Is Pirating Stuff Really Stealing

[matt m]

I don't understand why it's impossible to hold a moral objection to filesharing/copying etc etc without suffering under the misapprehension that it's "stealing". I also don't understand why their seems to be this immediate assumption that if anyone points out that it isn't stealing, they're somehow complicit in the moral defence of filesharing.

But mostly, this:

That's the bottom line. We can debate the rights and wrongs of it indefinitely, but it won't change anything. People can get stuff for free, so they will. The industry needs to stop trying to fight reality and adapt.

See I think that's precisely why it's important to talk about the rights and wrongs of it. Because it would never occur to most people who download music for free to actually give someone some money, off their own back, the way many of them are happy to do to, say, rapidshare.

People will blithely point out that discussing the rights and wrongs of it is not going to put the genie back in the bottle (as if, d'uh, that had never occurred to anyone before...) but they'd never think of actually just crediting someone's paypal account for some music they'd enjoyed: it's only by constantly pointing out that, actually it's a bit shitty, that it might actually get through someone's thick skull that these are products people have put time and money into making, and that they actually ought to feel a bit guilty about it.

 

[Beanburger]

See I think that's precisely why it's important to talk about the rights and wrongs of it. Because it would never occur to most people who download music for free to actually give someone some money, off their own back, the way many of them are happy to do to, say, rapidshare.

I don't necessarily disagree. I've nothing against discussing the morality... I'm just aware that it's gonna make piss-all difference in the grand scheme of things.

People will blithely point out that discussing the rights and wrongs of it is not going to put the genie back in the bottle (as if, d'uh, that had never occurred to anyone before...)

I don't think it has occurred to a lot of people. Politicians, media moguls and forum moralisers all seem to be of the opinion that stiff prison sentences and public floggings will stem the tide.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

See I think that's precisely why it's important to talk about the rights and wrongs of it. Because it would never occur to most people who download music for free to actually give someone some money, off their own back, the way many of them are happy to do to, say, rapidshare.

People will blithely point out that discussing the rights and wrongs of it is not going to put the genie back in the bottle (as if, d'uh, that had never occurred to anyone before...) but they'd never think of actually just crediting someone's paypal account for some music they'd enjoyed: it's only by constantly pointing out that, actually it's a bit shitty, that it might actually get through someone's thick skull that these are products people have put time and money into making, and that they actually ought to feel a bit guilty about it.

People do, regularly, think this, feeling a vague tinge of guilt to one degree or another and "this is a really good album I'd bung them some cash actually"; but the mechanisms for donating to an artist are generally non-existent, and nobody's going to go to heroic efforts for it.

 

[matt m]

But then at the moment if I didnt have the option of getting it free, then I simply wouldnt have it, as the amount of expendable income I have isnt that high. So theyve lost exactly no sales and frankly its so much more convenient to just download what you want when you want.

so when you have a bit more money, you're going to post cheques to all the bands whose music you've downloaded, right?

This is like saying you should be allowed into gigs without paying, because you're too skint to afford a ticket. It's not stealing, obviously, but it has a fair few things in common with it.

 

[Beanburger]

People do, regularly, think this, feeling a vague tinge of guilt to one degree or another and "this is a really good album I'd bung them some cash actually"; but the mechanisms for donating to an artist are generally non-existent, and nobody's going to go to heroic efforts for it.

Personally, I make a point of buying CDs off bands that I see play small gigs in small venues or at festivals. It's often stuff I could download if I was so inclined, but I'd rather support the artist.

 

[chazegee]

Someone suggested to me today that the reason the big corps don't make a serious stand against file sharing, ie. flooding the sites with fake copies (wouldn't be that hard!) , is that they're terrified of the superior hacking skills of the uber geeks who unlike them, aren't motivated by money.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They do flood the sites with fake copies; they're just pretty rubbish at it, and have trouble infiltrating torrent sites. P2P, they definitely do and have for years.

 

[Gmart]

The industry has been in decline since the eighties. Bands are not brought thru in the way they used to - I had a friend of a friend who was in a band and was simply prevented from signing on with anyone else after Sony decided they would only support one band that year.

Maybe there is room for an extension of rights for artists - and maybe the industry could support the bands better - but all this is neither here nor there. Now tht everything is digitalised the industry is more competitive and even tho many here are quick to declare copying as illegal it is obviously not seen this way by many.

I suspect that good bands which are well supported by both fans and the industry will make good money. Less from sales, but still a reasonable amount from live performances and from the new models being developed.

The ability to download for free simply ensures that the ridiculous profits will not happen so much - but still I will always prefer to have great albums on a permanent storage unit such as a cd - and even the ability to download the entire discography on torrent for practically everyone doesn't stop me from buying the occasional album.

As has been said the industry had ample notice and the recent attempt to stamp out illegal downloads will come to nowt when the computer geeks work out what criteria lead to a letter of notice from the supplier, and then go around it with programming.

 

[top_biller]

The argument that it's okay to file share because bands can now make a living from live income or other, more developed ways, of engaging with their fanbase, assumes that a) every band or artist is still touring or doing gigs and b) they still have a label, booking agent and/or manager actively marketing them and pursuing opportunities. That's the thin end of the wedge. For every gigging band or hyped artist there are twenty that are long out of the game and relying on back catalogue royalties only. Replacing that income stream is impossible for them, so for every file downloaded for free it's a potential purchase gone. It may take a while but I think in time to come ISPs may become subject to a similar licence fee as exists for collection of public performance royalties by PPL and the PRS.

 

[matt m]

Now tht everything is digitalised the industry is more competitive and even tho many here are quick to declare copying as illegal it is obviously not seen this way by many.

Look, something is either illegal or not, it's not something that can "be seen" one way or another.

I suspect that good bands which are well supported by both fans and the industry will make good money. Less from sales, but still a reasonable amount from live performances

It's like you haven't read any of the posts in this thread. What makes you "suspect" this?! It's been explained to you in some detail quite how bloody difficult it is to make money out of playing live (unless you are already a beneficiary of the past 50 years' legacy of paying money for recordings, like Madonna.... or Radiohead)

The ability to download for free simply ensures that the ridiculous profits will not happen so much

Er, no, it doesn't "simply" mean anything. What bothers me most is that it means that little bands who had to try that much harder to get by won't even get the scraps they got before, for one thing. It bothers me that downloading has fostered this paradoxical mix of hysterical must-have consumption of music with a simultaneous contempt and disdain for musicians. It's very odd.

One of the things that might well end up happening which I think would be a positive, is if musicians simply didn't bother to record music. I mean, why would they need to, when they can get gigs by posting up their stuff on youtube? At the moment, we're still locked into a culture of albums, but if there really does cease to be any possibility of a financial return for spending your time recording stuff, no-one'll bother - espeically given that it's much more fun to be playing a gig.

 

[DotCommunist]

'home taping is killing music'


who really robs musicians? distros.

 

[mark_substance]

My band released an lp a few months ago. We payed for the recording and half the pressing costs from our own pockets. About a month after releasing it someone had posted it onto soulseek and for us this is great (apart from it not including all the artwork/lyrics, which is why we re-hosted it ourselves)

I like the fact that (hopefully) more people are getting to hear the music that we've created. There will always be people that want to own the hard copy of vinyl or cd and nothing will ever change that.

Personally I'd rather someone had our record for free, than not at all.

 

[chazegee]

Personally I'd rather someone had our record for free, than not at all.

This. Surely on balance, filesharing means that a few established pampered musicians loose out on a few bottles of Chablis (boo-hoo) , whilst the vast majority of underexposed and underpaid musicians just get more attention.

 

[trevhagl]

so when you have a bit more money, you're going to post cheques to all the bands whose music you've downloaded, right?

This is like saying you should be allowed into gigs without paying, because you're too skint to afford a ticket. It's not stealing, obviously, but it has a fair few things in common with it.

this goes back to what i was saying about people being modern day crusties

 

[trevhagl]

'home taping is killing music'


who really robs musicians? distros.

the bands or labels cut is added before distros get ahold of them. It would be REALLY complicated if distros had to keep track of percentages from various bands

 

[matt m]

This. Surely on balance, filesharing means that a few established pampered musicians loose out on a few bottles of Chablis (boo-hoo) , whilst the vast majority of underexposed and underpaid musicians just get more attention.

But people have to have heard of you to go looking for you on soulseek. One of the reasons compulsive downloaders increasingly view musicians as pathetic gimps (read the comments on some album-share blogs!) is that they can sense the desperation. The conversation goes something like this:

Band:"Look, I've got an album, and you can download it for FREE!!! I know you've never heard of me, but it's FREEE!!"
Downloader:"So's everything else" (Deletes spam and returns to his download queue of Radiohead, Bon Iver et al)

 

[no-no]

But you hear about new bands these days via the web too, even the musical press is doomed.

A band these days doesn't need a record company to promote them or commercial radio stations or magazines to play and review their albums.

Thee are so many blogs and whatnot about you can get your music out for free....as long as you give it away for free.

I guess there's cash in it for the musicians further down the road if they get popular enough to cross over into the mainstream with the larger gigs and merchandising that involves.

I guess in the future less people will play music for a living, it'll be a hobby or a part time thing. no bad thing either as there aren't that many bands with more than a couple of good albums in them anyway.

 

[ericjarvis]

I guess in the future less people will play music for a living, it'll be a hobby or a part time thing. no bad thing either as there aren't that many bands with more than a couple of good albums in them anyway.

It's a bad thing. It's the return of the Corinthian amateur spirit. As in the only proper way to do anything that lots of people want to do is limit it to amateurs so that only the independently wealthy have the time to get any good at it.

 

[Wintermute]

It's a bad thing. It's the return of the Corinthian amateur spirit. As in the only proper way to do anything that lots of people want to do is limit it to amateurs so that only the independently wealthy have the time to get any good at it.

I think that's true to an extent, although it does rather present a picture of music being only produced by trustafarians, which isn't necessarily accurate. Producing and distributing music isn't a very expensive thing to do any more. The crux is the amount of time you're willing to spend creating music versus the amount of time you feel you need to generate money to support your lifestyle. Music may not only be produced by rich people, but it will only be produced by people who really really want to.

 

[YouSir]

But you hear about new bands these days via the web too, even the musical press is doomed.

A band these days doesn't need a record company to promote them or commercial radio stations or magazines to play and review their albums.

Thee are so many blogs and whatnot about you can get your music out for free....as long as you give it away for free.

I guess there's cash in it for the musicians further down the road if they get popular enough to cross over into the mainstream with the larger gigs and merchandising that involves.

I guess in the future less people will play music for a living, it'll be a hobby or a part time thing. no bad thing either as there aren't that many bands with more than a couple of good albums in them anyway.

I'm not so sure about that, the free music movement is, broadly, looking for new ways for artists to earn from what they're doing and my guess is that whatever model finally emerges will be radically different from what we consider to be the commercially viable 'mainstream' at the moment. No doubt there'll be a decline/death of ultra-rich musicians but if a reasonable, living wage is taken as a goal then it could well be achievable. Of course this is all more speculative than anything, it's far too early to tell how things are going to move forwards and there might be an entirely unthought of industry/art model which is going to take over completely.

 

[Sunray]

They have had 10 years to come up with a simple model that makes file sharing pointless.

Is anyone telling me that its impossible?

 

[DotCommunist]

They have had 10 years to come up with a simple model that makes file sharing pointless.

Is anyone telling me that its impossible?

Well it's an odd one isn't it? Without military level encryption (lol, pentagon got owned) How does one stop the copying? and how does one do that without strangling the existing networks of file sharers and not the innocents?

Phail, and tres phail from the biggie labels and distros here

 

[Zabo]

There's no need to pirate. Just pop along to your local record shop with your laptop and rip as many cd's as you want. Make sure you put them back in the place they came from or the staff will get annoyed. The staff where I go have become used to me and often tell me what's new in stock.

Now to the matter of record labels. I'm sure most of you know that they have been fucking over the public since they came into being. Their forte being to keep re-releasing 'Greatest Hits' or Best 'Ever Hits'. Invariably they change the order of tracks and add or delete a track so that one can't tell. And now they moan about being ripped off? Render Unto Caesar That Which Is Caesars. I say.

In the real world the best thing for all artists is to do live tours. They'll get good money from tickets and merchandising and will provide for lots of jobs. Much better than sitting on their arses in the studio and warbling away. It'll keep them fit and healthy.

By way of showing appreciation to the fans who have paid for their tickets it would not be unreasonable to provide free music for download on the internet. I mean...how fucking greedy can you get?

A digresssion: a tale of morality. There is one very large ticket agency in the U.K. which also owns a number of venues. In addition to owning the venues they also book the artists through their artist agency. In other words they have 100% monopoly. Even more entertaining is the fact that if you book through their ticket office they charge you a booking fee which is bizarre because they own the ticket office! But just to make sure they ad insult to injury they also charge YOU to print off the tickets at home on your own pc.! Cheeky bastards.

And so, until I see the industry clean up its act and start manging their affairs with probity and moral rectitude and providing the public with good value for money I shall tell them to fuck off and wish all downloaders and people with eye patches the very best of luck.

 

[Beanburger]

Well it's an odd one isn't it? Without military level encryption (lol, pentagon got owned) How does one stop the copying? and how does one do that without strangling the existing networks of file sharers and not the innocents?

Phail, and tres phail from the biggie labels and distros here

Point is, it's irrelevant. It's moved past that stage. People are already sharing music for free as a matter of course, and there's no way of stopping it. All the record companies can do is compete. Frankly, if they'd put as much time and energy into making their product easily and reasonably available in digital form as they have into attacking file sharing, they'd have cornered a large chunk of a market that is now normalised to piracy.

And price. Seriously, the music industry is taking the fucking piss out of us, and then they whine when people don't roll over and hand over their money. Most digital downloads are laughably expensive, with very little difference between the digital price and the price for the physical media (assuming you're not in the habit of shopping at HMV). This extends right across the board, with all forms of digital media. I looked at buying a PC game on Steam - £30 from Steam (download version), £6.99 from Play.com (brand new, physical media). Until these companies stop treating us like fucking idiots, and until they make some fucking effort with price, it's hardly surprising if they're failing to disincentivise file sharing, and it's hardly surprising if people aren't flocking to these new services in their droves.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

It's a bad thing. It's the return of the Corinthian amateur spirit. As in the only proper way to do anything that lots of people want to do is limit it to amateurs so that only the independently wealthy have the time to get any good at it.

This isn't true at all. Are you telling me that all those people that played in swing bands in the 1920s were independently wealthy while they mastered their instruments?

 

[ericjarvis]

This isn't true at all. Are you telling me that all those people that played in swing bands in the 1920s were independently wealthy while they mastered their instruments?

It used to be possible to earn decent money by playing live. Currently that's only the case for well established acts.

I'm just arguing that it's all very well consumers demanding that music be free/cheap. but there's a downside. You get what you pay for. When I was full time as a muso I was able to practise/rehearse for four or five hours a day. Plus I could spend a lot of the rest of the time listening to music and discussing it with other musos. I was a better guitarist then than I have been able to afford to be since.

There's also the wastage. It's not the worst musicians that give up an concentrate on the day job. It's the ones least able to afford to live from hand to mouth. The best songwriter I know pretty much quit any serious music making in his early twenties to be a film sound man. All the rest of the songs he might have written will never exist. Had he been able to earn a decent living from making music he would have done so.

Which doesn't mean it's ever been all that different. Which doesn't mean that all would be musicians are owed a living. What it means is there is no free lunch. If music isn't going to be paid for there will be less of it, and probably of a lower quality. That's how the world works.

 

[Riklet]

FLAC uses lossless audio data compression so it doesn't lose any quality from the audio stream. You can recover an exact duplicate of the original data.

If the consequences of pirating were higher and it wasn't so easy to do then I'm certain that you'd find that less people would be doing it. And the more people do something the more it becomes acceptable behaviour.

Ah, I didn't realise that about FLAC, cheers. Generally don't bother with it cos I am lacking in audiophile abilities!

On the topic of "piracy" I don't think harsher sentences would necessarily deter that many people from filesharing; a shit load do so pretty inadvertently. I know for sure my sister downloads a bit, but has absolutely no idea what p2p, uploading, seeds, .rar unpacking etc mean. Precisely because it is so easy to do, I see it as fairly futile the whole Mandelson-Music Industry love affair. You can "get tough" but in practise sending warnings and disconnecting people from the internet is gona be money and time consuming. There would almost certainly be cases taken up in the European courts over denial of access to the internet etc, I would think...?

Pisses me off really such a static market refusing to adapt, 'complacent greed' doesn't even scratch the surface...

 

[chazegee]

What I would like to see happen, is people making paypal donations directly to the artists if a cd has been enjoyed.

All you would have to is donate a quid per album and the artists are receiving about the same that they have anyway after the parasitic record companies have taken their share.

I don't practise what I preach though.

 

[trevhagl]

Well it's an odd one isn't it? Without military level encryption (lol, pentagon got owned) How does one stop the copying? and how does one do that without strangling the existing networks of file sharers and not the innocents?

Phail, and tres phail from the biggie labels and distros here

file sharing would be great if it was only a few tracks by each band. It would be the modern equivalent of Peel , and encourage you to go out and buy. But as it is it's just a way of hammering new bands.

 

[matt m]

This isn't true at all. Are you telling me that all those people that played in swing bands in the 1920s were independently wealthy while they mastered their instruments?

I think that's a very bad example. Sure they didn't have record deals while they were practising. (Although, reading bios of a lot of the original blues acts, they did get paid - ususally in booze - for playing the dances they played.) But they put the hours in because they were seriously hoping to score record deals: it was one of the few avenues where they actually could end up making some serious money.