# A look back from 13 years ago, who's right?



## drgamble (Nov 27, 2012)

Lars Was First And Lars Was Right | The Trichordist

I found this article through ASCAP and thought it was an interesting read in light of some of the recent discussions regarding piracy. It's a look back at things that were said about piracy 13 years ago and a look at where we are today.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 27, 2012)

Funny how much flak the guy gets, and how he was pretty much dismissed at the time. Had it been taken seriously then, it could have been solved by now, 13 yrs, a long time.


----------



## DLG (Nov 27, 2012)

pretty unbiased website


----------



## leonardo7 (Nov 27, 2012)

It was pretty obvious to me at the time, that Metallica was right, even though it was uncool to think that. I couldn't believe what I was seeing when so many people were bashing Metallica at the time, for taking action.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 27, 2012)

I guess the other thing that I find interesting, is that at that point in time there were artists out there ragging Metallica over the Napster thing. Nowadays, artists either speak out about piracy or say nothing at all. I remember around that time, several big artists at the time speaking out in favor of piracy. I haven't heard from a lot of those artists in a long time and whenever these discussions come up, I have yet to see any of the working musicians on this site promote piracy. It just funny to see how the attitude has changed in a little over a decade.


----------



## sakeido (Nov 27, 2012)

You can't fix piracy without taking control of the Internet in a way that violates the most important part of the net.. that it is free and open. Lars might have been right, but it was a battle the music industry was never going to win.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> You can't fix piracy without taking control of the Internet in a way that violates the most important part of the net.. that it is free and open. Lars might have been right, but it was a battle the music industry was never going to win.



I don't really know what you mean by free and open. People are still prosecuted for crimes committed on the Internet. Legislation was nearly passed last year to shut down websites that knowingly operate off of piracy. It won't last forever. I'm sure somebody knows every single bit of our online behavior it's just a matter of that information being available to people that can take action. The Internet is about as free as speech is. Sure, you can say anything you want, but that doesn't mean it comes without consequences.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> You can't fix piracy without taking control of the Internet in a way that violates the most important part of the net.. that it is free and open. Lars might have been right, but it was a battle the music industry was never going to win.



The most important part of the internet is not that it is free and open, as it isn't free to begin with you pay for it  (which, as Lars mentioned is probably a big part of why it hasn't been fixed, odd that). This whole wild west frontier image people apply to the internet is ridiculous. You will still have access to sharing information (see wikipedia, etc) and communities, neither of these would be compromised by fixing piracy.


----------



## sakeido (Nov 27, 2012)

drgamble said:


> I don't really know what you mean by free and open. People are still prosecuted for crimes committed on the Internet. Legislation was nearly passed last year to shut down websites that knowingly operate off of piracy. It won't last forever. I'm sure somebody knows every single bit of our online behavior it's just a matter of that information being available to people that can take action. The Internet is about as free as speech is. Sure, you can say anything you want, but that doesn't mean it comes without consequences.



That's the thing though. Legislation in one country doesn't stop it. 

So what the US has a law against it? What does a site based in the basement of Swedish parliament care about that? What if the site is hosted on a cloud with servers scattered across the entire world? If it really gets clamped down on, how will they find owners to prosecute? Will they ever be able to shut down a site without shitting on the legal process, like they have with Megaupload? 

If you actually want to filter or control some part of the Internet, you have to do it in a pretty dramatic and heavy-handed way.



SirMyghin said:


> The most important part of the internet is not that it is free and open, as it isn't free to begin with you pay for it  (which, as Lars mentioned is probably a big part of why it hasn't been fixed, odd that). This whole wild west frontier image people apply to the internet is ridiculous. You will still have access to sharing information (see wikipedia, etc) and communities, neither of these would be compromised by fixing piracy.



You pay for the connection to the internet, not the internet. If you want to "fix piracy" you'd pretty much have to burn the internet down and start again from the ground up.


----------



## Azathoth43 (Nov 27, 2012)

I think the link from the graph is a bit more informational with less hyperbole.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> That's the thing though. Legislation in one country doesn't stop it.
> 
> So what the US has a law against it? What does a site based in the basement of Swedish parliament care about that?


 
Every first world country has laws against piracy. The problem is not that they are ineffective in and of themselves, but rather that they are not being enforced at this point in time.



sakeido said:


> What if the site is hosted on a cloud with servers scattered across the entire world? If it really gets clamped down on, how will they find owners to prosecute? Will they ever be able to shut down a site without shitting on the legal process, like they have with Megaupload?
> 
> If you actually want to filter or control some part of the Internet, you have to do it in a pretty dramatic and heavy-handed way.


 
Finding the owner of a server or a website is pretty simple. Once again this is just the lack of enforcement of the existing laws.



sakeido said:


> You pay for the connection to the internet, not the internet. If you want to "fix piracy" you'd pretty much have to burn the internet down and start again from the ground up.


 
It needn't be that drastic. Simply enforcing the existing laws will go much further than you think. Do I sound like a broken (vinyl) record yet?


----------



## sakeido (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Every first world country has laws against piracy. The problem is not that they are ineffective in and of themselves, but rather that they are not being enforced at this point in time.
> 
> Finding the owner of a server or a website is pretty simple. Once again this is just the lack of enforcement of the existing laws.
> 
> It needn't be that drastic. Simply enforcing the existing laws will go much further than you think. Do I sound like a broken (vinyl) record yet?



this is such a dramatic oversimplification of how both the internet & law enforcement work I don't even know where to start


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

Azathoth43 said:


> I think the link from the graph is a bit more informational with less hyperbole.


 
The information in that article is not entirely accurate, either.

First, the source of the data is the RIAA; not exactly an unbiased source.

Second, while the article mentions back catalog, it glosses over it. Back catalog is not only young people buying older albums, but also first releasing an album on vinyl, then releasing it on cassette, then again on CD, then finally the remastered version on CD. Maybe if we get lucky the'll release a re-remastered version so they can get our money a fifth time, too. The extent of how much money back catalog provided is not evident in the article. In truth, *this was how record companies paid their bills*. New artists almost always lose money. Back catalog is (well, _was_) the cash cow that funded taking risks on new artist. Without that cash cow we are stuck with retreading Biber/Gaga/Chesney etc. over and over ad nauseum.

Third, they mention the decline in album sales, but fail to mention the relatively dramtic increase in the sales of singles.

Fourth, the article fails to mention that today's music buyer is distracted by other entertasinment, too - video games, social media, etc. that did not exist back in the day.

Additionally, they fail to mention that manufacturing vinyl/cassette/CD, warehousing it, shipping it, refunding money for damaged discs, etc. costs a lot of money. In contrast, a digital download is very cheap. It is much more profitable than the physical discs. Furthermore, online marketing is cheaper than the old payola approach they used to use, too. 

In fact, if you look at the amount of money a record company makes as:

Gross (total) Sales - (total) Expenses = Profit

I suspect the big record companies are as profitable as they ever were. They have less total sales, but less total expenses as well. And I would think that the decrease in expenses is proportional to the decrease in sales. Based on this, I believe the big record companies are still doing fine. 

Unfortunately, It's the independent record companies that put out metal, jazz, classical, shred, etc. that are hurting from file sharing, not the big boys.


----------



## RagtimeDandy (Nov 27, 2012)

I think music should be available in various ways, and if its good enough Ill buy it. I own well over 150+ CDs and around 30 records. I've purchased a bunch of shirts and gone to shows. I'm not gunna support shitty music, but I'm going to support 200% bands that are actually worth a damn. I see the internet as "unnaturally natural selection" - the bad gets weeded out because people won't buy bad music (for the most part). There's no such thing as a starving artist - only bad artists.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> this is such a dramatic oversimplification of how both the internet & law enforcement work I don't even know where to start


 
No, it's really not, at least as it applies to everyman. I mean, if China, North Korea, Iran, et. al. can censor websites and filter data packets within their borders, the first world countries can certainly do the same.

Also, when I say enforceing the existing laws, I mean just that; I don't mean involving the police. Piracy is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore does not involve the police. But just as you have to repay someone if you damage their property, you have to pay them for using their intellectual property.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan nails it.

the world has shifted towards individual songs/tracks, and the only reason for buying an entire album is either to intentionally 'support the artist', if all tracks are known to be good (via samples or pre-release listenings), or a general 'why the fuck not' kind of music-buying habit. singles skyrocketing and full albums declining shows that all of those people that were buying entire albums during the pre-mp3 days were mostly doing it for the radio hit they wanted the album for in the first place.

im not saying that anyone is entirely right or wrong, but i am saying that tedtan's post shows that data is easily spun and we aren't getting all of the facts here.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

RagtimeDandy said:


> I see the internet as "unnaturally natural selection" - the bad gets weeded out because people won't buy bad music (for the most part). There's no such thing as a starving artist - only bad artists.


 
To continue your gardening analogy, I unfortunately see it as the weeds (bad music) choking out the desireable plants (good music) due to volume. We need some type of weed killer (filter) to make the good stuff easier to find.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Nov 27, 2012)

drgamble said:


> I guess the other thing that I find interesting, is that at that point in time there were artists out there ragging Metallica over the Napster thing. Nowadays, artists either speak out about piracy or say nothing at all. I remember around that time, several big artists at the time speaking out in favor of piracy. I haven't heard from a lot of those artists in a long time and whenever these discussions come up, I have yet to see any of the working musicians on this site promote piracy. It just funny to see how the attitude has changed in a little over a decade.



Pretty sure Misha is a "try before you buy" advocate, which seems to be the new way of saying "pirating isn't necessarily completely terrible, especially if you do buy our shit down the road" without getting corporate mad at you. I can think of a few other artists that espouse similar views, though I don't know if they post here.


----------



## sakeido (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan said:


> To continue your gardening analogy, I unfortunately see it as the weeds (bad music) choking out the desireable plants (good music) due to volume. We need some type of weed killer (filter) to make the good stuff easier to find.



Like radio?



tedtan said:


> No, it's really not, at least as it applies to everyman. I mean, if China, North Korea, Iran, et. al. can censor websites and filter data packets within their borders, the first world countries can certainly do the same.


Sweet, didn't know emulating Chinese or Iranian domestic policy was something we should be looking into for ourselves. I always thought they were ass backwards dictatorships with governments stuck in the early 20th century but maybe they are actually just very forward thinking. It definitely looks like freedom of & access to information is overrated.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> Sweet, didn't know emulating Chinese or Iranian domestic policy was something we should be looking into for ourselves. I always thought they were ass backwards dictatorships with governments stuck in the early 20th century but maybe they are actually just very forward thinking.


 


You know that's not what I said.

I mean, give me a break here, sakeido. My eight year old brother can formulate a better argument than this.



sakeido said:


> It definitely looks like freedom of & access to information is overrated.


 
Intellectual property infringement is not "freedom of & access to information". You know that as well as I do. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to pirate other people's music/software/games/etc.


----------



## sakeido (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan said:


> You know that's not what I said.
> 
> I mean, give me a break here, sakeido. My eight year old brother can formulate a better argument than this.


I'm not really going to get too serious on this because you have over-simplified things far too much. 

Stopping piracy is not as easy as suing the shit out of people who pirated a couple songs. Shutting down filesharing websites or torrent trackers is not as easy as creating a law against them and then prosecuting them. The huge businesses losing money has more to do how the big music companies tried to preserve their business than piracy. Lobbying to try and legislate a way to preserve their business as-is was a retarded as shit approch that did not pay off for them in the slightest. They failed to adapt and it is killing them slowly.



> Intellectual property infringement is not "freedom of & access to information". You know that as well as I do. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to pirate other people's music/software/games/etc.


I do not want anyone anywhere on earth to ever have any ability to filter the internet for any reason


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> I'm not really going to get too serious on this because you have over-simplified things far too much.


 
 Yeah, that's usually how things work on forums. 



sakeido said:


> Stopping piracy is not as easy as suing the shit out of people who pirated a couple songs. Shutting down filesharing websites or torrent trackers is not as easy as creating a law against them and then prosecuting them. The huge businesses losing money has more to do how the big music companies tried to preserve their business than piracy. Lobbying to try and legislate a way to preserve their business as-is was a retarded as shit approch that did not pay off for them in the slightest. They failed to adapt and it is killing them slowly.


 
I tend to agree with you here. In fact, I think the new business model for the record companies will likely involve a surcharge on internet services and cell phone data plans that is distributed to IP owners similar to how royalties are currently paid for radio, live performance, television, movie usage of music. It's simply more practical this way than trying to hold on to the way things used to be.



sakeido said:


> I do not want anyone anywhere on earth to ever have any ability to filter the internet for any reason


 
I'm not advocating that we take this approach. I was simply pointing out that we can (e.g. we have the technology to) selectively remove parts of the internet, so we wouldn't need to start over from scratch.


----------



## groovemasta (Nov 27, 2012)

RagtimeDandy said:


> There's no such thing as a starving artist - only bad artists.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

drgamble said:


> I guess the other thing that I find interesting, is that at that point in time there were artists out there ragging Metallica over the Napster thing. Nowadays, artists either speak out about piracy or say nothing at all. I remember around that time, several big artists at the time speaking out in favor of piracy. I haven't heard from a lot of those artists in a long time and whenever these discussions come up, I have yet to see any of the working musicians on this site promote piracy. It just funny to see how the attitude has changed in a little over a decade.



There are plenty.

Off the top of my head: 

Henry Rollins has been quoted numerous times as saying specifically, "I'd rather be heard than paid."

I just saw the Acacia Strain on Sunday night, and Vincent specifically took the time to state that he didn't care if people bought or stole their album, as long as they were hearing it.

There have been numerous other artists putting the art before the commerce. I understand the desire to make money, and I'm not saying a way to make that happen shouldn't be figured out, but I respect the Rollins way of thinking much more than a musician bitching on Twitter every other day about how little money they are making because of piracy.


Also, anybody that thinks creating more governmental controls on the internet is a good thing is utterly and completely bent.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I'm not advocating that we take this approach. I was simply pointing out that we can (e.g. we have the technology to) selectively remove parts of the internet, so we wouldn't need to start over from scratch.



As he's stated to you numerous times now, you are oversimplifying matters to an insane degree.


----------



## gearandguitars (Nov 27, 2012)

The elephant in the room is the internet businesses operating illegally, profiting from selling advertising against the illegal distribution of the artists work and paying them nothing. There's nothing even remotely controversial about seeing how it's just blatant exploitation of the artists for businesses and corporations to be making all that money and not... err...uhmmm... SHARING... any with the musicians! 

ARTISTS - KNOW THEY ENEMY - WHOS RIPPING YOU OFF AND HOW!

this BMW ad isn't there for free ya know!


----------



## gearandguitars (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> I do not want anyone anywhere on earth to ever have any ability to filter the internet for any reason



too late...


----------



## Tang (Nov 27, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> The elephant in the room is the internet businesses operating illegally, profiting from selling advertising against the illegal distribution of the artists work and paying them nothing. There's nothing even remotely controversial about seeing how it's just blatant exploitation of the artists for businesses and corporations to be making all that money and not... err...uhmmm... SHARING... any with the musicians!
> 
> ARTISTS - KNOW THEY ENEMY - WHOS RIPPING YOU OFF AND HOW!
> 
> this BMW ad isn't there for free ya know!



What about the women that can't say no? I'm sure they're making a pretty penny off illegal downloads.


----------



## gearandguitars (Nov 27, 2012)

Tang said:


> What about the women that can't say no? I'm sure they're making a pretty penny off illegal downloads.



ha! human trafficking is a whole nutha issue... online piracy is a really sleazy BUSINESS... this isn't about kids in bedrooms it's about corporations and boardrooms... baaad karma... really, really, baaaad karma... 

*How Google makes money off human trafficking and piracy*


*STOP Google AdWords From Internet Sex-trafficking of Women and Girls petition*


----------



## gearandguitars (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> That's the thing though. Legislation in one country doesn't stop it.
> 
> So what the US has a law against it? What does a site based in the basement of Swedish parliament care about that? What if the site is hosted on a cloud with servers scattered across the entire world? If it really gets clamped down on, how will they find owners to prosecute? Will they ever be able to shut down a site without shitting on the legal process, like they have with Megaupload?
> 
> ...



absolutely nonsense. 

1) no law ever stopped any crime 100%, but we haven't thrown out all of our laws 

2) there's nothing more heavy handed about making PEOPLE accountable for Wrong Doing on the internet any more than it's heavy handed to hold PEOPLE accountable for wrong doing in the real world. 

3) The internet does not need to be an illegal wasteland of thieves and criminals in order to exist any more than any place else on earth 

4) the wild west was not wild forever and neither will the internet be

5) we're talking about illegally operating businesses profiting from advertising and paying the artists NOTHING... that can easily be addressed without legislation by working with the Advertisers, Brands and Payment Processors - PAYPAL has already stopped providing services to pirate sites 

MADISON AVENUE IS FUNDING MEDIA PIRACY 

and... 

 If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren&#8217;t more Musicians Working Professionally?


----------



## drgamble (Nov 27, 2012)

It's kinda funny that most of the piracy advocates repeat a lot of the same statements that companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube etc put out in their latest lobbying campaign against SOPA. I am an independent musician, and everyone can talk about the few artists making money, consumers changing buying habits etc. Music is cheaper than ever especially if you adjust for inflation. As an independent guy, people steal my stuff just like the steal Black Eyed Peas stuff. What does that mean for me? I made more money when I was selling tapes and CDs out of my trunk. My music these days is available to a worldwide audience. People would rather steal it than pay for it, piracy does not equate to sales of singles or albums. That is reality not only for myself, but for all of the other musicians that I know.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

drgamble said:


> It's kinda funny that most of the piracy advocates repeat a lot of the same statements that companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube etc put out in their latest lobbying campaign against SOPA. I am an independent musician, and everyone can talk about the few artists making money, consumers changing buying habits etc. Music is cheaper than ever especially if you adjust for inflation. As an independent guy, people steal my stuff just like the steal Black Eyed Peas stuff. What does that mean for me? I made more money when I was selling tapes and CDs out of my trunk. My music these days is available to a worldwide audience. People would rather steal it than pay for it, piracy does not equate to sales of singles or albums. That is reality not only for myself, but for all of the other musicians that I know.



That's amazing. Man, it must feel incredible to have so many people hearing and desiring your music out there, when, a couple decades ago, your art would most likely be experienced by no one.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 27, 2012)

So... if the problem is that companies are taking in advertising money on illegal filesharing sites, why don't record companies just offer their catalogs on their own website for free, and share the advertising revenue with their artists? Are there any other arguments against that besides "some people have adblock?" I _can't_ be the only person to have thought about this.

I suppose you could say "well those files will just end up on filesharing sites eventually anyways," but would that matter, if the record companies had a superior product? Higher quality downloads, the security of knowing you're actually going to be getting what you're trying to download, streaming previews, artist interviews, videos, and photos; those are all things that would at least make _me_ go to the record company's site to DL something instead of rolling the dice with a shifty torrent site. 






Also...



gearandguitars said:


>




That woman looks like she was designed by Rob Liefield.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Nov 27, 2012)

sakeido said:


> You can't fix piracy without taking control of the Internet in a way that violates the most important part of the net.. that it is free and open. Lars might have been right, but it was a battle the music industry was never going to win.



You can, however, make it more appealing to do it in a legit way. I think a large part of piracy is because of a lack of respect and care about the record companies. They are huge faceless corporations. Easy not to care about.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 27, 2012)

I do not know exactly where the numbers come from in this article, but I'd bet they are based off CD sales.
Record companies are awfully fast to dismiss other medias competing with the CD for the consume's money, that didn't exist 20 years ago or were very marginal: DVDs, BRs, Smartphones, video games...a lot of which are sold by the same groups if not the same brand.
You get 5 times the offering, but pople only have 100$ to spend on entertainment. Yeah, CD sales will plummet, and piracy has nothing to do with it, really. (Which doesn't make it right in any legal way, however.)



> I was simply pointing out that we can (e.g. we have the technology to) selectively remove parts of the internet


With the distrust you US guys have of a centralised governement, there would be an outcry of "communist china" accusations the minute this is implemented.



> If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren&#8217;t more Musicians Working Professionally?



Because the internet didn't magically made people unable to play able to play by magic ?


----------



## Xaios (Nov 27, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Henry Rollins has been quoted numerous times as saying specifically, "I'd rather be heard than paid."
> 
> I just saw the Acacia Strain on Sunday night, and Vincent specifically took the time to state that he didn't care if people bought or stole their album, as long as they were hearing it.
> 
> There have been numerous other artists putting the art before the commerce. I understand the desire to make money, and I'm not saying a way to make that happen shouldn't be figured out, but I respect the Rollins way of thinking much more than a musician bitching on Twitter every other day about how little money they are making because of piracy.



Henry Rollins has the luxury of being heard and paid, which certainly not all artists do.

Also, perhaps I'm just really, really cynical, but I think the people who are of the "fuck the record execs" mindset are actually more likely to pay money for a product if they believe that the creator of that product is of the same mindset. It's a strange, demented form of hero worship. It's conceivable that, in his speechifying, buddy from The Acacia Strain may have convinced a few more people to pay for their record in order to "support a figurehead against record label fascism" that otherwise wouldn't have shelled out simply by appealing to anti-elitist sentiment. After all, that's how internet advertisement providers have been able to make a SHIT-TON of money off ads that promise a $5 trick to whiter teeth or younger looking skin, "discovered by a mom, dentists/dermatologists hate her!"


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

Ok, then let me put it in my own words:

As someone who is slowly building toward producing and releasing music, I'd, personally, rather be heard than paid. And that isn't me hoping you'll go pay for an eventual album because you like that perspective.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 27, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> That's amazing. Man, it must feel incredible to have so many people hearing and desiring your music out there, when, a couple decades ago, your art would most likely be experienced by no one.



Not really. Great, people hear my music and somebody else is making the money. Yeah that feels incredible. You must have missed the point where I said I made more selling out of the trunk of my car, which in turn funded more releases and whatnot. Go ahead and spend the time and money to record an album and tell me it's great to just be heard keeping in mind that someone else is making the money.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

I didn't miss that part at all. I was talking about ears hearing your music, not dollars in your pocket

We can discuss the merits of prioritizing the art vs. making a profit once I've actually gotten to the point of releasing something. I'm not going to sit here and talk about how I don't plan on charging for my music ever, because talk is cheap and I'm not in a position to back it up yet. Who knows, maybe at that point I'll be eating my words. 

Regardless, I'll always stand by my belief that that kind of thinking has a big part in why the industry is as fucked as it is now. I don't think trying to wedge the old model back down everyone's throats is the answer.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 27, 2012)

I don't think the point he's making is that he demands a profit from his music instead of just making it for enjoyment, but rather that if _someone_ is going to be making profits from it, he'd prefer it was him, rather than hosting sites who get receive advertising revenue for providing his music for free.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I don't think the point he's making is that he demands a profit from his music instead of just making it for enjoyment, but rather that if _someone_ is going to be making profits from it, he'd prefer it was him, rather than hosting sites who get receive advertising revenue for providing his music for free.



I get that. But that type of arrangement isn't new or specific to music. That type of thing happens in pretty much every sector of the economy in one way or the other. My point is, by all means, let's get the money to where it should be, but the attempts currently in motion that relate to this are not the way to do that. 

At the same time, let's try to have perspective about the realities of the industry as it is now. Musicians that would have existed in complete obscurity before ARE getting heard.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> As he's stated to you numerous times now, you are oversimplifying matters to an insane degree.


 
sakeido made the ridiculous statement that:



sakeido said:


> If you want to "fix piracy" you'd pretty much have to burn the internet down and start again from the ground up.


 
I simply made the point that technology exists to filter torrent and other file sharing traffic to the point that the average user would be unable to use file sharing technology without the need to completely start over. 

If you want proof just look at the oppressive regimes I mentioned earlier. I don't know how much more detail you need. Going beyond that, this is an area that would take hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages to explain well enough to rule out the oversimplication argument, and that is well beyond the scope of the forums.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan said:


> sakeido made the ridiculous statement that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not just the simplification; it's the simplification to the point of blatant unreality that is the issue. 

If the enforcement and censorship you're talking about happened on the scale if would need to to be effective, then, trust me, the average user would learn very quickly how to set up a VPN or other such services. For further proof, look at how much information still gets out past even those oppressive regimes. Further, the official channels will always be outpaced by the individuals looking to get around them. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that hands should be collectively thrown up as far as figuring something out, but the architecture of the Internet is simply not made in a way that what you're talking about could be done effectively without things getting very very very bad. Sakeido is correct, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> It's not just the simplification; it's the simplification to the point of blatant unreality that is the issue.
> 
> If the enforcement and censorship you're talking about happened on the scale if would need to to be effective, then, trust me, the average user would learn very quickly how to set up a VPN or other such services. For further proof, look at how much information still gets out past even those oppressive regimes. Further, the official channels will always be outpaced by the individuals looking to get around them.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that hands should be collectively thrown up as far as figuring something out, but the architecture of the Internet is simply not made in a way that what you're talking about could be done effectively without things getting very very very bad. Sakeido is correct, as far as I'm concerned.


 
I'm not saying there are no negative consequences, I'm just saying its possible. Nothing more. And while I hate to sound condescending to the average user, you are giving them too much credit. I deal with them every day and they are nowhere near as advanced as you imply, at least at this point in time.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I'm not saying there are no negative consequences, I'm just saying its possible. Nothing more. And while I hate to sound condescending to the average user, you are giving them too much credit. I deal with them every day and they are nowhere near as advanced as you imply, at least at this point in time.



Look up the statistics for the rise in VPN usage just in response to the potential threat of the 6 strikes bullshit. I'm not overestimating the abilities of the average user; I'm saying services will pop up that allow the average user to bypass things. Hell, the average user should not be able to manage torrents by all rights, but many do.


----------



## Cancer (Nov 27, 2012)

Just my .02$, Lars may have been first, and he (arguably) may have been on to something, but the aftermath of the what happened to Metallica was a direct result of forgetting their own history of tape trading, and then calling his own fans thieves, for simply wanting to listen to something that was leaked from their own house.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

I get it though; you're talking about "can" not "should." That's a dangerous way of looking at things though. 

Also, it's not just a matter of google and others maintaining income from traffic through illicit sites. A lot of the attempts made to curb piracy have had horrible implications for legitimate uses as well. So, let's not just paint Internet companies as villains.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 27, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Look up the statistics for the rise in VPN usage just in response to the potential threat of the 6 strikes bullshit. I'm not overestimating the abilities of the average user; I'm saying services will pop up that allow the average user to bypass things. Hell, the average user should not be able to manage torrents by all rights, but many do.


 
I may be underestimating the average user, but I work in a tech company with educated people who have actually asked me to help them reset the password on their web email accounts (Yahoo, Google, etc.) because they couldn't figure it out on their own. Even with the link right in front of them. And even though I do not work in a tech support role. So my lack of faith in everyman's tech abilities is based upon the stupidity/lack of tech savy I've witnessed first hand. 

I don't know, maybe the sample size is simply too small to draw acurate conclusions from.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 27, 2012)

Oh no, again, people ARE dumb; you're right. I'm just saying that programmers are good at designing software so trained monkeys could run it.


----------



## gearandguitars (Nov 28, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> That's amazing. Man, it must feel incredible to have so many people hearing and desiring your music out there, when, a couple decades ago, your art would most likely be experienced by no one.



speak for yourself... here's the facts

 If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why arent more Musicians Working Professionally?


----------



## gearandguitars (Nov 28, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Look up the statistics for the rise in VPN usage just in response to the potential threat of the 6 strikes bullshit. I'm not overestimating the abilities of the average user; I'm saying services will pop up that allow the average user to bypass things. Hell, the average user should not be able to manage torrents by all rights, but many do.



so then, you can't actually "break the internet" than... which is funny because isn't that what google and wikipedia were saying during sopa? 

I love the double standards... "don't break the internet"... "the internet can't be broken 10 year olds will use VPN"


----------



## lurgar (Nov 28, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> but the architecture of the Internet is simply not made in a way that what you're talking about could be done effectively without things getting very very very bad. Sakeido is correct, as far as I'm concerned.



Specific internet sites can be blocked or taken down (like Demonoid was), but not without some questionable international action. Since there isn't a single entity that makes laws and enforces them for the entire world, each country has to enforce their own. This leads to a situation where an American company is trying to stop a website that is being hosted in another country from breaking American laws. If the country in question decides to give up to the American corporations, it sets up future situations where the corporations can potentially enforce American laws on foreign lands. 

If we are talking about just blocking sites then I want you all to think about what would happen if the government was in charge of blocking illegal content. What would then constitute illegal? If I provide a link on my website to another site that allows you to stream music for free, should I then be in legal trouble and be blocked from the internet? 

Potentially the eventual implementation of IPv6 would take care of some of these issues by removing some of the anonymity that IPv4 causes right now especially through NAT. Of course, nothing is ever going to stop spoofing, using VPNs, or even Onion routing. That's not to even mention that I've been hearing about the inevitable move to IPv6 since the late 90s and we aren't much closer to full implementation yet.


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Nov 28, 2012)

As somebody who's released all of their recordings for free to date, I think the problem is less that people pirate and more that people feel justified in doing it. There's some sort of new trend among the postmodern intellectual elite that believes that artistic intellectual property is somehow innately part of a "cultural commons," ie it belongs to the masses once it has been produced. This is used as an argument in favor of mashups, remixes, and other such derivative works. While I can agree with this interpretation to some extent, I find that it's kind of silly to say that a work that somebody has a large financial and emotional investment is suddenly everybody's simply because they have the ability to chop and screw it or obtain it for effectively no money.

I had to watch part of a documentary for one of my classes that talked about the mashup artist Girl Talk and how much his songs would theoretically cost to produce if he cleared all of the samples. This analysis made music publishers and original artists out to be a breed of crooks and bandits, but it simply failed to acknowledge that Girl Talk has faced virtually no legal action as a consequence of his work because he's not putting anybody out of business or making millions off of their work. In other words, he gets away with it.

I think that if a similarly happy medium were attained by the music listening public and artists, then it'd be a happy thing. Unfortunately there are artists who feel entitled to becoming millionaires via their art and listeners who feel that charging money for music is greedy because artists should be "about the art," not the money regardless of their living circumstances or lack thereof, and this dynamic is ultimately just a vicious cycle.

TL;DR: Download albums, buy the ones that deserve it. If everyone did this all would be well, but they don't.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 28, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> so then, you can't actually "break the internet" than... which is funny because isn't that what google and wikipedia were saying during sopa?
> 
> I love the double standards... "don't break the internet"... "the internet can't be broken 10 year olds will use VPN"



No. That's not what was being said at all. What was being said was that SOPA would have been entirely ineffective in doing what it was claimed to do, while completely fucking over legitimate online usage and simultaneously opening the door for heinous amounts of censorship.


----------



## Trespass (Nov 28, 2012)

The internet is the new medium. Adapt or die.

When I see artists like x or y pop artist with awful songwriting, no depth, nothing innovative about their sound, I don't feel bad about the fact the record company side of music industry is dying. I play with several lifetime professional artists, and they'll be the first to tell you that a record company has not helped them with their art period.

And I'd much rather hear those guys than whatever the record companies have been churning out since the Beatles.

*But here's an important point:* The ability to make a living as an artist has steadily diminished since the 50s.
As in, the decline started pre-internet age.

I make $50-$125 personally for a standard, non-memorable gig. I'll play 5-10 of these a month.

Back in the day, there are guys that were playing 7 nights a week (+ two matinees) and making a decent living doing it. Enough to buy a house, a car, support a family.
And trust me: Those are standard, non-memorable gigs.


----------



## Hyacinth (Nov 29, 2012)

If I like a band, I will support them directly by buying albums, shirts, and merch in general.

Also, Corelia had a banner on pirate bay's homepage with a statement that said (in so many words) "Hey, we're Corelia. Feel free to download our album." If that's not being pro piracy, I don't know what is. They're not the only artist to do this either. Bands are always up on tpb's homepage.

Piracy is good in certain ways and bad in others. Yes, less money goes to the record company, but more people than ever have the means to hear an endless supply of new music. Any time people are hearing your music, or thinking about it/your band is a good thing and if piracy gets your music into the hands of people who become your fans, who will then pay for tickets and merch, then piracy is not such a bad thing.\

Piracy mainly hurts the corporate side of the music business, but it's easy and becoming easier to record your band's music yourself. With the advent of social media, it's also easier than ever to promote your band and do the business yourself.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 29, 2012)

MatthewLeisher said:


> If I like a band, I will support them directly by buying albums, shirts, and merch in general.
> 
> Also, Corelia had a banner on pirate bay's homepage with a statement that said (in so many words) "Hey, we're Corelia. Feel free to download our album." If that's not being pro piracy, I don't know what is. They're not the only artist to do this either. Bands are always up on tpb's homepage.
> 
> ...



This may sound like good ideology, but it's not what reality is. The corporate suits are still making a living. As an independent artists doing business for myself, I can tell you that it is the little guys suffering. An artist that use to be able to sell 100,000 copies now only sells 20,000. These may seem like big numbers, but if you talk about selling on iTunes you are talking $70,000 made off of 100,000 copies that the entire band before paying for anything else. TuneCore is a service many musician use to distribute their music. TuneCore reports that up to 99% of their artists make less than minimum wage. These are all the little guys, not the corporations. Meanwhile, Pirate Bay is making more than everyone for something they had nothing to do with besides allowing someone to upload it and offer it for free.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 29, 2012)

drgamble said:


> This may sound like good ideology, but it's not what reality is. The corporate suits are still making a living. As an independent artists doing business for myself, I can tell you that it is the little guys suffering. An artist that use to be able to sell 100,000 copies now only sells 20,000. These may seem like big numbers, but if you talk about selling on iTunes you are talking $70,000 made off of 100,000 copies that the entire band before paying for anything else. TuneCore is a service many musician use to distribute their music. TuneCore reports that up to 99% of their artists make less than minimum wage. These are all the little guys, not the corporations. Meanwhile, Pirate Bay is making more than everyone for something they had nothing to do with besides allowing someone to upload it and offer it for free.



The corporate suits are always going to figure out a way to make a living. That's why they're in those suits. That is never going to change.

The idea of the 100,000,000 copy selling, millionaire rock star is very small blip in the history of music. There is the very real possibility that it will end up never happening again, that it was an anomaly. While bands that used to sell 100,000 copies are now selling a fraction of that, again, bands that would have only been able to give 20 or so burned cds out to friends at some local shows before are now being heard by thousands of people. Periphery is a perfect example of what the new model provides. I realize it's a hypothetical, but I'd wager that, in the old system, they would never have reached the level of success they have.

Would I prefer artists make all the money and suits be left out in the cold? Yes. That may never be a reality, however. I do not think that trying replicate the old model is the answer though.


----------



## drgamble (Nov 29, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> The corporate suits are always going to figure out a way to make a living. That's why they're in those suits. That is never going to change.
> 
> The idea of the 100,000,000 copy selling, millionaire rock star is very small blip in the history of music. There is the very real possibility that it will end up never happening again, that it was an anomaly. While bands that used to sell 100,000 copies are now selling a fraction of that, again, bands that would have only been able to give 20 or so burned cds out to friends at some local shows before are now being heard by thousands of people. Periphery is a perfect example of what the new model provides. I realize it's a hypothetical, but I'd wager that, in the old system, they would never have reached the level of success they have.
> 
> Would I prefer artists make all the money and suits be left out in the cold? Yes. That may never be a reality, however. I do not think that trying replicate the old model is the answer though.



Periphery would have made way more money without having to do advertising and endorsing products. As a matter of fact, they would have been considered sellouts doing commercials for anything. Recently, they have limited the amount of free streaming services available as an attempt to sell more records. Free only does so much good for you. Independent artists like Fugazi used to be able to do it because they sold albums without radio airplay or the mighty MTV. I can name quite a few underground bands that put stuff out on their own label and maybe money without endorsements and radio. Periphery is only doing it now because they are signed to a label.


----------



## sakeido (Nov 29, 2012)

drgamble said:


> Periphery would have made way more money without having to do advertising and endorsing products. As a matter of fact, they would have been considered sellouts doing commercials for anything. Recently, they have limited the amount of free streaming services available as an attempt to sell more records. Free only does so much good for you. Independent artists like Fugazi used to be able to do it because they sold albums without radio airplay or the mighty MTV. I can name quite a few underground bands that put stuff out on their own label and maybe money without endorsements and radio. Periphery is only doing it now because they are signed to a label.



You are assuming that the market that existed in the last 50 years for music is still out there... but it isn't. No matter what, I don't think musicians are ever going to make a living off just their music again except in rare cases, and they will probably suck (see: big pop acts). 

Pirate Bay is making money?


----------



## drgamble (Nov 29, 2012)

sakeido said:


> You are assuming that the market that existed in the last 50 years for music is still out there... but it isn't. No matter what, I don't think musicians are ever going to make a living off just their music again except in rare cases, and they will probably suck (see: big pop acts).
> 
> Pirate Bay is making money?



If the law was enforced yes musicians would make money again. People would quit illegal filesharing if they took your Internet away like they do for hackers as an example. Yes, Pirate Bay makes hundreds of millions of dollars off of advertising because of the amount of traffic on their site. Without the files and content, there would be less traffic and less money. I believe this has already been discussed of how web businesses make their money.


----------



## fps (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm with drgamble in all of your posts so far, it's so obvious that most people just have no idea what's going on. 

The idea that thepiratebay is doing everyone a favour is bullshit, they're a business, they make money and take their cuts from advertising, and the bands get nothing. These illegal distributors of copyrighted material are fucking bands over to make money. Just cos they don't wear suits and the downloader can't see behind the curtain everyone falls for it.


----------



## fps (Nov 29, 2012)

Everyone needs to stop talking about what everyone else is doing in terms of listening and habits, and take a lot at what they're doing, individually. You listening to a lot of professional, copyrighted music, again and again, that you haven't paid for? Not the demos and whatever that people share on this site, but proper stuff? Bet you are.


----------



## sakeido (Nov 29, 2012)

drgamble said:


> If the law was enforced yes musicians would make money again. People would quit illegal filesharing if they took your Internet away like they do for hackers as an example. Yes, *Pirate Bay makes hundreds of millions of dollars off of advertising *because of the amount of traffic on their site. Without the files and content, there would be less traffic and less money. I believe this has already been discussed of how web businesses make their money.



I lol'd so hard.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 29, 2012)

drgamble said:


> Periphery would have made way more money without having to do advertising and endorsing products. As a matter of fact, they would have been considered sellouts doing commercials for anything. Recently, they have limited the amount of free streaming services available as an attempt to sell more records. Free only does so much good for you. Independent artists like Fugazi used to be able to do it because they sold albums without radio airplay or the mighty MTV. I can name quite a few underground bands that put stuff out on their own label and maybe money without endorsements and radio. Periphery is only doing it now because they are signed to a label.



Periphery would probably have ended as a few kids in their parents' basement with no one having heard their music without the current state of the internet. You can't just pick and choose which parts of reality you want to accept.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 29, 2012)

fps said:


> I'm with drgamble in all of your posts so far, it's so obvious that most people just have no idea what's going on.
> 
> The idea that thepiratebay is doing everyone a favour is bullshit, they're a business, they make money and take their cuts from advertising, and the bands get nothing. These illegal distributors of copyrighted material are fucking bands over to make money. Just cos they don't wear suits and the downloader can't see behind the curtain everyone falls for it.



Go pull some screen shots of all that advertising on piratebay and then come back here and tell us all we have no idea what's going on. 

Then go back over the posts here and count up all the ones that made claims that TPB is some altruistic site in the first place. It shouldn't take you long, because NO ONE has made that claim.

You guys keep working away at that straw man, though.


----------



## bhakan (Nov 29, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Periphery would probably have ended as a few kids in their parents' basement with no one having heard their music without the current state of the internet. You can't just pick and choose which parts of reality you want to accept.


Periphery would not be where they are without the internet, but they would be better off without pirating. Though the two are connected, they are not the same. Enforcing anti-piracy laws would not have shut down Misha's Soundclick, Youtube, Soundcloud etc. which is how he got his music out there.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 29, 2012)

bhakan said:


> Periphery would not be where they are without the internet, but they would be better off without pirating. Though the two are connected, they are not the same. Enforcing anti-piracy laws would not have shut down Misha's Soundclick, Youtube, Soundcloud etc. which is how he got his music out there.



Tell that to all the people getting takedown notices for legitimate material.


----------



## Ben.Last (Nov 29, 2012)

There are 2 things ACTUALLY at the root of the issue that are fucking everything up:

1. Copyright law is a fucking mess. 

2. The focus on trying to return to the old way of thinking. This is siphoning off massive amounts of potential income from what artists could be making with things like self releasing, merch and increased live performance opportunities.


----------



## Hyacinth (Nov 29, 2012)

drgamble said:


> This may sound like good ideology, but it's not what reality is. The corporate suits are still making a living. As an independent artists doing business for myself, I can tell you that it is the little guys suffering. An artist that use to be able to sell 100,000 copies now only sells 20,000. These may seem like big numbers, but if you talk about selling on iTunes you are talking $70,000 made off of 100,000 copies that the entire band before paying for anything else. TuneCore is a service many musician use to distribute their music. TuneCore reports that up to 99% of their artists make less than minimum wage. These are all the little guys, not the corporations. Meanwhile, Pirate Bay is making more than everyone for something they had nothing to do with besides allowing someone to upload it and offer it for free.



TPB also has millions of other files that aren't even music uploads. It's still not right that they're cashing in off of other people's intellectual property. However, with video games and movies, it's far worse. If you like a band, you'll pay to see them live and buy their merch. If you like a video game, you'll download it and never look back, therefore robbing the company of 100% of the money they would have made off of you in the first place. At least there's more to music than albums.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Dec 1, 2012)

Ive told this to Christian Muenzner on his facebook after he discovered Timewarp for sale on w Russian pirate site:

I would be much more likely to buy a digital album from th band/label if they could AT LEAST match the quality (FLAC files, eac log & cue sheet, scans, extras, etc), and dilevery of torrents. Ive sworn off bandcamp after I bought a Sleep Terror album in FLAC and it turned out to be transcoded mp3 128kbps. If I wanted lossy, I'd buy from iTunes or Amazon.

With Obscura, I got the mp3s to try. It took a while to get into, but eventually I loved it so I bought it on iTunes. After a time, I wanted a good sounding copy so I bought the physical CD, then found a good FLAC rip with scans to archive. 
I love this band and have since bought all their CDs, Christian's solo album, 2 shirts and both tab books. I will see them the next time they're in St Louis. 

Yeah, piracy kills music sales....


----------



## flint757 (Dec 1, 2012)

InfinityCollision said:


> Pretty sure Misha is a "try before you buy" advocate, which seems to be the new way of saying "pirating isn't necessarily completely terrible, especially if you do buy our shit down the road" without getting corporate mad at you. I can think of a few other artists that espouse similar views, though I don't know if they post here.



I think it also has something to do with the fact that it makes you a pariah to speak out against piracy. Not saying he couldn't have been sincere, but it seems shaky enough to question.

As for Corelia and the advertising on TPB, that is just making the best of a bad situation IMO.



Lern2swim said:


> That's amazing. Man, it must feel incredible to have so many people hearing and desiring your music out there, when, a couple decades ago, your art would most likely be experienced by no one.



Translate this to any other job people have (and make money), but enjoy. Does enjoyment and/or an audience really mean that nothing else should matter? Reminds me of the "Be glad you got to be a part of the big project at your job....but you're not getting paid". In any other field most people would tell said person to fuck off. This is coming from someone who has no desire to sell or make a living off music. Enjoying yourself is not the only thing that matters when food and shelter are a basic need that need to be met to survive.

It is sad IMO that a guy can make more money out of his trunk than a global audience just because everyone feels owed free things.



Lern2swim said:


> Ok, then let me put it in my own words:
> 
> As someone who is slowly building toward producing and releasing music, I'd, personally, rather be heard than paid. And that isn't me hoping you'll go pay for an eventual album because you like that perspective.



And you have every right to feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else has to agree and follow suit.



Lern2swim said:


> I didn't miss that part at all. I was talking about ears hearing your music, not dollars in your pocket
> 
> We can discuss the merits of prioritizing the art vs. making a profit once I've actually gotten to the point of releasing something. I'm not going to sit here and talk about how I don't plan on charging for my music ever, because talk is cheap and I'm not in a position to back it up yet. Who knows, maybe at that point I'll be eating my words.
> 
> Regardless, I'll always stand by my belief that that kind of thinking has a big part in why the industry is as fucked as it is now. I don't think trying to wedge the old model back down everyone's throats is the answer.



I have to agree the old model will not work anymore, but piracy is not the end-all-to-be-all solution we need either.



Lern2swim said:


> At the same time, let's try to have perspective about the realities of the industry as it is now. Musicians that would have existed in complete obscurity before ARE getting heard.



I'd argue that it is more of a mixed bag. There are more bands with the ability to be heard, but also more shit and unpolished work that has to be filtered through which half the time doesn't



Lern2swim said:


> Also, it's not just a matter of google and others maintaining income from traffic through illicit sites. A lot of the attempts made to curb piracy have had horrible implications for legitimate uses as well. So, let's not just paint Internet companies as villains.



This I completely agree with. DRM is a world class pain in the ass. Playing legal blu rays on my computer tanks performance because they intentionally make it eat up all of my processes (to avoid duplication I assume), music with limited transfers and video games with DRM like TAGES that stop working after so many installs. Worst idea possible for fixing piracy.



lurgar said:


> Potentially the eventual implementation of IPv6 would take care of some of these issues by removing some of the anonymity that IPv4 causes right now especially through NAT. Of course, nothing is ever going to stop spoofing, using VPNs, or even Onion routing. That's not to even mention that I've been hearing about the inevitable move to IPv6 since the late 90s and we aren't much closer to full implementation yet.



The idea of IPv6 scares the hell out of me. Once that is fully implemented there will be enough IP addresses to attach one to every individual. I don't want everything I do attached directly to me like a finger print and I don't do anything illegal. 

It's scarier too because it will have more legal standing even though any individual could use your network or computer.



kgad0831 said:


> I love this band and have since bought all their CDs, Christian's solo album, 2 shirts and both tab books. I will see them the next time they're in St Louis.
> 
> Yeah, piracy kills music sales....



It amazes me how people (on both sides of this specific issue and in most situations outside of this issue as well) simplify an issue to, "I do this, so everyone else does this too, probably". Don't get me wrong I'm sure a lot of people do in fact do that, but to then imply that because you pirate and then buy a bunch of a bands product that piracy doesn't kill music/musicians is just bad science. 

You are not a large enough sample to make such a claim, even sarcastically.


----------



## Danukenator (Dec 1, 2012)

EDIT: Screw it, it's not worth it and Flint said it better.


----------



## drgamble (Dec 1, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Periphery would probably have ended as a few kids in their parents' basement with no one having heard their music without the current state of the internet. You can't just pick and choose which parts of reality you want to accept.



Extreme metal is more popular than it has ever been. If what you say is true, how did bands like Napalm Death, Deicide, Obituary, Death, Cannibal Corpse, Morbid Angel etc. ever make it? There wasn't any Internet and they most certainly didn't play these guys on the radio.


----------



## Sikthness (Dec 1, 2012)

sakeido said:


> You can't fix piracy without taking control of the Internet in a way that violates the most important part of the net.. that it is free and open. Lars might have been right, but it was a battle the music industry was never going to win.



Well the second most important part of the net. The first obviously being obscure, deviant pornography.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 1, 2012)

flint757 said:


> It amazes me how people (on both sides of this specific issue and in most situations outside of this issue as well) simplify an issue to, "I do this, so everyone else does this too, probably". Don't get me wrong I'm sure a lot of people do in fact do that, but to then imply that because you pirate and then buy a bunch of a bands product that piracy doesn't kill music/musicians is just bad science.
> 
> You are not a large enough sample to make such a claim, even sarcastically.



Well, there was that study that was recently released that showed that people that pirate also buy more music than people that don't.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 1, 2012)

drgamble said:


> Extreme metal is more popular than it has ever been. If what you say is true, how did bands like Napalm Death, Deicide, Obituary, Death, Cannibal Corpse, Morbid Angel etc. ever make it? There wasn't any Internet and they most certainly didn't play these guys on the radio.



Cassette tape trading and copying. Which was... you guessed it: PIRACY.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 1, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Well, there was that study that was recently released that showed that people that pirate also buy more music than people that don't.


 
I haven't read the report you mention so my comment isn't directly related to it, but be careful no to confuse correlation with causation. For example:

- People who do A also do B (correlation)

is not the same as

- People who do A also do B _because they do A_ (causation, e.g., A causes B)

I'm not aware of any studies that directly link pirating as cause for increased music sales. Those that I am familiar with simply note the correlation.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 1, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I haven't read the report you mention so my comment isn't directly related to it, but be careful no to confuse correlation with causation. For example:
> 
> - People who do A also do B (correlation)
> 
> ...



Oh, I'm aware of the difference between causation and correlation. That doesn't really apply to how the study relates to your post. You said that one person saying they do it isn't indicative of others doing it. I was simply pointing to this study to point out that, even scientifically speaking, he's not alone, apparently. 

Here's an article about the study:
US P2P Users Buy 30% More Music than Their Non-P2P Counterparts

30% is a pretty big margin. I don't think it's a case of causation, but even correlation does prove to be a pretty big indicator as to WHY people may actually be pirating, in this case. I can't see people who don't value music (the cause that the complainers often point to) spending 30% more on it than people who do value it, for instance. kgad0831's points do hold a lot more weight when examined against this study. I'm much more inclined to believe that we're simply living in a time when the producers are not providing their product in a manner that works for consumers. The solution to that type of situation is never to attack the consumers, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 1, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Oh, I'm aware of the difference between causation and correlation.


 
I didn't mean to direct that at you specifically, Lern2swim, I just quoted you for context. It was a general comment because I see a lot of people confuse the two in these types of debates.



Lern2swim said:


> That doesn't really apply to how the study relates to your post. You said that one person saying they do it isn't indicative of others doing it. I was simply pointing to this study to point out that, even scientifically speaking, he's not alone, apparently.


 
I think you have confused me with flint757, whom you quoted above.

I was just pointing out that the fact that someone who pirates buys more music does not mean that they buy more music because they pirate. That is a correlation, not a causation.




Lern2swim said:


> Here's an article about the study:
> US P2P Users Buy 30% More Music than Their Non-P2P Counterparts
> 
> 30% is a pretty big margin. I don't think it's a case of causation, but even correlation does prove to be a pretty big indicator as to WHY people may actually be pirating, in this case. I can't see people who don't value music (the cause that the complainers often point to) spending 30% more on it than people who do value it, for instance. kgad0831's points do hold a lot more weight when examined against this study.


 
I stand corrected - I actually have read that report. It points out the correlation between the two, but the article you linked to almost makes it sound like causation. It doesn't go quite that far, but someone who does not understand the difference would likely come away from that article thinking that "pirates buy more music because they pirate" instead of "Hmmm... interesting correlation".

I agree that the biggest pirates are also the biggest music fans: musicians and uber music geeks. These people would likely spend an equal amount money on music with or without P2P because they are uber music geeks, but use P2P anyway.



Lern2swim said:


> I'm much more inclined to believe that we're simply living in a time when the producers are not providing their product in a manner that works for consumers. The solution to that type of situation is never to attack the consumers, as far as I'm concerned.


 
I think this is part of the issue, but there is almost certainly more to it.

As far as attacking the music fans/buyers I agree. We don't need to _attack_ them, we need to _educate_ them. Most pirates believe that they are not harming the bands they love, but this is simply not the case. The bands do in fact lose money from piracy and that loss is not entirely made up for via increased live ticket & merch sales.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 1, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I think you have confused me with flint757, whom you quoted above.



Gah. Yeah. I don't know how I mixed that up there. Sorry.



tedtan said:


> I think this is part of the issue, but there is almost certainly more to it.
> 
> As far as attacking the music fans/buyers I agree. We don't need to _attack_ them, we need to _educate_ them. Most pirates believe that they are not harming the bands they love, but this is simply not the case. The bands do in fact lose money from piracy and that loss is not entirely made up for via increased live ticket & merch sales.



Yes. Anything brought up is only going to be a part of the whole issue. 

I think education is a part of it, but I don't think people are that clueless about the effects of piracy. I think most people know they're doing something that's not good for the bands. 

I think the problem is that many feel that they're stuck in a situation where it's either "get fucked over" or "fuck over bands." And most people are going to act in their own self interest over that of others, especially with the fact that most people know enough about the music industry at this point to know that the bands have been getting fucked by the suits for years too. Things are getting better, the industry is moving away from some of the practices in the past that have "fucked over" consumers (high prices, drm, etc), but they're still giving every impression that they want to bring back all the things about the old model that were anti-consumer, not to mention all the instances of ridiculous lawsuits, takedown notices of legitimate material, etc. in the meantime. The impression is really that the only reason things have gotten better on the consumer end is because they've taken things into their own hands, regardless of the effect it has on bands.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Dec 2, 2012)

Some of the views regarding advertising on torrent sites in this thread are pretty comical. I won't disagree that pirating does more harm than good, but to argue that TPB is taking money out of the pockets of artists because they make money on advertising based on page view counts that are inflated by the presence of pirated material is laughably stupid. They deny artists revenue by allowing users to download pirated material, sure, and maybe their own revenue increases due to the network traffic, but the two are not linked; torrent sites are not stealing money from artists.

It's a very subtle distinction, but it's important to note when characterizing torrent sites.


----------



## drgamble (Dec 2, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> Some of the views regarding advertising on torrent sites in this thread are pretty comical. I won't disagree that pirating does more harm than good, but to argue that TPB is taking money out of the pockets of artists because they make money on advertising based on page view counts that are inflated by the presence of pirated material is laughably stupid. They deny artists revenue by allowing users to download pirated material, sure, and maybe their own revenue increases due to the network traffic, but the two are not linked; torrent sites are not stealing money from artists.
> 
> It's a very subtle distinction, but it's important to note when characterizing torrent sites.



They are distributing copyrighted materials without compensation for the artist and their entire business model is to distribute copyrighted works for profit. That is the long and short of it. It's that plain and simple. Like many they pay people to upload offending material. MegaUpload paid people to upload copyrighted material illegally. This is what it is about. In business, you have producers who sell to wholesalers, who sell to distributors, who sell to consumers. The problem here is the distributors are taking the product for free and making money off of the product. Without the illegal copyright material for free they become Napster and go bankrupt.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Oh, I'm aware of the difference between causation and correlation. That doesn't really apply to how the study relates to your post. You said that one person saying they do it isn't indicative of others doing it. I was simply pointing to this study to point out that, even scientifically speaking, he's not alone, apparently.
> 
> Here's an article about the study:
> US P2P Users Buy 30% More Music than Their Non-P2P Counterparts
> ...



Well, that definitely gives it more credibility, but I don't see how they can connect the dots so easily either. I can pirate stuff while spoofing my MAC address and IP address; Can they really draw the lines that easily? If someones legitimate purchased and their illegitimate purchases can be connected I'd expect a few more people getting ISP notices than what actually occurs. IPv4 doesn't offer the easiest way of tracking peoples identity on the web after all. Not saying this isn't true or doable, but it is enough for me to question their method of data collection. 

I need to see hard data before I'm willing to jump on that bandwagon. Either way the mentality I was commenting on is something that still amuses me greatly because it exists outside of this discussion as well.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

drgamble said:


> They are distributing copyrighted materials without compensation for the artist and their entire business model is to distribute copyrighted works for profit. That is the long and short of it. It's that plain and simple. Like many they pay people to upload offending material. MegaUpload paid people to upload copyrighted material illegally. This is what it is about. In business, you have producers who sell to wholesalers, who sell to distributors, who sell to consumers. The problem here is the distributors are taking the product for free and making money off of the product. Without the illegal copyright material for free they become Napster and go bankrupt.



They don't distribute anything, actually. THAT'S the long and short of it.


----------



## Gram negative (Dec 2, 2012)

I might be wrong about all of this, but this is how I see it. First from an Indie perspective, then from a signed artist.

As a professional musician of 15 years (started touring/playing live at 16-17), I honestly couldnt care less if people download my album. If file sharing were popular ( or even possible) when I first started out, I would have personally uploaded torrents of my band's music. Hell, people still give away CDs and Digital DL passes at shows. Im not going to charge anyone for my music. I just want them to come to the show. THATS where I make money. Thats what pays for gas on tour, and food. Download all you want, just come to the show so I can eat and buy a Coke tomorrow.

From a signed artist's perspective....this is where it can get murky.
You have this record company, making posters, burning CDs, printing adverts, getting you radio promos. These are all good things. Things that might get you out of that shitty van one day. Of course it isnt free, you have a retainer to pay back. Your show money go towards that, alot of the time. Album sales and DL sales are profit for this company doing all kinds of great stuff for you, that you just didnt have the connections to do on your own. When someone steals your music at this point of your career, they are essentially stealing from you. However, then they come to your show and buy your t-shirt, coffee mug, hat and beer coozie. See how that gets murky? Your fans are like some kind of a weird, fucking Robin Hood. They stole from you, but gave back two fold.

The thing is, the internet has changed that scenario so much, that record companies arent really needed in that capacity anymore. That is, unless you want your band to be on the Today show in Times Square with Alicia Keys and The Muppets...(something tells me most of our music projects wouldnt fit in that genre.) You can do everything a record company used to do for you, from your laptop or Apple iphone.

So the whole thing isnt black and white. And knowing the RIAA and how the music business works, Lars was probably a paid spokesperson. He was probably either payed, or strong-armed into being the " Hey guys, IM your hero, IM COOL, and its not cool to Download" puppet. Or maybe he really is dumb enough to alienate his audience the way he did, but I doubt it. His key demographic was kids who made cassette tape copies of their albums and made their shows sold out. Metallica had no radio, and no MTV support. Tape trading made them famous. I know, I made tapes for MY friends, Ironic, huh?


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> They don't distribute anything, actually. THAT'S the long and short of it.


 
Distribution is simply the act of making something available to others. There is no requirement that that something be physical, so file sharing sites actually do distribute music (and other) files.

With torrents, you could argue that the actual data is hosted by the peers and the central databases only holds the instructions, but those instructions are key to a successful download - without them there is no download, so even the torrent site are distributors.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> Some of the views regarding advertising on torrent sites in this thread are pretty comical. I won't disagree that pirating does more harm than good, but to argue that TPB is taking money out of the pockets of artists because they make money on advertising based on page view counts that are inflated by the presence of pirated material is laughably stupid. They deny artists revenue by allowing users to download pirated material, sure, and maybe their own revenue increases due to the network traffic, but the two are not linked; torrent sites are not stealing money from artists.
> 
> It's a very subtle distinction, but it's important to note when characterizing torrent sites.


 
I see two arguements made concerning this:

- TPB (and similar sites) take money from the artists by making the recordings available for free, thus reducing the sales of those recordings, and

- TPB (and similar sites) make money from advertising, and those advertisers are attracted to TPB due to the traffic generated through the illegal distribution of the music and other intellectual property (e.g., without the "stolen" music, software, games, etc. there would be no traffic to begin with). In essence, this arguement says that the entire business model used by the P2P sites is no different than the organized crime practice of stealing a shipment of goods, selling them and then keeping all of the money for themselves.

Both of these arguments hold up under critical scrutiny, the kind you yourself seem to have overlooked in the post I quoted above.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> Some of the views regarding advertising on torrent sites in this thread are pretty comical. I won't disagree that pirating does more harm than good, but to argue that TPB is taking money out of the pockets of artists because they make money on advertising based on page view counts that are inflated by the presence of pirated material is laughably stupid. They deny artists revenue by allowing users to download pirated material, sure, and maybe their own revenue increases due to the network traffic, but the two are not linked; torrent sites are not stealing money from artists.
> 
> It's a very subtle distinction, but it's important to note when characterizing torrent sites.



That is semantics, and as such bloody useless. They are in fact obstructing the ability to make money for an artist (while making money themselves), this is a problem.
The sole reason they make money from ads is because they have the torrents (I don't as a rule go to pages which are empty, or that does not interest me), thus their income is dependent on them denying musicians money.


----------



## bhakan (Dec 2, 2012)

A lot of people justify piracy because it gives bands more exposure, and they say it actually benefits them in the long run, but I don't see how that changes anything. You may think taking advantage of free downloads on the internet could be the greatest business move ever, but even if it is, you aren't in charge of the band/label. Until the band/label decides to give music away for free, you are "stealing" from them.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Dec 2, 2012)

Interesting that in most Metallica retrospectives Lars always comments on how active he was in the tape trading scene, posting compilation tapes across American and the world.

Interesting that he doesn't see the similarities between tape trading and internet sharing.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Interesting that he doesn't see the similarities between tape trading and internet sharing.



Because there are very few similarities. Comparing the tape trade to internet piracy is like comparing a bow and arrow to a machinegun.

I am on fire with similes today!


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Interesting that in most Metallica retrospectives Lars always comments on how active he was in the tape trading scene, posting compilation tapes across American and the world.
> 
> Interesting that he doesn't see the similarities between tape trading and internet sharing.


 
Very true. Without tape tradng Metallica would never have had the exposure to grow their careers the way they did. They certainly didn't get it from radio or MTV, yet they were selling in the millions while still signed with indy Megaforce records.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Because there are very few similarities. Comparing the tape trade to internet piracy is like comparing a bow and arrow to a machinegun.
> 
> I am on fire with similes today!


 
The scale (and the quality of the copy) differ greatly, but I do see similarities in terms of generating exposure for an upcoming band.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Distribution is simply the act of making something available to others. There is no requirement that that something be physical, so file sharing sites actually do distribute music (and other) files.
> 
> With torrents, you could argue that the actual data is hosted by the peers and the central databases only holds the instructions, but those instructions are key to a successful download - without them there is no download, so even the torrent site are distributors.



I'm not talking about that fact that it's data vs. a physical product. 

Does google distribute anything? No. TPB is no different than google in that respect.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> The scale (and the quality of the copy) differ greatly, but I do see similarities in terms of generating exposure for an upcoming band.



Magnetic tapes also lose quality very rapidly, which means that in the tape trade there was a built-in need to get a new version to copy, there is no such imperative in internet piracy. 

Comparing the two is IMO another cop-out, they are just too different.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

bhakan said:


> A lot of people justify piracy because it gives bands more exposure, and they say it actually benefits them in the long run, but I don't see how that changes anything. You may think taking advantage of free downloads on the internet could be the greatest business move ever, but even if it is, you aren't in charge of the band/label. Until the band/label decides to give music away for free, you are "stealing" from them.



Stealing and piracy- not the same thing, regardless of what th riaa/mpaa propaganda pumps into your brain (note that I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong. But they aren't the same thing)


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Magnetic tapes also lose quality very rapidly, which means that in the tape trade there was a built-in need to get a new version to copy, there is no such imperative in internet piracy.
> 
> Comparing the two is IMO another cop-out, they are just too different.



So, to steal your previous simile, killing someone with a bow and arrow isn't bad, whilE killing them with a machine gun is???

There is an initial new copy needed with the current form of piracy too. 

Ignoring the fact that the two things ARE, in fact, similar is the real cop-out here.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> So, to steal your previous simile, killing someone with a bow and arrow isn't bad, whilE killing them with a machine gun is???



No, they are both weapons, but they are not even remotely equatable in the ability to do damage. Nice try though.



Lern2swim said:


> There is an initial new copy needed with the current form of piracy too.



One copy to make millions. In tape trading, one copy each 10-15 copys.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Gram negative said:


> So the whole thing isnt black and white. And knowing the RIAA and how the music business works, Lars was probably a paid spokesperson. He was probably either payed, or strong-armed into being the " Hey guys, IM your hero, IM COOL, and its not cool to Download" puppet. Or maybe he really is dumb enough to alienate his audience the way he did, but I doubt it. His key demographic was kids who made cassette tape copies of their albums and made their shows sold out. Metallica had no radio, and no MTV support. Tape trading made them famous. I know, I made tapes for MY friends, Ironic, huh?



I have a huge problem with this perspective. "He must be delusional or coerced to stand up for himself". What it says is he is the enemy or controlled by the enemy to be against piracy. It is an admission that, in your mind, there is only one correct answer. In other words you are only willing to accept the answer that confirms your opinion. Confirmation Bias.

Tape trading is significantly different than piracy is today. Hell, piracy is different today than it was 12 years ago. With tape trading it is one-to-one, the tape degrades over time, it wasn't a mastered version most likely (in the example you are talking about), and the biggest being there is a difference between giving your music away for free and piracy. They are not the same thing. I can give my music away for free for a decade and then stop. Once I stop if people still download it for free that is when it becomes piracy because I'm no longer allowing it. That is a distinction I have seen missed countless times when piracy is being discussed.

It's been said before in this thread, but the beauty of tape trading and even piracy from the past was it had severe limitations. People weren't less greedy back then, it just wasn't nearly as easy to be as greedy. In the 80's tape trading was one-to-one, degraded over time, lower quality, and wasn't instantaneous. In the 90's piracy was slow, we had smaller hard drives, slow internet and you had to buy media to transfer the music because mp3 players didn't exist yet and towards the end were brand new. Nowadays I can have a 30gb/s DL speed, 2TB HDD's, mp3 player so I don't have to buy any extra media to play it on and an internet with millions of people willing to upload the universe. It was never as big of an issue in the past, but it is a big problem today because there are no limitations and you are getting a finished product.

I'll say it again, though, there is a difference between an artist giving their music away for free and someone deciding it should be free, when it isn't. Former is a business decision, the latter is piracy.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I'm not talking about that fact that it's data vs. a physical product.
> 
> Does google distribute anything? No. TPB is no different than google in that respect.


 
Google serves much more of a legitimate purpose than the torrent sites, though. It doesn't survive (monitarily) solely on the infringement of others' IP whereas the torrent sites do.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Magnetic tapes also lose quality very rapidly, which means that in the tape trade there was a built-in need to get a new version to copy, there is no such imperative in internet piracy.
> 
> Comparing the two is IMO another cop-out, they are just too different.


 
Oh I completely agree on this. Tape trading stimulated sale sin a way that torrents do not.

But in terms of exposure only (publicity, mindshare/awareness, etc.), I would say they serve the same purpose.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Stealing and piracy- not the same thing, regardless of what th riaa/mpaa propaganda pumps into your brain (note that I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong. But they aren't the same thing)



One can be against piracy and have an opinion on what piracy is without the RIAA/MPAA being wrong/right or involved in the picture at all. 

If they weren't in the picture my opinion wouldn't be any different.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Google serves much more of a legitimate purpose than the torrent sites, though. It doesn't survive (monitarily) solely on the infringement of others' IP whereas the torrent sites do.



No. Actually, there's plenty of legitimate torrents in play out there. So it's not "solely" at all.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> One can be against piracy and have an opinion on what piracy is without the RIAA/MPAA being wrong/right or involved in the picture at all.
> 
> If they weren't in the picture my opinion wouldn't be any different.



True. It is, by definition, incorrect though.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> No, they are both weapons, but they are not even remotely equatable in the ability to do damage. Nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> One copy to make millions. In tape trading, one copy each 10-15 copys.



I understood your simile and it's application to scale perfectly. And my response was a nice try, because it's 100% correct. If you're against piracy then you should be against piracy. It's hypocritical to be against it now but claim that tape trading was a good thing.


----------



## spawnofthesith (Dec 2, 2012)

Correct me if I am wrong (because I am merely curious), but isn't like 80% of the music that is on youtube technically piracy? Anything that isn't directly uploaded by the label or band right?


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

spawnofthesith said:


> Correct me if I am wrong (because I am merely curious), but isn't like 80% of the music that is on youtube technically piracy? Anything that isn't directly uploaded by the label or band right?



You are correct. It's probably more than 80% actually. Also, technically, people playing covers of copyrighted material are also doing so illegally. 

Also, there are plenty of instances at this point of bands uploading their own material, only to have it taken down by copyright trolls. 

Further, since most people are having this discussion in a context of torrents, more people actually get music from YouTube than from torrent sites.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I understood your simile and it's application to scale perfectly. And my response was a nice try, because it's 100% correct. If you're against piracy then you should be against piracy. It's hypocritical to be against it now but claim that tape trading was a good thing.



Have I claimed it was a good thing? Or even claimed to be consequent?

Tape trading was pretty tolerable due to the small scale, and due to them having to put money in to the system eventually. Internet is not restrained in any of those ways, so please stop trying to make them both equal.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Have I claimed it was a good thing? Or even claimed to be consequent?
> 
> Tape trading was pretty tolerable due to the small scale, and due to them having to put money in to the system eventually. Internet is not restrained in any of those ways, so please stop trying to make them both equal.



I never claimed that they were equal. I simply stated that it's hypocritical to promote one and deride the other. (My reference to one being called a good thing related back to the original point with Lars, not to you)


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> No. Actually, there's plenty of legitimate torrents in play out there. So it's not "solely" at all.


 
You misunderstand me.

The torrent sites support themselves through advertising. Google supports itself largely, though not entirely, through advertising.

Now heres the thing - advertising is priced per thousand viewers. The more viewers, the more you can charge for it. 

In Google's case, there are a lot of viewers and it can charge a lot for its advertising AND most of the viewers are there for non-infringing purposes, e.g., it is legitimate traffic.

In the case of the torrent sites there is certainly some non-infringing torrents, but the vast majority of viewers (remember, this is how the advertising is priced) are there for the infringeing torrents, e.g., it is not legitimate traffic. If the torrent sites relied solely on their legitimate traffic to fund their advertising they would go out of business because there just isn't that much of it.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> You misunderstand me.
> 
> The torrent sites support themselves through advertising. Google supports itself largely, though not entirely, through advertising.
> 
> ...



I didn't misunderstand you. You referring to infringing material as the "sole" resource of torrent sites was incorrect. 

Also, I'd disagree with the assertion that torrent sites would go out of business without infringing material. Outside of the piracy discussion, torrents are still an incredibly efficient way to transmit data of all typed and sizes. Further, indexing sites (essentially just search engines) such as TPB are incredibly cheap to keep running.


----------



## bhakan (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Stealing and piracy- not the same thing, regardless of what th riaa/mpaa propaganda pumps into your brain (note that I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong. But they aren't the same thing)


That's why I put stealing in quotes. I don't really care what term you use. I meant it in the sense of taking something that is not yours.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm feeling about done with this conversation, because it's just going in circles. 

On my way out of here, let me just clarify something:
I am not arguing that piracy isn't bad. I am simply saying that the climate of this discussion (not specifically here, in this thread) is waaaaaay afield of where it should be. People cloud it on both sides with silly rhetoric and let logic fall to the wayside, and it does more harm than good.


----------



## abandonist (Dec 2, 2012)

Instead of a thought experiment, why not just try asking yourself, "Is this cool? Me downloading this. Is this ok?"

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Do a little research on an artist's feelings on the topic if you can. Otherwise, the safe assumption is that it's not cool.

I run a restaurant that makes very high-end food - the kind that is arguably "art". If you came into my place, ate a meal, and ran out on the bill, I'd chase you with the intent of hurting you. If I had told you, "This one's on the house," there'd be no problem.

It's not really that hard to understand that this is grey, but if the artist isn't ok with it, then it's indefensible.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Dec 2, 2012)

The point I was making about tape trading was that it allowed a generation of musicians and listeners access to music beyond the scope of their communities.

For a musician being exposed to a variety of examples of the form is invaluable creative inspiration.

It's possible that without tape trading Lars would've pursued a different path in life, lacking exposure to the NWoBHM etc.

As technology and society has progressed, so have the means of sharing recorded work. As has been eloquently pointed out, there a few direct similarities between the technologies if magnetic analogue and digital transfer.

However, the purpose is the same; For people to find music which will become the sound track to their lives.

It's a quest to find that which moves us. Vicarious personal expression, if you will.

_I think everyone has grasped the concept that if they don't support businesses which provide a service they benefit from, they are failing to assist in their success and possibly survival._

Personally, I hate music. I feel like an athlete waiting on the bench, never getting to play, when listening to other people's music. I used to like it, but now I know too much and it all seems like a hand me down card trick which everyone has already seen. Most stuff anyway...
_"Goddamn noobs, why dat note!??? YYY?????"_

The reason they aren't selling me mainstream records is that real musicians (can really play an instrument) are all behind the scenes nowadays, MD'ing, copy writing, arranging while stereotypical puppets mime/lip synch and struggle to remember their choreography.
Anyone with genuine musical ambition is automatically outside the mainstream, as they are too challenging for most audiences.


Odd thing about this internet advertising thing is; who pays attention to ads or even clicks on ads anyway? 

Also, Chrysler were mentioned... Who'd buy a car with a live rear axle and leaf spring suspension? None of their ads will ever tempt me! 

This whole mess is based on misguided economic strategies.



Bands that generate their revenue through live performance and merchandise seem to have neatly side stepped this calamity, which is good for most of us here.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I didn't misunderstand you. You referring to infringing material as the "sole" resource of torrent sites was incorrect.


 
Apparently you did misunderstand me, because what I said is (emphasis mine):



tedtan said:


> Google serves much more of a legitimate purpose than the torrent sites, though. *It doesn't survive (monitarily) solely on the infringement of others' IP whereas the torrent sites do*.


 
I didn't address resources at all, but rather revenues. And I argue again that the torrent sites, and other file sharing sites, derive their funds through the traffic coming to the site to get the infringeing material. If you take this traffic away, the ad revenue goes *WAY *down and there is little incentive to keep the site up and running.



Lern2swim said:


> Also, I'd disagree with the assertion that torrent sites would go out of business without infringing material. Outside of the piracy discussion, torrents are still an incredibly efficient way to transmit data of all typed and sizes. Further, indexing sites (essentially just search engines) such as TPB are incredibly cheap to keep running.


 
I have nothing against torrent technology in and of itself. And it is quite efficient.

But neither of those changes the simple fact that nobody starts a business because it is efficient or becaus eit is cheap to keep running. They open a business to make money. Without the traffic coming to the site for infringement purposes, the torrent and other file sharing sites simply don't make enough money to keep the proverbial doors open.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Apparently you did misunderstand me, because what I said is (emphasis mine):



Regardless of emphasis, you apparently misunderstand what "solely" means.



tedtan said:


> I have nothing against torrent technology in and of itself. And it is quite efficient.
> 
> But neither of those changes the simple fact that nobody starts a business because it is efficient or becaus eit is cheap to keep running. They open a business to make money. Without the traffic coming to the site for infringement purposes, the torrent and other file sharing sites simply don't make enough money to keep the proverbial doors open.



And, on this, we simply disagree. I'd argue that, regardless of the absense of infringing material, torrent sites would be providing a service that is beneficial enough to enough people to stay afloat. Would they be as prolific? Probably not. But torrents and the sites that index them came around long before they became prolific for pirated material.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> The point I was making about tape trading was that it allowed a generation of musicians and listeners access to music beyond the scope of their communities.



Yes, but here's the thing piracy is not just online. Selling bootleg products, even before the internet, was considered piracy. When lars was 'tape trading' his own bands stuff, he chose to give it away for free. That is not piracy, many artists do this today as well. Him being against piracy is not even remotely the same thing as him being against artists giving away their stuff for free if that is what they wish. Like I said before, people have somehow confused the two along the way because this keeps getting brought up.



Lern2swim said:


> Regardless of emphasis, you apparently misunderstand what "solely" means.
> 
> And, on this, we simply disagree. I'd argue that, regardless of the absense of infringing material, torrent sites would be providing a service that is beneficial enough to enough people to stay afloat. Would they be as prolific? Probably not. But torrents and the sites that index them came around long before they became prolific for pirated material.



While you are correct that there is legit material on torrent sites I imagine it is probably 10:1. Even that feels too generous, especially for websites like TPB. They are the boldest about their illegal activity because they are safe in another country. To argue over a word is a rather silly thing to do anyhow. People don't usually focus on such nonsensical things unless they feel backed into a metaphorical corner.  



tedtan said:


> Google serves much more of a legitimate purpose than the torrent sites, though. It doesn't survive (monitarily) solely on the infringement of others' IP whereas the torrent sites do.



Remove solely and the point still stands. If they only hosted legitimate products their traffic would be significantly lower.

The free material should be hosted and/or approved for hosting by the authors if that is what they want anyhow. Even if the artists, programmer, author, etc. approves the free distribution of his/her product, it shouldn't be through websites like TPB, but through a channel they had intended. Soundcloud measures traffic, most companies have ads on their own page that give them money for the free distribution of their own material, etc. In other words TPB is still robbing these people of something even when said person doesn't 'care'. Even if it's just the data for finding out how many people like their product.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> While you are correct that there is legit material on torrent sites I imagine it is probably 10:1. Even that feels too generous, especially for websites like TPB. They are the boldest about their illegal activity because they are safe in another country. To argue over a word is a rather silly thing to do anyhow. People don't usually focus on such nonsensical things unless they feel backed into a metaphorical corner.



I didn't feel backed into a corner at all. The only reason I was being a stickler about it was because that's the exact type of language that gets used to negate there being legitimate uses for torrents.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I didn't feel backed into a corner at all. The only reason I was being a stickler about it was because that's the exact type of language that gets used to negate there being legitimate uses for torrents.



fair enough.


----------



## spawnofthesith (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> You are correct. It's probably more than 80% actually. Also, technically, people playing covers of copyrighted material are also doing so illegally.
> 
> Also, there are plenty of instances at this point of bands uploading their own material, only to have it taken down by copyright trolls.
> 
> Further, since most people are having this discussion in a context of torrents, more people actually get music from YouTube than from torrent sites.



So I guess for the most part that would make the argument of youtube being a legitimate alternative to torrent sites for finding new music pretty useless.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

spawnofthesith said:


> So I guess for the most part that would make the argument of youtube being a legitimate alternative to torrent sites for finding new music pretty useless.



Yes. And more than that it goes to exemplify my point about how fucked up copyright law currently is.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Yeah, if piracy ever got handled they'd have to get a little more relaxed with some of their rights. It is silly to have something blocked based on the country it is being played in and certainly doesn't help their cause, as an example.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> No. That's not what was being said at all. What was being said was that SOPA would have been entirely ineffective in doing what it was claimed to do, while completely fucking over legitimate online usage and simultaneously opening the door for heinous amounts of censorship.



sorry, but that's absolute nonsense put forth by google to protect their big business interests. 

Artists, Know Thy Enemy &#8211; Who&#8217;s Ripping You Off and How&#8230; | The Trichordist



> *The enemy are the for profit businesses making money from our recordings and songwriting illegally. Lets be clear about this, our battle is with businesses ripping us off by illegally exploiting our work for profit. This is not about our fans. It is about commercial companies in the businesses of profiting from our work, paying us nothing and then telling us to blame our fans. That is the ultimate in cowardice and dishonesty.*


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

And, more to the point - RE: Lars Ulrich... and the OP

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren&#8217;t more Musicians Working Professionally? | The Trichordist


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I'm feeling about done with this conversation, because it's just going in circles.
> 
> On my way out of here, let me just clarify something:
> I am not arguing that piracy isn't bad. I am simply saying that the climate of this discussion (not specifically here, in this thread) is waaaaaay afield of where it should be. People cloud it on both sides with silly rhetoric and let logic fall to the wayside, and it does more harm than good.



OK - How do you feel about this as a measured starting point than? 

Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet | The Trichordist


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> sorry, but that's absolute nonsense put forth by google to protect their big business interests.
> 
> Artists, Know Thy Enemy  Whos Ripping You Off and How | The Trichordist


 
Feel free to elaborate on how exactly that article relates to the validity of what I stated whenever you'd like (and feel free to use some more articles from the same source in your explanation, rather than going for a wide range of independent sources)


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Oh, I'm aware of the difference between causation and correlation. That doesn't really apply to how the study relates to your post. You said that one person saying they do it isn't indicative of others doing it. I was simply pointing to this study to point out that, even scientifically speaking, he's not alone, apparently.
> 
> Here's an article about the study:
> US P2P Users Buy 30% More Music than Their Non-P2P Counterparts
> ...



if there were any truth to that at all, this conversation would not be happening...


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Feel free to elaborate on how exactly that article relates to the validity of what I stated whenever you'd like (and feel free to use some more articles from the same source in your explanation, rather than going for a wide range of independent sources)



Explain to me how it's in error? 

Need more evidence? 

U2 Exploited by United Airlines, Jet Blue, HP, State Farm, Westin, Urban Outfitters, Sprint, AT&T, Amazon, Disney Resorts, Crate and Barrel | The Trichordist

All one needs to do is look at these sites profiting from the illegal distribution of artists recordings, monetized by advertising, and paying the artists NOTHING, not a single penny...

but if you want to tell me how much money the pirate bay is paying artists in royalties and rev share from their advertising revenues I'd love to see it!

Do you really think that UNITED AIRLINES ad on h33t is there for free? 








And if you want to talk CENSORSHIP... look at this gem supported by Google, Clearchannel and the CCIA...

http://thetrichordist.com/2012/11/08/irfa-section-5/


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> if there were any truth to that at all, this conversation would not be happening...



That's not true in the least. The overall drop in music sales is a separate issue in this instance from the make up of who is still buying.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> Explain to me how it's in error?
> 
> Need more evidence?
> 
> ...



None of that has anything to do with the validity of the statement of mine that you were replying to. Note me not disputing what you're saying. I'm just saying it for not relate back to the point I made.

(Although, your continued usage of articles from one lone website is getting laughable. I could go find a site with plenty of articles stating the world is going to end in a month, that doesn't make it fact)


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> That's not true in the least. The overall drop in music sales is a separate issue in this instance from the make up of who is still buying.



I'm sorry but that's completely false - we live in an environment of illegally free and optional payment as a baseline. 

What's worse, is that BIG BUSINESSES are PROFITING off the backs of musicians, and not (er uhmm) sharing any of the revenue with the actual artists who make it possible to sell the adverting in the first place!

Wow... piracy goes up, sales go down... shocking... wouldn't sales be going UP if pirates bought more? Hmmm... you can avoid this truth like gravity and stop signs, but hey... that's up to you... 

Perpetual War - Digital Pirates and Creators - NYTimes.com


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> None of that has anything to do with the validity of the statement of mine that you were replying to. Note me not disputing what you're saying. I'm just saying it for not relate back to the point I made.
> 
> (Although, your continued usage of articles from one lone website is getting laughable. I could go find a site with plenty of articles stating the world is going to end in a month, that doesn't make it fact)



Sure, except the difference is, anyone reading this can go to any of the pirates sites listed in googles transparency report and see all of the advertising on it. We all also know there's none of that revenue is being shared with the musicians who make that revenue possible!

Madison Avenue Financing Media Piracy 

It's a not a mystery who and what the illegally operating sites are, as google is actually tracking them (and, uhm... still selling them ads of course - because unlike youtube, when google sells ads to pirate sites, it doesn't have to pay the artists a penny).






Explain why illegally operating businesses should be allowed to operate online when the same illegally operating businesses would not be allowed to operate offline? 

Whether you are robbed with a gun or a computer makes little difference.

Let's be clear - the issue is not with technology - but rather with human beings, ripping off other humans beings. What technology is used to commit a crime doesn't matter. The machines are not in control, human beings are... and human beings don't like jail... ask the founders of the pirate bay.

SOPA was an anti-piracy bill to address the issues listed above, there was nothing about censorship in it - unless you consider theft and the illegal exploitation of creators for corporate profit a right of protection. I don't. 

Big Business just like always wants to screw artists, musicians and creators (Lars saw it and was dead on accurate). This is an ongoing transfer of wealth from musicians to tech millionaires. Well done exploiting the little guy to profit the big guy...


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> I'm sorry but that's completely false - we live in an environment of illegally free and optional payment as a baseline.
> 
> What's worse, is that BIG BUSINESSES are PROFITING off the backs of musicians, and not (er uhmm) sharing any of the revenue with the actual artists who make it possible to sell the adverting in the first place!
> 
> Wow... piracy goes up, sales go down... shocking... wouldn't sales be going UP if pirates bought more? Hmmm... you can avoid this truth like gravity and stop signs, but hey... that's up to you...



What is going on with comprehension in here???

You are replying to points that I am not making and completely missing what I'm actually saying. 

You wrote that the study showing that people that pirate also buy more musi than those that don't must be false, because we're having this conversation. That's a complete logic fallacy. The study does not make the claim that people who pirate but as much music as they would if it wasn't available for free, or that sales, overall, aren't in the shitter. Further, I was not attempting to use it to demonstrate either of those points. My only point in pointing to that study was to demonstrate that this perception that people pirate because they don't value music is completely false (I even wrote pretty much exactly that)


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> Let's be clear - the issue is not with technology - but rather with human beings, ripping off other humans beings. What technology is used to commit a crime doesn't matter. The machines are not in control, human beings are... and human beings don't like jail... ask the founders of the pirate bay.



I agree. And thank you for demonstrating, perfectly, my initial point. Look at how effective jailing them was... oh, that's right... not effective at all. Cracking down with enforcement is a horrible band aid solution that will not be effective. Want another couple examples? Prohibition, the war on drugs. Saying "this is illegal, let's send out the Gestapo!" Is not always the best answer.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> What is going on with comprehension in here???
> 
> You are replying to points that I am not making and completely missing what I'm actually saying.
> 
> You wrote that the study showing that people that pirate also buy more musi than those that don't must be false, because we're having this conversation. That's a complete logic fallacy. The study does not make the claim that people who pirate but as much music as they would if it wasn't available for free, or that sales, overall, aren't in the shitter. Further, I was not attempting to use it to demonstrate either of those points. My only point in pointing to that study was to demonstrate that this perception that people pirate because they don't value music is completely false (I even wrote pretty much exactly that)



my apologies - I may be over caffeinated and under slept.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I agree. And thank you for demonstrating, perfectly, my initial point. Look at how effective jailing them was... oh, that's right... not effective at all. Cracking down with enforcement is a horrible band aid solution that will not be effective. Want another couple examples? Prohibition, the war on drugs. Saying "this is illegal, let's send out the Gestapo!" Is not always the best answer.



oh stop being an extremist with the false dichotomy. no law ever stopped any crime - it's a weak argument. we still have murder, and we still have murder laws... GESTAPO! 

What's not effective is giving a free pass to the mass exploitation of musicians and creators to profit internet millionaires and billionaires. 

There appears to be ALOT of money being made online from the distribution of music recordings, however none of that money being made by the pirate sites is being "shared" with the musicians. 

Let's get real, this conversation is not about kids in bedrooms, it's about corporations and boardrooms. We're talking about mass scale, enterprise level, organized crime - ripping off artists - are you defending that?

New crimes require new laws. We didn't have gun laws before guns, but murder and theft is illegally either way. We didn't have automobile laws before we had automobiles. 

The internet does not need to be illegal to exist. The wild west wasn't wild forever and neither will the internet be...


----------



## tedtan (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> this is conversation is not about kids in bedrooms it's about corporations and boardrooms.


 
This might just be sig worthy.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Not being an extremist and it's not a false dichotomy. The problem with both prohibition and drug law is that it's retardedly hard to enforce and just creates a bigger black market. 

My point is not that there needs to be a lack of laws, my point is that creating stupid laws will end up making things worse than they are now. And, so far, every proposed "solution" has been utterly stupid. 

As for giving the artists their share, Kim Dotcom supposedly had something in the works that would have done just that before he was busted under what has since come out as fairly questionable circumstances. And we are in full agreement that artists should be getting what they deserve. The old way of thinking is not, in my opinion, the way to make that happen. Hell, many would argue that it didn't work out for the artists in the first place. 

There has to be a better way of doing things moving forward. That's my point. Plain and simple.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Not being an extremist and it's not a false dichotomy. The problem with both prohibition and drug law is that it's retardedly hard to enforce and just creates a bigger black market.



And in what way is intellectual property comparable to drugs that create a chemical dependency?


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Not being an extremist and it's not a false dichotomy. The problem with both prohibition and drug law is that it's retardedly hard to enforce and just creates a bigger black market.



Eh? Soooo you're saying the problems with laws is they don't STOP crimes, so we shouldn't have laws? Explain to me again how property theft is like chemical addiction? 



Lern2swim said:


> My point is not that there needs to be a lack of laws, my point is that creating stupid laws will end up making things worse than they are now. And, so far, every proposed "solution" has been utterly stupid.



Stupid laws being the ones you disagree with that actually hold Corporate Criminals responsible for operating illegal and infringing businesses that rip off artists in a transfer of wealth to said corporate interests, ie internet millionaires and billionaires? 



Lern2swim said:


> As for giving the artists their share, Kim Dotcom supposedly had something in the works that would have done just that before he was busted under what has since come out as fairly questionable circumstances.



oh lord - do you really believe that? The guy who got busted ripping everyone off, after he get's busted says, "no wait, really, I was just about to share all the money I've been making illegally ripping you off - but now you've gone ahead and ruined it!"... really? seriously? 

how about him cashing a lot of checks from illegally earned advertising and illegally processed payments he charged for the illegal access to movies? 

MegaUpload (MegaVideo) Smoking Gun? Did the site illegally charge for Streaming Movies? | The Trichordist




Lern2swim said:


> And we are in full agreement that artists should be getting what they deserve.



We'll awesome. That's a start. 



Lern2swim said:


> The old way of thinking is not, in my opinion, the way to make that happen.



the old way making sure you actually get paid for the exploitation of your work and hold those accountable who operate illegally? that old way? 

We have nearly 13 years of evidence from internet charlatans... it's a real simple equation - don't allow mass scale, enterprise level, organized crime to profit illegally without consequence... 



Lern2swim said:


> Hell, many would argue that it didn't work out for the artists in the first place.



And they would be wrong... 

*Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss*





Lern2swim said:


> There has to be a better way of doing things moving forward. That's my point. Plain and simple.



Ok - like what? Like Spotify? Itunes? There are more diverse legally licensed music services than ever before and they are all compromised by illegally operating businesses distributing musicians recordings without consent and without sharing any compensation. 

This may not even require legislation:

1) Name & Shame the Brands funding Piracy 

2) Hold the advertising networks accountable 

3) Get payment processors to stop service to infringing businesses (Paypal is already doing this)

That's a start... 

*Another Huge list of Piracy and Piracy Enabling Sites lose Paypal*


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> And in what way is intellectual property comparable to drugs that create a chemical dependency?



The usage of neither effects anyone but the individual partaking. 

There are plenty out there that would still equate listening to something like heavy metal with drugs. There's even more people that would attribute some kind of negative effect to it without being that extreme about it. 

Regardless, that's not the analogous part. The analogous part is that denying people a viable, legal way to get what they want (in this instance, not just music, but music the way they want it) will lead to the proliferation of a black and/or gray market. 

In this instance, what I'm saying is that going about enforcement INCORRECTLY will lead to more piracy, not less. Pandora's box is open on the availability of data. There's no closing that back up. And, if you think it's bad in the world of data, just wait for 3D printers to become more prolific, we'll be dealing with the same issues with physical products too.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> The usage of neither effects anyone but the individual partaking.



I think you missed my subtle point. Drug dependency compels you to get more of your drug of choice, that is what being an addict is about. 

There is nothing compelling you to find a torrent for downloading the latest record from your favourite band. You are mixing apples and pears.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> Eh? Soooo you're saying the problems with laws is they don't STOP crimes, so we shouldn't have laws? Explain to me again how property theft is like chemical addiction?



Again, you're taking my point to be the exact thing that I said I wasn't saying. 

QUOTE=gearandguitars;3296860]stupid laws being the ones you disagree with that actually hold Corporate Criminals responsible for operating illegal and infringing businesses that rip off artists in a transfer of wealth to said corporate interests, ie internet millionaires and billionaires?[/QUOTE]

No, stupid laws being the ones that actually make legitimate uses more difficult in the process and do little to punish actual infringers. 

QUOTE=gearandguitars;3296860]oh lord - do you really believe that? The guy who got busted ripping everyone off, after he get's busted says, "no wait, really, I was just about to share all the money I've been making illegally ripping you off - but now you've gone ahead and ruined it!"... really? seriously?[/QUOTE]

Do you know what "supposedly" means? Never mind the fact that facts have come out showing that he was in the process of doing what he claimed prior to being arrested. And, regardless of his guilt, there are laws in place regarding enforcement as well, which were not followed relating to his arrest. 

QUOTE=gearandguitars;3296860]the old way making sure you actually get paid for the exploitation of your work and hold those accountable who operate illegally? that old way?[/QUOTE]

Go back and look for some quotes about how well artists felt that worked out for them. 

QUOTE=gearandguitars;3296860]We have nearly 13 years of evidence from internet charlatans... it's a real simple equation - don't allow mass scale, enterprise level, organized crime to profit illegally without consequence... [/QUOTE]

Agreed

QUOTE=gearandguitars;3296860]Ok - like what? Like Spotify? Itunes? There are more diverse legally licensed music services than ever before and they are all compromised by illegally operating businesses distributing musicians recordings without consent and without sharing any compensation. [/QUOTE]

Then, no, obviously not like spotify and iTunes. Otherwise they'd be working.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I think you missed my subtle point. Drug dependency compels you to get more of your drug of choice, that is what being an addict is about.
> 
> There is nothing compelling you to find a torrent for downloading the latest record from your favourite band. You are mixing apples and pears.



Really? Enjoying a band's music doesn't compel someone to get more of their music?

Regardless, as I pointed out, that was not the intended analogous element. I wasn't discussing addiction. If you'd like a non-addictive example, take a look at firearms.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> There are more diverse legally licensed music services than ever before



This service is not available in your country.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Really? Enjoying a band's music doesn't compel someone to get more of their music?



Then you are the first person who experiences withdrawal associated to music, if you seriously compare music to chemically addicting substances. 
I would maybe be careful to say that to the heroine junkie though, he might get the wrong idea.




Lern2swim said:


> R*egardless, as I pointed out, that was not the intended analogous element.* I wasn't discussing addiction. If you'd like a non-addictive example, take a look at firearms.



Then don't use it as such. I can say that illegal downloading is like the Holocaust to get some attention from reactionary people, but that does not mean it by definition a valid comparison. And most of all, I do not get to back out when someone calls me on it.

Fire-arms is also a terrible example since most of the people owning illegal firearms are criminals, and they need them to enforce order in their own subculture. Criminals are also not particulary fond of following any laws, so using the illegal fire-arms to justify how some prohibitions do not stop demand is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because those who violate firearms prohibitions are not likely to follow the law anyway, therefore drawing any sociological conclusions based on that is impossible.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Then you are the first person who experiences withdrawal associated to music, if you seriously compare music to chemically addicting substances.
> I would maybe be careful to say that to the heroine junkie though, he might get the wrong idea.



That was my fault. Here: read it again, followed by this  or some other such smiley. 



Jakke said:


> Then don't use it as such. I can say that illegal downloading is like the Holocaust to get some attention from reactionary people, but that does not mean it by defeinition a valid comparison..



Not the same thing at all. Every analogy has elements that still are not analogous. 



Jakke said:


> Fire-arms is also a terrible example since most of the people owning illegal firearms are criminals, and they need them to enforce order in their own subculture.



Uhhh... Hate to break it to you, every person that owns an illegal firearm is a criminal. That kind of goes hand in hand with it being illegal. Analogy stands. The enforcement makes things more difficult for legitimate users and infringers still get what they want, regardless of enforcement.


----------



## Jakke (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Not the same thing at all. Every analogy has elements that still are not analogous.



But you would have to a semblence of similarity between the two, comparing the stealing of copyrighted material with the prohibition of addiction-inducing substances is apples and pears. 



Lern2swim said:


> Uhhh... Hate to break it to you, every person that owns an illegal firearm is a criminal. That kind of goes hand in hand with it being illegal. Analogy stands. The enforcement makes things more difficult for legitimate users and infringers still get what they want, regardless of enforcement.



Read what I continued to write, it is obvious the reference is to career criminals. But for the sake of record, I now state that it is in fact career criminals that are in question. 

It does not stand, just because of what I wrote. Criminals (as in career criminals) are not fond of laws in general, because if they were, they would not be making a career out of committing crimes. Because of that they are irrelevant in proving how prohibition is counter-productive, because they do not accept legal authority in the first place. 

If that's the game, then it's just ridiculous that property theft is illegal, because obviously, out of the sample of people who make a living out of committing crimes, it's clear that it has no effect.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

That's not really correct for the most part, because there are other factors at work (price of admission, for example. Illegal firearms and drugs are expensive, pirated music, not so much). In my opinion it balances out the analogy.

Anyway, choose to still ignore the essence of what I was saying or not. This conversation is completely bogged down in the way that Internet conversations usually are. I should have stayed away when I said I was exiting.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Again, you're taking my point to be the exact thing that I said I wasn't saying.



You're not being clear - you seem to keep making an example that if a law is not 100% effective it should not exist - we can both agree thats nuts. 



Lern2swim said:


> No, stupid laws being the ones that actually make legitimate uses more difficult in the process and do little to punish actual infringers.



We fortunately no one has proposed a law like that, that would "actually make legitimate uses more difficult"? What's a legitimate use to you? The Pirate Bay or Itunes? Because yes, the law would make it more difficult to "use" a site like The Pirate Bay, but would not inhibit Spotify, Itunes or any other legally licensed site... Hmmmmm... 

The lady doth protest too much me thinks. 



Lern2swim said:


> Do you know what "supposedly" means? Never mind the fact that facts have come out showing that he was in the process of doing what he claimed prior to being arrested. And, regardless of his guilt, there are laws in place regarding enforcement as well, which were not followed relating to his arrest.



Regardless of the fact that he wasn't busted as part of some grand conspiracy... Seriously dude? So it's a grand conspiracy now? Napster, Limewire, Grockster, Kazaa, etc? Are you kidding me? 



Lern2swim said:


> Go back and look for some quotes about how well artists felt that worked out for them.



A lot better than the pirate bay is working out for them. How much has the pirate bay paid the artists in monetizes for their profits? Because records labels have paid artists MILLIONS of dollars... whereas the pirate has paid any artist a single dollar as far as I know.... nothing, zero, zippo, nadda... How much did Limewire pay artists? 4Shared? FIlestube? Kazaa? Grokster... 

C'Mon man - can you not even acknowledge the mass scale exploitation of artists by illegally operating and infringing sites? 



> gearandguitars said:
> 
> 
> > We have nearly 13 years of evidence from internet charlatans... it's a real simple equation - don't allow mass scale, enterprise level, organized crime to profit illegally without consequence...
> ...


Ok - so your solution is to not allow this, but also not to allow legislation to protect against? How does that work? 



Lern2swim said:


> Then, no, obviously not like spotify and iTunes. Otherwise they'd be working.



No - they'd be working if illegally free and optional payment was not the norm. How does it help Spotify or Itunes if both of their services are compromised by competing with services that are not paying rights artists and rights holders. You are being intellectually dishonest.

What type of service would YOU suggest than, if neither 99 cent songs, nor $10 a month all you can eat streaming are solutions? It seems to be there are a lot of robust and viable and legal options for content consumption... but the rub is, they require compensation to artists and rights holders.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> That's not really correct for the most part, because there are other factors at work (price of admission, for example. Illegal firearms and drugs are expensive, pirated music, not so much). In my opinion it balances out the analogy.
> 
> Anyway, choose to still ignore the essence of what I was saying or not. This conversation is completely bogged down in the way that Internet conversations usually are. I should have stayed away when I said I was exiting.



or you could be honest in acknowledging the real problem, advertising supported, illegally operating and infringing businesses profiting internet millionaires in a transfer of wealth from musicians.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> The usage of neither effects anyone but the individual partaking.
> 
> There are plenty out there that would still equate listening to something like heavy metal with drugs. There's even more people that would attribute some kind of negative effect to it without being that extreme about it.
> 
> ...



The real reason prohibition and the war on drugs are poor analogies is because in both cases we are legally being deprived access to something entirely. That is not the case at all with piracy. The 'war on piracy' is a fight against people getting whatever they want without paying for it. Nearly all of it is still available, but for the price initially expected. As for black market, it already exists. It's called the pirate bay. 

It can be easily closed if the top distributors are crippled and the penalties are increased for mass level piracy to make people think twice. Proper enforcement at the corporate level would sufficiently stifle the industry.

As for Kim saying he was going to save the industry, I have to agree with gear that it is really convenient right after his arrest. "Well, I was going to save the industry, but these _terrible_ people arrested me."


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> or you could be honest in acknowledging the real problem, advertising supported, illegally operating and infringing businesses profiting internet millionaires in a transfer of wealth from musicians.



(Because this is infinitely earlier to reply to with my phone than that massive wall of quotes)

I've stated multiple times now that that IS part of the problem. It's not the source, it's a symptom, but part of the problem nonetheless. 

Also, acknowledging that there are idiotic ways to apply the law to this is not the same as saying that any legal way of addressing it is bad. SOPA was stupid, the proposed 6 strikes plan is stupid. In fact, every piece of legislation that has been proposed has been stupid. The way copyright law exists at this time is stupid (I've stated this multiple times now too)

To go back to my (apparently totally incorrect) analogy, it's the difference between going after the junky vs. the dealer in order to combat drug use. All the solutions that have been presented until now attack end users more than the actual problem. 

Legitimate videos being taken down from YouTube is a perfect example of how current enforcement is being done stupidly. 

Finally, the treatment of this topic as though it's a case of a or b (old, label run way vs. current piracy situation) is stupid. 

I'm not saying I have the answer. I have ideas, but it's a multifaceted problem that also crosses over into the live performance and merch arenas (and, again, I'm on my phone)


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> As for Kim saying he was going to save the industry, I have to agree with gear that it is really convenient right after his arrest. "Well, I was going to save the industry, but these _terrible_ people arrested me."



Again, I agree. But, what I've read of what he proposes seems viable (especially if it were headed by someone a bit more trustworthy)


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 2, 2012)

Also, I never said anything about a conspiracy of any kind. There were illegal actions taken in the course of Dotcom's arrest. That's all I said.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> (Because this is infinitely earlier to reply to with my phone than that massive wall of quotes)
> 
> I've stated multiple times now that that IS part of the problem. It's not the source, it's a symptom, but part of the problem nonetheless.
> 
> ...



I do agree that some of the things proposed have been poor ideas. That being said on a grand scale the government goes after the 'dealers' (mega-uploads, demonoid, working on TPB I believe). In the beginning they went after the 'junkies', but, with the exception of the 6 strikes, they don't usually bother, hence why so many feel safe in doing it. I only know one person who has been prosecuted and he was very wealthy and somehow they knew that (no idea how). They went after him for compensation basically. 

I have to agree that SOPA was definitely more of an attack against 'junkies' too. I have no idea what Kim's supposed plan was, but I know people are always going to gravitate towards whats cheaper and easier. We have viable alternatives to piracy, but they are still less appealing than piracy because it has to cost something. That's the main reason I feel the only solution to this problem is shutting down the major distributors. Cripple the industry at it's knee caps. If it isn't convenient or available anymore people will gravitate to the next best thing which will hopefully offer some form of compensation unlike the current method.

The monitoring of websites, illegal links, take down notices, etc. are definitely a step in the wrong direction. I don't even know why they'd do that at places like youtube; Youtube is not the problem when talking about piracy. I find the take down notices for websites with links to be rather silly too. If I am pirating something I already know where to go. I don't need a guided hand to get me their, making it more of a mental exercise on their end. International law is the only reason piracy is a problem at all, something the UN is trying to resolve, but they are getting a lot of flak for that as well it seems. I get bombarded with emails saying how _shady_ it is. It's like I said earlier there isn't a solution to piracy anyone is going to like.


----------



## Gram negative (Dec 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I have a huge problem with this perspective. "He must be delusional or coerced to stand up for himself". What it says is he is the enemy or controlled by the enemy to be against piracy. It is an admission that, in your mind, there is only one correct answer. In other words you are only willing to accept the answer that confirms your opinion. Confirmation Bias.
> 
> Tape trading is significantly different than piracy is today. Hell, piracy is different today than it was 12 years ago. With tape trading it is one-to-one, the tape degrades over time, it wasn't a mastered version most likely (in the example you are talking about), and the biggest being there is a difference between giving your music away for free and piracy. They are not the same thing. I can give my music away for free for a decade and then stop. Once I stop if people still download it for free that is when it becomes piracy because I'm no longer allowing it. That is a distinction I have seen missed countless times when piracy is being discussed.
> 
> ...





Whoa. Wrong. I wasnt providing bias. But I respect your well formed opinion.

i think that it is time for the music business to evolve. I dont agree with either route. paying out the ass for music is wrong. Not paying at all, is also wrong. We cannot continue to base our opinions on the music industry in antiquated ideals. There needs to be a new standard outside of what we all know, and love. What you describe is exactly that. Not tape trading, but not instant theft either. Whats the option, whats the happy medium?

There is no "turning off the internet". So lets look at it like this: People are going to steal music, so much so, that it is becoming the new norm. I think we should move beyond that medium of profit. It is an anachronism at this point. The real question is, "How can an artist make money, in a world where selling your album is no longer valid?"

Lets be real! selling albums in any current form of media is going downhill. What is the future of the music business? THATS what matters. You can bicker all day about how unfair it is to steal music...its going to happen. The clever mind will ask, "If this is the new norm, how can I benefit?". It is insane to look back and say "I wish it was how it used to be".

So we can bicker about details, or learn to work disadvantages in our favors, as musicians.

But, in closing

lars is a mainstream musician, bought and sold by record companies. Nothing wrong with that, hes rich. Whether that is what he set out to do, or whether that is just what he has become is neither here nor there. To think that someone like him isnt bought and sold...then you are not acquainted with how that side of the industry works. If a big name record company came to sign me tomorrow, I wouldnt take it. I know what that entails. He did. Not a judgement on his character per se, but dont confuse getting paid with earnest.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 3, 2012)

Gram negative said:


> Whoa. Wrong. I wasnt providing bias. But I respect your well formed opinion.
> 
> i think that it is time for the music business to evolve. I dont agree with either route. paying out the ass for music is wrong. Not paying at all, is also wrong. We cannot continue to base our opinions on the music industry in antiquated ideals. There needs to be a new standard outside of what we all know, and love. What you describe is exactly that. Not tape trading, but not instant theft either. Whats the option, whats the happy medium?
> 
> ...



So you're suggesting that as musicians we had best become great t-shirt designers?


----------



## flint757 (Dec 3, 2012)

Gram negative said:


> Whoa. Wrong. I wasnt providing bias. But I respect your well formed opinion.
> 
> i think that it is time for the music business to evolve. I dont agree with either route. paying out the ass for music is wrong. Not paying at all, is also wrong. We cannot continue to base our opinions on the music industry in antiquated ideals. There needs to be a new standard outside of what we all know, and love. What you describe is exactly that. Not tape trading, but not instant theft either. Whats the option, whats the happy medium?
> 
> ...



My apologies if I came across harsh. People do need to work on ways to profit through other means and they already do. Piracy will never entirely go away, but I do think it can be crippled enough to have less of an impact. 
Piracy /=internet so resolving that is doable under the right cooperation.

While I agree with the underlying sentiment I wouldn't say it is antiquated to get paid for a product someone else enjoys either.

As for Lars you are still basically saying that he is a patsy for the industry. I'm not paid at all by any insiders and I feel the same as he does. Not saying he couldn't be coerced to say what he is saying, but to pretend he can't possibly be genuine is rather silly.


----------



## Gram negative (Dec 3, 2012)

knuckle_head said:


> So you're suggesting that as musicians we had best become great t-shirt designers?





Lol, yes. And Coffee Mugs and beer coozies....

No, Im just saying that making money by playing live is number one priority, but beyond that, the industry has changed. I cant even remember when i bought a physical CD. Rhapsody, itunes, and piracy are how people get music.

Hell, I know plenty of people who listen to internet radio all the time and do not buy anything, ever. But they dont steal either.

The market has changed, we need to change.


----------



## Gram negative (Dec 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> My apologies if I came across harsh. People do need to work on ways to profit through other means and they already do. Piracy will never entirely go away, but I do think it can be crippled enough to have less of an impact.
> Piracy /=internet so resolving that is doable under the right cooperation.
> 
> While I agree with the underlying sentiment I wouldn't say it is antiquated to get paid for a product someone else enjoys either.
> ...




Harsh? nah...its the internet, who cares? LOl

I think its just my personality type. When something no longer works the way i want it to, I move on to a method that does. We feel the same way, but we both have different avenues to a solution. Agree to disagree?

Youre right, people will always pirate. But the majority of people do not. I probably wont even try to sell any tracks, the next time I join a band. Im going to focus on shows and merch. But like I said, different solutions.

As for Lars, I think he's fucking tool. I think everyone in Metallica are fucking tools. I mean, did you watch that movie? I just about threw up watching my childhood heroes at like the cast of the real world. No wonder Jason newstead left. It would be like being on tour with my parents, all the passive aggressive nonsense back and forth. So yes, I think hes a butt puppet.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 3, 2012)

Gram negative said:


> Lol, yes. And Coffee Mugs and beer coozies....
> 
> No, Im just saying that making money by playing live is number one priority, but beyond that, the industry has changed. I cant even remember when i bought a physical CD. Rhapsody, itunes, and piracy are how people get music.
> 
> ...



Internet radio is no different than broadcast radio - except that information on bands is more readily available and that serves artists far better than broadcast could ever have hoped to.

I'm not sure how the scene is where you are, but shows around here tend to be little more than break even propositions at best. That isn't going to change.

The one thing that hasn't changed about the industry - though some will argue this point - is that it is about the music. If you write it and you secure it it is yours. As with anything, authorship is ownership. That's not say you are entitled to anything for creating something - neither, though, should you be denied something when there is value found in what is yours. Downloads are evidence of value whether they are monetized or not. My feeling is they should be. I'm uncertain of how, but they should be.

The only thing that has changed in the music industry is the delivery system/distribution - everything else is the same.


----------



## sakeido (Dec 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> My apologies if I came across harsh. People do need to work on ways to profit through other means and they already do. Piracy will never entirely go away, but I do think it can be crippled enough to have less of an impact.
> Piracy /=internet so resolving that is doable under the right cooperation.



You want to compete with piracy? You have to top its convenience and its price. You are competing with a free way to grab a band's albums or entire discography in less than five minutes. How do you that? Offer the exact same thing for the exact same price.

Even if there wasn't piracy you would still have this problem. Recording an album is so cheap now and so many people can do it just normal economics will push prices down to where everything is free anyway. Give up on making money from music, or get used to a life of poverty... poets, painters and sculpters have been doing it for centuries. Musicians being able to make a good living off music was a flash in the pan.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> You want to compete with piracy? You have to top its convenience and its price.



The greater challenge is the fudged morality line. That is a lost war.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> Recording an album is so cheap now and so many people can do it just normal economics will push prices down to where everything is free anyway.


 
The only way that normal supply and demand would push prices down to absolutely nothing is if the item in question is both 1) a commodity and 2) in such great supply that no one is willing to pay for it OR if no one wants it to begin with.

A commodity is something that is identical (for practical purposes) from one to the next. For example, one water molecule is the same as the next water molecule, and one drop of west Texas crude oil is the same as the next. This isn't the case with music or all music would sound exactly alike. I will also point out that, even with such a great supply of water as we have on Earth, people still pay for it every day in every country on the planet.

Music is also not in such great supply that no one is willing to pay for it. The market for music extends well into the billions of dollars each year in the US alone. Many people, especially the younger people, are not purchasing music at the moment simply because it has been "stolen" and given away for free without much, if anything, in the way of consequences, not because of issues with supply and demand.

As for the last case, I think its pretty clear that people do, in fact, still want music so I won't even elaborate on this.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 3, 2012)

tedtan said:


> Music is also not in such great supply



Everyone and their dog has a band, the music market is ridiculously oversaturated.



> This isn't the case with music or all music would sound exactly alike


But it is. It's so goddamn rare to find a decent band that sounds even a tiny bit original that doesn't bore you to death. I mean that's the problem - people think they can write a 40 minute album consisting of laughably simplistic third rate music every 2-3 years, tour with these songs and then get rich off of it somehow. It's ludicrous.


----------



## sakeido (Dec 3, 2012)

tedtan said:


> A commodity is something that is identical (for practical purposes) from one to the next.


this is very, very true when it comes to metal. like, have you heard djent music? Most metal sub-genres you can stick to maybe two or three bands and hear 100% of what that particular style has to offer. 

you can't stop piracy without messing with how the internet works, and an open internet is way, way more important than musicians making a pittance off music that is, on average, godawful or so unoriginal there is no point to it existing in the first place.


----------



## nickgray (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> you can't stop piracy without messing with how the internet works, and an open internet is way, way more important than musicians making a pittance off music that is, on average, godawful or so unoriginal there is no point to it existing in the first place.



Amen.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> . . . an open internet is way, way more important than musicians making a pittance off music that is, on average, godawful or so unoriginal there is no point to it existing in the first place.



An open internet that respects ownership is worth the genuflection . . . and open internet comprised of nothing but thieves is a doomed business model of any sort.

Very tempted to go back to vinyl . . . . it's closer to a t-shirt than a mp3, and alot harder to steal.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 3, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I've stated multiple times now that that IS part of the problem. It's not the source, it's a symptom, but part of the problem nonetheless.



It's not PART of the problem, it is THE problem. There is no other "symptom" other than the unchecked lack of enforcement of the law. If you had the same lawlessness anywhere else, the result would be the same. 

In short, if people can steal or act illegally without consequence, they will. It's that simple. 

I find it stunning that the internet is so bad at business models that it requires the theft of products and labor to make it's margins work... unbelievable. 




Lern2swim said:


> Also, acknowledging that there are idiotic ways to apply the law to this is not the same as saying that any legal way of addressing it is bad. SOPA was stupid, the proposed 6 strikes plan is stupid. In fact, every piece of legislation that has been proposed has been stupid. The way copyright law exists at this time is stupid (I've stated this multiple times now too)



Sorry man - you're wrong, Larry Lessig is wrong, John Perry Barlow is wrong and the entire fallacy of pro-piracy anti-creator maximalists are wrong. 

Why Larry Lessig is Wrong and should just "Get Over It"

If the ruling of the supreme court isn't enough for you, maybe you'll take head of the wisdom of Google's own Chief Economist Hal A Varian who takes to task the childish position of John Perry Barlow as BS and Varian himself coin's the phrase "Bit Legging"...

EFF's John Perry Barlow Is Wrong, Says Google's Chief Economist Hal A Varian 


Copyright protects individual liberty and freedom FROM corporate exploitation. Remember that... Without Copyright, no one ever has to pay any artist or creator for anything ever. Nor, would the individual have the right to negotiate via free agency the use of their work. 

I think this is a good starting point to a measured conversation for a fair, ethical and sustainable internet that protects the freedom and liberty of ALL citizens not just the corporations you are want to protect! 

Principles for an Ethical And Sustainable Internet

I would hope that you would agree that a FREE and OPEN internet would also be a FAIR and ETHICAL internet. 



Lern2swim said:


> To go back to my (apparently totally incorrect) analogy, it's the difference between going after the junky vs. the dealer in order to combat drug use. All the solutions that have been presented until now attack end users more than the actual problem.



UGH... No, this is NOT about "end users." This is about mass scale, enterprise level, organized crime at the corporate level. This is about commerce scale illegal and infringing BUSINESSES. This has nothing to do about end uses as I've pointed out. 

Madison Avenue is Financing Media Piracy

Very simply, this is a Follow The Money Story. Follow the money, find the crime. It's that simple. And if you follow the money it leads to Google, Advertising networks and Madison Avenue. That's where the money is coming from that is supporting piracy. 

Artists Know They Enemy, Who's Ripping You Off And How! 



> *The enemy are the for profit businesses making money from our recordings and songwriting illegally. Lets be clear about this, our battle is with businesses ripping us off by illegally exploiting our work for profit. This is not about our fans. It is about commercial companies in the businesses of profiting from our work, paying us nothing and then telling us to blame our fans. That is the ultimate in cowardice and dishonesty.*



This is about holding illegally operating businesses accountable for wrong doing. Any wrong doing should be unacceptable be it from record labels, publishers, managers, agents, and yes... even Internet Businesses! 



Lern2swim said:


> Legitimate videos being taken down from YouTube is a perfect example of how current enforcement is being done stupidly.



DMCA takedowns are 97% accurate according to Google. I would say there are far more infringing videos ON youtube than there are legitimate videos being taken down by mistake. Also keep in mind, this is the compromise for even getting the DMCA which allows Google and others to not face federal prosecution for copyright infringement. 

Let us not forget, that Google's YouTube was FOUNDED expressly on infringement as a business model - as documented in the founders own emails! 

A Case Of Piracy In Their Own Words


> * On July 19, Chen wrote to Hurley and Karim: "Jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We're going to have a tough time defending the fact that we're not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn't put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it." Four days later, Karim sent a link to the other founders, and Hurley told him that if they rejected it, they needed to reject all copyrighted material. Karim's reply: "I say we reject this one but not the others. This one is totally blatant."
> 
>  A July 29 email conversation about competing video sites laid out the importance to YouTube of continuing to use the copyrighted material.  "Steal it!" Chen said , and got a reply from Hurley, "hmmm, steal the movies?" Chen's answer: "we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. how much traffic will we get from personal videos? remember, the only reason our traffic surged was due to a video of this type."*



So you might want to rethink what is being argued and what Lars said in the OP - he said, "If the labels are not making the money, the internet companies will be, and they are not paying artists they are profiting illegally." And, that is exactly what has happened and Lars was 100% right. 



Lern2swim said:


> Finally, the treatment of this topic as though it's a case of a or b (old, label run way vs. current piracy situation) is stupid.



This we agree on. I'm not looking to go backwards, I'm looking to go forwards. But that can't happen when there are no consequences for illegally operating businesses who are knowingly exploiting artists and creators. You can attempt to conflate the issues, but they are not the same. 



Lern2swim said:


> I'm not saying I have the answer. I have ideas, but it's a multifaceted problem that also crosses over into the live performance and merch arenas (and, again, I'm on my phone)



"T-Shirt and Touring" is an ADMISSION OF FAILURE by the tech community that they have failed to address the problems that allow for a reasonable marketplace to exist for musicians. 

And keep in mind... Songwriters don't tour. Producers don't tour. Engineers don't tour. And of course you don't have any solutions - because after nearly 13 years of hearing the same old BS, we now know what the actual solution is, and hint... it's not T-shirts and Touring... it's protecting artists rights against corporate exploitation, just like it's ALWAYS been. The internet has changed nothing but the gate keepers. 

The New Boss is WORSE than the Old Boss

If the internet was the great democratic liberator of artists, musicians and creators there would be a robust new middles class of musicians - but there isn't - in fact it's much worse than that as there are 45% less professional musicians today than in 2002 according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

If The Internet Is Working for Musicians, Why Aren't More Musicians Working?


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> you can't stop piracy without messing with how the internet works,



that is an absolutely lie propagated by the internet robber barrons whose corporate profits are reliant on the mass scale, enterprise level exploitation of artists, musicians, photgraphers, writers, authors, filmmakers, software engineers and all other creators. 



sakeido said:


> and an open internet is way, way more important than musicians making a pittance off music that is,



great of you to make decisions for all creators and musicians... 



sakeido said:


> on average, godawful or so unoriginal there is no point to it existing in the first place.



great, than don't buy it, don't steal, and don't let anyone exploit those artists illegally if there's no value to it. 

but that's not what's actually happening -what's happening is illegally operating BUSINESSES ripping off artists for corporate gain.


----------



## sakeido (Dec 3, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> If the internet was the great democratic liberator of artists, musicians and creators there would be a robust new middles class of musicians - but there isn't - in fact it's much worse than that as there are 45% less professional musicians today than in 2002 according the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
> 
> If The Internet Is Working for Musicians, Why Aren't More Musicians Working?



middle class musicians....  Why is there an expectation this should even be possible?



gearandguitars said:


> that is an absolutely lie propagated by the internet robber barrons whose corporate profits are reliant on the mass scale, enterprise level exploitation of artists, musicians, photgraphers, writers, authors, filmmakers, software engineers and all other creators.


if you want to overturn this system somehow just keep in mind you are struggling against over 100 years of entrenchment that all of these big media businesses have done. when they finally go away the money is going to go with them, becaaaaaaaaause 


> great, than don't buy it, don't steal, and don't let anyone exploit those artists illegally if there's no value to it.


the thing is I am not going to buy it, I'm not going to steal it, and nobody is going to exploit them because _nobody even knows they exist_. The reason you used to be able to make money doing music is because the big businesses created a channel through which they could push bands to a large segment of the population. The monolithic days of radio and MTV dictating what you heard and what you bought are over. The internet broke up the channel, broke up the business, and then made it easy for everybody to jump in on the music bandwagon so at the same time the pie shrunk, thousands more people showed up to eat it. 

The internet only makes it seem like you have access to a huge market - you actually are only reaching a tiny audience, practically comparable to gigging bands without deals in the 60s-90s. They were brokeass too. Your only bankable method of promotion on the internet is word of mouth. You want to take advantage of that, you actually have to be good. The only bands that the internet "works" for are the ones actually worth hearing (Periphery being the example we all know) or the ones that are still on the benefiting end of the corporate machine that's been in place for a century (the big pop acts, Psy, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails..) 



> but that's not what's actually happening -what's happening is illegally operating BUSINESSES ripping off artists for corporate gain.


last I checked the Pirate Bay guys are getting the shit sued out of them constantly and have been fined for millions of dollars which they absolutely cannot pay, because their site makes practically no money at all. the "file deposit" sites serve a practical purpose that obviously is easily turned to illicit uses, and in an attempt to offset their enormous bandwidth costs they monetized the site in such a way you can download more shit in less time. I still seriously doubt they are making more than your average big business.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 3, 2012)

nickgray said:


> people think they can write a 40 minute album consisting of laughably simplistic third rate music every 2-3 years, tour with these songs and then get rich off of it somehow.


 
Then you're looking in the wrong places and at the wrong bands.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if that's what people are doing, or if they get into music to make money, then thay deserve exactly what they get. Nothing, or pretty damn close to it.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> middle class musicians....  Why is there an expectation this should even be possible?



Why should compensation of any sort be summarily dismissed?


----------



## tedtan (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> this is very, very true when it comes to metal. like, have you heard djent music? Most metal sub-genres you can stick to maybe two or three bands and hear 100% of what that particular style has to offer.


 
There have always been kids copying the latest trend, they just didn't have a forum through which to distribute their music outside their immediate circle of friends and family; they got weeded out. And there have always been pros who were great players, but not necessarily the best or most original writers/composers; they got weeded out. Only the best of each genre rose to the top.

In the past, access to distribution was a filter; today there is no filter, so the problem _seems_ worse, but in truth it is no different from the past. If anything, people in first world countries are having fewer and fewer children each year, so there are likely less of these unoriginal bands today than in the past. We just get stuck sorting through them to find the few good bands because there is no help from the filters.

Outside of top 40 type music, if you want to accomplish anything you have to be yourself and develop something that reflects who YOU are, not copy the trends. Unfortunately, these people/bands have always been few and far between.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 3, 2012)

Gearandguitars, this is the last time I'm done replying to you. You continually twist the things I'm saying to fit your own thoughts, you apparently feel that one lone website's opinions are enough to support your incredibly simplistic, off base views, and you're living in la la land. 

So, I'm moving on.


----------



## Ben.Last (Dec 3, 2012)

I'll just leave this here:
Movie Studios Ask Google To Censor Their Own Films, Facebook and Wikipedia | TorrentFreak

Yeah, the current and proposed methods don't fuck up legitimate usage at all.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 3, 2012)

IMO google should not have to be the middle man. If the link is there google should show it, period. If the MPAA and RIAA or whomever else wants to take action then they should do so site by site on their own. The proposed things thus far are ludicrous (in congress). If you are going to fix something you fix it at the source. This isn't really a problem with US law or any other nation's laws, this is a problem with international law and proper cooperation. From what I recall of the megaupload incident it was almost like New Zealand was trying to stick it to the US. There were legitimate reasons for it to be stopped and overturned, but it felt like a "na na na boo boo" type occurrence  (probably because we are a nosy nation and people don't like us for it).

In any case, not only is it dishonest for google to hide links, but this can also have an adverse affect on their company. Microsoft is railing hard with bing. If google gives in too much to these imbeciles it wont be long before people look elsewhere for their searches. That isn't fair to google and it isn't fair to us.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 3, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Gearandguitars, this is the last time I'm done replying to you. You continually twist the things I'm saying to fit your own thoughts, you apparently feel that one lone website's opinions are enough to support your incredibly simplistic, off base views, and you're living in la la land.
> 
> So, I'm moving on.



which is usually the case when a person is out of argument - take on the issues... but the fact is, you don't really have a leg to stand on. 

we're talking about illegally operating BUSINESSES being accountable for wrong doing - you put forth that that "copyright is silly" and legislation to enforce existing laws that protect musicians from exploitation are also "silly." 

Sorry man - there's nothing silly about protecting artists rights against greedy corporations, even if those corporations happen to be on the internet. 

The internet is not, nor should it be, a lawless wasteland of exploitation. 

Once again, I'm happy to have a measured conversation with you - what do you think of this as a starting point? 

Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet that Respects the Rights of ALL Citizens from Corporate Exploitation

Have you seen the response Zoe Keating got on Slashdot just for requesting TRANSPARENCY from Internet Companies to assist her in understanding her audience? Hell, she wasn't even asking to be paid! 

Zoë Keating&#8217;s Request for Internet Transparency met w/ usual Hypocrisy

You've got your head in the sand man - pull it out and let's have a real conversation - but it's a difficult starting point if your view is that "Copyright is Silly" and there should be no intervention to address illegally operating businesses profiting from ripping off artists wholesale! 

Tom Waits Exploited By Wendy&#8217;s, Yahoo, BMW, Mitt Romney, Adobe, Cadillac, LG, Target, Westin Hotels, Priceline, Hyatt Hotels, Weight Watchers, VISA, State Farm, Mini Cooper, ADT Security&#8230;


> ** BMW on Kick Ass Torrents*
> * * Mitt Romney, ADT Security on 4Shared*
> * * Adobe, Mini Cooper on FilesTube*
> * * Cadillac on FilesTube*
> ...


Don't you think Tom Waits should be participating in the revenue paid by such major Fortune 500 Companies as State Farm Insurance and VISA?


----------



## sakeido (Dec 3, 2012)

gearandguitars said:


> CUT



Jesus H. Christ I deleted all that bullshit because I didn't want to accidentally read it twice. Are you 13? This whole occupy wall street style anti-corporate stuff gets extremely annoying real quick. Neither you nor the Trichordist seem to understand how internet advertising works - approach this from a different angle, or can it.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 3, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I'll just leave this here:
> Movie Studios Ask Google To Censor Their Own Films, Facebook and Wikipedia | TorrentFreak
> 
> Yeah, the current and proposed methods don't fuck up legitimate usage at all.



You do understand what the consequences of NOT having the DMCA would be right? No safe harbor, and I'll tell you what - I'd be happy to eliminate the safe harbor provision even though DMCA claims are 97% accurate by Google's own admission... 97% and probably even higher accuracy as the technology matures. 

Google Obliges Website Copyright Takedown Requests 97% of the Time : Vogel Internet, Information Technology, and e-Discovery Blog


> Google is getting high marks for its May 2012 Transparency Report that when copyright owners complain about website infringement, that Google takes down those website urls (universal resource locators) 97% of the time. Google claims the other 3% are not taken down because of _inaccurate or incomplete information._



And, any LEGITIMATE content can be counter claimed. 

Funny thing is... Google is STILL selling ads against the most infringing sites in the world, as reported in their own transparency report! 






Seriously man - why are you giving a free pass to wrong doing just because it's happening on the internet? If you are robbed with a gun or a computer makes little difference. 

But you know what... how come Itunes doesn't have any DMCA or rights management issues? Because their business model was not built on theft, but rather respect.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> You can't fix piracy without taking control of the Internet in a way that violates the most important part of the net.. that it is free and open. Lars might have been right, but it was a battle the music industry was never going to win.



I think this is a good point, until we realize that "Free and Open" should still follow laws too, just like laws away from the internet.

What i'm saying is, just because something is happening on the internet does not mean one should not be prosecuted for it. The internet can be "free and open" for law abiding citizens, while prosecuting those that steal (intellectual property included)

Cool post OP. I agree. It took alot of balls for Lars to stand up to millions of snotty nosed kids who would surely cry "GREEDY ROCK STAR". Shit i've been guilty in the past, but i came around to realize i was helping to destroy something i'm a part of. I use amazon or itunes these days.


----------



## gearandguitars (Dec 3, 2012)

sakeido said:


> Jesus H. Christ I deleted all that bullshit because I didn't want to accidentally read it twice. Are you 13? This whole occupy wall street style anti-corporate stuff gets extremely annoying real quick. Neither you nor the Trichordist seem to understand how internet advertising works - approach this from a different angle, or can it.



Uh, thanks but no. There's no reason illegally operating and profiting businesses should get a free pass. It's funny and ironic how the same people that demonize record labels (who give contracts and payments to artists) are the same people who make excuses for online corporations ripping off artists without granting them either consent or compensation! 

This is a very easy "follow the money story." So how does internet advertising work? Are Ad Networks beyond human control? OMG, are Ad Networks the birth of SkyNet? LOL. 

hmmmm...

Discussing ad networks - where do we NOT want our brand? (with tweets) · dabitch · Storify


----------

