I steal music.

[colinmiller]

Originally Posted by jihadjoe75

I think I feel it more and more everyday, especially after reading many of the responses here.

Your honesty is appreciated and as someone who is on a daily basis surrounded by people such as yourself, I too can confirm that what you say is absolutely true in regards to everyone doing it. And you need to be heard despite your reasoning being wrong and immoral by social standards. Because what you describe is exactly the issue that has to be dealt with and can't be dismissed. It sums up the problem. If back when I was a kid we had access to the same technology, I have no doubt that I and all of my friends would be acting the same way as you are. And I think anyone that says otherwise is being dishonest.

It's simply too easy not to do and the moral guilty from a single person is too little. It's the collective damage that's the problem. It's that kids haven't the experience to understand the problem with what they are doing. They don't have the life experience to have value in many things. And they are kids and can't be expected to. It was only our technical limitations that stopped those of us who are older.

But let me ask you this. If there was a good chance that you could get an arrest record for doing it, would you still do it? If the chances of getting caught were about the same as if you went into a store and stole something would you still do it? Or maybe a better question would be: Would you still do it as much?

If there was no central location to go to and in order to find a song you had to go through 100 list services, would you do it as much?

If it took 30 minutes to download a song instead of 10 seconds, would you spend the extra time downloading to get the same amount of songs you would now?

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Actually that's the honest impression I get from the pro piracy lobby.
It's the new reality, get real or get lost.
If you don't agree with file sharing you're living in the past, or worse...greedy.
Not much negotiation there.

yeah, it's basically a stalemate.
But, is filesharing NOT reality? So where does that leave us? The complainers and the leeches? The moral and the immoral?
That certainly doesn't sound very reasonable either.

If the big question here is whether it is right or wrong to steal, then I digress, soapbox away.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by soundrick

So where does that leave us?

I guess it leaves us with two courses.
Work towards ways of restricting free downloads, whilst at the same time striving to find a model that pays musicians to make music.
Or second, throw our hands up in the air, admit it's all too hard and hope some of the most interesting and borderline uncommercial music doesn't get destroyed by the stampede towards free music and the sharing culture.

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

I too can confirm that what you say is absolutely true in regards to everyone doing it. And you need to be heard despite your reasoning being wrong and immoral by social standards.

Doesn't this contradict itself? If "everyone" is doing it, how can it be wrong by social standards? This is under the presumption that "everyone" is part of the larger society.

This is starting to sound like the old-timers against the whipper-snappers.........

All the comments in this thread about "maturing" and "you'll figure it out when you get older", etc..... Are very patronizing.

I know some very mature 20 year olds, and some jackass idiot 40 year olds. Right here at my work as a matter of fact.
I think that has little to do with it.
Generation 20-something is not the only one filesharing, I guarantee it.

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Work towards ways of restricting free downloads, whilst at the same time striving to find a model that pays musicians to make music.

OK, fair enough.
But, that responsibility does NOT fall to the consumer.

Big corporations suing kids and single moms for downloading music is not helping their cause, it's just pissing them off and making them more defiant, and clever.

[Brian!]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

Your honesty is appreciated and as someone who is on a daily basis surrounded by people such as yourself, I too can confirm that what you say is absolutely true in regards to everyone doing it. And you need to be heard despite your reasoning being wrong and immoral by social standards. Because what you describe is exactly the issue that has to be dealt with and can't be dismissed. It sums up the problem. If back when I was a kid we had access to the same technology, I have no doubt that I and all of my friends would be acting the same way as you are. And I think anyone that says otherwise is being dishonest.

It's simply too easy not to do and the moral guilty from a single person is too little. It's the collective damage that's the problem. It's that kids haven't the experience to understand the problem with what they are doing. They don't have the life experience to have value in many things. And they are kids and can't be expected to. It was only our technical limitations that stopped those of us who are older.

But let me ask you this. If there was a good chance that you could get an arrest record for doing it, would you still do it? If the chances of getting caught were about the same as if you went into a store and stole something would you still do it? Or maybe a better question would be: Would you still do it as much?

Excellent points in your first two paragraphs. I agree with them completely. I think if people want to stand a chance of solving this problem, there at least has to be an common understanding of the basis of this problem which I think has been outlined very well in those two paragraphs.

As far as getting an arrest record, that becomes a lot more tricky. Would that only extend to RIAA represented labels? The immediate problem I can see with arresting downloaders is that it alienates current and potential fans. These fans will find music on other labels that don't support prosecuting people and support them instead. If there were some sort of all encompassing way to prosecute all people pirating all commercially released music, it might work out. Otherwise consumers just see the evil labels that fine 80 year old women and the ones that don't.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by soundrick

If "everyone" is doing it, how can it be wrong by social standards?

Not really.
A lot of people doing something does not make it right or quasi legal.

Besides, everyone is not doing it.

All the comments in this thread about "maturing" and "you'll figure it out when you get older", etc..... Are very patronizing.

Sorry it's hard to dodge the facts.
One kid charging another $5 for illegally copied CD's is wrong, that's a fact.
You really do learn by experience too.
If any of these kids want to make a career out of music they'll soon learn they need people to pay for their music, or their career will never go anywhere. That realization brings with it maturity, along with the financial commitment a wife, kids and a home bring to the mix.
That's why 90% of budding musicians drop out once they have kids and buy a house. They just can't make it financially work. I've read plenty of immature argument as to how they could make it work on this forum and that's where actual music biz experience gives you a more mature perspective.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by soundrick

But, that responsibility does NOT fall to the consumer.

I agree.
The responsibility falls to the consumer not to rip off innocent musicians in the meantime.
I have no idea what kind of model can be crafted, but I also don't need to be simultaneously punished by downloaders

Big corporations suing kids and single moms ......

A moment ago it was mature 20 and 40 year olds at your work.
How convenient the emotive 'single mum'.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Actually that's the honest impression I get from the pro piracy lobby.
It's the new reality, get real or get lost.
If you don't agree with file sharing you're living in the past, or worse...greedy.
Not much negotiation there.

It's a very disturbing view of the world indeed. What basicaly some are saying is : "Hey, you WILL get "fooked", just get used to it and accept it". If that so, we might answer , why shouldn't we fook them too in return , with some really ugly repressive laws ? Why should it be one-way "fooking" only ?

It's hard to be in a relationship with somebody that tells you "hey , i will steal from you, whether you like it or not, now go create some music for me, and don't forget to thank me at the end of your shows"

If somebody puts it as an axiom from the start that he will NOT respect you, how can he expect you to respect him back ? What kind of relationship is this ? How can you bond with an audience like that ?

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by spaceman

It's a very disturbing view of the world indeed. What basicaly some are saying is : "Hey, you WILL get "fooked", just get used to it and accept it". If that so, we might answer , why shouldn't we fook them too in return , with some really ugly repressive laws ? Why should it be one-way "fooking" only ?

It's hard to be in a relationship with somebody that tells you "hey , i will steal from you, whether you like it or not, now go create some music for me, and don't forget to thank me at the end of your shows"

If somebody puts it as an axiom from the start that he will NOT respect you, how can he expect you to respect him back ? What kind of relationship is this ? How can you bond with an audience like that ?

Respect is earned, and the burden is on the purveyor of goods to earn the respect of the consumer. I do not think the consumer should ever be under any obligation to respect the purveyor of goods.

If the consumer says "hey, your products suck, and I refuse to pay for them" then that's their prerogative. It is wrong for them to take it anyways of course, but the disrespect notion still applies.

I've said this before, but pissing off your customer base out of retribution is burning a bridge you're still standing on. The music industry has my full support if they wan't to go piss off all the pirates (which seem to outnumber legitimate customers). The music industry will be left with even fewer potential customers and be absolutely forced to change their tactics.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by jihadjoe75

Work is slow right now and I feel like ranting...

I'm a college student who makes $8 an hour for my campuses IT support dept and quite frankly, I cannot afford to pay $10-$20 for a CD. Yep, I'm a pirate and I have been for a very long time. Although I do buy music on occasion. This last month, I've bought two CD's. One being Frontier Ruckus's new album and Cursive's new album, both absolutely worth my $14.

If music is free and I'm short on cash, I'm absolutely going to download it. Even if all of a sudden the main stream music industry started putting out genuinely quality work, I would still not buy it -nor would 98% of the other people my age. Hell, I can personally say that I do not know a single person my age that does not steal music.

Morally, there is little difference from stealing a CD in a store that stealing it online. It's just that when your sitting in your bedroom clicking through TPB or Demonoid it simply does not feel like stealing, especially since you know that your chances of getting caught are very, very low.

It's been said a million times, but the days are changing and the recording industry is not. It's unfortunate considering the amount of people that feed their families through this industry, but maybe in the end of all this people will start focusing on their art, rather than money. If piracy continues, maybe more really great art could come out of it. Art obviously doesn't necessarily feed a family though, but was it ever supposed to?

Now, dear recording industry, if you can give me an unlimited library with lossless songs... hell, I'd probably pay twenty-sum bucks a month for that. Unfortunately, I'm assuming the other %90 of the population that can't recognize the difference between a lossless file and one of those bullshit 128kbps songs you can pay a dollar for on itunes. So yea, in regards to making money with music, we musicians are mostly just effed. I'd start promoting your concerts more and make a few nice t-shirts, cause that's usually what people my age spend money on when they support a band.

In the mean time, I will personally be giving my music away for free, because it is, quite frankly, not worth $10 for an album. I just like it when people listen and enjoy my songs.

Thanks for listening to my rant. It's been a long day.

With love,
Joe Hertler

.

unfortunately, guys - he's right.

...this IS the attitude of [at least] 90% of the kids [and a large % of adults] now.


...thanks for at least being honest about it....hardly anyone IS publicly honest (like porn).



...i've been screaming about this for years - - - - you simply can't compete with free.

.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

If the consumer says "hey, your products suck, and I refuse to pay for them" then that's their prerogative. It is wrong for them to take it anyways of course, but the disrespect notion still applies.

That is a key requirement of course, they don't just take with the excuse they are 'pissed off'.

I've said this before, but pissing off your customer base out of retribution is burning a bridge you're still standing on.

But this is like saying the America government shouldn't piss off Europe, and blaming all Americans if they do.
Like the difference between a politician and an average American citizen, most musicians have no power to control the industry.
Musicians have already walked away from the 'greedy' labels in large numbers, either running their own affairs or signing with the thousands of indie labels.
Musicians are concerned less with politics and more with making music.
We don't deserve to be targeted because of some supposed argument about CD pricing, and the public's wish to share freely.
I actually hear more complaints about the price of tickets for live shows.
But you don't see thousands of Swede's regularly crashing into the Gothenburg Ice Stadium to see American bands for free.
Why? Because it's too hard.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

Respect is earned, and the burden is on the purveyor of goods to earn the respect of the consumer. I do not think the consumer should ever be under any obligation to respect the purveyor of goods.

If the consumer says "hey, your products suck, and I refuse to pay for them" then that's their prerogative. It is wrong for them to take it anyways of course, but the disrespect notion still applies.

Well , when the consumer is pirating it, he's not saying ""hey, your products suck, and I refuse to pay for them", he's saying "hey, your products are great, and i'm going to download it without paying for it, even your not ok with that". Why would he be pirating something he doesn't like in the first place ? Masochism ?

And i absolutely think that the consumer have the obligation to respect the purveyor of goods. If i go in a store and i don't like the products, i don't set the store on fire. I leave and go buy something else, somewhere else.

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by spaceman

Well , when the consumer is pirating it, he's not saying ""hey, your products suck, and I refuse to pay for them", he's saying "hey, your products are great, and i'm going to download it without paying for it, even your not ok with that". Why would he be pirating something he doesn't like in the first place ? Masochism ?

How does s/he know if he likes it until he has it? I think you're making the assumption that all pirated goods are 'consumed' the same as all purchased goods. The sheer amount of piracy I believe would make this impossible to be true.

And i absolutely think that the consumer have the obligation to respect the purveyor of goods. If i go in a store and i don't like the products, i don't set the store on fire. I leave and go buy something else, somewhere else.

Setting fire to a store that you don't like has nothing to do with respect, that's sociopathy.

When you walked in, there was no obligation to respect their desire for you to purchase their goods or services. They must earn that. They must also earn your return business and your word of mouth.

I think respect maybe a bad word to use, as you used it in a general term (as we should have a basic, neutral level of respect for all people) and the specific term of respect increased beyond the neutral level that I was using (as you were initially I though).

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Not really.
A lot of people doing something does not make it right or quasi legal.

Then when does it become so? If it suddenly became legal through some loophole, or everyone WAS doing it, you'd still be complaining about it. So what?

Do you have a problem with people smoking pot? It's illegal (to some degree), however a bigger problem with some of the moral majority is that it's a drug and "bad". So when it gets legalized, is that all it will take to shut them up? I doubt it.

I'd say we at least agree that people should be responsible, but I see day-in and day-out people NOT being responsible.
If people could be convinced somehow to do the right thing all the time, we could solve a lot more important problems in the world than just illegal filesharing.

Besides, everyone is not doing it.

I couldn't say. I'm not up to speed with "everyone's" behavior, but about 50% of the posts in this thread alone would argue that point with you. Before you flame me for that statement, I was quoting someone else's post, I never said everyone is doing it. However, everyone I know does it in some fashion, and it's not a group of "youngsters" either. I know a handful of people under age 25 and the rest are I guess what you'd call adults. All walks of life, all different industries, all different countries......

[headwerkn]

Okay, I'm going to take a deep breath and try to add something new to this debate. The idea came to me while considering my own history of purchasing music (and not), so to explain where I'm coming from, I'll briefly summarise it now:

* When I was young (so much younger than today... ) I certainly couldn't afford to buy much music... I'm not sure what kids are complaining about today... back in the late 80s/early 90s a CD was AU$30 and a cassette was AU$20 (we didn't have a CD player) I got about AU$1-$3 pocket money a week. These days CDs are AU$20 and a full album off iTunes is AU$17, and my friends with kids give them AU$20-AU$30 a week allowance. Then again, I didn't have a mobile phone at 13. Anyway, I'd probably get 3 new cassettes a year... birthday and Xmas usually, so dubbing each other cassettes was rife in my group of friends... I gave most of my money to TDK and spent my time listening to everything in hi speed dubbing.

* When I was (briefly) at university in the late 90s I was turned onto the wonders of the internet, Hotline and MP3s. I had even less money then so needless to say my fellow coursemates and I shared a lot of MP3s, and I got turned onto a lot of new artists I'd never heard before, such as PJ Harvey and Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.

* Eventually I entered the workforce and started earning some coin. By this stage I was a pretty enthusiastic consumer of music, averaging about AU$100 a month on CDs. Amongst other purchases I focussed on buying back catalogues of the artists I'd discovered back at uni... after downloading PJ Harvey's "Missed" off Hotline the year before, I bought all her CDs at the time (3)... as of today I own everything she's released, including The Peel Sessions on vinyl. After a friend at uni gave me a rip of Nick Cave's "Let Love In" I similary bought their entire catalogue too... which at the time was something like 10 albums... again, I've continued to buy all their stuff, as well as Grinderman and other side projects by Cave, Mick Harvey, and so on. These are just two examples. Working in IT it's been common for our offices to have "MP3 servers" where people collate their music libraries so everyone else can listen to everyone elses music. Again, this turned me onto a lot of new music. I discovered Bill Hicks through a fellow workmate's collection... and yes, I own everything he ever released too. Ditto for Radiohead, Mr Bungle, Faith No More, Tori Amos, John Mayer and many, many others...

* After some time, I begin to realise quite a few CDs in my 500+ collection aren't what I call "listen through-able"... meaning there are songs I usually skip through. I don't listen to pure pop stuff (save nostalgic stuff from the 80s) so most of the CDs that fall into this category are in the mainstream-alt-rock area. Because in some cases I've been able to hear a full album a few times beforehand, I start to curb some of my spending because I'm sick of buying CDs to get 1-3 good songs, and instead just buy the stuff with a high "signal to noise ratio".

* In 2003 I got my first iPod. Spent literally weeks ripping entire CD collection. I'd never been a big fan of radio before this time, but since then I never ever listen to it (if I can help it).

* In late 2005 the iTunes (Music) Store comes to Australia and I take to it like a bee to honey. I stop buying CDs. According to iTunes, I have over 1300 purchased songs currently. I'd estimate half of these are full albums, with the other half being cherrypicked, thus solving my earlier conundrum of buying CDs full of filler.

* A couple of years ago I bought some high quality vintage hifi gear including a turntable and 1/4" RTR, so I start buying vinyl and trolling eBay for old 5" prerecorded reels. I'd previously bought some Radiohead vinyl as a spur-of-the-moment/collector decision several years earlier with the intention of getting a turntable at some point. There's only one decent store in Hobart that sells vinyl (the other is a DJ place, not really my taste musically) but each time I go in there I spend at least AU$200... no wonder I'm now allowed to pop in late in the day and go out the back to see his full inventory.

Well ok, that wasn't very brief.. but some general points that can be lifted.

* Kids have always copied/stolen/pirated music, because they generally don't have much money and more importantly they have the time to do it. The difference is now it is a lot faster (set a torrent to download then go away), the quality is a lot better (less incentive to buy the real thing when you can) and your group of friends to trade within has gone from 1-2 dozen to 3 billion..

* Adults generally have the money to buy music

* Inconsistent albums make for a poor CD purchasing experience

* Freely distributed MP3s CAN equal record/ticket/tshirt sales. I bought John Frusciante's entire catalogue based on listening to his 'free' internet album (From The Sounds Inside) and the collection of acoustic demos from Shadows Collide With People. Again, that's quite a few albums. I'm now trying to find my favs on vinyl

* I appreciate vinyl because (a) it sounds better (b) I know the stuff is expensive to produce and ship and (c) playing it is a special experience... switching on everything, setting up the turntable, getting out the LP covers... staying still so the thing doesn't skip and listening all the way through because jumping around with the stylus messes with the disc... I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way (and bear in mind, I was born in 1980... the only LP of my parents I ever listened to during my childhood was War Of The Worlds... everything up until I got my first CD player in 1995 was cassette).

OK, time to make a point. Few will disagree that the landscape for the music industry has completely and irrevocably changed. The stranglehold record labels once held over recording, distribution and marketing has been removed thanks to digital recording and the internet. Every attempt by the major record companies to maintain this stranglehold has well and truly failed - SCMS, DRM, copy protected CDs, shutting down Napster, lawsuits against kids and unis, etc. etc. In my opinion if it weren't for the iTunes Store, things would be a lot LOT worse. And even then they're still shooting themselves in the foot trying to make tracks more expensive and wreck a simple system that at least worked... (so much for the cheaper back catalog tracks... just searching through iTunes, have not a single track less than the old AU$1.69/US$0.99 price)

There is a generation of music consumers who believe that copying/stealing/pirating music is either perfectly OK or not a big enough deal to get in a tissy over. They've never heard tape hiss, they've never heard Appetite For Destruction at 2x then hid the copy so your dad wouldn't find it, they've never spent all their pocket money on 3 packs of TDK SA-90s. CDs to them are passe and inconvenient. To them copying, sharing or downloading it off the 'net is as easy and commonplace as taking a sh!t. For many of them, buying music isn't a known or common experience.

There are, however, several generations of music lovers prior to this group who are. Despite my relative computer savviness I feel good buying music and supporting the artists I like. It's a simple respect thing. So does my father... even if he had a computer and the internet he wouldn't have a clue how to wade through torrent sites, so he still buys CDs and tapes... and since I got him a nice turntable and amp for Xmas, he's also bought a few LPs too.

So, if we've come to the conclusion that the young (10-20 year old) generation would rather steal music than buy it, and that older people (20-25+) generally still do, then why the f**k are record labels not concentrating on the latter market? Why invest so much money in teen pop and hiphop and numetal when the primary audience for that music won't pay for it? Why not focus on music for those people who might actually take out their wallet and pay for it? I don't want to hear Lady Gaga and pop princesses and Idol finalists and dickheads rapping about their plasma TV... I want to hear real bands, real instruments, real artistry. I want to hear something original, something different, something inspiring. I doubt I'm the only one. If people like me are willing to pay for music like that, surely it makes sense to invest in artists who produce that kind of music?

As a side note... this idea came to me when I was watching a doco about teenagers (James May's 20th Century) which talked about how music specifically for young people only came about in the 1950s. Of course, back then, they paid for it...

Another side note... vinyl records. It's not a huge market, but some in the younger generation are discovering it and liking it. It can't be ripped easily and of course a digital copy of vinyl defeats the purpose. Why not make more music available on vinyl? I absolutely love my 4 LP, 2 CD + full download copy of In Rainbows. Instead of giving the boys 5 cents for the download, which I could have done, I paid nearly AU$100 (whatever £40 was at the time) to have the full banana. Again, make stuff for those willing to spend the cash.

One last thing - distribution and availability. iTunes Store kicks arse up until the point I can't find the artist/album/song I want. This is happening less and less these days but it still happens occassionally and it drives me nuts (especially when I get a song stuck in my head during a nostalgia trip and the only way to purge it is to play the song over and over until I get sick of it!). It's at this stage I get very tempted to Google "[song name] .torrent"... the problem usually is that within about 10 seconds I can find the said song and have it on my HD within 10min-1hr. If record companies want to compete against this kind of convenience they need to make their stuff available. Yes, I probably should visit/ring up every music store in the state to see if they've got a copy, or troll every online store and eBay... but I don't have oodles of free time in order to find 3 minutes of music so I can get a f**king song out of my head.

A very good example of how poor distribution results in piracy is with TV shows. I'll put up my hand and say yes, I do download TV shows. In Australia we have totally f**ked up networks who greatly delay stuff from the US and UK, mess around with schedules, hold off on episodes for weeks on end and generally make watching TV an awful, frustrating experience. However, thanks to some worryingly organised groups around the world, I can get episodes of Top Gear, 24 and Grey's Anatomy within 6 hours of their screening in their home country. Currently 24 is showing about 6 weeks behind on Australian TV (and on iTunes AU), same with Grey's and SBS's Top Gear UK schedule is a few seasons behind (on SBS they just reviewed the all-new Hillman Imp... j/k )... I console my conscience knowing that these shows I download I can see for free anyway (ok, minus the advertising) when they screen and I pay extra for a MyStar account so I can record 'em too. Not saying it makes it right.... but Top Gear UK is paid for by UK TV subscribers so that's an interesting case... from what I can gather the producers don't really mind the overt online distribution of the show internationally... it certainly created a massive audience for them outside of the UK, and they've then been able to do that Top Gear Live thing on the basis of having that audience... this is of course just one case.

Anyway, these TV/media companies need to realise their old business models are moot. Like it or not, the pirates have created new models which people obviously like, and the best way to counter that is to do what Apple did with iTMS and offer greater convenience for a reasonable price. The fact that I can buy SOME TV shows on iTunes and do whole-series purchases is great, but they're shooting themselves in the foot by delaying them so that the US networks are running ahead of everyone else. Also, the TV selection for iTunes AU is absolutely hopeless. I realise licensing music and other media across the world is an absolute legal minefield but for godssake, it's been over 5 years since iTunes Store started - f**king figure it out!

Now, I'm not going to say piracy is justified in this case, but how the hell do media companies expect to control their product if they keep on giving the upper hand to the pirates? Obviously they're going to want at least a bit of money for their stuff, but since it has been well and truly proven that at least some people will pay for convenience, why can't I prepay AU$20-$30 for a season of 24 then have each episode start downloading THE MINUTE the episode starts streaming in the US? Giving the local network the first run advantage is old world thinking; as a new world consumer, I don't give a rats. I want it as soon as possible (seriously, 24 is addictive) and if you won't offer a mechanism that will do that legally, there are plenty of dubious sites that do...

Ok, this is getting waffly now, so hopefully some of it made sense. In short.

1. The business model that served the record industry so well for 50 years no longer exists, and nothing will bring it back.
2. Consumers now have different expectations about how they acquire media. They want things instantly, they want to be able to play it wherever they want, and in lieu of a legal, affordable, timely option, they will seek the illegal alternatives.
3. It's a scary but interesting time to be an artist or band. Those that embrace the new landscape should do well. Those who don't probably won't.
4. Kids are scruffy, foul mouthed little sh!ts with bad tastes in music they won't even pay for, so stop making sh!tty disposable music for them! Instead, make awesome music on vinyl for people like me

Cheers, Ben.

[colinmiller]

Originally Posted by Brian!

Excellent points in your first two paragraphs. I agree with them completely. I think if people want to stand a chance of solving this problem, there at least has to be an common understanding of the basis of this problem which I think has been outlined very well in those two paragraphs.

As far as getting an arrest record, that becomes a lot more tricky. Would that only extend to RIAA represented labels? The immediate problem I can see with arresting downloaders is that it alienates current and potential fans. These fans will find music on other labels that don't support prosecuting people and support them instead. If there were some sort of all encompassing way to prosecute all people pirating all commercially released music, it might work out. Otherwise consumers just see the evil labels that fine 80 year old women and the ones that don't.

Well, let's look at how the law and economics of it works in other areas of business. If Walmart prosecutes shoplifters are they alienating customers? If they prosecute shoplifters will those shoplifters go shoplift at other stores? If those shoplifters steal from other stores, is that a bad thing for Walmart? Do the customers of Walmart turn against Walmart for prosecuting thiefs, or do they understand that prosecuting those thiefs helps keep the prices down for them? If an 80yr old woman steals from Walmart, will she be arrested and will people be outraged about it?

Stealing from indies is just as damaging as stealing from majors. Probably more so. And I don't really consider the thieves as customers. The fact that I could get arrested from stealing from a store doesn't make me stop buying from that store. It doesn't make me think they are being greedy by trying to protect themselves from theft. I can imagine that to a kid it might seem that way if they don't underatand the economics behind it. If I were 16 I would probably be one of the people comaplinging about youtube ads because at that age I probably wouldn't be thinking about how they make income. So I can't really fault kids too much since they simply don't understand what they are doing yet. But the men running Pirate Bay do. The peopel running Limewire do.

I think the mistake is taking civil action instead of criminal action against thieves. if the only risk from stealing at Walmart was a 1 in a million chance of being sued, then they would be robbed on a regular basis and going bankrupt. They're a big supposedly greedy corporation like people portray the record labels. So people would easily think they are just being greedy by suing people with no money.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

I've said this before, but pissing off your customer base out of retribution is burning a bridge you're still standing on. The music industry has my full support if they wan't to go piss off all the pirates (which seem to outnumber legitimate customers). The music industry will be left with even fewer potential customers and be absolutely forced to change their tactics.

I personally rather burn the bridge than continue to subjegate myself to being raped over and over and over and over............again and again. I will continue to create, but it will be for private consumption and self enjoyment only if this nonsense gets much worse.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

How does s/he know if he likes it until he has it?.

Radio, youtube, friends, itunes, myspace, and a host of other legal ways. How many people who "don't like" (lol what a joke) their songs they illegally downloaded erase it - never to be heard again? Precious few I'm afraid. Meaning - they stole it and should be responsible for those actions.

[colinmiller]

Originally Posted by soundrick

Then when does it become so? If it suddenly became legal through some loophole, or everyone WAS doing it, you'd still be complaining about it. So what?

Do you have a problem with people smoking pot? It's illegal (to some degree), however a bigger problem with some of the moral majority is that it's a drug and "bad". So when it gets legalized, is that all it will take to shut them up? I doubt it.

I'd say we at least agree that people should be responsible, but I see day-in and day-out people NOT being responsible.
If people could be convinced somehow to do the right thing all the time, we could solve a lot more important problems in the world than just illegal filesharing.

The reason it is illegal and the reason it is disagreed on is because it is damaging. And it's not just damaging, it's damaging to someone else and depriving them of choice.

You bring up pot. That isn't any more damaging than legal substances, and the damages those do are to ones self and thus one has a choice to damage themselves of not. With music piracy however, it's damaging not only to individuals, but to an entire economic eco system. And it's damaging other people and taking away their rights. You're not allowing them the right to decide if they want their product to be stolen. And this is why stealing music, like stealing anything is illegal. Pot is illegal mainly due to religious beliefs. That doesn't allow one to dismiss any law they want just because they find one that cannot be morally justified.

And you're saying this is not an important problem? $12.5 billion dollars a year lost. 70,000 US jobs a year lost, then factor in all the lost wages, taxes, corporate income, and everything else that feeds into the economic eco system and it's a HUGE problem. It doesn't matter if someone listens to music or not, we're all economically affected by this. Just like we're all affected by the bank problems, and by the real estate problems. Just like how we're all affected by oil prices even if we don't drive.

[chrisso]

Ben,
What an in depth, eloquent and thoughtful contribution.
I have to sadly say I disagree with you on a few key points, although your post is too detailed to reread several times, so I'll just toss them out there.

OK, your last line about kids will be kids. Yeah, but is the illegal download culture just a kids thing?
Secondly, your disdain for current record companies and their product aimed at kids....
That's just not the point. I don't care about kids music either.
Was not your P J Harvey and Nick Cave collection purchased from some traditionally formatted label? It certainly wasn't freely downloaded, with no financial compensation headed into the coffers of Cave and Harvey, incidentally the kind of artists I think will really suffer under free sharing.
The fact is there is a wealth of adult and very adventurous music out that, either via indie labels, emusic websites or iTunes. Nothing about the freedom and sharing musical model is going to encourage that to thrive.
Finally, I share your frustration about Aussie tv.
I don't download the programs I want to see, because I think it's wrong.
I wrote music for television for ten years in London. Music budgets started out at X and were slashed all the way down to B. I wont say that was down to piracy, but it was as a result of economic conditions and greater competition.
I met a lot of very interesting creative people in television, and I feel I want to support them (as I can afford to do so).

[jihadjoe75]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

But let me ask you this. If there was a good chance that you could get an arrest record for doing it, would you still do it? If the chances of getting caught were about the same as if you went into a store and stole something would you still do it? Or maybe a better question would be: Would you still do it as much?

If there was no central location to go to and in order to find a song you had to go through 100 list services, would you do it as much?

If it took 30 minutes to download a song instead of 10 seconds, would you spend the extra time downloading to get the same amount of songs you would now?

Let's just say that if there was a way to get caught for simply having the files on my computer and I knew a decent amount of people who were going down big time for it... then I'd either find another way to download without getting caught [these sorts of issues are always cat and mouse], or stop completely. If it was as dangerous as going into a store and stealing the music, then there is no chance in hell I would be doing it... the problem is that it's no where near as dangerous as stealing physical music because the chances of getting caught are so low.

As far as the internet being regulated in regards to p2p -and by that I mean heavy bandwidth chokes and list services, well... I'd probably have to say that it would certainly increase my chances of going out and buying an album, but that depends on the severity of the limitations.

The problem is until p2p is completely regulated, there will always be ways around the any limitations that are set. Just look at Napster. It was taken down, but new Grey area services filled its place. Also, services like "Tor" and many others can completely hide your identity through p2p, but you need to be decent with computers to use it. As far as the major labels suing it's customers... I don't know about other people, but I sure wouldn't be supporting their artists. Sounds like I'd be listening to less music, especially since radio and main stream music aren't quite appealing to my tastes.

I liked your insight though and your reference to the Zero Wing quote is way cool. I'm quite the nerd when it comes down to it.

stikestikestike

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

You bring up pot. That isn't any more damaging than legal substances, and the damages those do are to ones self and thus one has a choice to damage themselves of not. With music piracy however, it's damaging not only to individuals, but to an entire economic eco system.

NO, the moral majority thinks it IS absolutely damaging, to the the person AND society at large. I'm not going to list all the reasons for that because it makes me want to vomit.

And you're saying this is not an important problem? $12.5 billion dollars a year lost. 70,000 US jobs a year lost, then factor in all the lost wages, taxes, corporate income, and everything else that feeds into the economic eco system and it's a HUGE problem.

I never said it wasn't a problem, I've been playing the devil's advocate here, trying to find some practicality from all the soapboxing.
How often do you run into a complex problem like this that is so black and white? Give me a break.

This whole thread is a pissing match where everyone is trying to be "right".

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by chrisso

OK, your last line about kids will be kids. Yeah, but is the illegal download culture just a kids thing?

I'm pretty sure I tried to make the point to you that it wasn't "just the kids", and you didn't agree.
What made you change your mind?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by soundrick

NO, the moral majority thinks it IS absolutely damaging, to the the person AND society at large.

I hope this isn't going to get too far off topic, but I am against completely unrestricted pot use. It's been proven to impair judgement when driving.
If pot smokers can prove they are responsible drivers, and if they introduce an alcohol and marijuana breath test, then OK, they can think about legalising it.
But this subject has little to do with taking money away from musicians and studios.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by soundrick

I'm pretty sure I tried to make the point to you that it wasn't "just the kids", and you didn't agree.
What made you change your mind?

I was specifically replying to this:

Originally Posted by headwerkn

Kids are scruffy, foul mouthed little sh!ts with bad tastes in music they won't even pay for, so stop making sh!tty disposable music for them! Instead, make awesome music on vinyl for people like me

But of course it isn't just kids.
jihadjoe mentioned his experiences as a kid and i replied I hoped some of those kids grew up and realised what they'd done wrong.
Of course no one is going to agree it's wrong. That's human nature - take it good or bad.

[headwerkn]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Ben,
What an in depth, eloquent and thoughtful contribution.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by chrisso

OK, your last line about kids will be kids. Yeah, but is the illegal download culture just a kids thing?

Absolutely not... but I think there is a substantial difference in the mindset between the generations who have grown up after the 'MP3 revolution' and those who came before. It's one thing to convince people who have bought music before to stop pirating... it's quite another to convince someone who's never paid for music before to start doing so.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Secondly, your disdain for current record companies and their product aimed at kids....

I realise there's no lack of great music out there, but finding it can be a problem. I think it is fantastic that the internet means that a band from Hobart or any other small nowhere town/city can easily make their music available to someone anywhere else in the world, but it is a bit like listening to 1 million songs at once and trying to pick out the one you like. I find new stuff generally through word of mouth or a personal recommendation rather than finding it organically while trolling around MySpace (can't stand the site).

The only real ace the majors have left up their sleeve is the ability to market music into people's field of awareness. Y'know, saturation marketing... and it is only the stuff for the kiddies/younger people that tends to be marketed this way. I watch a bit of Channel V (Australian payTV music channel), especially at the gym but also sometimes at home and it is almost always the same sh!t, over and over again.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Finally, I share your frustration about Aussie tv.
I don't download the programs I want to see, because I think it's wrong.
I wrote music for television for ten years in London. Music budgets started out at X and were slashed all the way down to B. I wont say that was down to piracy, but it was as a result of economic conditions and greater competition.
I met a lot of very interesting creative people in television, and I feel I want to support them (as I can afford to do so).

I agree, it is wrong. As I said, I morally console myself with the fact that what I download I could watch and tape in a few weeks/years time for free anyway, so in a kinda screwed up way it is a form of reverse time shifting (time-contraction?). My fiance and I buy a lot of DVDs and boxsets too, including those shows we'd previously downloaded.

My point was here that I'm willing to spend the cash - it just irritates me when the distribution model is so compromised.

The adage in business has for the longest time been "the customer is always right"... somehow that doesn't float in the music industry, where it is more like "the customer be damned". Now obviously customers who want 100% free music all the time are living in a fantasy land, if the industry focussed their energies on delivering the other benefits of online distributed music at a reasonable price, rather than trying to maintain the status quo, they'd probably be doing a lot better.

[hello people]

There should be no music industry. The same as there should be no sport industry

[jihadjoe75]

Originally Posted by headwerkn

* A couple of years ago I bought some high quality vintage hifi gear including a turntable and 1/4" RTR, so I start buying vinyl and trolling eBay for old 5" prerecorded reels. I'd previously bought some Radiohead vinyl as a spur-of-the-moment/collector decision several years earlier with the intention of getting a turntable at some point. There's only one decent store in Hobart that sells vinyl (the other is a DJ place, not really my taste musically) but each time I go in there I spend at least AU$200... no wonder I'm now allowed to pop in late in the day and go out the back to see his full inventory.


* I appreciate vinyl because (a) it sounds better (b) I know the stuff is expensive to produce and ship and (c) playing it is a special experience... switching on everything, setting up the turntable, getting out the LP covers... staying still so the thing doesn't skip and listening all the way through because jumping around with the stylus messes with the disc... I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way (and bear in mind, I was born in 1980... the only LP of my parents I ever listened to during my childhood was War Of The Worlds... everything up until I got my first CD player in 1995 was cassette).
Cheers, Ben.

Ben, I'm seeing so much more vinyl in the hands of kids my age nowadays. Everyone I know who owns them are typically very in to music, but if current trends continue, I'm sure they'll keep getting bigger.

I grew up listening to my parent's old vinyl and I just always remember setting it up, putting on a record like "Tommy", and then listen to the thing back to front. I would dedicate an hour of my life to listen to the entire thing. Since mp3's I really don't believe kids my age devote real time to listen to a album. It's all singles now, and with so much portable media, people are typically doing other activities while listening to their music.

Although, because music is so portable, people are now able to listen to music very conveniently, resulting in, well... more overall music being listened to.

[headwerkn]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I was specifically replying to this:
Kids are scruffy, foul mouthed little sh!ts with bad tastes in music they won't even pay for, so stop making sh!tty disposable music for them! Instead, make awesome music on vinyl for people like me

Bear in mind this is a rather tongue-in-cheek comment folks. It was a purposely harsh generalisation designed to be humorous.

Not every person under the drinking age is a criminal; plenty hard at their chores to buy their music, and a few even appreciate Steely Dan! So there is hope... but, very generally speaking, it is a generation that has grown up with file sharing being the norm. Therefore, it just strikes me as odd to focus your marketing to that generation, rather than the ones with cash in hand?

Why raise pork when the people want lamb?