# Hollywood and ISPs in anti-piracy crackdown



## Blake1970 (Jul 7, 2011)

Hollywood and ISPs in anti-piracy crackdown | TG Daily


----------



## Andromalia (Jul 10, 2011)

> "Every year, content theft costs the U.S. economy more than 373,000 jobs, $16 billion in lost earnings, and $3 billion in lost federal, state and local government tax revenue," the NCTA whined in an official statement.


Same as always: the industry claims all pirated items would have been bought without piracy, which is obviously not the case.

My wiewpoint is, people won't spend money they don't have on entertainment. The industry is running after ghost money. Besides, qualifying this as "theft" is dubious: what is the damage ?


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 10, 2011)

Andromalia said:


> My wiewpoint is, people won't spend money they don't have on entertainment. The industry is running after ghost money. Besides, qualifying this as "theft" is dubious: what is the damage ?



You overlook a very simple fact, is people find money for entertainment, seemingly without fail. It is a form of escapement, and the reason that movie theaters were extremely popular in the 1930s. People magically had to money for theater trips, and typically entertainment venues do well in the face of a depression due to this. The only reason for contrary movement, if any, of late is that peopel are exercising their 'right' to the intellectual properties of others through alterior, illegal ways, because they don't feel they should have to pay people who put work into things. I for one do not work for free, the theft is the due to the creators who obviously put enough into their work for you to want to see it badly enough to run south of the law.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 10, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> You overlook a very simple fact, is people find money for entertainment, seemingly without fail. It is a form of escapement, and the reason that movie theaters were extremely popular in the 1930s. People magically had to money for theater trips, and typically entertainment venues do well in the face of a depression due to this. The only reason for contrary movement, if any, of late is that peopel are exercising their 'right' to the intellectual properties of others through alterior, illegal ways, because they don't feel they should have to pay people who put work into things. I for one do not work for free, the theft is the due to the creators who obviously put enough into their work for you to want to see it badly enough to run south of the law.



But somewhere between the people that feel "entitled" to the work of others and the people that assume that every download is a lost sale and therefore *they* are entitled to lost revenue lies the truth and middle ground.

In my opinion, neither side is correct. The media companies should up their game and provide a better product and the average person downloading their content should get out of the "I want everything now, and I want it free, and I'm entitled to it" mentality.

Unfortunately neither is likely to happen.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 10, 2011)

Part of the problem is that no one wants to pay $30+ for a Blu-Ray, or upwards of $25-30 for a CD with 45 minutes of music on it. Those prices are bullshit. You can get cheaper CD's here sometimes, depending on the band and label, some are like $12-15, and I have no problem paying that, but $30 for a CD? Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 10, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Part of the problem is that no one wants to pay $30+ for a Blu-Ray, or upwards of $25-30 for a CD with 45 minutes of music on it. Those prices are bullshit. You can get cheaper CD's here sometimes, depending on the band and label, some are like $12-15, and I have no problem paying that, but $30 for a CD? Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that.



Exactly. They're overcharging and under-delivering on their products. They need revised business models and realistic price points, or, they need to add more value to the products they release. And like I said, consumers need to get out of the "gimme gimme gimme" mindset, people *should* pay for the products they use. Like I said, meet somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> But somewhere between the people that feel "entitled" to the work of others and the people that assume that every download is a lost sale and therefore *they* are entitled to lost revenue lies the truth and middle ground.



You're absolutely right. Every download is not necessarily a lost sale, but the truth is pretty clear.

Piracy is stealing a product priced at a certain amount. Each illegal download has a worth of a certain amount, whether or not the thieves agree.

I imagine that many car thieves also don't agree with the price of autos, but they still steal them. It's not up to the thieves to argue what the pricing should be. It's the manufacturers and makers who decide prices, and consumers who decide if they want to pay that much. 

Don't want something at a particular price? Don't buy it. That's it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 10, 2011)

The car thief scenario isn't anywhere near the same. If I stole your car, you can't drive it. The correct scenario would be if I could magically clone your car and we could both go drive off into the sunset with our cars


----------



## orb451 (Jul 10, 2011)

Explorer said:


> You're absolutely right. Every download is not necessarily a lost sale, but the truth is pretty clear.
> 
> Piracy is stealing a product priced at a certain amount. Each illegal download has a worth of a certain amount, whether or not the thieves agree.
> 
> ...



I'm glad you brought up the car theft analogy because that's the line of thinking that the movie studios and record companies seem stuck in. They feel that if a product is downloaded (pirated) that it represents lost revenue. I think that's a mistake on their part. What they don't like, is the lack of control they have over distribution channels. They are apathetic about the average consumer buying a CD with 12 tracks where only 2 or less of them are actually "good". In their traditional business model they had all the control and now they are fighting to win back lost ground. It's a losing battle and I for one would gladly see them change their business models or go out of business altogether.

With respect to the car theft analogy though, I don't equate piracy directly to theft of a product. It's pretty laughable that people will get more actual jail time from walking in a record store and physically stealing a CD than they will from downloading the exact same content (minus the packaging) online. When someone pirates music or movies, they aren't depriving people of a product. As they would if they walked into a dealership and stole a car off the lot. All pirates are doing is creating a digital copy of media. Whether or not they would have actually *bought* the content to begin with is where the argument really is. The record companies say "absolutely", with any download for free, why would anyone pay for the same content over again?

The answer is difficult to quantify because I'm sure people's reasons for illegal downloading varies. Just as I would imagine most car thieves steal cars for profit, most illegal downloaders do it because the prices are arbitrarily high. Doesn't justify it, but the sooner the record companies and movie studios come to grips with their reality (and antiquated business models) the better off we'll all be.

Like I said, I think both sides of the issue are wrong. Both groups should meet in the middle.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 10, 2011)

I download music to listen to new shit. I still buy and order CD's and have quite the collection, although I have way more music on my computer than I have CD's for. Try finding an out of print black metal album that was only released on vinyl, and there were only 666 numbered copies made. Some of them can run upwards of $100 a pop. I just want to light some black candles and wear corpse paint and listen to this shit while playing around with swords


----------



## orb451 (Jul 10, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I download music to listen to new shit. I still buy and order CD's and have quite the collection, although I have way more music on my computer than I have CD's for. Try finding an out of print black metal album that was only released on vinyl, and there were only 666 numbered copies made. Some of them can run upwards of $100 a pop. I just want to light some black candles and wear corpse paint and listen to this shit while playing around with swords



How you spend your Friday nights is no one's business but yours  But you're the kind of downloader they should *not* be targeting with lawsuits, but rather, the kind they ought to try to appeal to.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 10, 2011)

I find the predominant mentality that an industry should be forced to placate and work with thieves to improve the situation interesting.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 10, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> I find the predominant mentality that an industry should be forced to placate and work with thieves to improve the situation interesting.



Not necessarily to placate, but to adapt to the market. For years they held all the keys to the kingdom with respect to media distribution. Sure there were ways around them but they were slow and cumbersome and did not provide the same level of access to media outlets that the media companies did. 

The internet changed that. Rather than adapting their business practices accordingly they ignored the change. Then once the genie was fully out of the bottle, they tried to litigate it back in. And it didn't work. The only way forward for them is to change the way they do business. Use the internet as a tool, not a tool for threats, lawsuits and legal maneuvering. They have to compete with "free" but they *can* do it, by adding value to their products.

Make no mistake about it, some (maybe even a *lot*) of people will steal regardless. Out of laziness or a sense of entitlement, both of which I despise. However, media prices have remained artificially inflated for decades, it's time they got a reality check. I believe most people aren't opposed to paying for content, provided it's a reasonable price. If some pig headed people believe that the price should always be zero or right above it, I would say fuck off.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Not necessarily to placate, but to adapt to the market. For years they held all the keys to the kingdom with respect to media distribution. Sure there were ways around them but they were slow and cumbersome and did not provide the same level of access to media outlets that the media companies did.
> 
> The internet changed that. Rather than adapting their business practices accordingly they ignored the change. Then once the genie was fully out of the bottle, they tried to litigate it back in. And it didn't work. The only way forward for them is to change the way they do business. Use the internet as a tool, not a tool for threats, lawsuits and legal maneuvering. They have to compete with "free" but they *can* do it, by adding value to their products.
> 
> Make no mistake about it, some (maybe even a *lot*) of people will steal regardless. Out of laziness or a sense of entitlement, both of which I despise. However, media prices have remained artificially inflated for decades, it's time they got a reality check. I believe most people aren't opposed to paying for content, provided it's a reasonable price. If some pig headed people believe that the price should always be zero or right above it, I would say fuck off.



The industry needs to change, yes ofcourse, but because some peopel decide to take it into their own hands, illegally, because they feel entitled to it, definitely not. I have actually met people who told me downloading isn't wrong because they believe it should be free and it is wrong to restrict intellectual property. 

I am in Explorers court though, the only real options you have are buy it, or do without. Not buying it sends a much stronger message than downloading it, it says you are not willing or interested in the product as it stands. Downloading it however shows that you are infact so interested in it you will use any means necessary to acquire it, including those with strict penalties. 

At risk of undermining myself, with those 'kvlt' black metal records I may be willing to look the other way, as the creators wouldn't make any money after their initial small low quality release in the first place . (however I doubt you would catch me listening to it).


----------



## orb451 (Jul 10, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> The industry needs to change, yes ofcourse, but because some peopel decide to take it into their own hands, illegally, because they feel entitled to it, definitely not. I have actually met people who told me downloading isn't wrong because they believe it should be free and it is wrong to restrict intellectual property.



Right and I couldn't agree more, I cannot stand people that feel entitled to just about anything in life, least of all music and movies.



SirMyghin said:


> I am in Explorers court though, the only real options you have are buy it, or do without. Not buying it sends a much stronger message than downloading it, it says you are not willing or interested in the product as it stands. Downloading it however shows that you are infact so interested in it you will use any means necessary to acquire it, including those with strict penalties.



Unfortunately by voting with your wallet and *not* buying their products, the media giants have done a great job of painting lost sales, reduced revenue, etc as *all* the fault of pirates. There's some twisted logic in that, but that's what they've done. What?!? Our 3rd quarter revenue is down and we won't meet our forecast goals???!!! Can't be because our products sucked, hell no! It's because of THEM!!! Those fucking pirates stole our sales!! 

Which to me at least is just another flavor of that entitlement mentality. As if they're entitled to maximum profits, ad infinitum, without ever having to change their business model in the face of new, fast, better technology. 

Fuck em' man, that's what I say, fuck em' on both sides of this issue.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 10, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> You overlook a very simple fact, is people find money for entertainment, seemingly without fail. It is a form of escapement, and the reason that movie theaters were extremely popular in the 1930s. People magically had to money for theater trips, and typically entertainment venues do well in the face of a depression due to this. The only reason for contrary movement, if any, of late is that peopel are exercising their 'right' to the intellectual properties of others through alterior, illegal ways, because they don't feel they should have to pay people who put work into things. I for one do not work for free, the theft is the due to the creators who obviously put enough into their work for you to want to see it badly enough to run south of the law.



Nickelodeons in the 1930's charged people five cents to see a movie. Around that time, it was the price of a candy bar.

Presently, many cinemas are charging more than $7, while a Snickers or Hershey bar costs less than $1.

Don't get me wrong, stealing someone else's intellectual property is damaging and should be prosecuted in civil court, but the billions in damages that the companies are seeking is a bit hard to swallow.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 10, 2011)

^ While at the same time at a labour job you could expect 30-40$ a month.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 10, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> ^ While at the same time at a labour job you could expect 30-40$ a month.



Probably more like $150-200/month. Jobs paid pretty well, but a lot of people didn't have jobs. I'd be willing to guess that the standard of living was probably not much different then than it is now for working people, but unemployment reaching 20% meant that a lot of people didn't have ANY income.

If you consider a nickel out of $200 versus $8 out of $20000, it's still more money.


----------



## Michael T (Jul 10, 2011)

They don't care about the artist or peoples jobs, this is their true concern right here ! 
" $3 billion in lost federal, state and local government tax revenue," the NCTA whined

Uncle Sam cannot get his hand in a Pirates cookie jar, yaaaarrrrgggghhhh


----------



## Xaios (Jul 11, 2011)

While it's true that the current model needs revising, music and movie pirates also tend to be highly hypocritical. Their biggest and most enduring (which is not to say that it's relevant, because frankly it's not) argument is that "oh, well only like five cents goes to the artist, the rest goes to THE MAN."

And yet, when Keith Merrow's latest album came out, which was recorded and distributed solely by him, there were literally THOUSANDS of pirated download links on google within a few days of its release.

The point being that download pirates can act as sanctimonious self-righteous about the issue as they want, there's no hiding the fact that the biggest motivation for the grand majority of them to pirate is because they are simply able to do so without paying. The lions share of piraters don't give a flying fuck who produced an album, how much money was spent on a production or where financing to actually MAKE something came from. These are simply convenient excuses that can be tossed around like loose change, but they don't reflect the fact that most people pirate simply because they're too cheap to spend the money to actually buy something. That is the truth.

And even if only five cents per sale goes to the artist, the artist in all likelihood entered into the agreement with the label knowing that it was all they were going to get, so that throws the whole argument about labels screwing over bands out the window.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 11, 2011)

I like the argument that the penalties for theft are too harsh. 

I know that I don't want to pay any of the penalties for breaking the law, so I don't break them. Problem solved. 

The most brilliant observation in this thread?



SirMyghin said:


> I find the predominant mentality that an industry should be forced to placate and work with thieves to improve the situation interesting.



----

In having looked at this legislation, it looks like the ISP subscribers who are engaging in illegal downloads will get three to five warnings that their service is being used for such. At that point, it won't be a matter of claiming they didn't know what was going on. 

Warnings. Lots of 'em. 

At that point, if someone can't figure out that they're about to be prosecuted... is anyone seriously arguing that the law needs to be changed to protect someone who insists on breaking the law after *knowing* they've been exposed? Like arguing that someone who didn't see all the police cars outside the donut shop should have the penalty lowered for trying to rob it when it was full of cops? 

Darwin at its best, and now an online version of it.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 11, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Not necessarily to placate, but to adapt to the market. For years they held all the keys to the kingdom with respect to media distribution. Sure there were ways around them but they were slow and cumbersome and did not provide the same level of access to media outlets that the media companies did.
> 
> The internet changed that. Rather than adapting their business practices accordingly they ignored the change. Then once the genie was fully out of the bottle, they tried to litigate it back in. And it didn't work. The only way forward for them is to change the way they do business. Use the internet as a tool, not a tool for threats, lawsuits and legal maneuvering. They have to compete with "free" but they *can* do it, by adding value to their products.
> 
> Make no mistake about it, some (maybe even a *lot*) of people will steal regardless. Out of laziness or a sense of entitlement, both of which I despise. However, media prices have remained artificially inflated for decades, it's time they got a reality check. I believe most people aren't opposed to paying for content, provided it's a reasonable price. If some pig headed people believe that the price should always be zero or right above it, I would say fuck off.




This is basically how I feel on the matter as well. The industry has to adapt to the way the market is now, and not by fucking customers over either.

In a similar situation, if you look at something like Netflix, you'll see that many people will gladly pay a reasonable price in order to get their entertainment. Many even like the service so much that they cancel their cable TV service because it's cheaper and more convenient - you pay far less, and you watch what you want, when you want to. Instead of the cable companies adapting, they've turned to their Internet services which are usually bundled with the cable TV and add data caps or other forms of UBB to them in order to protect television revenue. 

Instead of content and service providers learning from the new model that Netflix brought us, they're constantly trying to kill it off by using their own products to make that service less attractive. There's something seriously wrong with a model where you compete with other services by making your own worse rather than offering something better.

My point with all this is that, like Rich stated, these companies have to use the Internet as a tool to make their product better, and if they add value to the product or price it in line with what it's worth to people, many of them will pay for it. But clinging to their outdated model, much like TV providers are trying to do, is only going to push people the other way.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 12, 2011)

WickedSymphony said:


> In a similar situation, if you look at something like Netflix, you'll see that many people will gladly pay a reasonable price in order to get their entertainment.
> 
> (Regarding other content providers, presumably including DVD manufacturers) ...But clinging to their outdated model, much like TV providers are trying to do, is only going to push people the other way.



Is the other way Netflix?

Is the other way deciding to do without?

Or, are you saying that the dichotomy is between buying and thievery?

I've not been pushed to steal entertainment. In fact, I don't think I've read any news stories of anyone who has been forced to do so. Barring someone posting such, I think that possibility is false.

I just want to understand, because it always seems that there is a strange assumption under a lot of these conversations, that people will reasonably be expected to steal the luxuries they cannot buy. I wonder, are there any reliable statistics on age distrubution and frequency of individuals who steal media?

I just have to wonder how representative the laissez-faire attitude present here on SS.org is of the general population of, say, the US. 

The thing which surprises me most is how few members of SS.org have apparently relied on performing and recording for a majority of their income. Is it possible that working musicians who are trying to make it and who have actually released and are selling CDs, and are possibly supporting families, feel so understanding about piracy? I no longer rely on recordings for my main income; is it possible that no one who is okay with piracy in this thread has anything serious on the line, nothing to be lost?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 12, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I like the argument that the penalties for theft are too harsh.
> 
> I know that I don't want to pay any of the penalties for breaking the law, so I don't break them. Problem solved.


 
Thoughts on piracy aside, that's a poor observation. Of course the penalty can be avoided by not committing the crime, but that doesn't mean the penalty _isn't_ too harsh. Can the penalty be avoided? Yes. Should the thieves be punished? Sure. Should any old penalty be okay just because the punishment is easily avoidable? That seems... silly.

In short, complaining that there _is _a penalty for breaking a law is pretty dumb, but complaining that a penalty is too harsh for the crime seems perfectly valid to me.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 12, 2011)

They should just cut their hands off. They could have chosen no to download that Gaga track, after all.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 12, 2011)

I think one of the reasons it's hard to shake that sense of entitlement many people have regarding music is because for many, _many_ years now people have been able to legally listen to music for free whenever they want to.







I'm certainly not saying that's proper justification for breaking the law, I'm just trying to put a finger on the attitude some have.


----------



## pink freud (Jul 12, 2011)

Semi-related:

I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this; television as it currently is is not sustainable. It is an outdated delivery model that will be completely antiquated with a generation or two. Why should we buy a subscription to a bundle of channels when we only want to watch _maybe_ 10% of those channels. I _never_ watch any of the sports/cooking/Spanish channels. But I have to purchase those if I want the Science channel. 

This is the modern fucking age. The Internet Age. There is no excuse for these companies not realizing that this is the age of streaming the content that you want and ignoring the content that you don't. I'd be even willing to go so far as to still have to purchase whole channels, but let me _choose_ the channels. If I only want to watch 10 channels, let me have a pay-per-channel service. Charge me a fee if I want to watch something on another channel. I'd be fine with that. But this "Buy 300 channels because you want a smattering of the channels in this exclusive bundle" shit has got to go.

This is why 99% of my television viewing is Netflix.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 12, 2011)

I'd argue that even though many of the downloaders are not paying for said material, they ARE the market that the industry is trying to appeal to. Most of these people support the bands(well, labels) in some form. I dont think biting the hand that feeds is a very good idea.

I personally think that musicians need to get over the idea that their music is "special". Lets face it, your PLAYING instruments. While it does sooth people and help, its really just some arranged sounds. No one deserves to be a millionaire for being in a band. Plain and simple. I'd love to play guitar for a living, but at some point you have to grow up and get a real job. The bands that have "made it" are lucky, freak occurances.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 12, 2011)

^^^

While I agree with your sentiment about playing music for a living, it is hardly on topic.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 12, 2011)

You know, saying something about radio above got me thinking. People can listen to music on the radio for free, but they're also subjected to advertising while they listen. The revenue from that advertising is what keeps radio stations afloat. Why couldn't record companies just have websites where people can download their music for free, but every time you download something, you get an advertisement. The more often something is downloaded, the higher the fees are to advertise your product when that file is downloaded. That way there'd still be incentive to market bands and everything, because the record companies would be after the big marketing dollars they'd get from having a successful artist whose music many people want to download. The contracts the artists sign could include stipulations for a percentage of advertising revenue instead of album/song sales.

I obviously don't have the business acumen to know exactly how that would all be drawn up, but does it sound like a sensible option to anyone else?


----------



## orb451 (Jul 12, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> You know, saying something about radio above got me thinking. People can listen to music on the radio for free, but they're also subjected to advertising while they listen. The revenue from that advertising is what keeps radio stations afloat. Why couldn't record companies just have websites where people can download their music for free, but every time you download something, you get an advertisement. The more often something is downloaded, the higher the fees are to advertise your product when that file is downloaded. That way there'd still be incentive to market bands and everything, because the record companies would be after the big marketing dollars they'd get from having a successful artist whose music many people want to download. The contracts the artists sign could include stipulations for a percentage of advertising revenue instead of album/song sales.
> 
> I obviously don't have the business acumen to know exactly how that would all be drawn up, but does it sound like a sensible option to anyone else?




It sounds reasonable. The trouble is, people will find ways to circumvent the ads and still get the content. Weren't cable and network TV providers once pitching a fit over DVR's and their ability to bypass ads? 

I understand the model you're talking about, but from a tech standpoint, I think the big companies have probably already thought about it and since it was a losing battle they settled for DRM to control how much (in theory) you could "share" or distribute their content without paying for it through royalties or licensing.

And when DRM was shown to be a dog and pony show in the grand scheme of things, media companies turned to what worked, legislation and lawsuits....


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 12, 2011)

The sites where people go to pirate stuff usually have ads, don't they? Do people try to circumvent those? It doesn't have to be something like those annoying ads on youtube that you can't skip. It could be as simple as a banner ad or something like that.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jul 12, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The sites where people go to pirate stuff usually have ads, don't they? Do people try to circumvent those? It doesn't have to be something like those annoying ads on youtube that you can't skip. It could be as simple as a banner ad or something like that.


adblock plus firefox ad on.

I do think that is a good idea, but I'm unsure how it would play out.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 12, 2011)

Yeah wherever, and however, you want to put ads, you're going to get people trying to get around those ads.

People don't like ads. They tolerated them for decades because they had little choice. Given a choice, most people will skip them or not pay attention anyway if possible.

Hollywood and the music industry should have gotten on board with the idea of the net when it started gaining momentum, around the late 90's, early 2000's would have been the prime time to make their play. And they didn't. 

Genie's not going back in its bottle...


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 12, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Is the other way Netflix?
> 
> Is the other way deciding to do without?
> 
> Or, are you saying that the dichotomy is between buying and thievery?



The other way would include all of these, as I meant that it would push people away from purchasing products from them and either going without or going through another provider, legal or otherwise. I'm not trying to justify piracy or say that it's reasonable for people to illegally download content, but it's more or less an inevitability that there _will_ be people who do for whatever reason.

What I'm getting at with the Netflix example is that providing a better product (or bringing the price of it more in line with what people would value it at) would be a better way to increase sales to people who are going without or going through other means for their entertainment because those people are part of their market. There's no reason why Hollywood and other entertainment industries should be exempt from improving their products, adapting them to the current age of media delivery, and pricing them correctly.


Ultimately, the issue is with both sides - the pirates and the content providers. But to me, going through all the legal battles and whatnot to try and stop piracy seems like another "war on drugs" type of scenario, in the sense that as much as they try to fight it, it's just such a large problem that the war can't be won through those means. If they want to fight piracy, I think their best chance is to adapt their business model to what people demand.



orb451 said:


> And when DRM was shown to be a dog and pony show in the grand scheme of things, media companies turned to what worked, legislation and lawsuits....



Unfortunately, if the legislation and lawsuits DID actually work, then more people would be deterred from downloading illegally. But seeing as how they're still going at it every chance they get (the lawsuits, I mean), I don't think it's doing such a great job.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 12, 2011)

WickedSymphony said:


> Unfortunately, if the legislation and lawsuits DID actually work, then more people would be deterred from downloading illegally. But seeing as how they're still going at it every chance they get (the lawsuits, I mean), I don't think it's doing such a great job.



I think they went after enough of the low hanging fruit while they had the chance. I could be wrong but I thought some judges/courts somewhere pretty much stopped a lot of their John Doe 10,000 defendant lawsuits in their tracks because they wanted the companies to do their work and find the names of the alleged file sharers. Before that it was like shooting fish in a barrel for them.

Maybe it still is. I think the lawsuits worked to a certain extent in that they did get *some* money and did send *some* people scared shitless and straight. Was it enough though? Nah, it's a losing battle and the War on Drugs analogy is especially apt.

If they can eek out a $50,000 dollar settlement out of some mid 20's flunky that left his wi-fi on or decided to share or download a music library, the record companies see it as a victory. If it stops even *one* person from pirating their content I'm sure they view it as a win.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 12, 2011)

orb451 said:


> I could be wrong but I thought some judges/courts somewhere pretty much stopped a lot of their John Doe 10,000 defendant lawsuits in their tracks because they wanted the companies to do their work and find the names of the alleged file sharers. Before that it was like shooting fish in a barrel for them.



Yeh, basically they wanted them to get the IP addresses of the offenders, but that caused some problems if I remember right because an IP address is not equivalent to the actual offending person thanks to things like unsecured open WiFi and what have you.
 
Something related and quite hilarious:

I may be a little foggy on the actual events, but a massive shitstorm ensued when they took too long to deliver their information to the courts in one particular case thus angering a judge. Eventually the lawyers said it was only worth it to go after people who download porn because they're more concerned about saving face than someone who downloads a regular movie and would be more likely to pay up.

Reminds me of another case where they took a gay porn video and renamed the file to some Japanese composer's classical music album, then when someone downloaded it they pressed charges saying she knew she was downloading gay porn.


----------



## The Reverend (Jul 12, 2011)

WickedSymphony said:


> Ultimately, the issue is with both sides - the pirates and the content providers. But to me, going through all the legal battles and whatnot to try and stop piracy seems like another "war on drugs" type of scenario, in the sense that as much as they try to fight it, it's just such a large problem that the war can't be won through those means. If they want to fight piracy, I think their best chance is to adapt their business model to what people demand.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, if the legislation and lawsuits DID actually work, then more people would be deterred from downloading illegally. But seeing as how they're still going at it every chance they get (the lawsuits, I mean), I don't think it's doing such a great job.



I wholeheartedly agree with this. Piracy is stealing, no matter how you try to justify the reasons behind it, or apply subversive logic like the whole argument about it just being digital copies. With that being said, it's not going away, ever. If you think about in the most pragmatic way, it's really the best way to acquire information that you want. Free always trumps paying, at least in the mindsets of the mob. Without admitting too much (and possibly getting banned ) I've done my fair share of pirating, but I was in the wrong. As beneficial as it might have been, it ultimately was doing a disservice to the people who stood to gain from the creation of whatever it was I was stealing.

I'm sure a high percentage of people currently benefiting from piracy won't have a change of heart, and the smart thing for the industry to do is address what concerns they can. I want to go back to the days where artists got huge advances and could actually live off their music, not this 360 deal shit that's essentially like a bank loan. The industries involved need to really rethink where they stand, because if the number of people pirating keeps increasing, it won't be long until they go bankrupt. 

Take the example of Netflix. You have a huge database of movies you can stream, and if you live in a metropolitan area and pay the ~$2-3 more a month you can get movies not available for streaming sent to your house. Why waste your time and resources, not to mention the legal aspects, of downloading movies when you have pretty much everything you want at your fingertips? In fact, this business model is becoming so successful that it's already helped shut down or negatively impact various parts of the film industry. I haven't seen a Blockbuster open in how many years? 

I'm not sure what software companies and music labels could do to keep up, but it's clear that at this point, they need to get on it instead of wasting time on things like the OP's article.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 13, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Take the example of Netflix. You have a huge database of movies you can stream, and if you live in a metropolitan area and pay the ~$2-3 more a month you can get movies not available for streaming sent to your house. Why waste your time and resources, not to mention the legal aspects, of downloading movies when you have pretty much everything you want at your fingertips? In fact, this business model is becoming so successful that it's already helped shut down or negatively impact various parts of the film industry. I haven't seen a Blockbuster open in how many years?
> .



Block buster is currently going under in Canada too, Netflix appears to have been the crux, but free streaming/piracy definitely didn't help. I wish Netflix got the same amount of stuff in Canada as you folks in the USA, but we still get a lot. I was called by my cable company saying we will give you free cable for 3 months, and a free digital box for a year, when she was overly persistant I told her I run netflix, and for the little amount of TV I actually watch it is much better than what you offer. 

All the upcoming wanted changes with UBB and such are the internet providers (which oddly also represent most of the TV providers now, at least in Canada, Bell and Rogers) to try and capitalize on them getting owned in the market. One mistake Canada made is when Bell went private, they let it keep the line network and the services (where hydro in Ontario was divided into 5 individual separate companies). Bell was effectively handed a monopoly, kept only in check by the often dubious CRTC.

If you compare what we pay for data, cell phones, internet etc in North America with Europe it is absurd (we pay much more). But netflix really is the model that needs to be adopted, as it has demonstrated itself quite clearly.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 13, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> All the upcoming wanted changes with UBB and such are the internet providers (which oddly also represent most of the TV providers now, at least in Canada, Bell and Rogers) to try and capitalize on them getting owned in the market. One mistake Canada made is when Bell went private, they let it keep the line network and the services (where hydro in Ontario was divided into 5 individual separate companies). Bell was effectively handed a monopoly, kept only in check by the often dubious CRTC.
> 
> If you compare what we pay for data, cell phones, internet etc in North America with Europe it is absurd (we pay much more). But netflix really is the model that needs to be adopted, as it has demonstrated itself quite clearly.



Which is more or less exactly what I said earlier. All the changes with UBB and data caps are their way of "competing" with services like Netflix, VoIP and IPTV thanks to all of those wonderful bundles of TV, Net, and Phone services. 

And as far as splitting up Bell, here's how well it worked out for us in the states:




I find it funny that they say they can't provide faster Internet at reasonable prices when a smaller ISP about 30 miles from here called sonic.net is building out for 1gbps internet services and will charge about $70/mo. for it with phone included. Also funny that a company like this constantly shows lower capex and higher profits, and also turns around and is putting up $38 billion to acquire T-Mobile. 

It seems that the only way for these companies, AT&T in particular, to compete is by buying out their competition or using their own product to limit the services provided by others as I said earlier.


----------



## NaYoN (Jul 15, 2011)

A large reason for international piracy is region locking. I've lived in Turkey for a large bit of my life, and many music, games, movies just aren't legally available here, and online distributors don't ship/let us download in certain regions. The only option in this case is piracy.

For example, why can't I buy Kindle books from here in Turkey? Why can't I stream Netflix?


----------



## caskettheclown (Jul 15, 2011)

Big reason a lot of people pirate movies is ...


When you start up a DVD you have to go through ALL the previews and ALL the FBI warnings and so on and so forth.


Yes I know thats just a very small reason people download illegally but still


----------



## NaYoN (Jul 15, 2011)

caskettheclown said:


> Big reason a lot of people pirate movies is ...
> 
> 
> When you start up a DVD you have to go through ALL the previews and ALL the FBI warnings and so on and so forth.
> ...



A good solution to that, and something I (may or may not) frequently do is pay&pirate. You buy something, and then pirate it (or vice versa). You own it legally, and you can bypass all annoying ads and/or DRM.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 15, 2011)

Interesting. I can hit the "menu" button on my remote and go right to the main menu.

Then I mute, choose to start at the second scene, skip back to the first, and unmute. No FBI warnings. 

Of course, I suppose it's easier to search for and steal a copy than to take the 8 seconds it takes me from putting in the disc to actually watching the movie. My method probably would tax all but the highest intellects, right?

Actually, I don't believe that. I think it's just cheaper to steal, and people will grasp at anything to justify the theft.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 16, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Actually, I don't believe that. I think it's just cheaper to steal, and people will grasp at anything to justify the theft.



Yeah, I'm actually with you on that one. I agree that the previews and warnings and whatnot are annoying, but I seriously doubt people pirate just to bypass those.


----------



## Xaios (Jul 16, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Interesting. I can hit the "menu" button on my remote and go right to the main menu.
> 
> Then I mute, choose to start at the second scene, skip back to the first, and unmute. No FBI warnings.



Most DVD players disable the majority of the buttons on the remotes while FBI warnings are playing. If you're doesn't, you're one of the lucky ones. Me, I get by fine waiting thirty seconds to actually get to the menu.


----------



## NaYoN (Jul 27, 2011)

NaYoN said:


> A large reason for international piracy is region locking. I've lived in Turkey for a large bit of my life, and many music, games, movies just aren't legally available here, and online distributors don't ship/let us download in certain regions. The only option in this case is piracy.
> 
> For example, why can't I buy Kindle books from here in Turkey? Why can't I stream Netflix?



So apparently I got neg repped for this post, unsigned of course, saying: "there is another option, do without." Why don't you just say that here in the thread? So you neg rep people when you disagree with them in a debate?

Distributors don't bring material to some countries. There is literally no way for you to obtain it legally. In this case, piracy is not "lost revenue", because you couldn't have obtained it to begin with. Yes, you can do without the material, but there is no harm done to anyone when you pirate it. So, if the Turkish distributor brings nothing to Turkey, then what does a Turkish film student do? What does the average movie-watcher do? Also, many movies aren't brought to Turkey anymore because they are "religiously unacceptable" or they are heavily censored. Yes, you can refrain from watching anything, but why? How are you hurting the creator if there is no way for you to support them?


----------



## flint757 (Jul 27, 2011)

NaYoN said:


> So apparently I got neg repped for this post, unsigned of course, saying: "there is another option, do without." Why don't you just say that here in the thread? So you neg rep people when you disagree with them in a debate?
> 
> Distributors don't bring material to some countries. There is literally no way for you to obtain it legally. In this case, piracy is not "lost revenue", because you couldn't have obtained it to begin with. Yes, you can do without the material, but there is no harm done to anyone when you pirate it. So, if the Turkish distributor brings nothing to Turkey, then what does a Turkish film student do? What does the average movie-watcher do? Also, many movies aren't brought to Turkey anymore because they are "religiously unacceptable" or they are heavily censored. Yes, you can refrain from watching anything, but why? How are you hurting the creator if there is no way for you to support them?



I have to agree with you who ever did that is a lil bit of a coward and a douche. Excluding the argument about profit what the person who neg repped you is suggesting is that you watch nothing, listen to nothing, etc.. If you are being entirely correct about your situation I feel for ya and also am understanding.

And people if your gonna bash someone for something they said either do it in the thread or it least man up and leave your name. No one likes a coward.


----------



## hokum (Aug 3, 2011)

It looks like it is time for all the world's pirates to invest in seedboxes


----------



## Watty (Aug 6, 2011)

Xaios said:


> While it's true that the current model needs revising, music and movie pirates also tend to be highly hypocritical. Their biggest and most enduring (which is not to say that it's relevant, because frankly it's not) argument is that "oh, well only like five cents goes to the artist, the rest goes to THE MAN."
> 
> And yet, when Keith Merrow's latest album came out, which was recorded and distributed solely by him, there were literally THOUSANDS of pirated download links on google within a few days of its release.
> 
> ...



I think you make a good point here, but consider this:

I buy a CD for about 15 dollars. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Band X, who I really want to support, gleans 75 cents from the sale.

I'm out 15 dollars, and Band X has gained 75 cents.

OR

I illegally (whether in spirit or actuality) download their CD for free; or at the very least, the cost of the internet usage for the time elapsed during the download. Then, I go to see them live and proceed to buy a T-Shirt/Hoodie/Misc Merch. Provided the Venue is moderately high-profile, etc. Band X gleans maybe 50 Cents from the sale of my ticket and a profit of 15 dollars from my purchase of the shirt.

I'm out approximately 45 Dollars, and Band X has gained $15.50; not to mention the advertising they get while I wear the shirt, tell my friends about their show, etc. Situation #1 nets them less than 8% of the total sale amount and finds me unable (in some cases) to buy another CD right away if I am less than satisfied with it. Situation #2 nets them approximately 33% of the total sale amount, gives me an opportunity to "try before I buy," and leaves me room to find more artists to support and continue to help perpetuate the industry (at least in terms of the artists themselves, who as some have shown, can survive without the help of a label).

Bands make their money touring, period. Based on the above, I personally find it okay to download the CD so long as I make an honest effort to see the bands live. Most of the time I end up buying it later on just for the sake of having it for "display" anyways...

This obviously doesn't apply to any other form of media being discussed here, but I'd appreciate it others could chime in with their thoughts as to what I've said, especially if I'm off as to the amounts of compensation, etc.

And as far as Merrow is concerned, he'd built up a reputation of giving away his music for free, so I'd imagine that some folks felt it wasn't necessarily the worst thing in the world to download it without paying for it. Not trying to give them justification, simply explaining how it's an example a bit off to the side of the road that was your main point.

2 Cents.../end psuedo rant


----------



## OrsusMetal (Aug 6, 2011)

watsonb2 said:


> I buy a CD for about 15 dollars. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Band X, who I really want to support, gleans 75 cents from the sale.
> 
> I'm out 15 dollars, and Band X has gained 75 cents.




I went ahead and scratched the rest just so it is easier to see what I'm replying to.

This is the point that a lot of people come from. They feel the band won't make much from the sale, so instead they try to support them via concert merch sales. Very understandable and is also a great way to support a touring band.

Other things that people forget about this scenario of choosing not to buy the cd is the label. Yes, the band will probably only see about 75 cents of the sale of that cd, but usually the band won't see that money at all when people go about it this way.

Most bands sign into contracts with their labels that X amount of cds have to be sold before the band will actually see any of the profit. So, if the label sell 1000 cds to a certain music store, the label usually reserves the right to hold back any of the bands profits until those 1000 copies sell. If they don't sell, usually the store sends the cds back. Usually that is when the band finally sees any money. That can take a few years most of the time. And if the cds don't sell at all, the band can actually owe the label money.

This happened to a signed band I know.

So the more people that hold out on purchasing record sales can also lead to certain bands losing money. Of course, there are ways bands can avoid this. Still, I'm just trying to bring up another point.


----------



## wlfers (Aug 7, 2011)

When they play those previews, "YOU wouldn't download a car... WOULD YOU?"

I always think:

fuck yes I would.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Aug 7, 2011)

watsonb2 said:


> I think you make a good point here, but consider this:
> 
> I buy a CD for about 15 dollars. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Band X, who I really want to support, gleans 75 cents from the sale.
> 
> I'm out 15 dollars, and Band X has gained 75 cents.



A few comments/questions about your post:

Regardless of whether your figures are right or not (as I have no idea what the exact numbers are), they're still out that 75 cents or what have you every time someone pirates the disc. Not to mention that in order for tours to happen, venues often want to know that the band can bring in enough traffic to justify the booking. And how do they show that the band can draw in enough people if no one buys their music?



> I'm out approximately 45 Dollars, and Band X has gained $15.50; not to mention the advertising they get while I wear the shirt, tell my friends about their show, etc. Situation #1 nets them less than 8% of the total sale amount and finds me unable (in some cases) to buy another CD right away if I am less than satisfied with it. Situation #2 nets them approximately 33% of the total sale amount, gives me an opportunity to "try before I buy,"



If you went to their show and enjoyed it enough to tell your friends, why wouldn't you do the same thing if you liked their CD? In fact, you could actually play the CD for them and let them decide if they like the music or not themselves - something you couldn't do just by telling them about the show.

I don't understand the "try before you buy" thing since you spent 3x the money (in my experience it is often more, as shirts can be $25-30+ and tickets $30+ depending on the band) at the show rather than on a CD. It even sets you back farther from being able to find more artists to support since you're out even more money than in the case of buying a CD (don't forget to add in extra costs that don't even go to the gig itself - gas, food, etc. as generally venues are farther than your record store and you don't always go out for dinner before going to buy a CD ). 

This raises a good point though, that unlike with other products, we don't know exactly what it is we're getting until we buy the CD and listen to the music. 30 second clips of each song in many cases aren't enough to let us know whether or not we'll actually like the entire tracks or not as they may be high or low points of the songs, and the single may be the only track worth listening to on the whole cd.



> And as far as Merrow is concerned, he'd built up a reputation of giving away his music for free, so I'd imagine that some folks felt it wasn't necessarily the worst thing in the world to download it without paying for it.



The issue with that Merrow argument is that just because he gave some music away for free does not mean all if it is for free. Many bands will often release one or two promo tracks for free download, but that doesn't mean the whole album is automatically free.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2011)

This is on topic but off topic. Companies like Adobe charge 1000's of dollars for their product because people pirate it. They are aware people pirate it so they charge an exorbent amount to make companies and/or users who require a legit copy can cover the difference. 

I'm in no way perpetuating one side or the other here, but I think most artist have come to terms with that mentality and put a price on it for the people who will pay for it and expect more return from their shows. The only people really complaining are closet guitarists. I think even Keith himself commented on the pirating thing and didn't seem to give a shit from what I could tell. I do think artists should be supported, but I can see where both sides are coming from.

When people are talking about the costs relation and supporting artist argument they are referring to the fact that they can weed through the bullshit, pick what they like and support those specific artist. If you buy a CD by someone and then don't like it you then have to buy another one and maybe another. Once you found a band you like you then don't have enough money for a show anymore (all theoretical). That is what people are trying to say. Also in relation to my software argument big label CD's cost like $18 because people pirate (or maybe they are assholes ).


----------



## Waelstrum (Aug 7, 2011)

flint757 said:


> closet guitarists



I think that it's a safe assumption that everyone on this forum is a guitarist. 

For better or worse, I think the new model is basically that CDs are an advertisement for the live show, and if some people want to pay for the add, then that's great. Some people want paying for the CDs to become mandatory again, and I say why not let them try?


----------



## wlfers (Aug 7, 2011)

Anyway since some sensitive pansy can't handle a joke I'll respond seriously to this thread. Let me direct you to this golden piece of SS history:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/2092966-post10.html

I don't buy cds. I don't even download and burn to cds; they're a piece of shit data medium frankly. I do however buy shirts, concert tickets AND vinyls. Vinyls have a special feel that make it more of a combination musical/artwork piece than a shit way to get music to your stereo. This is all my opinion, if you feel the same for cd's as i do for vinyls, that's great im not bashing your taste =).

And as my link from orb conveys, you are not instantly depriving anyone of sales by downloading. It isn't stealing. 

Besides, why should it be that consumers are legally restricted from advances in goods and sales technology because the real thieves are not willing to invest and adapt to modern conveniences.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm not a huge metalhead at this point in my life, but I do listen to prog and other musics which are much harder to find. Buying some obscure disc out of Prague can be a gamble.

I regularly use the New Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock's user reviews to determine if I'm likely to enjoy something. There are reviewers whom I consider to be reliable in terms of describing something and rating it. 

If I can find reliable reviews, why is it so hard for some to do so as well? Given that one has to search to steal a disc's content as an illegal download, is it that much more difficult to do the research in order to only buy discs one would like?

Or... is it that one *needs* to constantly find albums in order to feed one's unquenchable appetites?

Often I'll go into a local CD store, one which has listening stations with current releases, and which will allow one to listen to used CDs as well, and I'll wind up buying only one CD... or even nothing at all. If I buy a CD, I'll wind up *really* listening to it, in the same way I listened to "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Aja." I'm not just trying to fill up a harddrive or an iPod/Zune/Fuze. 

I know that I'm lucky to live in a place with a few great stores, and I'm even luckier to have access to the internet, where I have access to reviews.

Did I luck out in terms of having a quantum leap forward in terms of the information on my particular interwebz? If not, it sounds like justification for one's actions, instead of an actual lack of information on particular artists' releases. 

Read the reviews? Not sure? Don't buy it! 

Or, is the thought that one is entitled to perfect information... even if one can't be arsed to look up reviews?


----------



## wlfers (Aug 7, 2011)

People generally listen to music that fits their taste, not the taste of their favorite review site. Personally I like the music to be completely new before I hear it the first time, the first album listen being magical. 

Music is often an emotional experience separate from reality, I don't want anyone's opinions or words dictating my next album purchase. I do however read reviews for things like gear, firearms, tools, cars etc. Next time I need to now how well a case opens and if the cd installs in consistently in my stereo and what kind of warranty it comes with, I'll definitely give this review thing a try. 

Anyway my point that any half wit who is trying to sell a ton of cds will cater to convenience oriented consumers, not the ones who do their reading.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2011)

Sometimes this argument feels a hell of a lot like religious and political one. It is a subject where no one falls in the middle and both sides feel very strongly about their opinions. So it is to that point that I'm still not going to say where I stand because I don't feel like hearing it. Both sides make valid arguments it is all a matter of how we as individuals feel about it and how we decide to tackle the issue. After all if we all agreed there wouldn't be an issue would there.

Also, when I said closet guitarist I was just trolling a bit, but I was referring to people who don't do shows and therefore only make there music from CD sales.

On another note People like Keith Merrow could put ads up on their videos at youtube to pull in some revenue as well (neither an excuse or idea for compensation just a thought). FYI not sure if people knew this, but when ads come up it is the host that put it there not youtube.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 7, 2011)

mostly offtopic:

Perhaps this is just one small aspect of how life is completely upheaving in the age of the internet. Information used to be so valuable, but now it's so easy to find out anything about anything.

I know several of you can remember the days before the internet clearly. In order to hear about cool bands, you had to know someone on the scene. I knew a guy who was just that. He was always distributing tapes of bands he liked. I'd pop the tape into the car and if I heard something I liked, I'd go buy the CD for $8-12 at Harmony House. Harmony House closed, being replaced by superstores like Media Play, Best Buy, FYE, etc. Tape players were replaced by mp3 players. Now I can hop on Real Rhapsodhy and click on "similar artists," but that almost never leads me to anything I like, or if I do find something I like, I can drive 30 miles to Best Buy to buy the artist's CD for $25 only to find out that it's never stocked, because I'm the only fool in a 250 mile radius who will buy the disc. Then I can log onto a website and purchase the CD to get it shipped to my door. Now, after going through all of this, I'd be a moron if I didn't realize that breaking the law to download the music gets it to me much faster and cheaper (ignoring the risk of being caught). But you know what? I don't have to break the law or buy the CD - as long as it is a band I found on Rhapsodhy, I can keep listening to it for free as long as I want.

Anyway, there are too many options these days to not pay for music. If it's a band I really support, like Symphony X, then I buy the CD.

I do not pirate music, but I do see why it is attractive to some people.

The internet hasn't made piracy possible, but it has leveled the playing field between piracy and legal purchase, so that both are on average, about as easy as each other. In the 80's, if you had a VCR and a tape recorder, you could pirate any movie or music. I don't recall the FBI cracking down on people taping Star Wars off of channel 2 onto VHS or people recording Michael Jackson's latest hit off of the radio, yet people still did such things. There was a teacher at my university that was fired for photocopying entire textbooks and selling them to students, though. I think if he was around today, though, he could have scanned the books and emailed them to hundreds of people at a time.

If that was too long and you didn't read it, I guess I can summarize and tie it together:

As long as information technology keeps moving at the current rate, intellectual property will continue to get more and more expensive to protect.


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 7, 2011)

athawulf said:


> Anyway since some sensitive pansy can't handle a joke I'll respond seriously to this thread. Let me direct you to this golden piece of SS history:
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/2092966-post10.html
> 
> ...



It's stealing. People like to confuse the issue with the whole freedom of information argument, and saying it's just a copy.

The band who wrote that music didn't do it because they felt some higher calling to spread their music to everyone. The few that do have some lofty ideal about their music are the ones who do shit for free. But most artists intend that you pay to experience their music. 

If I play a song note-for-note, riff-for-riff that you wrote, have I stolen it from you? If I took that song and didn't mention that it came from you, and then people starting worshiping me as the new Bulb or Tosin or something, have you suffered or been disadvantaged because of a copy that I made?

What you're saying is that if an artist makes a vase, and puts it in a shop, I can walk into the shop and steal it, as long as I put a duplicate in its place. No one's really hurt, right?


----------



## wlfers (Aug 7, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> It's stealing. People like to confuse the issue with the whole freedom of information argument, and saying it's just a copy.
> 
> The band who wrote that music didn't do it because they felt some higher calling to spread their music to everyone. The few that do have some lofty ideal about their music are the ones who do shit for free. But most artists intend that you pay to experience their music.
> 
> ...




I'm saying they are not analogous. I'm not using a freedom of information argument. 

Sorry but musical theft is plagiarism. Downloading isn't depriving anyone of any product or equivalent a monetary loss. So the big legal fight here is directed at the wrong crowd. 

If an artist makes a custom vase, and you copy it for your own enjoyment you aren't depriving the artist of his product or any income he would have received because there's no guarantee that you would have bought his actual product. If you however copy and profit, that is stealing and I agree with you.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 7, 2011)

Just out of curiosity...

If someone took your DNA and made an army of clone slaves out of it, would that be plagiarism? I think it would be neither plagiarism nor theft, but some other thing altogether. What do you guys think?

I'm not saying that stealing music is one or the other, and certainly not as bad as the above thought experiment.


----------



## wlfers (Aug 7, 2011)

bostjan said:


> Just out of curiosity...
> 
> If someone took your DNA and made an army of clone slaves out of it, would that be plagiarism? I think it would be neither plagiarism nor theft, but some other thing altogether. What do you guys think?
> 
> I'm not saying that stealing music is one or the other, and certainly not as bad as the above thought experiment.



I think my parents would be each entitled to one half of the creative license


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 7, 2011)

Plagiarism is a word that describes a specialized form a stealing.

What you failed to answer, though, is that the artists don't intend for you to listen to this music for free. Keep in mind I'm speaking generally here, so don't try to prove me wrong based on that one bit. They don't usually let you see them play for free, they don't put whole albums on the internet for you to listen to free. The notes they've arranged, the chord progressions they've put together, belong to those artists. Obtaining it in a way they didn't want you to obtain it is stealing. 

Also, your argument that you're not hurting them financially is literally bullshit. If downloading doesn't cost artists, or the labels who PAY, RECORD, AND SEND ARTISTS ON TOURS, why is there a big hubbub over it? Why have the days of Pearl Jam getting like a $200,000 advance gone? 

Piracy has an effect. By downloading a CD or DVD, you no longer have to buy it. That copy you're downloading? It wasn't even supposed to be uploaded. It's copyright infringement, which doesn't need any monetary gain to still be illegal. Anyways, if you have a movie, it means that you wanted to see it. You could've snuck in the theaters, or got it from Redbox for $1, but you somehow got your hands on it. That can fairly be called a lost profit. If your only access to it had previously been through monetary means, and yet you still have it, that's akin to having the $20 ripped out of your hand.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 7, 2011)

Here is my stance:

Go ahead and crack down on piracy. What I think is wrong is how insane the penalties are. If I steal a CD online, that should be the same penalty as if I steal  from Best Buy or Wal-Mart.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 7, 2011)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Here is my stance:
> 
> Go ahead and crack down on piracy. What I think is wrong is how insane the penalties are. If I steal a CD online, that should be the same penalty as if I steal from Best Buy or Wal-Mart.



Yeah, but what about kids who download 60 GB of pirated music? What if they shared the pirated music with their friends? Should they be charged as though they invaded a CD factory warehouse and stole everything inside? Should the friends that shared be charged as accomplices?

Okay, let's say I agree that such punishment is appropriate. What, then, if I am in a band that performs a cover of "Cemetery Gates" by Pantera at the end of every show four times per week for a year? Should the band be prosecuted for stealing two hundred copies of the CD?

Do any of you recall the crack-down on guitar tabs some ten years ago? It used to be very easy to find just about any song's guitar tab on OLGA, but downloading the tab was equated to stealing the sheet music from a store and OLGA shut down, yet UlimateGuitar and others popped up right in its place. Hmm. See any sort of a cycle going?


----------



## Explorer (Aug 7, 2011)

bostjan said:


> Okay, let's say I agree that such punishment is appropriate. What, then, if I am in a band that performs a cover of "Cemetery Gates" by Pantera at the end of every show four times per week for a year? Should the band be prosecuted for stealing two hundred copies of the CD?


 
You'd be in violation of copyright law, specifically regarding performance rights. You'd be approached by a group like ASCAP and asked to pay for such rights, and if you didn't, you'd be taken to court.

Incidentally, ASCAP (as well as other performance rights organizations like it, is a democratic-by-charter organization, governed by a board of elected musicians whose purpose is ostensibly to protect the rights of artists (alive or dead). It's not the record labels, which is often where music piracy advocates tend to cluster their justifications. 

So, taking a look at the norm, the PRO (performance rights organization) would file a lawsuit, likely asking for $30k for each performance for which rights weren't paid. If you continued to do so after they filed suit, you'd likely be found guilty of at least that year, and would owe $44 million. 

That's if you rejected the idea of buying license to the works for which you're violating that aspect of copyright. Hostile violation, refusing to stop after being informed, would look very bad to a judge... and likely to any jury who would hear the case. 

Often artists and venues will agree to pay for such licensure. You'd not necessarily be on the hook, of course. The law allows one to go after the venue, and most performing venues happily pay for a license. Those that don't wind up going to court, and then after the evidence is presented, they come to their senses and sign an undisclosed settlement.


----------



## Watty (Aug 8, 2011)

OrsusMetal said:


> I went ahead and scratched the rest just so it is easier to see what I'm replying to.
> 
> This is the point that a lot of people come from. They feel the band won't make much from the sale, so instead they try to support them via concert merch sales. Very understandable and is also a great way to support a touring band.
> 
> ...


 
Completely fair response, and one I do appreciate seeing. You make a good point with this, and while I considered this initially, I had one experience that kind of made me forget worry about this type of situation altogether.

I was going to buy a CD from an obscure band in Finland, which meant, in total, I'd be paying about $40 for a single CD. I'd heard their music and wanted to have the whole thing in addition to supporting them. I only found one place (Borders) that even had it listed as being available for order (really odd considering their lack of visibility in the US), so I tried to go through them to get ahold of it and they told me that it turned out they actually would not be able to order it. (Couldn't get it direct from the band as they didn't have an english website at the time...)

At this point, I just got fed up with the whole label distribution thing and just figured the merch support would be my personal justification...

And, in this day and age, I'd hate to think that bands would be willing to go into a contract knowing that they could end up broke just to say "yeah, we're signed..."



WickedSymphony said:


> A few comments/questions about your post:
> 
> Regardless of whether your figures are right or not (as I have no idea what the exact numbers are), they're still out that 75 cents or what have you every time someone pirates the disc. Not to mention that in order for tours to happen, venues often want to know that the band can bring in enough traffic to justify the booking. And how do they show that the band can draw in enough people if no one buys their music?
> 
> ...


 
To the first portion of your response, not that it constitutes the end all be all of the venue's decision to house the showing for Band X, but a quick check on youtube views/subscribers can generally tell how popular a band is. (In today's age of dl'ing, I would think it would be a better estimation of a band's popularity anyways...)

With the second item, I'll admit, my clarification RE: trying before I buy doesn't always support my argument, but it was more of a tag on the larger benefit of the band gleaning more money. To further clarify my position, I'll say this:

In order for X amount of bands to gain a total of the $15.50 I mentioned in the previous post, I'd have to spend around 300 dollars on CD's, which is not financially feasible for most of their fans. However, spending the 60 or so (with the expenss you figured in) to give them the $15.50 while getting the live music experience from several bands seems much more desireable an outcome for all parties involved (based on the fact that you'd already have the downloaded CD's). (I only spend the cost of the ticket plus bus fare, which is like $5 round trip...walking's free  )

And to the Merrow point again, I wasn't saying the downloading was justified, only that some of his fans may not have known he was charging for the third CD after giving away the first two for free. If you come accross a link while on the internet, it doesn't inform you of the price of the album you're downloading...would be kind of interesting though...



bostjan said:


> Yeah, but what about kids who download 60 GB of pirated music? What if they shared the pirated music with their friends? Should they be charged as though they invaded a CD factory warehouse and stole everything inside? Should the friends that shared be charged as accomplices?


 
Well, 60 GB constitutes, what, like a few hundred CD's? I suppose you'd have to either seek damages based on the manufacturing cost or the retail cost; either way, I don't think that lawsuits I've heard of seek realistic damages, choosing instead to hit as hard as they can to deter others.

As to the friends comment, uploading (stealing) the CD is different than downloading ("borrowing") the CD, so I'd think the accomplices tag might be a bit extreme for the analogy.

I don't see that anyone has brought it up yet, but has there ever been any lawsuits involving the "pirating" of CD's checked out from the library? I know a few friends that just checked out about 50 CD's each; how is that any different that illegally downloading in the eyes of the law? Anyone?


----------



## chronocide (Aug 8, 2011)

bostjan said:


> Okay, let's say I agree that such punishment is appropriate. What, then, if I am in a band that performs a cover of "Cemetery Gates" by Pantera at the end of every show four times per week for a year? Should the band be prosecuted for stealing two hundred copies of the CD?




At least in the UK, that's not a crime, you can cover anything you like, the venue's PRS payments cover you. I'd be surprised if it's not much the same situation in the US?


----------



## Infinite Recursion (Aug 8, 2011)

They'll never stop it. Those who wish to steal music will always be one step ahead of those trying to stop it, and it is such a common phenomena that any countermeasures will be quickly defeated. They need to recognize that they won't stop piracy, and instead work towards minimizing the losses as much as possible. Now whether they package CDs with a code for a free shirt, or simply start promoting and producing better quality music, is up to them, but they have to make buying the album attractive again with something other then useless threats.


----------



## Ancestor (Aug 24, 2011)

it's so ridiculous. in the analog days we copied everything. you rent a vhs and if you like it you make a copy. same with cassettes.

but no one knew about it. now industry people think that the sharing is revenue that they'd get otherwise.

the truth is that sharing keeps people interested in the commercial culture and high speed internet.


----------



## The Munk (Aug 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> You'd be in violation of copyright law, specifically regarding performance rights. You'd be approached by a group like ASCAP and asked to pay for such rights, and if you didn't, you'd be taken to court.
> 
> Incidentally, ASCAP (as well as other performance rights organizations like it, is a democratic-by-charter organization, governed by a board of elected musicians whose purpose is ostensibly to protect the rights of artists (alive or dead). It's not the record labels, which is often where music piracy advocates tend to cluster their justifications.
> 
> ...




This is a perfect example of how these things trickle down. Licensing for performance rights is something that many clubs around this area refused to pay or stopped buying into. The Artists (primarily cover/ tribute bands) don't tend to do that either.
The result: DJ's everywhere! Enter dance crowd....
It was far more cost effective for a club owner to pay a DJ $Xto cover the whole night, rather than hassle with multiple bands/ promoters/ managers to handle one evenings entertainment.
Many of the best clubs the Bay area has ever seen have closed down. Now, those bands that are working their asses off are hard pressed to get enough stage time to build their fan base and sell their CD's or any other merch that they have.

Almost all Artists start out in the red getting their material out there. At what point does an Artist stop giving themselves away for free, and still be in business?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 31, 2011)

orb451 said:


> How you spend your Friday nights is no one's business but yours  But you're the kind of downloader they should *not* be targeting with lawsuits, but rather, the kind they ought to try to appeal to.


Friday nights, who are you kidding? Those are his Monday mornings. 

On-topic: My downloading is an I.O.U. to those artists whose music I keep. When I'm making more than what pays the bills, I'll buy. More likely, since I do not want to support records companies, will send the artist some money directly.


----------

