumed in that process. Having studied economics the opportunity provided by the resourceless access of music demonstrates a distinctness from traditional access.
Going on I would have to say that a friend sharing a copy of a cd with you digitally is comparable to someone sharing a physical cd with you. No self-conscientous music enjoyer will not buy a album because he has a digital version. Theres some distinction between supporting a artist by liking their music and supporting them by buying their album and I beleive most people who download music are willing to support good artists by buying their album when they can.
Notably the distinction between digital 'copyright infringment' and 'stealing' is that this 'copyright infringment' is used by most who download music as a sampler. The whole mp3 scene started out by people sharing albums digitally that other had already bought so they could listen to the music and tell if they like them. A medium not available any other way. If I like a album I downloaded ill buy it. But as I said before I strictly stray from RIAA music and I generally support artists in other ways than albums.
Moving on from this I will assess several different arguements you could make based on the last paragraph.
First of all you will probably make an argument that radio and such exist for a reason. Saddly, radio, while quite elegant for a single song by a popular audience, does not allow for people who dislike the sound of popular music to find a album they like. Furthermore the problem with radio is it gives you a simple overview of an album. One single at a time, and any other singles will take a long time to be released. Speaking from experience no one should ever buy an album based on one song.
Another idea you could make is those clip listening things you can do at most music services. Basically 30 second clips are bullshit. I will not by an album based on 30 second 64 kpbs mp3 streams. Sorry.
Frankly the only downloading programs I have used are emusic and itunes. I was strongly opposed to the drm in itunes but I think it gave almost enought freedom for me to use it to like it.
Ultimately the sad thing of all this is the RIAA should not be policing how users listen to music they purchase nor where. The biggest crime of the RIAA is misrepresenting the facts and saying the fall in album sales were caused, not by shitty albums, but by too many people downloading. Saddly this is the biggest bunch of bull and the one that is killing americans. Using these unproved lies the RIAA has terrorised those who listen to music to a point where theyre neither allowed to chose how, when, or where to listen to music they legally purchased. Instead theyre treated as if they're already criminals straight of the bat. This is what is so fucking nuts about the RIAA. They can raid indie stores illegaly with hired investigators and out a warrant. They can sue blind people, deaf and dead people, even 8 year olds. They can try to co-erce colleges into giving them ip adresses without providing proof or probable reason. But the biggest crime of theirs is treating everyone in the world as a criminal.
P.S. Also the fees charged by the RIAA for damages caused by each individual download or each individual share is beyond crazy. It is fucking nuts. Im sorry but frankly $500-$10,000 per EACH SONG DOWNLOADED per USER is nuts. If anything they should either try to sue for the cost of the cd's or the cost of the individual songs. But the amount their placing on these damages is nothing short of frivolous.
electronicmaji.wordpress.com
On 2007-04-01 13:31:47, Thea said, "spoiled children and wanna be anarchists"
I giggled a bit at my wise old age of eight when I realized that the Beatles mix tape I was making for the boy I liked (which I ended up never having the courage to give him) was stealing. I finished it and kept it for my own use'.however I must admit before I launch in having bought music legally on the internet, I have made copies for friends when interests have coincided and they are involved with education and music. I just thought I'd be upfront about that. There is a copyright law that applies with scripts, as applicable to educators, and to be honest I haven't as yet looked into how it applies to music'Honestly I need to do that.
I don't know....this whole issue has never really seemed that complicated to me. I adore the faulty logic of 'wanna be' anarchists as it continues to grow more and more convoluted'it's entertaining and allows people like Anthony and Greg the chance to sort through arguments (particularly Anthony who can apparently now spot a "loose change" argument from a mile away' Hey!'congrats). The government and the music industry FINALLY attempt to catch up with music technology and end, (albeit often in a clumsy, ham'handed way) the antics of spoiled children, and now the tactics are touted as Gestapo'like and punitive....and well....how can I put this-.how can I sum up their arguments-.
'-..Saddly this is the biggest bunch of bull and the one that is killing americans. Using these unproved lies the RIAA has terrorised those who listen to music to a point where theyre neither allowed to chose how, when, or where to listen to music they legally purchased. Instead theyre treated as if they're already criminals straight of the bat. This is what is so fucking nuts about the RIAA. They can raid indie stores illegaly with hired investigators and out a warrant. They can sue blind people, deaf and dead people, even 8 year olds. They can try to co'erce colleges into giving them ip adresses without providing proof or probable reason. But the biggest crime of theirs is treating everyone in the world as a criminal. P.S. Also the fees charged by the RIAA for damages caused by each individual download or each individual share is beyond crazy. It is fucking nuts. Im sorry but frankly $500'$10,000 per EACH SONG DOWNLOADED per USER is nuts. If anything they should either try to sue for the cost of the cd's or the cost of the individual songs. But the amount their placing on these damages is nothing short of frivolous umm for expediency all [sic]
Before I move on to my addressing of the only point in the above that can be addressed' Terrorized? Killing Americans? You are so lucky that I have no idea where to find you. I would call you' take you to Starbucks' find a nice cozy chair for the two of us' buy you your favorite drink' turn on my computer, and treat you to a slideshow from hell. This slideshow wouldn't have any pictures of 'Indie store raids-in fact, no presentations of search and seizure warrants would be included. Nope. I'd put together a little feast for your eyes from Pol Pot to Jihadist to demonstrate to you the meaning of those words so that your love for hyperbole would wane, and perhaps next time you would choose your words more carefully. Gosh thanks for that whole paragraph. I don't think I could have made that up. Really the only point I think I can respond to in that paragraph without falling on the floor laughing (sorry I'm having a flashback to an X'Files episode where a young indie punk desperately tells Mulder he WANTS to be abducted and be part of the web of lies the government has created-..ahhhh, poor little indie vibe, thou knowest not thy worth) is the one concerning the fines. O.k. bear with me. YOU. STEAL. NOTHING ELSE MOTIVATES YOU. IF THE PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY OVER THE TOP AND SCARY, MAYBE IT WILL COMPENSATE FOR YOUR OVERLY DULLED CONSCIENCE. IT'S NOT FUN, BUT IN AMERICAN CULTURE IT IS BECOMING A COMMON LEGAL PRECEDENT TO COMPENSATE FOR JERKS LIKE YOU WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY NOTHING ELSE BUT FEAR OF ECONOMIC DAMAGE, IF NOT MORAL DECAY. Ever wonder why the penalty for drunk driving or hit and run has gone up monetarily? Similar legal argument. But please, feel free to respond and tell me that I have no understanding of the facts, that I have not heard of the cases that you heard about on 'The Daily Show'-.and please thrill me with the story of the real terrorist plot against free thought by our government. I haven't heard any of it before. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go demonstrate a 'distinctness from traditional access for a couple of DVD's I borrowed. What like MGM is going to miss my money for Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj?
On 2007-04-01 14:28:00, Thea said, "oops typo in my post- spoiled children and wanna be anarchists"
oops pardon the typo in the 4th paragraph...I was trying to put in quotations the phenomenon of "indie store raids". Hate it when I typo myself.
Man! I love that image... expletives flying everywhere... misquoted, and heretofore unknown rights demanded as people are asked to wait while the items listed in the warrant are seized. The stale scent of patchouli, cannabis and plastic....and of course Taco Bell hanging in the air..and the Pies de Resistance- a mass produced poster of 'The Clash' (all hail) hanging up somewhere around the cash register...you know someone picked it up at Hot Topic when they were hanging out at the food court. Indie brothers and sisters- I salute you - hold long and pass to the right.
On 2007-04-01 17:44:03, Russell said, "In response to some of Electronicmaji's comments..."
People who argue that downloading and "copyright infringement" isn't stealing due to a lack of physical good being removed from a retail outlet obviously have a complete lack of understanding as to the production of non-physical goods. It is not required in the definition of "theft" that your act denies a legitimate customer the privilege of enjoying the same good (i.e. you took that CD so now nobody else can buy that copy).
Why should you deny hard working audio engineers, graphic designers, A&R scouts, publicists and managers as well as the artists themselves from their hard-earned pay simply because of your sense of entitlement?
It's people like this who believe that the music business is simply a stage and there is nothing in between the artist and them. How dare you suggest that it's okay to pay $10 for a shirt made by a machine with an hour of graphic design behind it, but you can't pay the same for the music of an artist and an entire community supporting them who have put blood, sweat and tears into an album. I know that for me, as a musician, my band puts a lot of effort into writing songs. We write them as an expression of self and to be entertaining to our listeners. It makes us feel whole and released. Because we enjoy what we do, that doesn't mean that we don't deserve to be compensated for it financially. If an airline pilot loves flying, does that mean that you shouldn't have to pay for your ticket?
As an engineer, I put a lot of effort into recording, mixing and mastering them. It takes me a long time to mix something until I'm content with it. I pay a lot of attention to detail. And every hour I'm mixing is another hour I'm not at work making time and a half. Do I not deserve to be paid if I sink hours and hours into a band's project? Why should they pay me? It's just music, right? I love doing it, so I should do it for free, right? Wrong. We live in a society that functions on capitalistic principles. If I don't make money, I don't survive.
There are very few people who agree with the RIAA's tactics. It's a dinosaur of a business model and they're going to have to grow up at some point (I doubt it'll happen any time soon). And while illegal downloading may be a scapegoat for them, it doesn't make the point less valid. It IS stealing if you don't have expressed permission from the owner of the copyright. It is federal law; simply because the internet makes it easily accessible doesn't make it okay. People rationalize it because it's not something physical. It's not something that they can be caught red-handed with; they don't have to look over their shoulder. These days ANYTHING, even child pornography, is easily accessible on the internet. Does that mean you should watch it? If your answer is anything shy of "NO!" please see a therapist. The fact that you can (ideally) remain anonymous in your crime does not mean that it isn't a crime. Be it a copyright infringement or a civil rights infringement, it's still against the law and it is not okay for you to do it.
You make progress by changing the system and through the proper avenues. Robin Hood tactics don't help here; all it does it potentially put you in front of misguided litigation.
And a final thought; the RIAA goes after people who download the music of its artists. If you say they put out crap, why are you downloading it anyway?
On 2007-04-03 23:12:30, Electronicmaji said, "hehe..."
Having lived in a country that at its point (before 9/11) was the most violent in the world with regular terrorist bombings and kidnappings I would have to say I am all too familiar with physical terrorism. The fact is thought there are two types of damage a person can do to another. Physical and Psychological. In this case the RIAA is waging a terroristic psychological war on the consumers of their own product. Plain and simple.
Big Brother is Watching You.
On 2007-04-04 18:30:16, My2Cents said, "Untitled"
Look,
Stop bs'ing. We all know that downloading is stealing. Some of us just get a rise from it.
The big thing is that people steal because they are sick of being overcharged. Quite frankly, the whole DRM thing is a genius idea. Sure, they can tell you when and where you can listen to the music you bought. It will piss everyone off, people will stop buying, the major labels collapse, etc etc etc.
If the Music Industry wants to be competetive, then be competetive. Stop wasting your BULLSHIT money on BULLSHIT artists. Stop 'creating' the bands...investing your resources into sorry ass artists who need so much work to release music.
Start checking out your local venues, finding REAL talent. Maybe then you wouldn't have an ROI of 17 misses, 3 hits and 1 pot of gold. Don't blame me because your a bad investor, and then worse, and even worse businessman.
You want me to buy CD's? Make them good, and make them cheap. Your paying too much to find Good? too fucking bad.
I will laugh when in a few years, the internet and FREE MUSIC ( music intentionally put out free ) reign, and REAL talent begins earning their due performing live, and selling their merch...like you had to do when you had that garage band? remember? You can't copy a live performance...so there is your $$$. Get your music out so that you grow your audience, and then TOUR.
over and out.
lol.
On 2007-04-04 18:39:12, My2Cents said, "Untitled"
Me again...
Just a final comment.
If milk started to cost upwards $20 a gallon, believe you me i would be at your barn siphoning your cow.
As a matter of fact if gasoline keeps this up...I'm def gonna learn how to siphon gas, so better start locking your gas tank. LOL.
On 2007-04-07 13:17:08, Russell said, "Logic"
To My2Cents:
It's one thing if a person is pushed to criminal behavior for survival and necessity, but for music? Music is a luxury. It's entertainment. There IS free music out there. You want to know why it isn't popular? Because there is nobody to promote it and deliver it to the masses because nobody is going to invest those kinds of resources into something that is intentionally not going to make money.
Music is not like gas or milk. You want free music? Ever heard of a radio? Or internet radio? Hard to use the 'everything sucks' argument with that.
Have you ever said "man I really liked that tank of Chevron I filled up on last week, I'm gonna drive that tank again"? Music is not sold, licensed or used in the same manner; bad analogy.
Now I do agree that there is some bad price inflation CD's and the RIAA's business model sucks. It's no longer the most effective vehicle for art in today's market. It's disgraceful how poorly they manage their investments. However A&R reps DO go to venues, they listen for buzz and they watch who's selling on CDbaby. It's uncommon for them to invest in something that hasn't already proven it can generate a following.
I do not disagree one iota that the whole system needs to be revamped. But I fail to see how stealing is going to make the situation better. It's the most selfish and counter-productive thing you can do in this situation. Probably the most offensive part of your rant is how funny you think your sense of entitlement is. It's not funny at all. It's a shame. You make some good points and at the core we agree, but I think your method is only going to make things worse.
On 2007-04-11 16:09:27, Kaveman said, "The bottom line (as I see it)"
You give a person the option of stealing profit from a recording company by downloading a song for free illegally, and buying that same song for $1 with DRM attached (and most likely in a format/bitrate inferior to the digital copies a person makes of their own CD's), and the benefits outweigh the costs/risk every time. That's capitalism, and anyone who behaves differently is following a moral standard, not the rules of pure capitalism.
That's really the problem here: both sides of the equation here are motivated by capitalism, not morality. The RIAA has attempted to deal with their problem in a capitalistic way, by increasing cost/risk side of the equation for illegal downloading. This has been done without any consideration to the morality of their actions, thus consumers are angry. Looking at this objectively, downloaders who weigh risk/benefit are no more evil than the RIAA lawyers suing everyone without evidence, or the RIAA member who stated in court that CD's (which can be scratched easily, sometimes by the very CD players that they are used in, a fact known by the RIAA) are replaceable at a 'reasonable cost' (read: financially beneficial not to the consumer as a rights holder, but to the RIAA), that's why their policy does not allow for backups to be considered 'fair use'.
Both sides want something from the other in unlimited quantities, and both should be protected by law (moral rules) to keep either side from taking advantage. In our society, law protects (and rightfully so) the record companies and artists involved in music production/distribution. Unfortunately, Nader and the boys aren't as active as they used to be, and the consumer these days has no real advocate, leading to a sense of frustration. It also doesn't help that for 99% of these cases, you have one party that is financially challenged as the defendant and a large, rich corporation as the plantiff. The distribution of wealth in this country is not 'fair' or 'moral', but it is capitalistic, leaving everyone to deal with their current situation as a capitalist, not a moralist. The inability to deal capitalistically with a lawsuit brought by the RIAA tends to cause 'moral' indignation, because anyone forced to act against their will judges that action by their will, usually coming to the conclusion that they have had their rights violated, regardless of logic or whether they actually voice that opinion. This is why by and large people empathize with the person stealing music, and create some rather illogical reasons for doing so, many of which have been stated here.
I think the watershed line will be drawn when music companies release DRM-free music at a realistic cost (i.e. total cost MINUS the cost of the physical medium). I don't know what that number is, but it's certainly less than what songs are going for from online services such as ITunes (compare the price of a CD at Walmart to buying those tracks individually online, they're practially the same). Personally, this whole issue made me discover the used CD services available on A-----n.com. I've been able to legally buy just about anything I've ever wanted in terms of music for what I feel are very reasonable rates, and no worrying about being taken to court/guilty conscience, within the bounds of a capitalistic system.
Also, to the person who said that change should only be made through the proper venues, I'd like to challenge you with the American Revolution, and a system of government that derives it's "just powers from the consent of the governed". In reality, there are no 'proper' venues, only a consensus among the members of any society. A consensus is the only thing that differentiates a democracy from a totalitarian system of government. If we cannot come to a consensus and act on our decision, we are destined to be ruled by the opinions and interests of those who control the resources of inherent value in our society, and those who hold political power, often with considerable overlap between the two.
Sorry this was so long everyone, have a nice day.
On 2007-04-11 17:44:31, Jorgen said, "The common misconceptions that drive these posts..."
************* This comment is subject to copyright limitations. *************
Since this is an argument that resurfaces from time to time, I would like to chime in once again.
This reply could be to anyone, but I'll choose Russel as the winner today:
.The short answer to your question is 'no'. You do not get paid for every thing you do, whether it benefits society or not. You get paid for what people perceive value in. If someone receives value from a good or service that you provide, they *may* wish to compensate you to provide that good or service. This is very different from you being *entitled* to receiving compensation for that good or service.
As a brief analogy, let's say I spend 100 hours painting a mural on the pavement of my driveway. It's an incredible mural; Michelangelo-quality. Everyone agrees that it is in fact the best mural they have ever seen. In the course of painting my mural I gave up my time, I spent about $1000 on paint and supplies and even had to take time off afterwards because I was so burned out. Now let's say you walk by and take a picture of my mural and I start running down the driveway after you shouting "Hey, you can't do that! I spent hours creating that mural!" You are admittedly baffeled. I had clearly painted the mural for people to see, I seem to have taken great pride in that mural so why am I suddenly upset that you're taking a picture of it?
Well it turns out *I* was going to take a picture of it and start selling those pictures. I tell you that you'll have to delete the picture you just took and you become indignant. "No way! I spent the money on the camera, I drove out here, I took the picture and you left your driveway open where anyone could see your mural!". So, you go home with your picture of my driveway, blow up the picture and start handing copies out to your friends. Well, now my mural-photo sales have dwindled, I'm out the time and effort and you don't see that you did anything wrong.
It's interesting that the analogy isn't much different from the situation you're in but somehow, people see one action as 'stealing' and the other as completely natural. By copying your album, I'm not actually depriving you of anything but *potential* revenue. Just because I downloaded a song or album, does not mean I would have felt there was enough value to warrant the purchase of your poduct. In the same way you might not feel obligated to pay me for the mural I created that you took a picture of. After all, you didn't ask me to make the mural, I wasn't forced to make the mural and nobody said they wanted the mural done. Just because you enjoyed looking at my mural, does that mean I am entitled to be paid for my work? Once again, the answer is no. I took a risk by painting it, hoping I could make money at it. Whether I make money at it is up to the quality of my business model, my product, and the value of my product as perceived by others. Just as people do not have a *right* to listen to music, you do *not* have a right to make money from it, no matter how much blood, sweat or tears you put into producing it.
Now, you'll note my copyright statement at the top of this comment. If you have read to the bottom of this post, you have benefitted from my wisdom and experience. It took me a great deal of time to post this comment and I believe I should be compensated as a result. Please send me your mailing address so that I can forward you a bill.
On 2007-04-11 19:04:20, Russell said, "Say what?"
Jorgen,
"You do not get paid for every thing you do, whether it benefits society or not." I never argued this point.
I think you're completely missing the scheme of how this works. I charge bands to record them. They then sell those recordings. Consumers think they deserve this band's CD for free and steal copies. Therefore the band (not making money from this) is unable to pay their managers, publicist, graphic designers and audio engineers. By saying you shouldn't pay for music, you're also saying that the people who help create and deliver it do not deserve to be paid for it.
Your scenario and mine are completely different. In your scenario, I'm recording them for free and expecting money on the back end from sales. It's crazy to think we should be paid for everything we do. If you think that's what I was saying, re-read my posts.
It's a very basic economic model. Bands (or labels) pay for recordings of the music which are then sold. If they don't sell any, they don't pay to make more. You assume that I get paid from the sales; this is untrue. But the loss of "potential" revenue can cause this system to collapse. The act being, in the end, illegal. Just because the crime doesn't deprive other consumers of the same product, suddenly it's justifiable? You're rationalizing theft. Wether YOU place value on it or not doesn't mean that the creators and copyright holders don't place value on it.
Not only that, but what I'm talking about would be more like someone scanned one of your professional photos and was handing them out freely right next to your photo-stand. Your scenario has very little relevance to what is being discussed.
As far as valuing a good, if I decided I didn't value a Honda Accord at the asking price, that doesn't mean that I have the go-ahead to steal it. If I don't like the price I won't buy it. I'll look for it someplace cheaper. The manufacturer doesn't inherently deserve to be paid for it if it never sells. But someone enjoying that product has to pay for it. End of story.
On 2007-04-12 07:58:20, Damon Allen Davison said, "Points to ponder"
A few notes on the post and the comments:
1. Making mix tapes happens on such a small scale that it's probably even beneficial to artists who get recommended from friend to friend. Putting an album up on a Bittorrent tracker allows thousands to download it. I haven't seen too many people who've made their own mixed playlists and put them up for download.
2. Equating the price of what is stolen to the price of a blank CD or CD manufacturing costs is just silly. Think about it.
3. Independent artists from all the companies I know of keep all the money they make on their tours. The label doesn't pay a per diem, but may contribute an advance as "tour support" and hopes for a vut on the merch(andise) the artists sell at their shows.
4. Advances in the independent recording industry usually just cover recording costs because the labels can't afford more.
5. It isn't right to download someone's music for free if that person did not agree to it.
6. The RIAA are not a label; you can't sign a recording deal with them. They have plenty of members, though. You can watch out for them.
On 2007-04-12 21:31:46, dave said, "think on THIS"
hey man, nice write up. I mostly agree with you on your points. I completely disagree with almost any justification arguments that are so commonly put forth for the illegal piracy of music. I don't really give a damn whether it is physical or digital, you didn't buy something that cost somebody else money. Is it a perfect system? Not even remotely, in fact, it's pathetic. But truths aren't changed by flaws.
Now the point which does remain valid is the one for previewing movies and music. When i want to buy a shirt, i get to look at the WHOLE THING FIRST. No store tells you that you can only see 10% of it, then make your choice based on that. If i want to buy music or a movie, i want to know how good it is. If it sucks, then why on earth would i pay money for it??? So you know what? I download music and movies illegally so I can go and buy them legally (and intelligently). Now, you would be right if you argued that there's a super big loophole in my technique, that i don't have to buy the real deal if i already downloaded it. You'd be 100% right, but you would also be 100% wrong. Hands down my fav. TV show ever is futurama. Through excellent dvd sales, it will be back on the air for another season starting 2008. For the record, i illegally downloaded every episode, then i went and bought all four seasons. What it comes down to for me is that i want to buy quality stuff. My collection of 250 LEGAL DVD'S says that i'm a pretty honest guy about it.
Each american has the duty to follow our laws. But those same laws also govern the RIAA. I buy the music and movies that i like. I support quality work. I am an honest consumer. I legally buy my fucking entertainment. The RIAA assholes who monitor my IP on torrents don't know that, and they aren't respecting my privacy, or my LEGAL FUCKING ENTITLEMENTS under the bill of rights. My computer is my private property, i don't enjoy people using that privacy against me. If i like a piece of work then i buy it, i follow the law, now the ball is in the RIAA's court to adapt to the times and follow suit.
-dave
On 2007-04-13 03:05:50, Kim said, "What really IS the problem?"
WARNING! Long post ahead.
I think Jorgen and Russel nails each end of this discussion. Both are correct, as far as I'm concerned. And I think that without seeing both ends, the discussion will never be complete.
First, I want to point out that DON'T think anyone is *entitled* to downloading, that the "it's not a physical object" stuff is basically nonsense (not without merit, but basically nonsense), and the fact that RIAA or their brothers and sisters in whatever country I or you happen to live in are a**holes gives anyone any rights. Neither do I think that all forms of downloading copyrighted music is wrong, as in morally and ethically wrong.
One ingredient often missing in these discussions is the fact that every serious survey, at least that I've seen, say that on average people who download music DOES NOT buy less music. That means that downloading ISN'T depriving either musicians, technicians or others from money due them. Unless you argue that downloading happened to coincide with a sudden and overpowering increase in peoples desire to acquire – and pay for – music.
What I feel happening are several things. First, there are the compulsive downloaders. They download for the sake of the downloading, because they can, and because they are in love with the technology. And they download A LOT. I know some of them. They collect tens of gigabytes of music, most of which they never listen to. They would never, ever buy that stuff. Unlawful? Sure, in most countries. Does really it matter? No. It's just like those who taped every episode of hit lists back when taping was it.
Second, there are the searchers. "I've heard stuff about this band, I wonder if they're really any good?" They use downloading as a means to discover new bands. Sure, they probably on occasion keep a downloaded version instead of buying something they really like. But the surveys seem to indicate that's rare. I know some of these as well.
Third, there are the casual listeners, who use downloading as a sort of more controllable alternative to radio. And just like they wouldn't run out and buy every radio track they listen to, neither do they – or would they – buy every downloaded track they listen to. I even know some of these.
So, what's the point here? Well, what do we want to achieve? Really??? Do we want good artists to keep receiving their rightful money? Do we want to uphold the letter of the law? Do we want to uphold some principle? For me the first one of these is the obvious answer, and the answer I think both the second and the third are here for. If this is the case, if the rightful income of the artists are what we are discussing, then the problem seems to be quite small. As I pointed out, most (all?) of the serious surveys say that downloading does not affect CD sales. The net effect of downloading then is that people can listen to more music, or music more in the way they want to listen to it (download vs radio) without anyone suffering financially for it. If you want to argue against downloading from an artist's economic point of view, you then first have to refute these surveys.
But, there has been a decline in CD sales, that has more or less coincided with downloading. What's up with that? Crap music is a popular scapegoat, and while I think it might have something to do with it, I thinks it's marginal. This decline has also coincided with mass access to the internet, with an explosion in home accessible film and TV, with the mass rise of computer gaming, online societies, and so on. Do you really expect someone playing WoW ten, twenty or forty hours a week to listen to – and buy – the same amount of music as their peers did ten years ago? Music has much, much tougher competition today, and I believe that's what cutting into CD sales. Really, it would be flabbergasting if it didn't.
To conclude, I'd like to say that while I don't see downloading music as a big problem, I DO see it as a problem. It IS illegal in many countries, and it DOES run afoul of copyright. However, fighting the wrong fight (musicians are losing money, CD sales are dropping because of it, etc.) won't solve the problem. I don't know how to solve this, but seeing the problem for what it is surely must be the first step. I don't pay every time I visit a web page, despite the fact that hordes of very talented (and some not so talented ...) people have spent hours, days and weeks on these web pages. I pay a road tax once a year (at least in my country we do), and then I can drive on any road I want. I pay my taxes and then pay a nominal fee to go to the museum. I watch a gazillion TV channels without paying (yes I do, but not directly, and I pay whether I watch or not – this is not a solution I would prefer for music ...). There must be a solution for music also. The present situation is broken, whether we like it or not, and no name calling or suing is going to fix that.
On 2007-04-13 08:38:43, Ballgame said, "Are we having a legal or moral agument here?"
I'm confused.
On one hand, we could argue the legalities of music sharing for years... hence the legal argument that has been going on for years in this country. On the other hand, we can argue about the morality of music sharing and whether or not it is just for us to share an artist's work without permission... these are two different topics (as Bertrand Russell would say).
Regarding #1) Sharing art is not illegal. In fact, art is intended by our (the US's) original IPLs (Intellectual Property Laws) to become "free domain" and usable by anyone, for any reason (including profit) after a certain length of time. This length of time has been changing due to Walt Disney Co. litigating to change the IPLs repeatedly to protect their original assets (Mickey Mouse, etc.).
However, sharing of art, after any length of time, has historically never been illegal (i.e. libraries). Art is for the public good and the commentary art makes regarding individuals, society, etc., has historically been intended (in the US) for as many of the "masses" as it can reach. This is because art is important at the time it is created... and the limiting of its sharing is, in effect, a limitation of free speech. However, certain protections have always been provided to the originator of the art by copywrite law to encourage the creation of new art (i.e. citations when quoting, distribution for resale, etc.).
Therefore, distributing art for profit without consent is illegal, and has always been.
In regards to all of this, various business (and heavily lobbied governmental agencies/officials) have waged legal war. Because, at the end of the day this is about money... and in America, money rules and the common man's access to art be damned.
So I would suggest we, as a group, start taking a hard look at the litigation and resulting policies/laws that are affecting our access to art... Section 1201(a)(2) of the Digital Millennium Copywrite Act, etc., etc. The RIAA is not selling the art, but the are selling the value added to the art... i.e. the medium (album, tape, cd), professionally printed graphics/album art/song listings/song lyrics/etc, the format by which the art is compressed, etc.
So.. this leads us to point #2: Is sharing art moral... well, depending on your view of morality and justice: Sure it is. You should be able to listen to that music. You have a right as an American to here anything you please! This informs and educates our populace. Just don't make money from the distribution without the artist's permission.
I suppose the bottom line is that all these court cases, all these threatening letters, and all these new laws, are mostly an injustice to our populace. They are initiated, fought for, and won be folks just looking to make more money and protect their shareholder assets. This DOES NOT make these institutions right... it just makes them sane. Protect your rights to share, download, and access art - do not give in to the corporate bullying and finessing of copywrite law!
On 2007-04-13 10:25:38, Anthony said, "Wow"
I had no idea this stupid blog post would generate so much interest. Apparently, it's quite a hot topic.
I think we're arguing a questions of ethics and morals rather than physical law. At least, that's my approach to it. There are things that aren't technically illegal, but are certainly immoral. Just ask any politician or Wal-Mart executive. :) In my eyes, the motives and ethics behind your actions are more important (and interesting) than the law itself.
I think there are some great arguments being presented here and some pretty bad ones. The bottom line is that the RIAA is betting on an archaic business model and using immoral and unethical means of "protecting" their product. We, as normal people, should comply to the law and be aware of where we give our money. If you hate the RIAA, don't support them. I don't care how much you like an artist that's tied to the RIAA... don't support them by buying albums. And certainly don't steal that music. Go to concerts and see your favorite acts, purchase their merchandise, etc. But, if you've really got such a problem with the RIAA, don't buy the product. Simple as that.
I guess what gets me upset is people justifying their "copyright infractions" because of the politics that surround the product. Music is a luxury. I don't go around complaining about how Digidesign charges for ridiculous upgrades all the time to Pro Tools. Instead, I just won't upgrade to version 7.3 until I absolutely need to. I don't want to support their business model. And I'll probably move to Logic because Apple seems to have their act together with their pricing model. Will I miss Pro Tools and lose a little something? Probably. But, I'm not entitled to complain about it because I *WILLINGLY* BOUGHT INTO THEIR BUSINESS MODEL in the first place.
On 2007-04-29 20:51:37, Christopher Bingham said, "The Commons"
The point or "framework" of the situation with digital downloads that the RIAA wants you to overlook is that a person can't "own" an idea. Once you've heard the song, (or poem or seen the painting) it's out of the box and you can't put it back. "Copyright" is a government granted, limited monoploy on the chattel (the physical manifestation) of a uniquley expressed idea. The purpose of copyright is to "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusiove right to their inventions and discoveries " - in other words, the state grants a limited monopoly IN ORDER to preserve the commons.
The chattel associated with the work that I'm purchasing, is mine to do as I please. I can burn it, cut it up, paste it back together, whatever. Including share it with my friends. We have the right to play DVD for our family without sending money to the studio every time we watch it. (Which is waht the RIAA would have us do if they could)
In the case of didgital downloads, I'm using my machine to share the work with my friends. The digital age has made it easy to share it with *many* friends, but it is not stealing.
The major labels have paid a lot of money to lobbyists to get Congress to change the original meaning of copyright to benefit the corporate copyright holders, and a lot of money promoting the idea that "sharing" is "stealing" but just because the labels can pay for Congress to corrupt the definition of copyright, that doesn't make the reality of the commons dissapear.
I've been writing an recording music for over 30 years. Anything I've accomplished has been outside the monopolistic channels of the major label's set up. They've had it pretty good for the last 50 years - they could buy all the broadcast radio time they wanted and shut competitive artists out of any meaningful markets by controlling airplay and distribution channels. They controlled not only what they offer, but also what people could easily *hear* - and now they are losing control of that and indies are grabbing market share., and when that happens, bang, there goes your mercedes Mr Musicwidget-man.
The way I've paid studio musicians and engineers is by getting people to donate to my projects becuse they believe in what I have to say and want to see the music out there. If 1000 people download my songs and ONE more person buys the cd (the chattel) because they heard it, that's a sale I would never have had before the internet.
It's not college kids downloading tunes that are stealing, it's the RIAA who is working to monopolize the internet that is stealing from ALL of us.