"Creating another proprietary system isn't going to solve the underlying issues...people want ownership of the music itself, and the first service that does that is going to be rewarded handsomely by consumers."
The first service? The fact that you weren't aware that many MP3-based stores already exist (I'll add mp3tunes.com to the ones that others have already given you) makes it difficult to support your statement. Unfortunately, these sites exist in relative obscurity. The DRM model has, for the time being, won.
If you would like to make your theory a reality, the first step is with us: rather than ignoring the obvious fact that DRM has won for the time being, we should go out of our way to patronize mp3tunes.com, emusic, magnatunes and the like. Get the ball rolling, spend some money there, and they'll have the data to show musicians and record labels that DRM-free music can work. This will result in more artists and labels working with MP3-based stores, and the effect will snowball.
" One thing to consider is the fact that this was a survey, not an analysis of traffic."
The article gave that impression, but when it used the word "survey" it did not mean in the sense of asking people questions. NPD has a consumer panel of about 40,000 users who've volunteered to have tracking software on their PC. It's this automated software that collected the data on application usage.
This certainly leaves plenty of opportunities for faulty data capture and analysis (for example: how good a job have they done mapping those 40K users to demographics as a whole?), but NPD did correctly came to the obvious conclusion that asking "do you use P2P apps?" is not likely to yield a lot of honest answers.
"Does anyone remember when CD's were first introduced? The music industry told us the CD's would last forever. The music quality would stay perfect forever. That tapes would decline over the years."
CDs are much more durable than analog tapes. I do not recall if Sony and Philips (and whoever else came up with the CD format) ever literally said that they would unconditionally "last forever."
"So I am entitled to download as much free music as I want. I am entitled to make copies and give them out for free."
I think "two wrongs make a right" is probably the #1 justification for music piracy around here. I personally don't see a need to justify it. If you'd rather download music for free than pay for it, then just go ahead and do it -- you don't need to make any tenuous rationalizations.
"The music industry had illegal agreements to keep the price of CD's high. They got caught. What was their punishment? To give libaraies CD's, and what did the RIAA give? 100 copies of the same CD to each library?"
Most people don't know the full story here. The real losers of the price-fixing settlement are people like you and me. Here's what happened:
Wal-Mart and Best Buy started selling CDs at little or no profit, or even at a loss, to get people into the stores.
A few record chains (Tower Records and Musicland being two of them; there was a third whose name I don't recall) correctly pointed out that Wal-Mart and Best Buy were putting them out of business. Wal-Mart and Best Buy could simply afford to sell CDs at below cost because they made their money back on the thousands of other items in the store. Tower/Musicland made their money primarily through selling CDs and couldn't resort to such tactics.
So, they went to the record companies for help. Universal set up a MAP ("minimum advertised price") program in which Universal gave Tower and Musicland co-op money (that is, cash to help pay for ads) in exchange for Tower and Musicland agreeing not to advertise CDs for below a certain price. If you've worked in retail and this arrangement sounds familiar to you, you're right -- MAP programs exist in hundreds of industries, including the computer industries.
Wal-Mart and Best Buy, who were selling CDs at a loss and thus not getting this MAP money, complained to the government.
The government came down hard on Universal.
Universal stopped running MAP programs. Most of the computer peripheral companies with which you are familiar still continue to happily run MAP programs.
Tower Records filed for bankrupcty.
This was largely a case of a big company (Universal) being bitch-slapped by two bigger companies (Wal-Mart and Best Buy) using our government as a proxy. Wal-Mart continues to dominate retail sales of CDs with their awful selection of sanitized-for-your-protection crap. And cool stores like Tower, which used to have a pretty good selection, are getting harder to find. Everybody lost here... except for Wal-Mart.
"People in the USA are free. We can share whatever we want with whoever we want."
Insert standard "then give me your credit card number" retort.
"I'm simply not buying it. Anybody can make up statistics that suit their own political agenda, but it doesn't mean that it's actually true."
FWIW, the study was conducted by NPD. They're a venerable and well-respected research agency that tracks sales and consumer behavior in dozens of industries, including various computer industries. Their reputation is only as good as their accuracy. I've done my own analysis of their sell-through reports in the computer industry, and the margin of error is well within acceptable limits.
"Gee whiz, with all the lawsuits flying around, do you think people are going to actually admit to strangers that they're using p2p?"
Again -- these NPD folks are smart -- even as smart as you -- and they know this as well. I read a longer version of the article (I've searched in vain for the link) which quoted an NPD employee as saying basically the same thing, and addressing how they accomodate for that. Statistical analysis is a big, huge science; most universities even offer degrees in it. NPD tends to hire smart people with degrees.
"I'm almost positive that the RIAA will ignore this fact and still tell the public and the government that P2P is killing them, when in fact it is their own stupidity of not using the internet in a way to help themselves."
They have used the Internet to sell a metric buttload of songs via iTunes and other resellers. They appear to get this Internet thing just fine. They probably believe that the lawsuits have helped by herding people toward the legal sites. Again, with the amazing growth of paid downloads, it may be difficult to dissuade them of this.
"When will these guys catch on that the internet is the direction they need to move toward, and start letting go of their antiquated methods and offering their music at more reasonable prices."
The iTMS' amazing success has shown them that $0.99 works just fine for them. I read another study the other day that stated that paid downloads have increased 10X year over year. That is a huge success by any definition.
Price elasticity being what it is, I would not buy 20% more songs from the iTMS if tracks were $0.80. There are undoubtedly many more like me. It is a safe bet that they've done the market research to show them that lowering the price below $0.99 will not make them more money.
"They just haven't figured out how to do it and still capture the largest share of the market."
I think the missing context here is that paid downloads increased by 10X year-over-year. That's market growth that anybody would be thrilled to get. I think they've figured this out just fine. All they need to do is grow by another 25% (not 2.5X, but 1.25X) and they've passed the WinMX number. Even if their growth crashes from 10X per year to 5X per year or even 2X per year, they'll take over #1.
"Being a Star Wars fan as well as an Indiana Jones fan, I am of the opinion that Harrison Ford has been one of the best actors recent movies have seen."
While I agree that he has star power, I am surprised by the phrase "best actor" being used in the same sentence as "Harrison Ford." That big crate containing the ark in the final scene of "Raiders" was less wooden than Mr. Ford. I don't think it's a coincidence that he was a carpenter before he got into "acting."
However, he's nothing if not consistent, and I expect the next Indy film to have plenty of finger shaking.
"You not only compare copyright infringment to genocide"
straw man
"...but then justify that statement by stating that the "Slashbots" are an oppressive group denying struggling songwriters their fair share due to P2P distribution?"
straw man number two
"Many artists are figuring out that they can make good money by allowing their music to be distributed for free!"
Agreed. There are plenty of artists who have embraced free or "try before you buy" distribution, or at least DRM-free distribution. The way to bring down the current system is to support these artists, and not violate the rights of those whose choice of distribution terms isn't to your liking. Right now, Apple is laughing all the way to the bank with their 20-million-odd DRM'ed downloads. If we support the artists that use Magnatunes or MP3Tunes, then perhaps more artists will have the financial motivation to do the same.
I disagree with you, however, on your choice of the word "obsolete" to describe the way the record labels are doing business. The Apple iTMS is still orders of magnitude larger than Magnatunes or MP3Tunes. Much more has to happen before the word "obsolete" will apply.
"It seems that most of the anti-P2P FUD I see comes from the **AA's and the industry themselves and not the artists."
That's because the trade organizations have a lot more money to spend on the effort. They have a bigger megaphone.
"Of course I'm sure they'd NEVER stoop to astroturfing a site like Slashdot, now would they?"
Ah, I see, you believe I am astroturfing. Remember, not all geeks share the same moral compass.
"You need to argue that copyright, as it stands, is not an unjust infringement of the rights of the majority first."
Your point is well taken, but I think that's a futile argument. Whether copyright law is just is one of those fundamental issues that I would lump into abortion, capital punishment, religion, and who was the hottest member of Bananarama. Nobody's ever going to change any minds.
"But please go on. I could read your bullshit all night and into the morning, and never grow tired of it."
Please take it down a notch. Replace Microsoft with $BIGCOMPANY. I believe my point was clear: the government runs on taxes, and US companies that produce intellectual property collectively pay a lot of taxes. Slashdotters are spot-on when they point out that our government is owned by big corporate interests like Disney. It is not because whoever's running Disney this week has naked photos of President Bush (at least, not that I know of) but because Disney profits help keep the government running.
Where they fall off the beam, however, is when they state that this is a justification for violating others' rights.
" You might have had a valid point if you hadn't compared copyright violations to genocide."
Ah, but I think the careful reader will understand that I am actually referring to the methods by which we as a race manage to justify violating others' rights. History has shown us time and time again that when there's a large group of people that want to violate the rights of a smaller group of people, and the larger group has technology on their side, then the first step is is for the bigger group to come up with whatever reasons they need to in order to feel okay about stomping all over the smaller group. Whether you're a songwriter struggling to make the rent and the Slashbots are telling each other that it's okay to distribute your work without your permission because you're stinking rich, or if you were an Indian who found themselves at the wrong end of a gun one morning because of hysteria in the press about the raping and the looting, it's the same forces at work here. It's simply how we tick as a human race.
Think about it for a bit and you'll probably find other examples through history that fall at various points on the scale between copyright infringement and genocide.
" Why the FUCK would the FBI (who's purpose is to prevent communism) even get involved in copyright infringement?"
I'll assume you're not trolling:
Because if you do enough of it, it's a crime. This falls under federal law.
I'll go ahead and answer some other Slashdot noob copyright infringement questions while I'm here:
Why is the government enforcing this law? Aren't there be terrorists to catch?
Walk &
Chew gum &
No, really. What's it to them?
Spend some time out of the US and you'll learn that intellectual property is one of the US's biggest exports. The revenue earned (and taxes paid) by US-based citizens and companies through the distribution of intellectual property -- whether it's music, movies, books, or software -- is absolutely enormous, and whether we like it or not, it's a significant reason that we in the US enjoy the quality of life that we do. Like original sin, we are all stained by the shame of enforcing the rights of copyright holders.
Enough with this borgouis capitalistic intellectual property nonsense. This country is ruined by greed! Except for the part where I download music and movies for free instead of paying for them... I wouldn't consider that greed. But I digress. Isn't there a sane place where people don't pay no never mind to intellectual property?
There sure are -- try the (somewhat short) list of countries that aren't signatories to the Berne Convention. Iran and Iraq are among them, as well as a few African nations and dirt-poor tropical islands. They are largely places that the typical US citizen would not want to live. Revenue sources like the taxes that Microsoft pays tend to go toward things like infrastructure here in the US -- clean running water and the like.
Isn't this a victimless crime? Owners and creators of movies, books and music are all rich beyond my wildest imagination. I see this pointed out on Slashdot all the time, and so it must be true.
You have taken the first vital step toward sanitizing the act of ignoring others' rights. This trick is pretty common. For example, it worked well in the 18th century when "manifest destiny" dictated that we grab all the land. It became immensely easier to do this once we started thinking of Indians as godless, drunken, flea-infested savages who stole our horses and raped our women.
So what's your point?
If you'd rather download that song or that film rather than pay for it, go ahead and do it -- just don't try to make it a social cause. At best, you're being wise with your dollar. You're not a hero, you're not advancing a social cause, and this is not the Montgomery freedom march.
"The only reason the MPAA doesn't like it is because it happens to be prohibitively expensive for someone who isn't making money off of it to distribute lots of content in the old days."
More to the point, the MPAA doesn't like piracy because they see piracy as lost sales. They exist to support their members, who are for-profit companies that rely on sales to stay in business.
"The attacks the MPAA is making against P2P are attacks against inexpensive content distribution, and all those that rely on it and those that benefit from it."
On the contrary, I think the MPAA has done a pretty good job so far (compared to the RIAA, at least) of understanding the difference between the distinct concepts of "P2P" and "using P2P for piracy." Case in point, the MPAA has been going after tracker sites that specialize in pirated content, yet ignoring the (alas, far less popular) sites that distribute only permission-based content.
Ironically, when we make statements to the effect of "The MPAA is attacking P2P" (and I've seen your sentiment expressed a lot around here), it is we who are blurring the lines between the concept of P2P and the specific act of using P2P in a way that violates others' rights.
If we want the content-neutral concept of P2P as a distribution mechanism to survive, we must first drop this "an attack on piracy is an attack on P2P" nonsense and the other silly straw men like "the MPAA hates technology" in place of "the MPAA is attempting to protect its economic interests." Otherwise, we may get exactly what we deserve.
"Unless you have the artist's permission, I think it's clear that it's wrong. The fact that the music industry is engaged in a greater wrong is not even that much of a mitigating factor. It's up to the artist to choose to involve themselves in civil disobedience against the label system, to accept the consequences of sharing their songs on P2P, whether good or bad. It's not up to you to make that decision for them."
Very well put. To elaborate further, I think he was implicitly asking his students to look inward and ask themselves:
Are there times when two wrongs do make a right?
Is the golden rule (that is... treat others how you would like to be treated) subjective? If somebody that you don't know would rather that you not violate their rights, does it apply? Does what they do for a living, or how much money they make have an effect on your decision? In other words, was Orwell on to something when his characters in Animal Farm wrote "some are more equal than others?"
If somebody makes what you perceive to be an incorrect choice (here, choosing to sign a recording contract rather than giving your work away for free) does this change the way you feel about respecting their rights?
Can it be considered "greedy" to download music for free as an alternative to paying for it? Likewise, can it be considered "greedy" to choose to sign a record contract, rather than making your work available for free?
The masses have the power and the leverage here. Ultimately there's nothing you can do if somebody wants to violate your rights, so ultimately, all musicians have to truly rely on is the honor system. Do you agree that "might makes right?" How would you answer if you were (a) a high school student who can't afford to buy all the music they want, (b) a musician who relies on royalty payments to pay the rent, (c) an American Indian living during the westward expansion of the 19th century?
"If you don't like the label system, it's far more moral and effective to promote sites like 3hive that hilight independant artists, many of whom are more than happy to let you download complete songs (not just 30 second samples) if there's a chance that'll convince you to buy their CDs. And, heck, it even works."
Agreed. There's also MP3Tunes (you have to pay, but it's high-quality, non-DRM stuff) and Magnatunes (which I believe is payment optional). Plenty of ways to get high quality, low-cost (or free) music from musicians who haven't gone the major label route.
"...and monopolizing all avenues of distribution, making sure that any artist who wants to have their music heard must go through one of the record labels."
Of which there are thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands. Some are big and huge and are members of the RIAA. Some are small and independent yet still belong to the RIAA. Some are small and independent and cool and don't belong to the RIAA. Some, like Magnatune, are virtual. Some, like CDBaby, specialize in getting your stuff onto the legit download sites even if you're not signed to a traditional label. There's a ton of non-RIAA and unsigned music on the Apple iTunes Music Store.
It's your music... do what you want. If you want to get the potential of mammoth exposure and sales, in exchange for a loss of control and a much smaller portion of the selling price of your music, sign a recording contract with a big label. If you want a little more control and a bigger share of the profits, but with less of a budget, go with one of the cool indie labels. If you just want a little assistance but want to do most of the promotion yourself, try Magnatune or CD Baby. If you don't think the service that any of them provide is worth it, and you're lucky enough to have the means to record, produce, and promote your work yourself, then more power to you.
The fact is that in the record industry, just as in the software industry or a thousand other industries, nobody's going to give you a million bucks to do with as you please in creating and promoting your work, without wanting something back. Is this unfair? You bet. Can it make it tough? Of course. But this is not a "monopoly."
"I don't understand why RIAA wants streaming stations to pay them for what amounts to advertising for their members. Do radio stations pay to play music? I'm thinking not."
Put aside "greedy RIAA" for a moment and think more in terms of "greedy artists." Most of the royalties collected from webcasting go to the composers and songwriters. A bit goes to the union that supports session musicians and singers.
Despite the impression you may have gotten from "MTV Cribs," trying to make a living as a composer or a lyricist is often very difficult. ASCAP/BMI checks are often the difference between paying the rent and being on the street.
Slashdotters often rhetorically ask why composers and lyricists can't simply do it for the love of the craft and forget monetary goals. This is similar to asking why IT consultants can't do the same thing, and charge $10 an hour instead of, say, $50 an hour.
You are absolutely correct -- different mediums have different ways in which the copyright can be violated in a meaningful way. With GPL software, of course, since you're giving it away for free, the big threat is somebody claiming ownership of it. With music, for which the distribution is often controlled by the copyright holder, the biggest threat is copying without permission.
Similarly, if you are a sculptor, you don't need to worry about somebody claiming they sculpted it, nor do you typically need to worry about somebody making another sculpture just like it. What sculptors need to worry about is people using a photograph of the sculpture in an unauthorized manner.
Different media, different laws. We all know that. This is a cop-out answer.
Can somebody please address the real question: why do many Slashdotters think that it's more of an affront to violate the rights of a software developer than it is to violate the rights of a musician?
I think the reason is that the typical Slashdotter is much more likely to be a coder -- and perhaps has even worked on a GPL project -- than they are likely to be a musician who relies on sales of their music to feed their family. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being empathetic with your peers, but implying that violating the rights of the musician who sells his work is more acceptable than violating the rights of the programmer who releases GPL code is simply unfair. We are all supposedly equal here.
"Most people who feel filesharing of songs is ok - also feel as if it's promotion for the artist."
If the artist freely distributes their music (as many do), then this is cool. If they would rather that you not copy their music without paying for it, then "it's a promotion for the artist" is a self-serving excuse. Respecting the artists' rights is best -- treat others as you'd have them treat you.
"I download rather infrequently - but MANY MANY of my friends buy music based on what they hear in my car and I also go to concerts and promote iTunes downloads on my website!"
That's great to hear, but it does not require (or justify) making a copy of a musician's music without their permission.
"If any of the stores wanted to, they could easily sell me MP3's, which would go onto my iPod no problem. But they won't, because the RIAA still haven't wised up that consumers don't want their DRM crap."
The iTMS has been a fantastically wild success, with something on the order of 20 million tracks sold.
Meanwhile, companies like Magnatune, which fit many Slashdotters' model of the right way to do music distribution (no DRM, standard MP3 format, payment optional, etc.) are flailing.
We Slashdotters can continue to stamp our little feet and proclaim that DRM is a failure, but the market is showing us otherwise.
Perhaps a more productive (but far more difficult) approach is for each of us to write to ten of our favorite bands and urge them to renounce their recording contracts and start publishing their work on Magnatune or another venue that provides authorized, legal, DRM-free MP3 files.
We constantly proclaim that there's a market for legal, DRM-free music -- now, let's make that happen. For the time being, Apple and a squillion record companies can show us twenty million reasons why we're wrong.
"Hmmm, if review or study is an acceptable fair use of copyrighted music, can I as a musician copy any and all the music I like for the purpose of studying how to be a more successful professional musician?"
I love how posts that are questions are modded insightful. Folks, questions indicate a lack of insight. This would more appropriately be rated "interesting."
Anyway, this is one of those under the radar things that would likely only be answered if you were taken to court. If there's no tort, it's one of those tree-falls-in-the-forest things. Either way, my guess is that you'd likely be in the clear if you were xeroxing sheet music for practice, or if you'd burned a copy of a song for your band to listen to if you were planning on rehearsing and performing it. You could not reasonably claim fair use for making copies of entire music collections.
When in doubt, think of how you would apply your personal laugh test if you were a prosecutor or a judge. If a musician told you that they were claiming production under fair use doctrine for gigabytes of pirated music because it might inspire them to be a more successful musician, your likely response would be "sheeyeah, right" and throw the book at them -- and there's your answer. But if it were something more reasonable -- such as the copying of sheet music for a single song, or a single CD track for your band to listen to and practice -- then you might take a pass.
"Reading about this radical conservative preacher putting pressure on M$ was making me sick."
Agreed, and when I saw the memo my first thought was that the primary impetus for the switcheroo was to lay the smack down on him for proclaiming that he was the one who got Microsoft to cave on this issue.
"Gates and Co. should have told this idiot to take his Bible and shove it up is arse."
If my theory is correct, this is exactly what they've just done.
Re:If you can't see the problem, is there a proble
on
When is 720p Not 720p?
·
· Score: 1
"I have a 720p projector paired with a 110" screen. Both 720p and 1080i material look fantastic. Maybe the supposed degredation would be visible side-by-side with a native resolution projector, but I certainly wouldn't worry about it based on what I've been watching."
I have a similar rig, although I'm only throwing to around 90". I am probably totally incorrect, but I think these sorts of issues may be more visible on plasma and LCD displays than with projectors, the cinematic properties of which tend to reduce some of the aliasing and jaggie issues I've seen with plasma and LCD.
I believe this is one reason why some home theatre experts opine that plasma screens are great if you want a really cool-looking TV to go with your cool-looking furniture, but if you're actually serious about watching movies in your home, get a projector and a screen.
"If they would just lower the price of individual CDs, down to about $5, I'd buy about 2 a week."
Hmmm.... that'd mean selling into the channel for about $4... that $4 would have to pay for production, manufacturing, royalties, shipping, marketing, unsold inventory, and so on. Not going to happen -- selling at a loss is not a good long-term business strategy. I don't think we're going to get record company or record store employees to give up their salaries, so I wouldn't count on this happening.
"As it stands right now, most albums average $15-20. That's too much."
"I think they would make up all the profits in sales if they just lowered the price to acceptable levels."
Those $12.95 CDs net between 15% and 25% margin for the retailers and, on average about 20% net margin for the record company. If your theory is correct, cutting those margins in half -- which would take the retail price to about $10 -- would more than double sales. I'm not entirely sure that would be the case... if I want a CD, a $3 delta isn't going to affect my purchase decision. That's about 30 minutes of work at a minimum-wage job.
" Why can these fools NOT wrap their mind around it? Those with Clue(TM) are not going to pay $5, $1, $0.15, or $0.00 for music that TELLS US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT! Lose the FSCKING DRM!"
Take a look at the iTunes Music Store if you ever have a chance. They've managed to turn selling DRMed music into a wildly successful business. I know, I know, it's one of those boggling mind-warpers, but nonetheless, they've managed to make it work, and "fools" is not a word that I would choose to describe them.
"So, we get free music copying because we pay the levy. Or, we pay the levy because we get free music copying."
Citation, please. Please connect the dots for me on where the law states that copying for private use is allowed as a result of the levy.
The money paid into the collective goes only to Canadian songwriters and performers. Does the law also stipulate that you may only copy the works of Canadian artists for private use?
Slashdot Mirror
"Creating another proprietary system isn't going to solve the underlying issues...people want ownership of the music itself, and the first service that does that is going to be rewarded handsomely by consumers."
The first service? The fact that you weren't aware that many MP3-based stores already exist (I'll add mp3tunes.com to the ones that others have already given you) makes it difficult to support your statement. Unfortunately, these sites exist in relative obscurity. The DRM model has, for the time being, won.
If you would like to make your theory a reality, the first step is with us: rather than ignoring the obvious fact that DRM has won for the time being, we should go out of our way to patronize mp3tunes.com, emusic, magnatunes and the like. Get the ball rolling, spend some money there, and they'll have the data to show musicians and record labels that DRM-free music can work. This will result in more artists and labels working with MP3-based stores, and the effect will snowball.
" One thing to consider is the fact that this was a survey, not an analysis of traffic."
The article gave that impression, but when it used the word "survey" it did not mean in the sense of asking people questions. NPD has a consumer panel of about 40,000 users who've volunteered to have tracking software on their PC. It's this automated software that collected the data on application usage.
This certainly leaves plenty of opportunities for faulty data capture and analysis (for example: how good a job have they done mapping those 40K users to demographics as a whole?), but NPD did correctly came to the obvious conclusion that asking "do you use P2P apps?" is not likely to yield a lot of honest answers.
"Does anyone remember when CD's were first introduced? The music industry told us the CD's would last forever. The music quality would stay perfect forever. That tapes would decline over the years."
CDs are much more durable than analog tapes. I do not recall if Sony and Philips (and whoever else came up with the CD format) ever literally said that they would unconditionally "last forever."
"So I am entitled to download as much free music as I want. I am entitled to make copies and give them out for free."
I think "two wrongs make a right" is probably the #1 justification for music piracy around here. I personally don't see a need to justify it. If you'd rather download music for free than pay for it, then just go ahead and do it -- you don't need to make any tenuous rationalizations.
"The music industry had illegal agreements to keep the price of CD's high. They got caught. What was their punishment? To give libaraies CD's, and what did the RIAA give? 100 copies of the same CD to each library?"
Most people don't know the full story here. The real losers of the price-fixing settlement are people like you and me. Here's what happened:
This was largely a case of a big company (Universal) being bitch-slapped by two bigger companies (Wal-Mart and Best Buy) using our government as a proxy. Wal-Mart continues to dominate retail sales of CDs with their awful selection of sanitized-for-your-protection crap. And cool stores like Tower, which used to have a pretty good selection, are getting harder to find. Everybody lost here... except for Wal-Mart.
"People in the USA are free. We can share whatever we want with whoever we want."
Insert standard "then give me your credit card number" retort.
"I'm simply not buying it. Anybody can make up statistics that suit their own political agenda, but it doesn't mean that it's actually true."
FWIW, the study was conducted by NPD. They're a venerable and well-respected research agency that tracks sales and consumer behavior in dozens of industries, including various computer industries. Their reputation is only as good as their accuracy. I've done my own analysis of their sell-through reports in the computer industry, and the margin of error is well within acceptable limits.
"Gee whiz, with all the lawsuits flying around, do you think people are going to actually admit to strangers that they're using p2p?"
Again -- these NPD folks are smart -- even as smart as you -- and they know this as well. I read a longer version of the article (I've searched in vain for the link) which quoted an NPD employee as saying basically the same thing, and addressing how they accomodate for that. Statistical analysis is a big, huge science; most universities even offer degrees in it. NPD tends to hire smart people with degrees.
"I'm almost positive that the RIAA will ignore this fact and still tell the public and the government that P2P is killing them, when in fact it is their own stupidity of not using the internet in a way to help themselves."
They have used the Internet to sell a metric buttload of songs via iTunes and other resellers. They appear to get this Internet thing just fine. They probably believe that the lawsuits have helped by herding people toward the legal sites. Again, with the amazing growth of paid downloads, it may be difficult to dissuade them of this.
"When will these guys catch on that the internet is the direction they need to move toward, and start letting go of their antiquated methods and offering their music at more reasonable prices."
The iTMS' amazing success has shown them that $0.99 works just fine for them. I read another study the other day that stated that paid downloads have increased 10X year over year. That is a huge success by any definition.
Price elasticity being what it is, I would not buy 20% more songs from the iTMS if tracks were $0.80. There are undoubtedly many more like me. It is a safe bet that they've done the market research to show them that lowering the price below $0.99 will not make them more money.
"They just haven't figured out how to do it and still capture the largest share of the market."
I think the missing context here is that paid downloads increased by 10X year-over-year. That's market growth that anybody would be thrilled to get. I think they've figured this out just fine. All they need to do is grow by another 25% (not 2.5X, but 1.25X) and they've passed the WinMX number. Even if their growth crashes from 10X per year to 5X per year or even 2X per year, they'll take over #1.
"If the Nazis had completed work on the nuclear bomb / rocket nuke then the world would be a very difrent place than it is today."
This is why we should all be glad that Captain Kirk allowed Edith Keeler to be run over by that car.
"Being a Star Wars fan as well as an Indiana Jones fan, I am of the opinion that Harrison Ford has been one of the best actors recent movies have seen."
While I agree that he has star power, I am surprised by the phrase "best actor" being used in the same sentence as "Harrison Ford." That big crate containing the ark in the final scene of "Raiders" was less wooden than Mr. Ford. I don't think it's a coincidence that he was a carpenter before he got into "acting."
However, he's nothing if not consistent, and I expect the next Indy film to have plenty of finger shaking.
"You not only compare copyright infringment to genocide"
straw man
"...but then justify that statement by stating that the "Slashbots" are an oppressive group denying struggling songwriters their fair share due to P2P distribution?"
straw man number two
"Many artists are figuring out that they can make good money by allowing their music to be distributed for free!"
Agreed. There are plenty of artists who have embraced free or "try before you buy" distribution, or at least DRM-free distribution. The way to bring down the current system is to support these artists, and not violate the rights of those whose choice of distribution terms isn't to your liking. Right now, Apple is laughing all the way to the bank with their 20-million-odd DRM'ed downloads. If we support the artists that use Magnatunes or MP3Tunes, then perhaps more artists will have the financial motivation to do the same.
I disagree with you, however, on your choice of the word "obsolete" to describe the way the record labels are doing business. The Apple iTMS is still orders of magnitude larger than Magnatunes or MP3Tunes. Much more has to happen before the word "obsolete" will apply.
"It seems that most of the anti-P2P FUD I see comes from the **AA's and the industry themselves and not the artists."
That's because the trade organizations have a lot more money to spend on the effort. They have a bigger megaphone.
"Of course I'm sure they'd NEVER stoop to astroturfing a site like Slashdot, now would they?"
Ah, I see, you believe I am astroturfing. Remember, not all geeks share the same moral compass.
"You need to argue that copyright, as it stands, is not an unjust infringement of the rights of the majority first."
Your point is well taken, but I think that's a futile argument. Whether copyright law is just is one of those fundamental issues that I would lump into abortion, capital punishment, religion, and who was the hottest member of Bananarama. Nobody's ever going to change any minds.
"But please go on. I could read your bullshit all night and into the morning, and never grow tired of it."
Please take it down a notch. Replace Microsoft with $BIGCOMPANY. I believe my point was clear: the government runs on taxes, and US companies that produce intellectual property collectively pay a lot of taxes. Slashdotters are spot-on when they point out that our government is owned by big corporate interests like Disney. It is not because whoever's running Disney this week has naked photos of President Bush (at least, not that I know of) but because Disney profits help keep the government running.
Where they fall off the beam, however, is when they state that this is a justification for violating others' rights.
" You might have had a valid point if you hadn't compared copyright violations to genocide."
Ah, but I think the careful reader will understand that I am actually referring to the methods by which we as a race manage to justify violating others' rights. History has shown us time and time again that when there's a large group of people that want to violate the rights of a smaller group of people, and the larger group has technology on their side, then the first step is is for the bigger group to come up with whatever reasons they need to in order to feel okay about stomping all over the smaller group. Whether you're a songwriter struggling to make the rent and the Slashbots are telling each other that it's okay to distribute your work without your permission because you're stinking rich, or if you were an Indian who found themselves at the wrong end of a gun one morning because of hysteria in the press about the raping and the looting, it's the same forces at work here. It's simply how we tick as a human race.
Think about it for a bit and you'll probably find other examples through history that fall at various points on the scale between copyright infringement and genocide.
" Why the FUCK would the FBI (who's purpose is to prevent communism) even get involved in copyright infringement?"
I'll assume you're not trolling:
Because if you do enough of it, it's a crime. This falls under federal law.
I'll go ahead and answer some other Slashdot noob copyright infringement questions while I'm here:
Why is the government enforcing this law? Aren't there be terrorists to catch?
Walk &Chew gum &
No, really. What's it to them?
Spend some time out of the US and you'll learn that intellectual property is one of the US's biggest exports. The revenue earned (and taxes paid) by US-based citizens and companies through the distribution of intellectual property -- whether it's music, movies, books, or software -- is absolutely enormous, and whether we like it or not, it's a significant reason that we in the US enjoy the quality of life that we do. Like original sin, we are all stained by the shame of enforcing the rights of copyright holders.
Enough with this borgouis capitalistic intellectual property nonsense. This country is ruined by greed! Except for the part where I download music and movies for free instead of paying for them... I wouldn't consider that greed. But I digress. Isn't there a sane place where people don't pay no never mind to intellectual property?
There sure are -- try the (somewhat short) list of countries that aren't signatories to the Berne Convention. Iran and Iraq are among them, as well as a few African nations and dirt-poor tropical islands. They are largely places that the typical US citizen would not want to live. Revenue sources like the taxes that Microsoft pays tend to go toward things like infrastructure here in the US -- clean running water and the like.
Isn't this a victimless crime? Owners and creators of movies, books and music are all rich beyond my wildest imagination. I see this pointed out on Slashdot all the time, and so it must be true.
You have taken the first vital step toward sanitizing the act of ignoring others' rights. This trick is pretty common. For example, it worked well in the 18th century when "manifest destiny" dictated that we grab all the land. It became immensely easier to do this once we started thinking of Indians as godless, drunken, flea-infested savages who stole our horses and raped our women.
So what's your point?
If you'd rather download that song or that film rather than pay for it, go ahead and do it -- just don't try to make it a social cause. At best, you're being wise with your dollar. You're not a hero, you're not advancing a social cause, and this is not the Montgomery freedom march.
"The only reason the MPAA doesn't like it is because it happens to be prohibitively expensive for someone who isn't making money off of it to distribute lots of content in the old days."
More to the point, the MPAA doesn't like piracy because they see piracy as lost sales. They exist to support their members, who are for-profit companies that rely on sales to stay in business.
"The attacks the MPAA is making against P2P are attacks against inexpensive content distribution, and all those that rely on it and those that benefit from it."
On the contrary, I think the MPAA has done a pretty good job so far (compared to the RIAA, at least) of understanding the difference between the distinct concepts of "P2P" and "using P2P for piracy." Case in point, the MPAA has been going after tracker sites that specialize in pirated content, yet ignoring the (alas, far less popular) sites that distribute only permission-based content.
Ironically, when we make statements to the effect of "The MPAA is attacking P2P" (and I've seen your sentiment expressed a lot around here), it is we who are blurring the lines between the concept of P2P and the specific act of using P2P in a way that violates others' rights.
If we want the content-neutral concept of P2P as a distribution mechanism to survive, we must first drop this "an attack on piracy is an attack on P2P" nonsense and the other silly straw men like "the MPAA hates technology" in place of "the MPAA is attempting to protect its economic interests." Otherwise, we may get exactly what we deserve.
"Unless you have the artist's permission, I think it's clear that it's wrong. The fact that the music industry is engaged in a greater wrong is not even that much of a mitigating factor. It's up to the artist to choose to involve themselves in civil disobedience against the label system, to accept the consequences of sharing their songs on P2P, whether good or bad. It's not up to you to make that decision for them."
Very well put. To elaborate further, I think he was implicitly asking his students to look inward and ask themselves:
"If you don't like the label system, it's far more moral and effective to promote sites like 3hive that hilight independant artists, many of whom are more than happy to let you download complete songs (not just 30 second samples) if there's a chance that'll convince you to buy their CDs. And, heck, it even works."
Agreed. There's also MP3Tunes (you have to pay, but it's high-quality, non-DRM stuff) and Magnatunes (which I believe is payment optional). Plenty of ways to get high quality, low-cost (or free) music from musicians who haven't gone the major label route.
"...and monopolizing all avenues of distribution, making sure that any artist who wants to have their music heard must go through one of the record labels."
Of which there are thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands. Some are big and huge and are members of the RIAA. Some are small and independent yet still belong to the RIAA. Some are small and independent and cool and don't belong to the RIAA. Some, like Magnatune, are virtual. Some, like CDBaby, specialize in getting your stuff onto the legit download sites even if you're not signed to a traditional label. There's a ton of non-RIAA and unsigned music on the Apple iTunes Music Store.
It's your music... do what you want. If you want to get the potential of mammoth exposure and sales, in exchange for a loss of control and a much smaller portion of the selling price of your music, sign a recording contract with a big label. If you want a little more control and a bigger share of the profits, but with less of a budget, go with one of the cool indie labels. If you just want a little assistance but want to do most of the promotion yourself, try Magnatune or CD Baby. If you don't think the service that any of them provide is worth it, and you're lucky enough to have the means to record, produce, and promote your work yourself, then more power to you.
The fact is that in the record industry, just as in the software industry or a thousand other industries, nobody's going to give you a million bucks to do with as you please in creating and promoting your work, without wanting something back. Is this unfair? You bet. Can it make it tough? Of course. But this is not a "monopoly."
"I don't understand why RIAA wants streaming stations to pay them for what amounts to advertising for their members. Do radio stations pay to play music? I'm thinking not."
Put aside "greedy RIAA" for a moment and think more in terms of "greedy artists." Most of the royalties collected from webcasting go to the composers and songwriters. A bit goes to the union that supports session musicians and singers.
Despite the impression you may have gotten from "MTV Cribs," trying to make a living as a composer or a lyricist is often very difficult. ASCAP/BMI checks are often the difference between paying the rent and being on the street.
Slashdotters often rhetorically ask why composers and lyricists can't simply do it for the love of the craft and forget monetary goals. This is similar to asking why IT consultants can't do the same thing, and charge $10 an hour instead of, say, $50 an hour.
You are absolutely correct -- different mediums have different ways in which the copyright can be violated in a meaningful way. With GPL software, of course, since you're giving it away for free, the big threat is somebody claiming ownership of it. With music, for which the distribution is often controlled by the copyright holder, the biggest threat is copying without permission.
Similarly, if you are a sculptor, you don't need to worry about somebody claiming they sculpted it, nor do you typically need to worry about somebody making another sculpture just like it. What sculptors need to worry about is people using a photograph of the sculpture in an unauthorized manner.
Different media, different laws. We all know that. This is a cop-out answer.
Can somebody please address the real question: why do many Slashdotters think that it's more of an affront to violate the rights of a software developer than it is to violate the rights of a musician?
I think the reason is that the typical Slashdotter is much more likely to be a coder -- and perhaps has even worked on a GPL project -- than they are likely to be a musician who relies on sales of their music to feed their family. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being empathetic with your peers, but implying that violating the rights of the musician who sells his work is more acceptable than violating the rights of the programmer who releases GPL code is simply unfair. We are all supposedly equal here.
"Most people who feel filesharing of songs is ok - also feel as if it's promotion for the artist."
If the artist freely distributes their music (as many do), then this is cool. If they would rather that you not copy their music without paying for it, then "it's a promotion for the artist" is a self-serving excuse. Respecting the artists' rights is best -- treat others as you'd have them treat you.
"I download rather infrequently - but MANY MANY of my friends buy music based on what they hear in my car and I also go to concerts and promote iTunes downloads on my website!"
That's great to hear, but it does not require (or justify) making a copy of a musician's music without their permission.
"If any of the stores wanted to, they could easily sell me MP3's, which would go onto my iPod no problem. But they won't, because the RIAA still haven't wised up that consumers don't want their DRM crap."
The iTMS has been a fantastically wild success, with something on the order of 20 million tracks sold.
Meanwhile, companies like Magnatune, which fit many Slashdotters' model of the right way to do music distribution (no DRM, standard MP3 format, payment optional, etc.) are flailing.
We Slashdotters can continue to stamp our little feet and proclaim that DRM is a failure, but the market is showing us otherwise.
Perhaps a more productive (but far more difficult) approach is for each of us to write to ten of our favorite bands and urge them to renounce their recording contracts and start publishing their work on Magnatune or another venue that provides authorized, legal, DRM-free MP3 files.
We constantly proclaim that there's a market for legal, DRM-free music -- now, let's make that happen. For the time being, Apple and a squillion record companies can show us twenty million reasons why we're wrong.
"Hmmm, if review or study is an acceptable fair use of copyrighted music, can I as a musician copy any and all the music I like for the purpose of studying how to be a more successful professional musician?"
I love how posts that are questions are modded insightful. Folks, questions indicate a lack of insight. This would more appropriately be rated "interesting."
Anyway, this is one of those under the radar things that would likely only be answered if you were taken to court. If there's no tort, it's one of those tree-falls-in-the-forest things. Either way, my guess is that you'd likely be in the clear if you were xeroxing sheet music for practice, or if you'd burned a copy of a song for your band to listen to if you were planning on rehearsing and performing it. You could not reasonably claim fair use for making copies of entire music collections.
When in doubt, think of how you would apply your personal laugh test if you were a prosecutor or a judge. If a musician told you that they were claiming production under fair use doctrine for gigabytes of pirated music because it might inspire them to be a more successful musician, your likely response would be "sheeyeah, right" and throw the book at them -- and there's your answer. But if it were something more reasonable -- such as the copying of sheet music for a single song, or a single CD track for your band to listen to and practice -- then you might take a pass.
"Reading about this radical conservative preacher putting pressure on M$ was making me sick."
Agreed, and when I saw the memo my first thought was that the primary impetus for the switcheroo was to lay the smack down on him for proclaiming that he was the one who got Microsoft to cave on this issue.
"Gates and Co. should have told this idiot to take his Bible and shove it up is arse."
If my theory is correct, this is exactly what they've just done.
"I have a 720p projector paired with a 110" screen. Both 720p and 1080i material look fantastic. Maybe the supposed degredation would be visible side-by-side with a native resolution projector, but I certainly wouldn't worry about it based on what I've been watching."
I have a similar rig, although I'm only throwing to around 90". I am probably totally incorrect, but I think these sorts of issues may be more visible on plasma and LCD displays than with projectors, the cinematic properties of which tend to reduce some of the aliasing and jaggie issues I've seen with plasma and LCD.
I believe this is one reason why some home theatre experts opine that plasma screens are great if you want a really cool-looking TV to go with your cool-looking furniture, but if you're actually serious about watching movies in your home, get a projector and a screen.
"If they would just lower the price of individual CDs, down to about $5, I'd buy about 2 a week."
Hmmm.... that'd mean selling into the channel for about $4... that $4 would have to pay for production, manufacturing, royalties, shipping, marketing, unsold inventory, and so on. Not going to happen -- selling at a loss is not a good long-term business strategy. I don't think we're going to get record company or record store employees to give up their salaries, so I wouldn't count on this happening.
"As it stands right now, most albums average $15-20. That's too much."
You're shopping in the wrong stores. The average price of a new CD is $12.95 and falling fast (an older report has a nice graph and some backround info).
"I think they would make up all the profits in sales if they just lowered the price to acceptable levels."
Those $12.95 CDs net between 15% and 25% margin for the retailers and, on average about 20% net margin for the record company. If your theory is correct, cutting those margins in half -- which would take the retail price to about $10 -- would more than double sales. I'm not entirely sure that would be the case... if I want a CD, a $3 delta isn't going to affect my purchase decision. That's about 30 minutes of work at a minimum-wage job.
" Why can these fools NOT wrap their mind around it? Those with Clue(TM) are not going to pay $5, $1, $0.15, or $0.00 for music that TELLS US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT! Lose the FSCKING DRM!"
Take a look at the iTunes Music Store if you ever have a chance. They've managed to turn selling DRMed music into a wildly successful business. I know, I know, it's one of those boggling mind-warpers, but nonetheless, they've managed to make it work, and "fools" is not a word that I would choose to describe them.
"So, we get free music copying because we pay the levy. Or, we pay the levy because we get free music copying."
Citation, please. Please connect the dots for me on where the law states that copying for private use is allowed as a result of the levy.
The money paid into the collective goes only to Canadian songwriters and performers. Does the law also stipulate that you may only copy the works of Canadian artists for private use?