p2pnet RIAA survey: online now
p2pnet.net news:- I’ve had an online question session going for just over a couple of weeks and I’ve found it so interesting, and useful, that I’ve decided to run a series of other surveys on a various subjects and I’m calling Survey #2 The Sultans of Spin.
I think it’s the first survey of its kind and obviously, the more people who respond, the better. So please tell everyone you know about it.
Spin is the, “sometimes pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one’s own favor of an event or situation,” the Wikipedia sums it up, continuing, spin, “often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.” And it’s, borrowed, says the post, “from ball sports such as cricket, where a spin bowler may impart spin on the ball during a delivery so that it will curve through the air or bounce in an advantageous manner”.
The Sultans of Spin examines spin-doctoring in the pejorative sense — the art of presenting stuff as it isn’t.
I have Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA in mind, for this particular exercise, but it’s not alone. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and most other cartel organisations are offered up as ‘trade’ outfits acting on various issues for, and on behalf of, ‘members’.
And there are literally hundreds of them run by smooth-talking, twinkle-toed reality adjustment specialists who are so fast on their verbal feet that their words never actually touch the ground.
They’re at the sharps ends of organisations such as the RIAA, MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), BPI (British Phonographic Industry), IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry), CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), BSA (Business Software Alliance), FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft), and so on and so forth.
One of the most extreme examples of what spin can achieve comes in the manner in which RIAA fact realignment experts have turned a straightforward commercial concept, copyright infringement, into a major crime on a level with robbery, with which it’s now equated.
In The Sultans of Spin, RIAA questions are all based on direct quotes from the highly reliable and factual RIAA site, which in Talking With Your Kids About Tough Issues still says Hilary Rosen is the ‘chairman and ceo’.
She quit close to four years ago.
The results should be interesting and I’ll run them in a post when I wind The Sultans of Spin up in a couple of weeks.
I’ll also do a post on the results of the #1, the Reader Survey, in couple of days 
Cheers! And thanks a lot for your help …
============================
UPDATE:
In answer to a comment post, I’ve just posted this: From the results so far, the sue ‘em all campaign is having almost no effect.
Here’s where it was at as of 10:10 am PST on April 9:
The survey had been looked at 847 times, including half-a-dozen or so views by me, and 277 people had responded.
The first three questions are:
1. Do you share files online?
2. Have the RIAA sue ‘em all lawsuits persuaded you to stop sharing?
3. How do you rate your chances of you becoming an RIAA victim?
271 people answered Q1, the same for Q2 and 272 for Q3.
For Q1, 81.9% (222) people said they shared online, and 18.1% didn’t.
Are the RIAA lawsuits stopping sharing? Yes, said 13 of 271 answers, and No, said the remainder, 95.2% (258).
Of the 272 answers to Q3, 4 people (1.5%) thought the lawsuits are guaranteed to result in a court case; 2 (0.7%) believe the chances of that are high, 25 (9.2%) think the odds of becoming a victim are medium, the majority, 131 people (48.2%), think the chances are low, and 110 people (40.4%) believe there’s no chance of them ending up on the wring end of an RIAA subpoena.
When I wrap the survey, I’ll make all the results public so anyone can tap and/or analyse them.
Jon
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
Slashdot it!
Also See:
Associated Press – Apple Appalls Where Xbox Excels, April 6, 2007
Free product development – Apple TV DIY, April 7, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
April 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
As a professional musician I find what is written here to be a lawless philosphy built around the benefit of getting music for free. The music fans who are illegal downloaders have stolen way more from the artists they claim to love than the big bad evil music industry ever could have. Back catalogs that are retirement money for the middle class musicians of the past (especially songwriters) have been pulled out from underneath them by people who some how think this theft of the blood sweat and tears hard work of musicians is OK. I am thankful that the RIAA is one of the very few groups that say that my and others extremely hard won talent is worth being payed for and that Laws that protect our income and our creative property are to be enforced. Imagine working a whole year at your job (like if you made a Record) only to find out that some one took your paychecks for the entire year and just gave them away and then argued it was OK to do it from some false moral high ground. You would be F@@#$@^$%&^ pissed. Welcome to being a Pro musician now.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Great. So put this in the survey.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
The previous post is a perfect example of spin .. ie reality adjustment … or just plain stupidity.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Ok so why do you still make musik?
And welcome to the real world.
Where most musicians is poor and have too work a side job.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Music is a hobby and a culture, not a career. You can’t make something creatively designed to appeal to the masses and then try to limit that same masses’ access to it. The masses always win. That’s what makes them so massive.
Keep making music and sharing it with the world. Also, get a job.
April 6th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Get a life Jon – youre a welfare addict and no one cares these days what you think! And get a real job instead of encouraging others to steal music!
April 6th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
feel better now?
April 6th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
but maybe you should tell your RIAA friends that their business models and tactics devised in the 1970s are simply obsolete, and they better act fast to jump on this new “internet” thingy, before their business ends up like the typewriter business.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
so, you are saying you don’t get payed as a musician because the middlemen you use are unable to sell those so last century physical objects with your “creativity” on it?
maybe it’s time for you then to move to the 21st century distribution model and get rid of the middlemen you choose.
if you are worth to be supported you will get supported by fans if you would sell your music from your own website in high quality FLAC files for 50ct each!
and seed/host 192kbps mp3 files for free via bittorrent/limewire as the tol to gain fans that buy the original high quality FLAC files from you without the obsolete middleman.
btw, you might want to look up that RIAA were the once that asked the CRB judges to LOWER the rates they have to pay to songwriters for their work!
So if you are really a musician then you are incompetent that you don’t know this and for being unable to sell your product yourself, or you are a astroturfing RIAA guy that is simply a liar!
April 7th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Running a survey like this on this site is like running a survey on a child porn site asking if the scumbags who frequent the site think it’s OK to rape babies…
April 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
And you’re post is like a Pedo posting on the “Perverted Justice” website.
Same baloney.
All in all, I hope the RIAA aren’t paying you too much
to troll here. you’re doing a pretty substandard job.
Come to think of it, so is their legal team, and we will soon
find out just how much they are overpaid.
April 7th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
You would be quite interested to know how many people who work with, or for, what Jon never hesitates to call the “cartels” visit P2PNet. I am quite sure they will find the survey extremely interesting precisely because it will reflect the views of many of those who frequent it.
Morg
April 7th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
=) what he said ..
April 7th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Actually, I’m a songwriter … I don’t get paid anything until someone either purchases what I have to offer, or my music is played in a legal setting by someone who believes that what I do for a living is worth paying for. I look in on Jon’s anti songwriter site every once in a while in hopes that I will find some sign that the selfish, self centered, uncaring people who visit here have actually begun understanding the damage they are doing to themselves by stealing the food off my table … Most songwriters are not artists … no songwriters are members of the RIAA. The damage you do for your own self gratification will eventually mean that you will have nothing left, in terms of music, that you will find gratifying. Jon really wasting his time taking a survey of this crowd – it’s nothing but a circle jerk for losers. Have you done anything you can be proud of lately … I doubt it if you count yourself among Jon’s groupies.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
please explain how “the selfish, self centered, uncaring people who visit here” steal the food off your table by downloading a product that is NOT for sale in the fist place!
As a songwriter, do you think the reason why the RIAA members asked the CRB judges to lower what they need to pay you was because people share stuff those RIAA mebers are refusing to sell now for more then 7 years, or do you think they ask to pay you less because they are greedy themself and refuse to share the market with anyone else (like independent artists for example!)?
__
Alter_Fritz
April 7th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
” Actually, I’m a songwriter … ”
No, you’re not.
Name something you’ve ‘written’.
April 8th, 2007 at 12:43 am
My product is for sale and you are stealing it like crazy … Hits make up a vast majority of the illegally downloaded music.
Regarding the CRB, the CRB exists to settle rate disputes. The existing agreement between record companies and those who own the rights to the songs artists sing has expired. A new agreement could not be reached between the parties and the CRB will determine what the new rate will be. The hearings will be held in a rational, professional, business like manner … Look, you don’t want to pay writers anything … At least the RIAA acknowledges that writers have rights that have to be taken into account. It’s not unusual that parties to a dispute have different thoughts as to what is fair. The writer’s side doesn’t believe the RIAA’s suggested rate is fair … the RIAA thinks it is. The court will decide.
As for the RIAA not wanting to share the market with indie artists … The reality is that you guys are screwing everybody, so there will be no market to share. You keep stealing everyones music and neither indies nor artists associated with what’s left of the major labels will be able to earn their livings making music.
If you would give the indie artists a break, and pay for their music, they would be able to take advantage of the incredible opportunities the Internet is providing … Today they can easily get around all of the barriers that stopped them before … only problem is, thanks to you, when they get past those barriers they will discover they have nowhere to go because you will have smothered their opportunities by stealing their product … In other words should they become successful, you’ll destroy that success because you will want to add their music to your collection without paying for it.
Artists can only play so many toilet clubs and sell so many crumby T-Shirts before they realize that they are living hand to mouth, their future is shorter than your past and that it’s time to grow up.
But, you’ll just keep stealing away because you can. You don’t care – screw everybody. Unfortunately, you are screwing yourself as well.
April 8th, 2007 at 12:56 am
What … and have Jon start a campaign to steal even more of my music? Let me say this … music I’ve written sells well in excess of a million copies a year. every year, worldwide. I’ve been very fortunate. You are preventing tomorrow’s songwriters from enjoying the type of success I’ve had. That’s sad for them and just as sad for you and your friends who are doing your best to prevent music from being a part of your lives.
I’ve got it… let’s get Jon to start a survey to determine how little this crowd cares about those who create the music they love to steal.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:17 am
April 8th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Is the RIAA after Jon? Seems like encouraging people to download pirated music falls under the inducement act.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Sharing is not stealing. No one has been deprived of anything he or she used to own, and no one, least of all the labels, has ever shown that files shared equals sales lost.
On the other hand, many artists have used sharing as a springboard to success – ask Arctic Monkeys. http://p2pnet.net/story/11884
Also, it would be interesting for you to tell us who you are.
Cheers!
April 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“My product is for sale and you are stealing it like crazy … Hits make up a vast majority of the illegally downloaded music. ”
hey, you must be no songwriter, but a politician! you managed very good to circumvent to answer my question.
The lyrics of the hits you claim that are a “vast majority of the illegally downloaded music”, where are these songs for sale in the format those people that share them want to have them?
Your product is NOT FOR SALE in a mash with sounds and a person performing your lyrics then in a sale format the people demand!
Answer me you moron or shut up with your astroturfing: Where are the songs -as an alternative to share for nonprofit- available in the formats people want; mp3, ogg or flac for sale?
The rightsholders refuse now for more then 7 years to produce and sell “product” in a way that people want it! And boy, people want it like crazy! billions of shared songs are the proof, and they are willing to pay, allofmp3.com is/was proof for that!
“NO offer to sell” equals “no lost sales”. That’s easy logic on kindergarteners level!
So your argument that society isn’t willing to pay for music and that it robs you your food from the table is a blatant lie!
It isn’t society’s fault that the industry refuse to do business in the way “WE the people…” want to do business: fair for both sides
so the only logical conclusion is: if you really believe what you write here, then you are totally incompetent because you have no idea about the simplest market mechanisms, or you are just an astroturfing moron.
Either way, it is useless to discuss with you any further, have a nice day you poor songwriter.
__
Alter_Fritz
April 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
” What … and have Jon start a campaign to steal even more of my music? ”
Not at all.
You won’t because you can’t.
You won’t because you are simply a liar.
Not a songwriter.
Not an artist of any kind.
A paid troll and liar .. that’s all.
Put up or shut up.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I suppose that MIGHT work, astroturfer, if Jon had, at anytime told anyone to download copyrighted material.
But, he hasn’t.
Nowhere.
there isn’t any item, anywhere on this site that has Jon
asking anyone to DL or share copyrighted anything
There ARE however, many articles encouraging a
BOYCOTT.
As in don’t Buy, don’t DL, don’t have anything to do with
RIAA stuff.
I would think that the RIAA promoting illegal guns,
violence, underage sex etc.. might fall under the
inducement act, and would make a much more convincing case.. don’t you
You’re going to have to do better than that .. troll boy
April 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Gachnars gotta new tactic … LOL
ICU … hee heee
April 9th, 2007 at 1:23 am
“Sharing is not stealing.”
Stealing is not sharing.
“No one has been deprived of anything …”
Except their means of making a living.
“…no one, least of all the labels, has ever shown that files shared equals sales lost. ”
No one has ever shown they don’t … but common sense and the plummeting sale of CDs without anywhere near a corresponding increase in digital sales – along with the comments of you and your readers and the other digital utopians – would seem to be pretty good proof that that statement is moronic on its face.
Re: the Arctic Monkeys: – can you tell me how many lost opportunities there have been for highly talented artists who weren’t signed to potentially lucrative deals because stealing has severely reduced roster slots available?
April 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am
“Stealing is not sharing.”
except sharing is not stealing.
“Except their means of making a living. ”
many musicians make a living, apparently ypur doing something wrong, maybe trusting the RIAA?
“No one has ever shown they don’t … but common sense and the plummeting sale of CDs without anywhere near a corresponding increase in digital sales – along with the comments of you and your readers and the other digital utopians – would seem to be pretty good proof that that statement is moronic on its face.”
- umm yes they have. If I remember there were a few independent studies. Of course the RIAA purchases there own surveys every other month.
Common sense says the plummet in sale is due to several things:
Customers have repurchasing their tape/record collections in CD format. Do you really think people will repurchase yet again in DRM format? I don’t. I don’t think they will pay more for less, which is exactly what paying for damaged (DRM) ‘product’ is. I think most people will take the 5 minutes to convert the music they have already paid for (several times).
Music must now compete with other forms of entertainment for customers cash… I know I know, you, like the RIAA pine for the good old days when their wasn’t really any competition for customers $$ any you could release any old trash and make a killing.
In case your blinders don’t let you see it, the competition is DVD’s, video games, internet usage and even other musicians/song writers who have not signed their souls over to the RIAA’s owners. Yes the independents appear to be doing well. Their is more choice than ever, but of course that has nooooo effect on the amount of cash you should get, after all you write ‘hits’ .
The days of creating albums with 1 or 2 ‘good’ songs and a pile of trash song has gone. Customers see past that crap, and suddenly you need some talent to continue making money. I for one never purchase an album untill I have heard all or most of the songs on it.
What seems moronic is thinking that people will repay everytime the RIAA decides to change the format, even if it’s a giant step backwards. What seems moronic is thinking you can write a few songs and continue getting paid forever. I agree commercial uses should always pay, no matter how old the music is, but expecting people to repay for new formats… no.
“Re: the Arctic Monkeys: – can you tell me how many lost opportunities there have been for highly talented artists who weren’t signed to potentially lucrative deals because stealing has severely reduced roster slots available?”
ummm the good bands still exist they are just developed by indy labels….What seems to be dying off is the manufactured bands….but maybe they are still there, I just don’t see them cause I don’t pray at the RIAA’s alter any more.
BTW- what ‘type’ of hit’s do you make? Are they creative ‘hit’s’ or manufactured ‘hits’ like my humps? Have you seen Alanis’s version? It really makes the ‘hit’ stand out; as a manufactured product.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
As a long time reader of p2pnet I am finding it interesting to see this new form of trolling. Before it was all brainless attacks and now it is reasoned (hahaha) argument. The R.I.A.A. is definitely flapping. It wil be very interesting to see the results of this survey. Care to give us a preview Jon?
April 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
No worries: )
From the results so far, the ’sue ‘em all’ campaign is having almost no effect.
Here’s where it was at as of 10:10 am PST on April 9:
The survey had been looked at 847 times, including half-a-dozen or so views by me, and 277 people had responded.
The first three questions are:
1. Do you share files online?
2. Have the RIAA sue ‘em all lawsuits persuaded you to stop sharing?
3. How do you rate your chances of you becoming an RIAA victim?
271 people answered Q1, the same for Q2 and 272 for Q3.
For Q1, 81.9% (222) people said they shared online, and 18.1% didn’t.
Are the RIAA lawsuits stopping sharing? Yes, said 13 of 271 answers, and No, said the remainder, 95.2% (258).
Of the 272 answers to Q3, 4 people (1.5%) thought the lawsuits are guaranteed to result in a court case; 2 (0.7%) believe the chances of that are high, 25 (9.2%) think the odds of becoming a victim are medium, the majority, 131 people (48.2%), think the chances are low, and 110 people (40.4%) believe there’s no chance of them ending up on the wring end of an RIAA subpoena.
I’ll post this as an update, in a minute, and when I wrap the survey up, I’ll make all the results public so anyone can tap them.
Cheers!
April 9th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I just filled out the whole thing, I wrote really detailed answers too!
April 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Just completed it, too.
It will be very interesting to see the results!
April 9th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Just completed it, too.
It will be very interesting to see the results!
April 9th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I find the survey a bit hard to decipher. There are several questions such as:
The RIAA claims file sharing is “devastating” the music industry.
-agree
-disagree
Am I meant to dis/agree that the the RIAA claims this, or that the claim is true? I think the wording of the questions needs to be cleaned up the make the survey useful. It should be clear and unbiased, or it’s not worth doing.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Lawless philosphy? Have you ever heard of the Grateful Dead? Take that as a pun. But the fact is, it’s not us – your consumers who are screwing you. It’s the industry you’re defending. As for “false moral high ground” – wake up buddy, I’m the consumer, I’m the one who decides whether I want that 80 percent of the music you put out which I’m being forced to buy as compared to the 20 that I do want. Please wake up and smell the coffee. Better yet, listen to what I’m saying and in all possibility I won’t “be F@@#$@^$%&^ pissed” at the likes of you who try to tell me how, when, where, and what I should buy with my hard earn bucks. Better yet, get a job.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:21 am
Totally agree. If you want to be paid, then leave the RIAA behind and do something real about it.
I know musicians that do this, and while they are not becomming millionares, they do get by a lot better than if they were in the hands of the RIAA. Also their music is reaching far more potential fans.
Newsflash: People don’t want to give the RIAA more money. If they like the music, they have nothing against supporting the artists, but they in many cases can’t support the artist without supporting the RIAA. So what to do.. what to do??
You are in the musicfans most hated organisation, and you make music for the fans and yourself right? Do you see something weird going on here? I.e. you are making music for the RIAA.
Are you sure you aren’t Lars or some RIAA representative??
April 10th, 2007 at 4:33 am
I do support indie artists. I actively don’t support RIAA labels.
And I will start buying single songs online when, and only when “Legal” download services, who are not associated with the RIAA, start selling DRM free .flac or something just as good for a reasonable price.
Or in other words: When hell freezes over and/or pigs fly
April 10th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I understand the question compeletely.
Please inform the RIAA mouthpieces about your feelings
regarding bias.
They find a LOT of usefulness in biased control of mass media.
Pot Kettle
April 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Picked up this site from Wired’s Listening Post blog, and I have to say that both sides of this argument are pathetic.
I’m no songwriter or musician and I don’t work for RIAA. I don’t “share” music with friends or download music from P2P sites, so please, no “Shut up, TROLL!” comments.
I am however an artist, and I work for ad agencies, magazines, newspapers, etc. Most of what I do is commisioned for a specific purpose and the issues of what rights are being sold are discussed up front. I ALWAYS retain the copyright to the works I create as I do upon occassion re-sell something I’ve done for one client to someone else, provided it does not violate the terms of the original sale of rights.
So this all brings me to the point I’d like to make that “sharing” is just the term people who are pissed off or angry or just too cheap to actually pay for the product have come up with to cloak what they’re really doing, which is stealing.
I’m sorry, but lets call a spade a spade. Just becasue the big, bad record company doesn’t put out music in the format you want or forces you to buy an entire album of crap so you can get that one song you like, doesn’t mean it’s ok for you to just take it. It’s called theft, and it is illegal despite whatever pretty word you want to call it.
Having said that, I’m no fan of RIAA or of the way many in the music industry do business. Yes it’s aniquated and many of them seem to be heartless, money-grubbing leeches, but guess what? It’s their product and they are free to do whatever they want, charge whatever they want and sell it in whatever fromat they choose. Know why? Because they hold the copyright.
You can bet your last dollar that I’d be pissed if someone took something I created and started using it for their own purposes because they were a “fan” or because they felt they had some right to it. Let me tell you right now, unless you hold the copyright, ya don’t.
Of course, I’d like to think that if there were millions of people clamoring for something I created, I’d damn sure figure out a better way to get it into their hands and be FAIRLY compensated for the hard work I put into it.
That doesn’t mean I think you should have to pay for something over and over again, or that you should be forced to buy a pile of crappy work just to get the one good thing you want, but you should have to pay SOMETHING. I worked to create it, and yeah I love it if the thing I created speaks to you, but what is it worth to you? I expect to be paid, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The fact that you’re “sharing” doesn’t make you some kind of digital Robin Hood. It makes you a thief.
If you don’t like the way the record companies sell their products, don’t freakin’ buy them. They’re in business to make money, and if they’re to retarded to realize that they’re driving their business over a cliff, then let them.
Just wait for them at the bottom and pick up the pieces for whatever new business model that emerges. Eventually they’ll get it through their heads. and off products they way people CLEARLY want them. Apple and EMI seem to be listening, and yeah it’s baby steps, but they’ll get there
In the mean time, patronize companies who do offer products the way you want them, and maybe they’re off the beaten path, but you just might uncover something cool in the process.
Ahem…(steps down from soapbox).
Let the flaming begin.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I agree with much of what you say, but not all.
“I’m sorry, but lets call a spade a spade.”
- oh yes please, lets do that.
“It’s called theft, and it is illegal despite whatever pretty word you want to call it. ”
-Ok were off to a bad start here, we just called a spade a backhoe. It’s called infringment not theft. Theft is stealing, infringment is using a copyrighted work without permision. One is a criminal offence and the other is civil.
As well I don’t believe format shifting is infringment. I paid for the right to listen to it, I don’t think any copyright holder has the right to tell me I can only listen to something while hopping on one foot, with my left finger in my right ear, and a bucket of wate onj my head, anymore than I think they have the right to tell me I must repurchase in order to listen on a different device.
“… but you should have to pay SOMETHING. ”
- yes and people are willing to pay for it, if it’s good, and priced fairly, and in a format that they want. Raising prices for an inferior format cause ya need to get a bonus is not the way to go.
“The fact that you’re “sharing” doesn’t make you some kind of digital Robin Hood. It makes you a thief. ”
- it makes you neither, it possible makes you an infringer.
“In the mean time, patronize companies who do offer products the way you want them, and maybe they’re off the beaten path, but you just might uncover something cool in the process. ”
- agreed
“Ahem…(steps down from soapbox). ”
- you forgot to remove the RIAA implant from your brain before stepping on the soap box, and it was left on a loop: infrngment is theft, infringment is theft….
but other than that you got the right idea
April 10th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
” both sides of this argument are pathetic. ”
” so please, no “Shut up, TROLL!” comments. ”
” Let the flaming begin.”
If you don’t want flames .. don’t enter a room, light a
match, and throw a cup of petrol on it.
” So this all brings me to the point I’d like to make that “sharing” is just the term people who are pissed off or angry or just too cheap to actually pay for the product have come up with to cloak what they’re really doing, which is stealing. ”
As has been pointed ou many times before …
Sharing is not stealing.
If I have a home video and share through Bittorrent …
it is sharing.
If I have a Creative Commons media, be it music, video,
graphic, software ..etc ….
It’s sharing.
A significant legal use of a P2P software.
Now,
If I ’share’ something that the creator doesn’t want me to
share .. this is Copyright Infringement.
Theft is when I take something from someone, and they
NO LONGER HAVE the item in their possession to benefit
from it.
Not semantics.
Fact.
As far as damage from infringement …
There is not, nor ever will be any link to loss of sales and
sharing.
Every file shared = a lost sale is a myth.
it’s false.
it’s … a …. lie.
This is really the only major problem I have with your .. soapbox.
Seems like you are trying to wash away some truth with it.
” Of course, I’d like to think that if there were millions of people clamoring for something I created, I’d damn sure figure out a better way to get it into their hands and be FAIRLY compensated for the hard work I put into it. ”
Yup,
That’s happening.
A lot now, with CC ( see the article about Kate Walsh )
etc …
Those are precisely why the RIAA feels that it’s so important
for people to think sharing = stealing.
What has Kate Walsh lost ?
What did the Artcic Monkeys lose ??
Well in their case, Sharing made them big,
their stance against the very tools that made them will
cost them.
Every file shared does NOT equal a lost sale.
Never will
” That doesn’t mean I think you should have to pay for something over and over again, or that you should be forced to buy a pile of crappy work just to get the one good thing you want, but you should have to pay SOMETHING. ”
Certainly.
All the money that AllOFMP3.com gets proves that people WILL pay.
If it’s reasonable.
A SMART industry would use that EXACT SAME MODEL here.
They’re not smart.
They’re greedy.
” If you don’t like the way the record companies sell their products, don’t freakin’ buy them. They’re in business to make money, and if they’re to retarded to realize that they’re driving their business over a cliff, then let them. ”
Exactly.
Spend a little bit more time reading things here.
It will become apparent that the VAST MAJORITY of posters
here support ( and participate in ) a complete boycott of
the RIAA.
No downloads
No purchases.
And yes .. they are too retarded to realize what they do
to themselves.
That’s pretty obvious.
“In the mean time, patronize companies who do offer products the way you want them, and maybe they’re off the beaten path, but you just might uncover something cool in the process. ”
Yes,
We do.
The majority of us, anyway.
As with any other group, there are some outspoken
idiots.
Try not to paint us all with the same brush.
” The fact that you’re “sharing” doesn’t make you some kind of digital Robin Hood. It makes you a thief. ”
Nope.
Stealing makes you a thief.
There is no stealing involves.
Copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement does NOT equal theft.
Not semantics … fact.
( yes I know, I already said that .. obviously needed to
be repeated ).
” That doesn’t mean I think you should have to pay for something over and over again, or that you should be forced to buy a pile of crappy work just to get the one good thing you want ”
Unfortunately,
this is the only thing that WILL satisfy the RIAA, MPAA and
those other ‘ trade groups ‘ ( oddly enough, made of of
almost all lawyers ).
I , and others , will happily pay a FAIR price for unrestricted
downloads, that we can use however we wish.
You’re still spouting the EXACT same … ’soap ‘ … that
they did when the cassette tape, VHS .. etc .. was about
to doom the industry with massive .. ‘theft’
Smoke and mirrors.
Flame free,
Dreddsnik
April 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
First question stopped me for a sec.
Yes I share files online. They are my own files shared with business partners. We have shared drives. Excellent for document management.
I always figured filesharing was like connecting your brains.
Anyway, I will answer no because I am sure you mean music files.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I don’t care what term you want to place on something, be it “sharing” or “infringement.”
Taking something (”sharing”) that doesn’t belong to you and not compensating someone for it is stealing (”infringement”).
That is the basic point of what I was saying in my original post. Call it whatever you want to make it seem like it’s not as bad as it is. You’re deluding yourself.
“Yes your honor I downloaded my entire music collection from peer-to-peer networks, and no I didn’t pay for it, but that’s just sharing, not stealing.”
Because you don’t agree with someone based on how they market their product doesn’t give you the right to give everybody on the planet a free copy of it simply because you paid for your CD.
There’s an old saying. Perhaps you’ve heard it.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Look, I’m no fan of how the music industry operates, mkay? You’ve said you agree that artists, et al should be fairly compensated for what they produce, and that’s great, but how do you expect them to be fairly compensated when their work is posted online for anyone to come along and get for free?
Every download doesn’t equal a lost sale, ok, I can buy that. But that doesn’t give you the right to A) make it freely available, or B) download it in the first place.
Yeah, yeah yeah…I know everyone who downloads music is just doing it to see if they like the music first, then they’ll buy it legitimately….riiiiiiiiiiight.
Oh and the stuff they don’t like and decide not to buy gets deleted from their collection too…..riiiiiiiiiight.
All I’m saying is wrong is wrong no matter what pretty word you choose to slap on it, and there is wrong on both sides of the aisle.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Oh, and I do realize not everyone who participates in file sharing does so illegally, so pardon me for “painting you all with the same brush.”
Wasn’t my intention.
I DO realize that people are capable of doing the right thing, but when something you normally have to pay for is offered up for free, and there is little to no chance you’ll be caught, my bet is the vast majority will do the wrong thing.
So I don’t blame the record companies for being pissed about lost revenue, but on the other hand I have no sympathy for them since they put themselves in this situation.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
” but how do you expect them to be fairly compensated when their work is posted online for anyone to come along and get for free? ”
– maybe by simply starting to ask for being compensated for it, and by starting to offer the product themself?! (Rightsowners refuse now for more then 7 years to officially offer product in a format public oviously demands it and are even willing to pay for if they only could [allofmp3.com as the posterchild example, amiestreet.com as the newest example])
” But that doesn’t give you the right to A) make it freely available, or B) download it in the first place. ”
– provocative answer: why not? copyrightlaw’s original purpose (at least the american one based on the wording of the constitution!) was to enrichen the public as a whole. If a private rightsowner refuse to offer his creative creations in a way the public demands it, shouldn’t the law make sure the society’s “rights” stand above his rights to prevent the society to benefiting from it once he has created it? (note that I’m NOT talking about not to compensate an artist fairly for his creations, but to hinder him to harm the public.)
” Yeah, yeah yeah…I know everyone who downloads music is just doing it to see if they like the music first, then they’ll buy it legitimately….riiiiiiiiiiight. ”
– I don’t believe that everyone buys EVERY music that he had downloaded and liked, but fact is, while the original NAPSTER was on its hights, so was the CD sales, allegedly because people had an easy oportunity to explore unknown music.
” Oh and the stuff they don’t like and decide not to buy gets deleted from their collection too…..riiiiiiiiiight. ”
– yes, at least 3-4 years ago when HDD space was still relatively expensive, even those people that have this “collection tic” that they must save everything they could get their hands on, deleted stuff they don’t liked. Our days where a 300Gig drive got so damn cheap, those “digital messies” might not even listen one single time to a song before they stash it into their music drive.
And their are studies from non big music dependent researchers that show that those that share this not for sale product are those that buy statisticly MORE music legally then those that don’t use “illegal sharing” to explore more music.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
” but when something you normally have to pay for is offered up for free, and there is little to no chance you’ll be caught, my bet is the vast majority will do the wrong thing. ”
– wrong assumption on your side!
you “normally” don’t have to pay for it in the first place, because it simply isn’t offered for sale!
” So I don’t blame the record companies for being pissed about lost revenue, ”
– they aren’t pissed about lost revenue. (just do not look at their press releases where they complain, but look at their reports they give in their stockholder conferences; they tell you there how great they are doing). Sure they are pissed about a loss, but that’s not revenue (as I explained earlier, they don’t offer to sell, so there is no lost revenue from a non-offer) but the loss of monopolistic power over the distribution market. They are pissed that their business modell based on the shipment of small black and even smaller silver disks got lost to the non physical media 21st century digital distribution modell which they refuse to not only to adopt to, but what they fought actively to keep their old business modell of physical objects and artificial scarcity now for over a decade.
(”mp3″ invention started by “evil”germans in the early half of the 1980’s, it became standard in 1990, and there was even a way of copyprotection implemented with the “copyright/original-bit”. But instead that those now more and more obsolete Big 4 adopted that technology to their benefit and market domination, they did what they can do better then adopting to customer demands; they sued the manufacturers that produced the early (2nd) commercial players.*
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_PMP300
April 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“you “normally” don’t have to pay for it in the first place, because it simply isn’t offered for sale!”
This is exactly my point. If they don’t want to sell it, THEY DON’T HAVE TOO! It’s theirs. They own it. It is not yours.
I think many file sharers believe they are righting some cosmic wrong by freeing this music to the masses, when they are in fact taking something that doesn’t belong to them beyond the rights they’ve been granted when they purchased it in the first place and distributing it to people who haven’t paid for it and now never will because they got it for free.
Yeah, I know it isn’t for sale, but in all honesty, how much of the stuff that isn’t for sale are people downloading? Please.
I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of illegal downloads are things that are readily available in stores or online. Downloads of some obscure performance of Beethoven’s 5th aren’t what everyone is clamoring for.
If I create something and there’s a market for it and I decide to sell it for a limited time, then decide to lock it up in my garage, even theough millions of people still want it, that’s my perogative. Probably not very smart on my behalf from a financial standpoint anyway, but it’s mine and I can do that if I want to. Don’t like it? Tough.
If someone who bought a copy of it starts reproducing it and selling it or even giving it away, then I have every right to sue their ass because they do not have the right to do it.
If record companies want to operate under an antiquated business model, that’s their choice. It doesn’t make stealing their product, for sale or not, the right thing to do.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I hear a lot of what I call “yeah buts” in your argument.
“– maybe by simply starting to ask for being compensated for it, and by starting to offer the product themself?! (Rightsowners refuse now for more then 7 years to officially offer product in a format public oviously demands it and are even willing to pay for if they only could [allofmp3.com as the posterchild example, amiestreet.com as the newest example]) ”
So what if they refuse to offer it the way you want it. It’s theirs. That’s their choice. Don’t like it. Don’t buy it. They’ll get the message. Because someone doesn’t do what you want them to do doesn’t mean they are wrong and you are right, nor does it make it ok to take their product.
“copyrightlaw’s original purpose (at least the american one based on the wording of the constitution!) was to enrichen the public as a whole. If a private rightsowner refuse to offer his creative creations in a way the public demands it, shouldn’t the law make sure the society’s “rights” stand above his rights to prevent the society to benefiting from it once he has created it? (note that I’m NOT talking about not to compensate an artist fairly for his creations, but to hinder him to harm the public.)”
Ummm…no it shouldn’t. We’re talking about freakin’ music here. MUSIC! It’s not the cure for cancer, ok? What harm does not having music available in a certain format cause to the public?
You don’t like it because you aren’t getting your way. This has nothing to do with such lofty ideals as “enriching society.”
Again, if he wants to take his ball and go home, let him. Don’t steal it from him because you want to play with it.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I hear a lot of what I call “yeah buts” in your argument.
“– maybe by simply starting to ask for being compensated for it, and by starting to offer the product themself?! (Rightsowners refuse now for more then 7 years to officially offer product in a format public oviously demands it and are even willing to pay for if they only could [allofmp3.com as the posterchild example, amiestreet.com as the newest example]) ”
So what if they refuse to offer it the way you want it. It’s theirs. That’s their choice. Don’t like it. Don’t buy it. They’ll get the message. Because someone doesn’t do what you want them to do doesn’t mean they are wrong and you are right, nor does it make it ok to take their product.
“copyrightlaw’s original purpose (at least the american one based on the wording of the constitution!) was to enrichen the public as a whole. If a private rightsowner refuse to offer his creative creations in a way the public demands it, shouldn’t the law make sure the society’s “rights” stand above his rights to prevent the society to benefiting from it once he has created it? (note that I’m NOT talking about not to compensate an artist fairly for his creations, but to hinder him to harm the public.)”
Ummm…no it shouldn’t. We’re talking about freakin’ music here. MUSIC! It’s not the cure for cancer, ok? What harm does not having music available in a certain format cause to the public?
You don’t like it because you aren’t getting your way. This has nothing to do with such lofty ideals as “enriching society.”
Again, if he wants to take his ball and go home, let him. Don’t steal it from him because you want to play with it.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
” I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of illegal downloads are things that are readily available in stores or online. ”
And ,
If you put the top ranked downloads, right next to
the biggest sellers, you’ll find they are nearly always
in sync
Downloading, liking, buying.
Now i’ll bet someone is going to chime in with that
old RIAA soundbite .. Correlation is not causation.
Well, I’m afraid that goes for the RIAA too.
The want you to believe that DL = causation.
Unfortunately, the have absolutely no correlation.
” how much of the stuff that isn’t for sale are people downloading? Please. ”
A lot of out of print, vinyl only .. stuff they want you to
forget in favor of the flavor of the moment.
File sharing is the smallest factor in their demise.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
” This is exactly my point. If they don’t want to sell it, THEY DON’T HAVE TOO! It’s theirs. They own it. It is not yours. ”
Since you’re not a musician, but you are an ‘artist’,
i’ll provide a real world example from a non-musical art.
My kids love those darn Harry Potter books.
I discovered that I liked them too .. but it was
harder for me to find out than it was for them.
I can’t read the small typesets used, even in the
hardcover editions.
No electronic editions availabe.
Well, Rowling refused to ( think still does ) allow electronic
editions because of all the dam theives and dirty pirates
blaaah blaaaah rimita.
We have purchased every edition, I found bootleg electronic
editions, so I could read them.
But Rowling said no electronic, so people like me should just
go get fucked I suppose.
You know, i am probably the only person in the universe that
has to use a PC screen and a large font to read comfortably.
I hope she hunts me down and sues me, for DL a copy
of something I bought and paid for anyway, for my own
personal use.
I doubt she will though, even the RIAA sharks were too
afraid to set that precedent with the Gonzalez case.
Yes, the successfully sued for 11 counts of infringement,
but the TRIED for over 1000 counts ……
they quietly dropped ALL counts where she had a purchased
copy of the CD
See …
If they copy and sell …
Sue their ass.
you have a right to
Personal use …
Sorry, covered by fair use.
If YOU don’t like it, find another way to make a living.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“See …
If they copy and sell …
Sue their ass.
you have a right to
Personal use …
Sorry, covered by fair use.
If YOU don’t like it, find another way to make a living.”
If you choose to download a pirated electronic copy of a book you’ve purchased so you can read it, that’s your business. It’s illegal, but you’ve at least paid. The writer has been compensated.
In general, I have no problem with somone reproducing something for their own personal use if they’ve compensated the creator. That doesn’t mean I endorse them posting said content on their personal file sharing site.
My point is, however, that the vast majority of downloads are, in fact, illegal and the downloaders NEVER pay for a legal copy.
The number of music downloads from P2P sites far outweight the number of downloads from “legal” (for lack of a better term springing to mind at the moment) music sites. Why do you think that is?
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
April 11th, 2007 at 1:06 am
you are such a [bleep] astroturfer!
“My point is, however, that the vast majority of downloads are, in fact, illegal and the downloaders NEVER pay for a legal copy. ”
One last time for you:
copyrightowners REFUSE now for more then 7 years to provide the ability to buy legal copies of what the illegal downloaders download!
April 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
“One last time for you:
copyrightowners REFUSE now for more then 7 years to provide the ability to buy legal copies of what the illegal downloaders download!”
Yeah. I got it. But you’re the one not getting it. It doesn’t matter that you can’t buy a copy of it from them. If they don’t want to sell it to you they don’t have to. It’s theirs, not yours. That does not mean it’s ok for you to share files and download them because you can’t get a legal copy of it.
Besides, as I said before, the vast majority of illegal downloads aren’t coming from throngs of people clamoring for obscure stuff the record companies won’t sell any more. If you actually believe that, then I guess you’re not much smarter than the record executives who don’t realize they’re destroying their business.
Again, yours is a “yeah but” argument, as in “Yeah, I know the record companies own these recordings, but I really want my own copy so even though it’s wrong, I’m going to download them anyway.”
April 11th, 2007 at 9:30 am
” My point is, however, that the vast majority of downloads are, in fact, illegal and the downloaders NEVER pay for a legal copy. ”
There is absolutely no evidence for this statement.
Once again, independent studies HAVE shown the falseness
of that statement.
This is just your opinion, which is not substantiated by
any citable source ( other than RIAA mouthpieces )
or statistical fact.
Actually , the vast majority of downloads are, in fact, legal.
The proven majority of people who download files
copyrighted by RIAA acts buy the producy, in the mistaken
belief that they are supporting the artists they like.
2 Harvard/Yale studies proved this.
You have a differing .. opinion.
We respect that, however, you have not been able to
support the premises of your opinion with any solid
proofs that what you say is anything more than regurgitated
RIAA propoganda, choosing instead to continue to repeat
the same old debunked RIAA fallacies.
Cite sources please.
Where are your proofs ?
Even the RIAA can’t provide enough proof to win a real
court battle.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:31 am
>>” I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of illegal downloads are things that are readily available in stores or online. ”
>”And ,
”
If you put the top ranked downloads, right next to
the biggest sellers, you’ll find they are nearly always
in sync
I’m sure the top illegal downloads and the biggest sellers are in sync, based on popularity at least, but that’s where the similarities end.
How many more illegal downloads are there for the top 5 current hits than legal ones? See the discrepancy here? If so many people are concerned about paying the artist, those numbers should be reversed.
>”Downloading, liking, buying.”
Give me a small break. Again, do you see the difference in the number of illegal downloads vs. the number of legal ones? Do you actually believe the vast majority of people who download music illegally turn around and buy a legal copy of it?
The numbers say otherwise.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
” Yeah. I got it. But you’re the one not getting it. It doesn’t matter that you can’t buy a copy of it from them. If they don’t want to sell it to you they don’t have to. ”
Yes, it does.
It was once called public domain.
They have legislated it away, and continue to do so.
Your opinion.
Ours differs.
” That does not mean it’s ok for you to share files and download them because you can’t get a legal copy of it. ”
If my favorite artists disappears from shelves, and they no
longer sell it online or anywhere else, than, yes it is.
It’s not a lost sale either. It’s a lost opportunity for them.
A customer, with cash , wanted to spend it, was turned
away.
A differing opinion.
” Besides, as I said before, the vast majority of illegal downloads aren’t coming from throngs of people clamoring for obscure stuff the record companies won’t sell any more. ”
And you know this how ???
Please, cite your sources or stop making stuff up.
” Again, yours is a “yeah but” argument, ”
No worse than your stance, which is based on RIAA
propoganda, and absolutely no facts.
none.
Strictly an opinion.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:39 am
” The numbers say otherwise. ”
show me your numbers.
Where can the rest of us see them ?
Oberholz/Strumpf
ZERO effect on sales.
That’s a pretty significant number.
Where can we refer to your ‘ numbers’
April 11th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“You have a differing .. opinion.
We respect that, however, you have not been able to
support the premises of your opinion with any solid
proofs that what you say is anything more than regurgitated
RIAA propoganda, choosing instead to continue to repeat
the same old debunked RIAA fallacies.
Cite sources please.
Where are your proofs ? ”
Look up ANY credible source for the number of illegal downloads vs. legal ones. I guarantee you the illegal ones FAR outway the legal ones.
Why don’t you provide a url to your studies? Let’s see your proof if they’re so credible. At this point all we have is your word to go on that up is down and black is white.
“Actually , the vast majority of downloads are, in fact, legal.
The proven majority of people who download files
copyrighted by RIAA acts buy the producy, in the mistaken
belief that they are supporting the artists they like.
2 Harvard/Yale studies proved this.”
Because someone thinks something is legal, doesn’t make it legal. So by the above statement you’re telling me that people download files, never making any kind of financial transaction during the process, and yet they somehow believe that they have paid for a legal copy and the creator has been magically compensated?
And because they “mistakenly believe” this has happened, then that makes it legal? I think every attorney in the country would beg to differ with you on your definition of the word “legal.”
April 11th, 2007 at 9:50 am
“If my favorite artists disappears from shelves, and they no
longer sell it online or anywhere else, than, yes it is.
It’s not a lost sale either. It’s a lost opportunity for them.
A customer, with cash , wanted to spend it, was turned
away. ”
No, it really doesn’t mean you are free to make all the copies of it you ant to. I promise you.
But let’s just say for the sake of argument that you’re right. What about all the illegal downloads of stuff that IS available for sale. You seem to be dwelling on this miniscule segment of obscure recordings.
Fine…you are free to download all the obscure, not-for-sale recordings of music that you want. No questions asked.
What do you intend to do about all the illegal downloads of stuff that is readily available for sale?
April 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am
” But let’s just say for the sake of argument that you’re right. What about all the illegal downloads of stuff that IS available for sale. You seem to be dwelling on this miniscule segment of obscure recordings. ”
” What do you intend to do about all the illegal downloads of stuff that is readily available for sale? ”
Since there is absolutely no effect on sales … nothing.
I suggest that the RIAA members use allofmp3 as a model.
People will buy, if the price is right, and there are no restrictions.
If that wasn’t true, allofMp3 would have gone broke ages ago.
instead, they seem to be doing well.
a SMART industry would do that.
But, you still haven’t shown any compelling evidence of
huge damages .. only your opinion, and my opinion is that
you have been misinformed.
I ask again, where are your numbers to show these huge
amounts of ‘ illegal’ material.
You seem to be dwelling on a long debunked false premise.
Dowloading hurts sales/artists.
This has been PROVEN statistically to be .. false.
Proven.
Another falsehood …..
Copyright holder = artist.
nope.
Copyright holder = Member label.
The LABEL gets the cash.
Now ..
The labels have posted incredible revenues once again.
( this is easy to substatiate on the net ; ) ).
That means ….
People ARE giving their money to the labels.
So …
1. If customers ARE buying .. a LOT
2. Artists are going broke.
3. Labels are posting record profits.
4. LABELS are responsible for paying artists
who is ripping off whom ?
Who are the theives ?
If P2P is outlawed then the only way an artists has to
bypass the Major Label Servitude is gone.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
” But let’s just say for the sake of argument that you’re right. What about all the illegal downloads of stuff that IS available for sale. You seem to be dwelling on this miniscule segment of obscure recordings. ”
” What do you intend to do about all the illegal downloads of stuff that is readily available for sale? ”
Since there is absolutely no effect on sales … nothing.
I suggest that the RIAA members use allofmp3 as a model.
People will buy, if the price is right, and there are no restrictions.
If that wasn’t true, allofMp3 would have gone broke ages ago.
instead, they seem to be doing well.
a SMART industry would do that.
But, you still haven’t shown any compelling evidence of
huge damages .. only your opinion, and my opinion is that
you have been misinformed.
I ask again, where are your numbers to show these huge
amounts of ‘ illegal’ material.
You seem to be dwelling on a long debunked false premise.
Dowloading hurts sales/artists.
This has been PROVEN statistically to be .. false.
Proven.
Another falsehood …..
Copyright holder = artist.
nope.
Copyright holder = Member label.
The LABEL gets the cash.
Now ..
The labels have posted incredible revenues once again.
( this is easy to substatiate on the net ; ) ).
That means ….
People ARE giving their money to the labels.
So …
1. If customers ARE buying .. a LOT
2. Artists are going broke.
3. Labels are posting record profits.
4. LABELS are responsible for paying artists
who is ripping off whom ?
Who are the theives ?
If P2P is outlawed then the only way an artists has to
bypass the Major Label Servitude is gone.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
” But let’s just say for the sake of argument that you’re right. What about all the illegal downloads of stuff that IS available for sale. You seem to be dwelling on this miniscule segment of obscure recordings. ”
” What do you intend to do about all the illegal downloads of stuff that is readily available for sale? ”
Since there is absolutely no effect on sales … nothing.
I suggest that the RIAA members use allofmp3 as a model.
People will buy, if the price is right, and there are no restrictions.
If that wasn’t true, allofMp3 would have gone broke ages ago.
instead, they seem to be doing well.
a SMART industry would do that.
But, you still haven’t shown any compelling evidence of
huge damages .. only your opinion, and my opinion is that
you have been misinformed.
I ask again, where are your numbers to show these huge
amounts of ‘ illegal’ material.
You seem to be dwelling on a long debunked false premise.
Dowloading hurts sales/artists.
This has been PROVEN statistically to be .. false.
Proven.
Another falsehood …..
Copyright holder = artist.
nope.
Copyright holder = Member label.
The LABEL gets the cash.
Now ..
The labels have posted incredible revenues once again.
( this is easy to substatiate on the net ; ) ).
That means ….
People ARE giving their money to the labels.
So …
1. If customers ARE buying .. a LOT
2. Artists are going broke.
3. Labels are posting record profits.
4. LABELS are responsible for paying artists
who is ripping off whom ?
Who are the theives ?
If P2P is outlawed then the only way an artists has to
bypass the Major Label Servitude is gone.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I think we’re prety much done here.
You have demonstrated that you have no facts to demonstrate
your claims.
You continually rehash the same endless loop of RIAA
sound bites.
You have nothing more.
I think we have debunked you pretty thoroughly.
Bye
PS ( you have earned your paycheck )
April 11th, 2007 at 10:37 am
“Since there is absolutely no effect on sales … nothing.
I suggest that the RIAA members use allofmp3 as a model.
People will buy, if the price is right, and there are no restrictions.
If that wasn’t true, allofMp3 would have gone broke ages ago.
instead, they seem to be doing well.
a SMART industry would do that.”
Ok…problem no. 1…you assume that because allofmp3.com is profitable, that it’s legal. It isn’t.
I’m sure the drug trade is profitable too. Doesn’t make it legal.
We can agree that a smart industry would model its business on a successful model, but there’s problem no. 2 The music industry isn’t smart.
“Another falsehood …..
Copyright holder = artist.
nope.
Copyright holder = Member label.
The LABEL gets the cash. ”
Here’s where you are correct. Yes, it’s true that the artist isn’t always the copyright holder. Sometimes it’s someone else.
But here’s where you’re wrong. First, I never said the artist is always the copyright holder. Second, just because the artist doesn’t hold the copyright, doesn’t mean it’s ok to do whatever you please with the copyrighted material. It’s copyrighted. That’s what copyright is all about.
Just because the copyright is held by a huge, money-grubbing multinational corporation…like say…I dunno…a record company, who doesn’t meet with your approval because you have some idealistic view that they’re a monopoly and they’re making money hand over fist so it’s ok for you to steal from them because they’re already loaded, doesn’t make it legal.
Now THAT’S a fact my friend.
“Now ..
The labels have posted incredible revenues once again.
( this is easy to substatiate on the net ; ) ).
That means ….
People ARE giving their money to the labels.
So …
1. If customers ARE buying .. a LOT
2. Artists are going broke.
3. Labels are posting record profits.
4. LABELS are responsible for paying artists
who is ripping off whom ?
Who are the theives ?
Well, you are the thief, quite frankly.
Just because a company makes money and is profitable, even record profits, doesn’t make it ok to violate their copyright. See, I think this is the point you don’t understand, and where the crux of our disagreement lies.
You seem to think that because you’re talking about a corporation, that it’s ok that you steal their product, because, hey, they’re making money.
If I had a company I’d want it to make as much money as it possibly could, and I would want to protect my rights as the owner of a product if someone were violating those rights. Now, I’d like to think I’d do a better job of it than the record companies, but I think we can both agree that tehy’re not run by the sharpest tools in the shed, so since we have some common ground there, let’s not dwell on that point.
“If P2P is outlawed then the only way an artists has to
bypass the Major Label Servitude is gone.”
Oh…NOW I get it. You’re doing the artists a favor by sharing their music online so other people can download it and not pay for it. How stupid of me.
Oh, but wait….didn’t they sign tha record contract? Didn’t they know what they were agreeing to going into the deal with the record company? Isn’t it their own fault if they feel like they’re now getting shafted?
Oh…you’re talking about undiscovered artists who haven’t signed a record contract yet…those are the people you’re helping? Oh, well that’s great.
But, isn’t it their choice to allow you to share their music with others so they can be discovered? Since they hold the copyright to their music or choose to slap a creative commons license on it, they’re the ones who decided it was ok right?
What if it wasn’t ok for with them? What if they said, “Ya know what, I don’t want my music to be shared anymore, so please stop doing it.”
But you said, “Hey I really like your music. It speaks to me in the perfect, ideal world I live in and I want other people to come and live with me in my perfect, ideal world and the only way to do that is for me to share your music, so I’m going to keep doing it ven though you don’t want me to.”
See where I’m going here? Bottom line is it’s illegal. End of story. No more “yeah buts” mkay?
It’s not a perfect, ideal world, and it sure as heck isn’t a perfect, ideal system.
You aren’t going to convince me, and clearly I’m not going to convince you, so let’s leave it at that.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“I think we’re prety much done here.”
Finally we’re on the same page (see my last post in the pathetic thread).
“I think we have debunked you pretty thoroughly.”
Uh-huh. Keep believing that.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Yeah but while the labels are posting incredible revenues, thay are lossing money hand over fist to the pirates.
It’s ‘imaginary’ income they are missing. I think it’s called profit forcasting.
Here’s how they think: We are going to charge X dollars, Y number of people will purchase our product, and Z is our costs. So our imaginary profit is (X*Y)-Z. Yahoo we’re rich!!!!! Sell stocks based on this forcast. Then when we don’t make it cause we didn’t actualy provide the product the customer wanted, we will call it a loss. We get to blame that on imaginary pirates. The imaginary profits are useful for gaining investors, lying to politicians about how much more taxes they will get from our imaginary sales… etc.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“Ummm…no it shouldn’t. We’re talking about freakin’ music here. MUSIC! It’s not the cure for cancer, ok? What harm does not having music available in a certain format cause to the public? ”
-hmm good point we are talking about music here, and a regime that wants to maintain controll over it. So answer me thisthen, why are we paying cure for cancer prices for music? Don’t bother to answer it’s simple: cause the copyright holder says so, not the creator as has been pointed out, but the holder. The ‘holder’ (generally a company) wants to wrap it up in DRM so they can charge more for an already overpriced product. They are suffering from a backlash due to their proactices and want to legislate harsher punishment for already illegal practices. Why? so they can continue their control over the industry.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“You don’t like it because you aren’t getting your way. This has nothing to do with such lofty ideals as “enriching society.”
- The only thing being enriched currently is the holders pocket book. It’s not yours to judge what enriches society, nor me. Now don’t get me wrong I don’t think most music hits enrich society, but that’s just my opinion. The masses are free to like what they want. The fact that they express their opinion that the product is over priced and the response is to sue them….
April 11th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“Again, if he wants to take his ball and go home, let him. Don’t steal it from him because you want to play with it.”
oh yet another reference to a physical product.
Ok, you want to use the comparison so letââ¬â¢s:
In this case ââ¬Ëheââ¬â¢ gets to ââ¬Ëgo home with his ballââ¬â¢, and society get to play with an exact duplicate. ââ¬Ëheââ¬â¢ just doesnââ¬â¢t get paid. Is it right? Nope. But society was willing to pay for that exact duplicate, as long as:
1) they can play with how they want
2) when they want
3) and pay fair market value for it.
But thatââ¬â¢s what this is really about, the RIAA and itââ¬â¢s owners want is to ââ¬Ëpretendââ¬â¢ to supply a product in the ââ¬Ëfree marketââ¬â¢. But the reality is a group of companies colluding to create a virtual monopoly. Is it illegal? I believe so. Is it obvious? I believe so. Is it easy to prove? Apparently not. They donââ¬â¢t have to actually talk to agree to not lower the prices and to overcharge they just have to not lower the prices.
What they have done historically is control the means of distribution so the market has never been free. This allowed them to pretend to be operating in the free market, but since it was not truly free, they could overcharge for the product. Reaping huge profits.
The means of distribution have opened up and we are approaching a free market. What is their response to this, attempt to gain control over any new means of distribution, by any means possible. This is where DRM comes in. It is their wet dream, they can create as much intangible goods as they want, then lock it up so they can overcharge as much as they want.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
“I’m sure the drug trade is profitable too. Doesn’t make it legal. ”
- We are not talking about the drug trade we are talking about multinational companies collusing to maintain their control over the recoding industry. If we were to use your example of the drug trade, which you use to paint allofmps.com as illegal, would mean that the whole record industry is illegal as well. opps hink you messed that analogy up.
“Well, you are the thief, quite frankly”
umm once again an infringer not a thief, repeating a billion times still does not make it accurate.
“Oh, but wait….didn’t they sign tha record contract? Didn’t they know what they were agreeing to going into the deal with the record company? Isn’t it their own fault if they feel like they’re now getting shafted? ”
- Controlling the means of distribution has given them a monoply….well a virtual monoply as they choose not to compete price wise, and to not give the consumer what they want. This collusion, while hard to prove, allows them a monoply. They then can treat artists however they like.
IMO:
Does it mean copying music is ok? I don’t think so.
Does it mean it is illegal as you state? Depends on circumstance. (format shifting etc)
Do we need stronger laws to controll it? nope, supply a product people want and they will pay.
Should artists be fairly compensated? Yup
Were they under the old regime? Nope
Are they currently? Nope
Are file sharers willing to pay? Yup
Are they able to? Some are. Same can’t at least not for the products they actually want.
Has this thread ever been about artists? nope, just industry trolls.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“What about all the illegal downloads of stuff that IS available for sale.”
first off all, you (in case you are just one) discuss here with (at least) 2 other guys: me (Alter_Fritz) that brought up the Labels refuse to sale argument and this other guy that is to lazy like me to set a signature every time or log in.
please, show me where “all the illegal downloads” of stuff are for sale in the format that got downloaded illegal!
you can’t , because copyrightowner REFUSE to sell! That is my point. alledged that I would operate a “libre” OS, and alleged I would downlaod “illegal” because I find it interesting to listen so something i have never ever before heard about and it jsut took my 20-30 seconds to see if “funny hillarious artists/or songtitle name here” is something that might hit my musical taste I have simply no chance to go legitimate with my behaviour of exploring new music.
After I pointed this out to you, you argue that copyrighowners have the right to refuse. Fine, I might even can agree with you, but please please, then be so consequent and don’t repeat their stupid arguments that downlaoding devestates them in that case when they act according to your argument that they have the right to refuse to sell (which they do for over 7 years!!)
Oh and with regards to the study mentioned by the other guy you discuss here, it is a study that is well known and widely accepted in teh scientific comunity since it’s methodology was well based. If you use google you will find it (IIRC even jon linked it/have it in his /stuff directory [unfortunately he changed the directory permissions, so a fast lookup there isn't possible any more] You need to use a search engine of your own.
And in case you don’t trust this study cause it wasn’t commisioned by RIAA, just look at RIAA’s own figures on their website (before they changed them after smart mathematicians pointed out that their own fugures showed what p2p advocates are saying that greater and easier exposure to music via p2p leads to MORE sales and not less like RIAA claims)
April 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
“how little this crowd cares about those who create the music they love to steal.”
well that’s simply not true at all. this is where the most caring of people gather.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
You, whoever you are, do not seem to understand the market. I have downloaded copyrighted music from peer to peer. I have no bad conscience about doing so. However, if I like the music, I buy it. If not, I delete it. Sharing music is NOT STEALING. Downloading music is NOT STEALING. At worst, it is copyright infringement.
If I buy a vine from a nursery and root a cutting to give to a friend, I’m not stealing from the nursery, and neither is he. The same applies to copyrighted content. The Founding Fathers meant for patents and copyrights to be a way of promoting arts and sciences.
It just so happens to be that with p2p, non-signed artists can be heard for the first time by the public and have an opportunity to get signed. Take for example the Arctic Monkeys and Kate Walsh. Peer to peer file sharing is the new radio of the 21st century.
Rather than belittling people who are tired of being ripped off, maybe you should use file sharing to promote your product. One way to do that is put your music in mp3 format and at the end of the song, advertise your website. Name your mp3 file and put out on LimeWire. If you are good, people will visit your website after they hear your music. On the website, you can tell people how to get your music. This allows people to buy directly from you, therefore eliminating the middleman.
I am a creator like you, and I have released my products for free both on the web and via peer to peer. In doing so, I have had companies get in contact with me in order to have me write software for them. I get paid because I have release my work. I even give people permission to sell it, modify it, and do whatever they want with it. I only ask that people include the source code for any modifications they make.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Let’s look at things from a different point of view.
I buy a grape vine from a plant nursery. I then take a cutting from this vine and root it. I now have a copy. I take this copy and give it to a friend. Why is it not called theft? It is simple. I bought the vine. I gave a copy to my friend, and this is completely OK. The is the analogy I bring to sharing files.
I agree, it may be copyright infringement. The only thing that may have been violated was the owners’ temporary monopoly. This is not stealing this is at worst infringement.
NOw, If I went into the plant nursery and took a vine without paying for it, I would be stealing. The same goes for removing a CD from the store without paying for it. Unfortunately, I would pay less of a fine if I were caught stealing than I would if I were caught file sharing. This is sad, but true.
Look at it another way. When someone hears music you created on the radio, are they stealing? If they record the music to a tape for listening at a later time, are they stealing? If I record a TV program in order to watch it at a later time, am I stealing? In all these cases, the answer is NO!!!! The Internet and file sharing is the new radio. It is a way for you to get air time. Don’t fight it. EMBRACE IT!!!
I suggest that you record some of your music to MP3 format, tack on an advertisement for you website at the end, and then put the music out on file sharing networks. If people like your music, they will visit your website for more. This is where you can sell CD’s or music downloads – provided you charge a reasonable price. If you do this, then you keep all the money after distribution costs are paid. You eliminate the middleman (RIAA) and make good money.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
The copyright was for a limited period of time. I respect this monopoly. However after seven years of release, it originally became public domain. Unfortunately, the media cartel has purchased laws to extend that time to an effectively unlimited time. Now, the pendulum is swinging the other way. Like in prohibition, people have decide to ignore a bad law. Like Communist regimes in the 1980’s, people decided to overthrow oppression. Like in the 2000’s people will overthrow the oppression and mass control of the media. The days of copyright and patent abuse are over.
Get with the times and market your product in the 21st century. If you don’t do that, you will become as obsolete as 8-tracks. It is your choice, like it or not. With the first choice, you can go ahead and call file sharers thieves, bitch and whine about “not being compensated for your work,” engage in fruitless sue ‘em all campaigns, and otherwise torment your customers. In exercising this first choice, you will lose sales and possible wind up bankrupt.
You second choice is get with the 21st century and provide what customers want and make a load of money. If I were you, I’d make the second choice.
Bitching and whining about how “thieves” are causing you to starve is not going to solve your problems. The cat is already out of the bag. Call it whatever you want, but you will not change a thing. Your customers are the boss. Base you business on their terms and make good money, or fight them and they will get what they want other ways or other places.
You are not going to change peoples’ minds by name calling or otherwise insulting people. You are not going to change their minds by intimidation and extortion. If you or people who think like you believe that you will stifle file sharing by locking down the Internet, alternative networks will grow. You or people who think like you are no longer in charge. ACCEPT THAT FACT, because you are not going to change it. How we get our music, entertainment, and software is our choice, not yours. I will say it once more, “Join the 21st century and make money, or stay with antiquated marketing, use intimidation, propaganda, and become obsolete and bankrupt.”
April 12th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Google
Oberholz/Strumph
Easy.
Now where are you numbers ?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
The question on likelihood of being a victim also needs a little refinement. I had to answer medium as I am at a university, the RIAA’s current favorite target. They like shooting fish in a barrel.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:12 am
“Look at it another way. When someone hears music you created on the radio, are they stealing?”
This is exactly what I was wondering about the other day, when a song I’d heard in a record shop got stuck in my mind. I’m an acoustic type and can usually remember a piece of music in much detail, even after hearing it only once.
Does the fact that I walked away from the shop with the song in my head make me a thief? In my mind I had an exact virtual “copy” of the song, and I could (still can) “reproduce” it at any given moment, by playing it on the guitar and singing it to myself or others. Does this make me a physical medium carrying in its memory an illegal copy of the song?
Which brings us to how much does a digital format, which might by some stretch be considered a virtual format since it is not a tangible, physical object, differ from the acoustic “image” of something we keep in our memory?
In this light, I find it quite amusing (not to say ridiculous) that record companies are actually struggling to keep hold of a virtual, abstract thing, as non-material as an idea or a memory.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:52 am
[...] at P2Pnet, Jon has put together a survey about these “Sultans of Spin”. I must note that the [...]