Music Music Swappers & File Sharing: A Discussion

[Lyuokdea]

I'm just opening up a forum on the topic, what does everybody think about music swappers and other file sharers? Should they be punished or is the computer the beginning of a revolution that should change the way internet copyrights are viewed?

 

[Hurkyl]

While there is a case to be made that people are exercising civil disobedience to effect a change in the way things are, I somehow suspect that most people are just rationalizing away their desire to get stuff for free. It's kind of like a hoarde of barbarians raiding the local villages, and justifying their actions with "They don't share!"

The economy simply isn't set up to deal with the vast reproducibility made possible in the computer age; such theft harms businesses, but not in the way people "want"; it makes it very difficult for small businesses to be profitable, thus empowering the giant corporations, and it has driven businesses to support Microsoft's hyperinvasive vision of the future.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I agree with Hurkyl. People are breaking laws no matter how you rationalize it. No matter how high the cd price is, not matter how crappy most the music is, no matter how the RIAA handles these situations, file trading is still illegal and people schould be punished if they get caught. However, I will continue to casually file share because I'm a young gun who thinks he's invincible and won't get caught

 

[russ_watters]

Ditto for me, Greg. Plus, the RIAA gets on my nerves.

 

[Zero]

I understand music industry lawyers getting angry over it...what artist is self-centered enough to complain, though? This is the 21st century version of the bootlegs and mix tapes that used to make people's careers.

 

[kyleb]

for many file swappers the practice is a way to enjoy the efforts of artists carriers without doing anything to support the artists, so i think they have every right to complain as well as anyone else who is a part of the industry. i believe the best solution is to to offer bare license options as well as the traditional retail packaged products, giving file swappers a way to continue to enjoy their preferred method of accusation in a legal fashion. some companies are doing this on their own but with all the whacked out things the riaa and others are trying to pull i think it might be best to change the laws to require such provisions.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
...what artist is self-centered enough to complain, though?

Lars Ulrich of Metallica. He campaigned pretty hard against Napster. I make sure I always have some Metallica up for grabs.

Albums I like I do still tend to buy - but trading has reduced the odds of buying a cd with only one good song, something that has always p-d me off.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Lars Ulrich of Metallica. He campaigned pretty hard against Napster. I make sure I always have some Metallica up for grabs.

Albums I like I do still tend to buy - but trading has reduced the odds of buying a cd with only one good song, something that has always p-d me off.

Yeah, and Lars followed that up by putting out a really crappy album, which just goes to show...

 

[jb]

the thing is, it's the riaa that's complaining, not the artists. artists don't make much money off of cd sales, they buy their houses off of merch and ticket sales. cds just boost their popularity to support tours, and trading their music shouldn't be any different.

sure, i download music. i own a number of tapes, and don't want to buy an album twice, so i download some of the tracks. i also buy a great deal of cds. if i find that a band has more than 5 or so great songs, i'll buy the cd, because hey, sometimes the cd art is kinda cool.

i saw an add on tv that was anti-sharing. it talked about all the jobs that are affected by people sharing music. it fails to mention that the majority of the cd price goes to the ceo's pockets, not the little guys along the way.

my last point: trading and buying cds are unrelated. i'll pick on "album x". let's say it's a decent cd. i probably won't buy it, period. if downloading is available, i'll download part/all of it. if i can't download it, sucks for me, nothing changes, I'm still not going to buy it. the good cds i download, i end up buying anyways. I'm sure this isn't the case with everyone, but this philosophy justifies it in my mind.

also, for everyone that complains about cd prices, check out half-price books. sure, you can't get brand new stuff there, but i guarantee you'll find at least one steal. besides, most new albums now are crap.

 

[megashawn]

Well, I've been dealing with mp3's before anyone knew what they were. I remember telling my mom this was going to be the next big thing. I had a huge collection before napster had a domain. Of course, I don't anymore

But anyhow, I've been exposed to so much more music then I would have by radio, mtv, etc. Also the internet is a source for hard to find/rare music that you cannot get at any record store. Another thing, is that any cd I listen to on a regular basis, i either own it now, because of downloading it, or I have owned it at some point in time and due to the crappy life expectancy of a cd, have lost it.

I don't feel I should have to go buy another 18.99 cd when I just bought it 3 months ago and the crappy label is peeling off cause it can't stand the NC heat.

I do think it is sad that artist do not get there full rewards. Boohoo. I heard eminem whining about being the #1 club hit, but not saling any albums. Thats a lie, probably forced on him by the higher ups.

I've got a friend that used to manage a local record store. There is somewhere around a 300%-500% markup on all cd's. I had another friend that worked for a cd printing company. He could get cd's for 5 bucks. He said it cost the company around 25 cents to produce the cd, another 50 cents to produce the case.

I mean, musicians, good ones, aren't out there to become millionaires. They are out there to entertain not only you and me, but themselves. They don't care how you get there music, just that you get it. Now most mainstream musicians cannot voice this simply due to the puppet strings attached by there record label.

Basically, its going to come down to the people that have become billionaires from saling me and you other peoples music are going to have to put some money in the bank. The RIAA shows that the big wigs are getting truly scared of losing there monopoly.

I mean, why does an average cd only have 10, maybe 15 songs? A 700mb cd can hold around 25 songs. If they want to impress me, why not start selling cd's filled to capacity. I just do not believe in wasting storage space.

 

[dduardo]

I don't believe file-trading is "stealing" per se. You can't equivicate stealing a car with copying data. Even so, I do agree that file-trading is hurting the music industry.

As Hurkyl stated: "The economy simply isn't set up to deal with the vast reproducibility made possible in the computer age"

What we are encountering is a major flaw in Capitalism. The system works very well when scarcity exists, but once that breaks down hell is unleashed.

If someone develops a means to instantly copy food, is the famers' association going to start sueing everyone that uses the technology because the farmers can't make any money?

Thats just silly.

All the problems of copyright, etc will go away when everything can easily be copied and people don't need money. But until then, the RIAA needs to embrase the new revolution, even if it kills the industry.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by alphy
Your analogy is silly, food is a commodity, not intellectual property. Laws were established to protect what people create.

Actually, that is a good analogy...genetically engineered food is a product, and if their patented seed gets mixed in a farmer's crop by accident, they will sue and take his crops away.

 

[dduardo]

Just saw this on slashdot - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/25/0510208&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=146&tid=95&tid=99

Don't you just love the RIAA brainwashing little kids

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

File sharing is theft.

It's like ripping an album from the stores. Except worse because you can conceivable rip thousands of songs in a relatively short period. If you tried to rip songs from a music store it's easier to get caught and you can't steal as much. However, it has the same affect, you hurt the people at the retailers, you hurt the record companies and you hurt the musicians.

Sure, file sharing does help small labels. That is why I think musicians should be able to either grant file sharing of their music or deny it. However, a Indy musician on an airplane once said to me 'Hey, we have families to feed to' in protest against file sharing.

 

[Zero]

I think the real fear of teh recording industry is that we will see how bad an album is before buying it, and then not buy much of teh crap they are trying to pawn off on us.

 

[Zantra]

I'm an mp3 old-schooler from the IRC days. I used to run an FTP server. In fact I got into trouble with RAIAA before napster even existed. Of course not anymore.

Anways, I see it like this. It's try it before you buy it. I seem to remember them making a similar(but not quite as big) stink about blank cassette tapes when they first came out. Same deal. But people still bought the tapes. Nowadays you can hear the music off the radio, or even listen to it at the store before you buy it. That hasn't stopped people from still buying CDs. And the CD's do have a high profit margin. This will force the industry to cut CD prices. I think the $5 CD isn't that far off. The industry will survive, they just won't have the extravagance anymore. And personally I look forward to seeing some multi-millionaire recording execs brought down to our level. I won't shed many tears when they have to sell off one of their 5 ferraris

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Technology is good and bad. However, what I have seen in my life indicates that technology is good for everyone. I mean, computers, information etc. However, there is that looming bad. File sharing has spawned some good but it is also bad and that needs to be hammered out.

Anyways, the VCR analogy is a bad one. For one thing, you can copy more data online than you ever could on a VCR. Another thing, there are actually Federal laws that apply to the use of video tapes.

Why do I bring this up? I'm only saying that file sharing needs legislation. Proponents of file sharing always resort to the 'greed' argument. Which is kind of simplistic if not cliche, yet correct. However, greed is what makes this music.

You have to respect the wishes of musicians. Many of them, even indy rockers or what have you do not want their music illegally shared. However, some do. Even some labels like file sharing. You see why there needs to be legislation? Let's just hope it doesn't get as tangled as U.S. tax code.

 

[megashawn]

Sure, file sharing does help small labels. That is why I think musicians should be able to either grant file sharing of their music or deny it. However, a Indy musician on an airplane once said to me 'Hey, we have families to feed to' in protest against file sharing.

Small time musicians are one thing. If there job is playing music, well for one, people coast to coast haven't heard of them, and therefore will not be ripping his music at a high rate. 2, if there is a form of spreading there music all over the world for free, well, personally I'd appreciate all the free advertising I could get.

And tell me this, what's the difference between me downloading a few songs, or waiting till sunday night when the local station plays an entire new release album, dub it to tape or use a stream ripping program?

Also, what is your response to a person that has owned the majority of the cd's he now has on mp3, but no longer owns the cd? Is it fair that I should have to buy another cd for a rediculous price that I'd already owned?

Why do I bring this up? I'm only saying that file sharing needs legislation. Proponents of file sharing always resort to the 'greed' argument. Which is kind of simplistic if not cliche, yet correct. However, greed is what makes this music.

How long has music been around? Certainly longer then there has been an industry for it. Did beetoven make his music out of greed? Or was it for the love of music? Personally, a band that is out from the start to make millions usually makes crappy music and is not something that interests me. I'm a fan of people that are making music not only for you and me, but more so for themselves. No, greed is not what makes music.

Greed is what forms groups such as the RIAA because the record execs that probably don't even listen to the music they sell are losing a whopping 10% of there profits to the new age.

Also, the majority of a bands income is not from cd sales, but from live performances.

I also agree that a lot of bands are rediculous, and make one or two good songs for air play, simply to get there cd sold, then the rest of the cd is garbage.

The solution is simple. Return the power to the bands. There is no longer a need for big record labels. Any band should have a website to promote itself, even allow a user to download there album or a good part of it, and if the listener enjoys the music, can directly pay the band the money for the work.

See, I don't mind paying for a cd. What bothers me is out of that 15.99 or 18.99 pricetag, the band maybe see's 2 bucks. It costs less then a dollar to produce the cd, art, and album, and we pay near $20. If cd's were 10 bucks, I'd have no problem.

Even some labels like file sharing. You see why there needs to be legislation? Let's just hope it doesn't get as tangled as U.S. tax code.

Well, one problem with making legislation for the internet, is that the internet is not part of america, it is the international community. We cannot impose laws on members of foreign countrys.

Oh ya, one more thing and I'll shut up.

It's like ripping an album from the stores. Except worse because you can conceivable rip thousands of songs in a relatively short period.

No. Stealing an album from a store requires you to be sneaky, and actually physically take a physical object. Not only are you getting the music, or intellectual property, but the case and album covers.

When you download an album, you merely get the music. If you are impressed, then most people actually purchase the album. I mean, think about this, 10% losses. How are they so certain those losses are not merely from people fed up with paying rediculous prices? Does the RIAA have any direct proof that the 10% loss is from file sharing, and not from fed up customers tired of over priced crap? How are they so certain that the losses don't come from shop lifting? Better yet, how are we so sure?

Infact, almost everyone I know purchases an album they downloaded and really like, myself included. The spirit of file-sharing, is simple. I have 10 albums, I like 2 of them. I bought the 2 cd's, but use my burnt copies to keep the originals safe. Now, I share all 10 albums, because you might come across my share and like one of the other 8. So you dl it, like it, and buy it.

Its the honesty policy, and well, like it or not, its here to stay. There are so many ways to get music that the RIAA heads will be spinning if they try to keep up. Kazaa, as best as I can tell, is one of the smaller online communitys for aquiring music.

 

[Zantra]

Even if they shut down kazaa 3 more will pop up in it's place. Just like what happened with napster. And IRC ensures privacy. IP spoofing is in the hands of the common man nowadays, so it's a simple matter to avoid being tracked. They aren't going to be able to sue 50 million people anyhow. So the bottom line is that they need to follow in Apple's steps and start cheap downloading alternatives, or they will only suceed in alienating their customer base and going bankrupt. You can't fight consumer power and demand.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I don't think it is strictly theft, any more than listening to or recording songs off the radio is theft. The radio station pays a nominal fee of a few dollars to the record company every time the song is played. Divide this small fee by the number of people who hear the song and you, in most cases, have a very small fraction of a cent per person. That's the Value of the song per capita.
The industry is whining about copyright when they could be constructing a very simple infrastructure for distributing music for <gasp> far less than the ludicrous $1.00 per song that Steve Jobs thinks we all should pay for music you can also hear on the radio.
The internet is a natural, living archive, that needs to be preserved and improved instead of degraded by prurient corporate interests.
And Metallica has sucked since Master of Puppets.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
I don't think it is strictly theft, any more than listening to or recording songs off the radio is theft. The radio station pays a nominal fee of a few dollars to the record company every time the song is played. Divide this small fee by the number of people who hear the song and you, in most cases, have a very small fraction of a cent per person. That's the Value of the song per capita.
The industry is whining about copyright when they could be constructing a very simple infrastructure for distributing music for <gasp> far less than the ludicrous $1.00 per song that Steve Jobs thinks we all should pay for music you can also hear on the radio.
The internet is a natural, living archive, that needs to be preserved and improved instead of degraded by prurient corporate interests.
And Metallica has sucked since Master of Puppets.

I complete agree- metallica HAS sucked for a long time

 

[Hurkyl]

Small time musicians are one thing. If there job is playing music, well for one, people coast to coast haven't heard of them, and therefore will not be ripping his music at a high rate. 2, if there is a form of spreading there music all over the world for free, well, personally I'd appreciate all the free advertising I could get.

How do you figure it's free? The artist is still pays for it (because people get the music for free instead of paying for it), and doesn't even have a choice in the matter.

And tell me this, what's the difference between me downloading a few songs, or waiting till sunday night when the local station plays an entire new release album, dub it to tape or use a stream ripping program?

How often do you download a few songs and how often do you tape it off of the radio? I somehow suspect you know the difference.

Also, what is your response to a person that has owned the majority of the cd's he now has on mp3, but no longer owns the cd? Is it fair that I should have to buy another cd for a rediculous price that I'd already owned?

If the CD was lost or destroyed you have a case to make, but if the CD was loaned away, given away, or even sold, I have no sympathy for the person.

Did beetoven make his music out of greed? Or was it for the love of music? Personally, a band that is out from the start to make millions usually makes crappy music and is not something that interests me.

What about the bands who just want to make a living off of their music? Beethoven may have written out of love for music, but in his earlier years he made his living playing piano, not to mention that rich nobles of his time tended to be very generous to artists.

Even sadder is the tale of Franz Schubert, one of the greatest composers of the Romantic era, who couldn't even make a living off of his music and lived with friends and family for most of his life.

If you are impressed, then most people actually purchase the album.

I hear this a lot. I wonder if there are any hard facts to back this up. I, for one, have not heard anyone tell me in person that they bought a CD because they downloaded a song and enjoyed it; instead I've heard quite a few people say they were looking to download their favorite songs because they didn't want to pay for CDs.

I certainly know that if I didn't strive to follow the straight and narrow path that I would never buy a CD again if I could get the music online. (unless I somehow became well enough off that the cost didn't matter)

 

[jammieg]

All the middle men are going to be furious. There are about 300 million people in this country, if on average people buy 3 cds per year at $15 apiece that's about 13 billion dollars and a low estimate I suspect. Still I think it's wrong and generally people know or feel it's wrong but it's also so wrong to charge so much for a cd that lasts on average 2 years, it's wrong because it's covered under intellectual property rights and if we do away with that then very few people are going to do those things because hardly anyone works for free. On the other hand I also suspect that most artists are fed up with the middle men and would very much like to be able to distribute their work over the internet in a much more effecient and direct way and likely they could charge far less for a download over the internet and likely people would buy more cds at 25 cents an album download than anyone has ever seen, at that price it wouldn't be such a big deal to go hunting for the free stuff and the government wouldn't have to create yet another billion dollar agency to enforce the laws and the artist would still probably make a very good amount of money but with the majority of it going directly to them instead of the middle men, everyone would have to compromise. This seems to me to be one of those situations where the majority populace are in control and have to make a decision to steal lots of free stuff or pay a little to keep good laws in place although I really think the middle men are going to be furious. I would be happy to have 1000 cds instead of only 40 at the same cost. Even better than that will be the steroes capable of holding 50M of music and directly linked to a computer, there would be little reason to listen to the radio anymore and stupid commercials, but oh no that would be the destruction of a whole nother billion dollar industry.

 

[Hurkyl]

a cd that lasts on average 2 years

[?]

I've never had a CD die on me yet; in fact, the first CDs I've ever had have a good shot at outlasting the first CD player I've ever had (it's been overheating lately)... IIRC my family got them in 1993! (that's the copyright on the CD, anyways)

I do take very good care of my CDs, though... is that lifespan supposed to refer to normal misuse?

 

[Zantra]

Regardless of the ethics involved, the public now has a taste of free music, and they will not let it go easily. The likely scenario is that things will continue on the current trend, regardless of the limited amount of damage or fear the RIAA can inflict. It may go back underground, as it was in the beginning, but it will never go away.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Theft has been with humans since the earliest times.

Technology will change the economy. It always has and it always will. However, we can't disregard the musicians rights. If they don't want their music stolen then how can you justify stealing it?

I admit, you can't control something this wide spread but you can do damage control. You can't stop all crime can you? Same applies to file ripping.

And this music isn't free. Nothing is free and please refrain from using the term so loosely. Energy goes into producing and distributing the goods on all levels, including biological(food, macdonalds, apple bees, grocers). This all affects the economy. I think the economy will survive but that leaves people's rights.

If musicians say they don't want their music downloaded I think people should respect that. AND I DO THINK that they are capable of that. We just live in a nation that accepts irresponsibility.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

As I said, the true Value of a song is what it is worth to an individual, usually a small fraction of a cent. Nobody should accept music for an inflated price- after all, it is our cultural heritage. It could be easily set so that songs are paid for with personal advertising or with a flat nominal monthly fee. The industry is acting stupid.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Theft has been with humans since the earliest times.

Technology will change the economy. It always has and it always will. However, we can't disregard the musicians rights. If they don't want their music stolen then how can you justify stealing it?

I admit, you can't control something this wide spread but you can do damage control. You can't stop all crime can you? Same applies to file ripping.

And this music isn't free. Nothing is free and please refrain from using the term so loosely. Energy goes into producing and distributing the goods on all levels, including biological(food, macdonalds, apple bees, grocers). This all affects the economy. I think the economy will survive but that leaves people's rights.

If musicians say they don't want their music downloaded I think people should respect that. AND I DO THINK that they are capable of that. We just live in a nation that accepts irresponsibility.

Theft comes in many forms. Weather it's downloading a song, or grossly overcharging on a product to make a larger profit. Depending on your perspective, Record execs are no better than the music pirates they are rallying against. Each person incurs a mere fraction of a percentage of theft from the execs, while the tens of millions of dollars a year they "steal" towers over each individual by comparison. Who's to say they are anymore in the right then we are?

Simply put, the demand for CD music is slowing. The current music is poor quality, and people aren't willing to pay for junk. Even if mp3's weren't an option the demand would be slowing. The music industry is waning, and the music execs are so blind, they blame mp3s, when the real root cause is right in the mirror.

As I heard someone once say, I say now to the music industry

Here's your sign

 

[megashawn]

Here's your sign

Haha, nice, one of the few decent country songs out there, I think I might go download it.

And that leads me to another point. Maybe I don't want the whole cd. Maybe I only want one song. Maybe I can't buy the particular single at Wal-Mart.

For instance, go to any cd store and find me "Appetite for Destruction" By Primer 55. Or the double cd from Linkin Park titled "Splitting the DNA"

You won't find it. Infact, the only way I found it was by chance searching on the internet.

How do you figure it's free? The artist is still pays for it (because people get the music for free instead of paying for it), and doesn't even have a choice in the matter.

Uhm, I'm not sure if you followed me. I was referring to the fact that if you tell me to check out say, Benjamins Gate (a christian metal band) and I punch it into Kazzaa, well, it has costed that band not one penny for me to find and listen and possibly become a fan of there music, hence, free advertising.

AKA Word of mouth, which I've heard is the best method of advertising.

How often do you download a few songs and how often do you tape it off of the radio? I somehow suspect you know the difference.

Actually, a good bit of the music I've collected has come from live performances on tv, which I ripped the audio stream and video, or off the radio. I've had my Tv and radio hooked up to my computer for years now, the last thing I used a tape for was another failed idea of a p.m. machine. But I'm not claiming innocence by any means.


Zantra, perhaps we should form a group. WAMATRIAAFCTMMFCDs
We Are Mad A The RIAA for Charging To Much Money for Compact discs


Hmm, I'll work on shortening that a lil bit. But you do mention a good point. What is more criminal? That the combined effects have caused recording companys to lose 10% of there profits, or that they have been charging almost 3 times the value of a cd? How many porsche payments have I made for someone else?

I hear this a lot. I wonder if there are any hard facts to back this up.

Well, as I said in my previous post, I'd like to see some proof that the big 10% losses suffered by the record groups are truly related file trading. Is there any proof of that? And even so, how can we be certain its not trumped up reports to turn the table in the richies favor?

 

[russ_watters]

One clarification on taping something from the radio/tv - its not illegal and never has been (it may have/may be changing - more later). What do you think a VCR is for? These fall under "home use" and are allowed as long as you don't distribute the media. Hollywood didn't used to mind because the quality of the recording used to be significantly worse on a tape taken from tv or the radio - not anymore. Digital tv and radio has made it possible to make very high quality recordings.

Its been a few years since I researched this (I did a debate in college), so by now it might be illegal. That may have been part of the DMCA.

 

[Hurkyl]

Uhm, I'm not sure if you followed me. I was referring to the fact that if you tell me to check out say, Benjamins Gate (a christian metal band) and I punch it into Kazzaa, well, it has costed that band not one penny for me to find and listen and possibly become a fan of there music, hence, free advertising.

I followed you. You aren't considering the flip-side; people who would have otherwise bought an album or paid to see a performance after hearing about BG through word of mouth can just download the music off the internet and BG gets not one red cent.

Well, as I said in my previous post, I'd like to see some proof that the big 10% losses suffered by the record groups are truly related file trading. Is there any proof of that? And even so, how can we be certain its not trumped up reports to turn the table in the richies favor?

Whether or not music theft has any impact at all on the record companies is largely irrelevant to whether said theft is wrong.

 

[Zero]

Is there any validity to the notion of file sharing to be ok, under certain circumstances? I mean, obviously(to me) bootlegs are fine and dandy. I really don't see any harm in wanting to sampl,e a CD before you buy, too...especially when we are talking about a 30 minute CD that costs $20.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Is there any validity to the notion of file sharing to be ok, under certain circumstances? I mean, obviously(to me) bootlegs are fine and dandy. I really don't see any harm in wanting to sampl,e a CD before you buy, too...especially when we are talking about a 30 minute CD that costs $20.

There are bands (phish, greatful dead for example) who condone or even support legal "bootlegging." There are also a number of sites with free mp3's for download at the request of the artists who are seeking exposure.

 

[megashawn]

Whether or not music theft has any impact at all on the record companies is largely irrelevant to whether said theft is wrong.

And I and many others say it is theft to charge such a rediculous price for cds. The RIAA even anounced a price drop that has yet to take effect.

And that is what I say is damaging there sales, not online theft, but over charging. Before I even had a CD-r and was able to burn cd's, effectively taken my music out of my house, into my car, give it to my friend, etc, I quit buying cds. Many others did too.

Its quite relavent, because, if that is the source of the problem(overcharging) and they are only trying to correct the side effect(online piracy) then they will be running a big circle and never get anything accomplished, aside from wasting resources.

Like Zantra said, even if they get all the share networks to shutdown, it will just go back underground.

I find it funny that the RIAA doesn't even know about the largest file sharing network out there. I'd mention it, but I'd hate to jinx it.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by megashawn
And I and many others say it is theft to charge such a rediculous price for cds. The RIAA even anounced a price drop that has yet to take effect.

I would agree and there are even possible legal actions to be taken against the RIAA, but that is largely a separate issue.

'They did something illegal before I did something illegal, so what I did should be ok' isn't a valid defense.

Its quite relavent, because, if that is the source of the problem(overcharging) and they are only trying to correct the side effect(online piracy) then they will be running a big circle and never get anything accomplished, aside from wasting resources.

Thats true, but that still doesn't make it RIGHT

 

[Zero]

Stealing on a large scale is as American as apple pie, the only difference is that it isn't rich corporations doing the stealing for a change.

 

[megashawn]

The more and more I think about it, we should all boycott cd's under the RIAA umbrella. They want to wine about the 10% losses, let's see how they feel about 30 or 40 % lossess.

I mean, they anounce that they are pressing law suits againts people downloading/sharing, and in the same breath say that they will lower cd prices. Well, they've pressed charges, but they've yet to drop the prices. More lies.

Seems like the best course of action to me.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by russ_watters
One clarification on taping something from the radio/tv - its not illegal and never has been (it may have/may be changing - more later). What do you think a VCR is for? These fall under "home use" and are allowed as long as you don't distribute the media. Hollywood didn't used to mind because the quality of the recording used to be significantly worse on a tape taken from tv or the radio - not anymore. Digital tv and radio has made it possible to make very high quality recordings.

Its been a few years since I researched this (I did a debate in college), so by now it might be illegal. That may have been part of the DMCA.

Remember Cassette Tapes? Though there was really no legal objection, I recall (way back when) the music industry objecting to recordable cassette tapes for the same reason. I used to record a ton off the radio. The key factor, as you mentioned, was distribution.

As for video tapes, technically it is illegal. you're correct that they don't pursue it because 1. The recordings until recently made 2nd copies pretty bad. And they did institute anti-copy measures that messed up tapes pretty decently. Litigation was deemed costly and unecessary. But you're right- the quality of recordings now have upped the stakes.

 

[jb]

Well, as I said in my previous post, I'd like to see some proof that the big 10% losses suffered by the record groups are truly related file trading. Is there any proof of that? And even so, how can we be certain its not trumped up reports to turn the table in the richies favor?

i wouldn't be a bit surprised if that 10% is caused by the excessive price of cds, and the increasing crappiness of music. without those factors, i bet the riaa would see a 10% increase due to trading.

and their lawsuits are way too excessive. $1000 or more for a song is a hell of a lot. that goes beyond the scope of damages done, assuming a cost of $1 per song from legal online sites.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by jb
i wouldn't be a bit surprised if that 10% is caused by the excessive price of cds, and the increasing crappiness of music. without those factors, i bet the riaa would see a 10% increase due to trading.

Actually, what the RIAA doesn't tell you is that they have changed the way they find talent. There has been a significant reduction in the number of albums published and the number of new bands signed to record deals with major labels. The number of cd's sold per album released has not gone down.

 

[Zero]

I find myself agreeing with both sides in principle...I usually limit my online file stealing to checking out songs I read about in magazines, and then buying the CD if I like the song. I think the RIAA is fighting file sharing because it allows record executives to keep their jobs by blaming low record sales on us, instead of on the crappy CDs they put out.

 

[Zantra]

mp3 sharing going underground

I believe I just predicted this exact thing back on page one. It's a trend that will gain more and more momentum the more RIAA pursues it. Basically this is an upward trend that can't be fought. It's not just a small segment of people. MP3 sharing is in use by the masses, and it won't be squashed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/10/06/underground.internet.ap/index.html

The decentralized peer-to-peer technology that enables a computer user to share his or her music collection with strangers remains an unbottled genie -- and is now likely to evolve so ever more traffic becomes invisible not just to the entertainment industry's copyright cops but also to repressive governments, inquisitive employers and snooping relatives.

 

[megashawn]

Well, back in my younger days I used to mess around with mIrc scripting. Right before I give it up I was working on a file-sharing network that would work through mirc, peer to peer and independant of the irc network.

I might get back into it again seeing the need for a more private way of communication.

I still say we should boycott the music industry.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Brilliant!

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031027/D7UEHP801.html

 

[Zero]

Good plan! Gotta love MIT, don't you?

 

[Mattius_]

I mean, they anounce that they are pressing law suits againts people downloading/sharing, and in the same breath say that they will lower cd prices. Well, they've pressed charges, but they've yet to drop the prices. More lies.

I think that they just dropped prices from 18 to 12 dollars a cd. But that makes one think, just how much money are they making in the first place?

Now who is stealing?

 

[megashawn]

I think that they just dropped prices from 18 to 12 dollars a cd. But that makes one think, just how much money are they making in the first place?

Well, here in NC the price change must not be in effect. I was at the mall just last week and the cheapest cd I could find was $16.

Even old cds like Pantera Cowboys from Hell (80's anyone) is going for 15-18 in any store. Its just plain rediculous.

I had a friend who works for FYE, formely known as Camelot here. He said there was a 300-500% markup on cd's at the store itself. A large portion of a cd goes to the record store you buy it at. I think I mentioned earlier about another old friend of mine who worked for a cd pressing company some years ago. Ready to sale, rolling off the line a cd costs between 50 cent and $1 to make.

I can't get nobody to do it, but I really think a boycott would get them to open there eyes. Like someone said, $1000 for a song in these lawsuits is rediculous. There legal criminals, and even the government is on there side.

I still say more proof need be provided that establishes the losses suffered by the record industry are indeed a result of file trading, and not unhappy consumers tired of overpaying.

I remember plenty of people not buying cd's before cd-r's hit the market. The only difference now, is the people fed up with paying to much now have an option to get there own music.

 

[BoulderHead]

Recent developments;

A federal appeals court dealt the music industry a serious blow Friday in a ruling that makes it harder and more costly for record companies to sue individuals suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet.

The sternly worded, surprise ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., overturned a lower court order that forced Internet service provider Verizon Communications Inc. to give the Recording Industry Association of America the names of subscribers suspected of illegally offering music files online.

Taken from;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/20/MUSIC.TMP&type=tech

 

[megashawn]

but said Congress did not draft the digital copyright act broadly enough to cover issuing a subpoena to an Internet service providerto stop file-sharing technology, which did not exist when the law was passed.

Hah, while this is good news, this particular belief is even better.

As I said before, I've been dubbing mp3s on tapes before Bill Gates had a CD-R

And the fact that they don't know about the good file sharing programs comforts me.

 

[jb]

i don't know if any of you have heard this, but kazaalite just got shut down by... none other than kazaa's parent company, sharman. ironic eh, a company that makes its money from people illegally sharing copyrighted materials, is concerned about its own copyrighted materials.

you can chop off a programmer's arms and legs, but he can still code with his nose.