P2P TORRENTS AND THE EVIL THEY DO

[Metal 99]

It's because that's the same as buying a used car. Someone else bought it, enjoyed it for a while, then sold it to someone else (at a loss, most likely). It's now theirs to enjoy. The same number of licenses (CDs) have been sold and the same number of people are listening to the music. Balance is maintained.

The difference is that some people keep COPIES of their CDs when they sell the originals at used CD stores. That's no different IMHO from simply copying a friend's CD illegally, because the end result is basically the same (OK, so maybe you lost a couple of bucks in selling the used disc).

Don't lose sight of what you're actually paying for when you buy a CD. As I understand it, you're buying a LICENSE for permission to listen to the music contained on that CD. When you sell the CD, you're selling your license, and should destroy/delete any copies you'd made of the original CD, as you've sold your license to someone else.

This brings up another question, and I'm surprised that I've never seen the following argument: I bought an album on vinyl/cassette/8-track (yes, I'm that old). If I really bought a LICENSE for the music, then why did I have to pay full price to get it on CD. Sure, I should have to pay something for the physical media, but I should have received a discount since I already have a license from buying the vinyl/cassette/8-track.

On these grounds, I *personally* see nothing wrong with downloading MP3s of albums that you already own (originals, not copies) on vinyl or some other media, because you DO already own a license for the MUSIC...the media just might be worn out.

Basically, I wonder if this argument would stand up in court: "Sure, I downloaded MP3's of Giuffria's debut album [for example], but I already owned a license from buying the vinyl album years ago, so nothing illegal happened."

Thoughts on this, anyone?

Craig

Hey i think you have a point there if you already Own it, then you can use it for your own use as long as its not distribited for sale..and too also older music is harder to find expecially when it didn't sell well in the first place, i have older albums and some were never made to cd so i made them to cd and they sound good..so you have a good point..

Alan

 

[Angrafan]

Hear are the numbers for the Radiohead release:

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1883



It's incredible to me that even beeing able to pay whatever you want for it, 62% of people downloaded for free! LOL

not counting the downloads from other sources (which were reportedly higher than from the official site)... So, even being able to pay 2 bucks for the album, a olverwhelming majority of the people decided to steal it...

 

[sccaldwell]

Why are you getting in a moral debate? Is this philosophical discussion or a discussion of how things really are?

It's all three. It's a moral debate, a discussion of the way things really are, and how things should/shouldn't be. More than that, it's a discussion of what's ILLEGAL.

There's two ways to explain my perspective:

1) Some of my favorite artists have day jobs (Enchant and Zero Hour, for example), and therefore spend a large percentage of their time on those day jobs. If they actually made enough money making music, they could quit their day jobs and spend more timing making more great music. In order to do that, more people need to buy their music. One way for this to happen is for less people to download it illegally.

2) A musician spends years getting good enough to put out good music. I spent years getting good enough to do great computer work. When I work, I get paid. When a musician creates music, they should get paid. No one gets my work for free (unless I so choose), and no one should get a musician's work for free (unless he/she so chooses).

Fact: Anything else is called "stealing" (or maybe "exploitation").

Keep in mind that I'm talking about people who download music, listen to it endlessly with never even an intention to buy anything they like, many of whom seem oddly proud of the fact that they don't pay for music. They're proud that they steal from artists they claim to appreciate. How odd. And keep in mind that someone like Lance King is trying to help these artists "make it" (as well as feed his own family) via a legitimate business, so these people are stealing from him, too.

 

[DreamThief]

Not to hijack the thread but since when were you the sole sponsor (I'd like to know where my funds went then) for Pagan's Mind at PPVIII if at all? If anything you'd be a co-sponsor.

Fixed.

Maybe Glenn added him to the sponsor list which is obviously fine if thats the case......

"Maybe"... I'd have thought you would have noticed when I stood right next to you for the entire set.

but he surely isnt the sole sponsor of Pagans Mind thats for damn sure, and thats what his signature indicates.

My signature indicated that I was a sponsor, no more no less. I didn't feel that me stating that was putting anyone else out. I had no intentions of implying that I was the sole sponsor, I'm sorry if you took it that way. And in the future, please consider sending a private message instead of publicly insinuating that someone is trying to be dishonest. This is one of the few places where I actually care what people think of me. I hope there's no hard feelings.

 

[The Fiddler]

But how much of that is actually due to downloading? I don't think it's possible to accurately measure, despite "studies" and "reports" that claim otherwise. I think more of it has to do with big-box retailers like Wal-Mart and the advent of online ordering, personally, though of course I too have no data to back it up.

Illegal downloads certainly aren't the sole torpedo that sunk the Tower Records coffin, but there is no way they couldn't have lost revenue to illegal downloading with an inventory of several thousand titles that span a variety of genres. Bad decisions, illegal downloading, they just kept adding up until the ship could take on no more water and sank.

 

[rushzil2112]

I will say that on the torrent site I use, that a majority of the metal torrents are left by users who always comment about how this download will hold them over until the actual release, especially considering most people want lossless quality, so why not have the actual cd, especially considering how much memory lossless files can take up on a computer. I personally just download files to put on my Ipod(I like smaller files but still decent). With the new Soilwork(the downloaded version sounds better than taking the actual retail cd and copying it into my itune without having to use a different program and blah blah blah). It is easier to download it then to use converter software for me personally. Then when it comes to movies(I'm gonna download it already converted for the ipod then to take my dvd and go through that whole hassle). Still, I guess it is still wrong even if I already own the cd to download, I wouldn't think so. Everybody has their reasons for downloading music and like people have been saying, the Itune downloads should be of lossless quality since you are buying it and not 128.

 

[Evil]

Fixed.



"Maybe"... I'd have thought you would have noticed when I stood right next to you for the entire set.



My signature indicated that I was a sponsor, no more no less. I didn't feel that me stating that was putting anyone else out. I had no intentions of implying that I was the sole sponsor, I'm sorry if you took it that way. And in the future, please consider sending a private message instead of publicly insinuating that someone is trying to be dishonest. This is one of the few places where I actually care what people think of me. I hope there's no hard feelings.

I think all he's trying to say is that we had no idea there were more than the 2 of us as sponsors listed for the band.

 

[The Fiddler]

I guess more and more bands will see that they can probably do the albums themselves at minimal cost and slowly but surely record companies will cease to exist, only to leave maybe their marketing and/or distribution departments alive.

Why wouldn't any band or label in this business already be trying to produce a record at the lowest cost possible, to improve their profit margin???!!! For that matter, why wouldn't any business of any kind always be trying to reduce costs to improve profit margin (i.e. the money that they take home to spend on a mortage payment, car payment, or a college loan)?

Just where is all this money coming from that bands and labels are being wasteful with? Oh, I know, that extra cash to blow is probably generated by the free exposure of a free download - silly me!

 

[DreamThief]

6. I have made a suggestion with a few industry reps. While it's not perfect, no one has told me it was a bad idea either because no one is actually losing money on it. There is no overhead required, just a bit of work. We know with 99% assurance that an album is going to be leaked online way in advance of the actual release date (for our size/genre anyway). If you know this is going to happen, why not offer it online directly from your website at a cheap price ($2-$3) for a reduced quality mp3 the same day that promos are sent out? Imagine the income that Lion would have generated based on just one P2P torrent numbers. Is that going to stop leaks and downloading? No. However, it offers an alternative for those that want to try before they buy and support the artist in the process. You can then offer a discount to those same people who purchase the actual release ($1 off). You can even have them sign there name on the website so they can proudly say they are supporting the artist and showing other fans on the web they back up what the say. If someone then starts posting about an album, then you can ask them point blank how they got it and what there rationale was for not spending $2 to support an industry they supposedly love. There are of course things that need to be worked out in the process, but I'm just trying to give an overall picture of a type of solution.

I like this idea, and think, that with some time and tweaking, could really be successful.

I'm in the boat of not wanting anything ripped at 128k. I wouldn't pay for anything less than 192k, but I don't see why both couldn't be offered, with the 192k being in the $5-6 range. But the one thing I would want for my five bucks is some sort of proof that I actually supported the band.

Case in point, I've been dragging my feet concerning buying the new Pathosray, but I would easily pay $5 to download it right now.

 

[Metaldrumz]

And just think not only music is affected by illegal downloads. You have movies, and pirated software! Did you know comic books are feeling the same pain as well? People scan entire comics in hi rez and leak them on the net. Amazing huh? This is the digital age.

 

[The Fiddler]

The "genie out of the bottle" is the most apt description of the situation I've ever heard. Everyone had better figure out how to work with it.

And I'll tell you how big media conglomorates like Comcast and Rupert Murdoch are going to deal with it. They will continue to buy, merge, and consolidate until only about five or six media giants own all the sources of bandwith that torrents need to exist. Of course, these media conglomerates also own record labels and need to protect their product from theft. In other words, ISPs hosting torrents are going to be running on bandwith supplied by the company they are trying to rip off. That will continue, but it won't continue forever, as big media throttles torrents on bandwith it owns, as well as simply pulling the plug on ISPs who use comany A's bandwith to steal company A's product.

NOW with Bill Moyers just presented an excellent summary of the media ownership dilemma this month. Catch it if you can. Very scary... "July 23, 2003: The House voted 400-21 to approve a spending bill that included a provision to block the FCC decision to allow major television networks to own up to 45% of the country's viewers. The Bush administration has voiced opposition to the attempt to rescind the FCC ruling."

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediaconsol.html

The NOW piece documents the struggles of an independent African-American talk show to stay afloat. When a few own almost all of the airwaves, you can expect to pay a premium for any space not already owned by big media. It's their way of pricing individuals and independents out of the market, hence further solidfying their hold on what the American people see and hear. Same scenario applies to telecommunication giants owned by these big media conglomerates.

 

[MEGALOUD]

I guess more and more bands will see that they can probably do the albums themselves at minimal cost and slowly but surely record companies will cease to exist, only to leave maybe their marketing and/or distribution departments alive.

They have been for quite awhile and yes digital works both ways, it's brought about a lot of great tech for musicians to use in order to keep the costs much lower, international bands /musicians can work together sending recording files and sessions through the net and have a full album of 30 or more tracks per song and 10-12 songs sent overseas in a matter of hours to mix, or just an mp3 ruff mix so a member can work on it across town.

but not all musicians know the finer points of recording, in fact those folks are in the minority. Though, every musician should and can own an mbox with pro-tools light for a very reasonable investment and start learning the craft easily, and I recommend they all do. It's a great tool and talent to know
and it will save tons of money in production costs if you know what you are doing.

Nice analogy, and well-explained. And for some people, it works that way. I've had some "free" food on a couple of occasions, then gone into the restaurant to buy it (I've also had some that made me throw up and I* never ate there again <grin>).

The problem is that it seems that many people are sampling the food, then saying "Wow, that's GREAT food!!! Hey, can you show me the back door to that restaurant, where you got in to steal the food? Sweet!! <Runs in to continue eating stolen food and tells friends where they can steal it, too>"

In that case, you have tons of people running around proclaiming it as the best restaurant in town, yet every night there are only two or three people in there actually paying for their dinner. Eventually, even though he hears how everyone loves his food, the restaurant owner gets discouraged and closes up shop.

Craig

THIS IS IT EXACTLY, but enough of the arguments of right and wrong here, it's getting a bit over stated on both sides and becoming redundant, may we focus now on some more positive ideas from all sides of this issue on how musicians and perhaps labels or possibly a new form of company could help musicians to maintain the value of their art form?! We seem to have many interested, passionate and intelligent folks commenting in this thread about this issue, I would facilitate a brainstorming synergy here...what cha got, let the ideas flow. More the better, no need to step on other folks ideas, just put in your own, if you have them, or build on others...if you don't have any or want to slag on someone else's idea..rethink it, don't ruin the synergy.

 

[skyrefuge]

Why wouldn't any band or label in this business already be trying to produce a record at the lowest cost possible, to improve their profit margin???!!!

For the bands, it's because musicians in general make pretty bad businesspeople. Since, historically, at least, the label is paying for the studio time, why not get the fanciest studio with the best drugs and the nicest carpets and stay in there and dork around for as long as it takes? They didn't understand or care that those costs were recoupable and would thus be coming out of their own pockets in the end. As for why the labels would support those excesses? I dunno...maybe it's necessary to make the artists truly feel like they're being "given" something, otherwise they wouldn't sign the contract in the first place. And I suppose they also figure that there is some promotional benefit in being able to say the album is "produced by Nigel Goldenears (SOCKGOBLIN, UNGULATE) at World Famous Studios (MEXICAN CANADIAN, XXXXXXXL).

For that matter, why wouldn't any business of any kind always be trying to reduce costs to improve profit margin

In general, because cost-cutting isn't the only route to increased profits. Growing your market share, which often requires increased costs, is another way to go. In the case of music, spending more money on a studio in this era won't help much beyond a certain point, but spending on advertising or payola might.

Neil

 

[The Fiddler]

Internet piracy will never be stopped, its futile to stop it...Technology is so user friendly and available to anyone that these days bands could pretty much do it for them selves as far as recording goes. Sure it takes a lot of knowledge, skill, and expensive equipment to do recordings, not to mention management and producers telling the bands how to do it better. But I think that this all will evolve where they strip all that down and start making music anyway.

That will happen the same day you graduate with a $60,000 student loan to pay off and agree to work for minimum wage, or for free as you suggest songwriters and musicians do (becuase resistance is futile, isn't it?). More and more talented musicians are going to quit and find a solid job outside of the music business when it gets bad enough for them, rather than sell their creative souls and work for free. Does a guy named Mac McDermott from a band called Threshold ring a bell?

If everyone in the industry gives up because resistance is futile, all you will be left to download is music from a bunch of high school garage bands.

 

[MEGALOUD]

NOW with Bill Moyers just presented an excellent summary of the media ownership dilemma this month. Catch it if you can. Very scary... "July 23, 2003: The House voted 400-21 to approve a spending bill that included a provision to block the FCC decision to allow major television networks to own up to 45% of the country's viewers. The Bush administration has voiced opposition to the attempt to rescind the FCC ruling."


isn't this country against monopolies? haven't we attacked those that
seemingly got too much, BELL TELEPHONE, BILL GATES, and the list goes on, yet Clinton, decentralized the legislation on media companies...why? So they could create monopolies and force feed us processed cheese for music and
other forms of entertainment, and news on they massive networks?

Anyway, I'm all about the indie artist and musician, I am one, I'm trying to continue to be one, and also do my best to support those that are out there, so please again, if you have those brilliant brainstorms, keep them coming!

 

[skyrefuge]

That will continue, but it won't continue forever, as big media throttles torrents on bandwith it owns, as well as simply pulling the plug on ISPs who use comany A's bandwith to steal company A's product.

Interesting thought. I guess I wouldn't be surprised though if, when push came to shove, the board listened to the war between the ISP division and the Music division, and said "Sorry Music, we'd rather take the steady, monthly $50 payments we get from our ISP subscribers who want to steal stuff than the small, unpredictable (or negative) profits we get from your music industry. You're done." Of course, a tax on broadband connections in exchange for legal file-sharing is frequently-floated proposal, so maybe such conglomerates could facilitate something like that. Another note is that the vast majority of music produced is not and will not be under the control of such conglomerates. Oh, and Bill Moyers hasn't had anything to do with NOW for years!

Neil

 

[Mynock]

I can't possibly know all the bands out there that are good and which ones aren't. That's what MySpace is for. Or Amazon. The snippets they play on those sites tell me all I need to know before I make a purchase. I can tell in a song or two -- offered from a free, legitimate source -- if I'm going to like a band or not.

Good for you if 30seconds samples, or even one or two full songs can tell you an entire album (or discography) is gonna be good. They sure don't do that for me.

 

[The Fiddler]

THIS IS IT EXACTLY, but enough of the arguments of right and wrong here, it's getting a bit over stated on both sides and becoming redundant, may we focus now on some more positive ideas from all sides of this issue on how musicians and perhaps labels or possibly a new form of company could help musicians to maintain the value of their art form?!

I think the first step in finding a solution needs to be finding a way to make $0.00 = $15.00. Everything should become easy after that (or when money grows on trees). When that happens, people don't need to accept the idea that a piece of intellectual property is worth $15.00 because $0.00 will actually be equal to $15.00.

I'm guessing the US Dollar will crash and burn before then, resulting in a unprecedented collapse not unlike the Great Depression of 1929. Business and personal bankruptcy will wipe out most of the industry that relies on discesionary spending to survive. Sources and distributors of new music will be gone, the ISPs will have gone bankrupt, and the illegal downloading arguement will become moot. That won't stop people from strumming their guitrars and singing the blues, but it will vastly reduce the opportunity for them to spread their rendition of the blues.

 

[skyrefuge]

If everyone in the industry gives up because resistance is futile, all you will be left to download is music from a bunch of high school garage bands.

I'll say it again: there have been more than 1262 metal releases in 2007 so far.

We are now seven or eight YEARS into the Napster era. That's how long word has been flying around that file-sharing will bring an end to the music industry as we know it. Not only has that doom failed to materialize, quite the opposite has happened: more music is being recorded and released than ever before. And very little of it is from high school garage bands. So even if this collapse did finally occur, just the charred remains would still be enough to supply us with an overabundance of music.

Yes, it surely sucks for those old-timers who have planned a life around making or selling music, but I don't know how many of those there were in the first place, and by now they've had years to adjust. It's even harder to feel sorrow for any relatively new band, because they knew full well what they were getting into. I think by now it's clear that there are plenty of bands out there (maybe the majority?) who don't much care about getting paid to make music, so it's hard to put much stock in your prediction that free music would mean the end of good music.

Neil

 

[The Fiddler]

Good for you if 30seconds samples, or even one or two full songs can tell you an entire album (or discography) is gonna be good. They sure don't do that for me.

If you're still not sold on a band after accessing the resources below*, I would suggest that you're not going to like the music enough to spend $15 on it. And it's probably not worth the memory the mp3s will gobble up on your hard drive. If you can't smell a skunk when it's in your room, you need to refine your senses.

* (Sound samples on MySpace.com or the band's official website, internet radio, full-length promo CDs, label sampler CDs, forums, band interviews, word-of-mouth, and CD reviews)