Is Pirating Stuff Really Stealing

[matt m]

Any chance you can just come out and say what you mean instead of hiding behind sarcasm.

Unlike many of the comments I've made in this thread, that one wasn't sarcastic at all. You can take it at face value. It wasn't even directed at you, it was just elaborating on something you said.

I just wanted to hammer home the point that there is really very little preventing anyone giving some money to a musician, however small the amount, at any time of day or night, in this gleaming digital age.

It's almost irrelevant whether someone's downloaded their album without their permission on soulseek. Give them some money. You liked that video clip on youtube? Great - give them some money. Put a quid in the paypal hat. I like the busking model - it has an element of goodwill to it and even pleasingly counterfeits an actual human interaction to boot.

The CD I bought at the gig last Saturday cost 10 quid. That's a lot more than I would normally pay for a CD. But ultimately that's irrelevant. I wasn't so much buying a CD as giving a band some extra money for a really good gig, which was cheap to get into and much much better than all sorts of gigs that cost twice the price. And I knew all of those 10 english pounds was going to the band too.

 

[matt m]

Well I put the word 'evil' into quotes for exactly that reason. And I would do the same for 'deserve' which implies some kind of divine justice which I also doubt. Maybe that carpenter 'deserves' payment when his shelves are sold on. I'm sure any producer would love to support such a law.



You assume a lot - this thread title is a question. My downloading is 'wrong' by the existing laws - along with many other things which are 'wrong' by the existing laws and which I still do. As far as whether it is stealing this was dealt with earlier when someone pointed out that theft had to have an aspect of depriving the original owner of their product and so:

no it has no qualities or effects whatsoever in common with theft? I don't think it is similar to stealing in any shape or form?

It is purely an issue to do with intellectual property, which by its nature cannot be stolen only copied.

BTW there are many older albums which are way more than 20 quid which I might have bought if they were reasonably priced. If is fine to say that downloaders are taking money from the artists, but it depends on the elasticity of demand. I would suggest that a lower price would significantly increase sales, leading to more money for the artists - and the reason why this is not happening is the companies refusing to lower their prices while blaming the small number of downloaders.

Small number of downloaders? The study that newme linked to above said 95% of downloads were illegal. Companies have lowered their prices - it costs, what is it, 79p for a song. If you're genuinely concerned about whether or not money goes directly to artists or not, have a think about the economics of that 79 pence in terms of effort, practice, equipment, time...

It seems like it doesn't matter how many times someone points out to you that, funnily enough, widespread downloading stuff without paying for it deprives musicians of revenue. And giving examples. You just keep saying it doesn't. What do you actually hope to get out of this thread?

 

[matt m]

...and you seem to really struggle with grasping some pretty basic stuff. Your downloading isn't "wrong" (in inverted commas or not) by existing laws, it is illegal. When most people grow up, they realise that there is a big difference between what's morally wrong and what's against the law. It's not illegal to jump queues, not offer old ladies a seat on the bus or not reward someone for providing some entertainment you've enjoyed, but it's a bit shitty. You said you're not after people's approval because you're not a child. Well, you talk like one. When most people grow up, they understand the differences between being capable of doing something and being permitted to do something. They choose not to wolf down all the sweets on the table when their mummy's back is turned.

 

[Gmart]

Deserve doesn't imply divine law. If I say a carpenter builds shelves and deserves payment, it means he has some money coming to him, right here on earth.

The word 'deserve' does imply a 'right' way of doing something, which is moralism, but that's another matter.

Your point is that downloading is 'stealing' intellectual property and that I should feel guilty about that because that is the same as stealing normal property - but it is not, because stealing intellectual property doesn't exist. Stealing involves depriving someone of their property, so the correct phrase is 'copying intellectual property' which sounds much better and is why so many people have less of a problem with it.

That said, you could describe it as 'wrong' in a moral way becoz it reduces the income of artists (to a degree as yet unknown). And I agree, the world has changed becoz of computers and as many have stated here the industry needs to change. Artists will always make music and are still well able to make a lot of money with good product.

The bigger problems are to do with the industry producing so much pop papp music for the youth market that really decent artists get lost in the mix, tied to a label and unable to produce music for anyone else.

Also regulations around live music has cut down on small venues - another important issue.

Matt M

95% of a small number is still a small number.

Artists are still well able to make a living if they are good.

For example I downloaded some music from a band recommend by a friend recently - it was rubbish, but showed some promise, so I intend to keep an eye on them. Many times this has led to a purchase by myself of an album (a fact which "doesn't matter how many times someone points out to you that")

And leave it out with the personal attacks - it comes over as ironic when you are accusing me of being a child.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

I wonder if the same people harping on about 'stealing intellectual property' have ever told a joke not written by themselves? At some point somebody thought of that joke, can you imagine if all jokes were copyrighted and the original joke writer had to be paid every time the joke was told in public? Be a pretty shit world if that was the case. Yet this exact same principle applies to music. Bands (and all the parasites around them) are paid every time their song is played on the radio or in a public place (at least that's what the law currently states). When you see that intellectual property in music can be applied to jokes, you can see how ridiculous it is and how it should've been done away with ages ago.

Granted it takes less funds for a comedian to develop new material but they still have to develop their skills and test them out by standing in the back rooms of pubs, often miles away from where they live. Most comedians don't make a decent living off their material, in much the same way most musicians don't. The comedians that do make it do so mainly through word of mouth or through connections, much the same way most musicians do.

I'm not saying credit shouldn't be given to artists, i'm not even saying money shouldn't be paid for performances, but this constant arguing about whether it's stealing or not is wank. It's wank perpetuated by rich record label owners who have seen their profits from someone else's ideas go down slightly.

People are still going to pay to see films, see gigs (i'm seeing modest mouse tuesday, never bought one of their cds) and pay to see stand up comics. Those mediums aren't in any danger of disappearing and nor is the revenue they bring in.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There is a problem in comedy with people "stealing" routines though, and there are established protocols about what is and isn't "fair use", and people do engage in legal action - I was listening to a program on it recently, interesting stuff actually. So perhaps not the best example.

still not actual stealing mind

 

[Doctor Carrot]

There is a problem in comedy with people "stealing" routines though, and there are established protocols about what is and isn't "fair use", and people do engage in legal action - I was listening to a program on it recently, interesting stuff actually. So perhaps not the best example.

still not actual stealing mind

That's a different thing entirely though, isn't it? Nicking or ripping off someone else's joke and claiming it as your own is plagiarism. There's big debate about whether Denis Leary nicked Bill Hicks's material. Was also reading about sickipedia and how lots of the jokes were plagiarised from Gary Delaney, Delaney wrote to sickipedia complaining about this. The same thing would be just as shameful when a riff gets ripped off.

Interesting article about it here. I don't see how a person can stop the spread of jokes via the Internet, I do think people should have the decency to say it's not actually their joke though.

 

[matt m]

s 'stealing' intellectual property and that I should feel guilty about that because that is the same as stealing normal property - but it is not, because stealing intellectual property doesn't exist. Stealing involves depriving someone of their property, so the correct phrase is 'copying intellectual property' which sounds much better and is why so many people have less of a problem with it.

That said, you could describe it as 'wrong' in a moral way becoz it reduces the income of artists (to a degree as yet unknown). And I agree, the world has changed becoz of computers and as many have stated here the industry needs to change. Artists will always make music and are still well able to make a lot of money with good product.

The bigger problems are to do with the industry producing so much pop papp music for the youth market that really decent artists get lost in the mix, tied to a label and unable to produce music for anyone else.

Also regulations around live music has cut down on small venues - another important issue.

Matt M

95% of a small number is still a small number.

Artists are still well able to make a living if they are good.

For example I downloaded some music from a band recommend by a friend recently - it was rubbish, but showed some promise, so I intend to keep an eye on them. Many times this has led to a purchase by myself of an album (a fact which "doesn't matter how many times someone points out to you that")

And leave it out with the personal attacks - it comes over as ironic when you are accusing me of being a child.

The thing is, it doesn't seem to have even occurred to you that this band you are keeping an eye on might not ever get to the point where they make something interesting, because even the people who think they're promising aren't giving them any cash.

And again, you just keep saying Bob The Builder things like...

"Artists are still well able to make a living if they are good"

"Artists will always make music and are still well able to make a lot of money with good product"

...no matter how many times people point out the fundamental logistic & economic problems of making music today. It doesn't seem to matter how often anyone points out examples of "good music" being made that makes no money at all, you'll carry on trotting it out.

Of course, we can debate what's "good" music until the cows come home.

But what I see is mega-artists and mega-labels reaping what dividends they can from ringtones, iTunes, competitively priced CDs off Amazon and rip-off ticket prices for all the 02 and HMV venues. While all the decent bands struggle to get anyone to exchange some money for anything.

The one revenue stream they're left with is the between-5-and-9-quid door money at their gigs & on their tours. Which will sustain a hobby, but wouldn't sustain the music made on, say, the Urban top 20 albums of this and previous years.

 

[matt m]

There's a partial answer to this, of course, which is that I think small venue ticket prices will just have to go up eventually. In a sense it's a bit crazy that seeing 3 indie bands play at a venue in Camden still costs a fiver - the same as it did when I used to go see 3 indie bands at the Camden Falcon 15 years ago. Whereas the larger venues aren't nearly so coy about their prices.

 

[ymu]

The thing is, it doesn't seem to hav. Whoever said a few weeks in the recording studio should buy you a millionaire even occurred to you that this band you are keeping an eye on might not ever get to the point where they make something interesting, because even the people who think they're promising aren't giving them any cash.

So people in bands will have to be forced to start up pretty much as a hobby? Oh noes, what a terrible development.

Most new bands do not get radio play. They have only their websites and their gigs to attract a following with. People are not going to fork out cash for a tune they've not heard from an unknown band.

I can see how file-sharing would have a negative effect on the big bands who do get radio play - they will lose some purchasers who don't care about the cover artwork and don't see the need to support multi-millionaires and record company execs by paying for the material. Hence the media companies' huge PR onslaught and the ridiculous Mandelson proposals.

For new bands with no marketing budget it's completely different. File-sharing should be a godsend - a means to actually get heard when radio play-lists are sewn up so tight. Of course, if you have a bunch of naive dreamers who honestly believe that every download is a lost sale and if only people paid their way then they'd be huge and maybe radio would have noticed them by now ... then they're not going to see it like that. But it's a missed opportunity, IMO.

 

[matt m]

dunno what you're quoting there - half of that ain't me.

But we covered all this yonks ago.

The point is not that good new bands are expecting to make millions out of selling their recorded music. Most good music doesn't sell. Most chart music is rubbish. (That's generally true for my listening tastes, anyway...) But it does mean that good bands won't even get the meagre scrapings that just about made touring feasible.

It's less that bands will have to start up pretty much as a hobby. It's more that no matter how amazing they are, no matter how hard they work, bands that don't make 'ringtone-friendly' music can't seriously expect it to ever get much further.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that's the end of civilisation as we know it. Most of the bands I like operate that way any way: their tours leave them in the black and they never sell much music. Life goes on. It's a hobbyish existence. It favours bands with few members, solo acts, or programmed music. It's hardly conducive to foreign tours. It doesn't favour a lot of the bands and music that I know people on this board like. I just don't understand the compulsion to pretend that something that makes things shittier for the people making the good stuff is insignificant.