"stealing" music

[Boris]

It was technological innovation that allowed a select few artists and corporations to make billions of dollars. Now a new technology has been invented that renders the old technology obsolete. The big corporations that used to control the music business need to face reality. Their billions in profits were the result of technological innovation so it only seems fitting that technology renders the traditional industry model obsolete.

Just in time as well. The industry conglomerates have been polluting our popular culture for far too long. Ever notice how the only musicians who take a stand against internet music sharing are washed up acts with over paid recording contracts? As Exhibit 1 I give you Metallica, Garth Brooks and Aerosmith. No wonder major industry labels are seeing their market share dwindle. They offer a crap product. The consumer now has an altnernate choice for a distribution channel. No longer is the hapless teenager browsing the music selection at WallMart limited to choices of Crap Band #1, Crap Band #2 or Crap Band #3. For the first time the consumer has a choice. Take a look at the small, independant record labels. They sure as heck aren't bemoaning the advent Internet file swapping. And why should they? Their sales are sky rocketing. The "independant" artists are thriving in the new market place. Ticket sales are increasing right along with CD sales. These acts are thriving because they are responsive to consumer demand, not because they are the only game in town. Do you really think we would've had to put up with bands like Creed if the Internet had been invented 10 years earlier? Please.

As for the allegation that file swapping is theft of Intellectual Property, I say Bull#%$@. If you don't want your song distributed without your permission then don't put in on a CD and don't allow recording devices into your concerts. Real simple. I can't think of too many other products where the buyer is so restricted with what he can do with the product after he buys it. Is it theft of intellectual property if I let my neighbor read the newspaper I bought? The magazine I read? The book given to me for Christmas?

[Jimbo]

Those are compelling arguements Boris and very well stated. Bravo!!

[adios]

"For the first time the consumer has a choice. Take a look at the small, independant record labels. They sure as heck aren't bemoaning the advent Internet file swapping. And why should they? Their sales are sky rocketing."

I really didn't know that. How interesting. The fact that the consummer has a better choice and that the market has been "opened up" to more competition is a good thing I would think.

"The "independant" artists are thriving in the new market place."

That makes sense.

"If you don't want your song distributed without your permission then don't put in on a CD and don't allow recording devices into your concerts."

You know I've heard a more than a few bootlegged recordings of concerts over the years. If memory serves me correctly, I believe concert proprietors and performing artists do frown on recording devices at concerts.

"I can't think of too many other products where the buyer is so restricted with what he can do with the product after he buys it."

Off the shelf software has this characteristic to a certain degree. I've always felt that easy access to software has helped increase it's sales as well.

"I can't think of too many other products where the buyer is so restricted with what he can do with the product after he buys it."

It seems that once you pay for it, it should be yours to utilize as you see fit within reason.

One thing about sharing music over the internet is that it doesn't mean thay you'll NEVER spend money for music. I can envision scenarios where it would actually encourage one to spend money that they weren't inclined to spend. I think the bottom line is that prices from those that gauge will have to come down before people will buy their music.

[Mark Heide]

Boris,

I heard the same arguments from the music industry when cassettes were popular. Their argument does not hold up. Futhermore, I believe that they may try to lobby congress to claim alleged losses (to make their books look better).

Making recordings of live concerts is usually for the die hard fans. No one makes any significant amount of money of these live recordings. Plus, almost all of them sound like crap, even the ones produced by the major labels.

I stopped listen to rock music in the '70s, basically because it's boring. Who wants to hear some old fart, like Ozzy Osbourne, when he has not done anything creative since the early '70s. Rock bands today appear to be like what sequels are to movies--Follow the formula. This is why I listen to classical music, because there's more to it.

Good Luck

Mark

[Ray Zee]

property rights is a tough issue. everyone hates the rcording industry. when ascap sues a small business for just playing songs from tapes or cds they have purchased. it makes me crazy. totally wrong and a system where the politicians make laws to favor their crying businesses interests is bad news.
But, where does your rights start and end. can someone take your picture and use it on a comerrical or for a painting without your permission. they could say to you, if you dont want your picture used stay home.
maybe the answer is closer to that you cant make any profit from someones elses property. its just so hard to define the line.
but i hope all decisions go against the recording industry.

[Kevin J]

So you wouldn't mind if someone scanned all Two Plus Two material and started an internet network where every poker player on the planet could print out a copy of any book or article for free, instead of purchasing it?

Probably a bad example, but then I don't really disagree with you. Just being a devil's advocate.

[John Ho]

What if you make 10,000 copies of the book at work and leave them in a pile in Central Park for anyone to grab? Would you then finally agree that is theft of intellectual property?

That's like saying if you don't want your software copied why sell it? Or if you don't want your novel stolen why publish it?

There's nothing wrong with swapping songs if the owners are fine with it. It is the songs that the owners insist need to be paid for with $$$ that need to be protected. Indy record companies can distribute their songs all they want for free if they want. It's their right. But it's also your right to sell a song without having the rest of the world have it for free.

[John Ho]

I don't hate the recording industry. Without them I probably never would have heard Michael Jackson (before he went crazy), Mariah Carey, Pearl Jam, U2, etc. Plus I get to see Britney Spears half naked all the time.

The recording industry has done fine things for young men. Shania Twain in thigh high leather boots? Oh yeah!

[brad]

i guarantee if they did that their sales would go up.

[adios]

I wonder if you're right about that. You probably are. Astute observation really IMO.

[brad]

have you ever tried to print out stuff? i have and i ended up throwing it away.

actually the biggest 'threat' would be reading each section on the computer, but still i think sales would go up, partly because reading on the computer (extended sections anyway) really sucks.

[adios]

For instance I hate reading online editions of newspapers. I'd much rather get the actual paper and read it. I realize not everyone is like that but it's relevant I believe. My step daughter shares music a lot and burns a lot of personalized music CD's. It's not hard but a little time consumming. I'd certainly pay something for more convenience now that I think about it.

[brad]

in the final analysis i think its a societal question, because i dont think theres any inherent or natural right or wrong to whether

1) musicians should make money off of live performances only (and commercial stuff like using their stuff in movies,tv, commercials, etc.) , and their recorded stuff being 'public domain' and free (which disseminates their stuff so that they can make money off of live performances),

and

2) the current system.

-----------
also as an aside, software is 'licensed', not sold, but said software is sold with absolutely no liability whatsoever for whatever damages or unintended consequences the software may cause the 'end user'.

[John Ho]

That might be true. If so publishers will realize this and begin distributing their books over the internet.

My point is it should up to the individual company to decide whether it wants to market their books, cds, whatever that way. No one else's. If it's such bad business to want to hold on to their intellectual property than someone who is confident enough to believe it will increase sales will blow them out of the water with their superior marketing. People are taking that choice away from legit businesses.

[brad]

not true.

its a complete fiction (legal fiction) to speak of intellectual property anyway. its purely how society wants to decide to do stuff. theres no inherent right.

people could always copy a book by hand and have a copy. now with high techology and personal capability of mass copying society may have to relook at how it wants to handle it. thats all. its a practical matter. when you have to resort to physical force to defend an amorphous concept you should rethink. information is not matter because sometimes your info is worth more if you share it, etc.

if its a choice between making everyone a criminal and going to a new system i dont see the point of not changing other than protecting established businesses.

[John Ho]

I think intellectual property is, in general, more valuable than physical property. Man's progress is defined by the innovations he/she creates. Meaning ideas. If you take away his ability to have some sort of ownership or benefit from those ideas you are stifling innovation. Please note I'm not saying the crap the record industry puts out advances mankind...but once you start down the path of ignoring people's rights to their ideas you're screwed.

It doesn't serve society any purpose to allow distribution of music for free when the creators want to sell it. Others are free to distribute their music for free to generate free publicity for live concerts, cds, and so forth. All I'm saying is that is a choice the creators should be able to make. As far as I know, they currently have laws which allow for copyrighted movies to move into the public domain after a certain number of years. That's a good idea for music. Let the innovators make their profits and after a reasonable time it's free game.

If there's no inherent right to the ideas you create what do you take away next? The rights of people/companies who patent inventions?

Can a fellow employee make a copy of your personal diary you keep at your desk and distribute them on the internet? If there's no concept of intellectual property then no crime has been committed.

The point is not to protect existing businesses. Businesses and industries come and go. I couldn't care less about them. But the right to profit from your own intellectual creations needs to remain intact. You can argue that record companies screw the artists..that may or may not be true. But a contract is signed and anyone knows if you are 18 and sign a contract you better be ready to fulfill it. Plus the artists quickly forget how much money the company spends to market their music and all the money the companies spend on "talent" that turns out to be commercially unsuccessful. A lot of artists seem to think the companies need to weather all the risk (meaning if I'm a bust the company loses money but if I'm a smash hit I should make all the money.) That would be like getting staked and complaining because you have to give up your 50% when you win.

[Kevin J]

That's why I said this was probably a bad example. I agree it's inconcenient to read stuff that's printed out or online, etc. But music is different. You can download it, put it on a CD, and listen to it the same as if you had bought the CD in a store. So if there was some way to clone a book online and have your computer spit out an exact copy as if you had actually purchased it (like you can with music), I doubt sales would increase. Although interest in the author might. IMO-

[ComeOn]

>>Can a fellow employee make a copy of your personal diary you keep at your desk and distribute them on the internet? If there's no concept of intellectual property then no crime has been committed.

John, there's a big difference between a personal diary and anything that's produced for the sole purpose of public consumption.

I personally have very mixed feelings on this issue. On the one side, I agree that people should be able to profit on their ideas and creations. On the other hand, I look at CD's and see usually at most one or two songs I like and the rest I don't really want. Having to buy the whole CD to get two songs, to me is like wanting to buy a video game, but they won't sell me the one I want without four others I don't want. So in that sense, I feel that the music industry put themselves in this position, now it's up to them to adapt.

Marketing is supposed to be about meeting the consumers' wants, not coercing the consumer into buying something they don't want.

[John Ho]

Yeah but the question is whether the idea of "intellectual property" has any validity. If your diary is not your "intellectual property" then you do not have a right to defend against it's use by others.

Also, there is a downside to releasing something for public consumption. If, for example, I wrote what I knew to be a great novel which would be well received and make me famous I would NOT release it for publication unless I knew I was going to make a LOT of money off it. I don't really want all the hassles that go with being famous...but if I were to be paid big bucks that would be a reasonable compromise.

If I decide to sell the novel and suddenly my life is chaotic - phone calls from journalists, crazy fans asking me about my book, and a mob of people wherever I went I would be really pissed if all the money I was supposed to be making disappeared because some ahole decided to scan it and let any yahoo with Kazaa download it for free. Now I'm the victim.

[brad]

'Yeah but the question is whether the idea of "intellectual property" has any validity. '

well for example what does mosaic law (the bible) say about it?

what about software industry nonliability issue?

can a law be good if it makes most people ciminals?

is it a good idea for .gov to use force for every petty thing?

[John Ho]

Oh boy let's not get into whether the Bible supports the notion of intellectual property. I can sense all notions of logic and reason being sucked out of this thread.

I do see your point about whether the govt. needs to spend a lot of resources combating music piracy. Perhaps it should be up to the companies to figure a way around it.

But to answer your question, I do think a law can be good even if it makes most people criminals. The question is whether the law's rationale is solid and well thought out.

But I see your point. This is not a simple topic.

[brad]

well my point is that english common law came from mosaic law and united states 'inherited' that, and all fundamental laws can be traced back through that.

so my point is that intellectual property is a pretty new concept, which means its not set in stone. (what an allusion, heh)