Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.

[rack gear]

some interesting debate here:

Newzbin vs 20th Century Fox

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

The same way encryption works with your bank. Your ISP might know you're connecting to bankofamerica.com, but it isn't going to know your balance or what you're doing once you're on there. That's how encryption works. The ISP might know I'm connecting to rapidshare, but they aren't going to know what I'm downloading.

Exactly! So that then put the responsibility on the service to NOT HAVE copyrighted content available to users. Law Enforcement can use any service, any consumer can use...

The achilles heel of any of the these encrypto schemes is that for it to work on a mass scale, it has to be massively vulnerable. I can already send out illegal copyrighted works via yousendit, and/or "share" that with a lot of people via email... but it's not available to the entire free world.

So if law enforcement or copyright holders log into "StealMusicNow" then they can see everything that's available illegally - document it - take it to the courts, get an injunction to shut it down... (assuming there are laws that make distributing copyrighted works illegal - I think there will be).

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

rapidshare (file sharing) and torrents used to be far too hard to use for the average internet user. The fact that an easy website and torrent software was released are what allowed these sites to become popular. Just because the underlying technology is hard does not mean that the user experience will be.

I agree and that's why the laws will change to encompass that dynamic. Again - if it's going to be easy enough for a lot of people to use, it's going to be vulnerable to exposure by law enforcement and copyright holders.

The harder it gets, the more secure it is, but also less people are playing... and that's the core issue - not eliminating it (which as you have pointed out is impossible) but rather to manage it on a large enough scale within the general population to have a meaningful effect of legitimate business.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

That is incorrect. They are not dependent on one another.

thank you.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

Potentially, but look at what happened with Newzbin. A site starts, gets big enough to get taken down, and a dozen copycats pop up (along with the original domain).

End result, tons of money spent and no impact made.

Agreed. And that's today - the law has to be broad enough not only to be able to stop newsbin, but also to be able to stop the regeneration of equally functioning clones - this will get worked out.

This is a legislative issue. Once the laws are defined in a way, that the intent is clear and broad enough for the courts to enforce - that will be a much more risky game for those who want to play - and justice will be much faster than it is today.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

That's what they said about bittorrent once they took out napster. "too technical, the average user won't use it".

Again - I agree with this. The issue is the widespread ease of use and having laws that can govern how copyrighted information is dealt with online (Viacom Vs YouTube comes to mind). There will be a shared responsibility between ISPs, The Copyright Holders and the Government. Once that get's worked out - much of this will go underground again...

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

Seriously, if that's the best analogy you can provide to convince people your side has a chance of winning this thing, you should just keep it to yourself.

eh, maybe... the mistake is in the idea of "winning". I don't know what "winning" is... Manageability, Containment... I don't know if that's "winning" if "winning" is the goal.

Ultimately outcomes are measured by the goals set. If the goal is to completely remove piracy, that goal will not be met.

If the goal is the contain or restrict piracy to manageable levels so that legitimate business's can function better - than I think that is possible.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

There are actually a lot of reasons to believe the internet will be different.

1) The privacy we are guaranteed in the constitution works against law enforcement in the real world a bit, and against law enforcement of the internet a great deal.

maybe - laws are always a compromise between freedoms and protections. I do not believe that the internet will be any different in finding a workable solution and compromise for freedoms and protections as well.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

2) The internet is global - there are servers on the internet hosted in countries far more lawless than the worst parts of Detroit or Philadelphia.

The world is global - but not everyone gets to do business within USA borders. The government can prevent people from doing business within our borders - I'm absolutely confident offending businesses and countries can be blocked if there is a will to do so.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

3) When someone is robbed, killed, or something is physically stolen there is an immediate response because something is missing. If I emptied out your house, you'd call the cops and society would be outraged. If I made a replica of every item in your house but did it without touching/moving/removing anything in your house, police and society would be very confused on how to respond.

We are seeing this confusion on a macro scale right now on the Internet.

If you did that with the items in my house I already paid for perhaps... but that's not we're talking about... we're talking about someone knocking off my business which is for profit. If you can copy something I already own, and I still own it - who cares. But if you copy my business and that causes a loss of income people understand that...

Example:

I can create a burger stand... I pay the rent, hire the staff, buy the materials burgers, buns, etc... Cool right?

But, if I put the name "McDonalds" on it... that's a different story... what have I stolen? I haven't taken anything from them that's "physical". I've paid for everything myself? Why should anyone care if I call my burger stand "McDonalds?"

Everyone (almost everyone) understands that it is stealing someone else's property, even though that property is not physical. Civilized countries have IP protections for people that make investments in businesses. Otherwise anyone could create a new softdrink and call it "Coke" which they can't...

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by psalad

I'm suggesting smart musicians would prepare for major industry change, because unless you can convince all the countries in the world to band together on this for a fix (low probability), it won't change, and even then people will try and come up with a way around it. The basic idea, that music is bits that are easily moved in the digital world, is a fact that is not going away.

this has been beaten to death in other threads... about encryption, national borders, etc (and one reposted above with some details).

I believe you can never stop anyone from doing something they are intent to do - like stealing car, murdering, downloading illegally... whatever it is, laws do not stop ALL crime... laws manage crime to acceptable levels by making it either 1) Hard to Do (like robbing a bank), or 2) imposing consequences that are sufficient to be a deterrent (like jail and death penalty) or 3) all of the above.

we have yet to see a uniform code of law, regulation, and enforcement with consequence in regards to digital piracy - so until such mechanisms are in place, I think we just don't know.

However, as pointed out in another thread, historically technological disruptions are well handled (albeit late) by legislation and enforcements.

Terry Hart's comments in this thread are very insight from a person with enough knowledge of the law to provide some useful information:
Hollywood backs Viacom in Google legal fight

the big targets are really the P2Ps, GOOGLE, Rapidshare and the like - it may not be happening as fast as I like, but the blatant lawless theft of property will not go on forever...

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by MFG

Agreed. And that's today - the law has to be broad enough not only to be able to stop newsbin, but also to be able to stop the regeneration of equally functioning clones - this will get worked out.

This is a legislative issue. Once the laws are defined in a way, that the intent is clear and broad enough for the courts to enforce - that will be a much more risky game for those who want to play - and justice will be much faster than it is today.

The reason there are issues with this today is most laws do not clearly state that intentionally facilitating piracy is illegal. So for every instance, the RIAA/MPAA/etc. has to take them to court, and not only prove yet again that they are involved with piracy (usually obvious), but that they are liable for that involvement.

Under the new Canadian Law C32, for example, it clearly states that facilitating piracy is illegal, so injunctions to have such sites shut down can be quickly granted.

See:
IP Osgoode

"The amendments are carefully worded to catch pirate file sharing services while at the same time excluding legitimate search engines and internet service providers."

So you won't see a tonne of copycat sites going up in Canada again, because under the new law, they will be knocked down with minimal legal cost, time, and effort.

These are the types of political/legal changes that fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the right kind of progress.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

Entitlement is not a "slur" on your character, unless you feel entitled to a career in music. You seemed to indicate earlier that it wasn't the case for you. So move on, it doesn't apply.

You used it to besmirch the posters who agree with my side of the argument.
Your comment was unfortunately very wide of the mark, and as yet you haven't retracted it in it's application to the supporters of paid for music in this forum.

You're purposely misrepresenting my position. I'm suggesting smart musicians would prepare for major industry change

Not misrepresenting your position, shining a light on it for what it is.
On the first page of the thread I eluded to the futility of debate on this with people who don't work in the industry or have no ambition to work professionally in music.
In essence your stance is to accept the illegal actions which punish musicians who (let's face facts) have contributed a lot of positives to the lives of others, while accepting the actions of illegal downloaders who (let's face facts) are societies 'takers'.
If free music was so important to the future of music as art, many of the 'takers' would be offering music of their own for free.
Some are, but the vast majority are just taking the work of others without paying for it.
The internet revolution has freed up novice and zero budget film-makers to exhibit their work on YouTube and Vimeo. It's allowed bedroom bloggers to share the daily news agenda with the BBC, Fox and CNN.
**But I'm not seeing many web musicians rocking the industry with their freely shared and wonderfully innovative music. I'm just seeing consumers stealing other peoples work.**
For me that's bad for art, bad for musicians and clearly immoral.
The positive way forward is for those who believe in the 'new model' (aka freely shared music) to put their efforts where their mouths are!
Get off their butt and create something, then give it away.
Until that happens, nothing will (legally) change and stealing will remain simply stealing.

[Dean Roddey]

I believe that the people who say that artists shouldn't be able to make money selling their music should be forced to give up their paychecks to finance the artists instead. That way, they can be right, and everyone can still get music for free, but artists can still get paid for creating things that millions of people want to have. That seems fair, right?

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by psalad

I have one other question for y'all who seem to believe a solution is right around the corner (though I've yet to see a white paper on just what that solution is, but I digress). Why do you spend so much time talking about a problem that will be solved soon, and relatively simply?

Because the 'solution' will be governments, at least in the law abiding countries that used to make up the legitimate market for music, movies, software, etc... are finally figuring out that they are allowing thieves to destroy some of the most important industries we have, and that that is just flat out wrong, both on a moral and on a self-interest level. By keeping this issue in the foreground, and making it clear that it is an issue, that will happen sooner hopefully.

When mom and dad get the notification that they are about to lose their internet access, and the next time they will be facing fines, I think that you will see things start to change.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by psalad

OK, but don't you think that time might be better spent coming up with a detailed plan or plans on possible solutions? I don't mean pointing to a thread in gearslutz where there is an ongoing discussion (ahem), I mean getting a bunch of smart people in a room and creating a white paper together that is uniformly presented to government leaders?

To your knowledge (the bigger "you," not you Dean), is anyone doing this? If not... don't you think it's the right approach?

Yes, lobbyists from the software, music, movie, and games industries are doing this every day.

As for a uniform intergovernmental approach, that is what negotiations for ACTA are all about.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

OK, but don't you think that time might be better spent coming up with a detailed plan or plans on possible solutions?

The plan is - stop the stealing. Stop abusing working musicians at all levels of the music business.
Look for a new way to charge for content that can't be pirated.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by psalad

No offense, but you don't get to put words in my mouth. That is NOT what I said.

That is, in essence, incorrect. That is not my stance. I've put a fair amount of time typing out what my stance is, and I'm sorry you don't get it, but I'm not going to spend more time trying to figure out how get you to understand it.

what's funny about that is - that whenever someone disagrees with you - you think (or accuse) that they don't understand you... passive aggressive as that may be - i don't think there is lack of understanding, as much as there is a lack of agreement.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Look for a new way to charge for content that can't be pirated.

Anything that can be stored on a hard drive can be pirated. This is a red herring IMO.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by psalad

Really? More info? Linky?

What? To ACTA?

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Negotiations have been underway for some time, but as you can imagine it is slow work. The first draft was made public a few months back.

In the meantime, intellectual property industries are mostly pressuring governments in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. to set the new standard and lead by example, which they are doing.

[logichead]

"The only way to stop downloading is for ISPs to control every bit of data that crosses the wires and i don't think anyone wants that."

No one wants this, but sooner or later it is inevitable that every keystroke will become visible. We're almost there. I give it 5-10 years before there is no anonymity on the web.

If you own a warehouse that is unlocked, folks will break in when you aren't there. If you lock it, they'll break the lock. If you hire guards, put up fences, alarms and video surveillance and buy insurance, you'll likely hang on to your inventory. That's how piracy will be stopped. The US government already has the right to seize your isp if they don't cooperate and hand over information about you and your downloading habits. One of Bush's last signings was for the creation of a "copyright czar" that could use these powers. AFAIK, this hasn't been enacted yet, but the legal framework is in place.

Will Obama's copyright czar help save the music? | Reuters

Until there is the certainty of getting caught and punished, piracy will not stop. Already there are serious levels of surveillance on the web and our phones by the UK and US governments. One story I saw briefly a year ago was that the UK had put in a £3 billion system that listened to every call and examined every email that began or ended in their country. Then there is the example of China (though they do not respect copyright) which controls web access to a high degree, enabled by western technology corporations.

There is much money at stake for copyright owners of movies, games and software, not to mention music. Our privacy will be under attack for the next few decades. It has already started as national security, it's only a matter of time before there is no privacy at all unless you live in the woods and never touch any technology.

Obviously, the possibility for abuse is high.

Thoughts?? Best...H

Best...H

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

No offense, but you don't get to put words in my mouth. That is NOT what I said.

Here are your words:

Originally Posted by psalad

However, the TRUTH is there are people right here in this very thread with an attitude of ENTITLEMENT, that the world OWES them a working wage just because they create music.

The post above that I commented on, though, was really about MORAL SUPERIORITY. Read it again. People who criticize those pirates need to understand the big picture... again, nobody owns the moral high ground.

You still haven't accepted that no one here is asking to earn money just because they want to make music.
They are asking to be paid for the work they've done that had a fee attached.
Yes, under law we do have moral superiority.
We are not stealing other people's work.
You keep saying I misrepresent you etc.... But you just wont accept the flipside to your stance.
You want to work for free. Fine, that's great. You have the choice (even under current law) to do that.
However, you give succor to the illegal downloaders with your posts. they are part of the future, and in contrast, people like me are stuck in the past, or are entrenched in a corrupt system of major labels, men in suits, capitalism gone mad etc...
The simple truth is that friends of mine who are very liberally minded. Made their own music, on their own time, with their own money.... are having it stolen by illegal downloaders.
You've got to face up to the reality on the ground, instead of hiding behind the evil money myth and the brave new world myth.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by psalad

If people like me are wrong, and a magical solution is found in the next couple of years like some of y'all seem to believe, then the worst possible thing is you might have spent some time thinking up contingency plans for something that never happened.

If we're right, and you've ignored it, you will suffer.

why does it have to either/or?

why can't it be both?

I don't know of anyone who is against piracy who is also against new business models as well - as long they have a sustainable ROI.

Originally Posted by psalad

I have one other question for y'all who seem to believe a solution is right around the corner (though I've yet to see a white paper on just what that solution is, but I digress). Why do you spend so much time talking about a problem that will be solved soon, and relatively simply?

because the solution is legislative and political, not technological - there will be a technological part of it, but the greater degree of change will come from legislation and enforcement.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by psalad

Thanks. Is there any place they are reporting their findings on a more regular basis, or is the WIKI it?

There is no "findings" report. It's a treaty being privately negotiated by governments. Such negotiation and lobbying isn't done in public.

Guys like Michael Geist blog about it regularly but that's it.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

That's a short white paper.

It's just as likely as giving away all recordings while funding musical careers through t-shirt sales and cosmetic endorsements.
Fact is, buying recordings has worked beautifully for years.
Marketing and merchandising in music has been a proven money spinner for the biggest acts. Do you want to industry reduced to highly marketable acts such as Usher and Miley Cyrus?

[doug hazelrigg]

Can't they devise a system where if you download a file without paying for it, something in the file zaps your system and destroys it. But if you pay, it passes thru without effect

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by psalad

Thanks. Is there any place they are reporting their findings on a more regular basis, or is the WIKI it?

ACTA
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) | Office of the United States Trade Representative

WIPO
WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization

Global Congress
Global Congress Combatting Counterfeiting & Piracy

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek

ACTA
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) | Office of the United States Trade Representative

WIPO
WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization

Global Congress
Global Congress Combatting Counterfeiting & Piracy

I believe you want here for the US gov't:
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) | Office of the United States Trade Representative

And if I understand, ACTA is meant as an almost replacement for WIPO. WIPO has no say in it.

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Why are those artists a problem?

How could any financially successful artist be a problem for the music industry? That makes no sense.

I wasn't referring to the artists, although they do suck, I was referring to the part where he said

"20-somethings are not reflected in mass media as well b/c they don't support their likes in the same fashion" as being a problem.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

Yes, that's it, you finally figured out my secret plan.

Seriously though. You haven't thought it through IMO.
You support the new paradigm because you think it brings down the corrupt major label system you dislike.
But you simply wont accept the millions of ordinary working musicians the current scenario is damaging - their families and dependents.
You can't cherry pick your victims.
The victims of the development you cheer on from the sidelines are at every level of creativity in music.

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Why would someone buy a CD quality file so that they can put it in iTunes as and MP3 and match the quality that they already have?

Because, you are an audiofile and don't like mp3's. Apple already sells lossless.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Unrealworld82

I wasn't referring to the artists, although they do suck,

Hmm, very considered - all financially successful artists suck.
That would bring us back to Picasso again I suppose.

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Hmm, very considered - all financially successful artists suck.
That would bring us back to Picasso again I suppose.

LOl. Taken out of context again. I was referring to specific artists like Miley, Jonas, etc. as sucking, not ALL of them.

[Teddy Ray]

One thing I know for certain.

The old business model is going down in flames.

Adapt or die.

Look around at how many folks are closing studios!


Can't get the genie back in the bottle now..no way.


If only places like the pirate bay would charge the leeches and allow the artists to be compensated..

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

Adapt or die.

Again, this is where I've hardened my stance of late.
The industry needs to adapt, not individuals. It's too big a problem for individual musicians to migrate to a workable solution without help.
The news media are moving to a fee paying model, no more free web pages.
The television and film companies have started to feel the effects of widespread illegal filesharing.
A new, secure system needs to be introduced to protect the works of creators.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

Not really... it's not about corruption. I think the world will be a better place IF the extreme profit motive went out of music and the big machines stopped force feeding us crap like Usher and Hanna Montana or whatever her name is this week.

'Corrupt' as in no longer working how it was designed.
We'll have to agree to disagree than.
I've seen you repeatedly post in a positive manner about the effects of piracy.
I've seen you accuse those who disagree with you of 'entitlement'.
That's what I've seen.

[Unrealworld82]

Because I love GS, and hate arguing, and really... love music and audio and want to see it survive the economic hardships it faces, I care to kind of draw a close on what I think of this issue.

I have no interest in defending piracy, but I think that the RIAA's efforts to combat it legally are a waste. I think that they need to embrace the convenience of downloading and come out with products that embellish the actual music itself. Then people will pay for "music product."

I think that people bought albums (say, even by good bands like Foo Fighters) which had only one good song on it. They felt screwed for having spent $20 (the defacto CD price in the late 90s early 00s) so that did piss them off enough to try illegal downloading.

To all those who think that this issue is just the evil pirates, I suggest they throw some blame to the corporate ineptitude and unwillingness to change of the majors. Its a problem at both ends, and most of us here are woefully caught in the middle.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Unrealworld82

Its a problem at both ends, and most of us here are woefully caught in the middle.

I couldn't agree more. thumbsup

the solution is neither to go back ten years, nor appease the illegal downloaders (in my opinion).

[rhizomeman]

Originally Posted by psalad

People who think the industry has to change but not themselves, I suspect, are in for a rude awakening...

This is true...