How Do YOU Feel About File-Sharing Music/Video

[Robert]

First of all, this is a bit of a hot topic, so let's be civil here.

I am interested to hear your thoughts this whole illegal music downloading/sharing scenario we are experiencing.

There's some people who argue that it's a good way to sample before you buy, and that it in fact helps sell more as a result. Really? As a whole, I personally doubt that. There's a lot of bums who like to get stuff for free, and never intend to buy what they "sampled".

Some people argue that the record companies are so large and wealthy and can afford that some people steal what they are selling. That might be true to some degree, but there are many small record companies trying to run a business selling music they love. If they fail, the artists themselves may fail too. Very few artists are great business people, and they often need skilled people in the areas of promotion and selling what they create.

My feeling is that we may end up with a society where everyone think it's normal to go to a torrent site and start downloading whatever you want. There's some logic in trying before you buy, if you do buy something in the end. I just wonder what the real ratio is, in reality. Download 1000 songs and buy how many? 5? or 50?

Personally, I think that if the creators ultimately benefit financially from the theft, then all is good. Perhaps more people will come to a band's tour gigs, or go see the special 3D screening of a cool movie (Avatar). It might cut off some middle men, and perhaps that's a good thing too, I don't know.

However, if the artists aren't getting paid for their hard work, well then that means no food on the table for them, and perhaps in the end we won't have certain artists around anymore. Perhaps there will just be artists like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus around to "sample". That would suck.

I have certainly "sampled" music too sometimes. I try not to, and instead I check out music on youtube instead. If youtube allows it, it should be okay. I don't sample movies though; that takes too long to download - I'll rather just buy a DVD for 10 bucks somewhere. I also legally download (and pay for) a lot of music from iTunes. It's very convenient.

How do you feel about the subject? It's an ethical issue for sure, and I think it's important to discuss, especially with younger people. "Everybody does it", is a poor argument, but I have heard teenagers say that many times. As a parent, I find this topic can be a bit difficult to talk to teenagers about.

[sunvalleylaw]

I don't do it. I feel an artist, and those that contribute to the rest of the chain, recording, producing, marketing, distributing, etc. need to be paid. If an artist sells direct, like Dick Dale, and lots of other indie artists, then they should get paid too. So I don't get the whole "get it for free because you can" thing.

I will also say that the traditional music industry had played a significant role in causing the problem. And I also believe that some of the enforcement crap that has gone on is ridiculous. As usual, targeting the wrong people. I mean when you read about some individual facing some massive penalty as a consumer. Sure they shouldn't have done it, but the penalty often seems way out of hand (based on the media reports). But as always, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Ch0jin]

...And I also believe that some of the enforcement crap that has gone on is ridiculous....

It's not just legal threats anymore either. I had a major French company in the enforcement business basically running what amounts to a DoS attack on me.

They were port scanning me trying to intercept BT traffic every few seconds, for weeks. Soon as I found out (hello 4GB log file) I took appropriate action.

BT file-sharing is NOT illegal. It's sharing of copyrighted material thats illegal.

Some of these "big brother" companies seem to feel that just running a BT client like Vuze is cause for weeks and weeks of non-stop port scanning and packet sniffing just to see if I'm going to up copyrighted material belonging to one of their clients. (I've never uploaded copyright material, period) Isn't that basically a 21st century illegal wiretap?

Also, given that my IP is clearly in a range used by Australian ISP's, where the heck does a French company get off even looking? It's not like they could prosecute even if I was sharing illegal material.

Wow, I guess I was more pi**ed about that than I thought! I feel better now.

I wish I knew the answer to balancing peoples desire for free stuff with keeping everyone paid, but I just don't. The discussion should also include convenience too. You can download a whole album faster than I can find my car keys, let alone get to the record store. That's also a big factor I feel.

Oh and on the OTT prosecutions and threats to -downloaders-.

It's the same as throwing the kid with the dime bag in gaol for 20 years and not bothering with the dealer.

No up's = no down's If you wanna hunt, hunt the uploaders, not the downloaders.

[Kazz]

Sticky subject. Suffice it to say I know what torrenting is....and I know about torrent clients. I have never uploaded anything, but I do download.....more sporting events than anything I guess....but here is my thought on downloading music.

How many times do you buy a cd to find out there is only 1 good song on it. Yet you would have to pay the 10.99 + to buy the entire cd to get that one decent song. There are some exceptions to the rule. Tesla I would pay any price for their cds because EVERY song is great in my opinion. The Black Crows "Shake Your Money Maker" is another one that you can listen to from top to bottom and over and over again.

That is not the case with most cds that are released.....they contain way too much filler. I do not nor will I ever pay for and download music via Itunes. I will buy Apple products such as the Ipod and Ipod Touch....but I am not paying them a dollar or more to download a single song.

What I would like to see is a pay to play or download service where you pay say $20 - $50 a month to download as much as you want music wise. Those fees would of course go to the artist with a share going to the service provider......heck each label could have their own provider....that part I do not care about.

Make it similar to Netflix.....(Sarcasm)then of course you have all these tech smart kids who are uploading and downloading everything from Mom's cooking recipe's to secrets of the United Nations. (/Sarcasm)

[Eric]

Complicated subject, Robert! Just in writing this, I thought of about 30 different aspects in this discussion.

Overall, I think it's fine. Basically, the face of music is changing, and those who want it to go back to what it was will need to eventually come around to the new business model. I just don't see the industry going back to what it was. Availability of music content is SO much greater than it used to be, and it falls more on the end user to figure out how they want to support the industry.

I have emailed record companies before, telling them what it would take for me to be on board with buying my music from them (considering the alternatives), but nothing changed. Surprise, right? The point is that the knowledge is out there for what it would take to bring a large segment of the population back to paying for music, but the companies don't want to do that. They want to play on their terms, even after that's been proven not to work.

I still pay for most music and go to shows, but I wish I didn't have to work around the infrastructure so much. A paypal account for artists would be a nice option, but that would ignore all of the other people involved in bringing the music into my world.

I expect to be crucified by many many self-righteous people for writing this, so have at it.

[sunvalleylaw]

Nah Eric, no crucifixion necessary. Just your opinion. I hear what you are saying. I get that there needs to be a new business model, but plain taking something because you can doesn't seem to build any sort of sustainable model.

Kazz, I although I guy from iTunes, I also buy by the song from Amazon. Just as convenient and sometimes cheaper. Then I don't have to buy filler. I used to really feel the same way you did about albums back in the 80s when you really could not buy individual songs except for vinyl singles. And I did not want to buy those.

[Retro Hound]

With things like iTunes and Amazon and many indie labels selling individual songs the whole "I don't want to buy the whole CD for one song" argument is no longer relevant.

The way I see it, theft is theft, no matter who you are stealing from. Just because it's a "rich" company doesn't make it right. Just because I don't like the way the system is set up now doesn't make it right.

I've downloaded a few songs, I usually end up either deleting them or buying the CD. I really do "sample." Is this a song I want to hear over and over, or is hearing it occasionally on the radio enough? A month in rotation usually tells me the answer.

I buy a lot second-hand at garage sales and such. But that is something that has always been, it's not another copy of the item, there is a limited number of physical items. I've got almost 1000 albums and 400 CDs, so I do actually purchase stuff I like.

[Spudman]

I don't really 'feel' either way about it. Now it's more a case of the cat already being let out of the bag, what are you going to do NOW?

There has got to be some marketing alternative and security alternative to the current situation. Otherwise, our music availability and the musicians creating the music wont be able to survive.

Most of what the artist needs a record company for now is for promotion, distribution and the advance money to create the project. If a paradigm shift will happen with those issues then maybe some form of the industry will survive and flourish. Without the promotion machine in place the days of 'rock stars' is probably going to be over. It will become a culture of folks with a studio in their home marketing their music however they can. There will certainly be a lot of great music, but probably no domination of personality such as we've seen with Madonna, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift etc.

With our current technology making it so easy to disperse music all over the world in an instant, there really is a security issue, but there is also an incredible opportunity. It's just a matter of finding a way to make it work.

I do think the record companies have been raping artists for too long and I welcome the chance to put more money back into the pockets of the artist where it rightfully belongs. There are just a couple of issues to solve before that can happen. I'm sure there are a lot of smart people with their thinking caps on trying to figure this one out. I would be tickled if I was the one to solve the problem because it would probably make me very wealthy. And that, my friends, is going to be the motivational force to solve this. Money will find a solution.

[deeaa]

Um,

Yep this is complicated.

My take is...I have bought, what, I dunno, something like 600-700 Cd's or DVD's in my life. Quite a few of those I've also bought - the same albums I mean - also on LP before that, and a few also on cassette. Now I've ripped 'em all to my iPod and tossed the physical discs somewhere. I've soon bought a hundred Xbox games and satan knows how many pieces of sofware and such over the years for the PC, starting with every single version of Windows releases since 3.11.

I've bought music off iTunes or other web stores too.

But it's complex. I really listen to very little new music most of the time. I really don't want to pay anything if I'm going to listen to the album maybe twice, and even then maybe just sample a few of the songs on it.

So yeah, I rip a lot of stuff from friends...you can borrow CD's and DVD's from libraries or your friends and rip those...and it's completely legal here too, or leech off the Internet, which is legal as well - just hosting files is kind of illegal, downloading isn't.

Now if I really come accross a CD rip I really like, that don't automatically mean I'd go out and buy it. I might if I see it on sale somewhere later. But I'm more likely to buy the next album from the band.

Spotify is also completely changing the ballpark...my wife listens to it all the time. I never listen to radio or such, so we basically listen to spotify anywhere.

I just wondered about this when I was traveling.

We would be in the hotel, and rather than watch some local telly, we'd just stream the shows that are running off the web. I guess those services are largely at least semi-illegal, but, the way I see it, I anyway pay for my TV use and cable in several different ways, I can quite legally record thousands of hours of TV material on my web recording server and watch them any time (I never watch live TV really - why should I?) so if I find sites where I can just stream Finnish-subtitled TV series and movies anywhere in the world, I see no problem with using it, even if it happens to be 'gray area'.

Then we'd also have Spotify running a lot of the time...and seriously, I dunno why I keep lugging even the iPod anywhere any more, because I have wireless internet on all of my machines including phones and can just keep Spotify going and it's all included in the fixed monthly price.


Yes, I think that in a few years most if not all music, films and software will not only be free but also not installed on people's machines but rather just streamed there.

Think of how it is now - I walk around in London and I can just stream music from spotify and use Google Maps to navigate, everything comes off the Internet and no need to think about storaging music, installing maps etc.

That's how it's gonna be pretty soon in everything.

I don't see much point in owning and buying physical copies of films, music, books, games, hell even money, when it all can be handled in the digital domain so much easier.

To hell with all physical things that can be digital, and I do believe it will soon prove impossible to stop people from pirating everything if they want too.

[marnold]

For years the recording industry dug in their heels and refused to do anything for digital downloads. I wrote something for a website I used to write for probably 10 years ago calling on them to offer a service much like what Amazon's download service has become. My point was make it legal, easy to access, and relatively inexpensive and pirating becomes less worthwhile. But they fought it and fought it until it was too late.

Add to this the fact that the recording industry, in contempt of Congress, continued to artificially inflate the cost of CDs for years. On top of that, every time you buy blank recordable media, a portion of the price goes right to the recording industry, under the assumption that it will be used for piracy. Nevertheless, piracy remains illegal. There's also examples of movies/music that I wanted to buy for years, but it simply was not available anywhere. The most notable example for me was "Spinal Tap" which you couldn't buy because they were trying to drive up demand for the anniversary DVD/VHS.

I feel badly for people trying to break into the music industry, but those feelings are tempered every time I watch something like "Behind the Music" and see how successful artists blew all their money on drugs, etc. I don't feel very bad if downloading is cutting into someone's heroin habit. I get irritated when I have to do something that is, at best, legally dubious in order to play DVDs that I bought on my Linux box. I'm also irritated that the consequences for downloading copyrighted material are greater than running over your next-door neighbor with your car.

I buy all my MP3 stuff legally from Amazon. I'm never going to buy music that is DRM-encumbered, basically leaving it up to the whims of the likes of Apple and the recording industry to determine when and on what devices I can listen to music I legally purchased.

[deeaa]

Well if you think how little of a CD's cost goes to the musician...

Anyway, as you say, the only way to fight piracy is to make legal use even easier and cheap enough not to matter.

Right now, I can for instance decide to watch, say Shutter Island.

Option 1: just download it off the web in full HD to my media player hooked to my telly BUT I can't be sure of the quality, sound and such. The download could take 35 minutes OR it could take a full day depending on traffic and seeders. Plus side, it'll have Finnish subtitles if I grab those too.

Option 2: watch it off the Xbox in live streaming OR download to HD and watch. FullHD as well, can start watching immediately, and assured quality - costs a few bucks. BUT no Finnish text available.

Option 3: watch it live streaming from a video rental service over my Digital Receiver, which is even cheaper, but no full HD available. Still, Finnish text available.

These days, I use the Xbox most. I don't need the texts. Still, they're good to have especially if you watch with low volume at night. Even English text for the hearing impaired would be nice. Once they get the texting issue dealt with, I don't think I'll resort to either two other options no more.

But one thing is for sure: I will never even remotely consider buying the movie as Blu-Ray or DVD or whatever, and basically just contribute to all the waste out there already - not to mention tenfold the price.

[deeaa]

(come to think of it, there's many other options to watch the film still.)

4 - download in iPod format, watch off that
5 - download as xVid and watch on the telephone
(both options easy in that it'll be like 300 meg download, i.e. seconds or minutes to get it)
6 - watch it off some probably illegal Internet streaming service
7 - walk to the nearby library and borrow it for the night for free (unless it's out just now, they usually don't have very many copies of films, especially new ones)

But yeah, I think I'll fire up the Xbox...it's so easy with that. And absolutely legal yet very cheap too & good quality.

[deeaa]

And still...now that I read what I just wrote it just makes me wonder why on earth should I ever buy any music in physical format either any more.

Not that I have, in a loooong time. But I guess it's only now hitting home how archaic it's getting to be.

[Robert]

To me, the worst problem here is the musicians are suffering from illegal downloads. Most of them NEED their record companies to help them get their music out there. It's not about the "record companies can afford it anyway" - without them, many artists would be starving.

Quote from a Scott Henderson, full time musician and one of the greatest guitar players on earth:


Here's what happens if I blow off working with record companies. First of all, goodbye to my advance, which covers all the recording costs including paying the musicians, including myself. And where will I get the money for five to ten magazine ads? Guitar Player and Down Beat charge about 4000 per ad. Who's going to pay the publicist 2000 a week for the first month of the release, to call all the magazines for interviews and reviews? Who's going to market to radio? Not that it's a giant market for jazz, but the right phone call from an established label can get results. Should I quit practicing and writing and go into the record selling business? No thanks, I'd rather let professionals handle that and I'll concentrate on making music.

The label I've been on for many years is run by Mike Varney, one of the most honest people I've ever known. Now Mike tells me that he can't give me the same recording advances he could before, because half my fans will buy my record and the other half will download it for free. Mr. Pantload says the music industry should die and we musicians should just use the Internet. Great idea, that should put millions of people out of work. Let's do away with the film industry too - actors and directors should also work for free. Well, let's give James Cameron a 100 dollar budget for Avatar 2. He can do it on YouTube and we'll all watch it on our laptops. Hey Pantload, get a clue. I don't know what business you're in, but let's say you've got the brains to be a shoe salesman. What if I said the shoe industry should die? That makes about as much sense as what you're saying. Before you wish for the death of the record business, first try to make a living as a musician.


For most musicians, our CD is our art - we work our asses off on it and when it's done, we feel like we've given birth. It's a big deal. Knowing that people are going to get it for free doesn't exactly inspire us to make another one.

[Heywood Jablomie]

Like the drug war and other ill-conceived law enforcement efforts, the ongoing battle between the recording industry and individuals is ultimately pointless. And just like the drug war, if you remove 1 supplier, there will be another to fill the void. Kazaa got zapped, but did that stop pirating? Nope - LimeWire filled the void. LimeWire just got shut down, but there's Torrent as well as many other sources. The fact is, millions of people have computers and will use them to copy all sorts of copyrighted info, not just music or video. And the fact is, the recording industry exists in a brand new paradigm where they cannot control distribution in the way that they'd like. They can beat on the legal angles all they want and still will not be able to accomplish what they desire. New technologies are a challenge to old technologies. When digital imaging started to become the standard for photography, the film industry had to adapt or die. Such is business. Will Kindle and other electronic book devices spark a book pirating phenomenon that'll become the next pointless legal battle? Probably. Setting an example by depriving an individual of their freedom or taking their money in the form of fines for copying music is barbaric and non-productive. So, we can argue right/wrong, ethical/unethical, etc. until we're blue in the face, but it changes nothing. I don't know what the answer is, but the law ain't it. Ultimately, the law will not be a relavent factor in the success or failure of recording artists and the industry, in general.

[sunvalleylaw]

I will add one thing, I personally really like full albums that were made to be listened in a certain order, at one sitting. It may be a "story" type one, like "The Wall" or it might be just a suite of music exploring a theme, like "Kind of Blue". In addition to individual downloads, I hope the powers that be can figure it out so that artists can collaborate with visual artists, etc. to use the tech that exists now, to sell music experiences that harken to album art with lyrics pages like in the past, or take that to a new level. I could see products that one could download that combines album art, lyrics, music, and who knows what else. Not much motivation to do that if folks are just going to cut it up, put it on torrent, and have people pirate just a piece of it.

Again, I want to be clear, I do not agree with the emphasis of the efforts to control that the recording industry pursues. They don't get it and have their heads in the sand. It is like Gibson and that stoopid new guitar they put out. But hopefully, creative folks with foresight can figure out a way to develop, make, and sell music and art so that the people that deserve to be paid get paid, and so there is an incentive for people to pursue that work. Hopefully, it will be a system where enough people will be honest and pay so that those that don't will not ruin it for all. Will all theft be stopped, of course not. The Amazon model (and frankly the iTunes model that started it) may show a direction to pursue.

[Eric]

Quote from a Scott Henderson, full time musician and one of the greatest guitar players on earth:
The contention I take with that quote is that he's telling me to buy his music because I'm supposed to know what it's like as a musician. That's not how markets work. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about my life; is it my job to care about his?

He had some decent points, but it was all from a point of view that just seemed like he was clinging to what he has known in the past.

[Eric]

BTW, I just want to mention that there have been some absolutely great points made by the posters in this thread. There have been a lot of things said that I was thinking, but did not have the patience or time to articulate.

[Jx2]

I already basically had my big rant on this topic in the lime wire thread.

However, in addition to that rant. I would like to say that I sometimes have a buddy rip a cd, if I like it then I go out and buy it probably 90% of the time. Ive probably bought several 1000 cd's in my lifetime and a few 100 cassettes. I just started a vinyl collection. I normally rip most of my albums onto a blank disk and keep those in the car, to prevent scratching and stolen items. Ive had several disk's over the years stolen from my car or at a party. Plus by carryin it around Ive been known to give them to friend to check out. Within my circle of friends all but 1 or 2 of us are "collectors" so if we like something we buy it. Sometimes when we are in the last record store around. We'll buy a disk just because the album cover is cool. While alot of times we ended up with something lost in a pile, we was listening to Korn, Marylin Manson and Type O Negative months or even years before they where big. Which gives us a little bragging rights when our circle mingles with other circles. Good times in general. Ive even known to buy a album just because. I picked up Pantera's Cowboys from Hell 20th anniversary cd about a month ago and its still sealed.

We was discussing this awhile back and we kind of agree'd that adventually cd's will be pushed out like they did to their predicessor. And all you'll really be able to do is to download. However, we also seemed to agree that vinyl will continue to be produced and offered along the lines of a "collectors item". With a current price point around $20 new. Those price's would likely to climb to $25-$30 range. Regardless of what is offered, there is always going to be a group, myself included, who wants to own the physical recording and all the bells and wistles that go with it.

I think the hardest thing to do when looking at the illeagl and legal side is to put yourself in the shoes of the artist. Which I beleive is hard to do, or at least one of those things people just convince themself they'd give it away. Think of it this way, say you had a job where you got paid by the peice rate. Meaning for each peice you completed you got a quarter. However, everytime you turn your head someone walks by and just takes a handfull of those peices. Would that be ok with you because your bank account is in good standings or cos the other guy needed them to make a quota? I seriously doubt it.

I saw Zakk Wylde on that metal show awile back. And he got talking about a young relative who illegaly d/ls. He said he felt the saddest part about it was seeing all these disks wrote in marker. Then one day the kid had a tee on of his favorite band. And Zakk asked him where he got it. He told him he bought it at a show. Zakk asked him if he bought it or just reached over the counter and grabbed it and took off. Cos thats what he does with their music.

[Robert]

The contention I take with that quote is that he's telling me to buy his music because I'm supposed to know what it's like as a musician. That's not how markets work. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about my life; is it my job to care about his?

He had some decent points, but it was all from a point of view that just seemed like he was clinging to what he has known in the past.

Markets don't work at all if they are based on theft, do they?

Your job to care about his? Nobody said that. He was talking about those people who say musicians should do everything themselves - marketing, advertising, etc. That's not so easy though.

Here is another view from another fantastic (but unknown to the masses) musician, Gary Willis -

http://www.garywillis.com/pages/rest/rant.html

With the overwhelming acceptance of unpaid downloading, it really isn't going to matter whatever new, convenient, ethical delivery system is provided. People seem to be determined to get their music for free. Fringe musicians like myself are facing an ethical vacuum that really calls into question the sacrifices necessary to continue a life of artistic creativity weighed against the sobering austerity that the marketplace participants are asking us to accept.

[marnold]

To me, the worst problem here is the musicians are suffering from illegal downloads. Most of them NEED their record companies to help them get their music out there. It's not about the "record companies can afford it anyway" - without them, many artists would be starving.

Quote from a Scott Henderson, full time musician and one of the greatest guitar players on earth:
But I wonder how much of that is relevant anymore. I say "I wonder" because I obviously am not an industry insider in any way shape or form. Is getting a recording studio relevant with the recording technology that is available today? Is there a need for an ad in a magazine? Instead, is there just a need for the proverbial paradigm shift? Or are we just propping up an increasingly archaic system simply because "that's the way we've always done it"?

It reminds me of when cars first came out. People who made horse-drawn buggies, etc., tried to get legislation passed to preserve their industry. The same argument was made: think of how many people will lose their jobs!

Maybe it will be like it was at the time of the great classical composers. You either found a rich patron (or the church, I suppose) and wrote what he wanted or you wrote for yourself and starved.

[Jx2]

i think there is a need for promoting a album regardless of who you are. if that ad is not in a magazine it needs to be somewhere. I dont think just posting it to your facebook, twitter, or whatever will do you true justice. You really need to be able to have the resources to reach the masses.

[Eric]

But I wonder how much of that is relevant anymore. I say "I wonder" because I obviously am not an industry insider in any way shape or form. Is getting a recording studio relevant with the recording technology that is available today? Is there a need for an ad in a magazine? Instead, is there just a need for the proverbial paradigm shift? Or are we just propping up an increasingly archaic system simply because "that's the way we've always done it"?
I don't know how it would work these days, but I will say that I read a bio of Wilco in which they said their third album (Summerteeth, 1999) died pretty much because the company wouldn't promote it. Before that, I thought records succeeded or failed on merit, but now I give a lot of credit to the publicity machine. It doesn't make me feel good to think that the music I picked out was still shoved in my face, but it's the reality of it.

That said, that example was 11 years ago, so things may have changed.

[Eric]

Markets don't work at all if they are based on theft, do they?
It's a matter of whether you push people into illegal behaviors because you're asking more than the market will bear.


Your job to care about his? Nobody said that. He was talking about those people who say musicians should do everything themselves - marketing, advertising, etc. That's not so easy though.
I believe he said "...first try to make a living as a musician." If that's his reasoning for people buying music, he's in for a long battle.

It's kind of saying the same thing, but why doesn't he go get a job doing something else if he doesn't like the way his industry is going? Ridiculous numbers of people switch jobs and industries all of the time because of the future of their jobs. Are musicians suddenly sacred? Sure, I want to keep good music flowing, but I'm not going to support him because he whines about what it's like to be him. I'll do it because I want good musicians and writers to remain in the biz.


Here is another view from another fantastic (but unknown to the masses) musician, Gary Willis -

http://www.garywillis.com/pages/rest/rant.html
This is probably true for some, but for me personally, I'll pay if the system and price is right. I am not without morals, but this guy needs to know that there's always a threshold for consumers. People won't put up with any level of treatment just because you say so. He's facing the same thing: a threshold of whether it's reasonable to continue in his profession.

This whole discussion reminds me of Gail Wynand's epiphany in The Fountainhead: that his "power" was really just a product of whoring himself out to what society wanted anyway.

[deeaa]

I'm so enjoying this thread :-)

It's very hard for me to draw the line here.

It's entirely legal to borrow or copy a friend's CD.
It's entirely legal to borrow and copy a CD from the library.
There is a specific tax paid for empty cassettes, CD's and now even hard-drives that goes to the rights organizations such as ASCAP, BECAUSE everybody knows these will be used to copy copyrighted materials.

It's also legal to save your copies on the net. It's legal to download said files.
Where it becomes illegal is when that happens clearly en masse, deliberately offering that data for download, or spreading the data actively.

Arguably also when you actually listen/enjoy said data it's illegal. Although I don't think that would stick in courts...because where do you draw the line - when it isn't a friend's MP3 rip he sent for you and when was it a professional pirate distribution???

Same difference, when I use a camera to show a book to students via a video projector. Nothing wrong with that. It's very hard to say - if I now capture the images to my laptop so I can show the same in a room with no capture camera - is that illegal?

It certainly gets illegal at least if I send the captures to my students so as they would not have to buy the book. BUT it's hard to draw the line even there.

After all, our company pays thousands and thousands per year for 'rights to copy copyrighted material' and then we have guidelines how much we can copy and how to use the copied material.

It's just plain impossibly complex and getting more and more so.

My vote goes to all that kind of stuff being free, and instead the price should be included in the SYSTEMS you use them with.

I pay hundreds a month for Internet access and various Internet services already. Why not divide a part of it to give to ASCAP etc. who in turn give money to musicians and film makers? I would be happy to pay, say 10 bucks or 20 bucks a month for right to watch/D/L anything I wish.

[deeaa]

I thought records succeeded or failed on merit, but now I give a lot of credit to the publicity machine. It doesn't make me feel good to think that the music I picked out was still shoved in my face, but it's the reality of it.


I can't seriously think anything like Lady Gaga or most of the top-ten material would ever make it past selling just a handful unless it was VERY heavily marketed.

It's all about marketing. Even the best band in the world won't get any further than their home town unless huge amounts of money went into marketing.

Unless the marketing machine keeps pushing something into people's faces, people forget it real quick.

I knew these guys in a local band who got picked up by a BIG record label, and they were all the rage when their first album came out. They were on TV, mags, everything, the talk of the whole country. BUT he expained this to me.

They felt the WORST thing ever to happen to their band was to be picked up by the company for a multi-record deal. Because then they had this insane thing that they expected them to sell X thousand CD's in the first 6 months. Once that didn't quite happen, well, the label just pulled all advertising. Took just a couple of months, and then nobody remembered them any more. They made hugely better music by then, having toured and all for months, but nada...no support from the record company.

They just simply calculated; if this band sells x much in x months, it's worth putting more money into it. If not, well, we have a 3-album contract, and we don't have to _make_ the albums, which cost...but we can keep the band in check in case it gets popular later.

So the band was stuck in a limbo; bound by contract they had no means or permission to release any material, and the record company didn't want to spend any more money in the band; they had made enough profit but felt they were better off getting fresh bands.

Needless to say, after a few years the band split. They got tired of playing gigs and getting feedback like 'man you were great, I had thought you'd split way back'...but lacking any new material...

Sad, but it's just a fact people need several listens, several times they come accross a band in some way, before they get interested. And most often, even in case of great bands, if something seemingly even more interesting pops up, well, it's easy to forget the first one.

[Robert]

It's kind of saying the same thing, but why doesn't he go get a job doing something else if he doesn't like the way his industry is going? Ridiculous numbers of people switch jobs and industries all of the time because of the future of their jobs. Are musicians suddenly sacred? Sure, I want to keep good music flowing, but I'm not going to support him because he whines about what it's like to be him. I'll do it because I want good musicians and writers to remain in the biz.


I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"? :cry:

[deeaa]

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"? :cry:

Well, doesn't that happen everywhere? When a neighborhood goes bad, the first thing to go are nice stores and such?

I would definitely pack it up and move elsewhere, or maybe indeed find another job...maybe put up a company to catch shoplifters for profession :-)

[Heywood Jablomie]

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"? :cry:
Not a good analogy, IMO. A store is a controllable environment, at least to some reasonable extent, meaning that there's something actually doable about shoplifting. Cyberspace and millions of "shoplifters" is a different matter.

[Robert]

Not a good analogy, IMO. A store is a controllable environment, at least to some reasonable extent, meaning that there's something actually doable about shoplifting. Cyberspace and millions of "shoplifters" is a different matter.

Exactly - that is what this whole topic is about, yes? The environment is different, but the end result for the "store owner" is the same - loss of income.

[Eric]

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"? :cry:
Well, I'll let the other responses speak to the analogy you put forth, but I will clarify a bit. I am not saying that I want people who make good music to stop doing so. It was a minor point that when people b!tch and moan about pirating, why don't they do something about it instead? Most people, faced with an unfavorable circumstance, will usually either get out of the situation or work to make the situation more positive. IOW, quit whining and do something about it or get out.

There needs to come a point where people in music understand that irrevocable changes have taken place. Perhaps we can make the best of it and find a new way to do business with a marketplace that is willing to pay for music (I know I am). Just don't use yesterday's model. Pick yourself up off the floor and quit kicking and screaming about how it used to be. If you truly do hate it so much, then maybe it is time to find a new job!

[Eric]

My vote goes to all that kind of stuff being free, and instead the price should be included in the SYSTEMS you use them with.

I pay hundreds a month for Internet access and various Internet services already. Why not divide a part of it to give to ASCAP etc. who in turn give money to musicians and film makers? I would be happy to pay, say 10 bucks or 20 bucks a month for right to watch/D/L anything I wish.
That's a good point; I would do that.

I'm sure people will say why it won't work, but hasn't that part of it (what won't work) been discussed at length already?

[deeaa]

Yeah - it already works in so many forms anyway.

You can get pay-TV and record the shows/films as much as you like, for a fixed fee. You can listen to the radio and record the songs, you pay for it in taxes; at least we also pay for TV licences that are used to support the public TV channels; we also pay for the cable runs and the electricity used...

There is little difference in music as opposed to films on TV and such, isn't there? Why not use it in the same way?

There will always be people who want to buy a fine CD or whatever box with graphics, posters, info, whatnot, from their favorite band...for the rest, I really think the radio/TV example would work the best. Spotify in the front line.

So musicians will suffer...big deal, there's musicians around more than there ever was...starve, then, or get a real job. Some will anyway be eligible for government grants, get patrons...like it was hundreds of years ago.

Then, and only then, we can perhaps get rid of this record-lable-forced stuff and only the best musicians will survive and rise to fame, not because they're marketed, but because they're GOOD.

[marnold]

After all, our company pays thousands and thousands per year for 'rights to copy copyrighted material' and then we have guidelines how much we can copy and how to use the copied material.

It's just plain impossibly complex and getting more and more so.
This is where I run into problems as a pastor. It is almost impossible to know whether or not you are violating copyright law. My church body came out with a hymnal supplement including an electronic version. The problem is that to use the electronic version you not only have to a) buy the electronic version and then b) pay an annual fee to a company that takes care of the rights. The extra problem then is that the content of the supplement is under two different companies which means two different sets of fees. God himself only knows how much of those fees actually makes it back to the people who deserve it.

Technically speaking (and I can't even be 100% sure of this since the law is so convoluted), we are violating copyright laws by taping our services for our shut-ins. It probably falls under the category of "performance." But how do you deal with that? No lawyer will give you a definite answer without being on retainer and even then there's no guarantees.

I want to obey the law--I really do! I want to make sure that the people that produced this stuff are properly compensated. But the law is such that it is almost impossible to know. Yet if someone wanted to get uppity about it, the fines (to say nothing of lawyers' fees) would bankrupt the congregation several times over.

[Jx2]

I see you points about trying to draw comparison and have to wonder did you guys skip my response on the 1st page about if you worked in a enviroment that paid by peice rate?

[Eric]

I see you points about trying to draw comparison and have to wonder did you guys skip my response on the 1st page about if you worked in a enviroment that paid by peice rate?
Um...yeah I skipped it. Sorry. I find giant paragraphs to be a little much to read, particularly if they're not real succinct. Sorry, it's just how I've conditioned myself for online forums.

All I will say to your argument is that you can say it's unfair all you want, but it's what we've got. Right or wrong, that is the new starting point for the music industry. I'm sure it will work itself out eventually -- music has lasted an awfully long time so far.

[Spudman]

Your job to care about his? Nobody said that. He was talking about those people who say musicians should do everything themselves - marketing, advertising, etc. That's not so easy though.


Scott does make a good point about this, but currently the folks that provide those services have been the robber barons of the music industry. They have taken a too large share of the artist's money. Now who can trust or afford those companies to distribute and promote?

It's either going to come down to the artist doing more, or a new industry will arise that will do this for substantially less money than the record companies have charged the artists in past years. The big question, other than the obvious pirating issue, is, will this be an effective promotion and distribution method?

[Jx2]

It does seem alot of artists are building their own studios. Zakk Wylde said he built the Bunker and can do everything but promotion related stuff there. Ozzy also built a studio in recent years as several other artist. It seems the issue is more for the smaller upstart bands.

Maybe what needs to happen is bands supporting bands. Im not sure how it all worked but Led Zeppelin signed Bad Company to the Zoso label correct? So they had to promote the band. Maybe Zakk, Ozzy and Sharon and other well off bands with studios. Should form labels like Zoso. No knows what the labels have done better than the artists they did it to. So by doing this, in theory they would be more adapt to being fair. That could potentialy resolve that problem yet it does lil to nothing for the other topic at hand.

O yea Vinnie Paul Abbot has Big Vin Records as well.

[t_ross33]

http://www.songwriters.ca/proposaldetailed.aspx

[Eric]

http://www.songwriters.ca/proposaldetailed.aspx
I only got through "The Updated Proposal" right now, but yeah that looks like a really good start. I'm sure it will have its kinks, but it's very encouraging to see something like that, that looks to make the best of what has developed with technology.

Thanks for posting that. Much appreciated.

[t_ross33]

The impressive thing is that this is a major industry association proposing a solution to a very real issue on behalf of their members.

The trouble is politicians that continue to push for litigation-based solutions and changes to existing copyright law, all of which will have little to no impact on society's adoption of and attitude towards technology.

As paraphrase an earlier post, the horse has already left the barn :running

[vroomery]

That proposal sounds pretty cool. That basically is a netflix version of music. The only thing I don't like about it is that the subscription fee would essentially be hidden as a tax in your internet bill. The nicer version is an opt-in rather than an opt-out kind of service. I guess I just really don't like people assuming that I want to give them more money. Granted, I doubt many people who participate in file sharing online would opt-in and this policy would surely create more revenue because many people would accept the price without question. All-in-all thought, this is a much much muchhhhhhhh better option than the current system. Kudos to them for trying to find a way to adapt.

[deeaa]

http://www.songwriters.ca/proposaldetailed.aspx

Yes this seems pretty much exactly how I think things should work too. The only thing in the way are the big record etc. companies and it's probably very hard for a meagre artist organization to go head to head with the likes of Disney, Sony, Apple etc...who all have their interests in selling DRM and hardcopy stuff only, and a huge lobbying force in politics with plenty of funding.

Nevermind what the musicians feel, they have their few percent say as they have their few percent share in income from their 'own' music.

[omegadot]

I've found and purchased a lot more music I'd have never come across otherwise because of the ease of downloading music. My friends and I regularly just drop band names to each other to check out. We do, and then if we like it, we buy it. I don't buy any products that I can't try out first, music is no different. I can't see every band live or track down every artist in a store that allows sampling so I take advantage of the new tools we have. The precise moral balance doesn't bother me because I know that I've supported far more artists because of this than I would have otherwise.


Actually as an example, the band Authority Zero I found on a message board, so I checked out a few songs and now own all their albums and have seen them the two times they played near me. Avenged Sevenfold was the same way back when I enjoyed that sort of music in high school. There are dozens of others.

[Eric]

I've found and purchased a lot more music I'd have never come across otherwise because of the ease of downloading music.
That's something I've been thinking about during this discussion, and I think it's a noteworthy point.

[deeaa]

Yes definitely - like I said, if I like something I'll most likely buy it at some point. Go see a show, buy a T-shirt, or such.

I also believe there's a whole lot of music out there I would never have been exposed to if my buddies or someone hadn't d/l:d some obscure stuff.

[Heywood Jablomie]

I think there may be a lot of unauthorized copying done by people like me who wouldn't otherwise have purchased it anyway. I don't have a lot, but what I do have is there only because it was easy and free. If I had to pay for it on my fixed income, I wouldn't have bought it anyway. How might this factor into estimates of lost revenue?

[R_of_G]

If I had to pay for it on my fixed income, I wouldn't have bought it anyway. How might this factor into estimates of lost revenue?

An excellent point. There's much I have that I wouldn't have if I had to pay for it because of my current financial situation. Hard to call it "lost revenue" when they'd not have had my revenue anyway.

When financially feasable, I do purchase official copies of the things I like, particularly those that are on small independent labels that legitimately need my money but I will not lie, there is much in my collection that isn't paid for and quite frankly, I don't feel the least bit bad about it. If that makes me a thief, so be it. I've been called much worse.

[deeaa]

One thing I _always_ wonder about is stuff like hyper-expensive CAD software.

Those cost like, say, 5000 bucks per licence or something. Yet every engineering student I know and a lot of people who just like drawing such things for sure use a pirated copy, because there's no friggin' way a student could buy even one let alone like ten of these programs they need anyway for their studies, and there aren't enough machines at the Uni for everyone's use anyway so they have no other choice.

I've also heard some representative of such program manufacturer say that they don't really mind if students use the programs anyway, because they like the idea the students learn how to use them and get familiar - and when they go to work for some company, guess which software package they will want to use?

OK, I get that, so why not make it legal, then? I guess these days many do. I get pretty much any basic software for free via my company, like Windows, Office, scanning/imaging, stuff like that, also for my home machine(s). I know students can get like SPSS and such for free, I think they pay a few bux for windows licences thru the Uni.

But, if some CAD programs sells 10.000 copies worldwide for companies only, that'd make, what, 5 million in sales? Would it not make sense to offer it for legal download with registration and updates for like a fiver, I'd be ready to bet easily a million students etc. would buy the stuff in that case, and they'd save hugely on materials as well?

Perhaps it is however just the exclusivity and price that works as a selling point for companies...if they were practically giving it away it might erode its respect and companies would rather get some expensive package anyway, hard to say.

[omegadot]

One thing I _always_ wonder about is stuff like hyper-expensive CAD software.

Those cost like, say, 5000 bucks per licence or something. Yet every engineering student I know and a lot of people who just like drawing such things for sure use a pirated copy, because there's no friggin' way a student could buy even one let alone like ten of these programs they need anyway for their studies, and there aren't enough machines at the Uni for everyone's use anyway so they have no other choice.

I've also heard some representative of such program manufacturer say that they don't really mind if students use the programs anyway, because they like the idea the students learn how to use them and get familiar - and when they go to work for some company, guess which software package they will want to use?

OK, I get that, so why not make it legal, then? I guess these days many do. I get pretty much any basic software for free via my company, like Windows, Office, scanning/imaging, stuff like that, also for my home machine(s). I know students can get like SPSS and such for free, I think they pay a few bux for windows licences thru the Uni.

But, if some CAD programs sells 10.000 copies worldwide for companies only, that'd make, what, 5 million in sales? Would it not make sense to offer it for legal download with registration and updates for like a fiver, I'd be ready to bet easily a million students etc. would buy the stuff in that case, and they'd save hugely on materials as well?

Perhaps it is however just the exclusivity and price that works as a selling point for companies...if they were practically giving it away it might erode its respect and companies would rather get some expensive package anyway, hard to say.

I know where I went, the school would provide some programs entirely free, others were a small fee. I Am guessing the school paid the companies for this heavily discounted licensing and these deals are one reason why they don't move to a system like that. Also, when it's that easy, simple, and condoned, it's going to create more problems with businesses trying to take advantage of it. I'd say your point about the respect:french is also just as important, though.

[Justaguyin_nc]

I am in the camp of share what ya want, but buy what you use.
This is just taking us back to tape decks and all the cries back then.
Musicians know if their music is not heard, people will not buy it.
Radios/TV promote music that is "pushed" and these days it seems more and more limited.
I see no difference in taping a radio or a television broadcast.
I think every record company should have a download site with 'fair" prices for all their artists.
It would end alot of the problems, while promoting other artists in their barn.
I think ALL artists should have their OWN site with downloads available.
People who copy will do so if not on the net, then through radio etc.
And yes, the quality is there to with the devices we have available.

Pirates: Mass share, and mass produce and sell!
I really question the Judge that decided for the record industry.
Limewire did not HOLD any songs and was just a media for sharing.
it was up to the "user" of the site to share what they had.
I use the web as I do a radio or a Television.
My cable even comes with recording capabilites.
You can buy recording products everyplace.
I assume the judge should give them a stop order too.
In the end, If I like it, I hit Amazon etc. and buy it.

[deeaa]

Very well summed up.