Pro-IP Act is signed into Law

[goodman528]

I think it is extremely sad and regretable that people would think the only value that exists in this world is money. And that musicians would care more about how much money they make, than how many people love their music.

its not all we care about, we think it's fair that we provide a service and we get paid for it. Is that fair, or is music excluded from any other service because we should have to do it because we love it?

I didn't say money is all you care about, lol, don't get me wrong. I meant money is the only measure of value we have. For example, how much are you willing to pay for the Mona Lisa? I know I would pay no more than £50 for it, and if it was for sale most people on earth would pay even less for it, but of course it would be sold to the one woman who pays £10million for it. So how much is the Mona Lisa worth?

Music distribution is a service, marketing music is a service, advertising the artist is a service, PR for the artist is a service. The creation of the music itself is not a service (At least it shouldn't be). If you do a service, then of course you would expect to get paid for it. If you make music, then I would expect you to be thinking about how good your song is, and not about how much money you will make from your new song.

But is pop music a service? It may very well be, in the same way to most people religion is a service (though they would never see it as a service). Does the Pope believe in God, or does he care too much about the power and image of the church to have time for God? Honestly, I don't know.

I think for most people, if you have a decent living, say $60k a year, then you would much rather do something you love then do something for more money. Even if filesharing was legal and music copyrights void, good musicians would have no trouble at all making this sort of money. Concerts can be ran like theatre productions are ran today.

SNIP
....money..... music.....

You're missing the point. Money has no intrinsic value..... By stealing music, you're breaking the pact that holds society together. More, you're saying to the artist that your time, labor, and genius has value, but hers does not.

..... When you steal other people's work, you're saying that person's work has no value to you AND reducing it's value to others as well. The artist is free to make her work available to the public for free, once she has accumulated enough money for her wants or if she's willing to do other things to make a living. But you have no right to make that decision for her.

Well, to me, you have just contradicted yourself. Because you are saying time, labor, creativity all has value, but the way we measure their value is using money, (and the value of money is in the trading of other similar goods). I.E. the only measure of value in our society is money. Time and labor can no doubt be valued with money, but creativity (genius)? No. When you go to a gallery and look at a painting, what value would you put on the feeling it inspires in you? When I download a song, I am not saying it has no value, because I listen to it, and appreciate it. I am certainly not reducing its value to others. No. I am increasing its value to others when I reccomend it to them, and give it to them.

So am I making the decision for the artist? Is this rape? If she makes music for money, then yes, she is the only person who can say how much she wants to sell her music for. If she makes music for music, then she should want to bring her music to as many listeners as possible, spread the joy.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP

SNIP
....money..... music.....

You're missing the point. Money has no intrinsic value..... By stealing music, you're breaking the pact that holds society together. More, you're saying to the artist that your time, labor, and genius has value, but hers does not.

..... When you steal other people's work, you're saying that person's work has no value to you AND reducing it's value to others as well. The artist is free to make her work available to the public for free, once she has accumulated enough money for her wants or if she's willing to do other things to make a living. But you have no right to make that decision for her.

Well, to me, you have just contradicted yourself. Because you are saying time, labor, creativity all has value, but the way we measure their value is using money, (and the value of money is in the trading of other similar goods). I.E. the only measure of value in our society is money. Time and labor can no doubt be valued with money, but creativity (genius)? No. When you go to a gallery and look at a painting, what value would you put on the feeling it inspires in you? When I download a song, I am not saying it has no value, because I listen to it, and appreciate it. I am certainly not reducing its value to others. No. I am increasing its value to others when I reccomend it to them, and give it to them.

So am I making the decision for the artist? Is this rape? If she makes music for money, then yes, she is the only person who can say how much she wants to sell her music for. If she makes music for music, then she should want to bring her music to as many listeners as possible, spread the joy.

So your position is that you should be free to steal the artist's work, and if she has a problem with that, then something is wrong with her? How is that reasonable? If someone decided your property should be for the public good and took it without asking or paying, you certainly wouldn't be okay with that. Why is it different for music?

Money is indeed the prime indication of value in a capitalistic society - not the only indication of value, but the main one. There are measures of public respect and acclamation, private respect, value in the eyes of G-d, value in the eyes of one's family and friends - but yes, the main indication of value is money. Someone produces something that someone else values and she is rewarded with money, which can be traded for something she values more than the time and effort she spent earning the money. The alternative would be a Marxist society where the government sets the value of everything. See a lot of popular music, games, movies coming from North Korea? When the government sets the value of everything, everything is worth what it is worth to the government, no more.

If you have the right to set the artist's yearly income at $60,000, shouldn't she be free to set yours at, say, $10,000? Shouldn't you be teaching or stocking shelves or sweeping parking lots for the love of teaching or stocking shelves or sweeping parking lots? What's so special about music that its value is arbitrarily set to zero? Or is this the new Marxist utopia where everyone gets paid the same regardless of whether he sullenly flips burgers or makes music that millions enjoy?

When you can buy something but choose instead to steal it, you have reduced its value to zero. When your friends see you have something stolen that cost you nothing, they are certainly less likely to pay for it themselves.

It doesn't even bother me so much that people steal so much as that they feel entitled to steal. A thief should at least have the decency to feel bad about it, not be bragging about it.

 

[werepossum]

I am a musician, in a fairly succesful band, and my music is torrented, shared, whatever online. I know this. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. We still sell albums, I still make my living, make money from ticket sales, t-shirts, stickers, I don't see why any artist would have a problem with filesharing. If you're good at what you do, you get paid. If not, then maybe you're just using filesharing as a scapegoat. Now, that is just the music aspect, if there's any filmmakers here or authors, I'd like to hear their takes on it.

First, congratulations on your success doing something you love. What's your band?

Second, what are you going to do when you're old? Dolly Parton said her songs are like her children; she expects them to support her when she's old. Have you given any thought to that? Comparatively few artists have long careers.

Third, if you have no problem with your songs being shared, more power to you. But do you think that should translate into other artists having their work taken without permission or payment? If I design a lighting system for a church pro bono, it doesn't obligate my competitors to have their own designs stolen, does it?

 

[goodman528]

{In response to earlier posts}

So your position is that you should be free to steal the artist's work, and if she has a problem with that, then something is wrong with her? How is that reasonable? If someone decided your property should be for the public good and took it without asking or paying, you certainly wouldn't be okay with that. Why is it different for music?

Money is indeed the prime indication of value in a capitalistic society - not the only indication of value, but the main one. There are measures of public respect and acclamation, private respect, value in the eyes of G-d, value in the eyes of one's family and friends - but yes, the main indication of value is money. Someone produces something that someone else values and she is rewarded with money, which can be traded for something she values more than the time and effort she spent earning the money. The alternative would be a Marxist society where the government sets the value of everything. See a lot of popular music, games, movies coming from North Korea? When the government sets the value of everything, everything is worth what it is worth to the government, no more.

If you have the right to set the artist's yearly income at $60,000, shouldn't she be free to set yours at, say, $10,000? Shouldn't you be teaching or stocking shelves or sweeping parking lots for the love of teaching or stocking shelves or sweeping parking lots? What's so special about music that its value is arbitrarily set to zero? Or is this the new Marxist utopia where everyone gets paid the same regardless of whether he sullenly flips burgers or makes music that millions enjoy?

When you can buy something but choose instead to steal it, you have reduced its value to zero. When your friends see you have something stolen that cost you nothing, they are certainly less likely to pay for it themselves.

It doesn't even bother me so much that people steal so much as that they feel entitled to steal. A thief should at least have the decency to feel bad about it, not be bragging about it.

I'm not saying there's a problem with her. Doing something for money is not a problem. If a musician makes music with the sole purpose of making money, then music should not be a good option for doing that, they should go and work in the city, earn enough money, then do something they love doing.

When I'm writing something, anything, like this post for example, I'm not doing it for money. The more people who read this, and think, oh yer, this guy has a point, the more value this post has. When a musician produces music, the more people loves their music, the more value the musician derives from it, the more it inspires the people, the more value is derived from it. This value has no equivalence in money. Who sets the monetary value of a product? Who sets the inspirational, artistic, value of a piece of music?

$60k was an example, it could be $70k, or $50k, the point is musicians don't produce music because they want to become obscenely rich. Musicians produce music because they love it, and all they need is enough money to make a good living.

Is filesharing really stealing? If you think music is about money, as RIAA no doubt does think, then filesharing is stealing. If you think music is about bringing something to the people, then the more people who fileshare your music, the more value you derive from it.

BTW, What's all this business with Marx and communism? Marx came up with the idea that labor is the only thing of (monetary) value, and the only person who should decide the (monetary) value of their labor is the workers themselve, not the consumers of their labor (To the employer, labor is a product). The planned communist economy is based on that everything has a static monetary value which is the same to every consumer of that product, like a new CD is always £15 ($30); and the state should decide who can have this CD and who can not based on often arbitary calculations and corruption (in Capitalism setting the price already decides who can have it, and who can't). Filesharing is foundamentally against the idea of Marxism and Communism. You might have been surprised to see the similarity between your view on the value of Labor, and Marx's, don't worry, Americans were brainwashed much more by the cold war than the communists ever were, you don't even accept it as brainwashing.

I am a musician, in a fairly succesful band, and my music is torrented, shared, whatever online. I know this. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. We still sell albums, I still make my living, make money from ticket sales, t-shirts, stickers, I don't see why any artist would have a problem with filesharing. If you're good at what you do, you get paid. If not, then maybe you're just using filesharing as a scapegoat. Now, that is just the music aspect, if there's any filmmakers here or authors, I'd like to hear their takes on it.

Thank you. What you have just said is exactly what I've been trying to say. What's your band called? Unfortunately I haven't been able to use filesharing for 2 years now, so I probably can't get hold of your music even if I wanted to, but I'll keep it in mind.

 

[jim_doki]

{In response to earlier posts}

So your position is that you should be free to steal the artist's work, and if she has a problem with that, then something is wrong with her? How is that reasonable? If someone decided your property should be for the public good and took it without asking or paying, you certainly wouldn't be okay with that. Why is it different for music?

Money is indeed the prime indication of value in a capitalistic society - not the only indication of value, but the main one. There are measures of public respect and acclamation, private respect, value in the eyes of G-d, value in the eyes of one's family and friends - but yes, the main indication of value is money. Someone produces something that someone else values and she is rewarded with money, which can be traded for something she values more than the time and effort she spent earning the money. The alternative would be a Marxist society where the government sets the value of everything. See a lot of popular music, games, movies coming from North Korea? When the government sets the value of everything, everything is worth what it is worth to the government, no more.

If you have the right to set the artist's yearly income at $60,000, shouldn't she be free to set yours at, say, $10,000? Shouldn't you be teaching or stocking shelves or sweeping parking lots for the love of teaching or stocking shelves or sweeping parking lots? What's so special about music that its value is arbitrarily set to zero? Or is this the new Marxist utopia where everyone gets paid the same regardless of whether he sullenly flips burgers or makes music that millions enjoy?

When you can buy something but choose instead to steal it, you have reduced its value to zero. When your friends see you have something stolen that cost you nothing, they are certainly less likely to pay for it themselves.

It doesn't even bother me so much that people steal so much as that they feel entitled to steal. A thief should at least have the decency to feel bad about it, not be bragging about it.

I'm not saying there's a problem with her. Doing something for money is not a problem. If a musician makes music with the sole purpose of making money, then music should not be a good option for doing that, they should go and work in the city, earn enough money, then do something they love doing.

When I'm writing something, anything, like this post for example, I'm not doing it for money. The more people who read this, and think, oh yer, this guy has a point, the more value this post has. When a musician produces music, the more people loves their music, the more value the musician derives from it, the more it inspires the people, the more value is derived from it. This value has no equivalence in money. Who sets the monetary value of a product? Who sets the inspirational, artistic, value of a piece of music?

$60k was an example, it could be $70k, or $50k, the point is musicians don't produce music because they want to become obscenely rich. Musicians produce music because they love it, and all they need is enough money to make a good living.

Is filesharing really stealing? If you think music is about money, as RIAA no doubt does think, then filesharing is stealing. If you think music is about bringing something to the people, then the more people who fileshare your music, the more value you derive from it.

ok, just step back for five minutes and look at what you posted. Essentially what you are saying is that all musicians need is enough money to live on. On this point we agree. you go on to say that they shouldn't care that they're NOT making a living because they're making people happy?

is that what you're saying?

because that's what it looks like you're saying, and I have to tell you that if you can't see anything wrong with that statement then you need help. Radio cannot be compared to online file sharing for a number of reasons, but most prominantly is the fact that radio stations pay artists so they can use their songs, or some other arrangement, like free promotion for the upcoming tour, is arranged. They do not just play the CD on air. that would be illegal.

pay attention, because this part is important. Music is not all about money. It never has been. BUT people deserve to be paid for their work. by downloading music illegally you are saying that the artist's time and money, which they put into that recording, is of net value 0 to you.
again, lets apply this to real world economics. Your boss has told you that you have to pay for the pizza ingredients. you do, you make the pizza yourself, and your boss says "now go out and sell the pizza. you will get a slice of the profits." so you do. On the way, someone steals your pizza. starting to feel ripped off?

 

[Booze Zombie]

There will always be those who steal. The file sharing service just gives the product to those who were not willing to pay for it in the first place. Victimising those who don't pirate will only increase the number of people who WERE going to pay for a product not longer buying said product.

Really, the only thing to do is a GameTap and make some money off of people who were not going to pay anything, anyway.

 

[Morderkaine]

I am a musician, in a fairly succesful band, and my music is torrented, shared, whatever online. I know this. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. We still sell albums, I still make my living, make money from ticket sales, t-shirts, stickers, I don't see why any artist would have a problem with filesharing. If you're good at what you do, you get paid. If not, then maybe you're just using filesharing as a scapegoat. Now, that is just the music aspect, if there's any filmmakers here or authors, I'd like to hear their takes on it.

If you list the band name I would download a song or two, and if I like them, if I ever see an add for you guys doing a concert I may buy a ticket. Look - filesharing can equal free advertising, on a scale that would normally be insanely expensive.

And I think the biggest problem that most people have who are against file sharing (different from piracy where you are selling the product for money) is that they call it theft. It is not theft, it is something completely different, that I dont think we have a proper name for yet. Those who give examples of breaking and entering, stealing a ferrari for a joyride or whatever have no idea what they are talking about. Theft involves taking something from someone, so that they no longer have it. You may as well say that walking into someones house and watching their TV is the same as stealing it. It makes no sense.
If I download a song off the internet, that song doesnt mysteriously vanish out of that artists house, they arnt all of a sudden unable to sell another copy of it to someone else, little Timmy doesnt go home empty handed because the local store ran out of CDs. Anyone who was willing to buy that song still buys it, and the artist and record companies still make the same amount of money - I may not have ever been willing to buy that song in the first place.
A better example as to the effects of filesharing - trying to sneak into a theater to watch a play - whether you manage to get in or not the artists and the theater still make the same amount of money, if you manage to sneak in you dont magically rip $20 out of someones pocket, that money would have never been given to the theater whether you snuck in or just kept walking down the street.
Or, another example, you decide to make some cash by putting on a fireworks show. You rent a field, put out blakets for people to sit on, buy a ton of fireworks and charge $5 a head for people to come in and watch. You make a nice profit. Someone sees the fireworks going off and watches them from his balcony. Did he just steal $5 from you because he didnt pay to watch it in your field and he instead did it from home?
Reason people watch movies at the theater is the higher quality of the picture and sound, if a movie at a theater was $50 bucks, everyone would rent it to watch at home. If a movie at a theater was $4 a person, people would watch at theaters more often and watch at home less. The key to selling something is to create VALUE for the consumers to buy it in YOUR format, not to get it other ways or from competitors.

The end to piracy and to a lesser extent filesharing will happen when these products are offered with proper price and value compared to downloading it. There is effort and time involved in downloading and cracking games, or finding, getting then burning music. Many people will download certain games, but the ones they really want they will go out and buy. The reason? Because they want the higher quality disc, they want the manual, the nice storage box to keep it safe and unlost amonst all the copied dvds, to be able to register it for extras and/or warranty, to have the extra online features, etc. Things that are worth the money are bought, those that arnt worth it are gained other ways. If I was never going to buy the game, no one has lost money when I play it for free.
Main point so far - its not theft, its a completely different horse - the only loss is the loss of POTENTIAL or POSSIBLE income.

And the music industry screwed itself by trying to sell very little for very much. I once walked into a music store with a gift certificate for the sole purpose of buying a music cd from a specific band. I looked at the CDs and none had more than 1 or 2 of the songs I liked, and the price on the one I liked the best was over $20 with 8 songs. I looked at that and realized a 50 cent blank cd and 1 hour of time and I could have a much better cd with just the songs I like. Even valueing my time at $20 an hour (which I normally do) its better to copy the CD. And cd makers can make cds for even LESS cost than we can at home. The are spending probably less than $1 for the whole cd package and selling it for $20 on average. I bet the artist only gets $1 or less per cd too.... the rest the RIAA or whatever takes. When the value of what you get on the cd exceeds the cost we have to pay for it, people will buy more, till then....

And the fines they are trying for, as well as the "losses" they experience is all based on faulty math. They release a CD and say "We expect to sell 500 million copies". Then when only 300 million sell they say "200 million copies were stolen from us!" Just because they didnt sell what the projected (and what they base those projections on, who knows...).
Also, if a album was downloaded 100 million times for example, if filesharing didnt exist I bet maybe 30 million at the very most would have bought the album. Oh, and some who clue into it through file sharing would then buy it when before they never would have. Any losses of actual real revenue that actually would have made it to the companies is a small percentage of the copies made.
If they successfully sued 1% of filesharers for the fines they want, they would make back 100 times the revenue lost to filesharing. That seems rather unbalanced to me.
Long rant, sorry.

BTW - im not saying money isnt lost due to it, cause it is, its just WAY less than the companies want you to believe - WAY WAY WAY less.

 

[goodman528]

ok, just step back for five minutes and look at what you posted. Essentially what you are saying is that all musicians need is enough money to live on. On this point we agree. you go on to say that they shouldn't care that they're NOT making a living because they're making people happy?

is that what you're saying?

because that's what it looks like you're saying, and I have to tell you that if you can't see anything wrong with that statement then you need help. Radio cannot be compared to online file sharing for a number of reasons, but most prominantly is the fact that radio stations pay artists so they can use their songs, or some other arrangement, like free promotion for the upcoming tour, is arranged. They do not just play the CD on air. that would be illegal.

pay attention, because this part is important. Music is not all about money. It never has been. BUT people deserve to be paid for their work. by downloading music illegally you are saying that the artist's time and money, which they put into that recording, is of net value 0 to you.
again, lets apply this to real world economics. Your boss has told you that you have to pay for the pizza ingredients. you do, you make the pizza yourself, and your boss says "now go out and sell the pizza. you will get a slice of the profits." so you do. On the way, someone steals your pizza. starting to feel ripped off?

That contradictary statement you just correctly pointed out, is pretty what I'm saying. Not they shouldn't care that they are starving to death, I mean they are human after all. But they can get money a million other ways, I've only mentioned concerts, but there's also advertising, TV interviews, patronage, merchandise, etc. If you are a good musician, you can easily make a living without selling a single recording.

I've been through this value debate already, money does not equal value. I've been through this necessity vs art debate as well, they are different. You can skim through some previous posts if you want, I tried my best to be unintentionally funny. Bottom line: music is not the same as food, or clothing, or furniture, dispite all of these RIAA advertise telling you otherwise. To the RIAA music is just a product to make money, that's why they treat it like such in these adverts, I'm surprised it gets so many people thinking the same way, now I see how you buy votes in elections. I suggest you do some volunteering work yourselves, then you will have a better understanding of what I mean by value.

 

[Morderkaine]

There will always be those who steal. The file sharing service just gives the product to those who were not willing to pay for it in the first place. Victimising those who don't pirate will only increase the number of people who WERE going to pay for a product not longer buying said product.

I have seen a lot of people become determined to pirate Spore because of the DMR and protection on it as a matter of principle, where before they were planning to buy it as soon as it came out. When non-pirates felt they were being victimized, they decided not to play by the rules of the software manufacturer anymore because they felt they were losing value and the product was no longer worth the cost. If these companies worked with people instead of against them they would have much less problems.

again, lets apply this to real world economics. Your boss has told you that you have to pay for the pizza ingredients. you do, you make the pizza yourself, and your boss says "now go out and sell the pizza. you will get a slice of the profits." so you do. On the way, someone steals your pizza. starting to feel ripped off?

So you are one of those confused people who thinks that if I download a song, that song vanishes from the artist and he cannot sell it to anyone else. In your scenario, you pay to make the pizza and go out to sell it and take a piece of the profit. If we are talking about filesharing and not mugging Lars Ulrich on the street, it goes like this. As you go out to sell your pizza the first person says "Sorry, I know a place where I can get pizza for free." The second person says the same thing. Then the third person buys your pizza and you get your money.
Or if you have a 1000 copies of a cd and 100 people download the album, how many cds do you have left? Your pizza is still in your hands! You still have 1000 cds to sell to OTHER people.

 

[jim_doki]

one more time round the block for the road then?

music and art are as exactly as valuable as food, if not moreso. just because you can't touch it doesn't mean it's worthless. Music is a SERVICE. Like a maid cleaning your house. you don't ask her to do it for free do you? do you tell her that there are other ways besides her job to get the money she's owed for her hard work?

also for the record, i do do volunteer work. and yes, it's rewarding and something i do out of the goodness of my heart. I am aware of the deal going in. Whereas if i release a CD for sale, I expect to get paid for it. I don't see where you're getting confused with this. I work for you by releasing a song, you pay me for it by buying it. any variant on this is illegal without my say so.

 

[goodman528]

Love music, Love filesharing, Hate piracy.

...advertising.....

And I think the biggest problem that most people have who are against file sharing (different from piracy where you are selling the product for money) is that they call it theft. It is not theft, it is something completely different, that I dont think we have a proper name for yet......

I may not have ever been willing to buy that song in the first place.

A better example as to the effects of filesharing - trying to sneak into a theater to watch a play....

Or, another example, ..... putting on a fireworks show.....

Reason people watch movies at the theater is the higher quality of the picture and sound.

If they successfully sued 1% of filesharers for the fines they want, they would make back 100 times the revenue lost to filesharing. That seems rather unbalanced to me.

You've pretty much summed up all of the traditional arguements for filesharing. Which seems really cowardly to me. I mostly agree with you. However I disagree on 2 points:

"I may not have ever been willing to buy that song in the first place."
Notice how you used the word "may not" instead of "would not". This is not a justification, even if you would have bought that song, you should be justified in downloading it.

"trying to sneak into a theater to watch a play."
Wouldn't you have something better to do then sneaking into the play? Are you not denying a seat to the people with seat reservations if the theatre was full? The similarity between a play and a digital music file is superficial, you even said "Reason people watch movies at the theater is the higher quality of the picture and sound." Well, if a movie in the cinema is different from a movie at home, then isn't a live performance different from a digital recording?

I also think these people getting successfully sued for filesharing is INjustice. Three simple reasons, 1)The punishment is not proportional to the crime 2) They had no intention of stealing or dishonesty, intention is very important in our justice system, e.g. assult, rape, terrorism, etc. 3) There are tens of millions of filsharers out there, they are only prosecuting a few hundred? This is double standards. Where is the justice in that? Why not prosecute all of the filesharers? Since when has our legal justice system become a lottory?

 

[jim_doki]

So you are one of those confused people who thinks that if I download a song, that song vanishes from the artist and he cannot sell it to anyone else. In your scenario, you pay to make the pizza and go out to sell it and take a piece of the profit. If we are talking about filesharing and not mugging Lars Ulrich on the street, it goes like this. As you go out to sell your pizza the first person says "Sorry, I know a place where I can get pizza for free." The second person says the same thing. Then the third person buys your pizza and you get your money.
Or if you have a 1000 copies of a cd and 100 people download the album, how many cds do you have left? Your pizza is still in your hands! You still have 1000 cds to sell to OTHER people.

no, i'm not at all confused, i understand that's a common rationalisation. the idea that you don't have to buy it because 1) you can get it for free and b) someone else WILL buy it. That rationalisation is, for all intents and purposes, Balls.

if i made any other product, and only one in every three people paid for it, how long before i go broke?

 

[Morderkaine]

Love music, Love filesharing, Hate piracy.

You've pretty much summed up all of the traditional arguements for filesharing. Which seems really cowardly to me. I mostly agree with you. However I disagree on 2 points:

"I may not have ever been willing to buy that song in the first place."
Notice how you used the word "may not" instead of "would not". This is not a justification, even if you would have bought that song, you should be justified in downloading it.

"trying to sneak into a theater to watch a play."
Wouldn't you have something better to do then sneaking into the play? Are you not denying a seat to the people with seat reservations if the theatre was full? The similarity between a play and a digital music file is superficial, you even said "Reason people watch movies at the theater is the higher quality of the picture and sound." Well, if a movie in the cinema is different from a movie at home, then isn't a live performance different from a digital recording?

I also think these people getting successfully sued for filesharing is INjustice. Three simple reasons, 1)The punishment is not proportional to the crime 2) They had no intention of stealing or dishonesty, intention is very important in our justice system, e.g. assult, rape, terrorism, etc. 3) There are tens of millions of filsharers out there, they are only prosecuting a few hundred? This is double standards. Where is the justice in that? Why not prosecute all of the filesharers? Since when has our legal justice system become a lottory?

I meant the 'may not' - i'll admit I have downloaded things that I may have or would have (depending on the thing - some I would have bought for sure, some I dont know) bought if filesharing was not an option, and many others I would have never bought. And some I downloaded, realized it was good then bought in order to have the higher quality (movies for example) and I would have never bought them without the chance to try them out first. Its a big mix, some cases of sharing lose them money, some no change, others gain them money.

I thought the theater was a decent analogy - whether you sneak in or walk past they dont get any less money, it only costs you time (like downloading, ripping, burning) and you dont get the full experience that the paying customers get (they get comfy seats, you probably have to hang around the back or sides with a poorer view because they have seat reservations, you dont - similar to the poorer quality picture of a downloaded movie in many cases).

I agree with your last bit fully.

My main point is, its a different thing than theft, it needs a new name, like 'possible loss of potential revenue'. And its completely impossible to measure a loss of potential revenue that could have been made or not. Its a new form of theft that is so far removed from the original meaning of the word that it cannot apply.


On a side note, I think I have thought of a great new business model that will take advantage of peoples desire for customizable music playlists and albums for free that will also generate revenue for the artists. If it works out, Ill let you all know....

 

[goodman528]

Love music, Love filesharing, Hate piracy.

Here's my summary:

There are 2 different kinds of value:
1) Money. This is what you get for you labor, which you use to exchange for similar goods and services
2) Inspirational value. This is what you get when you see a good painting, or sit and listen to good music. This can not be expressed in monetary terms.

Musicians produce music because they love music, not because they want to make money from music. [read: they should not expect to get money in exchange for their music] However good musicians can easily make a comfortable living from concerts, advertising, interviews, merchandise, etc, without ever selling a single recording.

The difference between filsharing and piracy is:
Filesharing is downloading the music to listen to the music, it generates a lot of inspirational value, but never any monetary value.
Piracy is downloading music to make money from it, it generates no inspirational value, and a lot of monetary value.

Notice how money is a zero sum game, but inspirational value is not. Therefore stealing is only useful in describing something of monetary value, it is meaningless in the context of inspirational value, because you can never steal a particular feeling I just had 24 hours ago. How much money is my .jpg file of the Mona Lisa worth?

one more time round the block for the road then?

music and art are as exactly as valuable as food........

 

[chronobreak]

I should really learn how to use the quote button... anyways, I'm in a band called I Rise, I've been in a bunch of others as well, and toured with POD and Chevelle a few years back. Now, I'm not rich, no, but I don't hurt for cash either. It's a humble living, I guess.

As far as when I'm old... well, who knows. I don't expect music to carry me another day rather than 30 years. In life, you always need a contingency plan, that's just being responsible. I do it because it's what I want to do, but if the time comes when it's not making me money, obviously I have other skills like producing or being a session musican to fall back on.

Maybe some musicans think differently, like Lars Ulrich or whoever else, but file sharing isn't going anywhere, better to get down with it than to be down on it, IMO.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
BTW, What's all this business with Marx and communism? Marx came up with the idea that labor is the only thing of (monetary) value, and the only person who should decide the (monetary) value of their labor is the workers themselve, not the consumers of their labor (To the employer, labor is a product). The planned communist economy is based on that everything has a static monetary value which is the same to every consumer of that product, like a new CD is always £15 ($30); and the state should decide who can have this CD and who can not based on often arbitary calculations and corruption (in Capitalism setting the price already decides who can have it, and who can't). Filesharing is foundamentally against the idea of Marxism and Communism. You might have been surprised to see the similarity between your view on the value of Labor, and Marx's, don't worry, Americans were brainwashed much more by the cold war than the communists ever were, you don't even accept it as brainwashing.

My point is that in a Marxian economy, the government decides the price of everything. In a nominally capitalist economy, prices are decided by crossing the curves of what the consumer is prepared to pay and what the seller is willing to take. What piracy does is set up a system by which the price is set ONLY by the consumer. Needless to say, that price is almost always zero. You may reward the occasional excellent effort or purchase something that's cleverly protected, but by far the bulk of your "purchases" will be at zero cost.

Now, two things come to mind. The first is basic fairness. Even in a Marxian communist system, the seller gets something for his time and effort. In your system, the seller gets zilch most of the time. Completely unfair considering you valued it enough to download it and listen to it.

Second, such a system can only operate if there are people like Jim and I, technically literate enough but bound morally not to steal it. As ethics continually degrade and computer knowledge, quality, and bandwidth all increase, inevitably more and more people are going to steal the music. More people like you, less like Jim means there's less money in music. Already music companies are hesitant to release any new musicians that appeal to teens, because so much of it is stolen.

Say you are a record company. If you average $8 million in costs and $12 million in profits for a new metal or alternative band, and $8 million in costs and $20 million in profits for a new Miley Cyrus (purchased by the parents) or Latin sensation or a remake of Johnny Mathis, where are you going to put your money? By stealing the profits of the music you like, you're actually creating a powerful disincentive for record companies to publish new groups or even any of the music you like. Even if you allow the artist to keep the $60K a year - even if that artist is fine with $60K a year - you make it less likely that the company producing the album will continue to do so.

This is already happening with games. Look at what the CEO of Ironclad Games said. He loves to play shooters. His company doesn't make shooters because there's no money in it - too much theft. So instead he makes the excellent Sins of a Solar Empire because he says he'd rather make games for a potential audience of five million that pay for his games, than make games for a potential audience of fifty million that steal it. Here's a great company that ignores a huge market because of theft.

I've belabored the point too much, so I'll leave the thread with one other thought:
There is no free lunch; there is only a lunch someone else pays for.

 

[jim_doki]

OK, Lets put this in the simplist, neanderthal like terms that I can.

1)I provide you a service, music

b)Regardless of how i feel about my music, i commited a lot financially and personally into it

3)on those grounds, i feel that if somebody wants to use that service (see "listen") they should have to pay for it

4)This is the basic principal on how art survives. Love don't pay the rent, and paying the rent can prevent you doing what you love.

e)Lost income can be determined very simply. If you have it, but didn't pay for it, it's lost revenue.

6)piracy = theft. you are taking something that's being sold, and not paying for it. that simple

g) radio is not the same as piracy, as radio stations have paid for certain rights as arranged with the artist's/label's management

Any questions?

 

[goodman528]

3)on those grounds, i feel that if somebody wants to use that service (see "listen") they should have to pay for it

If that's the way you feel, then you shouldn't be a musician in the first place, go and do something much more rewarding (in terms of money). Because the only value the consumers of the fruits of your labor can return to you, which you recognise, is money.

4)This is the basic principal on how art survives. Love don't pay the rent, and paying the rent can prevent you doing what you love.

In some thing, yes. In music, no. If you are a good musician, how much money can you make just from your name? You know the Chinese guy who runs 110m hurldles and broke his leg, he's worth billions of dollars to advertisers alone.

You still haven't given me a quote for my .jpg of the Mona Lisa.

 

[Morderkaine]

If I made a music album and one in 3 people paid for it, id be rolling in dough, considering how many people there could be exposed to it. As I make the album once, spend time and money on it, then for my one time investment, lets say 6 months of my life, I can sell that album 100,000 times or more for many years, each copy of the album costing a pittance to make. And the more popular a album or movie is, the more it will be bought in stores, and the more it will be downloaded. Either way the better the product is, the more it will sell and make the producer rich. And even if only 1 in 3 pay for something, 600 000 downloads means I sold 300 000 copies - thats a lot of money if the recording industry doesnt take 90% of it.

And I agree, if you made ANY OTHER product than media, if 2 thirds of your stock were stolen you would go broke, but media is not any other product. You are comparing apples and oranges, or comparing selling cars to singing a song on a street corner for change. Completely different.

By some logic I have seen on here, you guys are getting close to saying that if a band performs on a street corner, everyone who listens and doesnt walk away is obligated to put money in the hat at the end. Not quite, but close.

Still not saying filesharing is all good, it DOES hurt the industry, but its not theft, its something else, and its not as detrimental as the money grubbers want you to think it is. There way of thinking is "I made 10 million $$ in profit, but I wanted to make 12 million. Im angry!"

 

[jim_doki]

If that's the way you feel, then you shouldn't be a musician in the first place, go and do something much more rewarding (in terms of money). Because the only value the consumers of the fruits of your labor can return to you, which you recognise, is money.

That's just insulting. if it was your dream to cure cancer, would you do it for free? even if there was a massive personal cost to you and it was all you ever wanted to do with your life? Would you be happy working a crappy dead end job to fund your "hobby" of research and disease curing?

In some thing, yes. In music, no. If you are a good musician, how much money can you make just from your name? You know the Chinese guy who runs 110m hurldles and broke his leg, he's worth billions of dollars to advertisers alone.

You still haven't given me a quote for my .jpg of the Mona Lisa.

Prey, how does music work if not like this? and how many musicians do you see hocking anything but musical equipment? and how much do you think musical equipment sponsorship is going to be worth if nobody's making music?