A bill would jail Internet song swappers

[YourFuneral]

I can sum my thoughts up into one statement: The internet is the future, get with the times or be left behind...

Ok, if file-swapping is to be made illegal, then libraries should be banned too... I haven't bought a book in years (well, a few) but I've read hundreds and I know I'm not the only one... Why isn't the book industry having a hissy-fit?! No matter how you look at it, it comes down to greed... Nothing more, nothing less... The recording industry just needs to get their heads out of their asses and start setting up dedicated file-servers and utilize the internet to it's fullest... If they had dedicated file-servers, they could collect TONS of market research that they would otherwise blow MILLIONS of dollars on using other methods... PLUS, they'd save MILLIONS of dollars more on advertising... Centralization is the best way to handle this thing...

 

[Jim LotFP]

Ok, if file-swapping is to be made illegal, then libraries should be banned too... I haven't bought a book in years (well, a few) but I've read hundreds and I know I'm not the only one... Why isn't the book industry having a hissy-fit?!

Wow, are you not understanding the copyright issue.

The issue is not the physical object being passed around, but COPIES being distributed.

If libraries distributed free photocopies of every book they have for people to take home and keep, then hell yes there would be the same issue happening.

The internet may be the future, but that doesn't mean that mass theft should be...

 

[YourFuneral]

Oh please... You're arguing a technicality... I could see an good argument if people were going around reproducing the inlays, burning the CDs and then selling them... People aren't making money off of this... Just like the Library doesn't make money off providing books to anybody who wants to read... What difference does it make if it's a COPY being passed around or a COPY being made?! Using the Library example again, if I want to read a book more than once, all I have to do is go to the library and check it out again... The POINT (not the stupid technicality you're arguing) is that the Author hasn't made one fuck'n dime off of me, no matter how many time I checked the book out... Now, if I like a book enough that I want it part of my collection, I'll buy it... Same with music... No COPY will ever replace having the real thing... MP3's will go bye-bye if your hard drive crashes, just like a book from the library has to go back after a few weeks... I'm sorry but you just don't make a good argument...

 

[Jim LotFP]

Oh please... You're arguing a technicality...

It's not a technicality, it's the entire point and I do believe the separation between breaking copyright and not... the basis of the law here, and what is the balancing act that protects both the copyright holder (if they law says copy and distribute as they please, they're screwed) and the purchaser of the item (if the law says you can't even lend your bought copy, or if you had to pay a license fee on every listen, they're screwed).

If you lent your CD to a friend, and he lent it to a friend, no problem as long as there isn't a copy made.

Same with the library. They paid (or had donated by the publisher or someone who had bought it) for one book, and they lend that book out.

 

[Diluted]

the only reason this is a problem is because of the stupid freakin main stream teenagers who dont buy the album i know many users here will usually go out and buy the albums if they like them... i know i dont buy the albums but thats for a few reason...

1# im broke
2# parents
3# i have no real place i can listen to them YET!!

but soon (after i graduate) i will begin buying

 

[YourFuneral]

@JimLotFP: You're right as far as the law is concerned... That I'm not arguing, in fact, I agree with you... What I'm arguing for is CHANGE in the copyright law... Face it, the copyright law is horribly outdated... If it were balanced, people wouldn't have a problem following it (some would... some ALWAYS will...) but you said it yourself... According to the law, there is MASS theft going on... If that's truly the case, then it should be obvious that the law is wrong/outdated... It's time for CHANGE...

 

[Jim LotFP]

According to the law, there is MASS theft going on... If that's truly the case, then it should be obvious that the law is wrong/outdated... It's time for CHANGE...

I don't think the answer is making the current theft legal.

I think the answer is making the thieves accountable.

 

[YourFuneral]

Well, history shows that revolutions have resulted from matters as simple as this... Governments that lack the ability (or just simply refuse) to adapt to the times tend to disappear... Same with businesses... We'll see how this turns out...

 

[Demonspell]

I don't consider it a technicality...there are significant differences between file sharing and renting a book or movie...the latter is regulated, with written records of transactions, a fee, and penalties for failing to uphold conditions of the contract...the fact that there is no physical contact in file sharing and no clearly defined punishment, and no consent from the artists whose material are distributed from file sharing, is what makes things difficult and a resolution impossible until some standard of transactions and consequences for violations can be reached...

 

[Evan84]

I think the main issue here is how the RIAA is treating it's consumers.


DOWNLOADING IS LIKE ROBBING A BANK

YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A THIEF

WE DONT APPRECIATE THE BUSINESS YOU DO GIVE US

NOW WE'RE GOING TO SUE YOUR ASS OFF

Oh, and after we take all your money, you're welcome to buy some CDs from us.

 

[blueskytheory]

one thing is, if the RIAA thinks filesharing is such a massive cut into its profits, it should really try making a legal alternative thats as easy as filesharing. I guess the problem is that archiving that many cds online for download requires a lot of agreement from various companies?

they act like its a huge problem and every person does it. i bet if there was a reasonably cheap alternative where you could pay for a download a lot of people would go for it. aside from the greatness of DC most filesharing programs are total shite anyway

personally ill continue downloading stuff, and only buying what really moves me. i think JimLotFP is right about the accountability of file"stealing" but you cant deny the positive effects of the mp3 world too

 

[Jim LotFP]

I think the main issue here is how the RIAA is treating it's consumers.

DOWNLOADING IS LIKE ROBBING A BANK
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A THIEF
WE DONT APPRECIATE THE BUSINESS YOU DO GIVE US
NOW WE'RE GOING TO SUE YOUR ASS OFF
Oh, and after we take all your money, you're welcome to buy some CDs from us.

If you run a convenience store and somebody is stealing candy bars, do you ignore it because they're paying for the potato chips? I don't understand your point here.

 

[FangsFirst]

OK, while I understand the "yes it's illegal" and essentially agree (not enough to particularly stop me, though I don't share much, which is the death of the sharing community...yadda yadda)...what about things like what I do?

I use filesharing for:
-Replacing lost CDs (often temporarily, as they soon turn up)
I don't really enjoy the thought of spending more money on another CD.
-Downloading things I own on vinyl. It's easier than ripping it, and yeah technically I don't own that particular example of the recording, but are you seriously that anal? Why should I have to buy multiple copies? That's silly.
-Downloading things my dad owns on vinyl. Yeah, this one's VERY shaky, I know, but I CAN just walk into the next room, look through his 8000 albums, pull one out and pop it on the turntable.

...And of course things I eventually buy.

I do think CD prices could do with a little lowering, but not the prices I've seen (someone said anything over $5.99 is too high, I told him he was ignorant of how much it costs). I can deal with Wal-Mart/Best Buy level prices easily (~$14-15) but this $16+ crap is nuts. Granted, just taking the music for free is not excusable because of it, but, jeesh, do you really think that is a fair price?

Especially with announcements of price fixing?

Hell, I was wandering Wal-Mart the other day whilst grocery shopping and saw they had literally hiked prices-- stickers were covered up with HIGHER prices. I thought "Now, what the hell is this? How does that make any sense?" or ripping off sale prices that were "built in" to the original sticker...
That makes me a little wary of any distributors' aims...

But, whoever was talking about centralized downloads:
www.emusic.com has a shitload of indie stuff, lots of metal for instance, and is legal and only $10 a month (with a year commitment) for unlimited (well, this is becoming debated hotly in our little community, as they *sort of* want us to stick to <2000 tracks a month, and whatnot) downloads.
Hell, some UMG (Universal Music Group) stuff was up for a while after they bought 'em out.

It's now gone, but the point is that shit is quite possible.
itunes or something is another one, and there are some others. It's quite possible and is done, but only some of us go for it...

 

[Zoracxis]

I honestly think it is a matter of opinion between filesharers and people who think that it is wrong to download music. Filesharers, of course, are going to say that they are doing no wrong in downloading music because they believe (or say that they have proof) that the RIAA is stealing from their favorite artists (I do believe this and I don't care, I will still buy the albums) and not buying the albums is a "attack" or boycott against the RIAA. The people who say it is wrong are right. It is against the law to download songs off the internet, but, this whole debacle was started because the RIAA didn't think of the idea of filesharing songs and they are making a big ass deal about it.

(This is my opinion)

 

[murderedbysound]

im about done with the RIAA they fuck us until were bleeding from every pore and i think its bullshit. its like burning a cd for yourself but then giving it to a freind...its just a big steaming pile of bullshit that we all have to step in

 

[Arch]

The king of pop said something about the bill, he is "speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music." Also added that "it's wrong to illegally download, but jail is not the answer."

http://www.nbc4.com/entertainment/2348992/detail.html

 

[Jim LotFP]

the RIAA is stealing from their favorite artists (I do believe this and I don't care, I will still buy the albums) and not buying the albums is a "attack" or boycott against the RIAA.

The problem with this is...


A- The RIAA is an industry organization that is voluntarily paid into by record labels... for the sole purpose of being a lobbying and publicity front to be 'the bad guy' away from individual member's names.

B- Artists are paid by the terms in their contracts, and how is the RIAA changing that?

C- Artists contracts' stipulate that artsists are paid on percentages of sales... so if you're attacking the RIAA or boycotting them, that DIRECTLY trickles down to the artists... especially since the label gets paid before the band.

D- There seems to be a real and not imagined depression in album sales, even on a metal label. Artists keep saying budgets are getting slashed by as much as 75%... if labels could just budget less and keep the difference, they would have done that years ago. This is my weakest point because I don't have any hard figures to cite for you, but shit's hitting the fan, and the scene is being more polarized into really successful bands, and then the rest have NOTHING but just enough to pay for the next record. Just the opposite of what the MP3 revolution was supposed to do, right?

UM's lagging bad here at home and buffering my keystrokes, forgive any typos please...

 

[Opet]

Blabbermouth says:

Claire Smith of The Scotsman reports that groups such as METALLICA, GARBAGE and the RED HOT CHILLI PEPPERS who try to prevent fans downloading their tracks are "shooting themselves in the foot," according to research.

Are these the really "successful bands" you're talking about, Jim?

Patrick Johnston, a music business analyst, said: "Far from damaging the music industry, downloading music from the internet can be a useful and significant marketing tool."

Music fans who illegally download their favorite tracks from the internet still buy albums in the shops, according to the research.

The findings explode music industry fears that such Internet file-sharing is killing the record industry. The results suggest most music fans still like to own genuine copies of their favorite albums.

Music Research and Programming, industry research experts who surveyed 500 serial downloaders aged between 13 and 45, discovered that 87 per cent of those who "try before they buy" would still buy albums when they were commercially released.

A total of 91 per cent of file-sharers download individual tracks, but more than two-thirds go on to buy the album, with even the heaviest downloaders saying they like to own real CDs.

Only half of people who download music illegally from the Internet believe they are doing something morally wrong. Almost half of the people who responded to the survey were "heavy downloaders" who obtained more than 100 tracks. However, surprisingly, 34 per cent of them said they were buying more music than ever before.

This is what I was getting at about being "a bit harsh", but I still say ignorance is no excuse. "Buying more music than ever before." is what I thought the whole point of MP3 file sharing was about.

Although 38 per cent of heavy users said they were buying less music, about 28 per cent said their Internet activities had not affected the number of CDs they bought in a year.

 

[FangsFirst]

I know I've bought a LOT more, myself.

I think it would also be nice if they'd pump singles up again, personally, as like that article there says 91% are downloading one track, probably because they want the single, not the album, and won't pay for it.

Again, not an excuse, but it might help more than jailing people, which will just piss people off more than scare them.

 

[Jim LotFP]

Are these the really "successful bands" you're talking about, Jim?[/i][/color]

I worked in market research for 4 years, both on the front lines taking the surveys, and in the back end crunching the numbers.

I don't trust any of this research at this point, for anything, without seeing exactly who funded the study, how the they selected the sample group, questions are worded and exactly how the answers are allowed to be given, and how the answers are weighted. Any of those could make a world of difference.

Even this snippet is unclear. 34% of who is purchasing more albums? The whole group, or the 50% who are 'heavy downloaders'?

87% will buy an album when it's released... mmhmm, if this is "I downloaded three albums and bought one of them," we're still not doing very well here, in my estimation, but you won't know by this news bit.

You can just as easily look at the stats given in your quotes and say that "One third of people who download buy more music because of downloading, two thirds buy the same amount of albums OR LESS (with 13% no longer purchasing music at all anymore) because of music available for free online."