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.

Oberholz/Strumph

Easy.

Now where are you numbers ?

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.”

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.

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.

well that’s simply not true at all. this is where the most caring of people gather.

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)

- 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.

oh yet another reference to a physical product.
Ok, you want to use the comparison so let’s:
In this case ‘he’ gets to ‘go home with his ball’, and society get to play with an exact duplicate. ‘he’ just doesn’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 that’s what this is really about, the RIAA and it’s owners want is to ‘pretend’ to supply a product in the ‘free market’. 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 don’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.

- 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….

-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.

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.

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.

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.

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 )

” 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.

” 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.

” 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.