P2P TORRENTS AND THE EVIL THEY DO

[Mynock]

That "study" is nothing but a JOKE! It's a survey based 100% on heresay. It's probably conducted by a 20-something grad student who has always had music available to them for free (illegally), and is looking to push his/her own agenda (i.e. record labels should do nothing to hinder illegal downloads which makes the downloader's life easier and less expensive).

Yeah because every "study" out there put out by the music industry isn't full of made up numbers and takes all factors into consideration as to why cds sales have decreased (like for example increase in dvd sales just to name one), and does NOT serve their own agendas ...

 

[General Zod]

I think a mindset has to be changed about the process and what you are paying for with my suggestion. You are not paying a couple of bucks for a true release. You are paying $2 bucks to get an advance listen at something you would not get through conventional means for another few months or would not bother to at all. That's why you are only paying $2 as opposed to $10 for the real thing. A sampled rate of 128 may indeed irritate the elite audiophiles, but the intent is once again not the finished product you purchase once the disc is released. I would also claim that audiophiles such as yourself are in the minority when it comes to downloading in the first place. You are getting $1 off your purchase by paying purchasing the advance listen.

I wouldn't pay two cents for an MP3 ripped at 128Kbps. As a matter of fact, if the first leak of a CD I'm interested in is at 128Kbps, I keep waiting. I don't even listen to it once. And I don't consider myself an audiophile.

Zod

 

[skyrefuge]

Again, No. Again, individuals. Didn't you read my threads about individual hacks with their own agendas?

No, sorry, I just skim these types of threads for the craziest bits. I think your own feelings on this issue lead you to overestimate the level at which individuals care about this sort of thing. Most people who have that kind of crazed loyalty to a band would also want to download their new album as soon as possible, so they probably aren't going to care about writing viruses. And you also underestimate the efficiency and self-cleaning abilities of the torrent networks. Any torrents with iffy stuff in them are generally deleted from trackers in a hurry, so nothing like this would ever get a chance to spread very far. I'd imagine it has to be pretty hard/impossible to insert viruses into mp3s anyhow; otherwise it would already be an issue.

No more than the manifesto employed by hundred's-of-thousands of individuals around the world who's "business plan" is to pay for nothing for a product they can obtain it illegally for free.

Er, individuals don't need business plans. Businesses need business plans. And anyone running a business with the goal of making money will adjust their plan to do whatever they have to do to succeed in changing market conditions, rather than trying to change the market to fit their immutable plan. The Dimmu Borgir thing probably ended when a quick cost/benefit analysis showed that further pursuit would come with more costs than benefits. "Principle" doesn't pay the bills, after all.

Neil

 

[rms]

That "study" is nothing but a JOKE! It's a survey based 100% on heresay. It's probably conducted by a 20-something grad student who has always had music available to them for free (illegally), and is looking to push his/her own agenda (i.e. record labels should do nothing to hinder illegal downloads which makes the downloader's life easier and less expensive).

The absolutely insanse thing about this "survey" is that the researchers asked for absolutely no physical proof that the people surveyed actually purchased the music they downloaded illegally. The surveyed weren't asked to present a sales receipt or the actual physical CD to prove that they are not lying. And wouldn't it be human nature to lie about illegal activities to the face of the surveyor, even though the surveyor doesn't know your identity?

And it's interesting that the study didn't bother to justify how it's verbally documented increased CD sales result in once-thriving retailers like Tower Records going out of business, not to metion the countless, smaller mom-and-pop music stores that have perished since the age of high-speed internet.

Do you want them to take a pic and post every receipt? Where does it say that they didnt show physical proof, and surveys are usually anonymous so..

 

[WarriorOfMetal]

this isn't really directly related to some of what's been said, but this is my position....i dunno about the rest of you, but i won't pay for music if i'm not getting a hard copy...so i won't download anything from the itunes music store or similar, unless it's a free download through some promotional thing. i buy as many CDs as i can, and while i do download from time to time, i usually end up buying the ones i like when i have the money and can find them somewhere that i can get the real thing in a reasonable manner (unreasonable being situations such as stores who charge more for international shipping than the price of the CD itself, which i've definitely come across before). i don't have (or want) an ipod or similar, either...i'm all about taking real CDs with me, in the car or on the plane or whatever else. people may think i'm crazy for doing that, but it forces me to pick more carefully what i take with me to listen to.

 

[The Fiddler]

Er, individuals don't need business plans. Businesses need business plans.Neil

That's exactly why I put the words, "business plan" in quotes, to signify that's it's not really a serious business plan, but rather an attempt by dowloaders to avoid paying businesses for the product they supply. So, in that respect, the individual's plan is ripping off businesses.

 

[Metaldrumz]

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.

 

[Mynock]

this isn't really directly related to some of what's been said, but this is my position....i dunno about the rest of you, but i won't pay for music if i'm not getting a hard copy...

I won't buy digital downloads that aren't lossless (except in a case of something like Glenn's suggestion). I do love the physical copies with cases/digipaks/booklets etc, but I could let those go for FLAC downloads (for example).

As for carrying CDs around, yes you are indeed crazy It's just too much hassle for me in this day and age.

 

[The Fiddler]

and surveys are usually anonymous so..

So... the surveyor has no proof that they were't lied to. Without documented evidence, this "study" would in no way hold up to peer review at any university.

Using your defense, but twisted to my side of the arguement, where in the report does it say that receipts were collected or possession of the physical copies of the CDs were documented? That proof, if collected and recorded would strike a blow to people arguing against the claims made by the study, and would have surely been inlcluded in the report if it did exist. Inclusion of that proof would help prevent giving people like me having a basis to rip it apart. Why then, omit it, if it exists and helps to prove the point the surveyor is trying to make?

 

[WarriorOfMetal]

well i also usually take my laptop and external HD with me (over 7000 tracks with a good portion of my CD collection on it) if i'm going somewhere for more than a day or so. i just can't easily work with that in the car or on the plane or whatever

 

[Magius]

I just have to say, "I hate this fucking subject!" Every time it comes up it pisses me off. Yet it is also a necessary although futile debate, so I'm going to throw in here.

1. It's probably true that in regards to "our" genres, and the underground in general, that downloading does help with exposure. Whether or not that exposure equals the loss of revenue in sales is debateable. Maybe a bigger fan base leading to more sales later will make up for the initial immediate loss. Hopefully it's at least a wash.

2. Wrong as it may be I don't have a problem with using downloading as a preview, as long as the files are deleted if the downloader chooses not to buy. It's fair to allow a buyer to examine goods before deciding to buy, in every other aspect of our economy the retail industry works this way.
The idea of the label or bands releasing low quality files for download either for free or for a couple of refundable / discount dollars is probably a good idea. I'm even fine with voiceovered tracks, as long as I get a quality preview before dropping $16. It's safe to say that anyone who wants a high quality file, DrumRman's sensitive ears aside, wants it for more than a preview. In the end the sad truth of the matter is that most downloading has nothing to do with sampling.

3. Most downloaders are not downloading from the underground. Most downloaders aren't using downloads to preview music. The fact is that most downloaders are stealing from the mainstream labels and artists.

No one needs to preview the latest Britny Spears, Linkin Park, Garth Brooks, or Metallica release. All of those bands are going to get airplay on commercial radio, satellite radio, web radio, digital cable, MTv, VH-1, CMT, and in friends' homes and cars soon after release. The preview argument, and the exposure argument both fail miserably when it comes to mainstram music.

I personally know a lot of twenty somethings that freely admit to NEVER buying music. Not CD's, not iTunes, or any other media. They have tons of music on their iPods and burned CD's, but they don't pay for any of it. The music industry is playing against a stacked deck. True, people may be spending more money on games and DVD's than CD's today. However, there's no need to decide which to buy if they just download the music. If they had to make a choice then perhaps there's an equal chance that the money goes to the musicians rather then the programers at Blizzard. That would be fair competition. As it is the music industry is definately on the wrong end of the sick, or in this case "club" might be more appropriate.

4. Laws. There are too many and a lot of them suck. Almost all of them paint with too broad a brush, and hurt some while they attempt to help most. Nevertheles, laws are designed to help the majority. Laws aren't going to be able to distingush between mainstream and underground media, labels, or bands. No law is going to be written that declares it's legal to download a band's music until said band achieves a predesignated level of exposure, at which point further downloading becomes illegal.

The fact is the laws are what they are because they have to be to protect the larger part of the industry. If you're downloading it is illegal. It's illegal everywhere. I don't care if some European countries are "debating" legalizing it. That's highly unlikely to happen. The United States makes copyrights an issue when negotiating trade agreements, and the US isn't budging on this issue. Countries like Russia are shutting down sites like AllofMP3.com as a condition of trade agreements.

It's alway convenient to have a justification for why it's okay to break a law. Most people have several handy. Some excuses even have debatable merit à la the exposure argument. The bottom line though is that the vast majority of downloaders are just stealing.

When the debate table convenes at PPUSA IX, I'm going to have to sit on the musican, promoter, and labels side.

 

[DAVETHEMETALGUY]

yeah, no hard copy=none of my money.
and yes - i will always carry cd's around with me. if there is a band im telling someone about im going to give them my copy of the disk, not some lame myspace site or the url to go to listen to it for themselves, that's dumb, imo

 

[The Fiddler]

Not to hijack the thread but since when were you the sole sponsor for Pagan's Mind at PPVIII if at all? If anything you'd be a co-sponsor.

Well, don't forget that he names himself a thief who dreams a lot.

 

[DAVETHEMETALGUY]

btw, i hate this subject too

 

[Metaldrumz]

Well, don't forget that he names himself a thief who dreams a lot.

LMAO. Maybe Glenn added him to the sponsor list which is obviously fine if thats the case......but he surely isnt the sole sponsor of Pagans Mind thats for damn sure, and thats what his signature indicates.

 

[The Fiddler]

1. It's probably true that in regards to "our" genres, and the underground in general, that downloading does help with exposure. Whether or not that exposure equals the loss of revenue in sales is debateable.

Respectfully, how did successful big-chain stores like Tower Records and Musicland thrive before the arrival of mp3s and high-speed internet, but have since gone out of business? Didn't they go out of business because their revenue stream dried up? For every big chain that went down, how many smaller independent retailers also lost enogh revenue to continue? Why are record labels laying off people? If illegal downloading wasn't a factor in their decline, shouldn't they now be booming and hiring with the increased number of bands (choices) available to customers today (as proponents of illegal downloading are so quickly to point out)?

 

[rms]

So... the surveyor has no proof that they were't lied to. Without documented evidence, this "study" would in no way hold up to peer review at any university.

Using your defense, but twisted to my side of the arguement, where in the report does it say that receipts were collected or possession of the physical copies of the CDs were documented? That proof, if collected and recorded would strike a blow to people arguing against the claims made by the study, and would have surely been inlcluded in the report if it did exist. Inclusion of that proof would help prevent giving people like me having a basis to rip it apart. Why then, omit it, if it exists and helps to prove the point the surveyor is trying to make?

If you want to percieve people of being unfaithful than how is Lance not lying, or any survey? I mean you can't pick and choose the things that support your arguement as fact and the opposition as incorrect.

 

[eaeolian]

Respectfully, how did successful big-chain stores like Tower Records and Musicland thrive before the arrival of mp3s and high-speed internet, but have since gone out of business? Didn't they go out of business because their revenue stream dried up? For every big chain that went down, how many smaller independent retailers also lost enogh revenue to continue? Why are record labels laying off people? If illegal downloading wasn't a factor in their decline, shouldn't they now be booming and hiring with the increased number of bands (choices) available to customers today (as proponents of illegal downloading are so quickly to point out)?

Does the sentence "hey, this CD is only $11.99 at Best Buy" mean anything to you? Tower got clobbered because their business model didn't reflect reality.

In 1968, Solomon expanded the company beyond Sacramento, opening a store on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. The Sunset Boulevard store opened a couple of years later, and the chain continued to expand over the decades. The company started selling videos, too, and eventually had more than 200 stores in the U.S. and overseas. Annual sales reached $1 billion by the mid-1990s.Profits started to plunge, however, when stores such as Borders, Best Buy and Wal-Mart got heavily into the music-sales business, and the rise of Amazon.com and online music downloads sped up Tower's downfall. According to statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Tower's profits peaked at $17.3 million in 1994 and plummeted to $3.5 million by 1997. The company began losing money in 1999.
Solomon, however, contended the online businesses weren't a major threat, and the company went further into debt to add new retail outlets. It added $80 million in debt between 1998 and 2000 to open a dozen more stores.
Online companies "have been giving stuff away to create sales," Solomon told The Bee in 2000. The Internet "is certainly never going to take the place of stores."

Last time I checked, illegal downloading wasn't much of an issue in 1999.

 

[Magius]

Respectfully, how did successful big-chain stores like Tower Records and Musicland thrive before the arrival of mp3s and high-speed internet, but have since gone out of business? Didn't they go out of business because their revenue stream dried up? For every big chain that went down, how many smaller independent retailers also lost enogh revenue to continue? Why are record labels laying off people? If illegal downloading wasn't a factor in their decline, shouldn't they be booming now with the increased number of bands (choices) available to customers today (as proponents of illegal downloading are so quickly to point out)?

Did you read all of my post? I obviously agree the the industry is damaged. I only suggest that downloading may help very small ('our') bands or in the very early career of bands that become mainstream successes.
It certainly harms the band after a point, though I can't be the one to determin the level of exposure at which that happens. Clearly DragonForce benifited from downloads at one point. Are they now big enough that they hurt? Or are they still small enough it could help?

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

If you want to percieve people of being unfaithful than how is Lance not lying, or any survey? I mean you can't pick and choose the things that support your arguement as fact and the opposition as incorrect.

Whoa, there, rms. Two things: (1) Lance King isn't a liar, and (2) It's easily possible to pick and choose validity of surveys and reports.

A survey by Fox News, for example, is likely to be different from one conducted by CBS News. Or a survey conducted by the Beef lobby versus one conducted by the PETA lobby. There's an inherent slant, a bias if you will, involved with each pollster.

The ultimate way to prove the veracity of any information is by checking it out with others in the industry. Ask bands. Ask label owners. If they say downloading isn't hurting them, you have your answer. But if they say it is, then you have another answer entirely -- one that I see many of you choose to ignore.