The chickenfarmer's lament

[Elder Iptuous]

RWHN,  i certainly wouldn't argue that album sales have dropped....
but has the quantity and quality of music being made dropped?
the reason i even ask is because i am overwhelmed by the amount of great music coming about these days compared to before.  it could just be my perspective, though.

i certainly don't know the details of the recording industry, so i'm not informed enough to make declarations here.

why didn't the band you refer to make their own album rather than use some label?

also, it occurs to me that music used to be commissioned.
has any bands experimented with collective fan based commissioning?  that would be interesting...
when pieces were commissioned by composers a long time ago, were others allowed to play the music without permission?
hm.

[Cain]

THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN. Bottom line. Talking about right and wrong won't fix it, any more than it will restore the Americas to the natives.

What is the solution?

There is one reason, and one reason only, that I am able to support myself on beads, and that is the internet and its amazing opportunity to allow me to represent myself. In the past, beadmakers had to either hire reps to market their work, or they had to do the show circuit; out of the question for someone with young children. The very same technology which has made it harder for artists to survive under the current label sponsorship/distribution model has also made it possible for countless other artists to survive and thrive as SRA... Self Representing Artists. This is a huge movement, and growing rapidly. I know musicians who are thriving under this model... they really have no choice, as labels won't give them a second listen. It's not easy, and it requires learning business as well as music, but it works.

For now.

I give this advice to every friend I have who is looking to make money from music.  I came to pretty much the same conclusion re: music and, as far as I can tell, this is the only model which has a chance of success. 

[Cramulus]

btw, fun fact --

Overall music sales hit an all-time high in 2009

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2010/01/overall-music-purchases-hit-an-alltime-high-in-2009.html


If anything is actually in danger right now, it's physical retailers, who are slowly losing ground to internet sales.

[Doktor Howl]

If anything is actually in danger right now, it's physical retailers, who are slowly losing ground to internet sales.

Unfortunate, but not immoral.

[Doktor Howl]

In your estimation, has the quality and quantity of music available to the average person declined over this period?

Quality?  Yes.  Absolutely.

I can give you some examples, if you like.

[Doktor Howl]

1. is about the moralty of piracy
2. is about how producers and consumers can both get their needs met


I'm really only interested in talking about #2.

I'm talking about #1.

It's hard to complain about BP and Halliburton, for example, if I myself am stealing.

[Cramulus]

I disagree that one must be a paragon of morality in order to complain about anybody else's immorality.

I gather that you think it's absurd that production companies should have to adjust their model for the times in any way.

I mean, it's really fun shouting THIEF over and over again, if that's what you want to get out of the thread. I had hoped we could establish something ITT other than who has the moral high ground, which is kind of boring because under the current model, the public is going to go on pirating movies and music regardless of whether or not it's theft and/or hurts the artist.

[Doktor Howl]

I disagree that one must be a paragon of morality in order to complain about anybody else's immorality.

Nope.  Everyone is free to be hypocritical once in a while.  I know I am.

I gather that you think it's absurd that production companies should have to adjust their model for the times in any way.

Not at all.  For example, you brought up the internet sales vs brick-and-mortar record shops.  Times change.

I mean, it's really fun shouting THIEF over and over again, if that's what you want to get out of the thread. I had hoped we could establish something ITT other than who has the moral high ground, which is kind of boring because under the current model, the public is going to go on pirating movies and music regardless of whether or not it's theft and/or hurts the artist.

I was responding to the OP, Cram.  If you're going to pirate, pirate.  Despite my earlier and admittedly reducto ad absurdum comments, there are far worse crimes than ripping off a $0.79 song (and, yes, the penalties are ridiculous).  However, looking at things from a stand point of The Truth, the OP is attempting to justify theft as somehow being the fault of the victim, rather than just saying "It's not the end of the fucking world, I'm gonna burn me the newest La Roux tune (or whatever they listen to in Belgium), and sleep like a baby afterward".

[Cain]

While we're speaking of piracy, I thought you guys might like to know that Lady Gaga has been in the top 100 music downloads on TPB since her debut in 2008.

Just thought that piece of info may tickle you.  Certainly shows a considerable amount of staying power.

[Doktor Howl]

While we're speaking of piracy, I thought you guys might like to know that Lady Gaga has been in the top 100 music downloads on TPB since her debut in 2008.

Just thought that piece of info may tickle you.  Certainly shows a considerable amount of staying power.

Kind of thinking she's going to be around for a while longer, too.

She seems to know when to stop talking and let people talk about her.  Seinfeld made a royal ass of himself, apparently, bitching about her in a manner reminiscent of Jerry Falwell.  She hasn't said a word, AFAIK.

IMO, she keeps pumping out shit like Bad Romance and Telephone, good on her.

[Reginald Ret]

Holy crap this post got large, sorry about that.
I think i got all posts (thati wanted to reply to) in the right order.
Please forgive me if this is getting confusing, i am finding it hard to track myself.

Yes, but i consider loyalty and friendship of higher importance than my opinion on IP.
You won't have to worry about me abusing any of your work.
Philosphical talk is great fun, but not as important as real people.
I don't pirate from my friends if they don't want me to.

So pirating IS wrong?

Going against the wishes of your friends is wrong.
I have no loyalty to outsiders/unknowns. i won't kill them and i will give them a hand if they need a little help but i will not worry about their opinion of me.
I must follow my own principles. I am willing to adapt to my friend's principles but i can't go around adapting to every single person on the planet, that would be silly.

So you admit that pirating my comic, for example, would cause me enough grief as to make it wrong?

Doing it against your wishes is wrong.
Not doing it per se.
Lets say i have a friend who truly hates the color yellow.
He has a traumatic memory or something.
There is nothing wrong with me wearing yellow clothes, but it is wrong to do this near my yellow-phobic friend.
So i don't wear yellow near my friend. This does not mean that i stop wearing yellow all together, just because some other person might also truly hate yellow.

Information does not act the same as physical produce.
Applying the same rules to both hurts at least one of them.

Bullshit.  If people cannot own their own body of work, and determine it's distribution, then why fucking bother?

Because they like to create?

Ask Nigel if she makes beads because she likes to create.  Also, from a purely economic standpoint, there is harmful for a person to be an artist, if they don't own the body of their work, to sell as they see fit.  It's a huge investment of time, that would be better off, you know, making the rent.

False comparison.
Beads are physical objects.
Artists own their work, untill they sell it. If they kept a copy themselves they now have a shared ownership with the one they sold to. If the creator gets to tell the buyer what to do and don't with his new 'property' it is not a sell, it is something else.

Let's just simplify this:  Inventors and artists are less than human, and can have their work exploited without compensation.  Because I want free stuff.

There.  The pro-piracy argument, stripped of all the bullshit rationalizations.

No.
Like every other person they get to try to make money as long as they do it without resorting to violence.
Violence is only acceptable to defend their own life, the life of another person and to keep their possesions from being taken away.
What are copyrights?  the right to use state violence against people who have not hurt you and have taken nothing away from you.

Courts are violent?  Okay, by the same logic, I just decide to move into your living room.  Get me out without using violence, "state violence" or otherwise.  After all, you can't be using the entire living room at the same time, right?

Courts are based on violence.
Try to resist their demands and see what happens.

Use is irrelevant, this is about ownership. It is my living room so i own it. it is a physical object and i have a right to use violence to keep it available to me. (i'd rather not though, you would kick my ass)

Frankly, I find the idea that music, art, etc, I may create going automatically and without my permission to be public domain to be offensive as hell. I also find the notion that I'd put that much effort into something "for the sheer joy of creating it" to also be as offensive as hell. It says that an artist (of whatever type) is less human than someone who makes tangible objects for a living. In other words, in terms of rights, someone who manufactures napalm is of more value to civilization than artists are. If that's the world you want, if that's the existence and culture you're willing to tolerate in order to avoid paying $0.79/song for your Ipod, then you deserve the world we live in, because it's that same attitude that got us where we are today...ie, cultural pursuits are of tertiary interest, after impliments of warfare, stuffing your face with junk food, and cheap plastic crap from China. Congratulations, monkeys!  But at least you filled your Ipod for cheap.

I want to take a moment to explore the idea that stealing (pirating) from a friend is "wrong", but stealing from a stranger is not wrong. What happens if we extrapolate that to other forms of transgression?

Stop conflating stealing with piracy without first proving(give at least one argument) that they are the same.

Aside from that, explore away. It is quite the interesting moral quagmire.

Bullshit.  If people cannot own their own body of work, and determine it's distribution, then why fucking bother?

Because they like to create?
They will earn some money from the edge of having it first?
It may get them noticed by talent-scouts?
music specific: the freely given music touches millions of people and they want to see you perform or want your merchandise

So, you are willing to shell out 60 bucks for a concert ticket, another 20 to 30 for the t-shirt, but you won't fork out the measily 13-15 bucks for the CD?  Or, the 99cents for the one or two songs you like?  WTF?

And what good are the talent-scouts if you don't make enough in album sales to finance future albums?  Records don't make themselves and they aren't made cheaply.  When you pirate music you are diminishing the capacity of the band to make the music you supposedly enjoy.  If the record company isn't selling the t-shirts and posters themselves, they don't care how much bank you are making off of those if they aren't seeing the money necessary to fund your next album.  You'll be dropped like a bad habit. 

Is there a difference between stealing a band's music online, and sneaking into a concert they're playing?

In both cases, the band has decided that if you want to hear their music, you have to pay for it.

Yes:
One is making a copy of a copy of a (stolen or bought) copy.
The other is entering a private area without permission.

When did the artist give you permission to copy their music without paying for it? 

I did not get that data from the artist, i did not have an agreement with the artist. I can copy someone's walking style without getting the law sent after me, i can hum a tune i heard a bird sing without first talking to the resident birdexpert so why can't i sing a song i heard on the radio?

That reminds me.
The way it is now you are not buying music.
You are buying the use of music.
Because if you actually bought the music you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it. (except shatter the cd and stab someone with the pieces. but even then it isn't the way you use the music that is unethical, the hurting someone bit is the bad bit.)

No, you are paying for the opportunity to experience the art in a convenient form.  The intention of the artist is for you to pay a fee for the privilege of enjoying their art in the convenience of your home, office, car, wherever.  The musician never intended to give you their music.  It is an exchange.  You get the enjoyment of having a device or package containing the musical expression and they get money in return which they can invest in making future musical expressions.  Otherwise every band would have a website streaming all of their music 24/7. 

The attitude I'm seeing expressed is essentially, "I pirate it because I can."  Well, sure, great, you can, but why not throw some support to these artists you supposedly like?  Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 

You seem to be hung up on the concept of albums = money.
There are other ways for musicians to earn money, shift the data from the albums from the sales department to the marketing department and you can get further. All without using violence to impose an unrealistic businessmodel on the market.

Your solution is that music as a sole means of making a living is fucked forever?

Just find other ways of making money than selling 10,000 times what can be copied for free.
It is a bad businessmodel.

I guess a simpler way of saying it is to explain using the melioration principle

which states that an organism will engage in a behavior until a competing behavior offers better rewards


So far, the industry's solution has been to add punishments for piracy
but if they're going to win, they have to start adding incentives for actual sales

Punishments that usually don't actually hurt the pirate.
Most of these 'punishments' only hurt the paying customers.
Talk about a bad businessmodel.

I think we may be onto the root of all evil, here.

Yes.

Saying that a principle applies only to certain people, defies the entire concept of the rule of law.

Regret states that he won't pirate from friends.  This is privilege, not respect for his friends' rights.

I'm trying to see the difference between this and some of these new laws in Arizona, for example, where your rights are invoilate, unless you happen to be brown...In which case your "rights" are entirely dependent on the mood of any given cop.

I respect my friends preferences, i dont think they have a right to determine what can and can't be done with what they have sold or given. It just accept that they think differently about this subject and i will try to respect their opinion.

(cramulus repeating himself warning)

So this piracy issue isn't going to go away, because

Of course it isn't.  The OP is trying to justify it, though, on a moral level.

If you're swiping it, so be it.  Just don't paint the artist as the bad guy, as Regret did.

Fucking THIS.

I myself am a thief. I don't pretend to be anything otherwise, when it comes to this.

I do draw the line at ripping off people close to me, however. I'm not sure I could say exactly why... All I can say is that there aren't going to be bootleg copies of MSY going around, or a whole bunch of LMNO's tracks being bandied around all over the place (without the respective artists permissions, at the very least). I like that "Root of All Evil" thing there, with the carpet bombing Baghdad - could make for an interesting discussion.

Any other aspect of this debate is (probably entrenched) opinion, unlikely to be changed and very likely to stir up a fight.

Hmmm good observation.
So far i am enjoying this discussion though, and no-one is being forced to read so i will continue.

Any other aspect of this debate is (probably entrenched) opinion, unlikely to be changed and very likely to stir up a fight.

Well, the OP was an obvious troll, but why the hell not?  It's a slow Thursday.

It's not like we haven't done this topic before.

Heh, i did not intend this as a troll.
Anyway: as a PD troll, how did i do?
Just to be clear: I have a shit ton of respect for the way this subject is being handled. It is a joy to converse with people not only  capable of using good arguments, but also capable of seeing interesting sidetracks(nigel; cramulus, i am looking at you).

Well, I particularly like this argument:

1. producers need to adapt to the times because
2. piracy isn't going away
3. in order to adapt, start selling things that can't be pirated

Which I run through the reducto ad absurdum machine, giving us:

1. Potential rape victims need to adapt to the times because
2. Rape isn't going away
3. in order to adapt, start sewing your orifices shut.

So then what should record / movie companies be doing?

It sounds like you're saying they should just keep doing what they're doing, and the public should just stop stealing.


Maybe if we all just start acting rationally on the count of three....

The problem is you can't screw the record label without screwing the artist as well.  And if you are screwing the artist you aren't making things better. 

Unless the artist has a paypal account or other source of income (other that repeated sales of the same data i mean).
With the internet selling data is like selling a fluid in a place without gravity. In theory you can keep it from spreading but in practice this will require isolating the fluid from everything else.

I want to draw a distinction between the two conversations going on right now

1. is about the moralty of piracy
2. is about how producers and consumers can both get their needs met

(...)
I don't think we're going to emerge with anything productive if we get hung up on PIRACY BAD. YES/NO?

Cramulus makes a good point.
I don't think we will get anywhere trying to fight this trench war. (though it is good fun)

In your estimation, has the quality and quantity of music available to the average person declined over this period?

Quality?  Yes.  Absolutely.

I can give you some examples, if you like.

Examples? yes please.
I am (almost*) always willing to learn.

Iptuous: can you give counter examples?



*for honesty's sake

I disagree that one must be a paragon of morality in order to complain about anybody else's immorality.

Nope.  Everyone is free to be hypocritical once in a while.  I know I am.

I gather that you think it's absurd that production companies should have to adjust their model for the times in any way.

Not at all.  For example, you brought up the internet sales vs brick-and-mortar record shops.  Times change.

I mean, it's really fun shouting THIEF over and over again, if that's what you want to get out of the thread. I had hoped we could establish something ITT other than who has the moral high ground, which is kind of boring because under the current model, the public is going to go on pirating movies and music regardless of whether or not it's theft and/or hurts the artist.

I was responding to the OP, Cram.  If you're going to pirate, pirate.  Despite my earlier and admittedly reducto ad absurdum comments, there are far worse crimes than ripping off a $0.79 song (and, yes, the penalties are ridiculous).  However, looking at things from a stand point of The Truth, the OP is attempting to justify theft as somehow being the fault of the victim, rather than just saying "It's not the end of the fucking world, I'm gonna burn me the newest La Roux tune (or whatever they listen to in Belgium), and sleep like a baby afterward".

Again, this comes down to our differing opinions on intellectual property.
I don't think one of us can convince the other so i will drop the subject after this one point: I agree that data-piracy is not very important.


PS Lady Gaga is awesome.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In your estimation, has the quality and quantity of music available to the average person declined over this period?

Quality?  Yes.  Absolutely.

I can give you some examples, if you like.

I could not disagree more. The good stuff just isn't getting played on the radio.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Regret, do you believe that if an artist paints a picture and then sells prints of it, that anyone should be legally allowed to make copies of their print and sell the copies?

How about books?

[Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ]

Music pirates arent making copies and selling them they are just making copies and keeping them for themselves (which is still totally stealing, but not stealing for profit)

[AFK]

I want to draw a distinction between the two conversations going on right now

1. is about the moralty of piracy
2. is about how producers and consumers can both get their needs met

I'm really only interested in talking about #2. I understand that piracy is a type of theft. But larger scale piracy can't be ended by moralizing at pirates, they (collectively) don't care.

I mean maybe you can stop people on this board from pirating music if you make a strong enough case, but I think it's mostly beating a dead horse.

So what's the point of continuing on with Discordianism?  We're never going to convince the bulk of humanity to stop being greyfaces.  So we should all just close up shop right now.  No, conversation #1 is still important and should continue.  Because #1 is about people having a sense of entitlement thinking they have a right to do what they do and that artists need to suck it up.  It doesn't matter what you do in #2 if that attitude prevails.  They will continue to steal music.