WASHINGTON - Internet providers must abide by music industry requests to track down computer users who illegally download music, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a case that could dramatically increase online pirates' risk of being caught.
You die...--More-- You made the Top Ten List! No Points 1 43372 Kaka-Bar-Orc-Mal-Cha died in The Dungeons of Doom on level 7 [Max 13], Killed by a troll, while helpless.
Well, it's a crappy law, but I think a quote near the end made me rather ambivalent:
"The case arose from efforts by the recording association to track down a Verizon customer who was freely sharing copies of more than 600 songs by well-known artists."
Personally, I wouldn't waste the hard drive space for MP3s of songs by most well-known artists, especially the ones that are popular in this day and age.
Let the RIAA pursue the people who wish to share files of the anti-music of today, I couldn't give a crap less. I do understand why they're cracking down, though - more people these days know better than to buy an album of putrid filler just for a song or two with a catchy hook or a chorus that can be sung/rapped in the shower.
Well, hopefully the Court of Appeals will turn over this law. It seems a little too "big brother" to me, considering the incredibly large amount of people that engage in file sharing.
It seems most of the sharing I'm doing as of late is 80's stuff along with some 70's fusion and 50's & 60's post-bop along with the odd noise track here and there. I don't know so much about German electronica, but I love Einstürzende Neubauten.
I don't know if you can properly say that the recording industry "falsely blames" its decreased profits on MP3 file sharing. The fact is that many people have stopped, or at least reduced, their purchases of CDs as compared to years past. File sharing is cheap and easy and affords everyone with a computer the opportunity to get essentially whatever music they want for nothing. Its also theft of intellectual property. Recoding companies, and artists, make no money when MP3s are shared, hence their profits will decrease.
The fact that recording companies are likely continuing to make a profit overall, and likely a large one, doesn't negate the fact that internet music piracy is harmful to them.
"Dear to us ever is the banquet and the harp and the dance and changes of raiment and the warm bath and love and sleep" -- Homer
This probably wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if the record industry hadn't spent the past 20 years grossly inflating the costs of their albums. CD's cost so little to make and distribute and still cost close to $20 at a mall store. No single CD should ever be more than $10-$11.
Most *artists* don't make much off of CD's anyway. They make most of their money off of constant touring. The record industry and artists who rarely tour (just about all the musicians who are against file sharing fall into this category) are the ones leading the anti file-sharing charge.
Originally posted by canuckloverI don't know if you can properly say that the recording industry "falsely blames" its decreased profits on MP3 file sharing. The fact is that many people have stopped, or at least reduced, their purchases of CDs as compared to years past. File sharing is cheap and easy and affords everyone with a computer the opportunity to get essentially whatever music they want for nothing. Its also theft of intellectual property. Recoding companies, and artists, make no money when MP3s are shared, hence their profits will decrease.
My life's dream is to construct a machine that, any time I hear the words "intellectual property," will fling a radar-guided anvil at a randomly-selected copyright lawyer.
Many other people have _increased_ their purchases of CDs, and file sharing is a direct cause. Sounds crazy? It isn't.
There are many artists that I would never have even HEARD of, had it not been for the Internet and file-sharing apps. The albums I subsequently purchased are sales directly caused by P2P software.
There are many artists who I'd heard of and heard good reviews for, but whose works were expensive enough or sufficiently radio-unfriendly that I didn't feel up to paying full price and taking a chance on unfamiliar songs. Frank Zappa is a perfect example -- his career was so long and eclectic that I didn't know where to begin, particularly since much of his catalog are expensive double-and-triple albums. Through the magic of P2P, I obtained a broad sampler of his music and started buying what I liked. As of today, I have 22 legitimate store-bought Zappa albums, have at least three more on my "to buy" list, and that's not even counting the hard-to-find "official bootleg" sets.
There are many artists whose bandwagons I'd fallen off of -- I liked certain albums, but been scared away by subsequent, inferior albums. (Hello, Fishbone.) Through P2P, I heard their newest release, and then went to the store and bought it. Cha-ching!
Am I the exception, rather than the rule? Perhaps. Are there hordes who download the new Britney CD five minutes after it's released (or sometimes days BEFORE it's released, due to leaks), with no intentions of paying for it? Sure. But I also won't pretend that file-sharing is a one-way ticket to poverty for the major record labels, who aren't exactly known for playing fairly with the general public, either.
(edited by vsp on 23.1.03 1044) "Ah, the old exploding-beartrap-in-the-ass trick." -- Goemon Ishikawa
VSP, I take your point with respect to the increased awareness of less mainstream bands that the internet has brought. I also agree that file sharing has allowed me to preview albums which I have then gone to the store and bought (I'd much rather have the actual disc, complete with liner notes, than a copy). My point in my original post was simply to question previous posts which suggested that record companies have not suffered damages or loss as a result of internet downloading of their artists' works.
Without wishing to confine your argument unduly, I think that it may be possible to divide the debate between mainstream and less mainstream artists and their labels. In my view, and without thinking about it too deeply, it will be the mainstream artists who are most hurt by internet file sharing. These artists are already in the public view and have their material played on the radio and television. Putting their songs on file sharing sites does nothing (or, at least, very little) to increase their exposure. What it does do is allow their material to be acquired for free. I think there can be no doubt that many people have, and will continue to, take this opportunity and not subsequently purchase the CD. With respect to less-mainstream artists, though, I think that internet exposure can be quite useful and, indeed, many small labels will upload entire albums to introduce their artists to the public. Clearly this type of exposure can be valuable to a new artist and may have economic benefits down the road. Support for this argument can be seen in the fact that it is generally major labels and major artists who are against file sharing while indies are more often in favour of it. There are, of course, certain major artists who, for political or other reasons, are quite content to have their works shared online, and, I imagine, vice versa. I submit, though, that these are the minority.
Given your statement about anvils etc., I'm glad I'm not a copyright lawyer. You don't have anything against civil litigators, do you?
(edited by canucklover on 23.1.03 1352) "Dear to us ever is the banquet and the harp and the dance and changes of raiment and the warm bath and love and sleep" -- Homer
Originally posted by astrobstrdMost *artists* don't make much off of CD's anyway. They make most of their money off of constant touring.
the problem with this logic is that you fail to realize the REASON why artists don't make money off the CDs that are sold.
when a record company puts out a band's album, they spend a good deal of money on it. well, that money is not "given" to the band; rather, it is loaned to them. it's an "investment" on the record label's end, in the truest sense of the word. if a band sells enough CDs to recoup what the record company spent for them to record the album, then they begin making a small profit per disc.
bands do make money off of merchandise sales (NOT what they get paid by the venue; most bands barely make enough off of that to put gas in the bus/van and food in their stomachs), but that too goes toward recouping the money spent to record the album.
thus, downloading MP3s instead of buying a band's album DOES hurt the band, by disabling their ability to pay back the record company what they "borrowed" to record their album.
"Music piracy" has all the same arguments -- on BOTH sides -- as "software piracy."
MUSIC CARTEL: We estimate that Aerosmith's new single has been illegally downloaded 1,500,000 times. That's (1500K * $20 per album) = $30 million in lost sales. We'd issue 1,500,000 lawsuits if we could.
DOWNLOADERS: Some of us went out and bought the album. Others of us would never have bought the album anyway, so those aren't really "lost sales." Your numbers are overestimated.
MUSIC CARTEL: That's irrelevant. You're stealing our intellectual property, and are therefore evil and depraved and belong in jail.
DOWNLOADERS: If you didn't (screw your artists/charge outrageous prices for a disc with two decent songs on it/promote mindless crap like Britney while real artists suffer in obscurity/hate and persecute us), we'd buy your albums.
MUSIC CARTEL: That's irrelevant. You're stealing our intellectual property, and are therefore evil and depraved and belong in jail.
DOWNLOADERS: Music "wants to be free."
MUSIC CARTEL: Then go make some "free music." Ours isn't.
DOWNLOADERS: Big albums make a ton of money anyway, so you're not being hurt when we download albums and don't buy the originals.
MUSIC CARTEL: ALL lost sales cost us money. Are you suggesting that nobody swaps MP3s without paying us a dime?
DOWNLOADERS: Well... um... lots of people are still buying the album.
MUSIC CARTEL: And the rest are thieves and criminals.
DOWNLOADERS: If you had an officially-sanctioned way to download music with fair prices, we'd use it.
MUSIC CARTEL: What you consider "fair prices" are ridiculously low.
DOWNLOADERS: Sez you.
MUSIC CARTEL: It's not up to us to change our business model to accommodate thieves and criminals.
DOWNLOADERS: It's up to you to give your customers what they want.
MUSIC CARTEL: We give our customers what WE want them to have, because we have to maintain full control over it.
DOWNLOADERS: Then try and stop us, corporate pigs.
MUSIC CARTEL: Okay. (looks at phone, which has several senators on speed-dial)
(both sides flip each other off and sulk in opposite corners)
"Ah, the old exploding-beartrap-in-the-ass trick." -- Goemon Ishikawa
Originally posted by FMWI think that the whole thing boils down to the fact that it is very unreasonable for me to by a cd for 20 freaking bucks.
and most of the time, for me at least, it's to get 2-4 tracks, and if i could pick and choose, i'd just pro-rate the purchase price for the tracks i like, but noooooooooo i have to buy the complete package, good/bad tracks alike, or hope it's on a single...
i'm ambivelant to the whole music piracy thing because it looks too much like game piracy. at my video store, we had 122 rents on the 9 GTA:VCs that we have. we paid $43.44 each so sony got their money from ingram entertainment who sold them to us and got $390.96
we charge $5 plus 5% tax and got $610 (122 x 5) and counting and approx 100 people got to play the game, and some people like me got to play, and beat the game, and didn't have to buy it. sony still only gets the 9 sales and we have pocketed $220 and counting...
the only difference between renting cd's and buning illegal copies to sell is that they have to return the discs to us...
sometimes i just rent to see if the game is good. like kingdom hearts. i'm obsessed with it. i will go out and buy it.
how does this relate to music? i grab tracks i either can't find or just want to hear, because i'm like vsp, i want to hear if it's worth buying (if i can get it) and i HATE gettting 2/3s of a disc that is pure crap. i just made a mix for a gal at work, and this is about as main stream as i get: (some titles may be wrong, because they weren't named by me) Blade 1 techno rave theme Cryatal Method -- "Keep hope alive" Orbital -- "Speed freak" (Moby mix) Fluke -- "V6" Photek -- "Titan" (also seen labeled as "The Third") Future Sounds of London -- "We have explosive" Sasha -- "Goteki 45" Chemical Brothers -- "Loops of fury" Fluke -- (from the wipeout soundtrack, just labeled as "wipeout") Future Sounds of London -- "Landmass" Chemical Brothers -- "Dust up beats" Paul Van Dyke -- "Avenue" Filter & Crystal Method -- "(Can't you) Trip like I do" (from the spawn soundtrack)
she wanted stuff she MIGHT have heard before, and that's the best random sampling I could come up with, with 4 hours notice. I could have gone all out, but if she wants more, i'm her hook up...and with that line-up, i had 12 seconds to spare on the disc (73:48 used out of 74 mins)
i will support artists that i like, but if i'm iffy, i'll snatch it online, that's basically the long and short of it...
(edited by rikidozan on 25.1.03 2153) You die...--More-- You made the Top Ten List! No Points 1 43372 Kaka-Bar-Orc-Mal-Cha died in The Dungeons of Doom on level 7 [Max 13], Killed by a troll, while helpless.
I'm also part of another group as yet unheard from...
I have a large collection of music from my youth on wax (you know...records). I wanted to listen to some of it in my car, and since I'm not of the means to buy CD's for all the music I already own I downloaded the music to make my copy on CD for the car.
If I could spare the change for an "audio" CD burner for our stereo rack this wouldn't even be an issue, but because I got it from the "evil" internet there are some that would call what I did unethical.
This is going to remain a VERY large grey area for some time to come.
I, as well, have tons of vinyl, and I used to make tapes of stuff to listen to in the car.
Now I make CDs. I make CDs from my vinyl actually. It's not all that hard to do, it just takes a lot of time and patience to hook everything up.
Back about 20 years ago, this same arguement was going on, but back then it was about blank tapes and recording stuff. As you can see, that went nowhere fast, just as I see where this is going.
They can't stop you. They're not going to go to every person's house who owns a computer and arrest you, no way is that gonna happen.
...but back to my original thought, Like Cranlsn, They can go fuck themselves if they think I'm gonna PAY to replace ALL my records for CDs. That's just CRAZY talk!!!
I also have a rather extensive laserdisc collection, take a guess at what I'm doing with the nice DVD burner I bought last february? YAP, you guessed it, I've been making DVDs of all my laserdiscs. I've been getting about 3 a week done in my spare time. I bet somewhere, there's a lawyer thinking that they'd just LOVE to get ahold of me. Shit, before I bought the burner, I was keeping Anchor Bay in business pretty much all by myself, but the last thing I bought of theres was the REPO MAN tin boxed set. I paid $39.98 for it and when I got home and watched it, I noticed that the picture was EXACTLY like my laserdisc copy. This kinda pissed me off, so I splurged and got the DVD burner and started teaching myself how to do layering and how to set seperate audio tracks and stuff. I've gotten quite good at it actually.
My best one so far was the japanese laserdisc copy of Dario Argento's Suspiria. I deleted the subtitles and ripped the audio tracks from the Anchor Bay DVD that I rented at Hollywood Video, and personally, I think it's just as good as the 3 disc set I could have bought for $29.99 at Best Buy. Instead, I rented it for free since I was working there at the time, I bought blank DVDs for less then $1 each off Ebay and I originally paid $7.99 for the laserdisc NEW at Peaches.