# The Dillinger Escape Plan Frontman Sounds Off On Illegal Music Downloading



## asmegin_slayer (Apr 11, 2011)

I must say, I have to agree with him.

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=156622



> When asked by a music-business student in Belfast what his opinion is on online file-sharing and its effect on the music industry, THE DILLINGER ESCAPE PLAN frontman Greg Puciato offered the following lengthy response via his official web site:
> 
> "I don't see file-sharing as an evil&#8230; it's silly to say that it has any intrinsic properties of good and evil at all anyway. It's just a new form of technology that evolved outside of what the record industry and intellectual property law structure was prepared for at the time. That having been said&#8230; I think it's necessary to swim with the tide and not against it. I think it's time to accept and acknowledge that the CD is a dead format. Maybe not dead in the way of the 8-track but dead in the way vinyl is. A CD now, should be thought of as a collector's item, or a preferred way of listening if that is the individual's preference, in which case he is already in the minority as most music is listened to via the MP3 format. A CD certainly sounds better than an MP3, just as a vinyl does, but it just lacks the infinitely superior convenience of the digital format. As Internet gets faster and hard drives get bigger, even 320 [kilobytes per second] MP3s (which I am totally fine with for 90% of my listening) will be replaced by larger more sonically accurate files like WAVs or FLAC, so eventually a CD will hold no sonic vantage point at all, and will simply be a relic that we once used to transfer digital files. A relic that is no longer NEEDED, but like I said, may be 'cool to have' in the way vinyl is. I buy vinyls and limited versions of albums that I really like or really mean something to me&#8230; and stick to MP3 for the rest. Most people who listen to pop music only listen to singles anyway, and for that point most pop artists only really make singles anyway&#8230;the rest of the album is padding around the singles. Chances are if I hear some one-hit-wonder pop song I don't really want or need the album. So the digital format is simply far more suited for the majority of people's tastes. A killer full album is rare, and I think people know that.
> 
> ...


----------



## mountainjam (Apr 11, 2011)

I own every tdep cd, no digital copies. Imo the cd is not an antique yet.


----------



## nojyeloot (Apr 11, 2011)

mountainjam said:


> I own every tdep cd, no digital copies. Imo the cd is not an antique yet.



I'm the polar opposite.


----------



## ROAR (Apr 11, 2011)

That is possibly the best and most in-depth response to file-sharing I have ever read.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 11, 2011)

Valid points all around.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 11, 2011)

mountainjam said:


> I own every tdep cd, no digital copies. Imo the cd is not an antique yet.





ROAR said:


> That is possibly the best and most in-depth response to file-sharing I have ever read.


Both of these.


----------



## Randy (Apr 11, 2011)

He had me up until he got into the rant about how filesharing = revenue loss, and also the one about ISPs either threatening/killing service based on high activity or monitoring to see what kind of stuff people are downloading. 

Most of what he says was VERY valid, forward thinking stuff but those two items sounded like "let's try to stuff the genie back in the bottle" shit that industry folk have been preaching since Napster; which hasn't changed anything.


----------



## Spence (Apr 11, 2011)

most of this is a veryvgood arguement, i still like to buy cds occasionally but downloads are the way forward


----------



## Petal (Apr 11, 2011)

He makes many good points in this article. His strongest point imo was about recording engineers and producers. For people who illegally download a bands music for free off the internet, and justify their vices by going out to their show or buying merch online, completely neglect the fact that producers don't allocate any of that revenue.


----------



## Lon (Apr 11, 2011)

There are a lot of loopholes in his although very good argumentation:

why can't a producer not live off merch?

serious question, band pays producer, merch pays band, his statement - the producer gets a share of the album revenue - is just a contractual thing, they could give him a fixed sum of money instead...

i'm not advertising or legitimizing illegal downloading in any way, its just importand to point out argumentation holes, considering puciato has been in the industry since the pre-download times im sensing a bit of a "wanting the old times back" vibe...


----------



## JaeSwift (Apr 11, 2011)

Randy said:


> He had me up until he got into the rant about how filesharing = revenue loss, and also the one about ISPs either threatening/killing service based on high activity or monitoring to see what kind of stuff people are downloading.
> 
> Most of what he says was VERY valid, forward thinking stuff but those two items sounded like "let's try to stuff the genie back in the bottle" shit that industry folk have been preaching since Napster; which hasn't changed anything.



My thoughts exactly. Though, up until that point and some points in the conclusion do make a lot of sence.

Glad to see someone thinking about the internet as a standard thing meant to compliment people's lives, rather than it being something new (cuz lets face it, it isnt anymore).


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Apr 11, 2011)

> "Second, and this is already happening and will continue to increase, Internet service providers need to monitor heavy users and see if there is illegal content being downloaded at large volumes like artist discographies and so forth. If they do see that is happening, they should send a warning letter and then on the second time suspend service for a period of time.



This is the only thing I'm really uncomfortable about. This is just like what some parts of Europe have, the "3 strikes your out of the internet" shit.


----------



## S-O (Apr 11, 2011)

Well, I have a huge hard on for Dillinger Escape Plan, and I want Greg Puciato's children. I have always dug his outspoken ways, I feel this has a lot of great ideas, ones that could still be ironed out a bit more to tidy it all up, but certainly a fresh look.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 11, 2011)

> "File-sharing is amazing because it eliminates the need for a middle-man distributor like a record company and allows instant and easy transfer from artist to listener. Without protection, though, it doesn't just cut out the middle man, it cuts out the artist."



QFT.

I've noticed that a lot of people who make music semi-professionally give it away for free, which is a smart move when you consider how much bigger the sea of artists is compared to even 10 years ago.

Those who are already in the game and got caught up in this where it's already their job, you can understand how it's different for them.


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 11, 2011)

I agreed with most of his points, and really respect DEP as a band. 
How many bands have I discovered by pirating their music and then going to their shows? LOTS. The artist makes pennies from every copy of their album sold. Something like 6% I believe. Would they rather I get the music for free, then spend $40 on a t-shirt? (which is almost pure profit, everyone knows merch is the sweetest plum of them all) Yes!

Also I had a thought just recently when I went back to my parents' house and saw my CD rack with 500+ discs in it: There is a finite number of "classic" albums worth having. Gone are the days when as a kid I could walk into a cd store and have 5 or 6 classic cds in my grubby mits by the end. Simply, I can't keep buying Van Halen albums because they don't keep making them. I think a lot of the the new music from my old favorites such as Metallica is terrible, and not worthy of a purchase. I'm having trouble filling the void with today's current musical climate.

The point about cds being a "collectors" thing is right on the nose now. I buy them when I'm looking to hearing my favourite bands' new record in better quality (a rare thing now). Digital downloads need to be looked at the same way as streaming free mp3s on myspace is. The quality sucks, here's a free taste. Itunes doesn't even offer flac! Don't they max out at 192 kbs? 

As well, whoever sets the prices for CDs is absolutely fubar. CD manufacturing is extremely cheap, and there's no reason to be paying as much for a medium as people did the day they were introduced. Does anyone download video games from Steam? They have no physical medium to hold them back, so they can do RIDICULOUS sales. I've picked up tons of games for less than $5 just a few months after release. Itunes is currently failing to hold up this model with all the digital rights nonsense and lack of quality.

To sum up, the recording industry cannot win a fight against the internet. It boggles my mind that as a guy who took _two_ econ classes during my degree, I can see an easy profitable solution where they apparently cannot.

Edit:

Hell, I pirated HIS music. Now I own most of their albums, an 80 dollar hoodie that I bought at a show, and a DEP sticker proudly displayed on one of my guitar cases.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Apr 11, 2011)

vanhendrix said:


> I agreed with most of his points, and really respect DEP as a band.
> How many bands have I discovered by pirating their music and then going to their shows? LOTS. The artist makes pennies from every copy of their album sold. Something like 6% I believe. Would they rather I get the music for free, then spend $40 on a t-shirt? (which is almost pure profit, everyone knows merch is the sweetest plum of them all) Yes!



The problem with this argument is that not all metalheads have the luxury to spend that much on merch for each band. A lot of people I know only bring $40 max mainly just to drink while watching the show. The last thing in their minds is buying a cd or shirt that he/she already has. Its not the same to everyone, but I'm shedding the dark truth unto this. 




vanhendrix said:


> The point about cds being a "collectors" thing is right on the nose now. I buy them when I'm looking to hearing my favourite bands' new record in better quality (a rare thing now). Digital downloads need to be looked at the same way as streaming free mp3s on myspace is. The quality sucks, here's a free taste. Itunes doesn't even offer flac! Don't they max out at 192 kbs?



256 kbs actually if you uncheck "Convert higher bit rate songs to 128kbps AAC" 



vanhendrix said:


> Itunes is currently failing to hold up this model with all the digital rights nonsense and lack of quality.



Are you talking about DRM? which itunes hasn't had in a few years now.



vanhendrix said:


> To sum up, the recording industry cannot win a fight against the internet. It boggles my mind that as a guy who took _two_ econ classes during my degree, I can see an easy profitable solution where they apparently cannot.



Old habits are hard to change unless it starts affecting there own lively hood.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 11, 2011)

I don't see a problem checking out if people are downloading whole albums from torrents ad shit onto their computer. One or two songs is not an issue, but those people who download entire discographies should be stopped. If you take the piss, expect the consequences. 

I agree with most of what he said, other than the fact CDs are a dying medium. I myself love the physical artwork and act of buying a CD. I may end up downloading it to my computer and never listening tio the physical copy again, but I like having that copy in my hands. Besides, I feel more secure having them rather than intangiable files.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Apr 11, 2011)

That was an awesome read. Thanks for posting it.

I buy CD's because I hate itunes. I use a Zune. Also, $20 for a CD and a shirt is a hell of a deal. I NEVER buy shirts by themselves haha.

Now, when I was a teenager, I downloaded music alot. Anyone my age (I'm 21) can probably relate. Now that I have steady income and stuff, I buy music all the time.


----------



## Randy (Apr 11, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't see a problem checking out if people are downloading whole albums from torrents ad shit onto their computer. One or two songs is not an issue, but those people who download entire discographies should be stopped. If you take the piss, expect the consequences.



It's not that. Considering we're living in the age of streaming HD, cloud computing, etc... bandwidth =/= downloads. The only way to keep track of that kinda thing would be through monitoring which is a WAAAY slippery slope.


----------



## yingmin (Apr 11, 2011)

asmegin_slayer said:


> The problem with this argument is that not all metalheads have the luxury to spend that much on merch for each band. A lot of people I know only bring $40 max mainly just to drink while watching the show. The last thing in their minds is buying a cd or shirt that he/she already has. Its not the same to everyone, but I'm shedding the dark truth unto this.


I don't even wear T-shirts at all, nor would I buy a band hoodie, or stickers, or anything like that. Even back when I wore T-shirts all the time, there were plenty of bands I listened to that I wouldn't have bought a shirt from, because I didn't want to wear what they put on their shirts. I listen to bands for the music. That's why I try to buy CDs from bands when I go to shows. The whole argument that merch sales make up for lost album sales is fairly hollow, if you ask me. There are too many factors that would have to be in place for that to really hold up.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 11, 2011)

I do think we need a lot more monitoring of internet activities though. It's a relatively lawless place and is damaging both economically but socially. Being such a recent invention, it hasn't been dealt with properly. I've always imagined the internet as a place, and a place has to have laws, a police force, something to keep things in order. You have to do it responsibly, people have to be allowed to see what they want within the realms of morality i.e. child porn, murder and whatnot should be taken down. 

I think we can monitor the internet without threatening people's personal privacy too much.


----------



## Randy (Apr 11, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I do think we need a lot more monitoring of internet activities though. It's a relatively lawless place and is damaging both economically but socially. Being such a recent invention, it hasn't been dealt with properly. I've always imagined the internet as a place, and a place has to have laws, a police force, something to keep things in order. You have to do it responsibly, people have to be allowed to see what they want within the realms of morality i.e. child porn, murder and whatnot should be taken down.
> 
> I think we can monitor the internet without threatening people's personal privacy too much.



If the people making the laws were like you or I, that might be the case.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 11, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I do think we need a lot more monitoring of internet activities though. It's a relatively lawless place and is damaging both economically but socially. Being such a recent invention, it hasn't been dealt with properly. I've always imagined the internet as a place, and a place has to have laws, a police force, something to keep things in order. You have to do it responsibly, people have to be allowed to see what they want within the realms of morality i.e. child porn, murder and whatnot should be taken down.
> 
> I think we can monitor the internet without threatening people's personal privacy too much.



You're talking about some scary shit. People who abuse the internet is serious ways such as child porn are sought out and jailed, are you _really_ saying that people who download music are in the same category?

If you ask me the internet is fantastic for the only reason that it is NOT regulated very heavily. It allows unprecedented freedom of speech, which admittedly has caused some problems, but in general is a very good thing and a huge step forward. Taking that away would just be another step back, which is what those who are in control are in favour of I'm sure.


----------



## S-O (Apr 11, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> You're talking about some scary shit. People who abuse the internet is serious ways such as child porn are sought out and jailed, are you _really_ saying that people who download music are in the same category?
> 
> If you ask me the internet is fantastic for the only reason that it is NOT regulated very heavily. It allows unprecedented freedom of speech, which admittedly has caused some problems, but in general is a very good thing and a huge step forward. Taking that away would just be another step back, which is what those who are in control are in favour of I'm sure.



This, and I don't want an employer knowing the fucked up things I enjoy in my porn. Not kiddie pr0n, 12 year old do not have the goodies that get me hot and bothered, and they talk about things that tend to infuriate me.

Obviously this extends to other things, as what one does on the internet when monitored out of context can really be misleading. Looking up tons of known terrorist organizations and sites, looking through any of those forums, reading about weapons, etc can either be Mr. Bin Laden chillin' in the suburbs, or a 17 year old doing research on his AP English assignment.

New demands and needs must be met. Around the cities I hang out in Ohio, I have seen a huge rise in local music, or at least a return to it. House shows every weekend, $5 dollar club shows, etc.

On things like Itunes, I don't like to download one song, I tend to enjoy music as albums, listening to it in full. I wish I had the HDD space for Lossless files of everything, but till then, ~320 VBR mp3s will do. But, some people just want a single, good for them! Though, I wish artists would treat every song like a single.


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 11, 2011)

asmegin_slayer said:


> The problem with this argument is that not all metalheads have the luxury to spend that much on merch for each band. A lot of people I know only bring $40 max mainly just to drink while watching the show. The last thing in their minds is buying a cd or shirt that he/she already has. Its not the same to everyone, but I'm shedding the dark truth unto this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well even without buying a shirt or anything. Torrenting the band's album for free and then _going to_ _their show because you found out how amazing they are_ nets the band way more of your cash. It's just cutting out the record labels, who are crooks.

Think of the music as the advertising, and the band itself as the product. Any band worth its salt will be better live anyways


----------



## krypter (Apr 11, 2011)

vanhendrix said:


> Well even without buying a shirt or anything. Torrenting the band's album for free and then _going to_ _their show because you found out how amazing they are_ nets the band way more of your cash. It's just cutting out the record labels, who are crooks.
> 
> Think of the music as the advertising, and the band itself as the product. Any band worth its salt will be better live anyways




I agree with your spirit, but your argument has holes in it.

For me, as an american, a lot of the music i like comes from over seas, and they very very rarely (if ever) tour. 
For the artists that do, most of them only come to Chicago which is about 2 hours from here. Given the mega-cost of gas i will only make that trip if its a REALLY amazing artist like Devin Townsend, or Steve Vai or one of the other...maybe 5 bands i consider on my "MUST SEE AT ANY COST" list. Anyone other than that i just can make the justification for. That doesn't mean i wouldn't love to see all the bands i enjoy if they toured close to me, but most times they don't. 
Just on average, a trip to Chicago is 200 miles round trip. In my Jeep at 20mpgs highway that's about $35 in gas ALONE. Add in cost of ticket, any food/ drink i may want, and a shirt and shows can cost me well over $100. 

I say all that to illustrate that going to shows for every artist a "fan" may enjoy is not always a possibility. Especially in a Country as big as the US where lots of people don't live next to (or at least within the immidiate vacinity of) one of the "big 10" tour cities. Not to mention the bands i enjoy that don't even come to the US often, if at all. 

A band like Kreator or Amorphis whom i really enjoy (for example) would i pay to see a show if it were within 20 miles? Sure. Will i pay over $100 to see them? No...probably not. 
So there HAS to be a better way of getting revenue to the artist. 


I think selling an album for $5 on a bands website, where the money goes (for the most part) right into the pocket of the creators (or Kreators if you like) is a great thing. Cheap, so people will be more likely to splurge and check out new folks, controlled, and located in a very controllable spot. There needs to be a place like Facebook, or something, where people can find new music and be able to buy right from the artist with just a few clicks.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Apr 11, 2011)

For a guy that supposedly approves of it, he relies on a lot of the same logical fallacies and cliched objections that those who disapprove use.


----------



## toiletstand (Apr 11, 2011)

in related new season of mist uploaded a live video of dillinger performing gold teeth on a bum. good quality video of these dudes is hard to come by so score!


----------



## CrownofWorms (Apr 11, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't see a problem checking out if people are downloading whole albums from torrents ad shit onto their computer. One or two songs is not an issue, but those people who download entire discographies should be stopped. If you take the piss, expect the consequences.
> 
> I agree with most of what he said, other than the fact CDs are a dying medium. I myself love the physical artwork and act of buying a CD. I may end up downloading it to my computer and never listening tio the physical copy again, but I like having that copy in my hands. Besides, I feel more secure having them rather than intangiable files.


Let me add on to that. I honestly believe all the articles about the death of music in a physical medium being,dead,obsolete etc are overly exaggerated. I'm not gonna kid myself saying they are not popular or part of the mainstream of course, but look at the demographic. In the Demographic of Metal fans, Hipsters(yeah I know), Audiophiles, Music Collectors, Musicians(in a way) and Composers, and people who fall into that type of category. Physical media is common(especially in the Metal subculture), even though there are people who do download that fit in that category. You could get a pretty good picture just by lurking on this site. These are the people who would actually listen to the whole album and drool over artwork, and read linear notes and such. Then we bitch about how it wasn't as good as their first three debuts of >insert band<. It actually comes to a point where it becomes a demand, for example when Merrow released his first real album to purchase, the board consisted of praise and hopes/demands of a physical copy. The same went to Periphery. I like the idea of upcoming bands with no label, just putting out ideas/demos for free download since it isn't really promoted from a label but the up coming artist that has a lot of free time. It is similar to the days of tape trading, but not as connected like it was back then. 

Now the mainstream demographic doesn't really care for the quality,artwork, production, even the album itself. They just care for the hit single, top song, or whatever has a catchy line. Thats where things like radio, single downloading, streaming cloud come in. This is the majority,mainstream, norm, the song the "Enemies of Reality" sings against, whatever you wan't to call it. Back then the tape/8 track was the equivalent to mp3. A lot more convenient than an album of any type(Vinyl,CD) and you could share tracks make copies of that album and whatnot. 

I find it ironic how he is comparing the cd to vinyl. It has always been a rare collector item/niche since the dawn of the cd until in 08 there has been this huge Vinyl resurgence. And its been increasing ever since. Now we have some annual international Record Store day. You don't know how many times I came across articles of vinyl coming back in the past week 

It's funny that when a new form to listen to music comes to be(like streaming a few years ago) the other options are automatically dead because it doesn't cater to the journalist who is making the article. We have alot of options to choose from now. you could just stream a song on youtube,pandora or a bands profile. If you just wan't a song you just download that specific track. Like to have the physical copy with all the benefits, with great quality and compatible with anything that has a disc drive, then get the CD. And the top is obviously Vinyl, but it isn't as convenient as the others. Some even choose all the options above and are happy. some stick to just streams and cd's.

The moral of the story is that it all depends on what caters to the individual.........Wait why am I giving a shit on a frontman opinion from a band I don't even care for(dont take this statement seriously, even though DEP isn't my taste)


----------



## Randy (Apr 11, 2011)

xtrustisyoursx said:


> For a guy that supposedly approves of it, he relies on a lot of the same logical fallacies and cliched objections that those who disapprove use.



Spot on.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Apr 11, 2011)

I think the one that jumped out at me the most is one I see in many arguments about books, movies, music and the like. He assigns a dollar value to each download, then claims that this is money stolen from him. This is wrong for many reasons. The first is that he never owned this money, so if anything it was a negation of potential revenue, not a loss of money. The second is that those downloads don't necessarily correlate to a potential customer. He is saying that every single one of those people that downloaded the album would have paid $10-$20 to own it had downloading not been an option. Though there is a chance this is true, there is a much larger chance that the majority would have just not gotten the album at all had it not been free. This is why it's so futile to just assign these simplistic dollar values to a thing that isn't easily measurable in the first place.


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 12, 2011)

No matter how you cut it, illegal downloading hurts artists. Something needs to be done about it.


----------



## synapzee (Apr 12, 2011)

xtrustisyoursx said:


> I think the one that jumped out at me the most is one I see in many arguments about books, movies, music and the like. He assigns a dollar value to each download, then claims that this is money stolen from him. This is wrong for many reasons. The first is that he never owned this money, so if anything it was a negation of potential revenue, not a loss of money. The second is that those downloads don't necessarily correlate to a potential customer. He is saying that every single one of those people that downloaded the album would have paid $10-$20 to own it had downloading not been an option. Those there is a chance this is true, there is a much larger chance that the majority would have just not gotten the album at all had it not been free. This is why it's so futile to just assign these simplistic dollar values to a thing that isn't easily measurable in the first place.


I second this. I do download 99% of my music but it's for the fact that since I'm in college I don't have the money to be paying for all these albums. A lot of the music that I currently have I wouldn't have gone out of my way to spend $10 to get the album and I know that's how it is for a lot of other people too.


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 12, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> No matter how you cut it, illegal downloading hurts artists. Something needs to be done about it.



I absolutely disagree. I have discovered more amazing music through downloading - then supported it by going to shows, buying merch, buying albums, etc - than I ever would have without it.

It hurts the shitty artists, the albums I might have bough due to hype and ended up not enjoying. In the end, I spend_ more_ money, and I do so smartly. The multitude of bands that I've discovered have benefited from me doing just this. I enjoy what I purchase/support, and am able to avoid the pitfalls of hack musicians selling their cheap wares.

Here's an anecdote:

My friend lent me Soilwork's "Stabbing the Drama" album, which, at the time, blew my teenage mind. I then pirated the shit out of it so I could have it myself until I was able to track down the album on cd. Having done this, I wore out not one, but TWO copies of the album (cds are such shit), then just pirated a flac version. My cds stayed behind at my parent's place when I moved, but the flac version stayed with me. A couple years later, Soilwork finally came to western Canada and made the sound quality of that album (one of my all time favourites) look like a goddamn church by comparison. They were SO AMAZING live that I ended up buying not only a t-shirt, but a frickin' ENGL.

The moral of the story is that piracy, as promotion, made that happen.


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 12, 2011)

vanhendrix said:


> I absolutely disagree. I have discovered more amazing music through downloading - then supported it by going to shows, buying merch, buying albums, etc - than I ever would have without it.
> 
> It hurts the shitty artists, the albums I might have bough due to hype and ended up not enjoying. In the end, I spend_ more_ money, and I do so smartly. The multitude of bands that I've discovered have benefited from me doing just this. I enjoy what I purchase/support, and am able to avoid the pitfalls of hack musicians selling their cheap wares.



Personal anecdotes don't count.

For every one of you, there are three other people downloading the album and not doing anything about it.

Do you go to shows and see people lining up hundreds deep to buy merch? No. Most people are not like you, and do not support the band any further than buying a ticket.

I'll trust artists and labels who say this more than you.

EDIT: Have you heard of Myspace? Bandcamp? There are legal ways to preview a band or artist's music. The try before you buy argument doesn't hold up anymore.


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 12, 2011)

But even _going _to the show gives the artist much more of your money than buying their album would. If someone is a fairweather fan to the extent that they'd download an album and never want to explore the artist further in any way, then that can hardly be a lost sale. That person was never going to buy the album anyways. 

The musicians see practically nothing from album sales, I don't see what the issue is.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2011)

xtrustisyoursx said:


> I think the one that jumped out at me the most is one I see in many arguments about books, movies, music and the like. He assigns a dollar value to each download, then claims that this is money stolen from him. This is wrong for many reasons. The first is that he never owned this money, so if anything it was a negation of potential revenue, not a loss of money. The second is that those downloads don't necessarily correlate to a potential customer. He is saying that every single one of those people that downloaded the album would have paid $10-$20 to own it had downloading not been an option. Though there is a chance this is true, there is a much larger chance that the majority would have just not gotten the album at all had it not been free. This is why it's so futile to just assign these simplistic dollar values to a thing that isn't easily measurable in the first place.



This be true. It's not surprising that his opinion is a little biased given his profession and it's likely that he condensed his views on it to fit it into a rant. Or that might be all he has to say about it


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 12, 2011)

vanhendrix said:


> But even _going _to the show gives the artist much more of your money than buying their album would. If someone is a fairweather fan to the extent that they'd download an album and never want to explore the artist further in any way, then that can hardly be a lost sale. That person was never going to buy the album anyways.
> 
> The musicians see practically nothing from album sales, I don't see what the issue is.



If you don't sell albums, why would your label pay to send you on tour or record another record? I advise you to take a look at one of the threads where people in bands talk about how much they make. Merch and ticket sales actually barely get them more money for each day on the road than an album costs.

Just because the system is broke doesn't mean you can justify stealing. Next time you go to a show, ask a band member how they feel about you stealing a cd. Don't rationalize or justify it. Just ask them point blank how they feel about you downloading their album for free. Think they'll be happy with it?


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 12, 2011)

ITT, Greg being proven correct.



Greg Puciato said:


> Any argument is just an argument to appease a guilty conscience and try to pretend that it isn't wrong&#8230; because we all still just wanna be able to get things for free.





Greg Puciato said:


> I think that a lot of people would have a natural conscience enough to just feel bad about stealing the coffee/groceries/auto parts/whatever is being sold&#8230;and would pay anyway. However, like anything, once you do something once with no consequence, you do it again, and then again, and then eventually feel nothing. Even harder is trying to get people to pay who have grown up NEVER paying (many kids now).


----------



## TheSleeper (Apr 12, 2011)

I think (well, I'm convinced really) that this issue is in no way black/white. Illegal file sharing is both good and bad, for artists and consumers alike.

A significant amount of the music that I listen to and love now, I probably wouldn't have even heard of had I not downloaded a few torrents. So while a fair share of sales are lost due to file sharing, the amount of potential sales and fans undeniably increases. Though most people probably wouldn't buy even 10% of the music they download (this is purely a guess), chances are that as the music spreads, it finds its way to many who will or would buy it.

As far as I can tell, bands and artists would benefit from offering their albums/merch for sale directly on their own website, with as few middle hands as possible, resulting in lower prices, yet more money to the creators from each sale. Another option is to make donation available, or the download-and-pay-what-you-want concept. I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd love to be able to donate a chosen amount to a band, perhaps even some sort of monthly subscription.

With all this said, I'm not supporting or defending illegal file sharing, I just don't think there's much point in fighting it, but rather taking advantage of it's benefits.


----------



## DLG (Apr 12, 2011)

it's definitely not all black and white. 

If someone steals my car, that means it's not in front of my house anymore. If someone steals my band's album, I still have it both on my computer and CD.

so it's not all that clear cut and most comparisons to stealing anything else are bunk.

also, in an ideal world, everyone who needs to know about a band would be able to hear about them on their own. But that's usually not the case. 

follow a band that is unsigned and then compare the amount of likes they have on facebook, comments they have on myspace and followers they have on twitter ones Nuclear Blast or Century Media announce that they have signed them. These labels still make a difference, even though it would be ideal if they wouldn't.


----------



## Hallic (Apr 12, 2011)

CD's/Vinyls are indeed collecter items for the real fans.
But the coffee things.. it's not a good metafore. 
Also if i had to pay for everything album i downloaded i probably would only listen to <25% of what i now listen. I often find something new, but most stuff doesn't stick.(just couple of weeks). The bands that i listen to and do stick i always go to the concert(when touring throught my country) and buy the CD for my collection.

In my perspective: you just can't make lots of money with music in the 21th centry. You make music because you want to make music. Al money you make in digital form should be considered a donation, not paying. 

(if you wanted to make real money you should get a degree in physics or something)


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 12, 2011)

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Downloading has already won. You can even see it in this thread, it is already socially acceptable to illegally download. We've already reached the generation who can't even comprehend buying an album, downloading a torrent to your iPod is just how you obtain music.

In the BoO thread, I mentioned that maybe you should at least wait until the album is released to talk about it, just out of respect to their band member(s) who are also forum members, and I had 4 or 5 people jump down my throat right away.

In fact, I'd argue that anyone who is against file sharing is actually viewed as the "bad guy" now.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 12, 2011)

I agree with The Sleeper, a lot of people buy the CD afterwards if they really enjoy the music.

To add another comparison to the mix: it's like test driving a car, even though you only get to test drive a car once.

CDs are hideously expensive these days and that is no fault of the band's, but is their responsibility to be putting out quality music.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 12, 2011)

For what it's worth... I met Periphery's Spencer Sotello at a show and asked if I could purchase a CD... He told me to download it...


----------



## elrrek (Apr 12, 2011)

xtrustisyoursx said:


> I think the one that jumped out at me the most is one I see in many arguments about books, movies, music and the like. He assigns a dollar value to each download, then claims that this is money stolen from him. This is wrong for many reasons. The first is that he never owned this money, so if anything it was a negation of potential revenue, not a loss of money. The second is that those downloads don't necessarily correlate to a potential customer. He is saying that every single one of those people that downloaded the album would have paid $10-$20 to own it had downloading not been an option. Though there is a chance this is true, there is a much larger chance that the majority would have just not gotten the album at all had it not been free. This is why it's so futile to just assign these simplistic dollar values to a thing that isn't easily measurable in the first place.



The point I think he's trying to make is that if someone wants to listen to the music of a commercially released product and "own" it then they need to pay for it, and in that regard, any illegal download of the music on his bands CD is theft.

The argument as to whether the person down loading the music would have got the music if they had not been able to get it for free via an illegal download is a different thing, but in the end an illegal download is not "potential revenue", it's actual theft.


----------



## Hankey (Apr 12, 2011)

elrrek said:


> but in the end an illegal download is not "potential revenue", it's actual theft.



It is not. Theft takes away the original, whereas an illegal download makes a copy of the original. There is a big difference between the two. A theft has a direct negative impact on the owner of the original, while an illegal download _might_ have an indirect negative effect on the owner of the original (not every download accounts for a lost sale, far from it)...


----------



## elrrek (Apr 12, 2011)

Theft is the act of taking someone else property without their consent, music is intellectual property.

Theft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 12, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> If you don't sell albums, why would your label pay to send you on tour or record another record? I advise you to take a look at one of the threads where people in bands talk about how much they make. Merch and ticket sales actually barely get them more money for each day on the road than an album costs.
> 
> Just because the system is broke doesn't mean you can justify stealing. Next time you go to a show, ask a band member how they feel about you stealing a cd. Don't rationalize or justify it. Just ask them point blank how they feel about you downloading their album for free. Think they'll be happy with it?




This is a good thread, I'm enjoying the way everyone can have a civil discussion about this without resorting to a flame war.

Maybe I'm some crazy minority who still goes out of his way to support the music that I enjoy...but I have no problem with downloading something of inferior quality just to test it out. If I like it, I'll buy it on CD (or vinyl, getting into that now). But I'm not trying to kid myself either, I know the majority of the money I spend on that CD goes to the label. Metallica sees like $4 from every album sold, and they have an _awesome _contract.

Here's a chart I found that explains the effect that I think this is having:







I think that shows how only the record companies are making a big problem out of this, because they stand to lose the most. I also believe that with technology readily available to almost anyone, that the need for big companies to bankroll studio time is gone.


----------



## krypter (Apr 12, 2011)

elrrek said:


> Theft is the act of taking someone else property without their consent, music is intellectual property.
> 
> Theft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com




Quoted again for truth.


Seriously. 

Think of it like running a lemonade stand. I create some lemonade and someone walks buy, picks up a glass and drinks it claiming that "well, i just wanted to try it first. I was thirsty" Then walks away without paying. Oh sure, i still have more lemonade at my stand, but if enough people do that it really hurts. Granted some people might have the conscience to actually PAY for another cup since they liked my first cup, but an over whelming majority will NOT. 

Anyone who thinks that music isn't worth anything monetarily speaking is contributing to the death of an industry and can no longer complain about the Beibers or Taylor Swifts or what ever other bad music they hear. Why? Because you aren't buying albums to tell the industry what kind of music is good. In our capitalist society you vote with your wallet. 

And anyone who still uses the sad argument that "well i support them with my money on tour" needs to read my previous post, and them sit down and take a look at all the artists they have in their collection. Do you honestly, HONESTLY go to even 25% of those shows? 

And when you do, do you go again, and again, and again? Because if you don't, i can promise you don't make up the amount needed to over come lost revenue from album sales. I have a good feeling a good portion of the folks advocating for it to be ok to not pay for music have no clue how the monetary side of the industry really works.


Edit: And further more, (especially for us U.S. folks) how are some of those bands from the other side of the pond supposed to even KNOW its worth touring over here if they don't sell records?


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 12, 2011)

krypter said:


> Quoted again for truth.
> 
> 
> Seriously.
> ...




It's more like if your created your own cup of lemonade out of thin air, leaving the original intact. The dude running the stand would be all "Hey! That was my idea! I make 6 cents for every cup sold to pay off my dad who built the stand, bought the cups and cut the lemons! I need that!"

I've seen hundreds of shows, often repeats of bands that I'd previously seen. A band coming to town is not like a movie where if you've seen it once you know the plot, it's a performance. If a band that I enjoy is in town, I go, simple as that.

But it really seems that we're getting entrenched. Can we agree to disagree? haha


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 12, 2011)

To me, the album is a product. The band and record label are offering the product for sale. As with any product, there are really only 2 ways to acquire it (assuming it isn't being given away); buy it or steal it.

To me all the arguments for file sharing are pretty weak attempts to make intellectual properties a gray area, so that someone can justify downloading an album.

But, like I said, the war is over. File-sharing won. We've passed the point of arguing. It's now time for record companies to become more inventive if they still want to generate revenue from album sales (I offer no solution for this ).


----------



## cyril v (Apr 12, 2011)

I don't see how anyone can try and justify illegally downloading with a straight face; maybe when mp3's were new and people literally couldn't sample music beforehand, it was a valid point. But today, when you can hit up a bands myspace, they're streaming the album on their websites, amazon/zune/itunes have samples available and for better or worse; everything is on youtube... it's simply not a worthy argument anymore.

The people that literally sample and then support the bands they decide to keep on their mp3 players are NOT the majority; this discussion would not be taking place if that were the case.

/


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 12, 2011)

cyril v said:


> I don't see how anyone can try and justify illegally downloading with a straight face; maybe when mp3's were new and people literally couldn't sample music beforehand, it was a valid point. But today, when you can hit up a bands myspace, they're streaming the album on their websites, amazon/zune/itunes have samples available and for better or worse; everything is on youtube... it's simply not a worthy argument anymore.
> 
> The people that literally sample and then support the bands they decide to keep on their mp3 players are NOT the majority; this discussion would not be taking place if that were the case.
> 
> /



Well it's not illegal in Canada to download. So there's that...


----------



## elrrek (Apr 12, 2011)

In many countries the act of down loading is not illegal but the act of up loading and sharing usually is. So, technically it is not illegal to download the file, but seeing as you are still obtaining something that is worth a monetary value and not compensating the producer, it is still a theft.

Another thing people need to get over and seem not to unserstand is that it is not the physical product (a CD) that is being stolen, it's the non-material artistic content that is the "object" of theft.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Apr 12, 2011)

I'm sure no one will do this, but I highly recommend reading this book: Content » Download for Free It's by Cory Doctorow, and is an excellent read about the current state of "piracy" and downloading in the book, music, and movie industry. It's a completely free download as well, so you may as well give it a try.


----------



## cyril v (Apr 12, 2011)

vanhendrix said:


> Well it's not illegal in Canada to download. So there's that...



Yep. I am still opposed to it though, completely screws over bands for the most part. Legality =/= Morality, right?


----------



## CrownofWorms (Apr 12, 2011)

cyril v said:


> I don't see how anyone can try and justify illegally downloading with a straight face; maybe when mp3's were new and people literally couldn't sample music beforehand, it was a valid point. But today, when you can hit up a bands myspace, they're streaming the album on their websites, amazon/zune/itunes have samples available and for better or worse; everything is on youtube... it's simply not a worthy argument anymore.
> 
> The people that literally sample and then support the bands they decide to keep on their mp3 players are NOT the majority; this discussion would not be taking place if that were the case.
> 
> /


QFTW


leftyguitarjoe said:


> That was an awesome read. Thanks for posting it.
> 
> I buy CD's because I hate itunes. I use a Zune. Also, $20 for a CD and a shirt is a hell of a deal. I NEVER buy shirts by themselves haha.
> 
> Now, when I was a teenager, I downloaded music alot. Anyone my age (I'm 21) can probably relate. Now that I have steady income and stuff, I buy music all the time.


Holy Shit, I thought I was the only guy in here that uses a zune


----------



## krypter (Apr 13, 2011)

CrownofWorms said:


> QFTW
> 
> Holy Shit, I thought I was the only guy in here that uses a zune




Zune's unite!

I use one too.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Apr 13, 2011)

krypter said:


> Zune's unite!
> 
> I use one too.



I used to use one and loved it. But then the hard drive went corrupt and I couldn't afford to replace it


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 13, 2011)

Well I'm clearly the minority here, so I'll get off my soapbox and let this go. I just wanted to express that through the magic of piracy, I have discovered a great deal of amazing music that I would not have otherwise found. I have spent_ much more_ money supporting the artists directly (as mentioned before) and choosing to buy albums that _I know_ I will enjoy than I would have without it. It's not illegal here and I don't feel bad about doing it. I see the user "Scar Symmetry" is in this thread. I found out about them through the same friend as before (in my earlier post), with the same piracy as before, and now I own all their albums....I remember phoning that friend from a CD store a few years ago, excited as hell that I actually found a copy of "Pitch Black Progress".

Now for real, my rant is over


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 13, 2011)

vanhendrix said:


> Well I'm clearly the minority here, so I'll get off my soapbox and let this go. I just wanted to express that through the magic of piracy, I have discovered a great deal of amazing music that I would not have otherwise found. I have spent_ much more_ money supporting the artists directly (as mentioned before) and choosing to buy albums that _I know_ I will enjoy than I would have without it. It's not illegal here and I don't feel bad about doing it. I see the user "Scar Symmetry" is in this thread. I found out about them through the same friend as before (in my earlier post), with the same piracy as before, and now I own all their albums....I remember phoning that friend from a CD store a few years ago, excited as hell that I actually found a copy of "Pitch Black Progress".
> 
> Now for real, my rant is over



Personal anecdotes don't count, again.

Most people do not do what you do. Also, are you aware of the many different ways to can preview full songs from upcoming albums on the internet legally? There is no justification for downloading albums that can really hold up.


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 13, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Personal anecdotes don't count, again.
> 
> Most people do not do what you do. Also, are you aware of the many different ways to can preview full songs from upcoming albums on the internet legally? There is no justification for downloading albums that can really hold up.



But what I'm doing here IS legal, that's my point. Seriously, I'm sorry for defending this side. I just wanted to make my viewpoint known so that maybe I can show that not everyone is pirating for the sake of piracy


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 13, 2011)

I get the sense that younger generations who have grown up with file-sharing feel like they are entitled to music, and that somehow record companies are in the wrong for trying to charge them money for it.

Lost in all of this is the question; if you don't like the music enough to pay for it, do you really need to own it?

I vaguely remember an article that I read online somewhere (big help, I know) about how the iPod generation views music as a commodity, wherein the amount of GB's of music you have somehow has value. Really wish I could find it again, it was a good read.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 13, 2011)

ROAR said:


> That is possibly the best and most in-depth response to file-sharing I have ever read.



 I can say I've found myself making those same lame arguments in the past, and he's correct; it was to appease my guilty conscious for knowingly taking what I had no right to.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 13, 2011)

vanhendrix said:


> Well it's not illegal in Canada to download. So there's that...



Illegal or not, its still wrong. We shouldn't need to rely on laws or a religion to provide our morals.

My code of ethics is pretty simple: if you are knowingly doing something that hurts another individual, you are in the wrong. No-one should ever feel a sense of entitlement to something they have not earned.


----------



## yingmin (Apr 13, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> I get the sense that younger generations who have grown up with file-sharing feel like they are entitled to music, and that somehow record companies are in the wrong for trying to charge them money for it.
> 
> Lost in all of this is the question; if you don't like the music enough to pay for it, do you really need to own it?
> 
> I vaguely remember an article that I read online somewhere (big help, I know) about how the iPod generation views music as a commodity, wherein the amount of GB's of music you have somehow has value. Really wish I could find it again, it was a good read.


That's my take on it, too. People talk about buying merch and going to shows, but all in all, don't you get way more value out of the album? $15 really isn't a lot of money to spend on a CD if you love the music and form an emotional connection with it. A really good album can become a part of your life, influence your playing and your songwriting, even help you through hard times and change the way you think about things (all depending on the individual, or course). And yet you think a T-shirt is worth your money, but a CD isn't? The easy availability of free music has taken some of that away. If it's possible to get something for free, regardless of how legal or ethical it is to do so, it's easy to think that it's not worth paying for.


----------



## Randy (Apr 13, 2011)

Even if you leave people who pirate music riddled with guilt, there's still going to be people doing it. If the path of guilt, restrictions and prosecutions was going to work than it would've by now. That's the wrong basket for the music industry to put all their eggs into.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 13, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Personal anecdotes don't count, again.
> 
> Most people do not do what you do. Also, are you aware of the many different ways to can preview full songs from upcoming albums on the internet *morally*? There is no justification for downloading albums that can really hold up.





vanhendrix said:


> But what I'm doing here IS *immoral*, that's my point. Seriously, I'm sorry for defending this side. I just wanted to make my viewpoint known so that maybe I can show that not everyone is pirating for the sake of piracy



Clarity perhaps?


Mordacain said:


> Illegal or not, its still wrong. We shouldn't need to rely on laws or a religion to provide our morals.
> 
> My code of ethics is pretty simple: if you are knowingly doing something that hurts another individual, you are in the wrong. No-one should ever feel a sense of entitlement to something they have not earned.


----------



## yingmin (Apr 13, 2011)

Randy said:


> Even if you leave people who pirate music riddled with guilt, there's still going to be people doing it. If the path of guilt, restrictions and prosecutions was going to work than it would've by now. That's the wrong basket for the music industry to put all their eggs into.



I don't think anybody's trying to argue that there isn't room for improvement in the way music is distributed. That said, you don't have some fundamental human right to use somebody else's product, for which they are asking money, without paying for it. To me, that's one of the most crucial points about this whole topic, that doesn't get addressed near often enough. Whatever you might think about Metallica vs. Napster, or any such subsequent affair, the underlying question is: don't artists have a right to determine how their art is distributed? By downloading music as an alternative to paying for it, you are essentially saying to the artist "I really like what you do, and I'm going to continue listening to your music and enjoying it, but I'm not going to pay for it any more". Now, admittedly, part of what makes this argument so difficult is that there's really no fully valid analogy to digitally copying intellectual property, but in what other scenario would that be a remotely acceptable stance? "Hey plumber, you do a really great job fixing my pipes when they leak, and unclogging my toilet and all that, and I'd like you to keep coming out when I have problems, but I'm not going to pay you for it any more".


----------



## vanhendrix (Apr 13, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> Clarity perhaps?



Now you guys are deliberately misquoting me? Jeeze, forget it. I already gave up. You win.


----------



## Randy (Apr 13, 2011)

yingmin said:


> That said, you don't have some fundamental human right to use somebody else's product, for which they are asking money, without paying for it. To me, that's one of the most crucial points about this whole topic, *that doesn't get addressed near often enough.*



You and I must be listening to two different arguments because, sorry, I've been listening to that one ad nauesum.

The drop in album sales over the last decade isn't just the fault of downloads (as some would suggest) or because of the quality of output (as others would suggest)... it's a change in the way people listen to music. A small handful of songs of iTunes an album here-or-there, then Pandora or Last.FM or just streaming the stuff off youtube. I'd wager the number of people downloading albums, and particularly whole discographies like this guy's talking about, is probably way down from where it was 3 - 5 years ago anyway. To try and 'sharpen the pencil' further just sounds like a witch hunt and diminishing returns.

I still maintain, some segments of the music industry have still totally missed the point. Even if they KILL illegal downloading, dead, the old culture of music will never be back. Fucking get over it and move on.


----------



## JamesM (Apr 13, 2011)

^Exactly.

It's fucking dead, do you guys really want to lay in bed with a rotting entity?

I don't. Times change, and with it comes the need to adapt.


----------



## Herrick (Apr 13, 2011)

krypter said:


> I think selling an album for $5 on a bands website, where the money goes (for the most part) right into the pocket of the creators (or Kreators if you like) is a great thing. Cheap, so people will be more likely to splurge and check out new folks, controlled, and located in a very controllable spot. There needs to be a place like Facebook, or something, where people can find new music and be able to buy right from the artist with just a few clicks.


 
Yes. I like the idea of buying directly from the band so they can make more money. On the other hand, the record label needs to make money too so they can support the band via touring etc. I don't have room for a shitload of CDs so I like the idea of buying digital downloads as long as there isn't any DRM and shit. Butt you can damn well bet that I will download it for free before I decide to buy it. Sorry but I will never, ever buy a piece of crap album again. Those days are over. Offering three free downloadable tracks on an official website doesn't cut it. The rest of the album could be ass and we all know, you can't get a refund for a crap album.

Question for the people who are against downloading: What do you think of buying used CDs/albums?


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 13, 2011)

Herrick said:


> Butt you can damn well bet that I will download it for free before I decide to buy it. Sorry but I will never, ever buy a piece of crap album again. Those days are over. Offering three free downloadable tracks on an official website doesn't cut it. The rest of the album could be ass and we all know, you can't get a refund for a crap album.



I'm just blown away by the sense of entitlement. So if the album is just okay, do you immediately delete it? 

You should make these demands next time you buy something from a store. Let me know how it goes.



Herrick said:


> Question for the people who are against downloading: What do you think of buying used CDs/albums?



I get the feeling you are going to try and correlate used CD's and file-sharing, so I'll just stop you here. They are not the same thing. Besides, CD's/albums are already inexpensive when they are new. So I wouldn't buy used unless it was out of print or something.


----------



## yingmin (Apr 13, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> I get the feeling you are going to try and correlate used CD's and file-sharing, so I'll just stop you here. They are not the same thing. Besides, CD's/albums are already inexpensive when they are new. So I wouldn't buy used unless it was out of print or something.



Besides, used CD (or tape, or record) sales existed well before digital sharing was even a concept. "Piracy" is by no means a new thing. If you loan a record to your friend, and he copies it onto a blank cassette, it's not markedly different in principle from simply downloading a torrent, and it's been around for decades. What IS new about it is the extent to which it's possible, and that's the only reason downloading has ever been a major issue. You never heard a major stink about people trading WAV files of single songs back in the dialup days, because it was so burdensome to do and had such a small payoff. High speed internet and file compression were the one-two punch that made today's filesharing possible, and such a massive threat to the industry.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Apr 13, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> > Originally Posted by Herrick
> > Question for the people who are against downloading: What do you think of buying used CDs/albums?
> 
> 
> ...



I feel the same way, CD's nowadays for the artists that I listen to are super cheap since the big chained stores now has to compete with the online downloading. I'll only get it used if it cannot be purchased online or new at a store.

Now if only I can find a used cd shop close by... oh yeah, there all closing down.


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 13, 2011)

I think there needs to be an effort between artists and labels to design a new way of doing business together. Randy is right, outside of metal and other niche genres, people are at most buying singles off iTunes, maybe whole albums if they really like it. The days of plopping a vinyl in and listening straight through are over, and with that change in listening habits comes a change in buying habits.

I'd suggest that artists just self-release, because in that sense (and I'm operating on no proof at all) it seems like they'd reap the most of their album sales. They'd lack the tour funding, though, and possibly chances to make videos, TV appearances, or play certain festivals. 

I, for one, support the return of the single and the EP. Especially with today's recording technology, there is no reason I can't expect a new song from an artist once a month. Aside from the obvious ones, at least, like them having lives and such. I feel like if labels accepted a new operating paradigm they'd actually become more successful again.


----------



## gunshow86de (Apr 13, 2011)

^



I'm not suggesting that there should or even could be a return to the old business model. Just so tired of reading and hearing people's half-assed excuses they've concocted to feel better about stealing music. File-sharing is definitely part of the culture now. Record companies aren't going to stop it. Instead, I suggest they devote their time and effort into finding a way to be profitable _despite_ illegal downloading.

One obvious way is add something to the physical album that you can't download. The pre-orders that Sumerian has been doing lately are a perfect example. You can get the CD, a signed poster and a t-shirt for like $20-$25. You really can't beat that deal. If you claim to support a band at all, you should be able to swing that. Especially considering they offer the packages months out from the release date.


----------



## Randy (Apr 13, 2011)

^^


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 13, 2011)

I sure hope all you super anti-piracy guys are paying your mechanical royalties to the artist whenever you copy from CD to Computer. And then Again from Computer to whatever Mp3 player you're using!

Wouldn't want to be immoral.


But, I'm actually on your side. Artists deserve to get paid. 

However, it's not theft. It's copyright infringement. You aren't stealing anything. You're "merely" using somebody's copyrighted material without their permission. Since this is actually a worse crime, I'm not sure why people are pushing the Theft thing so much. What's the penalty for petty theft?

There are so many points I want to address, but I'm tired right now so I'll just bullet out some quick ones:


1. Ever study ever done by anybody who wasn't a record company (including fancy respected universities throughout the world) says Piracy was not a significant factor in the downfall of the record industry. 20% is the highest effect. It's also the most recent and (I think) best study out there. I'll likely try and find the link tomorrow. 

2. The, "I support the band by going to shows and buying merch," argument is completely and utter bullshit. And shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the music industry works. If you want the band to get shows and be able to afford merch buy the fucking albums. I can remember a time (and I'm only 25) when if you liked a band you'd do both! Buy their album and then go see them live and hopefully buy some merch! Shocking concept I know.

3. Major Labels may be devil spawn but a lot of the indies are good and work really well with their bands. Are they evil and deserving of destruction?

4. The try before you buy argument, whilst valid, is only so if you delete anything you don't buy and buy the stuff you like. Immediately. Myspace and whatnot are fucking useless as a means of trying a bands music out and way more hassle to deal with that a torrent site.

5. The government can fuck right off my internet. Stay the fuck out of my house and off my computer too. It's the fucking government...why would you want to give them more power?

6. Record labels need to stop bitching about it. Artists can do it, because...you know...it's their IP. People are tired of hearing labels (who still make a fuck ton of money) bitch about how they can't make money off of other people's talent anymore. Producers and engineers sure got ass raped by a machete though. And the indie labels are doing fine. Better than ever actually. People can smell bullshit from a mile away and the Majors are full of it.

7. Record labels went apeshit insane when recordable tapes (and the other associated technology) came out. Be cry about how it was going to destroy the industry and whatnot. Same with Burnable CDs. Blah blah blah. Bullshit detector on. Majors bitch about anything that may have the slightest effect on their business model. Understandable so...but fuck off.

8. I sure hope nobody decides what you and I do is "evil," and puts us all out of business.

9. Some other shit.


----------



## yingmin (Apr 13, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> I sure hope all you super anti-piracy guys are paying your mechanical royalties to the artist whenever you copy from CD to Computer. And then Again from Computer to whatever Mp3 player you're using!
> 
> Wouldn't want to be immoral.



Should I assume that you know this idea has absolutely zero merit, and was just extremely ham-fisted sarcasm?


----------



## budda (Apr 14, 2011)

Good article, I'll read this discussion on it later!


----------



## Explorer (Apr 14, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> I get the sense that younger generations who have grown up with file-sharing feel like they are entitled to music, and that somehow record companies are in the wrong for trying to charge them money for it.
> 
> Lost in all of this is the question; if you don't like the music enough to pay for it, do you really need to own it?



Right on!



Herrick said:


> Question for the people who are against downloading: What do you think of buying used CDs/albums?



I think that buying them is entirely legal. Actually, I don't think, I know.

I like the fact that you're trying to equate a legal activity with an illegal one, and then trying to impute shame for the legal activity... while justifying your illegal activity. 







That's just clueless.



AxeHappy said:


> I sure hope all you super anti-piracy guys are paying your mechanical royalties to the artist whenever you copy from CD to Computer. And then Again from Computer to whatever Mp3 player you're using!
> 
> Wouldn't want to be immoral.



Someone else who wants to impute guilt/wrongdoing to a legal activity under Fair Use. And, again...


----------



## EdgeC (Apr 14, 2011)

Taping your favourite songs off the radio was illegal but people still did it. Speeding is illegal but people still do it. Taking/selling drugs is illegal but people still do it. Downloading MP3's and DVD's is illegal but people still do it.

Arguing the moral side of things is ridiculous. If people acted morally 100% of the time there would be no porn industry and no need for religion etc. Plus morality is subjective.

I'm not an advocate of piracy or copyright infringement just a realist. While it is possible it will continue to happen. Whether it's right or wrong is not the point.


----------



## boni (Apr 14, 2011)

Randy said:


> You and I must be listening to two different arguments because, sorry, I've been listening to that one ad nauesum.
> 
> The drop in album sales over the last decade isn't just the fault of downloads (as some would suggest) or because of the quality of output (as others would suggest)... it's a change in the way people listen to music. A small handful of songs of iTunes an album here-or-there, then Pandora or Last.FM or just streaming the stuff off youtube. I'd wager the number of people downloading albums, and particularly whole discographies like this guy's talking about, is probably way down from where it was 3 - 5 years ago anyway. To try and 'sharpen the pencil' further just sounds like a witch hunt and diminishing returns.
> 
> I still maintain, some segments of the music industry have still totally missed the point. Even if they KILL illegal downloading, dead, the old culture of music will never be back. Fucking get over it and move on.


----------



## yingmin (Apr 14, 2011)

boni said:


> *Intellectual property is communism.* It is inherently evil, immoral, unreasonable and illogical.


Intellectual property is very nearly the exact opposite of communism. Creators "own" their creations and deserve compensation for them? How is that in any way comparable to a system under which nobody owns anything?

"Faith in the primacy of economic determinates is, in brief, putting a price on your mother. As I pointed out in the last chapter, a good economist can do this, if pressed. But Marx was not a good economist. He espoused the Labor Theory of Value, the idea that the value of a product is determined by the work required for its production. Thus, a hole in the ground is worth more than a poem. (Although this actually happened to be the case with much of the poetry written in the Soviet Union)"
-P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 14, 2011)

boni said:


> * communism* is inherently evil, immoral, unreasonable and illogical.


Annnnnnnd, there goes all of your credibility.

And the guy above me said it well. Basically the exact opposite of communism.


----------



## krypter (Apr 14, 2011)

boni said:


> *Intellectual property is communism.* It is inherently evil, immoral, unreasonable and illogical.


----------



## boni (Apr 14, 2011)

yingmin said:


> Intellectual property is very nearly the exact opposite of communism. Creators "own" their creations and deserve compensation for them? How is that in any way comparable to a system under which nobody owns anything?
> 
> "Faith in the primacy of economic determinates is, in brief, putting a price on your mother. As I pointed out in the last chapter, a good economist can do this, if pressed. But Marx was not a good economist. He espoused the Labor Theory of Value, the idea that the value of a product is determined by the work required for its production. Thus, a hole in the ground is worth more than a poem. (Although this actually happened to be the case with much of the poetry written in the Soviet Union)"
> -P.J. O'Rourke





highlordmugfug said:


> Annnnnnnd, there goes all of your credibility.
> 
> And the guy above me said it well. Basically the exact opposite of communism.



Ethically, property rights of any kind have to be justified as extensions of the right of individuals to control their own lives. Thus any alleged property rights that conflict with this moral basis &#8212; like the "right" to own slaves &#8212; are invalidated. In my judgment, intellectual property rights also fail to pass this test. To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If you have acquired the information legitimately (say, by buying a book), then on what grounds can you be prevented from using it, reproducing it, trading it? Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech and press?

It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is a universal, existing in other people's minds and other people's property, and over these the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. *You cannot own information without owning other people*.

Suppose I write a poem, and you read it and memorize it. By memorizing it, you have in effect created a "software" duplicate of the poem to be stored in your brain. But clearly I can claim no rights over that copy so long as you remain a free and autonomous individual. That copy in your head is yours and no one else's.

But now suppose you proceed to transcribe my poem, to make a "hard copy" of the information stored in your brain. The materials you use &#8212; pen and ink &#8212; are your own property. The information template which you used &#8212; that is, the stored memory of the poem &#8212; is also your own property. So how can the hard copy you produce from these materials be anything but yours to publish, sell, adapt, or otherwise treat as you please?

An item of intellectual property is a universal. Unless we are to believe in Platonic Forms, universals as such do not exist, except insofar as they are realized in their many particular instances. Accordingly, I do not see how anyone can claim to own, say, the text of Atlas Shrugged unless that amounts to a claim to own every single physical copy of Atlas Shrugged. But the copy of Atlas Shrugged on my bookshelf does not belong to Ayn Rand or to her estate. It belongs to me. I bought it. I paid for it. (Rand presumably got royalties from the sale, and I'm sure it wasn't sold without her permission!)

The moral case against patents is even clearer. A patent is, in effect, a claim of ownership over a law of nature. What if Newton had claimed to own calculus, or the law of gravity? Would we have to pay a fee to his estate every time we used one of the principles he discovered?



"... the patent monopoly ... consists in protecting inventors ... against competition for a period long enough to extort from the people a reward enormously in excess of the labor measure of their services, &#8212; in other words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in laws and facts of Nature, and the power to exact tribute from others for the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all."
(Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, By a Man Too Busy to Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism (New York: Tucker, 1893), p. 13.)



Defenders of patents claim that patent laws protect ownership only of inventions, not of discoveries. (Likewise, defenders of copyright claim that copyright laws protect only implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves.) But this distinction is an artificial one. Laws of nature come in varying degrees of generality and specificity; if it is a law of nature that copper conducts electricity, it is no less a law of nature that this much copper, arranged in this configuration, with these other materials arranged so, makes a workable battery. And so on.
Suppose you are trapped at the bottom of a ravine. Sabre-tooth tigers are approaching hungrily. Your only hope is to quickly construct a levitation device I've recently invented. You know how it works, because you attended a public lecture I gave on the topic. And it's easy to construct, quite rapidly, out of materials you see lying around in the ravine.

But there's a problem. I've patented my levitation device. I own it &#8212; not just the individual model I built, but the universal. Thus, you can't construct your means of escape without using my property. And I, mean old skinflint that I am, refuse to give my permission. And so the tigers dine well.

This highlights the moral problem with the notion of intellectual property. By claiming a patent on my levitation device, I'm saying that you are not permitted to use your own knowledge to further your ends. By what right?

Another problem with patents is that, when it comes to laws of nature, even fairly specific ones, the odds are quite good that two people, working independently but drawing on the same background of research, may come up with the same invention (discovery) independently. Yet patent law will arbitrarily grant exclusive rights to the inventor who reaches the patent office first; the second inventor, despite having developed the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention.

Ayn Rand attempts to rebut this objection:

"As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser's work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn't. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition." 
(Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: New American Library, 1967), p. 133.)
But this reply will not do. Rand is suggesting that the competition to get to the patent office first is like any other kind of commercial competition. For example, suppose you and I are competing for the same job, and you happen to get hired simply because you got to the employer before I did. In that case, the fact that I might have gotten there first does not give me any rightful claim to the job. But that is because I have no right to the job in the first place. And once you get the job, your rightful claim to that job depends solely on the fact that your employer chose to hire you.
In the case of patents, however, the story is supposed to be different. The basis of an inventor's claim to a patent on X is supposedly the fact that he has invented X. (Otherwise, why not offer patent rights over X to anyone who stumbles into the patent office, regardless of whether they've ever even heard of X?) Registering one's invention with the patent office is supposed to record one's right, not to create it. Hence it follows that the person who arrives at the patent office second has just as much right as the one who arrives first &#8212; and this is surely a reductio ad absurdum of the whole notion of patents.

The economic case for ordinary property rights depends on scarcity. But information is not, technically speaking, a scarce resource in the requisite sense. If A uses some material resource, that makes less of the resource for B, so we need some legal mechanism for determining who gets to use what when. But information is not like that; when A acquires information, that does not decrease B's share, so property rights are not needed.

Some will say that such rights are needed in order to give artists and inventors the financial incentive to create. But most of the great innovators in history operated without benefit of copyright laws. Indeed, sufficiently stringent copyright laws would have made their achievements impossible: Great playwrights like Euripides and Shakespeare never wrote an original plot in their lives; their masterpieces are all adaptations and improvements of stories written by others. Many of our greatest composers, like Bach, Tchaikovsky, and Ives, incorporated into their work the compositions of others. Such appropriation has long been an integral part of legitimate artistic freedom.

Is it credible that authors will not be motivated to write unless they are given copyright protection? Not very. Consider the hundreds of thousands of articles uploaded onto the Internet by their authors everyday, available to anyone in the world for free.

Is it credible that publishers will not bother to publish uncopyrighted works, for fear that a rival publisher will break in and ruin their monopoly? Not very. Nearly all works written before 1900 are in the public domain, yet pre-1900 works are still published, and still sell.

Is it credible that authors, in a world without copyrights, will be deprived of remuneration for their work? Again, not likely. In the 19th century, British authors had no copyright protection under American law, yet they received royalties from American publishers nonetheless.

In his autobiography, Herbert Spencer tells a story that is supposed to illustrate the need for intellectual property rights. Spencer had invented a new kind of hospital bed. Out of philanthropic motives, he decided to make his invention a gift to mankind rather than claiming a patent on it. To his dismay, this generous plan backfired: no company was willing to manufacture the bed, because in the absence of a guaranteed monopoly they found it too risky to invest money in any product that might be undercut by competition. Doesn't this show the need for patent laws?

I don't think so. To begin with, Spencer's case seems overstated. After all, companies are constantly producing items (beds, chairs, etc.) to which no one holds any exclusive patent. But never mind; let's grant Spencer's story without quibbling. What does it prove?

Recall that the companies who rejected Spencer's bed in favor of other uses for their capital were choosing between producing a commodity in which they would have a monopoly and producing a commodity in which they would not have a monopoly. Faced with that choice, they went for the patented commodity as the less risky option (especially in light of the fact that they had to compete with other companies likewise holding monopolies). So the existence of patent laws, like any other form of protectionist legislation, gave the patented commodity an unfair competitive advantage against its unpatented rival. The situation Spencer describes, then, is simply an artifact of the patent laws themselves! In a society without patent laws, Spencer's philanthropic bed would have been at no disadvantage in comparison with other products.

Though never justified, copyright laws have probably not done too much damage to society so far. But in the Computer Age, they are now becoming increasingly costly shackles on human progress.

Consider, for instance, Project Gutenberg, a marvelous non-profit volunteer effort to transfer as many books as possible to electronic format and make them available over the Internet for free. (For information about Project Gutenberg, contact the project director, Michael S. Hart, at [email protected].) Unfortunately, most of the works done to date have been pre-20th-century &#8212; to avoid the hassles of copyright law. Thus, copyright laws today are working to restrict the availability of information, not to promote it. (And Congress, at the behest of the publishing and recording industries, is currently acting to extend copyright protection to last nearly a century after the creator's death, thus ensuring that only a tiny fraction of the information in existence will be publicly available.)

More importantly, modern electronic communications are simply beginning to make copyright laws unenforceable; or at least, unenforceable by any means short of a government takeover of the Internet &#8212; and such a chilling threat to the future of humankind would clearly be a cure far worse than the disease. Copyright laws, in a world where any individual can instantaneously make thousands of copies of a document and send them out all over the planet, are as obsolete as laws against voyeurs and peeping toms would be in a world where everyone had x-ray vision.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 14, 2011)

yingmin said:


> Should I assume that you know this idea has absolutely zero merit, and was just extremely ham-fisted sarcasm?



Yup!

Although I do know of people in the music industry who make that exact argument. That there should be a levy of Digital downloads and CDs (an extra one) to pay for that. 

The argument being you're making a new copy and that's exactly what Mechanical royalties are paid for. 




@Boni
Most people know copyright laws stifle creation and are "evil" in the sense that they hamper great stuff from happening. Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to do jack shit if he was shackled the way we are today.

That said, creators deserve to get paid. Copyright and Patent laws are good. Trademark too. In some countries (Cough *The US* /Cough) they've gotten a little...out of hand, but they're pretty well handled in other countries. 



We talked about this shit a lot in the business part of my Music Industry Arts program. The Teacher was a Super-Anti Piracy guy and all about Copyright. 

If you can't own your creation how can you make a living? 

Patents are also...I don't even know how to describe....just pay the little bit of money and use it? What's wrong with that? It's not like copyright where, "NO YOU CAN'T USE THAT EVER!!!!!"


----------



## Herrick (Apr 14, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> I'm just blown away by the sense of entitlement. So if the album is just okay, do you immediately delete it?
> 
> You should make these demands next time you buy something from a store. Let me know how it goes.



Yup, I get rid of it.

I don't have to make that demand when I buy other products in a store because of the return policy. Too bad it doesn't work with music but again, that's what the Internet is for.



gunshow86de said:


> I get the feeling you are going to try and correlate used CD's and file-sharing, so I'll just stop you here. They are not the same thing. Besides, CD's/albums are already inexpensive when they are new. So I wouldn't buy used unless it was out of print or something.





Explorer said:


> I think that buying them is entirely legal. Actually, I don't think, I know.
> 
> I like the fact that you're trying to equate a legal activity with an illegal one, and then trying to impute shame for the legal activity... while justifying your illegal activity.



Nope, I'm not talking the legality. I should have been more specific. I was referring to the whole aspect of supporting the band, which is an argument that's frequently used.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 14, 2011)

What we need is a system where the band thats try really hard and write truly original music with high artistic merit get your money and the ones who rip off In Flames/Meshuggah/(insert other extremely successful band here) cease to exist on a professional level because they are just selling you something you already own and in fact (if they manage to trick you into buying their CD) are stealing from YOU.

Major labels and plagiarism based bands are what we need less (read: zero) of and independent, ethical labels and artistically unique bands are what we need more of. The rest is background noise. 

It's all very well defending artists as if they are some baby who's just had their candy stolen, but what about those who make terrible music that it takes them all of 5 minutes to write and then tour for however long on the back of money that comes from people who don't know any better? "Well if they don't know any better then they deserve it coz they're idiots" is what I'm expecting.

A lot of people in here are trying to make this issue black and white. It's not. This is a full 1080p issue which is why it's taking so long to figure out what to do about it.

The way things are at the moment, the power is in the hands of the people, not the businessmen. I'd rather it stayed that way.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 14, 2011)

EdgeC said:


> Taping your favourite songs off the radio was illegal but people still did it. Speeding is illegal but people still do it. Taking/selling drugs is illegal but people still do it. Downloading MP3's and DVD's is illegal but people still do it.
> 
> Arguing the moral side of things is ridiculous. If people acted morally 100% of the time there would be no porn industry and no need for religion etc. Plus morality is subjective.
> 
> I'm not an advocate of piracy or copyright infringement just a realist. While it is possible it will continue to happen. Whether it's right or wrong is not the point.



Just disagreeing on the porn and religion aspect. 

Porn is not amoral. Period. Religion might tell you it is, but like everything else, religion gives you no rationale as to why its a bad thing.

Mores do not come from religion, otherwise perfectly religious people would not turn to anarchy (rioting and looting in the wake of natural disasters for instance) when law and order was abdicated.

now back to OT

I agree that punishment has largely been ineffective at stopping illegal file sharing. Part of that is that its too easy to not do something, not to mention that a bum economy makes things like CDs a luxury expense that is not needed if you can just get it for free.

Record companies should be adapting as of this point and not holding on to an archaic distribution system.


----------



## cyril v (Apr 14, 2011)

boni said:


> Ethically, property rights of any kind have to be justified as extensions of the right of individuals to control their own lives. Thus any alleged property rights that conflict with this moral basis &#8212; like the "right" to own slaves &#8212; are invalidated. In my judgment, intellectual property rights also fail to pass this test. To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If you have acquired the information legitimately (say, by buying a book), then on what grounds can you be prevented from using it, reproducing it, trading it? Is this not a violation of the *freedom of speech* and press?



Really dude? You're a copy/pasting troll. I thought I read all of this BS before. 



http://aaeblog.com/2010/05/20/bye-bye-for-ip/

If you have something to say yourself, by all means say it, but wtf is the point in copy/pasting a bunch of stuff some other person said and passing it off like you were having an original thought?

Unless this is you...




http://praxeology.net/

If thats the case, then ignore my post...


----------



## Herrick (Apr 14, 2011)

This is almost like that scene from Good Will Hunting.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 14, 2011)

I stopped reading Boni's copy-and-paste at the assertion that someone could, within themselves, contain not the memory of listening to a digital file, but instead a reproducible digital file. 

And the idea that owning something as personal property is the same thing as owning it communally... What an artful and Orwellian parody! Bravo! I'm not sure if you managed to deflate the defense of theft as much as you intended, but you definitely helped rob it of intellectual dignity.


----------



## boni (Apr 22, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I stopped reading Boni's copy-and-paste at the assertion that someone could, within themselves, contain not the memory of listening to a digital file, but instead a reproducible digital file.
> 
> And the idea that owning something as personal property is the same thing as owning it communally... What an artful and Orwellian parody! Bravo! I'm not sure if you managed to deflate the defense of theft as much as you intended, but you definitely helped rob it of intellectual dignity.



Property rights of any kind have to be justified as extensions of the right of individuals to control their own lives. Thus any alleged property rights that conflict with this moral basis  like the right to own slaves  are invalidated. Intellectual property rights also fail to pass this test. To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If you have acquired the information legitimately (say, by buying a book), the on what grounds can you be prevented from using it reproducing it, trading it? Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech and press?

It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is a universal, existing in other peoples minds and other peoples property, and over those the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. You cannot own information without owning other people.

As for the economic case for property rights, that case depends on scarcity, and information is not, technically speaking, a scarce resource. If A uses some material resource, that makes less of the resource for B, so we need some legal mechanism for determining who gets to use what when. But information is not like that; when A acquires information, that does not decrease B share, so property rights are not needed.


----------



## boni (Apr 22, 2011)

cyril v said:


> Really dude? You're a copy/pasting troll. I thought I read all of this BS before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. 

But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is a universal, existing in other people&#8217;s minds and other people&#8217;s property, and over those the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. You cannot own information without owning other people.





Can you own digital information? Can you own states inside neurons, capacitors? Only by coercitive monopoly, communism and evil Statism.


OWNING IDEAS MEANS OWNING PEOPLE
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/19/roderick-long/owning-ideas-means-owning-people/


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 22, 2011)

Communism being evil is so remarkably far from being an axiom, that I'd voucher to say you must be completely fucking retarded if you believe that it is.


----------



## cyril v (Apr 22, 2011)

edit: deleted my pointless reply.


----------



## Doug N (Apr 23, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> Communism being evil is so remarkably far from being an axiom, that I'd voucher to say you must be completely fucking retarded if you believe that it is.



LOL, I guess communism just hasn't met the right guy yet? In theory it's beautiful but in practice it's had a bad run? I'm sure that's right.


----------



## Infinite Recursion (Apr 23, 2011)

While what he said about stopping downloading would be nice, it just won't work. There always will be a way, and stopping one way will just force people to find another. You might be able to deter casual downloaders for a time but I guarantee you that the heavy downloaders, the ones he was mainly concerned about, will find a workaround.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 23, 2011)

Doug N said:


> LOL, I guess communism just hasn't met the right guy yet? In theory it's beautiful but in practice it's had a bad run? I'm sure that's right.


Since there's never been a truly communistic society, only dictatorships that claimed to be communism, Stalinism and Leninism =/= Marxism, you can't say it's had a bad run, you'd have to say it's had no real run at all. But that's not what this thread is about, let's ignore the guy who doesn't even understand what communism is that's dumping copypasta here and get back to talking about downloading.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 23, 2011)

There have been some very funny ideas floated in this thread.

The idea that having the monopoly on utilizing intellectual property = owning people is complete and utter fail. Putting limits on someone's actions is not owning someone... unless you say that laws against murder are also owning people. There is no usurpation of a person's sovereignty, unless you argue that any limits on a person's actions are equal to servitude.

That's just bullshit and sophistry, and the sort of sophomoric argument I'd expect from some newbies at college. It's too easy to reduce the core idea to absurdity.

----

Regarding communism, the reason it is so easily subverted is that it is, at its core, utopian, with no safeguards built in for when someone actively tries to gain advantage over others. Republican democracy in its best forms has those safeguards, as it recognizes that some will eventually try to cheat. 

It's not that communism is evil, but that it is so easily used by evil persons. One can find that in all utopian schemes, from Christianity to political movements to hippies. 

Isn't that sad?


----------



## MerlinTKD (Apr 25, 2011)

As far as boni goes... I'll only address one logical fault: the levitating tiger escape.

If one needs to create something for which another holds the patent, that one has every right to do so - or rather, is not prevented from doing so - UNLESS that one is doing so as a way of avoiding paying that other, or is him/herself attempting to make money from that creation. With intellectual property, the creator/copyright holder/patent holder does NOT actually own the concept or the product; that person owns the right to make money from said concept or product.

Same thing with music. As a creative artist, the music I create is not and can not be owned by me or anyone else; the right to commodify that specific creation - or not to - IS a right that devolves to me and only me (and under current US copyright law, whomever the copyright passes to for what is now a ridiculous number of years).

Thereby neatly avoiding the libertarian's artificial conundrum.

By the way... I wonder if Ayn Rand and her estate receive royalties based on the sale of her writing? I bet so... since she was STRONGLY of the opinion that an artist owns his/her work, even to the point of an architect having final authority over the disposition of a physical building built following his plans.


As far as the original issue... I actually agree completely with Greg, and of course he doesn't pretend to know HOW exactly to work it all out. While it IS all sorts of grey, remember this: if YOU download music without paying the copyright holder (or the designated intermediary, etc etc), YOU have broken the law. YOU have cheated the copyright holder out of whatever monetary value they (or the market, etc etc) have decided to place on it. What anyone else does or might do is beside the point. You may decide you have reasons you find valid for doing so, but nothing changes those two facts. The ONLY legal remedy is to pay for the music (though permanently deleting your copies before the crime is known effectively negates the situation).

Is that 'right'? Is that 'moral'? Hell if I know, I'm still trying to figure it out myself. There is no doubt, however, that THAT is where the law stands currently. Saying "it ought to be different" may be a true statement, but it doesn't change the legality of the situation... and to be honest, I can't see where those basic facts of copyright CAN be changed without destroying the entire concept of any professional artist.


----------

