The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
I think the reason music sales are in massive decline is:
Old 5th September 2012
  #271
Gear Addict
 

Post links to the trichordist's blog on a forum not read by law enforcement, advertisers, or file sharing sites, and complain when people suggest other ways you might make money from music.
Old 5th September 2012
  #272
Quote:
Originally Posted by grawk View Post
Post links to the trichordist's blog on a forum not read by law enforcement, advertisers, or file sharing sites, and complain when people suggest other ways you might make money from music.
you that afraid of an opposing point of view... you may also be surprised by who reads what, from where, and the effect it can have. if you do nothing, nothing is probably going to happen. but if you do something, than something is probably going to happen. simple really.

information, education and awareness is important, is it not?

Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet | The Trichordist
Old 5th September 2012
  #273
Lives for gear
 
relaxo's Avatar
Is stealing still widely accepted as immoral? Yes.

Is it illegal under the laws of this great nation to have someone's "for sale only" song on your player without paying for it? Yes.

Why should the laws and morality of thousands of years change for the way some selfish, lazy people think the internet "should be?"

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Do you steal your doctor's hard earned knowledge to heal yourself? No, because you can't.

Do you steal hamburger's from McDonald's to feed yourself? No, because you can't.

Do you sneak into arena concerts for free entertainment? No, because you can't.

Do you sneak the fruits of songwriter's labor and talent onto your hard drive behind the locked doors of your own home for free entertainment? Yes, just because you can.


Keeping a little bit of extra money in your own hands is more important than having it in the hands of the struggling artists that you love and is more important than basic human morals? Priceless.
Old 5th September 2012
  #274
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by relaxo View Post
Is stealing still widely accepted as immoral? Yes.

Is it illegal under the laws of this great nation to have someone's "for sale only" song on your player without paying for it? Yes.

Why should the laws and morality of thousands of years change for the way some selfish, lazy people think the internet "should be?"
I can answer this: duplicating bits is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. The two acts are not equivalent, and any argument which relies on the assertion that they are equivalent will inevitably collapse if this premise is questioned.

I still believe that copyright is the best means presently available for society as a way to incentivize the creation and publication of new works, and I still believe that this is a rational thing for society to want to incentivize, but I think it's absolute folly to pretend that the realities of digital data duplication don't warrant an examination of how copyright operates and of one's own views on the morality of duplicating data in general. One may not come away from this examination with a different view, but if there ever was a time to think about and to question these moral beliefs and operational assumptions -- that time is now: copyright is an economic bargain between society and creators/publishers of works and society can rationally question whether the bargain is still in their favor now that any digitized data can be copied and spread at essentially zero non-theoretical cost to anyone. After all, it's only economically rational for the public to incentivize creation/publication if the public benefits from the existence of these published works, and this benefit at least partly (if not mainly) exists in the form of access to works.

I'll offer a directly related example along those lines: back in the physical realm, one of the arguments in favor of copyright is that the exclusive right to distribution encourages publishers to keep in publication lesser-desired works thereby ensuring their continued accessibility; as the argument goes, without copyright, there wouldn't be as strong an economic motive to continue publishing this lesser-desired material (highly desired material would more likely always be published, regardless of whether the publisher had exclusive right to it [the material is under copyright] or competition [the material is in the public domain]), and access to it would be lost. This particular argument has no analog in the digital world (no pun intended), where there is effectively no marginal cost to duplicating or storing data. It can therefore be said that unlike in the pre-digital age, copyright now only restricts the public's access to works.

That's just one example of how the nature of copyright necessarily shifts as technologies evolve. It's critical to always examine both how society benefits from copyright and how society is harmed by copyright when pontificating on the bargain's value.
Old 5th September 2012
  #275
Lives for gear
 
relaxo's Avatar
Of course there's examples both ways for everything.

Here's a way, a huge way in fact, that the internet is preventing copyright infringement: apps that only run via the cloud or server based apps. If the IP creator wishes, they can request a paid subscription in order to run their application. Freeloaders may be able to leach off of a couple accounts, but widespread IP theft becomes impossible finally. People will actually have to pay for the products that benefit them. Gasp!!! The result will be so beneficial with money coming in again. Far better software, development at a faster pace and bugs squashed in a timely manner.

There's a reason why the Access Virus, Kemper and Axe FX annihilates most software synths and amp sims in every way except price. It's because of the price. The Virus/Kemper Axe-FXs run on chips that are exclusively located in expensive hardware. Users have to actually pay to play. Access Music and Fractal have solid income. They have a lot more money to develop the highest quality algorithms and programming and there is no worry of pirating, so develop away...it's safe. Dedicate your life to it, raise a family relying on it, people can't steal it...like in 99.9% of all other professions on earth.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, songwriters can sell tee shirts with their name on it or become a forced corporate spokesperson to earn an honest living.

So many talented people are dropping out of those few professions where IP infringement is rampant. It's so discouraging for them to know after they dedicate their life to something, work their arses off for years with little or no pay only to get their work "taken" from them without any payment. You know for sure, without question, some of the best and brightest writers and artists are choosing payed careers instead of songwriting. It's absolutely going to worsen music quality from this dismal point we're currently at.
Old 5th September 2012
  #276
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I can answer this: duplicating bits is not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

None Dare Call it Theft | The Trichordist

and this...

Quote:
the critical issue
by Tom

I agree that debates about property rights in the digital age are often distracted by faulty thinking about scarcity.

So let’s get the facts straight.

Unless a resource is scarce, assigning property rights to those who “produce” that resource is neither sensible nor harmful. After all, even if those who produce an "abundant" resource can exclude others from the portion of the abundant resource that they produce, the value of that right to exclude will be $0 absent scarcity.

But, as economists have long known, scarcity comes in two forms, ex ante, and ex post. Ex post scarcity means that a resource remains scarce even after it is produced and disseminated. Apples, wheat, and iPods exhibit ex post scarcity. Ex ante scarcity means that the resource is scarce until a means to produce and disseminate it is devised. Lighthouses and information goods (like innovations and expressive works) are examples of resources affected by ex ante scarcity.

Copyright and patent law respond to the problem of ex ante scarcity. Anyone who argues that information goods like innovations or expressive works are not "scarce" can validate their argument by producing the following:

-- copies of the films that will win Oscars in 2022,

-- a detailed description of a 100% effective cure for cancer,

and

-- a detailed description of a cheap, nonperishable malaria
vaccine.

In short, useful information is scarce, and it is expensive to create and produce, until the information in question is created and broadly disseminated.

So the problem with information goods is twofold.

First, we must convince someone to incur the expenses and risks involved in creating them.

Second, we must convince those who create valuable information goods that they should disseminate them broadly instead of carefully restricting access to those who are willing to pay (a lot) to obtain access.

An example may make this point more clearly. Dr. Stephen Covey studied business practices for many years and concluded that he could identify seven principles that would increase the odds that a businessperson would succeed.

For years, he profited from this information by acting as a consultant to Fortune 500 corporations and disclosing it only to the senior executives of corporations that paid his (very high) consulting fee.

Then, copyright laws convinced Covey that he could better exploit his hard-earned insights by publishing a book and making his insights available to anyone willing to pay $7 or visit a library. As a result, The Seven Principles of Highly Effective People was created and widely disseminated.

Saying that this particular work is no longer “scarce” because it has been created and widely disseminated dodges the real question: How do we encourage people like Covey to create information goods and broadly disseminate them?

For now, the best answer yet conceived to this question is “copyright”: We give authors like Covey an exclusive right to their expression of ideas so long as they are willing to allow the ideas expressed to pass immediately into the public domain. This bargain explains why you owe Covey nothing if you read a copy of his book at the library for free and then use his seven principles to build a multi-billion dollar business.

To oversimplify somewhat, copyrights are justified by the difference between the costs of creating an expressive work and the costs of copying an expressive work that has already been created, disseminated and become popular. The “abundance” of digital works that have been created and disseminated does not eliminate this justification. To the contrary, it strengthens it: As the marginal cost of reproducing a popular, disseminated work decreases, the justification for copyright increases.

So I agree: If humans already knew everything worth knowing and had already expressed everything worth saying, then it would make no sense to prevent zero-marginal-cost copying of innovations and works that had already been created and broadly disseminated.

But we don’t. That is why copyright and patent laws continue to make sense.

And that is why people who support those laws do understand “scarcity” in the digital age.

I hope this helps.
Old 5th September 2012
  #277
For as long as I can remember there has been people complaining about the music business not having the foresight to take "artistic" risks and chances. But that has never been what the music business or I should say the "record" business was. It has always been a vehicle for providing the most popular songs to the many.

The further the music gets from the simple mainstream pop culture songs the smaller the audience. That void is filled with independents and specialty labels.

At the same time, the live music business is only partly related to the record industry. For the large, pop culture, "top 40", teeny bop crowd the entire focus is on trending. Diversity is not what the audience wants. They want celebrities and easily digested hit songs that their friends will agree on. That other teens also like, that gives the teens a language and culture all their own. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.

The point is there is only so much room for this and only the best purveyors of this brand of pop culture will make. It is as it always was. Sales may be down but its not just because of the internet though it is largely due to the fact that so much music is free on the net. It is also due to competing forms of media. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70,s and finally 80s records, television and movies were it. Once video recording came along the whole thing started to change. By the time the internet came, it was and is a different world.

If you are in the game because you are a dedicated musician, none of this will mean much. You will make a living as musicians always have. If you are trying to be a music biz mega something-or-other then all I can say is good luck. Because that is a large part of it. The next is work hard. The next is, if you're just in it for money and fame, do something else.

This has been a public service announcement.
Old 5th September 2012
  #278
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Sorry, I respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed in that blog entry. I thought Stuart Green of the NYTimes argued much more compellingly in the referenced article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart Green, 'When Stealing Isn’t Stealing'
...
From its earliest days, the crime of theft has been understood to involve the misappropriation of things real and tangible. For Caveman Bob to “steal” from Caveman Joe meant that Bob had taken something of value from Joe — say, his favorite club — and that Joe, crucially, no longer had it. Everyone recognized, at least intuitively, that theft constituted what can loosely be defined as a zero-sum game: what Bob gained, Joe lost.

When Industrial Age Bob and Joe started inventing less tangible things, like electricity, stocks, bonds and licenses, however, things got more complicated. What Bob took, Joe, in some sense, still had. So the law adjusted in ad hoc and at times inconsistent ways. Specialized doctrines were developed to cover the misappropriation of services (like a ride on a train), semi-tangibles (like the gas for streetlights) and true intangibles (like business goodwill).

In the middle of the 20th century, criminal law reformers were sufficiently annoyed by all of this specialization and ad hoc-ness that they decided to do something about it.
...
Then technology caught up.

With intangible assets like information, patents and copyrighted material playing an increasingly important role in the economy, lawyers and lobbyists for the movie and music industries, and their allies in Congress and at the Justice Department, sought to push the concept of theft beyond the basic principle of zero sum-ness. Earlier this year, for example, they proposed two major pieces of legislation premised on the notion that illegal downloading is stealing ...

The same rhetorical strategy was used with only slightly more success by the movie industry in its memorably irritating advertising campaign designed to persuade (particularly) young people that illegal downloading is stealing. Appearing before the program content on countless DVDs, the Motion Picture Association of America’s much-parodied ad featured a pounding soundtrack and superficially logical reasoning:
...
The problem is that most people simply don’t buy the claim that illegally downloading a song or video from the Internet really is like stealing a car. According to a range of empirical studies, including one conducted by me and my social psychologist collaborator, Matthew Kugler, lay observers draw a sharp moral distinction between file sharing and genuine theft, even when the value of the property is the same.

If Cyber Bob illegally downloads Digital Joe’s song from the Internet, it’s crucial to recognize that, in most cases, Joe hasn’t lost anything. Yes, one might try to argue that people who use intellectual property without paying for it steal the money they would have owed had they bought it lawfully. But there are two basic problems with this contention. First, we ordinarily can’t know whether the downloader would have paid the purchase price had he not misappropriated the property. Second, the argument assumes the conclusion that is being argued for — that it is theft.

So what are the lessons in all this? For starters, we should stop trying to shoehorn the 21st-century problem of illegal downloading into a moral and legal regime that was developed with a pre- or mid-20th-century economy in mind. Second, we should recognize that the criminal law is least effective — and least legitimate — when it is at odds with widely held moral intuitions.
...
This is not merely a question of nomenclature. The label we apply to criminal acts matters crucially in terms of how we conceive of and stigmatize them. What we choose to call a given type of crime ultimately determines how it’s formulated and classified and, perhaps most important, how it will be punished. Treating different forms of property deprivation as different crimes may seem untidy, but that is the nature of criminal law.
The full article can be read here; it provides a reasoned view into the perils of attempting to label copyright infringement as "theft."
Old 5th September 2012
  #279
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

I've said it before but here it is again:

The reason sales are nosediving is because disposable incomes have not increased in real terms since the '80s and kids these days buy video games instead.
All the things that happened back then like cuing up at shops on the day of release etc are still happening it's just that they are cuing for games.

Even the sales figures show that for every extra billion spent on games a billion is knocked off music sales.
Old 5th September 2012
  #280
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Sorry, I respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed in that blog entry. I thought Stuart Green of the NYTimes argued much more compellingly in the referenced article:

The full article can be read here; it provides a reasoned view into the perils of attempting to label copyright infringement as "theft."
he's wrong and I wouldn't hold your breath expecting copyright law to change to be weaker any time soon... Google's own chief economist Hal A Varian has taken John Perry Barlow's nonsense to task...

EFF’s John Perry Barlow is Wrong, says Google’s Chief Economist | The Trichordist

and lessig hasn't exactly done much better either...

Larry Lessig is Wrong, and should “Get Over It” | The Trichordist

let's not forget, the conversation is about money, a lot of advertising money...

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...ide-insurance/

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...ectronic-arts/

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...in-rapidshare/

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...ercial-target/

money. a lot of advertising money propping up businesses illegally exploiting artists...
1
Share
Old 5th September 2012
  #281
Lives for gear
 
relaxo's Avatar
Let's not play games here. People are under a hell of a lot of financial pressure these days. They want things free and easy and they'll steal things if they can get away with it. It's as simple as that. Do you think that if a car lot had no employees to guard their cars and the police took no action ever to apprehend people who took cars but didn't pay, that there would be many cars actually paid for? People would take the cars because it's our dark, selfish side. It comes out in some much more than others. Decorate and twist it any way you want, but the aforementioned scenario is precisely what is occurring to the creators of digital IP. Thieves deserve the music world that we're soon going to get. The thoughtful people that still throw money in the tip jar along with the creators are the victims.



"it’s crucial to recognize that, in most cases, Joe hasn’t lost anything."

Notice the key word here, "most." The rest were the just all sales stolen. This whole article is so full holes.

"we ordinarily can’t know whether the downloader would have paid the purchase price had he not misappropriated the property."

You know damn well that the so many times the purchase price was lost from illegal downloads in the privacy in once home.

"The problem is that most people simply don’t buy the claim that illegally downloading a song or video from the Internet really is like stealing a car."

What if their product or service in their career was stolen by the masses everyday. They'd change their tune quickly.

"lawyers and lobbyists for the movie and music industries, and their allies in Congress and at the Justice Department,

What a manipulating tool, bring up all the bad guys, buy leave out the musicians, production people and songwriters that make the songs that make our life better.

"sought to push the concept of theft beyond the basic principle of zero sum-ness."

That was settled legally long before now by modern, smarter-than-caveman thought processes.


What a cute, touchy feely article that I'm sure made him feel better about his activities. I hope it makes all of us feel better about that way people step on others to save a buck.

It may be above your head, but copyright infringement does do great harm to those that work hard, sacrifice and dedicate their lives to make the songs and software we love and use everyday, making our lives significantly happier and/or easier.




Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Originally Posted by Stuart Green, 'When Stealing Isn’t Stealing'
...
From its earliest days, the crime of theft has been understood to involve the misappropriation of things real and tangible. For Caveman Bob to “steal” from Caveman Joe meant that Bob had taken something of value from Joe — say, his favorite club — and that Joe, crucially, no longer had it. Everyone recognized, at least intuitively, that theft constituted what can loosely be defined as a zero-sum game: what Bob gained, Joe lost.

When Industrial Age Bob and Joe started inventing less tangible things, like electricity, stocks, bonds and licenses, however, things got more complicated. What Bob took, Joe, in some sense, still had. So the law adjusted in ad hoc and at times inconsistent ways. Specialized doctrines were developed to cover the misappropriation of services (like a ride on a train), semi-tangibles (like the gas for streetlights) and true intangibles (like business goodwill).

In the middle of the 20th century, criminal law reformers were sufficiently annoyed by all of this specialization and ad hoc-ness that they decided to do something about it.
...
Then technology caught up.

With intangible assets like information, patents and copyrighted material playing an increasingly important role in the economy, lawyers and lobbyists for the movie and music industries, and their allies in Congress and at the Justice Department, sought to push the concept of theft beyond the basic principle of zero sum-ness. Earlier this year, for example, they proposed two major pieces of legislation premised on the notion that illegal downloading is stealing ...

The same rhetorical strategy was used with only slightly more success by the movie industry in its memorably irritating advertising campaign designed to persuade (particularly) young people that illegal downloading is stealing. Appearing before the program content on countless DVDs, the Motion Picture Association of America’s much-parodied ad featured a pounding soundtrack and superficially logical reasoning:
...
The problem is that most people simply don’t buy the claim that illegally downloading a song or video from the Internet really is like stealing a car. According to a range of empirical studies, including one conducted by me and my social psychologist collaborator, Matthew Kugler, lay observers draw a sharp moral distinction between file sharing and genuine theft, even when the value of the property is the same.

If Cyber Bob illegally downloads Digital Joe’s song from the Internet, it’s crucial to recognize that, in most cases, Joe hasn’t lost anything. Yes, one might try to argue that people who use intellectual property without paying for it steal the money they would have owed had they bought it lawfully. But there are two basic problems with this contention. First, we ordinarily can’t know whether the downloader would have paid the purchase price had he not misappropriated the property. Second, the argument assumes the conclusion that is being argued for — that it is theft.

So what are the lessons in all this? For starters, we should stop trying to shoehorn the 21st-century problem of illegal downloading into a moral and legal regime that was developed with a pre- or mid-20th-century economy in mind. Second, we should recognize that the criminal law is least effective — and least legitimate — when it is at odds with widely held moral intuitions.
...
This is not merely a question of nomenclature. The label we apply to criminal acts matters crucially in terms of how we conceive of and stigmatize them. What we choose to call a given type of crime ultimately determines how it’s formulated and classified and, perhaps most important, how it will be punished. Treating different forms of property deprivation as different crimes may seem untidy, but that is the nature of criminal law.
1
Share
Old 5th September 2012
  #282
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
I've said it before but here it is again:

The reason sales are nosediving is because disposable incomes have not increased in real terms since the '80s and kids these days buy video games instead.
All the things that happened back then like cuing up at shops on the day of release etc are still happening it's just that they are cuing for games.

Even the sales figures show that for every extra billion spent on games a billion is knocked off music sales.
nope...

even barring illegally free... music has never been cheaper to access or own in the history of recorded music. there's just no justification for stealing, sorry.

Digital Music News - Worse Than Worst Ever? Tommy Boy Starts Number-Crunching Again...
Quote:
"The first Beatles album in America came out in 1964 at $4.98 list," Tommy Boy continued. "In today's dollars that would be $35 for a 28 minute, monophonic 8-song album."
In other words, using today's pricing of $9.99 for an Itunes album would have only cost $1.35 in 1964... Even if you wanted to entertain a $20 CD (are there any $20 CDs these days?), the same would have only cost $2.70 in 1964.

So in the very worst case scenario, music is STILL 45% less expensive today than it was in 1964! And that's calculated on a $20 CD!

If you calculate the difference for an Itunes download, and full album today costs 86% LESS than it did in 1964...


Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Today's $8.00 hr Min Wage equates into only $1.08 in 1964. But, the Federal minimum wage in 1964 was actually $1.25... so today's minimum wage, adjusted for inflation actually has MORE buying power than it did in the 60s.

this is the WEAKEST argument ever for the decline in music sales... the WEAKEST... And, low ticket items (like 99 cent songs) or the most resilient in a bad economy. It's durable goods like cars and washing machines that take the big hit.

here's 1973 - 2008...



the years correspond to excel row numbers, the graph represents 36 years of data 1973 - 2008.

Excel graphed the years as follows:

1973 is plot point "1"

1979 is plot point "7"

1999 is plot point "27"

2008 is plot point "36"



data source: http://musicbusinessresearch.files.w...obal-sales.jpg

so it looks like the economy and consumer competition really isn't that big of a factor after all, again, looking at 36 years of data... the 90's may have been the peak, but that's only because of the illegal exploitation of content without compensation that began at the turn of the century.

remember that each decade saw it's own added consumer competition...

the 70s saw the initial release of VCRs and Video Cassettes as well as video game consoles and cartridges,

the 80s
saw home video boom as VHS matured, cable tv boomed, new types of youth sports took hold,

the 90s saw the introduction of DVDs, home computers became household items, people started paying for internet service, and cell phones began to be common place...

and yet through each one of those decades (without rampant online piracy) sales grew steadily until broadband reaches ubiquity at the turn of the century...

then, the sales plummet.
Old 5th September 2012
  #283
Quote:
Originally Posted by relaxo View Post
The rest were the just all sales stolen. This whole article is so full holes.
big enough to fly a 747 through... typical freehadist nonsense.

I'll stick with Google's chief economist on this issue, I think he might know a thing or two...

Quote:
“Bitlegging” can’t be ignored: there’s no doubt that it can be a significant drag on profits.

Bitleggers have the same problem that any other sellers of contraband material have: they have to pet potential customers know how to find them. But if they advertise their location to potential customers, they also advertise their location to law enforcement authorities. In the contraband business it pays to advertise… but not too much.

This puts a natural limit on the size of for-profit illegal activities: the bigger they get, the more likely they are to get caught. Digital piracy can’t be eliminated, any more than any other kind of illegal activity, but it can be kept under control. All that is required is the political will to enforce intellectual property rights.
no doubt indeed...
1
Share
Old 5th September 2012
  #284
Lives for gear
 

What is the solution for clamping down on file-sharing when probably 95% of people between the ages of 12 and 40 are in possession of at least one ill-gotten music file? The public isn't going to go for a law that makes all their children criminals, especially if the argument put forth is so that the good folks in the music industry can go back to doing heaps of coke atop LFACs like back in the good ole days.
Old 5th September 2012
  #285
Gear Nut
 

Seriously what is the issue here.

I think we can all agree -if you BOUGHT it, you should be able to copy, transfer, etc. for your use.

If you download without purchasing - it is FU*KING STEALING.

There is no debate. Anyone that argues the contrary clearly doesn't make their living in the industry.
1
Share
Old 5th September 2012
  #286
Lives for gear
 
relaxo's Avatar
The law is already there, so there's no "going for it" involved. The parents need to teach their children that when they take something that was not offered to for free, then it's stealing.

The public is so brainwashed that they think illegal DL of IP is legal. It's illegal and it's assumed to be legal by many simply because of weak enforcement.
Old 5th September 2012
  #287
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Sorry, I respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed in that blog entry. I thought Stuart Green of the NYTimes argued much more compellingly in the referenced article:

The full article can be read here; it provides a reasoned view into the perils of attempting to label copyright infringement as "theft."
he's wrong and I wouldn't hold your breath expecting copyright law to change to be weaker any time soon...
Stuart Green does not argue in the discussed article that copyright law should be changed, let alone changed in such a way that renders it "weaker."


Quote:
Originally Posted by relaxo View Post
What a cute, touchy feely article that I'm sure made him feel better about his activities. I hope it makes all of us feel better about that way people step on others to save a buck.
It may be above your head, but copyright infringement does do great harm to those that work hard, sacrifice and dedicate their lives to make the songs and software we love and use everyday, making our lives significantly happier and/or easier.
I'd prefer not to accuse you, friend, of not having actually read the article you are discussing, as written by a professor of law for the New York Times (whom you are suggesting is guilty of rationalizing infringement that he personally engages in), but I'm afraid I must do just that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart Green, 'When Stealing Isn’t Stealing'
Illegal downloading is, of course, a real problem. People who work hard to produce creative works are entitled to enjoy legal protection to reap the benefits of their labors. And if others want to enjoy those creative works, it’s reasonable to make them pay for the privilege. But framing illegal downloading as a form of stealing doesn’t, and probably never will, work. We would do better to consider a range of legal concepts that fit the problem more appropriately: concepts like unauthorized use, trespass, conversion and misappropriation.
I may not be disrespectful enough to suggest that the message of the article passed above your head, but I would say that your interpretation of the author's remarks is worthy of intense scrutiny.
Old 5th September 2012
  #288
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Stuart Green does not argue in the discussed article that copyright law should be changed, let alone changed in such a way that renders it "weaker."
not the way I read it...

Quote:
we should stop trying to shoehorn the 21st-century problem of illegal downloading into a moral and legal regime that was developed with a pre- or mid-20th-century economy in mind.
hmmmm.... I wonder what alternative he has in mind...
Old 5th September 2012
  #289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsowa View Post
What is the solution for clamping down on file-sharing when probably 95% of people between the ages of 12 and 40 are in possession of at least one ill-gotten music file? The public isn't going to go for a law that makes all their children criminals, especially if the argument put forth is so that the good folks in the music industry can go back to doing heaps of coke atop LFACs like back in the good ole days.
who's making that argument? the argument I see is working class musicians being paid fairly...

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren’t more Musicians Working Professionally? | The Trichordist

it's about money...

Artists, Know Thy Enemy – Who’s Ripping You Off and How… | The Trichordist
Old 5th September 2012
  #290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Willing View Post
Seriously what is the issue here.

I think we can all agree -if you BOUGHT it, you should be able to copy, transfer, etc. for your use.

If you download without purchasing - it is FU*KING STEALING.

There is no debate. Anyone that argues the contrary clearly doesn't make their living in the industry.
Old 5th September 2012
  #291
Quote:
Originally Posted by relaxo View Post
The law is already there, so there's no "going for it" involved. The parents need to teach their children that when they take something that was not offered to for free, then it's stealing.

The public is so brainwashed that they think illegal DL of IP is legal. It's illegal and it's assumed to be legal by many simply because of weak enforcement.
they know it's illegal. it's the same people cite tenenbaum and thomas... they know it's illegal, they know those people got busted and like everyone who get's busted, or who maybe... they try to rationalize their bad behavior.

I've never met a criminal who had done anything wrong...
Old 5th September 2012
  #292
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
nope...

even barring illegally free... music has never been cheaper to access or own in the history of recorded music. there's just no justification for stealing, sorry.
Where do you get the justification for stealing thing from?

I never mentioned anything like that by any stretch of the imagination.
What I said is that in my experience kids today just simply do not care about music as much as we did when I was young, it has become largely irrelevant.
The excitement with which we anticipated new album releases is now seen when it comes to video game releases.
The golden age of music sales is gone and will never come back, piracy or not. It just does not matter anymore that much to the kids.

And when it comes to minimum wage you are directly contradicting your own figures. Whatever disposable income, which according to your figures has fallen from $1.25 to $1.08 today in 1964 dollars, has got to be shared between music, fashion, computers, mobile phones, fancy trainers, cable tv, internet access, games consoles and games. Only the first two of them existed in '64.

Music has gotten competition and it lost.
Old 5th September 2012
  #293
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
I've said it before but here it is again:

The reason sales are nosediving is because ... kids these days buy video games instead.
All the things that happened back then like cuing up at shops on the day of release etc are still happening it's just that they are cuing for games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
Where do you get the justification for stealing thing from?
I never mentioned anything like that by any stretch of the imagination.
What I said is that in my experience kids today just simply do not care about music as much as we did when I was young, it has become largely irrelevant.
The excitement with which we anticipated new album releases is now seen when it comes to video game releases.

...[money is] to be shared between music, fashion, computers, mobile phones, fancy trainers, cable tv, internet access, games consoles and games. Only the first two of them existed in '64.
I think there is a lot of sense to what you're saying here. I've said very similar things previously, too. You make an interesting point about queueing up outside of stores for anticipated video game midnight releases -- there's definitely a lot of real passion in that domain, and it's not a passion that we as frequently see associated with music anymore.
Old 6th September 2012
  #294
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
I'd be interested to compare the # of bands that had real instruments like guitars/drums/bass in 2000 versus 2012. I suspect the drop would mirror the 45% drop in 'working musicians'. In the past, the only way to get famous in music (which is almost everyone's goal) was to become a real working musician and play in a band.

Music production is largely electronic now. People are making recordings in bedrooms and putting it out on the internet and hoping they make it big. They never become 'working musicians' because they are just hoping to "win the lottery" and get discovered on a blog. Almost certainly DJs have been taking the place of bands in many of these live venues. It's easier to DJ than ever with the software and hardware that's out now. And it works nicely considering most of the music listened to by people aged 18-29 is electronic anyway.
Old 6th September 2012
  #295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsowa View Post
I'd be interested to compare the # of bands that had real instruments like guitars/drums/bass in 2000 versus 2012. I suspect the drop would mirror the 45% drop in 'working musicians'. In the past, the only way to get famous in music (which is almost everyone's goal) was to become a real working musician and play in a band.

Music production is largely electronic now. People are making recordings in bedrooms and putting it out on the internet and hoping they make it big. They never become 'working musicians' because they are just hoping to "win the lottery" and get discovered on a blog. Almost certainly DJs have been taking the place of bands in many of these live venues. It's easier to DJ than ever with the software and hardware that's out now. And it works nicely considering most of the music listened to by people aged 18-29 is electronic anyway.
right, so people who make electronic music can not be considered working class musicians? Tell that to Skrillex and Deadmou5...

Old 6th September 2012
  #296
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I think there is a lot of sense to what you're saying here. I've said very similar things previously, too. You make an interesting point about queueing up outside of stores for anticipated video game midnight releases -- there's definitely a lot of real passion in that domain, and it's not a passion that we as frequently see associated with music anymore.
because if you pirate a console game and get busted, your machine gets locked down electronically and you're off the network. maybe all music should be constantly network verified for hacks too?
Old 6th September 2012
  #297
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
And when it comes to minimum wage you are directly contradicting your own figures. Whatever disposable income, which according to your figures has fallen from $1.25 to $1.08 today in 1964 dollars, has got to be shared between music, fashion, computers, mobile phones, fancy trainers, cable tv, internet access, games consoles and games. Only the first two of them existed in '64.

Music has gotten competition and it lost.
nonsense.

remember that each decade saw it's own added consumer competition...

the 70s saw the initial release of VCRs and Video Cassettes as well as video game consoles and cartridges,

the 80s saw home video boom as VHS matured, cable tv boomed, new types of youth sports took hold,

the 90s saw the introduction of DVDs, home computers became household items, people started paying for internet service, and cell phones began to be common place...

and yet through each one of those decades (without rampant online piracy) sales grew steadily until broadband reaches ubiquity at the turn of the century...

then, the sales plummet.
Old 6th September 2012
  #298
Lives for gear
 
mr. torture's Avatar
 

What happened to all the cool Rock bands? Reo speedwagon, Triumph, Billy Squire, ZZ top, Boston. I miss the Rock bands that wrote great songs.
Old 6th September 2012
  #299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsowa View Post
What is the solution for clamping down on file-sharing when probably 95% of people between the ages of 12 and 40 are in possession of at least one ill-gotten music file? The public isn't going to go for a law that makes all their children criminals
what law would that be exactly? because there's no new law needed to do that... which is why you follow the money... and put the BUSINESSES operating illegally behind bars.
Old 6th September 2012
  #300
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I think there is a lot of sense to what you're saying here. I've said very similar things previously, too. You make an interesting point about queueing up outside of stores for anticipated video game midnight releases -- there's definitely a lot of real passion in that domain, and it's not a passion that we as frequently see associated with music anymore.
because if you pirate a console game and get busted, your machine gets locked down electronically and you're off the network. maybe all music should be constantly network verified for hacks too?
It's difficult to understand how what you said relates to what I said. Kids love -- and lines form for -- video game releases because of network-based console digital restriction management (DRM) techniques? I don't think passion for video games exists because of digital restriction management methods.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump