Support NeoGAF

[kinoki]

In 50 years we'll laugh at how stupid these laws were. Because they are, and when the people who advocate for it's defense has gone into retirement noone will care enough to enforce this.

 

[Bricfa]

Yar Har Fiddle Dee Dee

 

[Macmanus]

It's ok to break the law because trailers are too long!

It's okay to base your set of moral standards on what and what isn't law because the man is always right!

Why bother thinking on your own when others can simply tell you how to think?

In 50 years we'll laugh at how stupid these laws were. Because they are, and when the people who advocate for it's defense has gone into retirement noone will care enough to enforce this.

All this bullshit is just dinosaurs thrashing about in their death knell.

 

[Piano]

I admit I pirate music if it can't be heard legally online. If I like it, I buy it. If I don't, I delete it as my itunes library is already bloated enough as it is. I'm sure that wasn't a part of their statistic on pirates.
If the music industry wants to kill off piracy, give legal alternatives worldwide. As things are, it's not exactly easy for a lot of people to find out about new bands legally.

Bingo. If it weren't for Napster and the subsequent file sharing revolution you can bet there wouldn't be any free streaming online today and probably not a developed online mp3 store.

After a couple of weeks in high school where I got burned by a series of awful album purchases, I vowed to listen before I buy from now on.

 

[Borgnine]

Here's an idea for iTunes and other MP3 sites: have a one-time preview of a full album before you buy. It's pretty much the only reason I torrent - I'll probably buy it if I like it.

This is what I love about Pitchfork (fuck off gaf), they usually have the entire album up to stream right next to the review. This is through lala though which apparently is going down or something so who knows what they'll do now.

 

[flsh]

I think it can work both ways. Smaller artists may very well be helped by file sharing, but it won't help the big names as everyone already know who they are.

I think the industry's flailing attempts at combating piracy has more to do with them being afraid of losing control than about money, at least right now.

Well, while I do agree unknown artists are the ones to gain the most, sometimes I don't like a genre of music and than I stumble upon a band\performer that I do like from that genre. Sometimes I grow to like a genre I know very little bands in because I didn't explore it. And sometimes, artists reinvent themselves and I'd like to give the album a listen before I buy their album, as I might not like it (Or the opposite, they release an album I do enjoy even though I dislike their previous offerings).

It would also help a lot if companies stop telling google to remove the audio from youtube tracks. Even if it's copyright infringement, it is still a brilliant advertisement for songs as the song usually fits the video well. I discovered a few bands that way, only to show the video to a friend and see the audio line was muted. Those things only bite the music companies back. Any advertisement is good. If the guy didn't infringe the song, I never would have bought the album (and sometimes, subsequent albums from the band). It's really funny how hard music companies make it for me to give them my money :lol

 

[Mike Works]

Do I think that CD's and other "ancient" forms of distribution for music (and possibly movies) have become overpriced? Probably, yeah. Do I think the music industry has done a terrible job overall of attempting to adapt to the changing distribution interface? For the most part, definitely. Do I think that the bank robber analogy is stupid? Yep.

However, it's still ridiculous that people try to completely justify piracy.

You're stealing directly from the artists, the people that create this entertainment, this material that brings you enjoyment.

You can hide behind the justification that you're doing this to spite the relic business model and heinous tactics of the RIAA, and while those justifications may be just, you are still hurting that individual artist.

I'm not trying to act holier than thou with this post- i download music and movies too. Music is one of the most important parts of my daily life, and I think I may have purchased 5 CD's over the last 10 years.

The difference between me and a lot of people in this thread and this world is that I don't try to absolve myself of the situation by focusing only on the justifiable aspects of not paying for CD's/MP3's.

And I think that's a big problem when it comes to the discussions in these threads.

 

[Mango Positive]

But not every musician can be a successful performing artist. In your world they would just wither away and die, but think of all the great songs we'd lose.

Also, I strongly disagree with your assessment of how easy it is to write and record an album. I'm also a songwriter, and I work incredibly hard at it. I'm not saying it's not fun sometimes, but there's also a lot of frustration and stress to go along with it.

I don't understand how you can be ''a firm believer that in order to make money, one should actually have to work" and not think that songwriting falls under this category? These people have a talent and they've taken the time and effort to develop it just like anyone else in any other field. Why are you dismissing them?

Music is fun. Musicians that don't make money usually continue to write and perform music for as long as they can. I've been performing for 17 years. I've made far less than I've spent on it. Why do I continue? Because I love it. The best music out there has never been on MTV, and likely never saw its way to the radio. It's art. It's supposed to be what you do in your spare time (unless you're one of the lotto winners). If you take off, then WONDERFUL! It's so rare and arbitrary though. You can't be a musician and "expect" to be successful.

If you write a great song, it's your job to make money off it. Sending it to MTV, sitting in your "crib" playing video games, and waiting for checks to roll in is immoral (and the primary reason I have a problem with the current model). Writing is NOT hard. Writing a great song may be rare, but it is not hard. (Maybe I'm just really good? (lol)) When you are inspired (also rare), you hammer it out. It shouldn't take that long and it CERTAINLY shouldn't be considered "work". This is your passion. You aren't doing it because you expect millions of people to give you ten dollars. You do it because YOU want to hear it. This is why I'm an accountant. It pays so that I can afford to sustain my gas (gear acquisition syndrome). My band mates are doctors, contractors, and office managers. We get together once a week to drink beer and play music. We go out every now and again to play for our friends and anyone else who may wander in to our show. We also spent our money on recording gear (not "cheap", but reasonable for a musician). Because of this investment, and a PR company investment, I've been on the radio in 30 states (not that it means anything at all, but it's cool to say).

 

[Mango Positive]

I should add that I don't condone movie piracy. That animal takes FAR too much money to create. You can't do these big movies as a hobby in your spare time, like musicians can. I guess I don't condone piracy at all, so much as I condone a shift in where a musicians expects to make his / her money. Your album is your poster tacked up on the telephone pole of the internet..

 

[Devil Theory]

In actuality for me and most people I know, it comes down to expense. I have thousands of hip hop artists I love dearly, and listen to religiously. Would I buy their CD's? Absolutely. Would I buy vinyls and other merchandise? Sure. Can I afford it? No.

I would buy every album in my iTunes library in physical form if I had the money to (1,039 albums); I actually enjoy owning the physical CD. I want to own them. So what do I do? I try to buy at least the ones I like the most, as often as I can afford it.

I don't know how you would ultimately fix this giant burning issue, but I hope it's not by trying to restrict freedom in general.

 

[Cheerilee]

Do I think that CD's and other "ancient" forms of distribution for music (and possibly movies) have become overpriced? Probably, yeah. Do I think the music industry has done a terrible job overall of attempting to adapt to the changing distribution interface? For the most part, definitely. Do I think that the bank robber analogy is stupid? Yep.

However, it's still ridiculous that people try to completely justify piracy.

You're stealing directly from the artists, the people that create this entertainment, this material that brings you enjoyment.

You can hide behind the justification that you're doing this to spite the relic business model and heinous tactics of the RIAA, and while those justifications may be just, you are still hurting that individual artist.

I'm not trying to act holier than thou with this post- i download music and movies too. Music is one of the most important parts of my daily life, and I think I may have purchased 5 CD's over the last 10 years.

The difference between me and a lot of people in this thread and this world is that I don't try to absolve myself of the situation by focusing only on the justifiable aspects of not paying for CD's/MP3's.

And I think that's a big problem when it comes to the discussions in these threads.

I don't pirate music or movies, but I think that I have a moral right to personal not-for-profit copying, and I don't buy the idea that it hurts anyone. It's a truly victimless crime and it acts like advertising. There's a problem when the industry wants to sell to people who won't like owning the product, and/or when people no longer see the value in paying to have the "original" over the copy. Both of those are faults that lie squarely at the feet of the industry today.

Twisting copyright to target the individual seems to be the industry's only response to their own failure, and this betrayal of the intent behind the gift of copyright, combined with their vile propaganda campaign, makes me want to revoke it.

 

[Barakov]

Nice to see the music industry is as crazy ever.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Spotify in the U.S., please. I don't pirate, but I don't have the money to buy individual songs/CDs (fuck being poor and in college).

 

[Keylime]

Here's an idea for iTunes and other MP3 sites: have a one-time preview of a full album before you buy. It's pretty much the only reason I torrent - I'll probably buy it if I like it.

YouTube?

 

[Jayge]

YouTube?

When WMG isn't buttfucking you and Vevo gets a deal so they can throw the songs up, sure.

 

[NotWii]

So if pirating a song is worse than a bank robbery, what does that make suing for $750,000 a song?

:lol

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Does anybody have an independent study showing that there is any direct correlation for piracy causing price increases? I am talking to someone right now who has made the claim that the two are directly related.

Edit: Nevermind, he actually posted an article that contradicts his claim lol.

Article

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

In 50 years we'll laugh at how stupid these laws were. Because they are, and when the people who advocate for it's defense has gone into retirement noone will care enough to enforce this.

I really hope copyright laws have changed in 50 years. Right now they're a fucking joke. When the original artist dies, the works of the artist should go public. Nuance as required. If a company owns an IP, put a statutory limit on how long they can copyright it. Maybe 25 years or something. I love LOTR like many people, but it disgusts me that Tolkien's heirs can sit on their asses and use his hard work to make money. It shouldn't work that way. Sadly, the one who own the copyrights also have the money to buy laws. It's serfdom all over again, folks.

 

[dschalter]

I really hope copyright laws have changed in 50 years. Right now they're a fucking joke. When the original artist dies, the works of the artist should go public. Nuance as required. If a company owns an IP, put a statutory limit on how long they can copyright it. Maybe 25 years or something. I love LOTR like many people, but it disgusts me that Tolkien's heirs can sit on their asses and use his hard work to make money. It shouldn't work that way. Sadly, the one who own the copyrights also have the money to buy laws. It's serfdom all over again, folks.

Except that's not what serfdom is...

 

[Cyan]

Except that's not what serfdom is...

Serfs also weren't allowed to download music. That's why they called it the Dark Ages.

 

[ZealousD]

So let me get this straight.

Piracy is worse than Bank Robbery.

Bank Robbery is FAR worse than Mass Extortion.

What a fucked up moral compass these people have.

 

[CharlieDigital]

File-sharers are content industry's "largest customers"

Drawing on a major study of Dutch file-sharers, Prof. Nico van Eijk of the University of Amsterdam concludes, "These figures show that there is no sharp divide between file sharers and others in their buying behaviour. On the contrary, when it comes to attending concerts, and expenses on DVDs and games, file sharers are the industry's largest customers... There does not appear to be a clear relationship between the decline in sales and file sharing."

In fact, the study found that file-sharers often buy more content, especially when it comes to films and games.

...

Van Eijk sees this as a necessary business model change in response to file-sharing, but he argues that far more innovation is needed. And he blasts the music industry in particular for acting out of fear. Labels tried to "stem the tide of unlicensed music file sharing with their conservative strategy of abstaining from innovation, promoting legal measures against supposed offences, and digital rights management," he wrote.

"This strategy resulted in the current backlash, providing space for a new entrant establishing a major brand in the online music business: Apple's iTunes. Reinvention of the business model looks like the only way out for the traditional players in the music industry."

What's also interesting about the study cited is it's insight into "reasonable price".

Also:

Canada again tops "special" US piracy watchlist

 

[nyong]

In 50 years we'll laugh at how stupid these laws were. Because they are, and when the people who advocate for it's defense has gone into retirement noone will care enough to enforce this.

In the next 10 years the punishment for illegal-downloading is going to be considerably more severe.

 

[neorej]

Yeah, I feel for them :lol

 

[AVclub]

If someone invents a machine that can make physical copies of inanimate objects like rocks and plastic or metal things, will cloning your friend's pet rock be the same thing as stealing it?

 

[A Link to the Past]

When someone downloads a file, do they hold a gun to the owner's face? :V

 

[Cyan]

If someone invents a machine that can make physical copies of inanimate objects like rocks and plastic or metal things, will cloning your friend's pet rock be the same thing as stealing it?

Sounds like a good scifi premise.

 

[Sh1ner]

The point is that if a thief walks into a bank at night, steals lots of money really quietly and without hurting anyone (in fact, he even leaves a rose-scented thankyou card), his demeanor doesn't change the fact that he had no right to take the money.

It doesn't matter if the value of what you steal is worth 10p or £10mil. That's not the point.

Here I fixed it for you:

The point is that if a guy walks into a bank at night, then duplicated lots of money really quietly and without hurting anyone (in fact, he even leaves a rose-scented thankyou card), his demeanor doesn't change the fact that he had no right to take something he just made for free?:

 

[chaostrophy]

Ok, now that we have the songwriters' perspective, what do the bankers think?

 

[Sh1ner]

Ok, now that we have the songwriters' perspective, what do the bankers think?

is this a trick question?

 

[dark10x]

For me personally, finding ways to increase the value of the music would encourage me to spend much more money on it.

Again, I guess this wouldn't work for a lot of people, but 5.1 audio mixes (or Blu-ray discs) of artists music would have me running to the store to buy a whole bunch of albums right away. If they could do this while still including either a download card or a regular CD, it would be even better.

The 2006 BT album, "This Binary Universe", did this perfectly by releasing a beautiful 5.1 DTS mix along with the regular CD in one package. If they wanted to save money by putting up regular MP3s for download along with the high quality mix, it would be even better. Downloading a 60mb rar file is always tempting, but I'd definitely avoid doing so if high quality alternatives were made available.

I don't pirate films, but I don't buy films that aren't on Blu-ray either. Provide the quality, and I'm there.

Of course, as I noted above, this would only apply to a selective audience. Most people downloading music are perfectly happy even if they stumble across some crappy 128k non-VBR MP3s. :\

I definitely believe that the ability to sample most albums online these days has made a huge difference and pushes me to buy more often. Internet radio customized to ones taste also helps.

 

[jorma]

All this whining and these corporations has yet to show one single credible report that concludes copyright infringements actually hurt the music industry.

At the same time, several universites has published studies that show the opposite.

So songwriters who only write songs for others might not be able to get in on that lucrative concert action. So they'll be out of a job in 10 years. But who cares? They are not really needed and when the money is gone (because paying for copies of a song is not going to be around for much longer) they will be gone too. This will be around the same time artists figure out that they don't really need record companies for distribution, production

Spoiler

and copyright signovers

, because they can do it themselves much cheaper. They will likely hire PR firms instead AND they will get to keep their copyrights.

There is no need for government involvment, this shit will take care of itself.

 

[Trojita]

Does anybody have an independent study showing that there is any direct correlation for piracy causing price increases? I am talking to someone right now who has made the claim that the two are directly related.

Edit: Nevermind, he actually posted an article that contradicts his claim lol.

Article

If anything the prices have gone down anyways. There is a reason that people gravitated towards pirating music when The Wall was the only place nearby to get CD's and the CD's there were $22 per a fucking album. It wasn't really until places like Circuit City started pricing Albums at $13 did the prices start getting decent.

 

[gerg]

Here I fixed it for you:

The point is that if a guy walks into a bank at night, then duplicated lots of money really quietly and without hurting anyone (in fact, he even leaves a rose-scented thankyou card), his demeanor doesn't change the fact that he had no right to take something he just made for free?:

Illegally downloaded property without paying for it is theft, inasmuch as you are accessing (intellectual) property to which you have no right to access. Theft is not necessarily material or physical in nature, as the phrases "identity theft" and "You stole my idea!" show.

 

[Sh1ner]

Illegally downloaded property without paying for it is theft, inasmuch as you are accessing (intellectual) property to which you have no right to access. Theft is not necessarily material or physical in nature, as the phrases "identity theft" and "You stole my idea!" show.

It is illegal, my point was to break his shitty analogy. He used a physical item, I disagree. If someone copies data, it is theft but the original person still has a copy. He is not losing anything. Just the fact that the duplicator is a cheap skate and didn't pay for it, and that small bit about him/she breaking the law...

 

[jorma]

Illegally downloaded property without paying for it is theft, inasmuch as you are accessing (intellectual) property to which you have no right to access. Theft is not necessarily material or physical in nature, as the phrases "identity theft" and "You stole my idea!" show.

No you are distributing material you have no right to distribute. Theft does not come into it at all. You are violating a goverment granted monopoly. There is nothing else to it, even though the entertainment industry likes to think they own their "intellectual property". They do not, they are just given a timed exclusive on distribution rights. But after much lobbyism they have been given timed exclusive for periods that are so long that people are starting to buy into the ownership bullshit.

 

[Sh1ner]

Daaaamn I just learnt something.

maybe you can answer this for me jorma:

why is it called intellectual property? I understand the property bit but the intellectual?!?!

 

[Sol..]

Sounds like this is a job for PRODUCT PLACEMENT MAN

I want your love and i want your arby's or your can me might eat a bad sandwich.
oooooooOOOOHHHHHhhh

 

[jorma]

Daaaamn I just learnt something.

maybe you can answer this for me jorma:

why is it called intellectual property? I understand the property bit but the intellectual?!?!

As opposed to physical property i assume. I never heard that term growing up in the 80's or 90's, i'm pretty sure they just recently invented the word.

 

[Tamanon]

As opposed to physical property i assume. I never heard that term growing up in the 80's or 90's, i'm pretty sure they just recently invented the word.

Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1888 with the founding in Berne of the Swiss Federal Office for Intellectual Property (the Bureau fédéral de la propriété intellectuelle). When the administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) merged in 1893, they also located in Berne, and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new combined title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property. The organisation subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, and was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by treaty as an agency of the United Nations. According to Lemley, it was only at this point that the term really began to be used in the United States (which had not been a party to the Berne Convention),[2] and it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.

 

[Starchasing]

Here I fixed it for you:

The point is that if a guy walks into a bank at night, then duplicated lots of money really quietly and without hurting anyone (in fact, he even leaves a rose-scented thankyou card), his demeanor doesn't change the fact that he had no right to take something he just made for free?:

he incresead the MONETARY BASE and that has a LOT of consequences !!!!!!

maroeconomics 101

 

[jorma]

and it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.

Ok. I never heard it in daily language until maybe 2005 or so. I'm not in the US though so that might explain it.

 

[dinazimmerman]

Music industry wants MP3s to be private goods or maybe club goods. Right now with piracy being so easy (MP3s thus becoming non-excludable), they're basically a public good. No wonder there's a free rider problem.

Also, most people don't have any misgivings with copyright infringement because there's no distinct, human victim involved. Stealing candy from a baby is immoral because a baby is left crying, and that's unfair. Stealing software from Microsoft isn't immoral because Microsoft is a wealthy corporation without a human face, and personally benefiting at its expense isn't unfair. Same goes for stealing music from the music industry. Maybe it would help if more artists started campaigning against piracy. But usually artists dress well and live luxuriously, so there would still be no clear victim.

 

[pmj]

There isn't a clear victim if you were to steal from Wal-Mart either. People just don't see information and physical goods as comparable.

 

[Dead Man]

As a songwriter myself, I have to laugh.

I'm a firm believer that in order to make money, one should actually have to work (not a fan of the "interest" industry either). Recording an album is not only easy (to those musically inclined), but it's fun. Not a lot like work. With today's technology, you don't need to spend hundreds of thousands getting it done.

What can musicians do to make money that IS like work? Get off your ass and go on tour. Play shows. You can't pirate a live concert experience (well... you could sneak in). You play your live shows, you sell your T-shirts and logo'd g-strings, and if you're lucky and I REALLY like your work, I will buy your albums every time. I support the artists I love. I "try out" artists I'm not sure if I'll love. We must get to a point where the album is the advertisement for the live show. This will not only widen exposure for the little guys (more people will listen to your album if you give it away), but it will serve as quality control, blocking the hacks and the record company creations. Word of mouth will be king. I can dream.

In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, here's my band's first album (which GAF will probably hate).

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=OHMGC77X

If anyone cares, I play lead guitar.

This...

Due to piracy I've bought more music then I ever have before.

If I couldn't have listened to all sorts of bands I never heard of I never would've bought their stuff.

Maybe if stores didn't charge $18+ for a new CD people could afford to try out new stuff.

and this sum up my feelings perfectly.

 

[Diablos]

In 50 years we'll laugh at how stupid these laws were. Because they are, and when the people who advocate for it's defense has gone into retirement noone will care enough to enforce this.

In 50 years the Internet is going to be a full-blown corporate profiteering service where you don't have a say in anything. I'm fully confident at this point. As it continues to outpace all other forms of communications and entertainment besides cellular phones, it's only a matter of time before these assholes ruin it for everyone. Might as well be accessing the Internet in North Korea, at least they try to make it look legitimate there (even if it's a half-assed attempt).

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Songwriters get robbed by record labels and Beyonce more than they get robbed by people downloading music

this. they need to look at those contracts their signing, as well as their deals with ASCAP and BMI, who are robbing them blind while failing to rationally secure their music in the first place.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Music industry wants MP3s to be private goods or maybe club goods. Right now with piracy being so easy (MP3s thus becoming non-excludable), they're basically a public good. No wonder there's a free rider problem.

Also, most people don't have any misgivings with copyright infringement because there's no distinct, human victim involved. Stealing candy from a baby is immoral because a baby is left crying, and that's unfair. Stealing software from Microsoft isn't immoral because Microsoft is a wealthy corporation without a human face, and personally benefiting at its expense isn't unfair. Same goes for stealing music from the music industry. Maybe it would help if more artists started campaigning against piracy. But usually artists dress well and live luxuriously, so there would still be no clear victim.

that wouldn't be to the advantage of artists. they get what? $0.03-$0.06 per album? far better for them to get their music pirated, get popular (even famous?) through its distribution, get on the radio, and go ON TOUR to packed-out shows where they get 30%-40% of the profit.

shows that would not have been jam-packed if not for internet distribution channels.

to me, it's the same reason companies like Adobe "try" to thwart piracy. after all, young "pirates" groomed on Photoshop become professionals who only want to use photoshop...and buy it. a pipeline that ceases to exist and subsequently gets replaced by something else (to Photoshop's long term detriment).

 

[Stinkles]

People get killed in bank robberies, all the time.

 

[avatar299]

The fact of the matter is the music industry is being robbed. People can justify it all they want but that is reality. There have been less transactions involving music ever since the "revolution" started even with iTunes and Amazon.

What should worry everyone is the fact more and more goods are becoming digital and piracy is still a major influence. Movies, software, games, etc etc are being cracked and distributed faster and faster. Less revenue for the creators and those who financed them. As a result bubbles are growing and the public tells these artists/studios/companies to rely on less stable buisness models.

Hell look at this thread. " Oh your album should be your poster, your marketing, etc etc" That's retarded. You are giving away your most valuable product in the hope that they will come back for something with less value? What happens when concerts revenue go down because they stop coming for whatever reason or your swag and merchandise don't sell and your stuck with overstock.

You're fucked, but hey you should be doing this for the love of the music, right? What's a little debt.

People need to have property rights respected and pirates don't do that. If you are going to treat people who pirate videogames like scum, at least have some consistency.