How Do YOU Feel About File-Sharing Music/Video

[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

[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 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.