Support NeoGAF

[Rainy Dog]

I used to discover and buy so much more music when I was on oink. 5-6 times as much, easily. But I swiftly deleted all my oink .torrent files and cookie when the site went tits up and could never find a way to get back on board via. waffles or what.cd.

 

[numble]

Legally?

Google runs an algorithm to determine whether videos contain copyrighted works, notify the copyright owners, and they can either ask to have the music muted, the video taken down, or share in any revenue that the music produces. So it's basically legal permission.

http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

 

[DietRob]

I'm writing a paper this week on IP Law and the Internet specifically piracy.

I've been looking for different viewpoints, I have tons of references to opposing but supporting opinions are really few and far between.

I can't believe one of MThanded many threads is actually helping me, but thanks for the post.

 

[Jamesearlcash]

A friend of mine is constantly downloading somekind of music, it's like an obsession, he buys alot of cd's too, expensive special editions and stuff too.

 

[blame space]

Google runs an algorithm to determine whether videos contain copyrighted works, notify the copyright owners, and they can either ask to have the music muted, or share in any revenue that the music produces. So it's basically legal permission.

http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

Interesting stuff. I wonder how many copies of the mp3s they actually sell.

 

[Hitokage]

The findings suggest that plans by the Secretary of State for Business, Peter Mandelson, to crack down on illegal downloaders by threatening to cut their internet connections with a "three strikes and you're out" rule could harm the music industry by punishing its core customers.

Since when was this a consideration? Little bastards need the fear of god put in 'em.

 

[Keylime]

So what's your stance on mp3 streaming?

It's much shakier ground, but if it's up on YouTube and no one is yanking it (it's a moderated environment unlike someone's personal server), then I'm fine with it.

It's not very easy to listen to a ton of music on YouTube, especially on the go, so I think it allows you to find out if you like music, but not keep it.

A friend setting up an Orb server and everyone tapping into it to listen to music is a very interesting use case, however.

 

[dskillzhtown]

Wait... so you're saying that people who are interested in music enough to fileshare it, indicating a clear enthusiasm towards the media, ARE ALSO THE ONES BUYING THE MOST!?

I AM SHOCKED!! SHOCKED I SAY!!!


This poll is totally pointless and fails to cover the most important question: HOW MUCH MORE would they buy if they couldn't fileshare???

That is the irony. The people dl-ing the music are usually the biggest fans. The biggest fans who can't wait for an album to be released and DL it early. While piracy is stealing, the issue isn't as black and white as the RIAA wants it to be as far as protecting their income.

 

[pringles]

Why are people acting like listening to a Youtube video is the same as downloading the mp3?

YouTube: Server streams you content, you don't get to keep it.
Downloading: You get the content, you get to keep it.

In one situation you have to go out of your way to obtain the content (youtube) and the other you have to go out of your way to get rid of the content (downloading).

One of theses makes sense is the other is people justifying their pirating of music.

You can download youtube vids very easily, and if you really want to it's not much trouble converting the sound into an mp3.

Before filesharing, people (me among others) were recording songs off the radio, or copying their buddies CD's onto miniDisc and so on. It's just larger scale now, but filesharing has and always will exist.

 

[Keylime]

Which one of them makes the music industry money?

In one case the person intends to keep the song on their computer/devices and listen to it over and over. In the other you're not keeping anything so it's not nearly as convenient to get at the content.

It's a means of previewing, not obtaining.

You can download youtube vids very easily, and if you really want to it's not much trouble converting the sound into an mp3.

Before filesharing, people (me among others) were recording songs off the radio, or copying their buddies CD's onto miniDisc and so on. It's just larger scale now, but filesharing has and always will exist.

Sure you could...but then you're just pirating again.

Just because it was hard to catch pirates in the past doesn't mean the industry should just allow everyone to do it nowadays that it's more preventable.

 

[A Human Becoming]

"People who admit to downloading illegal music"

1 in 10 people pirate music? BULLSHIT!

...and for every album they purchase, I'm sure they have 10 albums that they didn't. No clue if that's a win or not.

It's likely they wouldn't have bought many of those 10 albums if they hadn't gotten them for free. People sometimes make the same case with video game piracy; it's either free or nothing.

 

[btkadams]

99% of the time, i'm using youtube to find music. that thing is a godsend. finding out what sick song was in a television ad is easy now.

 

[Hitokage]

A friend setting up an Orb server and everyone tapping into it to listen to music is a very interesting use case, however.

So is using characteristics of a song stored in memory to recreate that song elsewhere in the brain. That's two copies when you only had a license for one!

 

[jorma]

Which one of them makes the music industry money?

Both of them. It's in the OP!

This poll is totally pointless and fails to cover the most important question: HOW MUCH MORE would they buy if they couldn't fileshare???

The poll in the OP indicate that they would buy less.

 

[Skittleguy]

I own doubles of my favorite albums on CD and vinyl. Does that make me a bad person?

 

[joelseph]

Why make 192 promos? Because no one buys the album if they are 320.

 

[gamergirly]

Are the people posting the songs to p2p programs doing something illegal? Pretty sure.
Are you doing something illegal by downloading? Don't think so, not nearly as bad as the original poster.
Are you obtaining a physical copy that you can keep forever if you wanted? No.

Well, when you think about what's physical and what's virtual then it changes the meaning of what is "legal".

Streaming a song on Youtube and streaming a downloaded song from your computer is not really any difference. And Youtube allows you to play the same song through a browser window. So Youtube should be banned too in that sense. I don't see why you need to pay to stream music locally if you can openly stream it from other sources.

However, i believe it becomes illegal when music becomes "portable". When you take this mp3/music file and distribute it. When you put music onto physical mediums(CDs, DVDs, transfer music to your MP3 player, etc.) so that it's no longer to be used locally.

As for stopping people from illegally downloading music, the music industry, politicians, and those associated with those groups should understand that there's no stopping the internet. How many artists say these days that their main money makers are from concerts, promotional appearances and no longer from actual music sales? What can they really do without harming their bottom line? They're going to have to find another way to make money off of music. They're going to have to change the way music is accessed altogether. Redefining themselves is the key really.

 

[Buckethead]

There would have been as many American Revolutions as needed until a more decent system in place because people were
tired of English fatcats being big rich douchebags in ivory towers making decisions for them. People just wanted something civl and fair.

Similarly, there will continue to be piracy to this extent until something seriously changes in the music industry both in the front offices
translating to smaller organizations and fairer pricing and with musicians themselves a return to true artistry and integrity in musicians rather than exploiting markets and being sucked dry by their labels.

Piracy is only a symptom of the problem that the individuals in power refuse to address.

 

[Keylime]

I find the "pirates make record labels more money than non-pirates" argument to be extremely flawed.

First off: It's impossible to find data on how much content would be purchased without the ability to pirate for these people...so we can't answer the question of "what if there was no way to pirate music...would they buy as much?" I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about THESE people specifically.

Secondly: I know there are people that use pirating truly as a means of previewing, but for every "good pirate" there's got to be at least one "bad pirate". And these "bad pirates" can have anywhere from 1 song to 5000 full length albums. It's only one person, but the "damage" is significantly higher because there are no limits to potential beyond storage.

I'm not going to pretend like this is a black and white issue, but trying to argue that obtaining nonDRM'd mp3 files as a means of previewing should be legit is nonsense when there are alternatives that make much more sense and would still be free, while being controlled by the content providers.

 

[Hitokage]

Why make 192 promos? Because no one buys the album if they are 320.

Still lossy!

 

[Sarye]

This is BS.

The stats could draw other conclusions.

ex) People are more willing to admit to pirating music when they buy more music. than people who don't buy much at all.

 

[pringles]

This poll is totally pointless and fails to cover the most important question: HOW MUCH MORE would they buy if they couldn't fileshare???

I can only speak for myself and a few people I know, but the answer for us is less.
Most of the music I listen to I have discovered using various filesharing programs, music that I have then gone on to buy. If it wasn't for pirating I'd probably be listening to the radio a lot more, tragically unaware of all the awesome music out there that would never reach my corner of the world.

 

[joelseph]

The conclusion I come to is:

-People don't buy much music.

 

[btkadams]

I find the "pirates make record labels more money than non-pirates" argument to be extremely flawed.

First off: It's impossible to find data on how much content would be purchased without the ability to pirate for these people...so we can't answer the question of "what if there was no way to pirate music...would they buy as much?" I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about THESE people specifically.

Secondly: I know there are people that use pirating truly as a means of previewing, but for every "good pirate" there's got to be at least one "bad pirate". And these "bad pirates" can have anywhere from 1 song to 5000 full length albums. It's only one person, but the "damage" is significantly higher because there are no limits to potential beyond storage.

I'm not going to pretend like this is a black and white issue, but trying to argue that obtaining nonDRM'd mp3 files as a means of previewing should be legit is nonsense when there are alternatives that make much more sense and would still be free, while being controlled by the content providers.

most of the music i download, i would have absolutely no way of obtaining.

Why make 192 promos? Because no one buys the album if they are 320.

some of us still want uncompressed wav you know!

 

[Hitokage]

This is BS.

The stats could draw other conclusions.

ex) People are more willing to admit to pirating music when they buy more music. than people who don't buy much at all.

They're grouped by pirates/nonpirates, not amount spent. We don't have the data to properly support your conclusion.

 

[Skittleguy]

most of the music i download, i would have absolutely no way of obtaining.

This is a valid point.

Plus, I like to see people when they come to town. Too bad no one ever comes here...

 

[Keylime]

I can only speak for myself and a few people I know, but the answer for us is less.
Most of the music I listen to I have discovered using various filesharing programs, music that I have then gone on to buy. If it wasn't for pirating I'd probably be listening to the radio a lot more, tragically unaware of all the awesome music out there that would never reach my corner of the world.

Would you stop pirating music if there was a free alternative to previewing music (like YouTube or non-transferable/expire-able MP3 files)?

 

[Hitokage]

Would you stop pirating music if there was a free alternative to previewing music (like YouTube or non-transferable/expire-able MP3 files)?

When considering this question I would like to point out that not even the iTunes Music Store has everything.

 

[Xrenity]

Secondly: I know there are people that use pirating truly as a means of previewing, but for every "good pirate" there's got to be at least one "bad pirate". And these "bad pirates" can have anywhere from 1 song to 5000 full length albums. It's only one person, but the "damage" is significantly higher because there are no limits to potential beyond storage.

It's only 'damage' if the pirate would have bought the album otherwise. I think a lot of 'm wouldn't buy shit.

I'm not going to pretend like this is a black and white issue, but trying to argue that obtaining nonDRM'd mp3 files as a means of previewing should be legit is nonsense when there are alternatives that make much more sense and would still be free, while being controlled by the content providers.

True. I think that's why we see artists do free downloads and even streams of albums (for a few days) as marketing for a new album.

 

[Keylime]

When considering this question I would like to point out that not even the iTunes Music Store has everything.

I wouldn't dispute this. I'm not sure where you're going with that statement, however.

It's only 'damage' if the pirate would have bought the album otherwise. I think a lot of 'm wouldn't buy shit.

Possibly, but we'll never know.

 

[Skittleguy]

When considering this question I would like to point out that not even the iTunes Music Store has everything.

What if you have iTunes AND Zune?

Wait...

 

[Hitokage]

I wouldn't dispute this. I'm not sure where you're going with that statement, however.

You're asking whether people would stop altogether, not cut down.

 

[Decado]

That isn't the least bit surprising.

 

[Keylime]

You're asking whether people would stop altogether, not cut down.

Talking about convenience of obtaining the content?

As in if there was some Japanese pop-band that you really liked, you could either import the CD and rip it...or just pirate it because it's easier?

I sympathize with this scenario more, but I couldn't say that I support this use case. I view it more as a failed business model for music distribution than a justification for piracy...but I would "understand" much more in that situation if that makes sense?

 

[wenis]

First off: It's impossible to find data on how much content would be purchased without the ability to pirate for these people...so we can't answer the question of "what if there was no way to pirate music...would they buy as much?" I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about THESE people specifically.

I'll give you the answer for this question right now. No we wouldnt. I know for myself and for the large circle of people I acquaint myself with on various sites or live in person we trade music and share it in the hope of getting more people into the bands and ultimately buy the albums. At the heart of it I use to sift through the shit music and when it's shit I delete it, but if its not it gets added to a buy list and I go out and buy the bands cd and whatever back catalog they have. I still go out and hunt down rare albums and I actually still buy cd's on a whim when I go out (sometimes i play the name game and only hunt in names starting in a G or albums ending in an S). If my ability to do this was gone I'd most likely stop taking so many risks on bands and wouldnt have the extra cash to do snap decision buys.

 

[Keylime]

I'll give you the answer for this question right now. No we wouldnt. I know for myself and for the large circle of people I acquaint myself with on various sites or live in person we trade music and share it in the hope of getting more people into the bands and ultimately buy the albums. At the heart of it I use to sift through the shit music and when it's shit I delete it, but if its not it gets added to a buy list and I go out and buy the bands cd and whatever back catalog they have. I still go out and hunt down rare albums and I actually still buy cd's on a whim when I go out (sometimes i play the name game and only hunt in names starting in a G or albums ending in an S). If my ability to do this was gone I'd most likely stop taking so many risks on bands and wouldnt have the extra cash to do snap decision buys.

I just keep thinking back to college and thinking about how in the minority you and your friends were compared to everything I saw around me.

I'm not at all convinced that "good pirates" are more common than "bad pirates".

 

[Beardz]

Fuck the music industry, if I want to "support" the bands, I go to their concerts.

 

[Hitokage]

I just keep thinking back to college and thinking about how in the minority you and your friends were compared to everything I saw around me.

I'm not at all convinced that "good pirates" are more common than "bad pirates".

Is this distinction at all relevant? Bad pirates aren't spending money anyway.

 

[Keylime]

Is this distinction at all relevant? Bad pirates aren't spending money anyway.

"Anyway" implies that they never would, which I'm not sure is true.

If there's some study that was done (and I doubt it...because how could you?) about this, I'd love to see it.

 

[Hitokage]

"Anyway" implies that they never would, which I'm not sure is true.

As in, if you removed the ability to fileshare they would use other non-monetary means of acquisition, even if in smaller quantities.

 

[tokkun]

Tests that rely on self-reporting are notoriously suspect when related to questions that are closely tied to morality and value judgments (such as piracy).

 

[Dark Octave]

So do you delete the stuff you don't buy?

:lol The honor system as a business model.

Where do I sign up to invest in some of that?

 

[pringles]

Would you stop pirating music if there was a free alternative to previewing music (like YouTube or non-transferable/expire-able MP3 files)?

I use free&legal methods of previewing music all the time. Youtube, myspace, last.fm, the radio, tv, movies etc.
A lot of what I pirate is more rare stuff that isn't easily found.
Or music that I like enough to feel like I'd like to listen to it every now and then, but not enough to buy the album (and wouldn't even if it wasn't possible to pirate).
And stuff like live bootlegs, unreleased songs/demos etc, but I'm not sure that counts as pirating since it's not officially released in any way.

 

[Keylime]

As in, if you removed the ability to fileshare they would use other non-monetary means of acquisition.

But how do we know this?

Just because the person has shown that they are willing to pirate a bunch of stuff in the past doesn't mean they'll keep doing it, or keep doing it at that volume if you make it harder to do.

Piracy with music is much more rampant than with games for instance because it's much harder to pirate games than it is with music. I'm sure there are people who couldn't figure out how to pirate a game and eventually broke down and bought it.

 

[Fenderputty]

As long as artists make more money off of concerts and not on record sales, I think this problem will persist. Even people who might feel slightly guilty for downloading songs, know that they're mostly stealing from the big record labels pocket and not the artist themselves. That's why people like Shakira don't give a rats ass. It's also why other artists have gone and created their own record labels. Because they know that selling records under BMG, Sony or whatever isn't going to make them the money they want.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I been saying this for ages

 

[TruHero]

Even though pirates spend the most on music, it doesn't mean that pirates account for the majority of money spent on music.

 

[Suitcase Test]

I'd like to see a study about how much artists earn per concert/tour, and per song/album sold.

Most artists I listen to aren't poor, that's what I know for sure...

 

[genjiZERO]

I'm not admitting to anything, but I spend a lot on music. I regularly buy vinyl, and spend a few hundred dollars on live shows annually. And frankly, most people I know do the same.

My problem with purchasing mp3s is the same that I had for CDs... it's a rip-off. As, CDs weren't (aren't) worth $15 to $20 (I'm not sure how much CDs cost nowadays), mp3s aren't worth $10 a album.

What I'd like to see happen is people who purchase vinyl or go to concerts get free mp3 forms of the album. Alternately, I'd like to see musicians offer direct downloads from their websites at 'fair' prices.

It's an issue of debate, but I do believe that if albums were offered for more competitive prices then more people would pay for them. My personal belief, is that this magic number is $5 for a full album. In terms of my first proposition, some are already doing this - Portishead gave a free download for buying Third on vinyl, and Coldplay gave a free download of their live album for anyone who went to their concert last year.

 

[Keylime]

I'm not admitting to anything, but I spend a lot on music. I regularly buy vinyl, and spend a few hundred dollars on live shows annually. And frankly, most people I know do the same.

My problem with purchasing mp3s is the same that I had for CDs... it's a rip-off. As, CDs weren't (aren't) worth $15 to $20 (I'm not sure how much CDs cost nowadays), mp3s aren't worth $10 a album.

What I'd like to see happen is people who purchase vinyl or go to concerts get free mp3 forms of the album. Alternately, I'd like to see musicians offer direct downloads from their websites at 'fair' prices.

It's an issue of debate, but I do believe that if albums were offered for more competitive prices then more people would pay for them. My personal belief, is that this magic number is $5 for a full album. In terms of my first proposition, some are already doing this - Portishead gave a free download for buying Third on vinyl, and Coldplay gave a free download of their live album for anyone who went to their concert last year.

These "unfair" prices you talk about seem to working for a large group of people. I can't really argue with 79 to 129 cents per song considering how much re-playability those things have.

Sure, I'd love the prices to be lower (who wouldn't?), but I can't say I feel ripped off.

I strongly agree with your concert idea, however. That sounds like a win/win for everyone, although I'm sure as far as record labels are concerned, a ton of people will likely buy the album at the concert (lost profits), have already bought the album (they'll give it away = lost profits), or have already pirated the album (already lost profits).