Shoplifting vs. Downloading

[jarthel]

Originally posted by Doom9
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).



Let say Metallica is my favorite band and I see their old album on P2P. If I download the album, I'm moving/creating something valuable to my HDD. As I said, I like Metallica.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by jarthel
Let say Metallica is my favorite band and I see their old album on P2P. If I download the album, I'm moving/creating something valuable to my HDD. As I said, I like Metallica.
In principle, your are simply arranging some existing bits on your HDD to duplicate a pattern you viewed from afar. Nothing was moved, created, nor destroyed (just transformed). But the value of this new bit pattern is a tangible thing to you because you are a Metallica fan.

@Doom9: At the risk of losing my last shred of credibility, I happen to love Britney Spears. Let's go back to picking on Paul McCartney. ;)

[spuddog]

I have been reading this thread for several days and there have been many good points on both perspectives.
But, there is one in-escapable fact p2p and file sharing exsists and is not going away. there record and movie industry is trying to use laws passed before the techknowlegy was developed to convince the general public that file shareres are criminals.

I am older (50 +) so I have purchased the same music in records, 8 Track, cassette, and cd.

I am not opposed to paying, but some the cd's cost more that the records when they were releasd 30 yrs ago.

also, you cannot obtain some of the music from legit sources at any price. I recently tried to find traveling wilbury 1. it is out of print

the music industry must give the customer a better product or they will lose out.

[DickSpeed]

Originally posted by Prettz
Let's get one thing straight. Offering music, video, or commercial software of any kind on any kind of filesharing network IS, in fact, against the law. There's just no way you can argue around that basic fact.

Not true. I make music, but not the way the recording industry would like to sell it, so I offer it on filesharing networks and websites for free in the hopes that someone somewhere will listen to it, and enjoy it. It would really be awesome if someone told me they liked it. If they paid me for it too, then even better. So far though, the most I've gotten is 'worth the download' (from an pro) which I'm still rather proud of. When I made my own work available, was that against the law? It may reduce the value of the content they're charging for, so maybe I am in their pockets - you think?!

Or maybe they're in my pockets for charging $18 per cheap-to-make CD for 20 years or so in a (proven) price-fixing scheme. Which of us is more wrong? The one without all the lawyers, of course. And don't take at face value the argument about compensating the artists who create what we enjoy. The industry already has them under control, and pays them around $1 per copy, usually. That's for the whole group. At $11-$18 a disc, someone's making a lot more than the artists are. Artist Compensation = Red Herring? You decide - I'm just trying to make you think.

Regarding Jack Valenti's recent rebuke of HR107, his arguments are (1) circular (backing up should be illegal because it is illegal), (2) wrong (backups are not necessary) despite his further arguments that discs are so-o-o indestructible, but scratches happen. Is he offering to replace any damaged discs free or cheap? No, we need to buy replacements at 'ever-decreasing prices' in the market. The only place I've heard of decreasing disc prices is for blanks. Or if you're in Russia they'll be no more than $10 soon for DVD's from at least one studio, in response to piracy they say. So is it really impossible to compete with piracy on price, or is that just what us 'wealthy' americans are supposed to think? Don't they know we have a big government to support thanks to lobbyists like them, and we can't afford to spend all our money on a complete new media library every ten years when cable or satellite, rentals, and an improving internet will fill the need for entertainment more economically, with somewhat different dynamics of pricing and choice? Especially if you have a TiVo. (3) His argument that 'hacking' creative material imperils the future home video market, really is saying it imperils their existing standard of distribution, which relies on killing trees and refining oil to make the physical aspect of their delivery system, compared to the efficiency of digital distribution online. But if this argument is valid, then 3D and gaming should also be illegal, if they imperil the future home video market right?

And what is the future of home video? Will it include better audio, more features/angles/choices, or even full interactivity in the case of a game, or will it continue to be a passive experience at current quality? Will it evolve if Jack and Cary have their way, or will they keep charging price-fixed rates (oops, they quit that after they got caught, right) for plastic discs once the rest of the world has already evolved to gaming or 3D? Are we wrong to hope that they will lead the industry to something new and better like the rest of us have to do in our jobs, or do we owe them wealth for entertaining us? Historically, wealthy artists are a 20th century phenomenon. Like inflation, deficit spending, terrorism (foreign only, governmental terrorism is classic), teenage pop stars, cold wars, and communism. :devil: I'm not saying artists shoudn't get paid for their work, but if it's their job, and if they like making music, then make music, and keep doing it. No artist is guaranteed lifelong income based on one work of art. Artistic taste and perceived value as well as many other factors affect the market they must deal with, like the rest of us, in order to earn money. Anyone can P-Diddy a bunch of beats together and make a CD, today. It's no guarantee anyone will like it, unless you have the backing of a monopolistic industry association and favorable legislation to protect that monopoly.

Shouldn't an industry with that much power and foresight be able to anticipate the digital revolution and adapt to it, like the rest of us? Are they somehow above the laws of basic economics?

[r6d2]

Originally posted by DickSpeed
Not true. I make music, [...] When I made my own work available, was that against the law?Of course not. You, as the author, decided to give away your work for free. You chose your method of distribution, exactly as the copyright law grants you the exclusive right to do so.

If all artists decide to give away their work for free, there would not be a place in the market for the record industry. It is arguable if that altruistic attitude from the artists would preclude or enforce the creation of new good content. Some say it would, others say no way.
Are they somehow above the laws of basic economics? No, they are not, and they probably lack the ability to adapt and create a new form of add value in their portion of the chain.

[DickSpeed]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Prettz
Let's get one thing straight. Offering music, video, or commercial software of any kind on any kind of filesharing network IS, in fact, against the law. There's just no way you can argue around that basic fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. I make music, [...] When I made my own work available, was that against the law?

r6d2 - Thanks for the response - but I want to reiterate the context of my argument - that there is indeed a very valid 'way I can argue around the basic fact' prettz purveys that offering music on a filesharing network is 'illegal'. As I have shown, and you have agreed, there is legal use for P2P file sharing, despite what even the greatest supporters of forced maintenance of the industry's status quo (as opposed to progress in a free market) may want the rest of us to believe.

The rest of us are obviously voting with our dollars against $18 one-hit wonders.

Our government seems to think more highly of saving this outdated industry than the 3 modernizing ones I was laid off from due to restructuring as a natural course of economic correction. The recording industry is not more valuable to America than the Air Force, other service industries, or banks, is it? Those organizations had to go through changes, and because of it, I have a broader base of experience that helps me adapt more successfully each time. If we artificially support an outdated mode of doing business, we only hurt ourselves. Since copyright is designed to allow the creative producers enough rights and time to be reasonably compensated, providing the artist the incentive to produce, then it has done it's job. Just because the industry had an easy time in the 20th century (much of it due to questionable business practices) does not guarantee them future success. If it did, none of us would ever get poorer, only richer, without ever having to learn anything new or having to change. Unless someone can support the idea that the music or movie industry is somehow more worthy than the rest of us, somehow above basic economic law of supply and demand.

I used to like Metallica when I thought they were cool (80's). When I heard they relied so heavily on 'the system' and spoke out on Napster, they became fearful wusses in my opinion. Maybe their sales are dropping because I'm not the only one who thinks this, but we shouldn't have to argue it with anything but our spending dollars, and definitely not with increased government intervention. The industry never publishes studies on how much alienating their customers has hurt their sales. And even the studies they show still show revenue gains, just lower than projections. So it's not that they're losing money. They're just not getting wealthier as fast as they projected.

Doom9 has made the argument well enough that file sharing does not benefit the real pirates who copy discs, and likely results in as many additional sales as it prevents, since most who download would not have paid for the CD anyway, opting for some other method of consumption. Since you stated you also feel that the industry should do more to adapt, do you feel that the damages they seek are fair and just, or just legal right now? Would they be legal without the DMCA, a questionable piece of legislation? Do you have a financial interest in copyright compensation or pay-per-use? Are you an attorney enjoying the side benefit of increased litigation? Just curious, since most of your posts seem to support the industry in some way. I write on my websites too, but would consider it an honor to be copied. If I create something truly worthwhile, my reward will be in its effects, as well as the ad revenue.

I won't argue about what the law is, that is a fool's argument. But I will argue what I think it should be, and Doom's opinions closely mirror my own. What do you think it should be? Does the current law go too far? Not far enough? Is it just right as it is?

Anyone see the Simpson's last week? When a commercial came on their TV, they all went to do something, but Homer said 'If we don't watch the commercials, it's like we're stealing TV!' Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Thank the Simpson's to sweeten the wisdom with some ironic humor.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by DickSpeed
I want to reiterate the context of my argument - that there is indeed a very valid 'way I can argue around the basic fact' prettz purveys that offering music on a filesharing network is 'illegal'.I understand the context of your point, don’t worry. But prettz’s argument context is also regarding sharing over P2P content for which you don’t have distribution rights. I don't think it is a general statement.
As I have shown, and you have agreed, there is legal use for P2P file sharingI agree there is a legal use for P2P, but keep in mind that I don’t endorse file sharing of copyrighted material.
despite what even the greatest supporters of forced maintenance of the industry's status quo (as opposed to progress in a free market) may want the rest of us to believe.IMHO, P2P is mainly used to distribute porno pictures, then copyrighted music and movies, and in a very small percentage for legitimate use. At least that’s what I’ve seen over P2P network clients in the past. You may have had a different experience, but I don't think mine is uncommon.
Our government seems to think more highly of saving this outdated industry than the 3 modernizing ones […] If we artificially support an outdated mode of doing business, we only hurt ourselves.You have made a very good point here, and I agree of course. Several other industries have had to adapt, with high social costs.

I also think the RIAA should adapt, but as you can see, they haven’t. So you may ask: why not? Are they plain stupid? If they are stupid, can’t they just hire a good consulting group to come up with a reasonable proposal?

I don’t think that the music industry, on average, has less clever people than other industries. So my conclusion is that they have given it quite a thought, and they have not found a way. It must be a difficult target. Maybe they won’t ever find it and just disappear. You know, that survival of the fittest stuff.
So it's not that they're losing money. They're just not getting wealthier as fast as they projected.You are probably right, but IMHO being greedy is anyone’s right too. As I've also shown on this thread, a consumer is also being "greedy" (maximizing its personalk profit) by expecting always lower prices. Supply and demand defines the price for "greed equilibrium". :) And S&D works for consumer and providers at the same time.
Since you stated you also feel that the industry should do more to adapt, do you feel that the damages they seek are fair and just, or just legal right now?No, I don’t think it is fair or just. I think it is just FUD spreading. About the legality, I think it is up to the courts to decide.
Do you have a financial interest in copyright compensation or pay-per-use? Are you an attorney enjoying the side benefit of increased litigation? Just curious, since most of your posts seem to support the industry in some way. I’m sorry to hear you feel it that way, since I stated it many times, like in this post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=400985&highlight=payroll#post400985). But perceptions are realities, so if you got the wrong message, it’s probably because I did not express it correctly. Anyway, and sorry for repeating myself, I don’t endorse the RIAA’s actions on the matter.
What do you think it should be? Does the current law go too far?I think the copyright law in its current form gives the author full rights over his creations. Adequate rights. This even involves the right to make the “questionable” decision of continuing to support the music industry by selling their copyrights to them.

But authors are not forced to do so. If composers and performers, writers and actors find a different way to make money from their jobs, I think they will succeed. I’m a writer myself so that would be a nice to have for me too.

But blaming the RIAA for defending the rights for which they have already paid for makes little sense to me. You can question (and fight) the tools they are using, the methods, the modus operandi, the corruption that lobby usually produces, but you don’t do so by questioning the rights they have bought, or by saying they are making too much money anyway, or that they have been ripping artists for decades.

Why not? Because any industry tries to maximize its profit, that is the basis of the economy. All industries might be found “guilty as charged” for overpricing, for exploiting workers, or for seizing the rights of the consumers. And the RIAA is no exception.

And in those industries where this has been evident, where they don’t add value anymore, the market has worked. That’s the RIAA’s lack of vision, or inability to deliver a new vision.

You know, “The end justify the means” the RIAA is using is a double edged sword. There are some occasions where it surely applies, others where it definitely does not. It is an old question of mankind and it will probably never get a proper, definitive answer applicable to any general case. Are the RIAA’s means correct? I don’t think so.

But, IMHO, it does not change the fact that you do not have any right whatsoever to share over P2P copyrighted content.

[DickSpeed]

Excellent reference, r6d2. Thanks for the link, and sorry for the harshly phrased question. You make good, intelligent arguments in almost all cases, if not all. If you'd like me to edit the post to reduce it's caustic tone for future readers, I'd be glad to.

In regards to your reference to studios having bought the copyrights legally in return for recording, distribution, and promotion of an artist's work (that being one of the norms of 20th century music industry), I have this to add: If an industry used unfair (but typical) practices to take advantage of one artist (offering much less than they're worth, feeding an artist's addictions to weaken their negotiation, or using the intimidation of monopoly power), then it's that one artist's loss more than anyone's. But the rest of the world loses too, because instead of dealing with an artist, we deal with an industry proven (in courts) to cheat artists and customers alike. While immoral, this is still legal and protected.

Due to the inflationary trend (maintained by federal administrations to prevent normal market corrections, hence slowing the onset of corrective recession and improving their re-election chances) we have come to expect prices to continue to fall at a steady pace based solely on inflation, even though commodity prices (like food, gas, etc.) have actually risen. Since we have more dollars, we feel like we're making more, even though the dollars are actually worth less. Despite what government officials might tell us, inflation is a result of government manipulation, not the other way around. But the government spent those inflationary dollars, which then trickle from their contractors into the free market, giving the impression of free-market economic growth, while in reality, it's just created a bubble, or lag, in the market correcting for the lower valued dollar - so the price does eventually fall for new technology as productivity improves and compensates, but it's the government that's already spent that productivity, not the worker or the business owner. The only one who really benefits in any way is the government contractor that received the deficit dollars. In this way, old money has successfully lobbied to increase their own prices (inflation in a relatively static commodity market), while artificially inflating the dollar results in decreased value of everything else that's improving to compete in the free market. In effect, the improvements of the rest of the economy are used to subsidize the old ways. Instead, the industry has created a circle where everyone pays in (to the government) but only a few receive these payments. This is redistribution of wealth, not a free market exchange, which would benefit all involved parties by its very nature.

Phew, OK. I told that story to tell this one. Since all it takes is enough money to lobby successfully in favor of maintaining the status quo in the face of market changes that would otherwise revolutionize their industry, they have succeeded in legally inflating the value of their services. But no matter what they do, they can't deny the truth forever, especially in the information society we have today. So if we accept that they have made the most of their assets and power in the window of opportunity they had in the 20th century, then ok. It is not our right to tell those artists what to do, just like they shouldn't be able to tell us what to do. Even though they have forced it on us through price-fixing, gouging deals with artists that make it nearly impossible to make any money from CD sales below platinum status, and direct market manipulation (remember payola?) through airplay and other influences. But are they responsible for radio's effect of making music feel like it should be free, or did we expect music to be free all along, and free radio was just their concession to us to help sell records, then tapes and CDs? Somewhere along the way, the industry leaders began to think they were owed the wealth they were accumulating from the 'innovation' they had of selling recordings when musicians used to have to play to make money. Most people don't buy music, they hear it on TV, radio, at restaurants and clubs, festivals, etc. Most of these places compensate the artist in some way, or else they wouldn't play. Some enthusiasts buy recordings, but just because the industry is able to manipulate and hype the market to support bubble gum pop and fanaticism for music and popular artists doesn't mean they've earned the adoration the fans show their favorite artists. They would surely try to wield that power as well, thinking it is tied to their copyright, and not the artist. This is one misconception that may lead to their downfall.

If we compare this to the drug market - the war on drugs has had the perverse effect of increasing the potency and reducing the price of most illegal drugs, while most legal ones remain expensive. The artificial inflation of the value of illegal drugs has built a more profitable market for them. This is due to the innovation that can take place in a free market to meet demand, compared to exhautive research by a company trying to find something new to sell. Even the black market is free enough to demonstrate the power of a free market. But if drugs were not illegal, would there be as much demand for more powerful and cheaper variations? Since these 'improvements' were more the result of distribution and risk management than meeting customer demands, then we can deduce that if trafficking was legal, they would sell the same old stuff as long as there was demand, and there would probably be less refinement, but with less money involved, there would be less corruption and violence.

And any improvements would be made by enthusiasts, not opportunists. Who makes a better product?

If we compare this to music industry manipulation, they have managed to keep prices relatively high, while reducing their costs as expected. Sure, they pay artists, engineers, technicians, etc. But if they manage to take control of an artist's copyright in exchange for distribution, it's probably because they've artificially inflated the perceived value of their distribution system, not because they've improved the system. In reality, only the most active, most talented, hardest working, and most popular musicians really make any money, but most artists will take the risk and gamble because of the perceived payoff - rock stardom!

In the real world outside the existing industry, one could record their music and publish it on the internet (as I have) and charge what they want (I chose to give mine away for now) without sacrificing their copyrights to an overpowerful monopoly known to gouge every cent they can from every pocket they can without regard to what's right, only what they can actually get away with. I'm not condemning it all, that's their right to try, but it's our responsibility as consumers (or artists) not to be gouged, and as citizens to demand the same accountability of the industry leaders as we do of other individuals. The internet now allows us to trade whatever we want, but because those who influence the media already have much of the content that's in demand today, then it is certainly going to be traded on there as well. It is their responsibility to protect their business and investments, but not at the expense of the innovation the rest of us are working for.

If someone invents a way to transport (like in Star Trek, for example) boxes, will UPS and FedEx sue to suppress it? Maybe. Would they be right? Certainly not. And no amount of legislation can stop the world from turning. Relying on legislation is the weak position, and I would prefer a strong economy to one propped up on unenforceable laws. Perhaps the industry is just trying to buy time. But they are buying it with our dollars. So it is up to us to make a change. Because the time they are buying (or perhaps stealing, depending on your philosophy) is ours.

I hope other artists continue to opt for distribution and marketing that provides competition to the establishment, like I do. History shows that a smaller number of people ever actually pay for music compared to those who hear it free. Maybe the magic of music (and movies) is not the money they can make, but the ideas they can communicate? If we had a module that almost anyone could plugin to their site, upload their content and charge whatever price they want, then we would have a strong basis for competition that could lead to serious reform of the existing system. If the industry came up with new ideas to improve their own system, they wouldn't need legislation to support their weak position: they would be strong.

As you said, they may not have the foresight to do this. Or perhaps they had the legal foresight to see that they could destroy the likes of Napster, then buy the technology cheap and not have to pay Mr. Fanning ongoing fees for the use of his distribution system? They have effectively used the monopoly power of one market to exercise control of another, through legislation. Its a strategy worthy of Microsoft. Except Microsoft would have bought the technology and incorporated it free into their next release, instead of wasting all these years in court, and alienating their customers. Hey, this is rare - let's all give a small cheer for Microsoft. (yay)

[Wolfman]

After reading 5.5 pages I have to post something!
Why would anyone buy an 128K Mp3 with Drm for more money than an equivalent CD, only some super-green.
The record companies are losing a lot of impulse buys from people becuase their stuff is not available 24/7 online...
they should endeavour to make their whole catalogue available too. As to
falling record sales .. think demographics .. teenagers buy most music ergo less teenagers, less buyers.
If and when the IRAA can get a viable electronic buiness model
going then I think the present hooha will be looked back on as ???.

Shoplifting involves more than the physical removal of goods without paying, as that can be done by staff. Is the RIAA any worse
than any other business? debateable. Artists compensation I think is a red herring used by many to morally justify to themselves, what they know is wrong, who worried about this before P2p came along?

Artists need to be compensated. Of course wealthy artists are a 20th
c thing becuase the ability of "ordinary" people to have recorded music is also very new. Will, should? DJS and magazine reviewers become the sole arbiters of which artists gain recognition and sales

[Pyscrow]

Originally posted by r6d2


When someone buys pirated software, pirated movies, pirated books and the like, he is effectively giving money to somebody who, in turn, will not pay back to the creator of the piece.

The pirate is stealing the creator's income.

The buyer knows that, and that makes him an accomplice in a felony.

IMHO, It is not different from shoplifting or plain street robbery.

Is that not a pretty good definition of a record company? - oh sorry they do give a few measly cents per unit to the artist (creator) out of the $20 - $30 dollars they got - my mistake :)

The main difference between shoplifting and piracy is that once you've successfully knocked off the article from the shop and got down the street, you are safe to use the article anywhere anytime, whilst in piracy anytime they come a knockin' on the door they can still nab ya!