quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:
Show me some of these people I have hurt by downloading and I'll show you a stack of albums I wouldn't have bought anyway.

I'm not saying that you in particular are hurting anybody. Perhaps you wouldn't have purchased the albums regardless, but you only need to read EricG75's post to understand how it does have an effect.

I certainly have a desire to listen to more music than my budget allows. I read the "Best of 2008" threads, and I know that I won't have any idea what most of the posters are talking about. I do legally grab individual tracks from sites like I mentioned above; but I know that if I start downloading illegally, I'll never pay for an album again. I don't really care about the fat cats at the top, but I do care about the blue collar guys at the bottom.

quote:

I don't really care about the fat cats at the top, but I do care about the blue collar guys at the bottom.

Now that is something I can stand behind. I'll support the little guys who deserve it by buying albums, shirts, tour tickets, etc. But if I don't download it first how will I know? And don't say streams and snippets, that doesn't cut the mustard for me

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
I know a ton of people who've basically stopped purchasing albums because p2p and torrents make acquiring music for free possible. And these aren't poor, destitute people. They could afford to drop a few bucks on a legal download, they just choose not to.

Those people aren't real music fans, and they should be ratted out to the RIAA. You can do so anonymously through their website. Still, if they aren't willing to spend any money on music now, why would they ever? Would they really be spending every spare penny on music if there were no P2Ps if they don't now? Probably not. They're the same people who dub their friends' copies and tape songs off the radio. You can't make people pay for something that they don't really need, and only real fans convince themselves that they need music. The people you're talking about would just go back to the radio and copying if P2P died tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by playdough:
What about the downloading of movies, TV shows, and books? Should there be different rules for them because they are different mediums. Is it okay to download one medium and not another?

All of those are also available at the library, so I suppose not. And there should be a distinction between TV Shows and TV DVDs. I hate cable, and many shows are not or will never be available on DVD. Still, I think the existence of Blu Ray and HD DVDs creates a necessary product that real film/TV buffs can't get anywhere else, like how you can't download vinyl (of which sales were dramatically up last year). Actual fans are always willing to pay for a quality product. Are crappy DVD sales suffering? Probably. So quit putting so much money behind garbage like Saw 4. You don't have to spend a billion dollars to make a million, just look at Napoleon Dynamite and the White Stripes (who had never spent more than 10 grand recording a single album till their latest). Generally speaking, films should prolly get their own catagory. Once you've seen a film, you've seen it, and most often wouldn't watch it again unless you really enjoyed it. Since there's already a big market in renting DVDs, that has real effects in the marketplace. If the CD rental market ever took off, that would change the nature of the debate.

All the file-sharing issues aside, the music and movie industries are dying due to severe mismanagement and shortsightedness. They overspend millions trying to create markets for crap like Hanna Montana instead of supporting trends as organically as they form. Then they sue college kids for download this pop filler that they don't even really enjoy, while the prices for CDs and trips to the theatre skyrocket well beyond reasonability. They could have whole-heartedly embraced the digital realm in the early years and dominated the P2P market before it got big, but they chose to sue and fight it for years instead. This whole mess is their own fault.

quote:

Now that is something I can stand behind. I'll support the little guys who deserve it by buying albums, shirts, tour tickets, etc. But if I don't download it first how will I know? And don't say streams and snippets, that doesn't cut the mustard for me

Oh my, your mind is definitely blank.

The holy grail of all the internet, Pitchfork, has free, legal, downloads every single day. For example, I downloaded "Call it a Ritual" from the new Wolf Parade album. Now, because I like that track - and based on positive reviews of the album from sources I trust, I will purchase that album when I get paid at the end of the month.

I don't go by Metascores as much as I go by certain review sites. The info is there for you to make a very calculated decision. I am almost never dissappointed by my purchases because I don't have the money to buy everything on a whim. I research and make what seems to be the best decision. It's a bit of work, but it's worth it.

As far as things that are "there for the taking", by your logic, people would put 75 cents into a newspaper stand and take all of the papers, rather than the one they paid for.

EricG sums it up nicely. For once.

I keed, I keed.

It's nice to see, though, some others taking the ethical stance.

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
This whole mess is their own fault.

Blaming the victim? Are you going to law school? Anyway, I thought it ironic that you posted this in the Avril topic in the Pop forum:

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
Stealing is stealing, no matter how popular it may be. Avril is hardly Robin Hood.

quote:

Originally posted by Built to Sleep:
Blaming the victim?

The artists are the victim, not the industry that sues people and keeps the money on their behalf. Avril stole song ideas from other less fortunate artists, while, as I've gone over many times, I don't consider poor quality MP3s stealing so much as "a photocopier in a library" (to paraphrase Canadian law).
Don't start the out-of-context post digging game, dude.

I really do hate starting up this argument again. It's tiring, because I know the arguments everyone will make and no one's opinion is likely to change.

I understand the arguments for downloading -- it's a great way to explore a lot of music, you get to try before you buy, you discover a lot of bands you normally wouldn't have were you confined to the local record store, etc.

But, I also think music is product, I've seen no reliable evidence that downloading is having a positive or neutral effect on record sales, and I think artists and labels have a right to protect their product from being obtained by unauthorized means.

I also think it's more of a grey issue than it's usually portrayed here, and I do think there's some positive effects of downloading that artists and labels should try to deal with before they just drag everyone into court.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

Oh my, your mind is definitely blank.

The holy grail of all the internet, Pitchfork, has free, legal, downloads every single day. For example, I downloaded "Call it a Ritual" from the new Wolf Parade album. Now, because I like that track - and based on positive reviews of the album from sources I trust, I will purchase that album when I get paid at the end of the month.

As far as things that are "there for the taking", by your logic, people would put 75 cents into a newspaper stand and take all of the papers, rather than the one they paid for.

EricG sums it up nicely. For once.

I keed, I keed.

It's nice to see, though, some others taking the ethical stance.

Taking the ethical stance? You guys are really a bunch of saints! Legal downloads? Whats the difference? You're hearing it for free either way. Semantics!
People don't steal all the newspapers because you only need one copy. I don't steal the same album repeatedly (usually ) Once is enough and if I really like it I'll buy it. End of story.

On a different note, I (and countless others) have been burned one too many times by purchasing an album based on the strength of the single, and then getting ripped off. So that argument won't hold with me. If you want want me to buy more albums then sale them cheaper. If you don't want me to download music, porn (I don't see anyone arguing about all the free porno available and those poor girls who aren't getting their due), movies, etc. then don't have them available at a click's notice. And if you rat on someone for doing this stuff then you need to mind your own damn business and find something better to do with your time....like feeding all these poor starving artists

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mymindsblank,

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:
And if you rat on someone for doing this stuff then you need to mind your own damn business and find something better to do with your time....like feeding all these poor starving artists

I currently own around 1100 CDs, 600 vinyl, and 11 gigs of legal MP3s. I am not the problem. However, If I knew anyone who downloads regularly, owns nothing, and rarely goes to concerts, I would consider turning them in. They ruin it for everyone else and deserve to get sued. At the very least, you should support the artists you believe in if only so they can continue to enrich your life. If you don't, they won't be there much longer. It seems like a simple calculation to me. I don't know a single person like that, though, so it's a moot point. I don't think someone like that would ever be my friend. Music means too much to me to see someone abuse it like that. It would be a constant issue in our relationship. However, the RIAA lumps us all in the same catagory, and that's not fair.
There is certainly a lot of grey area in the issue, but the RIAA takes an extreme stance one way and people like me are forced to the other, when we should both be shooting for a neutral resolution.
--------------------------
Also, this Canadian bill opens the door to a whole lot of insane trouble. As it's written, this would make it illegal to rip any CD or DVD that has a "copy protected" sticker on it, even if you own it. They consider that breaking a digital lock. There's a whole bunch of shady crap like that in C-61.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Filmore Mescalito Holmes,

I agree that you're not the problem, but from the RIAA's stance, they really have no way of knowing who's downloading and spending (not a problem), and who's just downloading for the sake of getting something for nothing (big problem). I think they need to find a way to keep the Filmore Mescalito Holmeses of the world happy while making sure they're not exploited by Average Joe Downloader. I think that probably entails some sort of a DRM technology, but I do agree that making it illegal to rip an album you own is a bad idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
At the very least, you should support the artists you believe in if only so they can continue to enrich your life. If you don't, they won't be there much longer. It seems like a simple calculation to me.

I agree with that 100%. Support what you believe in and love.

quote:

Also, this Canadian bill opens the door to a whole lot of insane trouble. As it's written, this would make it illegal to rip any CD or DVD that has a "copy protected" sticker on it, even if you own it. They consider that breaking a digital lock. There's a whole bunch of shady crap like that in C-61.

Yikes! I'd tell them (whoever that is) when they start making CDs scratchproof I'll quit copying them...and then they would promptly handcuff me and throw me in the pen.

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:
Legal downloads? Whats the difference? You're hearing it for free either way.

What's the difference between being given a gift and shoplifting? You're still getting something without paying for it? Right?

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:

What's the difference between being given a gift and shoplifting? You're still getting something without paying for it? Right?

A gift would imply that someone bought it and gave it to you. Shoplifting would imply that I have no intentions of paying for it. I see your point but it doesn't really apply here. I doubt Pitchfork (or whoever) bought that track and decided to give it away. It's promotion/advertising. "Try it ...and if you like it buy some of it." Their hope is that you will hear it and want some more.
Just like the radio. Who by the way doesn't directly purchase their music either, they play music for free and sell advertising, and the artists don't see a dime of that advertisement money even though their music is the selling point for the station. The record company just hopes that you hear it and want some more.

It's all very confusing. But I do not deny that stealing is wrong. But neither is eating from the sampler platter before you order the meal(shit...that brought it back to food). Nevermind

Edit: What I am trying to say here is that it is more important to be at least exposed to the arts (music, movies, etc.)in any way and then decide whether or not to contribute financially to support the continuation of said arts, rather than to never be exposed at all. It will come down to interest and morals.
Art, however enjoyable it might be, is not a necessary limited resource, like food or gas(!), and will not be valued by the public in the same way as a necessary limited resource, so a comparison of the theft between the two isn't necessarily a good one. Especially since it is much more simple to steal music sitting from a computer rather than shoplifting food at a market. If the public could download free food from their computer, you're damn skippy that people would be all over it.

Part of the problem is that a 192kps rip without artwork and packaging isn't worth $12-$15. I've gone digital and don't give a crap about buying the cd at Best Buy to get a piece of plastic and packaging that I don't want. If artists or labels offered safe, quality full album downloads for say $3-$5, people would be all over it.

quote:

anyone who downloads regularly, owns nothing, and rarely goes to concerts... They ruin it for everyone else and deserve to get sued.

The thing is- there are thousands (millions?) of people our there like that- hence the new laws. A lot of people out there are not governed by morals and a love of music and they don't feel any sort of obligation to support the artists that they like. People on this forum can come up with a lot of good reasons why they should be allowed to download, but I suspect that the average downloader out there is just taking and not putting anything in.

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:
Just like the radio. Who by the way doesn't directly purchase their music either, they play music for free and sell advertising, and the artists don't see a dime of that advertisement money even though their music is the selling point for the station. The record company just hopes that you hear it and want some more.

You're joking, right?

Radio stations pay for every single song they play. Have you ever heard of royalties?



You should know this.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago

Radio stations pay for every single song they play.

Sort of. They play a blanket licensing fee to ASCAP and BMI. It's not a totally accurate way for labels and artists to get paid, but they do make money from radio.

I didn't realize it before, but legally, any public place that plays copyrighted music is supposed to pay liscensing fees to ASCAP and BMI. So nightclubs, etc. have to pay as well.

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago

Radio stations pay for every single song they play.

Sort of. They play a blanket licensing fee to ASCAP and BMI. It's not a totally accurate way for labels and artists to get paid, but they do make money from radio.

Yes, I was being vague. That licensing fee does get distributed among the artists whose songs are played.

quote:

I didn't realize it before, but legally, any public place that plays copyrighted music is supposed to pay liscensing fees to ASCAP and BMI. So nightclubs, etc. have to pay as well

Sound Opinions did a feature on this and spoke to a few nightclub owners about this fee. It can cost them a fair bit, and they mentioned that some clubs, who didn't pay the fee, were shut down. Honestly though, I don't think many clubs actually pay.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:
Just like the radio. Who by the way doesn't directly purchase their music either, they play music for free and sell advertising, and the artists don't see a dime of that advertisement money even though their music is the selling point for the station. The record company just hopes that you hear it and want some more.

You're joking, right?

Radio stations pay for every single song they play. Have you ever heard of royalties?



You should know this.

Every single song? Don't be over dramatic. They pay pennies on the song. And don't tell me what I should know if you are going to exaggerate like radio stations are just mailing huge checks to Nickleback every week. The money is going through so many hands before it reaches the artist I doubt there is much left, if the record company doesn't take all of it in the name of advertising fees.


If you look up there it says they don't directly purchase their music, as in radio stations don't buy music the same way we do, they buy from a distribution company which sends them the tracks at a highly discounted rate because otherwise it would be hard for a station to have more than a handful of songs if they paid full price, and of that discounted rate I doubt the artists see much of at all, because they are getting airplay and in effect advertising for their albums.

I know the people who own several radio stations in my neck of the woods, so I'm pretty sure thats how it works everywhere, except when payola comes into play. I'm always lobbying for more 60's music on the local classic rock station, but they tell me they can only play what their distribution company sends them...what a cop out!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mymindsblank,