Pirating? General discussion

[HyeJinx1984]

First off let me say that I am very much against pirating, and don't really do it all... unless you ask some people.

Another one of my friends is also very anti-pirating, but I suppose in a much stricter sense than I am. I have never downloaded songs for free off the internet, nor do I except burned copies of albums from friends or other sources. To me those are essentially the two things that make up pirating, at least in my view.

However my friend brought up something... is buying used essentially pirating in and off itself? Here's how this came about...

"now I've imported pretty much my entire CD collection (which is huge) I want to just take my boxes of CDs down to the used music store and get maybe like a dollar a pop for them."

"*self rightous stare*So, you support pirating?"

which took me off guard, so I asked him to explain himself

"if you're keeping the digital copy and selling the CD off, then you're essentially pirating because you're keeping a copy of that album while giving someone else the physical one that came with the license to use it."

Now, while I did see the logic in this, my explanation was

"You realize I haven't really bought any new CDs in like 10 years right? and most of the stuff I listen to was from way before that as well. I'm not pulling anyone off the billboard charts, or cutting into record industry sales because these aren't things anyone is clamoring for right now"

It didn't phase him. So I said:

"but I want to get rid of them, they take up too much space, I don't see myself ever using these CDs, and I want to get rid of them"

"Throw them away"

"Throw them away???"

"Yea, but make sure your break them first so no one else can find them and use them"

"Wait a minute... so selling these is pirating?"

"yes"

"And giving them away as a gift to someone is pirating?"

"yes"

"But destroying a huge amount of great music so that no one can enjoy them is the moral thing to do?"

"yes"

This kind of went in for a bit, and essnetially I came back to what my definition of pirating is, which is that you're stealing from the artist. That to me is what matters, that's pirating. So if that's the definition, isn't buying/selling used CDs in and of itself a way of pirating? Because that cuts out the artist completely.

There was more to this conversation, but I think I've written a long enough post as it is. I'll follow up with the restafter hearing some opinions.

[afterstasis]

i think your friend is really, really anal and is probably "standing up" for a lot of artists who would laugh at him for it.

i basically allot myself a monthly amount of money to purchase music with, in addition to downloading stuff that is out of print, super-expensive, impossible to find, or simply something i'm curious about and want to know if it's worth the cash.

[Mystlyfe77]

I don't think what you did was pirating. I also do support pirating.


It has repeatedly been shown that artists both make a far larger profit margin off of live shows and merchandise sales than off of album sales and that "pirating" increases fanbase and concert attendance.
More frequently than not, the people who are pirates are the ones who do not have the disposable income to afford a lot of CDs. They aren't going to be sending much money to these artists in album sales anyway, and they certainly aren't going to be risking spending $10-20 on an album from a band they've never listened to or only heard a couple songs from. Pirating enables them to become fans of new artists, and expand their devotion to other bands. It enables them to save their disposable income that they would spend on CDs to be spent on concert tickets and band merchandise.
Pirating is also one of the quickest and easiest ways for bands to gain popularity. Do you think OK Go would have been on Rock Band or in the public eye at all if it weren't for them posting their music video, against their record labels will, for Here It Goes Again on Youtube? They get it.
This is especially true in Indie and Underground scenes. Do you think anyone would know who Velveteen is if their album wasn't "leaked" as the new Death Cab for Cutie album as an April Fool's Joke? There's a reason bands like Thursday encourage their fans to download and share their music.

I also suggest anyone mildly interested in the topic read this book. Unsurprisingly it's available for free download online.
http://thepiratesdilemma.com/

[HyeJinx1984]

It has repeatedly been shown that artists both make a far larger profit margin off of live shows and merchandise sales than off of album sales and that "pirating" increases fanbase and concert attendance.

I'm glad you brought this up, because we talked about this as well. The conversation turned towards "Well, is pirating all about the money, or is it about distribution as well?" meaning, is HOW people get access to it and the format it is in as important as the money side of it? I brought up Nine Inch Nails as an example and their album "The Slip" which you can download from the official web site for free.

Now, if I make a copy of that and give it to someone, am I pirating? Meaning, is Trent banking on the fact that he'll get hits on his site, or people will see advetisements on his site (if there are any, it's a mostly rhetorical example) or, if nothing else, it ensures that download is exactly to his artistic specifications and quality where as a burned CD may not be? In that case my friend said that it depends on what the license says, and I have to admit I didn't bother reading the license for "the slip" I don't know if it says anything about making your own CDs.

But getting back to the concert thing, NIN just performed in L.A., and I wasn't able to go but some of my friends did and they said that it was the most packed concert they've been to in years. Per your point, I think NiN is ahead of the curve, they see their music as rthe advertisement and their show as the product. Get the music to as many people as possible and wet their appetite and then make the real money off ticket sales. That's really progressive thinking in my opinion.

[Alright_Computer]

Well, technically once you sell the CD's, you don't own the songs. So to be totally lawful, you'd have to delete the songs from your computer once you sell them. It's up to you to decide if you want to do this or not. I'm against downloading tens of gigabytes of songs, as a surprising number of my friends have done, but I will download an album to decide if I want to buy it. If I like it, I'll buy the album. If I don't, I'll delete the files from my computer. I'm not harming the music business in any way by doing this, I'm actually helping it. However, those that downloaded thousands of songs onto their computer and never give the artists anything are the ones that I can't stand.

[afterstasis]

while i agree that people getting their panties in a wad about music piracy is sorta silly, i also can never get past the fact that the artists put their music out there for us in a specific format (whether it's NIN's download system or an indie band's first cd-r release) and so many people are quickly dismissing their wishes as unimportant... it's really ungrateful, and though i'm an immoral jerk nothing boils my blood faster than ungratefulness.

like i said, i download lots of music and even upload individual song mp3's for the rock band blog. i guess i just hope that i'm doing more good by spending a good chunk of change every month on music and introducing people to new bands they'd likely have never heard before whom they'll hopefully support themselves.

[HyeJinx1984]

Let me just reiterate that even though this trhead was started on teh basis of someone accusing me of piracy, I actually am pretty staunchly anti-piracy in my views... meaning, I don't except bruned copies of anything, and I don't download anything for free online.

Basically a question of whether my "The Best of Aaron Neville" CD from about 12 years ago being sold back to a used CD store for a few cents while I still had the songs on my iPod was a crime against the music industry or not.

I never thought I'd be on this side of a piracy debate, but I guess it's what happens when you have very puritanical friends, lol.

Let me also say that I spend on average about 20 dollars a week downloading songs off of iTunes, and also having bought everybit of DLC which is supporting teh music industry in it's own brand new way. My friend prety much never buys music, so for him it's a rather abstract concept, where as for me it's like "I've easily spent thousands of dollars in music during my life, I just need more room in my closet damnit!"

[thedoorsdk]

I used to be all about buying music, but in the past year I have had no money to spare for music, so I've turned to downloading instead. Now even when I have the money I have a hard time justifying paying for CD's when I'm just going to rip them to my computer and store them.

[Mystlyfe77]

I'm glad you're able to drop $20 a week on iTunes (which, unfortunately, gives the artists far less than even CDs because it's not only cheaper but Apple takes 30% and the record companies take essentially the same amount), but I simply can't afford it. I've got college debt racking up and I'm on a pretty limited budget. But, I am considering dropping ~$35 to see the Mars Volta on saturday. I would have never listened to them if I didn't download their stuff over the internet.

I hope that more bands ultimately follow the trends being set by bands like NIN and Radiohead.

[WhiffleBallTony]

I don't have time for my rant, so I'll just say that I don't think it's a huge deal. I do it quite a bit to be honest. When I get the chance, I'll explain. I guarantee you, I have a good reason.

[HyeJinx1984]

Well I'd love to hear it!

As for everyone saying that they can't afford it, let's not lose sight of teh fact that music isn't food or air... you actually can live without it. It's a luxury thing... I'm not going to come down on anyone, but I'm just saying that excuse never really held much water for me. Just like, since myf riend doesn't really listen tomuch music at all (his big pirating hang up comes from PC games which he's addicted to) it's a luxury to sit back and say "it's NEVER okay"

[culturedog]

You're not a pirate. You're not copying the material to distribute or sell to others. Your friend thinks too much.

Under fair use law you can legally create a backup copy. Now that digital sharing is so huge you technically no longer own the rights to the music once you sell your original. But isn't the whole purpose of a backup copy to serve as a replacement in case something happens to your original?

I suppose in your case you are being unethical in twisting this good will bestowed upon you by the RIAA through abusing their kindness via reselling your CDs at a loss whilst still owning a copy of the material. If you're worried about this sort of illegality then bone up on your local blue laws and stop spitting on the sidewalk.

If the industry had its way selling used CDs would be illegal regardless of whether or not you retain a copy for yourself. It's stupid, and if it is technically illegal it calls for a hefty dose of civil disobedience. If I was forbidden from buying used CDs I would quickly become one of America's most wanted. But sadly downloading has made this whole issue bigger and stupiderer, and to follow it to lengths that require you to retain original copies forever and/or burn or destroy them is plum goofy.

So take a deep breath, kick your friend in the happy zone and sell your CDs with a clear conscience. And then await the feds to kick down your door demanding proof of prior ownership for every mp3 on your computer!

Now excuse me while I go set fire to all of my old mix tapes since I can't remember where I put the vinyl albums I recorded them from.

[defenestrater]

I don't have any moral problems with pirating though I don't do it myself. Pirating is illegal and that's enough for me not to bother with it. Still, I'd certainly call those anti piracy laws unjust, as they seem to be in place more to protect record companies that are already taking unfair advantage of artists than they are in place to protect the actual artists.

I don't pretend to understand all the legal specifics of the issue, but I doubt that buying or selling used music to record stores is piracy as defined under the law. If it was I would imagine that record companies would be suing stores left and right, given how lawsuit happy they are already.

[WhiffleBallTony]

Okay, here's my rant:

Think about it, music is an art. When you go into a store, you have to pay for it, right? The same applies to music. However, when you go online and want to view a file of a famous art piece, you don't have to pay. You just pull up the image file and there you go. The same does not apply to music.

All I'm trying to say is that to produce a file of an album does not take resources to produce (well, maybe bandwidth, but that's only for the distributor). If some great artist makes an amazing painting and publishes it on the internet, I highly doubt that he will charge people to look at it (if anyone does, that's absurd) even though he spent the time, energy, and resources to make that painting. With music, when a band makes an amazing album, it gets published on the internet and people have to pay upwards of $5 for it.

I, personally, find that digital music should be free or cheaper than it currently is. If I want to go buy a CD or vinyl record, I should have to pay. That is a piece of art that took resources to make. The digital file? Not so much.

The music industry has gotten incredibly greedy. I do pay for some music so that I'm not a complete ass, but I download quite a bit of my music free. If I like the album, I will search for a vinyl copy of it since I enjoy having tangible products.

Some people, like Trent Reznor, seem to agree with my ideas.

[WhiffleBallTony]

Aww, I ranted for nothing? :(

[Mystlyfe77]

Well I'd love to hear it!

As for everyone saying that they can't afford it, let's not lose sight of teh fact that music isn't food or air... you actually can live without it. It's a luxury thing... I'm not going to come down on anyone, but I'm just saying that excuse never really held much water for me. Just like, since myf riend doesn't really listen tomuch music at all (his big pirating hang up comes from PC games which he's addicted to) it's a luxury to sit back and say "it's NEVER okay"

Yes, it's a luxury. My argument is not that you shouldn't pay anything towards the artists for the luxury, but rather to use pirating to know how to properly invest that payment for this luxury. The artist will get a greater return for their effort if I buy a t-shirt or concert ticket than if I buy an album. But there's no way I'm going to buy a t-shirt or concert ticket if I don't have the album it represents.

[WhiffleBallTony]

Yes, it's a luxury. My argument is not that you shouldn't pay anything towards the artists for the luxury, but rather to use pirating to know how to properly invest that payment for this luxury. The artist will get a greater return for their effort if I buy a t-shirt or concert ticket than if I buy an album. But there's no way I'm going to buy a t-shirt or concert ticket if I don't have the album it represents.

I agree. Bands should make their money and become huge due to their ability to tour and sell out venues. Iron Maiden is a great example of this. Though they didn't sell albums for free, they put a great amount of energy into playing because Steve Harris had a vision and he didn't want to slack off and sell a bunch of albums. This has led to one of the tightest yet largest band followings there is. Another great example of this would be The Grateful Dead. They relied heavily on live performances and studio recordings didn't mean too much to them.

[xRage]

well, here's my view...


people aren't allowed to buy a ticket to a football game then sell it for a higher price, because that's illegal, but you can buy a ticket then sell it for phase value OR cheaper (in this case with your CD's, you're just selling them for a dollar or so). So why should music be any different? It's not like you're making a profit off of it, and like the guy said about concerts, artists make more money off that stuff anyway and people pirate enough as it is <_<

[Rev0lver]

I agree with alot of what has been said. While a band plays music to make a living, a huge percent of their record sales don't even go to them. Nobody has yet to figure out how to pirate a concert ticket or t-shirt off the web, so there are many bands making more money off that in one night than a couple weeks of record sales.

To date, I have downloaded 35.61 gb's from Demonoid. Do I feel guilty? No, because I will gladly buy a t-shirt to support a band. If my band some day gets signed to a record label, we release a few cd's, and find out thousands of people have been downloading our albums, am I going to be angry? No. I will be ecstatic that so many people have been listening to our music.

[WhiffleBallTony]

I agree with alot of what has been said. While a band plays music to make a living, a huge percent of their record sales don't even go to them. Nobody has yet to figure out how to pirate a concert ticket or t-shirt off the web, so there are many bands making more money off that in one night than a couple weeks of record sales.

To date, I have downloaded 35.61 gb's from Demonoid. Do I feel guilty? No, because I will gladly buy a t-shirt to support a band. If my band some day gets signed to a record label, we release a few cd's, and find out thousands of people have been downloading our albums, am I going to be angry? No. I will be ecstatic that so many people have been listening to our music.

Yes. Why can't the bands be happy that fans love the music and are finding a way to listen even though they don't have the money?

Would you rather have the people not listening to your music at all because they have the cash or have them getting it for free? Either way, you aren't getting any money.

[BornLucky9]

getting $100 programs that should be 40- for free is stickin it to the man, $60 games make sense, so I think thats stupid, $15 cds are nothing because bands make it up with hundreds of thousands from tours.

[afterstasis]

man, i'm screwed...
i rarely play live anymore and i'm not into making band shirts. :(

[thedoorsdk]

I think the unreasonable price of CD's should be considered as well.
The prices have come down considerably in the past two years or so, but it's still not hard to find single disc albums that fall in the 15-20 dollar range. This is ridiculous.
Think about how much cassettes cost. You're really going to tell me that it costs more to produce CDs than it does cassettes?
I refuse to pay more than 12 bucks for a single CD unless it's something really special. I think a lot of people were turned on to downloading because of the high price of CDs and now do it out of habit.

[afterstasis]

cd's are cheaper to manufacture than cassettes.

[thedoorsdk]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
And yet CDs are way more expensive.
I don't get it at all.

[idiotec]

I am not an anti-piracy freak, I have done my share, although I do not any more except to check something out I don't know every so often. If I like it I buy it, if not it gets deleted.

That being said, the one thing that always bugs me a bit are the people that try to justify it in some way. If you want to download music you need to accept the fact that you are stealing. At least in that the honesty is admirable. If you steal and then try to justify it you are now a thief and delusional and/or just stupid.

Common excuses:

I can't afford to buy it- Well, there are going to be a lot in life you cannot afford, this does not give you the right to steal it. If anything it should give you motivation to succeed and be able to afford what you want. I cannot afford a $100,000 car, but that does not give me the right to steal it. Remember, music is not a staple we NEED, it is a luxury item.

The artists get robbed by the labels anyway - Sorry, but that is just how the business works. If you want to change it, get in the business and change it (in fact, it is changing already). But again, not an accuse to steal.

I pay to go see shows, I don't need to buy the CD's - Paying for one thing does not give you the right to steal something else. Do you go to the grocery store buy a steak and then steal your produce?


****, I could go on but you get the point. In reality people steal music because it is easy. If they had to put on the mask and break into the record shop, these little kids wouldn't have the balls to do it.

[HyeJinx1984]

Common excuses:

I can't afford to buy it- Well, there are going to be a lot in life you cannot afford, this does not give you the right to steal it. If anything it should give you motivation to succeed and be able to afford what you want. I cannot afford a $100,000 car, but that does not give me the right to steal it. Remember, music is not a staple we NEED, it is a luxury item.

The artists get robbed by the labels anyway - Sorry, but that is just how the business works. If you want to change it, get in the business and change it (in fact, it is changing already). But again, not an accuse to steal.

I pay to go see shows, I don't need to buy the CD's - Paying for one thing does not give you the right to steal something else. Do you go to the grocery store buy a steak and then steal your produce?

This I agree with more than anything else so far. I hate the common excuses for pirating, at least just admit you're stealing.

[thedoorsdk]

So if it was your album, you would rather you got the 1 cent from each record sold rather than having the maximum amount of people absorbing your art?
I know a lot of bands who actively support music downloading. I think the way Jonathon Coulton handles his music, where he recognizes that people download his music for free and allows his fans to donate whatever amount they want on his website, is a really good way to handle things in this day and age.
If I really care about an artist and/or want them to have the +1 in record sales to give them the drive to keep going, I'll go buy the record even if I already downloaded the album. I've done this with Sparta, Sleepercar, The Sword, Rush, and countless others.
I think it's funny how this argument gets brought up again and again anytime a new format comes into existence. If it's not digital music it's blank tapes (and the proposed taxation of them).
Point is, even without the business aspect, music is going to exist. People are going to get there stuff out there to be heard in whatever way they can. Ultimately I think being listened to is its own reward.

[WhiffleBallTony]

I am not an anti-piracy freak, I have done my share, although I do not any more except to check something out I don't know every so often. If I like it I buy it, if not it gets deleted.

That being said, the one thing that always bugs me a bit are the people that try to justify it in some way. If you want to download music you need to accept the fact that you are stealing. At least in that the honesty is admirable. If you steal and then try to justify it you are now a thief and delusional and/or just stupid.

Common excuses:

I can't afford to buy it- Well, there are going to be a lot in life you cannot afford, this does not give you the right to steal it. If anything it should give you motivation to succeed and be able to afford what you want. I cannot afford a $100,000 car, but that does not give me the right to steal it. Remember, music is not a staple we NEED, it is a luxury item.

The artists get robbed by the labels anyway - Sorry, but that is just how the business works. If you want to change it, get in the business and change it (in fact, it is changing already). But again, not an accuse to steal.

I pay to go see shows, I don't need to buy the CD's - Paying for one thing does not give you the right to steal something else. Do you go to the grocery store buy a steak and then steal your produce?


****, I could go on but you get the point. In reality people steal music because it is easy. If they had to put on the mask and break into the record shop, these little kids wouldn't have the balls to do it.


steal
verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5. Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6. Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7. to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.
–verb (used without object)
8. to commit or practice theft.
9. to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight.
10. to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by.
11. Baseball. (of a base runner) to advance a base without the help of a walk or batted ball.
–noun
12. Informal. an act of stealing; theft.
13. Informal. the thing stolen; booty.
14. Informal. something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40.
15. Baseball. the act of advancing a base by stealing.
—Idiom
16. steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan, words, etc.
[Origin: bef. 900; 1860–65 for def. 5; ME stelen, OE stelan; c. G stehlen, ON stela, Goth stilan]

—Related forms
steal·a·ble, adjective
stealer, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

None of these definitions fit your usage of the word "steal". If I were to go to court for "stealing" music, as you put it, they would have no case as I am not stealing anything. It is a file on my computer. If I actually take a physical object from the bands, I'm stealing, but simply downloading a file onto my computer is not stealing.

[Julio_Strikes_Back]

You can't download a car.

*but if you could I would have a few Audis

[idiotec]

None of these definitions fit your usage of the word "steal". If I were to go to court for "stealing" music, as you put it, they would have no case as I am not stealing anything. It is a file on my computer. If I actually take a physical object from the bands, I'm stealing, but simply downloading a file onto my computer is not stealing.
LOL, the very first one:


1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right

When you download music, you are taking intellectual property without permission.

Seriously, not that hard to understand. While you might not be able to "touch" a computer file, it is still most certainly an asset to the owner.

[WhiffleBallTony]

LOL, the very first one:



When you download music, you are taking intellectual property without permission.

Seriously, not that hard to understand. While you might not be able to "touch" a computer file, it is still most certainly an asset to the owner.

Well, if I can steal it from the owners, couldn't the people who actually purchase the music and put it on the internet be simply giving it to me and it is thus lawful?

I don't know how to put that into words any better, so I'm sorry if you don't understand what I mean.

[Mystlyfe77]

You can't download a car.

*but if you could I would have a few Audis

I forget the comic who did it, but there was a bit that basically said the same.
"No I wouldn't steal a car, but if my friend bought one and offered to burn me a copy, I'd say 'Hell yeah'"

Many people are looking beyond what's important here. Pirating is more than what you perceive to be "Stealing." Pirating is a signal that the marketplace is evolving, is changing. At first, Edison was accused of being a pirate because of the phonograph. Musicians were outraged and offended because "how could they possibly get hired to play music when people can now listen to it anywhere?"
When radio was introduced a similar effect happened. America caught on pretty fast, but the same couldn't be said for Europe. Thus the history of pirate radio stations in England and elsewhere in Europe, which eventually led to widespread commercialization of radio in Europe.
With every evolution of music technology, the record industry attempts to stay ahead of the pirate curve. When CDs were introduced, the record industry thought them to be un-piratable. When Napster was born, the record industry proved itself to be more about CDs than the actual music when they battled it instead of using as a sign that they might need to change. Up stepped Apple, who created iTunes, who now has a crushing stranglehold on the online music sales.
Pirating is a sign of change, that the market is demanding things that you aren't currently providing. Bands are starting to recognize this. Look at what bands like Radiohead, NIN, the Five One, etc are doing with offering free music. Look at what bands like Lamb of God are doing with offering "producers cuts" of their albums. Other bands are offering much more in terms of the physical media (such as bigger and more prominent CD booklets, as well as DVDs featuring 5.1 edits of their music). Pirating is much more than simple theft, and treating it as such is a losing battle. The companies that are innovative and factor in pirating into their future plans are the ones who end up being successful.

[thedoorsdk]

Also, why are albums on Itunes full price?
I'm not getting a physical copy of the music, so there is NO REASON for me to pay 15 bucks for an album of digital files.
I actually thought about legally downloading music until I saw that albums were more than 10 bucks, so now I refuse to go that route.

[afterstasis]

speaking of legal downloads, man, remember when emusic wasn't gimped and you could flag hundreds of albums to download per day for $20 a month?

[schmitty]

I download all my music for free. Can't say or do a thing to change me. You can be a sucker and say it hurts the bands but there is not 1 band that has called it quits because their music gets downloaded.

[idiotec]

Well, if I can steal it from the owners, couldn't the people who actually purchase the music and put it on the internet be simply giving it to me and it is thus lawful?

I don't know how to put that into words any better, so I'm sorry if you don't understand what I mean.
They can give it to you as long as they do not keep a duplicate for themselves.



Many people are looking beyond what's important here. Pirating is more than what you perceive to be "Stealing." Pirating is a signal that the marketplace is evolving, is changing.
I didn't want to fill the page with your whole quote, but this is in response to all of it. I agree with you in a lot of ways. All of the pirating that is going on is a sign that the industry needs to change, and it actually is changing slowly. The record industry does need to adapt to it. I do think a lot of positives could result from the phenomenon. That being said, in its current form, it is still stealing, and the fact that the industry is screwed up is not an accuse.

Like I said, your not stealing bread here, it is music, you don't NEED it and it is not a RIGHT, it is a privilege. A very legal way to give the industry the same message is to boycott it.

[WhiffleBallTony]

They can give it to you as long as they do not keep a duplicate for themselves.

So it's illegal when my teachers give me a packet of pages that are photocopied from a book? How come my school isn't being fined?

[Runesmith]

So it's illegal when my teachers give me a packet of pages that are photocopied from a book? How come my school isn't being fined?

A lot of textbooks, especially teacher editions, explicitly give the professor or school permission to photocopy pages from it so long as they are used for educational purposes and are not sold. At least that's what most of my texts say on the first few pages.

[BaneOfIcarus]

It's not really stealing when the musicians are giving the public the music. Most of the truly great bands in rock history don't care about the money, they want to make music and share it. Rock and roll was meant to change the world. At least I'd like to think so.

All that and you can't police the internet. Torrents (also Limewire, Napster, ect.) cannot be made illegal, the internet belongs to everyone and no one.

[Mystlyfe77]

It's not really stealing when the musicians are giving the public the music. Most of the truly great bands in rock history don't care about the money, they want to make music and share it. Rock and roll was meant to change the world. At least I'd like to think so.

All that and you can't police the internet. Torrents (also Limewire, Napster, ect.) cannot be made illegal, the internet belongs to everyone and no one.

Oh to be young and naive...

[Alright_Computer]

well, here's my view...


people aren't allowed to buy a ticket to a football game then sell it for a higher price, because that's illegal, but you can buy a ticket then sell it for phase value OR cheaper (in this case with your CD's, you're just selling them for a dollar or so). So why should music be any different? It's not like you're making a profit off of it, and like the guy said about concerts, artists make more money off that stuff anyway and people pirate enough as it is <_<

Well, what you're doing here is basically making a photocopy of the ticket, then selling it to someone else, and then going to the game anyways.

Now, just because I buy ground beef where 35% goes to the slaughterhouse, 50% goes to the grocery store, 10% goes to the meat packaging plant, and only 5% or less goes to the ranch, compared to steak where the ranch gets over 80% of the profit, does that give me the right to steal it? I'd say that Trent Reznor and Radiohead have the right ideas, but when the artists have no intention of giving their music away for free, it's definitely wrong.

[JerryBrudos]

Most the music I listen too aside from a few big artists is largely out of print or hard to find. If I can get it on cd with out having to order it from a collector or something I will, even then the money from the often used cd isn't going to the artist. I really don't like I tunes paying for a file like that just isn't worth it considering if i switch computers or have problems it will be gone and I just like having a hard copy of the songs. I make an effort to get cds of most artists that I will seriously listen to but if thats not an option or I'm just checking out the band I don't mind dowloading them.

The exposure a lot of smaller bands get from pirating probably brings in more money than they would have gotten otherwise tbh. The larger bands should be getting the money but their cds are more accessible and they get enough money as it is that its not extremely harmful.

[culturedog]

Also, why are albums on Itunes full price?
I'm not getting a physical copy of the music, so there is NO REASON for me to pay 15 bucks for an album of digital files.
I actually thought about legally downloading music until I saw that albums were more than 10 bucks, so now I refuse to go that route.

Yeah, downloads are way too pricy for what they are. If there's one thing that's always annoyed me about the whole digital piracy issue it's that somewhere along the line a compressed audio file become fully equal in the eyes of the world to a compact disc containing lossless audio and professionally produced artwork etc.

The car analogy in this case would be you steal that Audi - but it's 3/4 the size of a real one and it handles more like a Daewoo and has no paint job. Yes it's still 'stealing', but what you stole isn't actually worth the price of a brand new Audi.

I personally think mp3s should be next to free. FLACS however are another story, but as a file without packaging they should also be cheaper than their CD brethren. Yet, as with all things of no real inherent value, the more people are willing to pay exorbitant amounts for inferior mp3 copies of music, the more it becomes a valuable entity because the public deems it so.

I never used Napster back in the day, and even now I generally don't download albums paid for or stolen (though I do love sharing live concerts on dime a dozen). So I'm more irritated that the world's love of mp3s has devalued the lossless music that I enjoy.

Nine Inch Nails has been mentioned a lot, and Reznor truly is a marketing genius. The fact that he releases his downloadable work in all formats from mp3 to high end 24k audio is smart as hell and caters to everyone. If more bands adopted the tactic he's used with Ghosts and The Slip I would probably engage in a ton more download commerce.

I do think mp3 is useful as a promotional tool and is great for spoken word audio and podcasts, but the notion that both sellers and buyers have given it such power that it can go for $2 a song is ludicrous.

Oh, and while I don't 'steal' music online, I am guilty of the following heinous crimes:

- I buy used CDs.
- I make mix CDs and give them to friends.
- I burn copies of music from the library of my radio station. And usually end up buying the official product anyhow.

[Mystlyfe77]

As for the format debate that beginning to rear it's head, I agree to a certain extent.
I'm not a huge fan of FLAC. It takes up way too much space (especially if you're planning to put it on an mp3 player) and doesn't really sound much [any] better than something at 320 kbps. This is especially true if you don't have high end audio equipment (mine is pretty good, roughly $90 headphones, but not top end and I still typically don't hear much or any difference between FLAC and 320). For the average listener (listening on built-in speakers or $20 earbuds) I could see even how the 128 kbps iTunes AAC files would be acceptable, especially considering many of them would like to fit more songs on their iPods (trust me, I'm still debating quality vs. quantity for my 8gb nano).
As for other physical media, such as artwork and booklets, some pirates are kind enough to include scanned copies (especially on the invite-based torrent communities, where different people will fight for higher download counts in order to earn more privelages) of artwork and booklets. Most do not. And even a scanned image isn't the same as the original, although at least you get an idea of what was trying to be achieved. iTunes also often now has digital versions of the booklets as well.

[culturedog]

As for the format debate that beginning to rear it's head, I agree to a certain extent.
I'm not a huge fan of FLAC. It takes up way too much space (especially if you're planning to put it on an mp3 player) and doesn't really sound much [any] better than something at 320 kbps. This is especially true if you don't have high end audio equipment (mine is pretty good, roughly $90 headphones, but not top end and I still typically don't hear much or any difference between FLAC and 320). For the average listener (listening on built-in speakers or $20 earbuds) I could see even how the 128 kbps iTunes AAC files would be acceptable, especially considering many of them would like to fit more songs on their iPods (trust me, I'm still debating quality vs. quantity for my 8gb nano).
As for other physical media, such as artwork and booklets, some pirates are kind enough to include scanned copies (especially on the invite-based torrent communities, where different people will fight for higher download counts in order to earn more privelages) of artwork and booklets. Most do not. And even a scanned image isn't the same as the original, although at least you get an idea of what was trying to be achieved. iTunes also often now has digital versions of the booklets as well.

I think I'm just going to wait until they have portable music players with terabyte drives and just cram the thing full of wav files! :D

I did also appreciate that Ghosts and The Slip came with artwork - not that I wasted all of my printer ink running off physical copies or anything. Plus, waiting for enormous pdf files to load is a drag. But like you said, it was at least nice to check out what was intended. And of course I did purchase official copies on CD as well.

The one thing I do enjoy about the downloading world "killing" CDs is that it has essentially put the live show bootleggers out of business. Now, you can collect live recordings easily (and usually low generation copies or originals from the tapers themselves) without having to give some schmucks in Italy $30 for it.

What was even worse were the bootleggers who bootlegged bootlegs - when the CD-R came into its own tons of scuzzy dudes in their parents' basements started burning copies of 'silver' bootlegs and selling them for a hefty profit at record conventions. Thanks to dime a dozen and other trading communities those guys have all crawled back to Slimytown and the fans have direct access to the stuff.

[Hungryfreak]

I'll download CDs nowadays, but usually to expose myself to obscure bands. I plan on buying the albums eventually, though I'll admit, it's partially out of my desire for a physical music collection.

[culturedog]

Yeah, there's something to be said for physical media. Practically the first thing I do when I get up in the morning is sit down in front of my massive wall o' CDs and decide what the day's listening pleasure will be.

I can't ever see myself using a portable storage device as my actual music library. An adjunct of it sure, but never as a replacement for the real deal.

[Mystlyfe77]

I blame the invention of the cell phone camera for the death of live bootleggers more than anything... :rolleyes:

[Rev0lver]

I am not an anti-piracy freak, I have done my share, although I do not any more except to check something out I don't know every so often. If I like it I buy it, if not it gets deleted.

That being said, the one thing that always bugs me a bit are the people that try to justify it in some way. If you want to download music you need to accept the fact that you are stealing. At least in that the honesty is admirable. If you steal and then try to justify it you are now a thief and delusional and/or just stupid.

Common excuses:

I can't afford to buy it- Well, there are going to be a lot in life you cannot afford, this does not give you the right to steal it. If anything it should give you motivation to succeed and be able to afford what you want. I cannot afford a $100,000 car, but that does not give me the right to steal it. Remember, music is not a staple we NEED, it is a luxury item.

The artists get robbed by the labels anyway - Sorry, but that is just how the business works. If you want to change it, get in the business and change it (in fact, it is changing already). But again, not an accuse to steal.

I pay to go see shows, I don't need to buy the CD's - Paying for one thing does not give you the right to steal something else. Do you go to the grocery store buy a steak and then steal your produce?


****, I could go on but you get the point. In reality people steal music because it is easy. If they had to put on the mask and break into the record shop, these little kids wouldn't have the balls to do it.

You're forgetting in this post that art is a form of expression. Most bands do not view it as simply a product. This is why nearly every band nowadays has songs up on their Myspace page. You are not charged to listen to those songs. A song illegally on my ipod is the same song as one that is legally on their myspace.

As I previously said, a band plays music to make a living. They can make more money at one show than in a week of record sales. The record sales barely affect their pay at all, therefore they have little reason to be mad at anyone downloading their music. Plus, any band that wants money more than they want people to notice their art does not deserve any money.

[WhiffleBallTony]

You're forgetting in this post that art is a form of expression. Most bands do not view it as simply a product. This is why nearly every band nowadays has songs up on their Myspace page. You are not charged to listen to those songs. A song illegally on my ipod is the same song as one that is legally on their myspace.

As I previously said, a band plays music to make a living. They can make more money at one show than in a week of record sales. The record sales barely affect their pay at all, therefore they have little reason to be mad at anyone downloading their music. Plus, any band that wants money more than they want people to notice their art does not deserve any money.

^^I agree with this man.

[onduvalst]

Ya'll need to quit drinking the bong water. A song illegally on your ipoop is not the same as a song that the artist "controls" on their myspace. Thanks to pirates it cost 5 times what it use to for me to go to a concert. Artist have to make up for the poor cd sales some where. Tickets were like 30 bucks now they are as high as 300. Thanx so much for stealing and passing the cost on to the fans. douches.

[WhiffleBallTony]

Ya'll need to quit drinking the bong water. A song illegally on your ipoop is not the same as a song that the artist "controls" on their myspace. Thanks to pirates it cost 5 times what it use to for me to go to a concert. Artist have to make up for the poor cd sales some where. Tickets were like 30 bucks now they are as high as 300. Thanx so much for stealing and passing the cost on to the fans. douches.

$300? Please. Maybe if you're seeing Jesus live with Mozart and special guest John Lennon.

[onduvalst]

$300? Please. Maybe if you're seeing Jesus live with Mozart and special guest John Lennon.


I said as high, not all tickets are $300. Comprehension problem?:rolleyes:

[WhiffleBallTony]

I said as high, not all tickets are $300. Comprehension problem?:rolleyes:

Uhh... I know.

Hey Beavis, I think this guy, like, can't read.

That was just for ****s and giggles. I don't seriously mean that. But, really, I have never ever seen a ticket costing $300. Maybe $150 or $200, but never as high as you mentioned. Hell, the Elton John show I saw in July (which was a HOT ticket) was only about $115.

What shows have you seen that costed $300? Please, do share.

[onduvalst]

Madonna's sticky sweet tour will cost you any where from 65.00 to 354.00, and if your a citicard holder like me you can get the candy shop vip pack for 604.00 per person YIKES!!!

Floor seating for the Who starts at 80 goes to 350.00

Coldplay is a deal at about 90.00

[WhiffleBallTony]

Madonna's sticky sweet tour will cost you any where from 65.00 to 354.00, and if your a citicard holder like me you can get the candy shop vip pack for 604.00 per person YIKES!!!

VIP pack ≠ show. Also, what kind of ticket are the ones that cost $354?

[onduvalst]

VIP pack ≠ show. Also, what kind of ticket are the ones that cost $354?

I'm going to say the first couple floor rows.

[onduvalst]

holy cow! I looked it up. The whole floor is 354.00!

[thedoorsdk]

Blaming high ticket prices on music piracy is nothing short of absurd.
I don't know if you came to that conclusion yourself or if someone told you that, but either way there's not a shred of evidence to back it up.

[Rev0lver]

The most expensive concert i've been to(excluding warped tour, since there's like 100 bands) was about $20(maybe $25, i don't remember) to see Dimmu Borgir and Behemoth. Mainstream bands charge more to cover the costs of their x-treme super kool pyrotechnics.

[Ryuzaki]

Concerts and shows are just barely connected to CDs and Albums when it comes to cost, as many others have stated. And as the large majority of the band's income comes from concerts and shows, they are therefore virtually unaffected. The only people who are really affected by piracy are men with twenty expensive suits in their closet and probably drive a Hummer to work-- on top of that, they're marketing CDs at $20.00+ when they probably only took a couple bucks to make.
I'm not all that concerned.

[TheMeatball]

Buying albums is for suckers. I'm all for supporting the artists, but the business model currently presented is definitely not supporting the artists.

I don't feel bad about downloading an album. My money would be going into the pockets of retailers and record companies. The current model is outdated and will crumble.

I paid $4 for the In Rainbows download promo, and I paid $75 for deluxe edition of Ghosts I-IV because I knew that was money that would be supporting the people who made the art. If I had that guarantee I would definitely pay for a lot more music.

Anyone who thinks buying a $20 cd makes sense is stupid. Seriously. People who don't accept a burnt CD are misguided.

Your friend's hardline stance on used CDs is the only logically consistent moral stance. Selling a used CD is more "damaging" as downloading an album, as people are making money off it. There are no losses or profits incurred from a download.

[cdestey]

I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about piracy, but if your concern is whether or not the artist actually makes any money off album sales, buy tshirts. Especially from smaller bands. They get a much better percentage on tshirt sales than they will ever get on album sales.

[afterstasis]

I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about piracy, but if your concern is whether or not the artist actually makes any money off album sales, buy tshirts. Especially from smaller bands. They get a much better percentage on tshirt sales than they will ever get on album sales.

especially if they screen the shirts themselves! :)

[Serpentd]

especially if they screen the shirts themselves! :)

And these tend to be my favorite bands and slowly get to watch them succeed over time. Even though they are truly never "Big". Underground metal since the early 80's for example. ;)

I'm not sure what to think of the entire "Limewire" DL thing. I see both sides of the argument that have good points of view. I have usually been entirely against the whole piracy thing probably because I was a teenager in the early 80's. Back then if you wanted to check out a new band, you had to have a job of some sort and buy the album. Otherwise you NEVER got a chance to see if you liked it.

But this also probably hurt some of the artists by getting their stuff out there to people. However bands like Slayer, Megadeth, Metallica, Iron Maiden all made it without illegal DLing. So I have mixed feelings on the whole thing. I'll probably be split down the middle until something changes to where it's no longer a controversy. Just like Trent has been doing.

[idiotec]

Selling a used CD is more "damaging" as downloading an album, as people are making money off it. There are no losses or profits incurred from a download.

This cracked me up.

FYI, making money.... It's a good thing. ;)

[cdestey]

This cracked me up.

FYI, making money.... It's a good thing. ;)

I don't think you understand.

He's saying the artists don't make any money off used cd sales, just the stores doing the reselling. Effectively stealing from the artist by denying them retail sales.

[TheMeatball]

This cracked me up.

FYI, making money.... It's a good thing. ;)I don't think you understand.

He's saying the artists don't make any money off used cd sales, just the stores doing the reselling. Effectively stealing from the artist by denying them retail sales.
Precisely. As far as the artist is concerned, there's absolutely no difference between my buying a used CD and me downloading the album from The Pirate Bay.

In fact, buying a used CD is essentially the same as buying a bootleg version. People are profiting of it, at the expense of the artist.

[Alright_Computer]

Precisely. As far as the artist is concerned, there's absolutely no difference between my buying a used CD and me downloading the album from The Pirate Bay.

In fact, buying a used CD is essentially the same as buying a bootleg version. People are profiting of it, at the expense of the artist.

OK, say 10 copies of Band X's debut album were sold. I bought one of them, but I didn't like it so I sold it used to a friend who wanted it. Still, only 10 people are in possession of the music, it's just that the possession has changed between one person. Not illegal at all.

Now if I'd made a copy of it on my computer, then it would be illegal, since 11 people would be in possession of the album instead of 10, which is the number of copies that were legally sold.

[TheMeatball]

Uh, i think everyone knows used CDs aren't illegal. We weren't talking about the law.

Look at it this way.

Man buys brand new CD ---> Artist gets $0.15
Man buys used CD ---> Artist gets nothing, but CD reseller gets $5 difference
Man downloads CD ---> Artist gets nothing

And you'll see what I'm getting at. CD resellers are profiting at the expense of the artists.

When it comes down to, the whole fact of charging to hear a song is completely absurd. It's clear that the executives have shaped our copyright laws to learn heavily in their favour. Not in the artists favour, but it the CEO's favour. They are concerned about selling a product, and not creating art.

I truly wish every record distribution company and label would disintegrate. Music is art and should be treated as such.

[Rev0lver]

The thing is though, labels are somewhat necessary. Sure Trent Reznor can self produce all his work because of his resources and experience, but not every band has the equipment or sound production knowledge that a label's studio does.

[Alright_Computer]

Uh, i think everyone knows used CDs aren't illegal. We weren't talking about the law.

Look at it this way.

Man buys brand new CD ---> Artist gets $0.15
Man buys used CD ---> Artist gets nothing, but CD reseller gets $5 difference
Man downloads CD ---> Artist gets nothing

And you'll see what I'm getting at. CD resellers are profiting at the expense of the artists.

When it comes down to, the whole fact of charging to hear a song is completely absurd. It's clear that the executives have shaped our copyright laws to learn heavily in their favour. Not in the artists favour, but it the CEO's favour. They are concerned about selling a product, and not creating art.

I truly wish every record distribution company and label would disintegrate. Music is art and should be treated as such.

I agree with the last statement, especially now with digital music, however it's just like buying any other object used. The person who originally bought it is not in possession of it anymore, therefore although the artist gets nothing, the same amount of people will be able to listen to it (legally).

[Satoshi]

Man downloads CD ---> Artist gets nothing

Unless you're Radiohead:rolleyes:

[TheMeatball]

Yes, Radiohead is the only band on the internet that charges people for downloads.

[Alright_Computer]

Yes, Radiohead is the only band on the internet that charges people for downloads.

Only if you want though.

[TheMeatball]

Sweet, I'll pay $2 for OK Computer! Oh wait...

Don't confuse a promotional publicity stunt (http://www.inrainbows.com/) for a business model.

[Alright_Computer]

Sweet, I'll pay $2 for OK Computer! Oh wait...

Don't confuse a promotional publicity stunt (http://www.inrainbows.com/) for a business model.

For one thing, Radiohead didn't have the rights to OK Computer, so they couldn't do that, with the stupid music business/copyright laws.

For another, the background on inrainbows.com is pretty cool.

[TheMeatball]

You're right, but my point was the In Rainbows "Choose your price" thing wasn't completely honest. You're paying for a lossy MP3, and it was a promotional offer, only for a few months. If you wanted to buy the album today, you'd have to pay standard pricing at iTunes, or standard brick and mortar pricing for the physical one.

That said, Radiohead is awesome. I've been addicted recently. I listened to 'How To Disappear Completely" like 8 times in a row today.

[Alright_Computer]

You're right, but my point was the In Rainbows "Choose your price" thing wasn't completely honest. You're paying for a lossy MP3, and it was a promotional offer, only for a few months. If you wanted to buy the album today, you'd have to pay standard pricing at iTunes, or standard brick and mortar pricing for the physical one.

That said, Radiohead is awesome. I've been addicted recently. I listened to 'How To Disappear Completely" like 8 times in a row today.

True, but I do have a still valid link in my email that lets you download In Rainbows for free... I've done this a couple times since I have to switch computers and so on.

Anyway, you can't expect very good quality with free downloads. Hell, even Trent Reznor made you pay for a good-quality version the otherwise free Ghosts.

[afterstasis]

Anyway, you can't expect very good quality with free downloads. Hell, even Trent Reznor made you pay for a good-quality version the otherwise free Ghosts.

i would imagine bandwidth is a heartless ***** when you've got the number of fans NIN and radiohead have.

[TheMeatball]

The Creative Commons licence allowed you to download the highest quality release of Ghosts I-IV for free, legally, from any source you choose.

The Slip was immediately available completely free of charge at higher-than-CD quality, if you chose.

[culturedog]

Yeah, The Slip was available in mp3, lossless or 24bit/96kHz wav. And Trent rules because of it. As much as I love Radiohead, they were only giving away low quality compressed files.

[papscrunt]

Before everyone jumps on my comment. I'm against pirating but here's a thought.

With the age of digital music and massive widespread pirating. Do you all not think that we are getting better live shows because of it? Most bands have always done, and always will make there money from live shows.

So now, Live shows are more important than ever. If people are downloading etc and bands aren't making money from sales. Everything has to go into the live show, as its everything for the artist. A Sloppy live band in this day and age are gonna struggle to make it big now.

Touring and putting on top notch shows are more important then ever. Especially for up and coming bands. And i have to say i've saw some amazing shows in the last 3 years or so.

Just a thought people. I'm not agreeing with downloading, sharing etc at all.

[afterstasis]

Before everyone jumps on my comment. I'm against pirating but here's a thought.

With the age of digital music and massive widespread pirating. Do you all not think that we are getting better live shows because of it? Most bands have always done, and always will make there money from live shows.

So now, Live shows are more important than ever. If people are downloading etc and bands aren't making money from sales. Everything has to go into the live show, as its everything for the artist. A Sloppy live band in this day and age are gonna struggle to make it big now.

Touring and putting on top notch shows are more important then ever. Especially for up and coming bands. And i have to say i've saw some amazing shows in the last 3 years or so.

Just a thought people. I'm not agreeing with downloading, sharing etc at all.

by the same logic, would that mean bands are now putting less effort into recording, thus putting out crappier and crappier albums?

[papscrunt]

by the same logic, would that mean bands are now putting less effort into recording, thus putting out crappier and crappier albums?

Good point mate! Very good point! And as many good show's i've saw over the years. I've heard probably as many crappy albums

[idiotec]

I don't think you understand.

He's saying the artists don't make any money off used cd sales, just the stores doing the reselling. Effectively stealing from the artist by denying them retail sales.
No, I understand. Why is a retailer making money off used CD's "damaging?"

"Effectively stealing" from the artist? So a retailer selling a used CD is stealing but someone downloading the album from a torrent site is not? OK. :confused:

[wrldindstries302]

There's a lot of tl;dr's in this topic but I will say that according to the music industry, ripping CD's you lawfully purchased onto your own personal computer for use on an iPod is technically illegal. Does that make it wrong? No.

But ripping CDs onto your computer then selling them to used stores is a bad thing. It really lowers the amount of money they'll give you for CDs because it makes the CDs themselves essentially useless.

[Alright_Computer]

The Creative Commons licence allowed you to download the highest quality release of Ghosts I-IV for free, legally, from any source you choose.

The Slip was immediately available completely free of charge at higher-than-CD quality, if you chose.

I'm pretty sure that only Ghosts I was free for download. I must've gotten my facts confused, I think the high-quality version was for the full album. I knew the Slip was available for free at all qualities, but I thought Ghosts I was only low quality. Guess I was wrong.

[culturedog]

I'm pretty sure that only Ghosts I was free for download. I must've gotten my facts confused, I think the high-quality version was for the full album. I knew the Slip was available for free at all qualities, but I thought Ghosts I was only low quality. Guess I was wrong.


No, pretty sure you're right on this one. I only saw Ghosts I available free. Everything beyond that cost money. I bought the FLAC/CD combo. As for the quality of the free 'sampler', dunno - cuz I didn't get it.

[Alright_Computer]

No, pretty sure you're right on this one. I only saw Ghosts I available free. Everything beyond that cost money. I bought the FLAC/CD combo. As for the quality of the free 'sampler', dunno - cuz I didn't get it.

Ghosts I was available in all qualities, from suckish to 2-GB-for-10-audio-files good.

[rocker338]

i dont see the problem with pirating music. the artists only get like 10% of the profits anyway and if i didnt get my music for free i wouldnt be getting it at all. i'd much rather save my money and get music for free and then pay to go see a show. like i saw rage against the machine a few weeks ago when they were here in MN. if i was going out and buying music every week instead of downloading it there would be no way i could have afforded the show.

like someone else said in their post, the music is the advertisement show is the product.

the only part of pirating that bugs me is when people make a profit off of it.

[supersickie]

Ghosts I was available in all qualities, from suckish to 2-GB-for-10-audio-files good.

Ghosts I-IV is amazing. Well worth the price of admission. Ghosts I was a taste. And if it wasn't necessarily a taste that you liked enough to pay for then you have every right to obtain the full album - Ghosts I, II, III, and IV - at no additional cost because of the creative commons attribution non-commercial share alike license.

[Bwana]

I think most people def. don't have 20 bucks to spend every time they want to hear new music.... it would add up alot and listening to someones music via a stereo in a car is simply advertising for that artist anyway.....

[culturedog]

I think most people def. don't have 20 bucks to spend every time they want to hear new music.... it would add up alot and listening to someones music via a stereo in a car is simply advertising for that artist anyway.....

Where is everybody shopping that they find these $20 CDs? I rarely pay more than $9-$12 for new discs. :confused:

[Keebler]

I regretably choose to pirate most of my music. My belief is that if a band is good enough, I will go see them live, where they will most certainly make more money off of me than if I paid for their music (the share of the profits that actually go to the artists themselves is shockingly low).

I did a paper on the implications of the digital age on music and I've basically found that only 1/3 of artists polled felt that illegal downloads hurt their sales. Many more artists (e.g. David Bowie) believe that copyright is gonna go by the wayside and that music is going to become more like running water in 10 years. Some economists determined it would take 6,000 illegal downloads to displace the sale of a single CD. Some people think that illegal downloads hurt album sales, while other people have determined that illegal downloads have an effect on sales that is "statistically indistinguishable from zero." There is no agreement on the effect that illegal downloads have on sales.

I'll post some parts of my paper later when I'm home. It's pretty interesting and a lot less cut-and-dry than I thought it would be.

[Jordashebasics]

Not exactly directly the same-
Neil Gaiman ran a promotional test a little while back. His site made a copy of one of his books available for free. The entire thing, no copy protection scheme, no strings at all.
The effect on the sales of the book was that his sales increased during the time he ran the promotion, but that the sales tapered off after it was pulled down.

[culturedog]

The touring angle is solid enough, and it's nice to see people willing to support their favorite acts in some fashion. That said, while it certainly 'justifies' people's attitudes towards downloading, I don't think that touring should be the only way for a band to earn a living. Whatever happened to touring "to support" an album?

Sure, it would be awesome if the record companies imploded and artists had more control over their product, but I sincerely hope people will consider paying for music once the bulk of the proceeds go directly to the artist. Tours are great and all, but otherwise the fans will force bands into becoming indentured 'road dogs'. Sure, it's fun to play live, but who wants to be touring 12 months out of the year every year?

Touring, merch and sales of music should all be viable sources of income for musicians, so I can't support abolishing one of the three. What of the bands that are primarily studio based and tour rarely if never? Or those from other countries that lack the ability to head overseas? Do they deserve nothing? I love The Vision Bleak, but they're not coming to my neck of the woods anytime soon. So I buy their CD, and they get some money. Sure, it's a small amount. But guess what amount is even smaller than that? Yup, Zero! Minimum wage workers also earn very little, so I suppose we should just make them work for free too!

So down with the record companies - boo hiss! I'm cool with that. But when bands are producing their own material (like Clutch with their newest live DVD/CD release), I'm hoping the fans will actually support them instead of reaching for excuse no. 13b for pirating their stuff.

[TheMeatball]

No, I understand. Why is a retailer making money off used CD's "damaging?"

"Effectively stealing" from the artist? So a retailer selling a used CD is stealing but someone downloading the album from a torrent site is not? OK. :confused:

By making a copy of something you aren't "stealing" anything. Nobody loses a copy of that album. Nobody profits from a downloaded copy of an album. Reselling means someone is making money of the artist. It's not "stealing" either, but they are making money at the expense of the artist.

Seriously, this is the 4th time I've tried to explain it to you. Maybe you should actually read my post this time.

Also, the CC license states that you can download Ghosts I-IV any way you please, and use it for anything other than commercial uses. So it's essentially free, if you choose.

[KrazyJJ]

Doesn't the artist get the money when the store gets the album, or does the artist get a cut. I'm pretty sure its the first and because of this the artist would still make money from all these sales, it's the stores that sell CD's that lose. On peer-to-peer websites someone had to have bought the album in order to post it on there, right?

[Keebler]

Here's the excerpt from my paper on this topic I told you guys I would post:


The year was 1994. Approaching the new millennium, the music industry looked to be in great shape. Music sales from compact discs were doing well, totaling $12 billion annually and the industry was earning record highs in profits each year. The only problem was there were dramatic changes that loomed at the turn of the century. The MP3 format and file-sharing were being popularized, slowly replacing physical CDs and local retail stores. CD-R’s, blank discs that consumers could “burn” to contain whatever music they desired, eventually eclipsed regular music CD sales. CD sales had decreased 26% from the 2000 to 2003, and the industry was missing out on nearly $2 billion in revenue. But it is not as if there were no warning signs along the way. Several innovations to technology, along with business trends among consumers gradually began amalgamating over the years until the world of the music industry had completely changed. Now in 2006, the digital format appears to be the future of music and CDs are all but doomed.

After Napster was first introduced in 1999, its popularity spread like wildfire. To the music industry and consumers alike, it began increasingly apparent that the Internet was going to revolutionize the future of music. File-sharing, mostly illegal, was responsible for the trading of billions of music files. The appeal of being able to instantly create a jukebox drew in millions of fresh-faced Internet users. Although Napster was shut down two years later, it sparked a revolution that continues to exist on all facets of the Internet. The RIAA and the United States government have gone after P2P services responsible for illegal file-sharing, but these services are still very popular. Their continued existence has prompted the music industry to adapt to an ever-changing environment. One of the concerns that has arisen in recent years has been the worth of music as intellectual property. Do people not respect the copyrights of music anymore, or is it just exclusive to the Internet? Is it unethical to pirate music and how does its value as intellectual property come into play? This paper will explore these questions, while giving a brief history of how the current situation came to be.


File-Sharing and Its Purported Effect on Music Sales

One of the most common claims by RIAA and musicians against file-sharing is that it has cut into music sales significantly. They have gone so far as to argue that the music industry has lost $4.2 billion because of piracy. But does file-sharing really adversely affect sales profits? That is under debate right now. Some sources claim file-sharing “reduces the probability of buying music by an average of 30%,” while other studies say the economic effect is statistically insignificant. The way the music industry is organized makes it difficult for disparities in album sales to even financially affect the artists. They receive less than 5% of the annual $11 billion profits from CD sales. When CDs replaced vinyl and prices rose from $9 to $16, the record companies mostly came away with this extra profit margin, leaving artists worse off than before. Courtney Love, in a famous speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, did the math in a rhetorical situation, in which a band could sell a million copies of its album, net the record company $11 million, but still end up with no profits to show for their work. "The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid," she stated. Music producer Steve Albini, responsible for Nirvana’s In Utero album, explained the basics of a typical record contract. Imagine the scenario of new band receiving a $250,000 advance from the record label, selling 250,000 copies of its debut album, and earning the label $710,000, in profits. Yet, after all of the band’s expenses (including recording and touring), it could owe the label $14,000 in royalty fees. A startling example is R&B singer Toni Braxton. She filed for bankruptcy in 1998, despite selling $188 million worth of CDs, because her record contract paid her only 35 cents per CD. Perhaps consumers have a hard time justifying spending upwards of $17 on a CD, most of which will go to music executives rather than the artists themselves. Electronica artist Moby takes a realistic approach to the situation: “How can a 14-year old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multimillionaire musicians and greedy record companies?"


Factors in Decreased Music Sales

It appears that that falling CD sales are probably a result of a combination of factors. First of all, the replacement cycle simply could be ending for the CD. The MP3 format, whose compression can barely be noticed against CD-quality, has grown in popularity tremendously. It is infinitely more versatile than the CD, as it can be burnt to a blank disc as part of a mix, copied to portable music player, shared on the Internet, and made part of dozens of playlists on one’s computer. Maybe the music industry just does not want to admit it, but the digital form could just be the next step in the natural progression in technology. There is also the possibility that the CD is losing the battle for our time and money to other entertainment mediums. Consider what Fortune magazine had to say about the subject: “Video games aren’t just eating into entertainment dollars; they’re taking up increasingly more of the time Americans once spent listening to music or at the movies.” When one examines the most popular forms of entertainment today, DVDs and video games, one can understand that the CD just does not have enough value for its price. Video games, which may sell for $50, offer dozens of hours of original play. DVDs, which typically sell for $20, offers more value than the CD, as they contain approximately 2 hours of audio/video, plus bonus features on the creation of the film. Yet CDs, which can cost upwards of $16, offers the listener an average of 45 minutes of original audio.

Declining CD sales can also be attributed directly to the increasing closure of music stores. The threat that mass-market retailers, such as Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Costco pose to the smaller retailers is one the music industry has likely not considered. The large chains can actually afford to price CDs below their cost and sell them for a loss. The strategy is to bring customers to the store to purchase other items. What this does is drive people away from the “mom-and-pop shops” and as a result, the smaller stores are going out of business. Over the last five years, nearly 1,200 music retailers have closed, severely decreasing the amount of retail space available to sell CDs. When square footage available for sales decreases, so do sales. Most stores carry about 10,000 titles, miniscule when compared to the tens of millions of music files one can obtain, either legally or illegally, from the Internet. Even with most CD sales coming from the mass-market stores, they have little incentive to boost their sales of them. For Wal-Mart, CDs account for less than 0.1% of the company’s revenue. Stores do not depend on music sales, but the music industry is dependent on this revenue. Somewhere along the lines, the strategies of the stores and music industry became misaligned.


The Music Industry At Fault

Despite these problems for the CD, many hold the music industry partially responsible for poor sales for apparently being underprepared to deal with a technology as quickly evolving as the Internet. Prior to file-sharing, the biggest problem the industry faced in terms of piracy was rental shops and home copiers. But it only took five years before the Internet has become a breeding ground for illegal music sharing. For as long as the industry as existed, it has adopted to technological change, not been responsible for it. Industry experts and “professors of media and business management” saw the writing on the wall as the digital age approached, though. They had been predicting this for years, but the record companies just never took notice.

Gerd Leonhard makes an interesting point in his book, The Future of Music. “The lack of cooperation and compromise in enabling new business models to be tested has actually encouraged file-sharing and the systems that support it… The existence of such… systems is a direct result of the incumbents failing to come to terms with the new digital reality.” One of the only ways record companies can hope to salvage record sales is to get consumers used to the idea of paying for music. This means they must make it easier and more convenient to actually purchase it than to download it illegally. Up until this point, the industry has failed to do that, allowing illegal file-sharing to become rampant. Chairman of Sony Nobuyuki Idei offers a few ideas about how to improve the current business model:

“[The record labels] have to change their mind-set away from selling albums and think about selling singles over the Internet for as cheap as possible- even at 20 cents or 10 cents- and encouraging file-sharing, so they can also get micro-payments for these files. The music industry has to reinvent itself; we can no longer control distribution the way we used to.”



The Importance of Copyrights to the Music Industry

For those familiar with the record industry’s past and how it operates, it is not difficult to see where it was coming from, in terms of its response to Internet piracy. As long as the industry has existed, it has relied on copyrights in managing its assets. Broadcast Music, Inc., for example, was a company dedicated to collecting royalties for artists who held the copyrights to songs being played. As early as 1958, BMI implemented tracking tools to track the occurrences of particular songs and artists being played over the radio. Two decades later, these applications had spread to night clubs, jukeboxes, concerts, and even elevators. If a BMI licensed song were to sustain popularity over long periods of time or reach 25,000 performances, it would earn bonus payments for each additional performance after the milestone. Managing copyrights became one of the most important facets in turning a profit for the recording companies so it stands that they would obviously want to defend “their” property and rally for legal support.

As the technology for computers and CDs advanced over the years, it became increasingly easier for a consumer to copy music. The music industry took notice of any development that threatened its ability to manage its copyrights and rallied U.S. legislation for help. As a result, several copyright laws have been passed by Congress since 1988. These include the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the Audio Home Recording Act, the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1999. The No Electronic Theft Act specified what theft of digital recordings was, while the Digital Millennium Copyright Act made it legal to produce or disseminate technologies that could remove copyright protection. Despite these measures being taken to protect music, it’s not enough. Enforcing these laws on the Internet has proved to be extremely difficult. It is not viable to track down every transgressor and as a result, the laws are difficult to enforce, meaning users can continue file-sharing virtually unabated. Although law officially governs both the physical world and the Internet, it is not the primary force online preventing illegal action from being taken. The most powerful force on the web is what Lawrence Lessig refers to as “code.” He explains that “the software and hardware that makes cyberspace what it is constitute a set of constraints on how you can behave.” In terms of music, it is illegal to copy music and distribute it to mass amounts of people. However, it is the copyright protection that is responsible primarily for preventing this from occurring, not the law.


Consumers and Their Views on Music Copyrights

Copyright means a great deal to the music industry, but consumers want to stake a claim to music, as well. There have been two primary methods of downloading music: purchasing downloads a la carte and subscription services. The latter controls what consumers can do with the music much more, disabling songs if the consumer ends payment. The music industry experimented with subscription services for a while, but this was not met with tremendous success. For every medium that music has existed on thus far, consumers have owned physical copies of the music with which they have been able to do whatever they please (within the limits of the law). It seems that the consumers are speaking with their wallets and putting their stamp of approval on the per-track method of downloading music.

While many toiled with the subscription model, Steve Jobs was pitching his idea for purchased downloads, but nobody followed up on his proposal. Eighteen months later, he took it upon himself to launch iTunes, the most popular service for legally downloading music. Jobs offers his opinion on why the subscription service has all but failed:

“People don’t want to buy their music as a subscription. They bought 45’s; then they bought LP’s; then they bought cassettes; then they bought 8-tracks; then they bought CDs. They are going to want to buy downloads. People want to own the music. You don’t want to rent your music- and then, one day, if you stop paying, all your music goes away.”

Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford agrees with Jobs’ assessments. “I think the Apple system will begin to teach this lesson. Perfect control produces less profits than imperfect control. Always.”