Prior to the Internet what was the most popular mechanism to receive free music and movies??
You mean Libraries?
Libraries, yes.
But more so sharing among peers.
Now that I think about it, free broadcast tv was full of free music and movies.
In all cases duplication is the issue.
You mean we've never had the ability to duplicate things you get from the library?
And it shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be business finding solutions for bringing their products to market. Just because technology changes business models, doesn't mean we should criminalize it.
I mean, it's the act of not paying right? Libraries are either illegal or they are not... Duplication of an intangible product when the original item isn't changed or taken shouldn't be.
These attempts to shut down file sharing are utterly futile and will not make a dent in piracy. As long as there is an internet, people will share data somehow. Thats why these attempts to stop sharing material are so spooky. Google is the number one way to search for and find torrents, and ive never heard any talk of shutting down google.
I always held the opinion that filesharing & piracy would be good for hollywood and those concerned with creative ownership ultimately because it would force them to reinvent themselves and come up with a better way to distribute and make money than the current model. I still think it will at some point force the industry to come up with something really clever that everyone will enjoy using. facilitating sharing, guaranteeing access and high quality is the way forward, not restricting.
oh and to the guy asking about BR rips, they are all over piratebay. but larger filesize than regular rips.
anyway this guy is the real dude behind megaupload it seems - kim dotcom - he was busted out of his mansions saferoom by a swat team and is now in a nz jail. so where does swizz come into it? im confused.
Prior to the Internet what was the most popular mechanism to receive free music and movies??
You mean Libraries?
Libraries, yes.
But more so sharing among peers.
Now that I think about it, free broadcast tv was full of free music and movies.
In all cases duplication is the issue.
You mean we've never had the ability to duplicate things you get from the library?
And it shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be business finding solutions for bringing their products to market. Just because technology changes business models, doesn't mean we should criminalize it.
I mean, it's the act of not paying right? Libraries are either illegal or they are not... Duplication of an intangible product when the original item isn't changed or taken shouldn't be.
In the 60's folks started to sell bootleg 8-Tracks....being "new technology" a tape was a lot easier to reproduce in your garage vs. a vinyl record...what cost 3 bucks in a store could now be bought for a buck at the local Flea Market....the Music Business found a solution by having laws enforced against these violators.....theft is not a new business model.
Prior to the Internet what was the most popular mechanism to receive free music and movies??
You mean Libraries?
Libraries, yes.
But more so sharing among peers.
Now that I think about it, free broadcast tv was full of free music and movies.
In all cases duplication is the issue.
You mean we've never had the ability to duplicate things you get from the library?
And it shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be business finding solutions for bringing their products to market. Just because technology changes business models, doesn't mean we should criminalize it.
I mean, it's the act of not paying right? Libraries are either illegal or they are not... Duplication of an intangible product when the original item isn't changed or taken shouldn't be.
In the 60's folks started to sell bootleg 8-Tracks....being "new technology" a tape was a lot easier to reproduce in your garage vs. a vinyl record...what cost 3 bucks in a store could now be bought for a buck at the local Flea Market....the Music Business found a solution by having laws enforced against these violators.....theft is not a new business model.
But you're talking about bootlegging. I'm not. I'm talking about how industry should compete and evolve with changing models/markets. Finding out what the market is calling for and then filling the needs of their customers. Which the entertainment industry tends to do poorly. They should be an the front of change and technology, instead of always fighting it.
I bet the movie/tv/music industry alone could do just a couple of key things that could reduce people downloading and make a much bigger impact, than going after downloaders.
But you're talking about bootlegging. I'm not. I'm talking about how industry should compete and evolve with changing markets. Finding out what the market is calling for and then filling the needs of their customers. Which the movie and music industry to really poor at. They both should be an the front of change, instead of always fighting it.
I bet the movie/tv/music industry alone could do just a couple of key things that could reduce people downloading and make a much bigger impact, than going after downloaders.
I'm talking about duplicating and/or distributing someone elses art/property without permission or restitution.
You say you "bet" they could do a couple of key things to prevent this...what exactly do you suggest they do?
My dad had 1950's era bootleg lps of Broadway shows on the Jolly Rogers label.
He also had "grey market" classical lps that were recorded off of turn of the century 78s.
My brother had the famous RF1 lp of country blues. They were busted and took the case to the supreme court where they won on the fair use clause.
The music business did not find a solution to pirating then any more than they found a solution to pirating when 8-tracks came in.
People will pirate and they will get busted. The less they get busted the more above ground pirating will be, the more they get busted the more underground it will be.
Prior to the Internet what was the most popular mechanism to receive free music and movies??
You mean Libraries?
Libraries, yes.
But more so sharing among peers.
Now that I think about it, free broadcast tv was full of free music and movies.
In all cases duplication is the issue.
You mean we've never had the ability to duplicate things you get from the library?
And it shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be business finding solutions for bringing their products to market. Just because technology changes business models, doesn't mean we should criminalize it.
I mean, it's the act of not paying right? Libraries are either illegal or they are not... Duplication of an intangible product when the original item isn't changed or taken shouldn't be.
In the 60's folks started to sell bootleg 8-Tracks....being "new technology" a tape was a lot easier to reproduce in your garage vs. a vinyl record...what cost 3 bucks in a store could now be bought for a buck at the local Flea Market....the Music Business found a solution by having laws enforced against these violators.....theft is not a new business model.
But you're talking about bootlegging. I'm not. I'm talking about how industry should compete and evolve with changing models/markets. Finding out what the market is calling for and then filling the needs of their customers. Which the entertainment industry tends to do poorly. They should be an the front of change and technology, instead of always fighting it.
I bet the movie/tv/music industry alone could do just a couple of key things that could reduce people downloading and make a much bigger impact, than going after downloaders.
I agree.
One example is itunes.
The music industry could have started selling music online years before itune came on the scene.
They could greatly increase digital sales by making it easier for independent record stores to sell digital music in stores and on their web sites.
Think of all the great music bloggers on this site. How great would it be if copyright holders allowed them to sell the product they are writing about? This would greatly increase sales and profit both the artist and the owner of the recording rights. But today instead of facilitating this change over in the way people access music they are fighting a fruitless battle to try and stop the access to music.
I recently put together a cd for friends. My ability to record music from vinyl has decreased as the technology has increased. So I decided to buy all the music I wanted online. 2 songs were not available for purchase on line and friends here helped me find them. For one song I went and bought the physical cd (on line) because the music wasn't available on line. I bought as much as possible from cdbaby, because they are independent and local, but most tunes were bought from itunes because they have an unfair monopoly. This monopoly is the result of collusion between itunes and the major record labels that gives itunes exclusive rights to sell the music digitally. It is stupid and bogus and an example of how music industry has failed to adjust to the way people now access music.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
DOR said:
Rockadelic said:
LaserWolf said:
DOR said:
Rockadelic said:
Prior to the Internet what was the most popular mechanism to receive free music and movies??
You mean Libraries?
Libraries, yes.
But more so sharing among peers.
Now that I think about it, free broadcast tv was full of free music and movies.
In all cases duplication is the issue.
You mean we've never had the ability to duplicate things you get from the library?
And it shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be business finding solutions for bringing their products to market. Just because technology changes business models, doesn't mean we should criminalize it.
I mean, it's the act of not paying right? Libraries are either illegal or they are not... Duplication of an intangible product when the original item isn't changed or taken shouldn't be.
Nobody's "criminalising" technology. It's the application of the technology that's the issue. This latest development won't stop piracy, but it'll make it harder for the people who build the boats. None of those other commercial filesharing services have had a visit from the Feds (yet), and some of them may never get one. But look how many of them have closed their affiliate programs or disabled sharing or banned US IPs in the wake of this - they know exactly what's going on, and they know they're at risk. They know perfectly well that the vast majority of their profits are derived from the unauthorised reproduction and distribution of copyright material, and they've been content to ride that shit until the wheels fall off. And, oh, lookee here - they just did.
And no, it's not the act of not paying - it's the act of unauthorised reproduction and distribution. Again, we're back to the application of the technology. In the days of home taping, if you wanted to make a copy of something you had to do it in real time (or half-time if your deck had high-speed dubbing). Industrial levels of tape piracy involved significant levels of investment and manpower (someone's got to put all those tapes into all those machines and take them out again), which meant it was generally the preserve of organised crime. Even then, if you wanted a bootleg tape or CD, you still had to seek it out and pay money for it.
In 2012, theoretically, I can rip a copy of (let's keep it topical) the Lana Del Rey album, most likely a promo I got for nothing. I can then upload it to Megaupload or Filesonic or wherever via my affiliate account, and post those (monetised) links on every blog or forum where they have an open or blind-eye policy about filesharing. Theoretically, within minutes of my doing that, anyone with a high-speed internet connection anywhere in the world can then download it as fast as their connection will allow. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand AT LEAST, and you have the key difference between pre- and post-digital piracy.
There's absolutely no doubt that the industry took completely the wrong approach to file-sharing from the moment it became an issue, right up to the point when iTunes came along and they found they had little or no bargaining power left and basically had to take it up the ass from Apple, and now they're reaping what they sowed. But the kind of industrial levels of piracy the Kim Dotcoms of this world were caking off don't exist just because of the failure of business models, and it's a fallacy to suggest they do. Flawed business models (and the extension of copyright periods - something else that people seem to think only exists for the benefit of corporations) provide a convenient justification for the fact that more and more people simply want to get shit for nothing, and will apply whatever technology is available in order to continue doing so.
I always held the opinion that filesharing & piracy would be good for hollywood and those concerned with creative ownership ultimately because it would force them to reinvent themselves and come up with a better way to distribute and make money than the current model. I still think it will at some point force the industry to come up with something really clever that everyone will enjoy using. facilitating sharing, guaranteeing access and high quality is the way forward, not restricting.
This is what I am talking about.
People want a PRODUCT and a friendly interface, and CHOICE.
What if the industry allowed a competitor to itunes who sold high fidelity downloads instead of the awful sounding compressed files that itunes is marketing.
MFSL.com or just doesntsoundlikeshit.com
I believe it would increase sales for the music overall.
I believe it would increase sales for itunes as they would be forced to compete by lowering prices or increasing quality or adding value. All good for business and the consumer.
You say you "bet" they could do a couple of key things to prevent this...what exactly do you suggest they do?
Well, you can't prevent piracy. Everyone knows that.
One example off the top of my head.
I was watching CNBC (I believe that was the station) and they had one of the executives from NBC arguing the case of SOPA. He kept on going on about foreigners downloading his companies content.
A prime example of industry not filling their potential customers needs. Ask anyone outside the US how they can watch NBC shows. Is Hulu available outside the US? And the programs that NBC has in many countries show days, sometimes weeks or even months after they broadcast in the US. Why? Because of licensing issues? Well, this would be just the beginning of how I would cut down people downloading my content to start.
I guarantee you offer your content to everyone at the same time as you broadcast in the US. You would cut downloading of your shows with a fairly decent %.
Same with the movie industry. Why release movies (Or DVD releases) in the theater weeks or months after the US in today's market? I understand wanting to control distribution. But it just tells me you're not serious about filling the needs for potential customers.
In 2012, theoretically, I can rip a copy of (let's keep it topical) the Lana Del Rey album, most likely a promo I got for nothing. I can then upload it to Megaupload or Filesonic or wherever via my affiliate account, and post those (monetised) links on every blog or forum where they have an open or blind-eye policy about filesharing. Theoretically, within minutes of my doing that, anyone with a high-speed internet connection anywhere in the world can then download it as fast as their connection will allow. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand AT LEAST, and you have the key difference between pre- and post-digital piracy.
Radio broadcasts and cassette tapes allowed as many people to do exactly the same in the 'pre-digital' age. Anyway its a moot point because everyone knows none of these measures will put an end to piracy. Most likely they are about controlling the direction of cash flow, not copyright ownership.
I used to tape loads of radio shows specifically for promos remixes and breaking new music. I still cherish some old tapes (if i can bloody find them) of pirate radio broadcasts - for the mixes on them. And any records in those mixes i loved i have long since bought physical copies of and or seen the actual artist perform them live. Its well documented that the most avid of home tapers and downloaders spend the most money on movies and music - because they are the ones who care most about the content.
In fact piracy and the inability to profit off hard or soft copies are forcing artists to go out and perform to make money. quite a good development. I dont see any digital age movie or pop stars starving because of piracy either.
In fact Id like to read any story about any artist who was ruined by piracy.
if people care enough to download your shit en masse, youre going to be able to make money.
But the kind of industrial levels of piracy the Kim Dotcoms of this world were caking off don't exist just because of the failure of business models, and it's a fallacy to suggest they do. Flawed business models (and the extension of copyright periods - something else that people seem to think only exists for the benefit of corporations) provide a convenient justification for the fact that more and more people simply want to get shit for nothing, and will apply whatever technology is available in order to continue doing so.
My problem with the larger debate about SOPA is that the real fight is between corporate interests. On the one hand, you have copyright owners (like the music & film industry) and on the other hand you have internet titans like google and major internet service providers. The anti-SOPA appeal is the latter group of corporations trying to appeal to the self-serving needs of us as consumers who want access to free stuff.
Ultimately, members of congress (and the white house) were able to avoid the larger debate of whether something like SOPA is needed, by deflecting on the issue of whether the enforcement mechanisms of SOPA went too far, which they did.
It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out when these bills get refined. The SOPA legislation was co-sponsored (in the house) by conservatives and liberals such as Debbie Wasserman Shultz. As an attorney, I do not see any controversy in the theory that copyright owners are entitled to protection - my only concern will be in the policing. The bottom line is that people's feelings about whether music, movies and software should be free has no place in the law. I'd also like to avoid paying my cable bill, but if illegal black boxes became the rage again, would people argue that they should be legal simply because they make it easy to get free hbo?
I buy from amazon because they have 320kbps MP3s without DRM that can be used easily with serato. Are there a ton of tracks not linked there, absolutely and at that point i start downloading quality rips.
This is the industry being butthurt they can't sell a 5 cent cd for $20 anymore. Whaaaa. You missed the boat by about 7 years. Pull your shit together, you used to have higher overhead in the tape age and the vinyl age. No one buys cd's because they are bulshit, you made your money now move forward. You don't think music and video formats are going to change?
the fact that more and more people simply want to get shit for nothing, and will apply whatever technology is available in order to continue doing so.
The internet has reduced income for artists, and the humanities/arts are undervalued enough as it is in the modern world.
I feel bad about whatever I've shared on the net, but I buy records, I buy mix CDs. I try and put money back into the pot. People say in defence of DLs that people then go on to buy physical stuff, and people say that companies tot up every DL as if it's a missed sale, yet obviously if it cost money, the individual wouldn't have made the DL, so the figures in lost revenue are bullshit, but it's all hurting somebody.
Part of me wants a crack down on all illegal filesharing. The extremes that people are suggesting about SOPA like sueing somebody for singing a pop song on yootoob seems like bullshit, and also you say to yourself that you're just sharing, and if I invited a friend round to my place to listen to a record, they wouldn't be after me saying other people have to pay, and the internet is just an extention of this principle - I'm having a listening session with people on the other side of the planet etc., and that is the freedom that I don't think anyone wants to see curtailed.
I buy from amazon because they have 320kbps MP3s without DRM that can be used easily with serato. Are there a ton of tracks not linked there, absolutely and at that point i start downloading quality rips.
This is the industry being butthurt they can't sell a 5 cent cd for $20 anymore. Whaaaa. You missed the boat by about 7 years. Pull your shit together, you used to have higher overhead in the tape age and the vinyl age. No one buys cd's because they are bulshit, you made your money now move forward. You don't think music and video formats are going to change?
Ownership is a primitive urge, holding back humanity.
There will come a time when we will be able to see each others thoughts, at no cost.
It is at this point that intergalactic travel will become possible.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
LaserWolf said:
most tunes were bought from itunes because they have an unfair monopoly. This monopoly is the result of collusion between itunes and the major record labels that gives itunes exclusive rights to sell the music digitally. It is stupid and bogus and an example of how music industry has failed to adjust to the way people now access music.
Sorry, but apart from the second half of the last sentence, this is ridiculous.
If the music business could talk, it would probably tell you it hates iTunes. Trust me, they do not want to be selling their product via a system where the price and method of delivery is dictated by the retailer. When Apple launched the iPod, the industry was in a blind panic over filesharing. The horse had long since bolted and it quickly became apparent that the iPod was as likely to be used to listen to illegally-downloaded mp3s as ripped copies of shop-bought CDs (thus making the idea of illegal downloading more attractive to people who may otherwise have never considered it - once again, we're back to the application of the technology). As a matter of fact, the industry didn't move in lockstep concerning iTunes at all; many major players held out against it for as long as they possibly could, but eventually they had to bend over and take Apple's entire business model - format, pricing structure, delivery method and (crucially for the artist) shitty royalty rate - whether they liked it or not, or they were finished. If they'd approached filesharing differently from the beginning, and treated it as an opportunity instead of a menace, Apple would never have been able to exert that level of power over them, and that's without even mentioning the ongoing trademark issue with the Beatles which supposedly forbade Apple from going into the music business in any way at all. But they weren't going to let an opportunity like that pass them by. The relationship is a little less fraught now, certainly, but it's a long way from collusion.
most tunes were bought from itunes because they have an unfair monopoly. This monopoly is the result of collusion between itunes and the major record labels that gives itunes exclusive rights to sell the music digitally. It is stupid and bogus and an example of how music industry has failed to adjust to the way people now access music.
Sorry, but apart from the second half of the last sentence, this is ridiculous.
If the music business could talk, it would probably tell you it hates iTunes. Trust me, they do not want to be selling their product via a system where the price and method of delivery is dictated by the retailer. When Apple launched the iPod, the industry was in a blind panic over filesharing. The horse had long since bolted and it quickly became apparent that the iPod was as likely to be used to listen to illegally-downloaded mp3s as ripped copies of shop-bought CDs (thus making the idea of illegal downloading more attractive to people who may otherwise have never considered it - once again, we're back to the application of the technology). As a matter of fact, the industry didn't move in lockstep concerning iTunes at all; many major players held out against it for as long as they possibly could, but eventually they had to bend over and take Apple's entire business model - format, pricing structure, delivery method and (crucially for the artist) shitty royalty rate - whether they liked it or not, or they were finished. If they'd approached filesharing differently from the beginning, and treated it as an opportunity instead of a menace, Apple would never have been able to exert that level of power over them, and that's without even mentioning the ongoing trademark issue with the Beatles which supposedly forbade Apple from going into the music business in any way at all. But they weren't going to let an opportunity like that pass them by. The relationship is a little less fraught now, certainly, but it's a long way from collusion.
I don't see where anything you said contradicts anything I said.
most tunes were bought from itunes because they have an unfair monopoly. This monopoly is the result of collusion between itunes and the major record labels that gives itunes exclusive rights to sell the music digitally. It is stupid and bogus and an example of how music industry has failed to adjust to the way people now access music.
Sorry, but apart from the second half of the last sentence, this is ridiculous.
If the music business could talk, it would probably tell you it hates iTunes. Trust me, they do not want to be selling their product via a system where the price and method of delivery is dictated by the retailer. When Apple launched the iPod, the industry was in a blind panic over filesharing. The horse had long since bolted and it quickly became apparent that the iPod was as likely to be used to listen to illegally-downloaded mp3s as ripped copies of shop-bought CDs (thus making the idea of illegal downloading more attractive to people who may otherwise have never considered it - once again, we're back to the application of the technology). As a matter of fact, the industry didn't move in lockstep concerning iTunes at all; many major players held out against it for as long as they possibly could, but eventually they had to bend over and take Apple's entire business model - format, pricing structure, delivery method and (crucially for the artist) shitty royalty rate - whether they liked it or not, or they were finished. If they'd approached filesharing differently from the beginning, and treated it as an opportunity instead of a menace, Apple would never have been able to exert that level of power over them, and that's without even mentioning the ongoing trademark issue with the Beatles which supposedly forbade Apple from going into the music business in any way at all. But they weren't going to let an opportunity like that pass them by. The relationship is a little less fraught now, certainly, but it's a long way from collusion.
If the industry was able to dictate their terms, they would be in deeper shit than they are now...they would insist on the purchase of entire albums instead of tracks and they would want their MSRP for digital downloads, ie $18.98. They have lawyers and marketing scum to pay before they even think about throwing their artist a crumb. The waste in the industry is unreal. When I managed a record store every other day we would get a fed ex delivery of ONE poster advertising a CD/ album we didn't even carry. If we were getting thus shit, then hundreds of retailers were getting them. Using Fed Ex to send a giant box that contains ONE 11x18 poster multiple times a week. This is just one example. If they put as much money into digital distribution as they do into antiquated promotion techniques, they could of had a solution by now. Illegal downloading hurts record company execs more than it hurts the artist. SOPA/PIPA is a hatchet and a scalpel is what is needed. It is tantamount to banks wanting to make cars illegal because they are used in bank robberies as get-away vehicles. The industry needs to look at itself in finding the cause of their dwindling coffers.
I'm not a gamer, but Steam may be even better than iTunes. Video game piracy has certainly been declining, no Christopher Dodd needed.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Radio broadcasts and cassette tapes allowed as many people to do exactly the same in the 'pre-digital' age.
No, they didn't, for precisely the reasons I outlined above. Tape-copying never represented anything like the same kind of threat to revenues, and in any event people were still happy to pay for music at that point. The whole problem with the modern equivalent - if you can even call it that - is the scale of it and the ease with which it takes place. Just as soon as people realised how easy it was, that was it. I could probably fill a 500GB external drive with illegally downloaded content within a month without ever spending a bean on something as anachronistic as a blank CD. I wouldn't even have to leave my chair.
Its well documented that the most avid of home tapers and downloaders spend the most money on movies and music - because they are the ones who care most about the content.
Well-documented by whom? The people who seek whatever moral justification they can find for downloading? I'm still waiting for some concrete proof as to how and why someone would go out and spend money on something they can get for nothing. I'm sure there are some people out there who treat downloading as an opportunity to try before they buy, and who delete anything they don't actually like from their hard drives, even with storage now being as cheap as dirt. But the idea that they represent any sort of majority, or that they all offset their downloading habits with hard cash in bricks-and-mortars stores, is ridiculous.
In fact piracy and the inability to profit off hard or soft copies are forcing artists to go out and perform to make money. quite a good development. I don't see any digital age movie or pop stars starving because of piracy either.
What you'll begin to see very very soon, if you're not seeing it already, is a steady decline in quality and diversity in just about every area of artistic endeavour. The big entertainment conglomerates will cleave even closer than ever to the safest of safe bets, and the folks who are in it for something other than the money will have to work harder than ever just to stay afloat; running their own labels, designing their own artwork, co-ordinating the manufacture of their own product, manning their own merch tables and mail order service, booking their own gigs, generating their own press coverage, squaring up to promoters who try to dick them out of their money, setting up and taking down their own backline, driving to and from gigs, etc., etc - all of which they'll have to do without the aid of tour support or recording/publishing advances. In between all that, they might find some time to write and record music. Who pays for the studio time? The mixing, the mastering, the additional musicians or technical/ancillary people you might need in order to make the music sound as good as you can possibly get it, rather than simply as good as you can afford? Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps it'll come from the sales of all those t-shirts that meant you had to leave half your gear at home so you could get them in the van. Some artists will see all of the above as a challenge. Others will think, fuck it, and stick to driving a truck. How big a loss that might turn out to be, we'll never know. Maybe in 20 years time, some of that unrealised potential will be the topic of a future Waxi/SS 5-pager. We won't be able to blame the industry for that, though.
In fact I'd like to read any story about any artist who was ruined by piracy.
Well, I'd like to read any story about any artist who's cool with it, who actively encourages the widespread distribution of their work and who would be perfectly happy with never earning a cent from from the sale of a CD or a legit download. I've read about artists who've benefitted from filesharing when they've been able to exercise some control over it, and that's fine - it seems to me that it's when they have no control over how, when or where it takes place, no means by which to measure the effects both positive and negative, that they begin to have a problem with it. And that's usually the point where some toerag will give them a lecture about how music should be free and they should create purely for the love, and if they don't do either then they're a fraud and a sellout and, y'know, I'm going to illegally download your album right now, just to piss you off, so how do you like that, huh?
I'm still waiting for some concrete proof as to how and why someone would go out and spend money on something they can get for nothing.
Perhaps I can help.
I am a person who spends money for something I can get for nothing. This is concrete proof that people do buy things they can get for nothing.
I think the number one reason people do this is because they want a product. Not a facsimile of a product.
This is the number one reason why records are superior to cds (superior to tapes and downloads too). The record album is a great product. CDs and downloads are shitty products, even though the music is the same.
The number one reason I buy something I can get for nothing is to support artists and the stores where I shop.
The number 2 reason I buy something I can get for nothing is because I avoid breaking the law. I am funny that way.
The music industry should concentrate on the first reason I stated, product. If they did that they wouldn't have to waste so much times on the last reason.
They have lawyers and marketing scum to pay before they even think about throwing their artist a crumb. The waste in the industry is unreal.
Well, they have now shut down the largest piracy option in the world and have all others running for the hills. Ask any artist how much more money they are making...
This is the industry being butthurt they can't sell a 5 cent cd for $20 anymore. Whaaaa. You missed the boat by about 7 years. Pull your shit together, you used to have higher overhead in the tape age and the vinyl age. No one buys cd's because they are bulshit, you made your money now move forward. You don't think music and video formats are going to change?
:post_modern:
You are saying that because the labels haven't figured out how to make as much money in the digital age, that copyright laws should not apply? It may cost less to manufacture a book than it does to make a cd - are authors and publishers just "butthurt" because of digital piracy as well?
Clearly, we want artists to have a financial incentive to create works of art - be it music, art, poetry, writing, film, etc. Some artists may choose to continue to create art if they cannot make a profit (or can do so in less ways), but if there is a way to prevent digital piracy that does not infringe on our legal right to share non-infringing information, there is no reason why such a law should not be adopted.
Well, I'd like to read any story about any artist who's cool with it, who actively encourages the widespread distribution of their work and who would be perfectly happy with never earning a cent from from the sale of a CD or a legit download.
Robin Pecknold of Fleet Foxes: "Music has no inherent cash value"
Comments
Libraries, yes.
But more so sharing among peers.
Now that I think about it, free broadcast tv was full of free music and movies.
In all cases duplication is the issue.
You mean we've never had the ability to duplicate things you get from the library?
And it shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be business finding solutions for bringing their products to market. Just because technology changes business models, doesn't mean we should criminalize it.
I mean, it's the act of not paying right? Libraries are either illegal or they are not... Duplication of an intangible product when the original item isn't changed or taken shouldn't be.
I always held the opinion that filesharing & piracy would be good for hollywood and those concerned with creative ownership ultimately because it would force them to reinvent themselves and come up with a better way to distribute and make money than the current model. I still think it will at some point force the industry to come up with something really clever that everyone will enjoy using. facilitating sharing, guaranteeing access and high quality is the way forward, not restricting.
oh and to the guy asking about BR rips, they are all over piratebay. but larger filesize than regular rips.
anyway this guy is the real dude behind megaupload it seems - kim dotcom - he was busted out of his mansions saferoom by a swat team and is now in a nz jail. so where does swizz come into it? im confused.
they used to print this on inner sleeves. it wasnt true and it didnt stop home taping. I still have boxes of vhs and casette tapes. all 'illegal'
In the 60's folks started to sell bootleg 8-Tracks....being "new technology" a tape was a lot easier to reproduce in your garage vs. a vinyl record...what cost 3 bucks in a store could now be bought for a buck at the local Flea Market....the Music Business found a solution by having laws enforced against these violators.....theft is not a new business model.
But you're talking about bootlegging. I'm not. I'm talking about how industry should compete and evolve with changing models/markets. Finding out what the market is calling for and then filling the needs of their customers. Which the entertainment industry tends to do poorly. They should be an the front of change and technology, instead of always fighting it.
I bet the movie/tv/music industry alone could do just a couple of key things that could reduce people downloading and make a much bigger impact, than going after downloaders.
I'm talking about duplicating and/or distributing someone elses art/property without permission or restitution.
You say you "bet" they could do a couple of key things to prevent this...what exactly do you suggest they do?
He also had "grey market" classical lps that were recorded off of turn of the century 78s.
My brother had the famous RF1 lp of country blues. They were busted and took the case to the supreme court where they won on the fair use clause.
The music business did not find a solution to pirating then any more than they found a solution to pirating when 8-tracks came in.
People will pirate and they will get busted. The less they get busted the more above ground pirating will be, the more they get busted the more underground it will be.
It looks like Rapidshare will be the last man standing.
I agree.
One example is itunes.
The music industry could have started selling music online years before itune came on the scene.
They could greatly increase digital sales by making it easier for independent record stores to sell digital music in stores and on their web sites.
Think of all the great music bloggers on this site. How great would it be if copyright holders allowed them to sell the product they are writing about? This would greatly increase sales and profit both the artist and the owner of the recording rights. But today instead of facilitating this change over in the way people access music they are fighting a fruitless battle to try and stop the access to music.
I recently put together a cd for friends. My ability to record music from vinyl has decreased as the technology has increased. So I decided to buy all the music I wanted online. 2 songs were not available for purchase on line and friends here helped me find them. For one song I went and bought the physical cd (on line) because the music wasn't available on line. I bought as much as possible from cdbaby, because they are independent and local, but most tunes were bought from itunes because they have an unfair monopoly. This monopoly is the result of collusion between itunes and the major record labels that gives itunes exclusive rights to sell the music digitally. It is stupid and bogus and an example of how music industry has failed to adjust to the way people now access music.
Nobody's "criminalising" technology. It's the application of the technology that's the issue. This latest development won't stop piracy, but it'll make it harder for the people who build the boats. None of those other commercial filesharing services have had a visit from the Feds (yet), and some of them may never get one. But look how many of them have closed their affiliate programs or disabled sharing or banned US IPs in the wake of this - they know exactly what's going on, and they know they're at risk. They know perfectly well that the vast majority of their profits are derived from the unauthorised reproduction and distribution of copyright material, and they've been content to ride that shit until the wheels fall off. And, oh, lookee here - they just did.
And no, it's not the act of not paying - it's the act of unauthorised reproduction and distribution. Again, we're back to the application of the technology. In the days of home taping, if you wanted to make a copy of something you had to do it in real time (or half-time if your deck had high-speed dubbing). Industrial levels of tape piracy involved significant levels of investment and manpower (someone's got to put all those tapes into all those machines and take them out again), which meant it was generally the preserve of organised crime. Even then, if you wanted a bootleg tape or CD, you still had to seek it out and pay money for it.
In 2012, theoretically, I can rip a copy of (let's keep it topical) the Lana Del Rey album, most likely a promo I got for nothing. I can then upload it to Megaupload or Filesonic or wherever via my affiliate account, and post those (monetised) links on every blog or forum where they have an open or blind-eye policy about filesharing. Theoretically, within minutes of my doing that, anyone with a high-speed internet connection anywhere in the world can then download it as fast as their connection will allow. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand AT LEAST, and you have the key difference between pre- and post-digital piracy.
There's absolutely no doubt that the industry took completely the wrong approach to file-sharing from the moment it became an issue, right up to the point when iTunes came along and they found they had little or no bargaining power left and basically had to take it up the ass from Apple, and now they're reaping what they sowed. But the kind of industrial levels of piracy the Kim Dotcoms of this world were caking off don't exist just because of the failure of business models, and it's a fallacy to suggest they do. Flawed business models (and the extension of copyright periods - something else that people seem to think only exists for the benefit of corporations) provide a convenient justification for the fact that more and more people simply want to get shit for nothing, and will apply whatever technology is available in order to continue doing so.
This is what I am talking about.
People want a PRODUCT and a friendly interface, and CHOICE.
What if the industry allowed a competitor to itunes who sold high fidelity downloads instead of the awful sounding compressed files that itunes is marketing.
MFSL.com or just doesntsoundlikeshit.com
I believe it would increase sales for the music overall.
I believe it would increase sales for itunes as they would be forced to compete by lowering prices or increasing quality or adding value. All good for business and the consumer.
Well, you can't prevent piracy. Everyone knows that.
One example off the top of my head.
I was watching CNBC (I believe that was the station) and they had one of the executives from NBC arguing the case of SOPA. He kept on going on about foreigners downloading his companies content.
A prime example of industry not filling their potential customers needs. Ask anyone outside the US how they can watch NBC shows. Is Hulu available outside the US? And the programs that NBC has in many countries show days, sometimes weeks or even months after they broadcast in the US. Why? Because of licensing issues? Well, this would be just the beginning of how I would cut down people downloading my content to start.
I guarantee you offer your content to everyone at the same time as you broadcast in the US. You would cut downloading of your shows with a fairly decent %.
Same with the movie industry. Why release movies (Or DVD releases) in the theater weeks or months after the US in today's market? I understand wanting to control distribution. But it just tells me you're not serious about filling the needs for potential customers.
Radio broadcasts and cassette tapes allowed as many people to do exactly the same in the 'pre-digital' age. Anyway its a moot point because everyone knows none of these measures will put an end to piracy. Most likely they are about controlling the direction of cash flow, not copyright ownership.
I used to tape loads of radio shows specifically for promos remixes and breaking new music. I still cherish some old tapes (if i can bloody find them) of pirate radio broadcasts - for the mixes on them. And any records in those mixes i loved i have long since bought physical copies of and or seen the actual artist perform them live. Its well documented that the most avid of home tapers and downloaders spend the most money on movies and music - because they are the ones who care most about the content.
In fact piracy and the inability to profit off hard or soft copies are forcing artists to go out and perform to make money. quite a good development. I dont see any digital age movie or pop stars starving because of piracy either.
In fact Id like to read any story about any artist who was ruined by piracy.
if people care enough to download your shit en masse, youre going to be able to make money.
My problem with the larger debate about SOPA is that the real fight is between corporate interests. On the one hand, you have copyright owners (like the music & film industry) and on the other hand you have internet titans like google and major internet service providers. The anti-SOPA appeal is the latter group of corporations trying to appeal to the self-serving needs of us as consumers who want access to free stuff.
Ultimately, members of congress (and the white house) were able to avoid the larger debate of whether something like SOPA is needed, by deflecting on the issue of whether the enforcement mechanisms of SOPA went too far, which they did.
It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out when these bills get refined. The SOPA legislation was co-sponsored (in the house) by conservatives and liberals such as Debbie Wasserman Shultz. As an attorney, I do not see any controversy in the theory that copyright owners are entitled to protection - my only concern will be in the policing. The bottom line is that people's feelings about whether music, movies and software should be free has no place in the law. I'd also like to avoid paying my cable bill, but if illegal black boxes became the rage again, would people argue that they should be legal simply because they make it easy to get free hbo?
This is the industry being butthurt they can't sell a 5 cent cd for $20 anymore. Whaaaa. You missed the boat by about 7 years. Pull your shit together, you used to have higher overhead in the tape age and the vinyl age. No one buys cd's because they are bulshit, you made your money now move forward. You don't think music and video formats are going to change?
The internet has reduced income for artists, and the humanities/arts are undervalued enough as it is in the modern world.
I feel bad about whatever I've shared on the net, but I buy records, I buy mix CDs. I try and put money back into the pot. People say in defence of DLs that people then go on to buy physical stuff, and people say that companies tot up every DL as if it's a missed sale, yet obviously if it cost money, the individual wouldn't have made the DL, so the figures in lost revenue are bullshit, but it's all hurting somebody.
Part of me wants a crack down on all illegal filesharing. The extremes that people are suggesting about SOPA like sueing somebody for singing a pop song on yootoob seems like bullshit, and also you say to yourself that you're just sharing, and if I invited a friend round to my place to listen to a record, they wouldn't be after me saying other people have to pay, and the internet is just an extention of this principle - I'm having a listening session with people on the other side of the planet etc., and that is the freedom that I don't think anyone wants to see curtailed.
Drunk, should stop there.
Ownership is a primitive urge, holding back humanity.
There will come a time when we will be able to see each others thoughts, at no cost.
It is at this point that intergalactic travel will become possible.
Sorry, but apart from the second half of the last sentence, this is ridiculous.
If the music business could talk, it would probably tell you it hates iTunes. Trust me, they do not want to be selling their product via a system where the price and method of delivery is dictated by the retailer. When Apple launched the iPod, the industry was in a blind panic over filesharing. The horse had long since bolted and it quickly became apparent that the iPod was as likely to be used to listen to illegally-downloaded mp3s as ripped copies of shop-bought CDs (thus making the idea of illegal downloading more attractive to people who may otherwise have never considered it - once again, we're back to the application of the technology). As a matter of fact, the industry didn't move in lockstep concerning iTunes at all; many major players held out against it for as long as they possibly could, but eventually they had to bend over and take Apple's entire business model - format, pricing structure, delivery method and (crucially for the artist) shitty royalty rate - whether they liked it or not, or they were finished. If they'd approached filesharing differently from the beginning, and treated it as an opportunity instead of a menace, Apple would never have been able to exert that level of power over them, and that's without even mentioning the ongoing trademark issue with the Beatles which supposedly forbade Apple from going into the music business in any way at all. But they weren't going to let an opportunity like that pass them by. The relationship is a little less fraught now, certainly, but it's a long way from collusion.
I don't see where anything you said contradicts anything I said.
If the industry was able to dictate their terms, they would be in deeper shit than they are now...they would insist on the purchase of entire albums instead of tracks and they would want their MSRP for digital downloads, ie $18.98. They have lawyers and marketing scum to pay before they even think about throwing their artist a crumb. The waste in the industry is unreal. When I managed a record store every other day we would get a fed ex delivery of ONE poster advertising a CD/ album we didn't even carry. If we were getting thus shit, then hundreds of retailers were getting them. Using Fed Ex to send a giant box that contains ONE 11x18 poster multiple times a week. This is just one example. If they put as much money into digital distribution as they do into antiquated promotion techniques, they could of had a solution by now. Illegal downloading hurts record company execs more than it hurts the artist. SOPA/PIPA is a hatchet and a scalpel is what is needed. It is tantamount to banks wanting to make cars illegal because they are used in bank robberies as get-away vehicles. The industry needs to look at itself in finding the cause of their dwindling coffers.
No, they didn't, for precisely the reasons I outlined above. Tape-copying never represented anything like the same kind of threat to revenues, and in any event people were still happy to pay for music at that point. The whole problem with the modern equivalent - if you can even call it that - is the scale of it and the ease with which it takes place. Just as soon as people realised how easy it was, that was it. I could probably fill a 500GB external drive with illegally downloaded content within a month without ever spending a bean on something as anachronistic as a blank CD. I wouldn't even have to leave my chair.
Well-documented by whom? The people who seek whatever moral justification they can find for downloading? I'm still waiting for some concrete proof as to how and why someone would go out and spend money on something they can get for nothing. I'm sure there are some people out there who treat downloading as an opportunity to try before they buy, and who delete anything they don't actually like from their hard drives, even with storage now being as cheap as dirt. But the idea that they represent any sort of majority, or that they all offset their downloading habits with hard cash in bricks-and-mortars stores, is ridiculous.
What you'll begin to see very very soon, if you're not seeing it already, is a steady decline in quality and diversity in just about every area of artistic endeavour. The big entertainment conglomerates will cleave even closer than ever to the safest of safe bets, and the folks who are in it for something other than the money will have to work harder than ever just to stay afloat; running their own labels, designing their own artwork, co-ordinating the manufacture of their own product, manning their own merch tables and mail order service, booking their own gigs, generating their own press coverage, squaring up to promoters who try to dick them out of their money, setting up and taking down their own backline, driving to and from gigs, etc., etc - all of which they'll have to do without the aid of tour support or recording/publishing advances. In between all that, they might find some time to write and record music. Who pays for the studio time? The mixing, the mastering, the additional musicians or technical/ancillary people you might need in order to make the music sound as good as you can possibly get it, rather than simply as good as you can afford? Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps it'll come from the sales of all those t-shirts that meant you had to leave half your gear at home so you could get them in the van. Some artists will see all of the above as a challenge. Others will think, fuck it, and stick to driving a truck. How big a loss that might turn out to be, we'll never know. Maybe in 20 years time, some of that unrealised potential will be the topic of a future Waxi/SS 5-pager. We won't be able to blame the industry for that, though.
Well, I'd like to read any story about any artist who's cool with it, who actively encourages the widespread distribution of their work and who would be perfectly happy with never earning a cent from from the sale of a CD or a legit download. I've read about artists who've benefitted from filesharing when they've been able to exercise some control over it, and that's fine - it seems to me that it's when they have no control over how, when or where it takes place, no means by which to measure the effects both positive and negative, that they begin to have a problem with it. And that's usually the point where some toerag will give them a lecture about how music should be free and they should create purely for the love, and if they don't do either then they're a fraud and a sellout and, y'know, I'm going to illegally download your album right now, just to piss you off, so how do you like that, huh?
Perhaps I can help.
I am a person who spends money for something I can get for nothing. This is concrete proof that people do buy things they can get for nothing.
I think the number one reason people do this is because they want a product. Not a facsimile of a product.
This is the number one reason why records are superior to cds (superior to tapes and downloads too). The record album is a great product. CDs and downloads are shitty products, even though the music is the same.
The number one reason I buy something I can get for nothing is to support artists and the stores where I shop.
The number 2 reason I buy something I can get for nothing is because I avoid breaking the law. I am funny that way.
The music industry should concentrate on the first reason I stated, product. If they did that they wouldn't have to waste so much times on the last reason.
Well, they have now shut down the largest piracy option in the world and have all others running for the hills. Ask any artist how much more money they are making...
:post_modern:
You are saying that because the labels haven't figured out how to make as much money in the digital age, that copyright laws should not apply? It may cost less to manufacture a book than it does to make a cd - are authors and publishers just "butthurt" because of digital piracy as well?
Clearly, we want artists to have a financial incentive to create works of art - be it music, art, poetry, writing, film, etc. Some artists may choose to continue to create art if they cannot make a profit (or can do so in less ways), but if there is a way to prevent digital piracy that does not infringe on our legal right to share non-infringing information, there is no reason why such a law should not be adopted.
http://www.nme.com/news/fleet-foxes/56163
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8097324.stm