Illegal downloading, file-sharing and what i think- what do you think?

[MiltyG565]

So here I am, on another all nighted (God knows why) and there is nothing on TV. I flick over to BBC one, where there is a programme called Click on. One of the topics was about the founder of Megaupload, the website that was taken down as those ridiculous copyright laws were being discussed, essentially showing what things would be like for a lot of sites if the laws got passed, which lost it support. Anyway, this man has started a new website called Mega (really inventive there buddy). So, being the BBC, they had a bunch of comments from random half-wits about copyright infringement. They were things like-

"Pop stars need to focus more on the music than being super rich"

This is a non-argument to me. For one, there are more genres than pop, and plenty of artists in other genres actually don't make that much from their music. Secondly, if they weren't focusing on the music, it would be pop, because pop just means popular, and things aren't popular without a reason. and thirdly on this statement, because somebody is making a lot of money from something does not give you the right to steal it. Maybe i'll just go to a Mercedes dealership and drive away in an AMG without paying, and tell Mr. Mercedes that he should be doing it for the love of cars and not the money.

Another one said something like- "I'm an electrician. Every time somebody turns on a light, i don't expect to get paid for that. Artists should stop trying to make money from work they did in the past".

Eh, ok, Mr. Spark. So let's say, and this is very likely at a time like this, that you wired up a new build a year ago, but the client has had financial trouble, and they have just come up with the rest of the money they owe you, should they say "No, you shouldn't ask for money for work you have done in the past". Ok, so ignoring that idiotic statement, when you buy a CD or download it, you are buying a product, it doesn't matter how old it is, it is still a product. There are a lot of people to pay when making an album. For one, there is everyone at the label, all the marketing, the band members themselves, the gear they have needs to be paid for, everyone in the studio, and if it's a big band with a big label, you can be sure the studio is costing many hundreds a day to use, the rehearsal space, solicitors and copyright lawyers, the list really does go on, and i'm probably missing quite a few, but my point is, just because their wrote and recorded their work in the past does not mean that it is now worthless. I wonder how long the light switches you fit sit in a warehouse or your van before you fit them?

"I buy a book and share it with a couple of mates, then sell it at a car boot sale for maybe 50p".

Ok, so none of that is terrible, but i think you will find that sharing a CD isn't allowed. It will say it on the CD probably, but i'm sure we are all guilty of that one. and selling it at a car boot sale, probably not that big a deal, but you essentially get the same thing that you get with sites like MegaUpload, where people could come along and download your files, and then they could also share them. People who think that is OK really need to understand the amount of money that is lost to the music industry every year because of things like that happening, and it will ultimately result in less new acts being signed and/or lower quality recordings being done.

So here's what i think (If it wasn't already clear).

Everybody needs to go to their local HMV or independent music retailer, or both preferably, and buy a load of CD's, and if you have done a lot of illegal downloading, you should be buying more. Of course, if you have done a lot of illegal downloading, you'll probably not know, or give 2 tosses of how much money the music industry loses through it. And it was pointed out to me by some of the members on here that if you want to make music your living, you need to sell the end product, because that is the only way you will be able to fund your career in music, and allow you to write more music without worrying about how to pay bills etc. If we all decided to illegally download music, there wouldn't be ANY music, and we would make the queues at the job centre a great deal longer.

So what do you think?

[Roland Rock]

This came up last month
http://basschat.co.uk/topic/195848-paying-for-music-or-not/page__hl__downloading
The odd cheeky CD or file share aside, I think that putting this viewpoint to a forum of musicians is like preaching to the converted :-)

Edited February 17, 2013 by Roland Rock

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1361083684' post='1980714']
This came up last month
[url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/195848-paying-for-music-or-not/page__hl__downloading"]http://basschat.co.u...hl__downloading[/url]
The odd cheeky CD or file share aside, I think that putting this viewpoint to a forum of musicians is like preaching to the converted :-)
[/quote]

Yes, completely, but i had to vent my rage at "The great unwashed" as my christian bass teacher told me

[MiltyG565]

I should probably point out that i have a Spotify account, and i pay for mine. I do use it a lot to listen to a lot of music i couldn't afford to buy, but i think a portion of the money i pay gets filtered down to the artists, don't they?

[flyfisher]

I'd say part of the problem is the inconsistencies that are all around us, so we tend to pick and choose what elements of IP we support or don't support.

For example, there are a number topics on here whereby books are being passed around for free, thus depriving the authors of income from sales. A tad hypocritical perhaps?

Also, consider computer software. These are all protected works, yet it's not illegal to make copies for personal purposes unlike music recordings where it's actually illegal to rip a purchased CD onto a PC. In fact, CDs were a huge boom for the music industry as it enabled them to sell the same stuff twice as people replaced a lot of their vinyl recordings. They got fat and lazy on the back of that boom and now they are suffering . . . . possibly because people won't be fooled again.

The fact is that music is more freely available these days than ever before and this has reduced its value and people are generally more careless and disregarding of cheap things. This is why people pinch pens and pencils from their employers but wouldn't dream of pinching a PC.

Plus, the Internet has made amateur musicians able to spread their music far easier than ever before. And very good a lot of it is too, so, supply-and-demand starts to have its effect in driving down the price, and therefore perceived value, of music.

[TheGreek]

Simple principle...Get something you didn't pay for = theft??

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361099849' post='1980943']
I'd say part of the problem is the inconsistencies that are all around us, so we tend to pick and choose what elements of IP we support or don't support.

For example, there are a number topics on here whereby books are being passed around for free, thus depriving the authors of income from sales. A tad hypocritical perhaps?

Also, consider computer software. These are all protected works, yet it's not illegal to make copies for personal purposes unlike music recordings where it's actually illegal to rip a purchased CD onto a PC. In fact, CDs were a huge boom for the music industry as it enabled them to sell the same stuff twice as people replaced a lot of their vinyl recordings. They got fat and lazy on the back of that boom and now they are suffering . . . . possibly because people won't be fooled again.

The fact is that music is more freely available these days than ever before and this has reduced its value and people are generally more careless and disregarding of cheap things. This is why people pinch pens and pencils from their employers but wouldn't dream of pinching a PC.

Plus, the Internet has made amateur musicians able to spread their music far easier than ever before. And very good a lot of it is too, so, supply-and-demand starts to have its effect in driving down the price, and therefore perceived value, of music.
[/quote]

I didn't write this on the value of music, that's subjective, and if you are willing to pay nothing for an album, well then you shouldn't own it, because it clearly shows that you don't really want it.

I value a burst tyre at nothing, because i don't value a burst tyre, because i don't need a burst tyre. Somebody might value it at something, but not me.

But i think the attitude of the general public is "I can have it for free, so why wouldn't i have it for free?". They completely disregard that it is actually illegal, purely because the likelihood of them getting done for it is incredibly slim. I suppose that stands to reason really, most people will do things when they think they won't get caught. But that is not the point, just because you can get away with something does not mean that you should, and to argue that you should be allowed to continue to keep doing something illegal is idiotic. It's a illegal for a reason- It looses the artists and label so much money.

Copying a CD onto your computer, i don't see an issue with that. While i'm defending people getting their music legitimately, i'm not going to buy hundreds of songs again so i can have them on my iPod. That doesn't make me bad, i've downloaded plenty of other music that i didn't own.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='TheGreek' timestamp='1361101305' post='1980966']
Simple principle...Get something you didn't pay for = theft??
[/quote]

Yes, but they see it that it's not theft, because they reason in their own mind why it's not theft, often applying what they do as a job to what the artist does and see it as no different, when in fact, they have drawn parallel between 2 incomparable things.

Ok, i get that somebody would do something because they think they won't be held accountable for it, it's human nature, but to argue to be allowed to continue with the illegal thing which you know is illegal, but just don't feel like stopping. This isn't an addictive thing we are talking about, we are talking about downloading music illegally.

My cousin, who is a fairly easily lead person, it has to be said, a few years ago said something like "I download from artists that already make a lot of money anyway, so it doesn't matter". It didn't matter what i said on the matter, he just didn't get it. He was mostly downloading RATM albums. He's a massive Tom Morello fan. I even used the "If you're such a fan of the man, why wouldn't you pay for it?". I forget what his response was, but it was probably something incredibly stupid. I think he eventually stopped downloading illegally... nothing to do with what i said, i think he just stopped hanging around so much with the friends of his that were doing it (who i thought were mostly dickheads anyway).

[gjones]

The only reason why record companies got into the business of making records was because of the introduction of mass media (records, CDs, etc). Businessmen realised money could be made from this new product and moved in.

Record companies now realise that there is no longer the market there once was for selling mass media so are having to downsize. Although technology has been the downfall of the 'Music Business', ironically, access to technology for musicians means there is now more music being made than ever before and smaller acts can market and sell their music directly to their audiences without the patronage of a record company. It also means that acts that could once rely on record sales to keep the money rolling in, now have to get out and gig if they want to have a decent income. Which I think is good for music in the long run.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1361083684' post='1980714']
This came up last month
[url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/195848-paying-for-music-or-not/page__hl__downloading"]http://basschat.co.u...hl__downloading[/url]
The odd cheeky CD or file share aside, I think that putting this viewpoint to a forum of musicians is like preaching to the converted :-)
[/quote]
Comes up every month doesn't it?

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1361102658' post='1980998']
The only reason why record companies got into the business of making records was because of the introduction of mass media (records, CDs, etc). Businessmen realised money could be made from this new product and moved in.
[/quote]

Of course, i would never deny this.


[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1361102658' post='1980998']
Record companies now realise that there is no longer the market there once was for selling mass media so are having to downsize. Although technology has been the downfall of the 'Music Business', ironically, access to technology for musicians means there is now more music being made than ever before and smaller acts can market and sell their music directly to their audiences without the patronage of a record company. It also means that acts that could once rely on record sales to keep the money rolling in, now have to get out and gig if they want to have a decent income. Which I think is good for music in the long run.
[/quote]

More gigs is good, yes, but we still can't deny that the loss in revenue from illegal downloads is a massive amount, and that downsizing means less jobs for people in the music industry, all because some people refuse to get their music legally.

[chris_b]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1361102658' post='1980998']
....The only reason why record companies got into the business of making records was because of the introduction of mass media (records, CDs, etc). Businessmen realised money could be made from this new product and moved in....
[/quote]

Not always true. In the US there were thousands of small, local record companies, eg Sun, Chess, Vee-Jay etc.

A local hit might only sell a few thousand records.

[chris_b]

Illegal downloading is theft from musicians.

The apologists and blinkered will concentrate on the "evil" record companies getting their comeuppance, but musicians are being ripped off buy the public illegally downloading their music more than they ever were by record companies.

[MrTaff]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361101919' post='1980974']
Yes, but they see it that it's not theft, because they reason in their own mind why it's not theft, often applying what they do as a job to what the artist does and see it as no different, when in fact, they have drawn parallel between 2 incomparable things.
[/quote]

Because it's not theft, it's copyright infringement,

from wiki,
[quote]in common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent [b]with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it[/b][/quote]

when you copy some the rightful owner still has it, unlike stealing from a shop which everybody seems to compare illegal downloading to.

Edited February 17, 2013 by MrTaff

[flyfisher]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361101404' post='1980969']


I didn't write this on the value of music, that's subjective, and if you are willing to pay nothing for an album, well then you shouldn't own it, because it clearly shows that you don't really want it.

I value a burst tyre at nothing, because i don't value a burst tyre, because i don't need a burst tyre. Somebody might value it at something, but not me.

But i think the attitude of the general public is "I can have it for free, so why wouldn't i have it for free?". They completely disregard that it is actually illegal, purely because the likelihood of them getting done for it is incredibly slim. I suppose that stands to reason really, most people will do things when they think they won't get caught. But that is not the point, just because you can get away with something does not mean that you should, and to argue that you should be allowed to continue to keep doing something illegal is idiotic. It's a illegal for a reason- It looses the artists and label so much money.

Copying a CD onto your computer, i don't see an issue with that. While i'm defending people getting their music legitimately, i'm not going to buy hundreds of songs again so i can have them on my iPod. That doesn't make me bad, i've downloaded plenty of other music that i didn't own.
[/quote]

You see, that's full of the contradictions and cherry-picking that I alluded to in my earlier post.

Copying a CD your PC is illegal, yet you see no problem with it. Or downloading plenty of music you don't own.

These are the sorts of attitudes that are devaluing music in general. Right or wrong, depending on your personal opinions, I think it's inevitable.

[chris_b]

When you make a living from selling copies, taking those copies wothout paying is theft.

It's not the musicians fault if the law hasn't kept up with this.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='TheGreek' timestamp='1361101305' post='1980966']
Simple principle...Get something you didn't pay for = theft??
[/quote]

Who pays to view stuff on YouTube?
What about listening to music on spotify?
What about all the free music CDs given away by the Sunday papers?

None of this is 'theft' yet it allows people to access music for free. This is the world that kids are growing up in and this is why the value of music is being devalued.

[thumbo]

The way that musicians make (or made) money is completely flawed, mostly because the internet has rendered it an out dated business model (of course this excludes merch and gigs). If you spend your time creating something that others use or get enjoyment from, it's completely fair to expect to get paid to do this so you can carry on doing it, but how people draw an income for this needs a complete overhaul. I have no idea how this can happen, perhaps it can't.

If you're interested in all the copyright shenanigans associated with file sharing [url="http://watch.tpbafk.tv/"]The Pirate Bay - Away From Keyboard [/url]is worth a watch. You can pay to watch it from that link, or alternatively you can [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTOKXCEwo_8"]pay nothing to watch it on youtube[/url], what a moral conundrum

Edited February 17, 2013 by thumbo

[flyfisher]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1361103528' post='1981023']
Illegal downloading is theft from musicians.

The apologists and blinkered will concentrate on the "evil" record companies getting their comeuppance, but musicians are being ripped off buy the public illegally downloading their music more than they ever were by record companies.
[/quote]

That may all be true, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be, and there's no way that the digital/Internet genie is going to be put back into the lamp.

[MrTaff]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1361103875' post='1981033']
When you make a living from selling copies, taking those copies wothout paying is theft.

It's not the musicians fault if the law hasn't kept up with this.
[/quote]

That's a completly different thing, people profiting from piracy deserve to burn in hell.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361103770' post='1981029']
Copying a CD your PC is illegal, yet you see no problem with it. Or downloading plenty of music you don't own.
[/quote]

No it's not [url="http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/news/a446817/uk-law-change-permits-cd-ripping.html"]http://www.digitalsp...cd-ripping.html[/url]

Edited February 17, 2013 by MrTaff

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361103770' post='1981029']
You see, that's full of the contradictions and cherry-picking that I alluded to in my earlier post.

Copying a CD your PC is illegal, yet you see no problem with it. Or downloading plenty of music you don't own.

These are the sorts of attitudes that are devaluing music in general. Right or wrong, depending on your personal opinions, I think it's inevitable.
[/quote]

I have never downloaded music illegally.

Is it illegal to rip a song from a CD to a computer because it's illegal to make a copy? Because i think that was really only to stop people making copies and giving them to other people. I don't think it's too hypocritical just because i want my CD's on my iPod. In my case, i have at least bought the music (i do own some hard copies and downloaded versions of the same albums though, not many) whereas other people are outright taking it without paying.

Maybe it's a bit hypocritical.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='MrTaff' timestamp='1361104475' post='1981048']
That's a completly different thing, people profiting from piracy deserve to burn in hell.



No it's not [url="http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/news/a446817/uk-law-change-permits-cd-ripping.html"]http://www.digitalsp...cd-ripping.html[/url]
[/quote]

HAH!

I'm not a hypocrite!

[BigRedX]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361104012' post='1981038']
Who pays to view stuff on YouTube?
What about listening to music on spotify?
What about all the free music CDs given away by the Sunday papers?

None of this is 'theft' yet it allows people to access music for free. This is the world that kids are growing up in and this is why the value of music is being devalued.
[/quote]

None of these are really free though. As a consumer you still have to pay for your internet connection to get YouTube and Spotify, and you have to buy the Sunday paper in order to get the CD.

And while the end user might be getting them for "free" the distributer (YouTube, Spotify, etc.) has paid the rights holders a fee in order to be able to use that music. For the artists it's a balancing act between getting paid for the usage (and on YouTube and Spotify the rate per play is minuscule) and using it as cheap advertising in the hope that those listening will be tempted to buy their music on CD or downloads. Of course that won't work if people are simply happy to only watch/listen on YouTube and Spotify.

I think what will start happening soon, is that unless royalty rates from the on-line services start getting sensible from an artist PoV, artists and rights holders will restrict what is available free to stream, so YouTube will be like MTV in the 80s, with the main track promo video from the album will be available, but nothing else. The same with Spotify, a couple of tracks that you can listen to, but if you want more, then buy the album(s).

[Prunesquallor]

The argument that really grates with me when I point out musicians are losing money, "But they're artists. It's their vocation!"

In other words, if you really enjoy your job you should do it for free for the service of others.

PS: And when I point out that bands like Shpongle can sell out the Roundhouse and just break even, that kind of destroys the "well, they should just go out and play live" argument, but it still gets bandied around too much.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Prunesquallor

[bobbass4k]

Ok, I expect to become a lightning rod of hate and vitriol, but I personally think these points are always worth making, so here goes.

The argument of downloading music/films/etc. as theft is predicated on a few assumptions which are not always accurate, for the sake of clarity I will confine examples to music.

First is the idea that downloading music is always theft. The anti-piracy campaigns always compare digital media piracy to physical property theft, which is inherently wrong. When you steal a car or an album from a shop, you are physically removing one of a finite number of items that belongs legally to someone else. If you steal a car, you are depriving the person who owns it of their car against their will, if you steal a CD from a shop, you are depriving the shop of a potential sale, as they only have a finite number of CD's to sell. When you download an album however, you are downloading a digital copy of the disc or files that has been willingly copied and shared by the owner of the physical disc, and actually by downloading it you are creating your own copy. So really there's very little similarity, it's not like stealing a CD from a shop, it's more like the shop pressing a new CD and giving it to you. It's not like stealing a car, it's more like someone leaving the blueprints and parts for an identical car next to theirs.

Anti-piracy campaigns really heavily on the "illegal downloading is theft" angle because it stigmatizes and vilifies downloading, if you download something for free, you're no better than a car thief or someone who mugs an old lady. This type of emotive manipulation is deceitful and founded on nothing, "illegal downloading" is not covered under any sort of theft law, if you are unlucky enough to be prosecuted for illegally downloading something it will not be in even a remotely similar manner to a car thief or a mugger, yet these are the kind of comparisons constantly made.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics though, far more relevant is the issue of motive. The second assumption made in the view of downloading as theft is that of potential loss. The idea that downloading an album for free is wrong is predicated on the view that downloading is always used as a free alternative to paying for it, and that but downloading it for free you are depriving the artist of the money you would have paid for the album. This for me is the single biggest issue with downloading. Personally if I can afford the album/film/movie and want to support the artist then I purchase it and am happy to do so. But what if you had no intention of purchasing the album whatsoever? If you download an album that you wouldn't have purchased legally, who suffers? The artist doesn't suffer because they wouldn't have gotten any money from you anyway. A shop or downloading service doesn't suffer because they wouldn't have gotten their percentage either. In this scenario, nobody suffers at all, nobody loses any money and nobody's work is impacted. And the reality is that this scenario is a significant percentage of illegal downloads.

Record companies/movie studios etc. view all illegal downloads as lost potential sales, and that simply isn't the case, I know from personal experience that a lot of people download things because they're not sure whether they'd want to buy it. If that option wasn't available then most of them simply wouldn't buy it, and the companies wouldn't regain a lot of sales because they weren't losing sales in the first place. After Christmas my mum gave me a lot of leftover food that she hadn't used. I went to Tesco's a few days later and saw they had Dorito's on offer, I was going to buy some but I remembered that there some Dorito's in the stuff she'd given me, so I didn't get them. Would anyone really say that I'd stolen those Dorito's from Tesco's? The argument is essentially the same. The issue has become especially murky recently as services like bandcamp allow you to stream the entire album for free, and now most bands put up full album streams before the official release date. So it's OK to listen to the album whenever you want through a browser for free, but the extra convenience of having the files so you can listen to it offline is a heinous act of theft?

There are large parts of the downloading culture that I find unpleasant, the aforementioned Kimdotcom being one of them, and personally I've never supported the "record companies are all big and evil so it's OK" argument, because it's an implicit admission that downloading is wrong but selective targeting can justify it, which personally I don't believe.

So, that's a little bit of my 2p, I am very happy to discuss and debate any of this stuff, hopefully we can keep it civil for a while.

Edited February 17, 2013 by bobbass4k