Principia Discordia

Once there was a chickenfarmer.
He was the only chickenfarmer in town.
He supplied the entire town with eggs for their breakfast and was loved and respected for this.
He also got rich as fuck.

Then one day a freak wind blew a newspaper into the town square.
It was from the town 75 miles east.
On the front page was a big picture of a chicken with a funny hat!
And the caption read: 'NEW FAD: HAVING A PET CHICKEN!'

So all the important people started to have their own chickens.
And soon everyone had a chicken of their own, from rich to poor and from all walks of life.
If they had a square feet of land, they had a chicken.
Some even had a chicken locked inside their mobile home.

Ofcourse, the chickens did what chickens do.
They made many, many chicken eggs.
The people soon learned that they no longer had to pay for breakfast eggs!
The people Rejoiced!

What do you expect the chickenfarmer did?
Did he accept that people no longer wanted to buy his eggs?
No he did not.
Instead he sent his thugs over to intimidate the people into still paying him for their breakfast eggs.


Luckily the chickenfarmer soon ran out of money and had to stop trying to sell eggs.
Instead he changed focus to only selling chicken meat.
What a smart man this farmer was!









PS  the eggs are music and the farmer is a musician.

Well, yeah, except that people pirating music aren't making music.  They're stealing it.

Stealing requires the victim to lose something.
The chickenfarmer, like the musician, isn't losing anything but potential income.
Do you think the chickenfarmer has the right to keep the villagers from having their own chicken?

One does not have a right to potential income.
If i am selling my TV and it is really worth $200, but i don't know that and i sell it for $100.
Do i get to sue the buyer?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:22:08 PM
Well, yeah, except that people pirating music aren't making music.  They're stealing it.

Piracy != stealing. Stealing removes the original, piracy merely makes a copy.

Also, studies suggest that large-scale piracy of a musician's works is actually financially better for them. Piracy results in lower record sales and higher concert attendance, as more people have heard the musician and would pay to see him/her live. Recording companies get most of the profits from records/CDs, whereas musicians get a lot more of the profits from live concerts.

Hence, piracy helps the musicians and hurts the recording companies.

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 10:31:40 PM
Stealing requires the victim to lose something.

Yes, the profits from their work.

Quote from: Remington on June 30, 2010, 10:32:45 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:22:08 PM
Well, yeah, except that people pirating music aren't making music.  They're stealing it.

(http://www.devtopics.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/piracyisnottheft.jpg)

Just sayin.

Wow.  My argument is totally destroyed by an innaccurate graphic.

Making the copy denies the artist - or the owner of the rights - the profits from their work or investment.  That's theft, plain and simple.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:37:23 PM

Quote from: Remington on June 30, 2010, 10:32:45 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:22:08 PM
Well, yeah, except that people pirating music aren't making music.  They're stealing it.

Just sayin.

Wow.  My argument is totally destroyed by an innaccurate graphic.

Making the copy denies the artist - or the owner of the rights - the profits from their work or investment.  That's theft, plain and simple.

Revised post.

Basically, if I make an invention, patent it, and market it, you guys are okay with the idea of someone simply copying it?

I guess we - at least in America - can just eliminate a clause from article I, sec 8 of the constitution, and then we can all have fun emulating the shining success that is Bulgaria.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:37:23 PM

Quote from: Remington on June 30, 2010, 10:32:45 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:22:08 PM
Well, yeah, except that people pirating music aren't making music.  They're stealing it.

img http://www.devtopics.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/piracyisnottheft.jpg
Just sayin.

Wow.  My argument is totally destroyed by an innaccurate graphic.

Making the copy denies the artist - or the owner of the rights - the profits from their work or investment.  That's theft, plain and simple.

That's a loss of potential income.
You do not have a right to potential income.
You only have a right to try to get as much income as you can, you don't actually have the right to get all you can.

QuoteIf i am selling my TV and it is really worth $200, but i don't know that and i sell it for $100.
Do i get to sue the buyer?

i think you missed that bit.

PS pic did not help, pic is oversimplification. It may be true for your(and my) world view, but you are not talking to yourself: you are talking to people who disagree with you on this issue. They have a different view on the subject and will not be swayed(sp?) by smart pics or pithy one-liners. it will require making actual arguments, and even then you may not succeed.


(posted while i was typing, adding response to this)

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
Basically, if I make an invention, patent it, and market it, you guys are okay with the idea of someone simply copying it?

I guess we - at least in America - can just eliminate a clause from article I, sec 8 of the constitution, and then we can all have fun emulating the shining success that is Bulgaria.

Things will change drastically if my views on this are applied widely.
To be honest, i have no clue how the inventor's/artist's motivations will be effected.
But i think my reasoning is solid, so it is worth a try.

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 10:50:14 PM

That's a loss of potential income.
You do not have a right to potential income.

Okay, so it is your position that intellectual property does not exist?

Also, you have the right to chase potential profit:  Nobody guarantees that people will buy your product.

But to have people take it without paying for it?  Theft.

farmer = musician, eggs = music

Begs the question - Who's the cock?

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on June 30, 2010, 10:58:38 PM
farmer = musician, eggs = music

Begs the question - Who's the cock?

The initial analogy doesn't hold water anyway, unless all the "villagers" are making their own music.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:01:18 PM

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on June 30, 2010, 10:58:38 PM
farmer = musician, eggs = music

Begs the question - Who's the cock?

The initial analogy doesn't hold water anyway, unless all the "villagers" are making their own music.

Maybe if the villagers genuinely believe their chickens don't create unique eggs, only exact copies of the farmer's eggs?

Okay, sorry, no more playing stretch the metaphor game.

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 10:50:14 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
Basically, if I make an invention, patent it, and market it, you guys are okay with the idea of someone simply copying it?

I guess we - at least in America - can just eliminate a clause from article I, sec 8 of the constitution, and then we can all have fun emulating the shining success that is Bulgaria.

Things will change drastically if my views on this are applied widely.
To be honest, i have no clue how the inventor's/artist's motivations will be effected.
But i think my reasoning is solid, so it is worth a try.

Yeah, they'll change drastically.  It's called Bulgaria.  See above.

I'm going to sleep and work afterwards btw, i will be back in about 15-16 hours.
Please don't assume i am avoiding conflict itt until 24 hours have passed.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:56:16 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 10:50:14 PM

That's a loss of potential income.
You do not have a right to potential income.

Okay, so it is your position that intellectual property does not exist?

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:58:25 PM
Also, you have the right to chase potential profit:  Nobody guarantees that people will buy your product.

But to have people take it without paying for it?  Theft.

Information does not act the same as physical produce.
Applying the same rules to both hurts at least one of them.
forcing people to treat the physical as information is bad (communism, where every physical thing must be shared by all)
and forcing people to treat information as a physical object is bad (we know how to make clean water and instead of sharing that with 3rd world countries, we will demand all their money in exchange for a limited right of use.)

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM

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?

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PMInformation 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?

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM
forcing people to treat the physical as information is bad (communism, where every physical thing must be shared by all)

wut

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM
and forcing people to treat information as a physical object is bad (we know how to make clean water and instead of sharing that with 3rd world countries, we will demand all their money in exchange for a limited right of use.)

3rd world countries don't know how to boil water?   :?

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.

What you say would be more true if the artists and inventors were the ones profiting from selling reproductions of their work, rather than exploitative labels.

Musicians rarely profit from sales of their music. They profit from concerts. So yeah, in principle what you're saying is true, but in practice what Regret is saying is true, even though the chicken farmer metaphor doesn't work at all.

Quote from: Nigel on June 30, 2010, 11:26:04 PM
What you say would be more true if the artists and inventors were the ones profiting from selling reproductions of their work, rather than exploitative labels.

Musicians rarely profit from sales of their music. They profit from concerts. So yeah, in principle what you're saying is true, but in practice what Regret is saying is true, even though the chicken farmer metaphor doesn't work at all.

From a point of principle, there's no difference between pirating from Decca or having someone mass produce your wooden robot and sell it at WalMart without your permission or compensation.

Either you own your intellectual property, or you don't.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:29:19 PM

Quote from: Nigel on June 30, 2010, 11:26:04 PM
What you say would be more true if the artists and inventors were the ones profiting from selling reproductions of their work, rather than exploitative labels.

Musicians rarely profit from sales of their music. They profit from concerts. So yeah, in principle what you're saying is true, but in practice what Regret is saying is true, even though the chicken farmer metaphor doesn't work at all.

From a point of principle, there's no difference between pirating from Decca or having someone mass produce your wooden robot and sell it at WalMart without your permission or compensation.

Either you own your intellectual property, or you don't.

What if someone else, like a record company, owns your intellectual property? Or at least owns the rights to reproduce it for the next ten years?

I am not saying that pirating is right; I'm actually of mixed feelings about that for various reasons including questions about the limits of copyright. I am saying that the current structure of the mainstream music industry screws both end-consumers and musicians while benefiting record labels and distributors, and if pirating benefits both end-consumers and musicians in PRACTICE, whether it is unethical in THEORY becomes philosophical wankery.

I'll say what I was saying in IRC on this topic:

While I agree with a lot of the sentiments in what Regret is saying, I do consider piracy theft. Trying to label it as anything different always strikes me as an attempt to assuage guilt, or to impart more importance on the mundane doings of an ordinary meatsack.

As an ordinary meatsack myself, I can understand trying to build up stealing of work created by artists (and even all that work that the "Evil Big Bad Record Companies" do) into something of a crusade for "consumer rights" or striking a blow at the "evils of capitalism". However I choose not to aggrandise simply clicking on some buttons and listening to the results into something Terribly Important. It's theft, nothing less and, importantly, nothing more.

There is a great case for IP and copyright reform, but the case for its abolition is just nuts.

And yes, downloading tunes from TPB, when they are not being offered freely by the artists or record label in the first case, is most certainly theft.  I do it occasionally (though not often) and refuse to dress it up as something it is not.  At the same time, I'm probably the most prolific ebook thief in all of history, but then if I was getting paid a decent wage in a full time position, I'd be buying those books instead.  And the music.

Quote from: Nigel on June 30, 2010, 11:34:40 PM
What if someone else, like a record company, owns your intellectual property? Or at least owns the rights to reproduce it for the next ten years?

Depends.  Did you sign a contract, ceding the property?

Quote from: Nigel on June 30, 2010, 11:34:40 PM
I am not saying that pirating is right; I'm actually of mixed feelings about that for various reasons including questions about the limits of copyright. I am saying that the current structure of the mainstream music industry screws both end-consumers and musicians while benefiting record labels and distributors, and if pirating benefits both end-consumers and musicians in PRACTICE, whether it is unethical in THEORY becomes philosophical wankery.

I'm all about debating the duration of copyright.  It is too long, I think.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:05:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 10:50:14 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
Basically, if I make an invention, patent it, and market it, you guys are okay with the idea of someone simply copying it?

I guess we - at least in America - can just eliminate a clause from article I, sec 8 of the constitution, and then we can all have fun emulating the shining success that is Bulgaria.

Things will change drastically if my views on this are applied widely.
To be honest, i have no clue how the inventor's/artist's motivations will be effected.
But i think my reasoning is solid, so it is worth a try.

Yeah, they'll change drastically.  It's called Bulgaria.  See above.

We discussed this before.

You're confusing the cause and effect.

The situation in Bulgaria as it is (poor country) is not a result of their lack of enforcing copyrights. Instead, the lack of their enforcing of copyrights is a result of their situation.

So your argument of "we're gonna turn into Bulgaria" does not work.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 10:22:08 PM
Well, yeah, except that people pirating music aren't making music.  They're stealing it.

I'm not stealing it, I'm just permanently borrowing it.  :argh!:

Music piracy isn't stealing, music piracy is COMMUNISM!

Quote from: Rumckle on July 01, 2010, 12:32:33 PM
Music piracy isn't stealing, music piracy is COMMUNISM!

IN CAPITALIST FREE MARKET, MUSIC INDUSTRY PLAYS YOU

Incidentally, the metaphor works a lot better if the chicken is decent recording equipment.

Used to be, the only way to record a band was to pay a shitload to a studio. 

Now, for a couple hundred bucks, you can record all you want at home. 

Yeah, it's been pointed out twice now but the metaphor doesn't work.  It would work, better, if instead of chickens all of the villagers bought cloning devices to make exact replicas of the chickens the original chickenfarmer was raising.  Even then, it wouldn't work, because the eggs produced wouldn't be exact replicas of eggs produced by the original chickens. 

And the part about pirating not hurting artists doesn't hold up.  Sure, the record company gets most of the cha-ching from record sales, but what do you think finances the follow up albums?  It sure as hell ain't t-shirt sales and concert tickets unless the label is selling those too.  So it may not be so much that you are stealing the artists profits but you are stealing their ability and capacity to make more albums.  For christ sake, music isn't that expensive.  Especially now where you can download individual songs and not have to buy the whole album. 

I really see no valid excuse for piracy in this day and age.  Music is cheap and easily available if you have a computer. 

The argument "it's stealing because the artist loses potential profits" only holds if the artist was going to make profit if their media was not pirated.

That is, if person X would not or could not pirate music Y, they would have bought it.

If the person wasn't going to buy the music in the first place, if they couldn't get hold of it for free, where are the lost profits?

I'd say over 95% of my mp3 collection falls into this category. Yes that means my entire music collection would have been 20 times smaller if I couldn't pirate that. In either case for that 95% the artists make exactly the same amount of money, regardless of whether I was pirating or not. The only thing they're losing out on is free advertising when I play music to my friends I otherwise would not be able to.

For the remaining 5%, I usually end up buying them in the end. Although sometimes years after I originally downloaded the MP3s (as the songs grow on you, I realize their value?)

But really, in order to argue that piracy = lost profits = stealing, you gotta show there are lost profits in the first place.

And believe it or not, that's not as clear-cut as you'd think it is.

BTW I do also agree that the chicken analogy in the OP doesn't hold :-)

So if you really don't like 95% of your music collection that much.  Why do you still have it? 

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 01, 2010, 01:35:32 PM
The argument "it's stealing because the artist loses potential profits" only holds if the artist was going to make profit if their media was not pirated.

Actually, I said "artist or investor".  Intellectual property is just like any other property.

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PMInformation 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?
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM
forcing people to treat the physical as information is bad (communism, where every physical thing must be shared by all)

wut

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM
and forcing people to treat information as a physical object is bad (we know how to make clean water and instead of sharing that with 3rd world countries, we will demand all their money in exchange for a limited right of use.)

3rd world countries don't know how to boil water?   :?

Boilingwon't work: it requires a lot of fuel so they would soon run out.
I was thinking about sewage treatment. That takes a bit more than just boiling.
IIRC it takes several filters (some low tech(sand) and some high tech) and carefully controlled microbiological ecologies.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:16:33 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:29:19 PM

Quote from: Nigel on June 30, 2010, 11:26:04 PM
What you say would be more true if the artists and inventors were the ones profiting from selling reproductions of their work, rather than exploitative labels.

Musicians rarely profit from sales of their music. They profit from concerts. So yeah, in principle what you're saying is true, but in practice what Regret is saying is true, even though the chicken farmer metaphor doesn't work at all.

From a point of principle, there's no difference between pirating from Decca or having someone mass produce your wooden robot and sell it at WalMart without your permission or compensation.

Either you own your intellectual property, or you don't.

Well put.
This discussion is about wether intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property.
It is all too easy to drift off into discussing something else entirely.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 03:19:44 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 01, 2010, 01:35:32 PM
The argument "it's stealing because the artist loses potential profits" only holds if the artist was going to make profit if their media was not pirated.

Actually, I said "artist or investor".  Intellectual property is just like any other property.

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 03:25:44 PM
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.

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.)

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 03:25:44 PM
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.

One also involves trespassing.

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 03:25:44 PM
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. without permission.
The other is entering a private area without permission.

Still can't see a difference.

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM

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?

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PMInformation 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.

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:16:33 PM
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?

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?

Surprise buttsex?

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 07:37:10 PM
Surprise buttsex?

Yes, among other things!

What happens when a nation practices that kind of morality?

We carpetbomb Baghdad?

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 07:53:29 PM
We carpetbomb Baghdad?

Dingdingdindingding!

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

Unauthorized filesharing is the DEVIL!

Almost every time I hear about an artist I haven't heard before, it's from a friend who has their album and says "hey, you should listen to this."  Usually I trade them something back (which might have been traded to my by someone else previously).  So maybe one copy of the album has been purchased and there's a dozen or so copies floating around in my circle of friends.  Now, I don't download music, but it seems what I'm doing is essentially the same thing.

In the last few years, though, I've been attending a ton of shows, so I have been giving support to the bands I like.  Just I guess not as much as there could be.

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM
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.  

Quote from: regret

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 03:25:44 PM
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?  

QuoteThat 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.  

(cramulus repeating himself warning)

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

A) it's nearly impossible to legislate away communication methods. The pirates are always going to be one step ahead of anti-piracy software and legislation. Everything we do on the Internet involves sending and receiving data, it's impossible to allow certain types of data and not others.

B) speaking for myself and likely millions of others, I'm not being properly motivated into buying the music because free copies are ubiquitous. I'm much more likely to pay for a friend's album than I am to buy a professional album because in the latter case, the artist is only making a tiny sliver of royalty money.

(http://seminar.gregsguitarlessons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cd_pie_chart.gif)
^
this is not what I want to encourage with my dollars


what is the answer?

I don't think you can change the behavior of millions of pirates on moral grounds alone. They are doing what they're doing because they have a choice

-pay an exorbitant amount of money for the album
-get it for free, instantly, with almost zero risk

The record companies are STARTING to figure it out with these microtransactions for individual mp3 sales. I would pay a buck for a song I like (if I didn't think iTunes's DRM policies were totaly draconian) much more readily than I would fork over fifteen or twenty bucks when the only advantage to the latter is a glossy insert and the ownership of physical media (which will sit in a case on my shelf anyway).

So if you ask me, for both producers and consumers to be happy, the idea of an album needs to change.

I really like what bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have been doing - they include all sorts of extras with their albums (art, text, video of live performances, raw FLAC files in case you want to remix) that give the physical media higher value than just buying the data.

I also love Trent Reznor's current model, which seems to be that he releases the first ~10 tracks on the album for free, but if you buy the album, you get the other 13 tracks AND art AND it's a little higher bit quality. Trent is also a little ahead of the curve because he's abandoned record companies all together and sells directly to his fans. (Unfortunately, this works best if you're already famous)

Trent realizes that he can't stop people from trading and pirating his work, so the best thing he can do (for sales) is use that underground trade as a form of marketing. Rather than hoarding his IP, he runs the website where people can remix NIN tracks. He's just a regular user on that site too, not claiming to be the controlling authority on even his own music.


The other solution (IMO) is that we need an alternative artistic subculture which encourages the sharing of IP rather than the hoarding of it. This means taking money out of the equation. Luckily, this sort of thing is being born all around as we speak. I'm talking about websites like indaba and flickr, where the emphasis is on production and enjoyment instead of profit. Speaking as an artist, I use a lot of material from the public domain, and I try to give as much back to the public domain as I can because it makes all of our art richer. Remixing, sampling, and collage represent some of the coolest art to come from this century. As a collage artist, if somebody remixes my work, I don't see it as a rip-off, rather I am flattered that my idea transcended the form I presented it in. If I write a song and I perform it for you, and you perform it for somebody else during a concert, I would be ecstatic, not offended. It is only the sale of my recordings by somebody other than me which would really cheeze me off.

But if I was trying to make a living off of art, I'd have to learn to produce art which couldn't be easily duplicated and distributed. You can sell somebody an oil painting, but nobody's going to buy a jpg. When I go to a movie, I am paying for the indistributable experience of sitting in a theater, not the movie itself. When I buy a DVD, I am buying an unduplicatable piece of physical media which happens to include the data on that disc.



So in summary,

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

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

I'm pointing out that if you're trying to sell something which people can get for free, you're going to end up really frustrated.


imagine if there was a long literary tradition of really short novels, less than 140 characters in length.  :wink: And that people make a living selling these tiny little novelettas.

And then twitter comes out and all of the sudden your customers are sending these novels to each other left and right.

Well you can't prevent people from communicating with each other, so you have to start producing stuff which can't be typed up so simply.


my argument in the previous post is that when you buy music or a movie, you should be getting something which can't be so easily duplicated, like lyric inserts, art, bonus material, etc. If producers are going to beat piracy, this is how they're going to do it, not through shutting down the pirate bay.

There was a computer game series called Ultima which included a cloth map and a little prop (like a coin or a moonstone) with every copy of the game. Some of the games included a little booklet which comes from the ultima world. I can lend my friend the install discs but they're only getting part of the ultima experience.

Ah.  Your solution is to consider the music worthless, and all real value is in associated gimmicks.

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

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
(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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 08:44:37 PM
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

Well, that may be true.  But it's incredibly disheartening to think that the main thing that gets me out of bed in the morning is so widely disregarded, merely because of a piece of software.

imagine if you were a jpg salesman.

Quote from: Nigel on July 01, 2010, 08:13:29 PM
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.

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 08:48:51 PM

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

So far, the country's solution has been to add punishments for rape
but if they're going to win, they have to start adding incentives for not raping.

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 08:48:51 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 08:44:37 PM
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

Well, that may be true.  But it's incredibly disheartening to think that the main thing that gets me out of bed in the morning is so widely disregarded, merely because of a piece of software.

Again, on the level of perceived value, you come in below a company that manufactures butterfly mines.

Good thing I'm The Man™ then.



But you know, it might be interesting to see the entire music industry turn into a side hobby, done only after you do your "real" job.

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 08:54:48 PM
Good thing I'm The Man™ then.



But you know, it might be interesting to see the entire music industry turn into a side hobby, done only after you do your "real" job.

Yep.  Then we can all get used to hearing the same shit, over and over again, as new output is restricted to local markets (why would I spend money to promote something on a national level, if someone's just going to steal it?).

Let's hear it for crappy garage bands.  It's the future.

And you East coast spags will have to listen to ukelele-playing wannabe artistes until you puke.  And then some more.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 08:47:45 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
(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.

Also, I find the notion of a nation that has willfully done away with its professional artists to be fucking hilarious.  America deserves this shit.  So, apparently, does Europe.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on July 01, 2010, 08:58:23 PM

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 08:59:40 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on July 01, 2010, 08:58:23 PM

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.

Indeed, Dok. I'm only calling it as I see it, not passing The Judgement.

People who wanna justify their actions with Neo-Morality do deserve everything they get.

One other thing...The logical extension of this is that only the largest corporations will attempt to continue distribution, then only on "sure" winners.

Horrible screamo club music:  It's the future.  Forever.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on July 01, 2010, 09:03:06 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 08:59:40 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on July 01, 2010, 08:58:23 PM

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.

Indeed, Dok. I'm only calling it as I see it, not passing The Judgement.

People who wanna justify their actions with Neo-Morality do deserve everything they get.

Well, I particularly like this argument:

Quote1. 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:

Quote1. 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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 09:07:36 PM
Well, I particularly like this argument:

Quote1. 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:

Quote1. 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.

...Unless you're friends, of course.

Dok,

I don't know the numbers off hand, but i believe that a sizable percentage of the music that is personally held and listened to is pirated these days.
This has been an increasing trend over the past couple decades, right?

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

I'm not weighing in on the subject here, but for disclosure, i should say that i haven't payed for music beyond a few CDs from my favorite bands (where i'm essentially just buying the insert and donating to them) for about 15 years...
I'm just wondering if what you say would be born out by the destruction of IP integrity has actually occurred with this transition...

I keep making this point that keeps getting ignored.  

That artist that you like.  You want them to make more than one album, right?

If you don't sell records, you don't have money to make new albums.  

Do the record labels suck?  Do they stick it to the artists?  Well, yeah, of course they do.  

Artists know that going into the deal.  It's like we know what we are getting into by continuing to live in America, yet we still do, right?  

Artists are working with the animal they have.  

And so to "help" you want to make it harder for them to make their art?  

Because if the record labels don't see the money coming in from album #1, they are NOT going to put up the money for album #2.

and then this artist you supposedly love and support is shit out of luck, and you have to find a new band to be into.  

You guys are spending your money on all the technobling to pirate and play the music and you can't shell out the fucking Hamilton and Lincoln for the album?  

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 09:07:36 PM
Well, I particularly like this argument:

Quote1. 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:

Quote1. 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....

Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2010, 09:19:39 PM
Dok,

I don't know the numbers off hand, but i believe that a sizable percentage of the music that is personally held and listened to is pirated these days.
This has been an increasing trend over the past couple decades, right?

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

I'm not weighing in on the subject here, but for disclosure, i should say that i haven't payed for music beyond a few CDs from my favorite bands (where i'm essentially just buying the insert and donating to them) for about 15 years...
I'm just wondering if what you say would be born out by the destruction of IP integrity has actually occurred with this transition...

Yes, it is pretty well known that album sales have gone down across the music industry.  Bands on the fringe that could've survived a decade or so ago are being dropped like their on fire by lablels.  A favorite band of mine Anathema, were without a record label for the better part of 5 years, because of poor album sales.  Perhaps if all the pirates had bought their albums instead of stealing them, their latest album would've been put out 3 years ago when it was written instead of now.  

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 09:26:31 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 09:07:36 PM
Well, I particularly like this argument:

Quote1. 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:

Quote1. 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. 

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.

We can talk about how the production companies might construct a better model to address people's real spending habits. We can talk about other ways for artists to make a buck off their creativity. We can talk about how creative industries have to adapt to an economy where the trade of digital info is free. But I don't think we're going to emerge with anything productive if we get hung up on PIRACY BAD. YES/NO?

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.

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.

Quote from: Nigel on July 01, 2010, 09:37:07 PM
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. 

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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 09:52:07 PM

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

Unfortunate, but not immoral.

Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 09:36:11 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 10:29:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 10:29:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 10:29:25 PM
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".

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.

Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2010, 10:37:56 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 07:04:29 PM

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PM

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 07:04:29 PM

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on June 30, 2010, 11:08:25 PMInformation 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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 07:04:29 PM

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:16:33 PM
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)

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 07:12:02 PMFrankly, 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.

Quote from: Nigel on July 01, 2010, 07:35:52 PM
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.

Quote from: RWHN on July 01, 2010, 08:17:09 PM

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 06:55:54 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 30, 2010, 11:10:55 PM
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. 

Quote from: regret

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 03:25:44 PM
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?

Quote from: RWHN on July 01, 2010, 08:17:09 PM

QuoteThat 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.

Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2010, 08:33:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 08:44:37 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 08:51:00 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 01, 2010, 08:13:29 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on July 01, 2010, 08:58:23 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 08:47:45 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
(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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 08:59:40 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on July 01, 2010, 08:58:23 PM

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).

Quote from: RWHN on July 01, 2010, 09:28:51 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 09:26:31 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 09:07:36 PM
Well, I particularly like this argument:

Quote1. 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:

Quote1. 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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 09:36:11 PM
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)

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

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

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 10:34:50 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 10:29:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 10:29:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 10:29:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

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.

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?

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)

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 09:36:11 PM
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. 

Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2010, 09:37:44 PM
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?

M O N E Y.  As awesome and creative as they were they were unable to create money out of thin air.  That's why underground bands and bands not in the mainstream need label support and why piracy hurts these bands.  And I'm assuming a majority of us on this board are into non-mainstream, non-gold album bands.  We should support them by buying their music if we want them to continue to make the art we say that we enjoy. 

Another thing that's hurting labels, which in turn has them trying to pass the hurt onto everyone, is how inexpensive it is for artists to record their own albums these days. Sure, it takes money, but on a scale a Starbuck's employee can afford rather than on a level a major executive can afford.

Add to that the fact that it's a growing trend for established bands to drop their labels and go SRA, and the labels are scrambling to hold on to whatever they can.

Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2010, 10:29:25 PM
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.

The public is going to go on pirating movies and music regardless of what model you install because people who take stuff for free like to take stuff for free.  There is an expectation for artists that is different for anyone else in society who produces a good, product, or service.  They are expected to magically be able to keep producing product without getting the funding and capacity to continue that venture.  Yeah, your big selling, zillionaire artists can invest their own money into new albums.  The little guys can't do that.  They need the record sales so the labels don't drop them.  

Quote from: FredleySneijder on July 02, 2010, 12:03:27 AM
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)

Or making copies and distributing them. But that is not relevant to my question. It was a very specific question, testing out the boundaries of this philosophy of no copyright.

Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2010, 12:35:09 AM
Another thing that's hurting labels is how inexpensive it is for artists to record their own albums these days. Sure, it takes money, but on a scale a Starbuck's employee can afford rather than on a level a major executive can afford.

"Woot!"
  /
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/RWHN/l_ca59c41b54e762a7bd43a2b01fa42a-1.jpg)

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 12:39:14 AM

Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2010, 12:35:09 AM
Another thing that's hurting labels is how inexpensive it is for artists to record their own albums these days. Sure, it takes money, but on a scale a Starbuck's employee can afford rather than on a level a major executive can afford.

"Woot!"
  /
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/RWHN/l_ca59c41b54e762a7bd43a2b01fa42a-1.jpg)

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I know many musicians for whom the ability to record their own albums has been a tremendous boon. Romulus & Remus, Mark Growden, Ribbons, Stars of Track & Field, Lynn Hanover, Madagascar, The Git Rights, Podunk BFE, Weasels Exist... are you pooh-poohing their drive and determination for going forward with recording on their own without a label? Comparing these talented artists with AKK? What is that? Some of them have been signed to a label on the basis of their independent CD release, some of them have toured nationally on their own, some of them are struggling, some of them aren't, but WTF does that have to do with AKK?

I believe he is saying AKK can afford to record an album and send it to millions  :x :x

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 11:31:03 PM
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?

Humming a tune is not the same thing as pirating music.  Your throat doesn't reproduce the musical information put together by the artist.  That is a unique creation whose design belongs to the artist.  So when did the artist give you permission to take that without reimbursing them for their work?

Quote from: regret
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.

But the record label will not finance new albums if the artist isn't moving units.  

Quote from: FredleySneijder on July 02, 2010, 12:47:14 AM
I believe he is saying AKK can afford to record an album and send it to millions  :x :x

He can AFFORD to, but how is he going to force millions of people to listen to it?  :lulz:

Right now the most valuable service labels are providing to artists is promotion. Unfortunately, part of that is more or less a lockdown on large venues, which means that anyone outside of that system is not going to get booked independently no matter how popular they are.

Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2010, 12:48:24 AM

Quote from: FredleySneijder on July 02, 2010, 12:47:14 AM
I believe he is saying AKK can afford to record an album and send it to millions  :x :x

He can AFFORD to, but how is he going to force millions of people to listen to it?  :lulz:

AKKRoll!!!!

Quote from: FredleySneijder on July 02, 2010, 12:53:54 AM

Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2010, 12:48:24 AM

Quote from: FredleySneijder on July 02, 2010, 12:47:14 AM
I believe he is saying AKK can afford to record an album and send it to millions  :x :x

He can AFFORD to, but how is he going to force millions of people to listen to it?  :lulz:

AKKRoll!!!!

OFUK!  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: Regret on July 01, 2010, 11:31:03 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 01, 2010, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

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?

counterexamples?
i'm not sure what is being asked?  like, music that i have heard lately that i thought was good (at all)?
or, something that was good, and not requiring a label's capital assets in order to be good, fun for them to make and play, create quality CDs and t-shirts and shit, etc?

Well, a couple weeks ago i saw the Dangits play at a local dive.  they were good.  they had a blast doing it.  it was their first CD release (which i bought a copy of since there was no fee to watch them.  wife bought a t-shirt) 

then there's labeled stuff that i like coming out to.
i've got fleetfox playing right now. i think they're pretty good....
giving examples of bad music doesn't really speak to the quantity of good music coming out.

i'm just curious whether music connesuirs are of the general opinion that music quality has suffered due to piracy beyond, "These kids today listen to shitty music! I blame piracy!"

I think music quality has suffered because technology has added more noise to the signal.  However, the issue of piracy is more to do with diminishing (stolen) capacity for bands to make their music. 

diminished capacity to make music, or diminished capacity to make money off their music?
Or are you saying the two are practically indistinguishable for some reason?

Their capacity to make music, record albums, is tied to the number of units they move, records they sell.  And I have to say, as we demonize record labels here, it needs to be understood that not all record labels are the same.  Some are very supportive of their artists and will do a lot to help them succeed.  So it's easy to point to the big dogs and carry that across the industry but I'm not sure it is fair, nor accurate.

And another thing, the whole idea that artists get supported through concert tickets and merchandise sales.  So, do we really think that all of these "fans" who pirate or steal songs are attending concerts for all of these bands and artists?  Instead of paying the $15 for an album they are paying 50 to 60 per band to attend concerts?  Yeah, I'm not believing that.  And if we tell artists to not worry about album sales and focus on selling t-shirts and other merchandise then there will be even more emphasis put on using gimmicks and concocting an image than there has already been.  So you will be encouraging the bloat you see in scenes like hair metal, nu metal, grunge, etc.,  It will become less about the music and more about the products.  Every band will be following the KISS model of putting your name on everything. 

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 12:30:53 AM
M O N E Y.  As awesome and creative as they were they were unable to create money out of thin air.  That's why underground bands and bands not in the mainstream need label support and why piracy hurts these bands.

Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2010, 12:35:09 AM
Another thing that's hurting labels, which in turn has them trying to pass the hurt onto everyone, is how inexpensive it is for artists to record their own albums these days. Sure, it takes money, but on a scale a Starbuck's employee can afford rather than on a level a major executive can afford.

I'd like to point out that this two posts contradict each other. Is producing an album so incredible expensive that alreay established bands need a giant faceless corporation to front them the money or is it so cheap that any schmuck with a guitar, a laptop and a couple grand produce it by themselves? It can't be both, can it?

And we need to remember that the current model for recording and selling music is only roughly 60 years old. Musicians were  making money through their music before records and will still make money after mp3s are long dead. Recorded music should be viewed as advertisement for live performances and/or various physical merchandise. You aren't going to make money any other way.

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 05:37:18 AM
Their capacity to make music, record albums, is tied to the number of units they move, records they sell.  And I have to say, as we demonize record labels here, it needs to be understood that not all record labels are the same.  Some are very supportive of their artists and will do a lot to help them succeed.  So it's easy to point to the big dogs and carry that across the industry but I'm not sure it is fair, nor accurate.

I love the concept of smaller independent musician run labels. That is the kind of model we should be aimming. Get rid of the asshole corporate labels that squeeze the life out of good artists.

QuoteAnd another thing, the whole idea that artists get supported through concert tickets and merchandise sales.  So, do we really think that all of these "fans" who pirate or steal songs are attending concerts for all of these bands and artists?  Instead of paying the $15 for an album they are paying 50 to 60 per band to attend concerts?  Yeah, I'm not believing that. 

Why not? How do you expect to build a fan base if you people don't hear your music? The previous model was to slip some payola to DJs in the major markets or MTV. The new model is to get your name out there through the internet and tour yourself to death. Slowly build your base through word of mouth (or go viral, like OkGo).

QuoteAnd if we tell artists to not worry about album sales and focus on selling t-shirts and other merchandise then there will be even more emphasis put on using gimmicks and concocting an image than there has already been.  So you will be encouraging the bloat you see in scenes like hair metal, nu metal, grunge, etc.,  It will become less about the music and more about the products.  Every band will be following the KISS model of putting your name on everything. 

Are you saying KISS and hair metal weren't entertaining? Their pyrotechnics were awesome.

There was a band, I think Coldplay, who dropped their label, recorded an album and put it on the internet for free download with a donate option.
Most people donated 5 bucks and they made more off of that than they ever did with the record company sales. And they got to keep all their profits, promote themselves through the web and tour and make more damn money.

Pretty clever and a good way to go about it if you ask me.

Quote from: Turdley Burgleson on July 02, 2010, 07:47:13 AM
There was a band, I think Coldplay, who dropped their label, recorded an album and put it on the internet for free download with a donate option.
Most people donated 5 bucks and they made more off of that than they ever did with the record company sales. And they got to keep all their profits, promote themselves through the web and tour and make more damn money.

Pretty clever and a good way to go about it if you ask me.

That was Radiohead. Trent Reznor did something similar too. They had the help of big time labels marketing them for decades so they aren't a good analogy for what people will need to do in the future to make money in music.

I think Jonathan Coulton is a better example. He did an interesting project with Thing a Week and got attention from geeky websites. He's turned that into a pretty lucrative career without the use of a label.

Jill Sobule raised money to make an album by asking fans for donations and rewarding them (http://www.jillsnextrecord.com/home.asp) based on how much they gave.

Are either of them as rich as Radiohead or as famous as Britney Spears? No, of course not. But they are making money through selling their albums and merchandise online and doing small tours. The Golden Age of record making is officially dead. Crying about it is about as worthless as weeping for buggy whip makers. Saying that it will kill good music for all time is ridiculous too. Just remember that the record industry gave us Ashley Simpson and Loverboy. And yet, we all managed to survive.

Quote from: RWHN on July 01, 2010, 09:27:02 PM
Yes, it is pretty well known that album sales have gone down across the music industry.  

Can I have a citation on that?

Cause last thing I read the supposed losses suffered in the music industry from piracy were completely fabricated numbers, made up by the RIAA and some big record labels, not based on any actual research and basically just copied from report to report because the other report seemed a "reliable source". [http://torrentfreak.com/australian-govt-draft-says-piracy-stats-made-up/ , http://torrentfreak.com/us-government-told-piracy-losses-are-exaggerated-100616/ , http://torrentfreak.com/bogus-piracy-report-misleads-eu-legislators-100318/]

On the other hand, there is research that shows that people that pirate music do in fact spend more on music, than non-pirates. Probably because they are this generation's music lovers, and understand what they're doing. Like me. I really, really doubt I would have bought less CDs because of pirating. But I do know, that without pirating, I would have never come to hear Shpongle. And OTT. Which goes for about 25% of the CDs I own of which I am very happy to own them, I would not have bought them if I had not come into contact with them via privacy (and in this case I also count the pre-Internet piracy of my cassette-tape copies of the Chemical Brothers and Prodigy and the first burned CD-R I got via mail from a pen-pal "I care because you do" by Aphex Twin). All of those I ended up buying, as well as the newer albums by the same artists or their label.

Of course, those statistics could also be made up.

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 02, 2010, 05:41:49 AM

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 12:30:53 AM
M O N E Y.  As awesome and creative as they were they were unable to create money out of thin air.  That's why underground bands and bands not in the mainstream need label support and why piracy hurts these bands.

Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2010, 12:35:09 AM
Another thing that's hurting labels, which in turn has them trying to pass the hurt onto everyone, is how inexpensive it is for artists to record their own albums these days. Sure, it takes money, but on a scale a Starbuck's employee can afford rather than on a level a major executive can afford.

I'd like to point out that this two posts contradict each other. Is producing an album so incredible expensive that alreay established bands need a giant faceless corporation to front them the money or is it so cheap that any schmuck with a guitar, a laptop and a couple grand produce it by themselves? It can't be both, can it?

As far as I know, recording a drumset and guitars is pretty hard, you need good equipment to get decent quality.

The mastering and mixing of different tracks is something that you can do at home now. But it is also something that requires great skill, time and effort. So you need another band member that is capable of doing that stuff, or otherwise you gotta pay someone and they are rather expensive.

Then there's some kind of diminishing returns going on. For instance the Chemical Bros are studio wizards, their newest music sounds so slick it's almost not cool anymore. But their equipment is hella expensive, and IMO disproportionately more expensive than the sound quality difference between "Exit Planet Dust" and "Push the Button".

QuoteAnd we need to remember that the current model for recording and selling music is only roughly 60 years old. Musicians were  making money through their music before records and will still make money after mp3s are long dead. Recorded music should be viewed as advertisement for live performances and/or various physical merchandise. You aren't going to make money any other way.

Before there were records, musicians were all starving and they couldn't make any new records because nobody would buy their records.

And where are all those musicians now? All of them, dead! I heard some of them were actually KILL BY PIRATES.

I don't really have a lot of contribute to the debate here between "Piracy is bad" and "Piracy is good", but when given the opportunity to download the latest Gogol Bordello album or not listen to it at all, personally I choose to steal it from them. I don't even really help advertise, because everyone I share it with steals it as well.
Still, I don't lose any sleep over whether or not I cheated them out of something because, well, piracy is here and it's not going away. Given the opportunity to steal a physical copy of their album, without threat of consequences, still I would not do so, because I would consider this to be immoral. Somehow I don't see the piracy as the same as physical theft, though perhaps it is. I'm going to think on this further and continue my reply later. Apparently it's time to go to a party or something.

To be continued.

I usually pirate in order to test the waters. If I like what I've pirated, I'll go and buy it. If I don't, I'll delete it and never bother again.

All pirating really does for me is speed up the process I would follow anyway. I wouldn't buy a DVD if I didn't know I was going to like it beforehand (mostly, sometimes they are so cheap these days it's an impulse thing), and I wouldn't buy an album without knowing I like the band. I used to have to wait to either come across it on the TV/radio/whatever, or for a friend to pass it on. Now I can download it on a whim, and if I think it is worth it, make an informed choice as to how to spend my money.

I'm curious as to whether it counts as piracy if you download something you've already bought a CD of, too. My Dad recently asked me to download the Pink Floyd discography for him, because the majority of his CDs are scratched and broken, and he wants to put it on his MP3 player. Is it morally wrong to regain access to that lost product, even though he's probably bought the albums dozens of times over the years? If it were any type of physical art, the option wouldn't exist. But I can't see much objectionable about it.

Um, yeah, about the Radiohead experiment:  http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9832659-7.html

QuoteNobody other than Radiohead and its handlers know how much money the groundbreaking promotion generated, and they aren't sharing figures with the public. Nonetheless, there are signs that the revenue was less than spectacular.

Last month, ComScore, a traffic-tracking company, stirred controversy when it estimated that 62 percent of those who downloaded In Rainbows did so without paying a cent for the music.

Radiohead pulled the plug on this only after 3 months and hinted it was probably something they wouldn't do again.  So it seems it wasn't really all that successful. 

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 02, 2010, 05:41:49 AM

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 12:30:53 AM
M O N E Y.  As awesome and creative as they were they were unable to create money out of thin air.  That's why underground bands and bands not in the mainstream need label support and why piracy hurts these bands.

Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2010, 12:35:09 AM
Another thing that's hurting labels, which in turn has them trying to pass the hurt onto everyone, is how inexpensive it is for artists to record their own albums these days. Sure, it takes money, but on a scale a Starbuck's employee can afford rather than on a level a major executive can afford.

I'd like to point out that this two posts contradict each other. Is producing an album so incredible expensive that alreay established bands need a giant faceless corporation to front them the money or is it so cheap that any schmuck with a guitar, a laptop and a couple grand produce it by themselves? It can't be both, can it?

First, there are different levels of "already established bands"  Sure, a band like Aerosmith or Metallica is sitting on gobs of money and doesn't have to rely on the record company.  However, your seceond, third, and fourth tier bands (like pretty much any underground metal band) doesn't have that luxury.  So they do require assistance and support from a label, which means they need to justify that support by moving units.  I mean, sure, I can use some $50 music editing software to make my music.  But it's going to sound exactly like someone used a $50 editing software to record music.  If I want to record a good sounding album I need good production equipment , someone to mix it, and someone to master it.  That shit ain't cheap which I'm sure LMNO can attest to. 

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 02, 2010, 05:53:31 AM

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 05:37:18 AM
Their capacity to make music, record albums, is tied to the number of units they move, records they sell.  And I have to say, as we demonize record labels here, it needs to be understood that not all record labels are the same.  Some are very supportive of their artists and will do a lot to help them succeed.  So it's easy to point to the big dogs and carry that across the industry but I'm not sure it is fair, nor accurate.

I love the concept of smaller independent musician run labels. That is the kind of model we should be aimming. Get rid of the asshole corporate labels that squeeze the life out of good artists.

Great, but, in the meantime, piracy is hurting these artists who are relying upon these labels to record and release their music.  So I don't think part of the solution should be wanting to screw the lablels through not paying for music because you end up screwing the artist at the same time. 

Quote

QuoteAnd another thing, the whole idea that artists get supported through concert tickets and merchandise sales.  So, do we really think that all of these "fans" who pirate or steal songs are attending concerts for all of these bands and artists?  Instead of paying the $15 for an album they are paying 50 to 60 per band to attend concerts?  Yeah, I'm not believing that. 

Why not? How do you expect to build a fan base if you people don't hear your music? The previous model was to slip some payola to DJs in the major markets or MTV. The new model is to get your name out there through the internet and tour yourself to death. Slowly build your base through word of mouth (or go viral, like OkGo).

Getting your name out on the internet through having one or two songs available for download is one thing.  Having your entire album freely available, against your wishes, is quite another.  It then becomes why bother buying the cow when you are getting the milk for free? 

Quote

QuoteAnd if we tell artists to not worry about album sales and focus on selling t-shirts and other merchandise then there will be even more emphasis put on using gimmicks and concocting an image than there has already been.  So you will be encouraging the bloat you see in scenes like hair metal, nu metal, grunge, etc.,  It will become less about the music and more about the products.  Every band will be following the KISS model of putting your name on everything. 

Are you saying KISS and hair metal weren't entertaining? Their pyrotechnics were awesome.

Right, and the general rule of thumb in those days was that the bigger the hair, the more makeup and the more pyrotechnics on the stage, the worse the music was.  When the scene becomes about selling an image then you get bands like Firehouse and Trixter.  Generic bland fluff.

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 01, 2010, 01:35:32 PM
The argument "it's stealing because the artist loses potential profits" only holds if the artist was going to make profit if their media was not pirated.

That is, if person X would not or could not pirate music Y, they would have bought it.

If the person wasn't going to buy the music in the first place, if they couldn't get hold of it for free, where are the lost profits?

I'd say over 95% of my mp3 collection falls into this category. Yes that means my entire music collection would have been 20 times smaller if I couldn't pirate that. In either case for that 95% the artists make exactly the same amount of money, regardless of whether I was pirating or not. The only thing they're losing out on is free advertising when I play music to my friends I otherwise would not be able to.

Quote from: RWHN on July 01, 2010, 01:41:11 PM
So if you really don't like 95% of your music collection that much.  Why do you still have it? 

Yeah I ignored that question before, because I thought the answer was too obvious to bother with, plus not really advancing the discussion at hand--I'm with Cram on the idea that it would be more useful to discuss how musicians (and other artists relying on IP) can make money given how things are now and how they inevitably are going to be, than whether piracy is moral or not.
I'm not entirely sure about the morality. It's not as immoral as stealing, because as soon as I feel I would have bought the album otherwise, I usually do so. But it's not entirely moral either, because in some cases, I don't.

So to get back to your question, first, if I really don't like it, I do throw it away. For anything else, I'd need to start keeping ratings or something (because often you need to listen to something 3 times before you can really know it sucks) and then think and decide, and harddisk space is cheap, so why bother? No really.

Then, of course, there is your argument that if you want the artist to make another album, you gotta buy the first one. And really in a lot of cases, it's pleasant music, but I dont care if they make another album. Sometimes less is more.

Sometimes one track is pretty cool, the rest of the album is crap and you know (just know) the next album is going to be crap too. I could keep the single track and throw away the rest, but don't. It's for completeness. A lot of people do throw it away, but there's something about preserving context and archiving. I won't play the rest though, so it's almost like I threw it away.

Do you buy all music you like? I mean, just like to hear? Like, putting on the radio and hearing music that is good? I throw all that leftover stuff in a big playlist, perhaps filtered by some genre or tags (that I picked myself) and enjoy it as background music. The end result is better than the radio, and only slightly better than Pandora (which is a free service).

BTW is it pirating if I play music videos on Youtube?

Anyway, there are lots of reasons to not delete stuff you download. Most important one (to me) is, there is actually no real good reason to delete it in the first place. Unless you're absolutely sure you never want to hear it again.

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.

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

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.

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. 

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

http://www.cafepress.com/SONOFCONVENTION

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.

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

Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2010, 01:12:19 PM
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].

QuoteA 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.

QuoteAs 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).

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 02:04:00 PM
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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 02, 2010, 02:08:13 PM
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? 

Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2010, 02:24:10 PM

QuoteI 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 :roll: 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]

QuoteAs 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.

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 02:26:08 PMBecause it is the respectful thing to do when you support a band or artist.

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

QuoteThis 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

QuoteIt'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.

QuoteSo, 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.

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...

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 02, 2010, 03:07:32 PM

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 02:26:08 PMBecause 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. 

QuoteYou 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. 

Quote

QuoteIt'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"? 

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 03:21:18 PM
[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"?

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.

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.  

Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2010, 03:34:51 PMTo 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.

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 03:37:45 PMJust 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.

QuoteBut 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.

Well, my music is pure, 100% hobby.  I don't ever have any intention of making any money off it, ever.  So I give my expressed permission to spread it far and wide. 

But you can still buy my t-shirts!   :mrgreen:

RWHN,

as a side note.
i think you will get to see your hypothetical about pirating material forms within our lifetime.
rapid prototyping equipment is now being called desktop manufacturing, or 3d printing, since the materials are now fully usable...
the units are getting smaller and cheaper, too.
i don't know about cars, but simpler items, definitely.  probably electronics, too.

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 02:04:00 PM
What keeps you from paying for ALL of the music you want to own? 

I can't afford all the music I'd like to own.
I'd prefer to support the artists I like, if I could... but while I cannot, I download the music illegally.
When I can afford it, I buy it.

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 02, 2010, 03:53:28 PM

Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2010, 03:34:51 PMTo 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..

Why is it hypocritical to take into special account how your actions may impact those people you have a personal relationship or connection with, isn't that just... human?  If I buy a friend a birthday present, am I a hypocrite for not buying a present for everyone in the city who shares the same birthday?

Right now there isn't a clear answer about how artists whose IP can be digitised are going to make their living on a network which enables the viral transmission of data.  But maybe it's right in front of us.

I strongly suspect those artists who maintain a strong emotional connection with their fans will be doing just fine.

Quote from: RWHN on July 02, 2010, 05:37:18 AM
Their capacity to make music, record albums, is tied to the number of units they move, records they sell.  And I have to say, as we demonize record labels here, it needs to be understood that not all record labels are the same.  Some are very supportive of their artists and will do a lot to help them succeed.  So it's easy to point to the big dogs and carry that across the industry but I'm not sure it is fair, nor accurate.

And another thing, the whole idea that artists get supported through concert tickets and merchandise sales.  So, do we really think that all of these "fans" who pirate or steal songs are attending concerts for all of these bands and artists?  Instead of paying the $15 for an album they are paying 50 to 60 per band to attend concerts?  Yeah, I'm not believing that.  And if we tell artists to not worry about album sales and focus on selling t-shirts and other merchandise then there will be even more emphasis put on using gimmicks and concocting an image than there has already been.  So you will be encouraging the bloat you see in scenes like hair metal, nu metal, grunge, etc.,  It will become less about the music and more about the products.  Every band will be following the KISS model of putting your name on everything.  

I won't pay that much to see a band because I can't afford it, but bands who play smaller indie venues like Mississippi Studios I frequently spend $15-$30 on. I don't think it cost me more than $30 the last two times I went to see Tori Amos play at big venues... great seats, too. Fiona Apple at the Roseland was less than that. Whenever I can, I buy the CD at the concert, because when you buy the CD at concerts the artist gets the profits... it's treated the same as merch. Same if you buy the CD off their website, usually.

I believe what I know from living with people in the professional music industry most of my adult life. Yes, there are good labels... and they will sell your contract to a bigger label if they get a chance. Not to screw you, but because that's what they do, and the general perception is that everybody wins. But that's not usually the case, from what I've seen. There's a reason established musicians are abandoning their labels, and I don't think it's pure greed.

A lot of the bands and artists I've followed have stayed with the same labels.  One of my favorites, My Dying Bride, has been with Peaceville Records for the 20+ years of their existence.  Sentenced was with Century Media for all but their first two albums.  Their are tons of metal bands who've been on Century Media, Nuclear Blast, Earache Records, and they stay there.  They are all good labels that are artist friendly AND fan friendly.  So again, I really don't think it is that clear cut. 

I agree that it's not all that clear cut.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/04/2351229/A-Composers-Eye-View-of-the-Copyright-Wars

Don't mean to bump, and I think RWHN put out some very good points, but I don't know if his points were sufficiently addressed.

One of RWHN's arguments is that if you don't see album sales, the label will drop you. Fuck the label then right?

Here's why the evil record labels actually serve a purpose, over paid that they may be.

1. They make sure that you have a high quality recording. You can do this on your own, but chances are you're going to have to pay a local recording studio anyway. Prices may vary. They're trying to run a business too. The other option is to buy all that recording equipment for yourself. But if you're going to do it properly you better be willing to have been born into a rich family or start your own recording studio to rent out to other groups.

2. They get you radio play (ie exposure, plus royalties). Sure, I can send my recording to a couple of internet radio stations and a couple of broadcast stations. But I'm probably only going to be played once or rarely, sometime when most people aren't listening to the radio anyway.

3. They will promote your album. More exposure.

4. They will distribute your album. So, you know, you can buy it. So that the record label has the money to fund all of these benefits and make a profit.

5. They will book large, otherwise inaccessible venues for your national or international tour. They will also fund it. I could have a million paying downloads of a hit song on the internet, and still only be able to fund myself for a small to medium sized venue tour throughout the continental US and some of Canada. Probably not even all of that, because I still have bills to pay, calories to ingest and equipment to maintain. The rest of the world will just have to deal with the knowledge that they will never see me live.

6. They'll set you up for a couple of music videos. Everyone loves music videos.

7. They might score me a spot on a couple of movie soundtracks. Again, royalties=$

8. They will repeat this support for as long as my music is profitable to them.

Does the music industry need an overhaul? Yes. Is that going to prevent me from accepting a contract that at least included a lubricant clause, if it were given to me tomorrow? Hell no. Where do I sign?