JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Petition to stop P2P-users abuses

To the Esteemed Citizenry of the United States of America and other Countries around the World:

I ask everybody who has EVER used Napster or KaZaA or Grokster or other "peer-to-peer" network to download a song available on CD somewhere in the world, for anything OTHER THAN classroom instruction without compensating the sound recording AND song copyright holders to IMMEDIATELY ERASE all said songs, or remit $1 per song to each and every rights-holder (see attached) for those songs you wish to preserve on your hard drive, OR you'll make me cry and I'll beg harder next time. Ed Bertrand

------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX

Now that Pandora's box has been opened, it will take considerably more than the RIAA, the big record and publishing companies or any amount of conspicuous crying and begging to close it.

Is recording a song directly from radio for personal use a crime? Nope. That's how millions of people used to avoid paying for the music. Some still do, I suppose.

Is recording a music video directly from TV for personal use a crime? Nope.

Sometimes I get the feeling that this is a battle of wits. Who is the more creative, those who create and deliver the music or those who devise ways to share copyrighted works with anybody and everybody?

So far, it would appear the PtoP network is winning the battle, despite the young girl and one old man our industry has taken into custody.

Is filesharing on the internet a crime? Yep. Next point?


[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 09-14-2003).]

Originally posted by TrumanCoyote: Is filesharing on the internet a crime? Yep. Next point?

Next point is that the jury is still out on what you apparently consider a done deal.



[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-14-2003).]

The biggest difference is that what is legal about taping on the radio is making 1 copy for personal use, not putting those recordings up for sale or trade to millions of people on demand. Also, if you suggest that kids are only using downloads/file shares for personal use, it's still different. Through radio and TV play, people ARE being compensated for that performance. Via file sharing, no one is.

It's interesting that people who steal will always justify it. In the business world, it's common for disgruntled employees who steal to say "the company didn't pay me enough or treated me badly" to explain why they stole stuff. But no one forced them to go to work there. And it still doesn't justify the theft. If someone has committed illegal actions (i.e. a label has or a company has against an employee) the solution isn't to steal from them.. the solution it to hold them accountable for whatever crime they might have committed.. but committing another crime solves nothing but makes everyone wrong. In the case of these kids and adults to file share, no one has done them wrong.. they're just taking advantage of a low risk form of shoplifting which is worse, but they are then multiplying the theft to friends and anonymous trading partners around the world over and over. I think it's great that there's at least a tiny risk to them to have their hands slapped if they're caught. Now they know there's a risk. If they keep doing it.. they deserve the punishment. No different than they know if they shoplift, and get caught, it's probably going to hurt.

Brian

Brian, there will always be a fine line between what is and what is not legal. Big business, the music business included, continues to narrow that line and, as one might expect, the general public follows suit.

I'm of the opinion that copying is ALWAYS copying regardless how it is carried out. Still, public outcry led to making the copying of records and radio and TV broadcasts for personal use "legal" over the objections of copyright owners.

The public will also ultimately determine which side of the thin line P2P file sharing falls on.

After the successful "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" defense in OJ's criminal trial, you just never know how a jury of "peers" will decide.







[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-14-2003).]

K,



huh???

------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX



[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 09-14-2003).]

Ed, that was just a reference to two of the named defendants in the P2P litigation that is currently garnering considerable media attention.

"...taken into custody."

???

OK OK, the two parties mentioned weren't ACTUALLY taken into custody in the criminal sense, but simply mentioned as defendants.

Geeze! You'd think if there were ever a place where one could exercise some poetic license to exagerate a point, this would be the place.

Effectively, the two defendants are officially in the jusisdictional custody of the court. Seemed too wordy at the time I entered my first post so I just left it as "into custody."

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-14-2003).]

...inaccurate, inflammatory, and prejudicial.

Inaccurate, inflammatory, and prejudicial?

Thats OK. I'm on your side, but we all have to listen more carefully to the spin the media is putting on this story, because the young girl and the old man named as two of the defendants are coming off as the victims, not us.

Sorry you missed my sarcasm, ED.

First, before I get flamed, I have never permanently downloaded a song off the internet. The only ones I've downloaded are ones that couldn't be streamed and then I retained them just long enough to hear them once or twice to decide whether I liked them and then deleted them. And, as far as I can remember, these were all by independent artists who encouraged this so that people could hear what they sound like.

Now my point: How does anyone find out about new music and artists? 30 years ago, radio was that source because the stations then played a wide variety of music and artists. Radio today is boring and monotonous, playing the same 20 to 30 songs over and over and over . . .

I feel some form of internet sampling is needed because of this deficiency in modern radio programming. Ideally, every song on the market would be available for streaming so that I can see whether I like it first before I even consider buying it. This is true with virtually every other item I purchase. I get to sample most all my other purchases. I test drive cars, try on clothes, play guitars and amps, all before purchasing. The problem is the music industry hasn't provided a means for people to try their products before buying, so the public found its own means. Now this means is being abused.

We have a couple articles at our band's web site under the "Rants and Raves" section that more fully discuss our viewpoints. I have refrained from posting them here because they are rather long and I am concerned that they may look more like board spam.

These are interesting discussions. Obviously, there are many viewpoints and this isn't a simple problem.

www.stonemarmot.com

[This message has been edited by Sammy (edited 09-15-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Sammy (edited 09-15-2003).]

Can't these boards be changed so that you can select to always automatically append your signature to any message instead of having to manually do this for every message? I frequently forget to append my signature to messages and you can't add it after the fact with the "edit" provision.

Originally posted by Sammy:
The only ones I've downloaded are ones that couldn't be streamed and then I retained them just long enough to hear them once or twice to decide whether I liked them and then deleted them. And, as far as I can remember, these were all by independent artists who encouraged this so that people could hear what they sound like.

No need to delete them, if you don't want to. If indy artists put up their music for downloading, help yourself. That's why its there.

Now my point: How does anyone find out about new music and artists? 30 years ago, radio was that source because the stations then played a wide variety of music and artists. Radio today is boring and monotonous, playing the same 20 to 30 songs over and over and over . . .

I feel some form of internet sampling is needed because of this deficiency in modern radio programming.

This is a great point and one I think the record companies and the artists are going to have to address. However, until the majors decide to give away "free samples" it is just as wrong to steal a recording as it is to steal a candy bar just to get a "sample" of it.

As to the state of today's radio, I must assume either you are too young to know what radio was like 30 years ago, or that you have a poor memory. While it is true that top-40, pop radio is amazingly repetitious, I can assure you that the variety available on contemporary radio is enormously larger than it was 30 years ago.


.

[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 09-15-2003).]

Janis Ian reports that since she started offering free MP3's on her web site actual CD sales have increased 300%.

Though I consider the posts in this thread comparing P2P unauthorized file sharing to shoplifting without merit, I do consider P2P as copyright infringement. That's what it is, plain and simple.

If the major labels, publishers and other copyright owners want to strictly enforce their copyrights, the courts most certainly will not prevent them from doing so.

Is it really a good business decision, though? The more I think about it, the more I wonder?

If slam dunking or threatening millions of P2P folks who are obviously turned on by music from one genre or another ultimately turns them off to music all together, EVERYBODY loses.

Sure, P2P uploaders and downloaders know that the labels, publishers, artists and writers aren't being paid anything for the "shared" songs, but I suspect that if and when the downloader hears something or someone they really like, they will buy the real thing, despite the get the least for the most pricing at the local music store.

The ultimate goal should be to loosen the stranglehold the majors exert and want to continue to exert over what we hear on the radio, see on TV, and what we can legitimately buy at the music store. Copyright infringement is a problem, but the monopoly the majors hold over the industry is what worries me the most.

If P2P file sharing gives exposure to both new and sometimes forgotten artists, even if it amounts to nothing more than downright copyright infringement, maybe, just maybe, Britny, Christina, Faith, et al, won't be the only roll models available. That would be a major blow to the majors and I, personally, have no problem with that.

If P2P sharing was devastating the music industry as we know it, I would probably be more sympathetic, if only for our sake, but it isn't. What it is doing, though, is putting new material on the shelves at the music stores and at Amazon.com that otherwise would not be there if the majors had their way.

The only thing I ever downloaded from Napster was "Je T'aime," because no record store anywhere had it or could get it. It was available on Napster, though, and now my local music store has even found shelf space for the CD less the one I bought.

This really isn't a black and white issue, but one that has a solution somewhere in the gray area.

I, like everyboby in here, want to "someday," at least, get some reward from my efforts, but if the only copyrights with any market value are the ones owned or controlled my the majors, what's the point?

Though we're all in this together, the majors have something far different in mind.

not to be an apologist or anything but...

p2p technology isn't ever going to go away. lawsuits and petitions aren't going to uninvent it.

even if it goes underground, there will always be someone willing to develop tools to circumvent the roadblocks that the majors (naturally) want to put in their way. that's just how technology, particularly computer technology, works.

from a practical standpoint, arguments about the morality of p2p are moot.

we can sure still discuss it, i suppose. and abstract ethical/moral arguments are always useful and fun for amateur philosophers.

but as music makers, wouldn't our energy be better spent facing the reality of what p2p has done to the market, and finding ways to use our weaknesses as strengths?

this is where the majors have failed -- but many of the people on this forum represent smaller independant labels -- labels who have the ability (or the necessity) to be a million times more agile.

my question for the indies:

how can we use the FACT of p2p technology to our advantage?



------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

A blanket license fee included in the PC purchase price? No, that's just a one time thing.

A volume-sensitive blanket license fee tacked on to your ISP bill? Sort of following the precedent of the "tax" on blank recording media. (But with a more equitable distribution formula so that Michael Jackson doesn't get all the money.)

ISP's actually enforcing their own terms of service? Most do not allow you to operate a public server on a residential internet connection but people do it anyway. Or may the ISPs charge extra if you do, with a portion going to the PROs for distribution.

Some random thoughts:

The problem with metering MP3 traffic is that it's too easily hacked or spoofed. It's easy to disguise a MP3 file as something else.

That said, I've sometimes thought that a performing-rights org that monitors P2P traffic can impose fees on ISPs that allow such traffic, much in the same way ASCAP/BMI monitors radio stations and their playlists. The fees go to artists (labels, more likely), and the ISP compensate by tacking on a "P2P surcharge" to their customers' bills. (And if the customers don't like it, they can go find an ISP that doesn't allow P2P traffic.)

Consider this: out of a 1000 CD pressing, roughly half will be given away anyways (to the press, radio, booking agents, giveaways, "friends and family," etc.). That's assuming you have any sort of marketing plan. These are *whole records* we're knowingly giving away, people -- tell me again why I should be worried about one or two songs leaking out on some P2P network?

Even if those one or two songs are extremely popular and downloaded by millions, well...that's more people than I would have reached if there were no P2P to begin with.

I'm betting that the vast majority of JPFolks participants are largely unaffected by P2P filesharing. But I understand the concern, particularly over the precedent that will be set in the months and years to come. The days of ubiquitous broadband and wireless are fast becoming a reality.

"Now my point: How does anyone find out about new music and artists? 30 years ago, radio was that source because the stations then played a wide variety of music and artists. Radio today is boring and monotonous, playing the same 20 to 30 songs over and over and over . ."

This is easy to address:

Kids aren't downloading the zillions of files people are happy to share. Go to CDBaby and you can find roughly a half million free songs to sample, listed by genre and with artist bios etc.. easily available. If people want to sample great music.. they need look no farther. (Other sites offer similar opportunities.. but I doubt anyone would ever run out just surfing CDBaby alone).

If you want to download tracks (rather than sample them) then you can still find many free files from artists who are happy to have you do just that. But.. you're missing the whole point..

Most music downloaded is NOT an attempt to sample new music.. it's an attempt to get a free copy of whatever is popular or hip. And it's misleading to think that Madonna has plenty of money, so downloading her song doesn't hurt anyone. It's true.. it won't hurt Madonna.. because as a top tier artist, she's going to make up for it with larger contracts and percentage deals on all the businesses she does. The people who lose are the artists who never get signed, never get developed, or who get less to tour with, make a video with, spend on marketing, spend in the studio etc... which will logically lead to less success for more artists at the bottom of to market, not the top. Steal from Bill Gates, he doesn't lose a dime.. the person who loses is the trickle down salesperson at the software store who gets laid off.

I hope all those who support "file sharing" also support their neighbors helping helping themselves to anything in their garage.. or eating out of their fridge.. or using their pool without permission.. or driving their car when it's not being used. That would be consistent. If people have no right to control their property when it's music, then you should have the same philosophy when its the lawn mower or your playstation...

As for the comment about Janis Ian selling more stuff when it was free.. that's great... but it still has no relevance to how other artists choose to do business with their work. If an art gallery wants to give out a free small painting to anyone who walks in the door and that leads to more sales overall, should ALL art galleries be forced to let people walk off with free small paintings? Of course not.. let the owners decide. And finally, if an artist has transferred ownership of their work to someone for money or a contract, I don't feel the new owners have less rights to control it than the artists either.

Brian

Brian

the mp3 download debate is so old. most of us have picked our sides. so why not take a different angle at it...the practical angle?

it is quite safe to assume that most new recorded music will be soon be downloadable for free on the internet from now on, whether anybody likes it or not.

what can small time artists do to prepare themselves for this economic fact?

------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

Many small towns use speeding tickets and parking tickets to help fund their communities. Perhaps we should support an increase in these little lawsuits with the requirement that all the money made in fines enter a pool for musicians. That's far better than a small tax. Let those who choose to file share bear 100% of the financial burden of their actions, the same as those who choose to speed pay the costs of the fines. That actually sounds like a really fair solution for everyone.

Brian

- write good stuff
- be genuine, so that your fans are loyal
- be appreciative
- use songs as a means to an end

...and accept the fact that even then, some people will copy your music without paying you.

Actually, that next-to-last point is important. Too often we focus on what happens to the song, i.e. the product. I think it should be the other way around. YOU are the product, the entertainer, the complete package. Songs are your promo tool, your calling cards. You might say "I want to make a living from my songs." More power to you, but songs can and will be stolen, P2P or otherwise. But if you say "I want to make a living as an entertainer" -- how can anyone download and burn that?

(To paraphrase David Geffen: I'm not in the music business. I'm in the Scott Andrew LePera business.)

Personally? I think the current filesharing controversy is overblown and eventually an equilibrium will be reached (just as was with cassettes, VHS taping, etc). But I DO think that in the near future, the monetary value of music will plumment as labels struggle to offer cheaper alternatives. The days of making big bucks (or maybe ANY bucks!) through CD sales will be over.

(IMO, worrying about filesharing losses takes energy away from other potential money-making activities: building a following, getting gigs, writing, rehearsing, designing t-shirts, etc.)

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 09-15-2003).]

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 09-15-2003).]

As someone who has never used, and really doubt I ever would use anything like napster because from what I understand of it, it rips the originators off, I wonder how many performers moaning about it bother to put a play list in for their live performances.
I see that as a bigger rip off thing myself, as the artist is getting paid to do a gig using material they often don't have the ability to write themselves. Or they know they need to play at a gig to attract enough people to listen to their own stuff as well.
Looking for bands to do my stuff, I find very few who submit playlists at all.
Considering the amount of live gigs going on around the world, it sure adds up I am sure, and considering it cost the performer nothing other than the time to submit a play list.
Then there is the recently reported piece from the copyright bodies of writer/artists top loading their play list with their own material to get a bigger live performance check from said bodies. That is a bit of a bummer too.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I really have to question the analogies between downloading P2P files and shoplifting or running off with your neighbor's lawnmower. Intellectual property and personal property are two different beasts entirely.

Can your neighbor, at his convenience or whim, walk into your garrage, roll out your lawnmower and cut all the lawns in the neighborhood at a profit and later send you a user fee that you did not agree to. No way.

But you as a copyright owner can write the greatest song ever written, record it in the finest studio with the best producer and engineer backed by the best of the best studio musicians, and what do you have?
You have a prime candidate for some major jumping on it, recording it using one of the artists they are developing, knocking you off the airwaves with their muscle and simply paying you a "compulsive license" fee.

Does the fame showered upon the major artist who recorded your song get you the good gigs. Nope. He/she gets the concert tour.

The irony is that compulsive license was introduced into the copyright statutes to allegedly help the little guy, the fear being that the major music publishers at the time would simply sign all the good writers and create a music monopoly. Duh!

So Brian, when my next lawnmower comes with a compulsive license agreement atached to the throttle, your analogies may have more validity.

i really don't think this is a solution.

it's a safe bet that the massive pool of completely anonymous software developers in the world (many of whom operate outside the reach of our justice system) will continue to make it fairly easy for people who wish to avoid detection to do so

independant musicans need to embrace p2p and start working on new ways to create value and to win the loyalty of their fans

not because it's the right or wrong thing to do - but because history never looks kindly on people who refuse to adapt to a fundamentally altered world.



------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

Janis Ian was reporting what happened to her own business.

She has also proposed an experiement, in which the major labels put their back catalogs, the stuff no longer in print, on the internet for free for a year and see what happens. Collect statistics. See what happens to new CD sales.

Kit,

There have always been and will always be sweat shops in China that pump out illegal copies of anything that is made in the west with little we can do. But when teenage girls in Iowa are distributing 100 CD's a day from their kitchen to kids coming from all over town because they can get any CD they request (or collection of songs) from them directly instead of buying any of them from a record store, people can slow that down a great deal if the parent of those girls might lose their car for letting them do it. I visited 20 States and found examples at nearly every stop of a young kid with thousands of illegal files on a computer in places I visited. Most were then buring these songs to CD's for their friends and family members, or filing up iPods with them. None of them had bought a single CD ever.

That's the final result we are looking at. I asked two families about it, one of which who happened to be using a Mac computer. I explained they could legally buy those songs for 99 cents a piece. They looked at me and laughed and said "why should we pay 99 cents for it when we can download it for free?" I then explained that, though it's remote, they might find themselves being sued by the RIAA. They said everyone else does it so they weren't worried about doing it either.. and that they had no plans to pay a service for songs they could get free. The other family immediate had a discussion with their kids, delete all the files and programs and told their kids they were no longer allowed to download illegal files. The reason again wasn't because they cared that it was stealing, but they WERE worried a bit that they might get sued so at least that fear was enought to get them to stop.

Venues already don't want to pay artists to perform. Everyone laments how hard it is to get a decent paid gig. Touring is just as hard. Sadly, most tours make more on selling T-Shirts than albums. That's lame, but it's great for T-Shirt manufacturers.

The lawn mower analogy works as follows:

You buy a riding lawn-mower for $1000. You don't use it day and night and it just sits there. Why shouldn't someone else be able to use it and just return it the next day, especially if that causes you no harm? You're in a recording studio and spend $1000 dollars recording a song. Why shouldn't someone be able to get that song, record it on CD, distribute it to anyone else who wants to hear it without paying you? How about you spend $3000 on a hottub. Why shouldn't everyone be able to use it when you aren't at their sole convenience? It's just sitting there... who are you to say someone else can't use it? Technically, it doesn't cost you more than what you paid if they just sit in it when you aren't around right?

If you write a song and pay money to record it, you've invested even more in it than someone who buys a lawnmower or hot tub. If anything, you should have even MORE protections and rights, not less.

Brian

Brian,

You lost me on your riding lawnmower analogy. Lawn mowers, riding or otherwise, do not come with "compulsory" license, copyrights do.

Your position is clear, but your analogies comparing personal property to copyrighted intellectual property are not.

I tend to agree with Kit that we must learn how to adapt to the new technology, not simply stand our ground. To do otherwise may lead to our extinction.

Firstly, Knute it's a compulsory license.

Secondly, No, artists/labels should charge based on demand for their products, not some lowball number based on what some marketing guy says is the 'buy' point for single songs. People will decide what the right price is for any particular song, when they are offered as individual units as opposed to 'albums', and artists can be free to ignore that price if they wish to.

Kit, what your model ignores is the distinction between the recording art and the performing art. In my case the recorded product is the end-all. It's value as a component of my income shouldn't be eroded or destroyed because of its online proliferation through file-'sharers'. Indeed I should be able to make a handsome income solely from my recordings if that is my desire.

Nobody seems to be talking about SONGWRITERS, as the running presumption is that the songwriter IS the performer. If I'm the songwriter but NOT the performer, that file-'sharing' DL deprives me of pub money, with no way of ever getting paid for public live OR recorded performances of MY WORK!

As a songwriting artist, I shouldn't need to be making a living from hawking graphic-artist-designed-logo t-shirts and ballcaps supposedly somehow representing my musical art like some swap-meet Tommy Hilfiger. I note that at the concerts I've attended, that merch is wildly almost deludedly overpriced when compared to cost, but I don't hear any hue-and-cry ANYwhere that bands need to drop price on merch or folks are gonna print their own and swap it with their friends and the rest of the world!

------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX

[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 09-15-2003).]

I'll just state this..

At the moment I have around 1500 songs d/led to my computer. I've d/led thousands more but over the years you get new computers, your hardrive crashes, yhave to clean out that type of thing.

I don't feel bad about my d/ling. It's very useful to me. I have millions of songs at my hand by the clicking of a mouse. Most of these I wouldn't be able to go to the record store and find anymore.

I buy the records of artist I like and can respect as people. If the industry would start putting out quailty music and artist sales would go up.

I'm not gonna give my money to some artist who prances around in next to nothing and lipsyncs.

------------------
Patty Online | Blowing Your Mind: Nick Carter

don't try to lump me in with the p2p defenders in this particular debate. i haven't offered my opinion on the relative morality of downloading. this analogy fails to respond (or even really relate) to my question.

as individuals, we can choose not to buy clothes from sweatshops. we can also, as individuals, choose not to download songs if we think that is immoral. as companies, we can sue the hell out of everyone we can catch downloading our songs.

but it is likely that free and anonymous downloading of music is here to stay. your internet cops are not going to be able to keep up with the slow and steady march of technological advance. there is a perceived desire for software to do a certain thing, and it will be filled. so i repeat my question for the third time.

as producers of music... what should we do to provide an audience with a reason to give us money when they can easily get ahold of our recordings without paying for them?

i'd like to hear your opinion on this.

------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ed323:
Firstly, Knute it's a compulsory license.

What's that supposed to mean? I spelled it correctly and illustrated how it operates correctly. What part of compulsory didn't you understand?

Kit,

Right at the moment I really can't think of a single reason why anybody in their right mind would pay for anything they can get for free, particularly considering our dismal economy with millions out of work.

Why do you pose such difficult questions so late at night, anyway. lol... I'll try to come up with a better answer in the morning.





[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-15-2003).]

Actually, a compulsory liscense for radio play has no correlation to illegal file sharing where no compulsory liscense is paid. Plus, there is no compulsory liscense that exists giving you the right steal a song and make copies ad naseum to as many people as you want. So I see no connection to your point and this discussion unless you connect the dots you are using?

The lawnmower analogy addresses those people who feel that someone elses property should be at their disposal and convenience simply because it's possible to steal it... but I keep asking those who support file stealing to acknowledge I can come and use their property at my whim and they won't mind a bit..

I suspect all these little online file shoplifters would be upset if we walked into their houses and took their computer or iPod and did what we pleased with it.. I also think their parents would mind if we plopped down on their couch and raided the fridge and watched their TV whenever we felt like it..

One other comment I want to make: I find it laughable for ANYONE to feel sorry for whoever the RIAA sues. After all, someone alluded that there was a welfare kid who might go hungry because the RIAA sued their parents for 2000 bucks. Gosh.. I didn't realize that starving kids had computers AND online net service AND the other equipment needed to share the illegal files in the first place? I guess if they are that hard up, perhaps they should give that cpu away to another file sharer and save that $2000 bucks on net service eh?

As for your point Kit, to suggest that because a crime is easy to commit, we might as well get used to it and accommodate the criminals.. would you make that same point about all the other crimes that are easy to commit and get away with? People are finding easier ways to do all sorts of crimes.. identity theft.. credit card fraud.. violent crimes.. should we just accept all that as well because it's easier and easier to do it and get away with it?

Brian

but go back and re-read what i said.

in this particular debate i haven't said that people need to stop suing, prosecuting, whatever.

but we still need to realize that easy, free and anonymous file sharing is a fact. and it will not be wished or sued away.

presumably everyone here would *like* to continue (or start) making money off of music. so i think this is a very reasonable question to pose.

to extend that inflammatory analogy of yours -- just because we prosecute people who commit crimes doesn't mean we should ignore all options other than prosecution.

------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

[This message has been edited by kit (edited 09-16-2003).]

Brian,

Forget compulsory license. I brought it up to show that comparing copyright intellectual property to ordinary personal property is like comparing apples to oranges, not an attempt to connect dots, yours or mine.

Do the same people who regularly engage in P2P activity rush out to shoplift, raid neighbors' fridges, or rip off lawnmowers when they tire of downloading songs? Of course not! You may see no difference between P2P and common theft, but an overwhelming majority does.

Why do people buy bottled water?It's free for the taking if you're close to a lake or river.Just turn on your tap,it available free.You buy it because it's good,much better than what comes out of your tap,so you don't mind paying for the cost of getting it to you,I wonder would you pay if you could download it off the net for free.
If you think music is good enough to STEAL, why wouldn't you want to reward the creators of that music so they would be encouraged to produce more of it for your pleasure.You steal it because that is what people with out morals do,steal.

Steggy, your post is a great example of the mindset of those who have no respect for the intellectual property of others (I suspect this is the mindset of the majority of "file sharers")...



I can understand downloading a song that you simply can't find at some retail outlet. There are probably many examples of this but I doubt that this case accounts for the vast majority of downloads. It would be nice if there was a way to compensate the people involved in creating the rare song(s) but I can understand why you'd want to download a song like this for your collection.

What's most telling about your statement is that downloading is very useful to YOU. That pretty much says it all doesn't it?



So now it's up to you to decide who deserves to get paid and who doesn't? If you buy the music of the artists you like and respect, do you delete the music of those who prance around and lipsync or those you don't like and respect? Somehow I don't get that impression from you given the "millions" of songs you have downloaded.

Indeed, it has little or nothing to do with who "deserves" to get paid does it? You and the other downloaders just choose to use that as an excuse to help yourselves to the property of others. It would be more understandable if you were honestly trying to "preview" a song but again, you only buy the ones by artists you like and respect. What happens to the other songs?

If you don't feel bad about downloading music, I hope it won't bother you if you end up getting caught and being sued. Somehow, I doubt that you'll see it that way though.

I know a guy. He is a friend I am privileged to know, and to have worked with. You know him, too, or at least you know his work. He is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He is a legend, an American institution. He is not merely respected, he is revered.

But, as in many cases, time and age have taken their toll. His poor health has forced an early retirement and compiled huge medical bills. He lives on royalties. That's all there is.

This year his semi-annual royalty checks were about half what they have been for decades. Why, he asked? Illegal downloading, he was told. Record sales are way down. Sorry.

This musical icon is in bankruptcy and his home is in foreclosure.

His predicament is not caused by conspicuous consumption or an extravagant lifestyle. He simply prospered at a time when the music business did not offer the huge wealth that it does today. He lives humbly. He deserves better.

Shame on anyone who steals from this man...or from anyone else.

[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 09-16-2003).]

Truman,

I sympathize with your friend, whether I know him or not. He has been adversely affected by technology he probably never dreamed of - nightmare - when he assumed his royalty income as a "legend" would pay the bills for the rest of his life.

I'm sure that the thousands of former Enron employees who believed their Enron stock would provide for a comfy retirement symapthize as well.

We, as creative people, must somehow learn to deal with the P2P reality and utilize techonology we develop, not the courts, to deal with the situation appropriately.

I, personally, think the RIAA or whoever it was, who demanded that CDR's for recording music be labeled as such and carry a higher price tag, sent the wrong message to the public. Since I paid more for these CDR's, the logic may follow, I can record ANY music I choose. They have!

Am I incorrect in thinking that the "compulsory license" is called that because the copyright holder is required to grant the license to anyone who wants to record the song (after the first release). But the people to whom the license is granted are also required to *pay for it*.

Sure, PD, taking advantage of the license requires payment to the copyright owner, but did the copyright owner decide how much that payment should be or someone else? And more importantly, did that "hit" record you released put someone else beside you on the top ten charts and keep his tour schedule sold out, not yours?

That is where compulsory license "steals" an opportunity from you and gives it to someone else, whether you like it or not, and no fee paid will ever equal an opportunity lost.

Oh but you see Buzz.. I don't share my files with anyone else. That's how they are trackign the people down.. the people who share, they track by using a select list of songs and see who's sharing it, then they take people and look at their list.

Your right, it's not my place to say this artist should get paid and this one shouldn't. But i'm not gonan spend MY money on something i don't want to.

Well Steggy, at least you're honest about what you do. I gotta give you that much. You are probably right that you won't get caught if you're not sharing but I still hope they catch you someday. I just think blatant theft should be punished. It's nothing personal. I wish the same fate to anyone who does it.

Later



[This message has been edited by Buzz Grudge (edited 09-16-2003).]

I just wanted to point out this sentence by Steggy:



That's an interesting problem. Say I go to a record store looking for some obscure song. It's been out of print for ages, so no luck. I check out Amazon and other online retailers. Still no luck.

Then I log onto a filesharing network and find the exact song I want as an MP3 file. So I download it and I'm happy.

Now, this is illegal, because obviously someone obtained the song and put it up for download, and I got it without paying for it. But the fact remains that it wasn't available via traditional retail outlets.

But let's say I'm a good person and want to pay somebody for it. Who do I pay? How do I pay? How much should I pay?

(Y'know, in a digital world like ours, there's no excuse for ANYTHING going out of print.)

Discuss?

To Truman..

your story is sad..but no sadder than the stories of miillions of other americans victimized by technology or down-sizing or whatever..
middle-aged unhealthy is a drag....

it's what I am..so I know...
To say that your friends problems are due to file sharing is, in my opinion, just not so.
Down loading of "classic" rock (which it sounds like your acquaintance is a purveyor of) is not big business on the net.

The royalty drop off might just mean folks have bought all of his records they care to have.
Sadly..every well has a bottom.

Reel to reel tape recorders were gonna ruin record sales...they didn't
Hell..playing music on the radio was gonna stop people from going out to see live music...didn't happen
Recordable 8 tracks were gonna kill record sales..didn't happen..
Cassette recording was gonna destroy sales...didn't happen
Recordable CDs..you name it..one after another..just like TV was gonna destroy the movie industry..Jeez this is old [naughty word removed] !!

People have slowed down buying records cause music is [naughty word removed] right now ! Period!!!

Artists are interested in making money not making music..so of course the music suffers.
It's all image not musical content.
It's alot of bullshit.
Bullshit sells for a while but then all of a sudden mfols wake up and say "hey...this is bullshit, and I got enough"

Instead of all this intellectual jerking off about whats moral and whats not we should be making music.
If our music isn't selling, it's our fault.
We're too damn greedy to work hard..that's what musicians and entertainers used to do

Quit whining a pretending you understand economics..

Go write something or practice your instrument..

If you're whining about file sharing while you're shopping at places like WalMart then you ARE the problem.
Stores like WalMart have wiped out the lives of thousands of independent merchaants..but, you're OK with that...

Come on..wake up to yourself kids !

Nothing new here...just another wrinkle in the American Dream.
The rich will get richer..they always do.

Madonna and Metallica and all the other music machines will be just fine....\

And yes..you can download any of my crap for free...
I think Janis Ian has got it right

Bob

Bob,

To add to what you've already said, consider this: A CD should cost a fraction of what a mastered, cut and pressed record used to cost. So why the $12.99 and up price? Probably the same rationale that accounts for the $1.75 and up gas prices.

CD technology was probably viewed by the wunderkinds of the music industry as a way to boost profits by charging more for less. I can almost see the charts and graphs they must have paraded around showing how a little plastic disc packaged in a little plastic box could save them a bundle and, at over 20 bucks a pop in the beginning, would boost profits through the roof. But, as with all clever schemes, they do sometimes backfire.

I still treasure my analog direct disc or half-speed mastered records played on my Transcriptor Turntable (as in Clockwork Orange) through my Audio Research vacuum tube equipment and custom made speakers. That's music and nobody will ever upload or download that.




[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-16-2003).]

Find the everyone who had a part in the song, track them down, give them all 10 cents . Now doing this will cost you a lot of money but if it makes your morals feel better go for it.

buzz, to each his own. Fight your fight.. it's a noble one.

Last night on TV, a white goods component maker revealed a part for a washing machine was supplied to the brand for $9.75.
For the consumer to buy that replacement it was $59.95, plus 10% GST being as the government got on the screw them some more act.
That does not justify anybody going and buying the part via a worker's lunch box, or one that fell off the back of a truck.
Same with music.
Lord. There is enough legal to download good stuff out there without supporting the illegal stuff.
It will go away if there isn't a market.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm