I've been reading the back posts quite a bit recently and I've noticed that there are a lot of misconceptions, distortions and over-simplifications floating around here about a very controversial subject: piracy. I feel it's time there was a reasoned, open discussion of this.

I am against most forms of copyright law. I feel that, with the advent of the internet, free flow of information cannot and will not be stopped. I am guilty of bypassing copy protection on CDs, and this means that most major record companies would label me a criminal. I download songs from the internet just about ever day, and because of this I now buy more music than I ever have in my life. I also download the occasional album, but generally buy it afterwards if I enjoy it.

What are your thoughts on this?

quote:

Originally posted by The Twinkie That Wouldn't Die:
I am... a criminal. I download songs from the internet. What are your thoughts on this?

Heretic. Burn him!!

Heh heh... sorry for editing your gist. I think it's becoming more and more complex an issue. I suppose it depends what you mean by piracy. If you mean copying an album, firing off a couple of thousand copies, then flogging them down the market, then clearly, you are scum. I would never knowingly buy a pirated cd out of principle.

The subject of downloading for personal consumption is a slightly greyer area. I know many people on this forum think it's fine to download an album, listen to it for an indefinite period, and then if you like it buy it, if you don't like it delete it from your computer, and no one will call you names. But is that really any different? It's okay to steal as long as you don't keep the stolen goods?

Clearly downloading everything for nothing, and never giving anything back to the artist, or to any artist, has got to be wrong. But to what extent? Is it okay for someone who spends a lot of money on cds to download the odd album for free, because they're supporting artists and record companies in general? Is it ok for someone who pays to see a band live, buys the t-shirt, etc to obtain the album for nothing? That's how most bands make the majority of their money these days, as we're continually being told.

It's also considered fine among most people to buy used cds, without a frown being raised. But is that really any better? You're paying a fraction of the price for the cd, and not one penny is finding its way back to the artist. Is that really any better than downloading the album dirt cheap from one of these Russian mp3 sites?

I'm not making any judgements, just putting the argument out there the way I see it. With high profile artists like Radiohead releasing their albums for the price of a postage stamp over the internet, and saying publicly they don't mind if people find their music online for free, it's only going to become more contentious, but whatever we've certainly come a long way from Metallica suing their own fans.

I agree with most of what you're saying there, Borachon. And I wouls add that under the DMCA, we are probably all criminals. It's a really horrible piece of legislation.

I do think though that the assertion of piracy as theft is misleading. My dictionary defines theft as (I paraphrase) taking something away from someone. In copying, this doesn't happen. There is no victim.

quote:

Originally posted by Ebenezer Borachon:
It's also considered fine among most people to buy used cds, without a frown being raised. But is that really any better? You're paying a fraction of the price for the cd, and not one penny is finding its way back to the artist. Is that really any better than downloading the album dirt cheap from one of these Russian mp3 sites?

The one difference I see is that independent record stores make most of their profit from their used inventory. One of the reasons record chains are going out of business is because the mark up on new CDs is miniscule compared with just about all other retail items. I mean that shirt you bought at full price at Dillard's was probably marked up 4 or 5 HUNDRED percent (or more); whereas, the profit on new CDs is generally about 25-35%-- and that's IF you buy a box lot (60 discs). I'm here to tell you, in a small town, there are not many CDs that you are going to sell 60 copies of in a reasonable amount of time. Anyway, my point is that you shouldn't feel bad about buying a used disc from an independent record store, especially if the CD is not a promo (if it is a promo, it gets a little more ify, but I still say support your local independent record store).

As for illegal downloading, you can come to your own conclusion. Personally, I don't download anything that I can readily buy. But if this technology would have existed during another era of my life (ie: when I was broke dick), I probably would have been okay with it (I used to make tons of tapes from my friends' CDs and LPs). I'm not especially proud of that, BTW.

quote:

Originally posted by Maximum Jack Frost:
if this technology would have existed during another era of my life (ie: when I was broke dick), I probably would have been okay with it

For "broke dick" (sounds nasty), read teenager.

Through friends' teenage (male) children, I've come to realize that most Aussie kids interested in music pay nothing for it. The very suggestion that they might like to is met with eye-rolling disdain.

Here's an article that you might not have seen.

One of the problems I see with the RIAA waging war against file-sharers is that the ones who download a lot generally are downloading obscure, hard to find music- specifically the people that are on the more exclusive sites or more niche oriented places like soulseek.

Shutting down oink was huge to them, but a lot of what was going on with Oink was hard to find albums that people made vinyl rips of, CD-Rs that you could only get in limited numbers from the band or aQ, stuff like that. That is why I go to those sites.

I feel bad downloading music from starving artists because that's who makes the music I listen to. Almost every single one of them have day jobs. But I am poor. I don't even buy drugs anymore and I'm still poor. But, they have my support, and that helps a little right? They get recommended to people by me. I'll buy them a beer at a show, always get a shirt or two, if they have some new CD-Rs then I grab those.

I do what I can, but I think it's just as important that I am able to find out about these musicians. They can stay at my apartment in Dallas when I move in, if they're in town. I'll fix them dinner. I do what I can.

quote:

hard to find albums that people made vinyl rips of, CD-Rs that you could only get in limited numbers from the band or aQ, stuff like that. That is why I go to those sites.

I definitely agree with this sentiment at least. How can I be expected to pay for a CD-R when I can't even find the damn thing? When there are 20 copies of it in existence and they're all owned by other diehard fans who bought them because they also actually wanted them. If it weren't for filesharing, some of these releases would never get past a handful of very lucky people. On the other hand, it's really the artist's fault for producing such a small number. I realize that this doesn't add much to the overall discussion of piracy, but maybe it will help shed some light on at least one aspect of it. Need an example, take a look at the Wolf Eyes discography posted on Wikipedia. There are probably at least a hundred releases or more, many of them strictly limited edition CD-Rs only.

On the overall discussion of piracy, I cannot forsee a future for the physical aspect of purchasing music other than for collectors. While there are plenty of us still left that would love to have artwork and something to hold and catalog while we listen to a record, there is an entire generation that was introduced to music through the original version of Napster and other sites, having never paid for anything or owned physical copies, and don't care about it at all. I'm sure iTunes and other pay sites are doing better than record stores, but even they can't compete longterm in the face of an ever developing market full of individuals growing accustomed to paying nothing. I mean why would a thirteen to eighteen year old casual music listener pay for music when they've always had pretty much anything and everything at the tip of their fingers and for free no less? Someone please tell me that you've thought of an alternative business model to this one, because I can't see it. The RIAA, however corrupt and horrible they may be and (from what I've read they can be pretty big assholes), can't possibly prosecute all of these kids nor would I want it that way either. It's a far too difficult subject with many grey areas and getting more than one person to agree on a standard solution is laughable at best in the present.

By no means do I think my opinion is entirely correct or the be-all-end-all answer. I'd love to see some broad discussion on this that doesn't chase its own tail into the abyss of who's suffering due to the consequences of downloading. In many ways aren't we all suffering? Those of us who want tangible artwork and packaging can look forward to no longer getting that in the future and even those who are getting their music without having to pay for it may be turning music into a faceless commodity that's devalued and used to soundtrack movies, events, etc. as background fodder and less and less being taken on its own in an active rather than passive manner. When you can and do have everything you want, how often if at all do you listen to it? What kind of precedent does it set when you basically let others decide that music has no value? Those that are willing to pay an exorbitant amount for a pair of limited edition shoes but not even a fifth of that for an album. Why are record companies still charging an arm and a leg for CDs when they know good and well that the format is on its last legs and costs nearly nothing to manufacture? Are artists really suffering as a result of those that are downloading? Ask a couple of them and you always get radically disparate answers if we're to believe what they say to the press.

I download illegally because I have to. I'm a writing major in college, trying to get a position as a music writer, well, anywhere. In addition to that, I work full time. I'm saving all of this money because I'm getting married this summer. So my problem is, unless I want to keep working for minimum wage, I NEED to listen to new music - new music I can't afford. Now, I've made it work thus far... I've been able to purchase hard copies of everything I've liked this year, and have a subscription to eMusic, which has provided a lot of albums. I've paid for about 80 - 90 percent of what I've heard this year... Only after I already downloaded it (paying when I could afford to).

Every time I download something illegally, however, I feel pretty bad - like I'm stealing or cheating someone out of their rightful dues. I'd go the streaming route, but between school and work, I'm not really around my computer all that much - just my car stereo and iPod.

I do think streaming an album is the answer, though. If bands would post entire albums on their Web site that were unavailable for download, people who liked it would purchase the album - either a download or a disc. I think this is the answer for everyone but me (at least me at this moment). The only thing is, this requires bands to have a Web site that can play more than four songs - i.e. not myspace. Many of these bands can't afford this. It's also just another thing to worry about, in addition to touring, practice, recording, and day jobs.

No matter what, it seems the days of the CD are numbered. As someone who enjoys having something to hold and catalogue, I will mourn its death.

quote:

Originally posted by benjiru:
I do think streaming an album is the answer, though. If bands would post entire albums on their Web site that were unavailable for download, people who liked it would purchase the album - either a download or a disc.

I agree with this. This is kind of like a artist showing a painting in a gallery. You get to experience the full work, but don't pay until it is deemed worth it.

A question that I just thought of that relates to the discussion:

Shouldn't the ways that music appreciation and purchasing have evolved lead to better quality music being created? I would think that musicians would want to create rich, lasting music that people would want to seek out to buy because it was worth the investment?

I have never illegally downloaded something that I eventually loved without purchasing the real thing next. But, I may be just an optimist about the future of music.

There are too many gray areas in this topic. Radio stations play music for free to listeners and make money from advertisements. Is it illegal to make a tape from the radio for personal use? The music is made available for free at a decreased quality (just like mp3s) if a person takes the time to record it. Granted it is easier to download from internet than to record radio, the principle is the same and the money goes to the company selling the advertisements whether it be from a website or radio. Stealing something that is free in some shape or form.
When a cd is bought most artists only gets a small fraction of the sale, better than nothing , but not nearly a fair deal in all. The middle man (major labels) needs to be cut out and a new distribution model needs to be created.

I can't tell how many cds i have purchased based on the strength of one song and then be immediately disappointed and angry with the rest of my purchase. Or the fact that cd's are so easily ruined by a scratch, but the music company says it is illegal to copy a cd to a pc even if it was bought legally. The buyer gets screwed, most artists get screwed, and the label always profits as long as it sells. Now that model sucks.

Here are my thoughts, and the RIAA better face the truth that this is how most kids feel.

Music is free. Its free on the radio and on tv. If I buy a cd, I can play it in a room for dozens of people to hear for free as many times as I want. I can also legally hand a new cd to a friend for him to borrow and listen for free. Putting music on the internet isn't exactly this, but its not a stretch. The web is a community of people letting each other listen to each other's music collections. Plastic cds are just the old ways and means of transporting music. MP3's have replaced cd's. Why should a band care if amazon.com or Best Buy, or the RIAA won't make money off of them anymore?

If you want the cd booklet/artwork and higher quality sound, buy the cd. But if you just want decent quality mp3's, I say download.

And look at myspace. The vast majority of bands in the world are begging for people to hear their music and this will always be the case.

If bands that got big offered downloads from their webpage and asked for a quarter a song, or maybe $2 to $3 for entire albums, fans would pay this. Thats much more than they're making now.

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:
There are too many gray areas in this topic. Radio stations play music for free to listeners and make money from advertisements. Is it illegal to make a tape from the radio for personal use?

Actually, in the UK, it is. That shouldn't surprise anyone, because this is a joke of a country, where the police don't even come to your house if you've been burgled (not joking) because it's not a priority, but would happily raid your house if they thought you had made a mix cd for your girlfriend (probably). But that's for another forum...

I tend to buy the top 50 or so CDs that I like in a given year, but not the other stuff. I also drop a ton of cash on concerts (where the artists really make their money) and see every artist that I even kind of like every time they come to town (Rochester does not get a whole lot of action on the concert front). I feel like I do my part to keep artists that I like in business even if I don't buy their album right away or at all. Even by posting on these forums I am increasing the profile of the artists that I listen to and expanding their audience.

I liked the first pirates movie, but they got worse. Johnny Depp was really good though. Wow this forum currently went to the dogs. Nobody is making any sense

I'd have to say a new business model definitely needs to be fine.. Because despite the RIAA's best efforts piracy is only getting worse..

When I first "discovered" pirating lets say, I typically use isohunt the number of peers averaged 4 mil. Nowadays when I glance at the peer I see a much larger number generally between 16-20 mil. The fact is you really can't stop piracy. Even with DRM, a program like tunebite which records and plays multiple songs thus removing the DRM comes along.

One thing that Radiohead's recent experiment showed is that no matter what the business model people will still pirate albums. In Rainbow was offered for any amount of money you wanted including nothing. Yet thousands of people still pirated the album. Which I suppose it was less hassle... but is still bizarre.

Personally I'm just gonna wait and see.

I agree with most of what is being said here - I think that the RIAA and the music industry as a whole has to face the fact that due to technology, consumers aren't going to pay for music the way they did in the past. I do think, however, that people will always be willing to buy CDs of artists that they like. However, in this day and age, why would anyone fork over their hard earned cash for a CD from a band they've never heard, when they can probably find the album for free on the internet? And what's wrong with that? At least the band is being listened to and it puts them into a position for them to be in someone's "one of those bands whose music I will pay for" list. As well, I think consumers are becoming more selective. Why pay for music you kinda like when you can get it for free from bittorrent? If the quality is there, people will pay for it.

The Top 10 Justifications People Have For Illegally Downloading Music.

quote:

Originally posted by Andrij:
The Top 10 Justifications People Have For Illegally Downloading Music.

That top ten list was pretty lame, but the faux propaganda image from the RIAA was PRICELESS!!

I don't understand why people try to rationalize bad behavior. Just own up to it. It's not the end of the world. We all do things we know we shouldn't, but there it is. Just because you don't think something is wrong, doesn't make it right. I feel guilty when I download albums, because it's wrong. Doesn't mean I don't do it, I do. But I certainly won't go around trying to defend it either.

To the kids here who are still in college, have you tried something like Ruckus, at least?

quote:

Originally posted by The Twinkie That Wouldn't Die:
I do think though that the assertion of piracy as theft is misleading. My dictionary defines theft as (I paraphrase) taking something away from someone. In copying, this doesn't happen. There is no victim.

Really?

quote:

Originally posted by Andrij:
I agree with most of what is being said here - I think that the RIAA and the music industry as a whole has to face the fact that due to technology, consumers aren't going to pay for music the way they did in the past. I do think, however, that people will always be willing to buy CDs of artists that they like. However, in this day and age, why would anyone fork over their hard earned cash for a CD from a band they've never heard, when they can probably find the album for free on the internet? And what's wrong with that? At least the band is being listened to and it puts them into a position for them to be in someone's "one of those bands whose music I will pay for" list. As well, I think consumers are becoming more selective. Why pay for music you kinda like when you can get it for free from bittorrent? If the quality is there, people will pay for it.

The Top 10 Justifications People Have For Illegally Downloading Music.

In theory, this is what the record companies should do. They should release a downloadable version of the album with DRM that expires within 1 month or some reasonable time frame to give "the kids" enough time to figure out whether they like the album and would be willing to pay for it. After that, there are two possibilities, which really depend on the technology:

1) Pay for registration code to unlock the album or

2) Simply do nothing, and the user will decide whether to buy the CD.

I think the reason this hasn't worked (or been proposed even?) is that the DRM is simply not good enough. Either people can break the codes too easily, or (in Sony's case) the DRM screws up computers. Otherwise, this should work. If you say that you download albums as a "preview", then one month should be long enough to figure out whether you like the album. I think that is a perfectly legitimate reason for downloading, but right now, it is way too easy for people to keep the albums, without ever paying for them.