The chickenfarmer's lament

[AFK]

Right, and that is important.  If a band or artist encourages free downloads by providing them, or stating they are comfortable with their fans finding their music for free through filesharing, etc. then great!  However, when the intention of the artist is for their creative labor to produce income to support their productivity, then the honorable thing, the right thing, to do is to honor that.  If you are willfully circumventing that, then you ARE hurting the artist.  Again, record labels aren't all perfect, but not all screw their artists either.  I was reading this morning about this one metal label that gives their artists 10-15% of album sales.  Extend that to 1000 pirated copies vs 1000 purchased copies, you are talking about considerable money that can go towards producing new albums.

I'm sorry I'm stuck on this but I really just don't understand the mindset of a music fan who is unwilling to support the bands they like by forking out the measly sum for their albums.  I've managed to amass are rather large music collection of CDs and cassettes.  I bought every single one of them.  And only a handful of those were used copies.  I'm not exactly filthy rich, but I've managed to amass that collection without going broke.  I just don't get it. 

[AFK]

BTW, for everyone who likes to support musicians by buying their t-shirts:

http://www.cafepress.com/SONOFCONVENTION

[Pæs]

I find that I will be more than willing to purchase albums from smaller bands and feel less comfortable pirating their music. I'm uncertain where the line is, but I've recently purchased the discography from a local Swing/Romani/Cabaret band who I know needs the money to continue producing music, and having been sent copies of Circus Contraption, liked it, and decided to buy from their website... but then have no issue downloading all of The Doors or all of The Beatles. I take it case by case, but admit my ignorance of who exactly it is I am cheating out of money in every case. Maybe this would be different if I had the means to buy copies of the music I like. I'd like to think it would, but really can't say.

[AFK]

What keeps you from paying for ALL of the music you want to own? 

[Triple Zero]

You know, Cram is right in that we should be considering how to support artists in the current environment; however, it troubles me that some consider pirating to be less immoral, just because it's easy to do.

I consider pirating to be less immoral than stealing because of the inherent differences between physical property and intellectual property.

I believe I sufficiently explained that by now. The author does not suffer a direct loss when you pirate intellectual property, because the author does not lose their copy. They may however, suffer a loss in potential profits.

I am arguing that the loss in potential profits is nothing like a 1:1 correspondence with each instance of intellectual property pirated.

Therefore piracy is at least slightly less immoral than stealing of physical property, because in that case, what you steal cannot be sold in a very strict 1:1 correlation.

So in short, this thread has indeed made me realize that pirating is still somewhat immoral (as opposed to the OP which seems to suggest it is not). So that bit I concede.

(On the other hand, I feel that personally I'm doing enough to offset this, and therefore won't lose any sleep over it. You are free to disagree with that notion, and I will accept that. But let's not go into that here now)

We can argue about how much lost potential profits there are in proportion to piracy, but to me, it's already surprising that without that much regulation people still feel they should buy and pay for music they actually like.

That's right, I know of NOBODY that pirates music without giving anything back to the music industry. And everybody I know that does this also tends to favour small labels and independent artists. That is, they have no problem downloading Madonna or Robbie Williams, but if it's a smaller label they are much more likely to buy the CD, just to support them [in my case, the CDs often don't even leave their plastic seal wrapping, as I have them as MP3 already anyway--but that's more of a statement cause you gotta read the booklet, yeah].

A person has requested that you pay money for their music; you take the music and ignore their request.  It's really that simple.

It's not to me. What does it mean "for their music"? Any time I hear it? The right to hear it whenever I want? What did I "take"? Can I remix it? Play it during a party? In my bar? In my office? Really loud in my car so everyone can hear it? In my homegrown internet radio broadcast? As background to my family video youtube?

IP law has some of the answers to these questions, but some of them are pretty ridiculous.

As far as radio, youtube and pandora go -- if a band uploads a track to Youtube, they are offering it for free.  That's not stealing.  If a fan does it, that's a bit more questionable.  It's not a perfect copy, and it's streaming, but the band isn't getting any royalties.  For radio and pandora, the bands are getting royalties, so that's ok.

They are?

How does that work?

Also independent bands and small-time labels?

Because as far as I understand they basically play some amount to RIAA and similar lobbyists for big labels, of which part goes to the big labels, of which part goes to the artists of those labels, just so the lobbyists won't sue them. Meaning only the big artists get a significant amount of royalites and the majority of artists doesn't get zilch.

Maybe I'm wrong, in which case please correct me.

But if I were to make music, and I dunno put it on CD and sell it (yeah I wouldnt but let's say I did), and then this person puts it on Last.FM or something, they get this automatic playlist device and suddenly other people can hear it on Last.FM as well right?

Oh and then there's radio stations, of which i KNOW that they simply pay some kind of blanket amount to the relevant largest copyright organisations and can download and/or play whatever the hell they feel like.

Where in this whole business is the part where I get my royalties? (even if it's just a few cents)

Of course you understand I cannot "register" with the RIAA (or equivalent) to "represent" my rights, because that costs money (for copyright which is apparently automatic, so yeah) and most importantly that the RIAA does stuff I really, REALLY disagree with (and that's not just cracking down on piracy but also some things that are just downright evil no matter where you stand on copyright).

[Triple Zero]

What keeps you from paying for ALL of the music you want to own? 

Nothing. But I don't really feel like I "own" music I didn't pay for. I know that much. If I want to own, I pay. The rest is just information on my harddrive.

[LMNO]

I believe I sufficiently explained that by now. The author does not suffer a direct loss when you pirate intellectual property, because the author does not lose their copy. They may however, suffer a loss in potential profits.

This is what I don't understand: If you copy their music without paying for it, how is that a "may"?  You now have a copy of their music that you didn't pay for.  A transaction occurred.  In exchange for you now having their music, you haven't given them anything in return.  

I  mean, I understand that the band started with zero, and still have zero after you copy their music; they're not at -1.  So, sure -- they didn't "lose" anything.  However, they are at zero, and you're at +1 -- you have the music.

If you paid for the album as the artist intended, you would both be at +1 because you'd have the music, and the artist would have the money.  Or, if you prefer, you'd both be even, because you had exchanged money for music.

It just seems like the artist stays at zero, while everyone who supposedly likes the artist goes +1.  To me, it shows a lack of appreciation and respect for an artist's talent, art, and work to consider their music something that doesn't deserve compensation.


As far as royalties go: A musician joins BMI or ASCAP (not RIAA).  Terrestrial Radio and Internet Radio keep playlists of songs broadcast, and pay monthly fees.  BMI and ASCAP note which songs were played, and pay royalties to their artists accordingly.  The government sets the rate on royalties per song played.
http://www.ascap.com/index.aspx and http://www.bmi.com/royalties for details.

[AFK]

I consider pirating to be less immoral than stealing because of the inherent differences between physical property and intellectual property.

I believe I sufficiently explained that by now. The author does not suffer a direct loss when you pirate intellectual property, because the author does not lose their copy. They may however, suffer a loss in potential profits.

I am arguing that the loss in potential profits is nothing like a 1:1 correspondence with each instance of intellectual property pirated.

Therefore piracy is at least slightly less immoral than stealing of physical property, because in that case, what you steal cannot be sold in a very strict 1:1 correlation.

So in short, this thread has indeed made me realize that pirating is still somewhat immoral (as opposed to the OP which seems to suggest it is not). So that bit I concede.

(On the other hand, I feel that personally I'm doing enough to offset this, and therefore won't lose any sleep over it. You are free to disagree with that notion, and I will accept that. But let's not go into that here now)

We can argue about how much lost potential profits there are in proportion to piracy, but to me, it's already surprising that without that much regulation people still feel they should buy and pay for music they actually like.

Because it is the respectful thing to do when you support a band or artist.  This is what they signed up to do.  If they wanted their recordings to be freely available without people paying for them they would be posting every song they've recorded on their websites.  But that isn't their venture.  Their venture is to record their original creations, using their original thoughts and their original talents to create this artform.  The deal is if you want to enjoy this product of their intellect and talent, you compensate them with a measly sum so you can do so.  It's like anything else that is produced.  The idea is that the funds and proceeds from selling that product funds the production of more of that product.  If people were able to pirate cars, the funds coming into Toyota and Chevrolet would dry up and they wouldn't be able to make cars anymore. 

So, in the end, the argument you seem to be making is that you should because you can.  And that works out for you, the end user, but how does that work out for the person or persons who actually spent the long hours writing, recording, mixing, and mastering those recordings? 

[Triple Zero]

I believe I sufficiently explained that by now. The author does not suffer a direct loss when you pirate intellectual property, because the author does not lose their copy. They may however, suffer a loss in potential profits.

This is what I don't understand: If you copy their music without paying for it, how is that a "may"?  You now have a copy of their music that you didn't pay for.  A transaction occurred.  In exchange for you now having their music, you haven't given them anything in return.  

I  mean, I understand that the band started with zero, and still have zero after you copy their music; they're not at -1.  So, sure -- they didn't "lose" anything.  However, they are at zero, and you're at +1 -- you have the music.

Because I wouldn't have bought the music anyway if I couldn't have pirated it. It's not like "oh I can't download this for free, now I'm going to buy it even though I still don't think it's worth the money"--And I'm perfectly fine with that. I would either have never heard it, and not known what I might have missed, or I might have heard it and decided it's not good enough to spend money on. And then no piracy, well too bad. It's not like I don't have enough music already that I have paid for*.

In either scenario, me pirating the music actually increases the odds that the artist is ever going to get my money.

So that is where I can pirate music and the artist doesn't suffer a loss in potential profit: I pirate it first, and then I buy the CD. My argument is that, with me, pirating the music increases the odds of me buying the CD.

The only way for that to be otherwise, people would have to, like, buy the CD without downloading illegally and checking it out first. I mean, really, sure you can go to the record store and request to listen on one of their headphones ... ten years ago Nobody I know does that anymore.

[* I would be slightly more sad about all my CDs that got damaged in the fire last year. At least thanks to piracy I can easily retrieve the music, even if the plastic boxes and booklets are all charred, I don't really care as CDs are a cumbersome thing of the past to me, anyway]

As far as royalties go: A musician joins BMI or ASCAP (not RIAA).  Terrestrial Radio and Internet Radio keep playlists of songs broadcast, and pay monthly fees.  BMI and ASCAP note which songs were played, and pay royalties to their artists accordingly.  The government sets the rate on royalties per song played.
http://www.ascap.com/index.aspx and http://www.bmi.com/royalties for details.

Cool. I'm going to look into that, because I don't believe for a second that could ever actually work in a fair manner.

Because it is the respectful thing to do when you support a band or artist.

And what if I don't support or respect them?

This is what they signed up to do.  If they wanted their recordings to be freely available without people paying for them they would be posting every song they've recorded on their websites.  But that isn't their venture.  Their venture is to record their original creations, using their original thoughts and their original talents to create this artform.  The deal is if you want to enjoy this product of their intellect and talent, you compensate them with a measly sum so you can do so.

You know I really wish artists could somehow record their music to some sort of medium that absolutely impossibly could not be copied.

And then see how long they'd last against the artists that record to digital media.

Cause you can demand as much as you want about "what the deal is" and "what they signed up for" or "what their venture is", but they'd disappear into complete obscurity if that's what their venture would be, if they had to compete with artists that embrace the digital era for all it's worth.

Unfortunately, such a medium does not exist or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For example I know local artists [Noisia] that got incredibly successfull because some american hiphop guy [KRS one] heard their music as MP3s (had to be, it's not like they sold records in the USA) and wanted to do cooperation. People buy Noisia's records (and go to their gigs) anyway because they want to support them, and Noisia doesn't bitch but in fact pre-releases their new tracks onto the Internet in order to get free advertising. Everybody wins and nobody pays for music they don't think is worth paying for.

That's what I'd like to see in the future, and I don't think musicians are going to be a dying breed because of it, in fact they'll be better off for it as far as I can judge, because of increased independecce

It's like anything else that is produced.  The idea is that the funds and proceeds from selling that product funds the production of more of that product.  If people were able to pirate cars, the funds coming into Toyota and Chevrolet would dry up and they wouldn't be able to make cars anymore.

Come on, people ARENT able to "pirate cars", what does that even mean?

That's the entire point of this discussion.

So, in the end, the argument you seem to be making is that you should because you can.

No. In my previous post I just explained that this is NOT my argument. You can insist that it is, but like this it's putting words in my mouth.

[Elder Iptuous]

when we have some universal assembler, i'm totally going to pirate the most badass cars i can download.
and i'll feel a twinge of guilt as i cruise down the desert highway at 150...

[AFK]

Because it is the respectful thing to do when you support a band or artist.

And what if I don't support or respect them?

Then why are you downloading their music?  And if you really are only interested in sampling their music, why aren't you looking for artist-initiated sampling such as finding songs on their MySpace page or website?  There are ways to sample aritists' music that they create and sanction.  And then if you like them and want more you can support them by paying for the album or additional songs. 

You know I really wish artists could somehow record their music to some sort of medium that absolutely impossibly could not be copied.

And then see how long they'd last against the artists that record to digital media.

Cause you can demand as much as you want about "what the deal is" and "what they signed up for" or "what their venture is", but they'd disappear into complete obscurity if that's what their venture would be, if they had to compete with artists that embrace the digital era for all it's worth.

You are conflating a little bit here.  This isn't a strict discussion about whether or not artists conform to the digital era.  It's about pirating, copying, and stealing recordings.  Artists, including pretty much every band I follow, are making selections available digitally whether it is through iTunes, Amazon, their website, etc.  But people ripping CDs, making them available for piracy, or obtaining the copies themselves, is a different issue.  And this is where I see the argument being "i should because I can" or "they should because they can".  I am not arguing that artists should only be recording to CDs and vinyl, etc., I am arguing that the mindset of those pirating music is damaging to artists.  There are lots of things that are because they can, but I don't believe just accepting that is the solution, no more than the idea that nobody is going to accept Discordianism so we should just close up shop and forget about it. 

It's like anything else that is produced.  The idea is that the funds and proceeds from selling that product funds the production of more of that product.  If people were able to pirate cars, the funds coming into Toyota and Chevrolet would dry up and they wouldn't be able to make cars anymore.

Come on, people ARENT able to "pirate cars", what does that even mean?

That's the entire point of this discussion.

"If".  The reason people don't pirate cars is because they can't.  Again, this is why I see the argument being "we do because we can".  What about the "should"? 

[Triple Zero]

[quoet]Come on, people ARENT able to "pirate cars", what does that even mean?

That's the entire point of this discussion.

"If".  The reason people don't pirate cars is because they can't.  Again, this is why I see the argument being "we do because we can".  What about the "should"?  [/quote]

No the question was "what does that even mean".

What does it mean to "pirate cars"?

[LMNO]

To be less hyperbolic, what you're saying seems to imply to me that you would have no problem with scanning Roger's MSY comic book into jpeg, then emailing and posting it to every contact and messageboard you know of.

[AFK]

Just like pirating music.  Make a copy leave the original.  Obviously there currently is no technology for such a thing to happen.  But if it did exist, people would take advantage of it, right?  This argument that because the information and intellect and creativity that goes into creating a piece of music doesn't result in something you can physically hold, and therefore it is subject to different rules regarding stealing, that argument just doesn't hold water for me.  Because it is essentially the, "do it because you can" argument.  It totally disregards the ethics of it.  

But if we're going to talk about the future and technology, what I would love to see is the technology to embed some kind of code or something into music files that fucks it up when it is copied.  They did this with VHS tapes when they figured out people would just rent movies and dub them at home.  I don't have an earthly clue how it could happen, but I would like to see advancements that are a little more pro-artist to protect them and their investment of time and effort into their creativity.  

[Triple Zero]

To be less hyperbolic, what you're saying seems to imply to me that you would have no problem with scanning Roger's MSY comic book into jpeg, then emailing and posting it to every contact and messageboard you know of.

Okay. But it seems I do have a problem with that.

Similar to your and RWHNs music.

I guess that makes me a hypocrite, I concede.

The problem is, I also have a problem with the alternative.

Just like pirating music.  Make a copy leave the original.  Obviously there currently is no technology for such a thing to happen.  But if it did exist, people would take advantage of it, right?  This argument that because the information and intellect and creativity that goes into creating a piece of music doesn't result in something you can physically hold, and therefore it is subject to different rules regarding stealing, that argument just doesn't hold water for me.  Because it is essentially the, "do it because you can" argument.  It totally disregards the ethics of it.

Okay. I think I understand your point now.

I'm not disregarding the ethics though. I mean, my discussion in this thread on the matter shows I take the ethics seriously.

It's a problem.

But if we're going to talk about the future and technology, what I would love to see is the technology to embed some kind of code or something into music files that fucks it up when it is copied.  They did this with VHS tapes when they figured out people would just rent movies and dub them at home.  I don't have an earthly clue how it could happen, but I would like to see advancements that are a little more pro-artist to protect them and their investment of time and effort into their creativity.

With all my knowledge of technology, I don't have a clue either. Only thing I can think of is Sony's fail in crippling CDs, which backfired.