Turn on thread page Beta

RIAA, Kazza, Napster, the law & you - views of an artist with a BA Mus & PSCI watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragon_Amor)
    ------------------------------
    Amazing Trade wrote:

    I don't for anybody. I am a multimedia and internet technology student. It just seems to be people that download music all the time and don't pay for it are just freeloaders that want somthing for nothing.

    Well you can have your viruses etc, I personaly find it much more fun hunting for that rare record in a record shop.

    A lot of these heavy downloaders also seem to do anything to justify why its legal, just like ilegal drug users do. They spend all their time justifiying why canibis is legal etc when its clearly not.

    Anyway the 1gb per day cap is still there and ISps are getting tougher on that all the time.

    -------------------------------


    I'm a busy guy. I'm a 27 year old composer, arranger, writer, poet, musician, and teacher - that's my musical life. I collect CD's. I'm passionate about my collection. I can't have one Miles Davis CD, or one John Coltrane, or even just one Metallica, Incubis, Rancid, Danzig, Big Wreck, Bjork... I need complete discograhies. Currently, for instasnce, I have every recording on this earth of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Thelonius Monk, and Bill Evans. Those are my major complete collections. And you know what, I had to do a lot of little record shop hunting too - even some custom orders in the end. I once worked for a company called Ocean's Cases - they build hardshell cases for musical equipment - flight cases. I proudly designed and bought a flight case to house my now 857 CD collection - to make it more portable - to move when I move.

    I've been performing for 20 years now, recording for 12, teaching for 9 - been writing forever. I do my part to add to the lifeblood of this business. I completed a Jazz degree after 2 years studying classical privately. I grew up playing mostly metal, blues, funk, and latin music. I've made amplifiers after taking an electrical engineering course from the town's community college during what I consider a hiatus between my highschool and university years. I've proteged as an apprentice under Don Stellard and the late Don Mallory - two very large figures in audio engineering - if you follow that sort of thing. My grade 12 year I was pulled from my music classes to teach a grade 7 music class - I was even given a staff parking spot and a 95 for the report card - they just dupliucated my previous years mark. I've performed for countless charities and fundraisers, co-op projects - and ya, I've smoked a joint or two in my time.

    I build custom computers on the side. I'm currently on one I built my aunt who is disabled. It's a 3.2Ghz P4 watercooled demon with 1GB of DDR433 Ram and 370GB of hard drive space on 2 drives. I'm currently working on putting all my CD's on here so I have a backup - at least in mp3 form.

    I'm also aspiring to become a lawyer. I have an advanced major in Political Science that was a joint major in my Jazz program. I also have an honours in Philosophy. I've published a thesis on Liberalism as a Defense of Native Self-Government. It's enjoyed widespread success.



    So excuse me if I take a little offense to you writing me up as a slakjawed drug addict freeloader because I support filesharing. Who are you?
    Who is he? Who are you, Brian?

    And I like how you say you've been writing forever even though your grammar sucks ass.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hate to have to do this. I feel bad about it, but I feel it needs to be done. I don't like to pick on people with such a weak grip on the English language, or such a short memory span that they forget that all the sentences add up to a larger picture - especially when that larger picture isn't very far off of the stance of the person who choose to deconstruct my writing line by line trying to find error within it, or trying to interpret it as if it we're expressing something other than it does. It's juvenile, and perhaps juvenile on my part to take this effort as well. God forgive for picking on the less fortunate.

    I'll try to help you point by point caz, we got a little more in common than you managed to realize, even if you didn't do your homework, ok?

    -------------------------------
    Your first quote of me makes absolutely no sense.

    Your second quote of me makes absolutely no point.

    Your third quote of me, you use to try and say means that I don't support filesharing, on which you are dead wrong. Amazing Trade, I think you found your freeloader. And by the way, gross industry sales haven't gone down, they have gone up - do your homework. At least we agree that filesharing is widespread and should be - I just don't understand how you didn't realize we agreed on this.

    Your fourth quote of me, you argue that revenue was not the cause of their recoil - but instead it was because they are an egocentrical industry that seeks money and power. Hey dipshit - you just said what I said in a way that wastes a lot more words saying it colorfully. Do you even know the word revenue? I have to wonder... Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would realize that revenue means "money aquired", thus derives their profit, growth, influence, i.e. clout (read: power).

    Your fifth quote is flawed only because your assumption that sales are down is simply untrue. The "mass-marketing ********", as you so eloquently put it, attempts to promote the idea that sales are down. Since I as well do not buy into the "mass-marketing ********", I do not believe - not as a matter of personal sentiment (which could yeild similiar results), but as a belief reinforced by research. You may want to re-read the part where I explain that sales are down in their top 40 acts, but not overall - the former of which they base their claim. If you don't buy into "mass-marketing ********", why do you espouse it? Kudos on living in the present, by the way. That's great.

    Your sixth quote you believe is a logical quote for which to restate my acknowledgement that their top 40 acts returned less on investiment because it wasn't nearly as primary a sales item as it used to be. Ya, they made less money ON TOP 40 ACTS. Not less money overall. Dude, I'm waiting for you here on earth, ok? Next time, try not to isolate the quote from the context if you want to understand the total message. It will keep you from thinking I'm contradicting myself when I haven't.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Now for your second set of nonesense
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Your first quote of me you find fault as you fail to realize what an enormous source of revenue marketing is. Statistics is the raw data, the life blood, of marketing. Tracing sales, and movement of media in general, is central to accurate statistics. The less they can track, the less accurate their gathered data. The less accurate their gathered data (read: statistics - just trying to make sure you can follow this), then the less effective their marketing. They don't care about fulfilling their ego's over knowing who's looking at crotches, they are concerned with filling the pockets on either side of their own.

    Your second quote of me here is followed by a criticism that claims I believe no law suits have been made, and then admits to understanding what I said. I have already mentioned the lottery-like law suits designed to scare people into obeying unenforceable laws. Sorry I lost you little buddy.

    Your third quote of me here makes it clear that you have never heard a Bill Hicks show, nor are you familiar with a little flair or artistic lisence being used to candidly clear up points in a message you haven't seemed to understand well in the first place. I'm sorry I overestimated your own comprehensive skills. As you can see, I'm trying not to be annoyed at helping you along toward understanding points I thought did not need clearing up. Take a writing course for more info on the use of style in literature.

    Your fourth quote, well, I don't really have an issue with this one. You seem to understand very well that there is enough entrenched within a culture to make those in it similiar enough to have common reaction to certain stimuli, and certain exploits that could apply to many with a high rate of success. Thanks for the color.

    Your fifth quote sounds like you are 12. What more should I say about this one? Maybe something like "I know you are but what am I?" Hardly. Grow up a little junior.

    Your sixth quote, interestingly, quotes my acknowledgement of the lottery-like law-suits that you claimed earlier I failed to acknowledge. Next.

    In your seventh quote you seem to think that obedience, or lack of obedience to the law is akin to suicidal behaviour. Further, I have consistently contended that the industry does fight for it's self-interest. It just so happens that their best interest is diametrically opposed to our best interest within the issue of filesharing. (diametrically opposed means the opposite of - don't want to lose you in all the big scary words).

    Your eigth quote of me makes absolutely no sense - maybe you would like to explain that one.

    Your nineth quote assumes that the average filesharer never buys a damn thing. You don't think 5 million users of Kazaa alone don't represent a large proportion of each years sales? Don't be so niave.

    The rest of your rant is drivel. And by the way, Erik Idle is the only person I quoted from TV. **** you for dissing my friends.



    To the rest, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I'll be back in a few days so keep this up - it's great.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dragon_Amor:

    do you have a copy of your thesis that i could read somewhere?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    Dragon_Amor:

    do you have a copy of your thesis that i could read somewhere?
    We don't want this to turn all offensive, do we...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragon_Amor)
    I hate to have to do this. I feel bad about it, but I feel it needs to be done. I don't like to pick on people with such a weak grip on the English language, or such a short memory span that they forget that all the sentences add up to a larger picture - especially when that larger picture isn't very far off of the stance of the person who choose to deconstruct my writing line by line trying to find error within it, or trying to interpret it as if it we're expressing something other than it does. It's juvenile, and perhaps juvenile on my part to take this effort as well. God forgive for picking on the less fortunate.

    I'll try to help you point by point caz, we got a little more in common than you managed to realize, even if you didn't do your homework, ok?

    -------------------------------
    Your first quote of me makes absolutely no sense.

    Your second quote of me makes absolutely no point.

    Your third quote of me, you use to try and say means that I don't support filesharing, on which you are dead wrong. Amazing Trade, I think you found your freeloader. And by the way, gross industry sales haven't gone down, they have gone up - do your homework. At least we agree that filesharing is widespread and should be - I just don't understand how you didn't realize we agreed on this.

    Your fourth quote of me, you argue that revenue was not the cause of their recoil - but instead it was because they are an egocentrical industry that seeks money and power. Hey dipshit - you just said what I said in a way that wastes a lot more words saying it colorfully. Do you even know the word revenue? I have to wonder... Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would realize that revenue means "money aquired", thus derives their profit, growth, influence, i.e. clout (read: power).

    Your fifth quote is flawed only because your assumption that sales are down is simply untrue. The "mass-marketing ********", as you so eloquently put it, attempts to promote the idea that sales are down. Since I as well do not buy into the "mass-marketing ********", I do not believe - not as a matter of personal sentiment (which could yeild similiar results), but as a belief reinforced by research. You may want to re-read the part where I explain that sales are down in their top 40 acts, but not overall - the former of which they base their claim. If you don't buy into "mass-marketing ********", why do you espouse it? Kudos on living in the present, by the way. That's great.

    Your sixth quote you believe is a logical quote for which to restate my acknowledgement that their top 40 acts returned less on investiment because it wasn't nearly as primary a sales item as it used to be. Ya, they made less money ON TOP 40 ACTS. Not less money overall. Dude, I'm waiting for you here on earth, ok? Next time, try not to isolate the quote from the context if you want to understand the total message. It will keep you from thinking I'm contradicting myself when I haven't.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Now for your second set of nonesense
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Your first quote of me you find fault as you fail to realize what an enormous source of revenue marketing is. Statistics is the raw data, the life blood, of marketing. Tracing sales, and movement of media in general, is central to accurate statistics. The less they can track, the less accurate their gathered data. The less accurate their gathered data (read: statistics - just trying to make sure you can follow this), then the less effective their marketing. They don't care about fulfilling their ego's over knowing who's looking at crotches, they are concerned with filling the pockets on either side of their own.

    Your second quote of me here is followed by a criticism that claims I believe no law suits have been made, and then admits to understanding what I said. I have already mentioned the lottery-like law suits designed to scare people into obeying unenforceable laws. Sorry I lost you little buddy.

    Your third quote of me here makes it clear that you have never heard a Bill Hicks show, nor are you familiar with a little flair or artistic lisence being used to candidly clear up points in a message you haven't seemed to understand well in the first place. I'm sorry I overestimated your own comprehensive skills. As you can see, I'm trying not to be annoyed at helping you along toward understanding points I thought did not need clearing up. Take a writing course for more info on the use of style in literature.

    Your fourth quote, well, I don't really have an issue with this one. You seem to understand very well that there is enough entrenched within a culture to make those in it similiar enough to have common reaction to certain stimuli, and certain exploits that could apply to many with a high rate of success. Thanks for the color.

    Your fifth quote sounds like you are 12. What more should I say about this one? Maybe something like "I know you are but what am I?" Hardly. Grow up a little junior.

    Your sixth quote, interestingly, quotes my acknowledgement of the lottery-like law-suits that you claimed earlier I failed to acknowledge. Next.

    In your seventh quote you seem to think that obedience, or lack of obedience to the law is akin to suicidal behaviour. Further, I have consistently contended that the industry does fight for it's self-interest. It just so happens that their best interest is diametrically opposed to our best interest within the issue of filesharing. (diametrically opposed means the opposite of - don't want to lose you in all the big scary words).

    Your eigth quote of me makes absolutely no sense - maybe you would like to explain that one.

    Your nineth quote assumes that the average filesharer never buys a damn thing. You don't think 5 million users of Kazaa alone don't represent a large proportion of each years sales? Don't be so niave.

    The rest of your rant is drivel. And by the way, Erik Idle is the only person I quoted from TV. **** you for dissing my friends.



    To the rest, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I'll be back in a few days so keep this up - it's great.
    What the hell are you talking about? I just attacked you completely, and now you act like you're going out on a limb here to "help me out" by attacking me. I never said you didn't support file-sharing. It is obvious you do.

    I didn't even read the rest of the crap you wrote, you're completely delusional and self-absorbed. By the way, nice job making fun of my English right after I completely made an ass of yours. Can't come up with your own arguments?

    Think before you speak. People aren't as stupid as you're pretending we are. We aren't as brainwashed as you state we are. Perhaps you believe you are better than other people.

    I'll pull out my psychology for a minute here. I haven't done this in a while:

    You seem to have just discovered the laws of file-sharing, perhaps out of a fear of being persecuted yourself. You found hope in negating the law, and completely disregarding those whose profits are at stake. So you come here, ramble on in your philosophical view about Britney Spears' crotch and the downloading of music vs. the record industry, then you completely ignore what people say as if you have all the answers, refering to yourself in third-person as if your worth is somehow higher than ours because you (and I suspect you're lying here) "make a living in this industry and know how it works". Perhaps you have low self-esteem and are searching for something, so you ramble on in your holier-than-thou "I have all the answers, I'm the only one who can know what is right and I shall even go to the extent of lying to prove this" posts, dissing the works of life in which people, such as the record industry, make their living, over-generalizing, using big words, bad grammar, stating the obvious, and making cheesy punchlines in an attempt to sound superior. You exaggerate way too much, criticise, and attempt to prove people wrong who actually make very good, and fair points.


    So next time you wanna play fake with me, I'd suggest you put up a better persona, and lose the attitude. Downloading music is wrong, in the sense of the record industry, which is understandable. This is true, this we all know. You degrade the industry in an attempt to use "two wrongs make a right". Yes, **** the industry. Okay. We all figured this out by now, which is why we download music without thinking twice about it. There is a law that allows them to sue those who share music, so before you try to say we are gullible for paying attention to those individuals who have already been fined, perhaps you should realize people pay attention to this as a means of protecting their self. We don't need people like you telling us how evil the industry is, because we can think for ourselves. You are providing misinformation, and in fact are getting very annoying.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, so you attack me, admit you haven't read my stance, yet think I can't support my arguments... mm, hmmm. You think I feel I'm better than others and express that whenever I use write in the 3rd person, am new to the filesharing scene, likely in legal jeopardy, and deeply involved with celebrity crotch shots... You think I have low self esteem, haven't lived the life I lived but instead some musicless substitute of which I'm lying about - so you think I'm a liar obviously... ohhkay... You think I feel I'm a know it all, respect noone else's opinion, diss the life's work of music artists - oh no wait - you made specific reference to the record label people, not the artists themselves - so I guess it's the exec's "life work" I'm dissing then... You think I use words that are too big, I over simplify things, make bad jokes, and you think I'm the one with an attitude problem?

    Did I get all that? Are you about finished? Thank-you for caring about me so much that you took the time to psycho-analyze me. I may not understand why you like to spend so much time thinking about me, I may not want to know why I'm such a figure for you to dwell on - but I appreciate it, especially since you don't do it often - I should feel special. But next time you open that psychology book of yours that you say you don't get to open very often - look up projection. You drop a line of you have any more compliments, ok?

    Now then,
    Anyone have something relevant for this thread?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    theFish - sorry things turned into a flame thread back there, you are absolutely right. This is a debate on filesharing, not a popularity contest. If I didn't expect some people to not like me, I wouldn't have worded the poll the way I did. But it would be nice to see some ideas flying around instead of another episode of "I don't like you but I haven't said it enough yet".

    JSM - the only public copy so far of that thesis is at the St. Francis Xavier University. If you would like a copy then maybe we could work something out. I still have the original Word file of it - so maybe email would be an option. Write back on this if you are serious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Note to would be flamers:

    I don't care if you don't agree with me, it's the essence of all debate. However, I do prefer someone demonstrate an understanding of what it is they do not agree with. I'm not here to debate grammer, or how perfectly I care to type entries, writing style, and I'm certainly not here to apologize for knowing a lot about what I actually came to debate. I'm hoping those who know a lot on the related topics continue to show themselves. Any angry kids who think any amount of intelligence, experience, or curiosity is really a mask for whatever you want to think is under it - well you do for this thread whatever it is you think you do for this thread. We all may not like the wasted space, but the predictable reactions can be so entertaining in a childish way. I'll respond to those of you when I want you to talk. If you want to be treated any better, try to remember that I'm not here to make friends or enemies - I just want to see what people think of filesharing - I want to develope ideas constructively. I'll treat anyone here to do the same thing, for or against my opinions, with respect. Flamers, I'm sorry, but you really do it to your self, and if I'm a bad person for being amused by it I'm sorry, but so be it. Flamers become the predictable intellect equivalent my dog fetching my ball. Go get it boy, I'm tossing another one - you run, and start barking, and bring that back to me - NOW! good doggy.

    Maybe part of me is a prick - but some grow old instead of grow up. I find humor when I see the those people. Sure, I feel sorry for them, but I've had a little rum-and-eggnog tonight, that's true. I can be a nice guy, I try to be - -----but sometimes I don't want to be one. At least I'm selective and take the time to think about that, and choose types of people that best deserve any lack of concern I may feel from time to time. Or, maybe I'm not perfect - you think? lol

    Anyway - hope all you prestigious 3l33ts, heartbreakers, gentlemen, sweethearts, and lowlifes alike had at least one day that was good to you over the holidays. My day still waits for me under northern lights in the praries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're a hypocrite and an idiot. You can't take disagreement. Get over it; you shouldn't be here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thus my point was made. Thank-you. I knew I could count on you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So, can we get back to filesharing now??
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caz)
    You're a hypocrite and an idiot. You can't take disagreement. Get over it; you shouldn't be here.
    Caz,

    I don't know you but I think Dragon Amor seems to be more qualified to offer a judgment than you on just about any subject.

    One of the few intelligently written discussions on here gets flamed by you. What do you want, a place where we all **** each other off and talk about nothing but who's got the highest post count and what was on TV last night?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Dragon_Amor: Here are a few points I would like to make about your posts.

    N.B. In my view, downloading copyrighted material from the internet, without having paid for it, is theft. And I think, that in the overwhelming majority of cases, stealing is wrong. I don't think that in this case it is right. The fact that everyone else does it, does not bother me: History has shown, that the "majority" has extremely often been wrong.

    1) You argue that online file-sharing does NOT damage CD/DVD etc. sales. You say, that the industry only thinks so, but that actually, P2P has made sales-figures rise.
    With all due respect, I think the record-label people are better at making market-analysis than you. They are not stupid. They know how to make money. They behave in rational way.
    If you were right, if not all, at least some big record labels should have come to the same conclusion than you. As far as I know, they haven't.
    Though I must admit, it is not impossible, the chances of you being right here and the vast majority of record labels being wrong is quite slim.

    Let's face it: If you can get music for free, those who sell music WILL lose out.
    Some people might behave "ideally", by downloading music and then buying the records they like in order to reward the artist, but most people won't. The vast majority of people go for the cheapest option.
    At least, that's the assumption modern economic models are based on, and they work pretty well, so they can't be that wrong.

    2) You seem to be not particularly fond of record-labels. You argue, that they take all the money for themselves and that artists get very little. Hence, you argue, illegal file-sharing is morally alright, because artists (in your view those who deserve the money) won't lose out and record-labels don't "deserve" the money anyway.

    First of all, I would be very surprised if most artists did not get paid as much as they sell. If an artist's paycheck is a function of the number of records sold, he WILL lose out if less people buy his records.

    If record-labels were really the parasites you portray them as, the market would have long ago disposed of them. The fact of the matter is, that they are useful. There is a good reason they exist: Making records and selling them is not cheap. Most artists do not have the money to produce records by themselves. Therefore, they need record-labels.

    I don't think it's unfair, record-labels take a certain share of the profit. That's the price of the risks they have to take. Besides, artists always agree beforehand to give labels a certain share of the profit.

    A song is the artist's intellectual property. He can do with it what he wants. If he chooses to go to a record label and sell his record to them, he is free to do so. Who are you, to say that you can steal his property just because you do not like his choice?

    3) You argue that a law that cannot be enforced is not legitimate and should be removed. You put laws banning theft of intellectual property via internet in this category.

    Firstly, these laws CAN be enforced. It is not impossible for the government to monitor your online activities and punish you for illegal filesharing.

    You probably say, that this is only possible if the state infringes on your civil liberties. Ok, I was just saying they are enforcable.

    Exceeding certain speed limits is illegal. Yet the government can only catch a tiny fraction of offenders. If it wanted to catch all or most offenders, it would have to infringe on certain civil liberties.

    I think, it's the same with illegal file-sharing: It's enough to catch SOME offenders.

    4) Finally, I have a few questions to you:

    a) Do you judge the morality of an action by its essence or by its consequences?

    b) Do you think stealing intellectual property is better than stealing in a shop?

    c) Do you think downloading a copyrighted song you have not paid is theft?

    d) Do you have a religion? If so, which one? (sorry, if that's too much of a personal question; I'm agnostic BTW)


    Thanks if you've gone through all this. I'd be curious to read your answer, as you seem to be well-informed about the subject.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    Caz,

    I don't know you but I think Dragon Amor seems to be more qualified to offer a judgment than you on just about any subject.

    One of the few intelligently written discussions on here gets flamed by you. What do you want, a place where we all **** each other off and talk about nothing but who's got the highest post count and what was on TV last night?
    What are you talking about? He wanted a debate, and he completely flamed our way of society and media. And how can you say any subject? That has to be the most ignorant things I've read. I don't speak on every subject.

    I disagree with him, and he rambles on and on with crap that I cannot possibly agree with or understand. Get over it

    I offer intelligent discussion, so I don't even know what you're talking about...not to mention I offer my own beliefs, I discuss philosophy, life, death, etc. This hardly has anything to do with him rambling about Kazaa.

    I don't even understand the basis to your response. Yes, people disagree with me. Some people don't like me. What is your point? I am not here to make friends. I have every right to point out flaws in an attempt at an educated explanation of our way of life. He uses the obvious to try to sound smart.

    Not to mention I post very contraversial things, and argue a lot. I debate. Do you have a problem with this? Does this make somebody unintelligent?

    I do not "flame" everybody who posts intelligent discussion, and in fact I don't always discuss intelligent matters. So grow up if you're gonna whine over that. The guy doesn't have anywhere near good grammar, yet he claims to be a writer. And he wanted a debate, he even put a quote that told us to get nasty with it as well.

    And, on another note, you're entitled to your opinion, but you offer no basis to it. I like how you say he "seems to be more qualified to offer a judgment than you on just about any subject"...um, like what? And, anyway, I am willing to admit I can be wrong, not to mention I don't claim to have any answers, I only offer what I know. And if somebody posts some crap, stating a bunch of obvious crap as if this makes them smart, I will read behind the lines to his message and point out:

    Downloading music is in fact stealing. Yes, I will continue to download music as well as support those who do as well. But I will never justify it by insulting the industry behind it, as the industry brought the music, the industry adds excitement to life, and the industry is looking to make its fair share. The guy may be a musician, but I do, and will continue to doubt his experience. He may be educated on the matters to a degree, but I disagree with his message. Get over it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Dragon_Amor: Here are a few points I would like to make about your posts.

    N.B. In my view, downloading copyrighted material from the internet, without having paid for it, is theft. And I think, that in the overwhelming majority of cases, stealing is wrong. I don't think that in this case it is right. The fact that everyone else does it, does not bother me: History has shown, that the "majority" has extremely often been wrong.

    1) You argue that online file-sharing does NOT damage CD/DVD etc. sales. You say, that the industry only thinks so, but that actually, P2P has made sales-figures rise.
    With all due respect, I think the record-label people are better at making market-analysis than you. They are not stupid. They know how to make money. They behave in rational way.
    If you were right, if not all, at least some big record labels should have come to the same conclusion than you. As far as I know, they haven't.
    Though I must admit, it is not impossible, the chances of you being right here and the vast majority of record labels being wrong is quite slim.

    Let's face it: If you can get music for free, those who sell music WILL lose out.
    Some people might behave "ideally", by downloading music and then buying the records they like in order to reward the artist, but most people won't. The vast majority of people go for the cheapest option.
    At least, that's the assumption modern economic models are based on, and they work pretty well, so they can't be that wrong.

    2) You seem to be not particularly fond of record-labels. You argue, that they take all the money for themselves and that artists get very little. Hence, you argue, illegal file-sharing is morally alright, because artists (in your view those who deserve the money) won't lose out and record-labels don't "deserve" the money anyway.

    First of all, I would be very surprised if most artists did not get paid as much as they sell. If an artist's paycheck is a function of the number of records sold, he WILL lose out if less people buy his records.

    If record-labels were really the parasites you portray them as, the market would have long ago disposed of them. The fact of the matter is, that they are useful. There is a good reason they exist: Making records and selling them is not cheap. Most artists do not have the money to produce records by themselves. Therefore, they need record-labels.

    I don't think it's unfair, record-labels take a certain share of the profit. That's the price of the risks they have to take. Besides, artists always agree beforehand to give labels a certain share of the profit.

    A song is the artist's intellectual property. He can do with it what he wants. If he chooses to go to a record label and sell his record to them, he is free to do so. Who are you, to say that you can steal his property just because you do not like his choice?

    3) You argue that a law that cannot be enforced is not legitimate and should be removed. You put laws banning theft of intellectual property via internet in this category.

    Firstly, these laws CAN be enforced. It is not impossible for the government to monitor your online activities and punish you for illegal filesharing.

    You probably say, that this is only possible if the state infringes on your civil liberties. Ok, I was just saying they are enforcable.

    Exceeding certain speed limits is illegal. Yet the government can only catch a tiny fraction of offenders. If it wanted to catch all or most offenders, it would have to infringe on certain civil liberties.

    I think, it's the same with illegal file-sharing: It's enough to catch SOME offenders.

    4) Finally, I have a few questions to you:

    a) Do you judge the morality of an action by its essence or by its consequences?

    b) Do you think stealing intellectual property is better than stealing in a shop?

    c) Do you think downloading a copyrighted song you have not paid is theft?

    d) Do you have a religion? If so, which one? (sorry, if that's too much of a personal question; I'm agnostic BTW)


    Thanks if you've gone through all this. I'd be curious to read your answer, as you seem to be well-informed about the subject.

    I agree completely, I even said most of these things. But be prepared to hear his whining (although I'm sure after he reads my post he won't do any whining, as to avoid looking like a troll).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I need to make two entries because my reply to you was too long. lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    zizero,
    finally. A very well constructed case. You certainly covered a lot. Caz, take notes from this guy. This is what intelligent criticism looks like. He's stated how he understands my views, and stated his own views with explanations on why he feels the way he does. He's done it in an organized, coherent manner. It's very effective writing. Thanks zizero, for the fresh air in here. Ok, where do I start.

    1) I don't doubt that record companies feel they are losing money. I do feel that they "bend the truth" when they claim any loses due to drops in grosse sales. The fact is that the total number of CD's sold per year has risen. Where they lose their money most is in their top 40 acts for two reasons. Reason number one: This is where they spend the most money on recording, post-production, advertising, marketing, touring, special promotions, merchandising, distribution, and of course, these are the bands that have the most CD's pressed, printed, shrink-wrapped, and shipped. Reason number two: Their marketing research essentially dictates for them what kind of project they want to make into a top 40 band. Essentially, the marketing precribes who will be in the top 40. I don't mean marketing in the sense of promotions, like I meant in reason one - here I mean by marketing the results from collected statistics when they want to discern what things are popular and could be promoted with the highest propable success.

    So even if gross sales of CD's go up, they could lose money through the fact that their top 40 ventures hadn't made the return on investment they expected to make, and they could lose money in the sense that they realize their ability to predict "what types of bands will enjoy predictable returns on investment" has been diminshed to some degree. If they want to claim that these two reasons are why they have not made what they used to, they are free to say so. My problem with the industry on this point is simply that they do not say so, but instead claim overall CD sales are down, which is actually untrue. Because I believe that filesharing has allowed people to explore music on their own before they spend any money with greater freedom than radio, tv, and advertising could ever facilitate, I conclude that filesharing must be a contributing factor to why top 40 sales have gone done while gross CD sales have gone up. You may be right to think I'm an idealist for thinking that at least more than half of the people who download music also buy some. I very well could be wrong. I guess I base it on comparing an overall rise in grosse CD sales to that astonishing 5,000,000 odd users online I see all the time on Kazaa. I admit, I make an asumption there and maybe even base that asumption on my own behavior. You absolutely right to point out that I can't substantiate the claim that downloaders are buyers as well. For the very same reason I can't prove a connection here, record labels also can't attain the kind of data critical they need, namely who liked what songs (and where do they live, age, sex, etc.), for effective marketing.

    2) Actually, it would surprise most people just how little money an artist recieves based on record sales. For every $25 CD sold here in Canada, the average band recieves approximately 50 cents. 30% of the $25 goes to the store you bought it (so, in this example, the store gets $7.50). 30% to 40% of the remaining $17 gets taken by distribution (so between $5.10 to $6.80 - let's assume the higher rate for now). The rest is broken down into executive and legal fees, production, recording costs, and the standard 30% the "manager" gets for "discovering you" (read: signing you and making sure the "right people" get paid for the work you did). This is why myself, and many artists/bands of similiar mindset strive to become successful independant acts. It makes more career sense to make a studio for about $40,000, do your own recording, handle your own copyrights, do your own mastering, and in the end make $10.70 per $25 CD sold instead of 50 cents (we still need distribution and the retailor still wants his 30% markup). The real money for signed acts is in the live shows. Even for unsigned acts, it's the real "I make a living" end of the job. I know what's involved in the jobs of those at labels who make MUCH more money off of bands and their art than what the whole band gets paid collectively. I know this from experience with labels. In my opinion, it's not the label that brings us music, it's the artist. On paper, the cashflow behind the music we love is akin to the vampire keeping the girl alive for as long as she can give more blood. Reality is that most artists are poor - record exec's at labels are not, not by a long shot. I guess I favour the source of music over the promoters. In my opinion, genius lay with the artist - yet money goes to the goon. Also, it is very common that in the case of a signed act, copyrights are retained by the label and legally are taken away from the creator of the song.

    Finally, I personally do not see downloading songs as theft, so of course I do not endore people stealing it in any way. I see filesharing as the ultimate marketing tool that has no label steering it. I see it as a free forum that has the potential to give equal access to those who want to hear songs from any artist, famous or not. It's the only forum that has no record label steering attention to certain acts, and it's possibly the only forum that isn't easily bribed. In essence, I see mp3 filesharing as the ultimate "trial", the "like who you want to like and make your own decision" forum. I see filesharing as being the best thing to ever happen to CD sales in the long run - but of course, part of that reasoning is flawed because one of my arguments that support this view is an assumption that those who fileshare will also buy some CD's - but hey, someone had to buy a copy of every song you find on any network somewhere down the line - how else was that mp3 made in the first place?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    3) History has shown that the law that cannot be enforced becomes obsolete. How many people get arrested for jay-walking or spitting on the side-walk even though these are still laws technically in effect? We all do it. How many times has Canada's gun registry been modified to encourage acceptence? It has been a law for 4 years, originally requiring all gun owners in the country to register their firearm into a national database that would track where all the guns in Canada were - and compliance to do so was required by law within 6 months of it's passing. When next to no one did so, they dropped the $400 registration fee to $200 - six months later to $75 - a year later to $20 - and now it's free - but still only a very small percentage of gun owners have registered (and no, no one was refunded at any time). This law is now being considered for a repeal. Many laws that do not recieve public consent nor have viable mass enforcability go through this kind of maturation period. The pressure is on for compliance to the laws against filesharing because it is in danger of going through this cycle as well. The random law-suit is a testament to both the fact that no court can handle the volume of suing 5 million people, and to the fact that voluntary compliance derived through fear of persecution is the only means by which this law can be saved from the fate of being nulled. This is the power the citizenry has in law, and is it any wonder this is not advertised or brought to our collective attentions?

    It's not so much that I think the law should be nulled - it's not even so much that I disagree on a moral ground with that law. It's just that this law could easily be defeated if the public chooses to see that be the case and expresses it in mass - and coincidentally, it would please me personally to see filesharing continue to carry the kind of "equality among artists where fame is based on talent and a public choosing to listen (as opposed to fame based on label attention telling us what we like for us)" potential that I suspect it does.

    You are right to say that the government could VERY EASILY monitor my online activity and prosecute, privacy rights be damned. I agree completely. My argument was never trying to deny this, though. My argument was just that even if privacy rights never existed, a government would be required to police and prosecute every offender when it comes to this type of "crime" (and I use the term "crime" loosely here) before the government could claim the law enforcable. Speeding is different because all highways will always have traffic - but to outlaw filesharing, and specific networks used for filesharing, they would need to achieve a "no-traffic at all" state of affairs. They would need to substantiate that those prosecuted are not singled out by ethnicity, creed, religion, etc, etc, etc... Enforcement is met when the majority obey - they hope deterence will work since prosecution can't handle the overflow.


    4)

    a) Personally, I judge morality by its causal intention - not by its actual consequences or by its essence. By essence, I assume you mean something similiar to Kants "Catagorical Imperitive" wherein he would evaluate a moral decision based on its universal applicability. I have a paper from my third year ethics course where I think I successfully argued that Kant (in "Catagorical Imperitive") and JS Mill (in "Utilitarianism") are essentially saying the same things - it devotes a lot of time clearing up the messy understanding Utilitarianim has recieved in the last few centuries - I assume due to the connotation "utility" would have in the modern world (especially when discussing a topic like ethics). A lot of how I feel is captured in more detail concerning how I make moral judgements. If you want a copy, no problem - let me know.

    b) I believe stealing, in any form, is traced to one basic fault - dishonesty. I don't condone stealing. However, when someone profiteers off of someone else's ideas, and then someone else profiteer's off of someone else's ideas - and then the idea of profiteering off of the ideas of someone else becomes so common and successful for the profiteers that it becomes a recognized industry - I tend to think that there is something very wrong with the picture I'm seeing. I don't believe the industry's claim that I am the criminal here because I don't support their profiteering. Nothing a label does creates music. Nothing a label does creates intellectual copyrights. They promote music others make, and strip most artists of their right to their own work, and make nearly all the money their work ever become worth for themselves. I don't support labels BECAUSE I don't support stealing.

    c) I do not feel differently about downloading songs than I do about listening to the radio, watching MTV, checking out webcasts, internet radio, or whatever form I may hear music without financial exchange. I'm only going to throw my financial support behind the bands I like. I'm only going to know what bands I like after I hear them. In practice, the more music I download, the more bands I "discover" I like - the more bands I like, the more CD's I get to add to my collection. The more CD's in my collection, the more work I need to do (and time I need to take) to rip perfect mp3's for my mp3 version of my collection, and the closer Oceans cases gets to having to build me a second CD Case, because that 900 mark is just getting closer and closer. Do I feel I stole it because I downloaded it without payment? I don't, because a) I need to hear it to know I like it, b) I need to download it to hear it, and c) I have no control over the quality of the file I'm downloading - those files never live up to the sonic quality I'm used to - they might as well be AM radio as far as fidelity is concerned and I would never pay money for such aurally degraded product. But that's just my opinion. Few, if any, take the care I take in providing myself quality MP3's. But that's fair, audio engineers could be considered a minority group to the population at large, I guess - even considered so small as to be an insignificant portion of the buying and/or filesharing communities.


    d) This is the question I couldn't wait to answer for some reason. I smiled, and I thank you for asking. I was raised Roman Catholic and that all changed once I was older. The last person to ask me my religion was a priest for this Penticostal church downtown in what we call "the red row". A friend and I had just got out from boxing, we were new member to the Albion Boxing Club whose claim to fame was Art Heyfee (I'm not sure if that last name is spelled right, it's pronounced "Hey fee") being a trainor there, and his claim to fame was losing to Muhammed Ali for the World Title in Africa back in the day. Anyway, Allan and I got out and were waiting in the snow and ice storm outside this Penticostal church waiting for my friend Kara, and this priest comes out to invite us in. Well, there are these adults and kids in there shouting halleluia and holy ghost and shaking around, some on the floor... We said thanks but we'd wait outside. The priest says "why not? it's awefully cold out here and you are welcome inside? what religion are you?" I looked at the ice covered sidewalk, the wind, and then inside that church, and then at the priest and said "I'm Pedestrian".

    I haven't really found a religion for me, and I don't claim to have "my own" in a David Cresh kinda way or anything. I just build my beliefs from what the world shows me. I've had incredibly spiritual feelings, bonds with certain people, connections so strong between my and one person so far that things were inexplicably known between us, even on opposite shores of this country. Little things that matter to me and give me a sense of soul. But I can't say I'm a member of a group that deals with these things in a common way or anything. I can't say I'm athiest - it's like a religious like commitment against religion in ways. I can't say I'm agnostic because I believe in something that is bigger than myself, but I'm not sure if it is a being, a spirit, or of a nature I could know, describe, or understand - but I think there is something common to all things that is outside of matter, space, or time. Years ago I had a few encounters with what I thought might be ghosts, and although I am exactly the type of person to denounce that type of thing, I can't honestly say it isn't possible. That and my sense of morality pretty much sum up my religious beliefs.

    I'm pedestrian after all I guess

    -------------------------------------------------
    Thanks for the well thought out arguments you gave. I hope you can see I appreciate them enough to reply at this length to them. I like your style. Keep 'em coming. And happy holidays.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    and caz - don't flatter yourself. zizero made logically constructed points. he had opinions, knew how to communicate them, and knew how to give them weight and merit. what did you say about filesharing? you ranted about me, and don't seem to know much of either. now do what your good at and bark
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragon_Amor)
    and caz - don't flatter yourself. zizero made logically constructed points. he had opinions, knew how to communicate them, and knew how to give them weight and merit. what did you say about filesharing? you ranted about me, and don't seem to know much of either. now do what your good at and bark
    it is not my fault you ignored my original post, idiot.

    go back and read it. i dont need to flatter myself, the post remains on page 2

    before you make an ass of yourself, i'd suggest you read your own ****ing thread. and you wonder why i doubt your experience, and why i "rant about you"
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2004
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.