# "Pirates buy more music than average consumers."



## Philligan (Nov 14, 2012)

Interesting. 

RIAA: Pirates Are Bigger Music Fans Than Average Consumers | TorrentFreak


----------



## DLG (Nov 14, 2012)

not at all surprising.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

All the research done on this topic has shown that pirates buy more music and that file sharing a song actually increases the sales of that song, much like radio airplay. I can't access the link from work, but what I find interesting (if this is true) is that the RIAA is finally acknowledging this.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 14, 2012)

DLG said:


> not at all surprising.


----------



## DLG (Nov 14, 2012)

the only people who I know that buy cds, vinyl, shirts, attend concerts, lose money booking concerts, travel out of country to see shows, go to festivals, etc...are people who hang out on forums like this and share links with each other to download new music in order to discover new bands and sounds. 

these are the people supporting music, not killing it.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 14, 2012)

I would not be into metal if file sharing didnt exist


----------



## Varcolac (Nov 14, 2012)

"Home taping is killing vinyl sales."

It was a rubbish argument back then, it's a rubbish argument now.

Then again, I haven't pirated music for a _long_ time. Now I just pay a few pounds a month to a subscription download service, and download from that. If I haven't got enough on the account, I can top it up or just wait 'til the next month.


----------



## Philligan (Nov 14, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> "Home taping is killing vinyl sales."
> 
> It was a rubbish argument back then, it's a rubbish argument now.
> 
> Then again, I haven't pirated music for a _long_ time. Now I just pay a few pounds a month to a subscription download service, and download from that. If I haven't got enough on the account, I can top it up or just wait 'til the next month.


 
Or the radio killing concert ticket sales 

Regardless of what people think about downloading music, it's not going anywhere. It's interesting to see how some bands evolve with it, and how the mainstream industry is changing/will change.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 14, 2012)

While not surprising, due to obviously increased interest (why else would you be so driven to acquire something, regardless of legality?), it does not justify the actions of pirates in the least. You are still pilfering someone else's intellectual property, regardless of how much you buy, that is not right.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> You are still pilfering someone else's intellectual property, regardless of how much you buy, that is not right.


 
I don't think anyone is trying to justifying their actions here. File sharing is a practical reality, and if we as musicians want to make a living as musicians we need to learn to use file sharing as a marketing/promotional tool for our own music.


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> While not surprising, due to obviously increased interest (why else would you be so driven to acquire something, regardless of legality?), it does not justify the actions of pirates in the least. You are still pilfering someone else's intellectual property, regardless of how much you buy, that is not right.



Trouble is, there's no legal alternative. Piracy isn't just about zero cost, it's also about availability. You can search thorough enormous databases and find all sorts of rare, weird albums in a lossless format and then download it with just one click of a mouse.

The only solution I see is a streaming service. You can use it for free but with lots of ads, or pay for a monthly subscription (like $10/month, nothing too ridiculous). It should have tons of features, a metric shitton of music and a good UI. This is the way of the future, if you ask me. Of course, the big record companies are still far more interested in maintaining the status quo - being parasitical entities that essentially steal most of the artist's revenue.

Bottom line is, with the invention of the printing press all those people who copied books by hand were out of luck. Same exact thing is happening here, except that media companies are abusing the legal system and corrupting the government in order to stagnate the progress.


----------



## Ghost40 (Nov 14, 2012)

I cannot confirm nor deny the use of piracy for music. What I can say is that I buy more music these past few years more than ever. I typically see hear something at SS.org, then hit youtube, itunes to hear more. If I like it, I buy it. Digitally usually. Some bands I will buy CDs or vinyl (if I can find it). 

I think as an industry, with as many new comers as there are, file sharing can be a huge boost in getting new music heard.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> The only solution I see is a streaming service. You can use it for free but with lots of ads, or pay for a monthly subscription (like $10/month, nothing too ridiculous). It should have tons of features, a metric shitton of music and a good UI. This is the way of the future, if you ask me.



This is basically like Spotify, except Spotify's gone to shit now because loads of the albums have been removed by copyright holders.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to justifying their actions here.


 
Perhaps I was wrong.


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> This is basically like Spotify, except Spotify's gone to shit now because loads of the albums have been removed by copyright holders.



It's also unavailable in some countries. Israel, for instance, is one of them. Kind of ironic, isn't it? I would gladly use a streaming service with banner ads, but it's as if they don't want me to  Honestly, these big media companies have been digging their own grave for almost two decades now. Instead of embracing the new technology and recognizing that they can no longer support the old business models, they simply cover their eyes and ears and pretend we're still in the 80s.

With each year old models of distribution, marketing and manufacturing are becoming less and less relevant. Nowadays you can achieve studio quality in your own bedroom for a modest price and then market and distribute the material yourself. The days of studios, record labels and middleman are coming to an end. It's not just music either, it's... almost everything, pretty much, just go take a look at kickstarter or indiegogo and see for yourself. How do you think it will look like in 10, 20 years? And middleman hate that, because this is the end of the line for them and their parasitical businesses.


----------



## Philligan (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Trouble is, there's no legal alternative. Piracy isn't just about zero cost, it's also about availability. You can search thorough enormous databases and find all sorts of rare, weird albums in a lossless format and then download it with just one click of a mouse.
> 
> The only solution I see is a streaming service. You can use it for free but with lots of ads, or pay for a monthly subscription (like $10/month, nothing too ridiculous). It should have tons of features, a metric shitton of music and a good UI. This is the way of the future, if you ask me. Of course, the big record companies are still far more interested in maintaining the status quo - being parasitical entities that essentially steal most of the artist's revenue.
> 
> Bottom line is, with the invention of the printing press all those people who copied books by hand were out of luck. Same exact thing is happening here, except that media companies are abusing the legal system and corrupting the government in order to stagnate the progress.



My big beef with streaming is that I do most of my music listening on my phone when I'm out and about, so streaming would rape my monthly data. Even if the streaming service was separate (like RIM's old BBM/facebook cell plans) that would still destroy my battery.

The lossless thing is an interesting point. I've bought a few albums of iTunes, but every time I can I'd rather buy it on disc, because I can rip it in the format/bitrate that I want.

More format options would be nice for buying digital copies, and not having to authenticate a file every time you put it on a new device. Last time I checked, iTunes had a 5-authentication limit to each song/album. Computer, phone/iPod, external, and you're already down to two. If you wanna replace all those devices you're out of luck. It makes sense that they don't want someone buying a digital album and giving it to all their friends, but I can buy a cd, rip it, and give it to all of my friends. They're just gonna have to start trusting people.


----------



## ncfiala (Nov 14, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> While not surprising, due to obviously increased interest (why else would you be so driven to acquire something, regardless of legality?), it does not justify the actions of pirates in the least. You are still pilfering someone else's intellectual property, regardless of how much you buy, that is not right.


 
My feelings exactly


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

Philligan said:


> but I can buy a cd, rip it, and give it to all of my friends.



Exactly. Same thing with movies - if you pirate a film, you don't have all those stupid unskippable studio logos, trailers and FBI warnings. Again, much like Spotify being unavailable in some countries, this is ridiculously ironic. DRM in games is a similar problem - not only are the pirated copies free, they are also better, they don't have crippling DRM in them. The level of idiocy is legendary  The pirated product is free, easier to acquire and better.



> is that I do most of my music listening on my phone



Yeah, portability is a big issue when it comes to streaming. Though then again, we can talk about piracy and record labels all day long, but nothing will change. It's beyond repair, in my opinion. We'll just see more and more independent musicians making music in their bedrooms and releasing it via the internet.


----------



## TheKindred (Nov 14, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> This is basically like Spotify, except Spotify's gone to shit now because loads of the albums have been removed by copyright holders.



Rdio is a pretty good alternative, if available to you. $10/month and I'm always surprised by the obscure albums that I'm able to find.


----------



## Lagtastic (Nov 14, 2012)

I would not know about many of my favorite bands without P2P, thus never buying their CDs, then never buying their shirts, or paying to see them in concert.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 14, 2012)

Really depends on a lot of factors.
I can't, for exemple, discover new underground metal bands by buying their CDs in a shop: they're just not there. Ane even finding them online can sometimes be tricky. 

Now that I have the income to actually pay for all the music (and video games for that matter) that I want, I foten can't even find where to buy it while downloading it is pretty easy.
Then there's the issue of DRMs. When I buy an album, I pretty much want to be able to listen to it on whatever media I choose. That records or distribution companies don't, is their problem, and is basically a step back in consumer rights, with the whole "we only sell you a licence" thing.
I have pirated downloads of music I paid because the CDs won't run in my cars, or the paid-for download won't work out of itunes, that kind of bullshit.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 14, 2012)

In what sense is piracy wrong? 

Right or wrong in human society doesn't seem to have any root inherent in nature, it seems to be more closely related to statistics and chance. If we collectively decide that something is acceptable(or those who control the most resources decide so), then an act is right, no matter how horrendous. Nuking a populated city for example, we've done that.

Right now ubiquitous technology gives people the power to share any information, thus it becomes the norm. This trend will not stop or slow down, within our life times most music will become digitally available, and baring any revolutionary DRM that is undefeatable by hackers, all music can/will be shared digitally. Statistically speaking then, it would be more "right" to share music. 

What you think of stealing, I think of as commercialization/monetization failing to catch up with digitization. We need to figure out how to compensate the creators in a way that is in accordance with current media technology, not try to hold on to our outdated view of creative business and try to hold back technological growth or adoption, which is nearly impossible.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 14, 2012)

Pirating isn't stealing, if it was people wouldn't be charged with copyright infringement.


----------



## JosephAOI (Nov 14, 2012)

I've pirated a few band's new albums before they came out recently and because of that, bought them in the first week of sales. If I hadn't, I probably wouldn't have bought them yet. I like to give an album a good long test run to know if I like it. There's very few albums that I love upon first hearing them or that I love within the first week or two of having heard them.

This is also the reason that, like Red Seas Fire, I'm gonna be releasing all of my music for free until I can establish a fan base. It's counter productive to charge people who don't even know if they like you for your music. But, I digress.

I think piracy is extremely helpful to a band's popularity. Just look at the downloads on Rings Of Saturn's new album. Of course, a lot of that was also generated from the half-speed recording debacle in the news but you see my point.


----------



## MrGignac (Nov 14, 2012)

in my day, we had to buy a CD/tape and listen to the whole thing before we realized it sucked. record companies like that model

whats the point when they stream everything in existence on youtube in hi-def now.
i would like to see bands in the future selling all thier own stuff. indiemerchstore and bandcamp are great ideas


----------



## iliketofish (Nov 14, 2012)

I usually find myself downloading torrents of an album to try it out, and if I dig it, I will go out and buy the album. I don't know about you guys but I'm not gonna waste money on an album I think is garbage just because its the moral thing to do...


----------



## JosephAOI (Nov 14, 2012)

^Without torrenting/downloading and checking out an album beforehand we get the "Worst album purchases" thread.


----------



## seanchud (Nov 14, 2012)

Philligan said:


> My big beef with streaming is that I do most of my music listening on my phone when I'm out and about, so streaming would rape my monthly data. Even if the streaming service was separate (like RIM's old BBM/facebook cell plans) that would still destroy my battery.
> 
> The lossless thing is an interesting point. I've bought a few albums of iTunes, but every time I can I'd rather buy it on disc, because I can rip it in the format/bitrate that I want.
> 
> More format options would be nice for buying digital copies, and not having to authenticate a file every time you put it on a new device. Last time I checked, iTunes had a 5-authentication limit to each song/album. Computer, phone/iPod, external, and you're already down to two. If you wanna replace all those devices you're out of luck. It makes sense that they don't want someone buying a digital album and giving it to all their friends, but I can buy a cd, rip it, and give it to all of my friends. They're just gonna have to start trusting people.



With Spotify you can download albums to your phone while you happen to be on wifi and be safe with your data cap. It does require you to have loads of space on your phone and know what you want to listen to ahead of time, but it's been more than worth the $10 monthly fee. I'd say I listen to at least 5 new records a week using the sync to phone offline option.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

It's 2012, 95% of music is available via YouTube and pre-release streaming without having to illegally download the album. Are they high quality and lossless? Nope, but it's enough to sample the music. 

Music isn't expensive either, especially from smaller bands, the type usually unavailable from large streaming providers. Most albums run from $5 to $10, if that's enough to bring you to the poor house, the problem isn't the price of the CD/download. 

Piracy is free, easy, and near limitless in it's selection of music. Nothing can compete with it, it's like selling air. That doesn't mean that it's anyone's right to do. It's hip to jump on the "labels are evil" and "certain artists don't need my money" bandwagons, but it's not as simple as that. 

Do I think piracy should be punishable by prison or extreme fines? Not in the least. Though, I don not encourage using them. I feel, somehow, it shows poor moral compass and feeds the modern, internet age thought of "fuck them, they're not me, I have the right to whatever I want" so prevalent these days. 

Maybe I'm not picky though. I LOVE pre-orders. I have no problem paying $20, $30, or $40 for a special edition album with all kinds of goodies from a band I love, whether I've heard anything off the album or not. The way I figure, I'm not 15 anymore, I don't go to 1/1000th the live music I once did, my time is less plentiful as it once was. I still love supporting the bands _and the labels_ that my favorite bands are on. 

Justify it all you guys want. Heck, as long as I don't have to hear about it, especially here, do it all you want.


----------



## ROAR (Nov 14, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's hip to jump on the "labels are evil" and "certain artists don't need my money" bandwagons, but it's not as simple as that.



I hear this shit too much.
Labels:
It's a business, they provide a product. That's what they do.
They're not evil, they're a business. They HAVE to make money,
whatever way they see fit. 
EX: You may think it sucks when Roadrunner shuts down a branch, 
but Warner Bros needs a profit, or else they're fucked. And so is
Rush, Trivium, and the like.

"Certain artists don't need my money"
This pisses me off more than anything. It doesn't matter
if it's Britney Spears who make millions, if you want the song
she's provided a product and there's nothing "right" about stealing it.
Please show me where it says "after someone has made x amount of money
they are no longer entitled to anymore."
That's fucked up.
/rant

I second Stealth's comment.
Without piracy Periphery would have flown by me a few years ago.
Now I have too many shirts and records.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Nov 14, 2012)

is there anything LEGALLY wrong with downloading an album i already own? maybe.

is there anything MORALLY wrong with downloading an album i already own? not in the slightest, microscopic bit.

i bought the right to listen to that music as many times as i want, and after that point it doesn't matter how i obtain the album. the only moral implications i could possibly fathom is if i willingly downloaded it from a website that i knew was run by electrical grids powered directly by human slaves in large hamster wheels.

copyright law and the music industry are way overdue for an overhaul, and they need to reflect the concept of what i mentioned above: if we buy the rights to listen to music (as they are literally describing it themselves) then they need to revamp their entire infrastructure to suit that fundamental shift in what it means to exchange money for music. as it stands right now, they want to play the game both ways, and only in their benefit. they act like it's a physical good when it can get them a win in court but act like it's only "permission to listen to" when it comes to being flexible with the way we can have the fucking music to begin with.

if we're going to get inferior products that are a pain to use, we can't bring with us anywhere easily or listen to on multiple devices, then charge us WAY less, and offer us a normal priced version of it all that can be used as freely as it could be back in the days of tapes and cd's. until then, people are going to naturally gravitate towards what doesn't suck, and the RIAA can continue to swim against the current instead of riding the wave to a better way.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 14, 2012)

Wow, seems like this forum has finally woken up to the way things are now. I must say, I am pleased


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

ROAR said:


> there's nothing "right" about stealing


 
I'm not promoting piracy, but technically speaking, piracy is not stealing in the eyes of the law.

Theft (stealing) is taking someone's personal (physical) property from them and depriving them of their use of that property, e.g., if I were to steal your guitar, you couldn't play it while I had it.

Intellectual property infringement (piracy) is "the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty". Untill peer to peer networking (and the record companies' failure to keep up with technological advances), noone even bothered pursuing copyright violations unless the infringer was making money by selling something, like bootleg CDs at a flea market or something.

And in those casesthat were pursued, the punishment was to pay the copyright holder (the record company) the money made from the illegal CDs. Since those CDs were never sold officially, the band never saw a cut of the money from the record company.


----------



## fps (Nov 14, 2012)

Should it be made illegal to upload music to the internet without holding copyright for that music?


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 14, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> ...



I get your view, and basically share it.

The main problem I see is that _I had to download illegal copies of albums I own because of DRM_. I do not excuse but understand people that go directly to pirating, the same as if you leave a kid alone in the sweets shop.

In the days of cassette and CD, i had my cassette and CD. I could use them in whatever player I wanted and listen to the music. Some tapes broke over time, I bought them again (I likely bought motorhead's 1916 more than 3 times)

Buying legally is a hassle. CD won't read in PC. Itune file won't read in car. etc etc.

Some other thought to consider. Assuming average steady revenue and not counting crisis times etc, what budget people had for music and entertainment now has ot be shared by music, DVDs, videogames, while their income has not rised the same. (and actually became lower in some cases). Editors skew the debate by arguing about loss of CD revenue. I'd be ready to wager that Universal makes more money if you aggregate music, DVDs and video games that they made solely on music 30 years ago.

So, ok, not buying is bad. But the companies certainly do what they can to dissade people from paying. A good starting point would be non DRM formats you can buy on a website. DRMs make customers regret not being pirates.


----------



## Goro923 (Nov 14, 2012)

I'd speak my mind about this topic, but I've already gotten banned twice for minimally suggesting that I pirate music and also buy more CDs/merch than anyone I know.


Which I do.


----------



## Sikthness (Nov 14, 2012)

Music isn't expensive either, especially from smaller bands, the type usually unavailable from large streaming providers. Most albums run from $5 to $10, if that's enough to bring you to the poor house, the problem isn't the price of the CD/download. 

^It is expensive when you have 10,000 cds. Im not stealing a bands cd. Im simply downloading a series of 1's and 0's that may share some similarities with what is heard on a bands cd, but is ultimately a different thing. 

I think I represent most pirates (ha) in that if a band has good music, they will receive my money, whether it be through a cd purchase, various merch, concert tickets, recs to friends, etc etc. If their music is mediocre or bad, they won't. Shit i have bills, and a young daughter, plus many other expenses. If it was not for downloading prior to purchasing, I would buy roughly 0 cds. My financial situation is not a bands problem of course, but with this system, some bands will receive my money. Otherwise none of them would. A downloaded album is not a lost sale in my (and many others') case, its not the same thing.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

fps said:


> Should it be made illegal to upload music to the internet without holding copyright for that music?


 
The answer depends on how you define illegal. If you mean make it a criminal offense punishable by time in prison, then my answer is no. If we went that route, everyone under 40, and many over 40, would be in prison.

If you mean to make it a civil offense punishable by a "fine", well, it already is that, sort of. The issue is that in these types of cases, the "fine" has traditionally been for the violator to pay the copyright holder the monies made from the sales of the copyrighted work. In the peer to peer file sharing model, there is no sale, so there is no money. In this case, wht should the punishment be (if anything at all)?

The best solution all around seems to be a new business model for the entertainment industries that addresses all the issues raised here in this thread while still allowing the creators to be paid for their efforts. If I knew what that model is, I would have a lot more money than I do.


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

tedtan said:


> If I knew what that model is, I would have a lot more money than I do.



You assume that these people _want_ a new model. Judging by their actions, they really, really don't.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> You assume that these people _want_ a new model. Judging by their actions, they really, really don't.


 
You're right in that the big companies want to hold onto what they have as long as they can. And many of the pirates don't want anything to change, either.  But that doesn't mean that the big companies can't be replaced by younger, smarter, more tech savy companies with innovative solutions to provide what the customers actually want. Somewhere in that line of douche-speak is a model that works for the artists, the customers and the middle man. Somewhere.  We just need to find it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

Sikthness said:


> It is expensive when you have 10,000 cds.



It's a luxury, and one you very well could do without. Hell, a single CD is a luxury. Having free access to someone else's musical creations isn't a right you obtain by just enjoying the music, it's something you earn by buying them, unless the artist gives it away. 

Like I said guys, justify it however you want. I've heard it all:

-"I'm not really stealing it's just digital information."
-"The vast collection of music I want to own would equal tens of thousands of dollars."
-"I only listen to really obscure bands."
-"I buy shirts at concerts when I can."
-"I don't agree with the current distribution methods."

The list goes on. These aren't arguments, they're justifications. If specific music was essential to simply stay alive, there would be an argument here. As long as music is a luxury and artists choose not to give it away (or the folks that artists have given permission not to give it away), it'll be "theft" of some sort to operate outside the system and get music you don't already legitimately own copies of. 

Is it "theft" the same way that stealing a car is? Far from it. In fact, I don't think even I know on what level the "theft" is. It's just a word, and not one particularly well used in this case.

And, because I feel I need to say this again, I don't like dealing with this on the forum, there's simply too much grey area and I don't want the flood gates to open making this a place of rampant piracy. Do what you guys will, I'm not going to stop you, or even try. Just tread lightly while posting here, especially in this thread, which likely won't stay open long knowing our userbase.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 14, 2012)

Article posted by opinion site supports their own agenda, film at 11.


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> These aren't arguments, they're justifications.



To be fair, a lot of these are neither. They're observations. I don't think a lot of people who pirate are trying to justify themselves or even think about what they're doing. They just, you know, pirate.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

tedtan said:


> You're right in that the big companies want to hold onto what they have as long as they can. And many of the pirates don't want anything to change, either.  But that doesn't mean that the big companies can't be replaced by younger, smarter, more tech savy companies with innovative solutions to provide what the customers actually want. Somewhere in that line of douche-speak is a model that works for the artists, the customers and the middle man. Somewhere.  We just need to find it.



Actually it is very hard for new companies to gain traction in the music industry. Look at all the online streaming sites, they are getting music yanked by the labels. Any time someone comes up with a better model that people will actually pay for in larger numbers it gets stopped in its tracks it seems.

We are in an era of license warfare given all the lawsuits going on. It is all bad for the consumer either way.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> To be fair, a lot of these are neither. They're observations. I don't think a lot of people who pirate are trying to justify themselves or even think about what they're doing. They just, you know, pirate.



It seems like most people who protest a lot about how piracy is helping the industry are just trying to justify themselves after the fact. It seems like that kind of article gets the most attention, sadly. There are plenty of balanced articles out there that give reasonable pros and cons. I think it's pretty much undeniable that album sales have gone in the toilet since the rise of the internet, but at the same time a lot of other bands have gotten exposure they wouldn't have otherwise. I loved that interview with Weird Al on WTF where he was like "my last album was my highest charting ever, but one of the lowest selling!" He wasn't COMPLAINING, just stating a fact, but I thought it was quite striking. 

I just feel like the general narrative seems to be "all big label guys are pissed that they're making less off album sales, all the little guys love it," which is rather misleading and definitely isn't true across all genres. The only complaints I've heard firsthand are from various jazz veterans who were absolutely not rolling in the dough before the internet either are saying things are way worse now than they've ever been, for example.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

Well the RIAA doesn't help itself when it misrepresents numbers too. I remember reading an article awhile back about declining CD sales and they completely neglected the fact that digital sales increased simultaneously (as well as pirating). 

I think everybody should be a little more honest.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

I will say, while I am surely not on the side of the pirates regarding a whole lot, I do agree that the RIAA is absolutely awful. They are heavy handed and lack tact. They give their own side the awful image it has gained in recent years.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 14, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Well the RIAA doesn't help itself when it misrepresents numbers too. I remember reading an article awhile back about declining CD sales and they completely neglected the fact that digital sales increased simultaneously (as well as pirating).
> 
> I think everybody should be a little more honest.



Yeah, digital sales increased, but it wasn't at numbers remotely comparable to the sales lost. The other problem is that artists make considerably less from itunes than they did from actual cds, even with crummy major label deals. Spotify is also notoriously terrible when it comes to getting any funds back to the artists who are listened to. You basically might as well be pirating and not buying anything for how much spotify helps them. 

I am a serial pirate, but I justify it to myself by buying physical cds whenever I listen to an album more than, 3 times. I also will buy stuff off Bandcamp if I can do that instead. 

Basically, I only "blind" buy CDs by artists that I trust. Sometimes I deeply regret even this (EPICLOUD).


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

wankerness said:


> are saying things are way worse now than they've ever been, for example.



I think a lot of people simply don't know how to market themselves and how to distribute their albums. As I was saying earlier, I believe that the conventional "artist -> record label -> studio -> store" chain is coming to an end, being replaced by "artist -> internet". The music market is already ridiculously oversaturated, there's tons, TONS of music out there, and the fact that everyone with the right knowledge can make an album in their bedroom for a modest sum is going to diminish the value of music even further. Then there's the availability and the ease of access, again, dramatically decreasing the value of a music album because there are so many of them.

I mean people sure like to blame piracy, but then don't seem to realize the enormous changes in the recording and distribution technologies.



MaxOfMetal said:


> They are heavy handed and lack tact



I don't think they care. RIAA are a bunch of bureaucrats trying to impress their overlords, it's a corrupt organization that serves their own interests. It's the overlords, the shareholders that are the real problem. They don't realize how much damage RIAA's behavior causes and it only serves to antagonize the pirates even further. I wonder just how many people have stopped buying music _out of spite_ as a result of RIAA's actions. And how many people became aware of piracy due to all the anti-piracy nonsense? How many pirates RIAA, MPAA and all the other media companies have created? It's mind boggling  It's as if they shot themselves in the foot, then shot themselves in the same foot again, and again, and again, and again, and yet again, then they looked down at this... chunk of meat, whatever that was left of their foot in profound disbelief, scratched their heads, and then guess what? They shoot themselves in the other foot.


----------



## CrownofWorms (Nov 14, 2012)

I do the whole try before you buy mumbo jumbo or if it is a band that I love or haven't been disappointing for a while ( Cannibal Corpse) I will buy the copy. I'm getting back into buying cus I've been saving up for Halo 4, but now imma get back into the game.

Piracy is ok if you still plan on supporting the band and/or give the band a chance without risking any money or you can't find it anywhere other than your piracy options (I'm looking at you Gorguts Obscura)

I think Devin Townsend is right, we shouldn't care about how a person obtains music or listens to it. Everyone has a different way of enjoying music, some are similar, some are on the flipside. I don't care how they get it, I'm still gonna make music

ASK THE ARTIST: Music Consumption in 5 Years - Videos on Demand - Metal Injection


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Actually it is very hard for new companies to gain traction in the music industry. Look at all the online streaming sites, they are getting music yanked by the labels. Any time someone comes up with a better model that people will actually pay for in larger numbers it gets stopped in its tracks it seems.
> 
> We are in an era of license warfare given all the lawsuits going on. It is all bad for the consumer either way.


 
Yeah, gaining, and then maintaining, access to the big labels' catalog is the toughest aspect of this. The digital revolution made the rest of it relatively easy.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> As I was saying earlier, I believe that the conventional "artist -> record label -> studio -> store" chain is coming to an end, being replaced by "artist -> internet".


 
That new model should read "artist -> distributor -> internet". As great as it would be to have a direct relationship between the artists and fans, there really needs to be a Band Camp or iTunes or something in between.




nickgray said:


> The music market is already ridiculously oversaturated, there's tons, TONS of music out there, and the fact that everyone with the right knowledge can make an album in their bedroom for a modest sum is going to diminish the value of music even further.


 
One benefit of the old model is that the labels acted as a filter to remove a lot of the junk. Of course, some got through, and some good music was skipped over, but it made it easier for the fans to find music they wanted.



nickgray said:


> dramatically decreasing the value of a music album


 
I think the monetary value of music has already hit rock bottom. I don't think it _can_ go down from here.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> I think a lot of people simply don't know how to market themselves and how to distribute their albums. As I was saying earlier, I believe that the conventional "artist -> record label -> studio -> store" chain is coming to an end, being replaced by "artist -> internet". The music market is already ridiculously oversaturated, there's tons, TONS of music out there, and the fact that everyone with the right knowledge can make an album in their bedroom for a modest sum is going to diminish the value of music even further. Then there's the availability and the ease of access, again, dramatically decreasing the value of a music album because there are so many of them.
> 
> I mean people sure like to blame piracy, but then don't seem to realize the enormous changes in the recording and distribution technologies.



That is something to be considered for sure. Supply and demand, the more supply the lower the demand and thus the lower the price people are willing to pay. I don't think that accounts for it all (or even most of it), but I can say if piracy were impossible, given the number of artists, no one would reach Metallica, Zeppelin, Beatles, etc. status ever again. That era is long gone.



tedtan said:


> Yeah, gaining, and then maintaining, access to the big labels' catalog is the toughest aspect of this. The digital revolution made the rest of it relatively easy.



Pretty much.


----------



## Dark_Matter (Nov 14, 2012)

I mean, I and several other people only pirate things to see if we like it and either we buy it or we delete it from our computer. Im not surprised, because im sure we aren't the only ones that use it that way.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

I always find it funny when they post the numbers for piracy because 1)They in fact don't know if someone either purchased before or after negating the lost sale 2)If they would even consider paying for something at all and 3)The methods currently used to track pirates is incredibly inaccurate at this point making any number they show to be invalid. I don't mean in the pirates favor either because the numbers are probably higher, not lower, but the record companies and RIAA are still talking about things as if they were absolute. 

Piracy is a double edged sword; It is lost revenue, but at the same time, as many have pointed out, it lead to them spending more revenue on said band (or at least that is what people are saying). In any case people just need to be more honest about it, especially the people claiming lost revenue. It was kind of like Apple claiming that the Samsung Galaxy line cost them revenue because they 'copied' them. If we even pretend the phones are the same they didn't lose any revenue (people know what apple is and if they want it will get it no matter what). Not every Galaxy purchase was a mistake, some people just hate apple.  My point being not every download is genuinely lost revenue. Technically it is since you have it and they didn't get paid, but realistically it isn't (especially if you purchased it at any point in time).


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

tedtan said:


> there really needs to be a Band Camp or iTunes or something in between.



Not necessarily. I think in the future we're going to see some sort of open source non-profit distribution platform. It may sound far fetched, but hey, if I told you about Wikipedia 10-15 years ago you'd think I was mental.



> that the labels acted as a filter to remove a lot of the junk



You cannot possibly be serious. There were and still are plenty of underground labels and as far as big labels go, junk music is the bread and butter of their business.

Internet and recording technology liberate the musicians. They no longer have to pay a huge amount in order to make a record, they no longer have to deal with the bureaucrats. This is orders of magnitude better for the artists and the music fans, but, of course, this is terrible for the record companies, for the middlemen.



flint757 said:


> no one would reach Metallica, Zeppelin, Beatles, etc. status ever again



Yep. And don't forget about the marketing, these bands owe a large chunk of their success to it. Nowadays the labels don't have this kind of control over magazines, TV, newspapers, etc., the internet made sure of that. It's much harder to shove stuff down the people's throats, the people who fall to this sort of tricks are the ones who listen to Justin Bieber, 50 Cent and all the other popular nonsense. That's the only kind of audience they have left.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

flint757 said:


> or at least that is what people are saying



I guess that's the part that tends to bug me the most. I honestly don't believe these kids with thousands upon thousands of albums on their computer have "given back" to the artists or the industry as a whole. Nor do I believe the majority of folks who say they buy the album after pirating it, or that they delete it from their computer unless they absolutely love it.

I'm sure some do, but I find it hard to believe.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

Yeah, and realistically if you do have say a 1000 albums on your PC it is improbable (albeit not impossible) that you have say 333 shirts and have gone to just as many different bands concerts. (not the same band)

I can believe that people may purchase the music before or after more so than that being true, but yeah it probably isn't at the level people claim as a whole. (not calling anyone a liar)

I think, speaking realistically, that people probably do support 'some' artists, but if you have a 100 bands on your computer it is probably only a handful at best which means someone isn't getting anything from you while you benefit from them.


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Yeah, and realistically if you do have say a 1000 albums on your PC



But how many of these have you listened? More than once? That's the thing - downloading is so damn easy that you might as well download everything that looks even remotely interesting. Obviously, I do agree that people who download music and really do listen to tons of albums probably don't buy hundreds upon hundreds of shirts. But is it even possible? Not everyone is a middle class guy living in a rich first world country. Some people can't afford jack shit and downloading stuff for free is the only way they can get music, movies, software, books.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Not necessarily. I think in the future we're going to see some sort of open source non-profit distribution platform. It may sound far fetched, but hey, if I told you about Wikipedia 10-15 years ago you'd think I was mental.


 
I never said it has to be a _for profit_ middleman, though it definitely would in order to get access to the major labels' music catalogs, and let's be honest here - that's what most people want to listen to at this point in time, even if only as a result of their marketing efforts. Denying this is simply denial.

My point is that it is asking too much of the average fan to expect them to go to each band's website directly, buy music & merch from many sites, etc. Especially with limited data plans, etc. on their phones. That would be "artist -> fan", and it won't work. Having a single place for them to download music, buy merch, etc from all of the bands they are interested in is needed. (iTunes is not the answer, it was merely an example).





nickgray said:


> You cannot possibly be serious. There were and still are plenty of underground labels and as far as big labels go, junk music is the bread and butter of their business.


 

I'm dead serious. And whether you or I like a particular type of music is irrelevant to the discussion. Stop reading this and go over to YouTube right now. Listen to all of the out of tune, out of time cover songs, half assed poorly written, poorly performed and poorly recorded originals, etc. and tell me its not shit. Now try to find something you actually want to hear. How many shit cover versions did you have to sift through before you found it.

Don't get me wrong - everybody has to start somewhere. And I certainly want to encourage these people to keep at it. But in the past this shit was not put out there along side the real deal. Certain quality standards were in place and there were filters in place to keep the shit that didn't meet those standards from getting through.




nickgray said:


> Internet and recording technology liberate the musicians. They no longer have to pay a huge amount in order to make a record, they no longer have to deal with the bureaucrats. This is orders of magnitude better for the artists and the music fans, but, of course, this is terrible for the record companies, for the middlemen.


 
And they also contribute to that huge pile of shit we must navigate today in order to find something worth listening to.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> But how many of these have you listened? More than once? That's the thing - downloading is so damn easy that you might as well download everything that looks even remotely interesting. Obviously, I do agree that people who download music and really do listen to tons of albums probably don't buy hundreds upon hundreds of shirts. But is it even possible? Not everyone is a middle class guy living in a rich first world country. Some people can't afford jack shit and downloading stuff for free is the only way they can get music, movies, software, books.



I don't really care one way or the other TBH. I was just agreeing with Max that not everyone is being 100% honest (in general, not referring to the forum) and/or overestimates their overall support level. Like I said the system isn't going to change and it has its pluses, one being that people who don't have the money can still enjoy the music (as an artist I'd be okay with that personally).


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Stop reading this and go over to YouTube right now. Listen to all of the out of tune, out of time cover songs, half assed poorly written, poorly performed and poorly recorded originals



If you're being that broad, then yes, sure. But let's be reasonable here, youtube is not exactly known for its high quality standards and if you're searching for "ABC cover" you know full well what to expect.

On the other hand, you can google for an independent electronic music label that gives away the music for free. There are plenty of these nowadays and they're kind of the first step towards this whole "liberation from the middlemen" thing I've been raving about. This is the future I'm talking about, not youtube. Although youtube does have its purposes, sure, but as you've said, it's difficult to separate shit from diamonds. Bandcamp is another site that has certain standards (at least afaik).



> though it definitely would in order to get access to the major labels' music catalogs



Yep.



> that's what most people want to listen to at this point in time



Yes, but I wasn't really talking about "most people". I'm mostly concerned about music fans and the more obscure types of music, "music for musicians" kind of music, if you what I mean. Not the kind of music big labels would worry themselves with.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> youtube is not exactly known for its high quality standards.


 
Neither is the internet as a whole, and there are many self distributed efforts out there giving the rest a bad name.

Again, I'm not judging the music. That is subjective, personal taste. Saying it sucks because we don't like it is childish at best. If we are honest with ourselves, a lot of the jazz, classical, prog and tech metal, that most on these forums like, we like because it challenges us as musicians. But it's over most listener's heads. Simpler music that we pass over as boring is perfectly suited to those who are not musicians. Everything has a place, just some of those places just need to be far from me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Not everyone is a middle class guy living in a rich first world country. Some people can't afford jack shit and downloading stuff for free is the only way they can get music, movies, software, books.



Once again, all those things you list are a luxury (minus some books, but that's another can of worms). If you can afford an internet collection (and a computer for that matter) you can afford to buy a CD every now and then, and have enough free time to use all that stuff, you can afford a $7 every now and then, or a $4 used book, or $1 bin DVD, etc. 

YouTube is free, so is MySpace, Facebook, Bandcamp, Soundcloud, etc. as far as listening to music, and if you look on all of those you'll find tons of wonderful music. 

I doubt third world and developing nations are the only ones downloading stuff illegally. 

It's not the only way for folks to ingest media, it's the only way to ingest _certain, specific_ media for nothing. 

What do I know, I'm just a middle class guy living in a first world country.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 14, 2012)

You may call me optimistic, but I firmly believe music will regain some of its value once the industry catches on. There are few entities more crafty than a corporation in trouble after all.

I think this boils down to that people actually do want to do right, they might rationalize with all the common excuses (labels are THE evil, bands shouldn't take money for art.. Etc..), but they know what is right or wrong. What overpowers that sense of right and wrong is fundamental laziness. When the next music service that is faster/more integrated/shinier, I think music sales will go up. But what do I know, I buy all my music on CD.

What do trouble me is the devaluation of live music, and that is not a laughing matter at all.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Yes, but I wasn't really talking about "most people". I'm mostly concerned about music fans and the more obscure types of music, "music for musicians" kind of music, if you what I mean. Not the kind of music big labels would worry themselves with.


 
You still have to weed out all the shit I mentioned before (or filter before it is made available for distribution).

And I still think it would be easier for everyone if everything were in a single place, at least from a logistics and efficiency perspective.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 14, 2012)

I love how if someone downloads an album, its stealing. But if its on youtube(which everything is) and i can view it any time i want as many times i want, its not also considered stealing. The bands arnt seeing any of that money.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I love how if someone downloads an album, its stealing. But if its on youtube(which everything is) and i can view it any time i want as many times i want, its not also considered stealing. The bands arnt seeing any of that money.



The idea being that the band, or an agent acting for the band (label, etc.), has given permission to YouTube by uploading the content themselves. 

There is "gray area" and illegal uploads to YouTube for sure. 

The same way that when bands stream their new albums to sample they idea isn't that folks should then not buy the album just because.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2012)

i can't count how many new bands i have found out about though file-sharing sites. i usually buy a record (vinyl) every month, spend about $40 on downloads a months, and on average go to 2 gigs a month.Someone tell me how i am killing the music industry.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 14, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> The idea being that the band, or an agent acting for the band (label, etc.), has given permission to YouTube by uploading the content themselves.
> 
> There is "gray area" and illegal uploads to YouTube for sure.
> 
> The same way that when bands stream their new albums to sample they idea isn't that folks should then not buy the album just because.



If thats the case, no one is waging a war on youtube. if they cant monitor their content, then why arnt they held accountable. oh yea, the are a bazillion dollar company. its fine when the big guys do the wrong thing, but god forbid the little guy download that new j-lo record.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 14, 2012)

I dont ever download music and I sure as hell never buy it either.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

Thrashmanzac said:


> i can't count how many new bands i have found out about though file-sharing sites. i usually buy a record (vinyl) every month, spend about $40 on downloads a months, and on average go to 2 gigs a month.Someone tell me how i am killing the music industry.



I don't think the point has ever really been about the industry itself; You are contributing quite a bit actually.

That being said if you pirate Gogira's albums (theoretically), purchase other artists albums only and only go to local shows you didn't give anything at all to Gojira. It isn't like every band shares the profits. If you bootleg one bands stuff and then go see another bands show it doesn't make it 'okay'. At least not in the sense being presented. Completely theoretical example, no nitpicking please


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> If thats the case, no one is waging a war on youtube. if they cant monitor their content, then why arnt they held accountable. oh yea, the are a bazillion dollar company. its fine when the big guys do the wrong thing, but god forbid the little guy download that new j-lo record.



Stuff gets pulled off youtube all the time. SOPA (and similar bills) would have vamped that up big time too.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> If thats the case, no one is waging a war on youtube. if they cant monitor their content, then why arnt they held accountable. oh yea, the are a bazillion dollar company. its fine when the big guys do the wrong thing, but god forbid the little guy download that new j-lo record.



YouTube will pull content if the owner requests and videos get pulled all the time. YouTube even has a system designed to stop such videos from being uploaded, but with millions of videos being uploaded, it's impossible for them to catch every single one. 

They can, and do, monitor content. Though, even with the might and scope of Google, they can't stop every illegally uploaded video instantly. 

It's partly up to the content owners to help YouTube keep stuff like illegal rips and leaks off the site. 

The second YouTube allows you to download the videos directly, you'll see some wars.


----------



## nickgray (Nov 14, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> YouTube is free



But that's piracy as well, unless you're listening to the stuff that's supposed to be free.



> I'm just a middle class guy living in a first world country



Which was kind of my point  Not to sound like an asshole or anything, but I've noticed that most of the criticism towards piracy comes from people who are well off. Now I'm not really poor, not Zimbabwe kind of poor at least (thankfully), but let's just say I don't really have a lot of money and I don't come from a rich family. People I know are from the same background as well. If you start suggesting to these guys that maybe they should actually buy media instead of pirating it you'd get ridiculed, you'd get laughed at.

I suppose you view it as a sort of entitlement, but... is it really a luxury? Music, movies, books? I can't speak for others, but as far as I'm concerned, music is life and death. And I'm not sure if I'm exaggerating. It's not just some entertainment, something to kill the time, it's much, much, much more than that. I'm sure that many people on this forum will agree with me on the importance of music in their lives.

I'm not arguing for or against piracy, I'm just trying to say that it's not black and white, it's a really complex issue with tons of variables to consider. And then when you start thinking about the solutions to the problem and looking at the way the industry behaves... It's a mess.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> But that's piracy as well, unless you're listening to the stuff that's supposed to be free.



That's what I'm getting at, a lot of the content on YouTube is supposed to be there. I've already acknowledged that not everything is on the level there. 



nickgray said:


> sort of entitlement



And it is. Though I don't think you should be locked up, fined into even more poverty, etc. 



nickgray said:


> is it really a luxury?



Yes. 

It's unfortunate that it's one not everyone has the means to participate in legally, but that does not mean it's not a luxury in and of itself. 

I don't think pirates are evil, I really don't, and by all means, I'm not going to stop you from doing it, that's not my job. Let's just drop the BS. You want the music, it means a lot to you, and you're going to do what you have to in order to get it. Regardless of legality. I totally get it and I can empathize entirely.


----------



## Necris (Nov 14, 2012)

JosephAOI said:


> ^Without torrenting/downloading and checking out an album beforehand we get the "Worst album purchases" thread.


I find it hard to believe that there aren't other ways of getting an idea of what you're getting into before buying an album.
I've made plenty of album purchases based on comparisons to other bands, a review found on the internet, a mention by a friend, or the 10 word or less description in an online distro and while I've ended up with a few albums I don't listen to particularly often I don't have any that I feel were a complete waste of my money.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 14, 2012)

Not to mention that when record stores still was a thing, the clerk usually were pretty good for finding out stuff that you probably would like. Or when I was even younger, I went with how good the cover looked.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

Once again, I'm not a poor guy living in the third world. 

Though, I can't see how a $7 gamble is that serious. Does that make me rich?


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2012)

^ i ordered an album from a local cd store when i was younger. it was a 3 month wait, and had to pay $46. for an 8 track cd. so that was a gamble i have not been keen on since.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

Thrashmanzac said:


> ^ i ordered an album from a local cd store when i was younger. it was a 3 month wait, and had to pay $46. for an 8 track cd. so that was a gamble i have not been keen on since.



Holy shit. How? What album was it. Is that really how much CDs are in AUS?


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2012)

it was silosis's first cd. and back then a new cd was typically $30, now it's between $20-$30


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2012)

although with that being said i recently payed $60 for a record and would do it again in a heartbeat


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

Thrashmanzac said:


> it was silosis's first cd. and back then a new cd was typically $30, now it's between $20-$30



Man, between guitars and CDs, you guys aren't off the hook to easy down under.


----------



## Fiction (Nov 14, 2012)

Local stores, the CDs can be $25-30

In fact, Between the Buried and Me's 'Parallax', the 3 track EP has been $32 since release.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 14, 2012)

Are the prices the same for legal downloads?


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Nov 14, 2012)

^ I would assume so.

Japan's on a similar boat too. Albums are about 2000-3000 yen (roughly as much as 20-30 AUD) but special editions can go as far up to 6000 yen!  

Yeah, Australia is expensive.


----------



## Fiction (Nov 14, 2012)

I think iTunes is around $18 an album, I tend to order CDs off eBay from America now.

Edit: $17 for Soundgardens new album on iTunes


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 14, 2012)

nickgray said:


> But that's piracy as well, unless you're listening to the stuff that's supposed to be free.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is definitely a luxury, regardless of what pedestal you choose to put it on. Saying I need 'my music' to live, and getting it by any means is most definitely entitlement, no way around it. 

It is not actually required, you have chosen to build around it. Big difference.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Are the prices the same for legal downloads?



yup pretty much. hence if i'm gonna buy an album, i usually buy the vinyl or cd, so i get the full artwork and goodies along with a physical copy. but i admit i often pirate the album beforehand to check it out. also, i can't help but think that quite soon the mp3 format will become obsolete.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

Those CD prices in Oz are insane!


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 14, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Those CD prices in Oz are insane!



not as insane as the guitar prices 

ot: of all my friends, the ones that actively download and share music are the ones spending the most on music for sure. not only that, but a mate will show me some music they downloaded, i'll dig it, buy it, show my housemate, he will do the same. within my circle of friends we share music alot and spend ALOT on music, i honestly believe that none of the artists that i listen to would have been better off if i payed for a digital download and did not share their music.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

I've seen research out of of different universities that suggests that file sharing results in something like a 30-40% increase in sales. The studies only focused on the more well known albums, so they aren't directly applicable to independent bands, but I believe it could help. In fact, when I first saw this thread, I was hoping we could discuss ways to promote our own music through file sharing, but the thread went in a different direction pretty quickly.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 14, 2012)

Well take it that direction  This direction has kind of died out anyhow...

Honestly most indie bands already do the free or pay what you feel is good type of selling. Seems to work. It also hurts bands to an extent to allow it I think. People almost resent buying Periphery's albums just because their music was free for so long as an example.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 14, 2012)

I was hoping someone could help point me in the right direction because I don't have much experience, or much to offer, in that area. Otherwise I would have contributed it already.


----------



## Alpenglow (Nov 15, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I would not be into metal if file sharing didnt exist



I pretty much wouldn't be into any of the music I listen to today if not for file sharing - from chillwave to indie to math rock to prog metal. 
I also support many of these bands now by preordering and buying their merch and albums.


----------



## Sofos (Nov 15, 2012)

I had a nice long talk about this with Paul Allender of Cradle of Filth, and he said, and quote: 



> I don't mind people downloading it as long as they buy the album when it comes out. (...) We need to go back to the old days of lining up at a record store to buy he new album of your fav band. Now kids want everything straightaway, I call it the spoilt I want it now generation lol



I will say, with honesty, I have downloaded CDs, but most of the ones I have downloaded are like "super underground rare black metal from 1992 norway" stuff that was released on a CD-R by the band in a 666 copy release or something, and the larger ones I have downloaded, I ordered the CD too. In the past 3 years, I have purchased over 100 CDs, vinyls, tapes and DVDs of bands, not counting legitimate digital download purchases. And if I had a more reliable disposable income, I would have ordered many, many more. I love getting physical copies of CDs, it has a special feeling that comes with it, opening up the cover, seeing the artwork, reading liner notes, etc. No amount of downloading will EVER compare with the feeling of opening one new CD.

I do NOT condone downloading of music. The ONLY time I can see it as acceptable is when, as I stated above, an album is IMPOSSIBLE to get ANYWHERE other than downloading, due to rarity/obscurity.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 15, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> YouTube will pull content if the owner requests and videos get pulled all the time.



It's actually worse than that: claiming to be the owner is enough. Whihc has led to some interesting stuff in Europe.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 15, 2012)

I still don't see what the harm is in people downloading things that they were never going to buy anyway. I've downloaded a bunch of death metal and stuff that people on this forum say is the best thing ever and listened to it over and over and over again trying to 'get it' - well even after dozens of listens to obzen I still hate it. It's not lost revenue for Meshuggah because I never would have paid money for the album. I only listened to it because it was "free." Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered...


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

And if the bands are ok with their albums being on youtube, that anyone can watch for free, then that essentially says that they should be ok with you downloading their album for free since its the same damn thing.



tedtan said:


> Those CD prices in Oz are insane!


Crikey indeed!


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

No one charges me to look at a painting. If it want to own it, then sure. But i can view all kinds of famous paintings online for free.

I think music should be the same. Artists shouldnt really be making tons of money. They should be doing it for the love of the art. With the new system, you get real artists that are happy to get their work out there for the joy of art, and a bunch of guys that want to be rockstars and dont want to get real jobs bitching because they arnt rich yet.

If i want to listen to something, I dont feel you should have to pay. If you want to own the disc and the product its self, then pay.

I dont feel too sorry for bands that are starving because record sales are down. People need to realize that being in a band isnt a real job for 99.9% of the time. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are CHOOSING to go into a field that is not going to make any money and they are doing it for arts sake instead of acting like being a musician is a legitimate job aspiration in this day and age. You just have to be like everyone else and have a real job to support yourself, and do your art on your own time and for yourself and not monetary gain.
THAT is the reality of the situation. You can hate it or love it, but thats the truth.


If you have a band that is lucky enough to have enough fans that buy records and merch to go on a tour, you should be greatful and not biting the hand that feeds by saying your not making enough money. Lots of bands tour with money from their own pocket like a vacation or something.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I dont feel too sorry for bands that are starving because record sales are down. People need to realize that being in a band isnt a real job for 99.9% of the time. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are CHOOSING to go into a field that is not going to make any money and they are doing it for arts sake instead of acting like being a musician is a legitimate job aspiration in this day and age. You just have to be like everyone else and have a real job to support yourself, and do your art on your own time and for yourself and not monetary gain.
> THAT is the reality of the situation. You can hate it or love it, but thats the truth.



While this paragraph reflects my view entirely, it doesn't succeed in decoupling the ownership of what the 'artist' creates. They still have the right to deny your access should you choose not to pay the admission. You can vote, but you have to do so with your wallet. Not take it, say screw you, and then not pay. The veto comes before acquisition, it cannot come after.


----------



## Goro923 (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> No one charges me to look at a painting. If it want to own it, then sure. But i can view all kinds of famous paintings online for free.
> 
> I think music should be the same. Artists shouldnt really be making tons of money. They should be doing it for the love of the art. With the new system, you get real artists that are happy to get their work out there for the joy of art, and a bunch of guys that want to be rockstars and dont want to get real jobs bitching because they arnt rich yet.
> 
> ...



This 1,000%

My band has a "policy" of not charging anything for our music, only for the cost of the CD and cover/box. That means never charging for mp3s and the like. When we charge for physical demos or shirts we charge only enough to cover the expense of making them. Basically, we want our music to be available to everybody who wants to give us a listen and not have to shell out 10 or so bucks before they know what they're getting.

We know it isn't realistic to think we're going to make money off of playing music (especially if it's grindcore) the same way it's pointless to pay for digital files that you can get for free. If people like us enough, they can buy the physical copy with artwork and printed lyrics and/or a shirt (which, again, aren't a big source of revenue).


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> But i can view all kinds of famous paintings online for free.



With permission. 

WITH permission.

That's an important thing to remember, because it really hurts the rest of your reasoning and argument.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm not sure if anyone here actually read the article or just read the headline. If you read the article you will see that people that pirate music just happen to be more interested in music than the average joe and the numbers are misleading. In no way, shape, or form was the RIAA saying that pirating is good for business. I can tell you that piracy isn't good for anyone beside the new boss and the consumer. Who is the new boss? Google, Facebook, YouTube etc. When the SOPA thing was going on these companies had a very successful campaign in making sure that anti-piracy legislation never saw the light of day. I know a lot of people may think that it was started by some grassroots organization looking out for consumers to make sure the government didn't "break" the internet, but the truth is the large tech companies make a lot of money off of pirated music. The artists have and still are getting screwed. It used to be the record labels screwing us, now it is the big tech companies. I hope that the day comes that artists actually reap the benefits of their work instead of everyone else. These days if you are downloading for free, for the most part you are screwing the musicians because most of the major labels have disintegrated.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> With permission.
> 
> WITH permission.
> 
> That's an important thing to remember, because it really hurts the rest of your reasoning and argument.



Go to google images, type "Mona Lisa". Tell me your not looking at pictures of the mona lisa. Legally. For free. For current artists, if they dont put their work out there, no one will ever even know they exist.





Goro923 said:


> This 1,000%
> 
> My band has a "policy" of not charging anything for our music, only for the cost of the CD and cover/box. That means never charging for mp3s and the like. When we charge for physical demos or shirts we charge only enough to cover the expense of making them. Basically, we want our music to be available to everybody who wants to give us a listen and not have to shell out 10 or so bucks before they know what they're getting.
> 
> We know it isn't realistic to think we're going to make money off of playing music (especially if it's grindcore) the same way it's pointless to pay for digital files that you can get for free. If people like us enough, they can buy the physical copy with artwork and printed lyrics and/or a shirt (which, again, aren't a big source of revenue).




And thats the thing to. If a band wants to make a disc and recoupe their investment, i have NOOOO problem with that. Hell, if a band asked that i paid $1 dollar for their album to recoup their investment, im more than likely to throw 5 bucks at them for goodwill. To recoup an investment, we are talking about tiny amounts spread over a few sales. Not fucking 30 dollars a disc like some of these places have the gaul to charge.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

drgamble said:


> most of the major labels have disintegrated.


Because its pretty much proven that they arnt needed. Technology has made them obsolete.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Go to google images, type "Mona Lisa". Tell me your not looking at pictures of the mona lisa. Legally. For free.



With permission. Those sites are either hosting with permission from the rights-holder, or are doing so illegally. Just like the piracy debate.

So it's a great metaphor, you're just using it to make the wrong argument. One piracy doesn't justify another. As a painter, you have the right to control where and how your work is displayed. Legally. The same is true for musicians and their recordings.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> With permission. Those sites are either hosting with permission from the rights-holder, or are doing so illegally. Just like the piracy debate.
> 
> So it's a great metaphor, you're just using it to make the wrong argument. One piracy doesn't justify another. As a painter, you have the right to control where and how your work is displayed. Legally. The same is true for musicians and their recordings.


My point is, that if i take a picture of a painting, and blow that picture up and display it in my own home, there isnt shit the artist can do about it and there isnt anything illigal about it. If i was displaying it in my front yard, then sure.

The idea of the painting is to be seen. The idea of music is to be heard. If the creator wants to be an asshole and charge for it and make stupid profits for it and not just make their investment back plus a few bucks for the effort, they will get phased out with the current system. And i personally think thats great, and the way it should be


----------



## wankerness (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> My point is, that if i take a picture of a painting, and blow that picture up and display it in my own home, there isnt shit the artist can do about it and there isnt anything illigal about it. If i was displaying it in my front yard, then sure.
> 
> The idea of the painting is to be seen. The idea of music is to be heard. If the creator wants to be an asshole and charge for it and make stupid profits for it and not just make their investment back plus a few bucks for the effort, they will get phased out with the current system. And i personally think thats great, and the way it should be



I don't get this equating of music to "IDEAS" and "IDEAS SHOULD BE FREE, MAN." There IS a cost associated with the initial production of the music, and to think that musicians shouldn't be allowed to make more than "A FEW BUCKS FOR THE EFFORT" is just idiotic. Professional sports players, another kind of entertainer, make millions of dollars every year and no one seems to blink an eye. But, if a musician DARES to think that maybe their product shouldn't be copied and given out for free to everyone who wants it without permission, then OMG.

These arguments that there's no precedent for "sharing" being illegal are really odd to me too. I don't think it was ever OK to mass-manufacture copyrighted works and hand them out for free without permission, which is what you're doing when you use torrents.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> My point is, that if i take a picture of a painting, and blow that picture up and display it in my own home, there isnt shit the artist can do about it and there isnt anything illigal about it. If i was displaying it in my front yard, then sure.
> 
> The idea of the painting is to be seen. The idea of music is to be heard. If the creator wants to be an asshole and charge for it and make stupid profits for it and not just make their investment back plus a few bucks for the effort, they will get phased out with the current system. And i personally think thats great, and the way it should be




I wonder if we applied the "current" system to the rest of life. Basically, the current system is to not enforce the law. I don't know why someone is an asshole for charging for something that they have spent years working on. I guess that makes me an asshole for collecting a paycheck even though I enjoy what I do. This is why I didn't stay in the music business. I can make way more money working a regular job. How many more talented musicians are taking the same stance? It's like the old argument over CEO pay. Why does someone need to get paid $100,000,000 to run an already successful company? The response you will get is that it takes that kind of pay to attract top talent. This also goes down the line to sound engineers, music attorneys, recording engineers, mastering engineers, etc. I applaud the musicians that stick their neck out and try to make music a career, I just think that we may be missing out on some of the talent because these people have decided to take their talent to another field that is more lucrative. It's called the music business for a reason. Nobody ever went into business to break even or lose money just for the love of it. The most successful musicians in history aren't necessarily the most talented musicians, but they are most certainly good businessmen.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

wankerness said:


> I don't get this equating of music to "IDEAS" and "IDEAS SHOULD BE FREE, MAN." There IS a cost associated with the initial production of the music, and to think that musicians shouldn't be allowed to make more than "A FEW BUCKS FOR THE EFFORT" is just idiotic. Professional sports players, another kind of entertainer, make millions of dollars every year and no one seems to blink an eye. But, if a musician DARES to think that maybe their product shouldn't be copied and given out for free to everyone who wants it without permission, then OMG.
> 
> These arguments that there's no precedent for "sharing" being illegal are really odd to me too. I don't think it was ever OK to mass-manufacture copyrighted works and hand them out for free without permission, which is what you're doing when you use torrents.




The simple fact is : for Athletes, the money is there. They draw in a crowd. Sponsers pony up dough. People pack the seats. People talk about the game the next day and buy team gear. There is MONEY changing hands. To live in some fantasy land where writing a song is supposed to bring you massive wealth just isnt reality.

If there wernt 1 gazillion bands saturating the market, and people were really into music, then there would be money there. But most people arnt music nuts and bands of all generas are a dime a dozen these days. The money just isnt there anymore. You can get all mad about it, but I didnt make it that way. Im just not expecting things to stay the same like many other people are.

Do i think musicians should beable to make a living? Sure. With a real job. Not with music  There is nothing propritary about being in a band or writing a song. There for there isnt much worth in it anymore.

If people with real and legitamit jobs are having trouble making the bills, do you really think musicians are gonna be making big bucks?


----------



## MrGignac (Nov 15, 2012)

what i dont get is: All of the media companies are up in arms about how pirating media is immoral. yet, these companies developed and designed all the software for pirating. when P2P first got big, the popular programs like kazzaa, limewire, napster ect.. were all legal freeware on cnet! which is owned by aol/timewarner. and came with detailed instructions and advocated file sharing. yet now these companies have spent millions on lobbyists to prosecute those they encouraged to use their own software. just my 2 cents


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

drgamble said:


> I wonder if we applied the "current" system to the rest of life. Basically, the current system is to not enforce the law. I don't know why someone is an asshole for charging for something that they have spent years working on. I guess that makes me an asshole for collecting a paycheck even though I enjoy what I do. This is why I didn't stay in the music business. I can make way more money working a regular job. How many more talented musicians are taking the same stance? It's like the old argument over CEO pay. Why does someone need to get paid $100,000,000 to run an already successful company? The response you will get is that it takes that kind of pay to attract top talent. This also goes down the line to sound engineers, music attorneys, recording engineers, mastering engineers, etc. I applaud the musicians that stick their neck out and try to make music a career, I just think that we may be missing out on some of the talent because these people have decided to take their talent to another field that is more lucrative. It's called the music business for a reason. Nobody ever went into business to break even or lose money just for the love of it. The most successful musicians in history aren't necessarily the most talented musicians, but they are most certainly good businessmen.



Doing a job, physically contributing to society is vastly different than arranging notes in a pattern.
One is actually doing something, the other isnt really necessary.

You get paid because a job needs to be done. No one NEEDS music. Its an extra in life.

I dont think that makes them an asshole if they want compensation, i just think it makes them a little unrealistic in this day and age.

But the simple fact is, that the system IS getting applyed to music, but its NOT getting applyed to everything else. Dont shoot the messenger.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

If people think you should get compensated for art, then everyone should get compensated the same. Because art is subjective. But people like certian art more than others. So some art becomes more popular. Then it can be sold. Then it becomes a business. And that business is going through a tough time. Like all other businesses do. But those other business have had to roll with the punches. So will this one.


I wanted to be a ninja when i was little. Now that i'm older, there isnt much of a market for ninjas. I can be pissed off and bitch about it. But its not gonna change the fact that i have to deal with it.


I'm sure factory workers that lost jobs to automation years and years ago hated it, but instead of bitching for eternity about it they did what they had to and went and got other jobs. I suggest musicians do the same.
Then art will be pure again and be done for the joy of doing it.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't know any musicians trying to get rich from music. But to think that musicians should make music part time, after working a day job to pay the bills, fails to take into account the fact that the day job doesn't always leave enough time to make music afterwards. And even if it does, how many musicians still have enough creative energy left to create?

The result - we as listeners miss out on a lot of great music that could have been because the musicians were/are too busy paying the bills to make music.

This belief that music should be free to anyone who wants it is a cop out spouted by kids whose mommies and daddies pay for their rent, clothing, food, transportation, school, etc. When you grow up, try making music after paying the bills. Then take it up a notch - try making music after paying the bills when you have a family to support and the bills are much higher.

Some can do it, but most can't. Do you think you'll be one who can? Are you sure?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> The simple fact is : for Athletes, the money is there. They draw in a crowd. Sponsers pony up dough. People pack the seats. People talk about the game the next day and buy team gear. There is MONEY changing hands.


 
The sponsors pony up the dough and the fans pack the stadiums because the league and team owners spent the money marketing it to begin with, and then, get this, MAINTAINED CONTROL OF THE DISTRIBUTION. It doesn't jst happen simply because it happens.




7 Strings of Hate said:


> there is nothing propritary about being in a band or writing a song.


 
There is nothing proprietary about swinging a hammer, washing dishes, doing someone else's taxes, etc., but last I checked people were still being payed to perfrom these tasks.

Why can't musicians be payed enough to make a lving performing shows? Oh yeah, because all the local kids will come in and play for free. The same local kids that want to download the music for free online. And how can they keep doing for free? Simple - their parents cover their expenses.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

tedtan said:


> But to think that musicians should make music part time, after working a day job to pay the bills, fails to take into account the fact that the day job doesn't always leave enough time to make music afterwards. And even if it does, how many musicians still have enough creative energy left to create?



This is called : Reality. It sucks, but its just the way it is. I dont like it, i just embrace it. Its part of growing up.



tedtan said:


> Why can't musicians be payed enough to make a lving performing shows?



Because thats the new reality. There is a market for people to swing hammers. People need houses to live in. No one lives in a cd. 






Being a musican today is like attempting to be a homeless guy to to make more money and attempt to act like that be a legitimate career decision. Are there the occational homeless person that stumbles on a bag of money or has a rich relative that dies or finds a winning lottery ticket? Sure. But for the most part your not going to have a home or food and life is going to suck.
Theres just not much of a market for homeless guys.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)




----------



## flint757 (Nov 15, 2012)

^^^^
Was..not....expecting that


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> No one charges me to look at a painting. If it want to own it, then sure. But i can view all kinds of famous paintings online for free.
> 
> I think music should be the same. Artists shouldnt really be making tons of money. They should be doing it for the love of the art. With the new system, you get real artists that are happy to get their work out there for the joy of art, and a bunch of guys that want to be rockstars and dont want to get real jobs bitching because they arnt rich yet.
> 
> ...



For the first time EVER, I agree 100% with 7SOH. A historical day for SSO!

There's middle ground to take into account too. The 9-5 may be the job you hate that pays safe, and touring may be the job you love (in a van 24/7 with sweaty hairy men?) that pays dangerously... but there's also middle ground. My job doesn't pay that well but I fucking love it and in the new year I'll be earning more money than I ever have before.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> This is called : Reality. It sucks, but its just the way it is. I dont like it, i just embrace it. Its part of growing up.


 

You are absolutely right, and I agree from a practical perspective. It is what it is and I can't change it, so I don't worry about it. But that doesn't mean it's right.




7 Strings of Hate said:


> There is a market for people to swing hammers. People need houses to live in. No one lives in a cd.


 
There is a market demand for swinging a hammer because people created it. At one point, people built their own houses, plowed their own fields, sewed their own clothes, brewed their own beer, etc. 

There is a demand for sports (to use your example), movies, and other entertainment because people created it. There was demand for music at one point, too, both live and recorded. The lables just lost control of their distribution beginning sometime in the late 90's and, as a result, today we have entire threads devoted to people justifying their belief that music should be free because that's how they _FEEL_.

Once again, it is what it is and I can't change it. And once again, that doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## wespaul (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Being a musican today is like attempting to be a homeless guy to to make more money and attempt to act like that be a legitimate career decision. Are there the occational homeless person that stumbles on a bag of money or has a rich relative that dies or finds a winning lottery ticket? Sure. But for the most part your not going to have a home or food and life is going to suck.
> Theres just not much of a market for homeless guys.



what?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 15, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Being a musican today is like attempting to be a homeless guy to to make more money and attempt to act like that be a legitimate career decision. Are there the occational homeless person that stumbles on a bag of money or has a rich relative that dies or finds a winning lottery ticket? Sure. But for the most part your not going to have a home or food and life is going to suck.
> Theres just not much of a market for homeless guys.



Truth talkin'.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 15, 2012)

I always recall there was a listening area in all the record stores I used to go to. Everytime I failed to listen before purchase I always ended up with a steaming pile of shit bag of purchases. 

Like the time I went to buy my first Paul Gilbert record. All they had was _"Mr. Big - The best of..."_. Once I got it home I was horrified to find it was the _"Best of... *The Ballads*_".... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Actually, it's a nice record and I still listen to it occasionally.

So, with most of the real record shops gone, listening before purchase is facilitated by the internet, especially cool new bands that offer some samples at their web presence.

Most purchases in life are tangible items, the quality of which you can ascertain before purchase. Cinema, music and applications are the exceptions as commonly, you must purchase them before being given the opportunity to decide if they are fit for purpose.

Another thing about the present day is I've stopped supporting a lot of local venues because the quality of the acts varies so much. Ever interested in bringing in customers to consume alcohol, pulling a crowd for one night is more important to venue owners than maintaining quality over of a long period and ensuring repeat visits.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 15, 2012)

There's a lot of great discussion going on in this thread about legality and morality, but most of you are forgetting that in the end this doesn't come down to legality or morality at all, it comes down to what the consumer is willing and able to do to get the product, and it's become more than obvious that not only are people willing and able to pirate music, they're _inclined_ to do so.

What's going on right now is the death of a paradigm, and the question isn't "how can we stop piracy," it's "what do we do now that it's here." If history has proven anything, it's that higher organizations can do absolutely nothing to nullify the power of the consumer in a free market, so if people really want to pirate music they're going to find a way to pirate music. It's similar to drug use; you can argue the legality of it and you can argue that it's morally wrong, but you can't stop it.

With that in mind, record labels are coming at this problem in the wrong way. They shouldn't be focused on preventing piracy, as that's an exercise in futility; rather, they should be looking into increasing the value of the traditional release format by offering intangibles that can't be replicated digitally, and they should use piracy as a method of increasing publicity and drumming up sales for more "valuable" physical releases. They should also start focusing less on releases and more on what you'll _never_ be able to replicate digitally: the experience of a live show. In an ideal world, performances would be the true product. Physical releases would be a supplement to the label, based more on the loyalty of the consumers than on intrinsic value (although the value would be present to some degree), and digital distribution (pirating) would serve to generate interest in the musicians and the performances.

This article has some really interesting views on how the music industry _should_ be coping with internet distribution.
The Technium: Better Than Free


----------



## tedtan (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't know when you first noticed the decline in live acts over in the UK, but it happened stateside back in the 90's. At the same time, they party atmosphere of the 80's died off, meaning less patronage at the bars. The price of gas (petrol) increased quite a bit, at this time, too. Less patronage at the bars and local acts willing to play for free meant that bands were paid very little money for live performances. This combination largely killed off the independent acts' ability to break even on a tour.


----------



## Sofos (Nov 15, 2012)

I have actually been talking with Paul of CoF about ideas to help boost record sales (not cut down piracy, it's pretty obvious that is just going to piss people off if we try that), and we have an idea we think is really good. Gonna work on it more and then make sure we have the rights to the method before we post it, but I'm really excited about it


----------



## drgamble (Nov 15, 2012)

The cold hard facts about piracy is all about people making money off of music. Who makes money off of pirated music? ISPs, Google, YouTube, Bit Torrent, pretty much anyone that hosts or helps you find the music you like. That is the point in compensating artists. Artists are creating, but are expected to do so part-time and work a full time job while other people are making billions of dollars with the artists content and creation. Is it fair to create something and have some one else enjoy their success. It's obvious that the tech companies have done well to hide the fact that they are the ones making money off of music now.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 15, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I don't know when you first noticed the decline in live acts over in the UK, but it happened stateside back in the 90's. At the same time, they party atmosphere of the 80's died off, meaning less patronage at the bars. The price of gas (petrol) increased quite a bit, at this time, too. Less patronage at the bars and local acts willing to play for free meant that bands were paid very little money for live performances. This combination largely killed off the independent acts' ability to break even on a tour.



Depends. Situation isn't overly bright in europe either but at that time, people also want to forget about their daily troubles and have fun. I'm pretty sure nowadays is the most diverse show offering you can get ever, in France at least. Bands travel internationally, even obscure norwegian BM bands can reasonably hope to fill a 3/400 'seats' venue and make a european tour worth it. In the 80es it was the big US/UK/german acts and the local guys and that was it.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 15, 2012)

Europe generally has great live scenes going on right now, which makes me many happy.

I think we are seeing an equalization. Previously american musicians and bands were the biggest attractions, now a lot more of domestic stuff is touring all of Europe. Festivals are also more common than ever and give big bands more opportunities to play big stages, and it also gives smaller bands chances to share those bigger stages.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 15, 2012)

drgamble said:


> The cold hard facts about piracy is all about people making money off of music. Who makes money off of pirated music? ISPs, Google, YouTube, Bit Torrent, pretty much anyone that hosts or helps you find the music you like. That is the point in compensating artists. Artists are creating, but are expected to do so part-time and work a full time job while other people are making billions of dollars with the artists content and creation. Is it fair to create something and have some one else enjoy their success. It's obvious that the tech companies have done well to hide the fact that they are the ones making money off of music now.



But you're comparing apples to oranges. I, as the consumer, don't directly pay any of those parties for the privilege of listening to music, and some of them (google, youtube, bittorrent) are totally free to use. You can argue that they make money off of piracy in the most indirect of fashions, but you could just as easily argue that similar profits are held by the middlemen in the traditional distribution process.

In fact, what you're suggesting isn't even new to the music industry. Record companies have always mooched more than their fair share off the record sales of artists, and venues have always taken significant portions of the profits for live performances.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 15, 2012)

drgamble said:


> The cold hard facts about piracy is all about people making money off of music. Who makes money off of pirated music? ISPs, Google, YouTube, Bit Torrent, pretty much anyone that hosts or helps you find the music you like. That is the point in compensating artists. Artists are creating, but are expected to do so part-time and work a full time job while other people are making billions of dollars with the artists content and creation. Is it fair to create something and have some one else enjoy their success. It's obvious that the tech companies have done well to hide the fact that they are the ones making money off of music now.



Yeah people don't think about that too often it seems. Torrenting or watching/listening to something online adds traffic to a site. Almost all websites have advertisements and the more traffic they have, the more the ad agency pays the website holder. In the new system someone is getting paid, but in an incredibly indirect fashion that screws everyone involved, except the website holder that is.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 15, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> I, as the consumer


 
This is where you are mistaken concerning the web based business models. You are not a consumer/client/customer/whatever. You are the product being sold, e.g., either your eyeballs on the page, or your collection of personal data collected from visiting a site being sold for marketing purposes. The advertiser is the customer.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 15, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> even obscure norwegian BM bands can reasonably hope to fill a 3/400 'seats' venue and make a european tour worth it.


 


Jakke said:


> Europe generally has great live scenes going on right now, which makes me many happy.


 
Europe definitely seems to have a better music scene right now. Bands are lucky to make enough to pay the fuel expenses to get from one gig to the next here in north america, and even very well established bands are hard pressed to pull in more than $8-10 dollars for a CD.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 15, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> For the first time EVER, I agree 100% with 7SOH. A historical day for SSO!


----------



## wankerness (Nov 16, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Europe definitely seems to have a better music scene right now. Bands are lucky to make enough to pay the fuel expenses to get from one gig to the next here in north america, and even very well established bands are hard pressed to pull in more than $8-10 dollars for a CD.



Very true. A lot of the bands I want to see don't even play in america anymore. I can't say I blame them, but I also don't really understand why it's like this. I guess population density is way higher in europe?


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 17, 2012)

tedtan said:


> This is where you are mistaken concerning the web based business models. You are not a consumer/client/customer/whatever. You are the product being sold, e.g., either your eyeballs on the page, or your collection of personal data collected from visiting a site being sold for marketing purposes. The advertiser is the customer.



But this isn't relevant to the morality of piracy, as it relates to the artist getting what the artist is due, at all. I might be increasing Google's revenue by using their search engine, but they aren't stealing this revenue from the pockets of the artist, nor are the preventing any money from making its way to the pockets of the artist.

You're still comparing apples to oranges


----------



## flint757 (Nov 17, 2012)

He was referring to youtube, torrent websites, streaming sites, etc.. In those instance they profit from your view and you are only their in the first place (in this example) because of the artist who is not being compensated. Kind of out of our control, but it is still a fact that in the new paradigm a 3rd party is profiting while everyone else is losing in this particular instance.


----------



## DLG (Nov 17, 2012)

anyone else imagine actual pirates digging through crates of vinyl every time they read the thread title?


----------



## drgamble (Nov 17, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> But this isn't relevant to the morality of piracy, as it relates to the artist getting what the artist is due, at all. I might be increasing Google's revenue by using their search engine, but they aren't stealing this revenue from the pockets of the artist, nor are the preventing any money from making its way to the pockets of the artist.
> 
> You're still comparing apples to oranges



Reading through threads about piracy, the majority of people will say that artists must change their business model because people aren't willing to pay for content. People seem ok that some of the largest companies in the world got that way by way of illegal content. Nobody tells them to change their business model. Without the content, these companies aren't nearly as big as they are now. The Internet is the new record label. The only difference is that the Internet doesn't compensate the artist for distributing their work. Now if SOPA would have passed, these companies would have had to change their business model instead of the artist. It's the reason that they lobby and create marketing campaigns to keep the status quo. The fallacy is that everyone thinks that there isn't anyone making money off of music. Business has always been about producing something that their is a demand for. There has always been a huge demand for movies and music. All of this goes back to the OP. The numbers that point to pirates buying more music than the average consumer is misleading just as the RIAA says. It really doesn't tell the whole story. I just thought I would share more of the real story.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 17, 2012)

I really do think that people don't pirate cause they refuse to pay for music, they pirate cause it's so easy. If all venues of piracy were cut off I think most people would go back to paying for music instead of just not listening to it anymore. Arguments that "the market has shown that music's value is 0 to most people!!!!" are ridiculous imo.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 17, 2012)

flint757 said:


> He was referring to youtube, torrent websites, streaming sites, etc.. In those instance they profit from your view and you are only their in the first place (in this example) because of the artist who is not being compensated. Kind of out of our control, but it is still a fact that in the new paradigm a 3rd party is profiting while everyone else is losing in this particular instance.


 
BINGO!


----------



## tedtan (Nov 17, 2012)

DLG said:


> anyone else imagine actual pirates digging through crates of vinyl every time they read the thread title?


 
No, not me. Physically taking someone's possessions from them takes some amount of balls. Pirating something from a torrent site doesn't.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 17, 2012)

wankerness said:


> I really do think that people don't pirate cause they refuse to pay for music, they pirate cause it's so easy. If all venues of piracy were cut off I think most people would go back to paying for music instead of just not listening to it anymore. Arguments that "the market has shown that music's value is 0 to most people!!!!" are ridiculous imo.



You'd be semi-wrong. Go to a torrent website and read through the comment sections on a software download. Software is easier to install and less dangerous to install when you pay for it and yet people are still willing to wait a week for a download that may not work, has complicated registration steps/hacks and could carry a virus. Software piracy hasn't gone down at all because of that.

Albeit there is an obvious price difference, but the "they do it because it is easy" isn't true across the board.


----------



## DDDorian (Nov 17, 2012)

Don't make me read this thread again. Please. Just... don't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 17, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> For the first time EVER, I agree 100% with 7SOH. A historical day for SSO!



No wonder I hate it.


----------



## fps (Nov 18, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> There's a lot of great discussion going on in this thread about legality and morality, but most of you are forgetting that in the end this doesn't come down to legality or morality at all, it comes down to what the consumer is willing and able to do to get the product, and it's become more than obvious that not only are people willing and able to pirate music, they're _inclined_ to do so.
> 
> What's going on right now is the death of a paradigm, and the question isn't "how can we stop piracy," it's "what do we do now that it's here." If history has proven anything, it's that higher organizations can do absolutely nothing to nullify the power of the consumer in a free market, so if people really want to pirate music they're going to find a way to pirate music. It's similar to drug use; you can argue the legality of it and you can argue that it's morally wrong, but you can't stop it.
> 
> ...



I think if they come down like a ton of bricks on a few big uploaders of music, making sites who host the music responsible for clearing their sites of copyrighted content and suing individuals who actually put the music online, it'll quickly prevent a lot of people from uploading music any more. 

I'm not saying I'd agree with it, but it's a good approach for them. I agree that you can't criminalise people for taking what's readily and freely available. Downloaders I don't think you should be suing at all, impossible, a can of worms. 

As for spotify, if that's the model then just forget it, the artists might as well give their music away for free, I hate it.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 18, 2012)

Yeah at $10 a month and them taking their own cut, I don't see how they distribute that over the entirety of all artists in their catalog. Hell, it's free on a computer.

That being said I rarely find what I'm looking for on there so it doesn't matter much.


----------



## spawnofthesith (Nov 18, 2012)

Spotify is utter shit compared to Grooveshark for legal music streaming, IMO.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 18, 2012)

fps said:


> I think if they come down like a ton of bricks on a few big uploaders of music, making sites who host the music responsible for clearing their sites of copyrighted content and suing individuals who actually put the music online, it'll quickly prevent a lot of people from uploading music any more.
> 
> I'm not saying I'd agree with it, but it's a good approach for them. I agree that you can't criminalise people for taking what's readily and freely available. Downloaders I don't think you should be suing at all, impossible, a can of worms.


 
This is how they (the RIAA et al) have approached it so far. They can't get you for downloading, but they can for uploading, so that's what they have done. Just remember that when you are downloading something from a torrent, you are also uploading at the same time. You don't have to be the torrent creator to get busted for uploading.


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 18, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> If i want to listen to something, I dont feel you should have to pay. If you want to own the disc and the product its self, then pay.


Bands put out videos and songs for free streaming. With nearly every full length release out there, there are about 3 tracks up for streaming and often one or more videos. In a lot of cases, the full albums are available for free streaming as well, although for a limited time. That gives you more than enough chances to listen to something and figure out how much you like it.

If that is not enough for you and you want to enjoy the convenience of having an album and its full content available for your listening pleasure whenever and whereever you want, go make a purchase. If you download it from a blog or torrent and then keep it on your harddrive to listen to it over and over again, you obviously _do want_ to own that content (= the product), so at that point it's only fair to pay for it.



7 Strings of Hate said:


> Artists shouldnt really be making tons of money. They should be doing it for the love of the art.


Yeah, not because it's so convenient now for people to get music for free, right?! Now make a virtue out of that. I bet you, people would steal all sorts of things if it was only easy and convenient enough.

The love for the art should be something that the artist and fan are sharing. So if an artist is not only investing his love, time, and creativity, but also the money and _craftsmanship_ to create art for (himself and) his fans, then I fail to see why the fan should feel right about refusing to pay for it. That's selfish and ignorant.


----------



## orange1 (Nov 19, 2012)

A lot of good info in this thread. I'm sure this debate will go on for years to come.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 19, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Artists shouldnt really be making tons of money. They should be doing it for the love of the art. With the new system, you get real artists that are happy to get their work out there for the joy of art, and a bunch of guys that want to be rockstars and dont want to get real jobs bitching because they arnt rich yet.



If you record something you have put effort into it. That equates to labor.

If you've bought time or a computer to record you spent money and invested in your art.

This isn't about getting rich - this is about getting your investment back so that maybe - just maybe - you can do it again. Just because you feel that art has no value and should be free to any/everyone does not make it so. And in real terms it isn't free even through the venues you site.

If you can see/hear art on the web it's because someone 1) created the art. 2) converted it to something web friendly. and 3) posted it or hosts it. Every step has required investment at minimum in time, but certainly at some point in money. Nothing that you feel ought to be free actually is - and the creator of the art you feel is important enough to devote your time and attention to ought to in some way be compensated.

All art exists because someone invested in it - that you feel no responsibility in returning the favor is sad.


----------



## GSingleton (Nov 19, 2012)

Roasted


----------



## drjeffreyodweyer (Nov 20, 2012)

Either way, since broadband internet information and data will be available everywhere and at all times. Nothing changes that and as shitson said "I bet you, people would steal all sorts of things if it was only easy and convenient enough."

So the only question is how to deal with that. Nothing will change mankind and no one will pay for something thats for free. And with no one I mean the majority of people. Thats just simple economics.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 20, 2012)

Well it seems to be more of a matter of necessity and to some degree respect. As I get older I notice that less and less people pirate anything and that is because they can afford to pay for it. Also, to a degree, as an individual begins working in life you begin to respect the hard work that goes into software, movies and music. In other words a lot of people stop because it starts making them feel like dill holes. 

The problem is the target market for a lot of music is the exact demographic that doesn't give enough of a shit to pay for it or doesn't have the means in the first place.


----------



## EdgeC (Nov 20, 2012)

Art, in this case music, is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The advent of the internet has allowed people to essentially pay zero if they so choose.

Sad really. I hope we aren't deprived of somthing amazing because the potential artist beleives it isn't worth doing.

Maybe on the plus side it might weed out those that are *only* in it for the money.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 20, 2012)

Piracy is indefensible. 

I'm as guilty as anyone, but it's flat out wrong.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 20, 2012)

EdgeC said:


> Art, in this case music, is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The advent of the internet has allowed people to essentially pay zero if they so choose.
> 
> Sad really. I hope we aren't deprived of somthing amazing because the potential artist beleives it isn't worth doing.
> 
> Maybe on the plus side it might weed out those that are *only* in it for the money.



Nothing is for free. People would just rather give up personal information to get free music. You don't pay money for illegal downloads, but Google knows you better than you know yourself. At the very least, Google and Facebook know things about you that your family and friends don't know about you. I'm not saying that when you purchase music it isn't tracked, but all of this information is stored somewhere. Who knows when the ball will drop?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 20, 2012)

shitsøn;3277193 said:


> The love for the art should be something that the artist and fan are sharing. So if an artist is not only investing his love, time, and creativity, but also the money and _craftsmanship_ to create art for (himself and) his fans, then I fail to see why the fan should feel right about refusing to pay for it. That's selfish and ignorant.



Anyone who's job is to make labours of love is highly priveleged IMO. As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following (which let's be honest, who doesn't want one of those) and you will have a sense of identity and purpose amongst your peers that will be very comforting - a sense of job satisfaction that few people achieve. See where I'm going with this? Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job". In my book, if you get to play music (whether overpraised or underpraised) for a living, you're one lucky fucker, especially in this day and age.



knuckle_head said:


> If you record something you have put effort into it. That equates to labor.
> 
> If you've bought time or a computer to record you spent money and invested in your art.
> 
> ...



Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour? NO ONE. Also, who said art has no value? Free music breeds huge fanbases and will set the band up for whatever platform comes next to deliver music. You mustn't forget: this isn't how things will be forever, just how things are now.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 20, 2012)

We have cheap instruments, cheap recording equipment, tab software, and free audio-editing software. Unlike so many musicians before us we have incredible opportunities to play music without risking our finances, why should we demand people support our hobby?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 20, 2012)

EdgeC said:


> Art, in this case music, is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The advent of the internet has allowed people to essentially pay zero if they so choose.


 

Yes, but let's extend this. Nothing has an inherent monetary value, so everything is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.




EdgeC said:


> Maybe on the plus side it might weed out those that are *only* in it for the money.


 
If someone gets into music for the money , they deserve what they get.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 20, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> We have cheap instruments, cheap recording equipment, tab software, and free audio-editing software. Unlike so many musicians before us we have incredible opportunities to play music without risking our finances, why should we demand people support our hobby?



Not everyone deserves that support. However, just like any era, those that are great deserve compensation if you are gaining something from them. I don't have to watch every shitty local band in existence and never did so obviously not every band is owed 'support'. Just like anything those that do a job well typically get paid for their work. In any case no one said 'support', but that you pay for what they gave you, it is a transaction after all.

If I spent countless hours coding some new software that revolutionized the world as a hobby does that mean I shouldn't get paid because it was secondary to another job? When did hobby dictate everything should be free? Should the luthier's on this forum give their guitars away because it is a hobby?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 20, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Anyone who's job is to make labours of love is highly priveleged IMO. As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following (which let's be honest, who doesn't want one of those) and you will have a sense of identity and purpose amongst your peers that will be very comforting - a sense of job satisfaction that few people achieve. See where I'm going with this? Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job". In my book, if you get to play music (whether overpraised or underpraised) for a living, you're one lucky fucker, especially in this day and age.


 
Anyone who's work is sub-par should be compensated as such, not only the musicians.

But, more to my point, who is making a living playing music? Only a handful of people backing up country/pop singers are eking out a megre living. I have interviews where Fredrik (or maybe Marten) from Meshuggah state that they have to live on welfare when they are off the road. Now, in their case this is clearly not a passing fad or mere hobby. So why should they have to live on welfare? How does that make their art better or more true. How does that help you or anyone else?



Scar Symmetry said:


> Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour?


 
You must not have ever recorded, played live or toured.  

The actual playing is great. The problem is the driving, lugging equipment, "hurrying up to wait", being stuck in the car/van with three or four other people who drive you insane, etc. that go into live performance, and the editing, editing, editing, mixing, mastering, etc. that go into recording. These are work. Not physical labor like digging ditches, but they are absolutely work.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 20, 2012)

A lot of mental and philosophical gymnastics going on to justify bad behavior...


----------



## ilyti (Nov 20, 2012)

How has a thread about piracy vs. buying your music lasted for 7 pages and not gotten locked? It's a great discussion, but usually descends into madness. Let's see how long we can keep this up...


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour? NO ONE. Also, who said art has no value? Free music breeds huge fanbases and will set the band up for whatever platform comes next to deliver music. You mustn't forget: this isn't how things will be forever, just how things are now.



Then make music if that is your take - and avoid the music business. 

Free music doesn't guarantee a fan base no matter how good your music is - the fastest/best way to GET a fan base is to tour/play out. This is indeed work. Just because you enjoy the process does not diminish the effort required.

Doing shows costs money. Touring costs money. Recording costs money. Printing ANYTHING for promo purposes costs money. Volunteer your time to do all of this as its the only way to get it done, but there is no avoiding having to shell out. 

Art doesn't fill a gas tank or rent a van. ANY revenue stream is essential. And NONE should be forsaken.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Anyone who's job is to make labours of love is highly priveleged IMO. As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following (which let's be honest, who doesn't want one of those) and you will have a sense of identity and purpose amongst your peers that will be very comforting - a sense of job satisfaction that few people achieve. See where I'm going with this? Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job". In my book, if you get to play music (whether overpraised or underpraised) for a living, you're one lucky fucker, especially in this day and age.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour? NO ONE. Also, who said art has no value? Free music breeds huge fanbases and will set the band up for whatever platform comes next to deliver music. You mustn't forget: this isn't how things will be forever, just how things are now.



By your logic, anyone who truly loves what they do isn't really working. 

I make beer for a living. I love my job. Does that negate the labor of it? I sometimes work 60 hour weeks, often third shift (11pm to 7am), I go days without seeing my fiance awake, work in 32 degree to 120 degree environments, and usually have to lift a whole bunch of heavy crap constantly. I go home sore, tired, and beat to hell every day and wouldn't change a thing. 

Working in the music industry, and I mean truly working, can be very similar. Not everyone is a bedroom shredder or playing in "bands" with gigs only a day a week if that. A lot of folks are playing their ass off nearly every day. It's work.


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following


The quality of music has very little to do with music pirating. If the work an artist makes is sub-par, then why would you even download it? That would be plain stupid. We're not talking about the quality of music here, we're talking about illegal downloading of music people deem good enough to listen to on a more or less regular basis.

Which brings us to:


Scar Symmetry said:


> Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job".


If the demand for your music to be heard is getting big enough to go on tour professionally and regularly, it clearly turns into a job (and even more actual work at that) by any means. Still, the record sales of a shitton of bands that go on tour and play packed shows every night are beyond horrible, yet everyone is begging for new music constantly.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Anyone who's work is sub-par should be compensated as such, not only the musicians.
> 
> But, more to my point, who is making a living playing music? Only a handful of people backing up country/pop singers are eking out a megre living. I have interviews where Fredrik (or maybe Marten) from Meshuggah state that they have to live on welfare when they are off the road. Now, in their case this is clearly not a passing fad or mere hobby. So why should they have to live on welfare? How does that make their art better or more true. How does that help you or anyone else?


 
Not really sure where the point is in this bit so I'm unsure of how to respond.



tedtan said:


> You must not have ever recorded, played live or toured.
> 
> The actual playing is great. The problem is the driving, lugging equipment, "hurrying up to wait", being stuck in the car/van with three or four other people who drive you insane, etc. that go into live performance, and the editing, editing, editing, mixing, mastering, etc. that go into recording. These are work. Not physical labor like digging ditches, but they are absolutely work.



Are you kidding? You think I'd be sat here sounding off about it if I hadn't? I've done all 3. Did any of them feel like work? Heck no! Nothing about them felt laborious, arduous, tedious, like you wanted it to hurry up so you could go home... Absolutely work? Not to me.



knuckle_head said:


> Then make music if that is your take - and avoid the music business.
> 
> Free music doesn't guarantee a fan base no matter how good your music is - the fastest/best way to GET a fan base is to tour/play out. This is indeed work. Just because you enjoy the process does not diminish the effort required.
> 
> ...



I realise it's a sensitive issue as many people on this forum want to believe that a career in music is possible and I am perhaps being a bit defeatist. However, at this point in time, I truly believe it's the most realistic view. Again, it's just not something I see as work. You are essentially selling yourself as someone to be praised and when you have a fanbase that is basically thousands of people saying "Fuck yeah, I'll praise you! You're awesome!"... that's the kind of thing dreams are made of. I of course realise it's not all rainbows and unicorns but that's a pretty fucking cool job description.



MaxOfMetal said:


> By your logic, anyone who truly loves what they do isn't really working.
> 
> I make beer for a living. I love my job. Does that negate the labor of it? I sometimes work 60 hour weeks, often third shift (11pm to 7am), I go days without seeing my fiance awake, work in 32 degree to 120 degree environments, and usually have to lift a whole bunch of heavy crap constantly. I go home sore, tired, and beat to hell every day and wouldn't change a thing.
> 
> Working in the music industry, and I mean truly working, can be very similar. Not everyone is a bedroom shredder or playing in "bands" with gigs only a day a week if that. A lot of folks are playing their ass off nearly every day. It's work.



That's exactly what I'm saying, Max. My point has been throughout that making music is hardly labour. If anything, it's a labour of love and always has the overlying tone of doing what you're doing because you feel so closely connected with it. If the beer you made was your own recipe, imagine how much you'd be invested in it... It'd be _your_ product that thousands of people enjoy 



shitsøn;3280894 said:


> The quality of music has very little to do with music pirating. If the work an artist makes is sub-par, then why would you even download it? That would be plain stupid. We're not talking about the quality of music here, we're talking about illegal downloading of music people deem good enough to listen to on a more or less regular basis.
> 
> Which brings us to:
> 
> If the demand for your music to be heard is getting big enough to go on tour professionally and regularly, it clearly turns into a job (and even more actual work at that) by any means. Still, the record sales of a shitton of bands that go on tour and play packed shows every night are beyond horrible, yet everyone is begging for new music constantly.



Actually it has a lot to do with music pirating. A lot of people use pirating as "try before you buy" kind of thing, the folk who would feel guilty if they didn't buy the product once they knew what they were getting. I'm personally fine with that, even people doing it to my music.

It's a job sure, but it's one hell of a job! Even the long touring hours in vans with sweaty hairy men only to jump on stage for half an hour at the end of the day... if that's not worth it, stop doing it! 

And yes, the demand for music is always there. People will always love music. I personally believe that to labelling downloading as WRONG or IT'S JUST STEALING is in fact missing the point entirely, pissing in the wind. It's not ideal, I know, but you have to work with how things actually are, be realistic, and then look to the future for what will come next. Sitting around complaining about it won't get us anywhere!


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying, Max. My point has been throughout that making music is *hardly labour*. If anything, it's a labour of love and always has the overlying tone of doing what you're doing because you feel so closely connected with it. If the beer you made was your own recipe, imagine how much you'd be invested in it... It'd be _your_ product that thousands of people enjoy




This is where you are horrendously wrong, I have a friend who makes music for a living, and he does fairly well. His life is so much busier than mine it is insane. He plays in a gigging band, runs 2 open mike nights, does sound on other nights at various bars and another band. During the days and early evenings it is all about rehearsal, networking, doing website work (often related to those bands and opening mike nights). If I had to put the bar to it, he works harder than me the half the year I am working . 

You are giving it far to much of a dreamy overtone. That is what max was trying to say. 



As far as bands like Meshuggah being on welfare Ted, no I don't think they should be on welfare, they should get a freaking job


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 21, 2012)

If you carefully read what I've said throughout I'm not glorifying it as a perfect job! I've managed a band before, I know it's not easy. But it was like raising a child, it was a no brainer, I did it because I loved it unconditionally and what I got out of it was so great that any effort put in was automatically worth it. I do have some idea of what I'm talking about


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Actually it has a lot to do with music pirating. A lot of people use pirating as "try before you buy" kind of thing, the folk who would feel guilty if they didn't buy the product once they knew what they were getting.


I wasn't talking about that either. I was talking about music piracy, not try before buy. Specifically about people who just download and keep the music they want to listen to, without paying for it at all. I know that this is the way things are but it's always gonna piss me off, as a musician and as a fan.

The try before buy-folk you're talking about, I don't mind them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> If you carefully read what I've said throughout I'm not glorifying it as a perfect job! I've managed a band before, I know it's not easy. But it was like raising a child, it was a no brainer, I did it because I loved it unconditionally and what I got out of it was so great that any effort put in was automatically worth it. I do have some idea of what I'm talking about


 
Why perhaps not glorifiying it, it certainly seems you are romanticizing it quite heavily. 

At least that's what I'm getting sitting over here.


----------



## wespaul (Nov 21, 2012)

It's hilarious to read people talk about how there's no labor involved, if that is the basis by which anybody should be paid, even if its nothing at all.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

flint757 said:


> If I spent countless hours coding some new software that revolutionized the world as a hobby does that mean I shouldn't get paid because it was secondary to another job? When did hobby dictate everything should be free? Should the luthier's on this forum give their guitars away because it is a hobby?



Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection? Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything. Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment. If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it? They voluntarily choose to expend money on their personal hobby and I don't believe that means others should have to as well. Both coding and instruments have established criteria for market value, but music has only vague standards and is subject to taste and opinion.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 21, 2012)

Go tell a musician that has to play Carmen 20 nights in a month it's not work...
Yeah he enjoys playing, but maybe he'd rather play Vivaldi with his quatuor, but musique de chambre doesn't get the bills paid. (I'm pretty sure "bedroom music" wouldn't be a proper translation  ), certainly not playing a piece he doesn't like every work day for a month. And musicians in orchestras don't get to choose what's in the season program.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I realise it's a sensitive issue as many people on this forum want to believe that a career in music is possible and I am perhaps being a bit defeatist. However, at this point in time, I truly believe it's the most realistic view.


 
I am a realistic, practical type of person, and agree with the point quoted above. But there is a major difference between saying that statistically speaking, musicians won't be able to earn a living in today's music environment and saying that making music isn't work and musicians shouldn't be able to make a living from their music. *BIG* difference between the two.



Scar Symmetry said:


> Again, it's just not something I see as work. You are essentially selling yourself as someone to be praised and when you have a fanbase that is basically thousands of people saying "Fuck yeah, I'll praise you! You're awesome!"... that's the kind of thing dreams are made of. I of course realise it's not all rainbows and unicorns but that's a pretty fucking cool job description.


 
That's not a job, nor is it making music. That's just finding a bunch of sycophants to kiss your egotistical ass, and there are much quicker ways of accomplishing that than through music.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> As far as bands like Meshuggah being on welfare Ted, no I don't think they should be on welfare, they should get a freaking job


 
I don't want to veer this thread off topic into a discussion of the benefits (or the lack thereof) of welfare, but I must point out that without it, we may well not have Messhugah's music. They didn't come up in today's environment where they can record a song in their bedroom and post the recording on BandCamp or Souncloud the same day. Furthermore, if they were working normal day jobs, would they even be able to remember some of the ideas they have while at their job long enough to get home and work them out/record a demo of them? Would they be able to really practice their more difficult material enough to get it down well enough for live performance? If not, where would metal music be today?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection?


 
No one wants to view a stamp collection - there is no demand there. People_* DO*_ want to listen to music. The demand is there or there would be no pirating and this thread wouldn't exist in the first place.




Semichastny said:


> Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything. Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment. If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it? They voluntarily choose to expend money on their personal hobby and I don't believe that means others should have to as well.


 
Just because music is a hobby for you and I doesn't mean it is for everyone else. That is a false preconception on your part. Some people dedicate their life to creating music. They live it, breath it, eat it, sleep it, and shit it every moment of every day.

Should these people be subject to the same restrictions as a hobbyist?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> musique de chambre doesn't get the bills paid. (I'm pretty sure "bedroom music" wouldn't be a proper translation  ).


 


That would be chamber music in English.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> No one wants to view a stamp collection - there is no demand there. People_* DO*_ want to listen to music. The demand is there or there would be no pirating and this thread wouldn't exist in the first place.


 
Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?





tedtan said:


> Just because music is a hobby for you and I doesn't mean it is for everyone else. That is a false preconception on your part. Some people dedicate their life to creating music. They live it, breath it, eat it, sleep it, and shit it every moment of every day.
> 
> Should these people be subject to the same restrictions as a hobbyist?



Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The difference between music and air being that one is a necessity for life, and one that can't really be taxed a certain way. Unless you're talking about the plot for Total Recall, that was an awesome movie. Music is a luxury. Always.

As for musician's making a living playing music, you couldn't be any more wrong. Even going back the 1300's it wasn't uncommon for the truly exceptional musician's to make a living, and a very comfortable one considering the times, by simply being good at music. Whether that meant working as a sales agent for a luthier (just like today), opening up a school of music, or entertaining royalty/well off.

Though, I doubt most musician's are looking to be rich through thier music, but simply compensated in some form.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't even know where to start. You're saying music should be free cause it's a basic human necessity like air? Do you also think video games and movies should be free? If not, what makes them different from music?

"Musicians have never been able to make a career of it, it's always been a day job?" There were far more musicians who did it as their primary career relative to the overall population in the first half of this century than now, and there have always been tons of people that played in orchestras and all that sheit as their only job throughout history since like, the renaissance. It's only in recent years that people like you decided that "oh anyone that tries to make money as a musician doesn't deserve any money cause music should be free, they should have to have another job that they hate to support the music side of things and spend their remaining 3 hours of free time a day practicing and writing." 

I can't think of any classic records that were produced by a band who was doing it as a hobby on the side - basically all the pinnacles of every genre were produced by people who poured all their time and energy into making it. I'm sorry that it really angers you that anyone else could view it as anything but a hobby on the weekends when they're not having their soul sucked out by a terrible day job.


----------



## fps (Nov 21, 2012)

Slight tangents, but something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, and most people where I work really have no interest in music at all. Not jazz, not classical, not dance, not rock. They talk about music stars sure, but it really is like a soap opera for them, and they don't care one iota about the content, beyond the odd notable phrase. 

Not everyone cares that much about music. It seems obvious that the people who go looking for music are the ones who are more likely both to pirate and to buy, which is not in itself a very useful correlation to highlight, or one from which conclusions favourable or unfavourable to pirates can sensibly be drawn.


----------



## fps (Nov 21, 2012)

wankerness said:


> There were far more musicians who did it as their primary career relative to the overall population in the first half of this century than now, and there have always been tons of people that played in orchestras and all that sheit as their only job throughout history since like, the renaissance. It's only in recent years that people like you decided that "oh anyone that tries to make money as a musician doesn't deserve any money cause music should be free, they should have to have another job that they hate to support the music side of things and spend their remaining 3 hours of free time a day practicing and writing."



Not quite. A lot has changed since the start of this century, and you're being disingenuous ignoring it. The advent of recorded music, of huge sound systems, of clubs where you can hear your favourite hits all jumbled together, of a single person with a laptop being able to travel the world and bring audiences to utter ecstacy, and a corresponding rise in accessibility for the fans, heightened by the internet, the rise to prominence of rap, hip-hop, dance music, as the most popular musical styles, these are all the technological advances that have been made that make it more expensive, more hard work, and less desirable to get a no-name, let alone a good, band into a venue rather than have a DJ night. As for orchestras, the prices of fuel alone mean tickets are expensive as anything. 

Music is worth what people will pay, however they pay it. They have spoken, most music is worthless.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 21, 2012)

> Music is a luxury. Always.


Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

Then would that not infer the converse; that the average consumer pirates? The title is a bit contradicting. 

All I am saying, is that they're not mutually exclusive in the first place. This is exactly what the entire statement is alluding to. Thus, its impossible to draw a conclusion from this data one way or the other.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 21, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
> While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.




Luxury as in: not food or air, i.e. something that is not required for your direct survival.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved.


 

My post that you refer to doesn't state that payment should be made due the existence of demand, merely that your analogy doesn't work. Comparing something that no one is willing to pay for because no one wants it to something that people are not willing to pay for because they found a convenient, risk free way to "steal" it just doesn't hold up. It is not a well reasoned arguement.




Semichastny said:


> There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?


 

This argument goes even further - it is just foolishness.





Semichastny said:


> Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.


 

This point is simply not true. Musicians and composers have put food on the table writing and playing music for thousands of years. Some are even still able to do so today.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 21, 2012)

fps said:


> Slight tangents, but something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, and most people where I work really have no interest in music at all. Not jazz, not classical, not dance, not rock. They talk about music stars sure, but it really is like a soap opera for them, and they don't care one iota about the content, beyond the odd notable phrase.
> 
> Not everyone cares that much about music. It seems obvious that the people who go looking for music are the ones who are more likely both to pirate and to buy, which is not in itself a very useful correlation to highlight, or one from which conclusions favourable or unfavourable to pirates can sensibly be drawn.



I don't feel like they care about it any less than they did throughout the 50s-90s when the average joe was at least buying albums here and there, it's just that now they can easily get it for free off youtube or whatever and thus get their "fill" for free. A lot of the people I know these days just listen to entire albums on youtube since basically everything ever is uploaded on there, much of it with shady legality. I'm guessing if the corporate lobbyists convince the government to essentially privatize the internet that music sales will pick up again cause many of the new, free venues will be cut off.

Serious question, what did people do just before the internet if they didn't care that much about music? I didn't really become aware of popular music until the internet was already out (napster entered into the equation when I was still in middle school), but from what I remember seeing lying around the house of everyone was at least like, some NOW 10 or lynyrd skynyrd or mariah carey or metallica CDs or whatever even if the person basically didn't care about music and mainly heard it via the radio. Are you saying that in this day and age that kind of person would not go back to buying music if internet regulations get massively tightened (ex, Youtube actually starts removing all the copyrighted stuff not uploaded by the artist/label)?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
> While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.


 
You make a good point here. Music as an entity is separate from the recordings, live performances, etc. In many ways it truly is a part of us.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
> While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.


 
I guess I should have been more specific. Let's change that to being picky about music is a luxury.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 21, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Luxury as in: not food or air, i.e. something that is not required for your direct survival.


Yeah I got that, but I think it requires more than food and air to be qualified as "human"". Using a language and making music are parts of it, else you're a monk....ape.
Or maybe we'd be depressive humans. The fact that every culture has come up with it makes me think that yes, it is vital to have it. (That's not saying recorded music is, but Max's statement was a bit of a blanket one.)

edit: you ninja


----------



## wespaul (Nov 21, 2012)

My jazz teacher told me that, hundreds of years ago, somebody made the mistake of calling it "playing music." Now everybody thinks there should either be no charge for it, or very little. I'm surprised to see actual musicians take part in this mindset.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

wankerness said:


> I don't even know where to start. You're saying music should be free cause it's a basic human necessity like air? Do you also think video games and movies should be free? If not, what makes them different from music?



No I was pointing out that it is ridiculous to think that because there is a demand for something it should have to be paid for.



wankerness said:


> There were far more musicians who did it as their primary career relative to the overall population in the first half of this century than now, and there have always been tons of people that played in orchestras and all that sheit as their only job throughout history since like, the renaissance.



What your talking about is live performance. Giving out music for free would be a good thing for many touring musicians because it would allow them to spread their name and create a larger following. The music could be given out to blogs, emailed to people, placed on youtube, and streamed on bandcamp. People don't need to pay thousands of dollars to get a professional recording, they can just buy a recording interface and a mic and learn to do it in their free time. A $300-500 total investment allows for unlimited recording time which means a ton of money saved, and more material to show to the public. 



wankerness said:


> It's only in recent years that people like you decided that "oh anyone that tries to make money as a musician doesn't deserve any money cause music should be free, they should have to have another job that they hate to support the music side of things and spend their remaining 3 hours of free time a day practicing and writing."



Who says they have to work a job they hate? That's an overly negative attitude. There are all kinds of different jobs for people to do (if they can find one). If they get an education they could go into a dizzying arrow of different fields that they might enjoy. Either way 3 hours is still a lot of time to be playing music, local artists generally only get a fraction of time at shows while headliners are usually in that ballpark anyway so whats your point? A person still gets to play more music every day then they would performing live.



wankerness said:


> I can't think of any classic records that were produced by a band who was doing it as a hobby on the side - basically all the pinnacles of every genre were produced by people who poured all their time and energy into making it.



I don't really care about the oldies that's taste, with the amount of free teaching material out there people no longer have to pay someone to teach them/pay for a bunch of books. The free flow of information we have today allows for more people to get into music and do something they enjoy. There are still great records being made the sheer volume of material on the internet just means that they just get lost in the crowd. Coalesce put out Ox as a hobby record and while it might not be a classic they still got good reviews/fanfare and managed to tour on it, play festivals, and put out merch all while working day jobs to support their families.



wankerness said:


> I'm sorry that it really angers you that anyone else could view it as anything but a hobby on the weekends when they're not having their soul sucked out by a terrible day job.



It's pretty clear your the angry one here not me. I love playing music and I enjoy concerts, I still make efforts to support what artists I like. Honestly though it is not that big a deal because the music I like is overwhelmingly available for free (or not available), made by people who do not care if it is downloaded, or made by people who are long dead. There is more to life then music. Science, social work, and healthcare all offer great opportunities for a person to fulfill themselves while doing a regular job. If a persons interests are so limited that doing anything but music will literally take away their soul then I would guess they have serious underlying issues.

The fact of the mater is the paradigm has shifted. If enough people have decided that recorded music is not worth paying for then bands are left with a simple dichotomy. They can stop playing/recording music or they change with the times. Jazz musicians took a pretentious attitude towards rock music when it became popular and refused to change what they were doing. They were out-competed and lost mainstream popularity. The same can be said for rock music and electronica. While in the 90's rock music was huge among the youth the traditionalist mindset bit them in the ass as tastes and demographics changed. Piracy is another bump in the road, either you change or you don't, but in the end finger point is not going to change a bands situation.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Either way 3 hours is still a lot of time to be playing music, local artists generally only get a fraction of time at shows while headliners are usually in that ballpark anyway so whats your point? A person still gets to play more music every day then they would performing live.


 
He never mentioned a 3 hour gig. He said that working people may only have 3 hours left in the day to listen to, write and play music. And I'll go even further with that statement and make it *YOUNG* working people, because those of us with families are lucky to get anywhere near that much time in for music.



Semichastny said:


> If enough people have decided that recorded music is not worth paying for


 
No one decided that music is not *WORTH *paying for, they were simply given a relatively risk free and convenient means to "steal" it. When you can either pay for something or get it for free, most people in the age group we are discussing will opt for free because they have relatively limited money.



Semichastny said:


> Jazz musicians took a pretentious attitude towards rock music when it became popular and refused to change what they were doing. They were out-competed and lost mainstream popularity.


 
I know it can be difficult to admit for many musicians, but music, especially as it relates to a style's popularity, is trend driven. Jazz was not "out competed", the trend simply changed to favor rock and the jazzers were cast as old people who weren't "with it" anymore. That's just marketing the trend. The same things apply today; djent and core are still relatively popular, but they won't be in another 5 to 10 years. That's just how this works.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 21, 2012)

Why the hell are we still paying all those architects? I mean, there's no labor involved, they're just creating blueprints. It's not like they're building the house themselves.

And besides... I can go look at that architect's buildings any time I want. For free. And they will live on long after the architect and I have died. Isn't being part of history the best payment any architect could receive? They should learn to accept the idea they'll be broke forever designing buildings...


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> That would be chamber music in English.



It means room more commonly in french. 



Semichastny said:


> Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?
> 
> Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.



Supply and demand actually would dictate price since that is the foundation of economics. Another reason, beyond what has already been mentioned, for air still being free is simply that it is unlimited. The supply is so huge that the pricing point, even if there could be one, would be next to nothing. Water (more limited) is a better reference and we pay plenty for that.

No one is saying that this is a problem with a solution and that doesn't even seem to be what is being discussed. This is a discussion about why people think it is okay. I can understand people thinking "who gives a shit it is inevitable", but you are actively saying this SHOULD be the way it is and I wholeheartedly disagree.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> The same things apply today; djent and core are still relatively popular, but they won't be in another 5 to 10 years. That's just how this works.



And then 5-10 years after that, Periphery re-forms and does a Vegas residency that sells out for a month straight.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 21, 2012)

Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> He never mentioned a 3 hour gig. He said that working people may only have 3 hours left in the day to listen to, write and play music. And I'll go even further with that statement and make it *YOUNG* working people, because those of us with families are lucky to get anywhere near that much time in for music.



Re-read what I said it was a comparison. 


semichastny said:


> A person still gets to play more music every day then they would performing live.



He said a potential three hours in the day to write/play music with a day job, I pointed out this is still more time then a person would get preforming each night. Of course you don't have that much time because you have more important priorities to address, you chose financial stability for your loved ones over music, and that was the point I was making. A lot of people can't do music for a living because they need to take care of their priorities. Doing music full time most likely wouldn't be on the table for you anyway so the comparison isn't exactly what we were talking about.



tedtan said:


> No one decided that music is not *WORTH *paying for, they were simply given a relatively risk free and convenient means to "steal" it. When you can either pay for something or get it for free, most people in the age group we are discussing will opt for free because they have relatively limited money.



I don't understand your logic, how can you say someone decided to "steal" something and "opt for free" in the same breath that you say no one decided it's not worth paying for? That by definition means that they didn't think it was worth paying for because they have chosen not to pay!



tedtan said:


> I know it can be difficult to admit for many musicians, but music, especially as it relates to a style's popularity, is trend driven. Jazz was not "out competed", the trend simply changed to favor rock and the jazzers were cast as old people who weren't "with it" anymore. That's just marketing the trend. The same things apply today; djent and core are still relatively popular, but they won't be in another 5 to 10 years. That's just how this works.



I mostly agree with you here; however, What I meant by out-competed was that when certain music styles were faced with a threat to their relevance they choose to resist change, be elitist, and stick their heads in the sand and as a result they allowed themselves to fade away with no resistance. Look at linkin Park and Deftones, both bands sprung from the Nu-Metal scene yet that scene is dead today. They resisted the change in trends by changing/evolving and to this day are successful, while the other bands are long gone. I view rampant piracy as another shift, if bands keep the same outdated views and expectations for their music carrier they will break up and disappear while the others who move forward and change to suit the current expectations of their part of the music market will succeed. Music and bands have come and go without piracy, it's up to them to step up to the challenge or fade away like everyone else who can't manage to change.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> And then 5-10 years after that, Periphery re-forms and does a Vegas residency that sells out for a month straight.


 


That's too funny, man, but only because it is so true.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

wankerness said:


> Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?


 
Beleive it or not, in my experience the answer is sort of. It definitely doesn't have the fanboyism we see here off SSO, but it has been a bit of a passing fad.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Beleive it or not, in my experience the answer is sort of. It definitely doesn't have the fanboyism we see here off SSO, but it has been a bit of a passing fad.



That blows my mind. I thought it was for progmetal nerds only (like, the same people that would have been listening to Dream Theater or Opeth in the past).


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I don't want to veer this thread off topic into a discussion of the benefits (or the lack thereof) of welfare, but I must point out that without it, we may well not have Messhugah's music. They didn't come up in today's environment where they can record a song in their bedroom and post the recording on BandCamp or Souncloud the same day. Furthermore, if they were working normal day jobs, would they even be able to remember some of the ideas they have while at their job long enough to get home and work them out/record a demo of them? Would they be able to really practice their more difficult material enough to get it down well enough for live performance? If not, where would metal music be today?



I highly doubt I would have much of a care about a band having trouble scheduling practice time around a job. That is a pretty poor argument basis. Without Meshuggah, metal might be a whole lot better, this who chugging low notes to syncopated rhythm crap is pretty over-rated.




ArrowHead said:


> Why the hell are we still paying all those architects? I mean, there's no labor involved, they're just creating blueprints. It's not like they're building the house themselves.
> 
> And besides... I can go look at that architect's buildings any time I want. For free. And they will live on long after the architect and I have died. Isn't being part of history the best payment any architect could receive? They should learn to accept the idea they'll be broke forever designing buildings...




Not sure, they don't design it either, and that is a much more difficult portion given their ludicrous imaginations. They draw pictures, they are the artist of the building world. They get all the credit while the team of engineers who made their vision real gets the back burner


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Re-read what I said it was a comparison.
> He said a potential three hours in the day to write/play music with a day job, I pointed out this is still more time then a person would get preforming each night. Of course you don't have that much time because you have more important priorities to address, you chose financial stability for your loved ones over music, and that was the point I was making. A lot of people can't do music for a living because they need to take care of their priorities. Doing music full time most likely wouldn't be on the table for you anyway so the comparison isn't exactly what we were talking about.


 
I read your post to mean that only well known headliners played 3 hour gigs. If I misunderstood, then I agree with you.

And for the record, I initially went to school (university for those of you across the pond) as a performing jazz guitar major. That lasted all of one semester. After talking with the professors and other teachers for that single semester about life after school, I took life as a full time performing musician off the table for myself, changed my major and went on with my life. So no, I am not interested in a life as a performing musician. It's not for me.



Semichastny said:


> I don't understand your logic, how can you say someone decided to "steal" something and "opt for free" in the same breath that you say no one decided it's not worth paying for? That by definition means that they didn't think it was worth paying for because they have chosen not to pay!


 
If someone needing to feed his family were to steal a loaf of bread in order to do so, it doesn't mean that the bread isn't worth what it was priced at. Nor does it mean that the thief or anyone else decided it wasn't worth paying for. It merely means that he found a way to circumvent the system. Sometimes this is due to a lack of money. Sometimes it is done for the challenge or excitement. Some people like to think they are getting away with something. Hell, sometimes it is done just because it can be done.

The same holds for file sharing, though on a larger scale. It is a relatively safe and convenient way to circumvent the system for the time being. I suspect that amount of money being lost by the music businesses and the resulting loss in tax dollars to the governments of the world will lead to this loophole being sewn shut in the next 5 to 10 years. But only time will tell.



Semichastny said:


> I mostly agree with you here; however, What I meant by out-competed was that when certain music styles were faced with a threat to their relevance they choose to resist change, be elitist, and stick their heads in the sand and as a result they allowed themselves to fade away with no resistance. Look at linkin Park and Deftones, both bands sprung from the Nu-Metal scene yet that scene is dead today. They resisted the change in trends by changing/evolving and to this day are successful, while the other bands are long gone.


 
I will say this holds true for the individual bands in a scene/trend, but the scene/trend itself has to die off. Part of the new trend's sense of cool to the kids is presenting it as something new and better than the last scene/trend. Without that rebellion it doesn't work as the new thing.



Semichastny said:


> I view rampant piracy as another shift, if bands keep the same outdated views and expectations for their music carrier they will break up and disappear while the others who move forward and change to suit the current expectations of their part of the music market will succeed. Music and bands have come and go without piracy, it's up to them to step up to the challenge or fade away like everyone else who can't manage to change.


 
I was the first one in this thread to bring up the use of file sharing as a promotinal tool. As a practical person, I agree that it is here and would like to learn how to use it to our advantage. How do we use it to our own benefit? I had sincerely hoped this thread might go in that direction, but lacking anything to contribute myself from experience, etc., I couldn't hold it on that heading.

I also need to reiterate something I said to Scar Symmetry in an earlier post. There is a big difference between saying:

- as a practical reality, bands won't be able to make enough money from their music to support themselves financially, and saying

- music *SHOULDN'T* provide financial support for those who invest their time, effort and money into creating it.

The two are *VERY* different statements.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

wankerness said:


> That blows my mind. I thought it was for progmetal nerds only (like, the same people that would have been listening to Dream Theater or Opeth in the past).


 
That's the right audience, but I have seen this outside this board here over the last few years.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> I highly doubt I would have much of a care about a band having trouble scheduling practice time around a job. That is a pretty poor argument basis. Without Meshuggah, metal might be a whole lot better, this who chugging low notes to syncopated rhythm crap is pretty over-rated.


 
Whether it would be better or not is a subjective judgement call. But you can't deny that metal music would be *different. *We would go from nu metal to what? There would be no Meshuggah, and without Meshuggah there would be no djent.

So how would metal sound? Maybe Nu-Metal-Pop-Punk-Screamo-Bieber-Core. 

How would that be an improvement?  


EDIT: Added smilies.


----------



## fps (Nov 21, 2012)

If your argument in this thread is that musicians should be paid for their music by the people who consume it because *MORALITY*, then either you don't understand how things work in the world, or you're in denial about how things work in the world.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 21, 2012)

Somewhere in the world right now, Jon Bon Jovi is reading this thread and laughing. I know I am.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 21, 2012)

wankerness said:


> Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?



Look at the magazine articles, product endorsements, and the fact these bands are touring and playing full time. It's about as popular as metal gets, outside of the most commercial of commercials. And among musicians in general, the technical stuff has always been popular.

We're not talking Rhianna popular, but the stuff is definitely popular.

But then, it was pretty popular long before it was ever Djent. I saw Meshuggah open for Tool 12 years ago. That was a stadium tour.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

wankerness said:


> Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?



Not really.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I am a realistic, practical type of person, and agree with the point quoted above. But there is a major difference between saying that statistically speaking, musicians won't be able to earn a living in today's music environment and saying that making music isn't work and musicians shouldn't be able to make a living from their music. *BIG* difference between the two.
> 
> That's not a job, nor is it making music. That's just finding a bunch of sycophants to kiss your egotistical ass, and there are much quicker ways of accomplishing that than through music.



No matter the seeming intent of most musicians, this is their goal. The glory. Some will eventually see it as a means to help others, but really it's an egostroke that never ends, they'll change their sound to fit whatever path they wish to take. On that basis, should their earn their fair share whilst being praised non stop? Not a point I personally would stand by without doubting or claiming as watertight, but definitely worth thinking over before standing by a position of the equal defense.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 21, 2012)

I think the more important question is, how many consumers buy music from Pirates?


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No matter the seeming intent of most musicians, this is their goal. The glory. Some will eventually see it as a means to help others, but really it's an egostroke that never ends, they'll change their sound to fit whatever path they wish to take. On that basis, should their earn their fair share whilst being praised non stop? Not a point I personally would stand by without doubting or claiming as watertight, but definitely worth thinking over before standing by a position of the equal defense.



I don't even know how to respond to this.

It's extreme. It's based completely in cynicism. And it seems to take a view of the Entertainment profession that really only includes pop culture and musical trends.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 21, 2012)

It seems in my experience that younger kids think nothing of downloading stuff for free while the older dudes think it's wrong. There's a gap in the thought process that occurred somewhere there. Maybe growing up with the ability at your fingertips? I still remember tape trading, which you can equate this to on some level, but we still bought the music after we found out about the band. Most folks don't do that. They say "I download to try it out" when I can't think of a single band anywhere that doesn't have a few tracks available to listen to (let alone youtube). How often after "trying it out" does anyone buy it? I can only think of a handful of times I have. 

As for the valuation of music, this line of thought about it "only being worth what someone's willing to pay for it and I'm willing to pay nothing" is just shameful. I give all my music away for free, but that's my choice to make, not yours.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 21, 2012)

abandonist said:


> I give all my music away for free, but that's my choice to make, not yours.



Fucking right. I've been saying the same thing for years.

As the old saying goes, the market sets the value of goods. However, the fact remains that the seller still gets to set the price. If a person doesn't feel like they're getting good value for the asking price, then they don't buy. But for some reason, there's a disconnect in the music world where if a person feels like they're not getting value, instead they'll just take it for free. The issue then becomes that this snowballs as more and more people get it for free, and want it for free themselves, thus diminishing what the value of the product should actually be.

And yes, the reason I take issue with this is *gasp* morality. However, just because the world works a certain way doesn't mean that it's working the way it should.


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection? Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything. Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment. If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it?


Dude, did you think for a second before you started typing that nonsense? Someone collecting stamps obviously does NOT create and craft his own art. A stamp collector is actually the equivalent of a fan (one that's spending money at that, woohoo!), not the equivallent of an artist. Blows my mind that I have to explain that.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 21, 2012)

I've argued against piracy many times on this site, but...

If an artist says, "Here's my work, I'm selling it for $12," why wouldn't you pay that? If someone can give me a legitimate reason to pirate that work, I will PayPal you $12.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

And it didn't really address my question either. Tons of people do a varied amount of hobbies and the majority of them get paid: making apps, movies, luthiers, website design, etc.. Yet for some reason just because, in their minds, anyone can do it, it holds no value. Well that's great, come up with your favorite bands music on your own and quit pirating it then because that is the implication. After all, if it is so easy you should have no problem, right?

It's totally okay for me to pay to go to the movies and then after its over not pay for the next 2 or 3 too (hop theaters). 

I'm not saying it is going to change and I'm not asking anyone to, but I'm asking people to be honest with themselves about what they are doing. It's wrong.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

shitsøn;3281825 said:


> Dude, did you think for a second before you started typing that nonsense? Someone collecting stamps obviously does NOT create and craft his own art.



Just like musicians craft the notes they use to compose their music? Last time I checked unless a person is making microtonal music they are using the same established notes everyone else is.  Musicians arrange the notes and scales they didn't create, stamp collectors arrange the stamps they didn't create. 



shitsøn;3281825 said:


> A stamp collector is actually the equivalent of a fan (one that's spending money at that, woohoo!), not the equivallent of an artist. Blows my mind that I have to explain that.



It blows my mind how you completely bypassed my point that just because someone puts effort into a hobby doesn't mean they should expect to be paid for it. Either way almost every musician is using the exact same established notes, it's how they are arranged and the specific timbre they have that composes the art. For most of the artistic process musicians have to rely on the creations and crafts of others.

You make a song with notes you didn't discover, scales you did not construct, an instrument you didn't create, an amp you didn't build with tonal features you didn't design, and music-editing program you did not program. 

But a person who is making a collection with stamps they didn't create, transparent filters to change the color they did not event, inside of a stamp album they didn't build with visual features they didn't design, is somehow fundamentally different?

In the end the person created something of their own with the discoveries and tools of others.


----------



## Necris (Nov 21, 2012)

^ So you'll buy my music when I release it then?


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Just like musicians craft the notes they use to compose their music? Last time I checked unless a person is making microtonal music they are using the same established notes everyone else is.  Musicians arrange the notes and scales they didn't create, stamp collectors arrange the stamps they didn't create.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Straw man. Someone selling their stamp collection is entitled to whatever price the buyer is willing to fork over, as long as the seller also agrees with that price. The methods of creation don't matter. 

An item for sale obtained without the seller's consent has been stolen. Nothing else needs to be said.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> just because someone puts effort into a hobby doesn't mean they should expect to be paid for it



Regardless of the work itself, if someone makes something unique, even out of existing materials and with existing tools, they have the right to call that creation their own, and ask for compensation if anyone wants to enjoy their creation at their leisure. 

The problem I find with your philatelist scenario is that there is no way to take that person's work without physical theft. We're not talking about physical theft here, in the traditional sense at least. 

Instead of posing reasons why someone shouldn't accept payment, why not turn it around? Why should anyone be allowed to enjoy someone else's creation for free?


----------



## Jakke (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Just like musicians craft the notes they use to compose their music? Last time I checked unless a person is making microtonal music they are using the same established notes everyone else is.  Musicians arrange the notes and scales they didn't create, stamp collectors arrange the stamps they didn't create.



If I build a house for someone, unless we have agreed that I'd do it for free, I expect payment for my labour. This is despite me using lumber someone else has chopped and tools someone else has made.

And if we go into a purely physical argument, I did not create the matter either, I merely rearranged it into a more suitable shape. No one has ever really created anything, the things that occasionally pop into existance exist at random, and can't be attributed to anyone. So if no one really creates anything, but merely rearranges everything, wouldn't the extension of your argument be that not a single soul on this earth deserves payment for building, cooking, or creating anything, since they did not make the blocks they used?


----------



## Necris (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Just like musicians craft the notes they use to compose their music? Last time I checked unless a person is making microtonal music they are using the same established notes everyone else is.  Musicians arrange the notes and scales they didn't create, stamp collectors arrange the stamps they didn't create.


Joking aside, your argument went off the rails a while ago. No-one "created" the notes, while I've created my own temperaments and scales it's not as if I magically created a completely new frequency that didn't previously exist. It was always there, however the average guitar/bass/piano block access to it; and by extension all of the chords, scales etc. derived from it.

I have compiled many scales and chord progressions you have never heard before, but I haven't actually created the notes that they consist of since they always existed, so where do we go now? If it came time for you to pay to listen would you argue that you shouldn't be required to pay because while I arranged the notes, scales and chords the notes themselves existed in the frequency spectrum anyway?


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Straw man. Someone selling their stamp collection is entitled to whatever price the buyer is willing to fork over, as long as the seller also agrees with that price. The methods of creation don't matter.



When you sell the album you are handing ownership rights to a physical product over, when you sell a cd with music on it you are not handing ownership rights to the person you are giving them permission to listen to it. In regards to the method of creation comment I suggest you go back and read what I wrote/what I was responding to because I was not debating anything financial I was pointing out what I thought were the similarities between the methods of creation and stamp collection and a song.



The Reverend said:


> An item for sale obtained without the seller's consent has been stolen. Nothing else needs to be said.



If it was stealing file-sharers would not be charged with copy-right infringement. Conceptually they are similar but stealing requires a person to physically remove something and deprive the rightful owner of it. When music is downloaded a person is not stealing rights to it and they are not removing a CD or other physical item. The Artist still has their song and still has their Cd, vinyl, or other property they just suffer from potential revenue loss.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

Necris said:


> Joking aside, your argument went off the rails a while ago. No-one "created" the notes, while I've created my own temperaments and scales it's not as if a completely new frequency that didn't previously exist. It was always there, the average guitar/bass/piano just block access to it; and by extension all of the chords, scales etc. derived from it.



I have serious doubts that you understand what I was saying or the context it was said in. For your convenience I will explain this to you. 



shitsøn;3281825 said:


> Someone collecting stamps obviously does NOT create and craft his own art.



Shitson claims that a person collecting stamps does "NOT create and craft his own art." Now below you will see that the comments made about notes were to challenge that notion. I will place each comment side by side to illustrate the contrasting points



shitsøn;3281825 said:


> Someone collecting stamps obviously *does NOT create and craft his own art.*





Semichastny said:


> Last time I checked unless a person is making microtonal music *they are using the same established notes everyone else is.*



Now you will see here that I challenged the notion the stamp collecting isn't an art by pointing out that musicians fundamentally base their art form off of something they did not create just as stamp collectors do. Both sides create art which is fundamentally composed of items neither created. Again below is another point I made that demonstrates the statement in question was purely made to challenge his idea

QUOTE=Semichastny;3281825]Musicians arrange the notes and scales they didn't create, stamp collectors arrange the stamps they didn't create.[/QUOTE]

Now on to something you said 



Necris said:


> No-one "created" the notes, while I've created my own temperaments and scales it's not as if a completely new frequency that didn't previously exist.





Semichastny said:


> But a person who is making a collection with stamps they didn't create, transparent filters to change the color they did not event, inside of a stamp album they didn't build with visual features they didn't design, is somehow fundamentally different?



If you keep the above comment in line with the thought that I was trying to point out both side compose art by utilizing the creations and discoveries of others. Musicians do not create what fundamentally composes their art and neither do stamp collectors. In the end the person created something of their own with the discoveries and tools of others.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> If it was stealing file-sharers would not be charged with copy-right infringement. Conceptually they are similar but stealing requires a person to physically remove something and deprive the rightful owner of it. When music is downloaded a person is not stealing rights to it and they are not removing a CD or other physical item. The person still has their song and still has their Cd, vinyl, or other property they just suffer from potential revenue loss.



He doesn't mean stolen in the legal sense. In any case you deprived said person of the money owed for the music you have taken. So even if you didn't steal the music itself you did take someones money. Yes, I know "not every instance of pirating is lost revenue", but a big chunk of it probably is. 

I get it, you do not only pirate, you think you are 100% justified in doing so and that is that. Well, if we are going to even just stick to legalities (as you pointed out) what you did still constitutes a crime.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

This thread, I don't even, can't understand...


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

Jakke said:


> If I build a house for someone, unless we have agreed that I'd do it for free, I expect payment for my labour. This is despite me using lumber someone else has chopped and tools someone else has made.





Jakke said:


> And if we go into a purely physical argument, I did not create the matter either, I merely rearranged it into a more suitable shape. No one has ever really created anything, the things that occasionally pop into existance exist at random, and can't be attributed to anyone. So if no one really creates anything, but merely rearranges everything, wouldn't the extension of your argument be that not a single soul on this earth deserves payment for building, cooking, or creating anything, since they did not make the blocks they used?



I suggest you read my original post or my reply to Necris because I don't think you actually understand what was being said. Shitson was implying that because stamp collectors did not craft or create stamps (and any applicable item) that it was not art. You all are agreeing with me pretty closely with the fundamentals of what I said you are just placing it way out of context.

EDIT: In regards to the House comment that would still be stealing because you have been deprived rightful ownership of a physical object. It is not however copyright infringement because you do not own the rights to wood and he did not illegally-replicate a copyrighted architectural plan. I disagree with the notion that money was taken from the person because nothing happens to the money in their wallet or the money in their bank account. It is lost revenue.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

rectifryer said:


> note is a phenomenon. A stamp is a tangible object.
> 
> Can we move the fuck on?



A note is a phenomenon. A Bucket of paint, a brush, and a Canvas are tangible objects. I am not exactly sure what your point is.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> A note is a phenomenon. A Bucket of paint, a brush, and a Canvas are tangible objects. I am not exactly sure what your point is.



My point is its just not a good comparison to start with. The argument is fundamentally invalid. 

You have demonstrated a "false cause" fallacy of logic by asserting that since stamp collectors can't sell their collections, then musicians shouldn't make money. I don't mean to paraphrase you, but that is the merit of your argument.

The premise isn't even true not to mention that the statement is irrational to begin with. 

Good day sir!


----------



## DDDorian (Nov 21, 2012)

I just deleted a 900-word post when I realised you clowns were making me address the topic of stamp collecting. STAMP COLLECTING. Think about that for a second.

(apologies to any stamp collectors out there, but, seriously... stamp collecting.)


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> In regards to the House comment that would still be stealing because you have been deprived rightful ownership of a physical object. It is not however copyright infringement because you do not own the rights to wood and he did not illegally-replicate a copyrighted architectural plan. I disagree with the notion that money was taken from the person because nothing happens to the money in their wallet or the money in their bank account. It is lost revenue.



And lost revenue is lost money. If I was going to make $10 and now I'm not, I'm out $10, I lost money. Not a business on this planet would agree with your logic. What if someone paints my house and I say I'll pay him after he finishes and then I don't? He is out 'revenue', but I think we can all agree he is also out money (they are one in the same). 

Money is not necessarily revenue, but revenue is definitely money.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

DDDorian said:


> I just deleted a 900-word post when I realised you clowns were making me address the topic of stamp collecting. STAMP COLLECTING. Think about that for a second.
> 
> (apologies to any stamp collectors out there, but, seriously... stamp collecting.)


Ever seen a grown man piss his pants?


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

flint757 said:


> He doesn't mean stolen in the legal sense. In any case you deprived said person of the money owed for the music you have taken. So even if you didn't steal the music itself you did take someones money. Yes, I know "not every instance of pirating is lost revenue", but a big chunk of it probably is.



Stealing a wallet or robbing a bank is taking someones money. After an album has been downloaded no amount of money is removed from either of those locations. It is LOST REVENUE not STOLEN PROPERTY. The artist still has the same amount of CDs and the same amount of money in their CD or savings account.



flint757 said:


> I get it, you do not only pirate, you think you are 100% justified in doing so and that is that. Well, if we are going to even just stick to legalities (as you pointed out) what you did still constitutes a crime.



Since when did pointing out the legal differences between two terms mean that I think one of them is "100% justified"? If I pointed out the differences between indentured servitude and slavery would you say I support slavery? That is absolutely ridiculous. No where did I say it was justified, nowhere did I say it was not a crime, and no where did I even say I pirate music. If you are going to make accusations you should at least back them up with tangible information. For quite a few years every album I have downloaded that is up for retail I have bought.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

Could have fooled me because your arguments are very thin. Generally when someone is grasping, as you are, it means they are attempting to justify something.

Read my next post down (from the one you quoted) for my point on revenue.

Whether you pirate or not the point still stands that you think it is 100% okay, that IS the argument you have been fighting for in this thread. Validating piracy.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

Its not entirely lost revenue in every case either.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

rectifryer said:


> My point is its just not a good comparison to start with. The argument is fundamentally invalid.
> 
> You have demonstrated a "false cause" fallacy of logic by asserting that since stamp collectors can't sell their collections, then musicians shouldn't make money. I don't mean to paraphrase you, but that is the merit of your argument.



Could you kindly point out where I said "since stamp collectors can't sell their collections, then musicians shouldn't make money."? That literally had nothing do to do with my points. Why don't you actually go back and read them.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

rectifryer said:


> Its not entirely lost revenue in every case either.



I said that, but to pretend it isn't at ALL (loss of money/revenue) is no more ridiculous, which is what semichastny is claiming by saying they are not the same too.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Could you kindly point out where I said "since stamp collectors can't sell their collections, then musicians shouldn't make money."? That literally had nothing do to do with my points. Why don't you actually go back and read them.



I can't bare to read them again.

Oh well what the hell.

"Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection? Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything. Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment. If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it?"

We are talking about value. Value is important during transactions. I made the mental leap for you that the purpose of value is to price something according to a market. Then I directly stated what you were alluding to. Otherwise, value becomes arbitrary, which is exactly what you are trying to say the creation of music is.

but hey, I feel like I am ganging up on you, which is not my intention.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Could have fooled me because your arguments are very thin. Generally when someone is grasping, as you are, it means they are attempting to justify something.



I would appreciate if you point out my thin arguments, especially since I literally had to respond 4-5 time to people who had literally no idea what I was trying to say. Don't start on the illogical bullshit either because people have literally taken my points on stamp collecting so far out of context it borders on delusion.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Just like musicians craft the notes they use to compose their music?


 
Notes are to music as different color paints are to paintings. They are not the art itself, they are building blocks the artist uses to create the art.




Semichastny said:


> Last time I checked unless a person is making microtonal music they are using the same established notes everyone else is.  Musicians arrange the notes and scales they didn't create, stamp collectors arrange the stamps they didn't create.
> 
> 
> Either way almost every musician is using the exact same established notes, it's how they are arranged and the specific timbre they have that composes the art. For most of the artistic process musicians have to rely on the creations and crafts of others.
> ...


 
Painters don't make their paint brushes and sculptors don't make their chisels. That doesn't mean they didn't make their art (the painting or sculpture). Again, these are tools used to make the art, not the art itself.



Semichastny said:


> But a person who is making a collection with stamps they didn't create, transparent filters to change the color they did not event, inside of a stamp album they didn't build with visual features they didn't design, is somehow fundamentally different?
> 
> In the end the person created something of their own with the discoveries and tools of others.


 
A better analogy here is a person making a collections of songs and then creating a playlist. That collection of songs is just a collection of others' art, not a new work of art itself, and the playlist is not art at all.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> I would appreciate if you point out my thin arguments, especially since I literally had to respond 4-5 time to people who had literally no idea what I was trying to say. Don't start on the illogical bullshit either because people have literally taken my points on stamp collecting so far out of context it borders on delusion.



Can you restate your points? I re-read your posts and have drawn the same conclusions.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

rectifryer said:


> You have demonstrated a "false cause" fallacy of logic by asserting that *since stamp collectors can't sell their collections, then musicians shouldn't make money.*



"Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection? Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything. Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment. If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it?"

Where do I say they *can't sell* their collection? Point it out, you will notice I never used the word "sell" in the entire post. In fact at the end I said "pay to view it" so explain to me where "sell" came from?

EDIT: In fact I will break it down for you since you have trouble understanding.

-"Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection?"
I was pointing out that just because a person created something doesn't mean it's worth paying for.

-"Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything."

The point here is that a person doesn't deserve compensation solely for time and energy they put into something. I devote a lot of time to helping people but I do not think that intrinsically means I should be payed solely because I put out time and energy. This was in reference to an earlier debate.

-"Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment."

Earlier in the debate it was argued that their are costs associated with music and that it is not free, people invested money to create it therefore they should be compensated. I disagreed with this because a person spends money doesn't mean that other people should pick up the tabs for their personal decisions. If I take an unpaid vacation day to clean up the shoreline I don't think people should cover for me because I choose to forfeit money to do something I am passionate about. This was made solely in reference to the logic, not the art or copyright debate.

"If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it?"

What I meant by this is that when you spend money on a passion because you love it I don't think you should immediately start demanding people pay you to take part in it.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> I would appreciate if you point out my thin arguments, especially since I literally had to respond 4-5 time to people who had literally no idea what I was trying to say. Don't start on the illogical bullshit either because people have literally taken my points on stamp collecting so far out of context it borders on delusion.


 
I *sincerely* don't want to sound like an ass here, but I'm sure it will come across that way. For that I apologize in advance.

Consider this: if several intelligent people are having difficulty understanding your point and end up taking your comments out of context, and you are the only common denominator between all of these people/comments, are they really the problem?

Maybe it would be wise to think your points through before posting to make sure they actually make sense on the written page. After all, writers always say that nothing is written, it is re-written.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Painters don't make their paint brushes and sculptors don't make their chisels. That doesn't mean they didn't make their art (the painting or sculpture). Again, these are tools used to make the art, not the art itself.



I hope you realize this is literally my point... I've been saying people aren't understanding me because when you go back and read what I was saying and who I was responding to you realize I was making the exact same point you are and many other points that have come up with stamps. I was told that because stamp collectors didn't create or craft that it wasn't art. My point was to show that even musicians rely fundamentally on the inventions and discoveries of others and at the end of the day the only thing they have truly crafted is the structure of the notes and their timbre, because everything else was designed and built by others. (unless they are hardcore DIY)




tedtan said:


> A better analogy here is a person making a collections of songs and then creating a playlist. That collection of songs is just a collection of others' art, not a new work of art itself, and the playlist is not art at all.



A playlist is literally a collection of songs in order. Since the song is the endgame a person is just putting another's art in order as you said and does not constitute art. A stamp collection is more then that as the stamp is not the endgame, they choose the stamp album, the lining and decoration inside of it, anything they could layer or place inside to change it's appearance. What if a persons collections was a forty square foot collage that when viewed at a distance creates a unique picture of a mountain they personally designed (as in not copying anothers drawing or picture)? If it is simply just a playlist of stamps in order then it would still not be art, because the order would not really matter... but I think many people would consider it art.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No matter the seeming intent of most musicians, this is their goal. The glory. Some will eventually see it as a means to help others, but really it's an egostroke that never ends, they'll change their sound to fit whatever path they wish to take. On that basis, should their earn their fair share whilst being praised non stop? Not a point I personally would stand by without doubting or claiming as watertight, but definitely worth thinking over before standing by a position of the equal defense.


 
Damn... I thought I was a cynical bastard.

I will admit that the stage and bright lights are not the best place to keep one's ego in check, but even I allow for the people who make music as art for art's sake rather than merely as a vehicle for ego stroking.


----------



## DDDorian (Nov 21, 2012)

The whole analogy is stupid because a) collection and even curation is not in any way comparable to an expressive medium like music, and b) there are clear, unambiguous criteria by which you can objectively determine the value of any serious collection.

Please, please don't spend the next ten pages posting past each other in order to argue semantics on this point. This thread is hard enough to read as it is.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> I hope you realize this is literally my point... I've been saying people aren't understanding me because when you go back and read what I was saying and who I was responding to you realize I was making the exact same point you are and many other points that have come up with stamps. I was told that because stamp collectors didn't create or craft that it wasn't art. My point was to show that even musicians rely fundamentally on the inventions and discoveries of others and at the end of the day the only thing they have truly crafted is the structure of the notes and their timbre, because everything else was designed and built by others. (unless they are hardcore DIY)
> 
> A playlist is literally a collection of songs in order. Since the song is the endgame a person is just putting another's art in order as you said and does not constitute art. A stamp collection is more then that as the stamp is not the endgame, they choose the stamp album, the lining and decoration inside of it, anything they could layer or place inside to change it's appearance. What if a persons collections was a forty square foot collage that when viewed at a distance creates a unique picture of a mountain they personally designed (as in not copying anothers drawing or picture)? If it is simply just a playlist of stamps in order then it would still not be art, because the order would not really matter... but I think many people would consider it art.



Okay, lets move off all the analogies and restate as plainly as possible what exactly your opinion is because I'm honestly not sure anymore. 

When the person you are speaking of stated stamp collecting isn't art there point was music is. The only reason said person brought it up is because you decided to use stamp collecting as an analogy in the first place. May have been a poor way to point out how it didn't work, but it doesn't change the fact that stamp collecting isn't the same as making music. 

Even in reference to stamp collecting, if I created the stamps design and then someone photocopied it and started selling them at a fraction of the price that I would have that is not okay. They literally did none of the work, but the 'customer' and 'photocopier' gain all of the benefit. There is a reason flea markets, some ebay sellers, and street con artists get in trouble, big time, with the law. Even if they aren't selling what you made (literally), they are still robbing someone of what they should have been paid if someone wanted the benefit of their products design. Music should be no different.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 21, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> I hope you realize this is literally my point... I've been saying people aren't understanding me because when you go back and read what I was saying and who I was responding to you realize I was making the exact same point you are and many other points that have come up with stamps. I was told that because stamp collectors didn't create or craft that it wasn't art. My point was to show that even musicians rely fundamentally on the inventions and discoveries of others and at the end of the day the only thing they have truly crafted is the structure of the notes and their timbre, because everything else was designed and built by others. (unless they are hardcore DIY)


 

I honestly did not understand that that is the point you were making.




Semichastny said:


> A playlist is literally a collection of songs in order. Since the song is the endgame a person is just putting another's art in order as you said and does not constitute art. A stamp collection is more then that as the stamp is not the endgame, they choose the stamp album, the lining and decoration inside of it, anything they could layer or place inside to change it's appearance. What if a persons collections was a forty square foot collage that when viewed at a distance creates a unique picture of a mountain they personally designed (as in not copying anothers drawing or picture)? If it is simply just a playlist of stamps in order then it would still not be art, because the order would not really matter... but I think many people would consider it art.


 
I am not a stamp collector, so the intracacies of stamp collecting are lost on me. I took it as basically putting photos in a photo album, though with stamps instead of photos. It would have helped your analogy if you explained this earlier, because using the stamps in a collage that creates its own picture from a distance is still art, and gives a bit of a different perspective on your point. It is not just a playlist.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 21, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Okay, lets move off all the analogies and restate as plainly as possible what exactly your opinion is because I'm honestly not sure anymore.



In regards to stamps? Just because a person did not create the stamp themselves does not mean it's any less art. I pointed out how little musicians actually craft when it comes to their music just the note order and timbre. 

In regards to piracy? If you love something share it with the world. It is no longer viable to expect to make money off of CDs and I think the prevailing attitude that they should charge money for it ignores the current reality of the music market.



flint757 said:


> When the person you are speaking of stated stamp collecting isn't art there point was music is. The only reason said person brought it up is because you decided to use stamp collecting as an analogy in the first place. May have been a poor way to point out how it didn't work, but it doesn't change the fact that stamp collecting isn't the same as making music.



Of course stamp collecting isn't the same, it's a different type of passion. 



flint757 said:


> Even in reference to stamp collecting, if I created the stamps design and then someone photocopied it and started selling them at a fraction of the price that I would have that is not okay. They literally did none of the work, but the 'customer' and 'photocopier' gain all of the benefit. There is a reason flea markets, some ebay sellers, and street con artists get in trouble, big time, with the law. Even if they aren't selling what you made (literally), they are still robbing someone of what they should have been paid if someone wanted the benefit of their products design. Music should be no different.



I think the issue hear is a matter of semantics. I consider theft and robbery to be in line with the legal definitions of the word. I think calling copyright-infringement theft or robbery over-steps the legal definitions that define them. At the end of the day it is still money they will never see but I don't think that alone is enough to constitute using those terms. If we consider the end result as whats key we ignore the important differences that separate them. It is like saying that because at the end of the day a person was killed, it should be called murderer regardless of whether the other individual accidentally tripped and a knife flew out of their hands, run the person over at night, or just broke into their home and killed them for fun. Regardless of the end result of a person being dead we still maintain the distinctions between them.

EDIT: I think it's important to restate that I don't think people should EXPECT money, I didn't say they didn't deserve it. If I said they didn't deserve it I apologize as that wasn't my point and I am not a great writer.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Nov 21, 2012)

great, we have proof that folks who buy music also steal alot too. Either way it's lost revenue and hurting folks that love music.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 22, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Stealing a wallet or robbing a bank is taking someones money. After an album has been downloaded no amount of money is removed from either of those locations. It is LOST REVENUE not STOLEN PROPERTY. The artist still has the same amount of CDs and the same amount of money in their CD or savings account.



It might not technically be stolen property, but in the digital age there isn't much of a distinction between stolen property and lost revenue, at least in this case. For all intents and purposes downloading a song illegally is the same as downloading it from a legitimate online retailer and robbing the retailer of his profits and the artist of his royalties afterwards. Sure, the latter would involve stolen property and the former lost revenue, but the outcome in both scenarios is exactly the same.

You can't really argue that CD sale is different than online sale on the basis that theft of a CD deprives the retailer of the physical CD, because the perpetuation of CD sale represents an socioeconomic anomaly. The only reason CDs are still the primary medium of music distribution (and you'd be hard pressed to prove that they are) is because consumers haven't accepted the paradigm shift yet.

In the digital age piracy is theft. Any distinction between the two is purely semantic.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 22, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection?



If it were being sold - yes.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 22, 2012)

If you write a book and publish it then make it available for sale, you as the author should be paid. 

If someone makes a copy of your book and gives it away that is theft. Anyone who takes the copy of the book is by default a thief.

Same rules apply to music - and conveniently, the same laws.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 22, 2012)

I smell some intellectual property technoanarchism coming my way. Gross. 

Whether or not YOU want to pay for something, or even believe that you should have to pay for it, is irrelevant to making a functioning system. I don't want to pay for anything, ever, and I don't believe I should have to, should I just take whatever I want, especially if it's "digital" and thus not constituting physical theft? Should I just say, "Hey guys, you spent a lot of time making this software to make my life easier, and I know you were hoping to get some money from me, but I think you should really just do it all on principle, even though you need enough paying customers to keep doing what you do." That is a selfish, entitled line of thought that flouts any idea of practicality with an almost demented and certainly irrational flourish. 

I repeat: *If someone is selling something, physical or not, and you obtain it by any means without the seller's consent, you are stealing it*. How is that so hard to understand? If you copy my book word for word, and hand it out to your friends, without my consent, you are stealing my product. They have obtained something for which I expected due payment without paying for the goddamned thing. 

No more stamp collecting posts, either. Shit's weak.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 22, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Whether or not YOU want to pay for something, or even believe that you should have to pay for it, is irrelevant to making a functioning system.



We have to keep in mind, the free market system is based on the notion that value should be self-regulating. It isn't the creator's place to say "my product is worth $X, you will pay $X for it," it's the consumer's place to say "your product is worth $Y, I will pay $Y for it." In fact, such a scenario would likely also include "You will accept $Y for it, or you will go broke and starve."

The notion of theft assumes that the property has value to begin with, and the power to validate that assumption lies with the _consumer_, not the producer.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 22, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> We have to keep in mind, the free market system is based on the notion that value should be self-regulating. It isn't the creator's place to say "my product is worth $X, you will pay $X for it," it's the consumer's place to say "your product is worth $Y, I will pay $Y for it." In fact, such a scenario would likely also include "You will accept $Y for it, or you will go broke and starve."


 
No, the seller owns the rights to the product and gets to set the price. If he wants to set the price high and sell few copies (due to relatively less demand) or set the price low and sell more copies (due to relatively high demand), it is the seller's decision to make. His decision should be informed by what buyers are willing to pay, but the price is for the seller to determine.



Narrillnezzurh said:


> The notion of theft assumes that the property has value to begin with, and the power to validate that assumption lies with the _consumer_, not the producer.


 
No, it doesn't. As I stated above, the buyer does not get to determine the price of something, because it does not belong to the buyer to begin with. He only gets to offer what he feels it is worth. The seller is free to not accept.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 22, 2012)

Yeah, the only reason the buyer has any power is simply because the producer wants to sell his product and therefore will typically listen to the buyers demands (like the pay what you feel option prevalent today). He has every right to set the price so high that nobody wants it if he feels obliged to do so. If the producer does so it doesn't mean that the listener can say "fuck them I'm going to download it anyways". They probably will, but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 22, 2012)

Seems we've got a lot of armchair economists on the forum...


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 22, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> We have to keep in mind, the free market system is based on the notion that value should be self-regulating. It isn't the creator's place to say "my product is worth $X, you will pay $X for it," it's the consumer's place to say "your product is worth $Y, I will pay $Y for it." In fact, such a scenario would likely also include "You will accept $Y for it, or you will go broke and starve."
> 
> The notion of theft assumes that the property has value to begin with, and the power to validate that assumption lies with the _consumer_, not the producer.



Who assigns value is not really relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with you, though. Using the mindset of a pirate, however, all pirated products would be free to begin with, and what kind of market system do you have then? Consumers can't have all the power, because their interests are basically at odds with those of producers. That's why we're having this debate.

EDIT:

Hop up out the bed
Turn my swag on
Took a look in the mirror said wassup.
Yeah, I'm getting money.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 22, 2012)

abandonist said:


> Seems we've got a lot of armchair economists on the forum...



The world would be a better place if more people took an interest in economics IMO. 

To each there own.


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 22, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Musicians arrange the notes and scales they didn't create, stamp collectors arrange the stamps they didn't create.


Man, you have no clue what you are talking about.

By the "logic" of all that you're saying, owning and arranging a CD collection in an IKEA shelf takes about as much as effort as actually creating music. 



Semichastny said:


> It blows my mind how you completely bypassed my point that just because someone puts effort into a hobby doesn't mean they should expect to be paid for it.


Guess why I bypassed it. Because it's a pointless comparison. That goes for a lot of the other things you said, so I don't bother to qoute and reply to them. Just to kind of put your whole stamp collector comparison to an end:

If you want to own something that someone else has crafted, as a hobby or not, you have to pay for it if that person puts a price on it. Simple as that. If your stamp collector wants to sell his collection, you have to give him some money. You can't just go there, grab it without asking him for permission and make a digital copy of it. If you do, I hope he kicks your ass.

//EDIT: For some reason I missed a whole page before typing that. I guess things have been pointed out by others more than enough.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 22, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> It might not technically be stolen property, but in the digital age there isn't much of a distinction between stolen property and lost revenue, at least in this case. For all intents and purposes downloading a song illegally is the same as downloading it from a legitimate online retailer and robbing the retailer of his profits and the artist of his royalties afterwards. Sure, the latter would involve stolen property and the former lost revenue, but the outcome in both scenarios is exactly the same.



-No, bcause you can technically download much more than you can buy. All downloads are not a loos of revenue, therefore, only some are: those of the CDs I would have bought otherwise. (For the record I actually buy (most of) my music, just expalining the mechanisms)

And in any case the majors revenue is actually growing. Less CD sales means jack: Universal wasn't selling Blu-rays 15 years ago, their overall revenue is higher than then. But people's wallets haven't expanded, if they put twice the stuff for sale they won't make twice the benefit. 

That downloading is forbidden by law is one thing, assuming it is a loss of revenue is another.



> By the "logic" of all that you're saying, owning and arranging a CD collection in an IKEA shelf takes about as much as effort as actually creating music.


Actually it does. Designing expos is a job. even if all they come up with could be compared to an EEE EE EEE EE EEE EE EEE song. (ie, "let's put all the stuff on the shelf in a linear fashion")


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 22, 2012)

This is a troll. 


I just got promoted to Captain. Captain Obvious.


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 22, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> Actually it does. Designing expos is a job. even if all they come up with could be compared to an EEE EE EEE EE EEE EE EEE song. (ie, "let's put all the stuff on the shelf in a linear fashion")




Is this real life?


----------



## petereanima (Nov 22, 2012)

shitsøn;3282511 said:


> Is this real life?



_Is this just fantasyyyyyy...._










Sorry, could not resist. 



On a serious note - I am also not sure I can follow the "putting CDs in the shelf is the same as composing an album"-logic. Am I missing something?


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 22, 2012)

^^ Don't call it logic, that is why you are missing something


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2012)

Since I am a pretentious sumbitch, I just thought of something (which I sometimes do when my two braincells collide). This notion that music should be "supported".. It's very possible that it stems from an idealistic notion of the pricelessness of art, but it might be something other too. It might be related to ego, and ego is something that we have surplus of in this day and age. 

Consider the word "buy". You are the buyer, you are following someone else, and they are in charge. If one would change that to "support", you are the top-dog, and almost the boss of these bands. They are at your mercy to continue to make their art full-time, so in that sense roles are reversed.
A band can play in front of thousands of people, and yet you are "supporting" them, how great is that?

Just an idea.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 22, 2012)

petereanima said:


> On a serious note - I am also not sure I can follow the "putting CDs in the shelf is the same as composing an album"-logic. Am I missing something?


I referred to both as "work" and none being inherently superior to the other. 
Yeah, super composers make millions. Well, super CD shelves designers make millions, too. The ones that design the shelves so you want to buy the stuff instead of pile of CDs. The same someone making good songs differentiate from someone composing EEEE EE EEEE.



> I just thought of something (which I sometimes do when my two braincells collide). This notion that music should be "supported".


That's because in most everywhere in the world, the music genres favored on this forum are not prevalent and sometimes hard to access.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 22, 2012)

tedtan said:


> No, the seller owns the rights to the product and gets to set the price.



He gets to set the price, but he does not get to set the value. He may choose to set the price higher than the value if he wishes, but given that the demand for music is highly elastic he'd generate higher total revenue selling his music at a price equal to the value attributed to it by the consumer. If he wants to make a stupid business decision and sell his music for more than anyone is willing to pay that's his prerogative, but there's no logical reason for him to do that.



The Reverend said:


> Using the mindset of a pirate, however, all pirated products would be free to begin with, and what kind of market system do you have then? Consumers can't have all the power, because their interests are basically at odds with those of producers.



Ah, but this assumes artists will only produce music if they can make a profit off of it, and a large portion of this thread was spent arguing just the opposite. A producer forfeits their power to regulate prices the minute they decide to decouple production from potential revenue.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 22, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> He gets to set the price, but he does not get to set the value. He may choose to set the price higher than the value if he wishes, but given that the demand for music is highly elastic he'd generate higher total revenue selling his music at a price equal to the value attributed to it by the consumer. If he wants to make a stupid business decision and sell his music for more than anyone is willing to pay that's his prerogative, but there's no logical reason for him to do that.


 
If we are speaking in strictly economic terms, you are correct - a _*rational*_ seller will set the sales price such that it maximizes his profits, adjusting it up or down in order to accomodate changes in supply and demand while maintaining that maximum profitablity.

If nothing else though, this thread proves that there are quite a few irrational people in this world.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 22, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> Ah, but this assumes artists will only produce music if they can make a profit off of it, and a large portion of this thread was spent arguing just the opposite. A producer forfeits their power to regulate prices the minute they decide to decouple production from potential revenue.



Artists who sell albums > artists who don't sell albums


----------



## Danukenator (Nov 23, 2012)

Man, this thread is insane. The level of entitlement among some of the members is ridiculousness. It's even worse when you see that Max ninja'ed some of the exact justifications used later on.

On the setting of prices. It's obvious that a seller would want to meet the market's demand and at that price level. That's the basic law of supply and demand. However, it doesn't nullify the fact that the seller has the right to charge whatever price they see fit. 

Rational or irrational, it is their choice to make. Just because they buyer doesn't agree, it doesn't some how justify their stealing/pirating of the said object. 

I fail to see how this even relates to piracy. Is anyone making the point that if a price is too high, you can just steal it?


----------



## Recreant (Nov 23, 2012)

nickgray said:


> We'll just see more and more independent musicians making music in their bedrooms and releasing it via the internet.



yes.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 23, 2012)

Danukenator said:


> I fail to see how this even relates to piracy. Is anyone making the point that if a price is too high, you can just steal it?



That's not my point at all, I just think it's important to consider how drastically the mere _opportunity_ to download music for free has affected its perceived value. There are plenty of people who'll simply go without an album if they can't find it for free, and it isn't because they can't afford it.



The Reverend said:


> Artists who sell albums > artists who don't sell albums



But it's not about whether they sell the albums, it's about whether they would stop producing them entirely if they _couldn't_ sell them. I don't believe many artists would stop sharing their creations with the world outright just because they can't charge for the privilege, and that means the supply of music in the world is going to be more or less the same, regardless of its value.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 23, 2012)

Danukenator said:


> Man, this thread is insane. The level of entitlement among some of the members is ridiculousness. It's even worse when you see that Max ninja'ed some of the exact justifications used later on.
> 
> On the setting of prices. It's obvious that a seller would want to meet the market's demand and at that price level. That's the basic law of supply and demand. However, it doesn't nullify the fact that the seller has the right to charge whatever price they see fit.
> 
> ...



The only reason people aren't willing to pay for music is because there aren't any consequences yet for stealing music. The consumers want the music, if anything the demand for music is greater than ever. Right now, the only recourse an artist has for illegal copies of their music is to ask for their music to be removed from a site. This will continue as long as people continue to be influenced by large tech companies who make a fortune off of illegal content. Honestly, would bit torrent even exist if it wasn't a place to get any release for "free"? Some of these sites have even been accused of paying people to upload infringing content. What are the consequences? So far nothing. The way that the laws are being enforced, sites are better off breaking the law than being legit. Anybody remember when Napster went legit? Music creates billions of dollars a year. The point isn't that artists should accept nothing, but who is gaining the most from this? Bands on the whole would rather get a record deal than try and do everything themselves. The independent artists that pays for studio time, duplication, copyrights, distribution, marketing, etc are the ones that have it the worst. I can guarantee you that any band out there has their stuff on bit torrent about 30 minutes after the first cd sale. What can they do about it? Pretty much nothing because there are no consequences. It's kinda like driving less than 5 miles over the speed limit now. Is it illegal? Yes. Could you get a heavy fine? Yes. Is that really gonna happen? Most likely no.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 23, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> But it's not about whether they sell the albums, it's about whether they would stop producing them entirely if they _couldn't_ sell them. I don't believe many artists would stop sharing their creations with the world outright just because they can't charge for the privilege, and that means the supply of music in the world is going to be more or less the same, regardless of its value.



Stop overthinking it, man. My point was simple: No system exists where consumers consume for free and producers just keep on producing for some idealistic incentive, nor is such a system sustainable.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 23, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> We have to keep in mind, the free market system is based on the notion that value should be self-regulating. It isn't the creator's place to say "my product is worth $X, you will pay $X for it," it's the consumer's place to say "your product is worth $Y, I will pay $Y for it." In fact, such a scenario would likely also include "You will accept $Y for it, or you will go broke and starve."
> 
> The notion of theft assumes that the property has value to begin with, and the power to validate that assumption lies with the _consumer_, not the producer.



You are absolutely wrong about this characterization of the free market. The creator/purveyor of a product is free to price it at the value he/she deems fair. The free market, then, is free to agree or disagree. If no one buys then the price is too high. If he sells out and runs out perhaps he charged too little.

Free markets refer to producing and pricing a product, and the consumer being free to spend - and how much to spend - or not. Both producer and purchaser are free to assign a value and/or spend/accept. If you as a consumer disagree with the value of something made available for purchase you cannot then turn to the provider and tell him you are just going to take it from them if you happen to disagree on the value assigned - you are merely free to not buy it.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 23, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> That downloading is forbidden by law is one thing, assuming it is a loss of revenue is another.



Only if the author/artist has freely given it.

If everything on your play list/in your iPod is paid for you you are in the right. If you have not shelled out for every piece of music that resides on your hard drive or any other mechanism - whether you currently or have NEVER listened to it - yours is a false statement. If you posses the data, were not freely given it, and have not paid for it you have stolen it. By default this is a loss of revenue to someone . . . .

If someone doesn't like what they've taken and will never listen to it again they should delete it - then and only then does your statement hold water, provided they have paid in some manner for what they've chosen to keep.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 23, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Stop overthinking it, man. My point was simple: No system exists where consumers consume for free and producers just keep on producing for some idealistic incentive, nor is such a system sustainable.



It's the whole reason the movie industry, game industry, and music industry always go to what is a predictably good sale. That means the consumer gets more pop music and more sequels. In the end piracy is a lose for everyone because those with the money to invest are less likely to take risks.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 23, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> If you as a consumer disagree with the value of something made available for purchase you cannot then turn to the provider and tell him you are just going to take it from them if you happen to disagree on the value assigned - you are merely free to not buy it.



Absolutely, and like I said, I'm not advocating any such thing. I just think it's very interesting to note the effect piracy has had on the perceived value of music.



The Reverend said:


> Stop overthinking it, man. My point was simple: No system exists where consumers consume for free and producers just keep on producing for some idealistic incentive, nor is such a system sustainable.



More often than not, sustainability is second to recognition in the mind of a musician, so music is indeed such a system. You could certainly argue that there would be a lot _less_ music out there if listeners outright refused to pay for it, but it would not disappear. There will always be people who care more about simply getting their music out to people than making any kind of profit off it, and those people will produce music regardless of its value.


----------



## fps (Nov 23, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Stop overthinking it, man. My point was simple: No system exists where consumers consume for free and producers just keep on producing for some idealistic incentive, nor is such a system sustainable.



This is the key point right here.


----------



## Danukenator (Nov 23, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Stop overthinking it, man. My point was simple: No system exists where consumers consume for free and producers just keep on producing for some idealistic incentive, nor is such a system sustainable.



First off, this and this and this. This KEEPS coming up. Artists need money like everyone else. I get there is a small minority of people who will release music even if they don't live off that income directly. However, look at your iPod, they are a very small minority. I don't get why people are making points that hinge on the assumption that this small minority is actually the majority. Musicians wouldn't produce even a fraction of the amount of music they currently do if they had to work a 9-5 at the same time. 



Narrillnezzurh said:


> More often than not, sustainability is second to recognition in the mind of a musician, so music is indeed such a system. You could certainly argue that there would be a lot _less_ music out there if listeners outright refused to pay for it, but it would not disappear.



Lets side step the debate regarding the claim of "sustainability is second to recognition in the mind of a musician."

As a one off example, look at Black Sabbath. They were from a dirt poor area. They were banking on success or else they knew they would have to return to a regular line of work. Do you honestly think that they would have still produced the music we have today if they didn't make money?

I'd argue if artists weren't compensated for their work, we would have a tiny fraction of the music that exists today.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 23, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> There will always be people who care more about simply getting their music out to people than making any kind of profit off it, and those people will produce music regardless of its value.



. . . . and they'd likely only do it once. This is absolutely detrimental to any sophomore (or beyond) project by any band.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 23, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> Absolutely, and like I said, I'm not advocating any such thing. I just think it's very interesting to note the effect piracy has had on the perceived value of music.


 
Piracy has had an effect on how _young_ people view the value of music, but these people are still young and have not yet experienced a serious dose of the real world. Let's see how they view this in 10 or 20 years. I suspect that their views will be completely different from a better vantage point. Plus, as I said above, the music buisinesses are losing too much money, and the governments losing too much in taxes, the way things are now. They will eventually plug the holes in the system. They just haven't figured out how to do so yet.




Narrillnezzurh said:


> More often than not, sustainability is second to recognition in the mind of a musician.


 
These would be those irrational people I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 24, 2012)

Danukenator said:


> Do you honestly think that they would have still produced the music we have today if they didn't make money?





Danukenator said:


> I'd argue if artists weren't compensated for their work, we would have a tiny fraction of the music that exists today.



But what you've got to remember is that artists back then _needed_ either a pool of funds to draw from or financial support from a label just to produce music at all. Nowadays professional music can be produced with a $1500 rig, and that has led to an almost comical increase in the amount of music on the market. Given the ease of production, I don't see the amount of music on the market decreasing substantially as value decreases. After all, musicians nowadays go into the field with the firm belief that they'll never make it big, and will have to fight just to support themselves.



tedtan said:


> Piracy has had an effect on how _young_ people view the value of music, but these people are still young and have not yet experienced a serious dose of the real world. Let's see how they view this in 10 or 20 years. I suspect that their views will be completely different from a better vantage point.



You could argue that piracy has really only affected people who've grown up with it, but I could argue that the only reason it hasn't affected everyone else is because they _didn't_ grow up with it, and are morally biased as a result.

And again, I'm not saying piracy is morally right or should be acceptable or anything like that. I just think it's interesting to think about, and it's something that the music industry will _have_ to think about at some point, because it sure as hell isn't going anywhere.


----------



## abandonist (Nov 24, 2012)

Whenever this topic comes up it always ends up in thought experiments rather than what's wrong and right. When you get into this idea of "well musicians get into this knowing they're never going to make it big" bullshit, you're assuming a hell of a lot. Don't pretend to know the intentions and ideals of people you've never spoken to. Just admit it's a dick move. By all means, go ahead and keep doing it, but don't act like it's The Right Choice.


----------



## Danukenator (Nov 24, 2012)

It's totally irrelevant that it is cheaper to produce music now.

When you look at the major artists today, the big names or, hell, even the small names, they need to make money . I have no doubt that Misha and Tosin would still write music if they didn't make money. 

But, if they didn't make any money and had to take up a 9-5, do you really believe that they would have produced all the music they did? 

One can argue that lower production costs can lead to cheaper music. I fail to see how it can be used to justify the assumption that artists would still produce at the same volume and quality if they are not compensated.

EDIT: I will note, for the sake of clarity, this pertains to the other argument regarding piracy. I'm not actually discussing piracy directly here, just a hypothetical point regarding artist compensation.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 24, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> But what you've got to remember is that artists back then _needed_ either a pool of funds to draw from or financial support from a label just to produce music at all. Nowadays professional music can be produced with a $1500 rig, and that has led to an almost comical increase in the amount of music on the market.


 
Artists didn't need labels to make recordings back in the day. $1,500 would make a recording back then, too. The problem wasn't making the recording, it was getting it distributed and marketed. That's where labels really helped. I mean, a label wouldn't have even considered signing a band back in the 80s unless they had sold 10,000 to 20,000 copies of their album WITHOUT label support. You had to prove yourself then, too. Even more so than today.



Narrillnezzurh said:


> Given the ease of production, I don't see the amount of music on the market decreasing substantially as value decreases.


 
The quantity available won't decrease, the quality will. Instead of professional quality songwriting and recording, we get bedroom quality. The best of these are as good as the pro stuff, but these are few and far between; there are a lot of sub-par efforts to sort through to get to them.



Narrillnezzurh said:


> After all, musicians nowadays go into the field with the firm belief that they'll never make it big, and will have to fight just to support themselves.


 
Musicians always had to fight in order to support themselves, and they knew this. The difference is that there was a chance to rise above the fiercest fighting at some point in their career. That doesn't exist today unless you completely sell out and go full on Bieber/Gaga/Chesney/Etc. There is no middle ground today, it's all or nothing.



Narrillnezzurh said:


> You could argue that piracy has really only affected people who've grown up with it, but I could argue that the only reason it hasn't affected everyone else is because they _didn't_ grow up with it, and are morally biased as a result.
> 
> And again, I'm not saying piracy is morally right or should be acceptable or anything like that. I just think it's interesting to think about, and it's something that the music industry will _have_ to think about at some point, because it sure as hell isn't going anywhere.


 
Piracy has been around in some form since people could make recordings for themselves, so in the most basic sense, it won't disappear in our lifetime. But neither will it be allowed to continue existing in its current form, either. If there is any constant in this world, it is change itself, and too many people are loosing money here to maintain the current staus quo.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 24, 2012)

abandonist said:


> By all means, go ahead and keep doing it, but don't act like it's The Right Choice.



I'm not saying it's right at all, it's just interesting to think about.



tedtan said:


> Piracy has been around in some form since people could make recordings for themselves, so in the most basic sense, it won't disappear in our lifetime. But neither will it be allowed to continue existing in its current form, either. If there is any constant in this world, it is change itself, and too many people are loosing money here to maintain the current staus quo.



Just as piracy won't continue in its current form, neither will the current industry business model.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 24, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> . . . . I'm not saying piracy is morally right or should be acceptable or anything like that. I just think it's interesting to think about, and it's something that the music industry will _have_ to think about at some point, because it sure as hell isn't going anywhere.



You separate the industry from the artist, and you shouldn't do that. 

It used to be that artists needed the industry infrastructure to get recorded, get promoted and tour.

Now, as stated above, for a few thousand dollars most of what the industry provided can be accomplished by an industrious artist/band. Living rooms are studios. Phones are video cameras, still cameras and radios. Most of us know the drill.

Just because the 'music industry' fell behind the curve where digital content is concerned does not negate the facility they used to wrangle on behalf of artists - primarily because now it isn't the industry taking it in the shorts, it is the artist directly. To gleefully watch - and in fact justify, condone and encourage - viable compensation of recordings diminish or vanish certainly does more harm than good. There really is no other way to look at it.


----------



## fps (Nov 24, 2012)

Once torrent sites are cut off at the source by governments, the music industry will move back to being a sustainable industry. 

Will you be happy when all the major torrent sites are shut down?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 24, 2012)

fps said:


> Once torrent sites are cut off at the source by governments, the music industry will move back to being a sustainable industry.
> 
> Will you be happy when all the major torrent sites are shut down?



For better or worse it'll be decades before the Internet is policed to that extent. While there is precedent and the powers that be are being heavily lobbied, they haven't even scraped the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg that is torrent sites and the seemingly omnipresent blogs that host direct links.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Nov 24, 2012)

abandonist said:


> Piracy is indefensible.
> 
> I'm as guilty as anyone, but it's flat out wrong.



Agreed- on all three statements.


My feelings are essentially reflected in MaxOfMetal's posts on the first few pages of this thread, so I won't rehash them. All the justification/rationalization/arguments in the world will not change the fact that you are taking something (tangible or not) from someone without their permission- regardless of how grey this issue is.


----------



## fps (Nov 25, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> For better or worse it'll be decades before the Internet is policed to that extent. While there is precedent and the powers that be are being heavily lobbied, they haven't even scraped the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg that is torrent sites and the seemingly omnipresent blogs that host direct links.



You're quite right. I'm just wondering, in ideological terms, do forumites want the big torrent sites to be shut down or not?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 25, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to justifying their actions here. File sharing is a practical reality, and if we as musicians want to make a living as musicians we need to learn to use file sharing as a marketing/promotional tool for our own music.



This, to me, is the post that makes the most sense in this thread.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 25, 2012)

fps said:


> You're quite right. I'm just wondering, in ideological terms, do forumites want the big torrent sites to be shut down or not?



Well, ideally people wouldn't abuse them now would they. They'd be used to do disperse information in a legal way and/or by people who want there product delivered for free. So ideally it is moot because the world is far from ideal.

At the same time I don't know what would happen if it were to close down either. Would companies start charging outrageous prices? Would they start making mediocre products? I don't know, but if they do it is only because people are like zombies who will buy something even if they don't like it (like watching bad movies just because).

So ideally, yes, I'd like them shutdown because as someone said earlier musicians are now "the man" and the customer as now screwing them directly. Piracy doesn't give them any fans that other viewing methods couldn't; Youtube, myspace, facebook and other legit streaming sites still exists either way.

As for games and movies, I think piracy has honestly had the harshest effect because we are getting more and more sub par products and I fully believe piracy is to blame. No one is willing to take risks anymore which is why the trends that have occurred in the last decade have lasted so long.

For software, I think most companies have adapted to the marketplace quite nicely as is. Games and software alike offer up demos, college discounts and in some cases, like autodesk, free if you are a student. If piracy were gone, though, they wouldn't feel the need to charge out the nose to make those that have no choice but to pay (like companies) make up all the difference (which includes honest customers as well). If it were gone then maybe most software would be affordable enough that most people wouldn't actually need to pirate in the first place. More paying customers = lower price. DRM would be a thing of the past too and I hate that shit so much. Most companies have terrible DRM's that keep me from being able to use legitimately bought products effectively and it is so obnoxious. 

I'm aware that piracy has "some" positives, but I truly believe it has been far more negative across all industries. Feel free to disagree though.



Scar Symmetry said:


> This, to me, is the post that makes the most sense in this thread.



Given the current reality it is the most sensible thing to do. Kind of hard to force millions of people to change their habits.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 25, 2012)

fps said:


> You're quite right. I'm just wondering, in ideological terms, do forumites want the big torrent sites to be shut down or not?



Well, I don't think that shutting down a handful of sites is going to do much of anything. The tech is there, the willingness to upload is there, and neither are going away. If the big ones are shut down it'll be a matter of hours (days in Internet time) before another pops up. 

I think the only thing that will stop illegal torrents (I say "illegal" for a reason, as there are legit ones out there.) is hitting the down-loaders where it hurts, their wallets and their connections. When I mean wallets, I'm referring to being charged a fair rate equal to the cost of what was obtained illegally. For example, if you download a $6 album, you'll be forced to pay that $6. It wouldn't deter folks who download sparingly, who typically aren't the issue anyway, but the folks who take gig after gig of music. Though, I can see how that model just wouldn't work and would be neigh impossible to police. 

I will say, I like what some of the ISPs have been doing by limiting (by throttle or totally disabling) internet access to folks who are extremely suspect of high volume torrenting. It takes away the means without creating a burden. Once again, not perfect, but it has potential.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 25, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Well, I don't think that shutting down a handful of sites is going to do much of anything. The tech is there, the willingness to upload is there, and neither are going away. If the big ones are shut down it'll be a matter of hours (days in Internet time) before another pops up.
> 
> I think the only thing that will stop illegal torrents (I say "illegal" for a reason, as there are legit ones out there.) is hitting the down-loaders where it hurts, their wallets and their connections. When I mean wallets, I'm referring to being charged a fair rate equal to the cost of what was obtained illegally. For example, if you download a $6 album, you'll be forced to pay that $6. It wouldn't deter folks who download sparingly, who typically aren't the issue anyway, but the folks who take gig after gig of music. Though, I can see how that model just wouldn't work and would be neigh impossible to police.
> 
> I will say, I like what some of the ISPs have been doing by limiting (by throttle or totally disabling) internet access to folks who are extremely suspect of high volume torrenting. It takes away the means without creating a burden. Once again, not perfect, but it has potential.



I think that shutting the big sites down WOULD make a substantial impact. The death of megaupload and similar sites and the resulting massive throttling of bandwidth and increase in policing of the remaining sites (rapidshare, mediafire) really destroyed a lot of the piracy on some of the other message boards I frequent, it just became too much of a pain in the ass for people to consider it being worth it when the only options were crappy sites ending in .it with 30 k/sec download rates. 

If the pirate bay actually got destroyed the way megaupload did I think it really would slow things down considerably for a lot of people. A few of the big private sites that I will not be naming here would also put a serious dent in things. It seems like whenever these things happen the replacements that spring up are inferior, partly due to people not wanting the responsibility of running a site that might get them thrown in prison like "KIM DOTCOM." Sure, the piratebay has attempted to hedge against this by making their site "easy to spread" but I think the more it gets cracked down on the fewer people are going to want to take the risks of hosting such things.

Ideologically I would be happy if all pirate sites and methods were shut down, even though I use them all the time, cause I'm a huge hypocrite. I make enough money that I can easily support what little media I can give serious attention to, and there are very very few things I watch/listen to that I couldn't get legally if I wanted to. I think about the only thing that would change for me is that I might actually listen to the streaming samples on amazon. Oh, and I'd no longer watch any tv shows until they came out on home video/netflix cause cable is a gigantic scam.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2012)

flint757 said:


> [software stuff]



Adobe products have been mad expensive for as long as I can remember, and that's well before torrents were a thing. Most of the people pirating that stuff wouldn't be able to afford it anyway and the companies need to buy for licensing.

Game companies are still taking risks. You just need to not look at the very large publishing companies for them, because they've become addicted to their cash cow franchises.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 25, 2012)

asher said:


> Adobe products have been mad expensive for as long as I can remember, and that's well before torrents were a thing. Most of the people pirating that stuff wouldn't be able to afford it anyway and the companies need to buy for licensing.
> 
> Game companies are still taking risks. You just need to not look at the very large publishing companies for them, because they've become addicted to their cash cow franchises.



While my point included video games, it was more directed at music and movies. If you are referring to indie games, yes they are better in some ways, but in many case are lacking in many areas bigger companies would have been able to handle (like graphics). Distribution is everything, otherwise no one see's your product, simple as that. If the large companies are pushing out shit then that is what is most consumed in the marketplace. I shouldn't have to dig because some people feel the need not to pay, making companies stick to exclusively milking something until it is dead.

Adobe is a poor example as its target is almost exclusively professionals. Ultimately, it is not a consumer product and professionals can afford to pay the cost as they profit extensively from the use of it. Obviously consumers can buy it, but most, if buying legally, will stick to cheaper alternatives and adobe doesn't mind.

All software companies offer an educational discount either way, pretty much.

There are many cases where the price wouldn't change as their products are tiered to begin with (home, professional, producer, etc.), but there are probably more than a few instances where companies would be willingly to lower their prices if they knew more people were going to purchase their products and they weren't losing potential revenue through piracy. Obviously I cannot say that will happen across the board, as some companies feel that the they are charging an appropriate price, but it is ridiculous to assume it won't happen at all.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 25, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think the only thing that will stop illegal torrents (I say "illegal" for a reason, as there are legit ones out there.) is hitting the down-loaders where it hurts, their wallets and their connections. When I mean wallets, I'm referring to being charged a fair rate equal to the cost of what was obtained illegally. For example, if you download a $6 album, you'll be forced to pay that $6. It wouldn't deter folks who download sparingly, who typically aren't the issue anyway, but the folks who take gig after gig of music. Though, I can see how that model just wouldn't work and would be neigh impossible to police.



That is, sadly, out of the scope of anti-download legislation, which isn't to protect the musicians but to enforce the current distribution system although it is badly outdated.
It's like horse sellers in the 1920s, when automobile started to get mainstream, had attempted to ban oil. 
They refused any idea of a global license for internet collected by the ISPs, for exemple.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2012)

fps said:


> You're quite right. I'm just wondering, in ideological terms, do forumites want the big torrent sites to be shut down or not?



I'm not necessarily advocating the closing of the torrent sites. After all, they have legitimate uses, too. As others have pointed out, though, policing them to the point that they are only used for legitimate purposes is not practical, so I suspect that they will be closed down at some point.

History teaches us a few things that are relevant to the discussion at hand:

First, change is constant. Over the past 150ish years, technological change in particular, seems to be increasing at an exponential rate. It would be naive for us to think that things will stay as they currently are.

Second, there are two basic types of people - the Haves and the Have Nots. We can think of the following as the cycle of the Haves vs. the Have Nots.

The Haves like what they have, whether it be money, land, food crops, access to production, other means to make money etc. They like it not only for what it is in and of itself, but for the fact that it separates them from the Have Nots; it provides them a certain level of status along with a certain lifestyle. The Have Nots don't like this; they want to be equal, which to them means having the same things, so they set about finding a way to acquire these things for themselves. Some of the Have Nots start businesses or get into politics, while some look to technology as a means of accomplishing their goals.

Once the Haves realize that they are loosing some of their resources to the Have Nots, they create methods and systems to protect their property and resources. This could be fences and armed guards, it could be through laws and regulations to prevent new competitors from getting off the ground, it could be through technology. The specifics don't matter - they put up barriers to keep the Have Nots from taking their resources and property from them, so most Have Nots never acheive their goals.

Those Have Nots that manage to acheive success in business and politics change. They realize that they can't change anything from the inside, so their mindset changes. They become Haves.

At this point the Have Nots that didn't acheive their goals start looking for new methods to achieve them and the cycle repeats.

Right now, the Haves (the record companies and governmets) are loosing money. They've been slow to respond, making the file sharing technology seem like a revolution in the way things are done in the music business. In reality, it is a technological attempt to circumvent the current system, one that has seen surprising success _due to the fact that that Haves have been slow to respond combined with its relative ease of use to the average person_. But it is an attempt that will be shut down in the next wave of barriers the Haves put in place to protect their resources.

The next business model for the music industry will likely be something along the lines of the royalty approach we see with radio stations, live venues and TV/movie usage, but paid for out of the money we spend with our ISPs and cell phone data plans.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 25, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I'm not necessarily advocating the closing of the torrent sites. After all, they have legitimate uses, too. As others have pointed out, though, policing them to the point that they are only used for legitimate purposes is not practical, so I suspect that they will be closed down at some point.
> 
> History teaches us a few things that are relevant to the discussion at hand:
> 
> ...



This post... I'm speechless. Articulation on an enviable level. Props to you


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 25, 2012)

I disagree with this overly-simplified, knockoff Orwellian concept of the classes due to the ease with technology blurs the lines between traditional classes. If anything, I'd say that corporations are the new upper class, with the traditional upper, middle, and low class working to support them. Your view seems to espouse a turn-of-the-twentieth-century economy, with captains of industry sitting around enjoying social darwinism and circlejerks. I don't see how a business protecting itself from unfair practices is equitable to a fatcat hoarding gold. 

The record industry, and all industries affected by piracy, should not have to radically change their business models due to massive amounts of people breaking the law. Will they? Maybe. There's a reason banks have vaults, and department stores have those anti-theft bars. But it should always be more of a deterrent, a superficial measure that delays the rare occurrence, rather then a radical change. The consumer is always the one who suffers when that occurs.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 25, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> The consumer is always the one who suffers when that occurs.



DRM anyone?


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 25, 2012)

Hell, DRM is only the tip of the iceberg. Instead of buying a physical copy of a game, or even downloading one, you'll log on to their servers and play games from a cloud for a subscription fee. The same could happen with music.

I just hate when people say (myself included) that things will just have to change. Blame it on the tiniest bit of Texan conservatism that managed to wiggle its way into my bloodstream, but it seems like a big crock of horseshit. Sometimes a Great Leap Forward is the worst thing that could take place.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 25, 2012)

I personally find it depressing that a religion based on illegal file-sharing is officially recognized in Sweden.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> DRM anyone?


 
I don't care for DRM, but I never saw DRM as the radical change that The Rev mentioned. I always considered it a poorly implemented attempt to hold on to the ways of the past, more of a grasping at straws if you will.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 25, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I don't care for DRM, but I never saw DRM as the radical change that The Rev mentioned. I always considered it a poorly implemented attempt to hold on to the ways of the past, more of a grasping at straws if you will.



I know it's not radical, but it's certainly something that's made *paying* customer's lives more difficult. 

Take a stroll through the Recording or IT section of this forum, and other recording forums, and you'll see folks unable to use the programs they paid $$$ for thanks to DRM. The customer service departments of these companies haven't been overly responsive either, taking the path of content safety over all else. Folks have had to resort to illegal downloads just to use something they paid for. How ass backwards is that?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I disagree with this overly-simplified, knockoff Orwellian concept of the classes due to the ease with technology blurs the lines between traditional classes.


 
You can't seriously expect more than "overly simplified" here on the forums.  The post is already TL;DR for many people as it is.




The Reverend said:


> If anything, I'd say that corporations are the new upper class, with the traditional upper, middle, and low class working to support them.


 
And I would argue that large corporations more closely resemble a hybrid of a for-profit entity and a part the legislative branch of government since they have the politicians in their back pockets due to campaign contributions, gifts through lobbyists, etc. The traditional upper class is still around, too; they haven't gone anywhere.



The Reverend said:


> Your view seems to espouse a turn-of-the-twentieth-century economy, with captains of industry sitting around enjoying social darwinism and circlejerks. I don't see how a business protecting itself from unfair practices is equitable to a fatcat hoarding gold.


 
I'm not speaking specifically about unfair practices (I assume you mean file sharing) - businesses hoard resources, it's a simple fact. From physical resources to intellectual property, they don't just give them out to the competition. That's bad business. So I don't really see a difference.



The Reverend said:


> The record industry, and all industries affected by piracy, should not have to radically change their business models due to massive amounts of people breaking the law. Will they? Maybe. There's a reason banks have vaults, and department stores have those anti-theft bars. But it should always be more of a deterrent, a superficial measure that delays the rare occurrence, rather then a radical change. The consumer is always the one who suffers when that occurs.


 
I agree, businesses shouldn't have to deal with these types of illegal activities, but they do. It's unfortunately a cost of doing business.

Keep in mind, businesses aren't anything special. They are just a collection of assets afforded the priviledge personhood so long as they remain solvent. If they become insolvent they are typically sold off as assets at wholesale prices. And in order to remain solvent, they have to remain relevant. This means, practically speaking, that they have to change, sometimes even changing their entire business model and the products they offer, in order to survive.

Maybe I should have pointed out in my post that, as much as change is a constant, people typically resist change.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I know it's not radical, but it's certainly something that's made *paying* customer's lives more difficult.
> 
> Take a stroll through the Recording or IT section of this forum, and other recording forums, and you'll see folks unable to use the programs they paid $$$ for thanks to DRM. The customer service departments of these companies haven't been overly responsive either, taking the path of content safety over all else. Folks have had to resort to illegal downloads just to use something they paid for. How ass backwards is that?


 


Yes, I agree. Paying customers are definitely the ones who suffer in these situations.

But then, I'm not sure paying customers should continue suppporting these businesses, either. If you are treated poorly by a business or receive faulty or non-functining product(s) let everyone else know and vote with your wallet.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 25, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Yes, I agree. Paying customers are definitely the ones who suffer in these situations.
> 
> But then, I'm not sure paying customers should continue suppporting these businesses, either. If you are treated poorly by a business or receive faulty or non-functining product(s) let everyone else know and vote with your wallet.



It's hard to vote with your wallet when you've already laid out the cash.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 25, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's hard to vote with your wallet when you've already laid out the cash.


 
I meant everyone else who hears about it. But even after the fact, demand a refund. If they refuse, hit the forums for a publicity campaign against them. If that doesn't work, small claims court. It's a bit of a pain, but a business owes you a functional product in exchange for your money. The only reason they get away with this is no one holds them accountable because it's too much hassel.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 26, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I know it's not radical, but it's certainly something that's made *paying* customer's lives more difficult.
> 
> Take a stroll through the Recording or IT section of this forum, and other recording forums, and you'll see folks unable to use the programs they paid $$$ for thanks to DRM. The customer service departments of these companies haven't been overly responsive either, taking the path of content safety over all else. Folks have had to resort to illegal downloads just to use something they paid for. How ass backwards is that?




Having to re-authenticate all my toontrack stuff each and every time I change a PC component is a real pain.
On the other hand, their customer service is stellar. (Lost your CDs ? Here's a box with ALL our products FREE OF CHARGE)


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 27, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> > Originally Posted by tedtan
> > I don't think anyone is trying to justifying their actions here. File sharing is a practical reality, and if we as musicians want to make a living as musicians we need to learn to use file sharing as a marketing/promotional tool for our own music.
> 
> 
> This, to me, is the post that makes the most sense in this thread.



This "practical reality" eliminates direct compensation for the art we produce, thus negating the opportunity to make a living.

. . . . and this makes the most sense to you?

File sharing is not the new radio - artists were compensated when their stuff got air time. Until a revenue stream for the content creators can be built in to every file sharing stream, embracing it is like taking a nippers to your guitar strings and then trying to play it after the fact.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan said:


> . . . . there are two basic types of people - the Haves and the Have Nots. We can think of the following as the cycle of the Haves vs. the Have Nots.



So so sorry - you miss the point. 

It is a matter of ownership, and the rights associated. 

If I make a shovel I can sell it. If I want to sell another one I need to make another one.

Digital reality is that your shovel is remade every time it goes somewhere else, but it is no less your shovel because of the technical nature of the delivery system. 

Just because the mechanism exists for duplication and access does not justify it, nor is it cause to throw up your hands and call game over which is all I am seeing here. "oh well . . . it's the way of things"

If you want to give your music away and don't care to figure out a way to have your art sustain itself that is your business. Understand that making something free doesn't make it downloadable - making something good makes it downloadable. The only way I know to do something well is to work at it - to negate its value or the mechanism for compensation is a guaranteed way to assure that the good ones will stop working at it. 

The haves in this case are the content creators - the have nots are music consumers. It isn't us against the man - it's us against us.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> So so sorry - you miss the point.
> 
> It is a matter of ownership, and the rights associated.
> 
> ...


 
You've misunderstood my posts. I've been arguing that musicians _*SHOULD*_ be paid for their music throughout this thread.

If you want to debate one of my points that's more than fine, but please show me enough respect to take the time to understand them first.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 28, 2012)

tedtan said:


> You've misunderstood my posts. I've been arguing that musicians _*SHOULD*_ be paid for their music throughout this thread.
> 
> If you want to debate one of my points that's more than fine, but please show me enough respect to take the time to understand them first.



It's more than the compensation thing. It is the characterization of the Haves and Have-Nots, the Us vs Them thing that I feel as though you've missed the mark on.



tedtan said:


> Right now, the Haves (the record companies and governmets) are loosing money. They've been slow to respond, making the file sharing technology seem like a revolution in the way things are done in the music business. In reality, it is a technological attempt to circumvent the current system, one that has seen surprising success _due to the fact that that Haves have been slow to respond combined with its relative ease of use to the average person_. But it is an attempt that will be shut down in the next wave of barriers the Haves put in place to protect their resources.
> 
> The next business model for the music industry will likely be something along the lines of the royalty approach we see with radio stations, live venues and TV/movie usage, but paid for out of the money we spend with our ISPs and cell phone data plans.



The line between the Haves and the Have-nots is blurry at least, and likely far closer to non-existent. And it isn't strictly the industry that was complacent in the face of new technologies - for as resourceful as new-era tools have allowed us to be as musicians we still count on the industry to make us what we hope to be. 

Now that we Have-nots experience and can take advantage of a more level playing field and can rely less on the resources and advantages the Haves have always taken advantage of, the things that protected the Haves now protect us Have-nots.

We hold our own publishing rights. We create unfettered content with complete creative control. We print our own discs and PR materials. We create our own infrastructure to navigate performance venues, logistics, appearances, interviews and myriad other things bands always used to assume was someone else's job once they got big enough.

We ARE the Haves - the resources laid bare and unprotected by unbridled technology are OUR resources. We can point and laugh at the dinosaur that couldn't keep up, but what they are losing we are losing at the same time.

Perhaps we SHOULD shut down torrenting as we know it, as difficult a task and as useful a tool as it is. The ether does not need feeding - it exists and will without sustenance. If we don't own and cannot control what we create of our own mind and energy we as individuals will be denied the ability to tend to and fend for ourselves. Especially if our pursuits are or can be made digital.

Please don't take this as a personal bashing - you make brilliant points. The schism you point to just may not be there is all I'm saying.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 28, 2012)

THANK YOU, knuckle_head! That is exactly what I was looking for. I don't have many posts here, but I have been around SSO for a few years now so I knew you had it in you from having read your past posts.



knuckle_head said:


> It's more than the compensation thing. It is the characterization of the Haves and Have-Nots, the Us vs Them thing that I feel as though you've missed the mark on.
> 
> The line between the Haves and the Have-nots is blurry at least, and likely far closer to non-existent.


 
Hmmm. When I think in terms of the Haves and the Have Nots I am thinking in terms of money and the power and influence that go along with it. I'm thinking of people with at least tens of millions of dollars, and primarily those with hundreds of millions or more. And I don't just limit the Haves to people, I include big businesses and governments here, too. So I don't see a blurry line between the Haves and the Have Nots in this context. If anything, the gap between the two is growing larger and larger due to the middle class being squeezed into either the upper class or the lower class. And frankly, we're being squeezed down into the lower class because very few people ever attain this degree of wealth.



knuckle_head said:


> And it isn't strictly the industry that was complacent in the face of new technologies - for as resourceful as new-era tools have allowed us to be as musicians we still count on the industry to make us what we hope to be.
> 
> Now that we Have-nots experience and can take advantage of a more level playing field and can rely less on the resources and advantages the Haves have always taken advantage of, the things that protected the Haves now protect us Have-nots.
> 
> ...


 
We may not have money, but you're right that we have access to the means of producing and promoting our products today. And you're also right that we as musicians have failed to capitalize on these resources available to us. Of course this tech also has its disadvantages - we are spread thin trying to write, produce, perform, track, mix, master, promote and perform our music live. We can't specialize like we used to. And it doesn't help that we, like the music buyers, have far more distractions today than we used to as well, from video games and other entertainment options to forums, etc..

Then again we can't even agree to stop pirating music to our mutual benefit, so I don't expect us to capitalize on the resources available to us. Sure some will, but they will be few and far between, just like in the past.



knuckle_head said:


> Perhaps we SHOULD shut down torrenting as we know it, as difficult a task and as useful a tool as it is. The ether does not need feeding - it exists and will without sustenance. If we don't own and cannot control what we create of our own mind and energy we as individuals will be denied the ability to tend to and fend for ourselves. Especially if our pursuits are or can be made digital.


 
Eventually the digital domain will be cleaned up, but for now it is a free for all. Do you have any input on how to turn this free for all to our advantage? That would be an intersting (and relevant) discussion.



knuckle_head said:


> Please don't take this as a personal bashing - you make brilliant points. The schism you point to just may not be there is all I'm saying.


 
Well, your initial post to me comes across as patronizing and condescending in print, whether you intented it to or not, but I'm an adult, so no worries there. Truth be told, I welcome a well reasoned pespective like your second post. It not only furthers the discussion, but provides a valuable difference of perspective that gives me reason to rethink my position. On forums, one usually sees either a) everyone agreeing, or b) differences of opinion based upon emotions rather than reason, so reason is most appreciated.

Hell, we've managed to reach page 13 in a thread discussing pirating. That has to count for something (and be a first around here). I mean who would have thought this was possible when the thread started a couple of weeks back?


----------



## MrGignac (Nov 29, 2012)

whichever side of the argument you are on, i Highly recommend the short film "Everything is a Remix" which delves into how film/music is just rehashed and stolen/imitated. but how the influences drive music forward. and holy hell i never realized how many songs have the drumbeat from "when the levee breaks" in it. but led zeppelin stole a lot of their songs from poor black musicians anyhow. but def check it out

[YOUTUBEVID]coGpmA4saEk[/YOUTUBEVID]


My band writes and records all of our own music, we have sunk a sizable amount of cash into our recording setup, and the printing of physical CD's for people that want a CD. but we offer everything free to DL online and everything we record in the future will be free. I did'nt start playing music to make money. just like a painter doesn't paint and think "im gonna make so much bank on this painting" (except maybe a commercial artist) 

I would rather the maximum amount of people hear my music, and the most streams and downloads we get are from southeast-asia where some people are so poor, they would have never bought a CD. we put our hearts into our music, and for it to make it to the other side of the world to strangers we have never met, and maybe they like it, is payment enough for me. but obviously, this is not applicable to large touring, established bands. I think technology has come far enough where bands can distribute and promote their own stuff without the megabucks of a label. that way the leeches that do nothing but make money off artists can be eliminated.


----------



## fps (Nov 29, 2012)

MrGignac said:


> this is not applicable to large touring, established bands.



Here's the point. Any band that relies on its music for its livelihood, and would be OK if it weren't for piracy. That's where the line is. It's not Metallica vs. SD POD OMG guy.

As for things being rehashed, that's pretty obvious, there are 12 notes, and only a finite number of stories as well. That's fine, things get combined in new ways, from new perspectives, and new views come to the fore and new approaches based on those things we already have. No Led Zeppelin did not do it first, and neither did the poor black, or indeed any other, musicians they stole from.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm not sure what pirating could do to benefit musicians. Want your music heard for free? Then host it on any one of a dozen different music sites. Pirating doesn't help promote or market anything. It's where you go to collect something you're already aware of. There is literally only one group who benefits from torrents in this context, and that's consumers. 

There's no upside to this. There's also no end, as every good point made falls on deaf ears, and nothing said in this thread hasn't been said in every other piracy thread ever. 

Seacrest, out.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 29, 2012)

You make a point that hasn't been said thus far (in this thread at least). People pirate music they know, not random shit. It does nothing for promotion.

I've always used youtube to find out about bands, I'm pretty sure everyone else does too.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 29, 2012)

flint757 said:


> People pirate music they know, not random shit.



Not true at all. Metal blogs, DC hubs, even the glory days of Napster, were all about sharing new music among peers with similar tastes. See a dude with a folder full of all your favorite thrash bands, and then one band you've never heard of? What's the odds you're gonna grab that one...based on the other user's taste?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 29, 2012)

But the implication is that it isn't doable through other means. Streaming services offer public playlists, even youtube does. With piracy gone people would use these more heavily, I'm certain of that as people already do and piracy is at its prime.

Some of what you are describing was not illegal activity either, which means it is not 'pirating' in the first place. Lets pretend that piracy is nothing, but beneficial for musicians. If it were gone the 'promotion' aspect would shift to what I just described as it is pre-established and already works. There is no financial benefit at all to piracy so the 'promotion' aspect is all there is. If there are 100% viable alternatives to piracy for promoting artists then no one can in good conscience back up the use of piracy for said reason. That is whether it works that way or not (piracy).


----------



## flint757 (Nov 29, 2012)

Lets take this another direction. Say a band sells their album for $10 and they are selling shirts for the same price. What pirates (and their advocates) seem to be saying is, "I steal their music and then buy their merch so it is okay", but this scenario can be easily reversed. What if I buy their album and then steal their shirt at a show? Would that be okay? It yields the same result on the bands end; Instead of $20 they are left with $10. Physical or digital, doesn't matter. If I siphon a bank account (digital money) my punishment isn't different because it didn't come out of a cash register.


----------



## nickgray (Nov 30, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> It's where you go to collect something you're already aware of



You are very, very wrong here. The biggest benefit of piracy for me personally and for lots and lots of other people, is the fact that you get access to giant organized databases where one can download an album with a single click. This is an extremely good solution for collecting something you're _not_ aware of.


----------



## knuckle_head (Nov 30, 2012)

nickgray said:


> You are very, very wrong here. The biggest benefit of piracy for me personally and for lots and lots of other people, is the fact that you get access to giant organized databases where one can download an album with a single click. This is an extremely good solution for collecting something you're _not_ aware of.



If you aren't supporting those things you're _not_ aware of with your money then expect that rarity to remain exactly that - a rarity. Even more likely, expect that rarity to cease to exist.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 30, 2012)

flint757 said:


> What if I buy their album and then steal their shirt at a show? Would that be okay? It yields the same result on the bands end; Instead of $20 they are left with $10. Physical or digital, doesn't matter. If I siphon a bank account (digital money) my punishment isn't different because it didn't come out of a cash register.



The problem with such examples is the insane amount of over-simplification needed to turn a complex issue into a black and white issue.

For example, in your point there's the fact that the CD sale will net the band around two dollars, whereas that t-shirt sale will put around $6 in their pocket. In addition, in many cases merch AND album sales from the merch table put MORE money in their pockets per sale than buying either through a store or online.

So is it really the same situation? No. Buying the CD and stealing the shirt benefits the label more. Buying the shirt and pilfering the album benefits the band more. 

OR DOES IT?...

Inversely, buying that album on tour or pirating it will never hit soundscan figures, which in turn effect tour support and label promotion. So is buying the CD or Merch at the show even helping the band, aside from buying them some snacks at Burger King that evening?

Complex, and it seems no matter how you do it, the band can still get screwed.

I notice the most arguing here is being done by folks that pick one side, and try to argue it as an absolute.


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 30, 2012)

I agree to the folks who are saying that the majority of music piracy is done by people who know what they want. I don't see too many people sit in front of their computers and be like "Hell, I need to download something totally random I have never heard of..." rather than being like "Band XY has a new album out and I want to listen to it now!". I don't wanna say it doesn't happen, but there are more convenient ways to find out about new music than piracy.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 30, 2012)

shitsøn;3293889 said:


> I don't see too many people sit in front of their computers and be like "Hell, I need to download something totally random I have never heard of..."



In general, how many people have you observed pirating music? I'm going to guess you've got a pretty small sample size.

As I already told ya - i've been in the DC hubs years ago and watched people downloading vast amounts of music they've never heard of. In fact, the rule at the time was you needed to share a minimum of 50+ GB of music just to get INTO these hubs.

Not being there, of course you haven't seen it. Don't just make assumptions because your experience with piracy consists of googling torrents or mediafire links...


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 30, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> Not being there, of course you haven't seen it. Don't just make assumptions because your experience with piracy consists of googling torrents or mediafire links...


I can make assumptions all day long. 

I'm not saying they are true and I'm also not saying the things you mention don't exist or are false by any means, but - if there is an average downloader (or my idea of it) - I _believe_ that he knows what he is looking after. The type of music piracy guy who needs to have 50 gigs of random music to even be allowed to play with the other cool pirates, I don't know... that whole idea just makes me palm my face very hard.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 30, 2012)

shitsøn;3294042 said:


> The type of music piracy guy who needs to have 50 gigs of random music to even be allowed to play with the other cool pirates, I don't know... that whole idea just makes me palm my face very hard.



You're working really hard to support a statement about something you admit no experience or knowledge with. It offends me a bit, as I'm trying to make a point with facts and experience, and you're countering with "well I think it's this way because that makes sense to me..."

Again, you think people don't pirate music they haven't heard. I'm not trying to debate you, I'm flat out saying you are wrong on that count.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 30, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Lets take this another direction. Say a band sells their album for $10 and they are selling shirts for the same price. What pirates (and their advocates) seem to be saying is, "I steal their music and then buy their merch so it is okay", but this scenario can be easily reversed. What if I buy their album and then steal their shirt at a show? Would that be okay? It yields the same result on the bands end; Instead of $20 they are left with $10. Physical or digital, doesn't matter. If I siphon a bank account (digital money) my punishment isn't different because it didn't come out of a cash register.



Actually, it is. Unlawful intrusion in a computer system isn't really the same thing as armed robbery, and not treated the same, I suppose, by the US law. Meaning, the banksters do not get fined as heavily as the guy who steals in a Walmart using a gun. The amount stolen is less important than the way you steal it.

Stealing merch is theft. Duplicating an MP3 is an infringement on author's rights. (Note that no two countries have the same laws regarding ownership of cultural goods...that doesn't help)


----------



## simonXsludge (Nov 30, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> You're working really hard to support a statement about something you admit no experience or knowledge with. It offends me a bit, as I'm trying to make a point with facts and experience, and you're countering with "well I think it's this way because that makes sense to me..."


First of all, I didn't mean to offend you at all, dude. Sorry if it came across like that. I think you took that facepalm-statement the wrong way, though: I DO know that it exists, I know what you're saying is a reality and agreed to it in my last post. I was just trying to say that I disrespect the whole sharing for the sake of sharing thing.



ArrowHead said:


> Again, you think people don't pirate music they haven't heard. I'm not trying to debate you, I'm flat out saying you are wrong on that count.


No, I don't think so. What I'm saying is: I assume that _the majority_ of music downloaders pirate music they know and even tried to make it a point to agree with you, about the existence of that. I'm also trying to make a point with the experiences I have made and the facts I can draw from that, which are surely just a fraction of the big picture.


----------



## fps (Nov 30, 2012)

shitsøn;3294179 said:


> No, I think so. What I'm saying is: I assume that _the majority_ of music downloaders pirate music they know .



That isn't true at all. Your opinion is wrong. People mainly torrent things they haven't heard that they want to check out.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 30, 2012)

Thing is, I'm not endorsing piracy. As an artist, I don't really like it. Felt poopy, finding my own album release in the DC rooms several times, but not being able to find copies of it in 2 out of 3 local record stores.

But then again, the way it was back then was AMAZING. The coolest part of it for me was the part you are dismissing. As connection speeds increased, you'd get DC hubs in the Czech republic where the room would have 80-100 people in it. Each with a share of 50+ gigs. So you browse and see entire music collections, often organized by date, genre, artist, etc...

Finding someone, somewhere, who's into all those same cool obscure bands I was into? (again, it was a different time in 1998-early 2000s - no youtube, streaming, band sites, etc...) Hey look! This dude likes Mr Bungle! And he's got this band Dog Fashion Disco and another called Secret Cheifs Three... I'll check them out...

Now granted, we were all pilfering stuff left and right. But there was at least one brake to slow people down - bandwith. It was still throttled enough that it made more sense to download one album and buy the rest if you liked a band. So for example, I discovered Dillinger Escape Plan's 43% Burnt. I then went to the record store and ordered the next 2 albums, and another EP/single thing immediately. Dog Fashioned Disco, who I mentioned? We booked them, opened the bill, and bought the album, merch, etc... (although we MIGHT have pilfered their beers.)

It was really an amazing time.

I'd LOVE to recover that feeling of discovery and sharing, but without the pilfering.

What made me stop with the pilfering, you may ask? The one thing people keep mentioning: Youtube! I find it much easier to find new bands by coming here, for example, and starting a thread where people post suggestion after suggestion in youtube video format. And since it is easier to keep current and discover new stuff now, I find more often than not I'm PRE-ordering new releases instead of pilfering back catalogs.

Honestly, if the labels had jumped onboard earlier I feel like this whole thing would have been much different. Much like with software, the collectors and nerd-conquerors pulled this right out of the hands of music lovers right from the beginning. As soon as the labels said "stop!", it got their attention. And much like software, there's people in this that don't even care about music - they just want all digital information to be free no matter what. It's frightening, because when music fans justify piracy they don't realize who they're handing control too. It's certainly not the artists, and not the fans either...


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> The problem with such examples is the insane amount of over-simplification needed to turn a complex issue into a black and white issue.
> 
> For example, in your point there's the fact that the CD sale will net the band around two dollars, whereas that t-shirt sale will put around $6 in their pocket. In addition, in many cases merch AND album sales from the merch table put MORE money in their pockets per sale than buying either through a store or online.
> 
> ...



Who's talking about labels in my example? I can easily make a CD, record my music and make T-shirts on my own (many do). In this instance the band is the only one being screwed. The initial cost has already been handled by said individual in this example too. That means that the only change would be revenue. So from a purely revenue standpoint, financially there is no difference between me buying the album and stealing the shirt or buying the shirt and stealing the album (if they are the same price).

From a societal standpoint doesn't honestly matter who is getting screwed or not. If I went into a gas station and stole something my punishment is not dictated by how much the product cost the company, but how much it was sold for. Under $50 is a certain penalty, under $200 is a certain penalty and under $2000 is a certain penalty, etc.. I'm arguing revenue here: not cost, not where the money is going (even if it is the label you are still hindering them from seeing it), not whether it can be resold, but lost revenue which is exactly how most physical robberies are in fact measured.

It isn't like if I mugged someone on the street the police say, "well he's a banker, fuck 'em, he deserved it". So why does it even matter if the label is the ONLY beneficiary. That doesn't make it right either, especially when the band made the choice to go with the label who is supposedly screwing them anyhow.

It's hard not to get forced into arguing absolutes when the other side is in fact doing just that (not you, but many others). Whether the action of piracy is a big deal or not doesn't change the argument by much. Artists only benefit from the promotional aspect of piracy and there are dozens of legal alternatives that people WOULD use if they had no choice (distributors shut down). So if that is the case it can in fact be easily argued that piracy has no benefit because without it the 'promotional' aspect is still being handled (probably unchanged).

I'm aware this isn't going to happen entirely and piracy is something we all have to live with. I'm also aware that, sadly, artists will have to adjust accordingly to piracy or face obscurity. Doesn't make it right which is the only thing I'm really arguing. I'm not arguing who is getting screwed more or the legal technicalities, but what is right and wrong which many are trying very hard to avoid.



Andromalia said:


> Actually, it is. Unlawful intrusion in a computer system isn't really the same thing as armed robbery, and not treated the same, I suppose, by the US law. Meaning, the banksters do not get fined as heavily as the guy who steals in a Walmart using a gun. The amount stolen is less important than the way you steal it.
> 
> Stealing merch is theft. Duplicating an MP3 is an infringement on author's rights. (Note that no two countries have the same laws regarding ownership of cultural goods...that doesn't help)



Splitting hairs much. The bank robbery metaphor was simply to state that you still get in trouble for stealing money. Obviously from the most technical standpoint the penalties are adjusted based on weapons, injuries, hostages, etc., but it has nothing to do with the money itself of why the penalties will vary (nor was I even trying to get that detailed in a METAPHOR). 90% of US currency is digital. the argument hear has been it is digital so it is not stealing. I think if I hacked your bank account and stole all your money you'd disagree. Even if all I did was duplicate your money, the FBI would be knocking on my door and I'd be in prison for a long, long time. Is the latter not illegal and/or wrong?

Yes, I know US law just fine. We have laws for things that make no sense, laws that make perfect sense and some that no one follows. Bringing up the legal terminology for what is occurring is moot as it is not relevant to whether piracy is right or wrong. Kind of proves it is wrong if you WANT to be technical about it.

What I find most odd is people think it is wrong and in fact stealing to take the physical CD, but not the digital version. This leads me to believe some are under the impression that crime and morality (right and wrong) are dictated by initial cost not revenue. So if someone gave me the disks is it okay for people to take them? If I spent less than the normal price is it more okay than it otherwise would have been? Did I buy the disk or the music (my money is on the music, personally)? Last I checked if I stole something that cost $10 the charge wasn't set at a nickel because that is all it cost to make it, it was a charge for theft of a $10 item.

My argument is not that the system is going to change, that it should change or what we can do to aid people through the change. Artists seem to be handling it just fine, honestly, anyways. IMO it is hard to argue that you are not doing something wrong though, that is the only point I have been making, but by all means jump through hoops.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2012)

fps said:


> That isn't true at all. Your opinion is wrong. People mainly torrent things they haven't heard that they want to check out.



You must know a lot of people to be able to come to that conclusion (6 billion or so?).  Not saying you're wrong, but you can't possibly know if you are absolutely right.


----------



## MaximumPezcore (Nov 30, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Lets take this another direction. Say a band sells their album for $10 and they are selling shirts for the same price. What pirates (and their advocates) seem to be saying is, "I steal their music and then buy their merch so it is okay", but this scenario can be easily reversed. What if I buy their album and then steal their shirt at a show? Would that be okay? It yields the same result on the bands end; Instead of $20 they are left with $10. Physical or digital, doesn't matter. If I siphon a bank account (digital money) my punishment isn't different because it didn't come out of a cash register.


If you steal a band's music, it's often by downloading it, and then while it's considered stealing, it's more like getting a copy of something, the original item is still there, and they didn't lose any money, but they didn't gain any either. You can't download a shirt, if you were to steal it, since it's a physical item and can't be downloaded digitally, you'd be taking something they or the record label spent money on that can't just go unseen.

Basically you can steal music, which in essence is just getting a copy of product A, but when it comes to product B, you can't just get a copy of that, you have to take the physical product itself.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 30, 2012)

> Yes, I know US law just fine. We have laws for things that make no sense, laws that make perfect sense and some that no one follows. Bringing up the legal terminology for what is occurring is moot as it is not relevant to whether piracy is right or wrong. Kind of proves it is wrong if you WANT to be technical about it.



I never said it was right, just that "theft" is not a proper way to address it. I found your analogy inadequate. Just like your "electronic money" analogy. Music isn't currency.

Arguing it is theft is the way Major companies go at it because it is simple and allows them to pose as a moral authority.

The problem is better explained as breaching owner's publishing rights that as theft, imho. That's not "splitting hairs", you can't find an answer to a problem when the problem itself is badly diagnosed.
The goal of record companies is to retain control of the distribution while using antiquated methods. Their business model is doomed.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 30, 2012)

MaximumPezcore said:


> Basically you can steal music, which in essence is just getting a copy of product A, but when it comes to product B, you can't just get a copy of that, you have to take the physical product itself.



Semantics.

Theft is stealing.

Piracy is stealing.

Piracy is not theft.

Both are stealing.

Let's quickly retire that one, forever.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> I never said it was right, just that "theft" is not a proper way to address it. I found your analogy inadequate. Just like your "electronic money" analogy. Music isn't currency.
> 
> Arguing it is theft is the way Major companies go at it because it is simple and allows them to pose as a moral authority.
> 
> ...



Everything is currency in some form or fashion. We live in a bartering society that has agreed on a unified medium, but almost all things can be liquidated into that medium. I can go into a guitar center and sell my guitar for 'currency' or trade it in for another guitar using the guitar itself as a form of 'currency'. If I sell my music and gain 'currency' for it, even though it isn't the end of the road it is still a method to gain it. Not really relevant though.

I completely agree with the rest though. Me, posing the question about the bank or anything else was directly correlated to the fact that most people would see those behaviors as wrong yet a lot of people do not think anything is wrong with piracy. Out of the people I know who do pirate most will admit it is wrong even though they have no problem doing it. My only goal is getting people to admit that much.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 30, 2012)

Well, it's 2012, we're starting to see internet users that were born with DSL broadband and never knew otherwise. Not the dual tape recorders (note Sony sold music AND copy devices...) and not even the grueling wait on slow speed connexions when a cut connection meant starting from the beginning again.

When I was a teenager in the late 80es, I didn't see copying music as "bad". It was cool my father had a dual tape machine so we could duplicate commercial cassettes. Hell, you bought a recorder AND blank tapes, how could that be wrong ? I was one of those persons without pocket money but from a wealthy family, where I just had to ask. But it was less "cool" than hanging with buddies, drinking beer while listening to the album being copied. (which in the end resulted in my first high school bands and started me into music)

Let's take France. There's a goddamn copy tax on Hard drives. But copying is bad ? How do you want that message to go through ? Publishers get money on hard drives and USB keys ffs.


----------



## wespaul (Nov 30, 2012)

So....after all this arguing...who has changed their stance on piracy?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> Well, it's 2012, we're starting to see internet users that were born with DSL broadband and never knew otherwise. Not the dual tape recorders (note Sony sold music AND copy devices...) and not even the grueling wait on slow speed connexions when a cut connection meant starting from the beginning again.
> 
> When I was a teenager in the late 80es, I didn't see copying music as "bad". It was cool my father had a dual tape machine so we could duplicate commercial cassettes. Hell, you bought a recorder AND blank tapes, how could that be wrong ? I was one of those persons without pocket money but from a wealthy family, where I just had to ask. But it was less "cool" than hanging with buddies, drinking beer while listening to the album being copied. (which in the end resulted in my first high school bands and started me into music)
> 
> Let's take France. There's a goddamn copy tax on Hard drives. But copying is bad ? How do you want that message to go through ? Publishers get money on hard drives and USB keys ffs.



A copy tax?  What does that imply exactly??? I do have to agree with arrowhead and you that growing up with a 6gb hard drive, floppy's and dial up gives a different perspective. Same with tape copying and what not. 

The thing is, in the 80's you got a product that was lower quality after the copy. In the 90's pirating was a world class pain in the ass so, like arrowhead said, you'd download a little and then buy the rest. Smaller hard drives also meant less music can be stored. We are in a world today where we have huge hard drives to store the music, fast connection speeds and the exact same product being downloaded that you would have paid for in the past.

Tape trading and piracy weren't a problem, but IMO piracy is a huge problem now. It is too easy and has become too common. It is so common people expect it...


----------



## Jakke (Dec 1, 2012)

flint757 said:


> A copy tax?  What does that imply exactly???



We have the same thing here. With the invention of more effective ways of copying at home in the 80's, a tax was put on equipment used in copying, such as cassettes, this also now applies to USB sticks and hard drives too. This tax is a small compensation to the industry, as people are probably going to copy the media they have, instead of buying another copy.



flint757 said:


> Tape trading and piracy weren't a problem, but IMO piracy is a huge problem now. It is too easy and has become too common. It is so common people expect it...



I personally see it as a problem of physical limits. Tape trading was done at a one-to-one basis, and a cassette deteriorated after a while, making copies unlistenable (and thus you had to buy a new copy). Digital copies can be distributed to thousands and thousands of people with a click, and it can teoretically be copied almost forever without any significant loss.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 1, 2012)

wespaul said:


> So....after all this arguing...who has changed their stance on piracy?



I've changed my position countless times on a subject here on this very forum.  If someone presents a solid enough case why shouldn't they?

Okay, can someone think of a reason that piracy is a great thing for artists that is not already handled or couldn't be handled through other means? I mean it does offer up a good means of promotion for artists, but there are countless other ways for the same goal to be achieved without consuming a product and not paying for it. As best I can tell piracy only benefits the consumer.



Jakke said:


> We have the same thing here. With the invention of more effective ways of copying at home in the 80's, a tax was put on equipment used in copying, such as cassettes, this also now applies to USB sticks and hard drives too. This tax is a small compensation to the industry, as people are probably going to copy the media they have, instead of buying another copy.



Ahhh, okay. 



Jakke said:


> I personally see it as a problem of limits. Tape trading was done at a one-to-one basis, and a cassette deteriorated after a while, making copies unlistenable (and thus you had to buy a new copy). Digital copies can be distributed to thousands and thousands of people with a click, and it can theoretically be copied almost forever without any significant loss.



Yeah, that is the core problem. There was also a cost on the downloader's end as before the mp3 player you had to buy cassettes and CD roms to record/listen to your music. Both, like you said, requiring replacement at a certain point in time. Now we have lossless format and nearly infinite storage capabilities.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 1, 2012)

We had the copy tax on blank tapes (and VHS video tapes) here in the US, too. It is not an approval of piracy, but rather an acceptance of the reality that it takes place and an attempt to pay something back to those who loose money from it. Of course the labels never paid any of this money on through to the bands, but that's a different argumant.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 1, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I've changed my position countless times on a subject here on this very forum.  If someone presents a solid enough case why shouldn't they?


 
In general I agree, but piracy is one of those things like religion or politics - people's belief are pretty much set, to the point that they become a part of their mental image of themself. Even the best argument is unlikely to change these beliefs. I have noticed, though, that after people graduate and get a few years in the workplace under their belt that their opinion starts to change away from piracy. I don't know if this is due to the increased cash flow or greater exposure to the way the real world works, but I have seen it happen with a number of my colleagues.



flint757 said:


> Okay, can someone think of a reason that piracy is a great thing for artists that is not already handled or couldn't be handled through other means? I mean it does offer up a good means of promotion for artists, but there are countless other ways for the same goal to be achieved without consuming a product and not paying for it. As best I can tell piracy only benefits the consumer.


 
I don't advocate piracy, but when it comes to marketing and promotion you have to use all of the channels available to you. Overlooking any of them results in less sales and lower awareness because you are reaching a different group of people through each channel. And bands are fighting tooth and nail for any amount of attention they can get these days. So in that context, and given the competitive nature of the music business, I fully understand using the peer to peer networks for promotion.

Also note that if a band puts their own recordings on the torrent sites without putting it into a compilation with others' music, its not piracy. If they hold the copyright they are free to make it available this way and the people sharing it are not violating any copyright or other laws.


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 1, 2012)

> Okay, can someone think of a reason that piracy is a great thing for artists that is not already handled or couldn't be handled through other means? I mean it does offer up a good means of promotion for artists, but there are countless other ways for the same goal to be achieved without consuming a product and not paying for it. As best I can tell piracy only benefits the consumer.



Playing devil's advocate here, i'll explain a bit what the redistribution system works like in France first as it is a needed background.

When a commercial radio, bar, or genrally public space, including shops, play music, they have to tell an Author(s rights management organisation (SACEM) which songs they aired. SACEM then sends them a bill.
At the end of the year, SACEM has money to redistribute to artists.

1) SACEM takes 70% in managing costs, paying its own salaries, etc.
2) SACEM send money to the record companies at prorata of _what was aired on the radio and record sales_. ie: I can play Emperor all day long in my shop, the money is going to go to Madonna, U2 & french acts that get radio time.

So, yes, my XXX&#8364; yearly budget is better spent on merch if I want the bands that I want to actually get my money.
For the record I have WAAAAY more shirts that I can wear but I still buy them, at each show, even if I'm gonna wear them twice.

Another thing: I usually don't go to shows "blind". "Hey, band soandso is in Parins next week, you coming ?" "Who the hell are they, I'll DL their stuff and see". If I like it, I'll go and they get my money.


----------



## The Reverend (Dec 1, 2012)

tedtan said:


> In general I agree, but piracy is one of those things like religion or politics - people's belief are pretty much set, to the point that they become a part of their mental image of themself. Even the best argument is unlikely to change these beliefs. I have noticed, though, that after people graduate and get a few years in the workplace under their belt that their opinion starts to change away from piracy. I don't know if this is due to the increased cash flow or greater exposure to the way the real world works, but I have seen it happen with a number of my colleagues.



I think the increased cash flow plays into it a lot. There's been points in my life where I was reduced to stealing food because I literally had no money, and I wasn't smart enough to take advantage of resources out there for people in my position. Now that I've moved on to a more stable position in life, I sometimes feel a strange, random surge of pride and accomplishment when I can do 'adult' things like buy my food and cook a nice dinner for myself.





tedtan said:


> I don't advocate piracy, but when it comes to marketing and promotion you have to use all of the channels available to you. Overlooking any of them results in less sales and lower awareness because you are reaching a different group of people through each channel. And bands are fighting tooth and nail for any amount of attention they can get these days. So in that context, and given the competitive nature of the music business, I fully understand using the peer to peer networks for promotion.
> 
> Also note that if a band puts their own recordings on the torrent sites without putting it into a compilation with others' music, its not piracy. If they hold the copyright they are free to make it available this way and the people sharing it are not violating any copyright or other laws.



I won't argue with you on the second part, though I'd like to point out that Bandcamp's pay what you want feature not only allows the consumer to name their price, but decide what format they'd like your songs in. Much better than having one torrent with a static format or many torrents with different formats. 

The first part has been countered already. Myspace, Soundcloud, Soundclick, Purevolume, Facebook, Youtube... All do a much better job of reaching the most people, grouping you with similar artists, and creating a dialogue between artist and consumer than torrents. Did I mention that between those sites, you have many millions more potential fans? 



Andromalia said:


> Another thing: I usually don't go to shows "blind". "Hey, band soandso is in Parins next week, you coming ?" "Who the hell are they, I'll DL their stuff and see". If I like it, I'll go and they get my money.



You can't just Google them?


----------



## tedtan (Dec 1, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I won't argue with you on the second part, though I'd like to point out that Bandcamp's pay what you want feature not only allows the consumer to name their price, but decide what format they'd like your songs in. Much better than having one torrent with a static format or many torrents with different formats.
> 
> The first part has been countered already. Myspace, Soundcloud, Soundclick, Purevolume, Facebook, Youtube... All do a much better job of reaching the most people, grouping you with similar artists, and creating a dialogue between artist and consumer than torrents. Did I mention that between those sites, you have many millions more potential fans?


 
I don't see these as mutually exclusive.

My point here isn't that there are no other options, or no better options, but rather that you reach a different group of people through each channel. Myspace, Souncloud, Youtube, each of the torrent sites, etc. all have a different groups of users. Don't get me wrong, there is definitely overlap in the user groups of the different sites, but there is also a unique set of eyes and ears available to you through each different site.

If exposure is the name of the game, then you need to be on each and every available sites to reach as many total people as possible. (Nevermind that exposure in and of itself doesn't pay the bills, everyone today seems to be merely seeking their 15 minutes of fame).


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 1, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> You can't just Google them?



Yeah, because "melodic death metal band from Finland" is so much a reliable way to know if you like something or not. 
Today I'd youtube them, but theres 99% of chances I infringe as many rights as I do with downloading them anyway.

Remember I'm playing devil's advocate here, for myself I'm a paying subscriber at last.fm and use it when I want to discover new stuff.


----------



## simonXsludge (Dec 1, 2012)

fps said:


> That isn't true at all. Your opinion is wrong. People mainly torrent things they haven't heard that they want to check out.


Then show me a source or statistics that prove your statement to be right and mine to be wrong. I can at least admit that I don't _know_ these things for sure when making statements like those.


----------



## fps (Dec 1, 2012)

shitsøn;3295293 said:


> Then show me a source or statistics that prove your statement to be right and mine to be wrong. I can at least admit that I don't _know_ these things for sure when making statements like those.



What stats? Who has stats on these things? Ask your friends, ask them the question *do you download songs or albums you haven't previously heard to listen to them?* I asked my friends, they all said it was a great way to check out new music. The whole ARGUMENT relating to piracy actually being a good thing is that bands can get more exposure than they got before. How is that possible if people aren't randomly downloading their albums? Just look at your own habits. Do you listen to a lot of music online for free that you haven't heard before? Of course you do. 

At the end of the day, the thing is this. If the law needs to be changed, then change it. But what is going on is the hosting of copyrighted material illegally, that is currently illegal, and the law is not being enforced because everyone apparently would lose their shit over being held to order for what they know is illegal. Until the law is changed, it should be enforced. That would then create a violent enough to reaction to force through the changes needed. 

A governing body needs to be set up, but you know what, no-one cares, because music has always been about freedom, everyone has been sold the lie that musicians are free spirits who just want to be heard. Well when it's your career and you have a wife and kids to feed that is precisely bullshit, and previously the record companies could take the flak for being *the man* while the bands continued to pretend they were all about just being heard, and now the bands can't ask for something to be done about this because they would alienate their spoilt brat fanbases. You see bands putting their albums up for free? Maybe streaming for a limited time, but if they are themselves sticking the whole album up for free, forever, then fine, I say download away. But I can't think of a professional band that is doing that. I don't see Deftones saying *here, you know what, we don't want any money from this, just have our album*, or any other band worth their salt that's fought tooth and nail to establish themselves.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 1, 2012)

fps said:


> Well when it's your career and you have a wife and kids to feed that is precisely bullshit, and previously the record companies could take the flak for being *the man* while the bands continued to pretend they were all about just being heard, and now the bands can't ask for something to be done about this because they would alienate their spoilt brat fanbases. You see bands putting their albums up for free? Maybe streaming for a limited time, but if they are themselves sticking the whole album up for free, forever, then fine, I say download away. But I can't think of a professional band that is doing that. I don't see Deftones saying *here, you know what, we don't want any money from this, just have our album*, or any other band worth their salt that's fought tooth and nail to establish themselves.



This isn't very eloquently worded but I definitely think it's true. The only bands who've pulled a "whatever, here it is for free, pay what you want for it but it's cool if you don't" are the ones like Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails who know they're going to get a substantial return from it cause they have 20 years of rabid fans built up already. And, I know Radiohead eventually backed off on that and now In Rainbows is available commercially only, I don't remember what happened with NIN. 

All the professional musicians I know first or second-hand (my brother's currently a starving jazz musician in chicago and has a lot of friends who have released albums, etc) are incredibly anti-piracy when they're talking in private and among friends. It's not like they're going to post it on their webpages that BY THE WAY WE HATE YOU IF YOU DOWNLOAD THIS FOR FREE cause all it will do is cause a bunch of whiny pro-piracy people to come down on them who otherwise would pay no attention to them. It's PR suicide to take the metallica angle.


----------



## simonXsludge (Dec 1, 2012)

fps said:


> What stats? Who has stats on these things? Ask your friends, ask them the question *do you download songs or albums you haven't previously heard to listen to them?* I asked my friends, they all said it was a great way to check out new music.


Exactly. There are no stats and that was my point, because you were making assumptions and you act like they're facts. But it's only the small fraction you know, just like what I know is only a detail of the big picture as well. Maybe your friends download random shit. The people I know download shit from bands they know, not 50GB of complete randomness.

In the vast majority of cases, I myself listen to available streams or check out a song or two on YouTube and then I buy the stuff, if I like it. Sometimes I regret it, often I don't. My girlfriend for example, she doesn't do that. She downloads the bands she knows, like google.com -> artist - album - mediafire.

So what now? Your statement about what music piracy _mainly_ consists of is as wrong or right as mine, isn't it?




fps said:


> A governing body needs to be set up, but you know what, no-one cares, because music has always been about freedom, everyone has been sold the lie that musicians are free spirits who just want to be heard. Well when it's your career and you have a wife and kids to feed that is precisely bullshit, and previously the record companies could take the flak for being *the man* while the bands continued to pretend they were all about just being heard, and now the bands can't ask for something to be done about this because they would alienate their spoilt brat fanbases. You see bands putting their albums up for free? Maybe streaming for a limited time, but if they are themselves sticking the whole album up for free, forever, then fine, I say download away. But I can't think of a professional band that is doing that. I don't see Deftones saying *here, you know what, we don't want any money from this, just have our album*, or any other band worth their salt that's fought tooth and nail to establish themselves.


I agree.


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 1, 2012)

A few comments about what's just been posted: 

-I also know profesional musicians, actually I know hundreds. That's what you get when you have philarmonic orchestra family members.
They dont give a shit about pirating. It's all about "uh maybe without piracy I'd make more money". Right, buddy, With your 500 sales ? Get real. If yu have talent, work and the connections, piracy is irrelevant to your success.

-Most bands don't own their music: they actually _can't_ give it for free. They'd make more money with a "pay what you want" scheme than with the 2% of sales they receive from the label. Of course the labels don't want that and say it's baaaaaaad.

Labels aren't needed for distribution anymore. Advertising, now, is another can of worms, but distribution, no.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 1, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> I also know profesional musicians, actually I know hundreds. That's what you get when you have philarmonic orchestra family members.


 
In the US the symphonic/philharmonic musicians are paid a salary or an hourly wage. They are typically paid an additional hourly rate for their performance while recording, but they don't have any ownership of the recording or make any royalties from its sale (unless they record solo or with a small ensemble or something). They just make their hourly rate. With no skin in the game so to speak they probably don't care about piracy, either. It doesn't put any money in their pocket, but niether does it cost them anything. And their bills are paid through their salary/hourly wage anyway, so it doesn't keep their family from eating.

Is the compensation scheme in France the same or is there some other form of compensation in use there?


----------



## asphyx123 (Dec 2, 2012)

I don't trust statistics like this. There are always factors unconsidered and therefore there will always a be a certain uncertainty.

Yet I have always been convinced that music sharing has more positive aspects to the industry than negative impacts. But then again it is hard to know how other people "abuse" file or music sharing.
Over the last 20+ years I have collected something like 1000 CDs. Although I have most of them also as MP3 for traveling purposes etc. it was always important to me to own something physical and not just "data". 
I can only speak for myself but for that I can state that if media/music platforms like youtube, lastfm, napster etc. didn't exist I would probably only own half of these CDs or less.
I would have never listened to bands/artists like Scar Symmetry, Soilwork, Sybreed, Paul Wardingham, Devin Townsend, Born of Osiris, Between the Buried and Me, Animals as leaders, Lamb of God, Riverside, Periphery, not even Children of Bodom or Kamelot. I have discovered all these (and many more) over the internet.

I really like to get an impression about the whole song material on a CD though before I purchase it. For me it would be perfect if artists provided uploads like those Devin Townend Listening Parties on youtube, where you can listen to the whole album and the artist is just talking over the whole thing. It allows me to listen to each song, yet if I want to have it without the comments I need to buy it (and I bet most people will =)).

I am not so convinced about a completely free music sharing though because this obviously allows abuse of the system, and there will always be people abusing it. If I like an artist, even though I first got to listening to his stuff was by "pirated" material, I will buy his CDs and go to his concerts.

However I highly disrespect those self-proclaimed music lovers who abuse the system just to get everything for free but never support the artist in any way.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> In the US the symphonic/philharmonic musicians are paid a salary or an hourly wage. They are typically paid an additional hourly rate for their performance while recording, but they don't have any ownership of the recording or make any royalties from its sale (unless they record solo or with a small ensemble or something). They just make their hourly rate. With no skin in the game so to speak they probably don't care about piracy, either. It doesn't put any money in their pocket, but niether does it cost them anything. And their bills are paid through their salary/hourly wage anyway, so it doesn't keep their family from eating.
> 
> Is the compensation scheme in France the same or is there some other form of compensation in use there?



Symphonic musicians are compensated with hourly wages here too (Sweden), and I can't imagine France being any different


----------



## wankerness (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> In the US the symphonic/philharmonic musicians are paid a salary or an hourly wage. They are typically paid an additional hourly rate for their performance while recording, but they don't have any ownership of the recording or make any royalties from its sale (unless they record solo or with a small ensemble or something). They just make their hourly rate. With no skin in the game so to speak they probably don't care about piracy, either. It doesn't put any money in their pocket, but niether does it cost them anything. And their bills are paid through their salary/hourly wage anyway, so it doesn't keep their family from eating.
> 
> Is the compensation scheme in France the same or is there some other form of compensation in use there?



Amen to this. Of course they don't care, they aren't composing and releasing their own albums.


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Is the compensation scheme in France the same or is there some other form of compensation in use there?


It's (basically) the same. I sent this exemple to show it's just people bickering over the money and it had nothing to do with art or being a musician.
It's business, plain and simple. 

Record companies keep most of the money and claim the musician's problem is piracy, to keep that money and not distribute it better. MAkes for a good scapegoat while still racking in the massive profits.



> Of course they don't care, they aren't composing and releasing their own albums



For a lot of them, they are. They record Soandsos "Piece of Chamber Music" with their trios and quatuors, the thing is, 5K sales for such a CD is a yearly sales record. It is a meaningless part of their income. And since I sense some sense of superiority in your statement, let me make another one: A philarmonic of high level is composed of 80+ Chris Brodericks. Most of them bury 90% of the metal (or pop/rock musicians, for that matter) in musical ability. That's why _they _are the ones with a salary.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> We are in a world today where we have huge hard drives to store the music, fast connection speeds and the exact same product being downloaded that you would have paid for in the past.



But there are no good alternatives. The industry desperately wants to keep the status quo by bullying the governments instead of adapting. I believe that this is by far the biggest contributor to piracy. The pirated product is not just free, but it's often better, it's much more convenient to get and you own the bloody thing.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> But there are no good alternatives. The industry desperately wants to keep the status quo by bullying the governments instead of adapting. I believe that this is by far the biggest contributor to piracy. The pirated product is not just free, but it's often better, it's much more convenient to get and you own the bloody thing.



Damn the industry for trying to profit from the product they have been in the business of selling . . . . FOR DECADES

And now that we the artists are in the same driver's seat that the industry enjoyed (we own our own or can contract recording facilities, duplication, distribution and promotion) we have screwed ourselves by eliminating viability.

We are now the industry - beware your resentment.

Edit; . . . . and to be clear - you may possess the bloody thing, but you don't own it. Owning it comes from having paid for it. If you possess it without a specific or implied agreement or compensation you have stolen it.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> Damn the industry for trying to profit from the product they have been in the business of selling . . . . FOR DECADES
> 
> And now that we the artists are in the same driver's seat that the industry enjoyed (we own our own or can contract recording facilities, duplication, distribution and promotion) we have screwed ourselves by eliminating viability.
> 
> ...



I've been putting off this far too long:


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Thanks for clarifying the payment system, Jakke and Andromalia. I assumed it was probably the same, but I think there are some differences between the US and EU approach in this area so I wnated to be sure. For example, here in the states we only collect and pay out a performance royalty (for example TV or radio usage) for the songwriting copyright holder, whereas I believe the EU countries collect a performance royalty for both the song copyright holder and the sound recording copyright holder. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand.


----------



## bob123 (Dec 2, 2012)

So lemme get this staight. Its ok to steal... as long as you buy other things similar to it?  "but your honor, I CLEARLY didn't have to pay for those sunglasses I shoplifted... I bought shoes at payless earlier that day!" 

*sigh.


----------



## wespaul (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I've changed my position countless times on a subject here on this very forum.  If someone presents a solid enough case why shouldn't they?



That's not what I asked.


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 2, 2012)

bob123 said:


> So lemme get this staight. Its ok to steal...



I'm stopping right there, now. Breach of ownership rights isn't theft, it's breaching ownership rights. Not the same offense, not the same cause, not the same punishments.
No one condemned for downloading has been found guilty of "theft". Calling it theft repeatedly won't change that.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> Damn the industry for trying to profit from the product they have been in the business of selling



Well, you know, they are middlemen. They don't make anything, they're just the guys with the money trying to make more money. I'm not talking about indie labels here, of course, I'm talking about the big ones.



> you have stolen it



Good lord, not again. Copying is not stealing. Regardless of your views on morality of copying, it is simply not the same thing as stealing.



> Owning it comes from having paid for it



Really? You've never heard of DRM then? You've never heard of the EULA and all the copyright shenanigans? Here's a neat little glimpse of the future for you:

Microsoft Patents Kinect DRM That Detects Number Of Viewers

If these people have their way, you'd have to pay for each person watching a movie that you bought. Next you wouldn't be able to lend a book to your friend because he wouldn't be able to open it unless he pays the damn publisher.



> we the artists are in the same driver's seat that the industry enjoyed



No you're not. In 20 or so years - yeah, maybe, but right now the good ol' labels are still alive and kicking.


----------



## fps (Dec 2, 2012)

wespaul said:


> So....after all this arguing...who has changed their stance on piracy?



I think it's been an interesting debate that's broadened my understanding and appreciation of different viewpoints, and the problems that have been created and remain unresolved.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> I'm stopping right there, now. Breach of ownership rights isn't theft, it's breaching ownership rights. Not the same offense, not the same cause, not the same punishments.
> No one condemned for downloading has been found guilty of "theft". Calling it theft repeatedly won't change that.



I JUST explained this, man.

STEAL=theft
STEAL=piracy
THEFT=/PIRACY


Steal just means you're taking something you're not supposed to. It is NOT a legal term. Piracy and theft ARE.

So tired of the people that feel the need to take a great debate and turn it into a semantics debate.

If you pirate, you're STEALING. Period.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> I JUST explained this, man



Theft - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

_a_ *:* the act of stealing; _specifically_ *:* the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Piracy is not stealing. You don't deprive anyone out of anything, you merely copy. You could argue that a _potential_ sale is lost, but it's a potential sale, not a certain sale.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Theft - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> _a_ *:* the act of stealing; _specifically_ *:* the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
> .



I just said theft=stealing, and you respond by giving me a definition of theft that says it's stealing. GREAT!

Meanwhile look up "steal", and note the bevy of definitions that apply to piracy... particularly the transient form. 

Again, theft is stealing. Piracy is stealing. Piracy is not theft. DROP THIS STUPID DEFENSE OF PIRACY ALREADY!!!! It's still illegal, and still morally wrong. Arguing semantics will never change that.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Theft - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> _a_ *:* the act of stealing; _specifically_ *:* the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
> 
> Piracy is not stealing. You don't deprive anyone out of anything, you merely copy. You could argue that a _potential_ sale is lost, but it's a potential sale, not a certain sale.



You are not listening my friend. Arrowhead just said that while a cat and a dog are both animals (mammals too actually), a cat is not a dog, and you responded with "a cat is an animal" (and using a dictionary to support this), apparently considering this some sort of checkmate.


----------



## bhakan (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> I just said theft=stealing, and you respond by giving me a definition of theft that says it's stealing. GREAT!
> 
> Meanwhile look up "steal", and note the bevy of definitions that apply to piracy... particularly the transient form.
> 
> Again, theft is stealing. Piracy is stealing. Piracy is not theft. DROP THIS STUPID DEFENSE OF PIRACY ALREADY!!!! It's still illegal, and still morally wrong. Arguing semantics will never change that.


  This. Why is so much time spent on whether piracy is stealing or not? Who cares what word we use. It is taking something that is not rightfully yours.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> DROP THIS STUPID DEFENSE OF PIRACY ALREADY!!!!



AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!! 



> Arguing semantics



You don't seem to realize that the words theft and stealing imply that one deprives someone of their personal property. Piracy cannot possibly do that, it is physically impossible, you don't deprive anyone out of anything, you simply make a copy.



bhakan said:


> Who cares what word we use



Yep. From now on let's just use random words. Fast luminous banana jumps beneath a parachute. Who cares what words we use, right? It's all the same thing. Doesn't matter one bit.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to realize that the words theft and stealing imply



Context "implies".

Words themselves have specific, definable meanings.

I'm done with this semantics argument. It serves nothing but to derail the people actually discussing the real matter at hand.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Yep. From now on let's just use random words.



Or better yet, just use "steal" and "theft" interchangeably, despite two different connotations and definitions.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> I'm done with this semantics argument



Imagine a small shop that has nothing but a table and a loaf of bread on it that costs $10. Two customers walk in. One is a poor guy who doesn't have any money, the other is a regular customer who does have at least $10 in his wallet. Now, if a poor guy grabs the loaf of bread and runs away, the shop's owner _cannot_ sell the bread to the regular customer, because the bread was stolen. The owner is _deprived_ of a possession. On the other hand, if the poor guy uses some weird gadget to _copy_ this loaf of bread, creating a second, identical copy, and then walks away with this copy, the owner still has his bread. He still can sell it to the regular customer. The owner was not deprived out of anything.

Did the poor guy steal by copying the bread? Remember that he didn't have $10 and couldn't possibly afford it, not now, not in the near future. Is _this_ stealing?


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 2, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> I'm stopping right there, now. Breach of ownership rights isn't theft, it's breaching ownership rights. Not the same offense, not the same cause, not the same punishments.
> No one condemned for downloading has been found guilty of "theft". Calling it theft repeatedly won't change that.



In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

If there are publishing rights to any work - books, music, any intellectual property - by law this is as much 'property' as a piece of land, t-shirt, or anything else. If you acquire it without express permission - direct or implied - you have come by something you have no right or business possessing. You have indeed stolen it.

If you cannot wrap your head around this then never, ever bother to author anything, write code, paint anything, photograph anything and expect to make money on it - let alone make a living doing it.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Yep. From now on let's just use random words. Fast luminous banana jumps beneath a parachute. Who cares what words we use, right? It's all the same thing. Doesn't matter one bit.


 
I'm normally one of the first to point out the distinction between IP infringement and theft when a discussion arises, but this is also one of those cases where people use the terms "steal" and "theft" colloquially to mean the same thing as IP infringement. I know what they mean and they know what I mean, so I only point out that difference once then I let it go. Besides, in practice the difference really only comes into play in a courtroom.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Imagine a small shop that has nothing but a table and a loaf of bread on it that costs $10. Two customers walk in. One is a poor guy who doesn't have any money, the other is a regular customer who does have at least $10 in his wallet. Now, if a poor guy grabs the loaf of bread and runs away, the shop's owner _cannot_ sell the bread to the regular customer, because the bread was stolen. The owner is _deprived_ of a possession. On the other hand, if the poor guy uses some weird gadget to _copy_ this loaf of bread, creating a second, identical copy, and then walks away with this copy, the owner still has his bread. He still can sell it to the regular customer. The owner was not deprived out of anything.
> 
> Did the poor guy steal by copying the bread? Remember that he didn't have $10 and couldn't possibly afford it, not now, not in the near future. Is _this_ stealing?



Try instead to use an honest argument, such as:
A man owns a gadget that can copy physical items, he walks into a store and buys a loaf of bread (or even better, he steals a loaf before the grand launch of that recipe). Then he sets up shop outside the bakery giving out copies of that bread to anyone passing by, many of them intent on purchasing a loaf themselves.
Sure, many people accepting a loaf were just passing buy, but many, many people were going to buy a loaf, so the man copying has effectively deprived the baker of income. Is that ethical?

Bread is also food, which is a necessity. Music is a luxury, so any moral dilemmas about "is it ethical for a poor and hungry man to steal food?" is bullshit and deflection.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Imagine a small shop that has nothing but a table and a loaf of bread on it that costs $10. Two customers walk in. One is a poor guy who doesn't have any money, the other is a regular customer who does have at least $10 in his wallet. Now, if a poor guy grabs the loaf of bread and runs away, the shop's owner _cannot_ sell the bread to the regular customer, because the bread was stolen. The owner is _deprived_ of a possession. On the other hand, if the poor guy uses some weird gadget to _copy_ this loaf of bread, creating a second, identical copy, and then walks away with this copy, the owner still has his bread. He still can sell it to the regular customer. The owner was not deprived out of anything.
> 
> Did the poor guy steal by copying the bread? Remember that he didn't have $10 and couldn't possibly afford it, not now, not in the near future. Is _this_ stealing?



I stole a kiss from your sister.

Was there a tangible good taken, in this instance?

I'm not in this thread to teach you English. I mean it this time - no more semantics, please. A lot of good NON-semantic points in this thread, this entire argument is useless.


----------



## The Reverend (Dec 2, 2012)

Let me explain this one last time for everyone who subscribes to the 'copying is not stealing' argument, or who say that it's 'copyright infringement, not stealing'.

A.) Why do people get copyrights? It officially says that this piece of intellectual property belongs to the copyright holder. That's right, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. An idea, or other intangible but unique creation. It's not for the sake of getting money, it's to protect their product from being used without their permission. It is just the same as physical property in all ways regarding ownership and methods of transferring ownership.

B.) If you come into possession of someone's property without having paid for it, you have stolen it. Just because it is a copy doesn't mean that you haven't stolen that unique pattern of binary code. The only way you're supposed to have that specific chain of 1's and 0's is if you paid for it. In that sense, you have stolen something. The owner of the pattern has not been compensated, yet you still have the pattern. There's no other way of getting around that.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Imagine a small shop that has nothing but a table and a loaf of bread on it that costs $10. Two customers walk in. One is a poor guy who doesn't have any money, the other is a regular customer who does have at least $10 in his wallet. Now, if a poor guy grabs the loaf of bread and runs away, the shop's owner _cannot_ sell the bread to the regular customer, because the bread was stolen. The owner is _deprived_ of a possession. On the other hand, if the poor guy uses some weird gadget to _copy_ this loaf of bread, creating a second, identical copy, and then walks away with this copy, the owner still has his bread. He still can sell it to the regular customer. The owner was not deprived out of anything.
> 
> Did the poor guy steal by copying the bread? Remember that he didn't have $10 and couldn't possibly afford it, not now, not in the near future. Is _this_ stealing?



Do you play shows for free? Because when you play you don't produce anything but noise. It does not sit on a table therefore is nothing because it does not occupy space. You are free to set up and make noise if you like, but why should I pay you if there is nothing in my hand that shows you have done anything at all for the exercise?


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Damn, Jakke, you're on a roll today.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Well, thank you dear sir


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Try instead to use an honest argument



I tried to use the most simple one possible. Obviously, bread is not exactly a good argument because it is a physical thing and if it was possible to copy physical things with ease, everyone would do it. It's Star Trek, basically. It would be really awesome.



> Music is a luxury


There's a certain degree to luxury, you know. Diamonds and music may both be luxuries, but one is far more worthless and pointless than the other. Same thing with necessities. What is a necessity? Stuff that you need just to survive, as in pure survival? I'm not sure I'd want to live this kind of "pure survival" life.



tedtan said:


> I'm normally one of the first to point out the distinction between IP infringement and theft when a discussion arises, but this is also one of those cases where people use the terms "steal" and "theft" colloquially to mean the same thing as IP infringement.



Look, I'm arguing the "deprive of property" part. Copying does not do that, it simply cannot deprive someone out of anything, because it is *copying*. You may view it as immoral, the law may say that it is illegal, but this is a pretty damn important technical difference regardless of your views on the ethics of piracy.



The Reverend said:


> The owner of the pattern has not been compensated, yet you still have the pattern



Well then, second hand stuff is theft. The actual creators/owners are never compensated and yet you still have whatever it is that you bought. Books, movies, software, music, whatever. Lending is also theft. Ever lent a book to a friend? Your friend has read the book, he acquired all the information withing it without ever compensating the owners/creators.



knuckle_head said:


> Because when you play you don't produce anything but noise.



You produce experiences for people and people will produce memories of the event.


----------



## The Reverend (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Well then, second hand stuff is theft. The actual creators/owners are never compensated and yet you still have whatever it is that you bought. Books, movies, software, music, whatever. Lending is also theft. Ever lent a book to a friend? Your friend has read the book, he acquired all the information withing it without ever compensating the owners/creators.




Yes, technically it is. It's not illegal, though, because the law has decided that once something leaves the ownership of the initial producer, they can't expect to keep getting paid for a specific item being sold again.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

Again, stop the imaginary hypotheticals that have never and will never happen. Instead of explaining magic bread copying devices that don't exist, answer my question:

I stole a kiss from your sister. Was anything tangible taken?

It's that simple. A real, plausible example of the difference between theft and stealing. No imaginary hypothetical circumstances needed, except your sister, of course.


----------



## fps (Dec 2, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Let me explain this one last time for everyone who subscribes to the 'copying is not stealing' argument, or who say that it's 'copyright infringement, not stealing'.
> 
> A.) Why do people get copyrights? It officially says that this piece of intellectual property belongs to the copyright holder. That's right, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. An idea, or other intangible but unique creation. It's not for the sake of getting money, it's to protect their product from being used without their permission. It is just the same as physical property in all ways regarding ownership and methods of transferring ownership.
> 
> B.) If you come into possession of someone's property without having paid for it, you have stolen it. Just because it is a copy doesn't mean that you haven't stolen that unique pattern of binary code. The only way you're supposed to have that specific chain of 1's and 0's is if you paid for it. In that sense, you have stolen something. The owner of the pattern has not been compensated, yet you still have the pattern. There's no other way of getting around that.



Would like to hear someone debate this?


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

fps said:


> Would like to hear someone debate this?



why? I'm literally BEGGING people to drop the semantics and get into the meat of the issue again.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> that once something leaves the ownership of the initial producer



But it doesn't. You don't own music, you don't own software, you don't own movies. Pretty soon you won't even own your own pants if you've been paying attention to the news in recent years 



> It's not illegal



So as long as it's not illegal you might as well do it? People love to argue about the ethics and morality of piracy, saying it's wrong. Second hand products are pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to software, games, music, movies, all that stuff. I've read several times that used console games sales are actually hurting the market more than piracy, believe it or not. And yet nobody seems to argue about the ethics of used products.


----------



## fps (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> why? I'm literally BEGGING people to drop the semantics and get into the meat of the issue again.



All law is semantics, why do you think lawyers do such good business? To get a proper handle on what is legally allowed currently is vital to the whole debate. And because intellectual property is not the same as physical property, in that it is illegal to have a copy of something that is somebody's intellectual property without payment through proper channels, without, essentially, the artist's consent, piracy is definitely illegal. Don't worry about the whole stealing thing, it's illegal, and it happens without the artist's consent. 

Would you refute any of that? Because if it's illegal and the artist doesn't want it to happen, isn't piracy just a bunch of self-serving losers taking whatever they want without thinking about anyone but themselves, then turning around like so many children and babies and shouting *nu-huh* until the other side gives up?


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

fps said:


> And because intellectual property is not the same as physical property



SIGH.

But it's not even relevant to this debate, man. I've stuck this one through for all 17 pages. It wasn't about LEGALITY or SEMANTICS until the last few pages when people chose to make it so. And sadly, it's what this issue devolves into every single time.

It's simply that every time this subject comes up, as soon as someone mentions Piracy is stealing some Einstein feels the need to point out that Piracy is not Theft. GREAT! This thread was never about theft. It's about stealing intellectual property.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

fps said:


> All law is semantics, why do you think lawyers do such good business?



And "stealing" isn't a legal term. Piracy, Theft, and intellectual property ARE.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Look, I'm arguing the "deprive of property" part. Copying does not do that, it simply cannot deprive someone out of anything, because it is *copying*. You may view it as immoral, the law may say that it is illegal, but this is a pretty damn important technical difference regardless of your views on the ethics of piracy.


 
I fully understand the legal definitions, the real world implications and your point. And I'm telling you that you are wasting your time and everyone else's by harping on this. You'll never get everyone to start using the legally correct terms.

Give it a rest already.


----------



## fps (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> And "stealing" isn't a legal term. Piracy, Theft, and intellectual property ARE.



Yeah, it's theft, because it's taking intellectual property without licence to do so. Uploading is the real big one, that is also flat-out illegal use of somebody else's copyrighted intellectual property. Taking a copy of someone's intellectual property is illegal. So in that sense yes stealing is an unhelpful term and argument, it's just the whole thing is being twisted to suggest that doing something to intellectual property of someone else, without their consent, can in any way be justified. If the artist didn't sign off on it, people shouldn't do it!


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

bob123 said:


> So lemme get this staight. Its ok to steal... as long as you buy other things similar to it?  "but your honor, I CLEARLY didn't have to pay for those sunglasses I shoplifted... I bought shoes at payless earlier that day!"
> 
> *sigh.



That has been one of the larger arguments here. 

Makes no sense to me.



nickgray said:


> Really? You've never heard of DRM then? You've never heard of the EULA and all the copyright shenanigans? Here's a neat little glimpse of the future for you:
> 
> Microsoft Patents Kinect DRM That Detects Number Of Viewers
> 
> ...



This is a problem piracy has created, though. DRM and a shift from ownership to licensing is directly correlated to the existence of piracy.



ArrowHead said:


> I JUST explained this, man.
> 
> STEAL=theft
> STEAL=piracy
> ...







nickgray said:


> So as long as it's not illegal you might as well do it? People love to argue about the ethics and morality of piracy, saying it's wrong. Second hand products are pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to software, games, music, movies, all that stuff. I've read several times that used console games sales are actually hurting the market more than piracy, believe it or not. And yet nobody seems to argue about the ethics of used products.



Libraries is a poor example because anything in a library has been approved by someone to be there. 

You have somewhat of an argument with second hand except for one thing. With piracy I buy the CD, upload it and 100's more have the CD (as do I). I buy the video game and sell it, one person still has the video game and I no longer have access to it. With piracy I still have it and it is not one-to-one. Selling second hand is exactly one-to-one and I've transferred my right to play it as well. 

The reason in the second hand market the publisher or author doesn't deserve compensation is because it is similar to me buying 1 right to play that game. When I bought it, it was their right given to me and when I sell it, it is my right given to someone else. 

Whether one is more damaging than the other is moot because piracy is still more wrong. Second hand has existed since the beginning of time.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> You'll never get everyone to start using the legally correct terms.



Actually, I'm supplying the legally correct terms. He keeps arguing that theft is stealing while piracy is not. Both different FORMS of stealing, legally, that involve very different aspects of law, punishments, etc...

Pointing out that piracy is not theft, to some, seems to be an attempt to say that piracy is a-ok while theft is not. Not true. They're both illegal. Both immoral. Both STEALING. Both have VICTIMS.

Now, let's agree on that, and go back to discussing the effect of piracy in regards to the LEGAL purchase and distribution of music, which was what the first 15 wonderful pages of this thread were about. We don't need to turn this into another theft vs. piracy debate. I'm sure there's a law/lawyer forum where people can argue that til the cows come home. Unless you're actively thieving or pirating, it really doesn't matter here. It's just useless word trivia some people are putting way too much importance on.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> > Damn the industry for trying to profit from the product they have been in the business of selling
> 
> 
> Well, you know, they are middlemen. They don't make anything, they're just the guys with the money trying to make more money. I'm not talking about indie labels here, of course, I'm talking about the big ones.


Retailers are middle men. Do you steal guitars from retailers because they are middle men? I mean, they didn't make the guitars . . . .



> Copying is not stealing. Regardless of your views on morality of copying, it is simply not the same thing as stealing.


Music, books, and photographs are copies. If they are legally and legitimately published they are property with assignable rights. Just because it is easy to make and acquire additional copies does not legitimize it. If selling copies is what a band or a label does and you come by your copy of a copy from someone that does not hold the rights to that piece of work you have taken property - you have stolen. You can slice it any way you like in order to make yourself feel better about it, but it doesn't change it. This isn't a morality thing . . . this is an actuality thing.



> > Owning it comes from having paid for it
> 
> 
> Really? You've never heard of DRM then? You've never heard of the EULA and all the copyright shenanigans? Here's a neat little glimpse of the future for you:
> ...


We have been living the future for more than the last century - what you cite is what has been law for a very long time. The same arguments were made when cassette, VHS, BETA tapes and CDR/W drives hit the market as well. You should take the time to see what copyright and patent protections do for the people that take the time to create the things these laws protect - these things that are worth your while to find and make copies of but not feel compelled to compensate the creators for. 



> > We the artists are in the same driver's seat that the industry enjoyed
> 
> 
> No you're not. In 20 or so years - yeah, maybe, but right now the good ol' labels are still alive and kicking.


You know what? I am - and so are you. If you aren't then you are lazy or a bad business person or both. International publishing and copyrights are little more than filing the correct paper work. There is nothing from recording, duplication, distribution, to promotion that can't be done as easily or well/appropriately/legally from the same computer you are sitting in front of as it can from a label. 

If you need a label to be successful you should probably quit now. If you undermine a label's business model even in part you undermine your own.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> what you cite is what has been law for a very long time



Of course, but a law is worthless without the means to enforce it. Nobody takes these laws seriously because the police doesn't raid your house when you have too many people watching a DVD. The future I'm talking about is where these things can be enforced. And believe me, they'll milk it 'til the last drop.



> If you aren't then you are lazy or a bad business person or both. International publishing and copyrights are little more than filing the correct paper work. There is nothing from recording, duplication, distribution, to promotion that can't be done as easily or well/appropriately/legally from the same computer you are sitting in front of as it can from a label.



I very much agree with you. But we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps) where you'd be able to say that the artists are truly in the same driver's seat. The technology is already here, but not enough people are using it.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> let's... go back to discussing the effect of piracy in regards to the LEGAL purchase and distribution of music, which was what the first 15 wonderful pages of this thread were about.


 
I didn't mean to single you out if I did, ArrowHead, I just meant that it was a waste of time for nickgray to argue that point.

I agree with you, let's drop this and go back to the original topic.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> But we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps)



This "new age" is nearly 20 years old now. That's longer than most musical era's we've experienced in the last 200 years. I was booking DIY shows, pressing zines, recording demos, building my first home studio, etc... back in the early 90's. 

Don't confuse "new" with "new to you".

Even the mass online piracy I was talking about witnessing a few pages ago was nearly 10 years ago now. Napster was 13 or more.

Waiting 10-20 years is a little crazy. Things really move a lot faster than that, which is why the slow reaction of the industry left them so far behind so quickly.

Meanwhile the whole "driver seat" issue comes down, quite simply, to money. Can you afford to fund tours, recording, duplication, promotion, distribution, merch, and still feed yourselves? Then you're in the driver seat. Can't do all that? A label might still be your best bet, then.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> . . . . we're still in the beginning of this new age where you can record, market and distribute everything yourself. It will take some time before it really becomes noticeable and then even more time (10-20 years perhaps) where you'd be able to say that the artists are truly in the same driver's seat. The technology is already here, but not enough people are using it.



I have been in this driver's seat since 1986 - back when CDs weren't even made yet and PCs were barely able to word process. This is the biggest reason I am so adamant I suspect. If I could do it then ANYONE can do it now.

Edit;


nickgray said:


> > what you cite is what has been law for a very long time
> 
> 
> Of course, but a law is worthless without the means to enforce it. Nobody takes these laws seriously because the police doesn't raid your house when you have too many people watching a DVD. The future I'm talking about is where these things can be enforced. And believe me, they'll milk it 'til the last drop.



http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...s-stiff-fines-jail-time-for-illegal-downloads

It's happening - and it's a good thing if you see music as a business at all as opposed to just a hobby.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> Japan Introduces Stiff Fines, Jail Time For Illegal Downloads : The Two-Way : NPR



Not sure how I feel about that. Seems kind of harsh, but if you can't do the time don't do the crime I guess. In terms of punishment it only seems scary because you are not necessarily you online (spoofed addresses, wifi hacking, wifi hot spots, other users accessing PC, VPN, etc.). Hopefully they will address these things appropriately and much like the FBI warning on a DVD will require a certain amount of evidence and damage for them to seek those harsher penalties. I'd have to agree with the article that I'd prefer they kept it a civil matter though. 

The one thing I will add from the other side is that if they manage to eliminate piracy (in general) that I hope bands will stop offering different products for different countries. It is irritating when an artist doesn't release something in your country.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> This "new age" is nearly 20 years old now. That's longer than most musical era's we've experienced in the last 200 years. I was booking DIY shows, pressing zines, recording demos, building my first home studio, etc... back in the early 90's.



Congratulations. As far as I'm concerned though, I've never heard any worthwhile non-electronic DIY music until fairly recently. Not to mention that today's technology is vastly better than the 90s tech and then there's the internet.



> Can you afford to fund tours, recording, duplication, promotion, distribution, merch, and still feed yourselves?


Why bother? You can just record at home alone and release it via the internet.



knuckle_head said:


> If I could do it then ANYONE can do it now.



Yes, and it's slowly starting to shift towards that. We're definitely not there yet though, plenty of people are still using the labels.



> and it's a good thing if you see music as a business at all as opposed to just a hobby



They're not doing it for you. They're doing it for the big labels, I highly doubt that any indie artist would be able to put anyone in jail.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Not sure how I feel about that. Seems kind of harsh, but if you can't do the time don't do the crime I guess.



It's fucking absurd, that's what it is.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> It's fucking absurd, that's what it is.



Yes, but assuming that only those legitimately pirating material after the law is initiated pirate then they are doing so fully knowing the risk. Is it harsh? Yes, but if violators are the only one's being punished then it isn't 'unfair' either. They knew the risks involved. People pirate based on statistical evidence that it is unlikely they will get caught. Can't get upset when you do though (well you can, but you get my point). My reason for being concerned has more to do with how unreliable it is to find violators and how easy it would be for someone to be blamed unjustly. I'd expect absolute certainty before they pursued such action. In the States it is the copyright holder who looks for violators, I hope, given the law, someone with less bias is doing the searching. 

That being said, I don't think it was the right course of action.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> My reason for being concerned has more to do with how unreliable it is to find violators and how easy it would be for someone to be blamed unjustly.



Precisely. Not to mention the outrageous punishment. 10 years for uploading? Have they gone stark raving mad? You could get less for killing a person. This is the worst kind of scare tactic and it truly shows that the governments don't give a rat's ass about common people, they take order from big business, the people with the money.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Congratulations. As far as I'm concerned though, I've never heard any worthwhile non-electronic DIY music until fairly recently.



The old "I didn't know it, so it doesn't exist" argument?

My band recorded our Unique Leader debut in a bedroom studio on our own budget and time nearly 10 years ago.

I was studying pro-tools, digital performer, digital recording, etc... in school from 1994-1997. 

I was downloading music illegally (STEALING IT) in the 90's. Napster was 12 years ago! 

Again - this isn't new. I'm not sure how arguing what you do and don't like for music proves otherwise.


PS - you're making me feel wicked old.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 2, 2012)

> > This "new age" is nearly 20 years old now. That's longer than most musical era's we've experienced in the last 200 years. I was booking DIY shows, pressing zines, recording demos, building my first home studio, etc... back in the early 90's.
> 
> 
> Congratulations. As far as I'm concerned though, I've never heard any worthwhile non-electronic DIY music until fairly recently. Not to mention that today's technology is vastly better than the 90s tech and then there's the internet.


Just because you are ignorant or unappreciative of anything older than 'recent' doesn't negate its having been done successfully. Just because it's easier now does not make it better now.



> > Can you afford to fund tours, recording, duplication, promotion, distribution, merch, and still feed yourselves?
> 
> 
> Why bother? You can just record at home alone and release it via the internet.


Welcome to your hobby - especially if you see music sales as unimportant to success or viability.



> > If I could do it then ANYONE can do it now.
> 
> 
> Yes, and it's slowly starting to shift towards that. We're definitely not there yet though, plenty of people are still using the labels.


It isn't slow and it is decades old - indie labels exist exactly because of mind sets like yours. Labels exist to succeed - any business venture does. And by the way, no one gets a label deal by "just record(ing) at home alone and releas(ing) it via the internet." Unless you want to be a Justin Bieber.



> > and it's a good thing if you see music as a business at all as opposed to just a hobby
> 
> 
> They're not doing it for you. They're doing it for the big labels, I highly doubt that any indie artist would be able to put anyone in jail.


The laws that protect labels protect me as an independent - whether or not I prosecute anyone or have them jailed. If the penalties associated with infringement come back to the rights holder it does indeed make it viable to prosecute.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> The old "I didn't know it, so it doesn't exist" argument?



You don't seem to understand my point. I know that bedroom studios were around 20 years ago. Trouble is, they didn't really have any effect on the industry. Nowadays the situation is much more dramatic - building a studio is considerably less expensive, you can achieve far, far more with computers and the internet provides much more possibilities than it did back in the day.



> Again - this isn't new



I'm not arguing that it's not new. I'm arguing that nowadays the impact of the technology is waaaay more dramatic than it ever was.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Precisely. Not to mention the outrageous punishment. 10 years for uploading? Have they gone stark raving mad? You could get less for killing a person. This is the worst kind of scare tactic and it truly shows that the governments don't give a rat's ass about common people, they take order from big business, the people with the money.



While I agree, if people didn't ignore the laws when they are less harsh they wouldn't have had to make the laws harsher either. 

I don't think it is an argument between common man and big business, but the fact that it is a problem and less harsh laws/civil suits don't seem to be working at all. 

Like I said I think it is too harsh, crime doesn't fit the time, and is undoubtedly going to be hard to enforce without accidentally accusing someone who is innocent. So by no means do I agree with the law, but I do see why they are going this direction. In a way I hope it fails if only because I don't want it to be the testing ground for US and/or Europe.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 2, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> It's (basically) the same. I sent this exemple to show it's just people bickering over the money and it had nothing to do with art or being a musician.
> It's business, plain and simple.
> 
> Record companies keep most of the money and claim the musician's problem is piracy, to keep that money and not distribute it better. MAkes for a good scapegoat while still racking in the massive profits.
> ...



SOme sense of superiority? What are you even talking about? They're far less likely to be composers AND musicians than rock and jazz instrumentalists, I fail to see how recognizing that fact is an insult against them. Of course their technical abilities are a lot higher than 99.9% of people that play electric guitar. I have nothing against classical musicians at all, and I don't know who would other than resentful low-intelligence rock/country guys who can't get a steady gig.

I know that they do sometimes record those kinds of small group things, but those kinds of records are probably nearly independent of any piracy thing. Even if someone wanted to pirate it, it's nearly impossible to find a site that's going to even have copies of some specific contemporary classical musician's record unless it's someone incredibly famous like say Yo Yo Ma or Midori. Most people that pirate classical music seem to just collect whatever recordings they can find of a piece and don't really give a shit about who performed it, unless it's some legendary performance from the 60s conducted by Leonard Bernstein or sung by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau or something. Professional classical musicians who are receiving salary for playing in an orchestra are extremely insulated against the whole piracy thing and thus I don't think bringing them up as a reason why piracy is not that bad is at all applicable.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> Welcome to your hobby - especially if you see music sales as unimportant to success or viability.



If I ever start to release my own music, I would never bother with selling it. It'd be donateware and I would bet on providing regular content. I'll try to rip off the ideas of YouTube gaming channels and certain music channels that do covers (including metal covers). Selling music seems like a complete dead end to me.



> Labels exist to succeed - any business venture does



Good for them. Personally, I don't like labels. Indie ones can be alright, but I certainly don't like major labels because they are parasites, pretty much literally.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> The laws that protect labels protect me as an independent - whether or not I prosecute anyone or have them jailed. If the penalties associated with infringement come back to the rights holder it does indeed make it viable to prosecute.



Precisely, and I think the difference is money and lawyers, not the government picking big business over the little guy. The law is the same for both, one party just has more to pony up when it comes down to the wire.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> In the States it is the copyright holder who looks for violators, I hope, given the law, someone with less bias is doing the searching.


 
Most people aren't aware, but we actually have a "six strikes" anti piracy policy here in the US. It is an agreement between the RIAA, MPAA and the various ISPs. I think the agreement was reached a year or 18 months back, but it hasn't yet been enforced. There will be a third party (approved by the RIAA and MPAA) monitoring file sharing traffic, not the copyright holder themself. Penalties are to be enforced by the ISPs rather than the third party and range from throttling your connection speed to cutting off your internet service until you sit through some anti piracy videos to cancelling the internet service entirely.

I have a PDF somewhere on a USB stick, but it is at the office. If I find it tomorrow I will upload it, but here is a brief article from CNN in the meantime.

Why 'Six Strikes' could be a nightmare for anyone with shared Internet - CNN.com


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Most people aren't aware, but we actually have a "six strikes" anti piracy policy here in the US. It is an agreement between the RIAA, MPAA and the various ISPs. I think the agreement was reached a year or 18 months back, but it hasn't yet been enforced. There will be a third party (approved by the RIAA and MPAA) monitoring file sharing traffic, not the copyright holder themself. Penalties are to be enforced by the ISPs rather than the third party and range from throttling your connection speed to cutting off your internet service until you sit through some anti piracy videos to cancelling the internet service entirely.
> 
> I have a PDF somewhere on a USB stick, but it is at the office. If I find it tomorrow I will upload it, but here is a brief article from CNN in the meantime.
> 
> Why 'Six Strikes' could be a nightmare for anyone with shared Internet - CNN.com



That keeps it a civil matter though and the ones reporting the violation are definitely the original holders, although I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA are also doing some snooping as well. Software companies would have to do it themselves under that scenario as they don't fall under the RIAA or MPAA. There is an entire black list you can get online that keeps the companies with the copyrights from snooping around your PC so the larger ones are definitely handling it internally as well.

(next bit unrelated to your post)

You know I find it funny that people don't want the government involved and want to keep it a civil matter, but then are upset that laws favor the bigger companies. If the government isn't taking care of it then who is? The companies with the copyrights. Who has the resources to actually act on their rights? Big business. Without a lot of government involvement the law is always going to support big business because they can handle the additional resources necessary for it to make a dent.

What do people expect?


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> I have been in this driver's seat since 1986 - back when CDs weren't even made yet and PCs were barely able to word process. This is the biggest reason I am so adamant I suspect. If I could do it then ANYONE can do it now.
> 
> Edit;
> 
> ...


 
I hate to see IP infringement treated as a criminal offense rather than a civil one. But who knows, it may in fact be a necessary step in order to stop piracy.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

6 strikes thing isn't in place until 2013. And not all ISP's will follow it, nor do they have to.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

Nickgrey, Can I maybe point out that your location has something to do with your perspective, and that we might have felt the effects of this technology and DIY ethos earlier than you did?


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> Nickgrey, Can I maybe point out that your location has something to do with your perspective, and that we might have felt the effects of this technology and DIY ethos earlier than you did?



Again, I wasn't saying that it all started a few weeks ago, I'm aware that it started around 90s or so. What I'm saying is, in recent years we've seen a fairly significant change in technology and availability when it comes to home studios and bedroom musicians. Back in the 90s or even early 00s you couldn't possibly dream of the price/performance ratio we're getting nowadays. This has affected electronic music the most, because now virtually everyone can compose stuff for free (legally, by using free VST plugins) on their computer. Just go on YouTube and search for a neat video tutorial or Google an article or something. The availability of the technology and the power of it is incredible.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

I can't understand why piracy-advocates (or by the logic earlier laid out, stealing-advocates) don't have crippling cognitive dissonance...

See, a lot of the bullshit attitude in piracy is "sticking it to those meanie corporations". But by doing that, you are in fact burying the corporations (labels) that actually give a single fuck about artists, and make revenue for an enormous corporation (Google) that has no fucks for musicians.
With the old model musicians got compensated, not always fairly, but they still got compensation. Now they get nothing, and yet these advocates have the nerve to tell musicians they are doing what is best for them?

Just come straight and say that it is pure and unadultered entitlement and selfishness, we all know it is, but apparently that's hard to admit.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> But by doing that, you are in fact burying the corporations (labels) that actually give a single fuck about artists



You're pretty delusional. Indie labels might care, but it's not about indie labels, it never has been. It's about the big labels, and they only care about money, they don't give a fuck about the artists.



> Now they get nothing



Who gets nothing? I don't really see any decline in popular music, in fact, I see quite the opposite. I see more music, I see more genres, I see more variety, I see more availability. It's not just popular music, same thing is happening to classical music as well, and to jazz also.


----------



## ArrowHead (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Back in the 90s or even early 00s you couldn't possibly dream of the price/performance ratio we're getting nowadays.



Again, we recorded an album for a pretty big label in a bedroom and our rehearsal space, ourselves, in the early 2000s. $800. Most expensive gear in the room was an Avalon preamp. And the engineer's pizza habit.


Sounds like a great price/performance ratio to me...



Additionally, you seem to think the home recording studio started with current technology. Adat, a mixer, and a few microphones wasn't all that expensive in the 80's and 90's. A bit pricier than now, but then the rewards were much much better then. (say $35-70 an hour recording local bands? And a waiting list up the yin-yang?)

Again - I really feel like it's a case where the ripples on the industry and the home user hit you a little later than they hit us. Here, there's been a mom/pop/bedroom studio on every corner since I was a kid. 

Yes, as the cumulative effect on the industry shows the industry is far worse off now, but this started effecting the labels and publishing/recording industry a long time ago.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> You're pretty delusional. Indie labels might care, but it's not about indie labels, it never has been. It's about the big labels, and they only care about money, they don't give a fuck about the artists.



Oh? Does Google front with money for recordings, promotion and tours? You have to understand that labels are a business, and they depend on their musicians to succeed, then it is in their interest to sell as much of that musician as possible, and to make that musician stay on the label.



nickgray said:


> Who gets nothing? I don't really see any decline in popular music, in fact, I see quite the opposite. I see more music, I see more genres, I see more variety, I see more availability. It's not just popular music, same thing is happening to classical music as well, and to jazz also.



Nothing as in no monetary compensation, and money is something we need to survive. What you are using as proof of how well music is doing are hobbyists, and that would be like gauging how well the furniture market is by looking at the people who enjoy doing a little woodwork on the side.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Culural Rights




The United Nations said:


> 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:
> 
> (a) To take part in cultural life;
> 
> ...





Article 27 said:


> (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.



Just... Puttin' this out here..


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Oh? Does Google front with money for recordings, promotion and tours? You have to understand that labels are a business, and they depend on their musicians to succeed, then it is in their interest to sell as much of that musician as possible, and to make that musician stay on the label.
> 
> Nothing as in no monetary compensation, and money is something we need to survive. What you are using as proof of how well music is doing are hobbyists, and that would be like gauging how well the furniture market is by looking at the people who enjoy doing a little woodwork on the side.







Good heavens. Don't take this the wrong way, but you've won. You've all won. I just... I dunno. You've reminded me why I hate arguing about piracy on the internet, especially on music-related forums. Piracy and Israel are the two things I desperately try to avoid and yet somehow I cannot help myself


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> If I ever start to release my own music, I would never bother with selling it. It'd be donateware and I would bet on providing regular content. I'll try to rip off the ideas of YouTube gaming channels and certain music channels that do covers (including metal covers). Selling music seems like a complete dead end to me.


All this is beginning to make ALOT more sense to me. I'll have this discussion with you when you have skin in the game. Let me know what your business model is - when you actually have one - at which point I can share with you what 30 years of music business experience has taught me. You're absolutely welcome to your opinions, but right now all you got is a cool story bro.



> Personally, I don't like labels. Indie ones can be alright, but I certainly don't like major labels because they are parasites, pretty much literally.


I don't like grocery stores, but I still pay for my groceries. 

Nearly all the music I have has come directly from the artists. The best musicians out there right now don't have deals. They are worth my money if for no other reason than I hope they keep making the kind of music I've bought from them. You're free to make your own choices . . . .


----------



## The Reverend (Dec 2, 2012)

I care about keeping my favorite bands going, so I pay them for whatever I can. Whether it's merch at a show, giving them some cash in their tip jar, or buying their album online, I show them and their label that they still have fans willing to dish out the dough. If I was in a band, label or not, and I met a kid who 'loved' my work but thought that he could just get my album illegally because he was going to buy a shirt from me at a show, I'd be pissed.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

nickgray said:


> You're pretty delusional. Indie labels might care, but it's not about indie labels, it never has been. It's about the big labels, and they only care about money, they don't give a fuck about the artists.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gets nothing? I don't really see any decline in popular music, in fact, I see quite the opposite. I see more music, I see more genres, I see more variety, I see more availability. It's not just popular music, same thing is happening to classical music as well, and to jazz also.



All businesses are about making money. So whats your point? If a business wasn't about making money it wouldn't be a very good business to begin with. Even non-profit companies have to make money. 

Reading articles and commentary on the topic of piracy and the varied solutions being implemented or attempting to be implemented has shown me how ingrained "the man" mentality is. It is all quite childish IMO and a lot of it seems to be from adults (as much as one can tell on the internet).

I was reading a techdirt article on the subject of SOPA and while I agree SOPA was severely flawed, I couldn't help but notice that I don't think there is solution that exists that will make anyone happy. That is a severe problem, if only because without compromise all it leads to is the consumer getting nothing it wants. People are upset that the media industry is involved with the legal process, but the laws need to be written by someone in the tech field and many companies/people are taking the 'fuck you' approach. So I ask again, what do people expect?

The best solution IMO is shutting down the major distributors and doing nothing else because that means it will leave youtube, soundcloud, most other websites, consumers, etc. out of it. Megaupload is a good example of the right direction, even though it blew up in everyone's face. Demonoid has been shutdown, but then the other issue is they all get reopened eventually relatively unaltered (wasn't the first time they shut it down). Shutting down the large distributors resolves most of the problem and puts all of the legal stuff on their shoulders instead of ours.

In a way it is sad that this is probably the best course of action since
1. Very hard to do given current law and international restrictions
2. The idea of torrent sites as a tool is brilliant and simple (shame for it to disappear) 

The only other option, based on my reading, is doing nothing according to other tech companies. The issue here is the problem is not small, but at the same time I understand where these other companies are coming from. SOPA, specifically, would have affected the way many companies do business and does remove the 'honesty' of the internet.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 4, 2012)

Semi-related.

What do you guys think?

Leading Musicians Protest Against Pandora Royalties | News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com

Do you think Pandora should be getting a better deal like other services or it should stay the way it is?

Or the most unlikely scenario of all, do you feel like the other services should be paying more?

Not sure how I personally feel on this issue as I have no idea what any of their business models actually look like. What I do know is it seems like when someone is discussing taking more money or less money from a business it seems like all of a sudden they are floating the line (truth or fiction?).


----------

