Shoplifting vs. Downloading

[r6d2]

Originally posted by mf
Ah. Well, I was more hostile when I entered this thread.
Then my dog was right two out of two trys. Didn’t I tell you he was smart? :)
Through the replies we have interchanged I have gained more understanding and respect for you.
Respecting people in advance pays better, IMHO. And it’s free and you are not taking anyone's copyrights! :D

The bad thing is that you cannot download respectfullness from anywhere.
Actually, I have some very extreme attitudes, to people as well as to life. [...] (because whenever I don't hide my attitude in an argument, people call me childish).
Well, wash your mouth with soap and go to your room. :D
I also read the posts I reply to twice, once to read it, and once to answer to it.
And I still don’t have a clue on the ethereal thing ;)
I'll guess for wagging. :D
Nope. You should get a smart dog too. ;)

[Kedirekin]

I think the main distinction between material and ethereal things in this context is that material things have a significant incremental cost of production. There is a cost of labor and materials to make one more item.

For ethereal things (i.e. information), the incremental cost of production is negligible.

I think this distinction breaks all the existing rules.

As a consumer, I can understand paying for a material thing because it has an incremental cost of production. And yes, I understand that a portion of the price pays for the up-front cost of research and development, but I also expect that prices will go down once this up-front cost is realized (due to competition if nothing else).

But, as a consumer, I don't understand why I have to continue to pay for something that has no cost of production once the up-front costs (and a reasonable profit) have been realized. Why should I have to pay for a Doors song from the 60's? Surely the cost of producing that song have long since been repaid, and then some.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
I think the main distinction between material and ethereal things in this context is that material things have a significant incremental cost of production.
You see, that cost is not always significant. For instance, a book priced US$10 can have a marginal cost of production of only $1. Then you have to add the costs of marketing, distribution, comercialization, and taxes.

A music CD can get as low as US$0.5 to produce, and they still charge you US$10.
As a consumer, I can understand paying for a material thing because it has an incremental cost of production. And yes, I understand that a portion of the price pays for the up-front cost of research and development, but I also expect that prices will go down once this up-front cost is realized (due to competition if nothing else).
Well, this actually happens with material things like processors, video graphic cards, refrigerators, TVs, standalone players, etc. Costs go down with volume of sales since the marginal cost usually decreases. But OTOH, prices go down not because the good producer already made his fortune. It's because there's competition. Otherwise he'd keep the price high and just make more money.

Monopolies are bad for consumers because they fix the prices and you cannot enter the market on your own and compete.
But, as a consumer, I don't understand why I have to continue to pay for something that has no cost of production once the up-front costs (and a reasonable profit) have been realized. Why should I have to pay for a Doors song from the 60's? Surely the cost of producing that song have long since been repaid, and then some.
Well, that's an interesing question. The point is that every industry of goods and services, whichever you name, are not driven by the costs anymore. That was so in the beginning of the industrial era. Ford company being the typical case study.

It's said that Henry Ford once said: you can have a car any color you like, but only if it is black.

The competition came in and monopolies had a hard time. As of now, if the entry barreers for a market are low, anyone can enter the arena and compete, providing the same or even better goods at better prices.

But price is not based only in costs. Price is set according to what consumers think is the value for a good. The typical case of "what is the value of a bottle of water in the desert after several days of not having any food or drink". The cost of producing it is the same as in normal conditions, but the price can get very high.

This means that the producer will want to maximize the difference between price and cost and make more money. But, where there is competition, that does not happen easily. Many guys are trying to sell the product, so price is not always something you set yourself, it is driven by the market.

When there's a monopoly, they'll charge you as much as you are willing to pay, balancing the demmand and supply. They study the elasticity of the demand curve to price. If they can sell enough more copies by decreasing the price as to compensate the price tag loss, they lower the price. Else they keep it.

If we use the download and buy approach, and record companies are out of the way, the author is free to charge anything he wants, regardless of the marginal cost of production, which is barely zero.

He can increase the price to buy a new house, to pay for a trip, whatever. He also balances demand and supply, and he competes with other authors, but price has nothing to do with costs.

[Kedirekin]

I understand everything you're saying, but I think it is wrong. Not inaccurate, but a violation of common decency.

Under the circumstances, I don't believe in charging as much as the market will bear. It's just a polite phrase for profiteering. If I'm in the desert and someone charges me $100 for a bottle of water, I might pay it under duress (to save my life) but I'm not going to be happy about it. And I might just get together with others that were overcharged under duress and try to balance the scales, maybe by downloading some water.

There is a special problem with art - it can never be commoditized. In effect, every artist is a tiny monopoly, charging whatever they want and saying 'if you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it'. Free market presures don't really work under these circumstances, as I think the example in the desert clearly shows.

Which brings me to a point. Copyright laws weren't only created to protect content creators from society, they're also there to protect society from content creators. They're a contract between society and content creators, and at the moment I think technology has broken that contract (in several ways).

[Doom9]

As far as prices go, I think the industry should consider some radical changes. What do they claim they're loosing? When Napster was shut down in 2001, it was to be relaunched again months thereafter, with a two tiered price model. There was a $19.95 pricetag for unlimited access, and about 10 bucks for limited access (I don't recall the actual limitations). At that time, Napster was clearly the place to download music, so if the service suddenly charged for access, you could either pay up, or go someplace else where the offer is a lot worse (let alone not legal). Nowadays we have what, 60 million Americans who have downloaded music? We have probably the same number of people in Europe, and let's say 30 Million from the rest of the world (maybe I'm completely wrong now, it's just a guess). That's 150 million people. Assume that 50% would pay those 20 bucks. That makes 75mio * 20 = 1.5 billion dollars per Month. How does that compare to the RIAA's made up losses? Now imagine a more differentiated price model. Say the RIAA members inject digitally signed signs and you can only get those for a premium (the signature is a quality guarantee, so some extra value). Plus, you can get access for a low fee, and buy tickets that give you the right to download a certain number of songs (and if you want more, just buy another ticket). Since it's a P2P network, infrastructure and distribution cost is minimal, and you can save on advertising as well because popularity can spread by word of mouth. Now, while the industry hates the thought of not charging for every song, the flatfee model is not uncommon at all. Look at ISPs today.. many charge a flat fee no matter how much you use the service. Or look at all you can eat offers in a restaurant. They're all based on a mix calculation where the ones that consume more than the average are compensated by the ones who consume less than average. I could even imagine a higher price, say 30 or 40 bucks and I'd still pay it in a heartbeat even if I wouldn't use the service a lot at times.
Now let's not forget what Napster was.. it was MP3, so there is no DRM crap and you're free to share with anyone using Napster (since access is for paying members only that's no problem).
Maybe I'm completely off track, but I think people would be willing to pay a certain service fee to have access to the huge music collection available in P2P services, and the music industry would have to do nothing than to cash the check at the end of the month, and instead of loosing money off such services they'd actually make money. I know it's tough to break with an established business model, but modern times sometimes require radical solutions.
I believe that right now the industry's biggest problem is that they are unwilling to move from the established model. They want to charge just as much for a song online as for one on a CD, despite the lower cost, and while you pay as much as for a song on a CD, you don't even have the same rights.. you're restricted to listening to the music on your computer and all the other disadvantages DRM has. It is thus not surprising that many people refuse to go for that model. But if you go for something that they like (MP3 sharing over P2P) networks, chances of success are that much higher. After all, the industry has always been against new technology, and in the end they have embraced it and it turned out that by doing that they could vastly increase their income.

[mf]

Originally posted by r6d2
Then my dog was right two out of two trys. Didn’t I tell you he was smart? :)

Respecting people in advance pays better, IMHO. And it’s free and you are not taking anyone's copyrights! :D

The bad thing is that you cannot download respectfullness from anywhere.

Well, wash your mouth with soap and go to your room. :D

And I still don’t have a clue on the ethereal thing ;)

Nope. You should get a smart dog too. ;)
You have a bad dog. :p
I did respect in advance. You just messed that up in your first post, and had to clean it up later. Not my fault. ;)
About the ethereal thing: I can only put it like this. Let's say I like your arm. I could ask to buy your arm (and you'd decline), I could rip your arm off with a chainsaw and put it behind glass in my house. (Material theft) I could also cast a plaster copy of your arm, and put that behind glass, or make a picture and hang that on the wall. (Etherial "theft")
In the material example, you would definitely mind my liking of your arm. In the etherial example, you couldn't really care less (I think). You'd probably more likely feel honored than a victim of theft.
If this doesn't make any sense, it's 10 o'clock in the morning, and I haven't had my coffee yet.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by mf
About the ethereal thing: I can only put it like this. Let's say I like your arm.... I like talking about refrigerators more. :p

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Pamel
I like talking about refrigerators more. :p
Yes, and strippers. :p

Originally posted by Doom9
I could even imagine a higher price, say 30 or 40 bucks and I'd still pay it in a heartbeat even if I wouldn't use the service a lot at times ... I think people would be willing to pay a certain service fee to have access to the huge music collection available in P2P services
As an addict, I have about 500 CDs in my collection, and I'm probably the only one here who doesn't think the price of CDs is too high (call me brainwashed by the RIAA). Anyhow I can't imagine paying any amount of money for lossy compressed MP3 or WMA music tracks. To me, this is no way to distribute music. If it were distributed in a lossless format, that would be better, but I'm still going to miss the little booklet with the pictures and lyrics. Many of my CDs are rare and/or out of print, and their personal and sentimental value to me is far and above their material value.

I'm sad about the idea of a world without CDs, but I fear that this is where the battle between the RIAA and P2P will ultimately lead us. :(

[Doom9]

I'm sad about the idea of a world without CDs, but I fear that this is where the battle between the RIAA and P2P will ultimately lead us. I wasn't suggesting to abandon CDs, but rather to capitalize on a "market" where the music industry currently is not making any money from. There will always be those who prefer a physical support and better quality, but if the downloadable offer is fair and consumer friendly, I think a lot of people might go for it, even the ones who are not particularly keen on paying.

[Beastie Boy]

There is still the problem of tempting people away from the free P2P networks and onto the 'pay per use' networks. It's one thing to have a good idea and sound business model, but it's quite another to get people (consumers) to agree with your ideas.

If there is still the choice of a free download, a large number (most) people would take it.

Cheers, Beastie.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Beastie Boy
There is still the problem of tempting people away from the free P2P networks
Easy; you just terrorize them with outrageous fines and jail time. ;)

[Kedirekin]

Or better, you add value, and there's a lot of room for added value.

Doom9 said it earlier - just making it easier to find what you are looking for with some assurance of quality is a huge value add.

They could also make available electronic versions of cover art and liner notes. I believe there are extensions to ID3 that let you embed that sort of stuff right in an MP3.

They could add artist interviews or track commentaries, or any number of things. Consider it extras for music.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
I understand everything you're saying, but I think it is […] a violation of common decency.
In the course of life I’ve been amazed by the number of times I have lost my capacity of be amazed by things. You loose your innocence almost an infinite number of times. And yet you still keep a little more. It’s, in a way, like the famous Zeno’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradox#Achilles_and_the_tortoise) paradox.
I don't believe in charging as much as the market will bear. It's just a polite phrase for profiteering.
Well, you seem to have a bad concept of profit. Or about high profits at least. But profits are the plain and simple engine of the economy as we know it. Profits are not necessarily a bad thing. Profits pay taxes, and taxes are used (or should be used) by the State to provide you with education, health, freedom, crime control, and all the other stuff that fills almost every democratic constitution and allows us to live in a world (hopefully) free from barbarism.

Of course you can claim a profit is too high, since as consumers we always want to pay the minimum possible. But do you know why we consumers act like that? Because we are trying to maximize our own personal profit! Think about it and you'll see that other people have the same right as you do to get as much profit as they can.

But when a industry’s profit is indeed too high? Is there a quantifiable measure of that? Is for instance a 10% sales margin low? On some industries, thanks to volume sales, it is a lot of money. Is 90% margin too high? In others, it doesn’t add as much.

On a free market, profit ends up being the result of supply and demand.
If I'm in the desert and someone charges me $100 for a bottle of water, I might pay it under duress (to save my life) but I'm not going to be happy about it.
Really? Isn’t you life worth US$100 to you? In fact, wouldn’t you be willing to give away all your assets to continue living even if you have to start from zero again? What are assets good for when you are six feet under?

I have had not one, but three car accidents that might have costed my life and which ended up as being total loss of the vehicle in question. My car was only insured in the first 2 of them. On the third one, I just lost it and I was unlucky enough to be the one case in which it was my fault, so I could not even sue for damages.

Personally, after that last accident, I could not care less about putting the debris of my car in the trashcan. I was quite more concerned about the stupid mistake that could cost my life (which in the example could be, for instance, go to the desert without enough water) than about the cost of buying a new car (and have it insured this time:)).
There is a special problem with art - it can never be commoditized. In effect, every artist is a tiny monopoly, charging whatever they want and saying 'if you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it'.
Painting is an art where this is best shown. When a famous painter dies, all his originals get automatically a substantial price increase, since there will be no more of them. But that is supply and demand again. ;)
Free market presures don't really work under these circumstances, as I think the example in the desert clearly shows.
“Pure” free market only works when some absolutely surreal conditions are met: when market is infinite, and when all information is available. You see these two requirements are mutually exclusive. But yet free market quite works, to a general extent.
Originally posted by Doom9
Now, while the industry hates the thought of not charging for every song, the flatfee model is not uncommon at all. […] They're all based on a mix calculation where the ones that consume more than the average are compensated by the ones who consume less than average.
Well, actually the fee has to be higher than the average cost. Otherwise the provider would stay even. ;)

I personally love flat fees. I always think I’m winning :D:D:D. In fact, I’d love to live in an area where Netflix was available. They claim to have 1,000,000 “satisfied customers” (they don’t mention the unsatisfied ones though ;)).

But there’s a catch with currently available flat fees. They have a physical limit. You cannot eat more than your stomach capacity, unless you like the roman orgy style. Netflix also has a limit on the revolving library, so you don’t drain their 15 thousand movie library in a week.

With the downloadable music all-you-can-eat flat fee model, for instance, what you can eat can be really a lot. Roman users would not be the minority anymore and they would increase the average cost, perhaps even beyond the point a flat fee can be appealing to normal users.
Originally posted by mf
You have a bad dog.
I showed him your new post. He is barking real loud now ;)
I did respect in advance.
Well, you said you were hostile when coming to the thread. Hostility is in general not very compatible with respect in advance, according to my dog (3 out of 3?). ;)
Not my fault.
Blaming your faults to third parties is consistent with the go to your room stuff. :D:D:D

Just kidding, I really like your style.
About the ethereal thing: [arm-(aka refrigerator) stuff] and I haven't had my coffee yet.
Quite a good example indeed, but it has a quirk. You’d have to get my permission for the plaster copy, or it would be very rude from your part. Applying to freeloading, you should get the song’s owner permission. Have more coffee ;)
Originally posted by fccHandler
Anyhow I can't imagine paying any amount of money for lossy compressed MP3 or WMA music tracks. To me, this is no way to distribute music.
Would you believe I only learnt in this forum, few months ago, that MP3s are lossy (MPEG-2 in general, actually)? And I still cannot notice it. Well, I’m the kind of guy who buys Chivas Regal but really can’t tell the difference on a blind test. Same thing with Coke and Pepsi. My skills are just good enough to differentiate light-coke form straight coke.
I'm still going to miss the little booklet with the pictures and lyrics. Many of my CDs are rare and/or out of print, and their personal and sentimental value to me is far and above their material value.
Well, you are a collector. Same happens to me with game software. I like those well-designed and appealing boxes in my bookshelf as much as I like to play the games. I have even bought games after having completely played them at a friend's home, just for the boxes.

For music, however, I prefer a slim storage cabinet. (I actually have somewhere a box full of brand new deluxe CD cases with booklets and lyrics and my wife is going to dump them any minute. If you pay for the S&H, you can have them ;))

The good thing of lossy codecs is that you get to decide which quality you are actually able to enjoy best, and avoiding the use of more than needed is a saving, which leaves more free resources for other material. We engineers just can’t avoid optimize anything than comes to our hands. ;)

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by r6d2
Would you believe I only learnt in this forum, few months ago, that MP3s are lossy (MPEG-2 in general, actually)? And I still cannot notice it.
Yes, I guess I'm a collector though my ears are not the best. I agree with you here, and I usually can't hear any artifacts in good MP3s. But to me it's more of a disgust with the principle of it. I.e., they expect me to pay for music which has been deliberately damaged (solely to conserve their bandwidth)? No thanks. I think the only way I could be persuaded to do that is if there was no other way to obtain the music. Otherwise I'd rather purchase the CD, assuming they'll still be making them.

[Arkay]

As Neo said in the Matrix Reloaded :

"The problem is choice"..

The RIAA don't want you to have one, the internet gives you one.

When all is said and done in the discussions above regarding copyright law, patents, ethereal "non tangible assets" vs tangible ones, laws from country to country it really doesn't make any difference.

I believe the problem to be far more basic.

It is simply about choice. We all weigh up the pro's and con's in our mind and then we make a choice. Now you need to understand why we made it.

Thinking about this I realise that I make choices based on perceptions. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. They are all I have to go on.

<Takes off Matrix cap>

My perception of the RIAA and in fact any "Media" industry is that they are arrogant money hungry unrelenting bullies who will stop at nothing to maintain the luxury that they have experienced for so long.

I believe that the majority of people are descent and have common values in their beliefs of fair pay for fair value.

I don't think many in the world would not give what they believed to be of equal worth to the author of a piece of art for the priviledge of experiencing it.

The question for me has always been:

"How much of the money will go to the artist if I fork out 10-15US?"

Knowing that the answer is < $1 (maybe an incorrect perception), coupled with the perception above about the entire industry, leads me to the choice that I will download music (not that I can generally be bothered).

I justify this by realising that yes, it is stealing from the artist (in the case where I would buy the music), and also in the knowledge that I cannot pay the artist directly. But also that I am not stealing from the artist nearly as much as I perceive that the record industry is.

Option 1: As a consumer I have the right to support an industry that I perceive as dishonent and counterproductive with regard to content creation. This by definition of the law is "legal".

Option 2: I also have the right to download my rear off and experience and enjoy as much music as I like for nothing more than my ISP fees.

Morally I believe that the second option is actually better for the artists and myself even if it is illegal, in that eventually the record companies will have to change their ways or better still, be gone forever.

Large fines, jail time and a general heavy handed "we'll stomp on you from a great height" treatment will only continue to exacerbate an already poor perception of the industry and the world will react by abusing it even further.

Breaking the law has consequences, but in all of history I doubt you'll find a society that tolerated a perceived immoral law or a law that was designed to support immoral practices that was instituted by the "powers that be".

Prohibition springs to mind as an example. What we are seeing is a revolt against simple common unfairness and when it all comes out in the wash, although some will pay dearly, the people will win outright, or via a suitable compromise.

Regards,
Arkay.

[oddball]

It all comes down to one thing in the end. The value of a thing. Whether it be material or ethereal. A rug or an idea. The worth of a thing is determined by it's cost to make in either labour, materials or both.

In ancient times before money was invented you traded. 2 pigs and a goat for a horse etc. The idea of money made it easier for anyone to trade.

Digital makes the value of a thing drop to the point at which anyone can manufacture ethereal goods for next to nothing. Is it's value any less? Good question. Those that created the goods in the first place are expecting to charge the same for something as before the internet became what it is today when anyone can copy the thing for nearly nothing. Trying to keep market control on such things is ludicrous. 99c or in the UK 99p (Everything US is always converted to the numertical equivalent when sold in the UK even though it does not reflect the actual actual exchange rate) for a DRM protected music file is just too damned expensive. Especially when I can go elsewhere and get it for nothing unprotected and probably in better quality too.
These industries got bitten on the backside while they weren't looking and are now in the process of trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Never gonna happen. They put all their eggs in one basket (Cliches galore here) without even comprehending that the world was changing around them. They were too busy mass marketing the Britney's and Aguilera's to check out what was happening. And now they have they are bitching about it and lashing out like a spoilt child in all directions like it's everyone's fault but theirs.

The truth is that the only people being hurt are the little people. Those who work in the lower echelons of these coroporations. As profits fall then job cuts will occur. I feel sorry for them. The people at the top will be less affected. Sure they may have to take a pay cut out of their vast fortunes this year. Might not be able to buy that new home in the sun they wanted. Well boo bloody hoo.

This is a social problem more than anything. People have realised that they don't have to pay out for stuff anymore. They can spend their paycheck on other more important things like the kids clothes etc.

Plus there is a wealth of other entertainment product to choose from now.

I don't think taking everyone to court is going to solve this one. It's rather like speed cameras. People get caught speeding everyday. But has that stopped people from speeding? I don't think so.

Laws need to change for the benefit of the public. Not for corporations own pockets.

[mpucoder]

Well said, Arkay. It is also interesting to note that the RIAA represents the recording industry, and not the artists. The artists are represented by ASCAP (The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers), BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.), and NMPA (The National Music Publishers' Association). These are the organizations that collect royalties for the artists from broadcasters, legally operating nightclub DJ's, and record sales. Although they've been in bed with the RIAA for a long time, they do have a different view of the future of internet music, as evident in their joint statement (http://www.ascap.com/legislation/jointstatement.html) .

I also know many unsigned artists wouldn't mind the demise of the studio system. It worked for a time, but that was a time when it took huge amounts of money to produce and market a song. That's how the studios got their hooks into the artists, because the studios had resources, and (as any investor would) chose their artists carefully. The industry is also full of corruption, although "payola" (the direct payment of money to radio stations for more air-play) and "Cash Box" (a C&W publication that manipulated numbers) are history, there is still an ugly dark side.

Conditions are changing, though, to where it is not beyond the reach of many unsigned, but working, musicians to produce their own recordings, and the internet is the best distribution media for this.

[Doom9]

But there’s a catch with currently available flat fees. They have a physical limit. You cannot eat more than your stomach capacity, unless you like the roman orgy style. Netflix also has a limit on the revolving library, so you don’t drain their 15 thousand movie library in a week.

With the downloadable music all-you-can-eat flat fee model, for instance, what you can eat can be really a lot. Roman users would not be the minority anymore and they would increase the average cost, perhaps even beyond the point a flat fee can be appealing to normal users.
I don't see that problem. Who cares if you download then thousand songs a month? You cannot possibly comsume them all, can you? So when you download from a P2P network, the music industry has zero cost, and they should calculate their gains by the number of songs people download to listen to.. the rest is irrelevant. In fact, it is even good if you download 10'000 songs but only listen to 10 of them.. the other 9'990 help other people to get faster downloads. Or would you say that if somebody downloads a song but never listens to, he is stealing from the industry? Where is the loss if you never listen to the song? As I've previously said, the loss happens in the moment when you consume something but have no intention of paying the price for it. Downloads itself are not the problem, it's the fact that music is consumed without anybody getting any money for it.
The only one loosing out with the 10'000 songs is your ISP who has to pay for the bandwidth you're consuming. But they could be using P2P caches that have been tried out by certain ISPs earlier this year (and then been shut down again due to pressure from the RIAA).

There is still the problem of tempting people away from the free P2P networks and onto the 'pay per use' networks. It's one thing to have a good idea and sound business model, but it's quite another to get people (consumers) to agree with your ideas.
Well, when Napster was the only usable P2P network, the industry had a huge opening. It took time for alternative networks like Kazaa or edonkey to make an impact. You don't start up a P2P network with millions of songs overnight. So if Napster had suddenly turned payware in the best days, with a reasonable flat fee price, there would've been no alternative, so your "I won't pay anything" user would have had no equivalent alternative. He would either have to cough up the dough, go to an alternative network that has almost no songs, or start buying CDs again. If the price is right, the 2nd option is no real option, and people would pay for the convenience of being able to download as they used to.

To get back at the comparison.. why does the RIAA want us to think downloading = shoplifting? Because they believe that Joe Average considers downloading okay and shoplifting not okay. But I believe that this perception is wrong. I doubt that there are many people who think downloading music is perfectly legal. But because it does not incurr a very physical measurable loss (as I said.. if you have no intention of paying it, the industry only incurrs a virtual loss, they'd never get to see any money), it isn't as evil. But, who hasn't taken something from a store without paying when he was little? We all knew it was wrong, and it was more like a test of courage without the intention of hurting anyone (even though it does). Yet, if you get caught, you'll get away with the slap on the wrist and a call to your parents (and obviously you return the goods or you pay up). The law does make the difference between the two actions. Not only are there entirely different punishments, it is not the same law governing the infraction and it is about different types of goods, so you really cannot equalize it. Lets not forget that the industry knows it cannot be prepared, otherwise they'd try to put it into the same law with the same kind of punishment.. but they are pushing for ridicoulously high fees whereas a shiplifter gets off easy. But because they think the public's perception of shoplifting is "wronger" than of downloading music, they'd like to equalize the concepts, but only w.r.t. the public's perception.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by fccHandler
they expect me to pay for music which has been deliberately damaged (solely to conserve their bandwidth)? No thanks.
Remember that MPEG-2 video is lossy, so you might be refraining yourself from buying a DVD too. Actually, I’m amazed about the amount of information that can be taken out from a DVD source while converting it to SVCD and still being unable to tell the difference on a typical 4:3 analog TV.

I had this music teacher that used to tell us, students, that the final quality you get from a music system (turntable, needle, amplifier, equalizer, speakers, room characteristics, ears, brain ;)) was equal to that of the worst quality component. You could perfectly screw up a perfect recording with lousy speakers, for instance.

It’s like when you scan an image at 4800 dpi for output on a 600 dpi printer. It makes little sense.
Originally posted by Arkay
Knowing that the answer is < $1 (maybe an incorrect perception)
I don’t know for sure, but in the book publishing industry you are lucky to get 10% of net price tag on your first book. When you are more widely known, you can negotiate 15% and also 20%, but it takes a while to get there. You also get to collect only twice a year, and you cannot audit the figures you are presented. I mean, you could, but it’s too much work for the amount involved.

You just have to trust them. Some editors are widely known for ripping authors and not declaring all sales, so you better stay away from them.

OTOH, really famous authors get a payment in advance and collect for life afterwards, since new editions typically follow up. They also get to choose their publisher and negotiate being “the big fish” this time. I guess the music industry must be similar.
But also that I am not stealing from the artist nearly as much as I perceive that the record industry is.
Perceptions are realities, you are indeed correct, no matter how wrong those perceptions are, and your decisions are based always on what you are. Free translation from Ortega y Gasset, a notorious Spanish philosopher: “I am me and my circumstances”. It means something like “you are what you are, but also with your whole surrounding environment and past experiences.”

But wrong perceptions don’t excuse wrong behavior. Try telling the cop that you perceived the traffic light as green when it was in fact red, and see if you get away from the fine.

I’d rather not say what I’m about to say next without forewarning that I am not on the RIAA’s payroll and that I do not endorse monopolist activities (I’ve said that several times but better safe than sorry) ;)

Suppose the author, a computer illiterate, wants to make a record. He goes to the record company. He is presented with the terms of the deal. He is offered, let’s say, that 10% share. He knows the actual unit cost is much lower than the price tag, but he also perceives the value the publisher adds by promoting, distributing, and commercializing.

He is free to accept or not. The alternative is to promote, distribute and sell himself. He estimates that he can indeed get more than 10% if he does it. But it costs money. He does not know for sure if the album will sell enough copies to get the invested money back. There is a risk involved.

He balances all that and let’s say he chooses for the record company because he probably calculated that he’d spend lots of money and also didn’t want to take the risk. Nobody forced him to that choice.

Would you still say he is being robbed by the publisher? If so, would explain why is he?
Option 2: I also have the right
Do you, really? Would you elaborate who gave you that right? Technology? There used to be a fortune cookie in Unix systems that read: “You would if you could, but you can’t so you won’t, and perhaps you shouldn’t” ;)

The fact that you can do something does not mean you have the right to do so. Someone might be able to kill you, but he has no right to take your life. Has he?
Morally I believe that the second option is actually better [...] even if it is illegal
You may morally pass a red light then if you are in a hurry?

(What if an artist of your sympathies is about to cross the street?) :D
Originally posted by oddball
The worth of a thing is determined by it's cost to make in either labour, materials or both.
What something is worth is not an intrinsic property. Cost is. But value (or worth, assuming we mean the same by that) is completely subjective. To me, a Britney’s record is worthless. An Abba greatest hits is something has a value I’m willing to pay for.

If things were sold at its costs, no profit would be made. Then they sell the stuff at what they think it’s worth, what people is willing to pay. Would you work for less than you think you’re worth? Would you sacrifice the potential profit you might get?
Trying to keep market control on such things is ludicrous.
(I had to look it up since I did not know the exact meaning.)
From Webster’s:
ludicrous: amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
I cannot agree with you more here. A paradigm shift must be made.
As profits fall then job cuts will occur.
Yes, and this is already happening in several industries. Globalization, fusions, acquisitions and mergers have generated lots of unemployment. It seems that the world is not enough for all of us anymore. We have to create new worlds, or we may have no future.
Originally posted by mpucoder
I also know many unsigned artists wouldn't mind the demise of the studio system. It worked for a time,
That’s the paradigm shift that is about to occur! The net has eliminated the need of many intermediaries, in lots of industries. But Godzilla-like RIAA refuses to get the point, as oddball pointed out so neatly. They just don’t add much value anymore, and they stick to the monopoly stuff.

Thanks to technology, promoting is a lot easier and cheaper. Distributing too. Commercializing is ridiculously cheaper. S&H does not even exist. Now that’s what artists must get to know in order to get rid of parasites that add no value anymore. And the record industry better find a way to add new value instead of harassing citizens.

But that does not change the fact that you have no right to upload a legit copy. ;)
Originally posted by Doom9
I don't see that problem. Who cares if you download then thousand songs a month? You cannot possibly comsume them all, can you?
Well, my friend, I made the analogy understanding you meant that the all-you-can-eat flat fee really meant all you can eat, as those restaurants really are.

In that model, applied to downloading, authors get paid whether you hear the song or not. You just bought the right to be served any number of food-filled dishes to your table, and eat them. You can leave some leftovers, of course, but it would not be educated if you serve yourself several dishes that you do not intend to eat.

Also, you cannot enter a flat fee restaurant, pay for one buffet and ask for an X-large doggy bag to go and feed you up at home for a week. You can use the roman orgy technique while inside, but if you get caught you’d likely not be allowed in that restaurant anymore.

If flat fee restaurants had spitting baskets so you could puke all you have eaten at regular intervals, and a sign outside calling for roman orgy customers (those who eat just for the pleasure of flavors and texture of foods). Since delivering a dish has a cost for the restaurant (paying the author), I guess the flat fee in question would be substantially higher than in normal ones. Don’t you think?

That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I did not express it clearly enough.

Also, you cannot enter the flat fee restaurant and pay for 1 buffet, leaving the gang outside, then sit down, open the window and give them their share.

The rules are the rules ;), or the restaurant would go chapter 11.

It’s like happy hours at pubs. You cannot take your girlfriend and ask for 1 drink, second one free (immediately) so you get one for each one at the same time. That is not the idea (and it would be very cheap from you) :)
Or would you say that if somebody downloads a song but never listens to, he is stealing from the industry?
Nope, I already told you that model was a great idea. I still don't see a way to put it into practice though.
The only one loosing out with the 10'000 songs is your ISP who has to pay for the bandwidth you're consuming.
In the all-you-can-eat-and-puke model, the ISP would be like the waiter at the restaurant, who brings you the several dishes you’ll swallow and puke afterwards. He’d allocate to you much more time than needed and other customers he is assigned to would receive a worse service.

Disgusting subject, isn't it? :) May I go back to strippers? :D:D:D

[Kedirekin]

Saw an interesting interview on TechTV tonight with the creator of magnatunes.com.

At last it looks like someone's trying to do it right.
try before you buy
previews are all 128kbps MP3
no DRM
purchase gives you access to various higher quality formats, including full WAVs
looks like you can pay what you think is fair (I'm not sure all artists/albums let you choose what you pay)
suggested price looks to be $8 (but again, not sure if all artists/album have the same $8 suggested price)
50% of payment goes directly to the artist


Personally, I'd like the suggested price to be a little lower (wouldn't we all) and I'd like to see the artist percentage at 75% or 80%, but at least this is a move in the right direction.

And unlike other sites (MP3.com for example) they don't just carry any artist that submits, so the quality should be higher - like you'd find wandering through a record store.

Of course, the big down side is you almost certainly won't find any big names here, and the selection is pretty limited (due to the small list of artists).

The creator had some interesting things to say.

He mentioned an artist that used to be with a label that sold 20,000 of his CDs, and the artist never got a cent (thanks to a drakonian contract). The artist sued and managed to get the rights to his music back, but still never got a penny. Tell me labels aren't evil.

He also gave some statistics so far
ratio of people that visit site that end up buying - 1 in 53 (about the same as a brick-and-mortar)
ratio of people that download previews that end up buying - 1 in 20
their adding about 20 new artists a month


[Edit] On re-reading this, it sounds like I'm making an endorsement. Just want to say I'm not affiliated in any way with magnatunes.com. I saw the interview and wanted to let people know there's some rays shining at the end of the tunnel.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by r6d2
Remember that MPEG-2 video is lossy, so you might be refraining yourself from buying a DVD too.
Good point, but there is a big difference. I'm not sure it's feasible with today's technology to distribute uncompressed digital movies, so we're kind of stuck with MPEG-2 at the moment. (If it weren't for MPEG, I guess we'd still be buying analog laserdiscs.) However, CDs have always been uncompressed PCM, and I hope they stay that way. I just don't want to see them go the way of the LD, to be replaced by a distribution model using lossy compression, because I think it's uncalled for.

On the other hand, I'm the same guy who argued with my roommate a long time ago when my 256MB hard drive was filling up, and he suggested I convert all my beautiful Targa scans to JPEGs. (I came around eventually.) :p

[Arkay]

r6d2,

Suppose the author, [...] perceives the value the publisher adds by promoting, distributing, and commercializing.

He is free to accept or not. The alternative is to promote, distribute and sell himself. [...] There is a risk involved.

He balances all that and let’s say he chooses for the record company because he probably calculated that he’d spend lots of money and also didn’t want to take the risk. Nobody forced him to that choice

Would you still say he is being robbed by the publisher? If so, would explain why is he?.

Well. Maybe he was forced to that choice because in his circumstance the only option available to him was to go via the marketing and distribution channels of a label. The argument has merit, but in the reverse we also have to look at the fact that 95 percent of artists NEVER get heard because they are rejected by such companies and these companies have such a stonghold on what we as consumers are allowed to see and hear that "self distribution" is almost suicidal in terms or "tangible" assets. i.e. Pressing your own CD's. You can do it but you risk everything. Marketing "etherealy" (is that a word?) however is substancially more cost effective. Maybe that is why the RIAA and the labels are so reluctant to go this way. It's very perceivable that some internet site could come along with a great electronic distribution model and suddenly the labels begin losing what they require most, the artists.

I'm sorry but your argument really makes it sound like the RIAA and labels are really there to help out the little battling artist with no money to produce and market his material. Maybe one day it did work that way. These days the only CD you'll see on a shelf is going to be one that can make the Label money. Not the artist.
The artist is nothing more to them than "product".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2: I also have the right
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you, really? Would you elaborate who gave you that right?


Certainly. I live in a democratic society, by the very nature of it I have the right to choose for myself to take any action I desire whether it be legal, moral or not. I am also the one held accountable for those actions but the right exists none the less.

The fact that you can do something does not mean you have the right to do so. Someone might be able to kill you, but he has no right to take your life. Has he?


Rights just don't seem to make any sense in this debate. What exactly is a right? Sure, I could see my family saying "That guy had no right to kill our son/husband/father". Someone in his family might say he had every right cause I'm a white Caucasian. Rights are also purely based on perceptions and are only applicable when used in conjunction with majority beliefs within a like minded community or society. Try telling Bin Laden he had no right even though I'm sure "we" all believe he didn't.
At any rate, the point was choice, not rights and I do have the right to make a choice, as we all hopefully do.

If the majority of the people within a like minded community are breaking a law because they believe it to be unjust is the law still correct?


You may morally pass a red light then if you are in a hurry?


Well, in Australia any time you are pulled over for a traffic infringment the officer will ask you if you have a valid reason for that infringment. Getting your wife to hospital to have a baby is certainly one that would justify running a red light.

So, yes, there are moral reasons why one might circumvent the law.

Whether you choose to do so or not is a personal choice, one that has consequences. Either way it doesn't change the fact that people will always do what they believe is right for them, legal or not.

My point is, if the labels and the RIAA really want to re-invent themselves and continue to be the worlds supplier of music then they have to change the worlds perception of them. Fining and jailing people isn't going to do that. Let the world see them spend some of those billion dollar profits on pleasing the artists and the consumers, it's the only way we'll ever even begin to think they are worth buying from again.

Cheers,
Arkay

[Doom9]

Well, my friend, I made the analogy understanding you meant that the all-you-can-eat flat fee really meant all you can eat, as those restaurants really are.

In that model, applied to downloading, authors get paid whether you hear the song or not. You just bought the right to be served any number of food-filled dishes to your table, and eat them. You can leave some leftovers, of course, but it would not be educated if you serve yourself several dishes that you do not intend to eat.

Maybe we should stick to the ISP, where you can actually download stuff for your entire block (or share your connection with the entire block, unless the contract forbids this).
However, in the music model, downloads != percentage. It's like with radio stations. Imagine radio station X broadcasting song Y. The music industry gets a percentage in function of the length of the song, the times they broadcast but also their market share (and not primarily the area they can cover... that would be like counting the number of downloads in a flat fee P2P model). In a flat fee music model, the actual consumption would somehow have to be estimated, and your access fee be distributed to the studios in function of that consumption. Going by downloads only would not be fair because a download could mean a preview in the sense of going to the store. Perhaps you could participate in a feedback program where the music industry gets your top ten songs each month in return for certain special offers (I'm sure they'd like to spy on you without you knowing though). But dividing the fee by downloads is just as wrong as Microsoft considering every PC that is sold without a copy of Windows to be a computer on which an illegal copy of windows is going to be installed.
Downloading a song you won't listen to will neither cost nor should it get the industry something (bandwidth in a P2P network is essentially paid by the people participating), so it's not like in a restaurant where your dish actually has to be prepared. In a flat fee P2P model, the industry could actually take of the advantage that technology has made reproduction both easy and cheap. I believe that the money distribution mechanism could be worked out in a way to reasonably satisfy most participants.

[mf]

Originally posted by r6d2
There used to be a fortune cookie in Unix systems that read: “You would if you could, but you can’t so you won’t, and perhaps you shouldn’t” ;)
mf@Infernoz:~$ fortune -m would\ if\ you\ could
(fortunes)
%
You would if you could but you can't so you won't.
:D

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Arkay
Well. Maybe he was forced to that choice
No, he was not forced, that was a fact of the enunciate. Ho chose to go that way because it was cheaper and less risk for him, just like you pointed out in the following paragraph.

He negotiated under unequal conditions, that's correct, but that happens in many other industries as well. See the job market, for instance, when you have been out of a job for a while and there is high unemployment. Or see the small furniture manufacturer when he tries to put his products in a Keymart. It's always about power differences, not about the RIAA alone, and that is a "feature" of mankind, not a "privilege" of the labels.

Labels are after money. They filter out most of authors, but believe me, if they were sure a new author is going to be a hit, they'd sign him immediately. It's the risk what they are trying to control there, not discriminating or censoring author because they consider themselves a superior being when it comes to music. They actually may consider an artists sucks as a musician, but if he sells, they'd sign him.

If they don't clearly see their investment may be returned, they don't finance it. Banks do the same. If you have no good credit, they lend you no money. A new artist does not have a credit history, it is a high risk operation.
The artist is nothing more to them than "product".
Even worse than that. It's an item on the bill of materials. But I think it always was that way, and the old model worked for many years, it is not a recent attitude. Now that is about to change.
Certainly. I live in a democratic society, by the very nature of it I have the right to choose for myself to take any action I desire whether it be legal, moral or not.
In a democratic societey, your rights end where other people's rights begin. You are mixing "ability to" or "possibility of" with "right to", and they are very different things.
I am also the one held accountable for those actions but the right exists none the less.
No, you cannot be held acountable for exercising correctly your rights.
Rights just don't seem to make any sense in this debate.
This debate has a lot to do with rights. Copyrights in particular.
Someone in his family might say he had every right cause I'm a white Caucasian.
You are now mixing rights with reasons or motivations.
Rights are also purely based on perceptions and are only applicable when used in conjunction with majority beliefs within a like minded community or society.
Every society has his own bill of rights. The wars on the past century convinced humanity to make a statement about Human Rights, for instance, and it took mankind several millena to do that.

Now most part of the world agrees on that and if a State does not respect them he gets sanctions (which range from moral to more practical). For one, you're are not invited to parties no more.
Try telling Bin Laden he had no right even though I'm sure "we" all believe he didn't.
He had no right to violate those people's right to live. He had his reasons, and maybe he thought he had the right to avenge or take justice by his own hands. But that is the sort of things that happen when people does that. That's why we have international courts. To preserve everybody's rights.
At any rate, the point was choice, not rights and I do have the right to make a choice, as we all hopefully do.
You have the right to make a choice, correct, but not to bypass other people's rights whith your choice. You're not omnipotent.

Your statement makes "right" everything imaginable, and that's not the way it works. I already gave you the murder example and could give you others, but I think that if you think every other one has the right to murder you for whatever reason, it would be pointless.
If the majority of the people within a like minded community are breaking a law because they believe it to be unjust is the law still correct?
Nope, but it's still the law. What citizens do in a democratic society is to have that law changed. If they don't have the power to make the government to work for them, they vote another government.

And the majorities, even when they are right about something, have to respect the minorities. Otherwise society resents it very much.
Well, in Australia any time you are pulled over for a traffic infringment the officer will ask you if you have a valid reason for that infringment.
Glad to hear that. I hope our cops would be that considered. Maybe this is a little off-topic, but it is a good one:

A guy speeding was being chased by a cop in another car. He run and run, but was finally caught. The officer said:
-You know, you gave me a good fight, and it's almost the end of my shift, so I'll give you a chance. If you give me a reason I had never heard before, I'll let you go.
The guy thought of it for a while and said:
-My wife run away with a cop last week. I thought it was him, who was trying to give her back.
The cop let him go.
So, yes, there are moral reasons why one might circumvent the law.
Yes, eventually, but not sistematically. If laws were "morally optional" all the time, they would not have a reason to exist. They would be just like good manners.
Fining and jailing people isn't going to do that.
I quite agree.

[DDogg]

This may have been mentioned before. If so, pardon, but something like this is what the publishers are terrified of and seems to me the answer anyway:

"The difference between Mercora (founded by former president and CEO of McAfee.com) and existing for-pay online music services is subtle. With iTunes and Rhapsody, the operators license songs from record labels and independent artists and then sell those songs to individual users. Mercora, by contrast, will simply provide the technological means by which labels and artists can themselves sell digital songs to individual Internet users."

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Doom9
Going by downloads only would not be fair because a download could mean a preview in the sense of going to the store.
Not exactly. It would be more like you going to the store, take the CD home, and retuning it after trying it or else send the check by mail.

In most disk shops you can actually buy CDs for a gift, for instance, and have the guy who received it change it for another one, no questions asked (didn't like the band, already had it, wanted another one badly, etc.). But it has to be returned sealed as shipped.

I really like your model though, so I'd like to suggest some ideas that come to mind to see if it can get more feasible.

What if trial downloads are encoded with radio quality? Industry would not suffer much, because users can also record from live sources and they don't get a penny. Drawback: trial downloads would be crippled, as would also be the case with short song clips or watermarks.

What if trial downloads are "perfect" 160kbps quality? To emulate the store listening mode, a "Mission Impossible" encoding could be made (self-destruct after 5 seconds). Or an encrypted version playable by a custom player, which can be decrypted by registration.

They might even have a WAV alternative, to satisfy customers like fccHandler, and with ready to print TGA or PNG lossless booklets and lyrics. ;) Gee, that would even create a market for my deluxe CD cases. :D

What do you think?
as wrong as Microsoft considering every PC that is sold without a copy of Windows to be a computer on which an illegal copy of windows is going to be installed.
Yes, you're right about that. You made me wonder why the automobile industry has not considered selling engineless cars so you can buy the one you like best.

[kaosphere]

Downloading V.S Shoplifting.

Shoplifting:
You are physically there, and under the watchful eye of the store clerk/security camera, you know if you get caught you are screwed. Possible permanent police record(18+) and court date.

Downloading:
You are not physically present, it's done through computer/internet, and you know you "most likely" won't get cought since nobody is policing newsgroups, p2p that closely(yes RIAA is lurking around p2p networks, but think it as a huge department store with only 1 loss prevention officer).

In reality, even a store with security camera, clerks/staff stil lose quite a bit of mechandise due to shoplifting annually. Of course even more people will download since it's like a unattended store.

[Ridgeback]

Apparently Paul McCartney is sitting on a personal fortune of £600 million.

Well i for one don't give a rats arse how much pleasure he's brought to peoples lives. It doesn't warrant a personal fortune of £600 million,(theres people starving in the world)and I'll bet he gets his personal army of clever little accountants to help him wriggle out of paying the taxes he ought to.

[fccHandler]

Why the sudden attack on Paul McCartney? Everyone else here was complaining that artists make too little from their work. I don't blame Paul for being rich; the man has been making music for forty years. Just think of how much money the record companies made from Paul's music!

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by r6d2
Yes, you're right about that. You made me wonder why the automobile industry has not considered selling engineless cars so you can buy the one you like best.

It's quite simple really. There are several car manufacturers just as there are several PC manufacturers. But where as several car manufacturers actually build their own engines or have them made by external affiliates(IE no one cental engine manufacturer with 95% market share) in the PC market one company does have 95+% controll of the OS used on those machines. In the auto industry there is a healthy balance and competition. In the PC industry it is very unhealthy. Oh and the reason no one sells cars without engines is the reason that basically no one sells PC without OS. There is not much market for such a thing. Sure you have guys like myself building computers from components. Then again you have guys doing the same thing with cars. Which means we can pick and choose exactly what goes into them. But where you can go to a physical dealership and actually pick out a vehicle including engine type(Would you like a hemmi with that dodge?) there are no major computer shops that sell IBM PC computers installed with anything but windows. And do you know why? If any one of these snotty little Major PC retailers get to cocky thinking they can sell computers with something other than Windows. Microsoft will give them a quick kick in the pants by increasing their licensing costs for each windows install to a point where the company struggles to stay afloat. I know of only one other real world group that behaves consistantly in such a fashion. Mafia inc. Microsoft is the software Mafia complete with hired goons. The RIAA is the hired goons for the Music Mafia. The MPAA is the hired muscle for the Movie Mafia.

for a fun read http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/crash.htm and http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article09-015

[Sirber]

I *love* the crash link :D

[Funnylink]

If you download the music you wouldn't of payed for the 14 doller cds in the first place because a music cd isnt worth that much. If I really wanted a song and its on this 14 doller cd im not going to buy it in the first place!

[mf]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
But where you can go to a physical dealership and actually pick out a vehicle including engine type(Would you like a hemmi with that dodge?) there are no major computer shops that sell IBM PC computers installed with anything but windows. And do you know why? If any one of these snotty little Major PC retailers get to cocky thinking they can sell computers with something other than Windows. Microsoft will give them a quick kick in the pants by increasing their licensing costs for each windows install to a point where the company struggles to stay afloat. I know of only one other real world group that behaves consistantly in such a fashion. Mafia inc. Microsoft is the software Mafia complete with hired goons. The RIAA is the hired goons for the Music Mafia. The MPAA is the hired muscle for the Movie Mafia.
A friend of mine who works in a pretty big PC Retailer chain (they provide PCs for schools and companies as well as have multiple stores in NL) says they solved it very easily. They signed a contract with Microsoft saying that all sold Paradigit (the name of the store) Computers are shipped with windows. What's not in the contract is that they also sell Flex PCs (Note that the name is different), which are not mentioned in the contract, which are identical computers (with the same technical support and warranty), but, guess what; without an OS on them. :D

[WanHunLo]

Hi,

I dont agree with kazza sharing being as bad as shoplifting. No way is it. Kazza sharing is no worse than taking a CD round to your mates and leaving it with him. He could then copy it just like a kazza user could. What is the difference?

But actually going into a high street shop and lifting something of the shelf and putting it in your pocket. Evading cameras and looking around for the right moment when no one is looking. Leaving the shop without paying. Come on guys lets be real, there not the same.

Lots of these users on kazza are kids. Some of them probably not 100% sure what there doing. I've noticed people sharing there entire hard drive.

To me kazza is like a trial. I hate mp3's, I dont like the sound. I'm a vinyl junkie at heart and cds are second. If I download a mp3 of kazza and i like it, i will go out and buy the lp or cd. But if its crap then it just gets deleted. To me kazza is a useful tool to search for good music.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by WanHunLo
Kazza sharing is no worse than taking a CD round to your mates and leaving it with him. He could then copy it just like a kazza user could. What is the difference?
If you leave your CD at your mate's, then he can make a free copy (or two) for himself. But if you share your music on Kazaa, then millions of people can make free copies.

[Mug Funky]

(disclaimer: i've not read the last 2 pages or so)

a question about physical and "ethereal" (oh, and by the way, Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy, both very PHYSICAL quantities. he certainly did not discover a relationship between physical and ethereal)

is a 2nd hand dealership now a dirty pirate? it occurs to me that one can buy a 2nd hand fridge and the manufacturuer doesn't get a cent (well, unless the fridge was sent back to be fixed). same with cars, and houses. the builders don't get paid each time a new tenant comes in, nor the architect. and what a world it would be if everytime you moved you had to build a brand new house. there'd be an abundance of empty houses and not much land left anywhere.

so why aren't builders and architects up in arms about their lost income? why hasn't the master builder's association paid off MPs and the like, and made rediculous pantomomies to show school kids about the evils of renting?

society long ago learnt to deal with this kind of trade, but we've yet to catch up on "ethereal" goods. i confess i don't have the solution, but i think it's irresponsible and unreasonable to punish file sharing so harshly until we know what impact it really has.

i realised the other day that for some of the penalties for filesharing ($150,000 per song?) you could in fact buy the rights to use that song as a sample and release your own music.


Originally posted by fccHandler
If you leave your CD at your mate's, then he can make a free copy (or two) for himself. But if you share your music on Kazaa, then millions of people can make free copies.

hmm... do all p2p users really have millions of people downloading off them?

[mf]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
hmm... do all p2p users really have millions of people downloading off them?
No, but that's the whole thing with multiplication.

you
|
_____|____
/ \
user 1 user 2
___|___ ___|___
/ \ / \
user 3 user 4 user 5 user 6
Etc. With a popular song this usually happens with the person that gets his hands on it and puts it out for download first. For quite some time only a few versions of a song are available, shared by hundreds.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
(disclaimer: i've not read the last 2 pages or so)
Mmm... IMHO, It would be in the best interest of the subject at hand that you read everything on this thread in order not to repeat stuff that has been left behind.
Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy, both very PHYSICAL quantities. he certainly did not discover a relationship between physical and ethereal)
Of course both matter and energy are physical things, otherwise they would not be equivalent, would they?

But the point is that the equivalence amonsgt them was not known to mankind, was it? They were considered quite different things before his discoveries.

I don't want to dig further into the topic, but this (http://www.physicsweb.org/article/world/15/7/2) page, very interesting reading, tells how the concept of enegy has evolved. Just to get the point straight, energy was considered equivalent to force and power, and "obscure and uncertain". Kepler considered it something similar to a soul (pretty ethereal, eh?) ;)

Which I sustain, and have tried to support with analogies and examples, is that there is no such a "natural intrinsic property" which is different amongst ethereal and material things when it comes to music. Things that are indeed ethereal, like rights, also need to be protected.

As a person, you have several rights. Freedom of speech, for instance, you probably would not fall into poverty if taken away from you, but you certainly'd be less rich, in a sense, to provide mankind with your wits.

Something similar happend with the copyright, which protects the owner's right to distribute his creation at will.

Maybe a new Einstein will come up and provide us with a theory to support the equivalence of CDs and MP3. For the sake of argument, and for the time being, I'd just ask to consider them equivalent, and respect the author's decision on how to distribute his creations. In other words, respect his rights.

[dsfdsaonlynameleftphuck]

like the thread, good read, and excellent points by all.

as far as what's going to ultimatly happen to the music industry, im just waiting for the whole cd vs p2p thing to just blow over. when the dust settles, i'd like to see the fall of most major record lables as they are today. in their place a couple sites/p2p that have a flat monthly fee. to make them more appealing than free p2p, add more content: high bitrate/quality, pictures, good deals on concert tickets or merchendising, "good" id3 tags. Also, put a customer number in an id3 tag to prevent casual sharing (by the stupid) artists' get about 60% of total revenue (more dl's = more $). the rest is used as capital for marketing, setting up concerts. allow (almost) any artist to post their albumns or songs for download.

The eutopia of fair artist comensation coupled with free/cheap music does not exist yet. so in the meantime here is what i do:

download from p2p, buy cd's(very rare), go to shows (rarer than i'd like), buy merchendising of artists

Each method of music delivery has its own pros and cons, which should be obvoious. Eventhough i <deleted>, i feel justified and i feel the artists get paid fairly in the end. (and will be paid very fairly by everyone within 5 years or so, if i get my way above:) )


-And now movies

I'll start by saying the movie industry is in a lot better shape than the music industry. I think little will(needs to) change, at least for a while. They will always make their huge profits at the box office, and then make even more with dvd/ppv/hbo/cable/network tv releases. I also like how dvd prices actually come down somewhat (at least for bad movies). What i dont like is the exorbinate prices of series/season dvd's (but i guess thats not the movie industry so i'll leave it at that.)

Something i dont like is that movies are way too over-marketed, ticket prices are too high, A-list actors are way over paid, and A-list actors are over-idolized.

Mostly these shortcomings are the fault of the consumer. Don't buy into marketing hype, don't tune into any awards shows, cancel your subscribtion to "people", see less movies in the theater (you can't wait 6 months, come on:D ) and buy/sell used dvd's.

also, same priciples can be used on recording industry.
</rant about stupid consumers

thanks for reading, and listen to me too:D :devil: :sly:

edited for rules (thanks wilbert)

[Wilbert]

download from p2p, buy cd's(very rare), go to shows (rarer than i'd like), buy merchendising of artists

Each method of music delivery has its own pros and cons, which should be obvoious. Eventhough i download mp3's, i feel justified and i feel the artists get paid fairly in the end.
Have a look at the forum rules (rule 6). Since you are new here I only give a warning, but this is not the right place to discuss that here.

[Doom9]

I've been thinking about the analogy a little longer.
As you know by now, I'm more than convinced that there's no analogy to be made, and that those who want to made it aren't playing straight because they want you to feel as a criminal, yet the punishment is completely different for a shoplifter and a P2P user.

Now, following the RIAA partyline, let's consider this scenario: Take a music store that just happens to be closed today. Now we have some person taking a crowbar and break into the store (assume there's no alarm system). The person then puts out a sign saying free CDs for everyone. Now let's also assume there's no involvement of concerned citizens and no cops. Thus, the guy with the crowbar is similar to a guy offering downloads from his extended music archive via a P2P service (let's forget that while you can endlessly duplicate MP3s, you can't do the same with the CDs in the store).
Now, the people coming in taking CDs are like downloaders (according to the industry's definition of course).
Now, the day after, the store owner returns and reports the whole thing to the police. Let's assume we can ID whoever broke into the store and who took which CD(s). Now, how are you going to distribute the blame and which person gets which sentence? Does the guy breaking in have to pay for the entire loss because he opened the door? In that case, do the ones who took the CDs walk? That is what the industry is trying to do now.. have the one with the large P2P archive pay the bill for whatever downloads they figure were made (and they try to get around having to proove the actual damages). Or, will the guy breaking in sentenced for breaking and entering and soliciting criminal actions (by putting up the sign) and will the people taking CDs be sentenced for theft (they'd probably get away with a fine)? Since the ones taking CDs have been shoplifting and the law defines a punishment for this kind of action, obviously the guy breaking into the store should not be sentenced for what others did, right? So, in the end everybody would have to go to court. But, in the virtual world, the guy breaking into the store has to pay for everything, and since damages cannot reliably be established, he might be fined a lot more than the actual damage he created.
So, you have yet another example why the two things cannot be compared. We have once again a situation where the law handles shoplifting completely differently than downloading or offering of songs on a P2P network.

[mpucoder]

In this analogy the people taking the CDs made available by someone else breaking and entering the store would be receiving stolen property.

[fccHandler]

Instead, let's say the guy carefully gains entrance to the store without breaking anything, and sets up a whole bunch of CD burners. He spends the day making thousands of copies for everyone in the neighborhood. At the end of the day, he carefully sneaks out again. When the store owner comes back, he doesn't know a break-in occured, but his business falls off dramatically because his customers all got free copies from the thief.

Later, the owner hears about what happened from his buddy next door. The police are able to track down the thief from his fingerprints, and they make him pay for all the potential business the owner lost, even though he lost no physical merchandise.

[Doom9]

In this analogy the people taking the CDs made available by someone else breaking and entering the store would be receiving stolen property.I don't think so. After all.. the guy who broke in didn't hand out anything.. he put up a sign, then left. People going in and taking without paying had to know they're doing something illegal.. since kids we know that you can't just take something in a store unless you're being offered something (or unless there's a big sign saying "get your free cookie here").

@fccHandler: that's a good twist. Here we are in a situation very similar to P2P with no physical loss. But imho the lost business would have to be calculated taking into account the likelyhood of the people receiving free CDs to actually pay for them. Because if everybody has to return his or her CD, not all those will go to the store to buy a legit copy. Leaving the loss calculations aside for a minute, it's pretty much how the music industry has been handling these kind of things until now. Sue the users with thousands of songs. So, by doing that they've pretty much cemented the fact that no shoplifting has been done, because the people who got their free CDs were at best guilty of receiving stolen goods. It just remains to be seen whether those people accepted the stolen goods knowing that they were stolen (in which case there's going to be a fine) or unknowingly (in which case they might get off with a slap on their wrist). Clearly, we here could not claim we didn't know those gifts were legit because we know better (and I'm not sure if I would believe anyone claiming that by downloading the latest top ten for free the downloader doesn't have a clue that those songs shouldn't be free, they'd have to be darned convincing).

[Kedirekin]

I've been seeing this "# of downloads does not equal revenue loss" argument more and more in the popular media, and I've always completely agreed.

There's a ton of music out there I'd like to have, but I've never been willing to pay $16, or even $10, for it. So if I copy a CD that I'd never purchase at their price, how much money has the record label lost? By my estimate, that would be none.


And I'd like to go on record - I'm not a downloader. Like Doom9, I find it too much of a hassle (especially considering I'm on dial-up). Except for a brief couple of days trying Napster when it was a 'new thing', I'm just not interested.

I also don't buy CDs and haven't for about 15 years - ever since the median price went above $10. I've been boycotting for 15 years and it hasn't done squat - I'm overjoyed that all of this is happening. Hopefull it will result in a change, preferably the complete abolishment of license-grabbing record labels. I think a lot of the problems we're having wouldn't exist if artist kept the license to their music, and licensed it to multiple labels thereby forcing a little competition.


I'm anxiously waiting to see how the courts respond to the revenue loss arguments.

[fccHandler]

That brings up a really gray area: motive. A shoplifter who steals a CD from a music store has a very clear motive, to get the CD without paying for it. No one would argue that this person should be punished for his actions.

But I suspect that a lot of people who download music do it simpy out of curiosity, or the perceived thrill of getting something for nothing. They might listen once or twice, then delete the songs later. But are they still buying CDs, or just buying less?

Suppose P2P suddenly ceased to exist. As I see it, the P2P users now have three mutually exclusive options (depending on their real motive):

- Start buying CDs
- Start shoplifting
- Stop listening to new music

[jarthel]

how is p2p any different from a bank employee wire transfiring money to his Swiss bank acct? There are no actual material theft. just 0s and 1s moving across the wire. Also when this person buys stuff, he doesn't go to an ATM and withdraw money. He uses a card where again 0s and 1s from his bank acct move to the bank acct of the shop.

The 0s and 1s when he did the wire transfer has value to the bank where he work. I assume that the in the case of music, the 0s and 1s has value to the artist who made the music.

any difference?

[Doom9]

@jarthel: there are worlds of differences: If somebody transfers money from my account when I get my monthly statement (which I can only get on paper if I pay extra by the way.. banks really want to go all virtual), I'm out some money. It doesn't matter that this money was transferred to me from my employer via online banking, nor that it was transfered out electronically. If your balance is positive, you can at all times go to the bank and get your statement's worth in good old fashioned dollar bills (or Euros, Yen, Swiss Franks, Pounds, etc.).
Now if I download a song on a P2P network, the artist's account balance has not decreased, has it? In fact, chances are that nobody would ever find out and if it's a song that I'd never buy in my life (say from the latest Britney Spears album... btw if you're concerned now.. I'd never buy or download such music), I certainly didn't lower Britney's account balance.
The difference between bank accounts and music is that you cannot duplicate the account balance. The money is taken somewhere and goes somewhere.. you cannot create it (unless you're really good at hacking). But you can make a thousand copies of an MP3. You are neither creating nor destroying value by doing that, nor are you moving the value from point A to B (as done by the wire transfer).

@fccHandler: I'd guess we'd have people in all three categories despite the music industry wanting the public to believe that all people are in category 1. Everybody I know using P2P tools would never buy all the stuff they download (that doesn't make it right but shows that not everybody is in category 1).

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Doom9
I don't think so. After all.. the guy who broke in didn't hand out anything.. he put up a sign, then left. People going in and taking without paying had to know they're doing something illegal.. since kids we know that you can't just take something in a store unless you're being offered something (or unless there's a big sign saying "get your free cookie here").
And since grownups we know that P2P is violating the copyright, unless the author has decided to give away the material for free.

You know, Doom9, I always get surprised by your comments. You are indeed aware of the authors right to exclusive distribution (with no limitations allowing uploading of legit copies), and you insist in sort of legitimize P2P under the concept of “no one is out anything”.

You have even said you'd do P2P yourself if there was a Fast4U tool.

You are right to an extent, since not all potential losses can be charged to the uploader, but money is not the only important thing.
@fccHandler: that's a good twist. Here we are in a situation very similar to P2P with no physical loss. But imho the lost business would have to be calculated taking into account the likelyhood of the people receiving free CDs to actually pay for them.
I like the new analogy twist. There is not actual physical loss.

Let’s have another twist. Suppose it is not about getting burned “trial” versions. Suppose there are no CDs whatsoever. Suppose it is not a store but a theatre, and that the artist is doing a live show. The interested potential customers manage to enter without paying the ticket, and stay till the end. Did they produce a money loss to the artist? Or there is not actual physical loss either?

You may say no, since they wouldn’t have paid to see that show anyway. But then why did they managed to get it for free, if they did not want it? Did they even have the right to do that? If the artist could not collect his money, doesn’t he have the right to collect afterwards by tracking the ID tags?

IMHO, he has. The problem is that it is probably not worth the expense. Go to each guy’s home, insist if he refuses, sue them for just the ticket value...

Isn’t P2P just like getting a fake ticket to the show and pass as a good citizen?

The alternative the author has is to use tougher security in the next live show, by hiring some gorillas to stop the “showlifters”. That would be a greater cost, and he would probably increase the ticket value next time, “to stay even”.

So, well-behaved citizens will pay the cost for those ill-behaved. And the artist pays the political cost of projecting the image of a greedy, brute-force oriented and probably mafia-like guy.

Why should they pay those costs? If people respect other people’s rights, then indeed, no one would be out anything.
As you know by now, I'm more than convinced that there's no analogy to be made, and that those who want to made it aren't playing straight because they want you to feel as a criminal
I seem to be one of those who like to make analogies, and I think I am playing straight. According to Webster's online dictionary:
criminal: relating to, involving, or being a crime.
crime: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law
If you know you are breaking the law, what is the definition of criminal that relieves you from being one?
yet the punishment is completely different for a shoplifter and a P2P user.
Is the punishement what needs to be changed to match better the ofense and be more realistic or is it the definition of crime?