File Sharing

[Steezie]

I posted these videos on YouTube a while back and I'd like to know what people here think of the issue in regards to the video.

YouTube - File Shapring Part 1
YouTube - File Sharing Part 2

 

[M.6]

NOthing wrong with it. It's called sharing with others.
I do it on regular basis.
And I don't feel guilty either.
Never have, never will either.

There are many, many instances of artists that do encourage and desire as well as put up thier music on file sharing sites as torrents, such as What.CD or even STmusic ( both very good music only tracker sites).

There are quite a few of artists that put up thier CD's on the site (for example: What.CD) for downloading by it's users who then go on and continue to share it amongst other users.

Those users (i.e. members) have the option to go out and buy the CD in it's entirety ( or not). And if not, oh well. ....

There are other groups such as what is known as 'The Scene' that rip CD's after purchasing them from what-ever store and then uploading them on FTP sites (such as USENEXT) .

Those 'scene' groups ( and there are many), encourage the users ( i.e. the downloaders of that CD at the FTP site) to go out and purchase the music they've just downloaded.

 

[ArteestX]

I think anyone who wants to put their art on the web for free, more power to them, I do the same thing. Those artists who encourage folks to spread their art around, that's great. Those artists who utilize the freedom of the web to get their vision out into the world, I wholeheartedly support them all.

But this isn't about the music companies, this is about stealing from the artists. Artists who write music, compose songs, and then people take their work without paying? People get the artist's songs without paying for it are stealing. Rationalizing it as "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so no one is losing income" is bogus. You don't want to pay for it, then you don't get the product, that's fine. But getting the product without paying for it is stealing, period.

As someone who has composed songs and put them on the web for free, I am all about getting your name out, sharing your art with the world with little cost, that's all great. If that's what you want to do. But my art is not my livelihood. For some artists, it is very much their livelihood. If they don't get paid for their work by people who enjoy it, then those artists lose income. If you don't want to pay for the song or the movie, then don't listen or watch it. If you do want to own it, listen and/or watch it, then be honest about it and pay for it.

 

[levi501]

lol, it's certainly not stealing. People call it stealing for emotional appeal, but it's simply copyright infringement. What monetary loss or potential loss did they suffer? None.

My issue with copright laws is when does it cross over from freedom of information to copyright material?

 

[Steezie]

I think anyone who wants to put their art on the web for free, more power to them, I do the same thing. Those artists who encourage folks to spread their art around, that's great. Those artists who utilize the freedom of the web to get their vision out into the world, I wholeheartedly support them all.

But this isn't about the music companies, this is about stealing from the artists. Artists who write music, compose songs, and then people take their work without paying? People get the artist's songs without paying for it are stealing. Rationalizing it as "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so no one is losing income" is bogus. You don't want to pay for it, then you don't get the product, that's fine. But getting the product without paying for it is stealing, period.

There is a thriving community of artists who freely exchange songs with each other the community at large.

I was reading an interview with a musician on the East coast and he was asked what he thought about file sharing. He responded "I think it will destroy the music industry as we know it, and ya know...maybe thats not such a bad thing."

And the man has a real point. We cant STOP people creating music, but what file sharing can and will do is cut the legs out from under bands created solely to generate profit for music companies and bands that are truly good will receive more attention. Music will go back to being a community effort.

To say that the argument of lost income is bogus is hasty and incorrect. If I download a CD or a movie that I never intended to buy, I am depriving no one of money as I would not have purchased that item in the normal course of events. Compound that with the fact that there's no way for me to sample what I want to see or hear and if I dont like the movie them I'm stuck with it as almost no multimedia can be returned if it's opened. This forces you to gamble on movies and music that you arent sure you'll like.

However if you download movies or music, you can be absolutely certain that you'll like something. If I download a movie and really like it, chances are good I'll buy it on DVD. My purchasing of movies and CDs has actually gone UP as a result of downloading. Likewise, my purchasing of band merchandise is a direct result of discovering several bands via downloading.

As someone who has composed songs and put them on the web for free, I am all about getting your name out, sharing your art with the world with little cost, that's all great. If that's what you want to do. But my art is not my livelihood. For some artists, it is very much their livelihood. If they don't get paid for their work by people who enjoy it, then those artists lose income. If you don't want to pay for the song or the movie, then don't listen or watch it. If you do want to own it, listen and/or watch it, then be honest about it and pay for it.

I have no objection to paying for a product. What I do object to is paying a music company upwards of $20 for doing something that could be done for pennies and then not even being sure of what I'm getting.

Yes there are 30 second previews but that doesnt give you an overview of the entire song. What if we bought everything that way? If you went to a store and all the bread was in black boxes with a little tiny hole in it and you got 30 seconds to look at it and see if thats the one you wanted. That's ridiculous, so why is it any better with multimedia?

As I see it there are a few options.

1. Dont charge so much for multimedia
2. Give people a way to listen to/watch it a few times before buying it
3. Allow returns

Sites like iTunes are a step in the right direction untill you get into DRM issues. Paying a dollar per song is fine, but if something happens and my collection gets accidentally wiped out I could be out A LOT of money. Granted the same is true of CD's and DVD's but its a bit tougher to destroy a physical object than it is data. Technology upgrades that make certain DRM locked media inaccessible is a major problem and any attempts to re-unlock the media is considered piracy.

 

[ArteestX]

My issue with copright laws is when does it cross over from freedom of information to copyright material?

If you mean when does copyright material become free to use, the law used to say about 70 years, but I think it may have changed recently. If you mean going from "fair use" to copyright infringement, there are standards for each medium, but there's no definitive line (29.9 seconds of a song is ok, 30.0 becomes infringement).

And the man has a real point. We cant STOP people creating music, but what file sharing can and will do is cut the legs out from under bands created solely to generate profit for music companies and bands that are truly good will receive more attention. Music will go back to being a community effort.

When I go listen to live music, I tend to go listen to no-name singer/songwriters standing on stage with a guitar, maybe 2-3 other people but often not. This person is on stage somewhere several days a week, busting their butt trying to make a living. These people do tend to make several songs of theirs available for free to get people interested. I don't know of anyone who puts their entire album out for free (although I'm sure there are plenty that do). File sharing to get their albums for free is wrong, if they aren't giving you permission.

Bands created by companies to make music can be irritating. But those people are also busting their butts trying to make a living. Bands distributed by companies, not created by them, are also busting their butts. Whether it's John Mayer or Paul Thorn, someone is doing what they can to make a living. File sharing music they don't want file-shared is depriving them of that income.

I have no objection to paying for a product. What I do object to is paying a music company upwards of $20 for doing something that could be done for pennies and then not even being sure of what I'm getting.

I agree music companies charge way too much money for CDs. So don't buy it. That still doesn't give you the right to have it for free because you don't like the price.

Yes there are 30 second previews but that doesnt give you an overview of the entire song. What if we bought everything that way? If you went to a store and all the bread was in black boxes with a little tiny hole in it and you got 30 seconds to look at it and see if thats the one you wanted. That's ridiculous, so why is it any better with multimedia?

That IS how we buy most things. If you walk into a store and see a new cereal box, all you get is the picture on the front; no sample, no taste test, no hole of any size, no anything. If you walk into a store and see a new flavored drink, you don't even see what you're purchasing. You see a fancy logo and that's it. Do you think you have the right to open a box of cereal in the store and taste it, or pop open a bottle of drink and try it? And then tell the store manager, "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway"?? Of course not.

If you want to buy a bicycle, you can ride it around the parking lot (analagous to a 30-sec preview), but you can't take the bike home with you without asking, ride it around your neighborhood back and forth to work for weeks and say "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway."

You can't take things that aren't yours on the pretense that if you aren't allowed to take it, you wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

As I see it there are a few options....

I think you've got some good ideas, and I do think that the music industry is going to go through a major change, whether they like it or not. What you suggest, and other ideas that are out there, are worth exploring, and I don't disagree with them in principle, as long as the musicians agree to them. But file sharing music that musicians don't allow to be file shared, and don't want distributed for free, is wrong.

 

[Steezie]

When I go listen to live music, I tend to go listen to no-name singer/songwriters standing on stage with a guitar, maybe 2-3 other people but often not. This person is on stage somewhere several days a week, busting their butt trying to make a living. These people do tend to make several songs of theirs available for free to get people interested. I don't know of anyone who puts their entire album out for free (although I'm sure there are plenty that do). File sharing to get their albums for free is wrong, if they aren't giving you permission.

Their living is made doing what they're doing, not selling CD's. Of the cost of a CD sold in stores, an artist sees pennies of that price. Most of the money made by artists is made through live performances, merchandise, endorsements and advertisements.

Bands created by companies to make music can be irritating. But those people are also busting their butts trying to make a living. Bands distributed by companies, not created by them, are also busting their butts. Whether it's John Mayer or Paul Thorn, someone is doing what they can to make a living. File sharing music they don't want file-shared is depriving them of that income.

As Im sure Ford was depriving the income of companies that made horse drawn carriages.

I agree music companies charge way too much money for CDs. So don't buy it. That still doesn't give you the right to have it for free because you don't like the price.

This is a frequent argument I see but this necessitates an almost total abstenation from music completely if you dont download and only purchase CD's. You must cut yourself off from an avenue of popular culture.

That IS how we buy most things. If you walk into a store and see a new cereal box, all you get is the picture on the front; no sample, no taste test, no hole of any size, no anything. If you walk into a store and see a new flavored drink, you don't even see what you're purchasing. You see a fancy logo and that's it. Do you think you have the right to open a box of cereal in the store and taste it, or pop open a bottle of drink and try it? And then tell the store manager, "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway"?? Of course not.

Food is a poor example and one I should not have chosen. Multimedia is unique and upon further examination, I dont think it has an analogy in the marketplace.

If you want to buy a bicycle, you can ride it around the parking lot (analagous to a 30-sec preview), but you can't take the bike home with you without asking, ride it around your neighborhood back and forth to work for weeks and say "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway."

The difference is that bikes have a return policy whereas multimedia does not. It is a one-way purchase that cannot be undone for any reason.

 

[DeathMagus]

That IS how we buy most things. If you walk into a store and see a new cereal box, all you get is the picture on the front; no sample, no taste test, no hole of any size, no anything. If you walk into a store and see a new flavored drink, you don't even see what you're purchasing. You see a fancy logo and that's it. Do you think you have the right to open a box of cereal in the store and taste it, or pop open a bottle of drink and try it? And then tell the store manager, "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway"?? Of course not.

If you want to buy a bicycle, you can ride it around the parking lot (analagous to a 30-sec preview), but you can't take the bike home with you without asking, ride it around your neighborhood back and forth to work for weeks and say "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway."

You can't take things that aren't yours on the pretense that if you aren't allowed to take it, you wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

Ah, but each box of cereal and each bicycle has a cost associated with its production - they are consumed in a way that media is not. Given that all the meaningful cost of producing media is in "R&D" (writing, recording, acting, filming, etc), and the actual cost of production is next to nothing (pennies at most), is it unreasonable to demand a meaningful preview of the product, which, in itself, costs nothing to anyone?

As an unrelated anecdote, I seem to recall Radiohead (I think) producing their latest album themselves and releasing it from their website for free, with a donate option adjacent. If I recall correctly, they made millions in weeks. Food for thought.

In short, I think it's fair to say that if you pay full price for media you like at some point in the near future, you haven't committed any ethical violations. The only people who miss out in such an arrangement are those who produce poor quality material and hide it behind marketing and strict DRM schemes.

Hell, I've bought computer games solely because they were enjoyable and because the company didn't act like an ass and put obnoxious DRM protection on their game.

 

[[serious]]

My view is simple. If the product I want is available at a reasonable price in the format and quality I want, I'll buy it. If it isn't, I have no choice but to seek it through other means. If i've already bought the album in a physical format, I have no issue downloading it through other means. At some point the industry is going to have to abandon their curren model. This won't mean less music, this will mean less marketing and more streamlined distribution.

 

[ArteestX]

Their living is made doing what they're doing, not selling CD's. Of the cost of a CD sold in stores, an artist sees pennies of that price. Most of the money made by artists is made through live performances, merchandise, endorsements and advertisements.

So an artist has an incentive to distribute their music for free, what you say may very well be true. That doesn't give you the right to take their music for free without permission.

As Im sure Ford was depriving the income of companies that made horse drawn carriages.

You're talking about competition, which is irrelevent. Madonna isn't taking money from John Mayer.

(If you don't like the price, don't buy it) is a frequent argument I see but this necessitates an almost total abstenation from music completely if you dont download and only purchase CD's. You must cut yourself off from an avenue of popular culture.

I totally disagree. There's radio, there's XM, there are sites that allow you to listen to entire songs without being able to download it, there are borrowing friend's albums... to say the only choices are to download music for free or cut yourself off from culture is a false choice.

The difference is that bikes have a return policy whereas multimedia does not. It is a one-way purchase that cannot be undone for any reason.

True, multimedia is a different medium. And maybe a return policy is needed, agreed. That still doesn't give anyone permission to take someone's music without permission.

 

[atomweaver]

Their living is made doing what they're doing, not selling CD's. Of the cost of a CD sold in stores, an artist sees pennies of that price. Most of the money made by artists is made through live performances, merchandise, endorsements and advertisements.

To put real figures on this discussion; as things are right now, most big label artists get about 8-14% of the sales revenue they generate. The artist's percentage for indie labels is higher than that (pushing 20%). If you buy a CD or download a full album, the artists "cut" is more like $1 to $1.50 per album. iTunes' take is 35% and the balance (~55%) goes to the recording company. SOURCE 1
SOURCE 2

Personally, i think in the short term, some artists do end up getting the short end of the stick in addition to their recording companies by music piracy. That has to do with the way they get their checks, though...

In the long run, if the Internet turns into a viable direct-to-consumer means of delivering inexpensive high quality music, with a means of delivering the majority of compensation to the artist and production crew responsible for the music, then the RIAA and every last bloated major record label can go hang; they've been obsoleted, just like the rotary telephone.

 

[levi501]

Honestly why do we care about protecting the movie and music industry?
It's bits of data... not a functioning program, service or tangible item. It's information that if we see or hear without permission we can be penalized for the sake of art. The problem is when does information cross over and become art? And should we be protecting it from people merely seeing and/or hearing it?

 

[[serious]]

To put real figures on this discussion; as things are right now, most big label artists get about 8-14% of the sales revenue they generate. The artist's percentage for indie labels is higher than that (pushing 20%). If you buy a CD or download a full album, the artists "cut" is more like $1 to $1.50 per album. iTunes' take is 35% and the balance (~55%) goes to the recording company. SOURCE 1
SOURCE 2

Personally, i think in the short term, some artists do end up getting the short end of the stick in addition to their recording companies by music piracy. That has to do with the way they get their checks, though...

In the long run, if the Internet turns into a viable direct-to-consumer means of delivering inexpensive high quality music, with a means of delivering the majority of compensation to the artist and production crew responsible for the music, then the RIAA and every last bloated major record label can go hang; they've been obsoleted, just like the rotary telephone.

For the bulk of artists, any money that would be seen from CD sales gets kicked back to the industry to pay back costs of promotion and such.

 

[ReverendDG]

But this isn't about the music companies, this is about stealing from the artists. Artists who write music, compose songs, and then people take their work without paying? People get the artist's songs without paying for it are stealing. Rationalizing it as "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so no one is losing income" is bogus. You don't want to pay for it, then you don't get the product, that's fine. But getting the product without paying for it is stealing, period.

its not stealing its copyright infringement. the recording industry isn't losing anything, in fact people that share music get charged with more than stealing a cd from a store, people get fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, even up to millions for sharing songs, while stealing a cd costs you a lot less.
the rational that if i wouldn't have bought it anyway is not bogus, if it was true, you know?
i have listened to music i didn't buy and didn't like it, so i wouldn't have bought it either.
the music industry still has a racket, most music you can't just taste a song or two of and find out if you like it, you have to buy it first and then you payed 15-20 bucks for crap.
becides the riaa count "potential sales" when they whine about how they didn't get 2billion this quarter.

As someone who has composed songs and put them on the web for free, I am all about getting your name out, sharing your art with the world with little cost, that's all great. If that's what you want to do. But my art is not my livelihood. For some artists, it is very much their livelihood. If they don't get paid for their work by people who enjoy it, then those artists lose income. If you don't want to pay for the song or the movie, then don't listen or watch it. If you do want to own it, listen and/or watch it, then be honest about it and pay for it.

that sounds all good, if the riaa and the recording industry treated their customers like people and believed that buying a cd means you own it.
but they don't, they consider it a service, not an ownership.

recently the cds i have bought have not been playable on all devices, such as my pc, do you think it is right that i should be restricted in my use for my own property that i payed for?
apparently the riaa doesn't and it drives people to download cds.
DRM doesn't help anyone, it just hurts people.

 

[ReverendDG]

For the bulk of artists, any money that would be seen from CD sales gets kicked back to the industry to pay back costs of promotion and such.

not only that but if the artist isn't up on how to deal with the industry they get nothing even after paying the money they owe.

 

[Penumbra]

lol, it's certainly not stealing. People call it stealing for emotional appeal, but it's simply copyright infringement. What monetary loss or potential loss did they suffer? None.

My issue with copright laws is when does it cross over from freedom of information to copyright material?

I think it is stealing, because you are getting their product without paying for it. It doesn't take any money from them, but you obtain something that should have involved a money transfer to them but did not.

The current system is bad, probably because technology progressed faster than lawmakers could figure out how to control it.

Some artists, like David Drainman from the band Disturbed, support file sharing. Drainman points out that they don't make much money from record sales, and the more people that have their music for free, the better, because they become more popular.

Artists make a lot of money from concerts, and if you have a lot of people that own your music and wouldn't if they had to pay for it, then you help ensure that your concerts are full.

-Lyn

 

[DeathMagus]

I think it is stealing, because you are getting their product without paying for it. It doesn't take any money from them, but you obtain something that should have involved a money transfer to them but did not.

The current system is bad, probably because technology progressed faster than lawmakers could figure out how to control it.

Some artists, like David Drainman from the band Disturbed, support file sharing. Drainman points out that they don't make much money from record sales, and the more people that have their music for free, the better, because they become more popular.

Artists make a lot of money from concerts, and if you have a lot of people that own your music and wouldn't if they had to pay for it, then you help ensure that your concerts are full.

-Lyn

And concerts = merchandise, which is where the real money is made.

 

[ArteestX]

the music industry still has a racket, most music you can't just taste a song or two of and find out if you like it, you have to buy it first and then you payed 15-20 bucks for crap....

becides the riaa count "potential sales" when they whine about how they didn't get 2billion this quarter. ....

that sounds all good, if the riaa and the recording industry treated their customers like people and believed that buying a cd means you own it.
but they don't, they consider it a service, not an ownership.....

I think there are some unfair stereotypes here, but let's go with this view of the RIAA and industry for the moment.

So let me ask this philosophical question. Let's say a rich CEO overcharges his customers, treats his employees as if they don't matter, and is a horrible horrible person. He's the kind of person that deserves to have something terrible happen to him. Does that mean it's ok for someone to steal his money? Not simply stop buying his stuff or stop supporting his business, but literally steal his money. Would that be ok?

 

[ArteestX]

And concerts = merchandise, which is where the real money is made.

What about the song writer who is not a performer?

 

[HighwayMan]

It is what it is - a grey area. Your incentive should be to try and buy the products to support the artists, though many people don't find that possible immediately. However, legally persecuting people for it is illogical and fueled by greed, not any real desire to make things better.