Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry P2P Claims Dismantled
Canarock writes "First Monday runs a great
article this month from Canadian
law professor Michael Geist that dismantles the recording
industry's claims about the peer-to-peer. Using actual data from
Canada, Piercing
the P2P Myths, demonstrates that the loss claims are greatly exaggerated
and that P2P has had little, if any impact on the income of the artists themselves." From the article: "The Canadian government has been the target of intense lobbying for stronger copyright legislation in recent months. Led by the music industry, which claims that it has experienced significant financial losses due to music downloading, the campaign culminated in November 2004 with a lobby day on Parliament Hill."
You know the reason for your losses as well as we do. And in case you want me to spell it out ...
Seriously, the only reason I haven't bought a CD in ages is because I can't find anything worth it. All I'm willing to invest in now is online radio.
Its nice to see this posted on ./ but I think that most people here know that point to point doesn't harm the industry.
The way I see it,we all have so much spare cash per week that we spend on something.
If its not music, its ringtones, video games, or something.
But point to point apps don't actually destroy money, its still there. People want to spend, and if they hear music they like, they are more likely to spend money in this way.
So when the industry says that there is x million dollars of "stolen" music, its actually a fairly spurious argument that people would have actually spent that money, or that they actually spent any less that month.
Just my 2c.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
A MP3! OH WOW! I hope the bastards at the RIAA don't mind it!
I found it a while back.
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
Always revealing the truth. Of course, the question remains if this data was strictly for Canada, or for the global music industry itself. And, more important, what will the RIAA retort? Maybe now the **AA will stop trying to sue everyone and his sister and actually work on competing with what appears to be free media. One can only hope...
- dshaw
you might have an mp3, but by posting a link to it on slashdot, you no longer have a server
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
kinda obvious to me why their profits were down...it's actually a simple formula:
i )=profit
Talent-(Teensensations-Boybands-Onehitwonders-Yan
I'm glad the artists are getting their money. So now you're only screwing the marketing, engineering and management. Is that acceptable?
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
In the red corner, Old, with its established monopolies, its heavy labour-intensive structures, its lobbyists, and its wealth.
... adapt, or die.
In the blue corner, New, with its sharp technological tools and paper-thin cost structures. No lobbyists, not much wealth.
It happened with Big Auto, Big Steel, Big Telecoms, and it will happen with Big Music, Big Media, and Big Software...
Technology has changed the way things work. The old structures solve problems (communication, mainly) that are no longer there.
Of course, Big Whatever never adapts until it's practically on its knees.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Music companies, music stores and the related supply chain existed, and made money because it did the job of the network -- sourcing music from the artist and providing it to the end-user. Inherently, a flawed business model in today's world. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out this old-world supply chain will be dead in another few years, no matter how hard the RIAA try.
No wonder its the supply chain that has lost the most, and not the artists. Artists will, eventually find the internet to provide their creations, and make money on it, online. May be through personal p2p networks.
--
All your music are belong to us.
Celine Dion and Bryan Adams have a lot to answer for.
Oh no... it's the future.
I am glad to see at last that someone has taken the time and decency to separate the spin from the yarn.
Perhaps this will act to sober their crusade against "copyright infringement" in the states?
My UID is prime. Is yours?
Its nice to see an actual study proving what pretty much everyone else has known for years now.
The music industry is loosing money just because they are refusing to adapt.
What i cant understand is why its such a big deal. I dont remember anyone screaming like this when other industrys became obsolete. I dont remember the trains screaming so loud when the plane took over mass transit. And i dont remember the goverment caring either.
Its almost too late now. The music industry had its chance to adapt when napster was king. One single point to deal with and buy out. To spawn an entire new industry. But they sued instead.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Lets give them a nice big nelson HA HA!
I can't vouch for this because I've never tested it because its not in debian yet but if iRATE works as advertised then it could be just what you're looking for.
Damnit, I never could remember to change the formatting option......
My UID is prime. Is yours?
There's good music out there. They just seriously neutered the end user's ability to find the kinds of music they liked after the Napster death. (Which really felt like what I imagine the Woodstock 69' era would've felt like.)
This industry's falling is going to be like what Microsoft's death will end up being in 20 years (if not sooner.)
The _______ industry is full of it for claiming that every ______ represents a lost sale.
First blank: software companies, music companies, or whatever.
Second blank: home taping, both audio & video, software coping, P2P, or whatever.
There's a simple truth here. One may be willing to get a "copy for free" of some works, but is not willing to pay for it period.
In other words: If "I" can't get it for free, then "I'll" do without.
One may be willing to DL an old bubble-gum tune from the late sixties, or early seventies, but one may not be interested enough to cough up cash for it.
A college student may not have enough money to purchase M$ Word, but uses a "pirate" copy for class work. If "pirate" copies are not available then the student would use something that is.
1 "pirate" copy = 1 lost sale? FALSE!
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
One of the key ironies of the debate is that the CRTC (Canadian Radio and TeleCommunications standards body) demands that radio stations and TV contain a certain amount of Canadian content. Instead of spending several billion propping up the music cartel, if they spent it on the artists and uses P2P to spread the content, there would be a Canadian content boom in Canada and the US (since it would be legal to download local bands, as well as Bare Naked Ladies, Rush, Steppenwolf, The Tragically Hip, Bryan Adams, April Wine, Colin James, Neil Young, Alanis Morissette, The Guess Who, Odds, Our Lady Peace, Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne,...)
If the government locks up music and other media, all it will end up doing is giving the market to the biggest "legitimate" distributors (i.e. Americans), and turning our artists into American look-alikes. Celine Dion's music actually wasn't that bad in the beginning before she became americanized to break into the bigger market. She should surve as a warning as what can happen to you if you let the american media machine get to you.
This is somewhat of a misbelief. Wealth is not a raw material that we can spend in different ways. Wealth is rather the indirect result of our economic activity. In other words, how we spend our money affects how much money we have.
To be precise: all our wealth as a society comes from the productivity gains made when we specialise. This is why "free trade" (like many freedoms) is a key part of creating wealth.
An example. Say I can earn $50 in a day cooking in a restaurant, and it costs me $10 a day to get someone to clean my house. I can certainly clean my own home but clearly it's better for me to pay someone the $10 and gain the chance to earn $50.
All wealth is created through this kind of trade.
Now, back to the music business. If we spend $100 on an inefficient structure, we may create a certain amount of wealth. But if we spend the same $100 on a more efficient structure, we can create more wealth.
This is why new technologies that make trading more efficient, that open larger markets, and that increase competition, also create wealth.
Point-to-point apps are potentially very lucrative. The problem is that when wealth is created, it usually ends up in new hands.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
They don't want to adapt because they can buy laws. This is Big Adaptation. If you had a monopoly on entertainment distribution, are you willing to adapt and allow others to cut in?
This article is the first I've read that shows P2P doesn't really affect music sales in Canada. The article's author makes a great point about the "hurting artists." The real hurt is the cartels' doing, giving artists pennies in royalty per sale.
Finally, in Canada, someone actually questions the music cartels' claims of losses and counters with proof. Nevertheless, the recordable media taxing levy only pays "their" artists. Other unpopular artists won't see a cent, and they may end up paying the taxing levy to record their music to sell.
With the new proposals to change Canada's copyright laws, we won't be able to legally circument DRMs even to make personal copies; thus, once again, the taxing levy doesn't benefit anyone except those collecting it.
- grab older tracks that had been deleted and hence weren't making the record companies any money
- download tracks they owned on vinyl because they didn't have the time to rip them
- downloaded song simply becasue they were free and never in a month of Sundays would they ever consider buying them.
Just because they logged a downloaded doesn't guarantee that it was lost income."RIAA use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination."
From the article:
"...Canadian rock star Tom Cochrane..."
All the pros and cons of the article aside, does having one minor hit ("Life is a Highway") make you a rock star?
No wonder the Canadians venerate Ann Murray!
Studies showed sale of singles where down, this of course was due to nast evil p2p, they did, however fail to mention sale of albums was up, maybe people realised that an album has 10ish tracks at £12 when a single has 1 at £3-4.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
OK - so maybe P2P doesn't have much of an effect of record sales. But does that mean you should just ignore the millions of instances of copyright infringment that occur daily using P2P software? Should you ignore crime? ...because that's what it is. I'm not saying it should be a crime, but complain all you like - downloading a song via a P2P network that you havn't already bought it almost always illegal.
I'm not putting this forward as my view, but just pointing out that maybe P2P has no effect on record sales, but does that mean we should ignore the crime that is taking place?
"So now you're only screwing the marketing, engineering and management"
Apparently you didn't read the article, or are just trolling.
What the article is saying is that piracy accounts for only token losses to the industry. In fact, sales are down primarily due to two factors: Wal-Mart's refusal to pay more than $9.72 to the RIAA for CD's, and declining shelf space in stores due to increased demand for DVD's.
The right answer is for the RIAA to lower CD's so that they cost about $8 retail. I belong to the BMG record club that's typically what I pay for CD's (shipped). I buy about 4-8 CD's per month. Do you know how many CD's I've paid > $12 for? None. And I have a collection of about 400 CD's.
For the $18-20 for CD's in a place like Virgin, I suspect you'd have to be either desperate or stupid to pay that much.
No matter how much the RIAA wants to spin this, its pricing (as in "too much money") that is killing the industry. And they're looking for lawmakers to ensure profits. Sorry Charlie.
It's been legal to download music in Canada for more than 5 years. The music cartels' claims of losses due to illegal music downloads are ludicrous. I wish every Canadian would realize they have a right to download music, and guilt-free for that matter.
But, of course, that's exactly the problem the report seems to say isn't happening. Additionally...
First: if this report instead "established" loses due to p2p, how would that affect this conversation about p2p? (my guess: few would accept it)
Second: don't we all here generally understand that the Internet, and the tools we use over it, gets better and faster all the time? Isn't it just plain obvious that, even *if* p2p doesn't affect sales now, that eventually it will?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
I'm not sure, but I think there is one little weak point in the calculations - depending on how the copying levy in Canada is intended.
Such a levy has been used to compensate for losses due to any kind of private copying in Germany years ago .
If the Canadian levy too is meant to compensate for all kinds of private copying (not only file sharing) then one could argue against the last part of the calculations.
If I remember it right, the author calculates the estimated loss for artists due to file sharing and argues later that this sum is more than covered by the collected levy;
but if the levy is intended to cover all copying - not only file sharing, but also for example copying CDs for friends - the loss might very well be higher than the compensation.
Never thought I would somehow "defend" the music industry but I liked the study and had a "to nice to be true"-fear while reading it.
But even if the above mentioned criticism is true, it doesn't negate the rest of the author's finding about the overestimated loss claims.
WELL DUH!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Oh, that's priceless.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040329-3585 .html
If we can compare your last remark to the act of a marksman aiming at a target, not only have you missed the bullseye, you've missed the target and shot out the headlights of some car driving by about 2 miles away.
In other words, you've missed the point completely.
Congratulations. That takes a certain skill that most people don't have.
I don't download music, I mainly listen to the radio.
Occasionally, I'll browse a CD store, for things that I can't get on the radio, but I buy about 1 or 2 CDs a year currently.
I just look at the price, nearly $20 for an hours entertainment makes a $10 movie ticket seem reasonable.
If CDs were priced at $5 each, I'd probably buy at least 1 a week, and listen to them instead of the radio.
So, assuming that a CD costs $4 (which seems high) they can make $16 a year from me, OR, by cutting prices, $52 a year or more. also remember, that every 'cost' is someones profit. Shipping and Handling? UPS$ Blank CDs? Memorex$ more cashiers to handle higher sales volume? Job$ more chances taken in music purchased? small artist$ more trips to the mall to buy CDs? Food Court$
Hell, it's not just good business, it's their Patriotic Duty To the American economy that they slash prices, like the 0% auto finance. (slightly sarcastic) If they don't cut prices, the Terrorists Win... oh wait, they use terrorist style practices to enforce their will anyway; publicly suing randomly selected people, in order to incite fear. (much more sarcasticly)
Now, they would have to lower the prices along the whole distribution chain; If the stores lowered prices at the same wholesale rate, they would go out of business; but if the wholesale price dropped first, the record store might try to increase their per-album mark-up to gouge the consumers. BUT if they cooperated, that might fall under illegal 'price fixing', so it's not incredibly easy... but it's not incredibly hard.
Put those lawyers to Honest work, writing contracts, and negotiations that actually reduce the need for litigation, instead of finding new ways to sue people.
There's one Canadian artist who should be materially harmed. Better yet, send him to a real third world country.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Join in with the Grammar Guru and sing along!
"The plural of MP3 is 'MP3s' (not MP3's).
The plural of CD is 'CDs' (not CD's)."
Where did so many fucking people get the idea that this was an acceptable place for an apostrophe?
I was talking to a co-worker the other day. She's a musician, and she was saying that downloading of music has really hurt musicians. I told her that I didn't believe that, but only because of my personal situation. You see, I don't buy CDs. I used to. I used to buy at least 3-4 per month. But, then prices kept going up, and eventually it just stopped being worth it. I actually stopped buying CDs LONG before I was able to download music, and to this day, the music I listen too is almost entirely rips of MY old CDs, not downloaded music.
She said, "but $15 or $20 isn't that much for soemthing you enjoy." I agreed, but the problem is that that logic worked back when you bought a several oz. chunk of vinyl, took it home and played it start-to-finish. When I stopped buying music, I was buying CDs to put into shuffle-players (and of course, today, I put a thousand songs on shuffle-play). It's a differnt economy of scale, and sadly it favors music "product" over music "substance".
The only solution that I can see is for people to stop buying media as their primary source of music, and instead patronize live evnets, the smaller the better. I'd love to go back to the 50s where you never went ANYWHEERE that didn't have live musicians playing. Department stores had musicians. Bars had musicians. They were everywhere. A friend of mine who was in his 40s when I was a teen-ager once advised me to learn and instrument because I could always fall back on that if my career wasn't doing well. Today, that's horrible advice, but it SHOULDN'T be!
I don't buy CD's anymore, simply because they are ridiculously expensive.
According to the article, the average price of a CD was $10.95 (CAD) in 2004, and it has gone down since then.
With the current exchange rate (1 EUR = 1.57716 CAD 1 CAD = 0.634051 EUR ), that is about 6.94 EUR. I would happily pay 7 euros for some CD's.
The thing is, the average CD price here (the Netherlands) is about 20 euros! (source: dutch free record shop website)
Would you pay 31.50 CAD or more for a frigging CD?!?
I mean, that's only 354% more expensive.
Screw you guys, you're not getting any more of my money.
...got to do with patents?
Copyright yes. Patents, um no.
-j
Ok, I admit it. I'm the person the RIAA should be blaming. You can all mark it down as my fault if you want. I'm the one who stopped buying CDs when P2P came along.
No, really.
I haven't bought a CD in 6 or 7 years. They're very expensive and file-sharing is free. Yes, I feel a little bit guilty about it, but there you have it.
I don't think that everyone is like me, but I really have to admit that I believe that file sharing is indeed costing the music industry money, just in the same way that CD bootlegging cost them money in the past. It's probably not a tremendous amount, I never really bought that many CDs to begin with, but it's certainly something.
So, for all of who argue that file sharing doesn't cost them money, keep in mind there are people like me. File sharins has cost them money from me, probably several hundred dollars.
Now let's hope they don't bash down my door.
--
RumorsDaily
The riaa should invest in harddrive and dvd media because most of these downloaded songs sit on harddrives and fill them up quickly. Forcing people to buy dvd media and or extra harddrives to keep it all.
Am I the only one that feels that the show "American Idol" actually flaunts the power the music industry has? And it summarizes everyting that's wrong with the music industry?
Then again, I guess there has always been "American Bandstand"-type shows and this is just the newest incarnation. Still, I don't think winning on American Bandstand gauranteed you a record contract, if it was even a competition at all.
I haven't bought a CD in over 2 years. Why? Well, I'm old (46) and most of the bands that I listened to when I was younger aren't around anymore. That coupled with the fact that I bought an XM adapter for my stereo....I don't listen to CD's much anymore. I get a GREAT variety of music, news, comedy on XM without having to fumble through CDs. I have nothing against the "rap, hiphop" ilk (I have a personal problem calling it music). If that is what you want to listen to, more power to you. But I don't care for it. When you go to a music store, that is all you see....I guess it sells. You sure do hear it when you don't want to though.....seems every 4th car has that stuff cranked up so loud you can't help but hear it LOL
Many people also forget that file sharing also increase CD sales as well. Usually because of things like wider exposure of non-hit music, revitalized oldies, compilations, etc.
For example, a long time I ago I stopped buying music instead of the very rare CD because I already had a sizable collection. Then, due to MP3's and music sharing I was exposed to more music and old music I had enjoyed, but never got. Because of that my CD purchasing has more then doubled!
With the new music, so often it's not worth the money to buy the entire album for 1 or two good songs, and you never hear the other songs. There are several CD's I've purchased after having a chance to hear what else was on them. Plus, compilations are out there that you don't often hear about, but getting interested in finding an older song or artist has gotten me to look for where to get that song or songs, and often I find others by the same artist I want to get as well, causing me to fiund and purchase a compilation (often multi CD) that I hadn't even known existed and wouldn't have looked for in stores without the exposure.
The entire music industry (not just the RIAA) needs to look at their distribution & profit model because of things like this. But, the RIAA seems so bent on trying to keep themselves going under there old model. In this day and age, they appear to be an archaic left over of times when they need to be in control.
You can find out what is being proposed as amendments to the Copyright Act.
I have probably violated some section by copying the text below.
The Bill would amend the Copyright Act to implement the copyright protections required by two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Proposed amendments in this regard are as follows:
* the existing exclusive communication right of authors would be clarified to include control over the making available of their material on the Internet;
* sound recording makers and performers would be provided the right to control the making available of their sound recordings and performances on the Internet;
* the circumvention for infringing purposes of technological protection measures (TPMs) applied to copyright material would constitute an infringement of copyright;
* the alteration or removal of rights management information (RMI) embedded in copyright material, when done to further or conceal infringement, would constitute an infringement of copyright;
* rights holders would be provided with the ability to control the first distribution of their material in tangible form;
* the term of protection in photographs would always be the life of the photographer plus 50 years;
* a full reproduction right for performers in sound recordings would be introduced;
* the term of protection provided to sound recording makers in respect of their sound recordings would be modified so as to extend to 50 years from the publication of the sound recording (the term of protection provided to performers in respect of their recorded performances would be modified in consequence); and
* performers would be provided with moral rights in their fixed and live performances.
Internet Service Provider (ISP) Liability
* ISPs would be exempt from copyright liability in relation to their activities as intermediaries.
* A "notice and notice" regime in relation to the hosting and file-sharing activities of an ISP's subscribers would be provided for. When an ISP receives notice from a rights holder that one of its subscribers is allegedly hosting or sharing infringing material, the ISP would be required to forward the notice to the subscriber, and to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time.
Educational and Research Access Issues
* The current exception that permits the performance or display of copyright material for educational purposes within the classroom would be modified to enable students in remote locations to view a lecture using network technology, either live or at a more convenient time.
* Material that may be photocopied and provided to students pursuant to an educational institution's blanket licence with a collective society would be permitted to be delivered to the students electronically without additional copyright liability. Provisions in this regard would apply until such time as the collective societies' blanket licenses authorize such electronic delivery.
* In the above instances, educational institutions would be required to adopt safeguards to prevent misuse of the copyright material.
* The electronic interlibrary desktop delivery of certain copyright material, notably academic articles, directly to library patrons would be permitted, provided effective safeguards were in place to prevent misuse of the material.
Photography Issues
* Treatment of photographers would be harmonized with other creators with respect to authorship and copyright ownership. At the same time, the interests of consumers in the use of photographs commissioned for domestic purposes would be protected.
Educational Use of Internet Material
* The government will initiate a public consultation process on the issue of
I can tell you that it is not P2P that kills my sales it's Fucking Wal-mart. I pay whole sale what wal-mart has on the retail price. I make all my money off Parental advisory Cd's if Wal-Mart would start selling unedited Cd's I'd have to go out of business. When is the U.S. Government gonna start to place the blame on the shoulders of major corporations instead of on the kids that want to here the music before they buy it?
Peace, Love, And Oreo cookies
I think that most people would say that the first is good as here wealth, and creativity (hence future wealth), are both promoted by having more bands on the scene.
But the windfall gain would be seen as bad: something that others pay for is attained for nearly free; this offends their sense of justice, and this prevents them from performing a complete economic analysis.
It is this sense of inequity that motivates the population at large to condemn 'piracy', and although economic arguments mitigate against this, they leave people feeling uneasy.
Similarly, a drive for equality, attempting to reduce the wealth of the very rich for its own sake can itself reduce overall wealth, and world-wide, we have seen this. Of course now, with high-rate taxes greatly reduced, the issue is considerably muddied, especially since the rich appreciate each dollar less than a correspondingly poor individual, so that within reason, redistribution does increase wealth, but certainly "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is a pretty common behavioural pattern. There is often a faith that a reduction in one place necessarily means that everyone else gains.
We are not driven by utilitarian concerns. Even if punishment isn't effective for a given crime, most people still favour punishment, as it makes thinking easier: what goes around comes around. Anything more complex, and life becomes far less comprehensible. Similarly with 'piracy'. Some people gain from others' efforts without giving anything back; here punishment might do nothing for the artists' interests, but the lack of symmetry, for many, is galling.
Wikileaks, no DNS
I've more or less retired from buying 'popular' music and buy most of my cd's from listening to shows like late junction on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio3/aod .shtml?radio3/latejunction Even if i did want to 'pirate' albums by the people on these shows, i couldn't as you can't find them on P2P. And besides it feels good to buy albums of bands which actually need your money to survive as opposed to just lining the pockets of the major corporations and multimillion dollar stars
"all through my house i set up traps, it seems like the rats have a map, so now i feed the rats crack" - Donald D
I'm sure most of you have noticed the little notice that says that these discs (the CD side of a DualDisc), wont work on all cd players because they don't conform to CD standards. I see more and more CD's with that notice coming out, and I see at work (I work in a record shop, but it's not as cool as Empire Records, but, what could be?) many people trying to bring these discs back because they don't work in their players (discmans, home stereos, car players, computers, whatever), but they can't get a refund because what CD store gives refunds for open CD's? Not any I've been to. Hell, you can't even try it in the store, because even though may work in the store (which, none did in any of my store's players), it still might not work in yours.
So, we have discs that won't work in every player, no way of finding out what players they do work in without buying one and trying it in your players (their website doesn't say more than what I've told you, http://www.sonybmg.com/dualdisc/), and then, no way of getting your money back if they don't work. What I see resulting is a growing number of pissed off customers, who will likely download the next album (and the one they did buy) before spending money on a disc that won't likely work.
I know I don't buy any CD has that warning.
When I was younger, I used to purchase a ton of cd's. It was what I spelt my allowance on -- my choice.
But as I got older, I started to realize what a waste it was to spend $18-$20 on an album from which I would only listen to one or two songs.
So When Napster came out, I found out about it early (one of the first thousand users) and was able to ride the bandwagon on it, collecting songs that I would listen to and none of the ones that I wouldn't. I still bought CD's that were worth the price tag (the ones where every song on the album were decent and not just a crappy filler song).
Then I mostly stopped listening to new music. I've gotten a lot more comfortable listening to new, independent bands and buying their albums. Because it means more to me to give an independent band $15 for which I know $15 is going directly to the band. The quality of the music is also higher.
I've bought more CD's in the past year than I've bought since I was 12. And I feel good knowing that the money I spend is going to the artists, and not some shitty company.
And there you have it,
... you're not costing them any money.
... the money has to come from some where.
... because they never had anything from you in the first place.
Just because someone gets a limitless quantity of a product for free, doesn't imply that they would have ever bought the product had that supply been cut off.
So
My philosophy is
They're not loosing anything from you
--The Dude
The "Piercing the P2P Myths" article ignores that the private copying levy was originally introduced to offset losses due to people making tapes and cds. This was way before p2p was on the scene.
So... to say that the pcl more than offsets p2p loses is misleading. The pcl has to offset both tapes/cds _and_ p2p; it's misleading to ignore an entire segment of losses.
p2p sharing of copyrighted material _is_ theft. If you're listening to an mp3 of a copywrited song and you didn't pay for it... well you're in the wrong. It doesn't matter that whether you've stolen from someone rich or someone poor... you've stolen somthing.
Imagine if we could steal from the rich without punishment! Uhm... Mr. Gates where exactly do you live?
there's also a person like me. I never purchased CDs before. I really didn't care a thing for music, I just listened to the radio.
Ever since I started downloading it from the internet, I've been exposed to new bands and new styles of music that I never would have cared about before. The end result? I buy a few cds a month now of the artists I like.
:wq
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
So, for all of who argue that file sharing doesn't cost them money, keep in mind there are people like me. File sharins has cost them money from me, probably several hundred dollars.
Well, I'm one of the people who has bought substantially more music because I am able to hear new artists that I wouldn't have been exposed to previously. Once I find that I like them, I buy their album.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence for a question with this many pieces.
Assuming makes an ass of u and Ming.
You know the reason for your losses ...
I doubt if there's a person in the music industry (even inside the CRIA & RIAA themselves) who isn't aware that the vast bulk of their losses are entirely self-inflicted, and that the P2P thing is a red herring. P2P *is* a threat to them because it results in loss of control, but it's not a financial threat to any large extent. It brings huge marketting advantages by creating additional buzz and promoting music, by allowing real CD buyers to preview, and on top of that it's merely the successor to home taping off friends and off the radio anyway. Those who like to buy CDs will still buy CDs, whether they use P2P or not.
What it really comes down to is that, to fight against their loss of control, they are basically talking total bollocks about huge marketting losses. It's little different to the tobacco industry talking total bollocks for 2-3 decades to minimize the perceived health issues of smoking. There is no logic to it, it's just noise to cover their entirely obvious business goals.
The article did a pretty good job of dissecting their claims, it seemed to me.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
You've nailed the real joke of the RIAA. They don't give a crap about the artist...except in the sense that a slaveholder cares that his slave is healthy and working hard.
But its not like they *care* about the artist.
In real stores in Canada you have to pay 14 - 26 $CAD for a CD before tax, which is 16 - 30 $CAD with tax. An example. And another example. In my experience 10$ is a rare occurance, and certainly not the "average price" of a CD anywhere I've ever shopped.
The article says:
According to CRIA's own numbers, revenue from prices of an average CD in 2004 was C$10.95, down 8.8 percent from C$12.00 per CD in 1999.
Seems he's quoting revenue, not the sale price to the end consumer. If it's actually true that each CD brings in that much revenue, then CD prices are very very inflated.
Some of their conclusions:
1) The industry experienced a huge boom during the early to mid 90s as CD players became inexpensive to buy.
2) A good portion of those buying CDs were not buying new albums but CD versions of existing music in their collections.
So the music industry was experiencing golden years due to a new emerging technology and the fact that people were replacing vinyl and cassettes with CDs to augment this new emerging technology. But that behavior only lasts so long. Eventually people would have replaced their collections. They would be buying new music but not at the rates as before.
Also, although the manufacturing costs of a CD have dropped dramatically, their prices were still higher than cassettes which cost more to make. This was done for years due to collusion by the music industry and retailers to keep the prices artificially high. This collusion has been documented as part of settlements of lawsuits.
What's more important is that the industry has expected the profits to be the same as that during the boom times even though times were changing. In most industies, the newest products and prototypes are always the most expensive. When economies of scale kick in and manufacturing becomes more efficient, prices start to drop. Take for example, CD and DVD players.
At the same time, the focus of the industry was changing. By now, most music companies had been bought by large conglomerates like Sony and Vivendi. They expected quick profits and the profits to remain high. The industry began to shift its focus from acts to albums. Before it was about the artists and maintaining them. Now it was about getting the CD out. Getting the music video out. It didn't matter if the music suffered as long as the sales were made. It became about the single, the first minute.
At the same time, the radio industry was experiencing the same kind of consolidation as the music industry. Fewer and fewer independents existed. Most were controlled by a few corporations like Clear Channel.
With the music industries controlled by a select few companies, and the predominant means of distribution tightly controlled (radio and retail), the industry had now a near monopoly on music distribution.
Enter P2P. P2P threatens the industry in two ways. Although there have been music sales lost due to piracy, P2P is more threatening in that artists now have an alternative method of distribution that bypasses their control. Unfortunately, P2P gives them a scapegoat for their sales. It doesn't matter that sales should have suffered years ago due lowering prices (manufacturing cost decreases) and lowering sales (people stop replacing older formats). I suggest you watch the Frontline episode online.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yuk. Jungle music.
For some people, the choices are limited, as the parent poster stated..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The record companies do loads of market research. They probably know that the sales impact of P2P is minimal. So, why are they fighting so hard to stop it?
The better question would be to ask why they've been dragging their feet so much on stopping it. Napster was up and running and quite popular before they filed suit. My conspiracy theory guess is they wanted us to get hooked on immediate and fine-grained (to the song, rather than album) music distribution. To feed the addiction, we've now got DRM-encumbered pay services. The ultimate goal is the Celestial Jukebox.
For those unfamiliar, it is a content-distribution paradigm where everything is DRM encumbered and available on demand at the most fine-grained level possible. Every time you listen triggers a micropayment. The system would of course be monopolistic, without alternative methods that have that pesky right of first sale.
What's the greatest threat to the Celestial Jukebox? Free music! As in, fully legal free music. Who in their right mind would put up with such a right-stripping scheme when they can get the music straight from the artist and the artist's other fans, never paying a cent to any label. How do the artists make money? They sell concert tickets, merchandise, etc., things that are not troubled by copyright concerns.
So far, free content doesn't yet dominate many of the P2P networks because many of the things people want to hear are still distributed conventionally. Watch big name artists rebel and customers turn away in droves as the DRM gets more and more restrictive. When that happens, the labels want P2P to be quite completely banned, or they will be obsolete.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
... and I should know.
.... Forget IT!
Here's how it happens:
If I don't hear something I might like, then I certainly won't buy it. Be it new or old... out of sight (sound) out of mind.
There was some CD compilation someone I knew did many quite a few years ago of some 80's stuff that I happened to like most all of it. This was pirated, but it put the sounds to mind and I was considering buying some of the CDs.
But then all hell broke lose with the music industry greed crap and I said
Now When I find something I like I try to buyt it directly from the Artist. If I can't, then I reconsider buying at all.
So yeah, P2P and all the other greedy crap of an industry burning both ends of its only candle.... will be replaced with a more profitable to the artists internet based marketing direction that even broke artists can afford to do themselves.
And the benefit of doing such when entering the market is that new artists can risk less as they try to build a following, and for those who do build a following they then have negoating power in dealing with the MPAA boys.
And whether or not those boys like it, they can't so easily rip off artist in some subsidizing new risks with profits from the proven or established artist, scam, AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING.
The successful artists should not be forced to sponsor risks of new artists, where the only ones sure to be paid are those running the MPAA.
Like stock brokers, and lawyers.... win or lose they get paid.
Sorry, have to do it.
In Soviet Russia, P2P claims dismantle you!
Artists don't make their money from CD sales. Most artists earn only a few cents off each CD sale. Labels and music stores earn by far the largest profits off CD sales.
Where artists make their money at is concerts and, to a lesser extent, merchandising.
So.. of course artists aren't being harmed by P2P. Anyone that knows diddly-squat about the music industry would know that. If anything, artists benefit from piracy... with them making so much off concerts, and so little off album sales.. the additional interest that P2P might draw to them could very well boost concert sales.
/dev/random
Well, if the P2P and CDR industry has little to no impact on the income of the artists or the losses that the Music Industry claims it has had, how is the Music Lobbied Taxes on the CDRs going to be refunded to the consumers that so lazily agreed to be taxed for a product which MOST are used 'legally'. It amazes me how the average consumer is willing to be taxed to death and not revolt. Didn't the founding fathers of the US of A break away from England over religious freedoms and 17% annual taxes?
--- Old Time NeXThead
Uck-Fay Ou-Yay, IAA-Ray.
Best part is, they'll violate the DMCA if they figure that out!
"Derp de derp."
The biggest problem with illegally downloading music ( or anything else ) via p2p is that it devalues the commodity in the mind of the person doing the downloading. When you can get something for free, you don't respect it: listen to the song once, play the game a few times, then forget it on your harddisk along with the thousands of other downloaded songs and download some other stuff. You don't really care because, well, it's free and there's plenty more music where that came from. If you buy something, chances are you're going to sit down and take the time to appreciate it. Anyway, once that mentality is established, I think the chances of someone actually paying for music later are pretty low. It creates a meme: "Music is free". When you have a very large number of people downloading from a young age then that becomes the norm and a few years down the track it becomes a really tough for anyone trying to make money by selling music. The current business model may collapse, and perhaps we'll see more artists distributing their music themselves on the net, but there will still be LOTS of 'sharing ' of music going because lots of kids who have never known any different will grow up into adults who haven't either. Do you think they will ever get in the habit of paying for music in any significant way? Hmm, I may just stop there before I descend into a moral rant. Just some thoughts that crossed my mind as I did exactly the same thing.
The p2p "problem" has never been about the money to the RIAA; they're well aware that if anything p2p is a great way to further promotions at no additional cost. It has been, and always will be, about *control*. The RIAA has had nearly complete control over the music industry for decades and absolutely refuses to acknowledge the fact that adaption to new technologies requires a loss of control over production and distribution. They could easily adapt to changing conditions but to do so they have to give up their current authoritarian position.
You might find it perplexing that a supposedly capitalist organization primarily motivated by the acquisition of money would take this tack. Perplexing, that is, until you realize that the RIAA left behind capitalist motives for its business practices a long, long time ago. The folks in charge are far more enamored of power than profit and will do anything - anything at all - to retain that power, even at the expense of profit. They'd rather have both, of course, but given the choice power will always win the day. The very idea that an musician or band might be able to make it big without their assistance and approval is blasphemy of the worst sort to the execs in the industry. It cannot be tolerated. It must be stopped.
This isn't exactly a revelation, especially to those who've had the misfortune to work with, or in, the music industry. And the disease itself is common to any business or conglomerate that reaches monopoly/oligopoly status. Once a typical egomanianical executive gets a taste of that kind of power they'll do whatever they can to keep the crack coming, even if it hurts their organization financially. Hollywood is an even better example of this kind of thinking, although as yet the MPAA - stuck in its old-world rut - seems to have trouble grasping just how real the threat is.
The RIAA execs are crack-whores for power. Like any other addict they'll do whatever it takes to get their fix, regardless of who it hurts - including themselves. You can't ascribe rational motives, especially rational economic motives, to folks whose overwhelming motivation is the acquisition and retention of power. They continue on their course no matter how destructive, or self-destructive, they become.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The music industry is trying to project how much money they would have made if P2P didn't exist and get laws passed to protect future revenues from 'what if' scenarios.
They want revenues for things that might have happened. Sales of individual recordings might have been higher were not for P2P, therefore let's ban P2P. Huh?
That's like saying that if the sky turned red tomorrow, the music industry would make millions off songs recorded about the sky change. Therefore a law should be passed that allows them to collect a tax from everyone who can't prove that they prayed last year to have to sky turn red.
P2P exists because people want to share the music that they love. Music comes from the people and goes to the people. Every recording is based directly on the thousands of other recordings that the musician has previously heard. Very little individual creativity goes into any new piece of recorded music. The idea that some corporation 'owns' the music of the world is truly absurd.
It's like saying that your 'own' the air that you have breathed into your lungs and can therefore collect money from the other people in a room who are breathing the same air. Your individual creativity changed the air and now you want royalities on it, forever.
Fundamentally the RIAA is fighting a change of consciousness concerning what the nature of music actually is, and what it means to people at the dawn of the third millenium.
It's not about whether or not it hurts profits. It's about the simple fact that if the producer of a good chooses to place certain terms and conditions on the consumer's use of that good, the consumer is morally obligated to abide by all those terms (whatever they may be) or refrain from using the product altogether.
Unfortunately, the RIAA lacks either the guts, the intellect, or both to realize that--and until they do, they will continue to be beaten by base pragmatics that are, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant in the face of a greater moral principle.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Why is it that most people who try to justify piracy try to rationalize it through this kind of reasoning? If someone who pirates music (or software) wouldn't buy it anyway, so what? What does that have to do with anything? The fact is that these materials provide something people actually want. In other words, it has value. No logic that I can justify would suggest that someone has an inherent right to benefit from this value whether or not they intend to pay for it.
For example, a long time I ago I stopped buying music instead of the very rare CD because I already had a sizable collection. Then, due to MP3's and music sharing I was exposed to more music and old music I had enjoyed, but never got. Because of that my CD purchasing has more then doubled!
For me it was iTunes and the iPod Shuffle. WIth iTunes I've been able to set up smart playlists that churn my music library... with party shuffle pulling out of a playlist that contains songs I haven't listened to in a day (if they're five stars) down to six weeks (if they're 2 stars) I'll eventually hear everything, and stuff I like more often.
So I stick music in there and let it show up as much as I like... and then go to iTMS and buy more songe by the same artists, or go to Amazon if they're not in iTMS.
And with the same playlist feeding my iPod Shuffle, but sorted by "least often played", I hear more music more often... and when it comes up on the shuffle I know it's gonna come up pretty soon in iTunes... when I'll be online, and I can hit the stores.
I've bought more music in the past year than I've bought in the decade before. In my case, you can't credit P2P directly... I don't use P2P networks... but I pay attention to recommendations and people send me stuff and of course there's always 3hive... but I can't believe I'me some paragon of copyright virtue, it seems like there must be other people doing the same kind of thing, yes?
The only downside is my playlist is so esoteric I've never gotten any recommendations from Audioscrobbler... apparently there's noobody with a close enough match for them to pick from.
The supply side: over time a lot of music has entered the market. Music never dies; unlike software it doesn't need to evolve, nor is it custom made. So more supply should mean lower prices, were it not for the *AA cartels.
The demand side: did you see the Hitachi flash for their perpendicular recording promoting an MP3 player with room for 30000 tracks ? At current iTune prices this would mean 30000$ of music on that device. Nobody is going to pay that to fill his player; current prices simply don't make any sense.
Clearly something has to give. So the price of a CD (or equivalent) is destined to fall; it's simply unavoidable. Any market manipulation to keep the price up artificially will ultimately fail, and those counting on keeping prices up are in for a nasty surprise. I wouldn't be amazed to see 1 hour of undrmmed music selling for $0.10 in the next decennium.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Well, you can't say that you didn't see this coming. I think that's what's going to happen when you sell CDs at $15 a pop. Looks like the artists are really suffering now.
INACTIVE ACCOUNT
among many others.
The art world obviosuly has it's political beliefs and the corporate another,
Clear Channel and it unabashed alignment with what will go unnamed, is keeping artists from making money the way they've always have, live performances. Record company greed, censorship at the political level, and to a small degree piracy are doing the recording industry in, and in that order.
The record industry is stuck in a bad rut, and though there are a few rockers coming out now who can get some chart play, for the most part it's hip hop, rap and the digitally-altered sounds of those few largely female survivors of the late 90s. Now it's just simply low-talent mediocrity, aided by technical gadgetry to make bad singers sound good.
It's like Joni Mitchell said a few years ago, that record executives were always greedy bastards, but at least at one time they were greedy bastards who liked music.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
With projects like Peer Impact currently in beta (record industry approved P2P merchant system), does the RIAA still maintain it's anti-P2P stance?
"Good, it should become harder, because people need to work hard if they want to achieve the money goals they try to dream about, instead of riding their asses on a CD or two.* (In other words, they should work for the money, make music, perform it whenever possible too, sell merchandice, etc instead of worrying so much about making millions that they can make, and doing not alot of things that can get them there, which is quite common.)"
s /corporate/p pt_report"
Please bring this up, everytime outsourcing get's discussed on Slashdot.
Anyway here's a little script for all you MGM haters to run.
#/bin/sh
ROOTDIR="http://www.mgm.com/mgm/image
for i in `seq -w 01 55`; do
#wget $ROOTDIR"/march_2003/P"$i"_030303.jpg"
#wget $ROOTDIR"/P"$i"_030402.jpg"
wget $ROOTDIR"/bak/P"$i"_nov00.JPG"
done
*Dot.boom, didn't see any complaining when your gravy train was going.
I've heard that using the peer-to-peer can lead to other bad habits, like watching the porn and even smoking the pot.
:o
I think we can all agree that it is optimal with a certain amount of science and arts in a society. Under captialism, with corporations and individuals seeking personal gain, we try to align the economic and social optimums.
The entire concept of "intellectual property" is to artifically adjust this value through law. Same with public subsidies, public transportation, public utilities and many regulations like worker safety codes or traffic regulations.
Essentially rendering copyright null and void through P2P applications would undo that. You may argue that it has gone too far and passed well beyond the optimum - but to completely remove it would send you almost just as far off in the opposite direction.
The theory you speak of has very little relevance here, because it deals with differences in productivity. Both the music industry and you have equal productivity - near infinite replication at near zero cost. There might be a redistribution of profits, but there is no wealth gain to be made there.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why is it that most people who try to justify piracy try to rationalize it through this kind of reasoning? If someone who pirates music (or software) wouldn't buy it anyway, so what? What does that have to do with anything? The fact is that these materials provide something people actually want. In other words, it has value. No logic that I can justify would suggest that someone has an inherent right to benefit from this value whether or not they intend to pay for it.
... do I have to pay her because she is beautiful? No? But the porn industry makes billions each year! You're taking away from the industry! Hey, sometimes I get pretty damn good sights down at the beach in august ... guess I'd better start bringing a boatload of cash, hunh? What I am saying is, the "it has value" appraoch is a bit untenable. It's ephemeral in it's nature as information. The same information can have huge amounts of value to some, and little to none for others. Also, the "it has value" argument fails because there is currently no practical way to show what one does value as a customer. See my previous post about how I think this should be set up.
... thus eliminating the need for old content distribution mechanisms. The real group with NO inherent rights are the middlemen who are trying to create a false barrier to music which should be able to flow like water or float like air.
Your reasoning - such as it is - is flawed on several levels. Let's go over them.
1) Mere copying is not piracy. Even copying and sharing is not piracy. Depending on the context, it can even be entirely fair use. Let's not, please, think that morals have changed due to digitization. That is to say, copying a tape for a friend to use is fair use. How is it morally different now that it's digital? Is it morally different to kill someone with a single shot musket versus a full auto machine gun?
Piracy is not copying and sharing. Piracy is copying and selling. I can't speak for all p2p defenders, but I personally am against actual piracy.
2) The reason pro-freedom advocates respond in this way ("people would not buy it if they were forced to") is not due to the morals of the argument, but the practicality of the argument, and we are replying by way of rebuttal. The **AAs are the ones who are saying they are losing sales. That is a practical argument. So we respond with a practical rebuttal. Please do not construe a practical rebuttal for a moral one. That is to say, don't confuse contexts of arguments.
3) Yes, there is value for me to listen to "Radar Love" as an mp3 on my computer. There is also value for me to hear it on the radio. I can tape a radio show and it is considered fair use. Why is it now a heinous "crime against humanity" if I get it from a different source? In fact, if it is digital radio, I may even be getting the exact same bits that I might get off the internet. So on the one hand, I am morally okay, and on the other, I am morally reprehensible? This kind of binary logic does not strike me as very sensible. But let's get back to the "it has value" argument. If I see something I appreciate, it has value to me. A beautiful girl walks buy
4) You speak of the pro-p2p side as having "no inherent right to benefit from this value". But you do not explain what limits this right. The Constitution, hardly a perfect document, recognizes that there needs to be a balance struck. On the one hand, you have the artist creating the song. On the other hand, you have people who want to enjoy the music. The RIAA has historically been the middleman for content distribution. The technology is changing, allowing for the first time in human history, for the artist to "play to an audience of millions directly"
Please don't misconstrue me. I am certainly not against capitalism - I am very much in favor of laisez-faire. But look at Rand's definition: mutual trade to mutual benefit without force or fraud. Calling 12 year old girls "pirates" because they like to listen to cool music is certainly a moral fraud, and the RIAA is a wretched old ogre whose time has come to get on the chopping block.
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/ 174096756/m/747001362731
The above discussion get's into the DVD vs VHS price differentual.
Maybe what this audiance needs is a russian schooled in economic math.
I'm currently taking Economics (just an intro course, I admit) but we've been discussing different types of goods in the market place. There is a measure of spending habits called Own Price Elasticity that divides things up into a few different groups. One is inferior goods, which you buy less of when your earning power goes up. For example, people buy fewer raw potatoes as they get more money, instead spending their cash on processed foods. The next group are called necessities. You buy pretty much the same amount of these regardless of how much cash you make, although you do buy a certain amount more as you earn more money. Let's say toilet paper. The final group are luxuries - things that you buy more of when you have more money, and less of when you have less money. Diamonds are the classic example. If you were earning $20K a year, you would probably buy relatively few diamonds compared to somebody who makes $20Mil.
CDs and DVDs are classic luxury goods, and they always have been. It's my opinion that people still recognize the social value of these goods, and are therefore more likely to actually spend money on them as their income increases. It's hard to imagine my parents stealing music, not because they can't use a computer (they can) but because they would rather spend money and get a convenient package rather than hunt online for what they want.
P2P music sharing is like the cubic zirconium of the music industry. Its quality is (at the least) questionable, and its convenience is often far lower than a CD that guarantees you a high quality copy of the music you want. It makes sense that the market is reacting to this change (the diamond market did too), but the actual blow to the music industry is questionable. If anything, these losses probably represent lower-middle class demographics that account for a significant, but not crippling, portion of revenues. Artists will find new ways to maximize their own profits.
Least that's my take on the situation.
Yes, but the styles are very much alive - just not on the major labels. I'm two years older than you, so my guess is that we grew up on similar stuff (Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Clapton, Aerosmith, Scorpions...). I was a huge consumer of music until the early '90's and by the mid-90's I was buying 10% of what I used to and thought that the type of music that I liked was gone forever. I listened to the "old stuff", but there wasn't much new to excite me. But with the dawn of the web and mp3's, I started to become excited by music again as I discovered more and more artists doing the sorts of music I love. I has taken a lot of effort and searching but I've found that as great a wealth of material, if not more, exists today as ever - it's just not on the major McLabels or McRadio or in the McCDVD stores.
Right now, I'm listening to the Pillbugs (from Toledo, no less) who have to be the best Beatles/Kinks/Hollies/Britpop influenced band I've ever heard (and I've heard a lot). Try some of their promo mp3's at Soundclick-The Pillbugs to see what I mean and if you like those, go to their website for lots more and links to buy their CD's.
The stuff is out there, but you have to go looking for it. McLabels and corporate radio have f#@%ed the old paradigm of just turning on the radio and having good new music find you.
it wouldn't have any significant affect on the income of the distributers or artists either. So, is my act of shoplifting excusable?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
If it harms no-one, then there shouldn't be a law against it. If there is a law against it, that law is a bad law. If a law is a bad law, enforcement of that law is at best unnecessary and at worst destructive.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
"That said, 7in singles enjoyed an 86.5 per cent increase in sales." - link below.
: www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/bpi_uk_music_stat s_q3_04/+uk+singles+sales+p2p&hl=en&client=firefox -a
Hey Big Business Schill & Fatcat Fanboy - YOU ARE WRONG - perhaps that is why you say 'studies' with no links. I guess studies means pulled from your ass.
"
Some 1.75m songs were downloaded from the UK's legal online music services during Q3, enough to turn the singles market from a 12 per cent decline year on year to a nine per cent increase over the same periods, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) trade body said today.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:_ZCaV9_FMsIJ
Some 7.3m physical singles were sold in the UK during Q3. Of course, many of the tracks download from iTunes, Napster, Wippit and co. aren't singles per se but individual album tracks, so the comparison isn't an entirely fair one. Indeed, the BPI said some 40,000 different tracks are being downloaded each week, a figure far in excess of the number of singles available"
Why pay cops and courts to stop crime that has a beneficial effect ???????????
Surely that is a waste. Dumbass FAtcat Fanboy, the **AA pay you to post here ??
...distributed file sharing, cryptography, proxies, and parity will collide and instead of any one person hosting a complete file, the file will be containerized, split, parity containers built, and the pieces uploaded to peers at random based only on their availible space and relative activity and pipe size and so on and the original copy deleted.
Enough copies of pieces and parity files would propagate out based on statistics to ensure reasonable chance to get at anything, not any less easy than eMule of today. If you download all pieces and construct successfully, the solid file isn't seen and listed by IP because only the parts are shared at large. Your whole copy is totally outside the system once gotten.
Once no one person has a complete copy of anything, and each piece is named in gibberish that only the system understands and knows, what are they going to do then? Sue a teen girl because one twentieth of a Metallica song might be on their hard drive and she's got no way of knowing for sure because her storage is managed by the collective peer network?
The technical capabilities exist right now to do it and eventually it will be reasonably perfected. They will be brought to their knees by it, sputtering and whining all the way. It will illustrate very clearly that as long as information is in the hands of individuals, as long as they can read, write, and think for themselves, effective subjugation of the unwilling by any private organization or government will be difficult short of violence or threat thereof.
I don't see a RIAA-SWAT team becoming reality in the future nor do I see work-a-day policemen putting up with the notion of being their tools. So unless it could possibly go that direction, they've lost this fight the instant they picked it. They need to cut to the chase, admit defeat, and bargain for a new understanding between producer and consumer that's acceptable to both parties.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Talent-(Teensensations-Boybands-Onehitwonders-Yani )=profit
Try distributing that negative through the parens.
Talent - Teensensations + Boybands + Onehitwonders + Yani = profit
Whatever the case may be, you have either really horrible math skills or an even worse taste in music.
> loss claims are greatly exaggerated and that P2P has had little, if any impact on the income of the artists themselves
This is quite a conundrum:
Supposedly, the recording industry cares about one thing only -- making money.
But to make money, you must correctly analyze which factors lead to greater/smaller profits, and adjust those factors accordingly.
So why are the music business people getting this analysis so completely wrong? This is more than a series of mistakes. This is pervasive, systemic incompetency that's plaguing the entire industry like a terminal cancer.
Here are some of the possibilities that I can think of that might explain their loss of rational thinking:
1: Fear and anger due to loss of control over music distribution.
2: Misjudgment due to a severe lack of understanding of technology.
3: A rigid business culture that simply does not allow for any model change whatsoever -- even life-saving change.
4: "SCO machismo": The realization that your company has no long-term future; so you might as well end it all in a glorious blaze of legal warfare, because that's more macho than quietly crawling into a corner to die.
5: Decision-makers who have created a culture of "feeling" rather than "thinking" -- resulting in poor problem-solving skills.
6: A power organization composed of multiple "fiefdoms" that lacks the central authority to implement significant change.
Furthermore -- I have always believed that people who work in the "leech" industries secretly know in their heart that they are not creating anything of real value to society, and have a secret fear of being eliminated if people start to "wise up" to them. (For example, the entire tax-preparation industry could be eliminated by a single act of Congress. But farmers and teachers and engineers are immune from such a fate.) As a result, I believe that this causes the "leech" industries to attract management that's more paranoid, venal, and unethical than the management of value-producing industries.
I have nothing against the "rap, hiphop" ilk (I have a personal problem calling it music).
MTV Rap? Totally agreed.
However, not all rap is "bling bling" and crotch-grabbing. I could list off a couple hundred ones to back up my point, but I'll settle for just one - Del The Funky Homosapien. If lyrics such as these don't appeal to the gamer nerds, I don't quite know what would.
Mere copying is not piracy.
If you derive any kind of value from said copying, it is piracy, unless it falls within the domain of fair use. I'm willing to bet that a minority of the P2P file sharing falls within the commonly accepted LEGAL definition.
Let's not, please, think that morals have changed due to digitization. That is to say, copying a tape for a friend to use is fair use.
They apparently have changed, and for one reason...because technology has made it both easy to copy something, and difficult to detect. As for fair use, fair use is what the law says is fair use. The unlawful reproduction of someone else's property (copying it without permission) and giving it to a friend so that this person doesn't have to buy it, is NOT fair use.
Piracy is copying and selling.
According to dictionary.com, piracy is The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material:.
Websters has it slightly differently, but it says nothing of selling as a requirement: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
It appears that you are incorrect on this point.
The **AAs are the ones who are saying they are losing sales. That is a practical argument. So we respond with a practical rebuttal.
It is not a practical rebuttal - it is an attempt to rationalize behavior that is wrong. Even if the RIAA weren't losing a single sale, it wouldn't matter - it's STILL their property, and people STILL need to respect their copyright.
Why is it now a heinous "crime against humanity" if I get it from a different source? In fact, if it is digital radio, I may even be getting the exact same bits that I might get off the internet. So on the one hand, I am morally okay, and on the other, I am morally reprehensible?
Let's get back to basics. Piracy is the unlawful acquisition of material that doesn't belong to you. Copying it without permission qualfies as unlawful acquisition. Nobody makes a big deal about taping the radio because it's commonly known that this doesn't provide sufficient quality. It doesn't mean it's not wrong, it just means that the quality will motivate most people to either buy something of higher quality(most notably a CD), or copy someone else's.
Hey, sometimes I get pretty damn good sights down at the beach in august
Who owns them?
The same information can have huge amounts of value to some, and little to none for others. Also, the "it has value" argument fails because there is currently no practical way to show what one does value as a customer.
Totally incorrect. If I offer something for sale, you either decide that it's worth paying the price I'm asking, or you simply forgo the purchase. Simple. If it has enough value to you, you buy it. If it doesn't, you spend your money on something else. At what point does my "it has value" argument fail?
You speak of the pro-p2p side as having "no inherent right to benefit from this value".
I believe it's most often referred to as property. No, it's not a car, or a lawnmower, but it is something of value, and it IS, like it or not, owned by someone. You have no inherent right to unlawfully benefit from someone else's property- that is to say, to take it without permission, nor do you have the right to give it to anyone else- unless it falls wiithin the definition of fair use.
mutual trade to mutual benefit without force or fraud.
Did you happen to notice the word mutual? Incidentally, Rand was a strong proponent of property rights.
Calling 12 year old girls "pirates" because they like to listen to cool music is certainly a moral fraud,
Not exactly. This 12-year-old needs to understand her civic responsibility, and that the internet is not an on-ramp to a free-for-all when it comes to copyrighted material.
Piracy is a market-speak term that has no meaning in law. Just like terms such as "Intellectual Property" the term "piracy" is intended to loosely capture a whole set of specific ideas, but in fact it fails to capture the ideas for which it is intended as being synonymous. So let's get to it, shall we?
TITLE 18 USC, PART I, CHAPTER 113, Section 2318
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2318.html
Section 2318. Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit computer program documentation or packaging
(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in a counterfeit label affixed or designed to be affixed to a phonorecord, or a copy of a computer program or documentation or packaging for a computer program, or a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, and whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in counterfeit documentation or packaging for a computer program, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term "counterfeit label" means an identifying label or container that appears to be genuine, but is not;
(2) the term "traffic" means to transport, transfer or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value or to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer or dispose of; and
(3) the terms "copy", "phonorecord", "motion picture", "computer program", and "audiovisual work" have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17.
(c) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) of this section are--
(1) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in section 46501 of title 49);
(2) the mail or a facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used or intended to be used in the commission of the offense;
(3) the counterfeit label is affixed to or encloses, or is designed to be affixed to or enclose, a copy of a copyrighted computer program or copyrighted documentation or packaging for a computer program, a copyrighted motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a phonorecord of a copyrighted sound recording; or
(4) the counterfeited documentation or packaging for a computer program is copyrighted.
(d) When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all counterfeit labels and all articles to which counterfeit labels have been affixed or which were intended to have had such labels affixed.
(e) Except to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of this title, all provisions of section 509, title 17, United States Code, are applicable to violations of subsection (a).
As a point of interest for myself, I note that this law actually makes a point of the fact that the crime must occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. - which kind of raises a huge question about that whole Australian national being brought over to the states a few weeks back.
The part you want to remember is this bit: "(2) the term "traffic" means to transport, transfer or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value."
As in: not free - for something of value. Bartered, sold, traded - not just given away.
Now, of course, they have added in the DMCA and The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
... avoid your own responsibility for her upbringing. Seesh.
Every piece of the file is a derivative work of the original and is still copyrighted. If this stuff actually takes off attempts will be made to ban it wholesale.
And the RIAA already can get private search warrants and do their own raids in certain circumstances in the UK and Australia (see Anton Pillar Orders)
Much wealth is created by the sun; in much of the world, it's possible to live off the wilderness without cultivation.
Ideas often come for free. The selection of ideas is influenced by capital, but it's easy to mistake incentives for impetuous.
Wealth exists upon the act of creation; it can be increased through trade, and some of the value of that increase is transferred back to the creator; typically a sum in between the value to the creator and the value to the purchaser.
It is worth remembering the the value of the good is still higher than the price paid for it, which means that economic statistics are inevitably flawed. Consider a good, cheap resturant: they'd be creating no more wealth if they charged more, and probably less, if less of their good food was consumed. That they make less money than the neighbouring Mac-D's doesn't necessarily mean that they create less wealth.
Then of course, people can rationally act in interests other than their own self-interests.
Wikileaks, no DNS
The only way I could ever make a living at music is by giving away enough music that I build a grass roots type following who pressure local bars into giving me gigs, and sell merchandise (T-Shirts, possibly rolling papers cuz I know where I can good hemp papers with my own brand name on them, and it ties into my most popular song).
My intention is to offer ALL my music for free, and while I may have a disc (the someday-to-be-released "Tommy Roach - Live, Unsedated" album) for sale eventually, people will always be able to download all the music on it for free. I will eventually (when I save up enough cash from the day job to buy a "starter stock") offer merchandise, and CG animation videos of some of the song.
Will I get rich? Fat chance! I'll be thrilled if I make enough to pay my bills without a day job. I'd settle for enough to buy a nicer guitar and pay my bar tab. Maybe the occasional sack of the good weed.
My point is, that's how musicians should do it these days. If, unlike me, you play the type of music lots of people want to listen to and have actual talent, you should be able to make a darn good living that way. After all, if you are really a musician (and not just a wannabee sell-out) that's what should matter. You should want to make music, not millions.
And a small request to the people out there - boycott musicians who charge hundreds of dollars for a concert. Nobody is worth paying more than $30 - $40 US. The only reason bands like the Eagles and Cream charge so much is that there are idiots who will pay it. Stop rewarding greed - see a local band instead. You might even like them more than the "famous" band, and they usually charge 0$ to 7$ US.
Tommy
P.S. I just tossed up a quick and really ugly page with a couple (poorly recorded) songs - if you're a Deadhead you might like them - nobody else will, though. (That means don't download just for the hell of it - this is my only computer and if you bastards slashdot me...)
Open Source for Open Minds
The DMCA gave everyone exactly what they deserve. I'm not a fan of the media companies, nor do like that the DMCA and similar laws have done. But the people who unlawfully aquire copyrighted material have brought this upon themselves. ...As in: not free - for something of value. Bartered, sold, traded - not just given away.
If this is the legal criterion by which it is decided that someone has unlawfully acquired or distributed copyrighted material, then the law NEEDS to be changed. The implication is absurd...that I could produce something that cost me a bundle, that provides good value to a sufficient number of people, and yet, I have no control over it, as long as people are giving it away - giving my property away - for free. That makes ZERO sense.
Oh...you might want to check this out...it supports much of what I have been saying, and it is, what most would consider, the "horse's mouth."
None of those mean anything to the American smart ass who posted the parent comment. "What's a Juno? Is that some kind of award? How do they build an igloo large enough to hold the ceremony?"
Freedom: "I won't!"
I ended up buying brazilian and indian records (when I usually listen to hard-rock and black metal).
While I listen mostly to Jazz and hard rock, I too get into both Brazilian and Indian (India Indian) as well as American Indian music. I'm a member of two coops that carry a variety of music from around the world, though not as much as I'd like.
FalconShould there be a Law?
However, not all rap is "bling bling" and crotch-grabbing. I could list off a couple hundred ones to back up my point, but I'll settle for just one - Del The Funky Homosapien. If lyrics such as these don't appeal to the gamer nerds, I don't quite know what would.
There's one I could list even if I don't recall the name of the song, and it's older than most people would think. There's one moment in Marlon Brando's 1953-4 movie "The Wild One" when one of the members of the motorcycle gang starts rapping. Well, it looks and sounds kind of like rapping to me but someone told me it was hip hop or some such.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't like rap much myself, but you're an idiot.
Ok, I'm 44 and have been playing guiter (and other assorted instruments) since I was 13. I have grew up with other musiciams that have had a lot of success (Jake E Lee - Ozzy, RATT) and played in many bands. I used to be all about "getting signed". Now the reality is that musicains are generally flakes and unreliable. Pair this with R&A reps and you've a hard time getting anywhere if you're serious.
Now, the computer age! Right now I have Ableton Live 4 and Steinberg's CubaseSX 2.1 (both music sequencing/mastering programs). The state of the art is now at the point where "quality" produced music can be done with a modest investment and a bit of talent. What really is at the crux of this "file sharing" BS that the RIAA is spewing is really about gaining control of media distribution.
Let me be direct. I don't need to hope to "get signed" in order to produce my music in an RIAA approved studio. I can record, mix and master my music. Now pair this with the plethera of indy music publishers popping up and their main means of exposure and distribution - the net. The way I would (and others) work it is to place a song or two (hopefully one that will hold interest) on to a p2p network - this gains exposure. Now if you like what I've produced you can go to "X" site and see my full album/CD and if so desired buy it! Gee what a novel idea.
Now, using the net, p2p, and the help of an indy publisher or three I actually start to sell my work. So, just for arguement, let's say That my song (released for free on a p2p) is getting attention in the U.S. and Europe. There are over 240 million in the U.S. and a few more million in Europe (to say the least). Now lets say i get $1 for each CD sold (actually more but let's keep it in round numbers). To get a Gold album you sell 500K, and platinium 1Mil. Between the U.S. and Europe I have catchy song and sell a million - I'm rich and who needs the RIAA and it's affiliates?
The only thing the RIAA members may afford me is distribution and advertising (and maybe concert arrangements). I don't need to sign my life away to "get signed" in order to ply my craft, and with the advent of p2p and indy publishers I really don't even need the distribution (though big record companies can provide some nice advertising).
If they get legislation to shutdown or hinder p2p networks then they set legal precedence and can use their legal teams to further gain back their deathgrip on who makes what music and whether or not it sees the light of day.
P2P is just a step in keeping the RIAA's domination over musicians and music creation and distribution. The idea of musicians creating, controlling, and making a sizable amount of money off their product seems to really bother the record moguls - Gee, imagine that. Musicains make money from their music without having to "sign" away the overwhelming majority of the money generation to a "contract" holder, and providing their fans with music "they've" decided they like at an affordable price.
I bet it keeps the RIAA big wigs up at night - any takers on that bet?
OK, let's say that this hamburger is a Nissan Sentra. And this baked potato is a BMW. So, by analogy, an Apple computer is a baked potato. I still haven't figured out how music fits into this. . .
..
Wait! I know! With Napster, you have to pay every month to enjoy that baked potato (the potato is now music), but with iTunes, uh . .
OK, how's this? With iTunes you only pay for as many bites of that potato as you want. Unless you drive a Chevy Asparagus.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Not as fallacious as the criticism. I guess you slept throught the part of ECON101 where they explained that the shape of the supply curve is dictated by the supplier's long term cost curve in that relation you cite, which includes the marginal costs of per unit production.... which rather does have something to do with the costs of production.
--
Why can't we moderate posts incoherent?
Including this:
All cost of production determines is whether or not the good is offered in the first place. If the market price is higher than the cost of production, the good will be offered; if not, then it won't.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Every time this subjects comes up, the same reasons are given why cd sales are decreasing: - Cd's are too expensive, No good new music released anymore and cd's contain only 1-2 songs worth listening to. Those are all wrong reasons. Here's why:
1- Everybody say cd's are too expensive at 20$ US a piece. They are not 20$ a piece. On amazon.com, the average price seems to be 12-13$ for mainstream albums. Here in canada, new mainstream releases are habitually priced under 15$ CAN (10$ US)in big stores like wal-mart or future shop(Best Buy). So please stop saying they are 20$.
2- Most people say there are no good music released anymore. That is simply not true. New genres are always popping out and evolving, so why would old music be better than new music. That makes no sense.
3- Most people say cd's contain only 1-2 songs worth listening to, no justifiyng the cost of a whole CD. Then stop listening to what radio and video stations tell you to listen to. Search for real musicians, not over produced, over marketed so-called artists. There are way more talented unknown acts waiting for you to be discovered,if you would just dig a little bit deeper. (P2P is great for that). Real musicians usually releases cds worth listening to from beginning to end. They don't make 1-2 singles to release to the radio to sell their albums then 8-9 filler songs to complete it.
That's it!
Ah... This new wave of Jazz I hear about. Mitch Benn played a twat's version of a Hendix's song and I suddenly had a pretty good idea what I think about this new wave of Jazz coming out. :)
I don't know of Mitch Benn, is he a new jazz performer? Now with Hendrix, if that's who you were refering to, he plays the guitar great but I don't particularly get into his music. I prefer Iron Butterfly And BTO, Bachman Turner Overdrive.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Is the (un)intentional part that the radio industry plays in this whole debacle... When I grew up, you would be lucky to hear a song twice in one day on the radio, now here in aus we have (had)(I stopped listening) "no repeat tuesdays" (gee lucky us, we are so priveledged) and radio stations (who shall remain nameless) that take the 'Nova'lty out of listening by repeating their play list on the hour every hour... Now excuse me, but when i'm at work for 7.x hours and hear a song 7 times in a day, and again the next day, ad nauseum, I'm not brainwashed into buying it, I'm more inclined to throw the radio out of the 20 story building I work in, if I could get the damn windows open... Radio once provided a 'teaser' for new music, a teaser that caused me to want to know more about the ones making the music.. Now when i hear a song 50 times in a week on the radio, i think, 'must be like Waterworld', all hype, no glory and I'll end up drowning in my own tears... The music industry owes me nothing, and I nothing to it... Downloading is my research and I buy what i like, I just like a lot less than I used to because I'm not interested in yet another 'Dawgs' gold and grandstanding, or some chicks 'i got dumped coz I'm a cow and don't know it' miseries... Beg yours record companies, but i hope you choke on your hippin and a hoppin... Do you even understand the qualities of musical entertainment anymore?! Sorry, silly question...
Which is partly correct-- except that it is not "All" that is determined. You also said:
You are incorrect, in that the costs of production not only determine whether a good will be traded, but also affects the market price as a first order effect.
As I noted, the curve describing total costs ($) of production versus number of items produced determines in turn the curve for marginal production cost ($/widget)-- the latter being the derivative of the former. Furthermore, this marginal production cost curve not only affects, but IS the supply curve. And market price is dictated by the interaction (and curve intersection) of this with with consumer demand. Thus, production costs not only dictate whether the good will be offered (by whether there is an intersection of the curves for production greater than zero), but also helps determine what the market price will be (by exactly where the curves intersect).
Or, in syllogism form:
(The more obsessively anal economist will note that the marginal production cost curve is actually the cause for the production cost curve, not the effect; and that the marginal production cost curve is only the short term supply curve, with the average production cost being the long term supply curve. On the one hand that's irrelevant here, and on the other hand all three curves are still a specific instances of production costs, so nyah-nyah-nyah to the hypothetical Mr. Obsessive.)
--
Why can't we moderate posts incoherent?
This is a very good argument, because it shows clearly how the notion of copyright can be wrong in a very basic sense.
Ok, here is an MP3 sequence of ones and zeros.
What if I order the ones and zeros in another order that still corresponds one-to-one to the copyrighted sequence?
I presume the same reasoning saying the second order is copyrightable would apply, because this reordering is derived from the first by a relation of equivalence.
The same reasoning would then apply from the ones and zeros, to the sound waves, to... where? Note that the sound waves are also derived by a relation of equivalence, given sufficiently good hardware.
So, what is really being copyrighted is not the original specific sequence, or even the derived sound waves or other intermediate formats, but the meaning of the sequence, that is, the aesthetic experience.
Of course, involving an aesthetic experience with anything concerning laws is even more untenable than the futility and childishness of copyrighting ones and zeros. I defy anyone to rationalize the moral right of any human creature to copyright an aesthetic experience.
It's no good saying that someone "owns" something or whatever. No one owns someone else's aesthetic experiences. Period.
A bad law breads disrespect for the law, and creates a disfunctional society. Everyone knows it's all about the money of a few rich people. Everyone knows that artists will always create art... and technology has given us cheap high quality recording and distribution. In theory, through democracy, people can create whatever laws they want... we are sold this myth of the worship of the economy, but why don't we just enjoy music and support the _artists_ directly by going to their shows if we feel like having a good time.
A CD is different to downloaded music... since it's a different thing, there will always be people interested in buying them, and artists will try to add value to CDs with, for example, liner notes and artwork. There is also price presure on an overpriced item. Furthermore, I know of many independent artists who have created their own CDs without the draconian contracts of RIAA members, and thus control the artistic content of their creations. Isn't that all for the best?
The truth is that the RIAA members would stifle economic and artistic growth, push for laws that would make most people criminals (in a democracy no less!) and all in the interest of their own wallets... and who can blame them? Hording money is very instinctive.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right