The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
ridiculous piracy story..
Old 25th June 2009
  #151
Gear Addict
 
gransonik's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robobaby View Post
Japan would be an interesting case for study. I know that Japan is quite different to the US and EU in the sense that their best sellers are usually artists who are massively popular in Japan but almost completely unknown outside of the country. Ayumi Hamazaki springs to mind. I don't know whether its a cultural thing or if its tied to the whole idol phenomena or whether these artists are just so close to their fans that ripping them off is just not on. I dunno. It seems like a business model and relationship that works and should be taken apart peice by peice and copied.
You mentioned one of the worst examples possible Ayumi is exactly what everyone is annoyed of. Her media penetration is so high it's unbearable, she doesnt know **** about music nor writes her own songs. Japan has ALOT more to offer than that kind of idol crap. Talent for good songwriting is very very valued over there. There're endless band contests in schools, bands try to get publicity by playing in subway stations, there's always something new, fresh and interesting coming out. You have to dig alot deeper but it's a bit difficult from outside japan. Browsing through itunes japan regulary and checking all the new japanese releases might be a good starting point.
If you are an artist with unique songwriting skills and voice, thats an almost garanteed major contract. Looks dont even matter at all. And to make it even better every artist wants to have HIS sound. music sounds alot more diverse productions wise. I think all these factors weight in on why music in japan is still something people are willing to pay for.

PS: most japanese artists are not known outside of japan because the labels simply don't care. Their market and money is in the japanese market and it's more than big enough. Thats all.
Old 25th June 2009
  #152
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by claend View Post
Bla bla bla... Anything new??
Nope. But I kind of thought that the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee's getting involved in copyright protection was just a TINY bit on topic to the discussion. Other than that nothing new today. How about you?

Anything other than:

"I want it, I want it, I want it, I WANT IT NOW -- FOR FREE!!!!!!!"


Old 25th June 2009
  #153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robobaby View Post
The next question then is what damages should the plaintiff claim without knowing the extent of secondary and tertiery uploads that stem from your original upload? It simply isn't traceable enough to put a dollar value that accurately reflects the monetary loss to the label.
if computers can do anything it's track data and transactions, exceedingly well - to assume that there's now way to calculate how many times an uploaded song has been downloaded/shared is just completely false.

oh look we can figure out a way to steal music, but not track it - how convenient!

the damages are pretty easy to figure out, .99-1.29 per download of the uploaded/shared song. pay that to the record label and all is good.

what would be interesting as a point of solution would be to allow sharing, and to allow the sharer to make the 30% margin Itunes is getting.

Imagine monetizing all the p2p activity - in one fell swoop, overnight, one company could overtake Apple... boom. done.

so if a smart p2p developer created a client that logged sales, and automatically paid the sharer and the label their percentages everyone would win.

Every bedroom and computer would be a customized, peer designed, store front...

However - the pro-pirates are just more interested in getting **** for free than EVER having any intention of paying for something created by HUMAN LABOR... the same HUMAN LABOR that serves you at McDonalds and does open heart surgery... LABOR IS LABOR, and the cost of music is compensation for HUMAN LABOR...

music is not made by corporations, it is made my musicians (unless you're into techno ;-).
Old 25th June 2009
  #154
*** correction to splits:

65% to Labels
25% to Sharer
10% to P2P

the splits could be worked out - but if the p2p made 10% off of every transaction the business would out perform Google.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios View Post
if computers can do anything it's track data and transactions, exceedingly well - to assume that there's now way to calculate how many times an uploaded song has been downloaded/shared is just completely false.

oh look we can figure out a way to steal music, but not track it - how convenient!

the damages are pretty easy to figure out, .99-1.29 per download of the uploaded/shared song. pay that to the record label and all is good.

what would be interesting as a point of solution would be to allow sharing, and to allow the sharer to make the 30% margin Itunes is getting.

Imagine monetizing all the p2p activity - in one fell swoop, overnight, one company could overtake Apple... boom. done.

so if a smart p2p developer created a client that logged sales, and automatically paid the sharer and the label their percentages everyone would win.

Every bedroom and computer would be a customized, peer designed, store front...

However - the pro-pirates are just more interested in getting **** for free than EVER having any intention of paying for something created by HUMAN LABOR... the same HUMAN LABOR that serves you at McDonalds and does open heart surgery... LABOR IS LABOR, and the cost of music is compensation for HUMAN LABOR...

music is not made by corporations, it is made my musicians (unless you're into techno ;-).
Old 26th June 2009
  #155
Lives for gear
 
Greg Curtis's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios View Post
the damages are pretty easy to figure out, .99-1.29 per download of the uploaded/shared song. pay that to the record label and all is good.
Theft is still a crime, and the criminal must face fines and/or jail time. Not just pay for what he stole.
Old 26th June 2009
  #156
pro
Gear Addict
 
pro's Avatar
 

The fact that transactions can be tracked and are not, speaks volumes...

Sometimes people focus too much energy pointing fingers and name calling that they forget what it is they, themselves, actually want.

Here 10 things I try to focus on and maybe some could be useful to you too:

1.) I want lots of people downloading my intellectual property
2.) I want to be paid when people download my intellectual property
3.) I do not want to sue people or consider suing people should be; 'business as usual' as I really do not know **** about law.
4.) I generally do not want to have to fight to get paid
5.) I really would rather .gov not be involved in the music business
6.) I will not jump on reckless bandwagons out of desperation
7.) I will constantly adapt and foster new and useful technology and development
8.) I will be open minded and respect others opinions (deep huh?)
9.) I will view others as human and not fictional caricatures ill painted in black and white to lazily further my own interests
10.) I will make music till I die regardless of anything el$e and love it

or maybe not... fuuck

RIP MJ
Old 26th June 2009
  #157
Quote:
Originally Posted by pro View Post
The fact that transactions can be tracked and are not, speaks volumes...

Sometimes people focus too much energy pointing fingers and name calling that they forget what it is they, themselves, actually want.

Here 10 things I try to focus on and maybe some could be useful to you too:

1.) I want lots of people downloading my intellectual property
2.) I want to be paid when people download my intellectual property
3.) I do not want to sue people or consider suing people should be; 'business as usual' as I really do not know **** about law.
4.) I generally do not want to have to fight to get paid
5.) I really would rather .gov not be involved in the music business
6.) I will not jump on reckless bandwagons out of desperation
7.) I will constantly adapt and foster new and useful technology and development
8.) I will be open minded and respect others opinions (deep huh?)
9.) I will view others as human and not fictional caricatures ill painted in black and white to lazily further my own interests
10.) I will make music till I die regardless of anything el$e and love it

or maybe not... fuuck

RIP MJ
Excellent!
Old 5th July 2009
  #158
Lives for gear
 

"I want it NOW and I don't want to work for it" is precisely what got us into the global financial mess we have now. Draw a parallel to the music business if you want.
Old 5th July 2009
  #159
Gear Guru
 
Sid Viscous's Avatar
 

Well, I can see from the majority of posts here that we should just go ahead and may the RIAA and MIAA's views of copyright law the law. That means no selling used copies, no video rentals, no ripping CDs, your license is only for personal use (they can demand the disc back if they wish), no CDs in libraries, no recording from TV or radio, etc.
Old 5th July 2009
  #160
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid Viscous View Post
Well, I can see from the majority of posts here that we should just go ahead and may the RIAA and MIAA's views of copyright law the law. That means no selling used copies, no video rentals, no ripping CDs, your license is only for personal use (they can demand the disc back if they wish), no CDs in libraries, no recording from TV or radio, etc.
I prefer this:

No-Nonsense License Statement


This software is protected by both United States copyright law and
international copyright treaty provisions. Therefore, you must treat
this software just like a book, except that you may copy it onto a
computer to be used and you may make archival copies of the software
for the sole purpose of backing-up our software and protecting your
investment from loss.


By saying "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that this
software may be used by any number of people, and may be freely moved
from one computer location to another, so long as there is no
possibility of it being used at one location while it's being used at
another or on a computer network by more than one user at one
location. Just like a book can't be read by two different people in
two different places at the same time, neither can the software be
used by two different people in two different places at the same time.
(Unless, of course, Borland's copyright has been violated or the use
is on a computer network by up to the number of users authorized by
additional Borland licenses as explained below.)
Old 5th July 2009
  #161
Gear Guru
 
Sid Viscous's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dale116dot7 View Post
I prefer this:

No-Nonsense License Statement


This software is protected by both United States copyright law and
international copyright treaty provisions. Therefore, you must treat
this software just like a book, except that you may copy it onto a
computer to be used and you may make archival copies of the software
for the sole purpose of backing-up our software and protecting your
investment from loss.


By saying "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that this
software may be used by any number of people, and may be freely moved
from one computer location to another, so long as there is no
possibility of it being used at one location while it's being used at
another or on a computer network by more than one user at one
location. Just like a book can't be read by two different people in
two different places at the same time, neither can the software be
used by two different people in two different places at the same time.
(Unless, of course, Borland's copyright has been violated or the use
is on a computer network by up to the number of users authorized by
additional Borland licenses as explained below.)
But that isn't what the RIAA and MIAA want. They want to own the content and medium that it is delivered on, and with all of these nutty legal battles they will eventually get it made law by jury.
Old 5th July 2009
  #162
Lives for gear
 
tazman's Avatar
 

What's the old saying... "You play, you pay!" Everyone should know by now that they are going after pirating music. if you choose to keep doing it, then you are automatically accepting the risk.




Quote:
Originally Posted by HobbyCore View Post
Thousands != Millions.


You also do not understand how p2p works in general. It's quite rare that an entire song is shared. Usually for most networks it's very small portions taken from multiple peers, and on bittorrent it's exactly that. It's likely that she shared a very small portion of the file to thousands of people, but very unlikely she shared the entire song to thousands of people. A common ratio on most p2p networks is under 1.00, which means that you have not shared as much as you have downloaded, despite likely having connected to hundreds or thousands of users. Even a ratio of 50.00 (extremely rare) means you've only shared 50x as much as you've downloaded and extremely unlikely that it was the entire file 50x. It was a small portion (often repeated) to multiple users.
Old 19th July 2009
  #163
Here for the gear
 

"illegal downloading" or "unauthorized reproduction"???

Digital Media Copyright Protection & Authorization Plan

SUMMARY
- Restore and Protect the rights of all entertainment professionals.
- Secure the Digital Entertainment Marketplace by Strictly Regulating ALL Digital Media Players.
- Regulate Playback, Distribution, and Duplication of ALL copyrighted media files.
The worst enemy of the creators and sellers of contemporary music, movies, and other digital media are programs like iTunes Media Player, Windows Media player, and Quick Time Media Player. These programs and others like them afford anyone with a computer and an Internet connection the power of unlimited and unauthorized reproduction, duplication, and distribution of copyrighted digital media files. The current plight of the recording and movie industries does not lie with the issue of “illegal downloading” per se; the real problem is UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION. Downloading files onto a computer from Limewire, or any of the widely known Bit Torrent sites, is a relatively harmless act; it is simply a transfer of numeric values from one storage medium to another, not unlike “buffering”. It could be argued that downloading a file does not even violate copyright law. Where the actual copyright infringement occurs is when those files are imported into iTunes (Windows Media Player, QuickTime…take your pick, I’ll use iTunes for demonstration purposes) and automatically, with no restriction or any type of security check, are REPRODUCED and available to be copied and redistributed without limitation or consequence. These media players have essentially given away every song and movie ever made, for free, forever. No matter how much you try and regulate the ISPs, the cat is out of the bag, right?! Wrong…all the technology needed to put an end to this has already been created. Not only can the problem be stopped, but all those files that have been “stolen” could be recovered and the artists and producers responsible for them can be retroactively compensated.

DESCRIPTION
The rapid advancement of computers and Internet technology has given great power to billions of people, and fueled the creation of countless pieces of amazing software. So far this power has been knowingly misused by consumers to the detriment of not only the recording and movie industries of the world, but has also contributed, in some way, to the current economic crisis. Tough new laws must be put in place to regulate the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted digital media files by underdeveloped and unregulated digital media players such as iTunes MP and Windows Media Player. What is needed is a “Central Online Media Database” that tracks and archives every single digital media file (DMF) purchase (internationally). All digital media players must be reprogrammed and updated with strict authorization limitation and security features.
One of the most revolutionary and exciting new Internet technologies is a new system of “tagging” which is just now being incorporated into iTunes. It is an adaptation of the iTunes “Genius” software. A similar system exists in a free iPhone App called Shazam. “Shazam” records an audio sample of a song that is playing (in a bar or supermarket for example) and automatically, within seconds, compares this sample with all known or “published” sound recordings available in the online music marketplace. Each audio file has a uniquely identifiable waveform or “fingerprint”. After this scanning process, the software tells you what the song is called, who the artist is, and where it is currently available to be purchased online. This waveform recognition technology will be the basis of a new system that will solve most, if not all of the piracy problems facing the recording and movie industries of today. Imagine one day, after a routine update of your iTunes software, you open up iTunes, but instead of automatically opening as usual, you are asked to input your iTunes login information. Having a unique user ID/account linked to the consumer’s DMF library and authorization codes is critical. After which, your library is automatically scanned (“Shazam”/”Genius” style file recognition) you are informed that you currently have 1278 songs and 24 movies files in your iTunes library that are in potential violation of Digital Media Copyright Protection Law. These unauthorized files will receive a “red-light” status. All previously purchased “legal” files will receive a Digital Media Authorization Codes (DMAC), a “green-light” status and will be cleared for reproduction (playback only). What has just happened is iTunes has compared all the unique “fingerprints” of your digital media files with all published DMFs and has separated your authorized/purchased files from your unauthorized files. Once this initial scanning and authorization/de-authorization process has occurred, all your account information will be saved and updated in iTunes as well as in your newly created online account (“MyTunes.com”, just an idea). The amount of copies issued, duplication capabilities, and duration of “authorized reproduction” will be at the discretion of the artist and/or label. This system would operate much like the authorization process currently in place by the “Waves”, “Digidesign” and “Celemony” software companies. These companies require authorization codes to be constantly present during the use of their software. This relatively new system has essentially made it impossible for consumers to use pirated software.
Once a Digital Media Protection System is in place all “Old” DMFs (digital archives of previously purchased CDs) or previously downloaded “File Share Media” will eventually become potential sales. These “Old” files will simply be “red-lighted” or deactivated, since there is no record of purchase, and will no longer be available for reproduction. At any point the user will be able to select a red-lighted (unauthorized) file, and be automatically directed to iTunes/Rhapsody/Napster, or any other approved or “legal” online music store to purchase the corresponding authorization codes (DMACs) for those files. Once the user has obtained the DMACs for this previously downloaded media, those files will be "green lighted" instantly and be available for reproduction without the need of repeat downloading, although the option to download "fresh files" will be available. All approved online music stores will integrate a universal authorization code system, and contribute all future and past records of purchased digital media files to the “Central Online Media Database”. These records of purchase will be linked to the unique fingerprint of the purchased DMF. All new versions of iTunes and Windows Media Player etc., under penalty of strict new Digital Media Copyright Protection Laws, will be updated with this Digital Media Copyright Protection And Authorization System. Eventually after time and planned obsolescence has done it's job, all (operational) computers will have implemented this system through mandatory software updates (iTunes already does this), and this current trend of rampant unchecked copyright infringement, due to unregulated and unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted digital media files, will be a thing of the past. In the future a consumer’s entire music library will be able to be stored on one very small and portable device, accessible anywhere at anytime through the integration of “thumb drive” technology and mobile access to “Digital Media Authorization Codes”. In regard to working professionals in the field of audio and movie production, “in-production” files will not be affected by this system. Upon importing “in-production” files will be scanned, just like all other files, and compared with all DMF fingerprints currently available on the market, when they are cleared and approved as being unique and “unpublished” works under production by the artist and/or label, they will be authorized for reproduction without limitation (playback and duplication, i.e. CDs). Upon the date of these previously “in-production” files being published, the “legal” digital media player will inform the professional that the files have been published and are now available for purchase. If the artist/label wishes to provide any consumer with an authorization that is free of charge, that will be made possible by each person having a unique user ID/ account (like myspace). The artist will have the power to grant free authorization codes to whom ever the want.
The user will not need to be continuously connected to the Internet to enjoy listening to their music or watching their movies. When iTunes is opened and an Internet connection is not detected, the user will be able to access all previously “green-lighted” files in their library. All imported files (CD or otherwise) will be automatically “red-lighted” if an Internet connection is not detected. Once the user connects to there online account “MyTunes.com”, these imported files will be scanned and appropriately accessed. This verification process is vital for ensuring and protecting the rights of the artist and label. If the imported file is not a “published” and "copyrighted" work available for purchase in the online marketplace, it will be deemed an original "independent" or “in-production” work and will be "green-lighted" for playback and duplication on all formats. If/and when that recording is "published" and becomes available online, the preauthorized file will be rescanned and "reassessed" once the user signs in to there online account. The Digital Media Protection And Authorization System will scan the users library each time they sign into their online account.
Eventually this software must be incorporated into Mac and Windows operating systems.
Current programs that can be used as models for the creation of this new Universal Digital Media Copyright Protection System
iTunes (online purchasing of digital media files)
iTunes “Genius”
Shazam iPhone
Myspace
Waves and Celemony authorization processes
Old 19th July 2009
  #164
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro View Post
It's not so much to blame the customers (or lack there of )...

The computer and tel-com industries killed the the music business...industries come and go...it's technological evolution...

I understand it is a touchy issue... especially around here.
This is not technelogical issue and it's not the tel com industries that killed the music business. This is a legal issue. It's the fact that the laws have not caught up to technology. And thus the music business is not being provided the same legal protection as the rest of industry.

You go and steal from a walmart store, they call the police, the police come arrest you, and throw you in jail. Now with new technology, there are no police to come arrest those who are stealing and those who are stealing can do so on a massive scale with absolutely NO consequences. If there were no consequences to stealing from a walmart, then every teen would be stealing from walmart and all retail businesses would be going out of business. You could blame that on technology, but the fact would be that it's the stealing that is the direct cause.

We sit here and wonder why our economies are crumbling, yet we don't place any laws to protect them as they enter a new era of technology. And we have bred a generation that feels they are entitled to just take anything they want without paying for it and that it's somehow the obligation of the people they are stealing from to do something about it.

The reason people don't place value in buying things is because they no longer have to buy these things. They can simply steal them and there is no consequence for doing so. And so then the only things WITH value are the things that the theives don't want to steal. All your teen pop garbage that parents without the tehcnical knowhow to steal or the lack of morals buy for their kids.
Old 19th July 2009
  #165
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro View Post


5.) I really would rather .gov not be involved in the music business
#5. Why would you not want the government involved? It's the government that protects all other businesses and that prevents theft from happening. I want this same protection. I want the security of knowing that if someone steals from me, they will be arrested, just like every other business gets.
Old 19th July 2009
  #166
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by colinmiller View Post
#5. Why would you not want the government involved? It's the government that protects all other businesses and that prevents theft from happening. I want this same protection. I want the security of knowing that if someone steals from me, they will be arrested, just like every other business gets.
Old 19th July 2009
  #167
I guess I'll have to trot out some of my standard arguments here, once again.

1. For those folks who justify the theft of music because the music industry is supposedly making obscene profits, that's just silliness. Even back in the day they weren't making that much money in the scheme of things. As I've pointed out before, GE has had years where it's PROFITS are in the $5B area. Those are gigantic profits, but no one seems to be arguing that it's justified to steal from them or that they've driven people to steal from them by their greed.

It's not hard to figure out why this is. It's becuase you can't steal GEs stuff without consequences, but you can steal the music industry's stuff without consequences, therefore you don't NEED a BS rationalization to steal from GE, but you do need one to whip out when someone calls you on your immoral theft of music.

2. The "it's not really theft" argument was already old back in the 90s, though it still gets whipped out in every thread pretty much. But it's irrelevant. It is theft in any moral sense that we all were taught growing up, which is pretty roughly defined as taking someone else's stuff without paying them for it.

3. It's not hard to figure out why the music industry is in such trouble when you read these threads and it's obvious that many people here are stealing music from other musicians, and not only that, they are trying to come here and justify it. Of course a lot of those are people who aren't making their living off of it (yet anyway.)

4. Most young people in particular, and many artsts of any age, have no clue about business and marketing. They never look an inch beyond getting a rush that 100 people downoaded their song from MySpace. They believe that going out and spamming forums constitutes marketing, and they have no concept of the laws of supply and demand and what it does for demand when almost everyone is just giving it away, because they don't understand that you can't pay the doctor or the grocery store with download counts.

5. The whole 'alienating their customers' argument is bizarre to me. People who are stealing your stuff are not your customers. The people who BUY your stuff are customers. The only people who are going to get alienated by others being punished for stealing what the rest of us are spending our precious bucks to legally purchase are people who are stealing it also, and therefore are worried that their bottomless pool of stealable music is going to dry up. Does anything worry that stores prosecuting shoplifters is going to alienate the stores other customers?

The problem is that the people stealing the stuff probably outnumber the people who are legally buying it now, and yeh, those people stealing it are going to be alienated because they might be next in line. But they aren't customers, so alienating them isn't a problem anyway. They music industry might as well go ahead go to the mattresses and have it out. Either these people are going to be forced to face consequences for their actions, or the music industry is going to collapse. It should be decided one way or the other sooner rather than later.

6. The music industry isn't like 100 super-rich guys. This is always of course a basic strategy. Cast the music industry as just a few, rich fat cats who of course are getting all the money, so that it's not stealing music, it's standing up for the people, maaaaann. No wait, it's actually a heroic act to spit on Thugh Man, and take the power back to the people. This makes it easy to ignore that those 100 guys represent a minute fraction of a fraction of a percent of the music industry, and that they are really stealing from just normal people.

Combine that with the never ending desire of young people to break the rules, and give them a rule they can break without consequences, and get something they really want for free, and that's a bad combination of opportunities and motivations.

7. The music sucks anyway, so why should we buy it? That's the dumbest one of all but constantly used. If it sucks, why are you downloading billions of tracks of it a month? It's a contradiction on the face of it, but probably the most commonly used rationalization. And of course the old argument that it's the only way to get those rare performances of Louis Armstrong practicing scales or whatever, like that's what's being downloaded.

8. The ISPs, though not culpable, clearly know why they have had so many people signing up over the last decade to high speed network connections, and they have clearly profitted substantially from the losses of the music and movies industries. Somehow they have to be held more accountable in some way.

9. The argument that we should just accept the current situation and find other ways to money off of music seems pretty hollow to me. Why be a musician if you only make music to sell t-shirts? What's the point in that? Why not do something that people actually value? And of course people will go do other things that people actually value (or that they can't steal, which is the real issue here, since they do value it a lot they just take it without paying that value.) The music industry will lose out to other industries because people won't see it as a viable career so much anymore.

10. The loss of the labels as a viable 'venture capitalist for musicans' mechanism will widen the gulf between those who plunk around in bar bands and those who have a real chance at visibility, because there won't be the finances there to help those bands who have that potential to take that shot. Most of them can't afford to finance it themselves, and the labels were the only folks crazy enough to invest in something with such an enormous risk of failure. Your bank would laugh at you if you went to them for a loan for such a thing.

The folks who 'make it' will be the Miley Cyruses, who are really corporate creations who exist to sell other things, which goes back around to #9. If they happen to make any good music, it would be just a lucky side effect.

11. Just making people pay for what they stole provides little disincentive. Making them pay considerably more does. Facing criminal consequences would even more so. If all the consequences you had to face for stealing something from a store is that, if you got caught, you had to pay for it, there'd be a LOT more shoplifting. Without more serious consequences it serves no purpose, and it will cost the person stolen from many times more money to make the person pay than they will get if they win the case. So it is in turn a negative incentive for the person being stolen from to try to press the issue.

12. There's a whole network out there of people and web sites who will print anything that makes the music industry look greedy or the person being sued look as sympathetic as possible. It's easy to see this with a simple search. Do you ever see any of these folks talk about the consequences to the individual artists, ever? I don't. You basically have all these self-serving, self reinforcing anti-music industry folks out there, who are very happy to put up anything that serves their side of the story, while the music industry has no such protection. They have to try to speak for themselves, which of course is then just ridiculed by those same people as more evidence of the music industry's greed and corruption.

13. Look at all the rich rock stars, they don't deserve to just sit around and make money just because they made a really popular song. Well, yeh, they do. That's called capitalism. They are supposed to be able to make money in relation to the number of people who want to have what that artist has created. That's how we incentivize people to create stuff that lots of us want. And it's no different from me starting a company that becomes large and just getting rich off of what I created. My getting rich is the payoff for having taken the risk to create something new that it turned out lots of people want to have, and therefore people's lives are better, more comfortable, more entertaining, etc... It's what's driven the creation of almost everything we have.

There's a ridiculous amount of 'selective communism' out there targeting the music industry, where people make effectively communist arguments against one specific industry, because they need rationalizations to steal from it, but they'd never accept others targeting their livelihoods in the same way. It's extremely hypocritical. They never seem to show up in their boss' office and insist on taking a pay cut so that people can have that company's product for less.
Old 19th July 2009
  #168
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
I guess I'll have to trot out some of my standard arguments here, once again.

1. For those folks who justify the theft of music because the music industry is supposedly making obscene profits, that's just silliness. Even back in the day they weren't making that much money in the scheme of things. As I've pointed out before, GE has had years where it's PROFITS are in the $5B area. Those are gigantic profits, but no one seems to be arguing that it's justified to steal from them or that they've driven people to steal from them by their greed.

It's not hard to figure out why this is. It's becuase you can't steal GEs stuff without consequences, but you can steal the music industry's stuff without consequences, therefore you don't NEED a BS rationalization to steal from GE, but you do need one to whip out when someone calls you on your immoral theft of music.

2. The "it's not really theft" argument was already old back in the 90s, though it still gets whipped out in every thread pretty much. But it's irrelevant. It is theft in any moral sense that we all were taught growing up, which is pretty roughly defined as taking someone else's stuff without paying them for it.

3. It's not hard to figure out why the music industry is in such trouble when you read these threads and it's obvious that many people here are stealing music from other musicians, and not only that, they are trying to come here and justify it. Of course a lot of those are people who aren't making their living off of it (yet anyway.)

4. Most young people in particular, and many artsts of any age, have no clue about business and marketing. They never look an inch beyond getting a rush that 100 people downoaded their song from MySpace. They believe that going out and spamming forums constitutes marketing, and they have no concept of the laws of supply and demand and what it does for demand when almost everyone is just giving it away, because they don't understand that you can't pay the doctor or the grocery store with download counts.

5. The whole 'alienating their customers' argument is bizarre to me. People who are stealing your stuff are not your customers. The people who BUY your stuff are customers. The only people who are going to get alienated by others being punished for stealing what the rest of us are spending our precious bucks to legally purchase are people who are stealing it also, and therefore are worried that their bottomless pool of stealable music is going to dry up. Does anything worry that stores prosecuting shoplifters is going to alienate the stores other customers?

The problem is that the people stealing the stuff probably outnumber the people who are legally buying it now, and yeh, those people stealing it are going to be alienated because they might be next in line. But they aren't customers, so alienating them isn't a problem anyway. They music industry might as well go ahead go to the mattresses and have it out. Either these people are going to be forced to face consequences for their actions, or the music industry is going to collapse. It should be decided one way or the other sooner rather than later.

6. The music industry isn't like 100 super-rich guys. This is always of course a basic strategy. Cast the music industry as just a few, rich fat cats who of course are getting all the money, so that it's not stealing music, it's standing up for the people, maaaaann. No wait, it's actually a heroic act to spit on Thugh Man, and take the power back to the people. This makes it easy to ignore that those 100 guys represent a minute fraction of a fraction of a percent of the music industry, and that they are really stealing from just normal people.

Combine that with the never ending desire of young people to break the rules, and give them a rule they can break without consequences, and get something they really want for free, and that's a bad combination of opportunities and motivations.

7. The music sucks anyway, so why should we buy it? That's the dumbest one of all but constantly used. If it sucks, why are you downloading billions of tracks of it a month? It's a contradiction on the face of it, but probably the most commonly used rationalization. And of course the old argument that it's the only way to get those rare performances of Louis Armstrong practicing scales or whatever, like that's what's being downloaded.

8. The ISPs, though not culpable, clearly know why they have had so many people signing up over the last decade to high speed network connections, and they have clearly profitted substantially from the losses of the music and movies industries. Somehow they have to be held more accountable in some way.

9. The argument that we should just accept the current situation and find other ways to money off of music seems pretty hollow to me. Why be a musician if you only make music to sell t-shirts? What's the point in that? Why not do something that people actually value? And of course people will go do other things that people actually value (or that they can't steal, which is the real issue here, since they do value it a lot they just take it without paying that value.) The music industry will lose out to other industries because people won't see it as a viable career so much anymore.

10. The loss of the labels as a viable 'venture capitalist for musicans' mechanism will widen the gulf between those who plunk around in bar bands and those who have a real chance at visibility, because there won't be the finances there to help those bands who have that potential to take that shot. Most of them can't afford to finance it themselves, and the labels were the only folks crazy enough to invest in something with such an enormous risk of failure. Your bank would laugh at you if you went to them for a loan for such a thing.

The folks who 'make it' will be the Miley Cyruses, who are really corporate creations who exist to sell other things, which goes back around to #9. If they happen to make any good music, it would be just a lucky side effect.

11. Just making people pay for what they stole provides little disincentive. Making them pay considerably more does. Facing criminal consequences would even more so. If all the consequences you had to face for stealing something from a store is that, if you got caught, you had to pay for it, there'd be a LOT more shoplifting. Without more serious consequences it serves no purpose, and it will cost the person stolen from many times more money to make the person pay than they will get if they win the case. So it is in turn a negative incentive for the person being stolen from to try to press the issue.

12. There's a whole network out there of people and web sites who will print anything that makes the music industry look greedy or the person being sued look as sympathetic as possible. It's easy to see this with a simple search. Do you ever see any of these folks talk about the consequences to the individual artists, ever? I don't. You basically have all these self-serving, self reinforcing anti-music industry folks out there, who are very happy to put up anything that serves their side of the story, while the music industry has no such protection. They have to try to speak for themselves, which of course is then just ridiculed by those same people as more evidence of the music industry's greed and corruption.

13. Look at all the rich rock stars, they don't deserve to just sit around and make money just because they made a really popular song. Well, yeh, they do. That's called capitalism. They are supposed to be able to make money in relation to the number of people who want to have what that artist has created. That's how we incentivize people to create stuff that lots of us want. And it's no different from me starting a company that becomes large and just getting rich off of what I created. My getting rich is the payoff for having taken the risk to create something new that it turned out lots of people want to have, and therefore people's lives are better, more comfortable, more entertaining, etc... It's what's driven the creation of almost everything we have.

There's a ridiculous amount of 'selective communism' out there targeting the music industry, where people make effectively communist arguments against one specific industry, because they need rationalizations to steal from it, but they'd never accept others targeting their livelihoods in the same way. It's extremely hypocritical. They never seem to show up in their boss' office and insist on taking a pay cut so that people can have that company's product for less.

BRILLIANT compilation Dean. This should be a stickie. Or pasted into every piracy thread every 3-4 posts or so.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump