File Trading...as bad as shoplifting?

[Nostradamus]

Nearly two years ago, columnist Ilana Mercer debated the Napster case and legal protections for intellectual property rights:

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=90

Personally, I can see how some people get screwed in the short term, but in the long term, I'm not too worried about this sort of thing. If IP protection laws remain in place and artists and record companies continue to raise prices, eventually the customers will stop buying, and prices will come down. On the other hand, if file-sharing and other boot-legging pulls the rug out from under the artists and labels, eventually they will stop making the music, and the customers will start paying again. Either way, the market fixes itself. Governmental red tape, media monopolies, IP thieves, and other forces may temporarily alter the balance one way or another, but they cannot alter basic economic principles.

[Nothingman]

I’ve been ranting a bit about high CD prices and Lars from Metallica in my last few posts so I thought that I’d would be a good idea consider the musicians point of view. I’m a huge Counting Crows fan and this morning I checked the site for and updates from Adam Duritz (the lead singer). It just so happens that he responded to an identical discussion in one of the Counting Crows forums. Though I do not agree with all of his points, he is someone I have a great deal of respect for. After reading his post I get the feeling that fans and the musicians are not as far apart as we think we are, we are both victims of the system.

I can’t link the page directly so I’m going to post the whole thing, but it’s all very relevant to our discussion.

I've just been reading a few things some of you wrote about Lars Ullrich and the other members of Metallica and it kind if disturbed me so I thought I'd throw my two cents in. This is an issue that seems to piss people off but I generally think of Counting Crows fans as pretty thoughtful so hopefully you'll at least think about what I have to say before reacting.

It's easy to look at music piracy as a kind if "Robin Hood" thing where it's harmless because you're somehow only stealing from rich people and it's also easy to think that the little theft you commit is so small that it makes no difference in the big picture but I don't think either one of these things is true and here's why. As for the second part, well the simple fact is that sales are down almost 50% in the record business since napster came along and it will only get worse.

The first part is a little more complicated, but how would you feel if you went to work each week and did your job like everybody else, but somebody took half your pay for no reason other than the fact that they could? Would you think it was fair even if they said it was because they had decided you made too much money? How much worse would it be if you knew that your career would probably only last a few years, if it even lasted that long? Let me put it to you this way. Have you ever considered the fact that the way musicians are paid is one of the only truly fair and honorable pay systems out there? I'm not going to argue with you that there are a lot of people out there making more than they deserve. A lot of people get paid a pretty high salary whether they do a fair amount of work or not. But it doesn't work that way for us. We make money only two ways.


1) We get a percentage of every record sold
2) We get a percentage of every ticket sold

In the first case, you get a record and in the second case, you get a show. What I'm trying to say is: there is NO money we get for which YOU do not receive something in return. How is that unfair to you? You may think cd's are too expensive. Maybe they are, but they cost a lot of money to make sometimes and they cost a shitload of money to promote, market, and, lest we forget, pay the crooked radio stations to play. I personally wish they cost a little less, but the fact is that the record companies are having trouble staying afloat as it is so you can't really expect them to lower prices too much when they can't get their s**t together to make money as it is. Either way, our percentage is pretty small and it only gets smaller when nobody pays for it.

Which brings me to the last point. It's very easy to take shots at us for being "greedy capitalists" but I'm not sure what that means. This is a capitalist society but that doesn't have to mean greed and you know it. It just means if you want something, you have to pay for it. I don't think that's terribly unfair. You go to the market, you buy an apple, you pay for it with money, and somewhere down the line, a farmer doesn't starve. That's a Norman Rockwell way of looking at it but it's all the same. In any case, this has been going on for hundreds and thousands of years. People always find a way of devaluing art and I don't think that's a good thing. Because what are you really saying? You're saying Saran Wrap is worth money, and TV's are worth money, and cars are worth money, and gas is worth money, and cell phones are worth money, and condoms contact lenses and guns and ammo are worth money, but art and music..those aren't worth anything. They aren't worth anything at all and I'm not going to pay for them.

So, I know piracy is unstoppable and nothing I say is going to change that. But Lars was brave because he knew everyone would hate him for what he said, but he also knew he was right and so he said it anyways. It may not be what you want to hear and therefore I'm sure it's going to piss a few of you off but it's the way I feel. It's the way we all feel, to be honest. Most just won't tell you. I really do want you to enjoy what we do and I want you to get the most out of it you can. I want you to come and take pictures and I want you to come and tape shows. I want you to hang out afterwards and talk to us and get your s**t signed if that's what you want and that's what I feel like doing that night. I would like you to have it all and have a blast. But I don't want you to rip me off, and I want even less for you to rip me off and then tell me I deserve it, just because you found a way to steal without getting caught.

s**t, it's light out. Gotta go. Don't hate me.
ad

[starbug]

Just saw this on the news today...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 052145.stm

It seems that most people use file-trading as a sort of 'try before you buy' approach.

[Nothingman]

On the radio this morning they were discussing the prosecution of P2P users. The RIAA is targeting random users through major internet providers such as AOL using their IP addresses and account information. From what I can gather they are targeting users who share a large amount of files, so, not sharing what you’ve download may help reducing your chances of being prosecuted.

From the Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/free/2003/04/2003040201t.htm

The US Copyright Law (Title 17 of the US Code) has very serious penalties for violations. These include significant fines for each copy. If you copy more than $1,000 worth of material, there are criminal penalties that include substantial fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years prison time for flagrant cases of infringement…..Two students in Oregon were caught and prosecuted under the criminal statutes. One received a suspended two-year sentence, the other spent time in jail. A student in North Carolina spent 41 months in prison for copyright infringement.

It appears the RIAA’s next strategy is fear. Scaring users with possible fines and jail time. The issue is moving beyond that of a moral question and into the legal arena, which we all knew was coming at some point. It will be interesting to see how the increase in possible consequences will affect file sharing. I know it has made me think twice about the issue.

I’ve been thinking about taping radio and Tivo’s. Where is the line between them and file sharing? Recording radio broadcasts has been widely accepted for years, but how is that different from file sharing. Making a mix tape of radio songs is still copying material which I do not have the rights to. And I was wondering about Tivo, or taping shows on VHS. I guess that if it is broadcast we have the right to record it, but not rebroadcast it. How does that differ from downloading a file but not sharing it? I’ve come to the conclusion that it must be because the original person who broadcasted, or shared, it did not have the rights to do so. What if I am downloading a recorded show that was originally broadcast and recorded off the TV?

[Nostradamus]

The Onion has joined the debate...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3929/infograph_3929.html

[grim4746]

Here's an except from Naomi Klein's "Fences and Windows" (taken from:
http://www.fencesfund.org/preface.php ). Klein is political journalist and best selling author (Her first book NO LOGO is scary, informative and inspiring. She's been described as Noam Chomsky without the paranoia).
"Other kinds of windows are opening as well, quiet conspiracies to reclaim privatized spaces and assets for public use. Maybe it’s students kicking ads out of their classrooms, or swapping music on-line, or setting up independent media centres with free software. Maybe it’s Thai peasants planting organic vegetables on over-irrigated golf courses, or landless farmers in Brazil cutting down fences around unused lands and turning them into farming co-operatives. Maybe it’s Bolivian workers reversing the privatization of their water supply, or South African township residents reconnecting their neighbours’ electricity under the slogan Power to the People. And once reclaimed, these spaces are also being remade. In neighbourhood assemblies, at city councils, in independent media centres, in community-run forests and farms, a new culture of vibrant direct democracy is emerging, one that is fuelled and strengthened by direct participation, not dampened and discouraged by passive spectatorship."
I'm not sure that I believe in Klein's assertion that sharing files is in the same vein as other actions listed above. But i think she highlights the important idea that laws are designed to favour corporations and what benefits citizens is often secondary if considered at all. I find this a refreshing and necessary attitude in the face of "it's against the law. end of story" mind set.
I download music, and shows sometimes but not very often. A lot of what I've downloaded i'd be happy to buy but haven't been able to find it. I don't have any moral problems with it. And I think that with a more equitable distribution of wealth in the music industry (and most others) would provide healthy income for employees while maintaining profitable business.