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

[bigjohn]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361494779' post='1986710']
"the traditional music distribution system" was hearing it played, figuring how to play it, then playing it to people some of whom would do the same. Music developed through chinese whispers. Now we get 10 million rehashes of Beatles classics with production that makes it sound dated in 5 years.
[/quote]

Well yes. An that's never gone away has it? And that's not what I was talking about and well you know it

"recorded for kinetically / electrically powered & physically stored audio distribution system" how's that?

Edited February 22, 2013 by bigjohn

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='bigjohn' timestamp='1361495372' post='1986716']
Well yes. An that's never gone away has it? And that's not what I was talking about and well you know it
[/quote]

Development seems to have gone away, could do with it back. Seems to be heading that way as I can still find some music that interests me, but its hard to get among all the 'influences' in absence of ideas.

[bigjohn]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361497299' post='1986734']
Development seems to have gone away, could do with it back. Seems to be heading that way as I can still find some music that interests me, but its hard to get among all the 'influences' in absence of ideas.
[/quote]

Well you'll have to get out more. Or look on youtube.

I'm quite looking forward to this new Queens of the Stone Age stuff, which is quite odd as I was never really a big fan. I doubt I'll buy it though.

...Probably won't like it.

Edited February 22, 2013 by bigjohn

[Mr. Foxen]

Listening to lots of music is the problem. More stuff for new stuff to sound like.

[thumbo]

There's some good documentaries on the iPlayer at the moment, one of which is the Pirate Bay doc I mentioned earlier in this thread, which is definitely worth a watch if you've got an interest in the copyright issues talked about in this topic. There's also a doc called Google and the World Brain, which I haven't yet seen but it's about google scanning millions of books that were still in copyright.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search?q=storyville

On an unrelated note, The House I Live In is also a fascinating documentary in the storyville series.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361487613' post='1986629']
It's interesting that people liken the music industry (and labels) to things like Kodak and Jessops. Kodak and Jessops got out-paced by the market and left behind, the things they provided weren't in mass demand any longer. In the music industry, the product is still very much in demand and the industry has kept up to date (the latest technology is downloads and it's easy as pie to get things onto iTunes, Amazon etc, most things that get released go through there).
[/quote]

Not sure about that analogy. Yes music is still in demand despite all the technology changes, but so is photography. The things no longer in demand are vinyl, cassettes, and photo film and transparencies.

The music industry has not really embraced new technology and seemingly wants to retain its old business models. It also wasn't the music business that set up iTunes that has revolutionised music sales.

Kodak, though, is quite a good analogy for the music business. As previously noted, it actually invented digital cameras and was an early player, but the management couldn't see the potential and didn't embrace the change. Dinosaurs is a word that comes to mind.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361487613' post='1986629']
IMO copyright follows the same kind of logic as patents and intellectual property. If someone's created something that other people want, it should be within their control to do as they want with it, including selling it or sharing it for free. For me it'd be no different if (for example) Microsoft took apart a PS4 when they get their hands on one then reproduced it using their own factories and sold it for less money. Sony haven't had anything go missing but it'd definitely impact on Sony's sales and the effort that went into designing the PS4 by Sony would be a total loss as no one would buy their consoles so they wouldn't see any profit from it.
[/quote]

Patents are a different thing because the purpose of of Patent law is that you pay for the protection, both in money, and by submitting all the relevant design info to the patent office, in exchange for short term legal protection of the IP, and at the end of that period, the information becomes public domain (its public already, but protected) so that everyone can benefit from the technology. That's why in fast technology sectors like racing cars and such, they don't do the Patent thing because they are trying to keep a season ahead of each other, and by the time the patent stuff is done with its already too late, so better to just keep your stuff a secret and actually keep it out of competitors hands.

[PaulWarning]

here's a conundrum, I want to put some of my vinyl onto my mp3 player, which means transfering it in real time onto my computer, splitting and naming all the track,a right pain in the arse, so I download the said album to save loads of hassle, illegal yes, but morally wrong when I've already paid for the recording?

[flyfisher]

No more morally wrong than doing 80mph on an empty motorway, I'd say.

No one is deprived of anything. No one is harmed. Heck, no one would even [u]know[/u].

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361487613' post='1986629']For me it'd be no different if (for example) Microsoft took apart a PS4 when they get their hands on one then reproduced it using their own factories and sold it for less money. Sony haven't had anything go missing but it'd definitely impact on Sony's sales and the effort that went into designing the PS4 by Sony would be a total loss as no one would buy their consoles so they wouldn't see any profit from it.[/quote]

There's more tangents to it than that; as has been seen on these very forums from the actions of a Mr Hall & as Gibson & Fender found to their cost, if you just let such a scenario happen without challenging it - it really weakens your case if you decide to attack the forgers in the future.
Your IP doesn't die after the initial patenting, you can carry on paying for it on an annual basis. It remains yours for as long as you carry on paying, to license, loan, divulge, give as you will, in either UK alone, Europe or worldwide.
The downside (as I was personally told by a patent agent) is that various companies abroad will totally ignore international patent law (which costs about the price of a small house anyway, but buttons to a place like Sony), copy it, make their fortune, then cut & run. Unless you've patented something incredible it may well cost you more than your product is worth to defend it ....... probably not the case with a PS4.
I was told a few years ago by someone at Universal that a % of each CD price went in a royalty to Philips, nice little earner.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361543279' post='1987266']
Heck, no one would even [u]know[/u].
[/quote]

God would know.

So when one died, He would say "It says 'Thou Shalt Not Do 80 On An Empty Motorway' and now you're going to roast in eternal hellfire. We'll be putting you in the room next to Hitler's."

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361529630' post='1986942']
Not sure about that analogy. Yes music is still in demand despite all the technology changes, but so is photography. The things no longer in demand are vinyl, cassettes, and photo film and transparencies.

The music industry has not really embraced new technology and seemingly wants to retain its old business models. It also wasn't the music business that set up iTunes that has revolutionised music sales.

Kodak, though, is quite a good analogy for the music business. As previously noted, it actually invented digital cameras and was an early player, but the management couldn't see the potential and didn't embrace the change. Dinosaurs is a word that comes to mind.
[/quote]

So what's wrong with the analogy? The same thing is relevant for photography, if you want original prints you go to the photographer or whoever is doing the printing. Most photographers protect their work as best as they can by watermarking it or putting text across the main body of the image so it can be previewed without being used without the photographer's permission.

How is the music industry not keeping up with technology? Digital downloads are the newest technology to really affect it and it's embraced that. It doesn't really matter who had the idea originally, the point is that the music industry has moved with the times and isn't in any way obsolete, either technologically or in demand. The only things that are arguably not good enough is security on music and the laws that don't do a good enough job protecting digital content. As time goes on, it'll probably turn out that piracy will be unavoidable anyway as precedents are being set in court cases based on out-dated laws anyway.

Kodak went downhill because of the medium they used and promoted becoming outdated. As you said, photography is still in demand. If there was a company that specialised in minidisks and refused to make any other type of player, they'd probably have gone out of business like Kodak did, it doesn't affect the industry as a whole.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361542029' post='1987232']
Patents are a different thing because the purpose of of Patent law is that you pay for the protection, both in money, and by submitting all the relevant design info to the patent office, in exchange for short term legal protection of the IP, and at the end of that period, the information becomes public domain (its public already, but protected) so that everyone can benefit from the technology. That's why in fast technology sectors like racing cars and such, they don't do the Patent thing because they are trying to keep a season ahead of each other, and by the time the patent stuff is done with its already too late, so better to just keep your stuff a secret and actually keep it out of competitors hands.
[/quote]

What is the difference between the concept of a patent and copyright? A patent protects the creater (or owner) of the concept from having the thing that they've invested time and money being used by others for their own means without permission. Copyright does exactly the same thing. I'm not sure of the relevance of what racing cars do though, music (the actual art) isn't about staying ahead of the competition. Are you saying that if there was a centralised way of copyrighting something where you paid your money and sent in a copy of the material that you should be given better protection by law?

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361543279' post='1987266']
No more morally wrong than doing 80mph on an empty motorway, I'd say.

No one is deprived of anything. No one is harmed. Heck, no one would even [u]know[/u].
[/quote]

I'm still not sure how you can say that no one is deprived of anything. If you think that piracy is justifiable then presumably you think everyone can justify it. If everyone pirated music then professional recording artists and songwriters would be deprived of a job. A few pirated copies doesn't do a lot of damage but if everyone pirated music instead of supporting the industry then it will collapse. Industries (almost any industry, it's the way of capitalism) are supported by the end consumer. Take away the consumer's money and the industry can't support it's self. Saying "it's not theft because nothing has been removed from the victim's posession" is technically true, but the flip side is that if they own full rights to something and say "you can only own a copy of this on the condition that you pay us a fee" then you listen to it, arguably you've deprived them of that money.

Realistically, how do you expect small bands to make money? As Mr. Foxen pointed out, originals bands have a hard time getting paid for gigs and if we don't make money from music sales then where is the income coming from? All that would happen then is that the people with the money (the labels, though I'm sure they'd move into management, booking etc if there was no money in recorded music) would have even more power because small bands won't be able to promote themselves and work their way up until they've got enough fans to do big releases. It's ok if you have money to spend promoting your band just to get some paid gigs, but I doubt many people would have that kind of cash going spare.

If you want more diversity in music, wanting to remove new bands' main source of income is a bit backwards.

[heminder]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361543279' post='1987266']
No more morally wrong than doing 80mph on an empty motorway, I'd say.

No one is deprived of anything.  No one is harmed.  Heck, no one would even [u]know[/u].
[/quote]

Government would know. All car travel is under surveillance in this country. They call them "speed" cameras.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361583422' post='1988068']
What is the difference between the concept of a patent and copyright? A patent protects the creater (or owner) of the concept from having the thing that they've invested time and money being used by others for their own means without permission. Copyright does exactly the same thing. I'm not sure of the relevance of what racing cars do though, music (the actual art) isn't about staying ahead of the competition. Are you saying that if there was a centralised way of copyrighting something where you paid your money and sent in a copy of the material that you should be given better protection by law?
[/quote]

They are full on different things. To have Patent protection, you have to have filed all of the details that make something unique with the Patent office, including having established it is new and unique, and paid a fee to the office. You have to pay and make an effort to acquire a Patent, and establish its new in express terms that can be published. If that was a requirement for music, then there would be no protection for music, because nothing really new is going on there, and to get the protection, you'd have to state what makes it new and different to anything that has gone before. And once the period has expired, anyone if free to work with that idea however they wish. You can go and browse all the designs for anything patented right now, and use them as you wish.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361588197' post='1988079']
Government would know. All car travel is under surveillance in this country. They call them "speed" cameras.
[/quote]

No, those are to record the daft things people say and do when they take speed.

[bobbass4k]

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361588197' post='1988079']
Government would know. All car travel is under surveillance in this country. They call them "speed" cameras.
[/quote]

I don't even...what?

[flyfisher]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361583422' post='1988068']
How is the music industry not keeping up with technology?
[/quote]

The music industry is being dragged along by new technology under protest. That's a subtle difference to fully embracing it.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361583422' post='1988068']
Kodak went downhill because of the medium they used and promoted becoming outdated.
[/quote]

Not really. It went downhill because it didn't embrace the [u]replacement[/u] technology. Again, a subtle difference and all the more ironic in Kodak's case because it had actually pioneered digital photography.




[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361583422' post='1988068']
I'm still not sure how you can say that no one is deprived of anything. If you think that piracy is justifiable then presumably you think everyone can justify it. If everyone pirated music then professional recording artists and songwriters would be deprived of a job. A few pirated copies doesn't do a lot of damage but if everyone pirated music instead of supporting the industry then it will collapse. Industries (almost any industry, it's the way of capitalism) are supported by the end consumer. Take away the consumer's money and the industry can't support it's self. Saying "it's not theft because nothing has been removed from the victim's posession" is technically true, but the flip side is that if they own full rights to something and say "you can only own a copy of this on the condition that you pay us a fee" then you listen to it, arguably you've deprived them of that money.

Realistically, how do you expect small bands to make money? As Mr. Foxen pointed out, originals bands have a hard time getting paid for gigs and if we don't make money from music sales then where is the income coming from? All that would happen then is that the people with the money (the labels, though I'm sure they'd move into management, booking etc if there was no money in recorded music) would have even more power because small bands won't be able to promote themselves and work their way up until they've got enough fans to do big releases. It's ok if you have money to spend promoting your band just to get some paid gigs, but I doubt many people would have that kind of cash going spare.
[/quote]

My point about no one being deprived of anything was actually specific to the earlier point made about someone downloading a copy of a vinyl album they already.

But since you missed that point, let's go with what you wrote above. The scenarios you describe are based on a load of 'ifs'. IF all those things happened then I tend to agree with your predicted outcomes. But the reality is rather different and all those IFS doesn't seem to be happening to the extremes needed for your predicted decimation of the music industry.

I think you're mistaking my points as being supportive of piracy, but they're not. I'm looking at why piracy happens and accepting that it all this moralising and hand-wringing isn't going to stop it. I don't think the music business has yet accepted this and thinks it can use the law to stop it, despite the history of it never having worked ever since people have had the technology to copy things.

But this ability to copy things for free has not been the huge disaster everyone continues to predict has it? So why keep banging on about it? Why not move on and deal with the world as it is instead of wishing it was different. The music industry's lack of vision is the reason that Apple is raking in the billions from iTunes instead of the music companies.

As for small bands suffering because piracy means less support from the music industry, does anyone really believe this anymore? Digital technology and the Internet means that small bands don' t need the support of the music industry any more. They are empowered today like never before and can create their own stuff, in their own studios, to amazing quality standards and reach out to millions of potential fans. Surely a bit of inevitable piracy is a price worth paying for such capabilities?

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361591247' post='1988085']
They are full on different things. To have Patent protection, you have to have filed all of the details that make something unique with the Patent office, including having established it is new and unique, and paid a fee to the office. You have to pay and make an effort to acquire a Patent, and establish its new in express terms that can be published. If that was a requirement for music, then there would be no protection for music, because nothing really new is going on there, and to get the protection, you'd have to state what makes it new and different to anything that has gone before. And once the period has expired, anyone if free to work with that idea however they wish. You can go and browse all the designs for anything patented right now, and use them as you wish.
[/quote]

I'm aware of the differences in practicalities, I'm asking you what the difference in the concept is. Both patents and copyright are based on someone creating something then having the ability to control it's use. I understand that most ideas in music have been used before, but that doesn't mean that anything sounds like the outcome, that's why it's copywritable (the lyrics and melody at least).

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361611942' post='1988166']
The music industry is being dragged along by new technology under protest. That's a subtle difference to fully embracing it.

Not really. It went downhill because it didn't embrace the [u]replacement[/u] technology. Again, a subtle difference and all the more ironic in Kodak's case because it had actually pioneered digital photography.

My point about no one being deprived of anything was actually specific to the earlier point made about someone downloading a copy of a vinyl album they already.

But since you missed that point, let's go with what you wrote above. The scenarios you describe are based on a load of 'ifs'. IF all those things happened then I tend to agree with your predicted outcomes. But the reality is rather different and all those IFS doesn't seem to be happening to the extremes needed for your predicted decimation of the music industry.

I think you're mistaking my points as being supportive of piracy, but they're not. I'm looking at why piracy happens and accepting that it all this moralising and hand-wringing isn't going to stop it. I don't think the music business has yet accepted this and thinks it can use the law to stop it, despite the history of it never having worked ever since people have had the technology to copy things.

But this ability to copy things for free has not been the huge disaster everyone continues to predict has it? So why keep banging on about it? Why not move on and deal with the world as it is instead of wishing it was different. The music industry's lack of vision is the reason that Apple is raking in the billions from iTunes instead of the music companies.

As for small bands suffering because piracy means less support from the music industry, does anyone really believe this anymore? Digital technology and the Internet means that small bands don' t need the support of the music industry any more. They are empowered today like never before and can create their own stuff, in their own studios, to amazing quality standards and reach out to millions of potential fans. Surely a bit of inevitable piracy is a price worth paying for such capabilities?
[/quote]

I disagree, I think the music industry as been relatively quick to pick up the new platform as it became available. iTunes was an overnight success because of it. The industry's also supported digital sales by advertising "available on [insert DD outlet]" rather than trying to shun them.

Re the vinyl then yeah. others have been making the point about music as a whole though so apologies for my misunderstanding.

What you're missing is that if we tell people "yes, it's ok to pirate music, go ahead" then give them a pat on the back and send them on their way, more people will do it. It's unavoidable but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. If as many people as possible are encouraged to buy music then it's good for everyone.

I didn't say small bands in relation to the industry, I mean how small bands are directly affected. When my band goes out to try and sell our music, it doesn't matter what the industry thinks, we do it ourselves. If we didn't sell music (mainly on CDs at gigs) then we'd have very little income, we definitely wouldn't be able to do videos, travel all over the country etc. My band is empowered, as you say. Our singer is an engineer in a studio, we manage ourselves, we hire a promoter to get us about. The risk of piracy is definitely worth it, but that doesn't at all mean it should be viewed as acceptable.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361583422' post='1988068']What is the difference between the concept of a patent and copyright? A patent protects the creater (or owner) of the concept from having the thing that they've invested time and money being used by others for their own means without permission. Copyright does exactly the same thing. I'm not sure of the relevance of what racing cars do though, music (the actual art) isn't about staying ahead of the competition. Are you saying that if there was a centralised way of copyrighting something where you paid your money and sent in a copy of the material that you should be given better protection by law?[/quote]

In law they're very similar, but both are dependent on the owner of it maintaining their position of ownership. Rickenbacker do, Fender didn't for eg. It's why the big thing about sampling occurred years ago, you have to establish a unique point, but what you have doesn't have to be entirely unique. If that was the case there's be thousands of cases of plagiarism because a bar of notes was copyrighted by someone. Similarly on the patent side, Trevor Bayliss didn't invent radio, nor clockwork mechanisms; but he put the two together & is doing very well off it.
As I said earlier, there are many who ignore copyrights & patents, some get caught for it, many more get away with it. Mostly because the actual owner or their agents aren't aware of it, or aren't until it's too late.

iTunes is more by comparison a distributor role than a record company role, the big labels were complacent of their position - and still are, mostly because of "won't be my problem by then" thinking by individuals. Also because they do assume, this isn't a guess or speculation, it's fact; that there will be methods in place to prevent major piracy, if not all, by the time it becomes essential to them.
Last I heard they were saying 4 years from now, tick-tock, tick-tock.

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1361619542' post='1988319']
In law they're very similar, but both are dependent on the owner of it maintaining their position of ownership. Rickenbacker do, Fender didn't for eg. It's why the big thing about sampling occurred years ago, you have to establish a unique point, but what you have doesn't have to be entirely unique. If that was the case there's be thousands of cases of plagiarism because a bar of notes was copyrighted by someone. Similarly on the patent side, Trevor Bayliss didn't invent radio, nor clockwork mechanisms; but he put the two together & is doing very well off it.
As I said earlier, there are many who ignore copyrights & patents, some get caught for it, many more get away with it. Mostly because the actual owner or their agents aren't aware of it, or aren't until it's too late.

iTunes is more by comparison a distributor role than a record company role, the big labels were complacent of their position - and still are, mostly because of "won't be my problem by then" thinking by individuals. Also because they do assume, this isn't a guess or speculation, it's fact; that there will be methods in place to prevent major piracy, if not all, by the time it becomes essential to them.
Last I heard they were saying 4 years from now, tick-tock, tick-tock.
[/quote]

I think we're agreeing, but just to clarify I'm talking about the concept of copyright and patents and what they're actually designed to do and who they're suppost to protect being very similar (the creator). I totally agree, allowing piracy would be like Fender's mistake, it'd make it harder to protect in the future and it'd become the norm.

I was referring to iTunes (and the usage of it by the record industry) because it's been embraced and is widely used as an example that the industry does keep up with technology, that's where it differs from examples like Kodak. I doubt music will ever be pirate-free. Whatever security measures they put in place, unless we end up with a DRM type system that is used in gaming (and I honestly can't see how it would work in music which is still sold on CDs) then whatever security is protecting music will be hackable.

[redstriper]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361611942' post='1988166']
Why not move on and deal with the world as it is instead of wishing it was different.
[/quote]

I absolutely agree with this.

Why is it the people who are least affected by file sharing seem most upset by it?

Thom - how much is your band actually losing as a result of file sharing?

My band has all it's music available for free download and we have received international airplay and good gigs as a direct result - these have brought in more money than selling a few CDs at gigs, (which we still do of course).

File sharing is hear to stay whether you like it or not and individuals agreeing or disagreeing with it isn't going to change anything.

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361623903' post='1988411']
I absolutely agree with this.

Why is it the people who are least affected by file sharing seem most upset by it?

Thom - how much is your band actually losing as a result of file sharing?

My band has all it's music available for free download and we have received international airplay and good gigs as a direct result - these have brought in more money than selling a few CDs at gigs, (which we still do of course).

File sharing is hear to stay whether you like it or not and individuals agreeing or disagreeing with it isn't going to change anything.
[/quote]

If you think the world shouldn't change, then you're in the very extreme minority. I, for one, don't think that people should continue to starve to death, be abused or be ripped off for their work. We're working towards ideals and although they might be a long way off, they're ideals, not immediate plans. Of course you could roll over and accept that these things happen, but I think it'd be nice for things to improve over time, even if it's after we're all dead and buried, someone can still enjoy the progress we've made.

Anyone has a right to voice their opinion, it doesn't mean their life stops because of it. As for the least affected, the first people to realy kick up a fuss and bring it to peoples' attention was Metallica, although I'm sure they're comfy with the amount they're earning anyway, I highly doubt that it's small amounts they're losing to piracy. Arguably for small bands, it's more of a problem because every penny counts.

I don't know how much my band is losing, I know that our music has been pirated (punters have told me that their mate won't buy a CD because they'll just copy it and I expect most wouldn't say) but there's no way of tracking it.

That's obviously a business model that works well for your band, that's nice for you but it doesn't work for all bands and it definitely wouldn't work for mine.

File sharing is here to stay, I've already said that. I couldn't disagree with your last statement more though. One individual is part of the human race, if enough people agree with something, then that's what forces change. If you really believe that statement, I assume you don't vote either because you're just an individual and your opinion doesn't matter and you think that activists like Martin Luther King etc should've kept quiet because they were just one person?

[redstriper]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361625849' post='1988437']
If you think the world shouldn't change, then you're in the very extreme minority. I, for one, don't think that people should continue to starve to death, be abused or be ripped off for their work. We're working towards ideals and although they might be a long way off, they're ideals, not immediate plans. Of course you could roll over and accept that these things happen, but I think it'd be nice for things to improve over time, even if it's after we're all dead and buried, someone can still enjoy the progress we've made.
[/quote]

It doesn't make any difference what you or I think, the world will change and we have no control over it.
Starvation and inequality could be stopped very easily if the people who run the world wanted it and things will not improve gradually over time just because ordinary people want it to.
[quote]

Anyone has a right to voice their opinion, it doesn't mean their life stops because of it. As for the least affected, the first people to realy kick up a fuss and bring it to peoples' attention was Metallica, although I'm sure they're comfy with the amount they're earning anyway, I highly doubt that it's small amounts they're losing to piracy. Arguably for small bands, it's more of a problem because every penny counts.
[/quote]

I don't remember saying anyone's life would stop by voicing an opinion, although there are many examples of the phenomenon.
I fully respect your opinion, even though I disagree and I'm sure you will show me the same courtesy.
Metallica are one of many bands who don't like file sharing and I understand their POV, but it won't make any difference, whether they like it or not.


[quote]
I don't know how much my band is losing, I know that our music has been pirated (punters have told me that their mate won't buy a CD because they'll just copy it and I expect most wouldn't say) but there's no way of tracking it.

[/quote]

I would be pleased if someone liked my music enough to copy and share it, they are spreading the word and that can lead to more lucrative forms of income in the long run.
You can't stop it anyway and being sour about it won't change anything.

[quote]That's obviously a business model that works well for your band, that's nice for you but it doesn't work for all bands and it definitely wouldn't work for mine.[/quote]

How do you know that?
It works for thousands of other bands and it doesn't mean you should stop doing what you are already doing.


[quote]File sharing is here to stay, I've already said that. I couldn't disagree with your last statement more though. One individual is part of the human race, if enough people agree with something, then that's what forces change. If you really believe that statement, I assume you don't vote either because you're just an individual and your opinion doesn't matter and you think that activists like Martin Luther King etc should've kept quiet because they were just one person?[/quote]

You assume too much, but perhaps you are right and you along with all your supporters will stop file sharing.
I sincerely hope not, it will be a dark day for mankind.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361620183' post='1988342']I doubt music will ever be pirate-free. Whatever security measures they put in place, unless we end up with a DRM type system that is used in gaming (and I honestly can't see how it would work in music which is still sold on CDs) then whatever security is protecting music will be hackable.[/quote]

Me neither; nor do they. It wasn't said, but my inclination is that it'll be more criminalised, in the eg I gave, like dodging train tickets is now a criminal rather civil offence. I can only think of it being from nationalised railways days to explain that. Whether the UK will ever have an extradition treaty with the US for copying one of their co's recordings is another thing altogether.
It's the first time in the history of record labels that they haven't had a physical hard copy saleable item; they have been caught on the back foot & are aware of it. But it's still a very cynical hard-nosed system with big money behind it; they will find a way that will make piracy a lower problem, obviously not eradicate it, but as in my previous eg. people still enjoy the buzz of avoiding their train fair.
If that happens then small bands will be protected by the same laws.

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']
It doesn't make any difference what you or I think, the world will change and we have no control over it.
Starvation and inequality could be stopped very easily if the people who run the world wanted it and things will not improve gradually over time just because ordinary people want it to.[/quote]

It's very easy to say "I have no control over anything" then let people lead you around blindly. Or you could stand up, voice an opinion and maybe make a change.

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']I don't remember saying anyone's life would stop by voicing an opinion, although there are many examples of the phenomenon.
I fully respect your opinion, even though I disagree and I'm sure you will show me the same courtesy.
Metallica are one of many bands who don't like file sharing and I understand their POV, but it won't make any difference, whether they like it or not.[/quote]

Peoples' lives don't stop because they voice an opinion, it stops because other people have an extreme stance on it, but that's something else entirely. Of course I respect your (and everyone else's) opinions, I wouldn't be making the points I do about individuals mattering in the big picture if I felt that everyone had to fall into line. Metallica not liking it made a huge difference. It didn't eradicate it but it did get rid of the biggest file sharing site at the time as well as bringing it into the public eye.

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']I would be pleased if someone liked my music enough to copy and share it, they are spreading the word and that can lead to more lucrative forms of income in the long run.
You can't stop it anyway and being sour about it won't change anything.[/quote]

I'm not sour about it, I understand it happens and like I've said, I've talked to people who've bought CDs then said they're going to copy it for their mate (who's stood next to them and could quite easily buy one). I don't feel the need to rant and rave about it, it's one thing though that they like the music and want to share it, it's another thing if they like the music and want to support the artist that made it. I know which I'd prefer. I've lost count of the amount of CDs or digital songs we've sent off to radio stations and the like, that's different (referring to your previous point) but I like to think that people would want to support the bands that entertain them. Call it faith in humanity.

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']How do you know that?
It works for thousands of other bands and it doesn't mean you should stop doing what you are already doing.[/quote]

Because our sales directly fund the things we do, whether it's going out and gigging, making more recordings, promoting ourselves, getting videos made which then end up on Kerrang and the like. Without the money from sales we'd be far more limited in how much we could promote ourselves. People still need to have heard of us to share us with their friends and that isn't going to happen without things like the promotion.

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']You assume too much, but perhaps you are right and you along with all your supporters will stop file sharing.
I sincerely hope not, it will be a dark day for mankind.[/quote]

It wasn't actually a serious assumption, it was tongue in cheek. I would hope that you do vote (that's something specific that people have died for the sake of voicing their opinion and allowing us to do the same) and that you support people that want equal rights. I'm not sure why giving musicians control over their music would be a bad thing though.

The thing is that for me it comes down to giving people control over their own product. Say that piracy is stopped 100% instantly, if what you say is true, that giving away your music is more beneficial to you than wanting people to pay for it, it wouldn't hurt you in any way. In fact it would be beneficial since you wouldn't have to compete with bands like mine for the free music market since apart from the tracks we decide to give away, we'd be in different areas. And if what you say is true, bands like mine would crash and burn since we wouldn't have the free promotion, as you think of it. So why are you so pro piracy? Why's it a BAD thing that bands should have control over what happens with their music?

Arguing that music being available for free being beneficial is one thing, I don't even disagree with it, it can work for some bands (like yours), depending on their fanbase and business model.

Saying that bands don't have the right to release their own music and charge for it if they want is something else and something I definitely don't agree with. I have no problems at all with file sharing and free releases, it's the lack of respect for the artist's wishes that's the issue.